Robert Ama Guns

9/19/2019 betoorourke comments on Hi. I'm Beto O'Rourke, a candidate for President.
GET NEW REDDIT MY SUBREDDITS HOME - POPULAR - ALL - RANDOM - FRIENDS - MOD - USERS | ASKREDDIT - AMITHEASSHOLE - PICS - TODAYILEARNED - VIDEOS - INSANEPARENTS - MOVIES - EDIT
INSANEP
»
IAMA comments other discussions (11) protogenxl (7,114) | | | | preferences | logout
Politics Hi. I'm Beto O'Rourke, a candidate for President. (self.IAmA) search
6649 submitted 6 hours ago * by betoorourke 3 2 & 9 more
17282 comments share save hide give award report crosspost
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2019
sorted by: q&a (suggested)
6,649 points (54% upvoted)
you are viewing a single comment's thread. shortlink: https://redd.it/d6etv5
view the rest of the comments →
[–] betoorourke [S] -5544 points 5 hours ago 3 2
How will you confiscate the millions of AR 15s? Progressive $$$
Americans will comply with the law. It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, Company A $$$
weapons designed for war. Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a
Company B $$$
weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield. Especially when that kind of weapon is so
Company C $$$
often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country — in their schools, in their grocery
stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts... everywhere. I have met countless AR
and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s fun to
shoot but would give it up. Because they also have kids and grandkids and want them to be safe.
permalink embed save parent report give award reply
[–] BobertJ 1644 points 5 hours ago 2 Zip Code Get a Quote
America has 4.2 times as many guns as all of southern, eastern, western, and northern Europe
combined and less than 0.3% of those guns are registered. How do you find these newly illegal
guns? Who pays for the buyback? The tax payers? The tax payers are the gun owners in Submit a new text post
America. Even if you got the them to foot the bill, it would still cost hundreds of billions of
dollars. And that's assuming the gun owners would relinquish their weapons without protest.
The reality is, they will fight tooth and nail and if force is used, many lives would likely be lost
on both sides in the process. So now we've cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars and
Get an ad-free experience with special
lost thousands of lives. Doesn't sound like a good alternative. benefits, and directly support Reddit.
Banning guns in the UK worked (arguably) because there were a few hundred thousand
registered guns in circulation. In Australia there were estimated to be less than 3 million in Get Reddit Premium
circulation. That is why ban-and-buyback programs were expected to work (which they didn’t).
There are 400,000,000 guns in America. It's just not possible. So if a gun ban is not the
solution and is also logistically impossible, what is the solution? IAmA
The problem is systemic violence that thrives because of poverty, lack of social welfare, lack of leave 19,392,080 readers
mental health resources, and widespread inequality. The solution is acknowledging these 62,735 users here now
problems and addressing them one by one through social policy change. If you take away law Show my flair on this subreddit. It looks like:
abiding citizen's guns all you're doing is disarming them against the imminent threat that is protogenxl
https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d6etv5/hi_im_beto_orourke_a_candidate_for_president/f0sje1u/ 1/465
posed by those who are currently tangled in the web of violent crime and/or mental instability. Submit an AMA
Address the problem, don't strip law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves.
Request an AMA
[–] honeyyoutookthekids 158 points 4 hours ago Please check out our Rules and
“If you take away law abiding citizen's guns all you're doing is disarming them against the FAQs
imminent threat that is posed by those who are currently tangled in the web of violent
Click here to request being added to our
crime and/or mental instability. Address the problem, don't strip law-abiding citizens' ability calendar.
to defend themselves.”
Consider supporting our Patreon
This is a perfect verbalization of the train of thought I’ve been on for the past few months.
Every time I read that a new big-box chain asks people not to carry in their stores, I think AMAs are scheduled in Eastern Time (GMT-
about how ineffective it is at addressing the threat posed by nutjobs, and this is why. 4:00).
permalink embed save parent report give award reply Date Time Person Description
[–] AFuddyDuddy 18 points an hour ago Former

Congressman
I have stated for many years, if the underlying issues are solved, the gun problem 19 Beto
11am and
Sep O'Rourke
suddenly goes away. Candidate for
President
Over and over and over again, the response I get is, "Solving those social issues is a lot
harder, and will take longer. In the meantime, we need to ensure the safety of our Ocean
Dr. Armin
Conference
children, by restricting firearms" Ellis and
20 Organizer &
3pm Dr.
permalink embed save parent report give award reply Sep Env.
Dominic
medicine
[–] honeyyoutookthekids 12 points an hour ago
D’Agostino
specialist
Yep. Just look at states like NH, VT and Maine. Some of the least restrictive gun University of
legislation in the country and murder rates lower than most European countries. Florida
Obviously it’s due to a variety of factors, but it certainly seems like they have their 23 Corene professor
2pm
Sep Matyas and
shit together. hurricane
permalink embed save parent report give award reply expert
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 3 points an hour ago National

24 Brian Voter
Careful identifying those states, a huge portion of why their crime rates are Sep
12pm
Miller Registration
generally lower is the sparse population. The people are few and live far apart, Day
and holding against all else that is the biggest determination of crime. College
Concentrated people spur more interactions, which spur more crime. Weather is 25 Jeremy
dropout
also a huge factor, it's cold much of the year so people go outside less, thus less 8:30am turned
Sep Rossmann
college
interactions. founder
permalink save parent report give award reply
Author:
1 Kathryn
[–] KingKrmit -1 points 37 minutes ago 2pm Strange But
Oct Hulick
True
Yep. What a bad example. Thanks.
We can save chiraq, just do what fucking rural vermont did! Oh man
Date Time Person Description
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 2 points 33 minutes ago
Author:
4 Dan
Well again, it isn't some action as much as just an inherent factor of the Oct
11am
Conway
Crypto
Millionaire
area.
Matthew
It's simple logic backed up by criminologists. When people live close 7
5pm and Mark
Inventors of
Oct Fidget Cube
together, they have more interactions with each other. The more McLachlan
interactions, the higher likelihood some of those interactions will be Author,
violent. Warm weather prompts more people to be outside, which former
Megan
increases the volume of interactions. 9 member of
11am Phelps-
Oct Westboro
Roper
Almost 1 million more people live in Chicago than Vermont and New Baptist
Hampshire combined. The whole metro area has 4 times the population Church
of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont combined. That tight
concentration is more responsible for violence than anything else.
see more...
[–] KingKrmit 1 point 29 minutes ago

Submitting:
Absolutely, this kind of inference should be apparent to anyone trying
AMAs should be about:
to argue gun violence. Homeboy using maine vermont and
massachusetts as examples is deliberately falsifying an argument. Something uncommon that plays a central
role in your life, or
Thanks for these detailed explanations , hopefully they’ll be seen by A truly interesting and unique event.
the readers of the parent comment Explanation and examples of this rule can
be found here
[–] MangoAtrocity 67 points 2 hours ago All AMAs require proof.

O’Rourke talked me into buying two lower receivers over the weekend. I was going to Proof should be included in the text of the
wait a bit, but I’m afraid I may no longer have the opportunity in the future. post when you start your AMA. If it must
remain confidential, you can message it to
the moderators and we can verify you.
[–] skellytime 18 points an hour ago See here for tips concerning proof and
examples
Primary Arms has Anderson stripped lowers for $39 + shipping right now. Not a
crazy deal but not bad. I ordered three more last week for the hell of it. Request threads
I have to give Robert Francis a thumbs up, he’s just telling us how the Democratic
Requests should be posted in
Party feels right now. If you value constitutional rights please stock up and vote. /r/IAmARequests
If you don’t value our rights maybe move to a different country.
Commenting:
[–] MangoAtrocity 10 points an hour ago Please note:

Already bought the Aero Precision M4E1 Yeet Cannon lower haha All initial responses to posters must
permalink embed save parent report give award reply contain a properly punctuated question.
Attempting to bypass this rule by
[–] skellytime 7 points an hour ago
adding a ? to a non question will
Mmmm my first “build” was an Aero assembled upper. result in a permanent ban.
See more on our comment removals
Things tits policy here
Other:
[–] KingKrmit 4 points 39 minutes ago
I think this much compensation might be contagious Useful Links!

Email us at mods@askmeanythi.ng!
[–] Terpene 2 points 12 minutes ago Step-by-step guide to doing an AMA
Related subreddits
So the reason for purchasing that shit is “for the hell of it.” That’s the problem. Follow us on Twitter or Like us on
You have no legit reason to own that shit other than “for the hell of it.” Also, you Facebook!
have the right to join a “well-regulated militia” if you want to play with your
1 Oct
shitty toys. Or better yes, just buy a bolt action rifle and be done with it. The Capital Gazette Newsroom
permalink save parent report give award reply Shooting Survivors
[–] honeyyoutookthekids 31 points 2 hours ago

2 Oct
The Salt Lake Tribune Pulitzer Prize
Save your money for a 3-axis CNC mill and 6061-T6 bar stock so you can make Winners
your own 0% lowers. Democratization of firearms manufacturing is the strongest 3 Oct
hedge against legislation. Pravda Russia's Leading Newspaper

4 Oct
Uganda's Daily Monitor Uganda's
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 15 points an hour ago Leading Newspaper
Is that the fully automatic semi-auto assault weapon? 5 Oct
The Boston Globe Spotlight
Investigation Team
[–] skellytime 12 points an hour ago 8 Oct
I think it’s the one with the shoulder thing that goes up. Also fires ghost clips Native News Online Indigenous
Peoples' Day
9 Oct
[–] palipr 2 points 17 minutes ago
PBS NewsHour National
Damn! Y'all got them ghost clips? Where'd ya get em? Correspondent
permalink save parent report give award reply 10 Oct
[–] honeyyoutookthekids 3 points an hour ago The New York Times National
Immigration Reporter
Closer to a paperweight but you get the idea
11 Oct
The Guardian Environment Reporter
[–] Halo462 2 points 24 minutes ago 12 Oct
The one with the 90 round ghost shroud clip that fires 30 bullets per second? Fox News Bret Baier, Chief Political
Editor
15 Oct
[–] MangoAtrocity 10 points 2 hours ago
The Socialist Worker Danny Catch,
That’s a great idea. I’ve thought about it for sure. Columnist
[–] Thekidseateverything 5 points 43 minutes ago
FacebookTwitterInstagramGoogle
This guy mills. Calendar
Please check out our Rules and FAQs
[–] honeyyoutookthekids 1 point 36 minutes ago
created by 32bites a community for 10 years
I wish. Saving up (or trying to lol)
[–] SneakyThrowawaySnek 2 points 28 minutes ago
Are there any affordable 3-axis CNC mills? I'm legitimately in the market for
one, but I'm having a hard time finding anything under $10,000
[–] palipr 1 point 16 minutes ago
Hmmm... There's technically nothing in my apartment lease that says I CAN'T

have a CNC mill so I think you're onto something with this! Thanks!
[–] y_do_i_need_to_hide 6 points 37 minutes ago
He convinced me to buy an 80% completed lower and mill it out, because I can't
take any chances.😁
permalink save parent report give award reply MODERATORS message the moderators
cahaseler Lead Moderator

[–] MangoAtrocity 2 points 37 minutes ago
orangejulius Senior Moderator
I wish I had a mill :( flyryan Legacy Moderator
permalink save parent report give award reply Seraph_Grymm Senior Moderator
[–] johnbsea 5 points 31 minutes ago Mikecom32 Senior Moderator
davec79 Senior Moderator
You can complete an 80% lower with a Dremel.
carlinha1289 Senior Moderator
greynol5 Senior Moderator
[–] MangoAtrocity 2 points 30 minutes ago Camsy34 Senior Moderator
Oh shit I thought you needed a drill press. Well I know what I’m buying JonLuca Senior Moderator
next week. ...and 46 more »

RECENTLY VIEWED LINKS
[–] Terpene 1 point 16 minutes ago
Gilded Beto O'Rourke does an AMA, and
For what purpose? Why do you need or want two new lower receivers? is asked how he plans to confiscate all
permalink save parent report give award reply AR-15s from Americans. Goes about as
well as expected. [/r/IAmA, -3k, 5
[–] MangoAtrocity 1 point 8 minutes ago Awards]
To build two AR-15s. 104 points | 37 comments
permalink save parent report give award reply Portrait of a Lady

NSFW • points | comment
[–] unfriendlybot 244 points 4 hours ago
there is literally supreme court precedent that says the 2A specifically is protecting our [C/C] Is it wrong to want to suck your
right to have weapons of war. United States Vs Miller. Seriously a thing you should know if cousin's cock?
NSFW 423 points | 4 comments
you are trying to run for office.
[F/d] You're the reason your daughter is
always late for practice!
[–] Incunebulum 3 points 24 minutes ago NSFW 73 points | 1 comment
It didn't say a city/state couldn't ban by type. It said it couldn't ban entirely. California's
ImgurAura cosplay (Fortnite) by
anti-Semi rifle laws have been upheld. CarryKey
permalink embed save parent report give award reply NSFW • points | comment
[–] llikeafoxx -4 points 2 hours ago clear
I mean, people can oppose SCOTUS Rulings. An entire political party in the US runs in account activity
opposition to Roe v Wade, and a ton of people on this website are opposed to Citizens
United. This is nothing new.
[–] unfriendlybot 18 points an hour ago
So lets take it back through the supreme court if you want them to re-decide it. My guess is you don't want the
current supreme court to re-decide roe v wade right?
We shouldn't try to legislate away the roe v wade decision nor should we try to legislate away the US v Miller decision.
We should accept the supreme court decision or take it up again.
[–] llikeafoxx -3 points an hour ago
Regardless of what I want or not, I'm just pointing out that I don't think it's a weird thing to campaign against
SCOTUS precedence.
[–] unfriendlybot 13 points an hour ago
except he literally said they are weapons of war and that's why he's going to take your guns. When the 2A is
specifically there to protect civilian ownership of weapons of war as has been ruled by the supreme court.
AKA he's clueless. So yeah he's free to run on that platform and end his political career. I'm just pointing out his
argument against the 2nd amendment is exactly why the 2nd amendment is there. So he just comes off as an
absolute moron.
[–] xiolableu01 -38 points 2 hours ago
Can I borrow your tank, drone, and nuclear war head? I'm enriching some uranium at my house this weekend. Also, I
just got a machine gun even those those were banned IN THE US on May 19, 1986.
[–] Clay_Hakaari 31 points 2 hours ago
Machine guns were not “banned”

You just can’t add anymore to the federal registry (unless you have an SOT then it’s gtg)
[–] Klindg 20 points 2 hours ago
Aren’t we currently stuck fighting people that don’t have those resources? Been like 18 years now...
[–] unfriendlybot 23 points 2 hours ago
you can literally have tanks and drones and war heads. takes a bit of paperwork, but you can have those here in the
US...
In fact there is a place in Texas you can go shoot a tank if you want to.
https://www.drivetanks.com/
[–] biggestofboys 7 points 2 hours ago
That sounds sick, thanks for the link lol

[–] Mega_Dragonzord 2 points 48 minutes ago
I think I just came...how did I not know this was a possibility?

[–] VRichardsen 1 point 25 minutes ago
how did I not know this was a possibility?

Land of the free and home of the brave, man. It comes as standard.
[–] xiolableu01 1 point just now
Civilians are not allowed to have a drone with a weapon attached

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/297235-weaponized-drones-are-illegal-faa
And you can not illegally own any explosive projectile.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades
The tank is true. We can own tanks.
[–] crunchycrispy -9 points 2 hours ago
you say this with zero irony or self-checking, it’s stunning. Poe’s Law for gun nuts.
[–] Danskheart 2 points 2 hours ago
... I legitimately do not understand the point you are trying to make.
[–] xiolableu01 0 points 10 minutes ago
We are not allowed to have any weapon we want. A civilian can not have a surface to air missile. There are already
restrictions and arms not protected by the 2nd amendment. Arms not in "common use" are not protected. AR-15s and
AK-47s (10-15 million) only account for 3% of the total guns (390 million) in the US. Not common, therefore, not
protected.
[–] Danskheart 1 point 8 minutes ago
I still do not understand the point you're trying to make.

[–] scottcmu -91 points 4 hours ago
So I can have biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons?

[–] crispyg 11 points 3 hours ago
The rationale of that case states that the weapons should be those that could be used be "a well-regulated militia".
That is why they did not allow the use of sawed-off shotguns; it did not pertain to the efficiency of a "well-regulated
militia". A case that might shed more light in the situation currently is DC v Heller (2010).
[–] Junkbot 15 points 3 hours ago
Not even an issue right now. You may as well be talking about the moral implications of colonizing and terraforming
Jupiter. Bringing up nukes/etc is a basically trying to dodge the issue when people are trying to get the government to
leave semi-automatic rifles alone.
[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 12 points 3 hours ago
So I can have biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons?

I don't understand the difference between ARMS and ORDNANCE!
Cool. Let me know when there is a personal nuclear weapon that can be deployed in a defensive use, for the
protection of self or state that meets the Heller standard of not Dangerous AND not Unusual.
Let's simplfy it to say, when there is a Nuclear Laser gun that can pinpoint stop thing it's aimed at without destroying
other things - yea - I'll fucking want one. Preferably in the 40MWatt range.
[–] Murse_Pat 14 points 3 hours ago
You realize that you have anthrax in your soil and chemicals to make chlorine gas etc. under your sink... You already
have access to chemical and biological weapons, and it's not an issue
[–] Soft_Resist 72 points 4 hours ago
if you can pass a background check and pay for it, I fail to see the issue
[–] King_Pollox -39 points 4 hours ago
Do you truly believe that someone should be able to have a nuclear weapon if they pass a background check?
[–] randomguy1411 34 points 3 hours ago
Why not we let Korea and Iran have them and we know how stable they are.
Exactly. I trust myself a hell of a lot more than I trust them. And the cost of such weapons is a good-enough barrier
to entry that it’s a moot point.
[–] TheDemonClown -11 points 3 hours ago
Those are sovereign states we do not control. We're not "letting" them have nukes.
[–] randomguy1411 27 points 3 hours ago
And I am a citizen that has rights spelled out in the constitution but that hasn't stopped liberal clowns from
saying they are going to take my rights.
continue this thread

[–] Anonymous_user_of_US 7 points 3 hours ago
Why not? it doesn't absolve him/her from the consequences if they misuse it, they would have to deal with likely
being charged as a war criminal. On the other hand they could be seen as a wild card, if Russia or China decided they
wanted to start something they would have to worry not only about the US military supply of such weapons but also
how many people may or may not have them and the fact those people could launch without the government needing
to tell them or communicate to them.
[–] Willyb524 4 points 3 hours ago
The reason I see not to is enviromental impact. I'm very pro-gun, but I don't think a single person should be able to
make a decision that can permanently alter the enviroment for decades. This is why i'm not completely libertarian, I
think there needs to be regulations to ensure the planet is habitable for at least a few thousand more years. Gun's
will never truly endanger humanity, there will always be one side left to carry on. With nukes that's not exactly the
case.
[–] Anonymous_user_of_US 1 point 2 hours ago
Outside of the keeping humanity going aspect of your train thought I can say my train of thought is actually
really comparable to yours, I do want to clear up though I actually never thought about the entire aspect of why
you said no to nukes and you make a very valid point. My thinking was that even if it was totally unrestricted,
which would be a very stupid move, the over whelming majority of people would not buy one even if they had
the funds. Who would realistically want to keep something close by that, if not properly maintained, could end
up killing their whole family with cancer just by leaking a little bit.
If nukes were suddenly available and legal to own I could see maybe 5-6 people who would have the funds and
resources to buy it actually buying it, not for any practical use other than for bragging rights of saying they are
one of six people in the US who own a nuke.
Again though your point is valid and I can agree with you on that.
[–] Spartan265 1 point 2 hours ago
I always figured you could do what you want so long as it doesn't harm other people. Seems simple enough of a
concept.
[–] crunchycrispy 2 points 2 hours ago
real question: are you 14 years old? i can’t imagine a single functioning adult making this argument. take 3 minutes
to think why letting individuals own nuclear arms is a matter of national security.
LMAO! that would be the point, DC would actually listen to their constituents if they risked having a nuke shoved
up their ass because they decided to fuck over the tax payers.
[–] PoopIsAlwaysSunny 5 points 3 hours ago
Trump has access to them. I really don’t see other individuals are more dangerous carriers of WMDs
[–] lawyer69 9 points 3 hours ago
This is a fairly made point, regardless of where you stand on trump.

[–] Alt_Chimp -4 points 3 hours ago
And yet nothing has happened and your joke is just that, a joke.
[–] PoopIsAlwaysSunny 4 points 3 hours ago
What joke? You’re just proving my point: a clearly unstable individual like trump who obviously doesn’t value
life, peace, or freedom hasn’t used nukes. Why would some other individual?
[–] Arkanin -2 points 3 hours ago
great thinking all around by the brain trust this morning

[–] Soft_Resist -1 points 4 hours ago
why shouldn't they? if they can pay for it, I don't see a problem with it. I don't assume what someone is going to do
with it, that's McCarthyism, and you don't want to go down that road
[–] TheDemonClown -6 points 3 hours ago
I don't assume what someone is going to do with it, that's McCarthyism, and you don't want to go down that
road
WHAT IN THE FUCK ELSE COULD SOMEONE DO WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB BESIDES KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE?
[–] tomcatgunner1 3 points 3 hours ago
Terraform Mars?

[–] Soft_Resist 4 points 3 hours ago
I don't think it's a good idea to assume what people are going to do with something. You, nor I, get to
determine what people can or can't do. Maybe this person wants to have the biggest firework display in the
desert.

[–] SpoatieOpie -11 points 3 hours ago
Dude are you fucking kidding me man? I'm a 2A supporter but there's a huge difference between someone
accidentally shooting a gun and say some retard accidentally setting off a nuclear weapon. Let's be a little practical
here
[–] PurpleRhymer -37 points 3 hours ago
This is why nobody takes libertarians seriously.

[–] specapc -18 points 3 hours ago*
If you genuinely believe this, there is no value arguing here. You need help.
[–] BananaBarfer 15 points 3 hours ago
I think you misunderstand the cost of the weapons mentioned.
[–] specapc -5 points 3 hours ago
So rich people should be able to have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons? You guys need to step back and
revaluate your position on this.
[–] BananaBarfer 14 points 3 hours ago
You also misunderstand that nobody will even sell these weapons.
[–] crunchycrispy -7 points 2 hours ago
It’s absolutely insane that you’re downvoted and he’s upvoted. This is libertarian/alt right brigading, nothing more.
Don’t think you’re in the minority here.
[–] Alexis1776 3 points 1 hour ago
No, I’m pretty hard left on everything but guns, enjoy my downvote.
[–] ryanmerket -10 points 4 hours ago
So Zuck can buy nukes, nbd?

[–] Financialguybro 29 points 4 hours ago
Quick question, who do you think makes our weapons of war??? hint, its private companies already, so technically
yes, they have nukes and very confidential stuff.
[–] ryanmerket 7 points 3 hours ago
In the US there are a couple of laws preventing a private citizen from owning a nuclear weapon:
Possession of any radiological weapon is prohibited by 18 U.S. Code § 832 - Participation in nuclear and weapons of
mass destruction threats to the United States (specifically paragraph (c))
(c) Whoever without lawful authority develops, possesses, or attempts or conspires to develop or possess a
radiological weapon, or threatens to use or uses a radiological weapon against any person within the United
States, or a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States or against any
property that is owned, leased, funded, or used by the United States, whether that property is within or
outside of the United States, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
Even possession of nuclear material is prohibited without a license. 18 U.S. Code § 831 - Prohibited transactions
involving nuclear materials It's a long convoluted law with references so trying to paste a relevant section is
problematic.
[–] Financialguybro 1 point 3 hours ago
Of course, private citizens, but who owns the companies that make them?

Space X is literally only missing a nuclear warhead to have a reusable nuclear tipped ICBM.
[–] Voltaire99 9 points 3 hours ago
Well... I'm not sure how reusable it would be if you used it as an icbm.
I was thinking more along the Falcon heavy but I also forgot that the heavy is using three falcon 9's and not two
that are mounted on the side like I was imagining.
[–] daiceman4 1 point 17 minutes ago
An ICBM is much like a satellite, that whole missile that goes up isn't the whole thing that comes down on the
target. It's got a payload that detaches after it gets up high enough.
[–] TheDemonClown 3 points 3 hours ago
You say that as if the nuclear warhead is the easiest part to get. Just pop on down to Wal-Mart, eh?
[–] cXs808 -11 points 3 hours ago
Is this a joke, 33 upvotes? what in tarnation

[–] ryanmerket -8 points 3 hours ago
It’s being brigaded.

[–] Retardo_Montobond 8 points 3 hours ago
Sure. If you can afford them. You know who will sell you such a weapon? Do you know where to start looking to buy
any? Hint. It isn't on Ebay. Short answer: No, you can't afford it....and the people that would sell you one don't do
transactions with individuals. Nukes aren't a rack item. Special order. Minimum order required.
[–] cXs808 2 points 3 hours ago
If I can buy the pieces needed to create ordinance you'd be okay with that? Someone just cooking up some
homemade ordinance in their 40-story condo just because our amendment allows it?
I don’t know how else to tell you this, but welcome to America where there is guaranteed someone literally doing this
in every large metro area, because you can buy the ingredients for ALOT of ordinance at a hardware.
Yeah I totally understand that but what I'm asking is if the law should 100% protect that activity.
Well, to put it this way, you can do it already, you can purchase everything without a background check, and
nobody really truly cares until you plan or do set it off.
Also, look up destructive device permits.
Rich people can literally own RPGs, bazookas, all sorts of shit, if they buy a special very expensive box and are
willing to pay for some tax stamps ($200) a shot, but there are already provisions in place and they are already
protected

[–] Retardo_Montobond 2 points 3 hours ago
Yes, I'd be okay with that. Do what you want. Don't bring that shit to my house, though. If you're at home making
your own weapons...you'll be grossly overpowered at my place. That's just how I want it, too. Some crazy comes to
my house, I don't want it to be fair. I want it to be unfair. In my favor. Now quit with the "nukes" argument. It's the
same as me arguing about cars. Humvees were designed for war. Should you be able to buy one? Or....in your case,
build one in your garage from parts?
I guess what I'm getting at is certain "weapons" are just inherently dangerous to everyone nearby. If my house
blows up because of ordinance I'm likely taking lots of innocent lives with me if it's like a condo, walkup, or densely
populated neighborhood.
[–] Retardo_Montobond 1 point 2 hours ago
All weapons are dangerous. That's their intended purpose. Rocks have killed people before. Sharpened sticks.
Bows and Arrows. Swords. It doesn't matter what type of weapon it is. It's an inalienable right to own weapons.
Why do you guys think it's a debate?!? It's either repealing the 2nd Amendment or leaving it as is, which covers
any weapon you choose to own.
People that cook meth have blown up homes. So they heavily restricted the known ingredients. No one's arguing
against restrictions. We're arguing that you guys are categorizing weapons into "safe" and "unsafe" when they
are all safe and unsafe...depending on which end you're on.

[–] kergeshken -1 points 1 hour ago
hey buddy, I think you sound like a pussy personally

[–] Retardo_Montobond 3 points 1 hour ago
he said, as he called someone a pussy on the internet

Seriously. Quit that. You look like a fool.
[–] InDankWeTrust 6 points 3 hours ago
Explosives are considered ordinance and not a small arm. So no, that is not covered under 2A, nice try though.
[–] scottcmu -1 points 2 hours ago
He specifically said "weapons of war," which is what I am replying to.

[–] thisbutironically 1 point 3 hours ago
The nice thing is that cost is a prohibitive measure to aquirimg these types of weapons| The resources required for
r&d on such capable weapons are insanely expensive in terms of both time and money|
So sure< let the maniac billionaire have his team of mad scientists develop a chemical weapon and system of
delivery| Let him bleed his cash reserves Dry and then mobilize with the most basic of military units to seize his
weapons because his secret project has too big a paper trail to go undetected and he can't afford infantry to stop a
simple no knock raid because all of his money went to r&d>
pardon my weird formatting< the touch keyboard on this tablet has some glitches among them one where I can't type
a period for a few hours and then it goes away randomly
[–] el___diablo 115 points 4 hours ago
The problem is systemic violence that thrives because of poverty, lack of social welfare, lack of mental health
resources, and widespread inequality. The solution is acknowledging these problems and addressing them one by
one through social policy change.
And now you're getting to the core of the issue.
The 3 simple steps to stay out of poverty are:
1. Finish school (obviously finish college if you get in).
2. Don't get married until you have a full-time job.
3. Don't have kids until you're married.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/
These 3 simple rules will almost eliminate your chances of experiencing poverty.
The problem lies with the people who don't follow these rules.
And yet no politician will call them out on it.
There's no point in screaming racism when LaQeisha gets pregnant at 16 with Antoine (also 16) & he does a runner.
Bringing kids up within a stable family environment is key to tackling poverty.
It's why the likes of Japanese, Koreans and Indians have a better outcome than whites.
And if you can’t get into college, learn a trade. The average plumber is over 50 years old. There is a TON of
opportunity in trade skills right now. School is cheap and only takes 2 years.
[–] Maleficent_Cap 20 points 3 hours ago
Because its better to claim oppression and promise that people with low IQ or who make stupid decisions can just get
unoppressed "If im the one voted in".
[–] BuffyTheEmpireSlayer -47 points 4 hours ago
I've never seen someone get a point in the first part of a post, then completely devolve into racist bullshit at the end
that shows they only accidentally stumbled on the point in the first place but dont actually understand it.
It's not like these people are willingly not following those rules. The way society has been set up for the last 400 years
purposefully makes sure they get stuck in that cycle. Systemic racism is a real thing, and it prevents "LaQeisha"
(which is a totally not racist name to use when trying to make a point because its TOTALLY not a dog whistle for 'hey
those blacks sure do make up stupid names, huh?') from actually being in a position to ever get an education and
finish school and get a well-paying job in the first place. Look at the funding schools in these areas get. Its basically
nothing. And "school choice"/charter schools is just a way for white families who live in these districts to get their kids
into predominantly white schools. It solves nothing.
Its incredibly weird and frustrating to see people realize that education is the key, but then instead of saying "And
thats why we need to fix our education system", instead they fall back on unfounded racist bullshit of "MAN THOSE
BLACKS SURE LIKE IGNORING RULES AND GETTING PREGNANT EARLY AND DOING DRUGS AND COLLECTING
WELFARE, AM I RIGHT?"
[–] whoNeedsPavedRoads 16 points 2 hours ago*
I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by not addressing the issue. If a people are stuck in a cycle there's a way
to get out of it, but since we have freedom they fall victim to their own cycle. Sure, we could force education and
contraception down people's throats but it wouldn't be a free country.
Institutionalized racism might have been what got minorities where they are, but the Chinese and Koreans are a
perfect example of a hard working minority that defied institutionalized racism to become an upper-middle class
people. Coddling low income minorites and walking on eggshells around the topic won't solve anything. Address the
issue, provide a solution, and hope it works.
The name was definitely stereotypical, but the fact of success by graduating and not having kids is usually
straightforward, drugs aside.
Maintaining the "victim status" is what keeps people stuck in a hole. My brother blames everybody else for his own
problems and cannot simply accept things for what they are and start taking accountability for his own future.
"YES you're disadvantaged, man! Of course! Life ain't fair! It never was going to be fair. But take accountability for
what you want to do to change it." -my Buddhist professor from college.
lol.
I only did that as a joke.
Fact is, I come from a country with few black people.
You can point to the white population here just as easily.
It's the same behavioural patterns with the same outcomes.
Yet no politician addresses it because of PC culture.
The reason I alluded to two black teenagers in my comment is because it's most evident in their culture.
[–] CallMeBigPapaya 10 points 3 hours ago
Because people like you can't handle reality is exactly what will keep people from making the correct choices in life.
[–] crimson777 -24 points 3 hours ago
What an uninformed take this is.

Here's just a few examples of how that article is awful.
1) Many of the reasons kids drop out are the fault of the school or society at large. Dropping out to support family,
missing too many days due to mental health issues, struggling in school due to the awful state of education in the US,
etc. Sure, some kids drop out just because, but often it's not something that they just lightly decide. Often they're
forced out either by the school or the circumstances.
2) "Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in
poverty"
WOW what a concept. People who are in stable families already end up doing better than kids who aren't. This is such
a dumb comment, it should go without saying, but I'm sure it doesn't. Kids in higher socioeconomic brackets don't
have troubles with these for the most part. Rich parents higher tutors, threaten to take away all financial support, pay
for abortions, etc. Poor parents are often busy working and can't make sure kids are on track.
3) Despite the claim, most research suggests that having kids before marriage is a result of poverty, not a cause of it.
Lack of education, lack of access to birth control, a belief instilled by the hardships of life that having a child is the
only way one can contribute, etc. Turns out when a kid is already richer, they're less likely to have kids and it's not
because they're having less sex. In fact, I believe stats show that rich people on average have more sex than poor
people.
4) Therefore, it turns out the problem doesn't lie with the people not following the rules. It lies with the ones with the
power and money who won't improve the system so that people have better opportunities in life.
5) You say your racist bullshit is just a joke, but that really doesn't mean anything. Teen pregnancy, when controlling
by socioeconomic factrs, is not really all that influenced by race. An equally poor white and black teen in the same
part of town have very similar likelihoods of getting pregnant. So your statements aren't based in reality, just
prejudice.
6) Many Japanese, Korean, and Indian people in America are recent immigrants. Immigration costs a lot of money
and time, which means the people coming over are often advantaged in at least some way, even if it's not in terms of
money. Black people, on the other hand, were forcibly dragged here long ago, legally not considered human until
about a century and a half ago, and then legally not considered an equal human until just a few decades ago. This
tends to tamp down the generational wealth and stability building. Still to this day, the wealth gap between races is
huge due to the very different starting points.
I think that covers enough points to show why this comment was utterly ridiculous. Hopefully you read through and
reevaluate your ideas instead of just dismissing it because it doesn't agree with your worldview.
[–] boywonder200 19 points 3 hours ago
You're making a lot of claims with 0 evidence to back it up.

[–] crimson777 -2 points 49 minutes ago
Oh, I'm sorry, I have better things to do than to write you a whole article with sources you can easily look up yourself.
I know it's hard for all of the conservative dumbasses here to understand facts, but it's really not that hard to go find.
[–] rsn1990 2 points 14 minutes ago
Go find them then. You made the claim; it’s on you to cite your source. If it’s so easy then it shouldn’t take too much
of your time.
[–] Saltyfork -8 points 4 hours ago
Ahh...the fabled Brookings/Ben Shapiro 3 step process.
One of which is getting a full time job. Something that is significantly harder to do if you are a minority, or are in
poverty already.
Brookings itself followed up on the article you linked and said as much:
https://www.brookings.edu/research/following-the-success-sequence-success-is-more-likely-if-youre-white/
" Among those who follow all three norms, blacks are significantly less likely to reach the middle class than whites
who do the same. About 73 percent of whites who follow all three norms find themselves with income above 300
percent of the federal poverty line for their family size, while only 59 percent of blacks who adhere to all three norms
fare equally well "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMjgOYOcDw&t=1463s
[–] MikePenceVP 6 points 1 hour ago
This is true and good to bring up. But it still shows that these are important factors for everyone to consider, even if
following them brings more success to some groups than others.
Additionally it’s possible that a significant change in these patterns will level the playing field somewhat.
[–] WillitsThrockmorton -13 points 3 hours ago
There's no point in screaming racism when LaQeisha gets pregnant at 16 with Antoine (also 16) & he does a
runner.
woof, my dog is barking but I don't hear anything, so weird.
Anyway, it's hard to be aware of an atmosphere if you're a fish in the ocean.
Sorry, Tarquin (16) & Beatrix (16) were making sweet love, away from the prying eyes of their butler, James.
Happy ?
[–] denshi 6 points 3 hours ago
Big ups to the Roman scholar here!

[–] Fluxxed0 -32 points 4 hours ago*
There's no point in screaming racism when LaQeisha gets pregnant at 16 with Antoine (also 16) & he does a
runner.
We don't need to scream racism, you're screaming it pretty loudly already.
Ooh Beto thread getting bombarded by racist chuckleheads from t_d, surprise.
[–] RS_Magrim 32 points 4 hours ago
It happens a lot though, it wouldn't be a stereotype if it wasn't, but it's a real thing.
[–] Rydiak 7 points 3 hours ago
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/29/don-lemon/cnns-don-lemon-says-more-72-
percent-african-americ/
[–] AzraelTheDankAngel 2 points 2 hours ago
Not from all from t_d, I’m just a simple libertarian

[–] Doulocrat -24 points 4 hours ago
This is an insipid talking point. All of those factors correlate with already being middle-to-upper-class.
[–] CallMeBigPapaya 19 points 3 hours ago
It's really not that hard to not get someone pregnant. I grew up poor as dirt and I somehow managed always wrap
my dick or just live with a handjob.
See my other response

The middle class is a recent phenomenon.

The fact remains that certain behaviour patterns allowed poor people to enter the middle class. India is a prime
example of seeing this in action today.
Having kids after marriage is the one of the most important factors in pulling people out of poverty and into the
middle classes.
Yet say that today and you'll be be accused of every 'ism' under the sun.
Which is why people focus on the symptom rather than the problem.
And this is why it only gets worse.
Because you haven't done enough to establish a causal direction, to say nothing of the fact that all of these are more
complicated than just personal choice.
Finish high school (obviously finish college if you get in)
First of all, college tends to cost money, so it's not a great recommendation for someone who's poor. Secondly, it's
much easier to get into college if you have had access to a good education up to that point which, again, poor people
often don't. Thirdly, even finishing high school can be complicated by other factors, including poverty and being a
single parent (More on that to come).
Don't get married until you have a full-time job.
This requires getting a full-time job. There have been multiple studies done demonstrating employment discrimination
for reasons as petty as having a stereotypically black name like "Jamal." It's also a hell of a lot easier to get a job if
you have a degree (see the previous point). Poor people also have severely narrowed options because they can't
relocate for their job nearly as easily as the middle class.
Also, with wages often being so low and delivered on a delay, people who rely on welfare but want to get off it are put
in a very tough spot when they are essentially reducing their income and going a week or two without income (read:
have no money) for the sake of getting an underpaying job.
Don't have kids until you're married.
There are so many things wrong with this one two. Sex-ed programs are often worse in poor neighborhoods. If we're
counting getting married on account of pregnancy: There have been studies showing, if you will concede to absolutely
nothing else, that black men get sentenced disproportionately harshly compared to white men. On top of that, black
people tend to get arrested more often for drug crimes that they seem to commit no more often than whites. There's
also urban violence, which I'm sure you know the numbers on. I could rattle on another half dozen factors if you want
me to.
All of these are complex and difficult issues that your reductionist chiding fails to adequately address.
Notice I didn't call you any "ism" or even compare you to Ben Shapiro on account of him making this exact same
argument. I just explained why everything you said is wrong on many different levels.
Edit: sp
[–] kormer 7 points 4 hours ago
That's the point.

[–] Doulocrat 3 points 4 hours ago
*already being* As in, for example, it's really stupid advice to just tell a poor person to graduate from college when
they can't afford it in the first place.
[–] dingwobble 8 points 3 hours ago
The advice was to finish high school, and college if you can get in. Your twisting that into, "you have to go to college"
is really disingenuous.
[–] Doulocrat 1 point 18 minutes ago
As I noted in the original post, it's very difficult to get a real full-time job without a degree
[–] AnoK760 2 points 3 hours ago
Maybe instead of just not doing anything because you cant go to college, go to a teade school and learn a skill you
can apply to a career without having to go into massive debt for a college degree that wont do anything? The world
needs welders, for example. And welders get paid bank.
[–] Doulocrat 1 point 11 minutes ago
This is just another version of "learn to code." There aren't a limitless supply of trade jobs, and it can vary a lot by
area (see my point on relocation) and over time.
Also, believe it or not, I'm not saying people should "just not do anything." So that you don't start clutching pearls
over the PC police, I won't say that that's a shitty canard about poor people pushed by Fox news, but the fact of the
matter is not too many years ago we had a crisis where airplane pilots often needed to live on foodstamps. You can
very easily end up working over 40 hours a week in a difficult, stressful job and still barely be scraping by. A lot of it
just depends on what's available in proximity.
So I'm not saying we kill every billionaire and redistribute their wealth to poor people. I'm just saying that the
advice that I was replying to is childishly insipid and amounts to "duh, just don't be poor."
[–] AnoK760 1 point 4 minutes ago
Well yeah but too many people think that the only 2 options are full on 4 year degree or McDonalds forever.
Theres so many options that dont even require school. Many jobs train on site and offer plenty of opportunity for
upward movement. But i really do feel like a lot of people nowadays assume its going to be like it was in the
90s. When you got a good job right after college every time. It just isnt the case. You can learn a skill (or even
teach yourself with youtube now) and apply that skill a lot quicker than wasting time and money on a degree
that might end up being worthless.
[–] Ed_Tivrusky_IV -8 points 3 hours ago
Don't forget that the religious south says condoms are Satan's party balloons.
College is debatable, but that's not the point.
[–] StealYourDucks 72 points 4 hours ago
Funny enough, there are now more guns in Australia than there were pre confiscation.
[–] ChesterComics 23 points 3 hours ago
Didn't they only have a 20-30% compliance rate in the first place?
They dropped from 3.2 million to 2.5 in 1997, and as of 2016 are back at 3.6 million.
[–] Incunebulum 2 points 21 minutes ago*
with heavier regulation and the new guns are bolt action rifles, shot guns and revolvers. They basically eliminated
semi automatic weapons for a 30% drop in homicide rates.
[–] socalnonsage 1 point 18 minutes ago
Less than 1%
SOURCE
That language of the Post headline implies, and nothing in the remainder of either story clarifies further, that
citizens in Australia no longer have those 57,000 guns. That is the normal meaning of the phrase "turned in." But
as the National Firearms Amnesty report explains, over 37,000 of those guns were merely being officially
registered or even sold; only 20,000 of them, around a third of the headline-grabbing number, are
actually being taken out of circulation.
If Australia started with more or less 3.6 million firearms, and only 20,000 were turned in, that's roughly
.55%
[–] Incunebulum 1 point 15 minutes ago
They did. There's also around a 10% decay rate similar to the U.S. for used guns breaking or randomly getting out of
circulation through seizure and such. The real change Australia saw was heavy, heavy regulation of ownership of
firearms. Restrictions on use and storage. They especially saw a decrease in semi-automatic weapons similar to
Canada's non-buy back weapons laws. There are now more guns in Australia but they're bolt action rifles, shotguns
and revolvers instead of pistols and semi-automatic rifles. Thus they get a 40% decline in gun homicide.
Source?
Article from the Sydney Morning Herald

Specifically what stands out; from the 1997 ban to 2016, gun ownership rose from 2.1 guns per owner to 3.9.
That's wild. How have I never heard of this. Politicians always use australia as the example yet..look at the numbers
The media likes to use this example because ~700,000 is a great number when it comes to confiscation. They leave
out the fact that the numbers exceed original gun ownership because that would destroy any narrative that
confiscation equals less gun violence.
[–] SUND3VlL 7 points an hour ago
It also coincides with the significant drop in murders in Australia. However, the murder rate was already declining
and a similar decline was experienced in the US over the same period. Multiple factors, including harsh law
enforcement and sentencing, the end of the crack epidemic and other factors contributed, but sociologists can’t
explain fully explain it.
[–] cXs808 -1 points an hour ago
Well on the flip side, wasn't there a significant reduction in gun-crime after the ban? Gun numbers may have gone
up but the crime numbers seem to have supported the narrative?
[–] StealYourDucks 7 points an hour ago
Yes, although they were trending dramatically downward before the ban and have stayed that way even after
the rise in firearms over the past 20 years. Believe it or not, gun crime nationally in the US has also been
trending downward while also having the most guns we’ve ever had. And as you would expect, places with
stricter gun control have been trending up when it comes to gun crime.

[–] blue_27 4 points an hour ago
Politicians lie a lot.

(eyeroll, settle those jimmies buddy) The guns are bolt action rifles, shotguns and revolvers which are not that hard to
get. They basically eliminated semi automatic weapons for a 30% drop in homicide rates and no mass shootings. We
could do it here also.
...and they're much, much more regulated.

[–] lionpheti 91 points 4 hours ago
Ar-15s also aren’t used on battlefields. The US military uses M-16s and M4s. To my knowledge there isn’t a single
military that uses an AR-15.
[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 47 points 3 hours ago*
To my knowledge there isn’t a single military that uses an AR-15.

Technically there are somewhere. Some militaries with poorly trained soldiers get US export rifles without select fire.
But it's a silly point. You know what other "battlefield tools" are perfeclty acceptable? The 1795 Pennsylvannia Long
Rifle (flintlock musket), the 1861 Mississippi rifle, 1903 Springfield, 1924 M1 Garand, it's better evolution the 1959
M14, 1964 M16...
You know the different of all those rifles? The M16 fires the smallest bullet and lands in the middle for energy.
Almost every rifle on that list is ethical to hunt with in terms of "killing power" except the M16/AR15.
You want to call it a weapon of war? OK, best to not go to war with me then.
Weapons evolve. To make the battlefield / weapons of war argument is to make the argument that 1A doesn't apply
to the internet. Surely, how could the founders have envisioned speech to easily and readily accessible to millions of
people! BAN IT BETO!!!!
[–] DaBlueCaboose 29 points 3 hours ago
1924 M1 Garand, it's better evolution the 1959 M14

The fuck you just say boi
[–] Immigrants_go_home 21 points 2 hours ago
clip loading an m1 hurts my fingers so, the m14s external magazine makes it better.
[–] big_damn_zero 17 points 2 hours ago
No ping, no ding!
[–] Immigrants_go_home 9 points 2 hours ago
I've seen people do it so smoothly, I just don't have the dexterity. Finger always catches hell lol.
But no ding!
Haha :)
Ok, well...
Lmfao, best response

[–] TwiIight_SparkIe 32 points 3 hours ago
Be careful. Beto is allergic to facts.

[–] AzraelTheDankAngel 4 points 41 minutes ago
It’s not Beto it’s Robert Francis

[–] JustiNAvionics -8 points 2 hours ago
No shit, but they are based on the M-4/M-16 platform minus being select-fire, and it ain't that hard to get yourself a
US Military version of those rifles; just time-consuming and expensive. and the AR-15 is just a trademark, and the
original M-16 was adapted from the Armalite AR-15 for military application as the M-16, then later variants.
When Beto says "AR-15" you fucking know what he means, and there's very little difference between the "AR-15" and
its military variants, most notably being select-fire.
Here ya go if you're interested in buying a M-16 or an M-4 or how about a "MAC-10"?
https://www.davidspiwak.com/guns/
edit: fucked that up, I said two different things: M-16 is based of the Armalite AR-15 for military applications, not the
AR-15 is based off the military M-16.
[–] Toph_is_bad_ass 10 points 2 hours ago
Do we know what he means? Are we banning .223's? Detachable magazines? This looks like an "AR-15" but it's only a
.22LR - a squirrel gun. I have a pellet gun with a higher muzzle velocity than a .22LR. Would Beto/you support
banning that gun I linked?
[–] JustiNAvionics -4 points an hour ago
I'm not saying ban them, but they were designed for a specific purpose and now maybe certain variants are used to
hunt cockroaches, but again it was not their initial intended purpose as its use was primarily in military applications.
Next are you going to argue the intended purpose of AKs? Plenty of other rifles and pistols out there that can fulfill
your squirrel killing fantasies.
[–] ShitTalkingAlt980 4 points an hour ago
What are you on about? It's intended purpose is to fire a projectile in a semiautomatic fashion. The projectile is
designed to kill if anything. Inb4 pedantic complaints, we are talking about policy and bad policy is overly broad.
[–] Teledildonic 6 points 2 hours ago

and it ain't that hard to get yourself a US Military version of those rifles; just time-consuming and expensive.
"Expensive" is an understatment. An AR15 averages less than $1000 and the M16s in your link are $20k each.
[–] lionpheti 4 points an hour ago
Dude, calm down. What point are you even trying to make here? I’m aware of the similarities between these rifles.
I’m not interested in an M16, M4, or mac 10 I’ve already got an AK chambered in the much larger 7.62x39;)
[–] thiskillstheredditor 0 points 2 hours ago
You’re wasting your time. You’re correct but these are the guys who make the “there’s no such thing as assault rifles”
argument. Or “should we ban cars too??”
Why would politicians worry about economic inequality when they can disarm the plebs and ignore them? Then later
crush them when they protest taking away the next right...
Holy shit dude, you fucking killed him with logic. Excellent job, I would give you an award but my broke ass will give
you this
[–] scubalizard 9 points 2 hours ago
Careful, Francis might report you to the FBI , lol

[–] PrincePizza1 12 points 4 hours ago
Wow. Great reply! Concise and pragmatic. It's a terrible situation we find ourselves in, but it's too complex to be fixed
with the "one sentence answer" solutions politicians keep putting forward.
[–] Lurker4153 3 points 2 hours ago
Not only that, but the criminals will be the only ones that still have guns. You end up with the worst of both worlds.
It's also unconstitutional as SCOTUS has affirmed the right to own a gun.
[–] TrailBlazer31 12 points 4 hours ago
Great post. I love when politicians compare gun laws to Australia.

[–] alamohero 3 points 2 hours ago
That’s the thing people don’t get is that even if somehow this was a good idea, how would you physically make it
happen?
[–] skarface6 3 points an hour ago
“Buyback my guns with my own money? Where do I sign!”

-all the gun owners everywhere
[–] NOFEELINGSALLOWED 7 points 2 hours ago
Europe can’t say shit for at least another century.

[–] No-Coast-Punk 5 points 3 hours ago
He's never going to answer this.

[–] jarredshere 2 points 2 hours ago
Sounds like Andrew Yang is the only dem who is actually addressing this concern.
[–] lostinaquasar 1 point 2 hours ago
Very well said. I don't know if this is just a bs promise to satisfy his demographic and get votes or if he's serious. I
paid damn good money for my legal firearms. The buyback would most likely be a flat rate not worth what the owner
paid for the firearm. I live in a rural area where it would take police 20 minutes to get to my property. If the crooks
have these types of firearms than I will as well to level the playing field. If this actually goes through he will have my
blood and at least 1 other person's innocent blood on his hands.
[–] HotDawgTimmysTits 2 points 2 hours ago
say it louder for the people in the back!

[–] Icy_Cantaloupe 1 point an hour ago
Not to mention I have access to several million acres of wilderness in which to hide my newly illegal firearms that I
refuse to surrender due to concerns about wildlife that police simply are not prepared to defend me against. How
exactly do they plan to confiscate a firearm they can't even find?
[–] Incunebulum 1 point 29 minutes ago*
Australia did it and it worked. They saw a 40% drop in gun homicides. They had zero registration. It took 10 years
and they still haven't got them all. Saying it would be hard is surrendering to nonsense. All of the countries you
mentioned have similar social policy programs as those in the U.S. but without the homicides. It's the guns.
[–] MTknowsit 1 point 53 minutes ago
America has 4.2 times as many guns as all of southern, eastern, western, and northern Europe combine
No wonder everyone is trying to immigrate here.
[–] GenghisLebron -1 points an hour ago
don't strip law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves.

exactly, we should all have access to military grade weaponry and probably nukes. Where does it say in the
constitution that every single american doesn't have a right to bear nukes to protect themselves? Right? if anybody
thinks I'm being serious, the answer is no.
As for the arguments, the alternative to the changes is continually watching innocent children die and offering
thoughts and prayers. It's not like the US hasn't made tough,but necessary changes before.
In your last paragraph, you're literally saying let's try creating a full-on utopia before we try banning guns. We should
probably try doing both like every other country. Just banning guns though will at least put us on equal footing with
every other first world country.
[–] BobertJ 2 points 58 minutes ago
Gun violence existed long before AR-15s were publicly available, and will continue to exist after a ban. The majority of
gun violence by a large margin is performed with handguns by individuals who illegally own firearms. I'm not sure
where you live, but where I grew up you can illegally acquire a firearm with about $150 and 15 minutes. Beto's
proposed ban doesn't address any of this. It's bad policy that is used to pander to fearful voters. If Americans are fat,
we should change eating habit and encourage exercise, not ban food.
Kids are being shot because society is sick and getting sicker, not because AR-15s are legal. We take 12 years of
physical health classes and not a single mental health class. We are ignoring the larger problem out of convenience
and laziness.
It's not like the US hasn't made tough,but necessary changes before.
Damn right, so let's make some real changes and address the real problems that I addressed above.
[–] boofinator1 1 point 37 minutes ago
Love it when the AMA subjects start getting scrutinised on their election points and then stop responding when
challenged
[–] nicegamevalve 2 points 3 hours ago
Can you change your name to something Hispanic so I can vote for you without being called a racist. You seem to
understand the problem better.
[–] helltricky -13 points 2 hours ago
America has 4.2 times as many guns as all of southern, eastern, western, and northern Europe combined and less
than 0.3% of those guns are registered.
You've persuaded me that the problem is more severe, not less severe.
How do you find these newly illegal guns?
We don't ask this question of other laws. How do you find stolen property? Should theft be made legal since it's hard
to enforce?
Who pays for the buyback? The tax payers? ... Even if you got the them to foot the bill, it would still cost hundreds
of billions of dollars.
You've persuaded me that gun owners might not be able to be compensated, not that military weapons should not be
confiscated from them.
And that's assuming the gun owners would relinquish their weapons without protest.
100% compliance right away is not the goal; that is a straw man that comes up in every single thread on this topic.
The reality is, they will fight tooth and nail and if force is used, many lives would likely be lost on both sides in the
process. So now we've cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars and lost thousands of lives. Doesn't sound
like a good alternative.
Dumb, dumb straw man. Nobody is recommending that everybody's houses be invaded in order to search for guns,
any more than if we wanted to raise the age of consent to 21, that we'd recommend for everybody's houses to be
searched for hidden 18-year-olds in bridal veils.
This entire post is a Gish gallop, and a version of it is found in nearly every thread that touches on gun ownership
rights.
[–] Gen50 4 points 58 minutes ago
Nobody is recommending that everybody's houses be invaded in order to search for guns
So what exactly happens when the 30 million American AR-15 owners decide not to comply with the law?
[–] gunslinger_006 2 points 26 minutes ago
I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident over ten years ago.
This is what literally every gun owner will say.
At that point: You will have to kick the door in.
Please do not let it get to that point.
[–] StoopidN00b 1 point 21 minutes ago
The same that happens to the people who violate the law by keeping other illegal itwms: nothing unless/until it is
discovered at which point they are prosecuted.
Wow, that was easy. These almost answer themselves.

Don't forget to downvote on the way out!
[–] Verystormy -8 points 4 hours ago
Just going to say, the U.K. has not banned guns. Not in the remotest.
In fact, the law splits things in to two. Shotguns and firearms. There is a legal assumption that a person has a right to
own a shotgun unless there can be shown good reason for the license to be refused. A firearm, the onus swaps and
the applicant has to show good reason to own. This can be a member of a target shooting club, show rights to hunting
and others.
Guns are not banned in the U.K. If you slob enough knob and please enough govt officials, they will deign to let you
have one!
Save a life...bin that knoif!
[–] Verystormy 0 points 2 hours ago
You do not have to do much to get a get a gun in the UK

[–] KatefromtheHudd -2 points 4 hours ago
It's a lot more than just that though. You have to have an interview, an officer has to come to your home to ensure
you have a gun safe in a suitable location (that wait is often 3 months as generally only one person who does this role
per county), you have to move your firearms in very specific ways too. No handguns and no semi or fully automatic
firearms. We still get to fire them at ranges etc but it's quite a haul to go the official route, which I think is a really
good thing.
[–] Verystormy -4 points 3 hours ago
Yes, but the implication from the op was that firearms are banned. Which they are not. Where I live, a huge amount
of people have a shotgun and it isn't unusual to see a guy walking down the road with a rifle in a case slung over his
back.
[–] KatefromtheHudd 1 point 2 hours ago
So I'm guessing you live in a rural area with quite a number of farmers and hunters then. It's not like you see that
everywhere in the UK. I've lived in three different counties (both in urban and rural areas) and I've never seen a
person walking down the street with a gun. Only seen them in farmers homes or at a gun range. In the US you can
have dozens of people in one store all carrying. Shotguns are quite the same as having a handgun (easy to conceal)
or semi or fully automatic firearm. I honestly think US gun ownership has become too big a beast to control now.
[–] Verystormy 1 point 2 hours ago
Yes, I live in rural Scotland. But, I was born in Middlesbrough and knew loads of people with shotguns.
I agree, it would be difficult for the USA simply because of the amount of guns they have in circulation. But, given
that this year is on track to be the first with a mass shooting EVERY SINGLE DAY, I see no option.
They are going to have to think out of the box to remove them. But, I think they can. And should.
[–] CamboMcfly 1 point 29 minutes ago
There’s aren’t 400,000,000 AR-15s and AKs though

[–] _TheDrizzle 3 points 4 hours ago
Well said
[–] breggen 0 points 20 minutes ago
r/actualliberalgunowner
If you are a liberal gun owner that is tired of the extremist positions of politicians in both parties this is the place for
you
[–] BaronLeichtsinn -12 points 3 hours ago
everybody had a sword until it became illegal for peasants to own and carry them. they became too expensive and to
dangerous to own, and they went away amongst genpop. the market is the answer. make it illegal to produce and
import the type of weapon you want to regulate, then start a buyback program, then enforce illegal ownership. at the
same time: make it uncool for younger generations to be an old weapon guy.
of course this won't work over night. nobody says it will. but you gotta start the process at some point.
[–] drshooter 5 points 2 hours ago
So you are making an argument for weapon confiscation based on feudal societies where these peasants were
basically slaves to the feudal lord that had all the weapons... based on your comment alone I may go out and buy a
few more rifles for good measure.
[–] lafadeaway 0 points 38 minutes ago
Holy shit. There are 400 million guns in America? That's insane. Worst TIL in recent memory for me.
[–] Waking -7 points 4 hours ago
Most mass shootings did not involve people in poverty. Arguably many have mental health issues, but they aren't
voluntarily seeking help. When do we admit there are some evil people out there and they shouldn't have AR15s
[–] meepstone 22 points 3 hours ago
There will always be evil people. Knowing who every evil person is before they do an evil act only exists in Minority
Report.
Assault rifles aren't even a problem. I don't know why anyone focuses on it.
In the last 5 years the yearly average homicide by weapon:
Assault Rifle: 316
Knives: 1579
Hands/fists/feet: 678
Should we start banning knives and fists before assault rifles?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-
8.xls
[–] Waking 1 point 4 minutes ago
Think for one second: You need to normalize this number to the total hands/feet/knives etc. Of course the homicide
rate for knives is higher than some guns because there are way more knives than guns in circulation.
[–] BobertJ 12 points 3 hours ago
When do we admit there are some evil people out there and they shouldn't have AR15s
There are some evil people out there and they absolutely shouldn't have AR15s or any guns for that matter. But
unless you have some kind of evil-person detector, how do you find them? There were 5,768 convicted felons charged
with illegal possession of a firearm in 2012 alone despite the law clearly stating they cannot legally possess a firearm.
Now think how many didn't get arrested. Criminals don't care about the law. Herein lies the problem. There is no way
to keep guns out of the hands of evildoers via legislation. All you're doing is disarming the obedient citizens. We are
passed the point of taking the guns away in America, it's logistically and financially impossible. We need to address it
another way.
[–] Waking 1 point 1 minute ago
I mean I agree, but my point was it won't be fixed by addressing inequality, for example. I think you need to restrict
the capacity for harm for weapons bought by private citizens. I don't know where that line should be drawn but it may
be an AR15 is over it.
[–] MangoAtrocity 1 point 2 hours ago
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that a mentally unstable person should be able to purchase firearms.
[–] xiolableu01 -12 points 2 hours ago
He's not trying to buyback ALL guns. Just a very specific category of weaponry that belongs on the battlefield, not in
civilian hands. Rough estimates say there are 15 million of these guns in circulation. Paying $500 per gun would be
7.5 billion dollars. Trump's tax cuts cost 1.5 TRILLION. So, repealing those would be a good place to start to get the
cash.
[–] jamiclark 2 points 2 hours ago
No one is going to voluntarily give up a gun that more than likely costs more than 500 dollars for 500 dollars. The
buyback would have to incentivize the gun owners in order for gun owners to give up something that they see as a
constitutional right. For the sake of argument let’s say it takes 2000 dollars to get all of these guns off the street. So
now that number is now 30 Billion. Not crazy high, but it’s now a lot higher than your estimate. Don’t you think using
that 30 billion could probably be better used setting up a national database for background checks that works
efficiently and has no loopholes in it, eliminated the gun show loophole, added systems for a red flag warning system,
and add to mental health assistance? The Trump tax cuts should absolutely be removed. But that money should go
towards creating a Medicare for All program. Maybe have a robust mental health system that can detect and help
individuals who might have extremely violent tendencies or at the very least prevent those people from gun
ownership until their issues are resolved.
[–] Tachikoma-1 3 points 2 hours ago
What if your rifle costs more than 500

[–] xiolableu01 0 points 2 hours ago
Rough estimate.
[–] Spartan265 1 point 2 hours ago
AR-15s are not battlefield weapons though. M16s are. He's literally just going "ooh scary black gun let's ban it".
[–] xiolableu01 0 points 15 minutes ago
It was intended to be a military weapon.

https://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/
[–] AwesomeAsian -16 points 3 hours ago
He's not confiscating all guns. Just Ar-15 and AK-47s. I doubt that makes up the majority of guns people own.
[–] BigAngryPolarBear 19 points 3 hours ago
Confiscating ANY guns is a no go. ARs and AKs are probably some of the most commonly owned rifles in America and
banning them would mean banning most rifles. And then once those are banned and “gun violence” doesn’t end, it
only means coming after everything else too. Politicians in favor of gun control will take a mile for every inch you give
them
[–] denshi -2 points 3 hours ago
I don't know why people compress AR and AK. AKs are full-auto select fire, ie, covered by the 1934 and 1986
restrictions. I don't know of anyone with an AK. Maybe there's a semi-auto AK knock-off running around?
[–] NicoKlein 6 points 3 hours ago
There are a shit ton of semi auto AK47’s in circulation. I know multiple people who own them and have shot a few
myself, though I do prefer the AR15.
[–] denshi 1 point 3 hours ago
That makes sense. The AK was designed to be cheap to build, so surely knock-offs were produced.
[–] NegativeGhostrider 2 points 3 hours ago
Any AK-47 sold in the US is semi-auto. There are no automatic firearms in the US unless you're a collector or willing
to spend $20k or more on one from pre-1980's. In 70+ years in the USA there have been exactly 3 deaths from an
automatic weapon. 2 were from police officers, and one was a suicide.
[–] AwesomeAsian 0 points 3 hours ago
so what do you propose should happen?

[–] WizzBango 7 points 3 hours ago
A response proportional to the actual danger, which is: basically nothing. Rifles kill too few people for me to care.
Free AR15s for everyone.

[–] thelizardkin 13 points 3 hours ago
The AR-15 is one if the most popular firearms in the country, and rifles are the least used class of firearms in
homicides.
[–] xXHogHeadXx 8 points 3 hours ago
He isn’t going to confiscate ANY guns he is full of crap.

Well that’s because he isn’t going to win

[–] ChickenBaconPoutine 17 points 3 hours ago
To the lefties, everything is an ar15.

Anything not an AR15 is a Glock. (Including AKs, arquebuses, bazookas, and NERF)
[–] chrisbrl88 3 points 2 hours ago
I sell you AR-16. Is one more. Is better. Much better. 10,000 rubles.
And they're all fully semi-automatic.

[–] PootieTangerine 5 points 3 hours ago
The AR-15 is the most sold rifle in the US by a large margin.

[–] bigbishounen 1 point 3 hours ago
The AR-15 is the single most common and popular semi-auto sporting rifle in America. If it isn't the overall majority, it
is certainly the largest single type. The point being that there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of them out there. You
cannot and will not get them all or even most of them. Remember that NY SAFE, which JUST required registration,
had a FOUR percent compliance rate. Americans don't like being told they have to give up their property. People
simply will not comply.
[–] MostShady1 1 point 6 minutes ago
[–] backintheddr -16 points 3 hours ago
Seriously? You're defending keeping assault rifles in people's hands? That's pants on the head crazy.
I doubt you realize that rifles of all kinds kill less then 400 people a year, that is less then car accidents, medical
malpractice, drug overdoses, beatings and stabbings. Gun control isn’t going to cut it, Argentina for example had 89
mass shootings since their gun control laws.
[–] BobertJ 3 points 3 hours ago
I think you misread my comment. I said it's logistically and financially impossible. If we could miraculously make all
guns in the world vanish and never again be created, gun violence would drop to 0% which would be peachy and
wonderful. But how do you do that? You can't. Beto and several other candidates are using fear to get votes; they
know damn well they'd never be able to actually conduct a successful nation-wide gun ban.
[–] scul86 2 points 2 hours ago
Additionally, if all guns magically *poofed*, violence in total would increase.

Knives and fists kill more people than rifles, and guns are used defensively 600,000 - 3 million times per year.
Poof guns, and those defensive gun uses go away, violence sky rockets...
No one owns "assault rifles". It's a made up political term to make any semi-auto (one trigger pull, one shot) rifle
sound evil and sell to the uninformed masses and you're buying it up like a lemming.
[–] AzraelTheDankAngel 1 point 46 minutes ago
He’s one of those “enlightened” Europeans who doesn’t know shit about guns
....is it crazy to defend keeping knives in people's hands? Many more people die to knife wounds than to rifle wounds.
Exactly what is crazy about it?
WOW, just wow. Karen, I just cannot even! I am unable to process a different opinion. Wow.
[–] 2016wasthegreatest -7 points 3 hours ago
The tax payers are the gun owners in America

How much people do u think own guns
[–] SNIP3RG 10 points 3 hours ago
Uhhh... 1/3 of the population, with nearly half of the population living in a household where someone owns a gun. So
more than 100 million people.
And how many people pay taxes

[–] OnstarLifeSupport 4 points 3 hours ago
47%
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/five-myths-about-the-47-percent/
Wrong. And even if it were correct gun owner would still not be synonymous with tax payer anyway
LOL, pretty much every liberal celebrity and politician own guns. Even liberal celebrity activist Alyssa Milano admitted
she owns two.
I bet Robert Francis O'Rourke owns a few.
[–] steveinaccounting 3391 points 3 hours ago 3 19 4 & 59 more
You are just another politician who has no idea how firearms work, and how to actually look up the facts on gun
violence. Instead of going at people's heartstrings and trying to strip rights, how about putting some thought into it,
and bring up some actual proposals. Proposals that are rooted in reality.
Via /u/PinheadLarry2323
The ACTUAL facts about gun violence in America
There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, this number is not disputed. (1)
U.S. population 328 million as of January 2018. (2)
Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.
Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. It's not even a rounding error.
What is not insignificant, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths:
• 22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws (3)
• 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion. (4)
• 489 (2%) are accidental (5)
So no, "gun violence" isn't 30,000 annually, but rather 5,577... 0.0017% of the population.
Still too many? Let's look at location:
298 (5%) - St Louis, MO (6)

327 (6%) - Detroit, MI (6)
328 (6%) - Baltimore, MD (6)
764 (14%) - Chicago, IL (6)
That's over 30% of all gun crime. In just 4 cities.
This leaves 3,856 for for everywhere else in America... about 77 deaths per state. Obviously some States have higher
rates than others
Yes, 5,577 is absolutely horrific, but let's think for a minute...
But what about other deaths each year?
70,000+ die from a drug overdose (7)
49,000 people die per year from the flu (8)
37,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (9)
Now it gets interesting:
250,000+ people die each year from preventable medical errors. (10)
You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
610,000 people die per year from heart disease (11)
Even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save about twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths
(including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.
Simple, easily preventable, 10% reductions!
We don't have a gun problem... We have a political agenda and media sensationalism problem.
Here are some statistics about defensive gun use in the U.S. as well.
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#14
Page 15:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive
uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in
the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
That's a minimum 500,000 incidents/assaults deterred, if you were to play devil's advocate and say that only 10% of
that low end number is accurate, then that is still more than the number of deaths, even including the suicides.
Older study, 1995:
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
Page 164
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that
rely on Rs' first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first
two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians
against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.
r/dgu is a great sub to pay attention to, when you want to know whether or not someone is defensively using a gun
——sources——
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2015_ed_web_tables.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/?tid=a_inl_manual
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-20180101-story.html
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/11/13/cities-with-the-most-gun-violence/ (stats halved as reported
statistics cover 2 years, single year statistics not found)
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/faq.htm
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812603
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/02/22/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-
america.html
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
[–] nspectre 35 points an hour ago*
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as
offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million
(Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
The best credible information we have available on Defensive Gun Use in America puts the number in the 1 to 2.5
million range.
The 1 to 2.5 Million number comes from original research done by Professor Emeritus of Criminology Gary Kleck and
Marc Gertz in the mid-90's, published as the National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS).
Marvin Wolfgang, who was acknowledged in 1994 by the British Journal of Criminology as ″the most influential
[wikipedia]
criminologist in the English-speaking world″, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use:
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. [...] The Kleck
and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine
methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their
methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
Recently, in 2018, Kleck discovered that around the same time-frame as his and Gertz' study the CDC also did some
limited surveys of its own on Defensive Gun Use as part of its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS),
but quietly didn't "publish" those results. So, Kleck went back over his data and re-analyzed it in light of the new CDC
data and revised his paper. The new estimate is over 1 million (BRFSS) to over 2 million (NSDS) defensive gun "uses"
per year.
I put "uses" in quotes to highlight the fact that Kleck's survey found that around 3/4 of the time one needn't fire the
gun to have found it useful in deterring an intruder or attacker.
What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN
CDC: A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use - Reason.com
[–] alphalegend91 164 points 2 hours ago*
One thing you seem to have forgotten to mention is that, after taking away the gun related suicides, roughly 80% of
those remaining deaths are gang related. Also, another study found that 93% of gun homicides committed are done
so with illegally acquired firearms. Essentially making any gun control attempts moot.
[–] Sideswipe0009 20 points an hour ago
Also, another study found that 93% of gun homicides committed are done so with illegally acquired firearms.
I've heard this stat before, but have never been able to find its source. Do you know where I could find it?
[–] matttcauthon 18 points 48 minutes ago
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-
fraction-crimes-commit/
loading...
[–] el_smurfo 2 points 32 minutes ago
Chicago
[–] HohlraumHe3 60 points an hour ago
And the Democrats wanted to exempt gang databases from their proposed red flag laws.
Whose side are they on?
[–] Your_Fault_Not_Mine 48 points an hour ago
They're on the side of the intersectional victim and their narrative is to guilt trip the rest of America into voting for
false empathy. If you don't accept the polished turd, then you're a racist, sexist, bigoted, nazi.
[–] alphalegend91 13 points an hour ago
Not the law abiding citizens

[–] ryanznock 1 point 5 minutes ago
What is this? Do you have a link?

[–] HohlraumHe3 1 point a minute ago
https://www.independentsentinel.com/democrats-say-the-red-flag-database-cannot-include-gang-databases/?
fbclid=IwAR2DYru37QHlmIfLYZpahUP2AigcuuiEwIe2Lq88tZsxXFuFeNdt_8hC2FY
[–] Mr_Anal 1 point 33 minutes ago
I don't know that much about gun control and black markets in general so I'm asking for real: wouldn't illegally-
acquired firearms become much more expensive if stricter gun laws are enforced? (similar to what happened in
Australia)
[–] OngoGablogian1 6 points 23 minutes ago
Not really, given that the same people pushing gun control also want a completely open southern border.
More difficult/expensive for the odd random psychopath maybe, but organized crime networks (who account for the
vast majority of gun violence in the US) would have no issue.
Also, within 5-10 years you'll likely be able to 3D print an entire gun less expensively than you can buy one right now
(you can already do this with most of one, but a few components still need a bit more work).
[–] alphalegend91 7 points 30 minutes ago
Maybe more expensive after decades but still easy to obtain. We are past that point in the US as we have nearly 400
million firearms whereas Australia only had (I believe) 3 million. Even then they had a large amount of noncompliance
during their buyback.
[–] OngoGablogian1 5 points 20 minutes ago
Yep--and what everyone forgets to mention when they say "Australia had one mass shooting, banned evil scary black
guns, and never had another mass shooting" is that Australia also never had a mass shooting before that one. It was
literally a one-time thing.
[–] Sean_Connor 332 points 3 hours ago
Thank you so much for my new copypasta. This is the most thorough, and complete, fully cited, and thoughtful
response to this topic I've ever seen. After a comment like is made, anyone who continues to argue against it is only
showing themselves as dogmatic, and illogical.
[–] Testiculese 7 points 31 minutes ago
Here's something to add to it.

There are over 400,000,000 guns, and 350,000,000 people. Takign his numbers into account, which are the same
that I got in my own research, ~5000.
Even if we incorrectly assume 1 gun = 1 homicide, the number of guns used in murder vs the total is 0.0000125%.
The number of people, assuming 1 person kills one person, which, again, is inaccurate, that number is
0.00000142%
So u/betorourke, wants to destroy the founding documents of this country over 6 decimal places. The 1st, 2nd, 4th,
and 5th amendments, at the very least.
[–] BucktoothGirl 128 points 2 hours ago
Spread this to the most idiotic places such as /r/politics

[–] Ziggs_Boson 88 points an hour ago
Shit, they'd just ban them for "inciting violence" or some nonsense. Don't even bother going to that shithole of a sub,
it's a waste a electrons.
[–] redpoemage -39 points an hour ago*
/r/politics is one of the more free political subreddits in terms of people getting banned for opposing views. I'd be
shocked if someone got banned for that comment.
Now downvotes on the other hand is a whole different story...
Edit: I've been reminded that downvotes for disagreeing with a circlejerk is a reddit wide phenomenon, not just on
/r/politics.
[–] MowMdown 17 points an hour ago
They banned me because I said “ammo box, ballot bot, jury box”
The guy who coined the phrase was even a democrat lol
[–] Sauce1v 8 points an hour ago
That was before the party switch

/s
[–] redpoemage -7 points an hour ago
Eh, depending on the contest I get why that could be seen as inciting violence, if you were making it sound like the
ballot box and jury box were failing/had already failed. Still, pretty dumb if that was a permanent ban.
I stand by what I said that posting a comment full of sources like the one this thread is about though would
definitely not get you banned.
[–] MowMdown 7 points an hour ago
Yup perma ban.

[–] Rognvaldi 2 points 7 minutes ago
I was perma-banned months ago for pointing out the rampant denialism of people insisting that Trump was connected
to the Russians even after the findings of the Mueller Report.
I sent my appeal to be unbanned and received no response.
There is no political subreddit which I would label "free" in anything but the loosest interpretation of that word.
[–] dumblibslose2020 8 points an hour ago
They banned me when I said antifa doesn't have freedom to be violent whenevrr they want. place is a cesspool of
violence and hate
[–] redpoemage -5 points an hour ago
Interesting claim considering you posted there yesterday. and don't have anything about antifa in your very very
very short comment history. Sorry if I don't trust a 9 day old account on this.
[–] dumblibslose2020 9 points 58 minutes ago
I'm on an obvious novelty account. Go ahead and post there you get banned fast if youre not a liberal fascist

[–] xenophobe51 3 points 55 minutes ago
LOL
[–] retailclearance 33 points 1 hour ago
There’s nothing to do about r/politics, that’s the most toxic Reddit community IMO.
[–] ngratz13 4 points 1 hour ago
It’s still a default sub yeah? And with 60% of reddit not being American, how accurate is it of the actual American
people’s thoughts?
[–] ChucksnCheers 11 points 46 minutes ago
It is not anywhere close to being an accurate portrayal of the average American's thoughts. It's too far left.
[–] rsn1990 2 points 3 minutes ago
Technically there aren’t “default” subs anymore. When you create a new account, it asks you what you’re interested in
and then subs you to the corresponding subs. If you say you’re into politics, you’ll get subbed to r/politics. If you say
you’re into knitting, you’ll get subbed to r/knitting.
But on mobile there’s a news tab, and r/politics is the default sub there for any political discussion.
[–] Elkenrod 4 points 1 hour ago
It hasn't been a default sub for about 5 years now.

[–] Joe92617 -7 points 1 hour ago
/r/gunpolitics is the same way at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Both are just unreasonable.
[–] I_dontevenlift 5 points 1 hour ago
They aren't just idiotic, they are bigoted and stubborn and rally behind calls to violence if it's against the opposing
team (like beto and his confiscation). So it won't work
[–] CarlosSagan 18 points 2 hours ago
While I probably agree with the general consensus, it's fair to point out that he only did math against gun deaths; not
casualties, which include injuries that do not result in death (maiming, loss of limb, sight, hearing, etc). I don't know
how much the numbers change, but I imagine it's not insignificant when you include all gun-related injuries, not only
deaths.
[–] dethloc 35 points 2 hours ago
And by that same logic, steveinaccounting did not include medical error injuries, only deaths. I imagine it's not
insignificant when you include all medical error injuries, not only the deaths.
[–] CarlosSagan -2 points 1 hour ago
I think the general idea is to reduce death and injury in as many areas as possible. If you use guns to prevent death
and injury, that's a plus. If there are ways to prevent even more? Also a plus. Prevent medical error injury? Also a
plus. Prevent knife injury? Also... plus... look at other countries...
[–] diurnam 3 points 19 minutes ago*
You can make society like a giant prison and reduce gun casualties that way, but imo freedom is worth the risks that
accompany it.
I imagine if you were to also include (if you could actually get the data) unreported & brandishing incidents, it would
be not even worth arguing against.
This is anecdotal, I know, but I alone have seen in my life 2 times where the mere presence of a firearm has made
someone looking for trouble think twice/retreat. Imagine how many times an armed guard, or the presence of police
has managed to convince a would-be killer to reconsider. What about the roof-top Koreans during the LA Riots, were
they effective? It's impossible to add up and get any sort of reasonable data for it, but you can't just NOT consider it
in the larger conversation.
[–] CarlosSagan 16 points 2 hours ago
Also fair to consider every time someone has been robbed at gunpoint, threatened but not shot or killed, etc.
[–] CatOfGrey 10 points 1 hour ago
Also fair to consider every time someone doesn't get robbed because of the presence of a gun. Note the numbers of
defensive gun uses provided in the article. Estimates range from those similar to the number of gun deaths, to an
order of magnitude 10 or 100 greater.
[–] DTG_Mods_Blow 2 points 1 hour ago
CDC says roughly 300,000 crimes are committed in a year with a firearm. What you want considered, in this specific
instance, is already known.
[–] nspectre 1 point 43 minutes ago
That is not the CDC's bailiwick nor remit. They're not setup nor geared to credibly investigate criminality. The CDC
collects data (and does so poorly) on Deaths and Injuries.
It's the Justice Department, specifically the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system, that collects information
on crime.
[–] ChiaTiger -8 points 1 hour ago
I guess, but couldn’t you do the same thing with a knife?

[–] Dook97 1 point 12 minutes ago
You could, but it would be a lot less effective. I could get into data on this (I saw somewhere comparison of
effectiveness of different methods of self defense; knives didn't come out very well especially compared to
firearms), but I'm on mobile and too lazy.
Anyway there's a simple logical argument against what you said: the gun evens out the chances. Imagine a woman
being attacked by a large guy. Is she supposed to pull out a knife and stab him a few times? Even if she managed to
do that it most probably wouldn't stop the attacked immediately and he might cause great harm to her. If she had a
gun she's in a much better position. If she knows how to use it he wouldn't get even close; double-tap to the chest
will probably be enough even for a junkie on drugs.
Oh and also disarming law abiding citizens really doesn't help solve the problem in any way. Just look at the UK. Do
they have less gun crime? Sure. Do they have less crime than they would without their draconic laws? Absolutely
not.
[–] Testiculese 2 points 28 minutes ago
Of all the defensive gun uses reported in the country (number varies, but it seems nailed down to just over
1,000,000), Almost all of them are deterred without a shot fired.
[–] Brewtown 1 point 1 hour ago
I would think the trend continues with the percentage by city though.
[–] Templar9515 2 points 1 hour ago*
They are also too stupid to think.

[–] dingir- -96 points 2 hours ago*
Ironically, half of this shit presented as facts it’s wrong.

The numbers he is referring to regarding self defense come from self reported surveys (and the CDC stopped using
them when they realized that people were not that reliable in their claims).
His claim that gun regulation doesn’t affect suicides is also equally ridiculous.
I am not even going to comment the “statistically insignificance” regarding gun deaths since it’s such a retarded
statement it makes me want to puke.
the fact that reducing access to guns is linked to fewer murders/suicides/mass shootings etc and that guns don’t
reduce crimes is obvious. But if you are that dense and you don’t understand why, there are countless of studies that
prove so.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-
household-members-systematic
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268116302669
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
Edit:
anyone who has upvoted the ridiculous post full of ridiculous claims while downvoting the evidence that proves him
wrong is mentally insane and should be put in a hospital, btw.
[–] BABYCAKESxUNKILLABLE 83 points 2 hours ago
If self-reported defensive use isn't valid why is self-reported victimhood valid?

[–] LilJethroBodine -8 points 2 hours ago
Hey, if you eat a house, a tree, are you unfillable?

[–] dingir- -37 points 2 hours ago
Where did I say that self reported victim hood is automatically valid?
Your argument rests on it.

Are you joking right? Reported cases of say murder or assault are usually investigated and corroborated by the
police . The same can’t be said for everytime someone pulls out his gun and believes he was using his self defense
rights
And what about when someone is robbed at gunpoint?

The fact that anything has to be investigated means they're trying to find evidence to validate something self
reported.
I caught you using a biased source as if it were objective. Just own up to it, there is more honor in admitting
you used a dirty tactic than backpedalling all the way to Bombay.

[–] DrMaxwellSheppard 1 point 1 hour ago
I am not even going to comment the “statistically insignificance” regarding gun deaths since it’s such a retarded
statement it makes me want to puke.
If I could prove to you that banning coal power tomorrow will save 200,000 lives next year would you do it? I'm
assuming your answer would be yes. Now, consider that the immediate banning of coal fire power would cause the
immediate depletion of pozzolans used in the concrete industry. Effectively, we wouldn't be able to build pretty much
any roads or buildings that require concrete. The affects of that happening over night would be devastating to our
economy. Yes, you could import pozzolans from other countries, but that is still supporting coal fire power in other
countries so those deaths would just be shifted to other countries and the net change in CO2 emissions would actually
go up due to the fact you would have to transport them much further for use. So banning coal would be objectively
bad. Are you still going to do it? What if it was 20,000 deaths? 2,000 deaths? 200 deaths? See how that works? As
the benefit decreases relative everything else it becomes much less significant to do it. That's what that comment
means. So you want to violate the rights of millions of Americans to try to eliminate a number of deaths so small that
it is statistically irrelevant. So no...that statement is not 'retarded'...its rooted in facts which you choose to ignore to
support your view point and then use a slur to try to discredit someone.
[–] dingir- 0 points 1 hour ago
So you want to violate the rights of millions of Americans

Changing the constitution would mean you would not infringe any right.
So no...that statement is not 'retarded'...its rooted in facts which you choose to ignore to support your view point
and then use a slur to try to discredit someone.
What I posted are facts, I actually didn't share any opinion. But you are just using strawman because you can't refute
facts with your feelings
[–] DrMaxwellSheppard 2 points 47 minutes ago
Changing the constitution

That's not what is being discussed by Beto. The merits of changing the constitution is in part what is being discussed
here. So taking guns is violating rights. The idea of changing the constitution to achieve such an end would not be of
net benefit. That's essentially the two conversations happening here. You are using one to try to argue the other.
But you are just using strawman because you can't refute facts with your feelings
No, you're arguing like a toddler and throwing slurs at people. I'm just trying to get you to discuss this issue like an
adult, something you seem to be incapable of.
[–] dingir- 1 point 29 minutes ago
That's not what is being discussed by Beto. The merits of changing the constitution is in part what is being
discussed here.
I was replying to a guys who incorrectly said that guns don’t lead to more murders.
So taking guns is violating rights.

Depends on how the legislation regarding so is written.
The idea of changing the constitution to achieve such an end would not be of net benefit.
Why?
You are using one to try to argue the other.
You are wrong again. I simply literally posted scientific studies that disprove the bullshit comment upvoted by
thousands of brainwashed sheep
No, you're arguing like a toddler
Yes fuck these peer review studies , let’s listen to someone who claims “you are safer in Chicago than in a hospital”.
Another gem that shows how you guys are brainwashed.
throwing slurs at people.
I mean, if someone is clinically retarded you should let him know.
I'm just trying to get you to discuss this issue like an adult,
I didn’t share any personal opinion. I only posted evidence that the upvoted comment is filled with factually wrong
statements. And ironically his own “sources” prove him wrong, but the bunch of brainwashed retards who upvoted
him didn’t even bother to open such links.
Be honest, did you? Did you read his sources? One literally claims the opposite of what he said .
something you seem to be incapable of.
Have you ever tried playing chess with a pigeon? This is how I feel.
[–] doucheyd 5 points 1 hour ago
ergo I don't like your facts because muh feelings.

[–] dingir- 1 point 1 hour ago
ergo I don't like your facts because muh feelings.

You are right, that's exactly you.
[–] capnwalnuts42 22 points 2 hours ago
YOU and YOUR attitude towards the Constitution makes me want to puke...
You know right that those who wrote the American constitution wanted it to be up to the current times?
Jefferson even believed the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years. Did you know that? No, because you are
brainwashed into blindly praising a text which is outdated in some of its parts. King George is not coming to claim the
US again, don’t worry.

[–] Oxneck 24 points 2 hours ago
Ok, so how does that change the fact that they were all personal witness to semi and full auto firearms AND
supported the people to own warships (the nukes of their day)?
Also, you really think they didn't know technology would improve? So the amendment means "we can own weapons of
war but when tech improves our kids can't and then their kids cant either." ...what kind of moron would codify a
clause of diminishing returns?
Because time changes and having so many guns around does literally more harm than good? Look at Norway and
then look at the States.
[–] Oxneck 10 points 1 hour ago
You fool if you look at the statistics there is between 10x to 40x more justified gun uses than gun deaths a year.

The fact that you are pro gun control, which has routinely been shown to be a racist policy, and want the US to
emulate a nation that is >90% white, gives one cause for concern...

https://mises.org/wire/brief-history-repressive-regimes-and-their-gun-laws

[–] hybno 11 points 2 hours ago
The right to self defense isnt going anywhere

[–] dingir- -1 points 1 hour ago
Ok buddy, enjoy having your kids killed at school

[–] DrMaxwellSheppard 1 point 1 hour ago
Statistically speaking, its entirely unlikely. In fact, its so unlikely is statistically irrelevant.
Just because something is sad and unfortunate doesn't mean you should violate other's rights to combat it.
He also said the tree of liberty should be watered with bloodshed.

How do you propose to do that, with rubber bands?
again, time changes

[–] Airclot 1 point 40 minutes ago
Yeah, and Jefferson's belief that the constitution should be rewritten every 20 years is just a belief from his
time. Time's change.
[–] DrMaxwellSheppard 2 points 1 hour ago
King George is not coming to claim the US again, don’t worry

That's not what the second amendment is for. Its to prevent clowns like Trump or Obamma using the government to
become a king or dictator.
[–] dingir- 1 point 1 hour ago
Its to prevent clowns like Trump or Obamma using the government to become a king or dictator.
Did it prevent slavery and apartheid? Did it prevent imperialism all over the world? Wars built on lies?
Guns have done such a good job.
[–] DrMaxwellSheppard 1 point 51 minutes ago
So if it doesn't work 100% of the time its not important. Got it. Also, gun ownership in slave states was
restricted to non slaves...so that means it doesn't support your argument.
[–] cheprekaun -18 points 2 hours ago
This. I recommend anyone to look into the sources he's posting. They are either extremely antiquated or have nothing
to do with what he's saying.
[–] dingir- 9 points 2 hours ago
Care to point out what exactly is wrong with my sources? Or are you making generic statements with no validity
whatsoever?
[–] cheprekaun -1 points 2 hours ago*
I looked at these two sources:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs/web_tables/2015_ed_web_tables.pdf
I have no idea what this has to do with anything in the post. You can look at it yourself and try to help me understand
but I'm just going in circles. It's a survey about ambulatory visits, nothing directly related to what he's saying. It
doesn't mention guns, weapons, gun violence, suicides, etc.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc
He cites this article, written in 1995. An antiquated article, where at the time, there had been no mass shootings. This
source is solely for posterity, to make him look good. It's like citing an article from the 90's on the AIDS epidemic and
trying to tout that it's this grave danger to us now.
To me, it seems like he just said a bunch of words, linked some things that he thought looked good, and hoped no
one would click the sources and read them.
edit:words
[–] dingir- 3 points 2 hours ago
Ah sorry I thought you were referring to my sources, not to the guy claiming guns are good.
[–] aglaeasfather -3 points 2 hours ago*
Sure. For starters, the report is from 2013. 6 years have passed. Additionally, homicide by firearms was 11,208 (pg
84 of source). So, it's more than double what you're claiming.
Last, that just addresses deaths from guns. We've gotten really good at treating gun shot wounds (GSW).
For starters, the report is from 2013.

I posted more than one source, you have to be more specific.
6 years have passed.
And? Basically all of the sources used by the upvoted comment are much older than 6 years old btw. Yet you didn’t
dismiss them as “old”.
Additionally, homicide by firearms was 11,208 (pg 84 of source). So, it's more than double what you're claiming.
What are you even talking about? Where exactly did I claim a different number? Are you high or what?
[–] aglaeasfather 0 points 1 hour ago*
1st source.
if all of your sources are old, then that's an issue with all of your source
Where exactly did I claim a different number? Are you high or what?
Also you:
2x 5577 is < 11,208. I'll also point out that your definition of "gun violence" being only deaths grossly and
intentionally underestimates the impact of gun violence. As said above, we're really good at treating GSW so
people not dying is a good thing but it underestimates the impact
ArE yOu HiGH oR WhAt?

[–] MightySasquatch 0 points 42 minutes ago
I don't think he actually challenged Beto on the point of an assault rifle ban. Obviously an assault rifle ban is intended
to prevent or at least limit the impact of mass shootings. Assault rifles are not used in most gun related crimes.
Mass shootings don't by any means represent a high percentage of deaths in the US but that is not a good argument
against taking action in my opinion.
I'm not saying that I agree with Betos proposal necessarily but I don't really see this post arguing with it directly.
[–] [deleted] 1 hour ago
[deleted]
[–] IamAElephante 11 points 2 hours ago
Awesome dude! Add this to the response as well to back up all ur figures as well. 3 year data mining project I did with
CDC and FBI from years 2000-2016 and been sharing with my state Reps and having conversations about it -
https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/azi56k/3_year_data_mining_project_for_deaths_in_america/
[–] Baloneycoma 39 points 2 hours ago*
Just want to chime in on this one and say that 250,000 number is absolutely not accurate. It was one study in which
the results have not been repeated and instead has had numerous replies about its lack of validity. Not to say that the
point itself isn’t valid, it totally is, just want to stop the spread of that number because it’s horribly wrong. Your doctor
is not going to kill you.
https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139/rr-54
[–] AngeredCowbell 11 points an hour ago
I believe the more accurate number is ~ 108,000 defensive gun uses. This doesn’t necessarily mean the firearm
saved a life or was discharged or anything like that. Sometimes the simple brandishing of a firearm could stop an
assailant is their tracks.
[–] Baloneycoma 5 points an hour ago*
I was referring to the 250,000 medical error deaths number and the subsequent (horribly stupid on several levels)
statement that you’re in more danger in a hospital
[–] Maleficent_Cap -2 points 22 minutes ago
You're pretty stupid if you havent heard of superbacterias where people can get worse in hospitals instead of better.
[–] Baloneycoma 3 points 15 minutes ago*
Lmao you don’t just go to the hospital and magically get an mdr infection.
You get worse because that’s the progression of a disease that there’s no treatment for.
[–] Maleficent_Cap -2 points 10 minutes ago
pretty sure thats how your mom got pregnant with you.
[–] Baloneycoma 3 points 9 minutes ago
This kids got jokes

[–] nspectre 2 points 41 minutes ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d6etv5/hi_im_beto_orourke_a_candidate_for_president/f0th1c2/
[–] Gaudry 154 points 3 hours ago
When a random on the internet maims a presidential candidate's entire position... I love it. Enjoy the award.
[–] MrGreggle 72 points 2 hours ago
Lol. He's not a serious presidential candidate though. Robert Francis is a joke.
[–] Rand_alThor_ 15 points an hour ago
He's not a joke. He's a useful idiot. Imagine this guy almost was going to the senate.
I guess the senate and house are probably filled with useful idiots like him though.
[–] SleepyTimeOkay 6 points 53 minutes ago
Hank Johnson is an example. The guy thought Guam would tip over if there were too many people on one side.
[–] NCSUGrad2012 1 point 32 minutes ago
He’s got to be a republican plant. That’s the only way I can explain all the stupid stuff he says.
[–] el_smurfo 1 point 31 minutes ago
Almost, except he couldn't even get past Ted Cruz

[–] Gaudry -5 points 2 hours ago
The only thing that separates him from other candidates is that he has slightly less restraint. He's just as real as the
rest of them :)
[–] MrGreggle 10 points 2 hours ago
Slightly less restraint and a lot less of a jaw.

[–] DogePerformance 77 points 3 hours ago
I wish I had gold.

I've written numerous papers throughout my previous college career pertaining to gun violence. Many of these
sources are the exact same sources I used. This is one of the best, most honest, most straight-forward posts I've ever
seen on Reddit.
the fact that reducing access to guns is linked to fewer murders/suicides/mass shootings etc and that guns don’t
reduce crimes is obvious. But if you are that dense and you don’t understand why, there are countless of studies that
prove so.
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-
household-members-systematic
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
[–] KGB-RU-Slava-Rossiya 30 points 2 hours ago
lolwhat?
Other studies have suggested that the decreased firearm suicide rates in young adults were accompanied by rising
suicide rates by other methods at the national and local levels.35 36 Our study also found this trend, especially
among males. Similarly, other countries experienced decreases in suicide rates by firearms and increases in suicide
rates by hanging over time.37 38 This may be due to substitution of methods (eg, hanging) for firearms, especially
after 1996 when the availability of firearms dropped in Australia.
Also
Moreover, studies from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (at least for the first post-NFA years) show that
observed reductions in firearm suicides, after the implementation of these laws, were compensated by substitution
methods that resulted in no significant changes in overall suicide rates
"Because it's Harvard is must be right :~)"
We actually have real world examples of what firearm laws did for suicides, and the obvious has become apparent.
People will substitute one method for another.
It's the same ridiculous logic that says "if we just take away the means to commit a crime, it will simultaneously
remove their motivation!"
Other studies have suggested that the decreased firearm suicide rates in young adults were accompanied by rising
suicide rates by other methods at the national and local levels.35 36 Our study also found this trend, especially
among males. Similarly, other countries experienced decreases in suicide rates by firearms and increases in suicide
rates by hanging over time.37 38 This may be due to substitution of methods (eg, hanging) for firearms, especially
after 1996 when the availability of firearms dropped in Australia.
This doesn’t mean overall suicide rates didn’t decrease.
Moreover, studies from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (at least for the first post-NFA years) show that
observed reductions in firearm suicides, after the implementation of these laws, were compensated by substitution
methods that resulted in no significant changes in overall suicide rates
Well I guess we have one study who doesn’t agree with the study I posted.
We actually have real world examples of what firearm laws did for suicides, and the obvious has become apparent.
People will substitute one method for another.
You do understand that the studies I posted are also coming from the real world? Do you think they were made on
mars?
It's the same ridiculous logic that says "if we just take away the means to commit a crime, it will simultaneously
remove their motivation!"
There are many studies that disagree with the conclusion to the study you posted. Don’t believe you are right because
you found one study that agrees with you when there are many which disagree.
[–] KGB-RU-Slava-Rossiya 12 points an hour ago
I like how you think studies that are literally nothing but speculation are fact. The same studies used to claim that
suicides would drop inherently with the absence of firearms. In the real world when that happened, people began to
use other methods to commit suicide. Likewise, the method of commit crimes changes as well.
I know I'm right, because upon a change in laws which you claim would affect suicides ended up having no impact, we
can see what the clear impact was- nothing.
It's not a "study" when we have two pieces of important information. The laws, and numbers after the fact. Laws were
enacted, method of suicides changed, this is literal statistical fact.
But yeah man, in your deluded brain the numbers must be lying to you lol
I like how you think studies that are literally nothing but speculation are fact
You clearly haven't read them.
The same studies used to claim that suicides would drop inherently with the absence of firearms. In the real
world when that happened, people began to use other methods to commit suicide.
Many studies disagree
I know I'm right, because upon a change in laws which you claim would affect suicides ended up having no
impact, we can see what the clear impact was- nothing. It's not a "study" when we have two pieces of important
information. The laws, and numbers after the fact. Laws were enacted, method of suicides changed, this is literal
statistical fact.
There are other studies which disagree.
But yeah man, in your deluded brain the numbers must be lying to you lol
You are only talking about suicides, which I admit there are some studies that disagree with other studies. yet you
haven't challeany other claim
[–] KGB-RU-Slava-Rossiya 6 points 1 hour ago
Yes, I have, and apparently you don't know what speculation is. If you don't have any real world examples for
what you propagate, and all you have are arguments based on speculation. Directly from Harvard they use
language like "Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms," "likely" what does that
word imply, it implies that the argument is based on speculation. The same can be said for murder; they
speculate that simply because there are firearms in such-and-such area, and in this area there are a high
number of murders, that truly it must be because of the very existence of firearms.
As the person you initially replied to broke down for you, firearm violence/homicide is centered in a few cities for
the majority. The majority, 300 million+, of firearms do not exist in these very few cities. Your logic should now
proclaim that the rates of firearm violence we find in these few cities should be found everywhere else as well,
because obviously it's the simple EXISTENCE of the tool, right?? Wrong. This again is speculation, and there are
a myriad of other arguments that could easily be made where lax gun laws contributed nothing to firearm crime.
Several states in the union now have constitutional carry for CCW, where is the increase in crime now that
anyone and everyone can legally carry concealed? What about firearm manufacturing? The manufacturing and
commerce of firearms has been increasing for decades yet we are on a multi-decade decline for firearm violence.
I think we're done here, because clearly you don't understand what speculation is when referencing your own
citations, especially when they're using language such as "likely," that does not imply a presentation of a fact,
what's being presented is pure speculation.
Have a nice day.

If you are that dense and believe victim's should not have the right to defend themselves from an attacker that is
likely illegally armed anyways, I don't know what to tell you.
I literally posted scientific studies that prove that your perceived ability to defend yourself does not actually
materialize since having a lot of guns around lead to more criminals having more guns.
But hey you are brainwashed and you don’t even read the evidence
No, you posted studies by widely known anti-gun colleges.

Research on the other hand is supposed to be unbiased.
you do realize you are brainwashed? You are dismissign scientific studies just because you feel they are "biased"
without providing any proof for your claim.
Also, I wonder why educated people at top collages believe gun control is necessary while brainwashed poor
rednecks with no education no. mmm, strange
[–] TravelinMan4 11 points 2 hours ago
You're right. I forgot that criminals follow the law. They definitely won't be getting their hands on firearms from the
black market at all. You know, just like drugs. /s
I guess reading and understanding statistics is too hard for you. You know right that guns in the back market come
from the legal market? You know right that getting a gun in the black market in Western Europe is quite difficult and
costly? I wonder why
You clearly don't understand the black market in America.


Yeah, my evidence is first hand. Gun laws don't effect criminal's ability to have firearms. Just like pot is nowhere to be
found because it's illegal. Great thought process there, bud.
Yeah, my evidence is first hand.

That how you know you are retarded.
Gun laws don't effect criminal's ability to have firearms. Just like pot is nowhere to be found because it's illegal.
If only you were able to read or look at other developed countries
I don't care about other countries. The point of THIS country is to be different.
Good ad hominem attack as well, especially in broken English. Proves your point very well.

[–] 76before84 31 points 3 hours ago
Forgot to mention you know what would reduce the number of gun deaths? By not counting suicides as a gun related
death but as what it is, suicide. You can kill yourself in a multitude of ways. That isn't the products problem.
[–] NotClever 28 points 2 hours ago
But studies have shown that suicidal people are significantly more likely to make an attempt when they have a gun in
the home.
E.g., https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
[–] 76before84 8 points 2 hours ago
True. But that doesn't change the fact it wasn't suicide. People will use bridges to jump if available and so they would
use drugs or overdoes.
Im not saying you shouldn't mark the cause of death under suicide. For all statistical reasons it's important to note.
Just it shouldn't also be counted under a gun death with murder and accidental shootings.
Should you count it as a car death when someone locks themselves in the car in the garage and then dies from carbon
monoxide poisoning?
[–] ScoopTherapy 7 points an hour ago
Sure, classify those deaths as suicides if you want, but the previous poster's point was by reducing the methods with
which suicide happens also reduces the rate of suicide.
It's really easy to say "oh well if someone wants to commit murder/suicide/assault then they'll find a way to do it with
or without a gun" but that's objectively false. How easy it is to kill someone with a certain method (physically and
psychologically) and how available that method is has a huge impact on whether they actually do it.
[–] thrash242 2 points 34 minutes ago
Then why does Japan, with virtually no guns, have much higher suicide rates than the US? It’s more related to
cultural factors than available methods. If people want to kill themselves, it’s basically impossible to prevent it.
[–] ScoopTherapy 1 point just now
I'm not sure what your point is. I never said that gun availability caused suicides, which is what you seem to be
responding to. Yes, Japan has a high suicide rate and yes, it's certainly caused by cultural and societal factors there.
But the data suggests that if there were more guns in Japan, the suicide rate would be even higher than it is now.
[–] richardguy 2 points 45 minutes ago
Why should we stop people from carrying out their will? Isn't it their body?
[–] 76before84 0 points an hour ago
I get the idea of reducing the methods of suicides but at the same time why ? Like we impact society in such a way
instead of fundamentally tackling suicide and suicidal thoughts? Like do I want my bridges too look like hideous
fenced in prison because someone has a desire to go kill themselves. Europe allows for assisted suicide. Maybe we
should introduce it here. Who are we as an individual to say to some no you can't quit this life? I made it clear to my
family if in ever paralyzed that I die on the operating table. They are not to bring me back I'll take my life and at that
point I'll be happy to have the gun around considering I'll be partially paralyzed.
I guess im for tackling what causes a person to commit suicide more than what methods a person uses. Just a
different perspective.
That being said my argument is that we we talk about gun deaths , we shouldn't be counting those who commit
suicide. The true yearly gun toll is 10k and not 30k.
[–] JonasGangsta 1 point an hour ago
Completely ignoring the fact that guns make killing someone, yourself or simply doing harm a lot easier..
Oh shit, I just accidentally stabbed someone to death! Don’t you just hate when that happens?
[–] 76before84 1 point 55 minutes ago
I never ignore the fact that guns kill people. Guns are a dangerous tool if use incorrectly. I never under estimate a
gun. But who for your argument, who cares. That's what they do. A can of gas and a pack of matches can also be a
dangerous thing. Also plenty of people who have claimed to go into a rage have stated they accidentally stabbed
people. Sure didn't hold up in court to well.
[–] NotaClipaMagazine 26 points 2 hours ago
Oh? Japan must just be lying about their suicide rate and gun ownership.
[–] kergeshken -1 points an hour ago
Hey buddy, what do you think would happen to their suicide rate if their gun ownership went up?
Try and answer this question without changing the subject.
[–] NotaClipaMagazine 2 points an hour ago
https://www.gunfacts.info/blog/suicides-and-guns/
[–] Jawakiller 1 point 17 minutes ago
Have you heard of a little thing called seppuku, or what about hara kiri
[–] IronRushMaiden -5 points an hour ago
Downvoted because the Reddit gun-mind only supports gun data when it helps their cause... it’s a shame you’re being
downvoted because they can’t balance competing ideas.
[–] Jawakiller 2 points 16 minutes ago
Suicidal people will kill them selves any way possible numb nuts
[–] DamagedHells -1 points 2 hours ago
What a fucking non-sequitur lmao

Only if you aren't paying attention.

[–] DamagedHells 1 point an hour ago
I mean, no, it's a literal non-sequitur. Japan's suicide rate doesn't tell us about gun usage, because guns weren't
allowed in their society before the suicide rate itself went up or down, therefore it's a complete non-factor. You
screaming "REEE JAPANNNN" in the face of studies and statistics just means you don't give a shit.
https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/article/how-do-gun-laws-affect-suicide-rates
[–] HoneydewHeroin 1 point 10 minutes ago
you're an idiot
[–] nspectre 1 point 23 minutes ago*
Okay, I do not wish to engage in mere ad hominem, but it must be pointed out that the Harvard School of Public
Health is singularly a veritable Study Mill of anti-gun papers. In particular, those of David Hemenway.
I am not in any way trashing all of his research or the papers that come out of HSPH, but they are not as prestigious
as one might at first be led to believe, simply because it says "Harvard" in the title.
Simply go look at their firearm-related bibliography. You will be hard pressed to find ANY publications that could in
any way be considered pro-gun. That is by design. Yet you will find plenty of anti-gun papers that are, to be frank,
silly on their face and make you wonder why anyone would even engage in such research. Until you recognize they
are pumping out anti-gun papers.
You must engage critical thinking skills and all due skepticism when referring to research from these quarters. Anti-
gun is their shtick.
You and they say, "studies have shown that suicidal people are significantly more likely to make an attempt when
they have a gun in the home." But if you do more research with data from other sources you'll probably come to other
conclusions. Like, what does "significantly" actually mean.
Just sayin'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[–] IanPPK 1 point 45 minutes ago
I feel like it would be universally more beneficial to start a serious, earnest and broad-sweeping focus on mental
health, specifically relating to issues found in suicidal behaviors, drug abuse, pedophilic urges, and violent behavior in
general to better understand and learning how to teach people to cope with them and treat them.
Just because some people use firearms as an avenue to commit suicide doesn't mean that gun rights of the majority
should be quashed as a result. Underlying factors leading up to the suicides and treating them nonstigmatically would
be a more beneficial approach in the long term.
[–] zipfern 1 point an hour ago
This may technically be true, but I think it's a stat that obfuscates the real picture. If you look at the total number of
successful suicides in the US (not attempts) vs. other western countries, the suicide rate is similar despite the guns in
the US. People who are suicidal find a way. The guns in the US don't significantly exacerbate the problem.
[–] CatOnYourTinRoof 1 point an hour ago
More likely to succeed, too.

[–] LSApplicant1122 39 points 3 hours ago
22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws (3)
Why do you think that's the case? The own site that you link in relation to gun suicide lists several examples of gun
restrictions cutting down significantly on suicide numbers after implementation. Example:
I agree that gun violence by malicious actors is far overblown in the modern dialog, but I think that gun laws have the
potential to take a serious dent out of suicides which are a much larger problem.
[–] PM_YOUR_CAT6 72 points 2 hours ago
Self harm isn’t violence. No matter how much you want it to be. By your notion then we should ban rope, alcohol,
cars, swimming pools, etc. If someone wants to kill themselves then there’s really no stopping them.
Cars kill more people than guns so let’s ban them. Now how much sense would that make? None.
[–] callmesaul8889 -4 points 2 hours ago
Come on, be honest here... hanging yourself is harder than pulling a trigger a few millimeters, drinking yourself to
death is harder than pulling a trigger a few millimeters, suffocating yourself and drowning yourself are both harder
than pulling a trigger a few millimeters.
So I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's genuinely that comparable.
Also, cars are registered and insured so when an accident happens with one, someone is responsible. You don't have
to ban guns to make effective laws, IMO.
[–] LithiumFiend 32 points 2 hours ago
We don't call it rope-violence when someone hangs themselves. We also don't track or try to restrict ownership of
ladders and pools or make people get special swimming courses to own them.
[–] callmesaul8889 -7 points 2 hours ago
Ropes, ladders, and pools are not designed to kill animals.

We restrict the ownership and usage of vehicles, right? Why do you think that is?
[–] bibliophile785 12 points an hour ago
...are you implying that we restrict the usage of vehicles to mitigate violence? That's obviously not true. Felons and
the mentally ill can buy a vehicle with no statutory restrictions whatsoever. We register vehicles as a revenue
scheme and restrict their use to mitigate incompetent users - and even then, that's only on public roads. A child or
a person with DUIs can certainly drive a vehicle they own on their own property.
[–] LithiumFiend 7 points an hour ago*
Could not have said it better myself.

We also don't restrict the purchase of manure, which was used in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in
history.
I'd also argue that firearms aren't "designed to kill" they are designed to launch a bullet out of a platform to hit
a target. That target could be anything from a tin can to live person. Is a bow and arrow designed to kill? What
about a nailgun?

[–] callmesaul8889 -2 points an hour ago
We register vehicles as a revenue scheme and restrict their use to mitigate incompetent users - and
even then, that's only on public roads.
... exactly...

[–] Strelock 1 point an hour ago
We used to use ropes for executing people. We also used to drown people for "witchcraft". Many places in this world
still do.
[–] callmesaul8889 0 points 29 minutes ago
We didn't invent ropes for the sole purpose of hunting, though. Just because you can utilize other tools to harm
someone doesn't mean those things were invented to harm someone.
Guns were invented to kill other animals, whether it's a person or a pig, in self defense or an act of aggression.
Ropes were invented to tie things together. They're not the same thing at all.
Most people would probably go with the Japanese method of jumping in front of trains, Japan has a suicide rate higher
than ours. While I can understand where you are coming from there are many countries who have almost no guns but
blow us out of the water when it comes to suicide rates.
[–] VariousJelly 16 points 1 hour ago
Yep, USA is #34 on the world suicide ranking, just a few below Japan (#30, no guns allowed), Finland (#32, strict gun
laws), Belgium (#22, very strict laws) and South Korea (no guns allowed) is waaay up there at #10.
[–] callmesaul8889 0 points 26 minutes ago
I feel like you're trying to correlate guns with suicide and that's not the argument at all. The argument is this: when
guns are present, suicide rates increase.
Not that suicide wouldn't happen without guns. Not that people use ropes and cars to commit suicide. Simply that
suicide is more successful when guns are available.
[–] callmesaul8889 4 points 2 hours ago
there are many countries who have almost no guns but blow us out of the water when it comes to suicide rates.
No doubt about it, but those countries have their own cultural dynamics. We shouldn't look at them or us in a
vacuum, and we shouldn't pretend we're exactly the same either. We should look at the stats, determine whether or
not we're happy with them, and then make changes if we're not. Simple as that.
One stat is that suicide is more likely (and more successful) if a gun is involved. Do we want suicides to be less likely
and less successful? Yes? Okay then let's make it so suicidal people can't get access to guns as easily as they can
now. Not the craziest line of reasoning I've ever heard.
And this is coming from someone who goes shooting regularly and has a CCW permit, though I don't carry much
anymore. I think there's this notion that wanting to restrict certain people from certain types of weaponry is wanting
to disarm the entirety of America, but I honestly haven't heard one proposal that comes even close to that idea. Not
even Beto's "we're gonna take your AR's", which I'm not sure how I feel about at the moment.
[–] bibliophile785 6 points 1 hour ago
We should look at the stats, determine whether or not we're happy with them, and then make changes if we're
not. Simple as that.
Is it really that simple? Where do you account for the rights of the individual? All I'm seeing is a hell of a lot of
proposition for mandating your will onto others. You don't rule others. You and your friends don't rule others. You
and 51% of the population don't rule others. The saving grace of a functional democracy are the strong limitations
placed on the power of that democratic government. Keep your mob rule to yourself.
[–] callmesaul8889 1 point 23 minutes ago
Where do you account for the rights of the individual?

The individual that wants to kill themselves? Do they have the right to suicide that I'm unaware of somewhere?
[–] ghostinthewoods 1 point 1 hour ago
functional democracy
*functional democratic republic

[–] Testiculese 1 point 10 minutes ago*
How do you know someone is suicidal until they try? What's your plan for Minority Report'ing these people?
Half of suicides are not by firearm. Removing firearms, if that were possible, would not remove 50% of suicides. A
large percentage would simply shift to one of the other methods. The savings would be I feel, at most, a 25%
reduction. Sure a worthy goal, but 5000 saved suicides is not worth criminalizing, stealing from, imprisoning, or
killing 150,000,000 other people.
[–] dcnairb -12 points 2 hours ago
How many more people would kill themselves if every household had a button which you could press without much
contemplation that immediately killed you, as opposed to some slower/more painful/less impulsive method?
That’s meant to be hyperbole, but certainly having access to a quick and efficient method like a gun will make it more
likely. People who are suicidal are not in the right mind state, and are more likely to be making the choice in the
moment than being so intent and planned that there’s no stopping them. see paper from New England Journal of
Medicine. Many people who survive their attempts exclaim they regret it and immediately realized it was not what
they wanted to do.
The point is, having guns gives them a very quick and “easy” way to make the decision in the moment.
Likening it to banning cars is straw man. Car deaths are almost entirely accidental—maybe comparing to accidental
gun deaths would be more accurate? It’s not just number of deaths, it’s number of preventable deaths. How many
people are going into the garage to steal their parents car to kill themselves? Or attack someone else? How many
killing sprees have been with a car as the weapon? Surely I don’t have to keep going on
[–] PM_YOUR_CAT6 14 points 2 hours ago
So instead of helping people who are suicidal we are just banning guns.
My dad use to hide the cookie jar when I was a kid, but I still found it every time. What stopped me from getting that
cookie? Nothing.
[–] dcnairb 1 point 1 hour ago
Please stop reading and reducing my argument to mean I am not in support of helping people who are suicidal, or
pro-mental health care in general. You are just restating the point that you believe people who are suicidal (or
hungry, in your comparison...) will stop at nothing, which I already addressed. The majority of suicide attempts are
impulsive. Perhaps in your mind, the idea is that it’s ridiculous that you would stop being hungry after not being able
to get a hold of a cookie, or some other snack. Obviously you didn’t mean your analogy so literally, but I think it
doesn’t represent the situation for more reasons beyond just comparing suicide to cookies; the differences are clear:
killing yourself is not a required bodily function, nor are the consequences comparable, nor are we talking about the
thought processes of children... although certainly in those mind-states they are not thinking objectively. In any case,
it’s been shown time and time again that suicide survivors often recover, and it’s much more rare for someone to
keep attempting until they succeed.
[–] Testiculese 1 point 8 minutes ago*
reduction. Sure a worthy goal, but 5000 saved suicides is not worth criminalizing, stealing from, imprisoning, or
killing 150,000,000 other people.
[–] dcnairb 1 point 1 minute ago
The idea is that’s it’s a form of preventative care, if you check my other comment to that harvard page it
describes why reducing the availability lowers risk and success of suicide
I don’t claim to be omniscient though, in my ideal world it would be in tandem with a supportive mental health
care system which would further reduce even getting to that point
[–] AnoK760 -1 points 52 minutes ago
Okay, you care more about restricting people's rights than you do about helping suicidal people.
That better? you still care about both, fine. But you clearly want to ban guns more. Which is fine. Nobody is telling
you what to think.
[–] dcnairb 2 points 38 minutes ago
No, it’s not better, because you’re still over generalizing and deferring to straw man. It’s disingenuous to
extrapolate the ideas I’ve presented here on a larger issue to claim I must care more about one thing than the
other just because it’s what we’re discussing.
I shouldn’t have to say it clearly: I care about health care in general. One aspect of this is mental health care.
Two aspects of that are: adequate and available resources for helping people who are suicidal or depressed, and
also helping eliminate preventable deaths by decreasing accessibility and ease of suicide/suicide-homicide/etc.
by restricting the availability of guns. Like I said before, these are not mutually exclusive.
The debate of guns isn’t just located in the realm of suicide presentation, it crosses over into mass shootings,
and crime, and more.
And since you claim I desire to infringe on rights, the problem is that to me, adequate health care (including
mental health care) and safety should also be a given right. If you plainly asked me whether I thought it was
more important that people be guaranteed the right to accessible and adequate health care, or to be guaranteed
the right to own guns, I wouldn’t hesitate to pick the first, but you probably knew that already. The issue isn’t
about me wanting to strip people of rights, its that I think there are more important rights to be guaranteed and
governed.

[–] Indiicted 2 points 35 minutes ago
Nowhere does the person you replied to say that, you’re really reaching. Is it surprising to you that someone
replying about gun control is talking about how it may/may not reduce suicide averages is talking about the gun
control aspect instead of the mental health aspect? Did you even read their reply?
If this portion of the thread was about mental health assistance regarding suicide and they just jumped in
shouting “BANNING GUNS TO REDUCE SUICIDE IS WAY BETTER THAN FOCUSING ON MENTAL HEALTH” then
maybe your wack ass argument would be valid but that’s not the case

[–] savae5 1 point 41 minutes ago
While I agree with all of the points you make here, and I would really hope that everyone can agree that reducing
suicide rates is a worthy goal, I don't think taking firearms away from everyone is the proper way to go about it.
Instead I think this country needs to improve access to mental health care and try to get past the stigma that seeking
mental health care comes along with.
I think many pro gun people take issue with the inclusion of suicide numbers with gun violence stats because there's
no perpetrator, only a victim. Preventable, absolutely, but when people say they're worried about gun violence I think
they're worried about getting shot rather than shooting themselves. We should be having the conversation about
suicides by gun, but it's my opinion that it should be a separate conversation than the one we're having about
murders by gun.
[–] dcnairb 1 point 34 minutes ago
The issue is, those routes are not mutually exclusive (I commented more about this elsewhere in the thread). We can
pursue an avenue of mental health care improvement while simultaneously reducing the prevalence of murders and
suicides by guns.
I agree with your statements in the second paragraph, gun murders are a separate issue than gun suicides (of course,
both are connected by the overarching source). I tried to keep my comments here mostly on the topic of suicides
rather than murders since that’s what people are discussing
[–] Shitsnack69 2 points 2 hours ago
Please explain Japan's suicide rate.

[–] dcnairb 2 points 1 hour ago
Well, I’m not an expert, but Japan has an extremely unhealthy culture around work and many suicides there are
driven by work-related issues...
I’m not saying not having guns would stop suicide. I’m suggesting if guns were prevalent in Japan like they are in the
US that the suicide rates would be even higher—2004 study found that leading method of suicide in japan for the age
group was hanging, and was guns for US Moreover they conclude that for Asians in the US, the numbers followed US
trends more closely but the method didn’t—suggesting cultural differences, which to me includes availability
[–] kergeshken 4 points 2 hours ago
Please tell me if you think Japan's suicide rate wouldn't increase if their gun ownership was on par with the USA
[–] Stryker7200 0 points 1 hour ago
You can just turn a car on in the garage with the doors down and wait. Painless, sleepy death. Happens fairly fast too.
[–] dcnairb 3 points 1 hour ago
Certainly, but not as fast as a bullet. It may be relatively quick and painless in comparison to other methods, but it’s
still not as convenient or impulsive of a method as shooting yourself. Here’s a Harvard page which details the lower
success rate and total number of deaths via CO poisoning, and why it’s not a favorable runner up behind guns—if you
go back a page, they describe that attempts with guns outnumber all other methods combined, which implies that CO
poisoning attempts are not of the same order of magnitude as gun attempts (hanging and jumping are the subleading
methods)
[–] JonasGangsta -4 points 1 hour ago
There is a way to stop them. Gun control is exactly the way. Are you delusional? “If someone wants to kill themselves
then there’s really no stopping them.” You clearly don’t know how much easier it makes it for people to kill
themselves when they have guns.
[–] Testiculese 1 point 2 minutes ago
reduction. Sure a worthy goal, but 5000 saved suicides is not worth criminalizing, stealing from, imprisoning, or killing
150,000,000 other people.
[–] MightySasquatch 0 points 38 minutes ago
I don't understand the argument because cars are registered and licensed. I'd be fine if we treated guns the same to
be honest, but even that is a losing battle.
[–] en1gma5712 1 point 6 minutes ago
This conversation is not about enacting reasonable gun laws regarding licensing/registration/background checks, but
regarding gun bans and the idea that guns are somehow a monumental threat to the safety of the american people.
Many people are for more reasonable gun laws regarding keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous or high risk
individuals, they are not, however, in favor of an outright ban.
[–] CatOnYourTinRoof -4 points 1 hour ago
Self harm is absolutely violence. Also, go easy on that poor straw man you went after, buddy.
[–] Whatafuxup 30 points 2 hours ago
"Beta" O'Rourke is specifically talking about forcing law-abiding American's to surrender their "AR-15's and AK-47s"
which would have have a 0% impact on the suicide rate, since you can just use a god damn shotgun.
You are a fascist.

Everyone should be free enough to have a guaranteed way outta this hell hole.
Give us guns and give us assisted suicide
[–] EveryoneHasGoneCrazy 11 points an hour ago
unironically agree, somehow all the people in here discussing how to eliminate all possible suicide methods are
spookier than actual suicide. Reminds me of "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"
[–] drunkguy691 23 points 2 hours ago
Preventing suicides with gun laws is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound.
[–] -Aegle- 2 points 42 minutes ago
That isn't true at all. Laws that make the act of suicide even slightly more time-consuming and difficult have a
measurable impact on suicide rates. When the UK introduced minor controls over the sales of over-the-counter
painkillers, death by overdose in that country reduced dramatically. Suicide in most cases is not that difficult to
prevent, and the misconception that suicidal people can't be easily deterred is false and dangerous.
So you think someone that has made the decision to commit suicide would give up simply because they don't have a
gun handy?
Good thing there aren't chemicals under the sink, or pills in the closet. Counting suicides in the gun violence statistics
is ingenious, it inflates the numbers so much more for those who don't know, which allows ridiculous laws to be put
into place.
[–] Robobble 12 points 2 hours ago
I have no suicidal thoughts whatsoever but if I were to commit suicide, a shotgun to the head is pretty foolproof. I
don’t want to fuss with overdoses and all the other messy and painful ways that are likely to fail.
I think I personally would be more likely to commit suicide if guns were available.
For the record I’m 100% against all gun laws, even background checks.
[–] coolchewlew 15 points 2 hours ago
I knew of a kid growing up who blasted half his face off in a failed attempt. He is still alive and wears a mask last I
heard.
Yeah I knew a kid that did that too. Totally messed up his face.
But I mean come on. Have some common sense and do a bit of research and this won’t happen.
A properly aimed slug isn’t going to leave you disfigured. I bet these people are using small shot.
[–] savae5 1 point 38 minutes ago
That's... kinda morbid. Technically probably true. But still morbid.

[–] Iclonic 1 point 31 minutes ago
Don't use birdshot

[–] coolchewlew 1 point 22 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't know what was used but I think the angle might have been part of the problem too.
[–] Iclonic 1 point 21 minutes ago
Knew a guy who committee suicide by shotgun.

With a slug, I'm not sure an angle matters at that point.
Shame either way. :/
And I think most don't understand the thought process of those who are set on suicide. Ease won't matter. It'll get
done once they've settled on that decision.
It's wrong to include those stats in gun violence is the issue at hand for this discussion though.
[–] DrafiMara 5 points an hour ago
As someone who has been suicidal, ease definitely changes things, if for no other reason than the fact that people
who are suicidal are usually severely depressed and don't have the energy or motivation to put in any sort of
extended effort. It may sound strange that someone would want to kill themselves but be too drained to actually do
it, but having experienced it... I hope you don't relate.
The only reason I'm alive today is because the method I had chosen, the one I thought would be most effective, least
painful and least likely for me to be interrupted, was to freeze myself in the lake, which was a 5 or so minute walk
away from my dorm. The effort of that five minute walk, combined with extreme paranoia that someone would see
me on my way there and know what I was going to do, delayed me by a couple days. On the third, someone reached
out and got me a lifeline.
If I'd had a gun nearby, those deterrents wouldn't have been there. I hope I still would've delayed, but knowing how I
thought back then, it's hard for me to argue that the short bursts of energy that paranoid episodes brought me
wouldn't have lasted long enough for me to pull a trigger.
Obviously, it's a very specific set of circumstances that led to that conclusion for me. My experience does not in any
way, shape or form mean that heightened gun regulation would have a big impact on suicides by firearm. I'm not
arguing for that. I just wanted to bring awareness of the mindset of (at least some) suicidal people -- it's not some
grim determination that there's no way to stop, because A ) being determined about anything means you're probably
not in a mindset where you would commit suicide and B ) if you think you're going to die anyway, you don't feel a
rush to do it (or anything else) right away. Even if they've settled on the decision, there is usually still time to change
their mind
Yeah I definitely do not and I totally agree about the stats.

I understand your point, I really do, but it's not applicable for people in the mindset already.
I believe you. Like I said I have zero experience with that.

[–] dr_platypus 0 points 2 hours ago*
This is totally not how it works, and lots of scientific literature goes against your point. Ease does matter. A huge
portion of suicides are impulsive decisions, and having an instant, painless, nearly foolproof way to kill yourself in your
house drastically increases the odds that you do so.
In addition, studies have shown that stricter gun control is associated with lower overall suicide rates (not just gun
suicides): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226695912_The_effect_of_gun_availability_on_suicide_rates
By state or region…for every age, for both genders, where there are more guns, there are more total suicides.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/
Edit2: sorry for being salty in the earlier edit but man, anything that says guns can be dangerous gets insta-
downvoted around here
[–] VariousJelly 1 point an hour ago
I don't doubt the ease of action aspect, but your studies are based only on America. Countries like South Korea,
Japan, Finland and Belgium have higher rates of suicide but also very strict gun laws.
I'm sure if guns were easy and available in these countries, those taking their lives would prefer that method, but
despite not being allowed to own guns they still go through with it using other means and outrank us per capita.
I don't doubt that people go with the quickest and easiest way, and in America guns are that, but I think it's pretty
clear MOST people will go with the easiest way available to them.
[–] dr_platypus 1 point an hour ago
ok, but it only makes sense to compare different places in america. Different cultures have vastly different
suicide rates for a number of reasons. To the extent possible, science tries to isolate one particular variable and
see how that affects the outcome; the only way to do that is to compare suicides in regions that are relatively
similar in culture.
[–] DogePerformance 1 point 2 hours ago
That's fair, and good sources. Why is the first reaction to restrict rights from the millions and millions who haven't
used them incorrectly? Why not push more psychological help to those regions first? Something that doesn't go
against the Bill of Rights?
[–] dr_platypus 1 point 2 hours ago
I agree. Not saying gun control is the right answer (though I do personally believe we should make guns harder
to buy, I realize it's an extremely nuanced issue).
To address suicides, mental health care should be the first, second, and third resort. But we haven't seen any
progress on that in decades despite people on both sides screaming "mental health!" for years. Unfortunately,
training and paying for good mental health care will require a lot of money, and nobody wants to shell out for it.
[–] Asymptote_X 1 point an hour ago
I've researched it before because I'm a morbidly curious individual and holy shit I can NOT recommend using a
firearm for suicide. Although it is very effective (Shotgun through the mouth >95% success rate) when it WASN'T
effective it's because it barely didn't kill them. Potentially leading to a life (often short) of pain, suffering, physical and
mental disabilities, etc.
There are methods that are both more successful and with less risk of permanent debilitating injury if failed.
Obviously the main goal is to seek help and treatment long before that stage.
[–] IMakeEmbiid-memes -2 points 2 hours ago
Against background checks. Please tell me of the fucking mental gymnastics you needed to do to rationalize that
idiotic thought.
shall not be infringed

Unless you’re an endangerment to society. What makes you think background checks are bad?
It doesn’t say that. There are no asterisks.


[–] keeleon -1 points an hour ago
a shotgun to the head is pretty foolproof.

Except when its not...
[–] weff47 10 points 2 hours ago
Getting rid of a common method to commit suicide has historically shown to lower the overall suicide rate. That's
reason to believe it would be effective here as well.
In England, death by asphyxiation from breathing oven fumes had accounted for roughly half of all suicides up
until the 1970s, when Britain began converting ovens from coal gas, which contains lots of carbon monoxide, to
natural gas, which has almost none. During that time, suicides plummeted roughly 30 percent — and the numbers
haven't changed since.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92319314
Suicide shouldn't be apart of this conversation. That's my point. The anti-self defense crowd groups it with gun
violence solely to raise the numbers. How is suicide and gang violence or suicide and mass shootings related? They
aren't, other the bigger numbers for them to throw out to justify new laws.
[–] weff47 3 points an hour ago
Seeing as suicide by firearm is the leading method and if that 30 percent held then it would prevent ~8,000 deaths,
then I would say it is very reasonable to include in this discussion.
But really I just wanted to point out that you were incorrect. Because to me it seems disingenuous to say that suicides
are completely unpreventable when there is historical data saying otherwise.
[–] Justin__D 2 points an hour ago
Exactly. It's fearmongering. What they want you to think is that 30,000 schoolchildren are being murdered every
year.
But when you realize that 22,000 of those people aren't "coming for you" and just ending their own lives, it becomes
a lot less scary. It's sad, but those 22,000 aren't victims of someone who robbed them of their lives.
[–] -Aegle- 1 point an hour ago
But when you realize that 22,000 of those people aren't "coming for you" and just ending their own lives, it
becomes a lot less scary
It does, but it shouldn't. People have a lot of complacency around this issue because they don't realize how common
suicidal episodes are, and how they can simply arise out of nowhere in otherwise healthy and happy individuals. The
simple fact is that if you have easy access to a firearm, you are at dramatically higher risk of suicide, even if you
think you're not.
[–] IronRushMaiden 0 points an hour ago
No, that 22,000 includes almost certainly well over 12,000 people who had they lived, would have regretted their
decision and never attempted suicide again, but you don’t think it’s tragic that they are dead instead. A gun robbed
them of their life—had they chosen another means, they would have a substantially lower chance to actually die,
and would be unlikely to try again.
Don’t try to state that the victims are at fault instead of their means.
[–] Justin__D 1 point an hour ago
I'm not trying to assign blame to anyone or anything. I'm just saying suicides should be and are viewed as a
"lesser" tragedy since their victims had a choice, unlike the victims of homicides.
[–] keeleon 2 points 1 hour ago
Why is everyone talking about suicide when this politician has specifically targeted the AR15. How many suicides have
been committed with an AR15? How many will be prevented by banning it?
[–] MorningsAreBetter 1 point 1 hour ago
Except there are multiple countries in the world who have a worse suicide rate than the US that have either
completely banned guns, or have very strict anti-gun rules. So banning guns may make the suicide rate go down...or
it might do nothing.
[–] weff47 1 point 54 minutes ago
Which is why I said "reason to believe". Those countries also have different societal pressures driving their suicide
rates so using them to compare to the US wouldn't necessarily correlate either.
If you can find data/evidence showing that countries enacting gun laws saw increase or no decrease in suicide rates
I'd be interested in reading. But most links I've seen from a quick search say otherwise.
[–] Martin_Samuelson 12 points 2 hours ago*
So you think someone that has made the decision to commit suicide would give up simply because they don't have
a gun handy?
Yes, absolutely. Numerous studies and all the data backs this up.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/31/in-search-of-missing-us-suicides/
edit: lol, people are getting angry at facts!
[–] Hooples 4 points 2 hours ago
People think that that's not the case though and it makes me so mad. I am mentally Ill. Read my post history. I just
got discharged from the hospital if I had easy access to a gun 3 days ago I would be dead
[–] EitherLine 3 points 2 hours ago
So what you're saying is that access to guns is already enough of a burden?

[–] Hooples 1 point 2 hours ago
For severely mentally Ill people yes. I cannot buy a gun from a gun store because of my mental history but I could
with motivation find someone to buy a gun if I had hard cash around. I wish there was more responsibility about
that. I dont want to take anyone's guns but I wish there was more regulated checks on people
[–] EitherLine 2 points 2 hours ago
I don't think you know how gun purchases work. 1. Go to gun store 2. Say you want to buy one of the guns 3.
Fill out a 4473 form (ATF record) 4. A NICS check is done to see if you are allowed to purchase a firearm 5. If
you pass you can take the gun home, and the FFL who sold you the gun maintains your 4473 form for 20 years.
If they buy a gun under their information and then give you the gun (this is called a straw purchase), and you
kill yourself or others, they go to prison. We already have laws for these things. The only exemption to this is
that in some states, you can buy a gun for an immediate family member (mother/father to son/daughter or
v.v.), so long as you know they are a person who is allowed to own a gun.

Maybe the focus should be mental health accessibility and not taking a recognized, Constitutional right away from
others?
You all have a one track mind. Somehow, the government will fix everything if we just give them enough power. It's
mind boggling.
[–] Martin_Samuelson 7 points 2 hours ago
Facts are facts, buddy. And given that I don't support Beto's plan or any other scheme of taking guns from people and
I support massively expanded mental health coverage, you seem to be arguing with someone who's not here.
And as an aside, avid gun hobbyists are literally the biggest block of single-issue voters in this country, and you're
accusing the opposite side of having a one track mind? lol
[–] dcnairb 7 points 2 hours ago
Literally nobody who supports stricter gun laws, etc. is simultaneously against improving mental health care. They’re
not mutually exclusive.
[–] DogePerformance 1 point 2 hours ago
I know, which is why it's odd to me there's no push for an overhaul of our mental mental health system like there is
for gun control.
[–] dcnairb 1 point 2 hours ago
There is an enormous push for health care improvements in general, at least to my knowledge—I think the gun
side of things is more polarizing, and so it appears both more often and more heated
The mental health side seems to be more nitpicked in more specific scenarios, such as takes on drug addicts or
providing homeless people resources and healthcare, stuff like that

[–] kergeshken 2 points 1 hour ago
Moving the goalposts.

[–] Danskheart 0 points 2 hours ago
Eh. The article makes some good points, but there's an awful lot of assumption going on. It also makes some very
grave mistakes.
Feel free to address those mistakes. And there's plenty more data a google search away... the results are conclusive.
[–] Danskheart 0 points 1 hour ago
They're really not. What they're doing is using case studies from other countries - like Australia - and applying them
to the United States, without controlling for other variables.
What they haven't done is show why Australia/Britain are an appropriate proxy for the USA. It's like doing a lab trial
with a rat, then saying that it's 100% conclusive for humans.
[–] I_Like_Turtles89 1 point 39 minutes ago
Even if that is true, the solution shouldn't be too take away the means to commit suicide. It should be focused on
addressing the root cause that makes people want to commit suicide in the first place. Also not one gun control
proposal I have head has been focused on reducing suicide, they don't care about that but will gladly include those
statistics to push their agenda.
[–] -Aegle- 1 point 1 hour ago
a gun handy?
That is precisely what all available evidence suggests, yes. Suicide in most cases is not that difficult to prevent, and
the misconception that suicidal people can't be easily deterred is false and dangerous.
[–] toolazytomake 1 point 2 hours ago
Actually, yes. Making it harder reduces rates, as shown by the difference in numbers of suicides in the US vs
elsewhere. Most people who attempt and fail do not still want to kill themselves, and removing the most lethal option
would save lives (and let those people go on to be productive citizens if saving lives isn’t enough of a motivator).
[–] NotClever -1 points 2 hours ago
a gun handy?
Yes. Suicidal people vary in the strength of their impulse to commit suicide, and when they do make an attempt it's
typically based on a strong, momentary impulse, which will subside.
Yes you can kill yourself in other ways, but they are far less foolproof than shooting yourself. Many people that
attempt an overdose, for example, fail to kill themselves, and 90% of people that fail an attempt go on not to die by
suicide. For example, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/
[–] steveinaccounting 12 points an hour ago
A gun is a convenient tool to end one's life. A person who is is set on ending their life will find a way.
Taking away the gun will not end suicide. It will only force the suicidal person to find another way at the same time
taking away someone else's ability to defend themselves.
[–] mschweini 9 points an hour ago
But most suicides are not by people who are really planning it, and are set on the idea of offing themselves.
Many/most suicides seem to be a temporary lapse of our brain's protection mechanisms. This is why bridge suicide
nets, less gas ovens at home and less accesible guns at home seem to reduce overall suicide rates
[–] -Aegle- 6 points 52 minutes ago
A gun is a convenient tool to end one's life. A person who is is set on ending their life will find a way.
This comment is deeply ignorant, flatly untrue, and extremely dangerous.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/31/in-search-of-missing-us-suicides
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92319314
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/1/e010081
[–] fuckoffplsthankyou 1 point 11 minutes ago
Why would you deny me my right to end my life if I so choose?

[–] -Aegle- 1 point 5 minutes ago
Because statistically, you're making that choice during a moment of deep emotional suffering and hyperarousal that's
very temporary and doesn't align with your true desires. If I can get you to put off the decision of suicide even for a
few minutes, you will almost certainly change your mind about it.
[–] Excalibursin 2 points 22 minutes ago
That is definitely not based on fact. Most suicides are unsuccessful attempts. I’m blatantly not going to source that
because it is not even close to being statistically contentious.
Ease and effectiveness of the method absolutely has to do with suicide’s prevalence. That’s exactly why certain groups
prefer different methods than others.
[–] zipfern 2 points an hour ago
Compare suicide rates in countries with and without guns. Guns become the method of choice for many when
available, but if they're not available, the suicidal will still find a way. The stats prove that they do. It's true you may
save a small fraction of lives, but you have to weigh this against the harm that would be done by outlawing guns (not
just harm to "gun rights" nuts, but harm to people who would have otherwise defended themselves with a gun... quite
possibly defended themselves from death).
[–] Velvatar 2 points 26 minutes ago
Personally, even if it prevented all 22,000, I dont see it as justified. Becuase stopping an unrelated person from going
along and getting along becuase of maybe preventing what someone else might do somewhere else is inofitself a hard
justification that I dont buy.
Further I'm not sure all 22,000 should be prevented. I know a cancer patient in the stat. I'm thankful they a firearm
available becuase keeping them alive and suffering to make someone else feel good hardly seems like a 'win' to me.
[–] phasterman 2 points an hour ago
People use guns for suicide because guns are very good at killing people and they are easily accessible.
But if guns all vanished tomorrow, there are still many things that are very good at killing people that are easily
accessible.
But in the end, it really doesn't matter. We should not be looking to restrict what people can do because of what some
people choose to do to their own bodies.
[–] skitch23 4 points 2 hours ago
Not OP, but I’d reason that if someone wants to harm themselves, they will. Guns are just the easiest way to do so.
Many other methods (slitting wrists, taking 100 Tylenol, etc) are usually a cry for help more than anything and can be
fixed/corrected/helped. Suicide by gun is usually a for sure thing, and it’s a fairly quick way to go.
I’d reason that if someone wants to harm themselves, they will

And all available research shows that your reasoning is wrong
Suicide by gun is usually a for sure thing, and it’s a fairly quick way to go.
Also a myth. 1 out of 5 suicide attempts by firearm don't succeed. I'll leave it to you to google that, as I'm not going
to on my work machine
[–] Min0taur 5 points an hour ago
The problem is this scenario assumes all guns would be banned. It doesn't matter if the gun is semi-automatic or a
single-shot. Unless you ban every type of gun and can keep them off the street, suicidal people will get them and use
them.
[–] -Aegle- 0 points an hour ago
It isn't the case. The vast majority of suicides are impulsive. Gun control laws will indisputably reduce suicide rates.
[–] PM_YOUR_CAT6 3 points an hour ago
Tell that to Japan or North Korea

[–] -Aegle- -2 points 1 hour ago
Japan and North Korea don't have an epidemic of firearm-induced suicides. Obviously gun control in those places is
not likely to affect suicide rates.
[–] PM_YOUR_CAT6 3 points 1 hour ago
They don’t have easy access to guns yet they still have a higher suicide rate. I mean come fucking on.
How come I’m infringed on as a legal gun owner because someone else won’t seek out help? You’re telling me 22,000
people didn’t have a single emotional support system?
We are a country of 300,000,000 that are controlled by the actions of a fraction of a percentage. I’ve never been shot
or shot at on purpose, and judging by the statistics neither have you or anyone in your family.
.000073% Americans commit suicide via gun. So you can get the fuck out of here with that epidemic bullshit. Opioids
are an epidemic, not guns.
[–] -Aegle- 1 point 1 hour ago
Nobody ever said that gun control makes suicide impossible. Suicide in most cases is an opportunity-based act that
varies dramatically from culture to culture. People attempt suicide with whatever they have closest to hand. The
easiest way to prevent it is to identify how the majority of people are attempting suicide, and then make that
avenue just slightly less convenient. The avenue that produces the most suicides will vary from culture to culture. In
South Asia, it would be poison. In America, it's guns.
How come I’m infringed on as a legal gun owner because someone else won’t seek out help? You’re telling me
22,000 people didn’t have a single emotional support system?
People don't "seek out help" during suicidal episodes because there is so much ignorance and misinformation about
suicide floating around in America. Misinformation like the outright lie being pushed in /u/steveinaccounting's
comment, and upvoted by several thousand equally ignorant gun enthusiasts.
.000073% Americans commit suicide via gun. So you can get the fuck out of here with that epidemic bullshit.
It's funny how the gun enthusiasts in this thread all thought suicide was an enormous, disproportionate problem
back when /u/steveinaccounting said it was unaffected by gun control laws. Now many of you have discovered
that's not the case, and suddenly suicide is a minor issue, not even worth discussing. It's funny how people's minds
work :)
[–] CatOnYourTinRoof -1 points 1 hour ago
Yeah, that really stood out to me in the post you're responding to. Of course gun laws have an effect on gun suicides,
and it's ridiculous of the person you're responding to to state otherwise. Our gun culture clearly is a contributor as
well.
But it's also clear the poster you're responding to has an agenda here, so they can't be expected to present their
argument in an unbiased fashion.
[–] Ljoseph54 21 points 2 hours ago
Holy crap this is amazing. Ty for all the sources and the wonderful breakdown!
[–] Antishill_canon -1 points an hour ago
2 year old account with 200 karma

[–] Ljoseph54 1 point 39 minutes ago
And?
[–] Antishill_canon 0 points 34 minutes ago
And its obvious

300k deaths a year from medical error.

Third leading cause of death in the country.
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/
[–] Baloneycoma 7 points an hour ago*
That paper was used as a “what not to do” example in one of my undergrad classes to demonstrate why you need to
read the primary source. It’s a bad paper that’s been blown way out of context by media who love sensational
headlines but don’t know what they’re reading.
Numerous studies and replies have been made to discredit this paper. It’s incredibly frustrating to see people continue
to cite it because of its shock factor, which is likely the sole reason it was written.
https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139/rr-54
[–] humankitty123 3 points an hour ago
Thanks for laying all the fact out here makes me happy to see about the only thing a gun law could do regarding
suicide is decreasing chance of a successful suicide but that's it doesnt change anything else other than that this is
amazingly put together glad to see this here
[–] Plays-0-Cost-Cards 32 points 2 hours ago
Gunman has entered the chat

Beto O'Rourke has left the chat
[–] unidangit 1 point 45 minutes ago
F
[–] MAK-15 8 points an hour ago
You didn't even mention that only 400 of those gun deaths are by all rifles of all kinds, meaning an assault weapon is
used in some portion of those 400 deaths, which is less than insignificant.
[–] AERO_kid 2 points 15 minutes ago
This is the information that I came looking for! Do you have a source?
[–] NotClever 26 points 2 hours ago
Just to note, studies have shown that suicidal people often attempt suicide on an impulse and are much more likely to
attempt suicide if they have a gun at their disposal. For example,
Not having a gun in the home is linked to substantially lower rates of suicide.
Japan has next to 0 personal firearms ... highest rate of suicide in the modern world.
Australia's near total semi-automatic gun confiscation didn't next to nothing to reduce.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3086324
[–] TheGoodOldCoder 1 point an hour ago
Let's compare apples to apples. What is the suicide rate for people in Japan when the general public has personal
firearms?
[–] LithiumFiend 4 points an hour ago
This isn't even a question - Thats like me asking what the suicide rate in Atlantis is or what the rate of suicide on Mars
is if they had guns. Its completely unanswerable. You are asking for a mathematically measurement of something that
doesn't exist.
I am hoping you just forgot to add the /s.
[–] TheGoodOldCoder 1 point an hour ago
Unless you believe that more guns reduces suicide rates, then you have to admit that there are other factors than
guns involved in such high suicide rates in Japan. Because you are not controlling for those factors, you are not
comparing apples to apples, and therefore your references to Japan cannot be categorized as anything except
misleading.
[–] LithiumFiend 3 points 47 minutes ago
The implication That I responded to is that restriction to firearms reduces suicide.

That is simply untrue and I demonstrated that by pointing out that the nation with (arguably) the least private
firearms ownership has the highest rate of suicide - and the country that did massive forced confiscation didn't
affect their suicide rates. The only thing that is misleading is your word salad and demand for proof that can't exist.
[–] TheGoodOldCoder 0 points 30 minutes ago
You continue comparing apples to oranges, and you don't accept the study from the person you originally
responded to, which says that if you restrict people's firearms, they have fewer suicides, even though that is
comparing apples to apples. I hope that this makes my point crystal clear.
[–] --____--____--____ 1 point an hour ago
when the general public has personal firearms?

I could be mistaken, but I don't think there was ever a time in Japan when having firearms in the house was common.
[–] DamagedHells 0 points 1 hour ago
Except Australia's gun-buyback did reduce suicides lmao

[–] Airclot 3 points 25 minutes ago
It literally says the the annual FIREARM suicide rate dropped. It says nothing about the total suicide rate. Of course
the firearm suicide rate will drop. That's not what's being discussed.
[–] LithiumFiend 2 points 53 minutes ago
The NFA also seems to have reduced firearm homicide outside of mass shootings, as well as firearm suicide. In the
seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with
a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the
average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1
Of course firearms reduction reduced the number of firearms suicides - my comment and the research to cited shows
that the total number of suicides (and homicides) didn't go down as a result buy back ... people just killed themselves
(or others) with other implements.
Thanks for playing.
[–] Beefin 1 point 2 hours ago
Comparing an entirely different culture is challenging

[–] ShitTalkingAlt980 8 points an hour ago
Yet, ITT people are comparing an ostensibly Ango-Saxon country to Germanic and French (Gaulish?) countries.
[–] keeleon 6 points an hour ago
Because suicide prevention should be about examining culture not banning tools.
[–] Beefin 3 points an hour ago
I think culture and mental health go hand in hand. Regardless of the method/tool, the conviction to follow through
with a suicide comes down to a mental health issue. And anybody that says some cultures don't still have "honor
deaths" is living in a silly reality.
[–] penis_butter_n_jelly 8 points 2 hours ago
A good sanity check to see how tortured the numbers are to reach this conclusion is to look at suicide rate by country.
Ah yes, the country with the absurd number of guns ranks 27th. Better than France, Switzerland, Finland, Austria,
South Korea, Japan, etc. Right next to 28th place Sweden. It may be statistically significant (I'd have to spend some
time with the data), but it isn't substantial by any meaningful definition of the word substantial.
So the solution to suicide is to outlaw all firearms.

If guns are available, they will be used.
Waiting periods are useless because someone who wants to kill their self is going to buy a gun, and when they can
pick it up 10 days later they'll throw it in the closet for the next time they feel suicidal.
Banning AR and AK pattern rifles won't affect this statistic at all because they are not used for suicide, and even if
they were the next available option would be used.
In the end, outlawing firearms is the only answer, and that's not only infeasible, but unconstitutional. Therefore,
suicide statistics are not useful for the gun control debate.
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 7 points an hour ago
It's even easier than that to counter this point.

How much money would a buyback program cost? What if we put that money into mental health programs? Which
would have a better result on suicides?
Ah, yes, I'm sure this will change his mind of anything.
This entire fucking copypasta is riddled with complete crap.
[–] Shitsnack69 3 points 2 hours ago
How so? Can you provide some sources backing up your statement?
[–] DamagedHells 5 points 2 hours ago*
Notwithstanding that he's conflating data from 5 years apart (i.e. gun deaths 2013 with 2018 population, which ...
why would you do that to make statistical comparisons?!
Guns and Suicide, which he just outright claims that the connection cannot be made between gun laws in suicide as
a "FACT."
The first guy provided one, which is here: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
Here's another one: https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/article/how-do-gun-laws-affect-suicide-rates
Here's a third in case you want a direct study link:
Other than gun suicides
His "fact" on medical errors is bunk: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139/rr-54
1995 gun stopping crime survey
It's been concluded by multiple studies post-1995 that Gary Kleck's conclusions drawn from their surveys were
misleading at best, and that it's functionally implausible that there is THAT MUCH defensive usage of guns in the
United States when comparing to crime statistics.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html
http://tscm.com/165476.pdf
[–] DoctorTim007 0 points 2 hours ago
You just don't like the statistics... we all know.

[–] DamagedHells 2 points an hour ago*
He literally states that suicides CAN'T be prevented by gun laws.

This is objectively false.
https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/article/how-do-gun-laws-affect-suicide-rates
On his "defensive usage of guns..."
1995 gun stopping crime survey
It's been concluded by multiple studies post-1995 that Gary Kleck's conclusions drawn from their surveys were
misleading at best, and that it's functionally implausible that there is THAT MUCH defensive usage of guns in the
United States when comparing to crime statistics.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html
http://tscm.com/165476.pdf
Sorry that you don't like statistics.
[–] DoctorTim007 1 point 1 hour ago
riddled with complete crap.

This assumed a majority of the data is false, yet you only can refute one? I don't actually agree with the suicide point
he made but you act like his whole post is wrong because of that. Which it's not.
Sorry that you don't like statistics.
Ironic based on your comments here.
Japan, South Korea, and many other developed countries have higher suicide rates than US even though guns are
heavily restricted by the govt. So yeah guns are an easy way out for people contemplating suicide but they are by no
means a way to deal with the suicide problem.
Point is that since we aren't focusing on the root cause of suicides, you can find statistics to prove any point you want.
Suicide is a mental health problem, not a gun problem. Mental health needs to be the focus of suicide prevention,
otherwise you are just guessing for solutions.
[–] DamagedHells 1 point 1 hour ago
Ah, okay, glad to know you'll just disregard research on the matter and change the goalposts when you're provided
with actual statistics, which everyone else who disagrees with you clearly hates.
[–] DoctorTim007 1 point 1 hour ago
You didn't read my comment.

I don't actually agree with the suicide point he made
Point is that since we aren't focusing on the root cause of suicides, you can find statistics to prove any point
you want.
Japan, South Korea, and many other developed countries have higher suicide rates than US even though
guns are heavily restricted by the govt
Ignoring these just to make a witty comment wont do you any good. You're trying to bash me for something I
didn't do lol.
Again, your irony is stunning.

[–] Castaway77 -1 points 2 hours ago
Lol
"But the facts hurt my feelings!!!!"
Shut up. You have no ground to stand.
[–] DamagedHells 2 points 1 hour ago
Suicides are lowered when more stringent gun laws are in place. This is well-studied and provable.
The OP stated "GUN LAWS CAN'T PREVENT SUICIDES."
So, who's wittle fee fees seem to be hurt by the facts?
[–] UsernameNumberThree 15 points 2 hours ago
I understand the argument that it's statistically insignificant but that's still tens of thousands of people dying via
firearms. Each one of those other means of death listed (flu, car accidents etc.) have a socially adopted way to
combat the issue. We get shots and wear seatbelts and discourage distracted driving. Why would we not extend those
efforts to gun violence?
You're arguing away death with criticisms of other institutions in this country. Other VALID criticisms, but criticisms
doesn't make the critique of our gun laws any less valid.
The reason statistical insignificance is important is you are trying to restrict the rights of millions of people based on
the hundreds or thousands of people (if we're being generous) who abuse those rights. There are millions of people in
the US right now who do not abuse their rights. There are plenty of those who use their rights for self defense, and
when a justified shooting occurs it is added to the gun violence statistics to justify more gun control.
loading...
[–] VoxVirilis 3 points an hour ago
Each one of those other means of death listed (flu, car accidents etc.) have a socially adopted way to combat the
issue. We get shots and wear seatbelts and discourage distracted driving. Why would we not extend those efforts
to gun violence?
Immunization shots and vehicle safety measures don't violate a sacred right that is both natural and constitutionally
protected.
You want to reduce gun violence? Good. So do the "gun nuts" that are your countrymen. Get creative and come up
with a solution that doesn't involve trampling the rights fellow Americans.
[–] joybuzz 0 points an hour ago
A right, written by men on a piece of paper, ~250 years ago, for a new developing nation. You think maybe our
founding fathers didn't intend for common people to have more killing power than their entire army of the time? Is
that really too hard to believe? Shaking my damn head.
[–] rockinDS24 1 point 10 minutes ago
You think maybe our founding fathers didn't intend for common people to have more killing power than their entire
army of the time?
That's literally what the entire point of the Second Amendment was, but of course you don't understand that.
You also seem to forget that their 'entire army of the time' was the people who owned their own guns. Guns that were
better than what the British had.
[–] phasterman 1 point an hour ago
You are actually right that statistical significance doesn't really matter, because a right isn't dependent on how many
people are negatively affected by it.
It doesn't really matter how many people do bad things with guns. It's still the right of good people to own them.
[–] JonasGangsta -9 points an hour ago
I honestly can’t understand how they can say that their deaths are insignificant because there’s so few of them,
percentage wise. Ah, yes, just let them die because in the end they’re only a small part of the population. Never mind
9/11, that’s only a few thousand! Why do we care about them, they just don’t make any significant change..
[–] d45h -3 points an hour ago
I'm morally certain nobody who has lost a family member to gun violence would agree that their loss was a "rounding
error".
[–] Rand_alThor_ 2 points an hour ago
I lost family members to traffic accidents. Beto suggests spending at a minimum several hundred billion dollars on
gun buybacks if everyone just sold their guns for less than 10% of the price and you didn't have any overhead for
enforcement of this buy back or anything. So a more practical cost would approach or pass 1 trillion dollars.
And the impact it would have on reducing violence is extremely unproven, for many of the reasons stated above.
Perhaps, I would rather have that 1 trillion dollars spent on implementing a "vision zero" program for reduced traffic
fatalities like Sweden has, or healthcare reform so that people stop dying in hospitals? The upside to such spending
that would reduce preventable deaths is that it wouldn't carry the added risks associated with trampling the
constitution and trying to organize the largest de-armament process in the history of the world by orders of
magnitude.
[–] NinjaJehu 1 point an hour ago
Just jumping in real quick to say I dig the username. Here's hoping Amazon doesn't fuck up the show!
[–] cheprekaun 11 points 3 hours ago
Sorry, can you help me understand which sources pertain to which claims? I thought this was related to your claim
about the 30,000 deaths but it's an article from 1995.
Before even Columbine happened. If this is true, the person who you are copy pasting is (albeit smartly) using specific
statistics to back his argument.
[–] the_poop_knot 3 points 2 hours ago
Did you happen to see any statistics related to gun violence and domestic violence? Such as the number of people
killed by a romantic partner with a firearm?
[–] PerniciousShadow 3 points an hour ago
Your murder-by-firearm numbers are a tad low (it’s closer to 13K/year on average) but that doesn’t really change
anything. The fact is that of those roughly 13K gun murders per year, a long gun is used in only around 300. That’s
straight from FBI data. Now the FBI doesn’t keep track of model of gun used, but they do keep track of caliber. Based
on that bit of data, it’s estimated that only around 80 murders per year are committed with what have conventionally
become known as “assault rifles.” That means that only a paltry 0.006% of ALL MURDERS in the US annually are
committed with the very firearms that Beto wants to forcibly take from millions of Americans.
[–] redpandaeater 15 points 3 hours ago
I'm glad there are people out there like you that aren't as lazy as me. I tend to get downvoted every time I mention
this sort of shit but don't go to such extensively cited detail. If the media stopped focusing so much on one thing and
trying to keep people in fear there'd also be a reduction in mass shootings.
[–] Cameron_Black 3 points 55 minutes ago
I wanted to let you know I've never seen such a complete evisceration of a gun control argument before.
[–] 1LoneAmerican 22 points 3 hours ago
I am at a total loss. What I thought I knew turns out I didn't know. This feels really weird. I think, I just changed my
mind. Of all the AMA's this AMA was worth reading.
[–] invertigris 24 points 2 hours ago
Hey, props to you for being willing to change your mind. That is a virtue and skill that has become tragically rare in
the modern world.
[–] LevelZer0H3r0 -29 points 2 hours ago
Ya, you posting on the donald about gun rights constantly saying this changed your mind? Stfu lying bastard. I'll be
glad when your penis replacement gets taken away. Nobody needs an AR-15/AK-47. I would know, I carried one in
war, what did you do for this country? Fucking nothing.
Haha "carried one in the war"

You fucking liar. First of all no armed force on this planet carries the AR-15 and I doubt you served in a unit that uses
AK's. Secondly you would know it's about freedom, not feelings if you did. Lastly, you should be ashamed to be here
falsely saying things just to advance your point of view.
You slimy bastard, why not move to France (where the terrorists are free to kill people, adjust their radio, secure their
weapons and have a nice conversation In The street before emailing a clean getaway (Charlie Hebdo)) if you are so
intolerant of freedom?
Oh that's right, too spoiled by Mommy and Daddy into think you deserve freedom your way (falsely safe) AND to
stupid to learn a new language. Nice.
[–] txmadison 11 points an hour ago
Nobody needs an AR-15/AK-47. I would know, I carried one in war

The DNA test has determined that was a lie.
[–] The_ATF_Dog_Squad 7 points 2 hours ago
One larper throwing a fit about another larper...

[–] beephstewart 14 points 2 hours ago
Something tells me you didn't.

[–] 1LoneAmerican 2 points 2 hours ago
The only true power we have over others is the power of persuasion. If you have good enough skills in communication
you might get others to see your point of view on a policy that you support. However, this also requires you to be
willing to understand and listen to others that do not share your point of view. Rarely, in history has it ever been
proven that the best way to persuade someone in considering your point of view by insulting them. This problem is
not a Red thing or a Blue thing it's a actual Red, White and Blue thing it effects all of us in a totality both sides will
need to come together and solve it for all of Us. If any side decides not to converse with the other then a echo
chamber is created and this will give a distorted view of the beliefs of the other side. It is a requirement to engage in
conversations with others with whom you don't agree otherwise you become part of the problem of the division. More
speech not less speech is necessary for these great divides to be bridged.
[–] cheprekaun -7 points 2 hours ago
Do your own research bud. & click and read the sources, objectively. Guy is misrepresenting.
Replying to this just so I can cite it later. Thank you.

[–] skuzzlebut90 16 points 3 hours ago
You know you can just save the comment right?

I’m technologically impaired kind sir

[–] skuzzlebut90 1 point 2 hours ago
Lol, totally understand friend.

[–] fieroloki 6 points 3 hours ago
I do now.
[–] Richard_the_Saltine 1 point an hour ago
Reddit's save function is garbage.

[–] DoinBurnouts 2 points 3 hours ago
.
[–] squealer99 2 points 3 hours ago
.
[–] prissy_frass 2 points an hour ago

.
[–] Konohamaru15 3 points an hour ago
r/murderedbywords also r/murderedbyscience

[–] maxximaa -2 points 3 hours ago
Math is great and all- and you can say "other stuff kills more people" but that doesn't mean that gun legislation
shouldn't be considered. We have multi-faceted problems across the country and working to better things in one area
doesn't always take away from progress in another.
Thoughts on gun legislation in general? Any politician that makes the argument that 'Assault Rifle style weapons
should be banned' has no idea what they're talking about. They account for basically no share of all gun deaths per
year. It's a political talking point democrats are just using for applause- it would hardly accomplish anything at all.
However the ~22,400 deaths caused by accidental or suicide gun deaths WOULD inevitably be lowered with some sort
of gun restriction legislation. Making guns less readily available to folks who don't have a need for them, don't
understand them, or are emotionally unstable would help.
[–] sjc363000 -1 points 2 hours ago
His .009% of the population is skewed too.

He should be talking about deaths for people under the age of 45. It's way more than a blip for those people.
[–] ShitTalkingAlt980 1 point an hour ago
Why any other discussion doesn't take this into account?

Because it is utterly irrelevant.

[–] trainiac12 2 points an hour ago
As someone who agrees that his approach is too ham-fisted. The "4 cities" argument is flawed.
I live in "The Region". The area southeast of chicago. Our gun laws are significantly more lax than chicago's. Often
times, mules will buy guns in Lake County, IN, and take them into the city for use by gangs. Same with New York and
New Jersey, and St Louis (I believe).
There need to be comprehensive reforms in gun legislation.
[–] bobqjones 1 point an hour ago
no the police/atf need more manpower devoted to enforcing the existing law. you DO know it's illegal to buy
handguns across state lines in all states (without going through an FFL and having them shipped into the state to
another FFL before you get it), and buying long guns across state lines is banned in a LOT of states too.
basically, when you use that argument, you're saying the exact same thing as the pro-gun people do when they say
"criminals will get guns anyway, and the law will only hinder law abiding citizens"
[–] itsdr00 -29 points 3 hours ago
Some guy once tried to sneak a bomb on an airplane in his shoes, so we made every American getting on an airplane
take their shoes off for over a decade.
You're going to get high-fived like crazy for your stats, but some of them are wrong, and guns make suicide far more
successful than other methods (most people fail to commit suicide -- unless they use a gun). And more importantly,
as a society we rightfully get less upset over accidental and self-inflicted harm. But we get very upset about deaths by
negligence, deaths as part of a crime, or when someone deliberately kills another person.
Your whole ball of stats doesn't mention mass shootings, which means your post's purpose is just to make people feel
good (and it's working!). We outlaw the tools of terrorism, and that means outlawing assault rifles and high-capacity
magazines. That's not fair to law-abiding gun owners, but that's what it means to live in a country with over three
hundred million other people: You don't always get what you want. You don't get to own a rocket launcher, plastic
explosives, or biological weapons. You also shouldn't get to own an assault rifle.
[–] LevGlebovich 11 points an hour ago
We outlaw the tools of terrorism, and that means outlawing assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.
I still see jets flying and trucks driving down the freeway. And I'm still wearing shoes. There are no set "tools of
terrorism".
And when AR-15s have somehow magically disappeared and these assholes start using other guns to commit these
murders, how far do you want to go with this before we stop legislating based on emotion and knee-jerk reactions?
Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris didn't have an AR-15. They killed a whole bunch of people without one.
Any firearm can be used to inflict damage and kill shots. We understand that. What we don't understand is why these
people do these things. And that's being majorly ignored in favor of the simpler answer.
This is not as easy as "ban x and it will all stop happening". Regardless of what anyone says in this thread, the fact
remains that these weapons, the AR specifically, account for a very small amount of deaths. That doesn't mean we
shouldn't try to figure the issue out, but the way you're suggesting we figure it out isn't going to do it.
Even your very first example that you base your argument on is based on emotion and fear rather than facts. One guy
tried to sneak a bomb on a plane in their shoes and no we all take our shoes off. How many shoe bombs have we
found? TSA implemented that rule based on the fear of 9/11 that was still pervasive within the U.S., not because of
any actual facts or movements within terrorism. And that's one of the main goals of terrorism. Scare the terrorized
into bending to your will.
Terrorists will use ANY MEANS necessary to achieve their goal. Shoe bombs didn't work. Trucks did. Planes did. Bombs
made out of fertilizer have. And if you could somehow snap your fingers and make AR-15s disappear tomorrow, there
will be another way. There will be another "tool of terrorism".
Outlawing "tools of terrorism" is an exercise in futility because there is no definition for that term. And if you can't
define it, how the hell do you legislate against it?
[–] itsdr00 -1 points 1 hour ago
Check out this other response I wrote.

[–] LevGlebovich 2 points 48 minutes ago
You mean the one where you try to equate drug power with gun power? Banning the AR-15 isn't equatable to getting
heroin users on methadone. A 9mm bullet to your head is going to kill you just as fast as a .223.
I understand what you're getting at, but your comparison makes absolutely no sense unless you're advocating to ban
all guns so that you're a victim of a mass stabbing rather than mass shooting. Because the banning of the AR-15
doesn't fix the problem of mass shootings, it just changes the firearm used. A mass shooting using 9mm handguns
has the potential to be just as deadly as one with an AR-15.
[–] Pivec -8 points 2 hours ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're totally right.

I'm being downvoted because the pro-gun people are throwing a parade in this comment thread. There's a significant
overlap between the pro-gun crowd and the "suck it up buttercup" crowd, and that latter group is notoriously sensitive
and easy to offend. So, silent downvotes.

You're being downvoted because your first point doesn't support what you're saying. The TSA security theater has
been shown to not make any of us safer so why would a assault weapon ban? Then you go on to whine about a
statistically insignificant number of shooting deaths that would just shift to bombing or arson deaths if you somehow
got your way and all guns magically disappeared because you don't want to address the root cause.
Oh boy, can I tell a good faith argument when I see one.

Tell me, of the top ten mass murders in the US, how many used guns?
[–] itsdr00 3 points 2 hours ago
Of the number of homicides in the US, how many used guns?


[–] theghostinwinterfell 9 points 2 hours ago
a statistical, unbiased argument is worth far more than an emotional argument every time
[–] itsdr00 3 points 2 hours ago
Believe it or not, it's possible to be both statistical and biased, which that post is -- that's why the pro-gun crowd are
going nuts over it: Not because it's right, but because aligns with their worldview. And if you try to understand people
and their beliefs/behavior without taking psychology and sociology into account, you'll never understand the conflicts
we're experiencing right now. You can't walk up to a father who just lost his 6-year-old son in a school shooting and
start talking about stats and expect to get anything but a punch in the mouth in response. Similarly, if you try to use
stats to convince people to give up their guns, they're just going to tighten their grip on the guns they own. That's
humanity.
[–] theghostinwinterfell 7 points 2 hours ago
You can't walk up to a father who just lost his 6-year-old son in a school shooting and start talking about stats
and expect to get anything but a punch in the mouth in response. Similarly, if you try to use stats to convince
people to give up their guns, they're just going to tighten their grip on the guns they own. That's humanity
This is why we should rely on statistics as much as we can and why Steve's post is a breath of fresh air. Of course
statistics can be used in a biased way, but it's better than throwing up our hands because a person who lost their
kid might punch you in the face and isn't going to be swayed no matter how many statistics and evaluations of the
things that kill people you give
[–] itsdr00 1 point 2 hours ago
The problem is that our interpretation of statistics is often fundamentally flawed. The numbers by themselves
are unbiased, but they are never by themselves. The moment they enter the human mind, they get coated in
our biases and desires. That's why liberals use these same stats to support gun regulation. This thread we're
commenting on doesn't move the conversation forward at all; it only gives one side a warm belly rub.
This picture is only complete with an analysis of what human society deems acceptable and unacceptable. A
child dying in a car accident is a tragedy; a child being shot in his classroom starts a movement. If you make a
sincere effort to understand why that is, you might gain insight into why liberals hold the position that they do.
[–] ThePerdmeister -3 points 2 hours ago*
Making guns less accessible is absolutely a means of preventing suicide. There’s this common sense idea that, if a
person is suicidal, they’re completely certain about the need to end their lives, but many suicides are the result of an
impulsive decision, and having a gun in your home makes carrying out that impulsive decision more immediate and
less reversible (compared to, say, overdosing).
Implementing new barriers to suicide (say, literally erecting barriers on bridges commonly used in suicides) results in
a net reduction of suicide deaths in the area (i.e. people don’t just wander to a different bridge). Most people faced
with even a relatively minor obstacle (like a five foot fence around common jumping spots) will reconsider ending
their lives both in that moment and long term. Given this, gun control is absolutely a means of suicide prevention.
I generally agree that there are obviously more pressing political programs to be implemented, however.
[–] PhysicalGraffiti75 -3 points 2 hours ago
So what about the people who don’t kill themselves with guns? Just tough luck for them huh?
Go fuck your self you self righteous ass. You either care about ALL suicides or none. Its not even remotely fair to
those people to pick and choose which ones you want to help. They all need help asshole, do something for all of
them.
And don’t come at me with “helping some is better than none” we both know you only give a shit about the ones
involving guns because you can use them to argue for more gun control. While leaving the rest to fend for themselves
while you pat yourself on the back.
People like you make me sick.
[–] ThePerdmeister 0 points 2 hours ago*
You can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I think we also need to massively expand the mental healthcare industry. And frankly, access to mental health
professionals and treatment ought to be free and universally available. We also need a significant expansion of the
welfare state, maybe public works projects, etc., because a lot of suicidal ideation is tied to economic precarity or
job/food/housing insecurity more specifically. I’d prioritize all these programs above gun control (as I more or less
said in the comment you responded to).
I have no idea why you’re so incensed. I never said gun control was the most significant or urgent means of
combating suicide, I was literally just correcting OP’s claim that gun control isn’t a means of preventing gun suicides.
[–] PhysicalGraffiti75 -4 points 2 hours ago
I have no idea why you’re so incensed.

Really? You can’t imagine one reason why somebody would get upset with you for using suicide victims as a political
pawn?
Go fuck yourself.
[–] ThePerdmeister 2 points 2 hours ago*
How are these suicidal people “pawns” when the issue I’m talking about is preventing their suicides?
More than that, I genuinely don’t think the solution to gun violence as such is gun control. There are far deeper
political-economic pathologies that result in America’s gun violence problem — it’s not just access to firearms.
I was literally just correcting a misconception about suicide (no, suicidal people are most often not implacably
dedicated to ending their lives) and in response, you’ve jumped to all these absurd (and invective-laden) conclusions
about my ostensibly sinister or disingenuous political motivations. Calm down.
[–] PhysicalGraffiti75 2 points an hour ago
I was literally just correcting a misconception about suicide (no, suicidal people are most often not implacably
dedicated to ending their lives) and in response, you’ve jumped to all these absurd (and invective-laden)
conclusions about my ostensibly sinister or disingenuous political motivations. Calm down.
You’re right my apologies, I get too heated when it comes to the subject of suicide.
[–] Gawernator 3 points an hour ago
Absolute destruction. Hero post.

[–] jpfeifer22 2 points 55 minutes ago
Damn, that's a lot of awards and I don't even know what half of them mean lol. Great researching!
[–] wumbotarian 1 point an hour ago
While I am not on board regarding gun confiscation, it is patently false that gun laws cannot reduce suicides. In fact,
all gun law should be focused on reducing suicides since they account for almost all gun deaths.
For instance, imposing longer waiting periods for a firearm reduces gun suicides in states that impose it.
If we wanted to be serious about gun deaths, we'd experiment with different types of laws in order to figure out what
reduces suicides the most balanced against the right to bear arms.
[–] thrash242 1 point 44 minutes ago
Our suicide rates are about the same as other developed nations, and far less than some like Japan (where there are
virtually no guns). So if suicides didn’t happen with guns, they’d still happen, and no matter the method, dead is
dead.
[–] wumbotarian 1 point 8 minutes ago
That's actually completely untrue. Means reduction reduces suicide rates. An interesting natural experiment of this
was in England, where banning gas ovens reduced suicides overall (Sylvia Plath committed suicide this way). People
didn't switch from gas to something else.
Also, even if people do switch, we want them to switch. Gun suicide attempts have 85% lethality. If people substitute
into lower lethality suicide attempts less people will die, still. And people who commit suicide once RARELY attempt it
again.
So if we focus gun laws around suicide prevention (instead of saying, falsely, we cant do anything about it) we can
both balance gun rights and have a larger humanitarian impact than stopping all gun murders (remember suicides are
like 70% of gun deaths, so halving that number is equivalent to stopping all gun mursers).
[–] I_Like_Turtles89 2 points 55 minutes ago
Saving this comment because these are actual facts and I appreciate work you put into it. I will use this in the future.
u/betoorourke where'd you go? Are you silent because you have nothing to say in opposition of the the truth, ignorant
of facts or just blatantly pandering while disrespecting what this country is about? All of you disgust me.
[–] pinch_my_cheek_bro 2 points 50 minutes ago
Get fucking rekt lol. This is great /r/murderedbywords material, but would they upvote it?
[–] harcile 1 point 11 minutes ago
You know what hasn't happened on a regular basis in other countries? Mass shootings.
Also gun deaths is not the end of the story. What about all the injuries sustained from fire arms? What about all the
robberies where firearms are the tool of choice? What about all the rapes done by people with guns? Guns enable bad
people to do vicious things. Yet here we are in 2019 after shootings the likes of which horror films can't compete with
(e.g. Sandy Hook) and intelligent beings like you STILL want to twist statistics to prevent anything significant being
done about gun ownership.
[–] Ipaylei2 2 points an hour ago
I'm going to change these stats from all ages to just 15-24 years old... becomes a totally less effective argument:
Yes, 4,391 is absolutely horrific, but let's think for a minute...
5,606 die from a drug overdose (7)
190 people die per year from the flu (8)
913 people die per year from heart disease (11)
[–] AnarkeIncarnate 2 points 32 minutes ago
And how many of those 15-24 are willful combatants in the drug trade?
Being in a gang and getting shot over criminal activity is not the same thing as the random violence that sparks all the
outrage.
You want them to stop shooting each other? Give them better choices, and stop trying to tear families apart with
nonsense.
Kids need parents who are involved in their lives
[–] Ipaylei2 1 point 22 minutes ago
I agree with the last sentences. “Willful” implies that they had a choice and opportunities which a lot don’t have many.
If I was to play extreme devils advocate I’d ask you how many people dying of heart disease in middle age were
willful eaters of fast food. That’s more willful than many in drug trade.
[–] AnarkeIncarnate 1 point 3 minutes ago
Let me know when eating cheeseburgers is criminal activity with a high rate of violent death.
Eating too many cheeseburgers is a bad choice, but it's not the same as a criminal enterprise that, by design, or by
omission, is responsible for the level of chaos and death that the drug trade is.
Willful doesn't mean were spoiled for choice. They could have just said no (and that's not a joke about Nancy
Reagan). I grew up poor as shit in a bad neighborhood during the crack epidemic and there were vials littering my
neighborhood.
I didn't engage.
[–] mw1994 1 point 45 minutes ago
Not really, the flu, heart disease and drug overdosing generally hit you later in life. Are we saying the issue is guns in
school or guns in general, because it’s two very seperate issues.
[–] Ipaylei2 1 point 35 minutes ago
The argument seems to be that gun violence is a small fish to fry, as to where I’m pointing out that it’s a leading
cause of death of young people and something to be concerned about. Dropping stats of heart disease deaths when
80% of those deaths are retirement age, it’s skewing perceptions. Let’s get these young people to age where they
need to be concerned about their health.
[–] mw1994 2 points 23 minutes ago
I think both are skewing perceptions. I think certain types of gun deaths are a serious issue however I also believe the
media is spreading a lot of misconceptions. Gang crime is a much more serious issue in my mind than school
shootings, but people’s perceptions put school shootings on a pedestal, and that’s escalated to a point where to some,
eliminating guns completely is a worthwhile sacrifice to stop them.
I don’t think getting rid of guns is the right answer, but the issue is I don’t think there is a right answer.
[–] HardcoreMuppet 1 point 2 hours ago
I'm not disagreeing with you, but as a psychology person, I have to wonder what the fear of gun violence is doing to
an entire generation. Kids are having mass shooter drills in school. They live with the constant anxiety that one of
their classmates is going to bring in a weapon of war and murder them.
I feel that is potentially doing more damage to the country collectively than the number of people losing their lives.
[–] Gringo_Please -1 points 47 minutes ago
And who the fuck is responsible for this fear? Charlatans like Beto, the media that champions voices like him, and the
people who support him.
[–] HardcoreMuppet 2 points 23 minutes ago
I'm pretty sure the white teens that keep shooting up schools are a bit responsible.
I don't agree with Beto, I think this is a cultural problem more than a problem with the guns that are out there. I
don't think Beto is making kids scared, I think the fact that at any time, one of their white male classmates can mass
murder them is what is making them scared. They see it happening over and over. They don't have the development
and maturity to understand just how improbable their chance of being a victim is.
There are 37,000+ high schools in the US, compare that with the amount of kids killed by gunfire at school, and sure,
that percentage is incredibly low. Do you think kids can process that and just magically stop having anxiety? People
suck at probabilities, especially when the numbers get big. I'm guessing half of the adults in this country believe they
are going to win the Powerball someday.
I want weapons of war banned, but I'll admit it's unlikely to come anywhere close to solving the problem.
[–] Gringo_Please 1 point 13 minutes ago
Kids wouldn’t have to process it if shootings remained local news. But nope, it’s national live television, watching from
choppers, and the day after politicians get up and plaster the airwaves about why kids should be afraid. An
insignificant risk is vaunted to the top of their imaginations. The gunmen don’t do that.
[–] Woooooolf 2 points an hour ago
Beautiful.
Also, VENEZUELA gave up their guns. How's that working?

[–] throwngarbage521 -20 points 2 hours ago*
What is going on with the support and upvotes for this comment? Truly, this comment contains nearly all of the bad
argument tropes that Reddit rails against - straw men, logical fallacies, false choices, etc.
There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, >this number is not disputed. (1)
U.S. population 328 million as of January 2018. (2)
Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related >actions each year.
Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. It's not even a rounding >error.
This is a wild statement, what percentage of the total population of the United States dying would not be insignificant?
1%? 2%? Only 0.000915% died on 9/11, was that insignificant?
What is not insignificant, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 >deaths:
• 22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws >(3)
This is such a common talking point on the right, but there is a clear link between suicide and gun ownership:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-
3797(18)32383-3/fulltext https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html
Guns make it easier to kill yourself. Having a gun in the house leads to more suicide. This number can absolutely
could and should be lowered by gun control laws.
Still too many? Let's look at location:
298 (5%) - St Louis, MO (6)
327 (6%) - Detroit, MI (6)
328 (6%) - Baltimore, MD (6)

764 (14%) - Chicago, IL (6)
That's over 30% of all gun crime. In just 4 cities.
This leaves 3,856 for for everywhere else in America... about 77 deaths per state. Obviously some States have
higher rates than others
Why would you exclude gun deaths in these cities in a conversation about gun control? They're part of America, no?
70,000+ die from a drug overdose (7)
49,000 people die per year from the flu (8)
250,000+ people die each year from preventable medical errors. >(10)
You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
610,000 people die per year from heart disease (11)
Even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save about twice the >number of lives annually of all gun-related
deaths (including suicide, >law enforcement, etc.).
A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun >deaths or 4 times the number of criminal
homicides.
Simple, easily preventable, 10% reductions!
Putting aside the "ease" of reducing deaths from heart disease by 10%, we can solve more than one problem at once.
Medical errors and gun controls can both be problems and can both be solved. Passing stricter car safety laws does
not preclude you from passing stricter gun control laws.
America's firearm related death rate is the 10th highest in the world, and roughly 10X as high as most of European
countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate. That is a problem that
needs to be solved
[–] Seymore_Trucks 19 points 2 hours ago
Why would you exclude gun deaths in these cities in a conversation about gun control? They're part of America,
no?
Those cities were chosen because they already have strong anti gun laws and have been run by anti gunners for years
and years.
[–] penguin_or_panda 5 points 1 hour ago
Gotta say, this is why people get defensive about more gun control. Beto is talking about assault weapons (which
have nothing to do with suicide rates) and this thread is lumping suicide in with it, which is done with sidearms. Those
two couldn't be less correlated, yet the argument is being trojan-horsed in.
Also Assault Weapon is a made up term

[–] sovertiginous 3 points 2 hours ago
America is the wild wild west. Europe will never be what America is. America will never be controlled by a tyrannical
government if it's citizens are well armed.
[–] awwoken 2 points an hour ago
Lol good luck with that. Western Europe has better standards of living, better mobility, a higher life expectancy, better
lifetime earnings, and higher level of happiness. Most importantly they dont have children getting shot in the face by
assault rifles every goddamn month. But sure, the US is just rosy. USA #1
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 1 point 1 hour ago
France would like to have a long, angry, yellow, word with you.
[–] JeanneHusse 2 points 1 hour ago
Yellow vests doesn't go against what he's saying. The movement just doesn't want our situation to degrade and match
worst situations, like the US.
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 0 points 1 hour ago
They're protesting taxes more severe than all but the most liberal of US jursidictions.
[–] JeanneHusse 4 points 1 hour ago
You should read in-depth papers about the movement before it quickly got more complicated than that. It
started on the carbon tax but rapidly evolved into a more encompassing movement about the desertification of
public service and general inequality.
And whether we agree or not with their revendications, the point stands : France is safer, more equal, less
segregated, got more accessible health, better public service, etc.
Doesn't mean France is perfect, far from it, and lots of stuff could be improved. But the yellow vest movement
and the justified criticism of what's wrong in some Euro countries doesn't change the fact that on those topics,
they are miles ahead of the US.
[–] awwoken 1 point 31 minutes ago
All the things I said are still true. Even unhappy and rioting in the streets the average Frenchman has a better
standard of living, education, healthcare and chance of economic advancement than someone from the US. They also
dont get gunned down at department stores, night clubs or in schools.
I know its hard to hear your country is dysfunctional, but you really gotta listen.
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 1 point 28 minutes ago
They also dont get gunned down at department stores, night clubs or in schools.
I mean I'm not going to listen to someone who is spoonfed data from news outlets, since that is clearly your only
source of information.
The U.S. is on a 40 year decline in crime. This is, statistically, the safest time to be an American. The odds of being
gunned down in ANY situation other than a gang turf war are miniscule.
Unemployment are at historic lows. I'll give you the economic advancement issues, and our healthcare system is
fucked, but otherwise? I wouldn't pick anywhere else. And before you go on about how I've never traveled, I've
been all over the world, and I'd still pick the US every time.
[–] JeanneHusse 1 point an hour ago
America will never be controlled by a tyrannical government

Isn't America running some of the most invasive, far-reaching and ant-freedom programs already ? Millions of people
in jail ? Mass surveillance in an astounding scale ? Militarization of the police ? Billions spent in the military ? None of
the other Europeqn democracies where citizens are unarmed are subjected to that much government overreach.
[–] crosszilla 0 points an hour ago
Summed it up better than I could. This whole thread is overrun by 2a lunatics.

[–] noized 2 points 2 hours ago
One of the rare times I save a Reddit comment, thanks for the ammo haha.
[–] neo1962 2 points an hour ago
Don't confuse Liberals with facts. It gets in the way of their feelings.
[–] RedditAdminsRNazis 2 points an hour ago
/u/betoorourke doesnt care about facts. Hes a Democrat. Hes only interested in power and tyranny. Disarm the
populace, instill communism, and control the masses.
[–] Flapmonkey6000 0 points 2 hours ago*
hey super late to the convo here but im gonna put this out there cuz im a numbers guy and think this is a more
accurate representation of the situation. i applaud you for citing your sources. here are some other citation both
primary and secondary that i think are a little more up to date. first here is homicide data from the fbi. homicide does
not include suicide. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-
table-8.xls the most recent data is from 2017 in which they indicate 11k gun homicides. this is close to matching with
this statement by the atlantic in which they state "39,773 Americans were killed by guns in 2017, a dramatic increase
of more than 1,000 people from the year before ". they also point out that "Suicides account for 60 percent of the
country’s gun deaths". that largely matches the idea of 11k deaths by gun being homicides. the atlantic also points
out that "FBI reports show that 73 percent of all homicides were committed with a firearm in 2017". here is the
atlantic article https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/12/gun-deaths-city-murders-suicides/578812/ . it is
interesting reading. all of this to say that i think they numbers are currently a bit higher than you are representing.
additionally they trend seems to be upward. this indicates this is a growing problem. as with any problem with a
growth trend the sooner we discuss solutions the better. best F
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 1 point an hour ago
The VAST majority of those homicides were committed with handguns, which no politician suggests banning because
it would disproportionately hit minority communities.
[–] Nuln_Oil 3 points 2 hours ago
In a hospital in Chicago? Thoughts n prayers.

[–] rallyinred 5 points 2 hours ago*
Excellent Reporting. Sadly, Robert Francis O`Rourke does not care about facts, the American People, common sense
or The Constitution. He is a globalist and works for the cabal.
[–] Bieterman 2 points 2 hours ago
"Hey guys, Steve from Accounting is going OFF right now."

[–] hurtfulproduct 1 point 37 minutes ago
This is fucking beautiful. . . A no nonsense tear down of why gun control is nothing more than a “feel good” issue to
pump numbers and avoid doing the hard work required to actually reduce unnecessary deaths in this country. . . This
should be published in every major newspaper so people can actually see the numbers for themselves because there
are no opinions here, just facts. . .undeniable facts. . .
[–] LobsterMeta -15 points 2 hours ago
Lots of pretty formatting and sources but what is your actual arguement? That nothing should be done? That we
DON'T have a gun problem?
Are you suggesting that banning the AR-15 type assault weapons won't have an effect on mass shootings?
It seems like you're just mad that he is pro gun control and you have this copypasta set up to make people feel
helpless about a problem that the rest of the world has been able to solve with common sense measures.
Gun deaths in the US are many times higher per capita than any other developed nation. How do you explain that?
Please don't use the "gangs" excuse because gang related drug homicides are far from the most common type. Other
tropes are "mental health" "poverty" "america just always had guns!" and they're all easily debunked if you aren't
already overly biased in favor of gun ownership.
I strongly disagree with the idea that gun control can't prevent suicide. The easiest way to see that you're just wrong
is to read about the Israels decision to force their soldiers to store guns in the barracks instead of bringing them
home, which brought suicides down by double digit percents. Suicide is often an impulsive decision, and having a gun
in your hands in less than an hour is a huge problem.
Comparing homicides to things like cardivascular health is extremely misleading and I hope I don't have to explain
why. I don't understand how you can see the data that shows that the US has the highest number of deaths by
homicide in the entire developed world and think that it's normal.
[–] PhysicalGraffiti75 19 points 2 hours ago
Lots of pretty formatting and sources but what is your actual arguement? That nothing should be done? That we
DON'T have a gun problem?
I think it’s pretty obvious what their argument is and you’re just being willfully naive. He said in the first paragraph
that we should look into literally any other solution that doesn’t involve taking guns, but you couldn’t be bothered to
think of anything else could you? Nah that’d be too much effort for such a well educated and intelligent individual like
yourself. And yeah he’s definitely saying we shouldn’t do anything, just in case you’re as slow as I think you are that
was sarcasm. Obviously no one wants mass shootings and thinking otherwise is, again, you being willfully naive. And
if we have a gun problem then going by the numbers he put down we have a bigger car problem, a bigger flu
problem, and a much bigger hospital problem.
The rest of your comment was just more naive shit. Nice try though you boot licking parrot.
[–] LobsterMeta -7 points 2 hours ago*
Wow who pooped in your cereal this morning? I'm just trying to prevent gun deaths and suicides. You seem to be
triggered.
Also to respond to all your points-
It's not obvious what his argument is. He's saying "we should do something" but then not suggesting a single thing.
Literally any gun control proposal is shot down immediately by people such as yourself because of the illogical reasons
you and mr. wall of text laid out. Let me use an analogy to explain because analogies tend to work well with people
who are already severely biased:
If toxic apples were killing people in the tens of thousands but only in the US, would we be saying "well we also lose
100,000 people to traffic so why should we even consider banning toxic apples?" That's basically the argument being
spread here and it would be funny if it wasn't being used to defend this insane defense of war machines being freely
available.
I never suggested that anyone wanted mass shootings. You're making a straw man argument there for obvious
reasons. You want to think that my idea is pro 2A people love mass shootings. I know they don't. I know they want to
prevent them. I just think they've convinced themselves that ANY legislation that prevents them from buying a
machine of war within 30 seconds is an affront to their liberty and won't have a single digit percent of benefit. It's
stupid.
Also I don't know why there's this idea that people being for gun control are "bootlickers" since by far the most
common type of pro 2A person are republicans who support the current admin at almost 90% levels, support all of
our interventions, support SC justices who curtail unions and the rights of the poor or convicted, etc etc etc. It stinks
strongly of projection.
[–] secretMAGAaccount 9 points 2 hours ago*
You're talking about infringing on freedoms so sacred to the founding of this nation that they were enshrined in the
second amendment. And it has some of the strongest legal language possible. Many people view this right as an
integral part of a free society. You may disagree, but every time you talk about infringing that right, you sound like a
would-be tyrant to people who understand its significance
[–] LobsterMeta 0 points 2 hours ago
I expected you to actually understand gun laws and the constitution since you seem so interested in it, but it's
extremely clear from the Heller vs DC case that, no, the second amendment does not prevent the government from
banning specific weapons. The only thing that the second amendment prevents is total bans on guns. Scalia himself
said this regarding the decisions:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
[–] secretMAGAaccount 5 points 2 hours ago
You are missing my point. Regardless of what regulation the courts have decided is allowable under the 2A, the
freedom afforded in that amendment is sacred to people. To the people this matters to, any talk of infringement is
viewed as suspicious.
[–] LobsterMeta 1 point 2 hours ago
First you said that the constitution prevents what Beto is suggesting, and when I said no it doesn't, you switched
your argument to saying that "people don't support it". Which one is it?
"to the people this matters to" do you mean gun hobbyists? Because I'd argue the people this actually matters
to are people who have lost someone to gun violence, not your typical weekend gun range attendee.

[–] Youknowimtheman -1 points an hour ago
You're talking about infringing on freedoms so sacred to the founding of this nation that they were enshrined in the
second amendment. And it has some of the strongest legal language possible.
Without taking a stance, this is a horrible argument. (appeal to authority)
The founders were not some infallible group of masterminds. They made mistakes that had to be corrected, forgot
things, and weren't oracles that could predict the future. The US constitution is the oldest constitution that still exists
today without significant revision, and appealing to that document forgets that when these laws were thought of was
over 200 years ago.
You need to construct better arguments if you're going to convince anyone that your points have merit.
You may disagree, but every time you talk about infringing that right, you sound like a would-be tyrant to people
who understand its significance.
Can you demonstrate how having access to firearms prevents tyranny in 2019? Our military has the capacity to wipe
the floor with any attempt of the populace to overthrow it.
[–] secretMAGAaccount 2 points an hour ago
Sorry, professor. I'll try harder next time.

To your last point: the Taliban would like a word with you.
Holy shit, look at this brick wall of a person. Everything I said went in one ear and out the other, no wonder you’re
anti gun.
[–] LobsterMeta 2 points 2 hours ago
I literally responded to your post point by point.

[–] PhysicalGraffiti75 3 points an hour ago
By repeating what you’d already said. If I keep repeating myself do I win too?
[–] LobsterMeta 2 points an hour ago
We both lose when we get mired in argument for arguments sake instead of finding any common ground.

So what are his solutions? Because Betos does SOMETHING. While Mr. WallOfText here says a lot of shit but has
nothing to offer as a substitute.
Are you telling me you aren’t intelligent enough to come up with even one alternative solution? I figure someone like
yourself who had reached your position would be able to consider all their options first but if I was a gambling man I’d
say that ain’t you.
[–] IMakeEmbiid-memes 1 point 58 minutes ago
Then why couldn’t he provide a single one? Or yourself for that matter? I’m for the program of taking away the guns.
So it’s your burden as an opponent to come up with an alternative if you don’t like this one.
Mommy, I want the government to make the world a safe space! What could go wrong???
[–] LobsterMeta -5 points 2 hours ago
I hope your family never meets the brunt end of a senseless violent gun death, but as per the usual for "MAGA" types,
that is very likely the only thing that will ever sway your opinion.
If they do, you can be sure I'll blame the perpetrator and not the tool they used. I hold my views in full knowledge of
the potential consequences
[–] casualguitarist 1 point 33 minutes ago
Oh my God what an incredible intellectual take down, literally bulletproof.. well cept for the first one where you can
prevent these suicides, just see the other 90% of nation's with gun laws, oh my God you're sooo intellectualy honest
here. Also have you put this type of effort in other issues like drug ward/addictions and how to solve it? I mean you
mentioned it aswell. With some studies ofc.
[–] Inspiderface 3 points 2 hours ago
r/murderedbywords
[–] deeeplorable 2 points an hour ago
Saving this. Bless you and your well cited research.

[–] comewatchTV66 2 points an hour ago
I don’t have any gold but you would get all of mine.
[–] skitch23 4 points 2 hours ago
Thank you for posting this. It is nice to see someone with actual facts! If everyone could read this, they’d have a
better understanding of where we need to focus our efforts.
[–] PanGalacGargleBlastr 2 points an hour ago
The thing is, if a Democratic candidate understood this, and said it, they'd have a good chance of getting that
crossover vote.
But they'd never make it past the DNC.
Ah, yes, actual facts like "Suicide can't be prevented by gun laws (That's a fact!)" which is... yanno, categorically
been proven false.
That's 100% false. Reducing access to methods of suicide drastically reduces suicide rates. Drugs or guns. Studies
have shown this over and over. Here is a fantastic analysis on the matter:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/31/in-search-of-missing-us-suicides/
[–] Castaway77 12 points 2 hours ago
Lol yet Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world yet they banned guns.
Just like the UK is finding out now, you ban guns and people just move onto whatever is next. The UK sits around all
day with their noses in the air about nearly non-existent gun violence but has to ban butter knives because criminals
are now just stabbing people.
[–] Martin_Samuelson 1 point 2 hours ago
Did you read the link or are you just going to ignore data and facts?
[–] Richard_the_Saltine 1 point an hour ago
And yet the studies exist.

[–] DontCallMeMillenial 0 points 2 hours ago
So is the solution to ban all firearms then? You don't need but one bullet to off yourself, and "assault weapons" would
be some of the hardest guns to use to do it.
I don't know what the best solution is but I do care that solutions are based on actual facts.
[–] keeleon 0 points an hour ago
How does banning AR15s lower suicides?

[–] zevansfunk 2 points an hour ago
Once more for the people in the back, please!

[–] PinheadLarry2323 3 points an hour ago
Thanks for using the info and citing me for it, enjoy the rewards ;)
[–] Karl_Marx_ 4 points an hour ago
Hey, want to run for president? I'll vote for you over Beto.
[–] TheGoodOldCoder -1 points an hour ago
Three of these statistics stand out as egregious, where people are dying because of other people's choices.
49,000 people die per year from the flu
Many of these people die because other people didn't feel like getting vaccinated.
37,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities
Many of these people die because other people didn't take driving to be the serious responsibility that it is.
Yes, 5,577 [gun-related fatalities] is absolutely horrific
That many people die from guns because other people believe they should be allowed guns.
So, let's summarize. If we made flu vaccines mandatory, likely tens of thousands fewer people would die from the flu.
If we mandated that people drive self-driving cars (which will hopefully be available next year) or take public transit,
likely tens of thousands fewer people would die in traffic fatalities. If we made guns harder to get, thousands of
people would not die from guns.
Putting something in perspective, like you've done, only serves to prioritize things. It doesn't make bad things good or
good things bad. If you're truly serious about using these statistics as a basis for saying we shouldn't take people's
guns away, then you are also saying that we shouldn't be trying to convince more people to get flu vaccines.
London now has more murders than NYC and they don’t have guns. They just stab people or throw acid on them.
Banning weapons doesn’t prevent violence.
[–] TheGoodOldCoder 0 points 24 minutes ago
If you ban all guns, you reduce gun violence. If you ban all knifes, you reduce knife violence. If you ban all acid, you
reduce acid violence. If you disagree with that, then I am not sure that there can be any rational discussion on this
subject.
If you want to compare London with New York specifically, then you'll have to show that you're controlling for other
factors, such as population differences, socioeconomic factors, differences in policing, differences in how other crimes
are handled, differences in how criminals are treated, differences in education, differences in culture, etc.
[–] thrash242 1 point 3 minutes ago
So are you going to ban everything that could possibly be used as a weapon? We’ll all just live in padded cells and
depend on daddy government for everything?
[–] GARRRRYBUSSSEY 1 point 22 minutes ago
Stats may not lie but they are void of any real context. And some of the sources are dubious at best
[–] dezhead84 2 points an hour ago
🙌🙌🙌🙌🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
[–] theshoeshiner84 2 points 2 hours ago
Saved this comment like a mother fucker...

[–] Halo462 1 point 11 minutes ago
I am grateful for people who actually get it. So many people are so willing to toss away their rights one by one just
because they're ignorant of what they're even attempting to ban. Anyone who wants to give up their own rights has
no right to take mine away because they think matte black guns are scary.
[–] LynchMob_Lerry 4 points 3 hours ago
One thing you should add is that suicides are the number 1 cause of firearm related deaths.
[–] Silent_As_The_Grave_ 1 point an hour ago
Ban suicides!
[–] expozedforfunnies [ ] 2 points an hour ago
Commenting to save for future. Thank you!

[–] Harfus -4 points an hour ago*
First of all, comparing deaths to the total US population is a blatant attempt at swinging statistics in your favor.
Compare it to deaths per year then we get a broader picture. (and of course, this is using information you gave)
In 2017, 2.8 million people died. Using your 30,000 and 5577 statistics respectively, we get a little over 1% and a
little under .2% This of course makes you think "well it's still a small number" and that's a terrible way of thinking.
"It's just a small number" is another way of saying "those lives don't matter." There are towns in the US with less
than 5000 people. The real question is in what fucking world is it okay that 1% of people die to a gun? And the
bullshit argument about "well cancer and heart disease and cars and vending machines" doesn't cut it. Because
disease is actively fought against. Cars require extensive registration and insurance. Vending machines at least have
fucking signs on them saying how to prevent dying. Yet with guns there's this cowboy attitude where you even see
politicians on twitter threatening to shoot people. And this isn't in the past few years either.
Now lets talk about you. You pretty obviously compared deaths to total population because you have an agenda.
Otherwise why would you try to make the numbers look smaller? To be honest I don't even know if you're a russian
bot, an idiot, a psychopath, or just plain evil. Because you're getting at one message, and one message alone in your
post (or copypasta, whichever it is.) and that is "I don't think any of these lives mattered."
One gun death is too much. Other countries don't have this problem and stop pretending statistics can sterilize shit
when in the end it's still shit.
*EDIT: I got my death numbers from the cdc.
Using your 30,000 and 5577 statistics respectively, we get a little over 1% and a little under .2% This of course
makes you think "well it's still a small number" and that's a terrible way of thinking. "It's just a small number" is
another way of saying "those lives don't matter."
It still relevant. Those lives are not worth restricting the rights of millions of law abiding citizens. People die with
cars, yet we don't restrict them. People die with cigarettes, yet we don't restrict them. Why is that? Are these rights
just seen as more valuable to individuals or is it that it makes no sense to justify banning something because it is
abused by a few people relative to the population? That is the whole idea behind a free society. Freedom and security
exist on a 2 dimensional axis. You can have freedom and you can have security, but they do not exist at the same
time. A completely free society has no security, and a completely secure society has no freedom.
[–] Harfus 0 points 1 hour ago
We don't restrict cigarettes? Is that a joke? There's tons of regulations an taxes on them. In fact, they're overtaxed to
prevent people from buying them in the first place. To be honest, I don't think gun buybacks are the answer, but
there should be regular documentation and required insurance. You know, like cars. Those big metal things which are
literal necessities to millions of Americans. Freedom does not have to be restricted by safety and that axis is a
punchline to convince people to give up freedom in favor of safety, because it convinces people the only way to give
them safety is to take away freedom.
[–] bobqjones 3 points an hour ago
We don't restrict cigarettes? Is that a joke? There's tons of regulations an taxes on them. In fact, they're
overtaxed to prevent people from buying them in the first place
are you even aware of the restrictions and taxes involved in firearm ownership?
your ideas can ONLY happen with full registration and tracking, and that's just not going to happen. every time it has
been tried in the past they've used the data to confiscate. I, and a lot of other gun owners, too, are done with that
particular "compromise".
no registration. i'd be willing to go with an Endorsement on your drivers license/id. if you want to buy/sell guns, then
you get the background check and vetting, then your license has the endorsement to traffic in firearms. but the guns
you buy will NOT be tracked. they won't know how many you own, or even if you own any at all. the only thing they
will know is that you have gone through the background checks and proper hoops needed to be cleared. when you go
to purchase, no endorsement, no sale. same with private sales. if the guy you want to sell to has the endorsement, go
for it. if he doesn't, pass.
[–] Harfus -2 points 59 minutes ago
Registration is just a fundamental disagreement on how we think things should be done and I'd guess we both can
agree we'd get nowhere by arguing about it.
On another hand, things like the gunshow loophole exist. And let's not forget that there is a culture around guns that
needs to change. By the culture, I mean how its not uncommon for people to just threaten each other with guns, or
how some families are too casual with their firearms and leave them in places where children who cannot handle a
gun can find them, or how gun control is often used as a political bludgeon to knock youth into radicalization.
[–] bobqjones 1 point 48 minutes ago*
things like the gunshow loophole exist.

there is no loophole. the word "loophole" implies that it's an end-run around the law. that's false. private sales are
SPECIFICALLY exempted from the law because without registration it would be impossible to track.
i agree that there's a lot of culture problems. that's down to lack of education i think. it's no surprise to me that
after a couple decades of no firearm education in schools we get problems like we see now. SO many kids only see
guns on TV/video games or in the hands of criminals and cops. they have no real-world experience with them and
have accidents, or use them to threaten or coerce. bring back firearm education in school and remove the "only
cops and criminals use guns" attitude that many on the left have and you'll see a swing back in the more peaceful
direction.
gotta remove that zero tolerance bullshit at school too. kids can't fight back against bullies without getting the full
punishment, so they "grin and bear it" until they snap. and at that point, if they don't care about their own lives,
then they want to take out everything that made their lives hell too. i think zero tolerance rules are the single
biggest cause of school shootings.
[–] Harfus 1 point 38 minutes ago
I don't know if we can ever really pin what the biggest cause is, but zero tolerance rules are absolutely a
problem. They essentially teach bullies that their actions are no better than defending yourself. I do take issue
with the belief that bullying victims are the ones that lash out in rage. More often, it is the bullies themselves
that perpetrate these heinous acts of violence.
Look at columbine or Elliot Roger, both shootings were perpetrated by people who were known to be violent,
cruel, and petty to other students. The idea that they were pushed to the brink due to bullying comes from the
shock of those around them that couldn't believe anyone would go on a killing spree. It's the same reason why
we think Hitler's paintings are pretty. It's not that they particularly are, its that there's something fascinating
about the flashes of innocence we see within dark, twisted, and evil minds.
There's a lot of problems with victim blaming today, which awareness of it has in itself has led to massive
problems, for example "PC culture." Where at times people can take advantage of outrage and use the "believe
the victim at any cost" mindset to get revenge. See what's happened to Johnny Depp.
What I'm getting at is that everything is complicated and it sucks.
[–] MAK-15 1 point an hour ago
We don't restrict cigarettes? Is that a joke?

I can walk into the nearest gas station and buy them. If Beto has his way, you wouldn't be able to do that with semi-
automatic rifles.
So no, that is not a joke. Cigarettes are not restricted.
You know, like cars. Those big metal things which are literal necessities to millions of Americans
It's honestly weird to see the comparison to cars when they kill far more people and will never be outlawed (which
was the point I was making). Also, it is not a constitutional right.
[–] Harfus 1 point 1 hour ago
You need to be older to buy cigarettes than a gun. That is restriction. I don't even care for Beto, and wont be voting
for him in the primaries.
As for claiming the infallibility of the constitution, it still says slavery is an acceptable form of punishment for a crime.
So make of that what you will.
[–] MAK-15 1 point 1 hour ago
You need to be older to buy cigarettes than a gun.

That's not true, the age is 18 to buy rifles.
As for claiming the infallibility of the constitution, it still says slavery is an acceptable form of punishment for a
crime. So make of that what you will.
Ah, yes, democracy at its finest.
[–] Harfus 1 point 1 hour ago
My bad with the gun age bit, I'm in NY and the age for cigarettes was just raised to 21.

[–] Forderz -4 points 3 hours ago
I'm not going to argue about your stats and facts, but consider the difference in societal impact a 50 year old has
dying from heart disease versus a twelve year old getting gunned down at a festival or in school.
All lives are equal, but not every death is. We should be looking at ways to reduce deaths due to medical malpractice
(I think reducing unnecessary [but profitable!] procedures is a good start) and continuing the fight against heart
disease, but just shouting stats and death rates ignores the very real difference between murders and accidental
death.
[–] camelCaseProgrammer 2 points 2 hours ago
This insight is critically important, and distinguishing between the societal, emotional and psychological impacts of
random, public space shootings and/or mass murders, and the limited and narrow effects of the slow passing of some
unhealthy quinquagenarian is too often overlooked and terribly short-sighted.
[–] sjc363000 0 points 2 hours ago
Yup. If you look at the death rate for people under the age of 45 for homicides and suicides, those deaths are not
insignificant.
This chart doesn't break it down by gun violence, but yeah, that gun related deaths are insignificant is laughable
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2016-508.pdf
[–] dR_KeSBy 1 point 49 minutes ago
“As for ourselves, we freely admit that it never did occur to us that it was possible to justify, by arithmetic, a thing
unjustifiable by any code of morals civilized or savage.” - Charles Dickens and Morley, responding to a piece claiming
factory accidents were only insignificant.
[–] Sentz12000 2 points an hour ago
Damn, the username fucking checks out.

[–] Tam4511 15 points 3 hours ago
This needs more so many more upvotes

[–] h3cate 1 point 41 minutes ago
All of those lives that are just a statistic to you. If your child was shot dead whilst at school I'm sure you wouldn't call
their 0.000001% (or whatever it is) of the population insignificant and say ah well the rest of the population is fine.
Have some respect.
[–] The_OsoGato 2 points an hour ago
holy shit you were prepared for this

[–] Brewtown 2 points an hour ago
Saved. Wow. This is an amazing post.

[–] b1lly4 2 points an hour ago
You forgot “6 people die from vapes”

[–] steveinaccounting 1 point 25 minutes ago
No one is perfect
[–] LeeThe123 -19 points 3 hours ago
This is whataboutism at it's finest (and seemingly most effective). LOOK AT ALL THESE OTHER DEATHS!
Even your main point:
22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can't be prevented by gun laws
Is wrong. Studies show that enacting licensing and other gun control laws actually DOES prevent suicide deaths. It's
much easier to pull a trigger on impulse than it is to plan your death or find the courage to follow through with
jumping off a building. The rest of what you say is pretty much just fluff, and doesn't consider the social harm that
mass shootings cause.
This reads like gun manufacturer and NRA propaganda, manipulating well-placed and very specific facts to distract
from actual solutions and blaming everyone but the actual problem: guns.
[–] GingeredPickle 7 points 2 hours ago
How many suicides are from an AR-15 or AK-47?

[–] feraxil 10 points 2 hours ago
social harm
LOL what a joke of a phrase.
[–] turbodragon123 5 points 2 hours ago
I think he means the consequences mass shootings have on society and it's citizens. Trust in others and general social
cohesion has got to take a toll when shootings and firearms become a regular thing imo.
[–] feraxil 1 point an hour ago
I'm sorry, but our country was 100% founded on the ideals of self reliance and distrust of others (government in
particular, but thats another conversation).
We currently live in the freest society with the least amount of violence EVER to have existed, and the violence we do
experience has been on a severe decline since the Civil War. Trust in our fellow man is at an all time high in our
country, which probably explains people's willingness to try absurd failed ideas like socialism.
[–] DamagedHells 0 points 2 hours ago
You: "Studies show this is wrong, actually."

Redditors: "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" SMASHES DOWNVOTE BUTTON
[–] IdontWannaGroUp 2 points an hour ago
Dude. Thank you so much for this.

[–] Goldblum4ever69 1 point 25 minutes ago
Ah, great point. We should continue letting people have access to military weapons so innocent children can have
their brains blown to shreds while they’re at school because gun violence kills fewer people than suicide and heart
disease.
[–] RevengeofKropotkin 3 points an hour ago
Beto got wrecked. Drop the mic. What we need is Presidential Candidate Control.
[–] open_ur_mind 2 points an hour ago
Saved. Outstanding work, anon.

[–] soka23 3 points an hour ago
Brilliant
[–] Head1lessZombie 1 point 46 minutes ago
Beto can’t stand up to facts. He is out of touch. Why would we sell our guns back to someone charged with burglary in
the past? Not sure you can pass the background check, Tex. So we’ll keep what’s lawfully ours.
[–] ConteDraculo 2 points 57 minutes ago
pls stop he is already dead

[–] Moss_Piglet_ 1 point 38 minutes ago
Wow I cannot wait to see how he replies to this one! This is fantastic! Saved your comment. I hope this topic comes
up in a debate again and his opponent just reads this word for word. Awesome
[–] dankmangos420 2 points 2 hours ago
This should be at the TOP!

[–] 3lRey 2 points an hour ago
I'm voting for this guy.

[–] clitdragon 1 point 2 hours ago
Anyone who understands the public view on Mass Shootings knows that they're considered worse because they are
also an attack on the public consciousness. It's terrorism.
[–] breggen 1 point 23 minutes ago
you
[–] DirtieHarry 1 point 24 minutes ago
I honestly wish I could shake your hand and buy you a beer. This is the most succinct, fact based, rebuttal to gun
control/confiscation I have ever seen.
[–] Tideriongaming 759 points 4 hours ago* 2
Literally everything about this is incorrect. You managed to score a 0%.

Americans will comply with the law.
How well did that work out in prohibition? That's rhetorical, as I'm sure you know the answer to that.
It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war.
"Mandatory buyback". I didn't buy my AR-15 from the government, so how are you going to buy it back? At least
have the fortitude to call it a confiscation. That's what you're proposing, so call it that. Calling it a "mandatory
buyback" is intellectually dishonest. Secondly, AR-15's were specifically not designed for war, period. They were 100%
designed as a civilian version of the M-16. They are not fully automatic, they are not "weapons of war".
Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country...
A flagrant misrepresentation of the truth. Rifles are exceptionally rare in any type of killing, whether a mass shooting
or a random homicide. Both the FBI and DOJ data demonstrate that year after year, handguns are predominantly
used in both types of killing. Not that suicides are a part of a crime discussion, but rifles are rarely used in those
deaths as well.
I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s
fun to shoot but would give it up.
AR's are incredibly useful for self defense, and hunting. And I doubt very highly that you've met "countless" AR or AK
owners who said they'd be happy to give them up. That's a non sequitur.
Because they also have kids and grandkids and want them to be safe.
Odd sentence fragment. Unless they were planning on shooting those family members or storing the guns improperly,
then there's no reason for the presence of a gun to be unsafe.
How can you run for president with this stance when you are clearly wholly uneducated and uninformed on this topic?
You are unqualified to craft policies on gun ownership with this dangerous level of ignorance.
[–] SneakyBadAss 16 points an hour ago*
I would like to add the specific mention of AK47. Unless he ransacks museums, good luck finding any. Ther rarirty of
this weapon is basically on the same level as Stg 44 and they all have a selective fire, erg banned under NFA. Poor
collectors.
Mr Beto, do you know what the 47 number means? That's the bloody year of the model, 1947. You are more likely to
find a civilian version of AKM or AK 74.
[–] Tideriongaming 12 points an hour ago
He doesn't know what he's talking about. But in common parlance, "AK47" is an acceptable terminology for most
Kalishnakov style rifles chambered in 7.62, such as this one:
https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/products/aam-romy-uf-bfpu
I get what you're saying, but Francis probably couldn't tell you the difference between what I linked and what you're
talking about, so he's gonna ban them both anyway.
[–] RIP_Hopscotch 51 points 2 hours ago
Him having met these countless unicorns who own firearms but would give them up if the government asked nicely
isn't a non sequitur, its just a lie.
[–] Tideriongaming 23 points 2 hours ago
Of course it's a lie, but it's also a lie that doesn't make any sense in the first place. The people that want those guns
are not, by and large, the kinds of people that would give them up in a futile gesture to show solidarity for some
unrelated deaths they didn't cause.
[–] EarlyCuylersCousin 9 points 2 hours ago
It’s a unicorn, Bigfoot, and space aliens all rolled into one.
[–] HR7-Q 49 points 3 hours ago
I'm sure he's met countless people who paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for a gun and are happy for the
government to pay 1/10th that to confiscate it from them.
And by countless, I mean 0.08 people... Just like his BAC.
[–] InfectedBananas 5 points 19 minutes ago
Correction, he blew a 0.10 BAC that night.

[–] RayZintos 4 points 35 minutes ago
Just like his poll numbers.

[–] kharmatika 10 points 2 hours ago
Ooooooo
[–] Tideriongaming 10 points 3 hours ago
Bazinga.
[–] AcousticDan 4 points 48 minutes ago
HEYO
[–] EarlyCuylersCousin 23 points 2 hours ago
The poll that was taken on a local news affiliate after his appearance at a gun show in Conway, Arkansas where he
supposedly met people at the gun show both selling and buying AR-15s that were in favor of turning them in
(laughable and totally unbelievable I know) had 90% of people saying they would not support a gun buyback
(confiscation). Robert Francis O’Rourke is a liar.
[–] HR7-Q 15 points an hour ago
No shit? He tried to say motherfuckers in Conway AR are willing to go along with gun confiscation? Hahaha
I grew up in the Ozarks. Ain't no motherfuckers 'round there givin' up guns to the government.
[–] EarlyCuylersCousin 5 points an hour ago
That’s what he said. He actually did go to a gun show but I highly doubt he talked to anyone that said they would
willingly give up their guns.
I had some fraternity brothers from Conway, AR. A couple of the toughest yet nicest guys I’ve ever met. They
would’ve laughed in his face if he asked them that question.
He just doesn’t understand the meaning of “COME AND TAKE IT.”

[–] EarlyCuylersCousin 5 points 51 minutes ago
As a Texan he damn well should.

[–] DTG_Mods_Blow 6 points an hour ago
And I doubt very highly that you've met "countless" AR or AK owners who said they'd be happy to give them up.
Maybe he can't count very high? Like beyond 1 may be too much for him.
[–] nosandwiches 9 points 2 hours ago
It's also worth pointing out that military weapons are not full auto. My m4 was safe, single, burst, and if I put it on
burst I had better have a good fuckin reason. Like, I'm gonna die if I don't, good reason.
Most military weapons issued have a full auto setting. The M4a1, for instance, has a full auto setting. Full auto has
gone out of favor other than suppression fire because a single tap to the head is far cleaner than a magazine dump in
the target's general direction. Also as you hinted, collateral damage in 4th generation warfare is a big concern.
That being said, as far as the laws are concerned, a selective fire gun is a machine gun anyway, so there's a
demonstrable functional difference between the gun you were issued in the military (To use his words, a "weapon of
war") and the AR-15 I have in my safe.
That being said, he's wrong anyway, because the founders did not distinguish between "military guns" and "civilian
guns". Guns are designed to inflict damage and death. A gun that is "good" at killing people is also good at defending
yourself or your property for the same reasons.
Either way he's wrong and a liar.
[–] nosandwiches 2 points an hour ago
The M4a1, for instance, has a full auto setting.

Mine didn't. Safe, single, burst. Marine corps combat veteran, was in South marjah in 2010.
Right, that's why I said M4a1.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine
Different variant.
[–] nosandwiches 6 points an hour ago
Fuck I had an m4 not an m4a1 sorry my mistake

[–] Abhais 10 points an hour ago
Legally speaking, burst is fully automatic. Firing more than one round per trigger pull is the dividing line, per the ATF.
Doesn’t apply to multi-barrel applications like the double-barreled AF2011.

[–] Abhais 1 point 2 minutes ago
Those likely have two separate trigger mechanisms for the US Domestic market to avoid this conflict in technical
operation... that said, it’s impossible to rationalize half the laws we have on the books so it wouldn’t surprise me if
they left loopholes like this unaddressed lol.
[–] Ilaik2shoot 3 points 45 minutes ago
Secondly, AR-15's were specifically not designed for war, period. They were 100% designed as a civilian version of
the M-16. They are not fully automatic, they are not "weapons of war".
I'm both a soldier and a gun enthusiast and I'll argue this point because I feel like it's somewhat dishonest from the
gun rights camp. I don't disagree with any other of your points.
The fact of the matter is that the AR-15 is specifically designed for war and was sold to Colt, who later branded /
created the M-16 model from the AR-15. More importantly, removing a relatively useless function on a rifle (three-
round burst or fully auto) does not in any way change the lethality of a rifle. Why? Because semi-automatic is more
effective and more lethal than fully-automatic fire from a carbine or rifle.
From the lowest infantryman to Delta Force, the US Army trains it's soldiers to fight with the semi-automatic mode on
rifles. I've even seen interviews with Larry Vickers, a former CAG guy saying they almost would never use fully-
automatic on their Colt AR-15 rifles.
There is absolutely no functional difference in lethality between a civilian AR-15 and military issue weapons, I've shot
a lot of them both. I would personally take my civilian AR over the POS M4A1 they make me carry. This argument
about "there's no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle" is really just getting caught up in semantics and ignores
the fact that civilian AR-15's are equally lethal to military AR-15's. This is a very weak argument and one the gun
community should stop making.
[–] Tideriongaming 1 point 12 minutes ago*
There is absolutely no functional difference in lethality between a civilian AR-15 and military issue weapons, I've
shot a lot of them both. I would personally take my civilian AR over the POS M4A1 they make me carry. This
argument about "there's no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle" is really just getting caught up in
semantics and ignores the fact that civilian AR-15's are equally lethal to military AR-15's. This is a very weak
argument and one the gun community should stop making.
Even if I bought this, and I don't, it's still a moot point from a legal stand point, and factually wrong. There is a
functional difference between a military issue M4, M4a1, etc and a civilian AR-15. You can argue all you want about
lethality, but the moment you throw a select fire switch on the weapon, it is a different classification of weapon.
Secondly, the military outright demanded a Full Auto version of the AR-15 which they were given, while Colt
specifically marketed the AR-15 to civilian and LEO sales. You can smudge the semantics if you want, but the 60's
marked a clear line in history where the "civilian" and "military" versions of these rifles clearly diverged in path. To me
that's like labeling a bolt action rifle like the K98 as "military" because it was developed for military use, and was the
most sold rifle in the history of the world. They're both guns, and in the end, the founding fathers didn't distinguish
between military and civilian weapons anyway. This distinction has been raised by leftists to try and classify
everything as "military" and therefore un-ownable by civilians.
[–] FatalisDrakari 2 points 33 minutes ago
I’m more interested in this part of the argument. I feel like arguing the semantics of “assault rifle” diminishes the
concept of lethality versus nomenclature.
[–] kwabina 1 point 15 minutes ago
I think this is where the whole conversation gets taken down the wrong path. What does it matter if it is a weapon of
war or not? It's about the most effective type of weapon available to citizens today.
Citizen weapons is the primary protection of our freedoms. They have been from the beginning. There are all sorts of
lies about the intent of the 2nd Amendment and who the weapons should belong to. I think it's pretty simple. The
intent was always to allow the people to protect their own freedoms. We fought the foundational war over this (among
other things). Why are we now pretending that the intent was for anything else?
In short, it doesn't matter what type of weapon it is, what it's original manufacturer intended it for. What matters is
that we were intended to, as citizens, have the right to own weapons that could ensure our freedom. Take them away
and watch the 1st Amendment go away next.
[–] ArrrGaming 1 point 13 minutes ago
Plus, if you decided to become a mass-shooter, what better weapon than an SBR variant of some kind of AR-15? You
get the ammo capacity per magazine, decently fast reload, and you're firing rounds that penetrate well and have lots
of velocity over say a 9MM pistol.
The only downsides are that it's not as concealable as a pistol and the ammo weighs more so you can carry somewhat
less of it.
Also: As someone thinking of dipping a toe back into firearm ownership and hobby after 20+ years, things seem like
they've really gone to hell on both sides.
[–] McSkillz21 2 points 55 minutes ago
Almost, the AR-15 or Armalite 15 rifle was designed for civilian use then adapted to the M-16 for military use and they
were based on the AR-10.
you
[–] securitywyrm 2 points 2 hours ago
Americans will comply, because he will label those who refuse as enemy combatants and take away their citizenship,
so they can be tortured into giving up names of others who own guns.
[–] Otherwise_Relation 1 point 7 minutes ago
I'm sure you know the answer to that.

You sure? He may not.

[–] Tideriongaming 1 point 2 minutes ago
It's more useful to point out that he's wrong than to question his motives.
[–] kwabina 1 point 29 minutes ago
here here!!!
[–] HankTate -3 points an hour ago
I see you're one of those cringey wannabe operators. Oof with the punisher stickers. Do you wear patches on your
hats too?
[–] Tideriongaming 4 points 32 minutes ago
I hear armchair psychology and ad hominem are suitable substitutes for real arguments, at least if you're a leftist.
Comment?
[–] Cosmic_Troll 718 points 5 hours ago
"no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield"
I'm not sure how you are using this to differentiate between types of firearms. Weapons were all designed for killing
or inflicting damage. While i understand and support gun regulation and restriction, your grand plan here seems to be
just another strategy to pander to the extreme anti-gun groups.
I find it truly astonishing, and laughable, that you as a Texan think that this is the way forward, and honestly I'm
disappointed in your naivety concerning the American willingness to comply with what can and will be a constitutional
challenge. While other candidates have made bold claims and goals, they have steered clear of promising things that
will clearly be constitutional questionable. The closing of Gitmo, the Affordable Care Act, withdrawing from conflict, or
new environmental stands, are all challenging issues and rallying points, but honest that can be managed by the
President.
Your plan here also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of presidential power and responsibility. To think that you
as a single person have the authority and right to withdraw rights without congress (assuming you realize the only
way you can really promise this is through executive action, something that the current administration is under fire
from democrats) is a gross overstep of power.
[–] PutinsThirdNipple 23 points 4 hours ago
He knows he's full of crap. He knows statements like that would kill a serious presidential bid. He know's he's got no
chance of getting the Democratic nomination. Its 100% pandering for a runner up prize, like a book deal. Oh wait, did
you know he's an author? He made sure we all did when he started the AMA.
It really is disappointing though. I am all for a Democratic President, and there are facets of both sides that i support,
however his actions here are only going to strengthen the right.
He has essentially given them a blanket rallying cry concerning weapons, "the Democrats are going to throw away the
constitution", "if you think Obama was bad just wait until people like Beto get in office". The slogans and diatribes
practically write themselves.
And if you followed his AMA into his subreddit, you will see essentially a bunch of sounding room posts congratulating
themselves and him on his bold stances and such commitment. And in the face of all this there will be people
wondering what went wrong, how could they have failed.
Each and every answer read like a prepared statement, he did an AMA on REDDIT garnered 9070 comments (as i
write) and answered what... 5? 6? embarrassing. This hasn't been an AMA it has been a crucifixion of Beto o Rourke
and a garden for anti-left sentiment and commentary.
[–] dusters 16 points 4 hours ago
Ban muskets
[–] trippalhealicks 3 points 4 hours ago
Beautifully stated. Thank you for this.

[–] DaddysBallsack 3 points 3 hours ago
Damn was that a well written statement!

[–] rustyhaben 3 points 3 hours ago
Nicely said.
What a pompous, childish post this is. There's no argument in this post at all, just emotional grand-standing.
To think that you as a single person have the authority and right to withdraw rights without congress
O'Rourke does not speak only for himself in this.
Edit: this part:
I'm not sure how you are using this to differentiate between types of firearms. Weapons were all designed for
killing or inflicting damage.
Is interesting. I wish you'd continued supporting your ideas with facts and information (not being an expert on firearm
technology myself) rather than climbing onto a soapbox and name-calling for the rest of your post.
Look man, disagree with me or whatever but the two points you have highlighted here are ones i would think are
pretty strong.
O'Rourke may not stand alone against guns, i readily recognize that. However with the way our government is built
and runs, it is inviting criticism to declare that he "WILL" mandate a buy back. This isn't a soap box point or
outlandish criticism, it s real problem with his claim. He lacks the authority to make these changes by himself, which
in turn means he will need support of Congress. And while i would argue its realistic to push for reform and
accountability, i argue that he will not have the entire party behind him to mandate this buy back.
That in turn would only provide one "option" executive order, something that the democrats have all been staunchly
critical of in the current administration. It essentially comes down to the 2nd Amendment, and this action will directly
challenge that Amendment. Whether or not that challenge is upheld or overturned remains to be seen, but it is
definitely not something that a candidate should be grandstanding on and promising.
The edit you threw in concerning the request for facts and information regarding firearms and weapons honestly
leaves me at a loss. I fail to understand your question here? Are you questioning that weapons aren't designed to kill
or damage? Are you questioning what drove the creation of the firearm? Are you arguing that firearms and weapons
weren't designed for that purpose?
O'Rourke states seems to differentiate weapons that need to be recalled as ones that were designed to kill people on a
battlefield. I simply brought up that that seems to be the design point of all weapons and firearms.
I would honestly appreciate feedback on the firearm question as i don't know how to provide evidence without
understanding your question fully.
[–] suckmyglock762 1903 points 5 hours ago

What happens when they don't comply though?
NY SAFE Act has seen about 4% compliance with Assault Weapons Registration.
CA Assault Weapons Registration has seen only 3% compliance
New Jersey has seen essentially 0% compliance with their magazine ban.
When arguably the most left leaning states in the country cannot get any serious level of compliance with these laws,
how do you imagine it will go better for you nationwide when including all the other states with serious gun cultures?
[–] NapalmCheese 148 points 4 hours ago

The play is clear, it's a war of attrition.
1. Create a mandatory buyback, now no one but criminals can have these guns.
2. Make sure everyone knows that the only people that have these guns are criminals.
3. Now that everyone is certain only criminals have these guns, anyone who didn't turn in their gun at the
mandatory buyback is obviously a criminal.
4. Criminals that didn't turn in their guns at the buyback can't use their guns for non-criminal purposes lest they be
outed and caught as criminals.
5. The only people using these guns are hardened, 'real' criminals, using them for 'real' crimes (compared to target
shooters made criminals when they failed to turn in their rifles using their rifles to shoot targets).
6. Common citizens turned criminals are hiding guns they can't use and see them as a liability and add-on charge
and are more likely to give them up at non-mandatory buybacks in the future for fear of being caught.
7. As the current generation or two of 'common citizen turned criminal' dies off their hidden guns get lost to time
and rust, their inherited guns get turned into buybacks by the indoctrinated younger generations, and we repeal
the 2nd amendment.
8. Having no 2nd amendment, new rules are created for what media is appropriate for public consumption and how
news is disseminated.
9. Under the new rules for media and news only positively spun stories are allowed to air. We repeal the 1st
amendment for the safety and well-being of the populace.
10. We enter a new world where obviously nothing bad happens because you definitely never hear about it and
there is no violence because that's what we're told and obviously due process is given to all activists and political
dissenters.
[–] Asymptote_X 31 points 3 hours ago
You fail to identify what would happen to the people who refuse to give up their guns and AREN'T ashamed/afraid
about letting everyone know they aren't giving it up. There are literally people who have spent the majority of their
lives prepping for the government to try and take their guns and won't go down without a fight. Does the US
government send in police, military, do they shoot to kill, what about other residents of the household (kids / spouse /
etc), do they just drone strike it like an Afghan farm?
What you're describing would be more accurate if the US had thousands of guns, not hundreds of millions. People
wouldn't start seeing gun owners as criminals overnight (Except for the people that already do)
There's be trials and jury nullifications left, right and center.

So now you are creating criminals that were good citizens, makes sense.
[–] Alex15can 71 points 3 hours ago
We are trying to change the world here.
What's wrong with a few million deaths. /s

[–] Jeff_Epstein 25 points 2 hours ago
This, unironically, is the mindset of every communist regime.

[–] Mistercheif 22 points 3 hours ago
Sounds like a great leap forward to me /s

A drop in the bucket, comrade.

[–] SneakyThrowawaySnek 2 points 25 minutes ago
You know, they seem pretty hell-bent on getting those deaths. Maybe we make sure it's their deaths, not ours. Just
saying.
[–] ReasonReader 9 points 3 hours ago
That's what totalitarian have always done.

[–] Valac_ 46 points 3 hours ago
That.
Or millions of people die.
There's not a way to do this without violence it's going to happen even when no one wants it.
Relevant
My only thing about this scenario is that anyone can go down to lowes/home depot and buy a thread adapter then go
over to autozone and buy an oil filter, for less than $30 they now have an improvised suppressor that works just as
well (-30 db on average) as a professionally made one. Any criminals who break into the home of someone who owns
or someone who has a friend that owns a backhoe can now simply disappear without a trace, I really doubt they tell
their family or loved ones that they are going out robbing for the night and what neighborhoods they plan on hitting.
For the record I do not condone this I am just pointing out to readers that this is something that could easily happen.
[–] NowlmAlwaysSmiling 3 points 2 hours ago
Read the full list, please, if you think you're talking to an anti gunner.
edit: for the record, I completely agree.
I knew I wasn't talking to an anti-gunner, my reply was meant more for those who read through your reply as another
angle that could be taken by gun owners to prevent themselves from being found out. I just really suck at wording my
replies so my intentions are obvious.
Gotcha. In any case, the whole thread is a riot, I needed a laugh.

I've been having a blast, it's fun watching him go down in flames.
[–] tungtree 1 point 35 minutes ago
The most common AR is chambered in .556/.223 which is not a subsonic round. In other words it’s still loud even
when suppressed.
[–] ginja_ninja 5 points 2 hours ago
And think about all the jobs you'll be creating in the budding new Secret Police department!
[–] NowlmAlwaysSmiling 1 point 2 hours ago
A picture of Kafka on every wall!

Is utopia, comrade!
Shame we still have no potato.
[–] sekikerasodep 11 points 3 hours ago
TLDR fast track to becoming North Korea.

Super quick, are people in the DPRK not allowed to own firearms? I could google it, but I know propaganda
departments do exist and have budgets.
[–] SneakyBadAss 5 points an hour ago*
Of course, they are not allowed. A rifle on the wall is the symbol of freedom. First thing dictators do is disarming
civilians.
[–] NowlmAlwaysSmiling 2 points an hour ago
My only remaining question is how do we add this fact into school curriculum? There seems to be an uncomfortable
amount of push back on what seems to me to be a very simple point.
[–] SneakyBadAss 2 points 53 minutes ago*
I don't know how history classes look across the pond, but a simple crash course through the last 50 years of
history should do the job. You don't even need to go that far, minorities and gun rights are the bedrock of civil
rights in the USA.
[–] NowlmAlwaysSmiling 2 points 45 minutes ago
It should, but it clearly doesn't. I feel like some, or unfortunately, many, require it to be spelled out for them.
Possibly tattooed on even. I feel like there are some truths so universal that once in a while a generation forgets
to pass along what they silently think everyone must already know, and there it gets lost until there is a fight to
reclaim it. Just a thought.
[–] WassermanSchultz 2 points 58 minutes ago
The teachers are all socialists who are not interested in teaching these facts. They are more interested in
confounding kids with gender theory.
[–] SneakyBadAss 2 points 45 minutes ago
That's the paradox. Minorities were and still are historically oppressed the most. They are the first one who
should push against this non-sense.
[–] NowlmAlwaysSmiling 1 point 49 minutes ago
Bit of a broad brush for me but ok.

[–] wcincedarrapids 4 points 2 hours ago
lol is this a serious question

It is a serious question. I thought some military service was compulsory in the DPRK, for males at least, is it not?
[–] sekikerasodep 5 points an hour ago
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/north-korea
Look under "Gun Regulation".
TLDR:
In North Korea, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law
In North Korea, no civilians may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
So, in a word: no.
The sources are there if you need them.
That uh, that seems abundantly clear. No real wiggle room there. Thanks for setting the record straight for me,
friend.

[–] LurkMorePlease 8 points 3 hours ago
the only people who have guns are criminals

[–] frozen_tuna 16 points 3 hours ago
Create a mandatory buyback, now no one but criminals can have these guns.
Lmao. First line. Nice. Lets make lots and lots of regular folk into criminals. Totally not an extremist's stance.
[–] Zippy477 5 points 3 hours ago
Did you guys finish reading his post?

[–] bigbishounen 4 points 3 hours ago
I know. I was getting more and more upset and then I got to the last few lines. :D
There should be a subreddit for people who respond before they finish reading lol
[–] throwthisway 8 points 2 hours ago
That's just called reddit.

[–] core_krogoth -1 points 2 hours ago
Yeah, what did we miss, big brain?

Wait a minute...was I talking to you? I don’t remember saying a damn thing to you.
Also what’s with the tone?
[–] deja-roo 2 points 36 minutes ago
Or, the law loses legitimacy in the eyes of the many as widespread disobedience and flaunting of the law takes over.
[–] core_krogoth 4 points 2 hours ago
Cowabunga it is.
Alexa how do I get notified when a specific cool person posts?

Surf the Kali Yuga

[–] McSkillz21 1 point 57 minutes ago
Right out of the Mao, Hitler, Stalin playbook. I think the Venezuelans and Chinese are currently using it and must be
passing it page by page the US democrats.
Dude, you had me until the last two, seriously, that's how Onion-esque our politics have become. I love you. Live
free.
[–] deadlyblackcentipede 4 points 3 hours ago
Ain’t socialism grand.

Socialism
Socialism, the precursor to communism, wants to arm the proletariat. That means you! Democrats, the enemy of true
progress, want to take your guns. We may not agree on much, but we can agree that we need guns to prevent the
actions of a tyrannical government. Ride on, cowboy.
[–] deadlyblackcentipede 0 points 1 hour ago
Um, no. The proletariat would have guns during the communist revolution. During the socialism phase, individual
rights would be restricted and the population would be re-educated until everyone accepts the communist ideal.
That’s according to Marxism, I should say.
[–] NowlmAlwaysSmiling 2 points 1 hour ago
I respectfully disagree, but would enjoy a fruitful debate with you some time. In any case, I applaud your actions to
educate others.
[–] Ninja_Parrot -2 points 3 hours ago
taking guns is socialism

bruh
[–] deadlyblackcentipede 1 point 1 hour ago
Within Marxist theory, a socialist government would take control of the means of production and restrict individual
rights. Everyone would be re-educated until they accept the ideal of communist equality.
[–] Ninja_Parrot 1 point 1 hour ago
Marx himself said that "under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the
workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." Both early and modern leftists tend to care about gun ownership.
Now, perhaps if you think Democrat=liberal=leftist=socialist, the confusion is understandable. But socialists are not
liberals, and we critique liberals like the Democrats at least as harshly as you do. I don't like Beto's buyback or
Bernie's restrictions any more than you, although presumably for different reasons. The main thing I care about is
breaking down hierarchies and letting communities control their own affairs, and community self-defense is a crucial
aspect of self-determination. I just prioritize arms for the most vulnerable people -- queer militias, black self-defense
organizations, so on and so forth -- because if the government or the culture oversteps itself, they'll be the first to feel
the fist.
(Edit: clarity)
[–] core_krogoth -1 points 2 hours ago
>socialism
Democracy. FTFY
[–] deadlyblackcentipede 1 point 1 hour ago
If you mean democratic socialism, then yeah.

[–] core_krogoth 0 points 1 hour ago
No. Just democracy. But hey, whatever floats your red, fox watching, libtard hating, republican boat.
[–] Traiya 1 point 2 hours ago
So, we turn into China. You know, I have heard some say that is the goal.
[–] hecklerponics 165 points 4 hours ago
He'll probably have jack-booted reps come and politely ask you to give them your guns. /s
I think most cautious American gun owners are just like the rest of us and don't trust the federal government as far
as we can throw them. So surrendering what they view as their way to protect themselves and their families against
an increasingly non-representative government is a non-starter for people who aren't just hard-line shills for the red
or blue team... but actual Americans who just want to be left alone.
[–] schumonsta 71 points 4 hours ago
Well put - look at CA for example, even Minneapolis. The local government is not providing us with public services
such as police officers, which we pay for with our taxes. It causes an explosion in crime. With that said, how can we
protect ourselves if the government fails to do so? Oh wait, they won’t.
[–] Willyb524 18 points 3 hours ago
Interestingly Minnesota just passed a law requiring firearms to be made with a metal that exceeds a melting temp of
~1000F. This makes HiPoints, one of the cheapest pistols you can get, illegal. The only reason I can see for this is
straight up racism and not wanting people living in poverty to protect themselves.
Wow, very insightful, thanks for sharing. Was this in the last month or so?
[–] allenahansen -8 points an hour ago
So-called "Saturday Night Specials" have been periodically illegal since at least the 1970s -- just as cheap, dangerous
cars, and cheap, dangerous household appliances, and cheap, dangerous alcoholic beverages have been. Do you think
all these codified safety precautions are racist policies aimed at "poor people?" (An assumption which is in and of
itself, racist, btw.)
Or are they maybe intended to save lives and medical out-payments?
[–] ed1380 10 points an hour ago
the important bits aren't made of weak metals. I have several guns that would be banned and they've been reliable.
if you look at the history of gun control it's always been about control and racism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ZoH5P6UIE
[–] allenahansen -1 points an hour ago
Though I agree gun control as we know it was originated by St. Ronnie in response to Huey and Friends showing up
in the State Capitol rotunda with semi-autos back when he was the gov, I know a few trauma docs who might
disagree with you on the reasoning behind prohibition of cheap, readily-available side arms. Ever see an exploded
hand? Blood and guts look the same the world over.
JFTR: Tommy guns-- the original controlled firearm-- were used almost exclusively by whiteass mobsters, but I
digress.
[–] ed1380 2 points 46 minutes ago
let's ban cars and alcohol while we're at it. those 2 cause significantly more injuries and death
[–] the_Weaselkeeper 1 point 5 minutes ago
They aren't 'safety precautions' the guns were safe, they were also inexpensive.
High Point pistols are no less safe than an expensive S&W Revolver that retails for 5 times the amount.
[–] StandsInStupid 3 points 45 minutes ago
Can confirm, I work in St. Paul and police response time if there's no weapon involved is about 45 minutes.
[–] [deleted] 3 hours ago
[deleted]
[–] Weiner365 -11 points 4 hours ago
Not to nit-pick but it’s St. Paul that’s having the issues, not Minneapolis
Not from the área, don’t know if it’s a Raleigh-Durham /Fort Worth-Dallas type City, but
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-lack-of-cops-in-minneapolis-20190918-74prrgmbvfcsbneopdgbtn2tqy-
story.html?outputType=amp
I am from LA. I can tell you how bad it is there. 300 SERIOUS calls were not even answered by Santa Monica Police
Department last month. Other cops in distress, robbery, and violent assaults. Cops couldn’t do anything.
[–] Weiner365 -4 points 4 hours ago
Listen man, I hope I don’t insult you by saying this, but should we really trust New Yorkers to know the finer points of
the differences between St. Paul and Minneapolis? St. Paul and Minneapolis are entirely different different cities; they
have wholly separate mayors, city councils, budgets, etc. St. Paul is the one with the problems
All I’m going to say is idk how New York got brought into this.
[–] Weiner365 1 point 3 hours ago
He copied me an article from the NY daily news

[–] LiveRealNow 2 points 4 hours ago
Minneapolis is also having problems. They are talking about cutting park police if they don't get huge budget
increase.
[–] Nuclear_Penetration 1 point 4 hours ago
Does it really matter? It doesnt, he got the city wrong, the point still stands.
[–] Weiner365 1 point 4 hours ago
Yes, it does matter. Journalists should be held to high standards of accuracy and, to anyone who lives in
Minnesota, confusing St. Paul with Minneapolis is a pretty big miss
[–] Ed_Tivrusky_IV 22 points 4 hours ago
Black sites in Chicago never existed to torture Americans. We can totally trust them.
Secret courts too... That's only something Russia and China do.
Man, I love the truth bombs raining down on the ignorant today.
[–] necrotica 83 points 4 hours ago
Trump is like Hitler... Also, please give up your guns!!

[–] Aukos 18 points 4 hours ago
Can "please give up your guns" become the new "please clap" now?
[–] Amperage21 6 points 2 hours ago
This meme needs to happen.

[–] Coachkfan1 29 points 4 hours ago
After everything that Snowden revealed why would u trust them?

[–] chiliedogg 11 points 4 hours ago
Even if they wanted to do the thug approach - they can't!

The feds know about exactly zero of my firearms.
Then they will clearly need to go house to house, and search every nook and cranny.
Just to be sure.
[–] theferrit32 -17 points 3 hours ago
The feds know about exactly zero of my firearms.

We need a national gun registry, which will be kept confidential, but law enforcement will have access.
[–] chiliedogg 7 points 3 hours ago
The Brady Bill that gave us background checks specifically bans a federal firearm registry of NON-NFA firearms for this
exact reason. It's supposed to be effectively impossible to confiscate weapons.
Gun owners were worried that having background checks for firearm purchases, which they overwhelmingly support in
principle, would allow the feds to build a registry of gun owners. Registration is the first necessary step on the path to
confiscation, so it's a line in the sand that gun owners will not cross under any circumstance. So they supported
requiring background checks so long as the law mandating them also forbade having a registry.
First they banned automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and sound suppression devices without
going through the year-long and expensive NFA process. Then they banned any automatic firearm manufactured after
1986 entirely (the remaining automatic guns now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands). Then they banned devices
that allow you to pull the trigger faster. Some states banned the use of magazines or having scary-looking features or
having a place to put your thumb (seriously).
We've already experienced a slippery slope of additional restrictions (with the notable exception of the sunset of the
AWB), so gun owners feel now that it's more important than ever to keep there from being a registry.
[–] 3dDavinci 15 points 3 hours ago
Nah
[–] core_krogoth 2 points 3 hours ago
Nah bruh.
They (government, politicians and LEO/LEO agencies) lie to your face, tell you they lied and that they are going to get
away with it and you still trust them?
Do you enjoy the abuse?
[–] sorebutton 2 points 46 minutes ago
It's not like lists of ccw holders that are confidential have never leaked. This endangers gun owners.
[–] Stryker7200 0 points 2 hours ago
Faith in government is a lie. Government is nothing more than a a cartel extracting revenue from people causing no
harm with “legalized” deadly force.
[–] T_Ceezy 0 points 2 hours ago
Fortunately only one party is openly trying to tax and control every aspect of normal working Americans’ lives.
[–] hecklerponics 4 points an hour ago
Care to clue me in on which that is? Because blue and red teams look exactly the same to me. They just get their
respective team members yelling about different shit.
[–] T_Ceezy 0 points an hour ago
I only see one party banning things and proposing crippling taxes on working families. It’s not that hard to figure out.
[–] hecklerponics 1 point an hour ago
I see both debt financing everything. I see both handing billionaires money (one way or another)... I see both
bankrupting us with an interventionalist foreign policy... I can go on...
[–] JohnFest 2 points an hour ago
The Republicans have run everything for a while now and i'm still paying taxes.
[–] SMALLWANG69 83 points 3 hours ago
Beto legit sounds like a child when talking about this issue.
"They'll do it cause I said so!"
[–] JustHereForTheSalmon 13 points 2 hours ago
Robert O'Rourke: I’ve shown that I can bring people in and together
Also Robert O'Rourke: theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon
Clearly when given the power to apply force at gunpoint against citizens that have harmed no one a person becomes
mentally damaged, as evident by every one of our politicians.
[–] Meme_Pope 231 points 4 hours ago
“Seen by Beto O’Rourke”

[–] FireHurtingJuice -28 points 4 hours ago
I mean TBH he's answering these questions honestly. I am diametrically opposed to his gun control policies but I can
respect his willingness to have a discussion about it.
[–] jdmgto 14 points 3 hours ago
Yes, he's honestly an idiot if he thinks everyone will just quietly hand their guns over. We have actual compliance
numbers from similar laws in blue states with sub 10% success rates. So your options are one of three things. Hes
either 1) ignorant and hasn't done actual research into current gun laws and their success, 2) delusional and thinks
"surely this time will be different!" or 3) he doesn't want to admit that his solution is no knock raids by heavily armed
police.
Idiot, airhead, or asshole, none of them are acceptable answers from a presidential candidate.
He's not an idiot and he doesn't care if anyone will hand over their guns. He's just sucking in campaign donations from
the useful idiots that want to end tyranny by killing every conservative person in the country.
his willingness to have a discussion about it.

Please refer me to the discussion, because all I'm seeing is the same sentiment stated over and over (Hell yeah we're
taking your AR15s) with no actual responses to questions or criticisms.
[–] JdPat04 15 points 3 hours ago
And doesn’t ever give a follow up which isn’t a discussion.

[–] Meme_Pope 67 points 3 hours ago

Nah, he wanted to good soundbite for Democrat primary voters when he said “Hell yea we’re going to take your
AR15”. Then he runs away from the real world implications of “taking” people’s guns. He just wanted to sound badass
in the moment.
[–] frozen_tuna 45 points 3 hours ago
Remember way back in 2018 when a common gun-reform talking point was "No one is actually talking about taking
guns away"? Pepperidge farms remembers.
[–] jdmgto 22 points 3 hours ago
That lines been bullshit for years. Nancy Pelosi has been saying she'd love to confiscate every gun she could since the
90's.
[–] the_Weaselkeeper 1 point 7 minutes ago
he ran away when he crashed his car while driving drunk

Now he runs away after crashing his prez hopes, wonder if he was drunk then too?
[–] BonnerKebaab -10 points 3 hours ago
The new Donald Trump approach to politics (it's actually old. Sad.)
[–] ANUS_CONE 4 points 2 hours ago
Discussion implies a reply. Spouting platitudes and not answering follow ups is not a discussion, it’s an advertisement.
[–] wryprotagonist 1 point an hour ago
Anus_Cone makes a very good point.

[–] ANUS_CONE 1 point 28 minutes ago
I’m glad you think I have a good point

[–] mkay0 1 point 2 hours ago
You’re assuming it’s a good faith policy suggestion. Without an actual plan, it’s not a proposal for a law, it’s a wishlist.
[–] elwood_radley 6 points 2 hours ago
I’m guessing this didn’t go down how they thought this would go down.
I’m actually happily surprised at all of the comments defending legal and lawful gun ownership.
[–] black_stapler 11 points 4 hours ago
Murderous goon squads at their homes. Beta won't answer this but that's because Beta wants to pretend that he is
opposed to murder.
Still superior to being called Robert Francis.

[–] HildyFriday 10 points 4 hours ago
The number of people who don't understand that this stance is Beto throwing himself under the bus to make way for a
candidate that the DNC thinks can beat Trump is astonishing. It's certainly working isn't it?
It's like people have forgotten how the game of politics is played.
Disagree.
This guy does actually seem to be THAT FUCKING ARROGANT.
If this were him taking the fall - they wouldn't be doing everything they could to shut him up. In an interview with
CNN - he has THEM defending 2A.
If he needed to bow out there are a million ways to do it. No, this isn't a play, this is him lighting himself on fire
because he's a fucking moron.
[–] mtcruse 2 points 54 minutes ago
Nothing sweeter than the smoke of self-immolation.

[–] HildyFriday -1 points 3 hours ago
You are of course entitled to your opinion.

[–] ReasonReader 6 points 3 hours ago
this stance is Beto throwing himself under the bus

Nah, it's his last desperate grab for attention. People already know he's worthless.
Mmm. Spicy, I love it.

Okay
[–] John_Holliday 3 points 3 hours ago
There's no reason to completely ruin his reputation for future use, he could simply end his campaign if that's the case.
That's a good point if you see his reputation as completely ruined by this. I don't. It's not conservative or Republican
voters that are being 'managed' here, so keep that in mind.
[–] John_Holliday 1 point 2 hours ago
A lot of Democrats, even on here, think he's making himself look like an idiot with this gun issue. I'm just saying it
would make more sense politically for him to just drop out instead of causing such a strong backlash if he's paving the
way for the nominee. Granted he could be testing the waters though.
[–] HildyFriday 1 point 2 hours ago
I understood what you were saying.

This is Reddit.
[–] DamGuide 3 points 2 hours ago
He ran crying to the FBI about being threatened the last time someone told him good luck confiscating. Beatoff is a
joke. Most cops are talking like they won't enforce this type of nonsense, but we will see.
[–] CatherineConstance 3 points 4 hours ago
Yep, those of us that are pro Second Amendment are so because people don't comply with the laws. I'm a 25 year old
woman, I need to be able to carry a gun for my own protection. I'm a law abiding citizen, so if I had an AR-15 (which
I don't, because I don't need one) I'd comply with this law. But I'm not worried about people like me, I'm worried
about protecting myself against the people who are NOT like me and will break the law and potentially threaten my
safety.
[–] Bob002 34 points 3 hours ago
I'm worried about protecting myself against the people who are NOT like me and will break the law and potentially
threaten my safety.
What happens when the people that you should be worried about is your own government? Which leads to my 2nd
"sounds like you listed the exact reasons that you need an AR15".
This is precisely what brings out my "every gun law is an infringement" stance.
[–] CatherineConstance -3 points 3 hours ago
Oh yeah I agree with you, and honestly am not really for taking away any forms of guns. I just don't know what
exactly needs to be done gun control wise, so I'm open to discussions about automatic rifles and things like that, but I
think there is another answer I just don't know what it is.
What exactly needs to be done gun control wise

Honestly at this point, it's better enforcement and implementation of laws already on the books. In addition, many of
the laws on the book range from ineffective to completely nonsensical and should be removed or rewritten. Just look
at this example of what metrics the ATF uses to classify firearms. A gun can be considered a completely legal pistol UP
UNTIL THE MOMENT THE STOCK TOUCHES YOUR SHOULDER because pistols have cheek rests and rifles have stocks.
As soon as you brace that firearm against your shoulder and not your cheek, you're a criminal. Clearly unenforceable
and completely ineffective at stopping their use in violent crime.
Many pro-gun advocates would argue for a repeal of all gun laws (which is a position I can understand) but I believe
some degree of compromise is necessary and even beneficial. The problem arises with bad-faith actors use fear and
misinformation to continuously pass ineffective, unenforceable, and abstruse laws to gain political points. It's very
understandable why pro-gun advocates are resistant to more control being passed without first examining and
rewriting/repealing EXISTING laws.
Hey, I like your attitude, but not for nothing, the one group I don't feel it's beneficial to taunt is the ATF. Just my
opinion.
[–] Asymptote_X 2 points 31 minutes ago
Do you say that because of your concern for me? Because if so thank you but they don't have jurisdiction over my
country ;)
If it's because you think the ATF is doing good work then I'd just like to clarify that I wasn't intending to make a
statement on the entire agency. I'm not really informed enough on their specific practices. Just wanted to point out
the absurdity of the criteria they use to differentiate between firearms.
The ATF is primarily an agency of enforcement. Until there is a policy change and they treat firearm concerns
with education, and open dialogue with manufacturers and gun owners, I will likely continue to believe that they
are not a force for good, by and for the people. Without question I agree that their arbitrary rules are at best a
hindrance to good policy, at worst actually dangerous.
Yes, my comment was purely out of concern. I've heard enough stories about people confronted by the ATF it
seems to have jurisdiction everywhere, and simultaneously accountable to no one in practice. Also, a smidgen
because I fear that if Americans keep saying how silly the ATF rules are, the agency will scrap what they have
and try to outlaw whatever they feel like.
[–] Blue2501 1 point 2 hours ago
ATF has clarified their ruling on shouldering pistol braces and, ehhh.... As I understand it, basically they're not gonna
come shoot your dog if you do it at the range, but if you were to shoulder a brace while committing a crime with the
pistol they'll bring the hammer down.
[–] Spoon_S2K 1 point 2 hours ago
I think right now we're fine. To argue for more gun laws as of now is ludicrous.
[–] Asymptote_X 1 point 16 minutes ago
When I speak of degree of compromise I mostly mean compromises that have already occurred. I'm not in favor of
a complete repeal of gun control like some pro-2A advocates but I definitely agree that more gun laws is NOT the
solution right now. There needs to be an effort to demonstrate that these laws are actually fair and effective, and for
less control to be exercised at a state level. It makes zero sense for one state to have extremely strict gun laws
when a criminal can legally acquire gear in an adjacent state and just drive over with no oversight or enforcement.
Perfect example of a law that ONLY punishes law-abiding citizens while barely impeding a criminal.
[–] Matman142 15 points 3 hours ago
semiautomatic rifles. Assault weapons bans do not target automatic weapons.

[–] patpend 10 points 3 hours ago
When was the last time a legally-owned automatic rifle ever killed an innocent bystander in this country?
I don't know... That's why I said, I don't know enough about gun control to be the one making decisions on it lol.
[–] 4xTHESPEED 4 points 3 hours ago
so FYI automatic weapons are heavily restricted and almost no one owns one. extremely rare, very expensive and a
lot of hoops to jump through to own one.
a semi-auto is not an auto. a semi-auto is not an assault rifle despite people like Beto saying they are.
an ar15 is an ideal home defense weapon. this guy knows
I highly recommend taking a Saturday and rent at a range and try it out.
https://www.ocala.com/news/20190711/summerfield-homeowner-injured-kills-2-intruders-with-ar-15
[–] Spoon_S2K 1 point 2 hours ago
Automatic weapons are effectively banned obviously. They aren't used in mostly any shooting legally purchased. The
only ones are from pre 1985 that costs like 5k and you need to sign up with the FBI and shit.
I need to be able to carry a gun for my own protection.

Doesn't know the difference between an AR-15 and an automatic rifle, but we should listen to its opinion anyway.
[–] CatherineConstance 1 point 2 hours ago
I don't purchase AR-15s or automatic rifles, because that isn't what I carry. I've literally said a million times I am NOT
an expert on larger guns lol which is why I'm not making any claims about what should be done. You don't need to be
a douche.
Looking at your username, I can't help but wonder if I know you. Does the following series of mascots mean anything
to you?
Roadrunners
Vikings
Lancers
Hahaha oh man it doesn't, but I wish it did! If it helps, my username is pretty random, and my name isn't actual
Catherine.
Bummer, otherwise I would have had a total crush on you in second grade.
[–] phasterman 2 points 52 minutes ago
You have to understand that these bans with "grandfathering" are not expected to be complied with.
They don't care about current owners.
They know that once they are illegal for future transfers, after all the current owners die it's game over. The whole
point of having grandfathering is so that all the current gun owners will think, "OK cool, I got mine, screw everyone
else) and be silent and not riot.
Then when they all die off, their kids cannot inherit, and poof, they are all gone. So either they sit in a closet
collecting dust somewhere since they can't be used in public without fear of prosecution, or they get turned in.
It's all about the long game.
[–] CheesecakeMilitia -3 points 4 hours ago
Doesn't the first article you link directly address why states can't enforce those laws but the federal government
theoretically could, though?
while federal firearms laws and the bureaucracy that enforces them date back a century, New York was effectively
trying to create an entirely new regulatory framework from scratch. Capanna pointed to a SAFE Act requirement
for background checks on ammunition sales as an example of regulatory overreach. The mandate has gone
unenforced because the federal database used to screen gun buyers cannot be legally used for any other purpose.
The state, meanwhile, has failed to come up with its own database to track ammunition sales.
Doesn't the first article you link directly address why states can't enforce those laws but the federal government
theoretically could, though?
No, I don't believe it does. In fact, it shows quite the opposite... because the federal government is legally barred
from knowing who has purchased guns.
From your quote:
The mandate has gone unenforced because the federal database used to screen gun buyers cannot be legally used
for any other purpose.
What they're talking about here is the federal law which was contained in FOPA in 1986 that prevents the federal
government from enacting registration which would allow them to know who has what guns.
When background checks on gun purchases are performed by FFL's who sell guns, the customer fills out ATF Form
4473 and those forms are stored by the FFL rather than being housed by a government body. So regardless of how
many background checks I've completed, the government doesn't know what I was purchasing. That's by design,
specifically to prevent a future government (like Robert's proposed administration) from being able to go around
confiscating guns.
Just wanted to throw out that you have one of the usernames people refer to when they say "all the great usernames
are taken."
So the "federal database used to screen gun buyers" doesn't really exist? What are gun buyers screened against,
then? Why couldn't "background checks on ammunition sales" be implemented in a similar way, even if that doesn't
involve tracking the end buyer?

All of this goes without saying that FOPA could be replaced with some new legistlation championed by an O'Rourke
administration, like FOPA replaced the Gun Control Act of 1968. Not saying that's likely or anything, but I'd imagine
most any changes to gun control are gonna require legislation rather than exec orders.
And dude, just say Beto. You don't go around passive aggressively saying "Robert" Corker, do you?
No, I'd happily call him Bob, because Bob is a common nickname for Robert. I'd also be good with Bobby or Rob.
"Beto" on the other hand appears to be an underhanded attempt at appealing to a Hispanic vote and isn't a regular
nickname for Robert at all. Given that I'm married into a Mexican family, and they're offended by this "pretend
Mexican" nickname I've become accustomed to using his real name as my family finds it more respectful.
I'm not intending to be passive aggressive, I've simply developed habits out of respect for my loved ones who are
offended by his antics.
I mean, it's not antics – it's his whole branding. Weird, memorable names are in right now. Barack. Kamala. Julian.
The vast majority of non-hispanics have never met a "Beto" before and associate it 100% with his candidacy. If it isn't
even a regular hispanic nickname like you say, then what is there to be offended about? It's just way more effort for
everyone involved to forcibly correct yourself into calling him Robert when the rest of the media and public has settled
on calling him what he's chosen to be called. That's kinda how the nature of celebrity works, otherwise we'd never call
Martin Sheen Martin Sheen.
Now, can we please get back to a user with a name like /u/suckmyglock762 educating my sorry ass about gun rights?
[–] DeadnJazzy 5 points 3 hours ago
So the "federal database used to screen gun buyers" doesn't really exist? What are gun buyers screened against,
then?
Incorrect. Prospective firearms purchasers have a background check run using the National Instant Check System
(NICS). It’s a digital database of all people who have committed felonies, certain misdemeanors, or have been
adjudicated mentally defective in court. The buyer fails and will be denied their gun if they have done any of those
things. It is not a database of gun owners, and is thus perfectly legal.
[–] CheesecakeMilitia 1 point 51 minutes ago
Thanks for the info. I'm still wondering about my third question though.
Why couldn't "background checks on ammunition sales" be implemented in a similar way, even if that doesn't
involve tracking the end buyer?
I'm not saying any of this a remotely good idea or anything, btw. I'm just reading all these references to the NY SAFE
act and how ineffective it is and then reading how it's ineffective because of implementation limitations at the state
level. From what I can tell there's been one challenge in the courts where NY state appeals court ruled against the
Attorney General on procedural grounds, which reads to me as kicking the can. They didn't weigh in at all on the
defendant's 2nd Amendment claim.
The appeals panel says there was no need to even rule on the other challenges, like Ostrowski’s contention that
the SAFE ACT was illegal and poorly written.
So why couldn't something like SAFE be implemented at the federal level? (Again, not saying that it'd be a good idea
or even remotely popular, but no court has weighed in on its 2nd Amendment compatibility, yet.)
[–] jdcarpe 14 points 4 hours ago
He's not Hispanic or Latino, so...no. His name is Robert Francis O'Rourke, and his heritage is Irish, for fuck's sake.
And since when do you have the power to determine a politician's branding? This trash distraction argument was
hashed out a year ago and it's no more relevant now. Just say Beto so people know who the hell you're talking about
[–] bigbishounen 2 points 2 hours ago
And since when do I or anyone else have to respect some politican's choice of branding, especially when said
branding is incredibly brain-dead and meme and mockery worthy?
Not gonna call him that. He's Robert Francis O'Rourke. (Best pronounced with a really cheesy over the top Irish
Accent.)
like FOPA replaced the Gun Control Act of 1968.

It did no fucking such thing. Unless we can mail guns direct from mfg to my door and no one told me!
My apologies, please substitute "replaced" with "revised many provisions of" if we wanna be pedantic. Point is, an act
of congress can override an act of congress.
Unfortunately it can't override the supreme court - which is really what you're trying to do. SO... Get fucked :)
[–] Spoon_S2K 1 point 1 hour ago
Fucking dumbass 😅, he replied with it can't overwrite the supreme Court. Buddy you've lost. Stop.
[–] CheesecakeMilitia 0 points 1 hour ago*
Who's overriding the Supreme Court? FOPA was passed by Congress and can be revised by Congress. I have no
idea what you or that other guy are referring to
Like, are you literally just talking about the 2nd Amendment? Because you know the Supreme Court didn't write
the 2nd Amendment, right?
[–] wumbotarian 1 point 1 hour ago

We see Ruby Ridge again
Strict state laws regarding personal property are much less effective because you can just drive into the next state
and bring whatever you want back into your home state.
Strict laws are much less effective because you can just drive
right for example bringing certain guns from NV to CA is illegal
are you saying criminals will break the law ?
HOLEESHIT you are on to something here
No, national borders are very different from state borders, and state borders are very different from city borders. I
say this because people like to point to Chicago gun laws, but it's not really a good argument. Chicago doesn't have
the oversight needed to enforce those laws effectively. The US government does.
you seem to be arguing against yourself again

there are millions of people, drugs and other contraband crossing our national borders
are you saying that when guns are totally banned that the borders would be so locked up that gun running would be
impossible ?
or..are you forgetting that there are 400 MILLION firearms in the US already and crossing borders with them is trivial
?
Im really not sure what your point is.

what is your point ? that you want to make millions upon millions of people felons overnight and then close down the
borders super tight ?
[–] Sumfinclever 1 point 2 hours ago
I don't see it going anywhere

[–] multivaxx 1 point 2 hours ago
Chitty chitty bang bang.

[–] jerkwateriowa 1 point 3 hours ago
Because he said so?

[–] BillyBastion [ ] -20 points 4 hours ago

This is kind of a misnomer. What happened was there are X million "assault weapons" in the state. You had until a
deadline to either register, or reconfigure your rifle into a featureless rifle, which is not an AW.
So when they say 3% complied, I think they mean there were only 3% of the estimated number of AW that were
registered. Most everyone else turned their rifle into a featureless rifle.
Hope this clears it up.
[–] RuthlessRednekk 24 points 4 hours ago
Doubt it. That might account for some of them, but guarantee there's a lot of unregistered "semi auto" rifles still in CA
that violate that law.
[–] beancount3r 38 points 4 hours ago
No, most of them were lost in boating accidents.

What's sad is how many of mine I lost boating. I only went on one boating adventure, but after that one disaster I
won't be doing it again.
[–] Ask_Me_About_Mormons 11 points 4 hours ago
Turns out safes are really heavy and sank my canoe. ♂

I don't believe in safe duck hunting without three locks in between me and the trigger on my boat. Trigger lock,
case lock, safe lock, or I just lose my nerve. Who knew boats get top heavy?
[–] Snipen543 7 points 3 hours ago
I've seen just as many people at ranges with unmodified ARs as I did before the law was enacted. With how many
registered their ARs, I can guarantee that many of those people didn't register
Keep in mind the people who "converted" them and then just kept the parts to change it back whenever they feel like
it too.
[–] BillyBigBone 5 points 4 hours ago
I know for a fact there are. So does everyone who's in the gun scene.
Cali gun owners call it "rolling dirty"
[–] Removalsc 3 points 3 hours ago
Sure, but the point of the law was to get those firearms registered, not to have people slap on a fin grip and call it a
day. As far as the goal of the law was concerned it had a 3% success rate.
[–] BigNinja96 4 points 4 hours ago
WTF is a “featureless” rifle?

[–] BillyBastion [ ] 13 points 3 hours ago
A rifle devoid of "evil features". Evil features include, pistol grip, vertical foregrip, any flash hider, collapsible stock.
So to convert your rifle to featureless, you have to make your stock a fixed stock (lots of ways to do this), get rid of
your pistol grip (I use a fin grip), remove your vertical dong, and replace your flash hider. The flash hider one is
funny, because you can use any muzzle device that does not reduce the flash. So muzzle brakes pretty much.
[–] kovu159 3 points 2 hours ago
Or you keep all the features and install a 'fixed magazine' modification, which moves your mag release to the back
pin. The rifle is 'disassembled' when you push the rear pin, it opens about 1/4 inch and releases the magazine.
Voila, no longer an 'assault weapon', you keep all your features, and its much faster to reload than the old California
compliant bullet button.
[–] Smoked_Bear 2 points 2 hours ago

The downsides being you can’t legally use standard capacity magazines, and clearing certain malfunctions becomes a
messy pain in the ass.
Ex of the latter: Had a bad failure to extract & double feed in my old fixed-mag AR once, and couldn’t separate the
upper and lower to release the mag to clear the malfunction. So I had to take apart the mag baseplate, remove all the
ammo and mag internal parts, then snake my needle nose pliers up through the bottom of the mag.
Another time my buffer tube detent spring somehow found its way underneath my bolt carrier, thoroughly jamming
the entire bolt carrier group halfway back with a live round in the chamber. Even mortaring the shit out of the
charging handle wouldn’t budge the thing. And again couldn’t separate the upper and lower so I couldn’t release the
mag, to at least try and get the live round out before transporting the rifle home from the range.
I switched to featureless after that; Resurgent Arms grip and a fixed stock.
[–] kovu159 1 point 1 hour ago
I've tried a few different fixed mag solutions, and haven't run into any issues like that with my current setup as it's
still very easy to disassemble everything in a jam. I also use standard capacity magazines that are pinned as I find
that easier to work with.
These California modifications do succeed in making the gun less reliable.
[–] BillyBastion [ ] 1 point 2 hours ago
You're right. Forgot to mention the fixed mag route.

[–] Amish-Jukebox 2 points 3 hours ago
Basically anything that looks like you're about to breach in Rainbow Six
[–] BigNinja96 1 point 3 hours ago
LOL
FRAG OUT!!!
[–] The_Mech 5 points 3 hours ago
A featureless rifle (in California) is one that does not have any of the following:
pistol grip
thumbhole stock
telescoping/folding stock
flash hider
grenade or flare launcher
forward pistol grip

Source
Edit: Formatting
[–] kovu159 2 points 3 hours ago
Most everyone else turned their rifle into a featureless rifle.

There is absolutely no evidence that they did this. No one knows how many unregistered, featured rifles there are as
no one is going to come forward and say that they didn't do it.
[–] BillyBastion [ ] 1 point 3 hours ago
I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the lawful gunowners.

While I respect your opinion, my opinion is that it is better if the government knew some large percentage went non-
compliant, and knew there was nothing they could do about it except sweat.
I've been criticizing other gun rights peoples' posts in this thread, so I might as well make a positive comment: you
have a good point here. "A law that is not enforced is a bad law."
However, please consider that no matter what gun control laws New Jersey implements, it's trivial to drive from New
Hampshire to New Jersey with whatever assault weapon you want because there are no customs checks between US
states. That is exactly why we need federal gun laws (or customs checks between the states, I guess, but everybody
loses in that scenario) rather than state-level laws which are little more than recommendations unless you get caught.
[–] 42Attack -24 points 4 hours ago
NY York is not a left leaning state NYC and Albany are. The rest of the state is pretty far right for the most part. So
most of the gun owners who aren’t complying with that law come from outside those areas.
It also takes willing law enforcement to enforce these laws. Which might be a part of the problem why these numbers
are so low.
Why do you think these numbers are low?
[–] That__Guy1 19 points 4 hours ago
If New York isn’t a left leaning state then why has it gone dark blue in every election in the last 50 years? Who cares if
empty woods are red leaning. The vast majority of the population of the state vote democrat. And the fact that only
4% of a very blue population complied is extremely telling.
[–] Yankee831 -2 points 3 hours ago
Look at the elections pretty much every county outside of NYC is red. Tompkins county which has Ithaca in it is also
typically a blue island IN Upstate.
[–] 42Attack -7 points 4 hours ago
I’m only saying that the people who support the gun laws aren’t the one owning the guns in New York so expecting
them to be followed and enforced is a little naive.
[–] istuion 6 points 4 hours ago
Please do some research before making false claims. That just isn't true.
[–] leftyz 2 points 3 hours ago
He's not wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York
The reason NY goes dark blue is because of the high population areas (NYC, Albany) going DARK DARK DARK blue,
and the population of those cities rivals the rest of the state.
[–] 42Attack 0 points 2 hours ago
Thank you!
[–] 42Attack 0 points 2 hours ago
I live in New York so thank you for your concern I think I know how it works around the state a lil bit.
[–] marklarnomnomnom -46 points 4 hours ago*
At the very least those who continue to own them can no longer call themselves 'law abiding gun owners' and we can
start to label them for what they are, criminals who fetishize guns over the law and public safety.
Yeah, that whole right to due process is only a suggestion. And I wonder how many people own one of the hundreds
of millions of ARs sold in the US. Even if it's only 1% of the citizens owning ARs or AKs, then you're still talking
36,000,000 instant criminals. Maybe it's only 0.01%, which might be a good thing, because getting rid of due process
would be absolutely necessary to avoid the legal pileup in actually prosecuting that many people. But then what? How
are you going to prosecute that many people? Move them all to Texas and build a wall? The implications of that are
ridiculous.
[–] marklarnomnomnom -3 points 3 hours ago
They wouldn't be instant criminals, they would have an opportunity to declare and turn in their weapons, nobody is
denying them due process. There's is no way that 36mil people in the US own AR/AK's. Maybe that many own A
firearm but not AR/AKs. Then you would treat it like you would any law violation, they would get cited, have to go to
court, if they don't they get a bench warrant. That's how a lawful society operates.
[–] tomcatgunner1 1 point 2 hours ago
i have terrible news for you. It's probably more than that. consider one in 5 homes has a gun. Consider at least a 10th
of all guns are these oh so scary guns you're looking at what 60 million? on the low end?
I have very unfortunate news.
It's also not just "CRAZY WHITE PEOPLE" who want to keep their guns
From minorities to LGBTQ communities, gun owner numbers are rising like never before. And those ARs and AKs are
the most popular kind of firearms at the moment.
[–] 4xTHESPEED 1 point 2 hours ago
semi-auto rifles (of which ar15s are one variety) make up 50% of all guns sold
hundreds of millions of them
[–] shockfactor 38 points 4 hours ago
So you pass a law that turns innocent people into criminals so that you can call them criminals and do whatever you
want? Some Austrian guy did that kinda thing in the 30s, wonder how that turned out.
[–] noter-dam 1 point 2 hours ago
It's becoming more and more clear that the reason these people obsess over fascism so much is that they're
projecting their views and attitudes on everyone around them. They see fascists in every shadow and corner because
they assume everyone is just as fascist as they are.
[–] ginja_ninja 1 point 2 hours ago
Hey guys by the way the War on Drugs has been really bad. Welcome to the War on Guns, I'm sure this will go way
better!
[–] marklarnomnomnom -32 points 3 hours ago*
Careful with that strawman, it's an antique.

Laws change all the time and for good reason. Making them illegal ONLY turns "responsible law abiding gun owners"
into criminals IF they break the law and don't declare/turn in AR-15 or AK-57's in their possession. You seem to think
that this is just to punish gun owners but it's not, it's to protect the rights of everyone else to live in a society that
isn't constantly being shot up by angry white men. Those weapons are public safety hazard and removing them does
not affect anyone's ability to own firearms for home protection or hunting. If you don't like it then vote for someone
who sees things your way.
[–] andrewhess333 8 points 3 hours ago
So how would taking my ar-15 away solve anything? A law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime in his
life. Who’s going to take them away? Law enforcement? Military? The vast majority of both are avid 2A supporters as
well. Is the ATF going to individually kick down every door in America to find every AR and AK? What about the people
that don’t give them up willingly? Are you going to shoot them? The absolute retardation and hypocrisy in these “take
away all the ARs” plans are ridiculous especially for something that kills less people than knives every year.
[–] marklarnomnomnom 0 points 3 hours ago
How does owning your AR-15 solve anything?

My understanding is that they would treat it like most other weapons that are not covered by the 2nd amendment like
claymore mines. Nobody's gonna knock down your door but if they find out you're holding them you'll probably get a
visit from ATF and if you respond with violence you'll probably get shot.
[–] SwedishMoose 3 points 3 hours ago
Owning an AR-15 solves my right to self protection for me and my family. Also you're pretty dumb. Claymore mines
are completely legal as long as you go through the NFA process. Which isn't anything but a $200 bribe and sending
in fingerprints.
Pointing out that you're proposing nazi tactics isn't a strawman.

[–] papaGiannisFan18 -2 points 3 hours ago
You know what else is a Nazi technique? Social security is. Laws require context you can’t just use Nazi Germany as
an example without looking at what those decisions actually meant.
First off the Weinmar Republic had strict gun control laws before the Nazis came to power so learn your history. The
Nazis actually loosened those restrictions except for Jews so not only is it a strawman but it's historically inaccurate.
[–] agent26660 4 points 3 hours ago
So you're for restricting guns for a different set of white people this time.
Debate enough progressives and eventually you see through their veil. Eventually you realize that liberal politics
are only about one thing...white genocide.
[–] marklarnomnomnom 1 point 2 hours ago
No I'm for restricting guns for everyone equally.

[–] bill_in_texas 4 points 3 hours ago
The idea that we won't make ex post facto laws is a pretty antique concept, too, something our founding fathers
thought was pretty important, yet here you are, calling for that very thing.
When Prohibition was enacted, the alcohol people already had was not deemed suddenly illegal. New production was
illegal, but people were able to keep what they had on hand.
[–] marklarnomnomnom 0 points 3 hours ago
What Beto and many other's are calling for is if you have an AK/AR weapon, that you register and declare it and the
government buys it back. There would obviously be a grace people to give people enough time to comply with the
law, if not then I would NOT be on board with this policy.
[–] bill_in_texas 1 point 2 hours ago
You'd still have to change the Constitution to allow that.

One day, you and your gun are living together, happy, not bothering anyone, you're not a criminal, and then after
an unconstitutional edict by a government official, and after a grace period, you are now a criminal, and you and
your gun are hiding from the law.
[Darth Vader] I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further. [Darth Vader]
why would you need to register it if the govt is confiscating it ?

(its not a buyback)
why would anyone voluntarily register/declare their firearms ?
Come and take them.

In the fortunate event that a ban like this becomes law, I look forward to your vendetta against the largest military
power the world has ever known. I know who my money's on.
[–] zma924 17 points 3 hours ago
Is it on the largest military force ever known that’s demonstrated time and time again that it can’t do shit against an
insurgency using ambush tactics, small arms, and knowledge of the surrounding area? The same military made up
of 10s of thousands of soldiers who would defect if the order to confiscate guns/fire on US citizens were ever given?
That military?
The US military has drones and missiles and a massive intelligence gathering apparatus. It is batting 1.000 in
squashing large scale domestic insurgency groups. There are not enough gun nuts and weapons at their disposal
for them to even make a dent even if 10's of thousands of soldiers defect and join the other side.

[–] istural 8 points 3 hours ago
Glad you like civil war. Wish I could be as bloodthirsty as you.

I'm not the one threatening to use futile violence against the government if certain weapons are made illegal for
no good reason other than I've been brainwashed into associating owning military style assault weapons with
masculinity and "freedom."
I think people that would be willing to do that are the bloodthirsty ones.

[–] strangedaze2019 2 points 3 hours ago
Hope you don’t have neighbors with guns, because if it requires tanks or bombs to get theirs your house is done for
too.
I have guns so I'm not too worried. If they own AR/AK's and are willing to use violence to keep them then I
hope they get taken out because the country would be better off without them. But I know my neighbors and
they're nice people so again, not worried about it.


[–] Asymptote_X 1 point 2 hours ago
If the government nukes his house you might get caught in the blast zone along with thousands of others so they
might be a bit restricted in firepower.
Also what do you propose will happen win Pvt Parts is commanded to conduct a no knock raid on his cousin Richard
and his family? Or to be first in the stack when raiding the house of a known gun owner and prepper who has spent
the last 15 years outfitting his arsenal specifically to deal with the tyrannical government trying to deny rights?
What do you think will happen when the very extended family and friends of Patty McPatrick finds out that he was
killed by their own Government simply because they decided his inherited father's service rifle was now illegal? Do
you think they'll have consolation from the fact that he was technically criminal?
Your argument is a thoroughly debunked antique.
[–] noter-dam 1 point 1 hour ago
> looks at vietnam

> looks at iraq
> looks at afghanistan
> looks at the fact that the last civil war had half the military defect
Yeah, methinks you're losing that money...
[–] marklarnomnomnom 1 point 1 hour ago
I think you're are overestimating the number of people who: 1) are on your side and 2) are willing to even go to
jail over owning an AK/AR, much less die. You're conflating banning 1 specific type of firearm with banning ALL
firearms. They are different, most people understand that.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/457481-two-thirds-support-assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll
[–] Killsproductivity 1 point 3 hours ago
Do you have any idea how many in the armed forces own “scary black guns”
Or LEOs
It would be a civil war
That they would loose or, most likely not fight at all because it's stupid and unpopular
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/poll-most-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban-1452586

[–] SwedishMoose 1 point 3 hours ago
If your money is on the National Guard then I'm sorry for your monetary loss.
[–] Asymptote_X 1 point 2 hours ago
Not a strawman, it is exactly what you're proposing. If anything you can call it a false equivalence (it's really not but
it's more arguable). A strawman requires reducing your stance/argument to a single extreme example/interpretation.
Like "I support gun control" --> "Oh so you want to pass laws to label a group of law abiding gun owners as criminals
so the government can disarm them, just like the Nazis?" is a strawman.
But
"I support passing laws to label a group of law abiding gun owners as criminals so the government can disarm them" -
-> "...Just like the Nazis?" is not.
So someone who legally purchased something, did nothing wrong, is now a criminal. Have you ever even fired a gun
before?
I own guns. They would only become a criminal if they CHOOSE to not declare and turn in their weapons.
lets see them then?
Everybody wants to be an self righteous asshole with evidence for backup until they get called out
[–] SwedishMoose 1 point 2 hours ago
Why do you have guns if you think no one needs them?

[–] marklarnomnomnom 1 point an hour ago
I don't think anyone needs AR/AK guns, not guns in general.

[–] InDankWeTrust 2 points an hour ago
But most mass shootings happen with handguns, if you think that they will only come for the big scary looking ones,
you are wrong
[–] marklarnomnomnom 1 point 35 minutes ago
Yes but ones where AK/AR style rifles are involved have significantly higher mortality rates. The day "they" start
coming for handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles is the day I too will be in opposition.
[–] SwedishMoose 1 point an hour ago
Why would someone need one gun but not another gun that does the same thing?
[–] marklarnomnomnom 1 point 51 minutes ago
AR/AKs are not the same as a rifle, hand gun or shot gun. They were designed to kill as many people in as short
a time as possible and I don't believe the average person, especially the average American needs that kind of
power in the modern world. Banning them will not severely impact anyone's ability to protect themselves or
their property, and there is significant evidence that gun control decreases homicides, suicides, and mass
shootings.

what is the point of saying "I own guns" ?

[–] Yankee831 5 points 3 hours ago
You’re the problem.

Ok
At that point the correct label is "fully justified revolutionaries against a tyrannical government".
[–] needsaguru 250 points 4 hours ago

Yes, criminals obey the law. Maybe we should make murder illegal too. Oh, it already is? Why aren't people following
the law?
Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on
a battlefield. Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this
country — in their schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts... everywhere
AR15s, AK47s, "assault rifles" accounts for a very very small percentage of gun violence. The media is distorting your
perception of reality. If you look at gun violence and the causes 2/3 of gun violence is SUICIDE. We have a suicide
problem, not an AR15 problem. If you want to have an intelligent and rational discussion about gun violence you
should be honest about the statistics.
I don't need my AR15 to hunt, I don't hunt. I don't think I'll ever need to use my AR15 for defense, but that doesn't
change the fact some people do. Law abiding citizens aren't the ones killing people. That's all any gun ban will do,
disarm the people who you don't need to be afraid of.
You can own guns and still have your kids and grandkids be safe. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
[–] Captain_Peelz 14 points 2 hours ago
Not to mention that the 2nd amendment is to ensure that civilians have the right to retain arms meant for the
battlefield. To be used in the case of abuse by the government to the point where armed resistance is necessary.
[–] skarface6 6 points an hour ago
Heck, there have been mass shooters stopped by AR-15s. They don’t get any press because they’re evil, scary
weapons.
you
[–] likwyd_16 3 points an hour ago
That's all any gun ban will do, disarm the people who you don't need to be afraid of.
That’s where you’re wrong, Chief. Any US politician needs to be afraid of an armed populace. That’s what prevents (or
cures) tyranny. What did you think was the ultimate goal here for him/them?
[–] insakna 5 points an hour ago
that's literally what they were saying, the government doesn't need to be afraid of the part of the populace that would
give in their guns.
[–] likwyd_16 1 point 20 minutes ago
That isn’t how I interpret what was said.

[–] xPyrez -1 points 58 minutes ago
I don't disagree with all of your points but why are you explicitly using a self serving bias with regards to "citizens will
comply with the law"?
Yes less than <10% of all americans don't follow the law and are criminals. Are you telling me 90% of america doesn't
follow road laws, drinking laws, schooling laws, work laws, sexual assault laws, work compliance laws, child support
and welfare laws? How could you even possibly say that Americans DON'T follow laws and that making things illegal
doesn't work. Last time I checked 90% of us don't drink, don't own slaves, don't give children alcohol and don't use
asbestos/lead paint in our buildings. I'm also positive 90% of us don't traffic cocaine into the US. Whether a GUN law
will be effective is different. The Majority of people follow most laws. You're welcome to find a statistic that proves
Americans break more laws than they follow.
[–] rsn1990 1 point 4 minutes ago
Not one of those things you listed is a constitutional right.

It changes the conversation considerably.
[–] clitdragon -1 points 2 hours ago
Many mass shooters do obey the law, until the day they die.
[–] SpiLLiX 1311 points 5 hours ago 2
yikes. This is a terrible answer and super out of touch.

Especially from someone who is from Texas.
You know how many unregistered weapons, AR's are in the US right? A ban on weapons this late into the game for
the US is basically not an option. Sure you could try to ban selling them. But what about the millions of them already
out there?
What about the millions of good natured (in the sense of they just want their guns, they have no ill intent with them)
that live and die by the Constitution and freedom. I mean you are in Texas. How many AR "come and take it" stickers
and flags do you see. That isn't just a saying people think sounds cool. Tons of people would die for that freedom.
The only way you are taking guns from people is if you are going to go door to door with the military (many of whom
staunchly support owning AR's) Gustapo style and tearing people's homes apart to find them.
If you want any shot at presidency I suggest you take a step back to reality.
[–] wizard926e 75 points 5 hours ago
Someone once told me the reason they felt we needed guns, and the second amendment. Now I don't know if it's
true, but here's what they said, "Guns are our way to take back the government after it becomes corrupt and they
seek to hurt our people, deny our people basic rights, and when the government becomes a communist and evil
dictatorship". Taking away guns is one step away from freedom. Take that quote as you will.
And this argument: OK, you have an AR. So what? The government has tanks! hahahah, stupid
conservative/Republican/redneck/Texan. No citizens can stand up against that.
Yeah, but, here's the thing. In the two arguably lousiest outcomes for the US in a conflict (Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan)
it was the people with the rifles who have been able to withstand the people with the tanks. You can't nuke all that
land. You can't patrol all that land. The US mainland is enormous compared to Vietnam and GWOT countries, and we
still. have. problems. fighting. them. in. force. Because they don't really fight in force like we want them to. Low-
intensity conflict is an issue for any government to deal with. There are dozens of conflicts worldwide and through the
last century or two where the government forces, decked out with the latest in arms, has not been able to conquer a
citizen army.
[–] RelativeMotion1 18 points 3 hours ago
Yes and, the two conflicts you cite had nearly full military participation. We would see significant desertion if the govt
tried something here. Most soldiers are from areas and families with high gun ownership, and many would switch
sides before they broke down doors to take away the same kind of guns their friends and relatives have.
[–] JobieWanKenobi 5 points an hour ago
there are in total, less than 3 million in the US armed forces and 300 million guns owned by civilians.....
[–] Weiter_den_Kampf 81 points 5 hours ago
That is true, that's literally why the 2nd amendment exists. Americans at the time understood what it was like to live
under an oppressive regime and realized that our new country would not be immune to the same vices of man that
caused other countries to bend to dictators
[–] specter800 48 points 4 hours ago
And there are people in this thread right now who think we are living in a fascist dictatorship who also believe you
should not have the means to protect yourself from it. It's such a ridiculous contradiction i can't believe they don't see
it.
They dont think they truly live in a dictatorship.

It's all tall to them.
[–] McSkillz21 3 points 52 minutes ago
I believe the term is cognitive dissonance.

[–] Ed_Tivrusky_IV -6 points 3 hours ago
We are lead by an ambitious buffoon, being used as a pawn by a pseudo-dictator. That's about it.
He hates the first amendment, and Bob hates the 2nd. Same level in my eyes... The Constitution limits the power of
government, and government is working to claw it back.
[–] JobieWanKenobi 6 points 1 hour ago
being used as a pawn by a pseudo-dictator

who would that be?
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 0 points 1 hour ago
I don't know what a pseudo-dictator is. Is he a fake dictator or fake president? Anyway I assume he's still with this
thoroughly disproven idea that Putin owns Trump.
[–] gaichaohuandai 1 point 1 hour ago
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants."

-William Penn
[–] JobieWanKenobi 3 points an hour ago
You don't know if it's true? Did you take any US History in school?
[–] wizard926e 1 point an hour ago
Not yet actually lol. World civilization comes first

[–] Cossil -27 points 4 hours ago
and the second that the Black Panthers armed themselves to do just that— secure their rights as humans— massive
gun control measures were taken by Raegan.
We’ve had guns for as long as we’ve been a country— and we’ve had massive injustice to boot. Guns didn’t change
shit and nobody moved the needle by using guns.
[–] TexTJ209 30 points 4 hours ago
This isn't a right or left issue. Both sides have sucked when it comes to gun control.
Regardless, the 2nd's true purpose is the emergency option when all other efforts have failed. We aren't at the point
where it's true purpose is needed, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it either.
The old saying is that "there are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: the soap box, the ballot box, jury box
and cartridge box. Please use in that order."
at what point do we ask if the daily carnage happening in this country (mostly with handguns, about half being
suicide) is a good trade off in order to ensure that this emergency Hail-Mary is available to us?
There is no daily carnage, it's all hyped up media and public perception. Violent crime has been on a downward trend
in the US since the 90s. (nearly a 1/3 of what it was in the 90s in regards to non-fatal firearms violence) And plenty of
countries have high suicide rates with no firearms ownership.
In 2017 as an example, about 60% of firearms related deaths were suicide. 14,452 were homicide. Of the firearms
related homicides, only 403 were with rifles of any type(the thing everybody wants to ban because supposedly
everyone is dying from them). 467 people were killed with blunt objects, 1,591 were with knives or other sharp
objects, and 696 were killed with HANDS OR FEET. More people die from bare hands than assault rifles every year.
To go on, 800,000 died from heart disease. 40,100 died in car accidents. An estimated 250,000 die from medical
malpractice.
You want to reduce "gun violence"? Get people mental health help, reduce the number of suicides. Guns are just the
easiest and most convenient option for someone contemplating suicide. Remove guns entirely, the mental health issue
still remains. Next step, implement some sort of reform to get people out of gangs. By some accounts, gang violence
accounts for 70+% of firearms related violence and homicides in the US.
[–] gladbach 6 points 2 hours ago
End the war on drugs. Homicides will plummet

Prohibition is always a failure. Agreed entirely.

100 people a day dying by guns is not carnage to you?

Reducing the barrier to suicide and killing and making it so that it can be done at the pull of a trigger definitely plays
a role in the heightened numbers.
In a country of 330 million? No, not at all.

Again, more die every day in car accidents. Do you consider our streets to be carnage? Do you have an anxiety
attack any time you step into a car? Of course not.
[–] gladbach 4 points 2 hours ago
End the war on drugs. Violence will plummet

No amount of deaths should override ANY of our rights. Anyone who’s okay with losing their own rights is a fucking
idiot.
[–] ChrisAshtear -26 points 4 hours ago
The emergency hail mary that WOULDNT EVEN WORK.

Like the government would give a crap if you had an ar15. Theyd just blow your house to bits with a drone.
[–] grarghll 19 points 4 hours ago
You know that's like a store owner solving their union problem by killing their employees. War is complicated.
Its like a store owner solving their union problem by closing their store, which has been done.
[–] Mr_McCoolGuy 23 points 4 hours ago
This! I mean look how we won Vietnam by just using tanks and helicopters...fucking idiot.
Do we live in a jungle? Do the fat asses yelling about guns have the discipline of the vietnamese? I dont think
so.
Your precious guns wont do shit except kill kids.
And they didnt have unmanned drones and ai dogs with machine guns attached in vietnam either, genius.

Do you really think the soldiers would attack their own countrymen? I very highly doubt it.
points to coast guardsmen arrested for plotting to kill a bunch of his own countrymen
Historically almost all gun control measures brought up in the United States were because of racism. No one should
have their rights trampled because of race, religion or location.
[–] noter-dam 6 points 3 hours ago
and the second that the Black Panthers armed themselves to do just that— secure their rights as humans—
massive gun control measures were taken by Raegan.
And that was wrong.
One thing to bear in mind that Reagan is a lot less popular with the newer wave of populist right-wingers. That is just
one of many reasons for it.
[–] [deleted] 4 hours ago*
[deleted]
[–] Rook_Stache 50 points 5 hours ago
I highly doubt he will ever hold an office ever again with his stance on private property and government seizure.
[–] Luke20820 88 points 5 hours ago
Don’t be silly, he has no shot at the presidency no matter what at this point lol
[–] TheHappyPie 41 points 4 hours ago
yes but he can still give conservatives great sound bites for their fundraising for the next 20 years.
oh wait.
[–] redditcensorbot 29 points 4 hours ago
This kind of airhead sorority girl talk is very dangerous. Poking at gun fanatics might stir some of them up. Someone
from Texas should know that you cannot take people's guns away. Beto is a clown.
The Republican party has two major camps of single-issue voters: Guns and Abortion. Beto has just guaranteed a far
higher turnout for the former.
[–] redditcensorbot 3 points an hour ago
I voted for Beto because his stickers were everywhere and rah rah rah better than Ted Cruz. Now that I started
hearing him speak I cannot believe he has made it this far. He is extremely dumb and he has awful ideas as backup.
Speaking Spanish or playing guitar gives him very weak style points to fool fools, but Beto has absolutely zero
positive substance. This gun stance that gun owners are going to turn in their guns because it is the law is beyond
pathetic. He needs to go back to work managing a Subway and fucking up people's orders at the local mall. He has no
future in politics.
He's also go three instant killers for the general, if he somehow makes it there.
Felony crimes hushed up by his judge father
Wrote some horrible fiction about killing children
Tried to flee the scene of a DUI
None of that is partisan, all of it will sink him in the general election. This idiot shouldn't have raised his head in the
first place.
[–] redditcensorbot 3 points 52 minutes ago
I wasn't paying attention at all and I saw he had Willie Nelson's endorsement so I thought he must be alright.
Not the best logic but I didn't really care at all. Now that I have heard him speak and the way he carries himself,
I am embarrassed that I voted for him. All those factors you listed are bad but his main problem is he is a
worthless joke of a politician. I can't believe he is even getting 1% of the votes in these polls for Democrat
candidate. Beto is as bad as Gillibrand.

[–] -MutantLivesMatter- 29 points 5 hours ago
He's doing a reddit AMA, I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed.
[–] SamTheSwan -3 points 4 hours ago
Bernies done a few.

[–] corekt_the_record 9 points 4 hours ago
How could we forget President Sanders

[–] Wallyfrank 20 points 4 hours ago
Exactly
[–] necrotica 12 points 4 hours ago
So did Trump...
[–] Themonstermichael 21 points 4 hours ago
take a step back to reality

Ope, there goes gravity
Ope, there goes my poll numbers

[–] SexySEAL 23 points 5 hours ago
Too late for that he already shot himself in the foot, with someone's gun he took unconstitutionally
[–] dsmdylan 3 points 3 hours ago
What's worrisome is that he's less out of touch than most politicians. He did an AMA on reddit and he actually
responded to a bunch of critics and had some dialogue. A few politicians have done AMAs but generally just throw out
canned answers with no follow up. He also seems to be trying to capitalize on Trump's strategy of further polarizing
the country by pandering to the extremists. We're in trouble if that becomes the new norm. Fortunately I think people
see through it.
Call me crazy but Andrew Yang seems like a sight for sore eyes. He has some wild ideas but at least he's focused on
real problems and not just pandering to his constituents on the most dramatic talking points.
[–] phalanX_X 27 points 5 hours ago
That's the thing... he DOES want the military to go door to door... thus, triggering a civil war.
[–] Lets_go_be_bad_guys -43 points 5 hours ago
i knew you had to be a t_der since this is such a stupid comment.

Have you ever thought about the millions of Americans that won't comply? What happens with them? Certainly you're
smart enough to answer this simple question, right?
[–] Spartan_133 -10 points 4 hours ago
I dont know if they'd have a chance against the military, but the massive amount of bloodshed that would occur...
The ones that are safe with their weapons are more likely to give up their weapons. It's a waste of resources to fight
against something that really won't change the outcome.
So one gun death is too many, but slaughtering millions of your countrymen just to get your way is fine? My my, your
true colors seem to be showing here.
[–] Spartan_133 1 point 3 hours ago
I guess I didnt explain properly, my post is pointing out how terrible trying to take guns away from people would
be. It's not the solution. Itd end up with so many deaths from people not willing to give their freedoms up and it
wouldn't even solve the issue.
Define "have a chance". Would they win without a loss? No, of course not. Would they grind the military down with
the stress of never knowing which door will be spraying lead when they kick it down? Yes. And unlike the usual
insurgents we've been fighting the odds are very good that an American insurgency would soon find itself equipped
with modern military equipment as American soldiers defect and take equipment with them.
[–] Spartan_133 1 point 3 hours ago
I hadn't even considered gaining access to military equipment. They'd certainly have a better chance if they did, but
still the loss of life is going to be insane. I just dont want it to have to get to that point.
Oh for sure. A second American Civil War would look a lot more like something between The Troubles on
steroids and Rwanda than it would resemble the first one. We're talking massive bloodshed in scattered
ambushes that could well transition to straight-up pogroms against the supporters of one side or the other.
Vietnam
[–] Spartan_133 8 points 4 hours ago
Iraq
[–] iamsobol 7 points 3 hours ago
Afghanistan
[–] True_Dovakin 1 point 59 minutes ago
My PSG, company medic and my company commander are both very pro-2A, and the former two I know will fight to
keep their guns.
We aren’t machines. Stop making it seem like we will willingly kill Americans. I know I won’t tell my guys to take
anyone’s gun.
[–] Spartan_133 1 point 55 minutes ago
I just hope the majority of the military have the same sentiment as you do.
[–] PM-Your_Boobies 1 point 1 hour ago
How fitting of a user name

[–] Spartan_133 1 point 1 hour ago
Sure?
You get caught with one, you go to jail, probably ruin you life AND lose ALL your rights to gun ownership. If you want
to risk that for a banned weapon and die on that hill, good for you.
That's literally Millions and millions of american citizens. You do realize that when these millions of americans refuse, a
civil war starts, right?
[–] CapnSippy 2 points 1 hour ago
If you want to risk that for a banned weapon and die on that hill, good for you.
This entire country was founded on that hill, as well as being able to freely tell people like Robert Francis O’Rourke to
go fuck himself. Millions of Americans have and will continue to die for the right to defend ourselves from wannabe
tyrants like /u/betoorourke.
Is this really your argument? Because it’s garbage.
[–] Waterknight94 3 points 2 hours ago
Coward
do write screenplays? because if you don't, you absolutely should continue to not do so.
[–] schmidtyb43 -31 points 5 hours ago
He has specifically said this would not happen

[–] adlpsfko 21 points 4 hours ago
ok then why would i or anyone give up my AR if i dont comply (with a registry/paying fines/no buyback) when nobody
is planning to physically compel me to surrender them
Because you would get money from it. His main point is that he’s not gonna come and physically force the guns out of
your hands but believes from what he has seen and the gun owners he has spoken to that if offered money in
exchange, many people don’t care enough about owning these guns to not comply.
I’m not trying to argue with you for or against this, just stating the main idea behind his proposition.
yeah that's an ignorant argument on beto's part. the government will not compensate me more for my gucci ~$2000
AR than they would my neighbor's $300 Anderson AR build. when buybacks are offered, people tend to make their
own firearms (like $20 12 gauge shotguns you can make from home depot) and make a profit from the program
anyway
[–] bumfightsroundtwo 13 points 4 hours ago
Mandatory buyback of all firearms in Australia got way less than half. But you think AR owners in America will be
more likely to give them up?
Just let me know how much you're offering though and I'll snatch up some cheap ones and make some cash.
if offered money in exchange, many people don’t care enough about owning these guns to not comply.
Anyone who actually believes this is comically naïve.
Each of my firearms will cost $1,000,000,000,000 after taxes. That’s my selling price. Not a penny less.
Because you would get money from it.
My cheapest AR cost ~$1100 and they go up from there (and let's not even get into the SCAR setup). Considering
that even at $100/ea a "buyback" would bankrupt the US I don't see getting my investment back in his confiscation
scheme. I'll keep my property, thank you.
lol.
Ah the_donald...makes sense. Spewing hyperbolic bullshit while downvoting and lol-ing a fact
[–] Perm-suspended 25 points 4 hours ago
I vote Democrat, and this guy is fucking dreaming if he thinks I'll comply with a buyback.
Ah, Robert Francis O'Rourke supporter. Makes sense. See how lame that response is?
No i don’t. Everyone on that sub spreads hate and lies. That’s why it’s quarantined. Funny how the best defense you
guys have against Beto is making fun of his name
[–] WhtRbbt222 16 points 5 hours ago
It’s made fun of because that’s not his fucking name. He made it up.
I’m not a Donald supporter, but I’m certainly not gonna support this criminal who wants to take my property.

[–] phalanX_X 1 point 5 hours ago
It's quarantined because Bullshit reddit admins found posts saying things like "1776 will commence again if you
try to take our firearms" as "threats of violence" when they're simply statements of Newton's law of physics that
says for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's like being mad at the ground when you
jumped off a cliff.
[–] Work-Safe-Reddit4450 1 point 37 minutes ago
Liberal leaning gun owner here who never posts to the_donald: fuck this gun snatching bullshit.
[–] Manuvex 7 points 4 hours ago
Let him have his Howard Dean moment so he can fade away back into obscurity.
BBBBYYYYYAAAAAAAA
There's a reason R. Francis managed to lose to the least-like Senator in the Senate. There should've been no way he
lost that election against someone that disliked and yet he did. With everything that's come out since them (like his
going full-jackboot on guns) I don't see R. Francis winning an election for dogcatcher in Texas at this point.
[–] toolatealreadyfapped 2 points 2 hours ago
Especially when a very significant portion of those gun owners do so with the specific understanding that their right to
have that gun is to prevent an oppressive government that would seek to disarm them.
A mandatory firearm confiscation would be nigh an declaration of civil war.
[–] sanctii 3 points 2 hours ago
I lost all my guns in a tragic boating accident.

So many boating accidents.

[–] CountChadvonCisberg 5 points 4 hours ago
if you want any shot at presidency

Heheh
[–] transientDCer 8 points 5 hours ago
Obey or die motherfucker.

He's going to confiscate ar-15s by sending in the military with weapons of war to forcibly remove them from people.
[–] MeatySoup 23 points 4 hours ago
You realise the military is mostly conservative and swear an oath to the constitution. What are you going to do when
members of the miltary say "i will not violate the constitution"?
Fortunately Beto won't ever be president so we don't have to worry about any of these made up scenarios.
And the Fed can't use military for law enforcement purposes. Posse comitatus.
If only there were an amendment preventing exactly this...

Oh wait, what are we taking about? Heh.
I'm merely pointing out the irony of how they would enforce this.
I saw it, and support you. Just being funny :)

[–] DeathByFarts 2 points 2 hours ago
Going door to door only works for the first door.

[–] DDUCHESS 1 point 18 minutes ago
He knows he doesnt have a shot, hes just pushing the overton window for the other idiots
[–] TexasGrunt 1 point 15 minutes ago
I think Beto has confused the "Come and Take It" decals in Texas with an invitation.
[–] ricardoconqueso 0 points 1 hour ago
Especially from someone who is from Texas.

He must be from Austin...
[–] cicalaca-cichicea 1 point 1 hour ago
take a step back to reality

dude needs a flight back
[–] GenghisLebron -29 points 4 hours ago
Man, the reality is that kids in your schools have to go through training for active shooters. We shouldn't have to
wonder if we should've gotten the bulletproof bookbag instead of the dora the explorer one.
And nobody's a criminal, until they're a criminal. Think about how many times people will talk about their mass
shooting neighbor and say he was just a normal person, who was never any trouble.
It's like saying Joebob never committed any crimes, so why can't he have a grenade? What if he just really enjoys
grenades? Why can't we just trust that he'll use this object designed for the military that can cause a ton of lethal
damage, responsibly? Just because it seems to be abused all the time, doesn't mean Joebob shouldn't be allowed to
have as many grenades as he wants.
Regarding what happens if somebody doesn't do the buy back? Pretty sure the same thing that happens when you're
found to be hiding bombs. Congratulations, now you are a criminal. Good luck staying out of jail, good luck staying
employed, good luck doing anything that requires you to ever come in contact with authorities.
And for people trying to cry about their rights being taken away like it's some dystopian wrold, NO, your rights already
do not matter if they impinge on other people's safety. Just like you can't fly a plane wherever the hell you want
without a pilot's license, or purchase a combat ready apache helicopter, some shit has to be regulated for the greater
good.
[–] wowitslate 25 points 4 hours ago
And nobody's a criminal, until they're a criminal.

Regarding what happens if somebody doesn't do the buy back? Pretty sure the same thing that happens when
you're found to be hiding bombs. Congratulations, now you are a criminal.
So nobody is a criminal until we make them one. Great.
[–] GenghisLebron -11 points 3 hours ago
nobody's a criminal until they choose to become a criminal. If you have your license revoked and you continue to
drive, congratulations, you've committed a crime. It's not brain surgery. it's not like you're sitting in your office and
without any warning whatsoever you've suddenly been made a criminal. If you make a conscious choice not to follow
the law, you're a criminal. Nobody made you a criminal for shits and giggles.
If you have your license revoked and you continue to drive, congratulations, you've committed a crime
Right, but they are basically saying "For the sake of public safety we are going to revoke EVERYONES licenses and we
will pay you to turn in your car. If you continue to own a car, you are now a criminal. If you have an emergency and
use the car to drive yourself to the hospital, you will be arrested and charged with a felony."
Seems pretty unfair right? You bought that car with your own money, you love driving, you dont want to be forced to
take public transportation, its not as good as having your own car that you can use when you need to, and to drive to
wherever you want.
Sorry, it's for the greater good.
Use of cars kills more people than AR-15s.

Cars contribute more to Climate Change than AR-15s.
Cars are not a guaranteed right under the constitution.
Ban cars. Fuck it I should run for president.
Can we keep vans? It's down by the river, and it's all I got man.
[–] wowitslate 2 points 1 hour ago
This is a bad argument...someone gets their license revoked for something they did wrong already... Keep trying to
justify making millions of law abiding people criminals though.
a license to drive IS revokable

an inherent right is not
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
https://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559
and for people trying to cry about their rights being taken away like it's some dystopian wrold, NO, your rights
already do not matter if they impinge on other people's safety.
I totally forgot that civics lesson!
You know rights are things the government GIVES to people, but rather are RESTRICTIONS that government can't
cross, right?
[–] ThousandQueerReich 0 points 2 hours ago
Phrasing, but correct.
[–] iRysk -70 points 5 hours ago
I'm a gun owner myself and I can't wrap my head around why people would die over the right to own an AR... To
each their own obviously. I just don't see the need for that type of weapon aside from sport shooting, which we could
keep available by allowing licensed gun ranges to have those available for anyone who wants the novelty of shooting
one.
[–] adamr94 68 points 5 hours ago
Second amendment isn't about shooting for sport, nor is it about hunting, or arguably even "self defense" as we think
of it (like concealed carry). It's certainly a perk, but not what it was about. The premise of the second amendment is
to protect the American people against a tyrannical government.
I mean hey, you can argue that the US Military is much more armed, and that's valid... but you're also looking into an
insurgency/guerrilla forces popping up overnight. Looking at the track record of the US military fighting wars against
guerrilla fighters, the odds suddenly don't look too good.
[–] iRysk 5 points 4 hours ago
I hear you. I guess I've always viewed that as us being fucked either way. I'd like to believe it would never happen
these days but who the hell knows.
Ultimately, I would like to see some meaningful gun control legislation happen as a result of the mass shootings that
happen all to frequently. That doesn't mean take our guns away... just improve our laws. It starts with mental health,
but the incredibly easy access to a tool that can instantly ends someone's life certainly doesn't help.
Either way... Beto ain't the guy to get the job done.
[–] adamr94 5 points 4 hours ago
I am glad you at least see/understand both sides of the situation.

I believe more than anything, current laws need to be enforced. We can spout facts off the top of our lungs, but that
gets us both nowhere.
[–] iRysk 1 point 4 hours ago
Like I said, I'm a gun owner. Apparently I'm Elmer Fudd... whatever that means. I very much enjoy my right to own a
gun and carry one should I choose.
I'd just like to see our country make progress towards issues that very obviously effect us. And you're right, that
definitely starts with us enforcing the laws we currently have. A lot of the mass incidents could have been stopped
that way and maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion if that was the case.
That just means you aren't really a "patriot". You enjoy the freedoms our forefathers have been smart enough to
guarantee us, but you aren't willing to fight or die to protect them. There are a lot of patriots out there, and a lot of
blow-hards and a lot of push-overs. This guy is going to bank on people being push-overs and blow-hards,
apparently.
[–] AtomicSteve21 -21 points 5 hours ago
It's about overthrowing the American government and killing your fellow Americans.
Otherwise you're a FUDD.

We know. This argument gets old. I don't understand why Pro-2nd amendment people hate this country so much.
[–] a2grips4spooks 5 points 3 hours ago
Fudd.
need
There is that word... Always pops up when FUDD comes talking with the "I'm a gun owner... BUT..." argument. You
know, the logical fallacy where your opinion is to be trusted because you own guns - but "guns are too easy to buy"
and anyone can do it - without ever seeing any irony with that.
Good thing "NEED" isn't a qualifier on the exercising of RIGHTS.
This FUDD name calling is a great way to have a conversation.

So I take it FUDD is essentially the term for gun owners who aren’t willing to die for the right to own an AR? Fucking
casuals, amiright?
I guess I’m not a real gun owner because I think the right to own an AR in order to defend my self from the most
powerful military in the world is a silly notion. After all, having a small home arsenal has proven very handy in all of
the rebellions we’ve had over the past 200+ years.
People NEED to be more open to compromising these days. It would go a long way towards making this country great
again.
People NEED to be more open to compromising these days

No.
Not with my civil rights. You're VERY FREE to give up yours, I'll even encourage you to buy all the AR15s you can find
and turn them in for destruction. But when it comes to mine, well, fuck off FUDD.
The future of our country is bleak with that mindset.

[–] 12345tommy 3 points 1 hour ago
Do you believe that these good times the US is forever? If not, it may be super convenient to have arms should
things get very bad. I would not want to trade away our rights when things are safe and easy that we will need
when things are hard.

Our future is only bleak when cowards compromise on our inalienable rights. Just because you refuse to stand up
for yourself doesn’t mean everyone should.
no, the future of the country is GUARANTEED with that mindset.

[–] TheBearJew125 13 points 4 hours ago
fudd
[–] Work-Safe-Reddit4450 2 points 33 minutes ago
Suuuuuper fudd.
[–] Magus6796 -5 points 5 hours ago
The unregistered ones and/or guns that criminals seek out are the real worries.
[–] poorlyplanned 26 points 5 hours ago
The criminals are the worry, not the guns

[–] njl4515 -49 points 5 hours ago
This is a fine answer. It’s the correct answer.

He’s literally saying: you will return them because it’s the law. The same criticism was given in Australia and their gun
buy back program was immensely successful.
If you are a legal gun owner, do you keep your AR and risk fines/jail time and have your gun taken away anyway, or
do you get cash?
[–] MyohMy1137 23 points 4 hours ago
Less than 20 percent of Australian guns were turned in during the buyback. There are more guns in Australia today
than before the ban.
Australia's plan got less than half of the guns in circulation. So immensely successful at what? Taking guns away from
people who follow the law?
You mean besides the murder and suicides plummeting immediately afterwards? Nothing I guess.
[–] nabilhuakbar 16 points 4 hours ago
Australia’s violent crime has risen steadily since the public was disarmed. Go tell the people in Sydney and Melbourne
who get their homes broken into by roving gangs and meth heads that disarming them made them all safer
The disarming was temporary. There was more guns now, and crime rise.
That's true it did decrease after the ban, but it already was before the ban.
not entirely
https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/8s1hct/updated_21_australian_mass_shootings_i_found/
australia had more mass shootings after the ban than before
21 give or take (
https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/8s1hct/updated_21_australian_mass_shootings_i_found/)
you know what they did ? they changed how they classify "mass shooting" so it didn't appear to be one (for example a
family murder)
the gun violence archive would have you believe there were over 300 mass shootings in the us is 2019. that is
absurd.
they include NON firearm injuries in the presence of a firearm. they include 2 gang members shooting at 2 other gang
members.
you will return them because it’s the law.

Let's test that.
The same criticism was given in Australia
Ah... Oz. There was a mandatory buyback of firearms appropirate for defensive use in 1997, it coincided with a double
in police per capita. Crime fell!!! Unfortunately for your argument, crime fell in the USA over the same time period, by
a greater rate, no confiscation, no major increase in police per capita.

Also, there are more guns in Oz today than 1997.
[–] tevert -35 points 5 hours ago
Tons of people would die for that freedom.

Not based on the interactions I've had with a few of them. They're LARPing someone tougher than themselves. Push
comes to shove, they're not going to die for their toy any more than libertarians die over refusing to pay taxes.
Is it a toy or is it a violent weapon of war?

[–] tevert -13 points 3 hours ago
In the hands of man-children - it's both. That the issue.

That's the problem: you and all those who wish to strip that right away see them as toys, when in reality they are
viewed as tools. Failing to make that distinction leaves us with the current disconnect.
[–] tevert 1 point 27 minutes ago
That is exactly the opposite of reality. I see them as tools - for killing people.
Whereas too many gun owners fuck around with them like they're toys.
[–] fmTomcat -47 points 5 hours ago
Yikes.
the only way you are taking guns from people is if you are going to go door to door with military Gustapo style and
tearing peoples home apart to find them.
Sounds like you're the one out of touch bro. This isn't a movie.
[–] Weiter_den_Kampf 20 points 5 hours ago
Ya, hes saying that's the only way it would work and hes likely right. Look at the existing compliance rates with recent
gun legislation. Americans dont like the government messing with their guaranteed rights
Ok, you tell someone to turn in their gun. They say no. How do you solve that problem?
You do realize that the Gestapo was real? Right? It wasn't developed from a script. And Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Mao,
Pol Pot, Idi Amin...those were real people who really killed people who really were disarmed beforehand. I hope you
really think about your response above. This is kind of a central thing that "gun nuts" are hoping to prevent in the US.
These kids never learned history or they learned a biased version of it. Half of them don't understand why the 2nd is
part of the Constitution.
[–] -Shake_N-Bake- -25 points 5 hours ago*
Tons of people would die for that freedom.

Maybe some, but not many Americans would die for freedom.
The most passive people to ever have walked on this planet during the 21st century.
You want to sign up to be the first man through the door? Because you want to talk about pussies, I think I can smell
one from here.
If I was to engage your ridiculously uninformed comment, I'd tell you the police would probably not comply with an
order like this at all, military wouldn't either, and it would likely be an instant shutdown leading to a war or at least
coup.
... BUT let's say police foolishly did go along with it. How many door to doors you think they do before someone fires?
And how many doors to doors you think they do after that?
None. You have a problem with police? Great way to disolve them is to issue a gun confiscation order. Because #1
rule of ANY police officer ANYWHERE at ANYTIME... Is "I will be going home tonight". For confiscation
orders, it'll be inaction.
[–] lightscameraaction25 -32 points 5 hours ago*
“ ‘Come and take it.’ Tons of people would die for that freedom.” Yes these sound like very level-headed people who
should have access to incredibly dangerous weaponry.
You do know that phrase is a significant historical line, I hope. It's been used by countless people groups that have
stood up to tyrannical powers. Many of those founded the US. Some founded Texas. Some defended Sparta. It's not
the movie-like quality of the quip that has so much oomph, it's the idea behind the phrase. And it will remain true for
many, whether you think it's redneck or pseudo-macho, or whatever.
Agreed, we should have no rights and defending them is insane.

[–] lightscameraaction25 -7 points 3 hours ago
You think owning weapons that are unreasonably dangerous for the general populous is your only right?
You mean handguns right? The ones that kill Far more people then rifles?
And no of course not,. But it’s one that I’m not willing to give up.
[–] CapnSippy 1 point 1 hour ago
It’s the only right that guarantees the rest of them. How do you not understand this really simple concept?
[–] JobieWanKenobi 1 point 1 hour ago
it's the right that protects all your other rights

[–] Charwars0093 11 points 3 hours ago
They're not automatic

Even if they are. Doesn't change anything.

Beto, if you think people will turn over their guns, you start going door to door yourself. Let's have CNN follow and
see what really happens.
[–] lightscameraaction25 0 points 1 hour ago
Out of curiosity, say Beto and whichever police forces there with him do start going door to door. What do you see
happening?
[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 1 point 13 minutes ago
The first few people will turn in their guns. A neighbor will see it, and take a shot. Maybe a hardcore guy will do a
drive by. Maybe over a week, the windows of most court houses in the countrry are shot out. That'll be on the news,
and it's over. Police won't fucking dare to do it again.
This is in the fantasy scenario there are police anywhere that would do this to begin with. The will straight up not
comply.
[–] CapnSippy 1 point 1 hour ago
Lots of doors getting slammed in his face. Lots of people running straight to their most powerful firearm and aiming
right at their front door. Eagerly waiting for him to try.
[–] lightscameraaction25 0 points 3 hours ago
Fixed
just make owning them a felony. you get caught with one, you lose ALL your guns.
Worked for drugs!

[–] Lets_go_be_bad_guys 0 points 2 hours ago
when the private party loophole is closed and when you get a black mark on your background check, it's going to be
immensely more difficult to get a firearm. if you sell a gun to a blacklisted person, you too should be convicted of a
felony, lose all your guns, and lose your right to own guns.
[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 1 point 2 hours ago
when the private party loophole is closed

I wonder if you have any idea the "loophole" you're talking about was a specific comprise of the 1993/4 Brady Bill that
created the NICS system? The only way that went through is because Dems allowed for private sale to skip the
system - otherwise it would have been a de-facto registry that is specially prohibbited by the 1986 FOPA. Just a year
or two after lying through their teeth, they call it a Gun Show Loophole and go after it.
Here you are a generation later using the same nonsense. COOL.
I guess in your fantasy world 80% receivers don't exist.
[–] Lets_go_be_bad_guys 0 points 2 hours ago
it's almost as if the democrats took a page out of the republicans playbook for once, gasp!
[–] JankyMinder -16 points 4 hours ago
Door to door it is, then!

Says the child who would never sign up to be the guy knocking.
[–] StargateGuy 139 points 4 hours ago
Americans will comply with the law. It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for
war.
A disingenuous comment combined with a lie. The Second was written specifically to include weapons of war, to
guarantee that private citizens would have comparable weaponry to state actors. In fact, less than a century ago, the
gun control effort in the US was focused on weapons that 'had no military value'.
Furthermore, AR15s were not designed as weapons of war, they were designed as civilian sport rifles before their
patents were sold to Colt who shopped them to the War Department, who were soliciting replacement designs for the
M14 rifle.
Lastly, according to Marbury v. Madison, any 'Law Repugnant to the Constitution Is Void'. Your attempt to forcibly
confiscate the private property of Americans, property guaranteed to us by our Constitution, certainly applies.
[–] BiBoFieTo -26 points 3 hours ago
Should citizens be able to buy all weapons of war? Tanks? Fighter jets? Warheads?
A line has already been drawn. It's fine to discuss moving that line.
[–] StargateGuy 18 points an hour ago
Should citizens be able to buy all weapons of war? Tanks? Fighter jets? Warheads? A line has already been drawn.
It's fine to discuss moving that line.
Citizens can already purchase tanks, fighter jets, etc. It'll cost your first born to buy them, and you'll be sacrificing
organs to fuel them, and you obviously won't get access to various protected computer, avionics, and other electronic
systems. And you'll have helluva time with the maintenance requirements. But yes, you can buy them. US history
shows no shortages of civilian ownership of siege weapons, armored vehicles, etc. The state of Texas, ironically
O'Rourke's home state, exists because they refused to surrender a cannon to the Mexican(the colonial power of Texas
territory at the time) government.
But thats all academic. We're not talking about stocking Sherman tanks and recreational nukes at Walmart. We're
talking about small caliber, semi automatic, sporting rifles. These are the muskets of the modern era, and absolutely
protected beyond any shadow of a doubt by the Second Amendment. I'd go so far as suggesting that every able
bodied, adult US citizen be required to own a modern rifle, be proficient in its use, and be in possession of a full
support kit. In fact, this was a requirement set in most of the Charters/Constitutions of the American Colonies. The
natural right to keep and bear arms is ingrained at every level of US history.
Furthermore, bear in mind, despite the rhetoric, these designs are not new technology. The first commercially
successful semi auto rifle was the the Remington Model 8, introduced in 1908. There were several less successful auto
loading models before then, but didn't see much commercial success because the technology was still being refined.
This wasn't even a discussion until manufacturers began swapping out wood stocks for plastic polymer stocks. The
same rifles carried by US GIs in both World Wars were readily purchasable at local convenience stores around the
country, in fact, you can still buy replicas of such rifles at most sporting goods stores today. Plus a variety of
derivatives and variations from different manufacturers. Even now, you can buy literal weapons of war, Mosin Nagants
& M1 Garands for example, that were carried by soldiers into active combat with relative ease.
[–] Work-Safe-Reddit4450 4 points 21 minutes ago
The state of Texas, ironically O'Rourke's home state, exists because they refused to surrender a cannon to the
Mexican(the colonial power of Texas territory at the time) government.
Thank you for reminding me about this. I have since fallen down the Texas Revolution wiki rabbit hole.
[–] NewUser10101 15 points an hour ago
Congratulations, you've figured out why people who understand the Second Amendment refuse to compromise. At all.
Unless we're talking about repealing portions of the NFA, like eliminating control over SBRs and suppressors. The data
suggests these are virtually never used in any sort of violent crime, period.
Then we can talk compromise - moving the Overton window in the other direction.
[–] johnwei 1043 points 5 hours ago
Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country
Please see this question with data that shows this statement is patently false. Semi-automatic handguns are >2X
more likely to be used in a mass shooting and handguns are 16X more likely to be used in any homicide.
Pretty much every weapon - including semiautomatic handguns, revolvers, bow and arrows, crossbows, knives,
swords - was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If that's the major issue in question here, you should be
proposing to repeal the Second Amendment.
[–] tatertot01 28 points 4 hours ago
you are 100% correct. the gun 'debate' is one of the few things that is filled with just outright lies. it requires people
to be misinformed about the issue in order to push this kind of legislation. Either Beto is too stupid to know better or
he is purposely lying. Either one proves that he is incapable of being president
[–] iteraco 200 points 5 hours ago
Repealing the 2nd amendment has always been the end goal of the Democrats. They just try it in smaller steps to
sneak it in. Beto's campaign is sinking so fast, he thinks making these wild promises is the way to get back in the
spotlight. It's not. His campaign is dead already, it's only a matter of time now
[–] jahvidsanders44 63 points 5 hours ago
Beto is simply trying to take on more and more DNC talking points so that the party masters will take a shine to him
and perhaps aid his tanking campaign.
As a Democrat his rhetoric makes me sick. There is a very marked difference between liberal Democrats and the DNC.
Plenty of us on the left have no problem with the second amendment or gun ownership including AR-15s. The DNC is
vastly out of touch with it's voter base. It's how Trump is in office in the first place.
[–] i_am_not_mike_fiore 23 points 4 hours ago
Plenty of us on the left have no problem with the second amendment or gun ownership including AR-15s.
But with strict firearm control as a core tenet of the DNC's platform, you're still effectively voting against the right to
keep and bear arms.
I understand that as a choice you've made, and once I was there, too. But I view firearms as the physical
manifestation of political power wielded by the individual, instead of the State. In my eyes, a desire to disarm the
people is a desire to grab power- and the State has a very, very bad track record with it's use of force on its own
citizens.
You are very right. A government is simply an armed cartel that can “legally” extort its citizens ie generate tax
revenue with deadly force.
Infringing on the right to bear arms is the governments attempt to reduce the power held by the citizenry to
overthrow their cartel.
[–] i_am_not_mike_fiore 1 point an hour ago
Admittedly, it's more complex, but that's the idea.

We traded a bare minimum of the rights of a completely free people for stability- but the Bill of Rights exists to draw a
line, and to say, "Ok, the cartel can do X, but not Y and Z."
It's a disconcerting shift in mindset to think that the government grants rights.
The DNC doesn't speak for all liberals. The DNC can suck a big one for as far as I'm concerned, for many reasons.
you're still effectively voting against the right to keep and bear arms.
Considering that Trump recently said "take the guns first, due process later" and signed a ban on bump stocks and
suppressors, the GOP doesn't really have much room to point fingers, either. BOTH parties want to take your guns. A
vote for Trump is a vote against the second amendment every bit as much as a vote for any Democrat is.
Nobody you vote for is going to hold your position on 100% of all issues. You have to prioritize and compromise. I
hate the DNC but will more than likely vote for their candidate because I like Trump even less. That's just the reality
of a two-party system. You are almost guaranteed to hate something about the person you're voting for.
Besides, there's no way any President could possibly get a gun ban by this SCOTUS anyway. Beto's proposal of taking
everybody's AR-15s by force will be struck down by every Federal court before they finally give up on it. It is so
clearly unconstitutional, especially in the way the current SCOTUS interprets the constitution, it's a dead issue.
[–] DeadnJazzy 6 points 3 hours ago
Small correction, Trump did not sign any sort of ban on suppressors. He made one or two off the cuff remarks about
them, but their legal status has not changed in any way.
[–] iteraco 1 point 4 hours ago
I disagree. Republicans signing a ban on bump stock is NOT remotely close to Democrats saying "yea we will
confiscate your gun".
[–] stuka444 8 points 3 hours ago
But it shows that trump doesn't care about guns, only feel good measures.
Sure let's ban this thing that can be easily made and was used once to replicate a way of firing people can do
without modifying their guns.
Bump firing came before bump stocks, nobody was modifying guns before bump stocks and they don't really need
them but banning is just a reactionary maneuver through and through. Bump stocks today, braces tomorrow, who
knows what else next week.
[–] JobieWanKenobi 1 point an hour ago
Bump stock is a toy, he gave the democrats that to appease them, it did nothing and none of them that are
already in private hands were turned in.
[–] Taurol 6 points 3 hours ago
Disagree all you want but right now the republicans are actually doing more to infringe not just talking about it like
Beta here. This isn’t about party lines. When the republicans see fit, they will just take the guns too.
It’s us vs them, the people vs the politicians and elite on this issue. They will never want an armed populace, right
or left. Some just use it to keep their voting base in check and loyal.
[–] jahvidsanders44 2 points an hour ago
'Take the guns first, due process later' - Donald Trump, leader of the Republican Party
[–] FecalToot 89 points 5 hours ago
The laughable amount of downvotes he's gotten on virtually every comment is evidence enough that his campaign is
dead in the water
[–] NinjaLion 3 points 4 hours ago
Downvotes aren't evidence of a damn thing, I say this as someone who completely agrees his campaign is dead
[–] Raenryong 9 points 2 hours ago
If you're a left-wing candidate getting downvoted on reddit, it's a sign you're toast
[–] Stryker7200 5 points an hour ago
Considering most redditors live in LA, NY, Chicago, etc I have to agree with you.
[–] Gen50 1 point 52 minutes ago
I've read recently that only 40% of redditors are from the US.
[–] CapnSippy 1 point an hour ago
A Republican getting downvoted on reddit doesn’t mean much. A Democrat getting downvoted on reddit means
everything.
[–] JobieWanKenobi 1 point an hour ago
This is the most liberal site on the internet, this is the place most likely to eat of the crap he's spreading. So the
downvotes he's getting are a great sign that he'll never win anything again.
[–] City1431 -7 points 4 hours ago
tbh his campaign was still riding off the bits of publicity from his failed Senate campaign. Surprising because most of
his support and likability/fame evaporated after he lost.
The downvotes mostly come from all the other candidates supporters and fake/paid accounts (shill accounts - see
r/politics for endless examples of shill accounts fluffing garbage posts that support their boss).
[–] Jenki2td 15 points 4 hours ago
Ah yes because anytime a liberal topic is downvoted on Reddit it's because of paid accounts. It's not that it's
unpopular, that's just impossible
[–] M1k3yd33tofficial -7 points 4 hours ago
Beto’s poll numbers have actually gone up since the debate.
yea and if I bought 2 lottery tickets instead of 1, I'd double my chances, but it doesn't mean I'm much closer to
winning it
[–] M1k3yd33tofficial 1 point 2 hours ago
But he's far from "dead in the water" just because this thread got raided by gun nuts.
[–] iteraco 1 point 1 hour ago
I'll bet you a jamba juice smoothie there's no way he wins the democratic nomination
[–] M1k3yd33tofficial 1 point 1 hour ago
I agree with you he has no chance in this stacked field but I’m bored and I’ll take a bet
[–] M1k3yd33tofficial 1 point 1 hour ago
RemindME! July 16, 2020 Jamba Juice bet

[–] iteraco 1 point 1 hour ago
RemindME! July 16, 2020 Jamba Juice bet

Source? Saw elsewhere he's sitting at 1%, down from 2%.

[–] M1k3yd33tofficial -1 points 4 hours ago
From 538
https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/2020-polls-latest/
Sources matter.
[–] M1k3yd33tofficial 3 points 4 hours ago
It’s an average of all the polls you just listed.


[–] WillitsThrockmorton 3 points 3 hours ago
Repealing the 2nd amendment has always been the end goal of the Democrats.
There were a lot of blue steel dems(at least on guns) until the NRA started giving a F to anyone who didn't support a
judge they wanted. When it came down to it, the NRA was asking them to support the entire conservative agenda or
not.
I'll add our last Gun Culture president was a Dem. Look up what JFK said about the individual right to ownership
compared to other elected politicians when asked by Guns magazine in the 50s.
[–] Stryker7200 -1 points an hour ago
JFK would be a republican if he was alive today. His entire philosophy was counter to the leftist movement of today.
[–] WillitsThrockmorton 1 point an hour ago
Lol he would not have been a modern Republican. Maybe a Reaganite.

[–] jaaardstyck 9 points 5 hours ago
It's been dead twice and he keeps reviving it. Gonna run out of Phoenix Downs at some point.
[–] Unbecoming_sock 3 points 4 hours ago
Hey, how did his last election go? I never saw the results... Did he win?
He must have, that's why he's running again... And again... And again...
[–] BuffyTheEmpireSlayer -9 points 4 hours ago
HURR HURR HE LOST BY LESS THAN 3% TO A SITTING SENATOR IN TEXAS THIS MEANS HES A TOTAL FAILURE
LOLOLOLOL I LIKE GUNS UPVOTES PLZ
Doesn't realize he needs a Hi-Potion after the Phoenix Down. Amateur.

[–] jaaardstyck 1 point 4 hours ago
Bruh probably thinks the Junction System is racist.

[–] Griggs58 1 point 4 hours ago
“Why FFVIII is problematic” lmfao

[–] eightdifferentbosses 5 points 4 hours ago
That's the way I see it. He's pandering trying to get himself some points. But in a way that shows he's either
absolutely ignorant or is just pandering. It's too obvious.
[–] iteraco 1 point 4 hours ago
breaking out the bad Spanish during the democratic debate was also a sign of pandering desperation
[–] McGraver 3 points 4 hours ago*
His campaign is dead already, it's only a matter of time now

I’m honestly shocked they’re doing an AMA.
Did they really believe they can resuscitate his dying campaign *on reddit?
edit: missed a word
[–] EarlyCuylersCousin 1 point 2 hours ago
He’s trying to move the needle so that by comparison any other harebrained gun control idea that gets pitched looks
“reasonable” by comparison. I don’t think Francis bargained on the backlash he has received and gun owners digging
in their heels.m to protect their rights. He has probably hurt the chances for a bipartisan bill of any kind because any
Republicans that were considering it are probably getting lit up by their constituents telling them to vote no.
This is the right answer. All that's different between R. Francis and the rest of the Democrats for the past 30+ years is
that he's gone full mask-off and is saying out loud the part that others only say in their heads.
[–] eradema 0 points 5 hours ago
I hope your prediction is right.

[–] cccp_redr4bbit -16 points 5 hours ago
We don’t want to repeal the 2nd amendment.

[–] PunkXHazard 12 points 5 hours ago
Several candidates that are running have outright said that they will use any means including executive action to do
just that though.
[–] cccp_redr4bbit 1 point 5 hours ago
You gonna source that claim?
[–] Cossil 7 points 5 hours ago
Harris said that at the last democratic debate (using executive actions to take away AR-15s and AK-47s) to which
Biden said that would be unconstitutional
[–] Denny_Craine 0 points 3 hours ago*
Thankfully Harris isnt even out polling Yang in her home state lol
Tulsi's smackdown's effects linger long after the Party has pushed her out, I love it.
[–] frothface 14 points 5 hours ago
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/28/repeal-2nd-amendment-cry-resonates-39-percent-demo/
First link.
[–] cccp_redr4bbit 0 points 4 hours ago
His claim was that majority of dem candidates running for president want to repeal the second amendment.
Your source is not even remotely about that and STILL shows a majority of Democrats do NOT want to repeal the
second amendment. Even a biased ass rag like the Washington Times couldn’t say a majority of Dems are in favor
of repealing the second amendment.
[deleted]
[–] jsaranczak 18 points 5 hours ago
You as in individual may not, but many in that party do.

Donald Trump LITERALLY just said "take the guns away first, worry about due process later." Trump is as much a
gun-grabber as any Democrat. He just signed a ban on bump stocks and suppressors as well.
Democrats in rural areas and in the middle of the country support the second amendment.
The DNC does not speak for all democrats. I know a TON of second-amendment supporting people who also support
universal health care and gay rights, who voted for Obama twice and then Trump. The DNC can cater their useless
votes in California all they want, but they lost the rust belt and put Trump in power doing it.
[–] jsaranczak 1 point 4 hours ago
Don't worry, I'm aware Trump is a gun grabber like any other lol. To be fair, there are authoritarians running on both
sides, that is the issue.
It frustrates me to no end because there is no left-leaning libertarian party. You either have Republicans or the
fucking fake-ass DNC. I've been thinking of starting one but I'm probably not the one to do that kind of thing.
[–] Nyxiii 1 point 3 hours ago
Lets start it up!

[–] bartoksic 18 points 5 hours ago
Yeah sure just like you "didn't want to take anyone's guns"
You literally, LITERALLY, had a Republican President, say take away the guns first and worry about due process later.
When did any dem (excluding Beto, with whom I disagree with) say something like that? There are a lot of us Dems
who are gun owners as well.
[–] Ooji 7 points 4 hours ago
It's not really any use - the right wing propaganda machine has done its job. Democrats clearly want to take away
guns after forcing everyone to get abortions on the way to a Black Mass where the sermon is on Socialism.
I originally thought Beto was a good candidate (for senate) but recently he's shown himself to be so naive and out of
touch that it's really disappointing to see him boldly make such statements that will reflect on his party this way.
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2019/08/06/shannon-liss-riordan-2nd-amendment
[–] Violent_Blue 3 points 5 hours ago
You're using whatabouism

Also heard of red flag laws?
[–] cccp_redr4bbit 1 point 4 hours ago
Red flag laws that have strong support among Republicans? You mean those red flag laws?
Just because some Republicans like them doesn't mean I'm suddenly okay with it.
I'm pretty sure liberal areas are the ones that have red flag laws, could be wrong but yeah

[–] jahvidsanders44 1 point 4 hours ago
They're both bad. But when EVERYBODY wants to take the guns away, who do you vote for?
You literally, LITERALLY, had a Republican President, say take away the guns first and worry about due process
later.
And the sad part is that that is still the lesser evil on this issue. Believe me, we are well aware that there isn't going to
be an actually-pro-gun option in 2020, at this point we're just gunning for more Court seats and hope Trump can't do
too much damage while he's in office.
[–] Stryker7200 1 point 1 hour ago
Frankly Trump says stuff like this often but never follows up on it. I think he trolls/jokes often so you can’t really
take it as something he would really try to do.
[–] verylittlefinger 9 points 5 hours ago
Who are “we” in this case?

Majority of Democrats? Surprise surprise, there are a lot of us that are gun owners as well and think what Beto said is
ridiculous.
[–] 721341 -5 points 5 hours ago
This fucker’s username is CCCP, not worth arguing with, we don’t fucking want to be the Soviet Union, Putin is
desperate to rebuild why don’t you go help him?
[–] NSD2327 3 points 4 hours ago
Yeah the reason that CCCP doesnt want to ban guns its because he wants to use them against everyone who isnt a
Marxist/Bolshevik/Commie like himself. And he'll attempt to justify it by calling everyone who isnt a radical leftist a
"nazi".
[–] cccp_redr4bbit -4 points 4 hours ago
Yes because I’m so smart I’m trying to get America to be like the Soviet Union I PUT CCCP IN MY NAME. Don’t you
think I would want to hide my agenda? You idiot.
[–] verylittlefinger -1 points 4 hours ago
Which percentage of Democrats support “assault weapons” ban? Look it up :-).

[–] frothface -2 points 5 hours ago
About 40 percent want to take it away. 8 percent of republicans. Yes, there are stupid people on both sides.
So...60%, or otherwise known as THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS, don’t want to repeal the 2nd amendment?
[–] Jonathan_Ohnn3 -25 points 5 hours ago
Repealing the 2nd amendment has always been the end goal of the Democrats.
youre a fucking idiot. No.
death by a thousand cuts

[–] Pearberr -10 points 4 hours ago
Well that's cool, look, a new way to phrase the slippery slope argument!
Maybe take people at their word instead of being a conspiratorial doucher. Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment
needs an upgrade, not because I hate AR-15s but because I think you have every right to build your own ICBM &
Nuclear Warhead in your backyard. I would like to see licensing (Which would be well within the bounds of the 2nd
Amendment) as the final solution to the gun control question.
Licensing solves all of the current major safety problems associated with guns, while still respecting the rights of legal
gun owners. The process should be simple, safe, repeatable, and has been proven effective before with vehicles.
[–] groynshot 3 points 4 hours ago
Maybe take people at their word instead of being a conspiratorial doucher.

Last year Francis said he wouldn't take guns.
The process should be simple, safe, repeatable, and has been proven effective before with vehicles.
Driving is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by the US Constitution.
[–] Pearberr 1 point 3 hours ago
In 1787, there was a sizable block of delegates who were initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a
member of the Georgia delegation had to say by way of opposition; 'If we list a set of rights, some fools in the
future are going to claim that people are entitled only to those rights enumerated and no others.'
Driving, transportation, mobility - they are rights, just like guns are. And our founding fathers left the 10th
Amendment behind for us just in case. Rights tend to come with responsibilities - and there is no moral qualm with
society ensuring the most basic understanding of those responsibilities from citizens who partake in those specific
rights.
[–] groynshot 2 points 3 hours ago
I agree with your first paragraph, but not the second.

Privileges come with responsibilities. Rights do not.
For instance, I have the right to life. What responsibility is attached to that? None. On the other hand, we have
punishments. But that's not the same as removing rights. Social services aren't rights. They are privileges
extended by an agency such as a government. A hungry person on the street doesn't have the right to demand
for me to feed him/her.
Our founders rightly saw that the second amendment was crucial in guaranteeing the first, and rest.

[–] EarlyCuylersCousin 1 point 1 hour ago
That’s why the ninth amendment exists.

[–] KonigderWasserpfeife 4 points 4 hours ago
Why would we take someone at their word when their actions show the opposite?
[–] Pearberr -1 points 3 hours ago
What actions? The House has passed a Universal Background check.

[–] Jonathan_Ohnn3 -13 points 4 hours ago
No. Common fucking sense.

you are so dumb it doesn't even warrant a reply.

[–] Jonathan_Ohnn3 1 point 3 hours ago
youre a fucking idiot on multiple levels now. congrats.
[–] AreaLeftBlank 14 points 4 hours ago
Pretty much every weapon - including semiautomatic handguns, revolvers, bow and arrows, crossbows, knives,
swords - was designed to kill people on a battlefield. If that's the major issue in question here, you should be are
proposing to repeal the Second Amendment.
FTFY friend.
[–] watergator 12 points 4 hours ago
It’s much easier to confiscate handguns when the public doesn’t have any rifles.
ding ding
it will never stop
[–] m1ilkxxSt3Ak 6 points 5 hours ago
I think he'd like to, but that won't win him an election. Probobly also would t be possible
[–] log4nw4lk3r 2 points 3 hours ago
He should at the very least be consistent. If he wants to ban civilian owned weapons, had he said it, at least he'd have
my respect, although I'd still hate him.
[–] helltricky 0 points 2 hours ago
That post compares handgun killings to rifle killings, finds the former to be a much higher number (yeah, because
those weapons are more common), and concludes that rifle violence is not a problem at all. I'm not sure what I'm
supposed to take away from that. It's like arguing that since more people die from suicide than from the 9/11 attacks,
the United States should just have completely ignored 9/11 and focused on mental health. No, terrorism is a problem,
bro.
[–] keeleon 2 points 2 hours ago
If your goal is to lower deaths by guns why would you start by targeting the type of gun that causes the least amount
of death?
[–] Yeetyeetyeets 1 point 14 minutes ago
Handguns are used more in homicides because they are easy to conceal and handy in tight areas, there are several
countries that ban handguns while completely allowing rifles and they have very low gun homicide rates.
[–] shellsquad -8 points 5 hours ago
What do the stats shown in terms of number of deaths from mass shootings using a handgun vs. assault rifle?
Really curious. I'd imagine far more deaths in instances where an assault rifle was used. Just thinking of Vegas as an
example.
Edit: To clarify, I'm asking average number of deaths per mass shooting. Handgun vs. assault rifle.
[–] earthwormjim91 20 points 4 hours ago
All rifle murders combined are not even a blip on the radar for gun violence.
There are roughly 11,000 gun murders in the US every year.
400 are committed with rifles of any kind. And another 200 with shotguns.
Handguns definitively make up over 7,000 deaths. Another ~3,500 are "unknown type" or "not specified", but being
that rifle wounds are much more distinct than handgun wounds, it's a safe bet that if they were committed with rifles,
they would be attributed to rifles.
Assuming the 3,500 unknown were the same ratio as rifles to pistols, that's about 2,800 by pistol, and 140 by rifle. So
about 10,000 by pistols and 600 by rifles in total.
[–] Aboveground_Plush 1 point 3 hours ago
But do those handgun numbers include suicides?

No. These are solely murders.

Total gun deaths are in the neighborhood of 33,000 per year, of which a little over 21,000 are suicides. 11,000 are
homicides, and 500 are accidental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Nope, although handguns for sure dominate there, as it's way harder to shoot yourself with a long gun.
[–] shellsquad -13 points 4 hours ago*
That's doesn't answer my question. You're assuming my intent when I asked the question. I'm just genuinely curious.
Edit: I'm confused by the downvotes. I asked about number of deaths per shooting. Simple question. I had one user
who gave a great answer and the other ones didn't answer it.
[–] tofur99 14 points 4 hours ago
mass shooting are so rare that they essentially don't happen, statistically speaking. Using them to enact nation-wide
gun control measures is stupid, they are freak events.
Also they are a blend of weapons used, some of the worst ones were done with handguns (Virginia tech).
[–] shellsquad 1 point 4 hours ago
Yeah I get that. But I'm not trying to debate anything in here. Just asking a question that no one seems to be able to
answer..... which is fine.
Honestly not sure if there is a good aggregate on mass shooting deaths by gun type.
One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of mass shootings are gang-related violence with illegally
acquired weapons, almost always handguns. These shootings are much more likely to happen in Detroit, DC, and
Chicago than other US cities.
There is certainly a gang-violence epidemic that needs to be addressed, but it begs the question: How will banning a
specific style of rifle be at all effective in reducing the shootings conducted by gangs using illegally acquired
handguns? Which begs the answer: It won't.
Yeah I agree that a major shift in focus needs to be made towards gang violence. The reason it isn't coming any
time soon is because it happens in neighborhoods where lower class lives. Out of sight out of mind. The mass
shootings that make the news are coordinated efforts targeting middle class+ neighborhoods and people - a lot
of the time at least. The media then scares everyone into thinking it can/will happen to them and hence a public
outcry. Easier to deal with too from a political standpoint.

[–] papaGiannisFan18 -2 points 3 hours ago
How are we the only country in the world these types of “freak events”?
We aren't.... where did you get that idea?

[–] papaGiannisFan18 0 points 3 hours ago
What other first world countries have school shootings as often as we do? Even though they aren’t common or
cause a lot of deaths, it’s still terrifying.

Just by pure numbers, handguns win by a large margin. The Vegas shooting is such a far outlier. Maybe go read the
links that they posted in their comment.
Only 20 mass shootings, out of 89, have been committed with rifles.
[–] shellsquad 2 points 4 hours ago
So on a per mass shooting basis, you're saying more people are killed by a handgun than by a rifle? That's pretty
surprising. I would have thought Vegas alone would skew the numbers.
[–] thelizardkin 1 point 3 hours ago
Around 10,000 people are murdered with pistols a year, compared to 500-600 by rifles..
[–] jacoblikesbutts 16 points 4 hours ago*
Reuters article, id argue they're pretty unbiased when it comes to reporting

The main takeaway was that rifles result in more people shot in a shooting, but handguns result in more deaths per
shooting.
About 26 percent of those shot with a handgun had more than one fatal wound, versus two percent of people shot
with a rifle.
A lot of nuance involved though, a combination of factors about range, shot placement, and the number of follow up
shots can dictate what makes a wound fatal or not.
Thank you! Exactly the type of thing I was looking for. And yeah I'd guess distance from shooting victim plays a large
part in why handguns result in more deaths. But that's an assumption albeit a logical one.
[–] jacoblikesbutts 6 points 4 hours ago*
It mainly centers around "trauma" a term used by medical staff to dictate internal damage when related to guns. Rifle
bullets are fast, but seem to almost zip through targets at most ranges. Handguns are slower and bigger, tending to
cause more trauma/internal damage.
It should also be noted that this data does not include the biggest mass shooting event in recent history, the 2017 Las
Vegas massacre. The data is compiled from 2000-2016, excluding the most notable Columbine Massacre as well.
Compiling that data with the 16 years of data in the study, I'd infer you'd get similar results. The LV shooting took
place at great distance, killing 58 of the 480 people he was able to hit.
The columbine massacre (handguns and shotguns) resulted in the deaths of 12 of the 33 people hit by the two
shooters.
[–] johnwei 6 points 2 hours ago
It's hard to isolate that specific data. Because many of the mass shootings have used multiple weapons, you would
need autopsy data on every victim to determine cause of death. That data either does not exist, or I have yet to see
it.
In the Mother Jones data - of the mass shootings in 2016:
Six total mass shooting incidents
1 only used a rifle (non semi-automatic) and resulted in 5 deaths
1 only used a semiautomatic handgun and resulted in 6 deaths
The other 4 used both semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns, totalling 60 deaths (49 of which came
from the Orlando nightclub incident)
If we look at the entire set of data from 2005 (after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban ended) until current day, and
we look at cases where only one gun type is used - there were 679 total deaths from mass shootings:
225 deaths from 28 semi-automatic handgun-only incidents (8.0 deaths/incident)
72 deaths from 14 manual handgun-only incidents (5.1 deaths/incident)
67 deaths from 6 semi-automatic rifle-only incidents (11.2 deaths/incident)
13 deaths from 3 shotgun-only incidents (4.3 deaths/incident)
8 deaths from 2 manual rifle-only incidents (4.0 deaths/incident)
294 deaths from 27 incidents where multiple gun types were used (10.9 deaths/incident)
There is certainly some support that when a semi-automatic rifle is used, that it can inflict more damage than a
handgun. But there are still far more deaths caused by handguns (4.4X), and far more incidents involving handguns
(7X). If you were to ban a type of weapon to save the most lives (which I don't necessarily support either), you would
still want to ban handguns. They are easier to conceal, far more prevalent, cheaper to obtain, easier to carry more
ammo/magazines, can hold magazines just as large, and are responsible for more U.S deaths.
Choosing to narrow the filter to just the most deadly incidents is somewhat disingenious. The top 3 most deadly
domestic terror attacks in U.S history used planes and a truck. It would be insane to ban planes and trucks as a
result. We have made flying safer by protecting the door to the cockpit, screening for shoe bombs, limiting liquids,
disallowing knives, and instituting air marshalls. We have made large buildings safer by installing concrete pylons,
increasing security for traffic in/out of parking structures, and monitoring large purchases of nitrates. Those measures
have been effective and make sense. Similarly, it seems like we should pursue gun control measures that are
supported by data. As an example, 94% of voters support universal background checks (making guns harder to
obtain). Or legislating required gun safes at home has by far the most data that supports it as an effective means to
prevent unintentional death or injury.
Awesome. Thank you for taking the time to respond with so much info. Much appreciated!
Not average but Virginia tech was handgun and 33 deaths.

Against unarmored, unarmed people in close range situations pistol or rifle doesn't really matter that much.
Submachine guns are pistol caliber and have been in use by the military since WW1. Not to mention shotguns.
[–] shellsquad -7 points 4 hours ago
Again. This doesn't answer my question. Why can't a question be asked in here without someone going on a tangent
to defend their personal stance on a subject. I literally am just curious about average deaths per shooting - handgun
vs. rifle. I thought of the VT shooting when I asked this but if I would have listed Vegas and VT. I'm sure I would have
gotten responses assuming I was saying rifles are so much worse. Again not my intent.
Just giving you a footnote for your statistics homie no reason to get bent out of shape.
And I hate to tell you but your "mass shooting" statistics aren't going to be what you think they are because a mass
shooting means different things to different people.
Thanks for that.

Yeah I'm realizing that now. A lot of times mass shooting can mean 4 or more shooting victims. Not exactly how
people think of a mass shootings most times.
[–] bumfightsroundtwo 1 point 2 hours ago
There's studies that count 3. The problem is gang violence can be a mass shooting and is almost always done with a
pistol. Your statistics are going to end up very lop sided.
assault rifles haven't been used in mass shootings, it's too hard to get a fully automatic weapon
[–] ihopethisisvalid -13 points 4 hours ago
Y’all should repeal the second amendment it causes a shitload of problems.

One of Joe Rogans only good jokes is if the founding fathers came back, the first question they’d have is “You guys
barely wrote any new shit for the constitution?!”
nah they would be wondering why we hadn't refreshed the tree yet
[deleted]
[–] Hegulator 596 points 5 hours ago
I'm sure you realize that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to arm the populace to fight any domestic or foreign
threat, right? Not self-defense against criminals and certainly not hunting. Therefore, an appeal to a "need" to own a
specific firearm based on how useful it is for those things is irreverent in context of the constitution.
To be fair, the AR15 is a pretty neutered version already of a "weapon of war." However, weapons of war are exactly
what the 2nd amendment was specifically designed for. That's how a civilian population can fight domestic or foreign
threats. Not with hunting shotguns.
If we don't feel we need / want the civilian population to be allowed to own weapons of war, then we need to change
the 2nd amendment - not pretend it doesn't exist or says something else.
I love their argument "did you join a militia?" well if that's the hill they want to die on shouldn't those militias be
armed well enough to take on the near peer threats the US could face? since they keep claiming that an AR15 won't
do shit against a full on military crack down I guess they should start selling RPG's and LMG's to militias since that is
their standard for owning a weapon.
[–] Astrognome 13 points 3 hours ago
You can actually buy RPGs and missiles and tanks with the proper license from the ATF. Using them is another matter
but they're legal to own.
I know about being able to buy them but I was always under the impression you could only buy the training rounds.
[–] Vauun 7 points 3 hours ago
Well, buying the ammunition for them is a huge pain. The ammunition (and the things that launch them) are
considered 'Destructive devices' by the ATF, which makes them much, MUCH harder to get a hold of to the point of
where they're basically unheard of.
Oh I see, I had thought like the launcher and everything was considered the destructive device. The explosives part
makes more sense in that regard.
They are - Both the launcher and the ammunition is considered a 'destructive device'.
Oh so I was half right at least, on the other hand this just shows how fucking stupid and complicated these laws
are.
They say that but if you join anything resembling a militia you're immediately labeled a far-right extremist.
loading...
State militias known as the National Guard exist and are heavily armed. States control these, not the federal
government. I don't think the idea of a militia is just "literally anyone over the age of 18 who lives near a walmart".
[–] cheeeezeburgers 12 points 3 hours ago
In the context of the 2nd Amednment, that is exactly what it is. It is the civilian populations ability to remove a form
of government that is not acting in the best interest of the population. Read the preamble to the Constitution then
read the 2nd Amendment.
[–] YouOlFishEyedFool 8 points 3 hours ago
Bingo. State National Guards are not militias. Claiming so is either out of dishonesty or ignorance. The militia is the
people.
We will eventually amend the 2nd amendment, but until then there is legal power to impose reasonable restrictions
like background checks and magazine capacity limits, as well as red flag laws.
No there isn't, you do not understand how the bill of rights works. Those restrictions are being revoked as the USSC
takes up challenges and for good reason. The 2nd Amendment will never be changed as you clearly have zero
understanding as to what that would entail. Even if 75% of the people in the US wanted it to change, that wouldn't
mean shit. To amend and Amendment you need 75% of STATES to radify it, never going to happen.
[–] GeraldBWilsonJr 9 points 2 hours ago
The 2nd amendment will be thoroughly exercised before it is amended

Send bachelors
[–] Miyamori_Senpai 6 points 2 hours ago
Even in the revolution the militia was literally just "whoever's nearby and wants to kill some redcoats". Nearly every
participant if the revolution was a random farmer who grabbed his musket off the wall to fight for freedom. It literally
was the random old guy by the store.
(also, many were under 18)
The supreme court ruled otherwise

[–] ShitTalkingAlt980 4 points 1 hour ago
It literally is and we have no shit hundreds of years of precedent. If you don't like the 2A nullify it with another
amendment.
[–] TheKentuckyRifleman 40 points 4 hours ago
You're talking to him like he understands any part of the Constitution

[–] HelloGoodM0rning 19 points 5 hours ago
Domestic threat seems to be the more relevant one at the moment.

[–] novaskyd 2 points 39 minutes ago
Thank you!! So many people don’t get this. The 2nd amendment wasn’t intended to authorize citizens to own guns for
fun and entertainment or even self-defense from common criminals. It was intended to make sure citizens can own
the same weapons that the government does, so that we can defend ourselves from our own government if the need
ever arises.
[–] Periscopia 2 points 54 minutes ago
I'm sure you realize that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to arm the populace to fight any domestic or
foreign threat, right?
Right! Like the domestic threat posed by agents of a tyrannical government trying to confiscate citizens' guns!
[–] helltricky 1 point 2 hours ago
the purpose of the 2nd amendment was [18th-century information] Therefore, an appeal to a "need" to own a
specific firearm based on how useful it is for those things is irreverent in context of the constitution.
Bro, the constitution states that it requires updating over time and allows for its own modification. Not sure if you'd
heard.
[–] Hegulator 1 point 14 minutes ago
You're right! That's the conversation we should be having - do we still want the 2nd amendment? Do we still want
people to have the right to keep and bear arms? Do we want to change it to something else? Unfortunately, any
discussion about changing the constitution is a political third rail, so instead we legislate around it like it doesn't exist
and hollow it out. Look at what happened to the 4th amendment since 9/11 - it's totally hollowed out by legislation
like the patriot act.
[–] ngratz13 1 point an hour ago
I’m sorry I didn’t realize the words “shall not be infringed” had any wiggle room. Not sure if you’d heard.
[–] bdubs17 -15 points 4 hours ago
Just to let you know, while your interpretation of the 2nd amendment might seem to make some sense, it is at odds
both with current Supreme Court jurisprudence under Heller (written by a conservative majority) and with left-leaning
interpretations of the 2nd amendment, which would confine the 2nd amendment to the context of militias and deny an
individual right to bear arms. Courts before and after Heller have come nowhere close to ruling that a ban on AR-15s,
or anything equivalent, would be unconstitutional. But I'm happy to entertain any precedent to the contrary.
[–] devilsadvocate 19 points 4 hours ago
WAT. Heller specifically re-affirmed that 2a was an individual right and that guns in "common use" cannot be banned.
Now there hasnt been a ruling on whether an ar-15 is in "common use" legally, but its also the highest selling
platform for the last decade....
And multiple SCOTUS decisions have defined, and re-affirmed what constitutes both the regulated and unregulated
militia.
"The people's right to bear arms, like the rights of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution, and
is not "in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." This ruling also upheld that all able
bodied males are members of the militia (one of three such clear rulings).
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876 92 US 542, 553
"All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from
keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the (militia) duty to the general
government."
Presser v. Illinois, 1886 116 US 252

"Individuals have a right to possess and use firearms for self-defense."
U.S. v. Beard, 1895 158 US 550
"The militia is comprised of all able bodied males ... ordinarily when called these men were expected to appear
bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common (military) use at the time."
U.S. v. Miller, 1939 307 US 174
[–] bdubs17 -6 points 3 hours ago*
Heller did not "re-affirm" that the 2A was an individual right. While this is more of a tangential point, scholars for
hundreds of years thought of the 2A as more of a collective right. The discussion about individual rights was injected
into the mainstream in the middle of the 20th century, or somewhere around there. And Heller was the first case to
"affirm" an individual right to bear arms.
I said nothing about militias besides articulating the most basic outline view of the dissenters in Heller, so I'm not
going to respond to your citations (many of which don't support your position as strongly as you think they do).
While you're right that the Supreme Court hasn't addressed this specific question, Heller comes nowhere near
establishing that AR-15s are constitutionally protected, and especially not because they may be more effective than
some alternatives at fighting tyranny. Scalia specifically notes that "[i]t may be objected that if weapons that are
most useful in military service - M-16 rifles and the like - may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is
completely detached from the prefatory clause. . . . But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of
fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." 554 U.S. at
627-28. I.e., the logic that a particular weapon is useful today in fighting domestic/foreign threats was expressly
rejected as a constitutional defense by Scalia. That is the logic of OP, and that is the sort of logic I'm arguing against
(he/she completely misreads Heller).
I am not saying that the S Ct could never rule that AR-15s are constitutionally protected. I am saying that there is a
vast chasm between Heller and such a ruling, such that any reading of Heller that supports that view is stretching the
precedent far beyond its current effect.
Edit: took out the portion about the "at the time" language - it is still contested whether this means at the time of the
passing of the law, or at the time the 2A was ratified, but many courts have held that Heller requires present-time
inquiry. Scalia's logic in particular, however, took stock in the fact that handguns were the most common weapon
used in self-defense at the time. It is unclear whether this logic can be extended to other weapons, and many courts
have held that banning AR-15s is constitutional post-Heller.
[–] devilsadvocate 3 points 1 hour ago*
The entire premise of Heller was whether 2a was a collective right vs individual right argumernt. It was the basis for
DC's argument that even though they banned the ownership of handguns, they argued under the premise that since
2a was a collective right and thus their position was that while the law was infringing on an individual did not affect
the collective right.
The main takeaway of Heller was that SCOTUS stated (or re-affirmed as it had been stated in previous rulings,
including one i cited) and firearm ownership is an individual right.
Heres the specific opinion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
LITERALLY the first page. Its the first sentance of their ruling. Hardly a tangential point.
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an *individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a
militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.(a)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not limit or expand the scope of the second part,
the operativeclause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep
and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation 2 DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA v. HELLER Syllabus of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physicallycapable of acting
in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal-ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The
response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and beararms, so that the
ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous
arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–
30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second
Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
You are referencing scalia talking about actual military weapons (m-16's) and conflating that with ar-15's. They are
different, in both a literal sense and a legal one. One is an NFA item and the other is not.
Im not addressing the rest of your blathering. Keep pushing that objective. The NYC case going before the court and
others like it may force scotus to impost strict scrutiny or rule on whether an AR-15 is common use (hint: any half-wit
KNOWS it is already considering they are literally millions out there sold, but if we gotta get the checks and balances
to declare it, then so be it).
how does an individual express his/her collective right ?

[–] big_damn_zero 1 point 26 minutes ago
Exactly in the way the Supreme Ruler orders, comrade.

[–] bdubs17 -5 points 2 hours ago
An individual does not express his/her collective right, because it is not an individual right...! The theory would be that
the "right" to bear arms was to be taken in the context of a collective militia, and that the federal government
couldn't, e.g., interfere with the states' powers to call and regulate militias. I.e., it follows more of a collective right of
defense that a militia would protect, as opposed to a conception that focuses on self-defense (defense of home from
individual intruders, for example).
[–] 4xTHESPEED 4 points 1 hour ago
so what does it mean when it says "the right of the people". is that a mistake on the writers part ?
taken in context, all of the other amendments are LIMITS on what the govt can do, NOT granting the govt power.
are you saying the 2A is alone among all the amendments in that it does not refer to an individual right ?
does that strike you as odd ?
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body
of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body
of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general
usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry
Lee
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most
governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever
standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker,
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams,
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces
which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe
it would seem that in the context of the framers thoughts and written record, the right truly was an individual one.
[–] bdubs17 -1 points 1 hour ago
The right of the people collectively, those people that comprise the militia, or something akin to that. The 2A is
not the only amendment that does not refer to an individual right my dude. Check out amendments 9 and 10,
and that's just in the Bill of Rights alone.
"Bear arms" had a very specific meaning too, that does not simply mean "carry a firearm." The vast majority of
the time that "bear arms" was deployed as a phrase around the time that the 2nd amendment was drafted, it
was used in the context of calling a militia, or for the purpose of some other military service. You were not
"bearing arms" when you hunted, for example. Dennis Baron has done some good empirical digging on the
matter, and the overwhelming majority of usages of the phrase were employed in a military context.
So basically all of your quotes, save maybe Samuel Adams, can be interpreted as the need to preserve the
collective right of self-defense in the form of an armed militia.
See Madison's writings in the federalist papers on this matter:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/FEDERALI.HTM
He's not talking about self-defense of your home from random intruders. He's talking about collective defense,
referencing militias which appear elsewhere in the constitution. You can't just ignore the entire beginning of the
Second Amendment. In the context of a militia, which is necessary for the collective defense of the people (in
Madison's opinion), you can't prevent people from "keeping and bearing arms." This is not the same as saying
"any random person, even in a world where militias do not exist and are obsolete, may own a gun for defense of
his/her home." The language in the 2A would have been an awful, opaque manner of ensuring an individual right
that the founders actually viewed as fundamental, as compared to the (relative) clarity of the 1A.

[–] 4xTHESPEED 3 points 1 hour ago
http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html
this guy does a good job of explaining why the collective right theory is pure bunk
"Like "collective property" in a communist dictatorship, the collective right to arms supposedly belonged to
everybody at once, but not to individuals or state governments. Thus, the "right" actually belonged to nobody and
nothing, and had no practical existence."
[–] bdubs17 -1 points 1 hour ago
While there is a distinction conceptually between the narrow conception of individual 2A rights, and collective
rights, I am not sure that there is much of a difference in practice. Both "rights" just ensure that people can
keep and bear arms in the context of a militia in order to facilitate collective self-defense. Perhaps the only
difference would lie in the manner by which we would redress a situation in which the government disarmed a
member of a militia. But both are nowhere near the interpretation advanced by the Heller majority.

[–] DraconianDebate 1 point 4 hours ago
A ban on AR-15s and confiscation of legally purchased AR-15s by force are two very different things.
[–] bdubs17 0 points 3 hours ago
He is proposing a ban, coupled with a mandatory buyback. While I would not actually distinguish too much between a
ban and the use of confiscation to enforce a ban, I do not see Beto proposing a confiscation here. He is suggesting,
maybe naively, that people would just comply with the buyback.
The word mandatory means you have no choice, so yes it is a confiscation just with dressed up words to make it seem
a bit gentler.
A mandatory buyback is confiscation. You have no choice. Also, the government will be paying you with your own
money....
Do you not know what mandatory means? Also check the stats on the Australian and NZ mandator buy backs,
something like 7 - 12% were estimated to be turned in and those are in countires where they don't have a
constitutional right.
[–] bdubs17 1 point 2 hours ago
Confiscation would be a specific enforcement mechanism for people who do not participate in the buyback. You can
ban something, but that "ban" does not do anything without an enforcement mechanism. I.e., you can "mandate" that
people buy healthcare, but if you do not impose a penalty for failing to do so, the mandate will have no bite. But you
may think that by "mandating" something, and incentivizing people to do that thing, people will do it, even if you
won't "force" them to comply otherwise.
I interpret Beto's comment as saying that people will comply with the buyback - i.e., they'll sell their guns. This may
be naive. But the question of confiscation comes afterwards. You could in theory do nothing to those who don't
comply, or you could impose a penalty, monetary or otherwise. Confiscation may be a natural response here, but I'm
interpreting Beto as not even thinking that far ahead, given his optimism with respect to compliance.
Mandatory - required by law or rules; compulsory.

If he thinks people will just willingly comply with any and all laws. Well he should be disqualifed from just about
everything for that.
[–] bdubs17 1 point 2 hours ago
I'm not saying that your position is unrealistic in practice, I am just saying that you are conflating the category
of compulsory laws with the enforcement mechanisms behind them. Not all mandatory/compulsory laws have
enforcement mechanisms forcing you to do the thing that is required. E.g., Australia has "compulsory" voting
laws, but they don't drag you to the polls if you don't vote. They impose a small fine.
Courts before and after Heller have come nowhere close to ruling that a ban on AR-15s, or anything equivalent,
would be unconstitutional.
Pretty sure the supreme court has not heard a case on this yet....
Uh, yea they have. Common use is clearly defined in other cases and would be called upon in a judicial review. Francis
is an idiot and is only running to stoke his own ego and raise his national awareness. For the democrats in this thread
you need to be urging him to drop out of the race, he is destroying your party much like the squad is doing. The
largest single issue voting block in the country is pro 2nd amendment voters, this is a losing issue.
[–] ShitTalkingAlt980 1 point 1 hour ago
The Squad seems to be helping whip up the base. O'Rourke seems to be alienating people. Want Lefties to stay home
DNC? I swear I know two people that vote DNC and progressive when they can debate staying home because of this
issue.
[–] cheeeezeburgers 2 points 1 hour ago
The squad is whipping up the hyper left, that is not the group the DNC wants dictating policy.
I meant like specifically a banning law that got pushed up to the court and then they ruled that it's bullshit, as
opposed to the indirect method via the common use thing you mentioned.
They are supposed to hear arguments on one this session, had one a few sessions ago and I believe had one on the
docket 2 sessions ago that was specifically dealing with the constitutionality of the restriction of auditory sound
suppression systems
[deleted]
[–] KeystrokeCowboy -39 points 5 hours ago
Join the national guard! "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" NOT any dumbass that wants to buy a military weapon should
be able to. They had single fire, THREE ROUND PER MINUTE at best muskets when the 2nd amendment was written.
If you are going to say the 2nd amendment gives you the blanket right to own any weapon ever invented, you really
need to read the whole 2nd amendment and stop trying to imply it gives you the right to own any weapon you want.
There is settled case law on this that says the 2nd amendment does not ban the government from regulating guns.
[–] Hegulator 34 points 4 hours ago
You realize that those "three rounds per minute" muskets were the best military technology of the time. That's all the
professional armies of the time had. Saying that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons would be like
saying the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet because it wasn't around back then.
Remember, there was a time when the government would help you finance your very own warship so you could go
fight foreign navys (via letter of marque) - that's what privateers were. There's some good historical precedent for
civilians owning military hardware, it's just in recent history that we've really backed away from it.
[–] room66 34 points 4 hours ago
You realize the 2nd Amendment grants zero rights don't you. So how can you say it 'gives blanket rights'?
Here in the US, just like free speech, the right to bear arms is a natural right... NOT granted by the 2nd Amendment,
nor Constitution, nor the Executive nor the Legislative branches. We are considered to have that right naturally.
What the 2nd Amendment does is underline that our Government, no matter what, can ever infringe upon that natural
right. It wasn't theirs to "give" or "grant", and thus it's not theirs to to take away. They simply cannot. That's what
the 2nd Amendment does.
[–] YouOlFishEyedFool 8 points 2 hours ago
Well said. Too many people think the Constitution grants rights. Too many people also don't know what well-regulated
means in the context of the 2nd Amendment.
[–] connaught_plac3 1 point 2 hours ago
What does 'well-regulated militia' mean in context?

[–] ShitTalkingAlt980 2 points 1 hour ago
A group of men 18-45 with well maintained weapons. There are plenty of laws describing the militia from the period.
[–] connaught_plac3 1 point 48 minutes ago
So a 'well-regulated militia' isn't an organization of any kind? Just random citizens with no links or hierarchy?
[–] JohnFest 1 point 46 minutes ago
and, importantly, the US Code still exists defining that the militia is still "the people."
What a ridiculous notion. I don't think human beings by natural law have a right to own semiautomatic rifles. The
majority of modern human societies right now in existence on this planet also disagree with your assertion that this is
an intrinsic natural right of being a human. All rights are subject to reasonable regulation and restriction to prevent
harm.
[–] Ninja_Parrot 8 points 2 hours ago
The fundamental, "natural" right being argued by the 2nd Amendment isn't semi-automatic weapons specifically, it's
self-defense and self-determination broadly.
Self-defense: This goes back to English common law and beyond. It's generally understood by most Euro-influenced
schools of philosophy that the use of force can be justified for self-defense, and that your defensive use should be
proportional to the attack you're resisting.
Self-determination: for many of the founding fathers, the government was understood as a) a necessary evil and b)
directly subject to the people. So if the government gets out of control, you have a right to disassociate from it.
Synthesizing those two ideas, I think it's easy to see the line of reasoning. The only way to protect yourself from an
oppressive system is to be armed well enough to resist them. The thing is, conservatives tend to see almost any
social change as the fingers of an oppressive government, and many Americans fetishize the weapons themselves
rather than actually caring about the philosophy.
So by extension, say you're black, or Latino, or queer, living in 2019 America. The country is headed down a dark
road fast, the politicians are either ineffectual or gleeful about that path, and you can't even trust the cops to protect
you day-to-day, much less when their gun-nut buddies start forming terrorist cells. In that context, I think it's
absolutely fair to start arming your community for defense, and the arms in question have to be comparable to what
the enemy will be using.
I hope this is a more civil counterpoint than what you've been getting.
[–] room66 2 points 1 hour ago
Ridiculous? We're talking about the USA which like it or not: AS FOUNDED, citizens have the natural right to bear
arms (I'd say "God Given" but that tends to lead into other discussions). We also have the natural right to free
speech. We do not have these rights by the goodness of our rulers hearts, granting these "privileges"
You talk about the planet but you realize that's what makes the founding of the USA the exception to much the rest of
the world (hence American "Exceptionalism") where the US is the EXCEPTION to the norm. In most everywhere else
on this planet, the ability to bear arms is granted by whoever's in charge. Not so in the USA. As founded by the
constitution, we have these rights intrinsically... and no US leaders past, present, or future can take away what they
didn't grant to its citizens in the first place. The Constitution (and the 2nd Amendment) are the choke hold limiting
documents on Govt. power that ensure that. So as long as we are a nation living by those founding principles, like it
or not that's just how it is here. :)
Well you are an uninformed idiot, whose right to vote should be stripped. Interestingly enough your right to vote is
granted by government unlike the bill of rights which is a restriction on government. So maybe read the constitution
before you make yourself look like a fool.
[–] TwiIight_SparkIe 18 points 4 hours ago
If the Second Amendment only applies to the technology from when it was written, then the First Amendment doesn't
apply to telephones or the Internet. The Second Amendment makes no mention of any specific type of arms.
[–] plethora-of-pinatas 20 points 5 hours ago
District of Columbia v. Heller

[–] KeystrokeCowboy -19 points 4 hours ago*
Gotta love the "constitutionalists" in here pointing to a decision based upon a law that required
…..rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock"
Details matter. You bringing this up does not overule anything I said at all and is completely irrelvant. Also before you
drool over your keyboard about the well regulated militia part. Again, banning AR-15s and AK47s does not ban all
guns and keep people from owning arms separate from the militia. "I JUST WANT ANY GUN" is what you want to say
so be honest with everyone and stop being diseningeous.
Also thanks for bring this up as defense to what I said, but it ACTUALLY PROVES WHAT I SAID that the 2nd
amendment does not stop the government from regulating gun sales
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not
be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons
protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying
of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
[–] wingsnut25 12 points 4 hours ago
The second part of the paragraph that you seemed to ignore:

The sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
In DC V Heller the court made it pretty clear that at the time referred to current time, not at the time the Constitution
was ratified, but a few states and courts tried to ignore this, so the Supreme Court came back Caetano v.
Massachusetts in 2016.
"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that
were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the
States"
Yet all guns ever made are not available for sale to public and your quote references handguns. I'm sorry are we
talking about banning handguns now or are you trying to move the goalposts yet again.
Well if you actually read what the democrats are pushing, then yes it would include almost all handungs with the
potential exception if single action manual revolving revlovers. They are pushing for banning of specific types of
mechanical actions involved in the function of firearms. The current proposals basically ban any and all self feeding
magazine style semi automatic firearm. So ~99% of all modern handguns would be included.
Actually read what they are pushing? Please link to the actual bill or policy that would ban handguns from any of
the democratic candidates. I'll wait.....
Fear mongering bullshit.
[–] wingsnut25 6 points 4 hours ago
No the Court clearly stated in US V Miller and DC V Heller that it protects weapons in common use, that statement
isn't limited to just handguns...
And the court clearly stated the right is not unlimited and you dont' have a right to any weapon whatsoever. Try
to understand that this case did not settle everything about gun laws. You and the NRA seem to want to hold
this up in our faces but in reality it doesn't guarantee the rights you think it does.

[–] imilkthegoats 13 points 4 hours ago
"WELL REGULATED MILITIA" NOT any dumbass that wants to buy a military weapon should be able to.
The amendment says that because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This guy doesn't know shit when it comes to law. Theres the prefatory clause and the operatory clause. The "A well
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is the prefatory clause, it states why the law is there.
The operatory clause, which is technically the only one that matters, states, clear as day: "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", that is the law by itself.
Also, back then, a merchant ship asked the govt if they could have canons to defend their ship from pirates. Guess
what it answered it with? "Hell yes, you have a right to keep and bear arms, which includes cannons"
The founding fathers also used "arms" instead of "guns" or "muskets" because they knew guns would get better.
There were already semi-automatic rifles at the time. The whole argument of "they only had muskets" is completely
wrong on two things: the right isn't for muskets -they deliberately used "arms" as they knew guns would evolve- and
they had machine guns already, goddamnit...
Also, the whole concept of a well regulated militia is very different than current. Back then, a militia was just any
group of armed people that mobilized together. And well regulated meant in working order, not restricted.
Also, the armed forces aren't militias, they are armies, being that they are supported by state. They said militia
because they needed protection FROM the state. People who are against the second amendment forgot history. And
those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Anyone that knows the history of the second amendment knows why it's there: they had just fought the biggest army
in the world and won, after they were oppressed by said army, thus, when creating a government, knowing that the
natural path of government is to become tyrannical, as the people give up their rights in exchange for security, the
founding fathers put a last barrier against tyranny: an armed population, being that the last line of defense from any
threat, foreign or domestic.
And you can keep and bear arms. Nothing in there mentions you are guaranteed access to an AR15/AK47. I love how
people keep twisting the 2A to mean whatever the fuck they want to mean. It only guarentees the people's access to
a gun. Not a specific gun! Also, the 2A doesn't say anything about taking guns away from felons. But hey we do that
and nobody from the NRA is bitching becuase it's a terrible idea to allow criminals access to guns. So people can use
logic to keep society safe in that instance but it's easy keep the rubes angry and movtivated to vote for them when
they are screaming "they are coming for your guns!"
[–] imilkthegoats 2 points 2 hours ago
It only guarentees the people's access to a gun. Not a specific gun!

So is it alright for the government to say that the only gun you're allowed to own is one which the government
designed to be totally ineffective? Of course not. So where do we draw the line? I personally think the ban on
automatic firearms is unconstitutional, but outlawed nuclear bombs is probably okay.
Also, the 2A doesn't say anything about taking guns away from felons. But hey we do that and nobody from the
NRA is bitching becuase it's a terrible idea to allow criminals access to guns.
Lots of people complain about insufficient paths to gun rights restoration. And I don't know why you seem to expect
the NRA to represent gun owners.
it's easy keep the rubes angry and movtivated to vote for them when they are screaming "they are coming for
your guns!"
I mean I totally agree that the Republicans often rely on this scare tactic, but the Democratic party are literally
coming for your guns and mine.
[–] KeystrokeCowboy 0 points 1 hour ago
So is it alright for the government to say that the only gun you're allowed to own is one which the government
designed to be totally ineffective? Of course not. So where do we draw the line? I personally think the ban on
automatic firearms is unconstitutional, but outlawed nuclear bombs is probably okay.
They already do. get over it.
Lots of people complain about insufficient paths to gun rights restoration. And I don't know why you seem to
expect the NRA to represent gun owners. The NRA doesn't represent gun owners. I mean I totally agree that the
Republicans often rely on this scare tactic, but the Democratic party are literally coming for your guns and mine.
Nope. They are not. Stop spreading lies. Beto is not going to be nominee and no proposal in the house or senate by
democrats is trying to do that.
[–] imilkthegoats 3 points 1 hour ago*
They already do. get over it.

They already do what? I proposed a completely hypothetical situation. Your response makes no sense.
Nope. They are not. Stop spreading lies. Beto is not going to be nominee and no proposal in the house or senate
by democrats is trying to do that.
O'Rourke is not the only one proposing gun confiscations, and whether he is going to win has nothing to do with the
fact that he is in fact calling for confiscation. As far as I'm aware, every Democrat in the race has expressed support
for the proposed AWB. Biden and Sanders have specifically supported confiscating AR-15s and other "assault
weapons." Can you please explain in detail why it is a lie to say that the Democratic party is proposing serious gun
confiscation policies?
[–] KeystrokeCowboy -1 points 1 hour ago
Assault weapon ban is much different then "coming to take all your guns". You made the accusation so you can
back it up. Please link sources with actual polices that include having the government confiscate guns from
democrat candidates

You should probable read up on this

[–] compensatedshill 816 points 5 hours ago

eye roll. How stupid do you think the electorate is? No one in your campaign can possibly believe this. This is why
everyone hates politicians because they say stupid shit like this.
What happens when people refuse? Are you going to send armed military to surround their house to arrest them? And
then what happens when they still don't give them up? Are you going to be firing on citizens to take their guns?
[–] KG7DHL 133 points 4 hours ago
I am so glad all of my AR15s were lost in a horrible boating accident.

I was there, fishing with my AR15s, because I know if I left them at home, by themselves, they would have gone on a
mass shooting spree of their own free will.
But, anyway, we were in the boat, and I am all like, "here Fishy fishy fishy", and my AR15 was all like, " I AM GONNA
KILL THOSE FISH WITH MY 30 caliber ghost GUN 30 rounds per half Second !!!!", and I am all like, 'Calm down there
you crazy Assault Rifle with the shoulder thing that goes up," and then I got a bite.
My rod bends down, and I start reeling and reeling and reeling, and I kid you not, my AR 15 is all like "LEMMET SHOT
HIM LEMME SHOT HIM!!!!", and I am "hey, AR 15, not so close! You'll fall in!!!!", and sure enough, as I am fighting
that Bass, all my AR 15s totally fell into the lake, never to be seen again.
So.. that's how I lost all my AR15s while fishing.
[–] Mike_Facking_Jones 54 points 4 hours ago
I'm sorry for your loss, I know what it's like to lose a sentient mass-murdering weapon. Hopefully the chainsaw
attachments didn't fall in with them?
[–] ASUMicroGrad 7 points an hour ago
The sea was angry that day, my friends - like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli.
[–] CapnSippy 3 points an hour ago
F
Very sorry for your tragic loss.
[–] SonGoku915 1 point 14 minutes ago
F
How stupid do you think the electorate is?

Stupid enough to vote for him.
he's at like half of zero percent. Not sure he's going to win.
Well I mean you were asking how stupid he thinks the electorate is. I guess the real answer is "as stupid as he is."
I still don't understand why he was relevant in the first place. He almost beat Ted Cruz by outspending like 3-1?
Shocker, if you aren't an absolute ass you might win if you pour enough money into a race against a nationally
unpopular incumbent.
[–] aztec6guy 1 point an hour ago
In his defense half of Texas was stupid enough to vote for him... thankfully the electorate isn’t completely stupid yet,
but the education system is working on it.
[–] i_hug_strangers -2 points 4 hours ago
80M+ were "sufficiently intelligent" to have voted for trump or clinton

viva democracia
yeahhhhhhh
[–] real_dasgeek 28 points 4 hours ago
Are you going to be firing on citizens to take their guns?

They sure will. Look up Waco Branch Davidians and Ruby Ridge. They used tanks in Waco.
[–] PM_ME_KNEE_SLAPPERS 3 points 2 hours ago
That was one group and it left a terrible taste in peoples mouth. Multiply that by 1000 and I doubt many law
enforcement agents will show up for the fight.
[–] JimGordonRobin 5 points an hour ago
1000 would be amazing. You are looking at 100s of thousands of those situations going on all over the country at the
same time. The American public would not be cool with that many innocent people killed. The grabbers would be
slaughtered.
[–] Teabagger_Vance 0 points 2 hours ago
Lmao look how that turned out.

Are you going to be firing on citizens to take their guns

...thus reinforcing the very reason for the 2A's existence in the first place? Politicians are dumb.
[–] TeamYellowUmbrella 81 points 5 hours ago
If Americans complied with the law, we wouldn't have a mass shooting problem to begin with lmao
[–] anubis2018 56 points 5 hours ago
Of a drug problem. Or theft. Or murder in general.

[–] Theorymeltfool1 32 points 4 hours ago
If black people didn’t murder black people, we wouldn’t have a huge murder problem in the country to begin with
lmao
[–] SamTheSwan -33 points 4 hours ago
Goodbye karma
Lmao, my comment was positive, and I have way more karma than Robert O’Rourke.
He must have been saying that to his own Karma. XD

[–] onikukki 1 point 3 hours ago
Hahahaha
He's right.
That's exactly what this supposed "peace-loving" idiot, Beta, wants to happen. It's shocking that so many don't see
through his schtick.
> It's shocking that so many don't see through his schtick.
I would usually agree with this, and think this myself; however, judging by the comments and the downvotes on this
post, I'm honestly thinking that the real narrative (not the controlled one we've been seeing for the last decade) is
shining through. Maybe we all think there are more people who think like this, because they want us to think like
there are? Or maybe that China money is drying up?
[–] mellamenpapi 4 points 3 hours ago
What happens when the military that has sworn to uphold the Constitution refuses to take people's guns as well. Are
they going to court marshal everyone?
he'll simply remind them that it's the law. He's basically trying to conduct the Milgram experiment on a mass scale.
[–] inFAM1S 7 points 4 hours ago
Remember when it was law that black people couldnt use the same drinking fountains? Or you couldnt drink alcohol?
[–] Purple_bastard69 4 points 4 hours ago
Reminds me of when Carson said on tv something like we need to befriend terrorists so we know what they are doing,
then the host was said something like “wouldn’t they just lie to us”
[–] starbuckroad 1 point 16 minutes ago
I say buy the ticket, take the ride. Its best we deal with it and not pass the buck to our kids.
[deleted]
[–] Coachkfan1 1 point 4 hours ago
That’s probably his plan.

[–] youknowimworking -16 points 4 hours ago
Lets say you dont comply at the buyback. If you dont sell the weapon by the last day then your weapon will no longer
be registered legally. Therefore if you're caught using your weapon, your weapon will be consfiscated and depending
on what the punishment for not complying is then you will get a fine or jail time. So in short, if you dont comply you
will pay a fine and/or your weapon will be consfiscated anyway. What happens when you break the law? That's what
will happen.
I know there are a lot of 'ifs' but I'm just answering what will happen if you don't comply. People think it will be this
all out armed conflict like people will bunker out in their homes and the government will kick your door down. People
watch too many movies.
[–] D3ception5 10 points 2 hours ago
Firstly, there's no such thing as "registered legally". We don't have a registry for this exact reason.
Secondly, no on would use a "banned weapon" out in public. That'd just be too stupid.
There is no way to enforce this kind of a policy without violence.
[–] youknowimworking -3 points 2 hours ago
1. Okay
2. Thats the point. No new weapons are in circulation. People who have them wont bring then to public places
(shooting ranges etc) if they do then they are no longer law abiding citizens. So they should face ramifications
(a fine and / or jail time and confiscation of weapon)
3. Australia and New Zealand
Initially, i just answered the question; What would happen if people dont comply? What would happen is exactly what
would happen when any person gets caught breaking any law. A fine and/or jail time.
[–] D3ception5 4 points 1 hour ago
1. There absolutely will be more new weapons in circulation. Guns are super easy to make. AR-15's take minimal
effort to build, maybe a little more effort if you melt down some cans and cast your own lower receivers.
2. Australia and New Zealand were and continue to be almost complete failures. The compliance rates are so low
that no noticeable effect can be seen. Not to mention that comparing a country with hundreds of millions more
guns and people to two smaller in every way countries just doesn't work.
3. Most people wouldn't get a fine or jail time, they'd most likely resist violently (as they should since that is their
right). So I guess the real answer to the question of the result of non-compliance is this: a lot of dead cops,
politicians, patriots, and families.
[–] youknowimworking -1 points 1 hour ago
1. Those weapons will be illegal at that point. So those people should be treated like criminals.
2. Australia has not had another mass shooting since 1996 (weapon banned) New Zealand just banned them.
3. You said most likely. I say most likely it won't.

The ban won't stop gun violence. Thats not what anyone is trying to do. The point is to stop mass shootings or at the
very least, Minimized the casualties. If you have a bettr idea on how to achieve that. I'm all ears and welcome
multiple points of views to better our country.
[–] aztec6guy 2 points 1 hour ago
If you turned me into a criminal by passing this law, I have no reason to abide by the laws of a government that no
longer represents me.
You do understand that our nation works because we willingly comply right? What if we all just decided to ignore
stop signs?
That’s what this is gonna be like...you can forget taxing me too...
[–] youknowimworking 1 point 58 minutes ago
If you dont follow the law you are turning yourself into a criminal. Nobody can do that for you. At that point you
are choosing to be a criminal. If youre saying that our nation works because we willingly comply. Then comply
willingly. No need to be a criminal. Whats your solution to mass shootings?
[–] D3ception5 1 point 28 minutes ago
1. Australia just had several mass shootings this year.

2. Mass shootings don't matter. The number of people killed is so low and the chances of personally being is one
is also so incredibly low that statistically speaking mass shootings shouldn't even be a blip on the political
radar.
[–] gunslinger_006 1 point 17 minutes ago
Look this up: there are now more guns in circulation in Australia than before their buyback.
It didnt work long term.
[–] youknowimworking 1 point 7 minutes ago
Look the mass shooting in comparison from pre ban till now. It worked.
[–] daveroo -57 points 4 hours ago
Hi lad- in the uk after we had a school massacre and banned guns it worked. People gave them up. It’s a fact.
Saying “eyeroll how stupid do you think the electorate is” isn’t helpful. Nor is it factually correct since it’s happened in
countries already. Let’s give it a go rather than just immediately pushing back saying “OMG eyeroll!”
Be better
[–] oilman81 50 points 4 hours ago*
That's great for the UK. We literally wrote the 2nd amendment into the constitution thinking specifically of a UK
government running things. Thinking specifically about shooting at redcoats.
So that if the new gov't ever got a little too aggressive taxing tea again, we'd have the option to shoot back, like at
Lexington and Concord.
The right to bear arms is meant to be a check on the government monopoly on force, not for hunting or protecting
against criminals.
Needless to say the first step for Beto and others to restore that monopoly on force and consolidate power unto
themselves is to confiscate guns from free citizens.
Since you're commenting from the UK, I'll remind you that you are a subject, not a free and equal citizen. Your
government has literal titled lords who are set above you, and you are their legal inferior and will be until you die.
Hahaha what’s hilarious about this argument (I encounter this a lot) is you genuinely think having guns will mean you
could take down your government. Guess what? You won’t be able to. I think the tanks and heavy machinery may
beat you compared to Kurt with his shotgun. Again the law is ridiculous. Society has changed. Times have moved on.
Let’s look at that amendment again and see if it makes sense?
From everyone else in the planet no it doesn’t make sense and it’s beyond ridiculous
“I need a gun to protect my family”
Well guess what jimmy you’re doing a shit job at it. All these mass shootings? Where is lickle James Bond with his
machine gun to save the day? Or the hand gun to stop a burglar? The fact is having a gun does fuck all in protecting
American families - the entire ability to own guns is what KILLS American families
[–] oilman81 24 points 4 hours ago*
Number one, our invincible military is losing a war in Afghanistan and lost one in Iraq (or at least outcome tbd). Those
were very small insurgent populations living under either iron age conditions or dictatorships that sure as hell didn't
allow guns
Number two, in any scenario such that you describe, there would be massive defections from the US military, who
even in a best case for the tyrannical gov't would be much more hesitant to shoot American civilians than Iraqi ones
Number three, since you talk about everyone else on the planet, there was a time in living memory when "everyone
else on the planet" save America and your island and Australia were living under fascist or Bolshevik tyranny (or that
of your empire). We didn't listen to them then, and we don't have to follow the lead of poorer, less powerful countries
now, countries that are new to democracy (and in your case which still maintain separate classes of serfs and lords)
But just generally, is this really your discussion? This is an American domestic policy and an American constitutional
discussion, and frankly the input of foreign serfs who have submitted to systems where they are placed in an inferior
tier..why is your opinion worth anything? Feel like by now you'd be conditioned to know your place (deferential
silence)
Good god you just nuked that guy from orbit lmao
[–] gunslinger_006 2 points 14 minutes ago
Also Vietnam
ITT: People who have no concept of Asymetrical Warfare.
[–] OldEcho 19 points 3 hours ago
Modern Europeans seem to completely disbelieve in the idea of guerilla warfare, which is weird because the term itself
comes from Europeans fighting Europeans.
They key is that when you wage a guerilla war you don't fight the tanks and drones screaming with an AK in your
hands like a complete mental case. You plant bombs on the roads that bring fuel and ammo to those tanks and
drones. You burn factories and mines. You ambush and attack supply convoys in heavy force and then split up and
run everywhere before your foe has a chance to coordinate a proper defense, let alone prepare a proper chase. And
after all who are they chasing? Maybe one of your guerilla fighters lives in a house literally down the road from the
ambush point, but he was wearing a mask and who's going to turn him in? His family? His community, if they even
know? You could just burn down every house but now the 99% of people who were on your side or sitting on the
fence are against you, so you killed 50 guerilla fighters, 500 innocents, and made 5000 new guerilla fighters.
Welcome to the rice field motherfucker.
People crack me up with this stuff. For starters the plan if to bring in NATO forces in the event of an uprising and lock
down US military basis because they know they cant rely on the US military to go after civilians. So now you have a
foreign army occupying the USA. When the tanks are in your city you go to work and wait. When they leave the city
you kill occupiers. Then go back to work. Living life pretty much normally.
[–] NewUser10101 2 points 1 hour ago
You honestly think the US armed forces will stand aside while a foreign army - even allied - occupies America to
bring force against American citizens?! That is actually the series of events you think is likely to happen?
And your post has net positive votes?!
[–] OnstarLifeSupport 1 point 53 minutes ago
The actual plan for a civil war is to use nato troops and not our own. I am trying to find the source on this. The
issue is our military wouldn't standby as this happen but the Fed govt knows they wouldn't be able to rely on it's
own military. So it would end up being nato troops against deserters of the US military.

[–] Miedo 27 points 4 hours ago
How are those goat farmers extending a war of more than a decade in Afghanistan with measly AK-47's against
unstoppable tanks and drones? The same way 400,000,000 guns would in the USA. You are under surveillance 24/7
with CCTV and can't even carry a knife for daily tasks. Better keep banning everything to keep everyone in their safe
space. Like Benjamin Franklin famously said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Just a reminder, a measly 13 colonies of farmers and peasants
defeated the world's most powerful military at that time with (you guessed it) guns! That's is why it was written into
our constitution. By the way, how is Brexit going for you?
The goat farmers didn't manage to overthrow the American government, nor could they.
[–] RIP_Hopscotch 9 points 2 hours ago
I don't think people who aren't Americans are getting this. Nobody really wants to overthrow the United States
government. The fact that there are 400 million guns (literally more guns than people) is a check on the
government. Because of this check, the government has to respect the will and the rights of the people.
Why do Americans need this check against the government but not other 1st world democracies? Becuase they
tend to vote for incompetent leadership?

[–] Lasercoolman 5 points 2 hours ago*
Does Vietnam ring a bell? Small arms managed to do a tremendous amount of damage to the United States'
millitary eventually forcing us out of the country. I know I'm leaving out many details but small arms can cause
massive damage against a great millitary. Just look at any terror organization in the Miiddle East. They're mostly
using small arms and they've been a threat for almost half a century. This is the purpose of the second amendment.
It is meant to be a threat for the national government to respect the natural born rights that are represented within
the Constitution, because to violate them will cause tremendous bloodshed. Therefore creating a check against the
government for the people.
The Vietnamese took over the American government?

[–] Hockey_DubsJr 9 points 4 hours ago
I bet a lot of military personnel would not comply in firing on it's country's citizens, the country they fight to protect,
the freedoms they fight to protect. You're right that the government has more heavy weapons. However we the
people have vastly more weapons and more bodies. Why do you think we dropped nukes on Japan? That was the only
way to secure a victory. You think the government would nuke it's own land, to rule what afterwards?
I do think these politicians say stupid shit because they feel they need to, however they'd be stupid to think they
could win a war against the people. Even if they did, how much damage and cost would they accrue? Good for you (at
least that's what you think) that something worked in the UK, it won't work here and you can stay out of US policies
since they have nothing to do with you.
You're last point is retarded, refer to what I just said, that's what the second amendment is about. Protecting my
family is part of it as in I can protect myself and my home, I'm not going to make round at schools to protect
someone else's family. It's not my job and really isn't anyone's job currently. The police have no duty to protect you,
their duty is to protect and serve the law, not the individual.
[–] SilentWeaponQuietWar 15 points 4 hours ago
What shithole country are you from?

[–] LooseCannon3415 3 points 3 hours ago
Holy crap you are flat out dumb....just plain dumb.

[–] Lindt_Licker 3 points 3 hours ago
See our military is also sworn to support and defend the constitution. Your argument is not valid.
[–] crick310 1 point just now
You're from the UK so maybe you can answer a question for me. Did the British government have planes tanks and
other heavy machinery from say the late 1960s to the mid 1990's? And if they did how was it that a small geographic
area was able to force the British government into a negotiated peace?
[–] BiBoFieTo -9 points 4 hours ago*
Don't argue with Americans about guns.

Every American with a gun thinks they're gonna use it to take down the government or shoot a home invader.
Meanwhile the statistics say the gun will be used for suicide or homicide.
Source
Based upon either a Kleck & Gertzstudy that estimates around 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year (source), or a
similar study in 1994 under Democrat President Clinton (Source) found this number to be 1.5 million; it would result
in guns being used at a minimum over 47x more often to defend a life than to take one. This also doesn't take into
account how many times simply BRANDISHING the weapon, and not using it (show of force), accomplished the
stopping of a crime, and also doesn't account for incidents that went unreported.
You're not intelligent, you're dogmatic. Enjoy your religion of Leftism.
[–] olite206 27 points 4 hours ago
So when people don’t go with the buyback, because a lot of Americans won’t, what happens? Do they get arrested?
When they resist, because the constitution says they’re allowed to have guns, are the police going to kill them?
It’s counter intuitive and unrealistic to suggest Americans will go with a buyback because the constitution says they
don’t have to. It’s worked in other countries but it hasn’t worked here and even on a federal level with it being
“enforced”, Americans will still have AR-15s.
All of this ignores that most firearm deaths in the US come from handguns anyway. But we don’t wanna talk about
that.
It doesn't really work in other countries either.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/32820-another-gun-buy-back-failure-this-time-in-new-zealand
Nor do they want to talk about where those hand gun kills come from, that would be a big no-no as people may start
wanting the government to do something to fix those hot spots. Fixing would require putting those in charge in prison
and that can't happen now can it?
[–] The_Original_Miser 11 points 4 hours ago
Your knife attacks (despite them being banned) and acid attacks would like a word with you.
I for one am glad I defend myself if needed. I hope I never have to. ... but it's a deterrent. Criminals think twice
about breaking into houses as the owner may have a gun, and in my state at least, has castle doctrine. Break into my
house and don't turn around and run when I announce I have a firearm? Leave in a body bag.
Backatcha lad - in the US, we have this pesky thing you don't have in the UK called the 2nd amendment which states
explicitly that the government can't do exactly what Beto is claiming he would do.
It's super that you banned guns. That's also not what he's talking about here - he's talking about TAKING AWAY guns
that were previously legally bought. Which also runs afoul of "ex post facto" clause in the Constitution.
Get rid of it then or bring in a new law lad. Wasn’t slavery part of the constitution at one point? Times move on. Get
rid of it
[–] razor_beast 31 points 4 hours ago
Gun rights are human rights. I'm a black man and I'm appalled that you would even insinuate gun ownership is equal
in any fashion to the horrors of slavery.
Guns were used to free people like me from bondage. You people in the UK have been brainwashed into thinking
being unarmed is a positive thing. It isn't.
An armed people are citizens. An unarmed people are subjects.
You are closer to being a slave than I. The sad thing is you enjoy it. Quite frankly I find your lack of interest in
individual freedoms to be disgusting and pathetic and I'll be damned if my country every emulates the authoritarian
shithole your country has devolved into.
[–] Miedo 12 points 4 hours ago
I agree with what you said 100%. I think he believes that only white people like rednecks and hillbillies care about
guns when in fact America is a melting pot of race, religion, and culture. The fact that as an American, you have the
right to defend yourself when he really doesn't speaks volumes. I don't think he counted on a black guy to respond to
his ignorant slavery comment. We sure did use guns to free slaves, we used them to fight the British, we used them
to stop the Nazi's, and we will continue to use them to fight a tyrannical government and protect our freedoms and
families. This British guy is an ignorant cunt. I'm curious if he will even respond to you.
No slavery wasn't part of the Constitution. The Constitution actually pretty clearly was against slavery at its creation.
But people ignored the Constitution because it was inconvenient, just like so many people choose to ignore the 2nd
amendment. There had to be an amendment passed to change the Constitution to explicitly ban it (except for
prisoners where slavery is actually totally Constitutional - which is absolutely idiotic).
If people want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, that's a completely reasonable desire in today's environment. But
they actually need to change the Constitution to do it. But that takes work. So instead everyone just talks about
passing laws that are clearly in violation of the Constitution that would get shot down by the courts anyway. Basically,
it's a slow jerk.
[–] Bareen 4 points 4 hours ago
The way of getting rid of it is a new amendment that nullifies the 2nd amendment. That’s a high bar. The problem is
that no politician has the ability to reach that high bar so they will try to ban guns in a back handed way.
[–] daveroo 0 points 4 hours ago
Slavery got abolished? Why can’t a modern society ban weapons which kill people ?
[–] the_wood47 5 points 3 hours ago
Because slavery wasn’t abolished because “it killed people.” It was abolished because liberty is a natural right as is
self defense.
If “which kills people” is your standard for abolishing something there’s a long list of things to ban before my natural
right to self defense.
There is no underlying principle for banning AR-15’s that can’t also be applied to every other firearm, let alone any
other product “which kills people.”
I’m not saying a modern society can’t ban weapons, or even that it shouldn’t ban weapons. Banning slavery met
that high bar to amend the constitution. I believe that banning firearms should also have to go through the same
process, not just through a progressive chipping away at rights via executive and legislative action. The US
constitution has a clearly outlined way to be changed. My problem with banning firearms is not necessarily with the
end result, but the mechanism that is used to obtain that result.
[–] T-H-U-G-L-I-F-E 1 point 3 hours ago
Can't wait until your shit government bans you losers from accessing the web. FOH subject.
[–] rider_of_the_storm 0 points 2 hours ago
Slavery still is part of the constitution, it’s the 13th amendment. Read it.... the constitution is damn near impossible to
change for a reason. If we can easily get rid of the 2nd we can just as easily get rid of the 13th. Or any other very
important ones.
[–] wholikestoast 3 points 2 hours ago
Yeah, it “abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.” I’m assuming you’re talking
about slavery in regards to the “except as punishment part”?
[–] rider_of_the_storm 2 points 2 hours ago
Yes, yes it did abolish it. I just said slavery is in the constitution, my point being it forbids it with the crappy
exception.
[–] wholikestoast 2 points 2 hours ago
Gotcha, just clarifying


[–] daveroo 1 point 2 hours ago
well why can't we get rid of it. "its damn near impossible to change for a reason" nah its not. change it. axe it. if its
not easy to change amendments then change it all.
[–] rider_of_the_storm 1 point 2 hours ago
If you think “nah it’s not hard to change” I now know you know Jack shit about what it takes to make a
constitutional change.
Get educated
[–] daveroo 2 points 1 hour ago
Why can't we change things? Because its too difficult? Everything can be solved by hard work and wanting to do
the best. The whole
"its too difficult to change ......i'll insult you too to try and belittle you by saying you know jack shit"
Change is easy if you want to change and are passionate for change. I assume you're a gun owner?

Saying something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. New Zealand Banned guns in April as of June 30th 2019 guess how
many have been turned in? 700. How about people don't waste time with bullshit ideas?
Sauce:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/new-zealand-is-trying-to-buy-back-the-assault-style-weapons-it-
banned-in-april-its-not-so-easy/2019/06/30/c3e49844-9365-11e9-956a-88c291ab5c38_story.html
[–] StraightWeather2 2 points 1 hour ago
What does this have to do with anything?

The reason the people of the UK gave up their guns is the same reason their Empire fell: The people of England,
Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland were too weak and spineless to hold onto what was theirs.
We Americans are made of tougher stuff than you can ever hope to be. Now go back to burning down what little
remains of your joke of a nation with your Brexit fiasco.
[–] cloud-strife7 3 points 2 hours ago
Ah yes, more non Americans having opinions about the USA's politics. Classic
The comedy aspect of this is you've read what i've posted online and assumed i'm a non american so used that to
"diss me" rather than debate facts.
I am american. Classic
Thank fucking god the US isn’t the UK.

[–] twice-Vehk 1 point 1 hour ago
Don't forget to bin that knife mate.

[–] HawaiianSpamThief -35 points 5 hours ago
How is this any different when armed cops use excessive force on civilians on little to no basis? At least this time there
will be a purpose! #BlackLivesMatter
It isn't. You're getting downvotes. Not sure why. Maybe the hashstag? I do think it goes beyond race. The reality of
police militarization is terrifying and has terrifying results. Not because cops are racist. But because cops view
themselves as Rambo in a warzone surrounded by bad guys trying to kill them and so they have to shoot first - rather
than as the peacekeepers they are actually supposed to be.
The BLM narrative erroneously frames this as a "cops are racist" when the issue is actually way more terrifying.
[–] HawaiianSpamThief -7 points 4 hours ago
I'm sure I'll get downvotes given the context of this AMA. Pretty much the only people participating in this are
redditors that are concerned about their AR-15s based on his remark that went viral. The people that have these
weapons understand that they are excessive but continuously try to justify it by citing some kind of looming presence
that will take away all their rights the moment they give up their automatic weapons. But also consider how people
without these weapons feel; the common argument for this is "Well why don't you get one yourself?" The answer for
many is that they simply don't want to and view it as excessive. Being forced to buying an automatic weapon out of
fear that others have automatic weapons kind of seems like fighting fire with fire don't you think? #IsraelForLife
[–] Rdd15 3 points 3 hours ago
I feel like you should check your use of “automatic weapon”. The vast amount of people do not own them, and cannot
legally own them.
“Semiautomatic” is hugely different than “automatic”, and I think that it really concerns us “gun nuts” that folks who
want to have restrictions on guns put in place cannot even properly define basic terms that pertain to guns.
Do you want to ban “automatic” weapons? Cool. That happened nearly a century ago for 99.99% of people.
This is also masturbation because any law like this so obviously clearly in violation of the Constitution that it's
laughable for Beto to even discuss the law. It's transparent pandering to the left wing base when he ABSOLUTELY
KNOWS there's no possible way any mandatory buyback ever sees the light of day. And in some magical world where
the left sweeps Congress and passes this law, it would immediately be shot down in the courts
seems like fighting fire with fire don't you think?

That is actually how you fight forest fires.
[–] LooseCannon3415 1 point 3 hours ago
Nobody would have to force me to buy a automatic.

[–] compensatedshill -6 points 4 hours ago
u/nwordcountbot u/I_am_Trundle
Solid partisan hack assumption you have there, stupid. And it's cute how you deleted the post when you were showed
to be a fool. Maybe you should read up a bit
[–] nwordcountbot 3 points 4 hours ago
Thank you for the request, comrade.

i_am_trundle has not said the N-word yet.
[–] Teabagger_Vance 3 points 2 hours ago
Swing and a miss!

[–] Celazure101 187 points 4 hours ago*
You realize you are not only hurting your campaign but the campaigns of all democrats, right? Every republican in the
history of ever has been spouting off about “they are coming to take our guns”. They did it to Clinton. They did it to
Obama. Moderates told them to cool the rhetoric, nobody was coming to take their guns. And now you come out, as a
Democrat presidential candidate, and say we are coming to take your guns. Jesus dude, trump didn’t need any more
ammunition against your party. If you think he won’t be using this idiocy in the election you are as daft as everyone
makes you out to be.
Hey man... Don't shoot the messanger.

Look at the bigger picture.
NOT ONE SINGLE CANDIDATE opposed Beto's comments. Not one raised their hand and objected. They all shut the
fuck up.
You know more about a politicians position by what they don't say rather than what they do.
[–] Celazure101 7 points 2 hours ago
The only reasonable one they have is Biden. At least he is trying to rein them in a bit because he knows how much
damage this shit can do. Unfortunately, it looks as if trump has married him to wackos like Beto and the squad.
Can't disagree at all.

Biden is the moderate. He's the establishment choice. But... If anyone is betting on Biden winning, well, more free
with their money than I am!
To my point though, Biden was at that debate and didn't say "well, hang on Robert!" at Hell Yes we're coming for your
AR15 and AK47". Has Biden said anything on the topic since?
[–] Celazure101 3 points 2 hours ago
I believe he said something like “it’s unconstitutional” or “we have a constitution” but don’t quote me as I don’t really
remember. He might have been speaking to another topic when he said that as well. At least he understands the
checks and balances that come with the presidency. These other dolts think they can just EA to get everything they
want on day one.
[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 2 points 11 minutes ago
Biden just last week or so said "we [should] / [need to ] ban magazines that hold mulitple rounds"...
So I'm not sure if Joe "Shoot two rounds from a double barrel into the air" Biden's understands what 2A really means.
[–] dreg102 4 points 57 minutes ago
What's sad is the party has gone so rabidly and radically to the left, BIDEN is considered moderate.
[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 1 point 17 minutes ago
It's crazy isn't it!?

The overton window has shifted so far to the right, that Obama minus skin color wouldn't be elected today. A canidate
that doesn't support gay marriage and tells Mexicans not to come and not to bring their children!? NAZI!
[–] NeatlyScotched -1 points 23 minutes ago
They're just mirroring the right. It's why Trump polls so low and moderates think the neocons are unvotable. Maybe a
real moderate third party will split off from both sides shitty dogma. Probably not, but I wish.
[–] dreg102 2 points 8 minutes ago
I guess, the right did move to the left to choose a moderate like Trump.
But I know that's not what you meant. Tell me, on what issues do you think trump is considered non-center?
[–] alternateavenger 4 points an hour ago
You know more about a politicians position by what they don't say rather than what they do.
Goddamn right
[–] ricardoconqueso 1 point 59 minutes ago
NOT ONE SINGLE CANDIDATE opposed Beto's comments

Biden did
[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 2 points 16 minutes ago
I didn't see that. When?

Because Biden definitely just spoke at a campaign event saying "we need to ban magazines that hold multiple
rounds".
Doesn't sound moderate or rationale.
[–] alamohero 18 points 2 hours ago
Exactly and now everyone on the right who claim the left wants to take their guns is now literally justified.
[–] AmyKfortheWin 13 points an hour ago
Beto betrayed the Dems.

[–] carnalismo69 7 points an hour ago
No Dems are speaking out against Beto's rhetoric on the issue so their silence conveys the same message to the half
of the country that already suspects them of it.
[–] aztec6guy 4 points an hour ago
By telling the truth. lol

That’s what I love about lefties... they lie because telling the truth mean they’d never get elected.
[–] klartraume -2 points an hour ago
I think you have that backwards.

The Republicans are barely even pretend to be working in the interest of the American people as they loot our tax
coffers and exploit our natural resources.
The Democratic candidates all have some flaws, but the intentions are good. Can you say the same for Trump? Mitch
McConnell? What other leaders do the 'righties' have?
[–] alamohero 2 points 39 minutes ago
Tbh both sides because that’s how you get elected regardless of party, you tell people what makes for good
soundbites.
[–] big_damn_zero 2 points 18 minutes ago
| Robert exposed the Dems.

FTFY
I'm pro-gun-control in general, but to be honest, I agree with you. We have climate change to deal with. We have
Americans with no healthcare. We have a Republican party which is completely compromised to an international cabal
of billionaires' interests, and a Democratic party which is partially compromised to the same. For me, gun control is
not a topic that I want Democrats to be spending progressive political capital on.
I would like to get assault weapons out of people's hands, and I think that day will come, but the sheer number of
these weapons currently floating around in America means that it will necessarily be a sixty-year project rather than a
four-year one, and we have more urgent priorities for now. Let this be the culture war of 2060, if we're still around by
then.
[–] aztec6guy 1 point an hour ago
He’s just being honest... something that we rarely see in politicians. It’s exactly what every “moderate” Dem dreams
of... he’s just not lying.
[–] skarface6 1 point an hour ago
He’s been helping gun stores, too. Some have been going gangbusters since his statements made the news.
[–] Jchang0114 105 points 5 hours ago
It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war. Because we understand that
theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.
Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country — in
their schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts... everywhere. I have met
countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense
Does your ban apply to regular PEACE OFFICERS? May you explain why my friendly neighborhood PEACE OFFICER
needs a weapon to do what is bolded?
[–] steve0suprem0 6 points 2 hours ago
and why should a peace officer be in a different class than the rest of the citizenry?
[–] Gonzotron5000 3 points 2 hours ago
It's already illegal to bring a gun to those places. Also, it's illegal to murder. But I guess the will start following the law
now that the black rifles have been confiscated. Black market guns get bought back too right?
[–] PFhelpmePlan -20 points 2 hours ago
Implying your neighbor has the training, control of firearm and self, and composure of a trained peace officer is pretty
hilarious. What a stupid argument.
[–] dreg102 17 points 2 hours ago
I've shot less black people who did the heinous crime of sitting in their car.
I've shot fewer people who did the heinous crime of coming onto their front porch to figure out what's going on.
I've shot fewer puppies who did the heinous act of existing in a kennel.
I've shot fewer toddlers who did the heinous act of being held by their mother during a botched investigation.
So please, don't insult me by comparing me to a peace officer.
[–] Ohmahtree 16 points 2 hours ago
You clearly do not understand how little police officers practice shooting compared to your average gun owner.
They qualify once a year, a few shots. The average gun owner probably visits the range a good magnitude more,
because they enjoy the hobby and the sport and want to become better at it. Its the difference between doing it for
money and doing it because you love it.
Neither results in harm to others, but the very definition of preparing is about training.
[–] MarkAsHimself -3 points an hour ago
You’re wrong. We qualify at least twice a year and it’s over 8 hours worth of shooting each time. Plus, most officers, if
not all, are gun owners and shoot regularly outside of work.
[–] evannever 1 point 21 minutes ago
it literally doesn't matter. You're still civilians and shouldn't be exempt from gun control legislation that applies to
civilians.
[–] big_damn_zero 2 points 13 minutes ago
I think we have some common ground here. The cops that come a no-knocking to confiscate my guns will be unarmed
:)
[–] MarkAsHimself 0 points 18 minutes ago
It does matter. We have legitimate hundreds of hours worth of training that’s state certified. If you don’t like it, try to
change it instead of whining about it on Reddit😂
[–] evannever 1 point 10 minutes ago
Your hundreds of hours of training are because you have a job that compels you to encounter dangerous criminals
for the benefit of society, not to give you special rights and privileges, but please, reinforce the stereo type of self
important cops.
[–] MarkAsHimself 1 point 7 minutes ago
I wasn’t the one who stripped away your rights to begin with. You’re upset with the wrong people

[–] pope-killdragon 209 points 4 hours ago
• No, we won't.
• The Second Amendment isn't about "hunting."
• Semi-auto rifles are used in HALF as many mass shootings as handguns, and handguns are used SIXTEEN times
more in all homicides combined.
• It's interesting how little concern you seem to have for the thousands of enforcement agents you plan to put in
harm's way by having them go attempt to confiscate firearms under an unconstitutional pretense because you
presume "Americans will comply."
You're going to get a few hundred ATF/local LEOs killed with this dipshit plan of yours, buddy.
[–] Absolutelynotpolice 9 points 2 hours ago
I found it quite funny when he said “we are going to take your ARs and AKs”. You and what army beto?
We won’t violate the 2nd amendment, and we’ll fight To defend it if need be. LEOs may be killed, but it won’t be from
confiscating firearms.
[–] suchfuture 13 points 2 hours ago
A few hundred? Those are rookie numbers

[–] Pmmenakedbitcoin 6 points an hour ago
ATF only has ~1600 law enforcement type agents. After the first few hundred, I think they will refuse to enforce. Plus,
I know many in the military and law enforcement that own several AR type weapons. I am ex military and own some.
[–] suchfuture 2 points an hour ago
Preaching to the choir man

[–] Periscopia 3 points 47 minutes ago
You're going to get a few hundred ATF/local LEOs killed with this dipshit plan of yours, buddy.
First he'd have to get a few hundred ATF/local LEOs to actively participate in this dipshit plan, and I really don't see
that happening. Which is one of many reasons why this dipshit plan is DOA.
[–] stanleythemanley44 3 points 49 minutes ago
The infamous AR-15: a dangerous weapon of war, yet utterly useless in an armed rebellion. Truly an oddity among
firearms.
[–] dabisnit 2 points 28 minutes ago
Ah yes, I forgot the Founding Father's just went on a great hunting trip before writing the Constitution not a great and
bloody war
[–] N0_Tr3bbl3 358 points 4 hours ago
a battlefield.
You drank through history class, didn't you?
Thomas Jefferson owned the very first semi-automatic rifle in America, a full decade before the Second Amendment
was written. That gun still exists and can be seen on display in the NRA's Pattern Room.
The man who wrote the Second Amendment lent his personally owned battleship armed with 16 cannons and mounts
to the war effort. You are as ignorant of history and you are behind in the polls...
[–] 2008Highway1Strat 38 points 3 hours ago
Also, in US v. Miller, Miller's sawed-off shotgun was found to not be protected by the 2nd Amend. precisely because it
was NOT a "weapon of war". So by SCOTUS precedent, 2A specifically protects the right of the citizens to keep and
bear "weapons of war".
Just curious, but would you consider the NAA .22 short 5 cylinder revolver "A weapon of war"? If the democrats want
to curtail and destroy the second amendment, perhaps more freedom minded folk should seriously plan and push for
it's expansion to explicitly protect against any law that would infringe on rights to keep and bear any weapon of
obvious offensive or lethal capacity. What do you think?
[–] 2008Highway1Strat 4 points an hour ago
I would not consider a .22 short to be a weapon of war. My point was to address the left's hyperbole of "civilians don't
need weapons of war!". Notwithstanding the point that the AR-15 (as it exists today) has not been fielded as a battle
rifle by any country, ever, AFAIK.
Drank through history and then drove that motherfuckin' class down the highway, struck a delivery truck, and jumped
the median. Yeeehaaw!
Don't forget the burglary charge!

Oh my God you're right:

The Times further reported that court records showed that O’Rourke earlier was arrested in 1995 at UTEP on a
burglary of building charge
On an unrelated note, I've often heard that criminals want law abiding citizens disarmed.
[–] N0_Tr3bbl3 10 points an hour ago
Had his father not been a Texas judge, Beto would have a felony record. Instead, he gets off on multiple criminal
offenses. He has never been held responsible for his actions once in his life.
Good lord. You're completely right! I mean, that's not surprising, but I didn't know that, that's incredible! While I've
got you, two quick questions, one, is this supposed to be common knowledge? I'm in Commiefornia where speaking
certain truths is <ahem> restricted. Secondly, suddenly in this thread there are people dropping knowledge bombs all
over the place, what is happening here? Usually I can't get someone to follow a link, much less do a google search on
their own, and now there's experts on all kinds of exciting stuff swarming all over the place! What kind of magic is
this? Where do I go, how do I find you people once this thread dies?
[–] N0_Tr3bbl3 4 points 58 minutes ago
It's fairly common knowledge on conservative circles that he's got a pretty sketchy past. He caught our attention
with his "ban stuff" comment the other day and the sharing of this info has really picked up though.
Secondly, suddenly in this thread there are people dropping knowledge bombs all over the place, what is
happening here?
r/guns realized there was an AMA and we came over for the lulz. And we have a lot of very smart people in our
community. Quite a few of them are actual historians.
Haha, I'm actually already subscribed. I'm aware of the level of expertise that can be gained in the subject of
firearms there, and various other forums. I agree it is extensive, and impressive. In any case, thanks for cluing
me in.
[–] Boehner-Ungern -4 points 3 hours ago
Or feeding his family faeces.

[–] Acebacon 5 points an hour ago
Robert Francis isn’t Texan enough to “yeehaw”, he probably yelled “hooray” or something.
Because of your post, I did some digging, and I got a surprise. I got to see it. I would never have imagined it. Thank
you, friend, for opening my eyes to something new and exquisite.
You want your mind blown, look up the Belton Flintlock. There are letters between Congress, Belton, and Washington
that talk about testing them and making an attempt to buy the world's first machine gun during the Revolutionary
War.
Had they not cost more than a warship at the time, we'd have fought the Redcoats with steampunk machine guns.
Congress didn't try and ban them. They looked for things to sell in order to buy them. They looked at advancements
in technology and said "yes, please."
Holy cow, this is the best conversation I've had in some time. In the space of a couple of hours I've been shown two
incredible pieces of history, in remarkable shape, and completely revolutionary for their time. I like that a chap such
as you walks along in daily life just waiting to tell people about something amazing. I really am incredibly thankful
that you mentioned it. Got any more mechanical masterpieces to recommend? It's always good policy to ask.
Those two guns are some of my favorite pieces of history. They show that even way back in "old times," there was
strange stuff floating around.
We nearly fought the Revolution with arguably more advanced guns than WWI.
Here is a video from one of my favorite firearms historians, Ian "Gun Jesus" McCollum of Forgotten Weapons talking
about a repeating rifle from the 1700s. The design originated in the 1600's. That means that 400 years ago, we were
already well past what some gun-controllers want to "allow."
https://youtu.be/5cNtduI3aRA
Wow, or better yet, holy Ian McCollum! I've seen so much Forgotten Weapons, I can't believe I never saw this. It's
absolutely astounding! Not just the level of detail shown, or the level of restoration, or the prestige, but the entire
piece being dozens of individual artisan level works of art, from sculpting to forging to stamping to painting to carving
and back again! I know I don't have to tell you, but just imagine holding that in your hands, every angle a different
facet of art of the whole. Man, I can't express my gratitude except to say thank you, and it was incredible to watch
and see a working one of a kind part of history.
[–] N0_Tr3bbl3 2 points 38 minutes ago
That rifle was almost completely lost to history.

It was found in a stack of rifles after WWII by an officer in the US military. Had he not noticed it and stolen it from
that stack, it would have been burned along with all the other "unnecessary" guns floating around Paris after the
war.
A king's hunting rifle of extreme historical significance for firearms collectors exists today simply because a guy saw
something shiny and said "hmm, I think I'll be taking that home with me." That's like finding out the Mona Lisa
escaped being destroyed because someone stole it the day before a museum burned. (That didn't happen as far as I
know. But it has been stolen multiple times. Picasso was once arrested for suspicion of stealing it.)
What I want to know, and unfortunately what links I could find did not have any information on, was why a
flintlock rifle was confiscated and set to be destroyed by the US army in the first place. I mean, supposedly so it
couldn't be used by opposing forces, yes? But that raises so many more questions on top of it! Had some poor
soul actually brought the rifle to bear? Did they have any ammunition and powder at all, or did it just look very
nice and hopefully dangerous? Could it actually have been used if powder and shot were supplied, as there was
a crack in the stock? Were all rifles and shotguns being rounded up to burn? What part of the war was this, pre
or post Normandy invasion? If post Normandy, was there protest at pillaging the royal armoury? If pre
Normandy, when did they have the opportunity? Who confiscated it? Was it under lock and key at all? Was it
under guard? So many questions, and that's just about the story of it's rediscovery!

Interested to learn more about this battleship, can you please provide a link to more info regarding that? I did some
quick searching but didn't turn up anything relevant.
Here is a good resource. It doesn't cover the specific ship owned by Madison, but it does cover some of Washington's
privately owned battleships.
Edit:. https://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/2008/01/private-ships-of-war-and-the-american-maritime-
tradition.html
Thanks!
[–] vhiran 2 points 2 hours ago
Savage post but cant argue with it at all.

[–] Sixemperor 132 points 5 hours ago
Yeah no. Lmao. No one is going to willing hand their gun to you just because you told them too. Also. AR-15s are NOT
designed for war. The AR-15 was designed for hunting and target shooting competitions. The AR-15 has never once
been used in any single war by the U.S. and neither has any other civilian grade weapon. Any weapon’s used by the
military are far different and superior to civilian grade weapons and it’s physically improbable to get a military grade
weapon unless you’re in the military.
[–] whiskeyandsteak 10 points 2 hours ago
"Any weapon’s used by the military are far different and superior to civilian grade weapons and it’s physically
improbable to get a military grade weapon unless you’re in the military."
lol, You've obviously never served.
You're lucky to get a functioning fuckin magazine much less a highly sophisticated or well cared for weapon like a KA-
SR25 in the military. I have a gun room that would make a Navy SEAL weep for joy. If you're an infantry grunt you're
getting whatever pile of junk Colt, Springfield or S&W happened to win the absolute lowest bid with....
[–] starbuckroad 1 point 12 minutes ago
As I understand it the Barrets are stock.

Doesn't matter. Fuck them on their "weapons of war" argument. Every single hunting rifle on the market today has
roots from battlefield weapons.
They want to call it a weapon of war? OK. I'm not at war with anyone, and I don't need to justify my "need" to own
anything. The AR15 is the most commonly owned civilian rifle in the entire world.
They can call it whatever they like. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.
2A is about war.
[–] JeffHall28 -1 points 2 hours ago
The AR-10 was designed to enter a DOD design competition for a new battle rifle. The AR-15 was designed to use a
new cartridge developed to meet new Army requirements. Both of these were SPECIFICALLY designed for war, with
semi automatic versions directly based on the select fire model. I would like to continue to own mine so I think we
should be able to make the case without sounding like a dishonest (or misinformed) dumbass.
[–] SmokeyMacPott -3 points an hour ago
I really hate the whole it's not an assault rifle b/c it doesn't have 3 round burst / auto argument. Let's all face it, ar15
are pretty muchmilitary style assault rifles, and that's ok.
“Select fire” is part of the definition of assault rifle.

[–] Scruff_farmer -2 points 2 hours ago
Thats ok at that point they’re a criminal who is breaking the law. Idk why thats so hard to grasp for some of you.
[–] MetricT 325 points 5 hours ago
I'm a Democrat, on the executive board of my county Democratic party. And I own AR-15's, AK-47's, and AR-10's
which I use for target practice and to put food on my table in the event of an emergency.
By the same logic, we should have a mandatory buyback of everyone's car, because some people will use them to kill
others.
Suffice to say, your position is why you will not get my vote.
[–] tehspiah 13 points 3 hours ago
From a political standpoint, I would like to believe that guns are a necessary evil. They give power to people who
normally would not have power (in both good and bad). And in the same vein that countries have military weapons,
they are used to keep the status quo.
If I said "We should have a buyback of America's military infrastructure. We don't need guns, countries in Europe can
exist without having a military" that would be absurd, but that's unfortunately what politicians are saying on a
national level.
Also as a minority, I would trust my life more to my AR-15 than any politician and policeman from past events and
history where government has failed the people. People in Hong Kong event want the 2nd Amendment right now.
[–] Shut_It_Donny 22 points 4 hours ago
Could you please run for the Democratic nomination?

I'm guessing it would be a waste since they've already proven they'll rig a Primary.
Well they've already managed to push out the one candidate who wasn't toeing the party line that isn't a total joke
(Tulsi) so it's clear that the rigging is in full swing this time, too.
If a Democrat stood a chance in Tennessee, I would...

loading...
It can only be nativity that anyone believes they won't do this again!
[–] KAMB841 4 points 3 hours ago
I’m genuinely curious how they can “buyback” something they never owned.
[–] toomanytabsopen 2 points 54 minutes ago
How do you feel about opening the borders and giving free medical to whoever comes across?
[–] MetricT 1 point 40 minutes ago
How do you feel about opening the border

I believe we need to increase the number of legal immigrants we accept.
I can make a decent argument that being against immigrants is being weak on national security. The ability of a
country to wage war is determined by its GDP (and not the wealth of an individual). The individual Chinese can be
substantially poorer than an American, and we can still buy more TV's and shiny shit than they can. But on a national
level, even if the individual is poorer, if China's GDP is higher than America's GDP, they can buy more jets, aircraft
carriers, and other instruments of war.
While the US would maul them in a war today, the shoe could easily be on the other foot in another decade or two.
Right now the US has both economic and technological superiority over China, but that difference is eroding
shockingly quickly. I expect within 15-20 years they'll catch up economically, and damn if they aren't already beating
us technologically in several crucial areas. They have over 4 times our population, which means they'll eventually
have over 4 times our GDP, and be able to buy 4 times as many (or 4 times as better) tools of war as we can.
Which means that if the USA isn't destined to be a vassal state of China in the 22nd century, we need to start forging
alliances with Mexico, South America, Africa, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries, as well as increasing our
own population. Almost uniquely among nations, the USA still has plenty of room to grow. We're not facing food,
water, or land pressure like most other countries. And since native's birthrates are falling below the replenishment
rate, that means increasing immigration.
giving free medical to whoever comes across?
I believe in reciprocity. If an American goes to a country, and that country provides healthcare for visiting Americans,
then Americans should provide healthcare for it's citizens when they're visiting our country.
[–] toomanytabsopen 2 points 35 minutes ago
Okay, but you didn't answer the question.
Every Dem candidate raised their hand yes when asked if they would legalize illegal border crossings and give free
medical to everyone who comes across. They didn't raise their hands for reciprocity / Americans being able to live and
receive free medical in Mexico with no documentation
Are you okay with no borders and free medical for whoever comes across?
[–] icewolfsig226 1 point 31 minutes ago
Okay, but you didn't answer the question.

He isn't answering your railroaded BS question...
[–] icewolfsig226 1 point 43 minutes ago
How do you feel about hyperbole and nonsensical hypothetical situations to justify needless attacks on people trying
to better themselves?
you
[–] MetricT 1 point 24 minutes ago
I also recommend the Liberal Gun Club too.

They aren’t on Reddit

[–] _Sunny-- -26 points 4 hours ago
It's not quite the same logic since cars outside of military vehicles were never designed to facilitate killing people. You
can extend the same faulty logic you used to ban for example fertilizer because that's what was used in the Oklahoma
City bombing, but the best example has to be kitchen knives because knives have been designed since prehistoric
times to cut things and sometimes to cut people. It's not the same logic.
[–] Ice-and-Fire 28 points 4 hours ago*
I'd argue that it's a better argument. Cars are not designed to kill people, and yet more people die from them than
from guns. That's why the argument exists.
Edit: Words. Brain no good lunch.
[–] Foyt20 12 points 4 hours ago
Pools. Pools kill more people in the US than guns. Pools should be banned and no one should want to ever swim
again.
[–] Ice-and-Fire 4 points 4 hours ago
More deaths than rifles and shotguns combined, yes. But not all firearms.
[–] _Sunny-- -2 points 3 hours ago*
That argument of yours is too simplistic in that it ignores a lot of context such as accidents, additional purposes,
usefulness to societal function, etc. Regardless, all I was saying is that
"By the same logic, we should have a mandatory buyback of everyone's car, because some people will use them to kill
others"
does not follow from the same logic that is actually used by many in the Left and O'Rourke here to justify banning
military rifles, which is that they are "weapons designed for war."
If it truly was the same logic, you could use it to justify banning anything you want, and you can see how the logic
obviously becomes flawed.
[–] Ice-and-Fire 11 points 3 hours ago
Here's the problem though. Accounting for ALL deliberate murders, suicides, self defense, and police shootings, as
well as accidents, all firearm deaths are still lower than vehicle deaths. With more firearms in the United States than
there are vehicles.
That's why the argument exists. Even with all those deaths from things you wont get deaths from in vehicles
accounted for, a vehicle is still more deadly than a gun. And no, the argument isn't "confiscate all vehicles" the
argument is "Your initial reasons for banning guns are stupid, and here's why."
[–] _Sunny-- -2 points 3 hours ago
And my argument is that "Your initial reasons for banning guns are stupid, and here's why" misidentified and thus
misconstrued the reasons for why O'Rourke wants to ban guns. What I saw was basically a case of straw-manning,
however accidental it may be.
[–] JBRawls -4 points 3 hours ago*
No, the argument is absurd. 100s of millions of people drive cars multiple times a day in America. The majority of gun
owners aren’t whipping out their firearms 3 times a day to go shooting.
Edit: I love the downvotes from you butthurt fools thinking this overused analogy is some sort of “gotcha” in
arguments against gun regulation. Let me poke further holes in this claim. Anyone who gets behind the wheel of a car
assumes a certain level of risk of injury or death, and have put themselves in that situation of their own free will. No
one expects to be shot at work or school or out in public, and they certainly don’t have any culpability in their injuries
or death when it happens. Please use good faith arguments when advocating for your rights instead of some cherry
picked stat with no other correlation.
People have been hurting each other since the beginning of time, long before firearms were invented. There's no
reason to think removing them would stop anything. Remember over 80 people were killed by a maniac in a truck in
Nice Paris. The real issue is people and not the weapon they use. Mental health is a real problem that needs to be
addressed.
[–] Akula765 3 points 1 hour ago
Remember over 80 people were killed by a maniac in a truck in Nice Paris

86 specifically. More than any single mass shooter has ever killed (69 in the Utoya Norway shooting). Only
coordinated terrorist attacks with multiple shooters have killed more, such as the Bataclan Theatre shooting in Paris a
few months prior, or similar attacks in Mumbai and Nairobi.
And even those multiple shooter attacks come up short of a single guy with a couple jerry cans full of gasoline on a
subway train... 192 dead
[–] _Sunny-- 0 points 4 hours ago
So how do you deal with mental health? Have a "Minority Report" like system where everyone who hasn't committed a
crime but passes a threshold gets detained? Whenever anyone says that "mental health is a real problem that needs
to be addressed" that's saying that previously innocent people are now automatically guilty of crimes they haven't
committed. It's the exact same thing whenever the Left wants to paint innocent gun owners as the problem, since
their argument is "(gun control) is a real problem that needs to be addressed."
You can address gun control all you want, but since it won't do any good let's try and fix the real problem. It won't do
any good because people aren't going to give gun grabbers their property, now if you are OK with people getting shot
by government men with guns you are exactly who the gun owner types are worried about.
Actual things we can address.
People go to prison and get worse not better, lets start with that.
A. You shouldn't be going to prison for something that didn't hurt anyone else (pot for example)
B. If you do go to prison you should come out better than when you went in, so serious work needs to be done here.
There are also people who are known to have mental illnesses that are pushed out of mental facilities because of lack
of funding etc.
[–] _Sunny-- 1 point 2 hours ago
The thing is though, the mental health angle is typically taken to try to prevent people from wanting to kill in the first
place, but that in itself sounds like an extraordinarily difficult task without being in a "Minority Report" like situation,
given that human beings are still primal animals according to nature. The second thing is that it's going to be
extremely difficult to keep away the mentally ill who are also high functioning members of society from committing
violence if they truly intend to do so, because the signs of danger might not be immediately manifest and they might
be more valuable to some as continuing members of society.
I do agree that starting with the prisons and treatment of those already admitted to care facilities is a good starting
point, but I don't think it's anywhere close to getting to the goal of actually solving things from the mental health
standpoint.
I'm personally neutral on the gun control issue, but I think trying to pin the problem of violence on mental health or
god forbid video games is typically the same type of batshit insanity that the Left likes to embrace when they blame
gun control.
[–] adelaarvaren 1 point 3 hours ago
So how do you deal with mental health?

Universal health care would be a good start. And a living minimum wage, so that people who are on the edge don't
slip under because even though they are holding it together, they still can't survive in this capitalist society.
I think it'd be better to try to reduce the cost of living rather than increase minimum wage, because that's directly tied
to inflation nationally. As for universal health care, that's going to be tough on those who make lower income unless
taxes get figured out.
[–] gsmith140 0 points 3 hours ago
He doesn't want to deal with it, he just wants to use it as an excuse to mask another problem. Other countries have
mental health issues and they don't have people charging into schools and stores every other week to mow down a
bunch of people.
I mean, just earlier this month, a man took a knife and killed almost 10 schoolchildren on the first day of school in
China. I think that "they don't have people charging into schools and stores every other week to mow down a bunch
of people" is quite a bit of a stretch for places without access to guns.
[–] gsmith140 1 point 3 hours ago
Questions:
1.) Has this happened with regularity in China?
2.) Do you think it's as easy to kill with a knife as it is an AR-15?
[–] _Sunny-- 3 points 3 hours ago
1. Enough that you hear about it on the news every so often. Even just googling "China knife attack" or
something similar gives you more news events than is comfortable.
2. Look up the 2014 KunMing Attack and the 2010-2012 school attacks, which took place inside or arond
train stations and school buildings respectively. Also look up the "21-foot rule."
[–] kramer0022 1 point 3 hours ago
I like this response.

[–] gsmith140 -10 points 3 hours ago
When will people realize that cars

a.) aren't made expressly for killing and
b.) are heavily regulated and you need a mandatory license to operate one
Also I'd love to know when you used an AR-15 to put food on your table.
[–] lebatard 6 points 3 hours ago
Last Hunting season. I don't know where this myth comes from than an AR isn't suitable for hunting.
[–] MetricT 2 points 3 hours ago*
When will people realize that cars a.) aren't made expressly for killing
Guns aren't expressly made for killing either. Tens of thousands times more rounds are used for target practice or
putting food on the table than are ever used for killing.
[–] VirgilCane 3 points 3 hours ago*
Why is it called target "practice"? What's the real thing you're practicing for?
Some people practice for competitions, some people practice for the possibility of having to shoot at another person,
some people just "practice" simply because they enjoy the activity in and of itself.
[–] gsmith140 1 point 3 hours ago
Are you seriously arguing that a gun's primary purpose is for target practice? Like they weren't invented to be a more
efficient way of killing? A car is used for transportation. A gun is a weapon. It's relatively clear cut.
Eh, most guns are for killing things. The mistake is in thinking this somehow matters or makes guns immoral. There
are several perfectly legitimate and moral applications of this capacity. Protecting ones self and ones loved ones,
dispatching predators and pest animals, putting food on the table, just to name a few. A gun has no inherent morality,
the morality comes from the user.
All that said, if your goal is simply to kill a whole bunch of innocent and unsuspecting people, guns aren't ideal. Guns
are useful to kill or at least deter someone who is trying to kill you, but that's a very different scenario than trying kill
a large number of random people all at once. Arson and, yes, vehicle attacks have proven far more deadly than guns
in terms of just racking up a huge body count.
[–] gsmith140 0 points 1 hour ago
if your goal is simply to kill a whole bunch of innocent and unsuspecting people, guns aren't ideal
what planet am I on
One where you completely ignore everything else I said apparently.

Care to try addressing any of that?
[–] gsmith140 -2 points 1 hour ago
It just boggles my mind how many mental hoops people jump through to try to explain why guns aren't a
problem. If you want to kill a bunch of kids in a school, are you going to try to burn the building down? Are you
going drive a car into the school? Are you going to do either of those things in a Walmart? Sure, if there is a
crowd of people out in the open, driving a car into them is obviously going to do a lot of damage. But spraying
them with an AR-15 is too. If you have a lot of resources, maybe you can blow something up. But a lone crazy
person is going to choose the gun most times, as we've seen time and again in the US.

are heavily regulated and you need a mandatory license to operate one
just like guns....
[–] gsmith140 0 points 1 hour ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AAAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[–] Golferbugg -12 points 3 hours ago
But people actually need cars to get around. They have a practical purpose. You don't NEED to do target practice.
Eventually, cars may indeed be outlawed if we come up with safer forms of travel that are just as convenient. My
brother and I joke that we're working on a conveyor belt system to replace cars/highways altogether. And what does
"to put food on my table in the event of an emergency" mean?
[–] MetricT 8 points 3 hours ago*
You don't NEED to do target practice.

"Guns aren't important to me. Therefore they shouldn't be important to you either."
By the same logic, you don't need a car either. I walk 5 miles a day. Therefore it's completely fine if I take away your
car because I don't need one...
And what does "to put food on my table in the event of an emergency" mean?
I take it you're an urban dweller. I live in rural Tennessee, with lots of deer and wild turkey. While I have zero desire
to hunt in normal times, if an emergency happens, I have to take care of my family.
if an emergency happens
Just to expand, people often dismiss this as doomsday prepper shit... its really not. It doesn't have to be Yellowstone
going off, or another Carrington Event, or a meteor hitting, or the freaking zombie uprising. Even far more mundane
natural disasters can leave people cut off from the modern food distribution system for weeks or even months. We
had a big ice storm in the northeast in 1998. Killed about 50 people in the US and Canada. My family was stuck in our
house for a couple weeks, the only road into town being impassible. We'd pretty much exhausted all the food in the
house by the time we were able to get out. If another similar storm had hit right before that, we'd have been in real
trouble.
[–] Golferbugg 1 point 47 minutes ago
I'd say that was a pretty rare scenario. And you still didn't have to resort to using an AR-15 to hunt down stray cats?
[–] Akula765 1 point 25 minutes ago
Mass shootings are even more rare... isn't stopping people from using them as justification to circumscribe my rights
and confiscate my property.
And no it didn't. My point is that a relatively mild disaster that most people in the US don't even remember pushed me
and my family to the brink of that. More serious disasters happen all the time.
[–] Golferbugg 1 point 50 minutes ago
But you DON'T need to do target practice. You DO have to get places, though, and you can't walk, say, 200 miles.
And I live in rural Tennessee also. I still can't imagine an "emergency" scenario where you'd have to hunt, and with an
AK-47 no less. It's 99% about sport. I know some people feel safer owning guns too, though they probably shouldn't.
But we have a 2nd amendment unfortunately so to each his own. Doesn't mean there can't be reasonable limits
though.
[–] Bot_Metric 1 point 50 minutes ago
But you DON'T need to do target practice. You DO have to get places, though, and you can't walk, say, 321.9
kilometers. And I live in rural Tennessee also. I still can't imagine an "emergency" scenario where you'd have to
hunt, and with an AK-47 no less. It's 99% about sport. I know some people feel safer owning guns too, though they
probably shouldn't. But we have a 2nd amendment unfortunately so to each his own. Doesn't mean there can't be
reasonable limits though.
I'm a bot | Feedback | Stats | Opt-out | v5.1
you don't need a car, walk or ride a bike

[–] CohoCharlie -2 points 2 hours ago
Put food on the table in an emergency? You planning on taking down some wild game with an assualt rifle or rob
someone?
I live in rural Tennessee, surrounded by woods that are filled with deer and wild turkeys.
This isn't a difficult concept, except to folks who intentionally don't want to understand.
[–] CohoCharlie -4 points 1 hour ago
I've done enough hunting in my life to know you don't need an assualt rifle to take down a turkey.
[–] MetricT 4 points 1 hour ago
I go out with an AK-47 (most usually) with a 10 round magazine.
Is a Ruger Ranch Mini 30 somehow "safer" because it has a wood stock? I mean, it fires the exact same bullets from
the same size magazine.
Does the black stock on my AK-47 somehow make the gun more deadly than a Mini 30 with a wood stock?
[–] J-MAMA 1 point 12 minutes ago
Nobody's talking about "assault rifles" here, where are you getting that from?
[–] zigziggityzoo 335 points 5 hours ago
No one is complying with the NY SAFE Act, and that has been law for half a decade. Why will yours be different?
https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/
[–] DrCommonMan 0 points 4 hours ago
Police officers are mostly 2a guys. They dont particularly care that people own guns....so when law enforcement
agencies dont give a fuck....laws are not enforced.
As a gun advocate I dont have a problem with this.
As a practical person this is bad. Selective enforcement of the law is not thier job and STUPID laws make this problem
worse. Look to NYC for decay in law and order. Simple things like hoping subway turn styles is . no longer a
crime....just a ticketable offense this erodes law and order as it works its . way up the . ladder....california is another
good example of this.
the NY SAFE Act

noone is enforcing it properly. i.e.: substantial jailtime. screw fines. people will find a way to pay up some laughable
ticket for a thing they are emotionally invested in. lock them up for five years, and make production illegal. then the
only way to get a new gun is to go to the black market, where prices will skyrocket. if you enforce this right, it won't
be just possible to replace a confiscated and shreddered gun just like that.
CA, CT, and NJ must all be doing it wrong as well?

[–] JohnFest 2 points 21 minutes ago
And Australia, which touts a ~15% compliance rate with the post-Port_Arthur ban that grabbers will tell you is the
gold standard of gun laws
[–] cheeeezeburgers -3 points 2 hours ago
Yes.
[–] blueback22 397 points 5 hours ago
I've donated to your campaign. I voted for you against Cruz.

You've lost my support with this comment as you aren't fit to be POTUS if you don't know the Constitution. The 2A is
NOT about hunting and IS about weapons of war. It's all about the people having a chance at fighting back against a
tyrannical government.
Come on Beto... I believed in you.
[–] vswr 44 points 4 hours ago
Same. From Texas, voted for Beto.

This completely and forever lost me. Even if he changes his stance I'll never trust him. And I don't even own any the
weapons he wants to confiscate.
[–] _tiredofthebullshit 7 points an hour ago
This is a changed stance. Not long ago in ElPaso, he made the comment about letting people keep their ARs and AKs
and only discussed banning further manufacture and sale. He, like all other vermin Democrats, capitalized on the
recent shootings to score political gain.
Edit: auto correct
[–] helsreach -4 points an hour ago
Right, it couldn't possibly be because America has more school shootings then any other first world country by a very
large margin. /S
[–] _tiredofthebullshit 3 points 33 minutes ago
If “Beto” gave a flying fuck about gun violence, he’d be citing Chicago every fucking chance he got but that just
proves that gun control laws don’t do a goddamn thing and to cite Chicago would foil the liberal narrative.
[–] allenahansen 2 points an hour ago
And I don't even own any the weapons he wants to confiscate.

Wink, wink.
[–] pgh_duddy 38 points 4 hours ago
The second he opened his mouth and said he was going to take everyone's AR15's, he lost the race. He alienated
most of his voter base.
I completely agree with you.

(I know, I know... Agreement isn't allowed on Reddit.)
Shhhhh we will let it pass this time, but next time, you need to cuss that guy out!
F$+# you! Don't tell me what to do!

[–] TheScumAlsoRises 3 points 2 hours ago
What is “F$+#?” Are you trying to say “fuck?” If so, why not just say it?
[–] blueback22 2 points an hour ago
Didn't think Reddit allowed it.

That only works if you try to type your password. Here, mine's *****. See it appears as stars instead.

There we go! Now it feels like reddit again.

[–] bullhorn13 3 points 2 hours ago
He's aiming for cabinet posts and/or board positions. He knows his history will catch up, and is going for the long
game of $$$.
[–] login42 2 points 2 hours ago
I think it’s just DNC PR. Beto knows he can’t be president with this policy, he’s doing it for the party to create the
impression that there’s a real representation of anti-gun views in the DNC, meaning anyone who hates guns will feel
the DNC is the party for them even if their representative didn’t snatch power ”this time”.
[–] aznhomig 3 points an hour ago
In motherfucking Texas, no less. Talking about taking people's guns. What a hoot.
You mean 99% of americans that aren't ever going to use guns to kill people?
[–] zgh5002 23 points 4 hours ago
You missed the part where he said he was coming for AR15s in Texas during his senate run?
Apparently I did.
[–] TheStuffle 3 points 3 hours ago
It very likely lost him the race. I still voted for him, but only because of Cruz. I know more than one person who didn't
vote at all because of this.
[–] blueback22 1 point an hour ago
If it's Beto against Trump, I'm voting for Beto. I'll just have to trust that the 2A won't be repealed as he won't get the
support he needs to do it.
[–] TheStuffle 1 point 54 minutes ago
Exactly what my through process was in the senate elections.

He's not getting anywhere close to the white house, but it would have been nice to see him take a shot at Cornyn in
2020.
[–] zgh5002 7 points 4 hours ago
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/video-cruz-challenger-beto-orourke-wants-ban-ar-15/
[–] PinkGlitterGelPen 5 points an hour ago
He lost my support when he said he was pro-reparations. I’m the daughter of Hispanic immigrants, we don’t owe no
reparations to nobody. And I don’t think anyone owes anyone anything for that matter. This dude is all sorts of
confused about what he’s trying to accomplish.
[–] blueback22 -1 points an hour ago
Reparations is an interesting topic to sit down and get others views on. I felt the same as you for a while. It's much
murkier now after having intelligent and open conversation with others. There are very good arguments to be made in
favor of reparations.
[–] HalfLucky 1 point 35 minutes ago
If only the person you replied to had intelligent conversations as you have! He would have come to the same opinions
you have now! He's too busy having stupid conversations.. what a dummy.
[–] Lagkiller 4 points 2 hours ago
Come on Beto... I believed in you.

He is the tyrannical government
[–] -Howitzer- 0 points 4 hours ago
Any vote for a Democrat in 2020 is a vote to dissolve the United States.
[–] fps916 4 points 4 hours ago
This is some top tier propaganda bullshit.

really?
They want to basically open borders
They want to erode the constitution even more.
Democrats are firmly against 1a 2a and the very thing that makes a country a country BORDERS.
Please tell me how this is propaganda
[–] SheamusMcGillicuddy 4 points 3 hours ago
It's propaganda because you're speaking about complicated issues in such broad strokes that they lose virtually all
sense of accuracy.
I don't expect a revolutionary change in border policy, but whatever happens will be far from a literal open border.
The Constitution was designed to be constantly evolving; saying "erode" is your own personal spin.
Absolutely nobody is firmly against the 1A - that statement is absurd. As for the 2A, I think a lot of it needs to be
reconsidered. A lot of people do. Most are not "firmly against it" though.
Our discourse needs to more accurately represent the actual views people have and comments like yours are basically
just a strawman.
[–] fps916 -9 points 3 hours ago
Because literally none of what you just said is true and even if the part about 1a and 2a were right Democrats don't
control SCOTUS so they couldn't get that through anyways...
That's literally propaganda.
Find me one Democratic candidate for President that has stated they want to open borders. Fucking one. If you can't
provide me with the quote then it's because it's Republican propaganda about their immigration policies calling it
'open border' when it's fucking not.
If Democrats wanted to open the borders why the fuck did Obama deport more undocumented migrants than any
preceding president in history?
They literally raised their hands during the first debate, then said they would decriminalize it and offer free healthcare
to illegals, you are literally just asking for the border to get over run then.
The Democrats have changed a ton since Obama even, they are getting far left and desperate because they have no
clear real policy to beat Trump right now.
Ever notice how bad they are at hearing dogwhistles for a group that spends so much time crying about them? They
actually think that since nobody has used the specific term "open borders" that we can't all see what they're
agitating for.
No different than liberals and Democrats FINALLY getting shocked when Beto openly said he would take our
guns. They ALL have literally been saying it for decades but did not use the exact wording until now. It's also
like how some still believe ANTIFA actually fights fascists because it's in their name.

Decrminalizing border crossings doesn't mean no deportation. As a matter of fact it means more deportation.
Because deportation is a civil proceeding in current law and decrminalizing means that the only remediation for a
border crossing is literally deportation.
So it's the opposite of expressing open border policy. It's an increase in deportation.
Also healthcare is just good fucking sense. It's how you stop disease transmission, having a healthy population with
herd immunity. It'd be a shame if a virus were able to spread because millions of people didn't have access to
healthcare for no fucking reason.
So yeah, still Republican propaganda.
And I thought Obama was a raging Islamist Socialist how much further left was there to go?
And if the Dems have no clear real policy to beat Trump why did every major Democratic candidate just beat Trump
in the Fox News poll?
I'm not talking about Obama, I'm talking about all the current dems who expressed openly how they want to
decriminalize border crossings and give healthcare to anyone who saunters in.
You can nit pick, but that is functionally expressing open border policy.
They are openly saying they are against the 2a
how is this lies and republican propaganda
I was an Obama voter ffs
I was an Obama voter ffs

things I totally definitely believe
Always with the Adhom lol. Grow up
-most libertarians are liberal
Mmmmmm ok sure buddy
-you seem ultra conservative socially
Yeah a bit, there is no code of personal belief that makes one allowed to be a libertarian or not. If you believe
this once again, you do not actually understand the libertarian ideology.
Those people definitely love Obama
Lol. Try living with those “poor innocent black people” and you’ll understand the LAPD a bit more
Especially the ones who justify police brutality against black people
You're pro ethno state and alt-right by your own admission
I can have a voluntary alt right community on private land. There is no violations of anyone’s rights and there is
no force involved
I can have my own private ethno state and if oh tell me I can’t you’re the “fascist”
Things someone who was definitely willing to vote for a black President would say
So I’m not allowed to prefer living among my own kind?
How is that not a violation of my individual liberty
You can’t tell me that I can’t dislike a group of people
I do not like living with high populations of blacks and Mexicans.
And that was just in the first two pages.

Decrminalizing border crossings doesn't mean no deportation. As a matter of fact it means more deportation.
Because deportation is a civil proceeding in current law and decrminalizing means that the only remediation for a
border crossing is literally deportation.
Also healthcare is just good fucking sense. It's how you stop disease transmission, having a healthy population with
herd immunity. It'd be a shame if a virus were able to spread because millions of people didn't have access to
healthcare for no fucking reason.
So yeah, still Republican propaganda.
goes into post history dragging up unrelated comments

good lord imagine be this deluded
[–] Troll-Tollbooth 0 points 1 hour ago
They literally said they want to decriminalize entering the us illegally. Most of them raised their hand when asked if
they would.
[–] fps916 0 points 1 hour ago
As if I haven't responded to this objection 3 times already.

You don't understand what decrminalization means in this context.
It means deportation becomes entirely a civil matter. Which it already is because 70% of deportations are for visa
overstays which are civil, not criminal offenses. It would move border crosses into the same category of offense as
overstaying a visa.
It doesn't end fucking deportation.
[–] blueback22 -3 points 4 hours ago
This is the dumbest comment I've heard all day. Know who's trampling all over the Constitution? Trump and the
Right. Here's a great video showing just how it's being done with the 1st ammendment:
https://youtu.be/eJmh0qql0FA
[–] -Howitzer- -1 points 3 hours ago
Sorry. I agree with everything this guy is disagreeing with. I could give a fuck about people who shit on police, shit on
the flag, and promote Islam in the west.
[–] fps916 5 points 3 hours ago
So you're anti first amendment then.

I don't give two shits if you disagree with what he says. The 1st ammendment allows them to do this and face no
repercussions from the government. What if the role was reversed? Do you want them dictating to you what you can
and cannot say/do? I'm guessing not... But you can't have it both ways.
Freedom is freedom.
[–] cheeeezeburgers 1 point 2 hours ago
You believed in a white guy named Francis? Did you not watch House of Cards?
[–] blueback22 1 point 1 hour ago
Ok... That's pretty funny.

[–] JohnBunzel 1 point 2 hours ago
I supported him for a while too. Almost a glimmer of hope. Yeah, not today.
[–] HeadsOfLeviathan -6 points 4 hours ago
Serious question: if the American people hold dear their right to bear arms against a tyrannical government, who are
the government going to employ to enact this tyranny? Why would soldiers work for a tyrannical government if they
maintain the right to fight against a tyrannical government?
[–] metaknight1138 24 points 4 hours ago*
It's part of the reason why there more than likely will never be widespread military action against a civilian insurgency
in the United States. The US military had a hard enough time of it in Vietnam (which is slightly smaller than Montana),
and we were up against a foreign country. I'm sure the resignations and AWOLs would come in by the millions if the
military were forced to carry out Beto's authoritarian wet dream.
Edit: It would likely be the police having to carry this out. I'd hate to see even more police militarization, which would
have to be the case to confiscate the millions of guns on the chopping block.
Not just resignations and AWOLs - I imagine no small portion of them would be taking hardware with them. The
answer to "hOw Do YoU fIgHt A tAnK?/?" is "with anti-tank weaponry that defectors bring with them".
Yet the lots of the police are ex military too and do not have to follow that order.
History tells us that there will always be people.

Not everyone in the country supports or understands the freedoms given to us.
People are easily manipulated.
Hence, people in Texas voted for this shit bag, Beta.

[–] blueback22 -3 points 3 hours ago
I'm assuming you mean Cruz or Trump.

Aside from his policy on weapons, I like a lot of what he is trying to do. He's misguided on guns (won't make a damn
difference) and using scare tactics to try and accomplish something unconstitutional.
[–] Financialguybro 1 point 2 hours ago*
No, Beta I am talking about, it was a close race and just shows how many, even in Texas are easily manipulated by
his words. He literally said during his senate run, "if you bought your AR15, you should be able to keep it", this just
shows how much he lies and says literally anything you like to here to get his vote. I have no idea why anyone would
want this guy in office at all, wants open borders (yes, decriminalizing and offering free healthcare to them is asking
to swarm our borders), taking our guns away, raising taxes on middle class to apparently give everyone free tuition,
housing, and healthcare. Did you know his wife's father is a billionaire! So yeah, he is def not a puppet /s.
[–] alexsdad87 18 points 4 hours ago
Ask hitler
[–] NegativeGhostrider 1 point 2 hours ago
And Hong Kong. And Venezuela.

[–] TheWastelandWizard 6 points 4 hours ago
The police force has been militarized for a reason. They would be the ones suppressing the US populace and would do
so at a much higher rate than the Military, 60% of whom have stated they would defect.
[–] DabSlabBad 1 point 4 hours ago
Exactly this.
There's a reason the state police in Massachusetts make anywhere from 100k - 350k a year.
Those people are going to listen to the government and remove the guns from the people.
Their lives are too well financed to bite the hand that feeds them.
When I left Massachusetts, I was suprised to learn how odd it is to pay your police so much. When you see a state
police car at their house in Massachusetts it's in the rich towns, with a giant house.
[–] TheWastelandWizard 7 points 4 hours ago
Part of why the police unions in California secure exemptions for politicians, judges, and police from the laws they use
to reduce the rights of the populace they control. Feinstein is one of the few people in San Francisco with a CCW.
Mercenaries of the state, exactly. However not all PDs are this well financed. Sure MA cops will roll with the tyrants,
most local sheriffs will not. Most red state PDs will not, will NYPD? Probably, LAPD, probably.
Ask the protesters in Hong Kong about that one. And Venezuela. And Nazi Germany.
I could go on about governments that banned personal firearm ownership and confiscation.
you
[–] DarkGeno21 -25 points 4 hours ago
The Constitution is not set in stone. Each Amendment, by its very definition, can be changed.
And if you believe your measly collection of guns is going to stop the government, who have things like tanks, fighter
jets, nuclear weapons, and unmanned drones, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in...
And if you believe your measly collection of guns is going to stop the government, who have things like tanks,
fighter jets, nuclear weapons, and unmanned drones, I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in...
Oh, you mean the tanks, drones, and jets that are going to come busting down my door? You can't enforce martial
law with a jet flying in the sky or a tank rolling down the street. A tank can't break down your door and look for guns.
A jet cannot stand on a street corner and enforce martial law. You need boots on the ground to subjugate a
population, and when those boots are being shot at by any old homeowner you end up with a lot of dead cops and a
lot of resignations.
And, let's address that nuke comment - Why would the US be interested in nuking their own infrastructure? Do you
even know the purpose of nukes in today's world? They're a deterrent - The best deterrent there ever was. You know,
much like how guns deter our government from fucking with us, and how they deter criminals from robbing us. India
and Pakistan want nothing more than to rip each other's throats out, but they don't because they both have nukes.
But let's say the US decided to turn the key and incinerate millions of Americans outside of DC - Congratulations, the
US government now has no infrastructure and is supreme ruler of a giant field of glowing green glass.
True... But you cannot make a blanket statement that you're going to take guns. Had he said, I'm going to fight for a
modification to the Constitution to do this... Sure. But he didn't.
Also, you have no concept as to how battle works do you? In a traditional war format, we'd lose. In an INSURGENCY
style format, we'd put up a hell of a fight and potentially win. Look at Afghanistan as an example. Look at Vietnam as
an example.
The 2A is a deterrent. Without it, we definitely screwed.
Side note for context... I'm a liberal. I vote issues, but it's been all Democrat for a long time. I'm also a gun owner
and supporter of the Constitution.
[–] DraconianDebate 9 points 4 hours ago
Not potentially, the US Military doesn't stand a chance. Its entire way of waging war requires a safe country to return
to for resupply and to handle logistics. Without that, they are sitting ducks. Their drones and fighters will be stuck in
depots without parts or fuel. Their tanks and IFVs will run out of ammunition. Their soldiers will have no food or
water.
The US Military would be destroyed by the US general population in no time flat. That is, as long as the 2nd remains
in force and we can keep ourselves armed.
[–] blueback22 1 point 3 hours ago
I'm not sure I agree with this. Remember we'd be fighting our neighbors too.
You may be right though, who knows?
Our neighbors that think owning a gun is immoral?

[–] Ollie0 2 points 2 hours ago
I lol'd
[–] kevbot1111 5 points 4 hours ago
I have a bridge for sale

Wouldnt happen to be the Thanh Hóa Bridge, would it?
The Taliban fought the US in shitty pickup trucks in the desert and it still took tanks, fighter jets, drones, etc almost
two decades to fight that war. So go on...
[–] can-o-ham 1 point 3 minutes ago
Cough... Vietnam... cough

[–] somajones 5 points 3 hours ago
I'd rather die on my feet than die on my knees.

[–] thelateralbox 4 points 3 hours ago
What part of "shall not be infringed" is up for interpretation?

Yeah dude, totally gonna nuke insurgents in your own country. That'll show em
I've got news for you dude. If the US government decides to turn against the citizens, your guns ain't going to help
much.
[–] ttrainpedefrog1776 7 points 2 hours ago
What branch of the military did you serve combat vet? I got news for you and I am a combat vet. I cannot even
comprehend how terrifying it would be to combat our civilian population. The civilian sector supplies our weapons,
ammo, pretty much everything, not the other way around. We are not talking about engaging goat herders here but
civilians with nearly limitless access to technology and weapons. On top of that the civilian population would not
exactly be bound by any sort of rules of engagement, it would be messy, really messy.
How'd that war in Afghanistan work out for the almighty US military? Took more than a decade to fight those dudes
living in caves and driving shitty Toyota pickups in the desert.
My point is, if they were trying to wipe out an entire citizenry, they could do it pretty easily. Clearly not the case in
Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.
So you’re implying that the US military would want to wipe out the entire US population? Even the non gun owners?
LMFAO
[–] gsmith140 -4 points 1 hour ago
I mean you're implying that we need guns to protect us from the government carrying out a military operation on US
citizens, so forgive me of I'm down the rabbit hole of INCREDIBLY unlikely scenarios.
[–] NegativeGhostrider 3 points 1 hour ago
It's incredibly unlikely solely because the current US population is armed.

Read my response to the other guy who said the same thing. You're wrong.
Here's just two real world examples for ya...
Vietnam Afghanistan
Insurgencies work.
Okay guy. I'm glad we have people like you prepared for this scenario.
Has nothing to do with me. I was never in a combative role and there's one thing untrained people do well... Die.
This actually comes from a buddy of my who is currently Army Special Forces. One of their primary missions is
training locals to be insurgents. Basically... He's an expert in this topic.
[–] thelateralbox 2 points 3 hours ago
You can't occupy a street corner with drones or nukes. you are always going to need boots on the ground.
[–] marcoyolo95 2 points 1 hour ago
Yeah, reading these comments, and seeing the downvotes on the original comment Americans seem to be a bunch of
paranoid snowflakes
[–] can-o-ham 1 point 1 minute ago
Yeah, because peasants totally havent held their own against the US army in the past /s
[–] _tiredofthebullshit 1 point 1 hour ago
Tell that to Vietnam and Afghanistan.

[–] helsreach 0 points 1 hour ago
We have a tyrannical government in power now and you haven't done shit.
It's not to that point yet (though I've certainly considered when that point is).
We have a vote coming up. Votes are better than violence; and ideas travel faster than bullets.
I think he's a would be tyrant. He hasn't crossed the line completely yet.
[–] bacondev 347 points 5 hours ago
It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s

In what way would it be mandatory? How would you ensure that everyone actually gives them up? I worry that the
people who sell their guns back are the ones whom we wouldn't have had to worry about in the first place.
[–] atman8r 17 points 4 hours ago
My grandpa had a sign right over his gun locker that said "if you outlaw firearms, only outlaws will have firearms!"
When he passed back in 2013, those firearms passed to me. I now proudly display a sign with similar verbiage above
the locker as well.
JFTR: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" was a popular bumper sticker in the 1970s, generally
displayed alongside a "Moral Majority" sticker on the passenger side and later replaced by the less popular but no less
heartfelt security decal: "Protected by Smith and Wesson."
[–] WeAreTheResistance 38 points 5 hours ago
I worry that the people who sell their guns back are the ones whom we wouldn't have had to worry about in the
first place.
Bingo!!
[–] Oughthere 59 points 5 hours ago
You hit the nail on the head. Only criminals will have guns if the law abiding give them up.
[–] El_trabajo_te_libera 36 points 5 hours ago
And a law like the one he's proposing would create millions of "criminals" overnight.
[–] Jak_n_Dax 28 points 5 hours ago
Millions of tragic boating accidents, too.

such a shame
[–] korelabs 23 points 5 hours ago
He's smart enough to not say confiscation is all.

No, he is such an idiot that he says it and doesn't even realize he is saying it.
[–] Denny_Craine 5 points 3 hours ago
Also how much is he planning on paying for them? Plenty of ARs cost over $1000. But even if we low ball immensely
and say they average $600, there are 16 million ARs. How's he going to get congress to agree to earmark 9.6 billion
dollars for the express purpose of taking guns from people?
[–] Autski 13 points 5 hours ago
I have a feeling that a lot of these AR-15s (which are not assault rifles, technically, as much as the media outlets
would love for us to believe) and AK-47s (which are assault rifles) are going to go "missing" reaaaaal quick.
[–] TGordonShumway 22 points 5 hours ago
Most people don't have actual Ak-47's its just a loose term for the AKm a semi auto version of the Ak47
Just like nobody actually owns a real AR-15. The original AR-15 name was the working designation when Armalite was
developing the rifle for the military. It was a fully automatic battle rifle. The military version became the M16 because
that's how the military does their own naming scheme.
Colt bought the patent to the design and trademarked the name "AR-15" to use for their specific models. Even today,
only Colt can use the name AR-15 on a rifle (everyone else will have their own designator, like Palmetto State Armory
has their PA-15 line).
[–] TGordonShumway -2 points 4 hours ago*
Armalite was orginally intended to sell weapons concept to other gun manufacturers mostly those aimed at the civilian
market. the first rifle that was entered into a contest was for a SURVIVAL rifle for the US air force as the AR5 and
chambered in .22 the AR10 was designed as a battle rifle. The Ar15 came later as another airforce rifle
That's not true at all. The AR-5 was a bolt action .22 Hornet firearm. It was completely unrelated to the future AR-10
and AR-15. They later redeveloped the AR-5 into the AR-7 which was a semiautomatic .22lr takedown rifle.
Armalite entered the AR-10 in the contest to replace the M1 Garand. Ultimately it lost to the M14.
In the early stages of the Vietnam War, the American military was being overpowered by the AK-47, which used a
more compact 7.62 cartridge than the one used in the M-14. Infantrymen couldn't carry enough ammunition to
maintain superiority, and the M14 was uncontrollable when fully automatic.
So Armalite redesigned the AR-10 into a smaller, lighter package running a 5.56 round instead of the heavier 7.62.
Infantrymen could carry more ammunition and had better control in automatic mode. This became the M16.
Armalite also had the AR-18, which was a similar platform to the AR-15, but stamped steel designed to be a cheaper
to make rifle. It flopped. They redevloped this into the AR-180 which was a semi-automatic version of the AR-18. It
also flopped.
Then they had the AR-50, which was a .50 BMG Bolt Action Sniper Rifle. They redeveloped this into the AR-30, AR-
30A, and AR-31 rifles which were bolt action sniper rifles firing .308 Winchester, .300 WinMag, and .338 Lapua
respectively.
The only common thing any of these rifles share is that they all have the AR designator, because they were all
developed by Armalite, which is what the AR stands for.
[–] TGordonShumway 0 points 4 hours ago
Except it was designed by armalite to use the basic concepts the company was based on primarily using light weight
space age materials in gun manufacturing.
5 edits because my phone hates me.
You are largely correct however

using light weight space materials in gun infuriating

Ok? That doesn't make them anything alike, other than using similar materials.
They don't share any of the same kind of design, they don't share any of the same kind of firing mechanics, they
don't share anything other than being made by Armalite.
The AR-5 and AR-7 weren't magazine fed and they weren't gas operated. They're completely unrelated firearms.

[–] plainOldFool 3 points 5 hours ago
Isn't the design of the real Kalashnikov open source, anyway. I thought I read Mikhail Kalashnikov intentionally made
the blue prints widely available so they could be readily made outside the Soviet Union.
Theoretically, couldn't someone just make a legit AK47 themselves if they had the materials and know-how?
[–] herpafilter 3 points 4 hours ago
It's not open sourced per se, the patents have just long since run out just like they did on the AR-15. I'm not sure if
the USSR and/or Russia ever really tried to enforce any legal rights to the design, but they didn't really need to. It
turns out that the guns are difficult to make, it took the Soviets a while to figure out how to mass produce them, and
without Soviet technical assistance it was hard to copy. It takes more then just the 'blue prints', there's a whole
technical data package that details the tooling, assembly, QA, materials, servicing etc.
It's hard to find a 100% US made AK pattern rifle that's worth what it costs for those reasons. The gun is designed to
be made by the 100k, and if you can't invest in the time and tooling to make that many you're going to have a bad
time.
[–] saltlakeshady 2 points 4 hours ago
there was a guy on you tube that made one out of a shovel
[–] Ennuiandthensome 1 point 4 hours ago
The problem is that the tooling/machining is not goodd here in the US. AK platforms from ex-soviet blocs used to be
here and cheap. They worked like clocks. Then Russia decided to invade Crimea, and the supply dried up. Now we're
stuck with US clones that are quite frankly almost all shit.
[–] TGordonShumway 1 point 5 hours ago
That feels ahistorical but I haven't researched it very much. I do know they made the plans and machining tools open
to eastern bloc countries. The Soviet union wouldn't let the plans be open source to western countries.
[–] plainOldFool 1 point 4 hours ago
I certainly don't claim to be a historian. I think I read about it years ago in an issue of Wired. But I can very well be
wrong.
AK-47s are not assault rifles, there are multiple varieties of which very few in the US have selective fire (the defining
charastic of what makes an firearm of the "assualt" variety)
[–] BadAim 2 points 4 hours ago
Funny part is they’d have to find a way to properly ban all variants, too. Is he just gonna buy back the Armalite AR15
lol
[–] Radioactivebuny 2 points 4 hours ago
You don't have to worry about 99.999999999999999999999% of the people who don't sell them back, either.
[–] rider_of_the_storm 1 point 2 hours ago
Nailed it. If anyone thinks the criminal element in the country would take part in this buyback then you must also
think they buy their guns legally and register them.
[–] YouOlFishEyedFool 1 point 2 hours ago
In what way would it be mandatory? How would you ensure that everyone actually gives them up?
The same way scumbag politicians coerce us to give them a huge percentage of our earnings; via the threat of
violence.
No one's saying that the new law should be expected to achieve 100% compliance right away. That is a complete red
herring.
[–] bacondev 3 points 4 hours ago
Do you even know what a red herring is?

[–] ThisIsntAnAltAccount 70 points 5 hours ago*
Americans will comply with the law

What about the ones that already don't?
mandatory buyback
...or what? You'll come and take them? How will you manage that, exactly? You're unarmed. Imagine how well that
might go for you in that situation.
weapons designed for war
or self-defense from a tyrannical government or president who thinks it's a good idea to come force me to disarm
myself.
used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country -- in their school, in their grocery stores, in their churches
Are you still referring to the instances in which church-goers, school resource officers, and security officers help keep
the peace by arming themselves?
I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they [...] would give it up
That is an anecdote, and does not accurately reflect what any other individual, or majority believes, and as such, does
not dictate that it's good policy.
they also have kids and grandkids and want them to be safe.
I have an 8-year-old son and two friends/coworkers who live in my house. You know how we keep everyone safe?
We're all armed. And I remind my son on a regular, frequent basis of firearm safety, rule-by-rule. He doesn't go
looking for or ask to play with my guns.
You do not know what you are talking about.
[–] Let_you_down -2 points an hour ago
Statistically speaking, your 8-year old is much more likely to be killed or injured when you have a firearm in your
house. He, and the rest of the people in your house, are safer when guns aren't around.
I grew up with guns. They don't bother me any. I was a frequent hunter and still advocate for hunting as a means of
population control and conservation of natural resources, despite being a vegetarian these days.
However, as a means of personal defense? I was gifted a couple of handguns when I moved to the city. I never felt
safer when they were around. I've been mugged, jumped, had my place broken into while I was home, and while I
wasn't.
Pulling out a gun during any of those situations never felt right, because I felt like I was escalating the situation to
lethal force, and in none of them did I fear for my life.
Idk, maybe if I was smaller or weaker guns might be more appealing. But I got rid of my guns when the kids came
around. Locked in a safe, I wouldn't be able to quickly or easily access them if there was an "emergency," not locked
in a safe, a kid could accidentally access them.
[–] ThisIsntAnAltAccount 2 points 7 minutes ago

He, and the rest of the people in your house, are safer when guns aren't around
I disagree wholeheartedly. Guns are as safe as their operators, and if you're adhering to basic firearm safety, your
firearms are being operated in a safe manner.
Pulling out a gun during any of those situations never felt right, because [...] I was escalating the situation to
lethal force, and in none of them did I fear for my life
If someone is breaking into my house and/or mugging or jumping me, I'm going to assume the worst (i.e., they are
exerting lethal intent) and defend myself accordingly. The situation has already been escalated to lethal force by the
attacker, not by me defending myself. Physical prowess be damned. If you're going to start a fight or break into
someone's home, you'd better take into consideration the possibility you're going to get your ass kicked or your life
taken away. You don't know what that homeowner/resident is capable of any more than they know what you're
capable of/whether or not you're carrying a weapon.
Idk, maybe if I was smaller or weaker guns might be more appealing. I got rid of my guns when the kids came
out.
What does your physical stature have to do with anything? I'm 200 lbs of lean and can bench my own bodyweight to
warm up, and I still carry. I have a son who I believe in protecting, which is why I teach him responsible, safe firearm
handling and forbid him from ever looking for or playing with my guns. They're within my reach at night, especially
after he goes to bed.
[–] Sauzebauze 226 points 5 hours ago*
I think you're stupid as shit man.

How often are ARs (edit: long rifles) used in crimes? 3%. The FBI has studies showing how little they are used. It's
easy to research if you ever took the time instead of just finding the most emotional argument you can for your
followers.
You never mention the factor of mental illness in these recent and very emphasized crimes. It's clear they all had
latent mental illness.
You didn't mention increasing any mental health resources for people.
You're claims are not backed up by facts and you are exploiting the sins of the few to push your agenda further. It's
pathetic. And very disengenious. You are targeting the most uninformed audience, and you hope they don't look into
what you're saying. Becayse it is easy as hell to disprove your claims. But your audience is all emotion based
arguments and 0 fact based arguments.
You lie, a whole heck of a lot. How many people in America have guns and manage to be safe themselves and with
their families? Millions. You are brain dead.
You are literally cherry picking the instances that back up your claims which are few are far between.
If AR 15 Is so deadly, why has the military been trying so hard to find a better round to switch to vs 223/556?
Because it isn't as powerful as they need. And there are many military studies which support that claim. Any round is
lethal if used right, but you're vastly over stating it's power in order to pander to the emotions of misguided and
uneducated people who don't know better and only use their emotions to dictate their arguments.
You don't mention the rate of hand guns in crimes at all which vastly over power the use of ARs (edit: long rifles).
Absolutely disengenious. And you wouldn't last 1 second in a real debate where you support your claims with facts.
You parrot these same pathetic talking points, almost assuredly knowing you're wrong but that your gullible followers
won't use logic or reasoning to analyze the claims. You're the worst person leading the worst people. Good job.
[–] MizchiefKilz 3 points 41 minutes ago*
I think you're stupid as shit man.

Don't compare him to shit. Shit is at least useful for growing crops. This guy is worse than useless.
[–] Sauzebauze 1 point 38 minutes ago
You know what, you are 100% correct.

Well said patriot.

[–] Sauzebauze 7 points 4 hours ago
I just find what he is doing to be gross, using certain situations to push his agenda.
[–] ProbablyAFudd 2 points 4 hours ago
How often are ARs used in crimes? 3%.

That's all long guns, not just ARs.
So when the ban doesn't work theyll come after those next.
[–] bob60626 3 points 4 hours ago
Nobody really needs a 3-9x Leupold, turn them in!

[–] ProbablyAFudd 1 point 4 hours ago
Hazzah! I only have a 1-6x

[–] bob60626 1 point 4 hours ago
You have betrayed your user name! Please turn in your .30-30 to Robert O'Rourke.
[–] ProbablyAFudd 1 point 4 hours ago
You have betrayed your user name! Please turn in your .30-30 to Robert O'Rourke.
You're not gonna believe this...I don't have a .30-30.
.45-70 master race
[–] adlpsfko 1 point 2 hours ago
hands off my grandpappy's cowboy gat

[–] Sauzebauze 1 point 4 hours ago
You are correct and thank you for the correction.

[–] PromoTX 4 points 5 hours ago
dont forget hes also a drunk driver and burglar

[–] theboddha 2 points 4 hours ago
Who will also own guns after his so called "ban." He'll claim he needs them for self defense.
The laws never apply to those that create them.
Does anyone here think that betos security will have their weapons banned and they'll carry batons? Yeah, no. This is
about disenfranchisement of the right from the people.
If he really wanted to save lives, he would have said we need to fix the health system. This is all about the agenda.
[–] Let_you_down 1 point 1 hour ago
He's mentioned increasing mental health access in a lot of different comments, just not as part of gun control.
[–] Sauzebauze 1 point 1 hour ago
If you could link a few, I'd appreciate it. Because I didn't see any. Regardless, he left that out of his gun control
platform for disengenuous reasons.
[–] BearRedWood -1 points 4 hours ago
You know that 3% of the gun crimes in the US is still more per capita than other countries like the UK...
Apples and oranges, my friend. Vastly different population sizes and circumstances.
[–] BearRedWood 1 point 4 hours ago
That's why I said "per capita"... And you are right, the circumstances ARE different, I wonder what that difference
is....
Sorry I missed that part. For a place where guns are outlawed, they certainly do have gun crime still. I thought it
would just magically stop?
Why would it magically stop? It just needs to not happen multiple times a week.
Because it's outlawed, right? And as beto says, people will comply with the law, right? No.
Well I mean it worked for other countries, so you shouldn't be so dismissive. What hasn't worked is whatever we
are currently doing.
Personally I'm not about banning guns (treat them like cars imo), but we have 4x the gun violence of any other
country. We need to make changes toward regulation, and frankly someone who's unskilled and untrained
shouldn't be able to own a gun.

Well considering that gap predates the gun ban it's clearly not that. Nice try.
[deleted]
[–] kzanomics 0 points 5 hours ago
Agree with a lot of what you said. But are you trying to argue an AR-15 isn’t deadly because the military needs
something more powerful?
No, but he is overstating its power to pander to the emotions of the uninformed. Any round can be lethal if used in
that manner, .22, what have you. But if I start going around claiming that the .22 was a monster, I'd get called out.
[–] kzanomics 1 point 4 hours ago
Any round can be lethal of course. Wouldn’t the difference between the two be the rate at which you can fire?
There are semi auto .22, same as with 9mm, and most every other round in existence. So in that regard there is only
the difference of the round ballistics itself. And maybe mag capacities across different weapon platforms but there's
usually some similar sized mags for many weapons out there.
Got it. Thanks for the info. Helpful to know.

I find this whole problem very challenging. On the one hand in theory, I understand the argument that if everyone has
a gun, people will be less likely to use a gun to rob, murder, etc if they expect any potential victim or bystanders to be
armed as well.
On the other hand, we have more guns per capita then any other Country and have more gun-related violence.
As someone who seems well-informed about gun ownership and guns in general. What do you think is the root cause
and solution?
No problem.
And there are good compromising solutions but they don't actually want to stop the violence. They want to remove
the right.
If they wanted to save lives they would offer better solutions but they never do. This is about furthering their
agenda.
Do the good compromising solutions stand any chance of gaining support or passage? That seems to be one of
the biggest issues. You have one side that wants to take all guns and the other is frightened by any attempt to
limit or restrict access. What are the good compromising solutions you’d suggest?
Thanks for keeping a respectful and open dialogue.

[–] pm_me_all_dogs 2 points 3 hours ago
Also good to point out that something like 60% of home invasions in Britain happen when the owners are home.
That number is closer to 10% in america.
[–] _tiredofthebullshit 0 points 1 hour ago
He’s just another political whore thinking this will get him elected when instead proving what the GOP has been saying
for years: Dems do want you disarmed. He’s just helping with handing Trump a 2020 landslide
[–] Sauzebauze 1 point 1 hour ago
At this point I'm voting for Trump even if I don't like him as a person. I dislike the dems more at this point. You are
absolutely correct.
[–] hooplah 0 points 5 hours ago
just want to gently point out that the rate of AR crimes vs the # of injuries per AR crime (compared to, for example,
handgun crimes) are two different numbers. the rate alone doesn't paint a complete picture.
Yeah, that's just like claiming suicides via gun are "gun violence" when making arguments against school shootings.
The numbers of deaths via mass shootings is so low compared to handgun death every day, you have to misrepresent
the data to get people to take it seriously.
Compare the total victims of all weapons then. You'll see ARs are at the bottom.
[–] hooplah -1 points 4 hours ago
per incident, i'm sure the numbers are different. again, not advocating one way or the other, but there's a difference
between a single incident with an AR-15 resulting in 20 deaths vs 20 individual incidents with handguns resulting in
one death each.
Per incident you would need to control for weapons used.

I'm not sure if you know but a glock comes with 17 rounds in a standard magazine.
Many long rifles come with far less than that, and ARs have anywhere from 10 to 30 round mags. But it doesn't help
that you can gave many magazines so either way, it's kinda moot.
There have been many incidents where hand guns were used and they are more than capable of hurting many people
especially if you have more magazines with you. That is a good tell on betos and the dems part on how this isn't
about ARs, it's about slowly removing the right to guns. Period.
If we were in a debate where each point needed to be supported with factual evidence, they would stand quietly the
whole time. Reality just doesn't support their claims.
[–] hooplah 0 points 3 hours ago
my family owns guns, so i'm aware. there is disingenuousness on both sides in this debate. i'm not trying to argue
one way or the other, just point out that which starts are used and how they are presented is important to having a
genuine discussion about ARs and gun control.
I agree with you and I also am of the same upbringing.

You are right.
[–] Mayo_Spouse -6 points 5 hours ago
I dont disagree that the buyback is dumb, but don't blame people with mental illness for shootings. Mental illness
takes a backseat to poor social skills and coping mechanisms. The planning needed for mass shootings pretty much
eliminates most people with mental illness from being capable of committing such acts. Mental illness seems to be a
convenient scape goat by conservative media to deflect against causal issues with which they are uncomfortable.
It's a factor which played a heavy role, clearly. Stating you want to kill is a sign of an unhealthy mind as is planning to
act on it.
It's not a scape goat. Obviously it isn't the whole issue. But it's a large part and this argument is basically saying no
don't factor that in which is silly.
[–] ASUMicroGrad 1 point 1 hour ago
The planning needed for mass shootings pretty much eliminates most people with mental illness from being
capable of committing such acts.
I am not sure which cereal box you got your psychology degree from, but people who are mentally ill are very much
capable of long term planning. In fact, people with higher intelligence, and very prestigious careers tend to be more
likely to be suffering from mental illness than your average blue collar worker.
[–] leftoverjackson -4 points 5 hours ago
The fact that the military is looking to switch calibers from one we have used for decades of war does not mean it is
suitable for civilian use. This logic is insane.
.22 is a lethal round as well. I'm arguing that he is making the wrong case and over inflating its ability in order to
pander to the misguided emotions of the unaware and gullible fools who swallow it up.
All rounds can kill, obviously.
[–] B6L6Z6BUB4RAID 3 points 4 hours ago
so can peanuts and we don't ban peanuts. or dairy. or eggs.

Imagine if we made epi pens cheaper how many lives we could save a year. imagine how many lives we could save
from suicide with free mental health care. or therapy for everyone so that people stop abusing drugs or killing their
wife with an ar-15 because they lost their job. healthcare is more important than guns being sold. for some
reason(disarming the public is in the interest of the government) it is more important to take the guns than give
healthcare...weird...
I agree, and that's the whole agenda man. This isn't about lives, at all. It's about making the populace less able to
fight back against unfair government practices.
[–] bob60626 1 point 4 hours ago
You might look into the history of the 5.56 cartridge.

[–] DiamondPup -15 points 5 hours ago
Yup. Looks like r/conservative is here. Look at them go.

When you don't have a counter argument, it's common to attack the person and not the points. As you did now.
[–] DiamondPup -10 points 5 hours ago
Lol uh huh. Re-read how you started your own comment kiddo.
I would point out how you're (again) hypocritically and hilariously cherry picking your own stats...but you're from
r/conservative. Arguing with you is like arguing with a flat earther.
Same applies to you my man.

Show where I cherry pick, please.
[–] tdonovanj -2 points 4 hours ago
That’s the Trump method, right?

[–] Sauzebauze 1 point 3 hours ago
Actually both sides do it. But yes, Trump also does.

[–] ASUMicroGrad 2 points 1 hour ago
I not only voted for Obama twice, campaigned for him both times, I also got to meet him. I am, decidedly, not a
conservative. But, the overreaction by mainstream democrats as a form of virtue signaling around guns has been
sickening. Not one of them has talked about this being a symptom of larger, systemic problems, they all just want the
easy talking point. This is why Trump probably wins in 2020, the current democratic field only wants easy answers
and blame. And it won't be enough to not be Trump, to win in 2020.
[–] Luke20820 53 points 5 hours ago*
If the weapon was designed to kill people in a battlefield, why is it that there isn’t a single army in the world that used
AR-15’s? Maybe you’re just skewing facts to make people think that AR-15’s are exactly the same as an M4 or M16
when that’s not true. Rifles account for an absolutely minuscule percentage of murders and most mass murders are
done with handguns. You’re either willingly ignorant on the subject or informed on the subject and straight up lying to
the American people. Neither one is a good look. The second amendment is to defend against ALL enemies, foreign
and domestic. The people need a way to defend against a tyrannical government, such as the government you’d put
into place if you were elected. You’re ok with taking people’s guns away because you have armed guards. Everyone
else in the country doesn’t have that. We’re our own armed guards.
Don't let them push the argument to military.

Fuck that. Yes, I have a military heritage weapon for the same reason the DOD described the AR platform as the most
appropriate personal defense weapon we currently have.
They want to call it a weapon of war? Best to not go to war with us.
[–] thor561 720 points 5 hours ago
What will you do with the people who don't, because clearly there are millions of people who will refuse. We're all
waiting to hear what the response to your implied "Or else..." is.
[–] i_forget_what_i_do 98 points 5 hours ago
There's no registry so there's no way to to tell who has one. My friend doesn't have an AR-15 whenever the buyback
happens. It's totally not buried in a cache under his deck until this all blows over.
[–] Smittyrb 47 points 5 hours ago
I’m going duck hunting on a John boat with all my ARs, I hope nothing bad happens!
[–] PRKCHPCLSSC 4 points 4 hours ago
I really need to move all of that high octane out of the same shed I store my rifles in.
[–] xander_man 26 points 4 hours ago
If it's time to bury them it's time to use them.

use them how?

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that the way one might use them is to regain security of a free state.
A well-regulated Militia under state control, i.e. national guard can and will of course be equipped with military grade
arms. bunch of honklers hiding in the woods...not so much.
The 2a, as understood then, and as understood now, didn't require a militia to be under state control.
And comments like this are always amusing considering the USA has lost more than one war where the other side is
unorganized guerrillas with nothing but personal arms. It's also interesting to hear your cognitive dissonance by
calling what the National Guard has "military grade", in contrast to your "bunch of honklers."
"comments like this are always amusing" glad to make you smile. i try to do it at least once a day.
[–] bipbapbam 8 points 3 hours ago
So, I guess the colonist honklers failed? Funny, I seem to be living in the United States, not British colony.
[–] BaronLeichtsinn -2 points 1 hour ago
ah the united shtatesh. where every year is 1776 until it ain't nomo

[–] alternateavenger 3 points 1 hour ago
Please explain why we've been in Afghanistan for 19 years fighting a bunch of honklers hiding in caves. How much
longer do we need?
[–] SLR107FR-31 2 points 1 hour ago
Oh yes because mighty militaries can easily destroy guerrilla forces.../s

[–] Burninator17 11 points 5 hours ago*
There are some registries depending on the state. CT has one....

Edit: I can't afford to leave the state.... Send help.
Almost every state doesn't have a registry. The only ones that do either only require a registry on handguns or it's a
county law. California requires a full, detailed registry, but good luck with that actually being relevant with how easy it
is to smuggle weapons and drugs in from Mexico.
[–] Captain_Peelz 2 points 2 hours ago
So you mean I don’t have to register my buckets of meth with government???

yeah, but mexican cartels get all their guns from the us. exclusively. not the other way around.
Outlaw them here and it make it profitable for the cartels to sell illegal guns. Yaaaay.
the cartels get their guns from the states, not the other way around. therefore a ban on privately owned military
weapons would not only benefit the us, but also the whole central american region that is getting their guns from
them.
[–] bumfightsroundtwo 1 point an hour ago
Should I just copy and paste what I just wrote?
If you ban them here that creates a lack of supply for cheap guns for organized crime in the US. Demand, driven
up by lack of supply will make a gun that used to cost $100 cost $500. It will then make sense that the cartels
would import guns to sell at this higher price point. It's super simple economics.
Often from our own government.

[–] ILikeLenexa 20 points 5 hours ago
It's also crazy how many people on the registry have lost them in a boating accident.
[–] Kek-From-Kekistan 14 points 5 hours ago
Glad I don't live there...

[–] NorwegianSteam 1 point 4 hours ago
And I know plenty of people in CT that didn't register shit.

Why would it blow over? There would be no point in a temporary gun ban.
Because if on the off chance Beto actually gets elected, either in 4 years when he gets voted out or impeached for
violating the 2nd Amendment with an unlawful executive order, he'll be replaced by someone with an actual brain who
will reverse the ban.
[–] ndjs22 31 points 5 hours ago
Something something AWB 94

To your credit, there was absolutely no point because it did nothing at all.
[–] ed_merckx 11 points 4 hours ago
it was probably the largest driving factor in the development and growth of the AR-15 in common public/civilian use
that we now see. Back then AR's were somewhat expensive and outside of the sport shooting community (which
wasn't nearly the size it is now) weren't all that common.
[–] Jakebob70 1 point 2 hours ago
exactly. Now it's not uncommon to pick up a stripped lower and build the rest in your garage out of parts off ebay and
Amazon.
[–] ed_merckx 0 points an hour ago
The transfer process would still take 9+ months and cost $20k+ for an NFA item.
[–] Jakebob70 2 points 49 minutes ago
stripped lowers are not an NFA item.

[–] WeirdGoesPro 10 points 5 hours ago
And yet prior gun bans have been temporary.

Nothing lasts forever when it can be politically useful.
[–] raljamcar 9 points 5 hours ago
Because if some president did it in an executive order it would be over turned as unconstitutional, or repealed when
the presidency swing the other way
I just imagine gun companies rolling in money on forklifts. Government buys back guns for more than they're worth
(because it's the government) and then the ban is overturned and everyone buys new rifles.
[–] raljamcar 2 points 2 hours ago
Not to mention I have seen people buy pipe, make a cheap pipe shotgun, sell to a buy back for 3 times the material
they put into it.
[–] bumfightsroundtwo 1 point 2 hours ago
Retirement plans
Without a constitutional amendment, it will by definition have to be temporary. Like the Assault Weapons Ban in the
90s that expired in 2004.
[–] SLR107FR-31 1 point 1 hour ago
"Sold it private sale years ago. Not required by law to keep paperwork on who I sold it too, sorry. I don't know where
those rifles went"
[–] smashy40 1 point 4 hours ago
Spoiler alert! ;)
[–] Swimmerkid97 105 points 5 hours ago
Seems like that was an impulse response when he was asked the question, and now he’s scrambling to find
justification
[–] SpiLLiX 44 points 5 hours ago
thats how all the dem debates have been and its why Politics are the way they are in this country right now. (Both left
and right)
Guy/Girl that says something level headed - Crowd gives a few claps (yawn)
Guy/Girl says some batshit crazy super left/right idea - Crowd goes wild with applause
It is no wonder these candidates start blurting out dumb ideas for the shock value and applause.
[–] Spartan_133 19 points 5 hours ago
If I'm elected school president, I'll put a McDonald's in the cafeteria and we'll have free days every Friday.
That's where it started and it never stopped.
Beto: Says we will take your guns.

Beto: Says that the right is "Fearmongering" when they say I want to take your guns
Beto: We will take your guns - in an AMA.

[–] NSD2327 75 points 5 hours ago
Its almost like he wants to takes your guns or something.

He didn't say he will take your guns. He said that everyone will comply with the law. It's that simple. It will be
voluntary because every American will just hand over their guns because Congress passed a law. Because all these
2nd amendment people who are arming themselves to defend against a tyrannical government will just say "ok, if you
insist" to that very government who is violating the second amendment.
[–] VisceralZee 23 points 5 hours ago
,
This talked with a few buddies of mine in TN, WA, OK, about what if they tried to confiscate guns. Them and their
dads response was, hope they like lead poisoning. Specifically because of this tyrannical government and its absurd
laws.
[–] plethora-of-pinatas 9 points 5 hours ago*
“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-12/democrats-debate-gun-control
[–] LVDave 6 points 4 hours ago
Sort of like how the IRS touts "voluntary compliance" with the "income tax"... If you don't "volunteer" goons will come
to your home and put you behind bars after raping you financially..
[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 1 point 59 minutes ago
It would be a legendary year that everyone refused to file taxes.

[–] Chm_Albert_Wesker 12 points 5 hours ago
mandatory buyback=/voluntary
voluntarily following the rules isn't the same thing as acting with no rules in place
"The rules" is the Constitution. Any law passed that violates the Constitution is meaningless.
But the point is...Ok, he passes this law and before the inevitable court case that goes to the Supreme Court and gets
thrown out because it's clearly a 2nd amendment violation, then what.
What about the people who won't comply with the law? Then what?
"Well, we take them". Ok, who take them? How do they take them?
They are just going to surround people's houses with armed guards to take their guns? Take a look at Waco and Ruby
Ridge to see how that works out.
How many gun owners is Beto willing to have his government agents kill in order to forcibly take AR-15s away from
people who refuse to give them up?
I realized that I misread the tone of your previous comment and that we actually agree with each other
[–] Ismokeshatter92 1 point 2 hours ago
I am 100% against banning ar but I saw in New Zealand after their gun ban it is now felony to get Caught with
weapon and carries prison sentence of 5 years. That will happen IMO
loading...
loading...
What will you do with the people who don't, because clearly there are millions of people who will refuse. We're all
waiting to hear what the response to your implied "Or else..." is.
Hah, this little pussy will never do anything other than run his mouth. Which isn't doing him any favors. But he
appeals to the young crowd, yo. He's making it hip to be square.
[–] whtsnk 3 points 4 hours ago
I wish politicians were still squares. They aren’t, though.

[–] imjusthereforawwws 15 points 5 hours ago
“We will ask nicely a second time”

[–] StreetsAhead47 25 points 5 hours ago
And how do you find them?

[–] Mucl 28 points 5 hours ago
Mine were lost in a boating accident over the summer so he's gonna need to check Lake Erie for those
Love how they call it "buy back" as if they were the ones that sold them. It's more like "We're going to take money
out of your paycheck and give some of it back to you for stuff you bought with what we didn't take".
How was this handled in the Australia and New Zealand buybacks? (I realize the latter is still ongoing).
[–] keiichi969 22 points 5 hours ago
Massive non-compliance. In NZ, there's been less than 15,000 guns turned in out of 1.2-1.5 million.
In Australia, it was much the same. In fact, there's more guns in Australia, than before the Port Arthur massacre.
There were 3.2 million guns before 1997, they bought back 600,000 some guns, dropping the number to 2.5 million in
1998. As of 2017, there were 3.6 million.
For those wondering about his Australian claim click here

So there isn’t a lot of hard data, in part because guns that weren’t registered in the first place, obviously the
government doesn’t know about them. In the case of Australia I’ve seen estimates that a majority or large minority of
guns that were in private hands before their confiscation program are still out there, and there’s not much if any data
to suggest that their ban had any effect on the murder rate in the years since. As far as New Zealand, it looks like
they’ve had tens of thousands of guns turned in out of estimated private gun ownership somewhere around 1.5
million, so not exactly a stunning compliance rate so far.
[–] OneFatBastard 2 points 4 hours ago
New zealand wants to introduce a gun registry now

It wasn't. Nobody complied with them at all.

Buybacks have nearly always been massive failures.
[–] TabularBeast 1 point an hour ago
I mean, people did comply but it was such a small amount that it does become null. I believe, so far, it's been less
than 1% of guns that were "bought back" and they still have till December to surrender them.
[–] earthwormjim91 1 point an hour ago
Yes. Saying "nobody" was hyperbole. There was some measurable number that complied, but such a small number
that it was statistically "nobody".
Australia has more guns now than when they did the buyback, and New Zealand's buyback has turned up ~15,000
out of 1.5 Million guns.
My main point was that buybacks have nearly always been failures at significantly reducing guns.
[–] TabularBeast 1 point 36 minutes ago
I get ya, man. Buybacks are not the way to go. If they wanted to have a more successful buyback program, they
would need to buy the guns at market value. I have put in about $3,000 into my AR-15. I'm not gonna give it up for
only a couple hundred.
[–] earthwormjim91 1 point 20 minutes ago
I'm not even sure how a buyback would work these days.
By the law, only the lower receiver is the firearm. And the way that ARs are, by their actual design, you can just
remove all the rest and sell back the lower.
Then you can just slap the stuff on another lower and have the same AR again. And they're ridiculously easy to mill
with a jig, a drill, and a router, out of a chunk of aluminum. Or if you have access to a metal working CNC, then you
just hit a button and let it do its thing.
[–] TrustMeImHigh -7 points 5 hours ago
The or else is you're breaking the law. Same as prohibition with alcohol. Just because a law is disagreeable by a lot of
people doesn't make their actions legal.
Ok. But walk me through this.

How do you go and get everyone's guns? Send cops to their house? What if the people STILL won't give up their
guns? Are the cops going to take them by force? Are they going to surround their house and fire on them?
How far is he willing to order government officials to go to forcibly take these guns back? Is he willing to order
government officials to kill people if necessary to get these guns out of their hands?
That's the most important question.
[–] legalbeaver69 61 points 5 hours ago
I was in court the other day (I’m an attorney) and a large amount of the sheriffs deputies from the county were there
that day just chatting about this “mandatory buyback” aka confiscation.
All of them were in agreement that they wouldn’t enforce it because and I quote “Bubba would shoot my ass before I
made it to the mailbox.” Additionally another added “I can’t take other people’s guns because I’d be busy hiding my
own.”
There is just no way that confiscation can be implemented or not turn into 100s of Ruby Ridges.
Add another 3 or 4 zeroes to that number.

30% of American adults own a gun. 43% of all adults live in a household that has at least one firearm.
43% of all adult men in the US personally own a firearm, and 50% of all adult men live in a house with at least one
firearm.
NY has had a 4% compliance rate with their buyback program. So you're talking about trying to forcibly confiscate
guns from, at a minimum, 41% of the US Male population.
Good. Luck. With. That.
Well at least we aren't also complicating that with an exploding epidemic of lonely, hopeless, and disenfranchised
young men who have nothing to look forward to in their futures, right? I mean, just imagine how that would affect
this.
[–] DefiniteSpace 36 points 5 hours ago
Hundreds?
There's an estimated 15 million AR-15's out there, not including any other modern sporting rifles (AK patters, SCAR's,
VZ. 58's, etc). Say 75% have only one MSR, that's over 11 million people. 1% absolutely refuse to hand them over
and decide to have their own little Waco, that's over 100,000 Wacos.
Gun control is obsolete.
[–] Saitzev 20 points 5 hours ago
Just want to say thank you for using the proper terminology and not the fearology the dem's and the media use
constantly. I really want to know where "Assault Rifle" became a thing.
Assault Rifle is an actual, correct term for a fully automatic Main Battle Rifle used in combat assaults to provide
covering and suppressing fire.
"Assault Weapon" was invented to conjure up visions of those kinds of weapons and to create fear.
[–] Saitzev -4 points 3 hours ago
Actually no, no it's not lol. But whatever helps you sleep at night.
I have several friends who have served, are serving or are in boot and none of them or their superiors call them
Assault Rifles or Assault Weapons.
If your logic behind Assault Rifle one derived from the AR in AR-15, that is a matter of being misinformed. The
AR stands for ARMA-Lite, after the company that first created the platform to be later bought out by Colt.

[–] DefiniteSpace 5 points 5 hours ago
Going way back to your grand pappy's day (not that he was on that side), but the Stg 44 (Sturmgewehr) translates
into English as Assault Rifle.
[–] ghostofhenryvii 12 points 4 hours ago
Which was coined by the Nazis as a PR term to make their guns sound scarier. Funny how anti-gun folks are
borrowing from the Nazi playbook.
[–] BaronLeichtsinn 2 points 4 hours ago
not really. sturmgewehr translates to storm rifle (like in storm trooper). assault rifle would be überfallgewehr.
nobody says that, and nobody ever has.
[–] MizchiefKilz 13 points 5 hours ago
Talked to a county sheriff where my parent's live and he said not only would he not enforce any such laws, but he
would send the deputies to fight any federal agents trying to enforce these laws on an innocent civilian.
[–] tja_1478 5 points 4 hours ago*
Here in NY there are county sheriffs who literally said publicly they're not going to enforce the SAFE Act. Suffice it to
say if something more extreme like a buyback occurred you'd see most police departments do the same thing.
Same in Colorado with the magazine law. Hell, the big monthly gun show that has actual police doing security work
openly sells illegal magazines (not even "repair kits", straight-up new-in-package magazines). The simple truth is
that none of these laws work because the people tasked with enforcing them simply don't agree with them and so
don't do it.
100s is a massive understatement.

I have family and friends who are LE and they all echo the same sentiments you posted.
American civilians own more guns than all of the world's military's combined:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership#United_States_gun_ownership
[–] bcc_belieber 7 points 5 hours ago
100s of Ruby Ridges.

This is Texas; you're going to need a few extra 0s on the end there lol
[–] FTM_PTB 20 points 5 hours ago
And how many cops have to die before they call in the national guard? How many national guardsman die before they
label it a civil war? So Beto wants to start a war with his own countrymen.
But SwallowsWell said "ThE gOvErNmEnT hAs NuKeS!"

[–] The-Donkey-Puncher 3 points 4 hours ago
I could see this happening if there was real intent to make it happen. it could not be done in one campaign, but would
take a generation.
it's less about making laws now and using incentives / punishments, its influencing the minds of young people, which
we already spend billions a year doing. you create a very negative sterio type of a gun owner as a gun obsessed, govt
hating, tin foil hat wearing loser who is stuck in the old ways. it's a lit easier than you think, look at all the shit talking
millenials do to baby-boomers. you just have to give them your issue to rally behind.
Remember, people respond to emotional arguements more than logical ones. So you take that stereotype and work it
on everything. Guns are killing people, these old guys are crazy and dangerous, its barbaric or whatever. I dont know
which message would grab on, but one would and it just has to get popular and gain momentum. The media keeps
reinforcing the dangers and make a big deal about the preventable deaths of innocent people. If you hear every day
that a kid got shot while playing in their living room, it's going to sour you to guns, (it doesn't have to happen every
day, you just have to hear about it every day).
After that generation grows up and critical mass has been achieved, then you do buybacks and people will happily
give in their dads old rifles collecting dust. not all but a whole bunch! Because there are so many they would even
have tangible value at first.
A lot of people think no way, but when I hear pro-gun people talk, the vast majority sound very programmed. (I don't
mean that in a condensing way, but I think we all have our programmed responses. in fact and messaging campaign
tries to program phrases into you, think slogans). what I mean is that that have been told why they need their guns
and they have accepted it. There are a few who can critically discuss the issue in depth, but most I find repeat a
handful of phrases that you hear from everyone else. Not to over simplify it, but give the newer generation new
messages that they accept and that are more in line with gun control. It's easier than you think, I always heard Coca-
cola made record profits during the great depression. Advertising essentially is shaping how people think and it works!
The other thing they would have to do (which in my opinion why it will never happen) is that you really throttle back
the production and sale of guns and ammo in the US. I think that's obvious, but there is too much money being made
and too much of it going into Senators pockets for that to happen any time soon.
If you haven’t, please watch “the century of the self” by Adam Curtis. It’s on YouTube and it’s a 4 part miniseries. You
would appreciate it
[–] skrimskram 1 point 3 hours ago
This series/documentary will change your life.

take my lonely upvote. don't expect that many others, the truth is not that popular.
Like boiling a frog

[–] TrustMeImHigh 1 point 5 hours ago
Dude, I answered a question. I'm not espousing any political viewpoints. I have no skin in this game.
Dude, I answered a question too.

Anyone who actually supports mandatory gun buybacks or confiscations of guns or whatever, needs to answer the
question of how they plan on handling the MANY MANY MANY Americans who will refuse to give up these guns
I'm not talking about the proposed law one way or the other, so why are you telling me all this? I'm not being a dick
here, I'm trying to make it very clear, I'm not in support of BOR, I'm not coming out for or against this proposed
buyback. I was answering a question about what happens if you break the law. Substitute gun buyback with whatever
law you want and the answer stands.
what happens if you break the law

Yes, and so my question to you or anyone else who isn't yet fully against this proposed forced buyback is....what do
you think is going to happen to the people who refuse? This isn't like people who refuse to stop at a red light. This is
people who refuse to give up deadly weapons to the government.
How can anyone even discuss this option without being smacked in the face with the realization that the road it
goes down is government agents getting in hundreds or thousands of shoutouts with American citizens, in which will
result in a cataclysm of civilian deaths and government abuse.
I know “shout-out” was a typo but it’s a hilarious mental image

I'm not coming out for or against this proposal so your question stands for BOR supporters.

[–] trufus_for_youfus 1 point 2 hours ago
Ask David Koresh. Wait. Oh yeah.

[–] TonyHawksProSkater3D -1 points 2 hours ago
Shut down gun manufacturing and distribution companies, then 100 years from now the guns currently in circulation
will be obsolete. Increase penalties for people who commit crimes with guns. Starve the beast.
[–] trufus_for_youfus 2 points 2 hours ago
Obsolete as compared to what? Well maintained firearms have an infinite lifespan and properly stored ammo basically
the same. You planning on some massive revolution in weapon design and superiority? This isn’t a video game.
[–] Jakebob70 1 point an hour ago
I have rifles that were first manufactured in 1891 and are just as deadly (possibly more deadly in the right situations)
as an AR-15. AR-15's and other modern sporting rifles won't be obsolete until laser weaponry becomes commonplace
(or some other such futuristic concept).
One thing that might actually help would be to actually find and prosecute those who commit crimes with guns. In
Chicago YTD, there have been 28 homicide charges filed this year. There have been an additional 266 homicides
where nobody has been charged. That doesn't include legitimate self defense shootings or police-involved shootings,
of which there are only 5 of each.
No, it doesn’t. But, again, what does he propose to do to enforce such a law? He doesn’t seem to be able to get past
assuming that millions of Americans will comply. That didn’t work during alcohol prohibition, it hasn’t worked with the
drug war either. I wouldn’t expect it to go any better with regard to something specifically protected as a natural
right.
[–] SameTimeOtherPlace 25 points 5 hours ago
"Beto" wants civil war

This is the only rational conclusion to be drawn from his dumb ass plan.
[–] BaronLeichtsinn 1 point 4 hours ago
Sure. and participating in this AmA is basically your reservation for FEMA camp. would you like a single or double
matress tent?
[–] pm_me_all_dogs 1 point 3 hours ago
A vote for Beto is a vote for the boogaloo

[–] Chaz_McHammer -15 points 5 hours ago
Pretty sure the creepy t_d mouthbreathers threatening to shoot govt officials and police want civil war.
Are you living in backwards world?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting
[–] Chaz_McHammer -9 points 5 hours ago
Ah right the one left leaning guy who ever shot someone. Again, further proof that its time to start taking guns.
Remind me how many white supremacist/Trump supporters went on mass killing sprees in the past year alone?
No facts. Just feelings.


[–] ilkhan2016 3 points 5 hours ago
No, t_d wants this clown to not get elected in order to avoid the civil war that Beto wants to provoke.
Yes. It does. By the very definition, if the law was a buyback, anyone violating would be a criminal. That's... That's
just how law works man. Notice I didn't espouse one way or the other on the law itself, I'm answering a question
about the underlying legal infrastructure.
And what exactly does he plan to do with this new class of millions of criminals? That’s what I’m asking. Fine them
into oblivion? Forcibly confiscate their property? Jail them? Who is going to enforce this law? He seems to just think
that if he declares them illegal we’ll all just line up and drop them off at the local police station. That just isn’t how it
will go.
That's not up to me, I answered a question that's it. Not my policy not my plan. I'd imagine there would be fines and
jail time associated, it being a proposed law and all. Ask BOR.
You gonna join Betos police force and come take my gun?
[–] TrustMeImHigh -1 points 4 hours ago*
No? Why would you infer that from my answer?


five years in prison per prohibited weapon. legalize weed and decriminalize drugs, and there is room for everybody.
[–] Reynolds-RumHam2020 -8 points 5 hours ago
You don’t have to go door to door and forcibly seize or search for them. You treat it like other things that are banned.
If it’s reported that you have one or you are seen with one the confiscation is made then. Most people would comply.
Most people are not risking their job, freedom, and putting their family out on the street because they like a certain
type of gun so much. People have shit to lose.
Most people might not risk that sure, but how many is most? 75%? 99%? Even if 1% of gun owners decided to fight
for their right to own guns, how many dead cops is too many?
If there are 150 million gun owners, 1% of that figure that would fight when someone tries to confiscate their guns is
1.5 million. Assume half of these instances of trying to confiscate guns of the 1% end up with just one fatality, either
the owner or the police, that’s 750,000 people dead. That’s around 1.5 times as many deaths as the US suffered in
both world wars combined. Even if that 750,000 is a factor off, 75,000 deaths is about 25 times worse than 9-11.
I know this is quick math with assumptions and quick numbers, but forced confiscation of that many firearms would
lead to one of the greatest losses of life in our nations history.
Wouldn’t it be better to focus on mental health care, universal healthcare, bettering the education system, fixing the
environment, getting republicans out of positions of power, getting marijuana legalized federally, and a thousand
other things that would make the world a better place?
Not saying do nothing about gun violence, but maybe it’s a better use of political capital to focus most on the violence
portion.
[–] Reynolds-RumHam2020 -3 points 4 hours ago
We don’t negotiate or bend to the will of terrorists. Anyone who would kill a cop for taking their toy is just that. And a
pathetic one at that.
Calling people terrorists is not going to make them do what the hypothetical law requires. In just wondering how
many dead people would we as a society consider to be ‘too high’ of a price to pay to ban guns? If firearms can be
banned and 100 people die because of it is that ok? 1,000? 1 million?
If someone is going to be on the fringe and be a real ‘come and take them’ person, willing to kill and die for what
they believe, they won’t care if society calls them a terrorist. I don’t have a number for how many people are that
ride or die for firearms, but I know there will be some. And if 0.10% of gun owners are hardliners, that’s still a lot of
deaths.
For clarity here I’m not trying to argue for or against banning firearms, just laying down hypothetical numbers for
people to consider. I stand by my statement that pushing for strict gun control is a waste of political capital at this
time. The focus should be on healthcare, education, and closing the wage gap.
[–] Reynolds-RumHam2020 0 points an hour ago
Gun laws don’t kill people. Unhinged terrorists fighting gun laws kill people.

[–] trufus_for_youfus 1 point 2 hours ago
You’re a fucking idiot and I don’t use that word lightly. Good god man. Constitutionalist = Terrorist?
[–] Reynolds-RumHam2020 1 point an hour ago
Nothing unconstitutional about an AWB.

Most people would comply.

Well this is just false.
New York, of all places, has only had a 4% compliance rate with their mandatory buyback program.
4%.
And that's in New York. Good luck getting to a single percentage in places like Texas, or Colorado (which hosts the
single largest gun show in the country), or Nebraska, or Kansas, or any state in the South. Hell, even California.
[–] Reynolds-RumHam2020 0 points 3 hours ago
NYSs law was voluntary with no penalties for not selling your weapons. I’ve lived in New York my entire life. Never
even met a person who owns an AK47 or AR15. Those losers live out in the boonies.
[–] quasifun -5 points 5 hours ago
You don’t have to go door to door and forcibly seize or search for marijuana. You treat it like other thing that is
banned. If it’s reported that you have drugs or act like somebody stoned, the confiscation is made then. Most people
would comply. Most people are not risking their job, freedom, and putting their family out on the street because they
like a certain type of drug so much. People have shit to lose.
[–] Reynolds-RumHam2020 1 point 4 hours ago
Cops gernerally don’t go door to door seizing and searching for marijuana. Unless they know it’s there.
thing is: you can't just flood the black market with infinite cheap guns, like you can with drugs and booze. everyone
who gets caught with a rifle and goes to prison for five years is one (at least) gun less out there, black market prices
will rise (mp5 in europe costs you about 5k, ak up to 3-4k), therefore replacing guns that are being confiscated and
shreddered won't be that easy like bringing a brick of coke or barrell of whiskey over the border.
edit: of course you can flood a lawless warzone with infinite cheap guns, but the us under restrictive policies...not so
much.
[–] Invective_Detective 3 points 3 hours ago
We are in the age of 3D printing, if there was any time for there to be a rise in cheap black market guns, it’s now.
3D printed guns in an all out gun ban would be the new moonshine.
now that is a really interesting scenario indeed. still need ammo though. black powder. casings. and have confidence
that that print model you downloaded from some unregistered website is not going to blow up in your hands... it is
not that i am against weapons. just ARs and other easily moddable full auto candidates with a high range, accuracy,
stopping power....sure you can print a gun already. but a good gun? not that easy. yet. you can already build a gun in
your garage. but what quality does it have? can you hit anything? are you sure it doesn't malfunction all the time?
what if it gets wet?
its not like shopping high quality, well tested and engineered, industrial standard products off the shelf.
[–] Jakebob70 1 point an hour ago
You should do some more research before you post.

AR-15's do not use "black powder".
Reloading ammunition is not a difficult process. Many people do it already as a hobby or a cost saving measure. I
used to reload, but stopped a while back as ammunition supply became plentiful again and costs came back down, it
wasn't worth the time. If prices go up or it gets harder to find, I'll just get my equipment out again and set it up.
"stopping power" - AR-15's aren't known for "stopping power", if you want that, you need a very heavy, higher
caliber round like a .45 ACP hollow-point. A .223 round is a fairly small, high velocity round. It's accurate
(depending on the rifle and the person using it), but it definitely doesn't have much "stopping power".
3D printed or machined lower receivers are high quality these days. The lower receiver is the part of an AR-15 that
has the serial number, so it qualifies as "the gun" in the eyes of BATFE. Everything else can be purchased just about
anywhere, and if you have a lathe and a drill press, you can make a lot of them yourself. The precise measurements
are distributed worldwide, so everyone can find exactly what measurements each part needs to be to function
correctly. The home-built AR-15's that are all over the place are nothing like the crude drain pipe shotguns from the
1920's. They are often just as high quality as anything put out by any large manufacturer.
"what if it gets wet"??? (really?) Umm... nothing.. you might get a few drops of water splash back in your face when
the bolt cycles.
[–] Invective_Detective 1 point 2 hours ago*
it is not that i am against weapons. just ARs and ...

Why are you against just ARs (and others like it) rather than firearms in general?
just ARs and other easily moddable full auto candidates
Care to elaborate on your meaning here? More specifically the “easily moddable full auto candidates.”
Edit: added text in parentheses
[–] epandrsn -33 points 5 hours ago*
Make it expensive. Caught with a military style weapon and not in the military? Face a massive fine or jail time.
Simple as that.
Edit: Hahahaha, triggered assholes. Let’s start attacking semantics when you know exactly what I mean. We can look
at Clinton era assault weapon bans for a little inspiration. Collapsible stocks, large capacity mags and flash
suppressors aren’t exactly necessary. Compact assault weapons (bull-pups, sawed off shotguns, under slung
shotguns, etc.). Bump stocks.
[–] The_RealPapaJohn 17 points 5 hours ago
Ok? Isnt that literally how prohibition went?

It did nothing.
This is that on a much larger scale
[–] epandrsn -3 points 5 hours ago
How do you propose we curb things like school shootings? Clearly making guns widely available isn’t helping.
[–] The_RealPapaJohn 2 points 4 hours ago
Teach kids about firearm saftey.

Give kids a fathered home with 2 loving parents.
[–] SloppyJo19 3 points 5 hours ago
damn dude
really want to throw those poor people in prison who don't think the government should be confiscating their property,
huh?
Suppose you had a meth lab or any other illegal contraband. I’d happily throw you in jail, not sure what makes this
any different.
[–] SloppyJo19 1 point 4 hours ago
you'll happily throw millions of people in jail for owning a semi-automatic rifle?
big supporter of the prison industry?
also think the "war on drugs" has been a massive success?

[–] BikesBeersGears 4 points 5 hours ago
You said it just like the good little communist regime supporter you are. Military style weapons owned by civilians are
used for the purpose of overthrowing a tyrannical government, not self defense or hunting. THAT is why they are
important. Look at Hong Kong...
Really? You think your ar-15 is going to stop a drone strike? Or an RPG? Or any of the literally thousands of ways our
military would put your dick in the dirt?
You realize you’ve just been brainwashed by a multi-billion dollar industry and they’ve even gotten you to be proud of
it.
[–] mbkeith615 5 points 5 hours ago
Do you think the military is going to us drone strikes in the US? Do you also think that we won the Vietnam war?
[–] epandrsn 1 point 5 hours ago
If it got to a point where you feel you need to defend yourself with your semi-automatic ar-15 against our own
government, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that they’d use their vastly superior weapons against
you.
Like, I get the sentiment and I know it probably makes you feel tough to have all this tacticool pseudo-military
equipment and firearms, but what would actually do if a team of trained soldiers kicked in your door? Or if a
tactical strike leveled the block across the street?

[–] wherewelandingboys 2 points 5 hours ago
The military uses handguns.

Handguns (by your logic) are military style weapons now.
Citizens should be fined or jailed for owning handguns now?
Please learn literally fucking anything about firearms before you spew this shit.
[–] epandrsn 0 points 5 hours ago
I was an enthusiast for years. Ask me literally anything. The folks lashing out at my comment are only attacking the
semantics when they know exactly what I meant. It’s a terrible way to defend your viewpoint and makes you look like
an idiot.
[–] everythingisthewors1 6 points 5 hours ago
Define military style weapon. They also have handguns.

[–] ACK_LosHeisenbergs 4 points 5 hours ago
And knives. And shod feet...

Take those military style shovels too.

[–] ACK_LosHeisenbergs 1 point 4 hours ago
And tactical sporks!

[–] P00gs1 8 points 5 hours ago
And? You liberals love speaking about theories and models and things that “should be.” We’re asking real questions
about this policy. What happens when someone doesn’t comply? You have to do something or else no one will comply.
So what? Do you send swat teams into their homes? That sounds very liberal and not dangerous at all! How do you
know who has an AR-15? Oh and what about the constitution? Until you have these answers absolutely hammered
down, proposing such a thing is reckless, at best.
But he knows all this. He knows it’ll never happen. He’s just pandering to the left because they lap this shit up like
gigantic thirsty dogs.
And nothing dude.

You liberals...
Dude, you have no idea what my politics are. I'm answering a question. There is no "and", the question is answered.
I'm not a BOR supporter, and didn't comment on the buyback itself at all in my post. So piss off, you're just ready to
pounce.
[–] P00gs1 1 point 4 hours ago
Well not 'and nothing' though. So theyre breaking the law. Ok. Now what? Its not only a perfectly reasonable
question, its literally the most important one and Ive literally never once seen anyone even attempt to answer it.
What will the government do to the people who dont comply with the buyback?
After a crime is committed, typically it's prosecuted and fines and/or jail/prison time are assessed.
No, it's the Constitution that makes Beto's actions illegal. The president/Congress have no leg to stand on to force a
gun buyback unless they change the Constitution.
[–] Grumpy-Avocado 29 points 5 hours ago
The wretched failure of prohibition is really not something politicians should be looking to emulate
[–] Smittyrb 27 points 5 hours ago
If the law is unconstitutional there is no reason to follow it, nor would there be any consequences
[–] FTM_PTB -4 points 5 hours ago
Yes but that means jack shit to cops who follow unconstitutional laws day and and day out. They already dont give a
fuck about our constitution why wouldn't they follow another "lawful order" from whoever they are employed by and
go and try to get the guns back from innocent people.
I am sure there would be some cops that would not follow an order to confiscate guns. I'm sure there are more cops
that would quit after they start getting into gunfights every single day at work. But there are alot of cops who dream
of a day where they can go house to house fighting people.
They wouldn't even make it house to house. Once they start confiscation people are just going to shoot on sight any
police officer. See a police car going down the street? Not anymore.
You have a right to bear arms, not all arms.

[–] x8d 5 points 4 hours ago
You have a right to free speech, not all speech.

You have a right against unreasonable searches, not all unreasonable searches.
With that logic, the bill of Rights mean nothing and the government can violate them at will based on whichever parts
they want to agree with at the time.
[–] TrustMeImHigh 0 points 4 hours ago
No, this isn't about logic at all dude, I'm talking strictly on the law and precedent.
[–] ReeceChops44 3 points 5 hours ago
Username checks out

Well, it's true. That's why there's certain guns grandfathered in and aren't available for purchase anymore.
[–] lostpanda5 9 points 5 hours ago
The difference is one is a constitutionally protected right and one is not, I'll give you guess as to which one that is.
The founding fathers would have fully intended on putting anyone on trial who would dare try such a traitorous act.
You have the right to bear arms, not all arms.
So you're telling me I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun that is effective enough to fend off a tyrannical regime? Let
me put it this way for you at one point in time bolt action rifles were common weapons of war those are fine right?
You wanna know something a lot of those rifles fire more powerful rounds then the typical "assault weapons" of today.
Also you're more likely to be killed by a car then an AR15 or even just a rifle of any kind for that matter.
[–] TrustMeImHigh 1 point 4 hours ago*
I'm telling you nothing more than facts. We have certain weapons that are grandfathered in, meaning possession of
existing examples is still legal but new inventory sales would be illegal.
I can't go into the store and buy a flamethrower, or a napalm, or a patriot missle defense system.
[–] 30calmagazineclip 3 points 4 hours ago
I can't go into the store and buy a flamethrower

Whoops. Your ignorance is showing. Flamethrowers in most states have zero regulations for purchase outside of
being 18 to purchase one. No background check in 48 states. The ATF doesn't even consider them a "firearm" which
means that pretty much zero gun related laws apply to them. Hell, Elon Musk sells them in California for cheap.
If you haven't bothered to learn about that then why should we trust you on anything else you say?
We're not talking exclusively about firearms dude. The 2nd amendment says right to bear arms. Not to mention
the very fact you had to say "most states" negates your point.

A simple rifle is by no means an apple to apple comparison to burning someone alive or blowing them up with a
mislle. Why should the police be allowed fully automatic weapons? Just because they are cops doesn't mean
anything more then their career field. They aren't out there every day taking in normal citizens with the same
capability as them so what need do THEY have for them? If they have it so should I. They aren't my master nor am
I a slave.
I'm not arguing policies man, I'm commenting on legality.

[–] ilkhan2016 6 points 5 hours ago*
Because we all remember how effective prohibition was.

That's kinda why I brought it up, goober. To specifically highlight that highly unpopular laws made a lot of criminals.
By the very legal definition is what I'm talking about.
[–] ronan11sham 18 points 5 hours ago
i bet you dont mind illegal immigration

Maybe states can declare themselves 2nd amendment sanctuary states?

[–] Bundesargent 16 points 5 hours ago
Kansas has done it, yet the ATF didnt care.

Several states have already done so.

[–] letsgoiowa 2 points 4 hours ago
That's awesome. I want it here.

[–] SociallyWellAdjusted 9 points 5 hours ago
lmao yes please

[–] Jakebob70 1 point 58 minutes ago
I'm 100% pro-2A, but I don't think states have the right to do that any more than they have the right to declare
themselves sanctuary states for the purposes of ignoring federal immigration laws or legalizing marijuana.
How in the hell are you drawing any conclusions to what my politics are? I didn't espouse anything in that post. He
asked what happens to people who don't follow BOR's proposed law. I answered they'd be criminals. That's how law
works. Whether it's a bad/good/popular/whatever law.
[–] Chm_Albert_Wesker 1 point 4 hours ago
when AR-15s vote blue we can talk

your comment but applied to illegal immigration; why doesn't your train of logic apply across the board
[–] alexsdad87 2 points 4 hours ago
The difference is the constitution protects one of them and not the other.
What are you even talking about? Choose any law you would like, if you break it, you're a criminal. I myself am a
criminal in regards to drug use. I'm not making a social judgement one way or the other, literaly just answering a
question.
[–] Chm_Albert_Wesker 1 point 4 hours ago
the train of thought currently in regards to illegal immigration by the left is that all those indisposed at the border or
here illegally should be pardoned and allowed in immediately because the law is wrong/immoral/your choice adjective.
Let's argue that dems legitimately believe this and it's not for votes. They are setting the precedent that laws can be
wrong and thus should be invalid even if the legislature doesn't pass. How can someone with this mindset expect
someone pro-gun to not act similarly when they feel that anti-gun laws are equally wrong/immoral/choice adjective?
Less of an attack on you than politicians in general, but the general flip-flopping of legal morality when convenient
paired with the not subtle guise of passing partisanship as righteousness. All over his comments he's just saying
idealistic nonsense at best
[–] slothsz 5 points 5 hours ago
Wow so you’re comparing his position to prohibition. I hope you’re not a supporter of his or else you accidentally
made his plan seem even stupider.
Wow so you’re comparing his position to prohibition. I hope you’re not a supporter of his or else you accidentally
made his plan seem even stupider.
What? I answered a question, how are you trying to tie my politics into it? He asked what the or else of not following a
law is. It's that you're a criminal. Regardless of what law we're talking about.
A black kid drinking from a whites only drinking fountain was also illegal.
Your point being? I hope you're not comparing rifle ownership to segregation.
What is illegal does not = immoral. The segregation laws and forced confiscation laws are immoral even if they
become law. I learned from Dr. King that, "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated
to do so."
That's not even a Dr. king quote.

[–] I_Need_A_Fork 3 points 3 hours ago
Well, here's the actual Dr. King quote;

One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility
to disobey unjust laws.
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
[–] 30calmagazineclip 1 point 2 hours ago
Wrong. I was paraphrasing Letter From a Birmingham Jail.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
No, I was right. That isn't a quote if you've paraphrased it. semantics, I know.
I have not used the word immoral at all. Read my replies.

[–] Helpmepullupmypants 1 point an hour ago
He’s gonna Waco and Ruby Ridge us.

You seem to be implying that even if a full, successful buyback would be fine, an incomplete one would be somehow
worse than the status quo. I'm not fully a gun control proponent, but the argument is not "disarmament has to be
complete by the end of the next Democratic presidency." Incremental progress is still progress.
I don’t think I’m implying that at all, and an incomplete one would definitely be worse than the status quo, because
the only compliance you would get would be from the people whom you didn’t have to worry about breaking the law
with their guns in the first place. You’d still have to deal with all the people with ill intent but now you’ve got less
people capable of protecting themselves, and everyone would know it.
[–] fredemu 156 points 4 hours ago
Robert, I want to thank you for this.

You've managed to turn even more people away from your party by laying bare the gun confiscation agenda that
others only strategically hint at. You've given conservatives a nice easy example to point to when people make the
claim "no one is coming for your guns".
I firmly believe we should have more honesty in politics. We need more people that are willing to say what their ideas
actually are, rather than careful poll-driven weasel words and media-manipulated propaganda -- then simply let the
country decide on those ideas.
Doing so will drive more people towards the Conservatives, and the left will once again become the pro-America left
that I was proudly a member of back in the 1990s-2000s, rather than the "light socialism globalist" left that it's
become.
So a sincere thanks for this, and your contribution to the Trump campaign.
The more exposure these disgusting ideas have in the sunlight, the more likely the left will abandon them and go back
to its roots. We can only hope.
Remember Blue Dog Dems?

[–] Let_you_down 3 points an hour ago
How did you feel when Trump said, 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' seems like maybe you and
him are not on the same page.
[–] ttlynotarussian_bot 12 points 3 hours ago
Hahahaha I agree. Beto can still go fuck himself though.

[–] Snoot_Booper_1350 2 points 58 minutes ago
Robert Francis?
[–] _tiredofthebullshit 3 points an hour ago
Well said.
Shhh...
[–] U_GotTriggered 1 point 26 minutes ago
God bless you fellow Patriot!

you
[–] rune87 86 points 4 hours ago
Americans will comply with the law...kinda like your fellow Democrats 100% comply with Federal Regulations
regarding immigration? You see Beto, the problem is that once you start to pick and choose which laws to enforce
based on your belief system, that opens the door for the other side to pick and choose as well. This slippery slope of
law will be the death of our country. We don't seem to blame the car manufacturers for the actions of Drunk Drivers.
We blame the Drunk Driver as you found out. If it's not a firearm, it will be a Box Van as in Europe, or explosives, or
any other means available. Evil people will always do evil things and we as a society need to stop living in fear, and
begin to ask why we have so many people willing to commit evil acts now.
[–] bullhorn13 1 point 2 hours ago
Upvote upvote upvote! This is succinctly the issue!!! When you break the rules you set an example. Well said man!
[–] igotaquestion09 145 points 5 hours ago
You seriously believe gun owners are going to give up their firearms without a fight? By making such a stupid
statement, you've set the democratic party back. We can no longer use the "Democratic candidates don't want to take
your guns" argument, because they're going to say "Nope, because Beto said he'd take our guns."
[–] ZEOXEO 29 points 4 hours ago
To be fair, everybody knew the "nobody wants to take your guns" thing was the biggest lie in history long before he
said it openly. All anybody had to do was look at laws that have been proposed in congress and at the state level over
the last 30 years to know exactly what politicians goals are. His comment hasn't really changed anything.
Sure - but now we have undeniable proof. For decades they've played the "nuh uh, we never said it so you're making
it up" game (despite their many obvious dogwhistles). Now they can't because one of their rising stars went mask-off
and straight-up said exactly what they all were implying.
[–] ZEOXEO 3 points 2 hours ago
Proposing legislation that banned guns, and then voting in favor of that legislation is also undeniable proof, and has
been happening for 30 years.
Yeah, but it's a lot easier to show people actual public statements than to try to get them to comprehend legalese.
Laws are deliberately written to be as confusing as possible to ensure the political/lawyer class has guaranteed income
and so don't work so well for convincing the layman of anything.
[–] hatemeimatransplant 18 points 4 hours ago
To be fair, the left is pretty clear they want to take some guns away. It's no longer hyperbole, they're outright saying
those exact words regularly.
[–] AlexWIWA 2 points 4 hours ago
The left doesn’t want to take away any guns. You’re thinking of dems.
Well the left has said that for far longer than the Democrats. You can't really control a population that has firearms.
[–] JUNGLEJlM -1 points 3 hours ago
Shhhhh people in the usa are only just figuring out that democrats are center right.
[–] AlexWIWA 0 points 3 hours ago
Yup. Dems are closer to Trump than they are to the left.
How fucking far left are you to think Democrats are center right!?
Perhaps we've been watching different Democrat debates where they're trying to out socialist each other.
[–] AlexWIWA -2 points an hour ago
Are they capitalist? If yes then they're not left. Reformist capitalism is still capitalism. How much of a Nazi do you
have to be to think they're left?
Bernie is the farthest left, but he still says we can reform capitalism so he's center at the farthest.
[–] ngratz13 2 points 56 minutes ago
Just because you’re a capitalist doesn’t mean you’re on the right. The one system we have seen that lifts people
out of poverty does not have political sides.

[–] Specwar762 12 points 4 hours ago
Biden and Harris have both said it. I’d say more democrats running for president have come out in favor of
confiscation than against it. Nobody was fooled that democrats respected the 2A at all lol.
Democrats support gun confiscation and bans are extremely annoying to me. I am very much a liberal when it comes
to human rights, but I will never support the ban of firearms. Should there be adjustments made to our processes?
Definitely. But at the end of the day, good people should be able to own firearms.
When you start to realize that both of us are getting fucked by the two sides on the same coin, it starts to make
sense. It’s all a power grab.
[–] JUNGLEJlM 1 point 3 hours ago
Corporate power runs the show, as it turns out.

The amount of power held by Google, Facebook, and Apple is unprecedented. They make the oil and steel tycoons of
generations past look like nothing.
[–] JUNGLEJlM 1 point 2 hours ago
Huh. So whats it called when Corporations run the state?

[–] FireHurtingJuice 2 points 3 hours ago
Nobody seems to remember that Obama's re-election campaign had a stance on gun control; Enforce the laws on the
books and no new gun laws. He knew that there were many voters on the fence, and he got those votes because they
felt that their guns were safe. That's why I voted for him. And I vote both Dem and Rep.
This new-age Dem stance on the 2nd amendment is disappointing. Like, just say that you don't want to win. There's
no need to talk about gun buy backs. Just tell everyone to vote for the Republican.
We can no longer use the "Democratic candidates don't want to take your guns" argument
It's nothing new, and he's not the first. It's been this way for a long time. r/NOWTTYG
Forget Beto alone.

NOT ONE DEM CANDIDATE raised their hand in objection or has since spoke against Beto's confiscation remarks.
NOT ONE. Not at the debate. Not since. They're happy he said it so they don't have to.
[–] imhereforthefunofit 1 point 4 hours ago
Oh, there would be a fight. It would create a rebellion in the States. Good thing is, he won't be elected and this will
not happen.
I've been curious as to why he hasn't dropped out of the race. The polls suggest that he doesn't remotely stand a
chance at making it.
[–] imhereforthefunofit 2 points 4 hours ago
Probably because he likes the attention and it strokes his ego. He seems like the person that needs relevance in his
life so it has meaning.
[–] halfhere 1 point an hour ago
Feinstein said it years ago though. https://youtu.be/Mj4AcjyuV38

[–] _cronic_ 122 points 5 hours ago*
1.) This will never make it into law. 2.) No they won't. 3.) AR-15's are not weapons of war. You're lying or seriously
delusional. 4.) Rifles are way less likely to kill someone than a handgun. You planning on taking all of those too? 5.)
I'm willing to bet you're lying that countless folks have told you they don't hunt with rifles and don't need it for self
defense.
[–] twr243 6 points 5 hours ago
Seriously AR-15’s are very popular for hog hunting which is a serious problem in Texas (the wild hog population). You
would think he would know that but he’s just using scare tactics and lies.
[–] AshantiMcnasti 6 points 3 hours ago
Haha. Gotta start shooting hogs with pistols and shotguns. Good luck not getting mauled. There needs to be a test for
presidential candidates about the constitution. Fucking ridiculous how many assbags there are in the political world.
[–] Let_you_down 1 point an hour ago
Liberal here, also vegetarian, lol. I'm o.k. with gun control. Former gun owner and hunter. Big proponent of hunting
for conservation among other liberals who tend to not be on the same page as me with it. I was just thinking "what
on would you need an AR-15 to hunt with?" I've hunted deer, elk, bear and lots of small game.
But yeah, I did not think about hogs. I've never gone hog hunting. My BIL has, and I'm pretty sure using whatever
gun is a perfectly fine thing to do in that situation. You made an excellent point!
(I still believe in gun control, though)
[–] whiskeyandsteak 0 points 2 hours ago
I agree with everything you said except number 3.

Let's stop bullshitting ourselves. The AR platform is absolutely a weapon of war. Arma-Lite developed the platform in
1956 in response to the US Army's request for a lighter weight select fire system. Arma-Lite sold the rights to the AR
platform to Colt in '59.
[–] NickCageIsAWoman 247 points 5 hours ago
You're living in a fantasy world.

I grew up with many people that own AK's and AR's and bud, they will fight you to the end to keep them. And those
are law-abiding citizens that would never break the law.
If you believe people holding these weapons illegally, and more specifically for the purposes of committing illegal acts,
will just turn these things in, you don't need to be president.
[–] Let_you_down 0 points an hour ago
Gun buy back programs combined with fines and criminal penalties for those maintaining them have been incredibly
effective in other countries that have implemented gun control in significantly decreasing gun deaths. What makes
you think they wouldn't be effective here?
[–] tomgabriele -34 points 5 hours ago
they will fight you to the end to keep them. And those are law-abiding citizens that would never break the law.
How does that work? They will never break a law but are also super ready and willing to start killing cops?
[–] TotalBanHammer 39 points 5 hours ago
The cops enforcing the illegal amendment to the constitution will be the ones breaking the laws.
Oh so you'll each use your personal judgment of what is constitutional rather than trusting the inevitable Supreme
Court ruling? And then based on that, you'll decide which laws to break and who to kill?
[–] TotalBanHammer 21 points 5 hours ago
That's what this country was founded on.

A supreme court ruling would not legalize and executive decision that amended the constitution. Judges are not
elected officials, congress is and they are the ones who decide amendments.
How do you think the executive order about immigrants having to be rejected by a country they passed through
before being granted asylum here got to the supreme court, and why do you think that wouldn't happen again here?
[–] SPeaR1990 11 points 3 hours ago
If you were actually familiar with the Constitution and Constitutional law then you would understand the difference.
Article II gives the executive branch VERY broad powers when it comes to immigration/borders etc. So when
presidents take executive action in these areas they're more likely to be successful.
The right to bear arms is a natural right reserved to the people by dint of birth and codified as an amendment within
the bill of rights. As the poster above you referenced, there is a process for amending the Constitution and that is
what Beto and others should be focused on, rather than unilateral executive decisions which infringe on our rights.
But anyway. Keep licking those boots...
Licking boots by... Disagreeing with the candidate? That's an interesting definition
Wouldn't the more limited executive powers make it even less likely this proposal would get through the courts?
[–] Go--Go--Zeppeli -16 points 4 hours ago
oh man, the keyboard warrior-isms here are fantastic

I'm sure you'd shoot a cop or government agent in the face if they came for your rifle, skeeter. I'm sure you would.
[–] dmcdd 12 points 4 hours ago
That's the line in the sand. If the authorities cross it, it's a sure sign that they intend to force compliance with an over
controlling federal government - in other words, tyranny. The first step of tyranny is always to disarm the populace.
That's the time to realize that if the government is willing to take away the 2nd amendment rights, it's only a matter
of time before they get around to forcing you to abandon the others.
It's inevitable that people will come to power that want to control your life because they "know better". They will offer
to "take care of you". Our rights protect our opportunity to prevent that from happening. But they only protect the
opportunity. It's up to us to take that opportunity and fight for our rights. First peacefully, within the system, using
open debate and political means. Later with force, if it comes to that.
[–] SpiritSla -6 points 3 hours ago
dog, it came to using force 40 years ago, nobody did shit except the unabomber. so give me a break. corporate shills
wont defend anything when big papa comes for their guns.
Kaczynski chose to protest advances in technology. Not enough people saw that as an oppressive takeover of the
population. They still don't. That's why he's a nut instead of a martyr.
[–] TotalBanHammer 1 point 2 hours ago
Killing innocents is not a martyr's way.

well now I'm convinced

(you're still just a keyboard warrior)
Yes, at this point I am. That's because I don't feel it's time yet. It hasn't gotten bad enough for me to think "I'm
giving it all up to protect our freedoms". Everyone is a keyboard warrior at this point, including you - because at the
moment it's a war of words. I realize you meant it as an insult, but since you're pretty much a parrot with your
trolling, it didn't hit it's mark.
The fantasy is in the notion that Beto will give order 66 and all the military, LEO's, judges will just turn around and
start attacking their neighbors
why am I not surprised you retarded conservatives are unable to think critically beyond comparing real life scenarios
to the star wars prequels
stay in school kiddo
Only the sith speak in absolutes.

[–] Vandechoz 1 point 3 hours ago
right? that's stupid

you tell them your guns were lost in a boating accident, get the officer's name, then assassinate them later, duh
Oh sweet summer child...

When they enacted the recent round of antigun bullshit in WA every sheriff with the exception of the lying bitch we
have in Seattle came out publicly and said they won’t enforce it.
If police were to be asked to go door to door to confiscate ARs, they might accidentally shoot Democratic leaders who
would order this.
If police were to be asked to go door to door to confiscate ARs, they might accidentally shoot Democratic leaders
who would order this
what kind of fantasy world are you living in? the police aren't even under obligation to protect you, and you think
they'd go around shooting politicians instead of doing what they're being paid to do?
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
You don’t know many police officers, do you?

Police rank and file is passionately pro-gun. They would be looking out for their own interests in this case.
As individuals I'd wager that most police and military believe in our current freedoms. Yes, there are well publicized
exceptions to that. But on the whole, I'd be willing to bet that if the command came down to implement martial law
(which would be required to shut down resistance), leaders would be shocked at how many police and military line up
opposing them and their tyranny.
[–] btw339 24 points 5 hours ago
When tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

Quoting wisdom: "Fuck around and find out."
Self defense against illegal action is not breaking the law. The 2nd amendment would need to be appealed before
"mandatory buybacks" aka "an offer you can't refuse" is enforced.
Self defense against illegal action is not breaking the law.

Source?
Look up pretty much any justification of deadly force law. Just because someone is a police officer doesn't mean they
can kick down your door for no reason. If they break into your house unlawfully they are committing a forcible felony
and are no different than any other home invader.
[–] tomgabriele 0 points 4 hours ago
Who said anything about the police illegally breaking into houses? It's not like Beto is proposing abolishing search
warrants.
[–] Fr1dge 8 points 5 hours ago
No one said anything about killing cops. The point he's making is that it would turn millions of Americans, who won't
give up their rifles, into fugitives, when they otherwise would've never willingly broke any other federal laws.
Who is he threatening to fight then?

I'm not OP, but I'm pretty confident he wasn't saying every legal gun owner is going to literally fight over it. You can
"fight" a government mandate nonviolently, like with protests, your vote, etc.
Oh alright, in that case, fight away with your vote and peaceful protests.
I must have misinterpreted the other guy in light of all the other comments in here along the lines of 'I have a gun
and I'll kill you if you try to take it'.
Thank you for the clarification.
And that's another reason why mass gun confiscation would be a terrible idea. There are a lot of paranoid, crazy
people who own guns that would hurt themselves or others if someone tried to implement it. You can say "good
riddance" all you want, but that won't heal the wounds it would inevitably cause.
[–] tomgabriele 2 points 4 hours ago
I agree, it might be messy will be a shitshow if not implemented very carefully. But I can't imagine anyone will
be going door to door...I have to imagine it will be like any other thing that's illegal to possess...cops don't go
door to door looking for anyone with meth and then take it. Just if they find it, they will take it and charge you
with a crime.
And it this case, it sounds like it will be more like "give it to us now and we'll pay you for it, or if we find it later
we're taking it and you'll pay us".

[–] Go--Go--Zeppeli 0 points 4 hours ago
I must have misinterpreted the other guy in light of all the other comments in here along the lines of 'I have a
gun and I'll kill you if you try to take it'.
don't be mistaken, this is what most of them are implying. not that they would, they just want to give off the
impression that they would
[–] odins_broomhandle 19 points 5 hours ago
What makes you think cops plan on violating the constitution?

Thats the one part of the conversation i dont have trouble believing. Violating the 4th is already rarely an issue for
cops
Idk, it was the other guy that said they will fight them.
[–] Anonymous_user_of_US 4 points 4 hours ago*
When you make people criminals over night you took away the fact the were law abiding, when you've spent decades
claiming that just one more law is all they need to comply with and taking away their rights but produce no such
result people will start drawing lines that can not be crossed.
Most importantly when those same law abiding citizens watch criminal after criminal get set free and have democrats
standing up for them and then turn around and call the average citizen a murderer you start to turn them against
you. When you say we just need to compromise but NEVER give them anything in return for them allowing that bill
through the law abiding citizen sees that they no longer have any representation, they are spit on called all kinds vile
names and blamed for the actions of someone that the government was watching but "failed" to do anything about
and then you expect the law abiding to go along with your plans?
Fuck that, we've learned you the left will not play fair, we've learned you the left will not look out for our well being,
we've seen the tweets that you the left want us dead.
Edit: Had to make it easier to understand since following allowing with the whole reply it apparently wasn't obvious
that I was talking about the left the whole time.
[–] tomgabriele 1 point 4 hours ago
When you make people criminals over night you took away the fact the were law abiding
How do you feel about the recent change in asylum law?
And is Beto proposing this be an immediate change with no planning or notice? I don't think I've seen that mentioned
anywhere.
Fuck that, we've learned you will not play fair, we've learned you will not look out for our well being, we've seen
the tweets that you want us dead.
I have no idea who you are talking to here. Clearly not me.
How do you feel about the recent change in asylum law?

They crossed into a country illegally any way so that change does not make them anymore of a criminal than they
already were, in fact given that they were supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they came to they could
be considered a criminal in every country they passed through but did not seek asylum in. So your false equivalence
does not work here in any way.
I have no idea who you are talking to here. Clearly not me.
I would have thought that you (tomgabriele) could have figured out that I was referring to all leftists when I said
"you" but if you really need that much help I can change it to the left for you so you don't have to work so hard at
reading.
They crossed into a country illegally any way so that change does not make them anymore of a criminal than they
already were, in fact given that they were supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they came to they
could be considered a criminal in every country they passed through but did not seek asylum in. So your false
equivalence does not work here in any way.
You misunderstand the situation. Seeking asylum is legal and they did everything they were supposed to...until the
EO changed that. Up until that point, they hadn't broken any immigration law.
You misunderstand the situation.

No I'd say you misunderstand, when seeking asylum they were supposed to go to a port of entry and declare their
desire for asylum not run across the border where the coyotes cut open the fence and only declare asylum if border
patrol caught them. That is breaking the law, they would not have gotten in trouble had they actually done it the
correct way instead of trying to fleece the system.
You misunderstand the situation. Seeking asylum is legal

Not when you try it knowing you don't qualify. Or cross the border and then only whine for asylum when caught.
[–] rasmfrasmspasm 23 points 5 hours ago
One must fight tyranny

So then it seems more accurate to say "those are currently law-abiding citizens, that are willing to start breaking any
law they think is tyrannical" right?
[–] tlock8 16 points 5 hours ago
If the government infringes on the 2nd amendment, it wouldn't be illegal. It would be fighting government tyranny.
Correct. It’s similar to resistance movement in France during German occupation if you will.
[–] Tzahi12345 -9 points 5 hours ago
In America tyranny has a funny meaning

We take civil rights far more seriously than other countries, yes. This sometimes leads to side effects, but on balance
it makes are far more successful in many if not most areas than other countries.
[–] Alexmoee8686 4 points 5 hours ago
Yes because cops who enforce this will be criminals.

I don't follow that logic...officers following the law are breaking it, and the people killing the cops are upholding it?
[–] kyithios 3 points 5 hours ago
The constitution is the law of the land. They are our rights, and we are afforded the right to defend that right. Even
against our own government.
Go read the document.
[–] makeithailonthemhoes 1 point 3 hours ago
The same way that we can say we have a mass shooting problem and Americans will obey the law and participate in a
gun buy back
[–] Colorado_love 1 point 2 hours ago
They never said anything about killing cops.

This is why no one takes people like you seriously.
People like me who...don't threaten violence against people because of their opinions...?
Or do you mean people like me who call out when people contradict themselves?
[–] Colorado_love 2 points 2 hours ago
Who threatened violence?

Get a grip.
What does "they will fight you to the end" mean to you? Have a calm and rational discussion that ends in a friendly
handshake?
[–] acm -5 points 5 hours ago
I grew up with many people that own AK's and AR's and bud, they will fight you to the end to keep them. And
those are law-abiding citizens that would never break the law.
But they're willing to break the law to keep their guns?
You're talking about something that would be a constitutional right one day, then illegal the next...
[–] acm -5 points 4 hours ago
no more constitutional than owning surface-to-air missiles. Doesn't really address my question though. Either they
would "never break the law" or they wouldn't.
There's plenty of people who wouldn't break the law until they believed their constitutional rights were being violated.
I'm not defending it as I don't really have a horse in this race, but you're being overly-literal when it's very clear what
that person was trying to say.
[–] Noodle_baby -8 points 5 hours ago
the only people living in a fantasy world are all of you on reddit shitposting
children
[–] Noodle_baby 0 points 4 hours ago
lol
[–] RPofkins -7 points 5 hours ago
law-abiding citizens that would never break the law.

Not so law abiding then.
[–] TabularBeast 1 point 25 minutes ago
In the face of tyranny, the citizens have a right to fight back. The Constitution makes sure of that.
[–] anon-9 -6 points 5 hours ago
If they will fight to the end to keep them, are they really "law-abiding"?
[–] northrupthebandgeek 157 points 5 hours ago
TIL a "well-regulated militia" would never need guns designed to kill people on a battlefield.
[–] reebee7 41 points 5 hours ago
We have forgotten that the core principle of the American Government is that we're never supposed to really trust the
American government...
Weirdly there's a huge distrust of police on reddit and they're increasingly militarized yet those same people are
perfectly ok with them being the only ones with guns. Tons of really good mental gymnastics on display every day
here.
The government will protect you from the police, don't worry.
(for the record I think most cops are fine. The problem with the bad apples is that they have the power of the state
behind them...
That's the problem with all bad apples in government, and there will always be bad apples in government).
This^
The problem is like a feed back loop, the bad apples do something and everyone gasps, the media then plays it for
days while stoking racial tension and people lash out at all cops. The media praises them, the majority good cops feel
attacked and feel like they have a target on their back, a cop makes a split second grey area call and the media
stokes more fears and racial tensions. The body cam footage clears the cop, the media ignores footage and creates
rage bait headline with the truth buried deep in the story and only take up two sentences, people miss the why for
incineration and get more mad. Then the process goes back to the beginning and repeats.
HITLERTRUMP PLEASE USE THE RACIST POLICE TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!
.... Yea, I don't get it.
[–] KyleOckerlund 16 points 4 hours ago
Note to others: "well regulated" meant "in working order", not "with a lot of laws" back then. The federalist papers
confirm that.
[–] Vandechoz 5 points 3 hours ago
we need gun safety and marksmanship classes in schools again, to ensure this
Wherever you're fighting for your life is a battlefield, no matter how small and comparatively "quiet".
That's entirely correct.

And why I'm not bothered when they call them "weapons of war" as a fear mongering tool.
You want to call it that? OK. Best to not to go to war with me then.
lol well said

t. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

[–] LemmeSplainIt -14 points 4 hours ago
The weapons at the time of the militias mentioned were not like modern battlefield weapons. I am fine with pretty
much anyone owning muzzle loaders or similarly low rate of fire weapons, no matter the size. But I don't trust my
neighbor with more than a couple M80s before fingers and shit start disappearing, why the fuck would I trust any of
them with tomahawk cruise missiles or a ma deuce? The revolutionary war killed 6000 Americans over the course of
the entire war, the metal storm mini gun can fire over twice that many rounds a second, one second. With the little
boy and fat man we killed about 15 times the total number of people lost in the revolutionary war in less than a
second. No, militias are not meant to have the weapons designed for today's battlefield, which is why they are illegal
to own to pretty much everyone.
I hope you apply this ridiculous standard to all your Constitutional protections.
The 4A doesn't protect your computer because those didn't exist
The 4A doesn't protect your phone because those didn't exist
The 4A doesn't protect your house because it didn't exist
The 1A doesn't protect anything on the internet because it didn't exist
the list goes on...
If you think the NSA and other 3 letters have abided by the 4th A when it comes to your info, or that attacks on net
neutrality aren't infringing upon the 1st A, I don't know what to tell you. And no, those aren't similar and that's a
ridiculous arguement, the right to freedom of press (on paper) logically is followed by freedom of press (on blogs,
whatever). The freedom to own a muzzle loader or old cannon is not logically followed by the freedom to own cruise
missiles and mini guns, because they are on completely different scales. You will never kill 5000 people in an hour
using revolutionary era weapons, its impossible, that is not even remotely true today.
I'm guessing you don't live in America because no one thinks the NSA respects the 4A and the Patriot Act still exists. I
also don't think you appreciate how much damage can be done with words if used properly. Regardless, it is precisely
because the US Government is pushing the envelope regarding rights and freedoms that the 2A exists in the first
place.
Your assertion is that only one amendment in the Bill of Rights is time-sensitive. This is incorrect and there is judicial
precedent to back it up. Also, where in the 2A are muzzle-loaders mentioned? I'll wait while you look for it. You're
either not American, had a bad history teacher, or skipped some pretty important American history lessons.
And you are incapable of following logic. You really think the average citizen should have cruise missiles and Abrams
tanks? Are you on crack?
[–] rider_of_the_storm 1 point an hour ago
Yup that exactly what he said. Your username doesn’t check out.
[–] metaknight1138 7 points 4 hours ago*
In the days of muzzle loaders you may have had to trust your "neighbor" with owning a warship stuffed to the gills
with cannons. In 1787, this was the most powerful weapon of war in the world, and yet civilian ownership was
allowed. Hell, a modern AR-15 would have a hard time against a ship-of-the-line.
[–] LemmeSplainIt 0 points 4 hours ago
I'm just imagining an AR 15 shooting at a Nimitz class aircraft carrier with its 2.5 inch kevlar plus steel,
pew pew, pew pew
[–] commandlinejohnny 2 points 3 hours ago
You don't shoot it, you plant explosives on it. Kind of like our enemies do overseas with improvised explosives, or
munitions donated by sympathetic governments. Read a history book. The guns are just to get near it.
Only 3 US aircraft carriers have sunk since WW2, 2 that we were using as target practice, the third was on purpose to
make a reef. Ain't no one getting close enough to an aircraft carrier to blow it up. Read a history book.
Just like how the us has never lost a war to people without aircraft carriers.
[–] commandlinejohnny 1 point 1 hour ago
Oh no, I used the wrong type of boat in my example to show you how reductive and naive your argument was! I
guess my point no longer stands since you didn't even bother to address it, huh?
Oh wait, no, you're still wrong. You don't shoot at giant armed boats with small arms unless you don't know what
you're doing.
Cool, so you don't mind if I outfit a battleship with cannons then I'm assuming.
Also Mr. Swalwell I'm not sure what relevance nuclear weapons have, unless you think they should be dropped on
other Americans.
Also Mr. Swalwell

don't understand this reference, who is that?
Nuclear weapons are the weapons of today's battlefield, and why we haven't had another world war, that's the
relevance numbnuts.
If you are going to wheel a revolutionary war cannon around yourself and arm up a wooden ship, be my guest friend.
There's a reason they fell out of use.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, warned gun owners Friday that any fight over firearms would be “a short
one,” because the federal government has an extensive cache of nuclear weapons.
After Joe Biggs tweeted that Mr. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Mr. Swalwell responded,
“And it would be a short war my friend.”
“The government has nukes.Too many of them. But they’re legit,” the congressman tweeted.
Source
Also, nukes are pretty undeniably not "the weapons of today's battlefield". They haven't been used in war since
August 9, 1945 and there have been more than a couple battlefields since then.
There has been lots of proxy wars since then, but no real war, because it would be the last one, this is the idea behind
MAD and why we have trident missiles in every ocean at all times.
Also, be careful about your news sourcing, if you are on a right leaning site to get information about someone on the
left or vice versa, you'll find more slander than truth. This was apparently (and obviously watching it now) a
joke/quip, if we took every statement like this literally trump would no longer have a twitter account.
Telling me to be careful about my sources and links to Snopes in the same comment, lol.
I provided the source I did because it includes links, if you're so inclined to do as much as click a link.
You mind explaining your problem with snopes? (and if this is because of something you read on facebook, I'll
reiterate, check your sources), and I did click the links, it's the inflammatory way in which it is presented that's
the problem (and why you shouldn't trust that source, on top of its history of mixed reporting (often not
factual). While snopes has a history of high factual reporting.
[–] ProfNinjadeer 2 points 2 hours ago
Complains about source

Uses Snopes
lol
[–] LemmeSplainIt 1 point 2 hours ago
I posted about snopes reliability already, if you would like to show a counter of it you are more than welcome,
and no, Facebook blogs don't count.

[–] Fishman95 7 points 4 hours ago
Back then, civilians owned warships loaded up with cannons. Black powder bombs existed. The second amendment
existed to give civilians as much millitary power as the government has.
Again, with all that weaponry, only 6,000 americans died, that should tell you how shit those weapon systems were.
Listen to Dan Carlin's "A blueprint for Armageddon", it's part of his hardcore history podcast (all of which are
excellent), and details how weapons and warfare changed with the world wars, it gives a lot of perspective.
[–] Fishman95 1 point 3 hours ago
There werent many americans back then. 6000 was a significant percentage. Its also not relevant how quickly people
die in warfare. The military force of brittain was matched by the US. The founding fathers wanted the people to
always have matching military power.
It was 0.24% of the population, over 8 solid years. Not per year, total. Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed 0.31% of the
population of japan in 3 days. Even accounting for number of people in the country, no, these are apples to peanuts.
And who here is arguing for civilian ownership of nukes?

[–] LemmeSplainIt 1 point 2 hours ago
They are arguing that people should have weapons capable of taking on the government, the only way to
actually topple the US military entirely would be nukes.

[–] karrachr000 2 points 2 hours ago
This is, by a wide margin, the most ignorant (or intentionally incorrect) rhetoric that I have read so far this week. The
intention of the second amendment was to give us the ability to not only fight against an invading military force, but
to fight against our own government should they turn tyrannical.
The second amendment has already been stripped back that I cannot really own anything much more powerful than
my hunting rifle, much less anything close to modern military weaponry.
Furthermore, you said that you are fine with people owning muzzleloaders, but you would not trust your neighbor with
M80 firecrackers (a quarter-stick of dynamite)... You do know that if I had a muzzle-loading rifle, that I could have
large stores of gunpowder, and that I could, quite easily, repackage it?
[–] 1LX50 2 points 4 hours ago
But I don't trust my neighbor with more than a couple M80s before fingers and shit start disappearing
You should probably red flag him if he seems that dangerous to you
/s
I'm sure he's on plenty of lists already, he already has several misdemeanors and a felony for blowing up mailboxes in
college with various stupid shit.
[–] 1LX50 1 point 4 hours ago
WTF. If he's already a felon then what's your point? He already can't own a Ma Deuce or any firearm for that matter.
You can have gun rights restored in my state (and I think every state but maybe not) even as a felon.
[–] northrupthebandgeek 1 point 2 hours ago
The weapons at the time of the militias mentioned were not like modern battlefield weapons
Well yeah, obviously. The battlefield has evolved, and therefore so have the requirements of a well-regulated militia.
Muskets were to the 1770's as Kalashnikovs and Armalites are to this decade.
[–] ZachTX 67 points 4 hours ago
Come on Beto. Look at how heavily down-voted your comment on ARs and mandatory buybacks is. On Reddit of all
places, with a predominately liberal user base. If you needed a strong indicator on whether or not your stance on gun
control will prevent you from ever becoming president, this is it.
And, you lost my confidence and vote today too, btw.
[–] NegativeGhostrider 2 points an hour ago
Lots of liberals own guns, too. I don't know why everyone assumes republicans/conservatives are the sole gun owners
in the US.
[–] LiteralWarCriminal 2 points 2 hours ago
You know, Tulsi is a pretty good alternative. Of course I may be biased towards her because we fought in the same
war.
She has almost as bad a position on guns.

[–] LiteralWarCriminal 1 point 10 minutes ago
Very true. Then again, all democrats are blatantly anti-gun.

[–] whitemage82 0 points 37 minutes ago
Reddit isn’t predominately liberal. It’s entirely based on what subreddit you’re in.
[–] Celt1977 244 points 5 hours ago*
> weapons designed for war.

The AR 15 was not designed for war, it is a knockoff of the AK-47 M16 (thank you for the correction guys) designed
specifically for civilian and police use. It's not an automatic weapon and no military on the planet uses it.
> Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country
Semi automatic rifles are used in less than 2% of US gun deaths, most shootings happen with a hand gun. Why are
you not going after them?
> I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt
The second amendment is not about hunting
[–] TisiphonesShadow 9 points 5 hours ago
Actually, FBI numbers show semi-auto rifles used in between 400-500 deaths (including murders, suicides, self-
defense, and LE) each year, FAR less than 2%. That stat is for all "long arms", which includes shotguns and all kinds
of rifles.
[–] Celt1977 3 points 5 hours ago
You're right, that includes the other long guns, I forgot. Thanks for the correction
[–] houinator 21 points 5 hours ago
The AR 15 was not designed for war, it is a knockoff of the AK-47 M-16
FTFY
You did thank you

Actually, the M-16 was the knockoff of the AR-15, which came first.
Here's the thing about the AR: ask anybody who served with the M4/M16 how often they used full-auto. The answer
will be basically never. A high-end AR-15 is arguably a superior firearm to the standard issue assault rifle issued to
our own soldiers. As it should be. The 2A is precisely about weapons of war. That being said, the NFA was an
egregious infringement upon 2A rights and after 80 years, still remains.
[–] Gaidsbola 4 points 5 hours ago
Actually the M16 is the knock off full auto version of the Ar-15 that Eugene Stoner Designed for Armalite as a sporting
rifle.
You're correct I posted this elswhere down stream and should have expounded upon it.
But that AR15 is not the AR15 you buy now. Colt bought the name and slapped it on another gun.
[–] 12_Horses_of_Freedom 3 points 5 hours ago
The AR-15 was designed as a combat rifle. The notion that it should be banned for being a weapon of war isn’t lucid,
though. Civilian and military firearms have shared technology and functionality for centuries. There are other
arguments that are more cogent.
It's designed for combat like my SUV is designed for combat because it shares a lot of features with a Humvee.
[–] 12_Horses_of_Freedom 1 point 4 hours ago
No, seriously. Stoner designed it to get a military contract.

Sonter designed the Ar15 to get a military contract... did not get it
Colt bought armalight and all the names and trademarks they owned
Colt used the AR15 as an inspiration for the M16 (that AR15 died around this teim)
Some years later colt take the M16 and uses it as an inspiration for a new civilian and police version which they then
called the AR15 because of the name recognition.
The AR15 you buy today is two design cycles removed from Stoner's work. And *WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED* for
civilian use.
The AR 15 was not designed for war, it is a knockoff of the AK-47 designed
You might want to check that research
The AR 15 was not designed for war, it is a knockoff of the AK-47 designed
Sorry I meant to put the M16, not the AK. Thank you for the correction. But the point stands. It's not a designed
weapon of war it's a civilian knock off of a weapon of war.
[–] whiskeyandsteak 1 point 2 hours ago
"The AR 15 was not designed for war, it is a knockoff of the M16 (thank you for the correction guys) designed
specifically for civilian and police use."
You've got that backwards...the M16 aka "Stoner Rifle" is based on the AR-15 (Stoner being the designer of the AR15
as well).
To claim it's not a weapon of war is bullshit at worst and disingenuous at best. And the second argument I hear about
it being a "modern hunting rifle" is just as specious and a little ridiculous. If you're hunting anything other than wild
boar or similar with a 5.56, you're an asshole. If you're a deer hunter using anything less than a 7.62/.308/.300
Creedmore/Blackout, I hope your ATV dies in the middle of winter and you're stuck in a field for 12 hours with wet
socks on.
So let's get that straight. It flat out is a weapon of war. The argument should be whether a US citizen should be
allowed to possess such a weapon according to the US Supreme Court's interpretation of "shall not be infringed" I
happened to agree with Scalia's Heller opinion. Decoupling gun ownership from the "well regulated militia" argument
was a brilliant line to take. That being said, responsible gun ownership is NOT a priority in this country and
determination of who should own ANY kind of gun hasn't been subjected to any reasonable litmus test thus far.
EDIT: oh and just in case you're considering some delirious screed about me being some leftist socialist pansy who
just wants to disarm the populace so we can all be loaded into the FEMA death camps that Obama was supposed to
send us all to....
I'd bet dollars to titties I own more weapons than a lot of the people on this site...
[–] Stigglesworth 3 points 5 hours ago
On the AR-15 thing: it was designed for war.

From NPR:
"ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959
the company sold the design to Colt.
"In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S.
troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16.
"Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic version of the M-16 that it sold to law
enforcement and the public, marketed as the AR-15."
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15
[–] TisiphonesShadow 21 points 5 hours ago
ACTUALLY, the AR-15 style rifle was sold on the civilian market before being considered by the military (air force) as a
replacement for their M1 carbines in security forces. The original AR-15 design had to be substantially modified to
meet military requirements. I'm an armorer, this is kinda my thing.
[–] Stigglesworth -1 points 5 hours ago
Really? I thought the AR-10 was the one that was upgraded to the AR-15 which was then attempted to be sold to the
military as the replacement for the M1, which was then further iterated to become the M-16, which was then
downgraded to become the civilian AR-15?
[–] ANUS_CONE 2 points 4 hours ago
AR-10 is just an AR-15 that shoots .308 instead of .223. Neither is an upgrade or downgrade from the other.
So it's exactly what I said.. The AR15 died but COlt bought the name.
They then make a knockoff of the M16 for civilians and law enforcement (not a weapon of war) and named it the AR-
15
[–] Stigglesworth -7 points 5 hours ago
Semi-auto doesn't mean knock-off. It's the same caliber, with the same manufacturer (originally), with the same form
factor, and interchangeable parts between them. Even if the AR-15 civilian model complies with the limitations of
"civilian use", it doesn't make its design any less intended for war.
It's the same caliber

SO it cant fire automatically due to the caliber of bullet?
it doesn't make its design any less intended for war.
So what Military uses it?
[–] Stigglesworth 2 points 4 hours ago
So what Military uses it?

I will just use the wikipedia article for the AR-15, as I don't have time to go to primary sources, but they are listed
there:
"...This request [by General Willard G. Wyman] ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the
ArmaLite AR-10, called ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.
"In 1958, ArmaLite submitted ten AR-15s and one hundred 25-round magazines for CONARC testing. The tests found
that a 5- to 7-man team armed with AR-15s has the same firepower as 11-man team armed with M14s.[36] That
soldiers armed with AR-15s could carry three times more ammunition as those armed with M14s (649 rounds vs 220
rounds). And, that the AR-15 was three times more reliable than the M14 rifle. However, General Maxwell Taylor, then
Army Chief of Staff, "vetoed" the AR-15 in favor of the M14. In 1959, ArmaLite now frustrated with the lack of results
and suffering ongoing financial difficulties, sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
[–] NightmareUSA 1 point 4 hours ago
You said it yourself, the automatic variant was designed for war, the semiautomatic was designed for civilian use.
The second amendment is not about hunting

so what is it about? it is about the right to bear arms. all kind of arms? no. you can't just carry rpgs and have a M61
vulcan on your yacht. first of all: i am not against guns. i love shooting guns. the problem with semi-automatic rifles
is, that it is very easy to upgrade them through simple manipulations like bumpstocks. and then you have a weapon
where a single person can just mow down dozens of people, before anyone can react. that is the reason why people
are talking about ARs (and so on) all the time when it comes to gun bans. nobody wants to take ALL YOUR GUNS. just
the ones that let any mental patient become an angel of death within the blink of an eye.
[–] Celt1977 1 point 3 hours ago
so what is it about?
Keeping the population well enough armed to make the government think twice should it become tyrannical.
that is the reason why people are talking about ARs (and so on) all the time when it comes to gun bans. nobody
wants to take ALL YOUR GUNS.
No it's because they are scary looking. ARs are responsible for a fraction of a percent of all gun violence. But they are
an easy target.
just the ones that let any mental patient become an angel of death within the blink of an eye.
A colt hand gun has a higher rate of tire than an AR15
"A colt hand gun has a higher rate of tire than an AR15" not with a bumpstock or any other easily available mod it
doesn't. plus: reach. if you wanna mass murder with a colt you gotta close in real good and have master aim. then
you have to ninja move through people trying to get tackle you and take your gun away. with a full auto rifle: no.
anyone can just murder lots of people. very conveniently.
every form of government is a form of tyranny. so it is absolutely in the eye of the beholder when the time has come
to ... do exactly what? against a functioning government you have no chance alone or as member of some fringe
group. in case of a disfunctional government: fuck it, all the rules are out the window. EVERYBODY has guns now.
these are the two scenarios i see, when it comes to civil war. do you really think it would be gun owners against
evil.gov? nah man.
[removed]
It's black and has that ribby look so it's an assault rifle! /s
[–] Quiggs20vT 2 points 4 hours ago
Well, it's not about hunting deer. It's about hunting tyrants.
[–] r1zz 1 point 4 hours ago*
Semi automatic rifles are used in less than 2% of US gun deaths, most shootings happen with a hand gun. Why
are you not going after them?
That's his step #2.
[–] TheDownDiggity 0 points 5 hours ago
The AR 15 is a knockoff AK-47

Could not be further from the truth laughs in stoner-67
[–] shafty17 1 point 5 hours ago
The AR 15 was not designed for war, it is a knockoff of the AK-47

okay then
[–] FierceDrip81 1 point 4 hours ago
The AR-15 was made before the m-16 no?

No...
The *NAME* AR15 was applied to a rifle before the M16 but the current AR15 was designed *after* the M16.
Short version
Guy builds a weapon and tries to sell it to the military

Military does not buy it, colt buys the company armalight and gets the name and design
Colt significantly mods the design into the M16 sells it to the military.
Colt designs a new gun for civilian and police use, then applies the AR15 label to it.
--
Family tree wise the AR15 is at best the grandchild of the AR15* but we specifically designed to be for civilians and
police based on it's template, the M16.
It's *NOT* a weapon of war more than any other semi automatic rifle.
So...yes lol. The AR-15 was made before the m-16. There’s really no debating that...
But I think your main point is that the ar-15 of today is based off the m16 and there I agree. What are the tech specs
of each? Bc I was in the Marines for 6 years and I’ve shot some ar-15s and they felt very familiar in my hands.
The AR-15 was made before the m-16. There’s really no debating that...
The NAME AR15 was used on a different gun in the 1950's. The current AR15 was designed AFTER the M16 and the
name was then applied to that gun.
There really is no debating that.
What are the tech specs of each?
Weights are similar but different. The AR15 has several different key components. The trigger, disconnector, hammer,
selector, and bolt carrier are all completely different parts. YOU CAN bodge some of the M16 parts into the AR but it's
not designed for them.
You still throw a mag in, pull the charging handle back, and send the bolt home and start pew pewing right? In
practical use they’re not very different. The rounds are the same also, correct? Maybe they call it .223 instead of 5.56,
but again, that’s like comparing Chevrolet to GMC.
You still throw a mag in, pull the charging handle back, and send the bolt home and start pew pewing right? In
practical use they’re not very different.
Isn't this true of most semiautomatic weapons?
The rounds are the same also, correct? Maybe they call it .223 instead of 5.56, but again, that’s like comparing
Chevrolet to GMC.
No it's like comparing a Military Humvee to my SUV.
You sit down, turn the key, depress a pedal and it starts going vroom vroom, right?
The fuel is even the also, correct?
[–] riptaway -1 points 5 hours ago
It's literally exactly the same as an m16, just without select fire. Say what you want(and I love shooting and was in
the military), but it's absolutely a gun that people use the same thing as in war.
It's literally exactly the same as an m16, just without select fire.
It's really not... The ORIGIONAL AR15 produced in the 50's? was very similar to the M16 but the AR15 of today is just
a brand slapped on a different gun.
Current differences in design between the two rifles are the trigger, disconnector, hammer, selector, and bolt carrier..
Yea other than that the exact same weapon.
but it's absolutely a gun that people use the same thing as in war
Which military uses the AR15?
[–] riptaway 0 points 4 hours ago
Semantics. Both are gas operated semi auto carbines that fire the same ammo at the same rate.
Semantics. Both are gas operated semi auto carbines that fire the same ammo at the same rate
The M16 can fire up to 800 rounds per minute
The AR15 can fire at about 45-60 rounds per minute
The Colt1911 ( a hand gun) can fire 120-180 rounds per minute
That's not semantics... That's the fully automatic military grade weapon vs a civilian implementation vs a civilian hand
gun.
Get rid of all guns. You Americans are obsessed that the British red coats are coming back you cling to this almost
medieval law. As someone from the uk I can confirm we ain’t coming back.
Now just give up your guns and buy meat at the supermarket like every fucking normal country
Get rid of all guns

You're more honest than Robert Francis, that's for sure.
You Americans are obsessed that the British red coats are coming back you
Since we saved them twice in the last 100 years, you're not our primary concern. The second was, in fact, never
about the brits. It was about the rise of a tyrannical government *AT HOME*.
cling to this almost medieval law
Not sure you know what "midevil" means. That period ended 300 years before the US was founded. But let's talk
midevil laws.
In feudal Japan Toyotomi Hideyoshi became regent during the Sengoku era in 1588 and issued an edict to
confiscate swords from commoners.
In later Medieval France, peasants couldn't carry things like lances, bows, swords, daggers, or cudgels in
peacetime
Swedish King Magnus Ericsson forbade peasants in the Götland areas (especially around the copper mining
areas) to carry anything other than a knife to eat with, while allowing their employers the opportunity to have
weaponry
Frederick Barbarossa's peace ordinance in 1152 forbade peasants from carrying lances and swords.
[–] Hardheaded_Hunter 3 points 4 hours ago
How’s the machete gang violence over there?

[–] Cdogger 1 point 4 hours ago
Yes if only we allowed ourselves to disarmed then all societal violence will disappear! How's that london knive violence
going for you?
Meanwhile your nation debates on whether to defy the will the people and remain an EU vassal.
I love it when euro losers tell me to give up my rights
[–] Humbleleadfarmer -3 points 5 hours ago
Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the AK in a hospital bed to defeat the Germans and drive them out of Russia. It was
clearly a weapon designed for war. You are out of your element, Donnie.
AK
Hence I said the AR15 was a knock off (turns out I had the wrong gun it was a knockoff of)...
[–] Humbleleadfarmer 1 point 5 hours ago
I suggest you read “AK-47: The Weapon That Changed the Face of War” by Larry Kahaner. Lots of information on the
history of the AK and Armalite.
[–] uurrnn 0 points 5 hours ago
Have you ever seen an AR15 or an AK47?

Ar15s yes, even fired them.. AK's not so much. But I get that I was incorrect in the lineage of the AR which was a
knockoff of the M16 not the AK
The ar 15 is just an m16/m4 which is absolutely used by military.

The ar 15 is just an m16/m4

So explain to me why the M16 and the M4 are both automatic byt the AR15 is not?
I mean if the AR is literally just a re-boxed and re-branded M16 why do the two guns differ in dimensions, weight, and
capabilities.
[–] iampanchovilla 1 point 5 hours ago
Just need a coat hanger to make ya giggle at the range

[–] Swampfox85 1 point 3 hours ago
Shhh, we don't need shoestrings AND coat hangers to be machine guns!

Full auto is never used in combat, you are literally trained to never rotate the switch to it. So effectively it's the same.
There are no or differences, but it's thhr same thing. I've had an m16,m4, and an ar15. To call them different is
splitting hairs.
[removed]
> The second amendment is not about hunting

The second amendment is not permission to own any gun available either.
[–] sikels 13 points 5 hours ago
Except it is. Right to bear arms and shall not be infringed, both quite clear in their meaning right?
It allowed for you to own entire fucking gunships filled to the brim with functional cannons back when it was first
drafted, clearly a fucking semi-auto rifle isn't going to be off-limits according to the Second Amendment.
[–] SkunkApeForPresident 0 points 5 hours ago
Idk why people say it’s “quite clear” when we’ve had Supreme Court case after supermen court case on the 2nd
amendment. The constitution isn’t a crystal clear document and we have a good 200 years of the courts trying to
interrupt it.
[–] sikels 3 points 4 hours ago
Or maybe one section of the US populace doesn't care about the ''shall not be infringed'' part of the amendment.
Just because something is discussed doesn't mean it isn't clear.
[–] SkunkApeForPresident 1 point 4 hours ago
You feeling strongly about something doesn’t magically make it true.

Yep, and preventing AR-15's and AR47 doesn't prevent you from owning arms becuase those aren't the only guns
available. It's like "you have a right to attorney", you don't have a right to a specific attorney.
[–] MikePenceVP 1 point 1 hour ago
The bill of rights were created as natural rights, meaning that they are rights derived from natural law and not under
the jurisdiction of any government. As a result, the government cannot take those rights away. They’re also negative
rights. Your example doesn’t work because the right to a specific attorney would be a positive right.
A better example would be the government restricting the first amendment by saying “you can say anything you
want, as long as it’s not critical of the ruling party”. Your first (second) amendment right to free speech (bear arms) is
something that cannot be restricted by government because it is not in their authority to do so, regardless of what
words (arms) you use.
The second amendment is not permission to own any gun available either.
Great... We agree on this...

But I never said it gave you permission to buy any weapon, Robert Francis did bring up hunting.
It LITERALLY is
[–] Hotal 289 points 5 hours ago

Lol then why do you need to take their guns? Or are they not complying with the laws now?
[–] anubis2018 58 points 4 hours ago
Exactly. Isn't it already illegal to kill people?

[–] FlPig 3 points an hour ago
If it’s not illegal it is frowned upon.

The problem is that you can only address the situation after someone has already gone on a killing spree. That doesn't
really help anyone does it? I'd rather just not be killed, rather than know that if I am killed then law enforcement can
arrest the person who did it. If we have reasonable mechanisms that we can use to prevent mass murderers from
going on killing sprees, then we should use those. Many other countries seem to have figured it out.
[–] YellowStopSign 7 points 3 hours ago
There are roughly 400 million guns in the US, with .3% being registered. Good luck
We will make them be registered. I support positive change in the world, not just sitting back and accepting the shitty
situation as is.
How is the largest number of guns in civilian's hands ever but some of the lowest crime ever a shitty situation?
You have no idea that mass shootings are down from the 1990s, do you?
Do you have any idea the number of people killed with ALL RIFLES including but not limited to the scary ones in the
USA per year... is less than 300 people?
......how exactly do you plan to make them be registered?

[–] argues_4_fun 6 points 3 hours ago

[–] datheffguy 2 points 2 hours ago
COPY PASTE FROM ANOTHER USER

NY SAFE Act has seen about 4% compliance with Assault Weapons Registration.
New Jersey has seen essentially 0% compliance with their magazine ban.
When arguably the most left leaning states in the country cannot get any serious level of compliance with these
laws, how do you imagine it will go better for you nationwide when including all the other states with serious
gun cultures?

[–] tpprindy 5 points 3 hours ago
Uh you sure about that?


How do we make cars be registered? Any gun seen without proper registration will be confiscated and the owner will
be have a large fine imposed, or some jail time and all other firearms confiscated as well for repeat offenses. It'll
take time but it'll take effect over time. People will comply. Those who don't are criminals and hopefully will be
eventually caught and punished, just like any other law.
[–] badstrudel 3 points 2 hours ago
Ok you’re at a shooting range and see someone with an AR. It has a serial number, but that’s all you can
physically see. How do you tell if it’s registered?
You live in a fantasy world. Wake up

OMG! All these shootings are happening! Why are people not complying with the laws??
Fewer shootings would happen if fewer people had guns and the steps needed to obtain a gun were more strict as to
who is allowed to do so.
[–] Violent_Blue 1 point 2 hours ago
Fewer shootings (in schools) would also happen if we had armed guards there... By the way, the steps needed to
obtain a gun are already very strict in a lot of places.
Nope
Yep
So fewer shooting would happen if fewer law abiding citizens had guns? Do you have any idea how many lives are
saved by guns?
[–] nut_fungi 144 points 5 hours ago
AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war.

No, the full auto versions of these weapons were designed for war.
Why do you think there is a difference between these guns and all the other semi auto rifles made? The functionality
is equal.
Beto I support you but you need to take a step back and realize the ignorance of what you are proposing.
Eh, no trained soldier utilizes the full-auto functionality anyway. And the whole point of 2A is that the populace DOES
get weapons of war to fight against foreign and domestic threats.
[–] DrKronin 2 points 3 hours ago
True, and it can seem strange for knowledgeable people to keep pointing out the lack of full-auto capability in civilian
rifles when, as a differentiating factor, it's pretty unimportant. But the thing is, those who would outlaw certain
firearms are easily backed into a self-contradictory corner over full-auto, so it matters in the debate.
Gun control advocates won their first ever nation-wide battle with the GCA, which essentially outlawed civilian
possession of full-auto firearms. When inflation made the tax scheme less effective, they closed the NFA book entirely
with the Hughes amendment in the '80s.
So, either full-auto doesn't really matter, and gun-control advocates have been pushing pointless legislation for 80
years based on a level of firearms understanding that one might acquire from watching bad movies, or full-auto does
matter, and the constant conflation of "assault rifle" with similar-sounding terms that are defined as to not include
full-auto ability is a deliberate deceptive tactic.
If you start by asking someone to make the case one way or the other, you can easily pivot the other direction and
make them look stupid, because neither opinion about the effectiveness of full-auto finds itself at home in a coherent
gun-control argument.
[–] EverydayIsExactlyThe 2 points 4 hours ago
Soldiers aren't even issued M4's/M16's with full auto. They stopped doing that sometime in the 80's.
[–] DrKronin 3 points 3 hours ago
Three-round burst is legally full-auto in the U.S. I know that's not quite how it works, but that's how the law treats
them.
[–] BernillaryClanders 2 points 3 hours ago
M4A1 is full auto, and issued to many. When I served (decades ago) we were transitioning from M16A4 to the M4
carbine w/ three round burst. Takes a while for them to fully transition and it really depends on the branch/unit. Hell,
in the national guard they didn't even issue me a rifle (got an m9 instead)
[–] FrMark 209 points 5 hours ago
You sure about that, dawg?

https://reason.com/2014/02/12/connecticut-pols-shocked-that-tens-of-th/
Also, you going to demilitarize the police too because they don't need M16s and MRAPS and the like either and are a
bigger danger to most citizens, esp POC, than a mass shooting
He's pretty quite on hailstorm and stingray illegal wiretapping too.

The reality is, that your average citizen has more to fear from an agent of the government, be it police, ICE, or the
military in a worst case scenario than they do from fellow citizens. Gun control really just means consolidation of guns
into the hands of an oligarchy and, in the case of law enforcement, one that repeatedly proves itself untrustworthy.
There's a reason why a lot of totalitarian regimes started with gun control. Not to jump to Godwin's Law but, well, the
whole "Will someone please think of the children" excuse has been used quite a bit in the past...
Thus... The Constitution of the United States of America.

Crazy how that works :)

[–] specter800 1 point 3 hours ago
...a lovely little piece of paper that politicians wipe their asses with every day and people eat it up because "it's my
team wiping our asses with it".
[–] Poignantusername 3 points 4 hours ago
Remember Ruby Ridge!

No guns never means no guns, it means no guns for the citizens while the government keep their guns.
[–] warhawktwofour 2 points 4 hours ago
this
[–] TzitzitRiot 100 points 5 hours ago
American and military veteran here. I would not comply with your proposed law. I will not pay the fines you proposed
as the penalty for disobeying this proposed law. What amount of force are you willing to bring to bear on me to take
away the weapons I legally purchased?
Edit: long time lurker, first time posting. Be gentle Reddit.
[–] DukeGraduate 14 points 2 hours ago
Thank you for your service 🇺 .

They can come and take it.
[–] klartraume -3 points 58 minutes ago*
There isn't a they. This is about us, as Americans.
Gun control is not as controversial as people make it out to be. Creating a us/them dichotomy isn't going to help
anything.
I think we can all agree that there's too many random mass shootings going on.
I think we can also agree that universal background checks are reasonable (90% of Americans do, including 70%+ of
NRA members). That's a starting point.
Buy back programs have been vastly successful in New Zealand (recently) and Australia. Great. But, lets recognize
that America's culture is different and the conversation needs to reflect that. Mandatory buyback programs aren't
going to work.
Let's consider licensing (with accompanying safety training to cut down on accidental deaths). Maybe all kids could opt
in and be taught to properly handle firearms senior year of high school. Education, you know?
Gun lockers (to cut down on unstable teens using their parents weapons) could be tax deductible to encourage their
use.
And liability insurance (more controversial, but I have a friend who argued this point). The idea being if your gun is
misused in a shooting - that insurance company can cover the medical expense, funeral expenses, etc. that your
negligence caused.
Wrong. The only way to have universal background checks is by creating a national registry of all firearms. That is a
step toward eventual confiscation, because then the government knows exactly what guns everyone owns.
No one who truly supports the second amendment is ok with universal background checks.
They want to call them weapons of war? OK, whatever.

Best to not go to war with us then.
you
[–] tooanalytical 1 point 2 hours ago
Thank you for your service to our country.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
[–] U_GotTriggered 1 point 24 minutes ago
God bless you fellow Patriot!

[–] inFAM1S 57 points 4 hours ago
Do you know that the AR15 was not designed for war? The 1911 pistol was, the remington 700 wasnt but has seen
considerable war since Vietnam. The M1 Garand and several other weapons were actually designed for war. Going to
take them too?
Why do you and those on your side always use disingenuous attempts to disarm the law abiding public but NOT do
anything to actually focus on the epicenter of gun crime? Why are 400 deaths more important than 7000?
You also cant buy back something you never owned. You wont give fair market value and on top of that, you and the
government failed the background check. So they will not be sold to you.
Because if they’re honest, there is absolutely no case for gun control. They have to be disingenuous to convince
ignorant people that guns are the problem.
As a liberal gun owner you lost any chance of my vote with this ignorant statement. How EXACTLY will you confiscate
my guns? I'm not handing them over.
[–] RaveDigger 98 points 5 hours ago
Liberal gun owner here too. We do exist and we won't be voting for Beto.
/r/liberalgunowners
Almost every single gun owner I know (including those who own semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15) are left of
center. Many would describe themselves as liberal. Shoot, Killer Mike (an amazing person to listen to an a major
Bernie guy) is an avid owner.
[–] Orphan_Babies 60 points 5 hours ago
I feel like this AMA is the nail in the coffin for him.
[–] Redtube_Guy 27 points 4 hours ago
lol dude is like near the bottom, its not like he had any viable shot to win anyways.
Beto suggesting gun confiscation shows he was never meant to win, it was only meant to put the offer on the table so
we can "compromise."
"okay okay confiscation is not on the table, but let's meet in the middle and just ban all current and future sale of
semi-auto rifles...seems very reasonable"
The 2nd will never be outright repealed, but it will die a death of 1000 cuts.
[–] rickscarf 11 points 3 hours ago
I wish the Founding Fathers had singled out the 2nd Amendment specifically and explicitly by stating that right
in particular shall not infringed upon. Oh wait, they did.
[–] DocHackenSlash 7 points 4 hours ago
He thinks the wave of people supporting him due to the Supernatural actors endorsing him is enough.
He's a mildly sad individual.
[–] Orphan_Babies 1 point 4 hours ago
True so it’s like when someone uses an unnecessary amount of nails for one spot...
[–] LumbermanDan 2 points 4 hours ago
No one needs a nailgun that can fire so many nails into one coffin. Time to turn them in
[–] oakleymoose 10 points 2 hours ago
Owning a gun is the most liberal thing you can do.

[–] ricardoconqueso 3 points 49 minutes ago
That's what the Black Panthers said too. Spot on

[–] cuddlyandsweet 5 points 4 hours ago
Beto is just saying what every other Dem candidate is thinking unfortunately.
[–] ricardoconqueso 1 point 49 minutes ago
Not Biden
[–] razor_beast 3 points 4 hours ago
/r/2ALiberals is a better alternative.

[–] RaveDigger 3 points 3 hours ago
I wasn't aware of this subreddit. Thanks for sharing.

[–] ricardoconqueso 2 points 50 minutes ago
we won't be voting for Beto

We wont be because Beto will have dropped out by Christmas
As a liberal gun owner you lost any chance of my vote with this ignorant statement. How EXACTLY will you
confiscate my guns? I'm not handing them over.
He's going to skateboard to your house and get it, yo. If you're lucky he'll do a kick flip.
[–] chadisbad33 9 points 4 hours ago
Well this would mean an expansion of the surveillance, and police state. It would mean raids on peaceful people's
homes. It would mean a greater divide between the police and the communities they supposedly serve, lives would be
lost and destroyed. People would be thrown in jail. It would be an absolute nightmare.
... but hey, "Land of the Free"
It would quite literally justify the need for the 2A to exist in the first place.
Yeah democrat here.

What a loon right?
I don't understand how someone could be that out of touch with reality. Even if a total ban of semi-automatics is their
goal anyone with half a brain should knows you can't say that at this point of the election cycle.
I mean why not do a voluntary buy back??? Idk.

Gauge interest while working on smarter laws....

[–] fishdump 12 points 4 hours ago
Because the only useful buyback will be more than the cost of a lower receiver, and with the proliferation of home
machinists either that $50 buyback will be ignored or the $500+ buyback will be abused by people like me who would
make a box full of the damn things just for the check without handing over a single completed firearm.
Interesting note: If you want your checked bag to be secure during air travel, just put an ar15 receiver in it. Can't
hurt anyone more than a rock can, but counts as a firearm and the airline has to treat it as such.
It took me 7 years to get my collection of 7 firearms that are worth over 10k. So what is he gonna give me that
compensates for the time, money, and all the ammo and accessories? This is the most blanket stupid solution to a
bad problem. If he thinks ANYBODY would volunteer for his program, he's just as delusional as Trump
[–] oakleymoose 2 points 2 hours ago
They'll offer .10 on the dollar if you're lucky. Nobody is going to do that
[–] BraCha89 1 point an hour ago
Where does the money come from in any buyback program? Tax dollars that every American has paid. So Americans,
even non gun owners, would be buying their own guns to have them destroyed by gov.
[–] HiaQueu 3 points 3 hours ago
He definitely won't be on the confiscation team kicking in doors. Damn near anyone who talks like this want someone
else to do the dirty work. Let someone's father/mother/child/grandchild kick in doors and risk their life for his
stupidity.
[–] gonnagrowuptomorrow 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm not really a liberal but also not conservative (don't know where i fall). You are the voices that need to be heard.
I've listened to every Beto interview and its obvious he knows nothing about guns, even though he loves to point out
he attended a gun show.
Liberal gun owners are going to be the voice of reason for common ground at reasonable gun control laws.
I don't fit in either box really but I voted for Obama both terms and I'm very anti-Trump. I like to say I'm a
Libertarian with enough common sense to know that people can't 100% govern themselves.
[–] jdovejr 9 points 5 hours ago
This guy couldn’t get elected as dog catcher anymore.

[–] Amari__Cooper 7 points 4 hours ago
Yep, not getting my vote with that stance.

[–] c4ctus 4 points 4 hours ago
Didn't you read what he said? You'll comply with the law, of course! That's how our guns will be confiscated.
[–] Judge_Bredd2 1 point 4 hours ago
Same here and I don't even have an AR. I have a bolt action rifle and a target pistol. But laws like this create too
much opportunity for unequal enforcement. A police officer knows his buddy from the High School football team has a
couple ARs in his basement, but hell, he's a good 'ol boy. Goes to church, votes republican, he's white... Then there's
the Hispanic guy who bought an AR. That cop won't hesitate to take it away and throw him in prison. Or his high
school buddy pisses him off one day and the cop suddenly "remembers" those ARs and takes them away as pay back.
[–] DeterrenceWorks 1 point 4 hours ago
Well if you hide them well enough that the government can’t take them, it’ll probably be much harder for an incel to
get them and shoot up a school.
Win-win
I prefer a good safe, cameras and an alarm system for when I'm not home... but that's just me.
you
[–] hatemeimatransplant 1 point 21 minutes ago
LOL is it something in the middle of the other 2 liberal gun owner subs? Cause I have some issues with both of those
on any given day.
Our sub rules are more specific
We support the 2A as enumerating an individual right to bear arms. Arguing against st that is not allowed outside of
one post made for that discussion.
We do not support the proposition that any gun regulations at all are unconstitutional.
Instead of having these two extreme positions just yell at each other we spend a lot of time discussing what makes a
regulation constitutional or not constitutional.
We also spend a lot of time debating what makes regulations effective or not effective.
We don’t allow for conspiracy theories or name calling.
In general we aren’t the shit show that the other two liberal gun subs often devolve into.
Libergunowners hsd very loose rules and mods that are mostly hands off. The sub had mostly been taken over by
libertarians. I am not saying to not subscribe there. I still subscribe there myself but the trolling and brigading that
happens there can make nuanced discussion impossible.
2A liberals is vehemently anti Democratic Party. The mods almost never enforce any rules. In addition to being
dominated by libertarians as well there is an enormous amount of right wing trolling.
[–] hatemeimatransplant 2 points 4 minutes ago
You summed up my feelings pretty well on the other 2 subs. I'll check yours out.
[–] the_brown_note 171 points 5 hours ago
How can you be running for president and not understand the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting? Do
you not believe in the oath presidents say during inauguration?
No one really wants to talk about what the second amendment is really about, and when you do, they dismiss it as
paranoid lunacy, as if governments haven't soured to despotism time and time and time again.
[–] SiriusBlackLivesmatr 8 points 3 hours ago
Hell the politics sub will literally ban you for advocating violence if you remotely suggest what the 2a is meant for.
Well, r/pol is fucking nuts, so.

The thing is I think people think we're--and, granted, some people do, and I think it's a bit much--talking about now.
Like they think we're worried Beto O'Rourke is going to take the AR-15s and then will start setting up death camps or
imprisoning political dissenters. I don't think people know we're talking about the unfolding of centuries, not the
present. I'm worried that some tyrant twenty, fifty, a hundred years of now looks back and smiles about the politician
who disarmed the populace, so that he doesn't have to.
[–] iwantansi 12 points 5 hours ago
but government has BOMBS AND TANKS AND F16s! YOU THINK YOU SHOULD OWN THOSE TOO!?!?! OMG!!
/s
That's my favorite argument.

"You can't beat them!"
I look at what Honk Kong is doing these days and it's so goddamn admirable. They can't beat the Chinese army,
either. "Beating them" is not the point. Being an immense pain in the ass for a long period of time is. That's way way
easier armed.
[–] iwantansi 8 points 4 hours ago
I could see soldiers straight refuse to go up against fellow Americans...

HK, the soldiers there may possibly face worse consequences than our own soldiers here for refusing to engage
[–] Rusted_Nomad 9 points 2 hours ago
I'm a US Army officer. Its really quite easy for us. Our oath of office swears loyalty to the Constitution. Not to
Congress, not to the President, not to a commanding officer.
"I, ________, do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies
foreign and domestic. That I bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion..." I could go on, but you get the point.
Right that's the other thing. As if the whole army would side with the despot. Some would, for sure. But typically,
militaries split as well.
They swear to protect the Constitution, not do the President's dirty work.
If only there were 2 recent examples of underpowered militias putting up a fight long enough for the world's most
powerful military to either withdraw and/or lose all public support.... hmmm
[–] pope-killdragon 11 points 4 hours ago
• Yes
• I love the simultaneous arguments from the anti 2A crowd that the 2A as a means of protection from the
government is unrealistic because "the US has more advanced firepower" but also that "A5-15s and semi-auto AKs
are 'weapons of war'"
He believe the Constitution is a Choose Your Own Adventure book.

I hate how our guaranteed civil rights can be twisted on a whim by government. Can someone explain how civil
forfeiture is not a clear violation of the fourth amendment?!
[–] SANcapITY 2 points 3 hours ago
The entire system is contradictory. The gov is here to protect your civil rights and liberties. But it also has the power
to tax you against your will, and lock you in a cage if you disagree.
It literally violates your rights, to fund it self under the guise of then protecting your rights.
[–] Jreal22 1 point 5 hours ago
Think our current president believes in that oath?

[–] the_brown_note 7 points 5 hours ago
Nope I sure don't.

[–] Matthew_1453 186 points 5 hours ago

So that means they won't murder anyone and there's no need for confiscation, right?
[–] Ennuiandthensome 9 points 4 hours ago
Let's not pretend Robert has thought about this much. He listened to a few cronies after El Paso and decided the best
way to get Donnie Cheeto elected was to piss off everyone that doesn't live in LA, Chicago, or New York. Intellectual
rigor is reserved for actual politicians. Robert here is an artist:
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1471281-cult-of-the-dead-cow
Robert --> Beto --> Psychadelic Warlord
[–] blizz017 124 points 5 hours ago

Because compliance with the law worked so well when you were driving drunk and stealing shit
[–] Keystone_Heavy1 177 points 5 hours ago
buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for war

What country is using my $600 ruger in its military?
[–] gonnagrowuptomorrow 14 points 4 hours ago
Exactly! However i own a 1911 pistol and an Accuracy International bolt rifle that are 99% the same guns that have
been used in war. Where are the calls for these to be banned?
[–] hobnobbinbobthegob 12 points 5 hours ago
Well, that depends. Is it the MPR?

Well, that depends. Is it the MPR?

Bet he lacks purpose
[–] lout_zoo 5 points 4 hours ago
Sounds like he has multiple purposes to me. $600 for a measly single purpose gun? Doubtful.
Fair. All the purposes.

[–] Secret_Jesus 9 points 4 hours ago
So many purposes
[–] huntdawgin 1 point 3 hours ago
I believe France, or at least their police use the mini14

[–] abeardedblacksmith 1 point 2 hours ago
$600? My dude, you overpaid.

[–] NeatlyScotched 1 point 25 minutes ago
Nah, MPR goes for that and it's the best bang for buck AR out there. Pistols go for more, and Ruger makes some
decent higher end stuff. Sure it's no DD, but it's not trying to be.
[–] abeardedblacksmith 1 point 15 minutes ago
I have nothing against Ruger. Quite the opposite, actually, I am a big fan. But I am a big fan of finding the best deals
I can on things, too, so I was just saying that you could have gotten the (exact same) rifle for cheaper.
[–] hao_n 1 point 2 hours ago
Bermuda was until recently

[–] PreacherDan 41 points 5 hours ago
I use an AK style SAM7R-61 to hunt hogs in Texas, which im sure you're aware has a hog problem. I can assure you
of two things. 1 they can and are used for hunting vermin and 2 if someone showed up to take it that would not end
well for them. I wouldn't ever shoot a person unless I had to. That being said, the government coming for my AK
would be me having to. The purpose of the second amendment is the people protecting themselves from government,
not hunting. You can't tell me that my AK stands any chance against the government. But it's the best I could do. I
hope you realize im not alone and your program will lead to the deaths of those you ask to enforce it. No one wants
that. You need to drop it, all you're doing is giving the Republicans ammo (bo pun intended) against you and putting
those enforcing your proposal im harms way.
[–] 2_Smokin_Barrels 1 point 58 minutes ago
I wouldn't make any assumptions on what this clown is or is not aware of!
[–] postinganxiety -10 points 3 hours ago
So far most of the replies to Beto’s statement have been - if you try to take away my gun, I’ll shoot you.
My question to all of you is - at what point do you stop acting like spoiled brats?
[–] zma924 10 points 3 hours ago
We're spoiled brats because we refuse to give up our personal property? I have no plans whatsoever to let any form
of tyrannical government take my rifles. I would much rather die fighting for that right than live under a government
that is so afraid of the people it governs, it feels the need to disarm them.
[–] Abhais 3 points an hour ago
We’ll probably stop acting “bratty” when the government stops trying to weasel their way around the fundamental
laws that are SUPPOSED TO restrain their conduct.
The PATRIOT Act already mostly sidesteps the 4th Amendment and the 5th, and the lack of privacy that it promotes
chills the 1st. This is part of that same oligarchical effort and is no less important to address.
[–] ASUMicroGrad 2 points 10 minutes ago
My question to all of you is - at what point do you stop acting like spoiled brats?
This is a really shitty take. People defending a constitutionally protected right aren't acting like spoiled brats. We
should never roll over and let the government take our rights. Not our rights when it comes to speech, due process,
assembly, cruel and unusual punishment or our right to bear arms.
[–] shiftposter 2 points 48 minutes ago
guilt isn't going to work bootlicker

[–] Halvus_I 60 points 5 hours ago
You misunderstand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It absolutely is designed for the citizenry to make war, if
necessary. You are wrong, and you should know better. To get what you want requires an Amendment.
[–] gmoneygangster3 150 points 5 hours ago
they are illegal so people won't have them

Want to tell that to all the addicts in the USA as well?
He's ending the war on drugs too so that problem will be solved overnight. /s
[–] jdizzle161 8 points 4 hours ago
in other words, he's ok with the right to bear heroin, but not arms. Makes sense.... no wait, I don't think it does. I
think Mr. Robert Francis O'Rourke may indeed have his head firmly lodged up his ass.
[–] FlPig 3 points an hour ago
People will just stop using drugs.

[–] hatemeimatransplant 4 points an hour ago
We did it Reddit!
[–] LoudDeerNoises 6 points 3 hours ago
"Prohibition doesn't work"
and
"Prohibition works!"
He said these just minutes apart from each other. Good lord...
[–] gmoneygangster3 3 points 3 hours ago
And people still act like I'm nuts when I say Trump wins again
[–] RaoulDuke44 2 points 2 hours ago
Are you kidding? Beto is the one Trump should really be afraid of! /s
[–] Miznat 333 points 5 hours ago
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting. It's about a national defense strategy defending us from potential foreign
invaders and a tyrannical government.
You know, the kind of government that wants to disarm the populace so that only the police that have been tacitly
tyrannical can have weapons. Good plan, great plan. Come get 'em, Beto.
[–] RoboNinjaPirate 80 points 5 hours ago
Good thing nobody is proposing a tyrannical government - hey wait a minute!

[–] Groovicity -19 points 5 hours ago
True, but...this really isn't a practical, modern application of gun ownership, given the size and strength of our military
vs. all other armies and our own citizens. I'm not saying we shouldn't own guns, actually I'm for it, but if we're being
realistic, if shit hit the fan, personal ownership would account for absolutely nothing besides buying time to run and
even that is not possible for most people. A well-regulated militia (both in group and the traditional definition of "well-
regulated" when applied to the individual) doesn't really exist in significant enough numbers for this to really be an
effective means to ward off a tyrannical or foreign uprising. It used to be, when the nation was much smaller and less
advanced, but that time has since passed.
All that said (and I know just the mere mentioning of it will trigger 2nd amendment absolutists), most people, even on
the left do not support this gun buy-back program and see it as a form of government confiscation. So.....Beto is
striking out with this policy. People want comprehensive background checks, closing of gun show loopholes and a
possible national or at least local registry before we start taking back guns. We already had a ban on certain assault
weapons back in 94' and that didn't do anything to solve the real issue of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals
and mentally unfit individuals.
[–] IsThisNameValid 13 points 4 hours ago
True, but...this really isn't a practical, modern application of gun ownership, given the size and strength of our
military vs. all other armies and our own citizens.
Because with our vast military size, we just stream rolled through Afghanistan and Iraq and didn't have any problems
with insurgency. Even so far back as Vietnam. Just super simple wars to fight since we had such a big and advanced
military...
[–] Groovicity -2 points 2 hours ago
Not a 1:1 comparison here at all, given the topic is domestic. The issue in Afghanistan was an organized faction(s)
within terrain that we did not properly asses, similar to why Vietnam was such a shit show. This topic is about gun use
and military force used at home, on our soil. Like I mentioned, there are people who could use weapons to buy time
and escape their area, but most people in this country live within major cities and would not be able to escape in time,
whether they own guns or not. Again, my argument isn't against gun ownership, it's a realistic assessment of what
would happen if our government was suddenly able to convince our military (made up of our own friends and family
members) to turn on civilians for control.
There's this idea out there that if you own a gun, you'll be able to protect your freedom and your life from tyranny...or
that if there's a "bad guy with a gun" somehow a "good guy with a gun" will be able to easily solve the issue. It's a
fantasy. Plenty of "good guys" get shot or arrested by cops when they arrive on scene and see 2 people with guns and
assume they're both bad guys. Plenty of deaths occur in mass shootings before any good guy is able to intervene and
by that time, cops are likely already handling it. Guns at this point are for recreation and home protection and this is
coming from someone who supports ownership and concealed carry.
[–] nedatsea -19 points 4 hours ago*
That surely made sense when military technology was limited to muskets and horses, but how would that work in the
present day? Powerful as it is, an AR-15 can’t mount a serious defense against modern war tech. If some foreign force
decided to deploy the latest Raytheon/Lockheed drone and missile tech against us, or if our government ever decided
to turn on its populace, what defense would an AR-15 accomplish? Do AR-15 owners really truly honestly believe they
are a vital last line of defense? (FYI I’m NOT trying to be facetious here — am asking a serious question and looking
for serious answers. The national defense position just doesn’t make a whole lot of logical sense to me in light of
present day weaponry.)
Edit: thanks for the downvotes, people. /s I guess honest dialogue isn’t welcome? I do appreciate the few who are
genuinely trying to communicate and not simply shut down uncomfortable conversations.
That surely made sense when communication technology was limited to roller presses, but how would that work in
the present day? Powerful as it is, a PC with a firewall and anti-virus can’t mount a serious defense against modern
hacking tech. If some foreign force decided to deploy the latest stingray/worm/hydra tech against us, or if our
government ever decided to turn on its populace, what defense would end-to-end encryption accomplish? Do
communication privacy/security advocates really truly honestly believe they are any match for a determined
hacker?
You see how you sound to someone that doesn't want to give up their rights?
Everyone that makes this argument completely ignores reality. The US government does not want to get into battle
with its own citizens. If that were to ever happen you'd have a complete splintering of the US and there would be a
UN resolution to bring in the French, German, British, etc (and let's not forget who else is in the UN-Russia) troops to
act as peacekeepers. Having foreign soldiers on our soil would basically end the US as we know it.
But that possibility is only a threat if the American people are armed enough to actually be a threat. If we aren't a
threat, then we'd basically end up in the same situation as Venezuela, or China and Hong Kong.
US vs VC, France vs VC, USSR vs Taliban, US vs Taliban. There have been PLENTY of examples of how a determined
force with just rifles and guerilla warfare make life a living hell for world powers when they try to take over.
I am in no way shape or form ready to give up my rights so that some people can "feel" safer. I didn't like giving up
my rights when the PATRIOT ACT was passed to make people feel safer, and I don't like it now.
[–] nedatsea -4 points 3 hours ago
Ha, I see what you did there! But be careful with your comparisons — last I checked firewalls and anti-virus software
never killed anyone ;)
last I checked firewalls and anti-virus software never killed anyone ;)

If that's all you took away from my ad-lib then you're missing the point. Right now we have politicians openly calling
for requirements for backdoors to all commercial encryption methods because E2E is "what terrorists use" and "only
people with nefarious intentions" need that kind of privacy.
As for firewalls and anti-virus, obviously they've never killed anyone. My point is that they're probably a losing battle
against a determined cyber attack, but their likely ineffectiveness isn't a reason to not use them since that's the best
line of defense you have as a private citizen.
It's like saying AR-15s are weapons of war made for the battlefield and in the same breath saying that they're useless
for defending yourself against a tyrannical government or invading force...on the battlefield. This is prime example of
doublethink straight out of 1984.
[–] julio_and_i 4 points 3 hours ago
serious question and looking for serious answers

Okay, I'll try. Nobody believes that if the US government wanted to level the entire country, that AR-15s will stand in
the way. However, mass genocide of the entire country is a very unlikely scenario. A more likely scenario involves
some sort of occupation, or at the very minimum, some sort of police/military presence on the ground. In this
capacity, small groups of armed citizens can be very effective at disrupting supply lines, taking on smaller targets,
and other generally disruptive behavior. The point isn't that armed citizens can effectively overthrow the entire
government on their own, the point is that an armed populace can make a police state so costly and inefficient that it
will never succeed.
History has several examples of this, but just take a look at Afghanistan. The US military is so vastly superior to
anything insurgents have access to, yet we've been fighting for almost two decades.
[–] nedatsea 4 points 3 hours ago
Thank you, that explanation is logical and makes much more sense to me.
So here’s another question: do gun owners feel that assault weapons like the AR-15 are essential to that kind of
defense strategy you’ve mentioned? Do they need those weapons or could they still mount a decent defense with less
powerful firearms?
And another question on the flip side: are semi-automatic weapons even powerful enough? Is there demand for more
powerful weapons to be available in civilian hands (fully automatic firearms, missile launchers, etc.), or is the gun
community satisfied with AR-style semi-automatics?
Thanks again for your candid responses. Genuinely want to understand this issue better.
[–] threeLetterMeyhem 4 points 3 hours ago
(fully automatic firearms, missile launchers, etc.)

Depends on what you mean by "available." The weapons you mentioned are available today, although more regulated
(significantly more) than other firearms. Some people believe they should be less tightly regulated. Some people
believe they should be completely deregulated.
In my experience, the majority of the "gun community" (referring to demographics like this as a "community" has
always bugged me lol) would be very interested in removing the 1986 Hughes amendment that banned the new
manufacture of civilian automatic fire weapons, as well as completely removing sound suppressors from the NFA. I
don't think people, generally, care much one way or the other about explosives.
But that's just my experience - it's certainly not a study and I definitely don't represent all gun owners or 2A
supporters.
I'm always happy to discuss firearm ownership and the Second Amendment. There are a lot of people on both sides of
the issue that prefer to shout at and demonize the other side. You said you were seriously curious, so I was happy to
answer.
Your response is basically impossible to answer. There is little agreement between individual 2A supporters about
what should/shouldn't be legal, and the efficacy of those firearms in defensive combat. There are those that believe
anything available to the government should be available to citizens, those that really just want their grandpa's old
hunting rifle and the pistol he brought back from WW2, and everything in between those two extremes.
[–] nedatsea 3 points 3 hours ago
Gotcha, so what you’re saying is there’s heavy fragmentation among gun owners as to permissible types of firearms,
but in the middle of that messy Venn diagram is the common agreement that some level of ownership (which may be
anything from a pea-shooter to a full-fledged arsenal) is legal and necessary.
That’s mostly correct, but I’d argue the last part. It’s not just legal and necessary. It’s a fundamental right
guaranteed to each citizen, that is as important to our democracy as any other right.
[–] centexAwesome -4 points 4 hours ago
No one believes civilians can win ANY battle with the US military, but they can't and don't want to kill the whole
population.
[–] HR7-Q 6 points 3 hours ago
Vietnam has shown that using insurgency tactics, you don't need to win a single battle to win the war. You only need
outlast your opponents will to fight.
[–] nedatsea -5 points 4 hours ago
Hmm I’m not so sure about that; if the U.S had a leader like Bashar al-Assad I’m afraid the military would have no
problem butchering the entire population to assure victory, no matter how many AR-15s we had.
[–] centexAwesome 3 points 4 hours ago
Well, without the population, the GDP going forward would be pretty bad.
[–] Numphyyy -27 points 5 hours ago*
Yeah I’m sure all our semi-auto guns and normal civilians will do wonders against actual military presence.
People downvoting me are delusional. Yeah I’m sure your guns will work against tanks and drones and all that shit
that’s made specifically to kill without a gun being able to do shit
[–] LubedUpMongoose 7 points 3 hours ago
Can the US population actually resist the federal government? Time for some math.
The US population is ~ 326 million.
Conservative estimates of the US gun-owning population is ~ 115 million.

The entire DOD, including civilian employees and non-combat military is ~2.8 million. Less than half of that number
(1.2M) is active military. Less than half of the military is combat ratings, with support ratings/MOSes making up the
majority.In a popular insurgency, the people themselves are the support for combat-units of the insurgency, which
therefore means that active insurgents are combat units, not generally support units.
So lets do the math. You have, optimistically, 600,000 federal combat troops vs 1% (1.15 million) of exclusively the
gun owning Americans actively engaged in an armed insurgency, with far larger numbers passively or actively
supporting said insurgency.
The military is now outnumbered ~2:1 by a population with small-arms roughly comparable to their own and
significant education to manufacture IEDs, hack or interfere with drones, and probably the best average
marksmanship of a general population outside of maybe Switzerland. Additionally, this population will have a pool of
[19.6 million veterans, including 4.5 million that have served after 9/11]
(https://www.va.gov/vetdata/Veteran_Population., that are potentially trainers, officers, or NCOs for this force.
The only major things the insurgents are lacking is armor and air power and proper anti-material weapons. Armor and
Air aren't necessary, or even desirable, for an insurgency. Anti-material weapons can be imported or captured, with
armored units simply not being engaged by any given unit until materials necessary to attack those units are
acquired. Close-air like attack helicopters are vulnerable to sufficient volumes of small arms fire and .50 BMG rifles. All
air power is vulnerable to sabotage or raids while on the ground for maintenance.
This is before even before we address the defection rate from the military, which will be >0, or how police and
national guard units will respond to the military killing their friends, family, and neighbors.
Basically, a sufficiently large uprising could absolutely murder the military. Every bit of armament the population has
necessarily reduces that threshold of "sufficiently large". With the raw amount of small arms and people that know
how to use them in the US, "sufficiently large" isn't all that large in relative terms.
[–] Numphyyy 3 points 3 hours ago
I’m gonna read this later but thank you for writing this
I’m going to try to explain this so that you can understand it.
You cannot control an entire country and its people with drones, tanks, jets, battleships or any of that shit that you so
stupidly believe will triumph over citizen ownership of firearms. A drone, jet, tank, battleship or whatever, cannot
stand on street corners and enforce “no assembly” edicts. A drone cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search
your house for contraband materials or propaganda.
None of those things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation.
Drones and those other weapons are for decimating, flattening, glassing large areas, killing many people at once, and
fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own
infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn
everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass, they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless,
radioactive pile of shit.
Drones are useless for maintaining a police state. Police are needed to maintain a police state. Boots on the ground.
No matter how many police or soldiers you have on the ground, they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians.
Which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but
their limp dicks.
But when every random pedestrian could have a Glock jammed in their waistband and every random homeowner has
an AR-15, all of that gets thrown out the fucking window because now the police and military are outnumbered and
kicking down those doors becomes a lot fucking riskier, lest you catch a bullet on your way in and face the reality of
bullets coming back at them.
If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has ever tried to destroy. They’re all
still kicking with nothing but AK-47s, pick up trucks, and improvised explosives. Because these big scary military
monsters you keep alluding to are all but fucking useless for dealing with them.
[–] Numphyyy -6 points 4 hours ago*
What’s the percentage of gun owners to general pop? Like 30%? Yeah this will work lmao
About 50 percent of citizens own guns in the USA

And if you start killing citizens just for exercising Constitutional rights others who weren't initially against you will start
to understand why the 2A existed in the first place.
[–] SpiritualCucumber 3 points 3 hours ago*
Even if 30% is true...did you stop and actually think of how much that is before you got all dismissive?
327.2 million people in the USA * 0.30 = 98,160,000 gun owners in the US by your estimate. It's likely more than
that.
[–] AverinMIA 22 points 5 hours ago
laughs in Vietnamese rice farmer chuckles in afghani insurgent

[–] dmedtheboss -20 points 5 hours ago
Lol comparing 1970s guerrilla warfare to today. The US government could kill whomever they wanted inside the US
without losing a single life. A gun won't stop shit.
[–] dat_dope 10 points 4 hours ago
I see this a lot and I've addressed it in bits and pieces but I want to fully put this nonsense to bed.
Let's take a look at just raw numbers. The entire United States military (including clerks, nurses, generals, cooks, etc)
is 1.2 million. Law enforcement is estimated at about 1.1 million (again, including clerks and other non-officers.) This
gives us a combined force of 2.3 million people who could potentially be tapped to deal with a civil insurrection. Keep
in mind this also includes officers who serve in the prisons, schools, and other public safety positions that require their
presence. That total of soldiers is also including US soldiers deployed to the dozens of overseas US bases in places like
South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. Many of those forces are considered vital and can't be removed due to strategic
concerns.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the state slaps a rifle in every filing clerk's hand and tells them to
sort the situation out.
We now have to contend with the fact that many law enforcement and military personnel consider themselves patriots
and wouldn't necessarily just automatically side with the state if something were to happen. There is a very broad
swath of people involved in these communities that have crossover with militia groups and other bodies that are, at
best, not 100% in support of the government. Exact numbers are hard to pin down but suffice it to say that not
everybody would be willing to snap-to if an insurrection kicked off. Even if they didn't outright switch sides there's the
very real possibility that they could, in direct or indirect ways, work against their employer's prosecution of the
counter-insurgency either by directly sabotaging operations or just not putting as much effort into their work and
turning a blind eye to things.
But, again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you've somehow managed to talk every single member of the
military and law enforcement services into being 100% committed to rooting out the rebel scum.
There are an estimated 400 million firearms in the US. Even if we just ignore 300 million firearms available as maybe
they're antiques or not in a condition to be used, that's still 100 million firearms that citizens can pick up and use.
Let's go even further than that and say of that 100, there are only about 20 million firearms that are both desirable
and useful in an insurgency context and not say .22's or double barrelled shotguns.
It should be noted just for the sake of interest that several million AR-15's are manufactured every year and have
been since 2004 when the "assault weapons" ban ended. Soooo 2-5 million per year for 15 years....
If only 2% of the US population decided "Fuck it, let's dance!" and rose up, that's about 6.5 million people. You're
already outnumbering all law enforcement and the military almost 3 to 1. And you have enough weapons to arm them
almost four times over. There are millions of tons of ammunition held in private hands and the materials to make
ammunition are readily available online even before you start talking about reloading through scrounging.
So you have a well equipped armed force that outnumbers the standing military and law enforcement capabilities of
the country by a significant margin.
"But the military has tanks, planes, and satellites!"
That they do however it's worth noting that the majority of the capabilities of our armed forces are centered around
engaging another state in a war. That means another entity that also has tanks, planes, and satellites. That is where
the majority of our warfighting capabilities are centered because that's what conflict has consisted of for most of the
20th century.
We've learned a lot about asymmetric warfare since our time in Iraq and Afghanistan and one of the key takeaways
has been just having tanks and battleships is not enough to win against even a much smaller and more poorly armed
opponent.
A battleship or a bomber is great if you're going after targets that you don't particularly care about but they don't do
you a whole hell of a lot of good when your targets are in an urban setting mixed in with people that you, the
commander, are accountable to.
Flattening a city block is fine in Overthereastan because you can shrug and call the sixty civilians you killed "collateral
damage" and no one gives a shit. If you do that here, you seriously damage perceptions about you among the
civilians who then are going to get upset with you. Maybe they manage to bring enough political pressure on you to
get you ousted, maybe they start helping the rebels, or maybe they pick up guns of their own and join in. You killed
fifteen fighters in that strike but in so doing you may have created thirty more.
Even drones are of mixed utility in that circumstance. It's also worth noting that the US is several orders of magnitude
larger than the areas that drones have typically operated in during conflict in the Middle East. And lest we forget,
these drones are not exactly immune from attacks. There's also not a lot a drone can do in places with large amounts
of tree cover...like over a billion acres of the US.
And then even if we decide that it's worth employing things like Hellfire missiles and cluster bombs, it should be noted
that a strategy of "bomb the shit out of them" didn't work in over a decade in the Middle East. Most of the insurgent
networks in the region that were there when the war started are still there and still operating, even if their influence is
diminished they are still able to strike targets.
Just being able to bomb the shit out of someone doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to win in a conflict against
them.
Information warfare capabilities also don't guarantee success. There are always workarounds and methods that are
resistant to interception and don't require a high level of technical sophistication. Many commercial solutions can
readily be used or modified to put a communications infrastructure in place that is beyond the reach of law
enforcement or the military to have reliable access to. Again, there are dozens of non-state armed groups that are
proving this on a daily basis.
You also have to keep in mind the psychological factor. Most soldiers are ok with operating in foreign countries where
they can justify being aggressive towards the local population; they're over here, my people are back home. It's a lot
harder to digest rolling down the streets of cities in your own country and pointing guns at people you may even
know.
What do you do as a police officer or soldier when you read that soldiers opened fire into a crowd of people in your
home town and killed 15? What do you do when you've been ordered to break down the door of a neighbor that
you've known your whole life and arrest them or search their home? What do you do if you find out a member of your
own family has been working with the insurgency and you have a professional responsibility to turn them in even
knowing they face, at best, a long prison sentence and at worst potential execution? What do you do when your
friends, family, and community start shunning you as a symbol of a system that they're starting to see more and
more as oppressive and unjust?
"People couldn't organize on that scale!"
This is generally true. Even with the networked communications technologies that we have it's likely ideological and
methodological differences would prevent a mass army of a million or more from acting in concert.
In many ways, that's part of what would make an insurrection difficult to deal with. Atomized groups of people, some
as small as five or six, would be a nightmare to deal with because you have to take each group of fighters on its own.
A large network can be brought down by attacking its control nodes, communication channels, and key figures.
Hundreds of small groups made up of five to twenty people all acting on their own initiative with different goals,
values, and methods of operation is a completely different scenario and a logistical nightmare. It's a game of whack-
a-mole with ten thousand holes and one hammer. Lack of coordination means even if you manage to destroy,
infiltrate, or otherwise compromise one group you have at best removed a dozen fighters from the map. Attacks
would be random and spontaneous, giving you little to no warning and no ability to effectively preempt an attack.
Negotiation isn't really an option either. Deals you cut with one group won't necessarily be honored by another and
while you can leverage and create rivalries between the groups to a certain extent you can only do this by
acknowledging some level of control and legitimacy that they possess. You have to give them some kind of legitimacy
if you want to talk to them, the very act of talking says "You are worth talking to." And there are hundreds, if not
thousands, of these groups.
You are, in effect, trying to herd cats who not only have no interest in listening to you but are actively dedicated to
frustrating your efforts and who greatly outnumber you in an environment that prevents the use of the tools that your
resources are optimized to employ.
Would it be bad? Definitely. Casualties would be extremely high on all sides. That's not a scenario I would ever want
to see play out. It would be a long, drawn out war of attrition that the actual US government couldn't effectively win.
Think about the Syrian Civil War or The Troubles in Northern Ireland or the Soviet-Afghan War in Afghanistan. That's
what it would be.
I appreciate the very thorough writeup, but even in your hypothetical scenario, the government's resources and
organization would easily defeat a ragtag group of unorganized militias. Again, they could put down a rebellion
without losing a single life. They are working with weapons and technology that are completely beyond the reach of
average Americans.
It's delusional to think otherwise.
[–] jayceh 7 points 3 hours ago
The governments resources and organization rely completely on that group that would rebel in that case. Their
supply lines wouldn't exist, and that's including his hypothetical case of all military and LEO's being 100% on the
government side.
Bingo. It’s not about “I shoot you, you shoot me”. There are A LOT of logistics when it comes to war, and this is
coming from someone who has never been to war, it’s common knowledge at this point.
So you must be ok with extremely high numbers of innocent bystander casualties because there is absolutely no
way the military takes out every last militia member and not lose a single soldier without leveling literally everything
in sight right out of the gate. We could have a debate here if you had realistic expectations but to so boldly claim
that not a single life would be lost on the military’s side is sheer and quite honestly dangerous ignorance
So you must be ok with extremely high numbers of innocent bystander casualties

You know that's not what I said, don't disingenuously put words into my mouth.
because there is absolutely no way the military takes out every last militia member and not lose a single
soldier without leveling literally everything in sight right out of the gate.
Well you bring up the possibility of 2 million soldiers and law enforcement officials going to war against the
public. You think they wouldn't use any means necessary to crush the rebellion while protecting their own lives?
We could have a debate here if you had realistic expectations but to so boldly claim that not a single life
would be lost on the military’s side is sheer and quite honestly dangerous ignorance
The fact is that our military apparatus is far too large for an armed civilian uprising to have any real success.
Many, many, many more civilians would die than military/police, and they'd come out on top.
What I'm saying is your scenario is unrealistic. We're too far gone from overthrowing our government using our
own arms. It may be unfortunate, but it's the truth.

When they are facing an individual, sure. When facing even 1% of the US population (over 3 million people), not a
chance.
Lmfao. Get real. Not only will there never be an organized militia of 3 million people going against the federal
government, but that wouldn't do shit against the apparatus of the military and its resources.
I can't help but feel like so many pro-2A stances come from people wanting to be the hero in a situation. Mass
shooting? I wanna be able to take down the shooter! Tyrannous government? I wanna be able to take them on!
It's a delusion rooted in egotism. Be realistic. When the Bill of Rights was written, citizens could have stood up to the
government with relative ease.
2019?
Lol.
The vietnamese stood up the the US, as have the afghanis

[–] dmedtheboss 0 points 3 hours ago
How do people not understand that guerilla warfare of the 70s and late 20th century is a far cry from the
surveillance capabilities and drone warfare of the present day? And what jungles/mountains are American rebels
gonna hide in? We don't have the geography to mount a guerrila campaign, unless you base our entire efforts
out of the Rocky Mountains.
Delusion all the way down. I'll take my downvotes for being realistic.

[–] Numphyyy -2 points 4 hours ago
Dude yeah cause we just organize into a militia EZ Clap

Vietnamese farmers did it

[–] EmotionalSupportDogg 6 points 5 hours ago
No, you would get killed for sure, but in other people’s hands, maybe not.
[–] Numphyyy -4 points 4 hours ago
Nice meme dude

[–] factorplayer -31 points 5 hours ago
It’s about raising a militia quickly, something a new country would be concerned with. The tyrannical government part
was a fever dream added for manipulative purposes - it’s totally unfeasible as the government has many other tools
at its disposal other than violence.

[–] Undying4n42k1 9 points 5 hours ago
Those other tools would shock the nation moreso. If that's the route the government takes, they will lose in the eyes
of the people.
[–] TheBahamaLlama -34 points 5 hours ago
True, but if our forefathers had any insight to where firearm technology would develop into then I think they would
second guess that amendment. It's a redundant amendment on the basis for which it was written due to our military
size yet it's the only ground gun advocates have to stand on.
When the amendment was written, individual citizens owned warships loaded down with cannons. One man and a
small crew could raze a town. The founding fathers knew very well that citizens could easily make bombs with black
powder yet still supported the idea of military arms in the hands of civilians.
[–] ilkhan2016 10 points 5 hours ago
True, but if our forefathers had any insight to where speach technology would develop into then I think they would
second guess that amendment. It's a redundant amendment on the basis for which it was written due to our free
press's size yet it's the only ground free press advocates have to stand on.
tbh reading twitter for 2 seconds would make me agree with you.
[–] aedroogo 14 points 5 hours ago
You know Benjamin Franklin was a forefather, right? You really don’t think they understood the concept of advancing
technology?
No. The purpose was to put the people on equal footing with their opposition.
[–] Undercover_Mop 9 points 4 hours ago
They knew exactly what firearm technology would develop into. That’s why the term “arms” is used instead of musket
or cannon.
True, but if our forefathers had any insight to where firearm technology would develop into then I think they would
second guess that amendment.
They were aware of this.
[deleted]
[–] banksharoo -10 points 5 hours ago
Yeah, we here in europe are kneedeep in tyrannical governments.

[–] Miznat 5 points 3 hours ago
There have been several examples in the past 30 to 50 years absolutely.

[–] banksharoo 0 points 1 hour ago
Like what? None are in the EU. And none that have insane gun laws. I really don't know how to break this to gun-
crazy americans, but:
You have less of a democracy than you should have with your nice gun laws that "should" assure you that democracy.
[–] Miznat 2 points 45 minutes ago
Well, where would like to start? Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy/Spain from within the last 75 years. Former Yugoslavia
and the Balkans. There are still peacekeepers there.
UK is imprisoning people for tweets and facebook posts it deems offensive, there would be a war in the US over that.
Hell, Germany hasn't even been one country all that long. The Fall of the Steel Curtain saw several oppressive
regimes fall. Ukraine was invaded by Russia and no one did shit to stop it less than 5 years ago.
This period of history is the exception, not the norm. I would like to keep it that way here in America.
[–] banksharoo 1 point 19 minutes ago
First you said 30 to 50 years. Now you are talking about 75 years ago. That is ridiculous.
But maybe I should have been more precise: Nations that are in the EU (and most of them have similar gun-laws) do
not have tyrannical regimes.
Although I am not a fan of current UK-politics you are greatly exaggerating. Nobody is being imprisoned for tweets
and facebook posts there. I suppose the US would be in war over a great many things that is happening all over the
world if business-interests are involved but the people of america do not really seem to care for the principles that
have been set by their founding fathers.
I do not want any dick swinging contest about what side of the pont is more liberal or progressive. But the simple fact
is that there is less gun crime over here, better healthcare, in most cases even a much better working and modern
democracy.
Germany has been one nation since January 1st 1871. And it has had the same name since May 1949. How is that
important? How is the Iron Curtain important if we are talking about gun-laws and how they help topple a tyrannical
regime? And what the hell has Russia invading Ukraine to do with all this? Do you really think Russia and Ukraine are
the same as France and Germany?
And of course nobody did shit to stop it. Why would any european start a fucking war about that? This continent has
experienced two world wars in ways that no american can even remotely imagine. There is no way anyone here would
start a war over Putin pissing off the Ukranians.
I also do not understand what kind of exception you are talking about. Do you really think american is that much
more special than other places? We are all the same. Just your gun-laws are shit. There is also a lot of things that are
worse in the EU but it is not that there are tyrannical regimes.
[–] Perjunkie 60 points 5 hours ago
How do you think this will affect African Americans who make up 25% of gun owners in the midst of already tense
police/government relations?
[–] mjohnsimon 4 points 2 hours ago
I don't even own a gun, and I don't think I ever will (and I'm stupidly law abiding), but when you have an increasingly
militarized police force taking our rights and innocent lives almost on a daily basis, and an orange cheeto monster as
president constantly praising dictators and then "joking" around saying that he will become president for life and
threatening political opponents and minorities with rhetorics of violence, and censorship, it's no wonder people would
never give up their arms willingly.
[–] bullhorn13 6 points 2 hours ago
At the store/range I work at, they are buying in droves and getting carry permits in increasing numbers. We're
making lots of new friends!
[–] pfabs 66 points 5 hours ago
Hi Congressman O'Rourke, I served 6 years in the Army and was never issued an AR-15. Can you tell me what
battlefield AR-15's are being used on and why I wasn't issued one?
[–] scornucopia 10 points 3 hours ago
Congressman O'Rourke
He holds no elected office. He left the House to run for the Senate and lost.
[–] abeardedblacksmith 6 points 2 hours ago
I didn't care for him from the start, but after this AMA, I think Shithead or Fuck Face is his official title now.
[–] watstherate 121 points 5 hours ago
If Americans will comply with the law why do we even need to take their guns away?
Exactly this. Seems like the solution to the problem is to just make killing illegal!
[–] griffiorhs 127 points 5 hours ago
“Will comply with the law” yeah. Just like when alcohol was abolished, or how no one ever has cannabis in their
possession.
Genius way of thinking.
[–] anothernic 5 points 5 hours ago
Well, he can disarm the law abiding citizenry, so that only cops, the military and criminals will be well armed. It will
solve all of the gunviolence issues, which are predominately committed with handguns unrelated to mass shootings
involving rifles (less than 10% a year of the ~11k homicides).
Next we can stop opium addiction by making it illegal. Wait...
[–] scornucopia 2 points 3 hours ago
Genius
What an odd way to spell "moronic" ;-)
[–] Undying4n42k1 2 points 5 hours ago
Maybe he should read that book he wrote.

There you go. Make felons out of otherwise law abiding gun owners. That's a good way to deal with the incarceration
problem in this country.
Replace 'guns' with 'drugs' and you've got the war on drugs. How has the war on drugs, which Beto wants to end,
worked out? Lots of felons, and drugs have only gotten cheaper, more powerful and easier to get.
so you, as a 2A proponent, believe all guns should be legal, correct? so you also must feel that all drugs should be
legal. or do you think that reasonable drugs, like weed, should be legal, while more dangerous drugs, like heroin,
should be banned. is it not sensible to make assault-style weapons illegal, while leaving practical weapons legal? also,
by banning assault-style weapons, you're not going to make them cheaper, more powerful, and easier to get, so
that's a pretty piss-poor comparison.
so you, as a 2A proponent, believe all guns should be legal, correct?

Yes.
so you also must feel that all drugs should be legal.

Yes. People should have the freedom to put whatever they want in themselves. Society can encourage them to not do
that, but it shouldn't be illegal. Hell, even Beto is on board with that.
or do you think that reasonable drugs, like weed, should be legal, while more dangerous drugs, like heroin, should
be banned.
No. It hasn't accomplished anything but make criminals and in any case it isn't my business to decide what is and isn't
'reasonable' for someone else. If you aren't hurting someone else, you do you.
is it not sensible to make assault-style weapons illegal, while leaving practical weapons legal?
No, it isn't. I'll also point out that 'assault style' is a made up term, along with assault weapon. They're meaningless
terms invented by people who don't bother to understand the technical realities of firearms. When you use those kinds
of terms you sound as ridiculous as Ted Stevens talking about the internet. And you're making a leap here that rifles
like Ar-15s aren't practical. They are. They're used in hunting, self defense, competitive shooting and plain
entertainment at the range.
also, by banning assault-style weapons, you're not going to make them cheaper, more powerful, and easier to get,
so that's a pretty piss-poor comparison.
Yeah, the point went right over your head.

as a 2A proponent, believe all guns should be legal, correct?

Correct.
so you also must feel that all drugs should be legal.
Correct. What has outlawing heroin, cocaine, etc. accomplished? It’s use is rampant, our prisons are overflowing, and
we’ve created massive cartels with more wealth and power than a small country.
[–] abeardedblacksmith 5 points 2 hours ago
as a 2A proponent, believe all guns should be legal, correct?

Yes, 100%
so you also must feel that all drugs should be legal
Yes, 100%.
The rest of your argument is invalid, as it's based on the assumption that I'm a hypocrite
[–] Blackbirdrx7 46 points 5 hours ago
"Mandatory buyback" - just call it what it is, a nationwide CONFISCATION. Take some time to read the second
amendment. I hope you never get into any office, let alone the oval one.
[–] A1ThickNHeartyBurger 118 points 5 hours ago
I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they [...] would give it up.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
[–] stonetears4fears1984 11 points 4 hours ago
To be fair, they’re saying Come and Take It.

[–] DiscoHippo 22 points 3 hours ago
0 is technically countless
[–] PootieTangerine 4 points 3 hours ago
tbf, Everytown and Mom's Demand Action love to plant people who say they are gun owners and are desperate to give
up their guns. I just can't believe politicians eat it up.
What a pathetic justification, especially when we have the data from previous buy back programs showing how they
fail spectacularly every time they’re tried.
[–] TEX4S 2 points 3 hours ago*
Yeah I couldn’t believe he said that ...guy is no different than other politicians- full of shit.
F him
Edit:typo
[–] jeb86home 2 points 3 hours ago
It's countless because beto is an idiot and can't count higher than four
[–] mattcruise 1 point 3 hours ago
To be fair he can't count very high

[–] stuka444 0 points 3 hours ago
Na, fudds are all around us, willing to give away their rights.
[–] GoldenGrendel -20 points 5 hours ago
stfu troll
u/A1ThickNHearty u/A1_ThickandHearty u/Ronald__Dump
[–] TEX4S 1 point 1 hour ago
How is that being a troll? It’s a ridiculous claim by a politician who doesn’t know his potential constituents, more
importantly - thinks people are dumb enough to believe it. It’s insulting.
I seem to remember a certain tyrannical government trying to confiscate arms back at Lexington and Concord, did
Americans comply with the law then?
[–] drunkhugo 1 point 2 hours ago
Robert apparently didn't pay attention in his Texas history class either, because if he had, he'd remember the battle of
Gonzales.
I'll be he doesn't even remember the Alamo either
[–] TimeTravelingDog 32 points 5 hours ago
The thing that just makes me not like you is your audacity and wording that somehow what you’re saying, you say it
like everyone agrees with you. “Because we understand” no, we don’t all understand, and we all don’t agree with you.
You are an extremely unlikeable candidate and I hope you win the democratic nomination because that will secure a
liberal defeat come Election Day.
Hey Mr. O'Rourke, just wanted to give a shoutout from texas and send you a link. I think this may help you in your
policy. It is about how a gun confiscation would not work, from a tactical perspective.
This honorable patriot was in the Battle of the Black Sea, otherwise known as Black Hawk Down. Former Delta Force
operator right here in Texas. Probably has the most clear vision of how your policy would not work. Might help you
win some people over.
Good luck and focus on healthcare, not guns. You will lose that battle. Focus on a few key issues and say these are
the things you are going to focus on because these are the most important, and second term you will get to the other
issues. Don't be like everyone and have a position on everything. Too many irons in the fire and you will get burned.
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/03/28/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
[–] Donahub3 11 points 5 hours ago
Beto, why are you pushing away voters to trump. There are many people on the fence on every other issue but now
you’ve outright tainted your whole party with this. Why is this your hill vs. climate, healthcare, the Opioid crisis,
wealth disparity, foreign policy, or something else that impacts a far larger number of people per year?
[–] PracticingPatriot 1 point an hour ago
Somebody named Beto wants attention!

[–] Go_To_Bethel_And_Sin 169 points 5 hours ago

This is such a dodge it hurts.
Or previously lawful citizens become criminals. Be curious to see if prisons are donating to the cause.
I'm a tax-paying family guy with no criminal background whatsoever. The government can fuck right off though if
they want to try to take my guns away. That is an inalienable right that shall not be infringed upon.

Exactly. Not so much as a parking ticket, but hey, let's trample some rights and issue some felonies. You're due,
citizen. 3 hots and a cot.
[–] TheKingOfSiam -20 points 5 hours ago
It's true.
We are a democracy that's based on respect for the rule of law. We're not Somalia (i.e. lawless).
If we dont like laws we try and elect leaders that will change them, and we abide in the meantime.
He isnt suggesting that everyone will love every law, just that, on the whole, we will do what's required of us.
[–] jdovejr 19 points 5 hours ago
and give up our rights? you and him are delusional.

[–] Space-Panda4k 9 points 5 hours ago
Some people will turn in then ARs and AKs but the vast majority isn't going to.
This law would be a violation of the Bill of Rights the moment it would be signed into law.
[–] Mike_Facking_Jones 7 points 4 hours ago
"Shall not be infringed"

The Founding Fathers even took the time to explicitly state that for the 2nd Amendment in particular. They knew what
happens if the citizenry can't keep their government in check.
Yeah... no
[–] Sgt_Stormy 184 points 5 hours ago

Ok, but what about the ones who won't?
[–] doogles 21 points 5 hours ago
Obviously, he's going to fine them into oblivion or send other people to disarm them. Easy peasey.
[–] A1ThickNHeartyBurger 24 points 5 hours ago
In that case, I lost all my guns in an unfortunate boating accident.

You too? Wish I could remember which lake they all fell in.
[–] Luke20820 8 points 5 hours ago
I remember where mine fell. They fell in the middle of Lake Superior.
[–] Cardiff_Electric -4 points 5 hours ago*
That's cool. We'll just hold your family at gunpoint while we tear apart your house to make sure.
Edit because irony is a subtle art... I'm pointing out that this is tyranny. But sadly a realistic prospect. The ol' boating
accident idea is not going to fly when goons come for your guns.
[–] Wargician 7 points 5 hours ago
I too wish to live in the Third Reich.

Do you even hear what you're saying? How is that possibly a defensible position on the confiscation of literally
anything.
[–] Cardiff_Electric 1 point 4 hours ago
I'm pointing out what a shitty tyrannical idea it is

Ah. You should denote your sarcasm

Good luck with that.

[–] oAkimboTimbo 1 point an hour ago
You should probably add the /s because a lot of people will think you’re serious
[–] dbarnes816 3 points 5 hours ago
It is going to be difficult to ascertain who all has these guns in the first place because unless they were purchased at a
gun store, there is no record. Many of these get purchased at gun shows and on line. That is why that loop hole needs
to be closed as well. There are people that do not always comply with all laws. I speed occasionally but when I get
caught I pay the price. During the last 10 year ban on these weapons, people did not have their other guns taken
away. That is an NRA and republican talking point.
purchased at gun shows and on line

The only way to legally sell a gun without a background check or filing a 4473 is through a private sale between two
non-FFL holders....in a state that doesn't already mandate background checks for all sales. Any FFL would require a
BC at a gun show AND there are always cops walking around to run BCs for anyone who asks. A UBC would require
law enforcement presence and associated costs for any firearm transaction...and no criminal will do this.
I fear that many people really don't understand what UBCs really are or require nor what they would or wouldn't
solve.
Many people don't understand that the "gun show loophole" is not a loophole at all and was a compromise reached to
pass the Brady Bill.
Now suddenly it's a ”loophole”, and oh by the way "why won't gun owners compromise‽”
sigh
Yup. The real compromise would be to let civilians access NICS, but no...
Remember kids, todays compromise is tomorrow’s loophole.

[–] ginger_whiskers 5 points 5 hours ago
All sales from a licensed dealer are recorded. Online sales are shipped to a licensed dealer. Gun show sales are almost
always through a licensed dealer. There is no loophole for special places that dealers don't need paperwork.
Also, regarding the Assault Weapons Ban- it is true that the ban was temporary and not expanded. It was still a
decade of infringement. We didn't have our other guns taken away, but those particular guns were heavily restricted,
and that was the problem.
[–] vchalmel 2 points 5 hours ago
People usually considering the law doesn't apply to them will vote democrat.
[–] aedroogo 1 point 5 hours ago
Hmm, haven’t thought of that. But pretty sure they will anyway.
[–] nate800 1 point 4 hours ago
We'll fight back against our tyrannical government.

[–] WalterWhitesHairLine 1 point 5 hours ago
Well, then he’s been conveniently armed by the couple hundred who will.
[–] irving47 1 point 4 hours ago
Does the 2nd amendment count as law?

[–] starlinguk -27 points 5 hours ago
What do you usually do with people who break the law?

By the way, it'd be nice if people remembered the downvote button isn't a disagree button.
What do you usually do with people who break the law?

Refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law is within the rights of every citizen.
[–] MikePenceVP 2 points an hour ago
Not to mention the Constitution IS the law. Literally the highest law.
[–] Sgt_Stormy 6 points 5 hours ago
You arrest and imprison them. The lowest estimate of AR-15's in the country is around 5 million, so if you assume
that 10% of people don't comply with the law, you're talking about imprisoning half a million Americans. Beto is
sidestepping this by just repeatedly saying that everyone will comply with the law, which is a fantasy.
[–] aedroogo 8 points 5 hours ago
1. End war on drugs

2. Begin war on guns
3. ???
4. Profit
[–] AssistantToTheee 14 points 5 hours ago
What fucking world do you live in? That is the absolute purpose of the downvote button!
[–] Blackbirdrx7 2 points 5 hours ago
Ah, unfortunately the downvote button's official use is "does not contribute to the discussion" and upvote is more of a
"it keeps the conversation going" - but literally nobody uses it that way.
NO one follows that dumb rule.

Everyone down-votes comments they do not like.
[–] Blackbirdrx7 1 point 4 hours ago
That's what I said, literally nobody follows that

[–] Wargician 0 points 5 hours ago
They should. You should only down vote bad discussion, not things you don't like hearing in your safe space.
Yeah, doesn't happen.

[–] Wargician 1 point 4 hours ago
Not all the time especially in political posts, but I think its a good rule that some redditors do follow. It helps
foster discussion instead of just boring agreement all the time.

Prison
[–] logfromrenandstimpy 27 points 4 hours ago
You done fucked up Rob. You might as well drop out because you can't even pull right leaning Democrats with this
stance and to win you need to win over left leaning Republicans away from Trump. Stop wasting airtime at debates
and taking money from the people that believed in you to be a better politician.
[–] Triggerman84 192 points 5 hours ago
So will you be coming to get the assault rifles yourself, or sending soldiers and police with assault rifles to take them?
Careful, last guy that told him "Come and take it" got reported to the FBI for a death threat
It wasn't even "come and take it," it was "alright it's waiting." So basically even if you comply, jail.
Well, the "it's waiting for you" was pretty much "come and take it", but that's still considered a death threat
apparently. Was it also a death threat at Thermopylae and the Battle of Gonzales?
Soon "don't tread on me" will be considered a death threat.
[–] youreabigbiasedbaby 6 points 3 hours ago
A certain Latin phrase will get you banned on /r/politics as "threatening".

People are getting fired over having don't tread on me bumper stickers so...
[–] bmystry 3 points 4 hours ago
Sending everyone straight to jail might have it's benefits.

[–] bartManSimpson 22 points 5 hours ago
Sending the cops after someone because they said something you don't like...
Yup sounds like what a tyrant would do
[–] DecemberBurnsBlue 14 points 5 hours ago
Gotta put the Gestapo to good use.

loading...
Are you misrepresenting the quote on purpose? The initial tweet/threat was "My AR is ready for you".
[–] GunsAndCoffee1911 5 points 4 hours ago
The thing I don't think many people realize is that the people in the position to be used to take them (police and
military) are laregly pro 2A.
[–] Where_You_Want_To_Be 6 points 4 hours ago
Beto better be the first man in the stack.

[deleted]
[–] sharkalligator 133 points 5 hours ago
Right, we should just make killing people illegal. Everyone will just comply
[–] kuroagehabutterfly 16 points 5 hours ago
I mean, it worked for drugs, right?

I propose we make all death illegal. Shame on you for tripping on that root and falling down a mountain in the rain.
Your surviving family shall suffer the consequences.
[–] Bloodless_ 3 points 5 hours ago
Right, and the people who would go on psycho shooting sprees are absolutely also the type that would willingly turn in
their firearms.
[–] Master-Cough 1 point 5 hours ago
We made illegal entry illegal but a large part of the population supports it.
[–] atramentum 0 points 5 hours ago
Conversely, if killing was legal, wouldn't there be a lot more of it than there is now?
[–] postinganxiety 0 points 3 hours ago
You don’t think the majority of people comply with this law?
[–] sharkalligator 0 points 3 hours ago
You don't think the majority of gun owners aren't mentally ill people wanting to go on killing sprees?
[–] PorcupineDream 456 points 5 hours ago

You sure about that?
[–] Mexagon 51 points 5 hours ago
The audacity of this prick telling me what I need and don't need. And in regards to the Second fucking Amendment
too. Holy shit.
[–] ItsFuckingEezus 35 points 5 hours ago
What's crazy is the amount of people today who don't realize the Constitution does not grant people rights. It is there
to limit the governments actions
[–] jdovejr -7 points 5 hours ago
It’s literally called the bill of rights.

It simply enumerates rights that exist, even without the document. It doesn't give those rights, it only recognizes that
they already exist and is intended to limit infringements on those rights.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [...] are endowed [...] with certain unalienable Rights
The constitution doesnt grant these rights. It acknowledges them and removes the governments legal authority to
write laws restricting them.
[–] Sovereign_Curtis 2 points 4 hours ago
I mean it purports to do that. But turns out four pieces of paper aren't more powerful than authoritarians.
...which is why the second most important thing they could think of was the ability to protect yourself from
authoritarians with lead when paper fails.
[–] Sovereign_Curtis 2 points 2 hours ago
I agree.
People read "being necessary for the security of a free state", following the bit about a "well-regulated militia" to
mean we need a military to defend us from foreign invasion.
What it actually means is the people need to be armed and proficient in the use of arms to forestall this country
from becoming a despotate.
The country needs to be a freedom oriented state, not a state free for foreign tyranny. Free from domestic
tyranny.
[–] denshi 1 point 3 hours ago
Sadly correct.
[–] MyDArKPsNGr 4 points 5 hours ago
And did you hear now he wants the credit card companies to tell us what we can and can’t buy with their cards- he
wants the credit card companies to not let us purchase AR’s and Assult rifle ammunition with their credit cards!!
Apparently he doesn’t want the land of the free to be so free anymore!!!
[–] username0304 82 points 5 hours ago
Surely worked for the magazine ban in NJ!oh wait... Not one mag was turned in
[–] MayKinBaykin 71 points 5 hours ago
Remember when the government banned drugs and then magically no more drugs
[–] Spidaaman 28 points 5 hours ago
Has there been a time when prohibition (of anything) has ever been effective?
[–] RadioHitandRun 14 points 5 hours ago
NOPE!
[–] Spidaaman 10 points 5 hours ago
Maybe if we just try it again

[–] RadioHitandRun 5 points 4 hours ago
but the children.......Think of the children.....Think of all the millions of potential school shooters out there who need
to commit murder to sway public opinion with emotional arguments.
We haven't tried true prohibition

[–] VisceralZee 5 points 5 hours ago
Yeah, and then they rolled in the pharmaceutical drugs and everyone's now on Opiates, what a great time to be alive.
Cops kill more people(even accidentally) than terrorists do in America. Let's let that sink in. Yet we should trust the
cops with the guns? RIIIGHT.
loading...
[–] jarde 17 points 5 hours ago
One day murder will be illegal, you just watch.

[–] Ennuiandthensome 4 points 4 hours ago
Wait...Murder is illegal? Since when?!

BRB
loading...
[–] ieatallthethings 5 points 5 hours ago*
This comment alone proves he is as delusional as any nutjob or ignorant as can be. Definitely not qualified for any role
in government if he actually doesn’t understand American gun owners enough to think they would follow such a law.
He’s so wrong it’s embarrassing.
[–] ieatallthethings 6 points 5 hours ago*
Yeah this is the kind of stuff which there are many cities full of people who will start their own revolution against.
Many gun owners are open and proud about the fact that they will happily start a civil war to fight these things. Like,
anyone advocating for this stuff just reeeeally doesn’t get the mindset of many American gun owners.
where have i heard that failed rhetoric before...

Yeah this is the kind of stuff which there are many cities full of people who will start their own revolution against.
Many slave owners are open and proud about the fact that they will happily start a civil war to fight these things.
Like, anyone advocating for this stuff just reeeeally doesn’t get the mindset of many American slave owners.
still worth the fight.
[–] ieatallthethings 3 points 3 hours ago
Yeah sometimes it is worth the fight. The key difference here is that that, the battle against slavery, was a fight to
stop the violation of human rights. To fight to take guns from people is a fight for the violation of human rights. So
morally it’s the opposite.
gun ownership is in no way a human right, buddy.

Yeah it most certainly is. You can’t have a right to life without the right to own property, especially property
capable of helping you to personally defend that right to life. And on top of that, owning a gun doesn’t
necessarily threaten or violate the rights of anyone else so it’s completely intolerant and unethical to try to
prevent someone else from doing so.

[–] True_Zume 3 points 5 hours ago
Isn't it illegal to drive drunk? You didn't comply. You're never going to be elected to anything again Robert Francis
[–] Swimmerkid97 5 points 5 hours ago
If only it actually worked like that, life would be a lot easier

[–] grackrite 6 points 5 hours ago
We should make murder illegal then. Problem solved.

[–] AOCDid911 26 points 5 hours ago
Beta Beto BTFO

[–] iia -22 points 5 hours ago
You sound triggered.

[–] Mexagon 7 points 5 hours ago
Sorry bud it doesn't work when you kids try it.

[–] Ed_G_ShitlordEsquire 5 points 5 hours ago
No that would be you.

Now now, we can all unite in hating Robert O’Rourke.

[–] ndphillips 3 points 5 hours ago
Gun owners are law abiding, so I’d assume so.

[–] WooPig45 -3 points 5 hours ago
The Socialist clowns have ZERO grasp of reality.

[–] RetinalFlashes -39 points 5 hours ago
He literally said he's met gun owners who will. There's already been a few in Texas who have done so.
[–] CaptainFalcon9 13 points 5 hours ago
Well I've lived in Texas for over 30 years. And I've never met a single one who would. Could be, just maybe, the
people who show up to hear a Democrat give a speech in Texas aren't representative of the majority of the state?
Riiiiiiiiiight.
“Come and take it” doesn’t mean what Robert thinks it does.
[–] good-afternoon 21 points 5 hours ago
that's purely anecdotal

A few gun owners...there are over 300 MILLION firearms in the U.S.
[–] poorlyplanned 5 points 4 hours ago
Most of which were lost in a tragic boating accident two days before the reporting requirements kicked in. Gun owners
just don't want to file insurance claims and be considered a problem, so they just quietly mourn the loss...
[–] Slim_Charles 2 points 4 hours ago
I'm sure his staff scrounged up a few bootlickers to blow smoke up his ass. Most gun owners will not comply.
Pack it up boys! A guy in Texas said he would!
[–] Theorymeltfool1 1 point 5 hours ago
Zero evidence.
[–] HeyiLikeThingsToo -4 points 5 hours ago
I'm not anti-2a, I'm a gun owner, BUT.....I thought the argument is usually MOST gun owners are RESPONSIBLE gun
owners, and responsible gun owners follow the law.
You're still going to have to come and take them, and you're going to have to do that to a whole lot of people.
[–] Fuck_A_Suck 63 points 5 hours ago
What differentiates an AR 15 (semi auto .223) from a ruger mini 14 (semi auto .223)
Ghost gun
.30 caliber clip
30 bullets in half a second
shoulder thing that goes up
heat seeking incendiary rounds
chainsaw bayonet
The difference is obvious, just watch the news and above all don't do any research!
I didn't believe one of the gun grabbers really said "heat seeking incendiary rounds" until I saw that clip myself. Wow
these people are so ignorant of something they claim to be passionate about and are writing laws for
[–] richmomz 2 points 52 minutes ago
chainsaw bayonet
I need to get me one of those.
[–] Colonel_Chestbridge1 1 point 14 minutes ago
Hahahahahahahah legendary
AR-15s are black and scary. Way more deadly /s

Godamnit man, I Spit out my coffee

[–] vatnik9000 2 points an hour ago*
Hillary would've called them the "superpredators" of the guns.

That is precisely why I tell everyone to get an AR-10 instead. Its 5 ARs safer.
[–] LeonJenkins 7 points 5 hours ago
Mini 14s and Mini 30s are less scary looking than the AR 15 and AK47.
[–] drunkhugo 4 points 5 hours ago
One's black and scary.

[–] DeadassBdeadassB 3 points 3 hours ago
Hey don’t tell them that😂😂 lol

More people know about the AR than the Mini-14. Of course though the mini will be under this ban and confiscation,
don't fool yourself.
[–] booskerguy14 5 points 3 hours ago
But I was told they wouldn’t take away hunting rifles! It’s wood, and doesn’t have any scary spooky AR features, so it
must be excluded because it’s clearly for hunting, RIGHT!?
[–] GeraldBWilsonJr 1 point 2 hours ago
A rod in the gas system I guess

[–] Hammermj88 31 points 4 hours ago*
So the answer is “Americans will comply with the law.”? A fictitious law that is unconstitutional right now and would
require a complete overhaul of the US Constitution? That’ll work out as well as gun free zones and the war on drugs
have.
Just to be clear: This is the most asinine, anti-American thing I have ever heard proposed.
Edit: it’s a “fictitious” law. Not a “fictions” one.
[–] shanulu 73 points 5 hours ago

The law is '...shall not be infringed.'
You must be one of those Nazis that I've been hearing so much about!
[–] rsnydernh 1 point 2 hours ago
Na na na na na na na... nazi??!?!???
[–] shanulu 2 points 4 hours ago
pikachu face
[–] clitdragon -1 points 2 hours ago
Actually, the law is whatever the Supreme Court decides "shall not be infringed" means.
[–] shanulu 1 point 2 hours ago
Then we don't live under the rule of law now do we?

The law is that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the law means. So, if we didn't live by that, then we
would not be living under the rule of law.
[–] shanulu 1 point 2 hours ago
If words can be interpreted differently, then there is no rule of law, just rule of interpreters. In this case, Mr O'Rourke
is interpreting 'shall not be infringed' as 'shall be infringed.'
2+2 = 5.
[–] clitdragon 2 points 2 hours ago
Words are always interpreted differently. That's a universal rule of human language. It really seems like what you're
upset about is that the law solves that problem by specifying whose interpretation matters, and it's not you.
[–] shanulu 1 point an hour ago
Why would I be upset? I am incredulous that people have suggested a mandatory gun confiscation and it has
traction. Why? Because the 2nd amendment cannot be any clearer. Just like the 4th, but a lot of good that does.
The State has all the time in the world to erode the protections of our rights. If they can't get it today, they'll try
again later.
Remember the State does not give you your rights, they are yours naturally, or god given if you believe, or
inherently from being a human. Regardless, you and I might not feel the same on most issues but I think we would
be on the same side of the only political spectrum that matters: Tyranny vs Freedom. What Mr O'Rourke wants
(knowingly or not) is bolstering the tyranny we already have in this country.
[–] chuck_of_death 34 points 5 hours ago
Why are police carrying weapons meant to kill people on a battlefield? As a sign of good faith will you require the
destructions of all assault weapons in use by US law enforcement?
Oh no no no silly, because if the bourgeois like Beto get worried about us common folk, they can just call upon their
overly militarized police to “take care” of us.
Laughs in Hong Kong

One of my favorites “AR’s are made to kill as many people as possible!!!!”

Oh, then why the fuck do police have them?
[–] GarrettSLB 50 points 5 hours ago
Buy BACK? Who bought their guns from the government to begin with?
There's a few dudes with pilfered M4's in their basements chuckling

[–] DeathByFarts 1 point an hour ago
Pilfered suggests they were never bought.

I like the meme going around about how even if we'd consider selling guns to the government, they failed their
background check
[–] Gnomish8 3 points 2 hours ago*
Plus, in my state, we have mandatory background checks for all sales. I'm pretty sure the US Fed Gov will fail, so I
legally can't let them buy them. Shame.
[–] BulgingDisk 71 points 5 hours ago
You would fail the background check to buy my AR15. You have a criminal past and I am failing you on these grounds.
My AR15 stays with me thanks.
[–] chandlerinyemen 2 points 4 hours ago
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2019/sep/18/facebook-posts/would-beto-orourkes-criminal-history-
prevent-him-p/
[–] slayer_ornstein -33 points 4 hours ago
Hurt Durr my guns, don't tread on me!

[–] rebelolemiss 6 points 2 hours ago
Enjoy licking the shit off of Beto’s goose stepping boots.

[–] oAkimboTimbo 2 points an hour ago
Some people actually care about their rights. Good for you that you’d happily let your government make you their
bottom bitch
So AR-10s are still cool right?

[–] Fuck_A_Suck 76 points 5 hours ago
10 is less than 15 so must be less dangerous

[–] TheAngriestRussian 29 points 5 hours ago
I will stick to my M1A1 then.

Perfect. Good thing I picked up another ar-10 lower the other day. Want to make sure I'm compliant!
5 less dangerous to be precise

[–] JMS1991 3 points 33 minutes ago
It's a whole 5 AR's less dangerous!

[–] FTC_Publik 2 points an hour ago
What if I just shoot slowly?

[–] DeerAndBeer 29 points 5 hours ago
As long as it's not black and scary. I recommend a nice FDE

[–] LostPrude 14 points 5 hours ago
Only robin egg blue AR10s are allowed in these parts.

[–] fatpad00 5 points 4 hours ago
Walther sells subcompact pistols is purple and tiffany blue. Because why shouldnt your EDC match your shoes?
[–] knxdude1 2 points 4 hours ago
I’d rock that lol

Ssshhh, no one tell O'Rourke about the Ruger Mini 14

308 is smaller than 556, so yeah that should be fine. It’s the 762 that I’m so afraid of. 50 sounds small enough for
me.
loading...
[–] AlphaTangoFoxtrt 2 points 2 hours ago
Paddy, get the AR-18s....

Tiocfaidh Ar la!
Obviously! They are 5 whole ARs safer!

[–] IronOreBetty 89 points 5 hours ago
What consequence do you propose for non-compliance?

I wish him luck in collecting them in TN.

[–] NPC808 13 points 5 hours ago
He wouldn't make it out of Texas

He won't make it out of the primary by saying ignorant stuff like he is. There's not a chance in hell I'm voting for him.
[–] poo_finger 4 points 5 hours ago
KY checking in. Same.

[–] Fourthousandfour 2 points 3 hours ago
Lad, he wouldn't make it out of Delaware and you can cross the state in 2 hours
[–] BASK_IN_MY_FART 1 point 26 minutes ago
AZ here, nobody will voluntarily "sell back" shit

[–] booskerguy14 1 point 3 hours ago
Oh you do not want to know the answer to that

[–] factorplayer -4 points 5 hours ago
Tax penalties
Sorry, I lost all my guns in a boating accident tomorrow.

[–] keetojm 49 points 5 hours ago
Yes cause all the criminals in Chicago have just turned in their weapons.
[–] Uyghur1 0 points 3 hours ago
Remember that time a guy in Chicago had an AT-4 and the police had to shut down like 8 blocks looking for it? Lmao
[–] TJIC1 90 points 5 hours ago

I won't.
MOLON LABE, bitch.
[–] Loweeel -11 points 5 hours ago
So if illegal immigrants don't comply with immigration law, that means we should keep them out because they won't
follow our gun laws.
[–] ThisIsntAnAltAccount 10 points 4 hours ago
It means we should round them up and deport them because they don't follow our immigration laws.
[–] cb022511 -8 points 4 hours ago
MORON LABIA BORTHER!

[–] DohRayMeme -12 points 4 hours ago
You know its a funny thing about the people who said "Come, Take" to the Persians. The Persians came and took.
[–] Erowidx 7 points 4 hours ago
That doesn’t change the sentiment one bit.

μολὼν fucking λαβέ
Molon labe was said to an invading foreign army by another army. It's a badass statement but has nothing to do with
gun control. If you want to defend your country with high powered weapons, join the military. Most likely you'll be
used as a pawn in some policy failure of a war- but there is a chance we could get invaded I suppose. Then yeah,
absolutely. Use the guns.
Saying Molon Labe when we are discussing regulation of private ownership of military weapons is a bit dramatic, even
for the ammosexuals.
[–] Erowidx 12 points 4 hours ago
I just love how you talk down to us as though we don’t know what it means or the history behind it.
Scroll back up and look at how many downvotes Robert Francis received.
The sentiment stands.
μολὼν λαβέ
Downvotes simply measure democratic sentiment. Broadly 70% of people want some form of gun control.
Attitudes like your just drive more people to the left.
[–] istural 1 point 2 hours ago
Agreed. all guns should be banned. As should the 4th and the first.
[–] DohRayMeme 1 point 2 hours ago
Your hyperbole just drives more people to the left.

[–] istural 1 point an hour ago
Funnily enough im a centrist and voted for Hillary, so that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
[–] Yahooshit 29 points 5 hours ago
The AR-15 was not designed for war. Do you or anyone on your campaign ever fucking look into the bullshit you spew
from your mouth? This is why you won’t make it to the White House. You realize that there are guns like the Ruger
Mini-15 that shoot the same fucking caliber round, semi-automatically, just like an AR-15? You do realize that semi-
auto is the only thing legal in the US? You do realize that pistols are semi-auto? God, my day is so much better when
I don’t have to see your name or read you’re incredibly ignorant comments being made. The fact that people believe
what you’re saying without doing research drives me insane.
[–] kcg5 3 points 4 hours ago
Depending on the state, automatics are legal. There are also many glock 18s out there, which is an automatic
handgun
Automatic handgun =/= fully automatic.

Automatic just differentiates it from single action.
[–] kcg5 0 points an hour ago
The 18 is fully automatic. I’m aware of single/double action

[–] rebelolemiss 1 point 32 minutes ago
I stand corrected.
However, you can’t buy one.
[–] Gawd_Awful -1 points 4 hours ago
The AR-15 was not designed for war

That may be the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S.
Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg)
when loaded with a 20-round magazine. The 5.56mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500
yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the
wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge. This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down
version of the ArmaLite AR-10, called ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
[–] attempt_no23 -1 points 4 hours ago
I don't give many shits about O'Rourke and his words but the fact that I can hear the Southern accents on plenty of
these comments and no one seems to know the difference between you're and your makes this thread way too
entertaining and unrelatable. YOU'RE the 5th one I have seen to misspell and will be the first to keep Trump ruining
this country. Congrats.
[–] Yahooshit 1 point an hour ago
Ok, clearly I made a mistake but you can see me use the proper word several times in several instances, proving I
know how to use the word in the right context. I’m sorry that your intuition is so diluted that you can’t make a simple
deduction. But to answer your comment, no, I won’t be voting for Trump, just like I didn’t last time. I completely
understand your username, though!
[–] attempt_no23 1 point 23 minutes ago
Yeah? It has to do with baking. I'm sure you made that simple deduction, though.
[–] Nova_Physika 150 points 5 hours ago

(Coughs in criminal)
[–] PurplelinkPL 26 points 5 hours ago
He’s really making it sound very Dictator up in here

[–] shawn77 4 points 5 hours ago
1. An American commit a mass shooting (breaks the law)

2. Proposes taking all those guns away
3. Americans will comply with the law - Also, don't look at #1
Coughs in Bill of Rights

[–] theboddha 1 point 4 hours ago
"Americans will comply with the law"

Says the burglar
[–] caffeine_iv_stat 4 points 5 hours ago
THIS!!!!!
[–] Sir_Encerwal 1 point 5 hours ago
Are you telling me you would download a car?

[–] Nova_Physika 1 point 5 hours ago
Huh
[–] dominion1080 -5 points 5 hours ago
Criminal? Lmao. Every ignorant jackass would suddenly become a criminal then. NOONE NEEDS A FUCKING ASSAULT
RIFLE. Shotguns are most ideal for home defense, and rifles are best for hunting. Handguns are fine for defense as
well. ARs are just bought to show off and for dick measuring contests.
[–] HellPhish89 3 points 4 hours ago
Who the fuck are you to decide what anyone needs?

Also.. what is it with anti-gun morons and their obsession with dicks? Its like they have no legitimate arguments
because they have no clue what they're talking about.
[–] Fishman95 3 points 4 hours ago*
No one needs free speech. No one needs any of the rights that the bill of rights protects the government from taking.
Lol. You're comparing weapons of war with free speech. Reach much?
Seeing as the BoR covers weapons of war so we can defend ourselves from bootlickers like you..
[–] dominion1080 0 points 3 hours ago
No, it covers a well regulated militia against invaders. But reading comprehension isn't imprtant when the NRAs
brainwashed masses are concerned.
Lol Its saying that because a large group of skilled marksmen is necessary, the individual right to owning and
bearing firearms cannot be stopped. Try again. Its like you failed English, Civics, and American History.
[–] rebelolemiss 1 point 2 hours ago
Well regulated militia, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep, etc etc
The right to bear arms and the right to free speech are VERY different, however, nobody needs either one. Your
argument against arms is that nobody needs them. This is an invalid argument.
I said noone needs assault rifles. Hunting rifles are fine for there purposes. Shotguns and pistols are fine for defense.
I never said that noone has a right to guns period. So many just twist an antiquated amendment to suit their needs.
Again, not needing something is not, alone, a valid argument for prohibition
The amendment guarantees the right to "arms", not hunting rifles, not personal defense weapons. Arms. You are
twisting the amendment to mean "guns for everyday activities" when the amendment really protects arms of any
kind relevant to the "security of a free state"
[–] dominion1080 1 point 25 minutes ago
I'm not advocating for gun prohibition.


WeAPOnS oF WaR
You realize an AR is just a rifle, right?

Technically. But a semi automatic rifle with a large clip is a bit different than an actual hunting rifle.
People hunt hogs frequently with AR pattern rifles in O'Rourke's home state.
large clip
There goes your credibility.
[–] RetinalFlashes -18 points 5 hours ago
You believe those who own AR15s are criminals? So point proven. They don't need to own them.
They are pointing out that the people who are likely to use them for crime in the first place are the least likely to turn
them in because possession is illegal.
Also let's say youre a criminal today who isn't supposed to have a gun today. You gonna turn that in when they pass
some new law?
[–] Hotal 0 points 5 hours ago
So are they going to comply with the law and hand over their guns, or are they criminals? You have to pick one.
[–] High-Def-Piss-Jugs 30 points 5 hours ago
What about handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles, all of which are used by the military?
[–] mintscape 4 points 3 hours ago
Give him time, he wants to confiscate them also but has to build up to that by taking the "scary" guns first.
Fuck. I'm about to get a flamethrower too

[–] Angry__Bull 1 point 2 hours ago
Ironically that is not a firearm

No we won't. How fucking naive can you be? Your "plan" would lead to violence and chaos. You are a hilarious joke
(and polling at one percent). You'll never be president, but thanks for poisoning the well on gun control.
[–] fullthrottle13 72 points 5 hours ago
Americans will definitely not comply. Where will you get the money for a buyback? Jesus man.
Can confirm. I will not be complying.

[–] DJPiddles 10 points 5 hours ago
the (((Federal Reserve))) will just print more, giving them enough to purchase the firearms and reducing the buying
power of the rest of the American public's dollars by another 5%.
Same place we got our "free healthcare" from.

[–] GMT-DKT -13 points 5 hours ago
You should look into Australia's mandatory buyback program. The citizens there were just as against it as some here
are. But, the politicians went through with it. They ruined their careers, but decades later people are really glad that it
happened.
[–] TheDownDiggity 18 points 5 hours ago
Except that it had zero effect on gun crime, and increased violent crime.
It also had less than a 20% compliance rate...
[–] LostPrude 10 points 5 hours ago
Come on, just let me put the tip in.

I'd rather preserve my rights, thanks.
Australians were never as hardcore about guns as Americans are. They may have grumbled and complained, but
Americans will fight and die.
[–] ShadA612 12 points 5 hours ago
Just because YOU don’t think there is a reason for someone to own an AR does not mean that there is not a valid
reason for someone else. This is pure arrogance to think that you know what is best for me and my situation. I am not
a violent person and keep my weapons secure from anyone who would misuse them.
More people die in speed related car accidents than from gun violence. I do not see you saying, “why do we need a
car that goes over 75mph?” When you are consistent in your views and show me that you are actually trying to keep
people safe, then I might have some respect for your position.
BTW, thanks for at least saying what we know all of you on the stage were thinking at the town hall. I at least give
you an honesty point for that.
Omg dude don't give him ideas.

[–] ShadA612 1 point 4 hours ago
Right?!?!
[–] iammaxhailme 15 points 5 hours ago
The ones that comply with the law are not the ones we're worrying about
[–] imtotallyhighritemow 2 points an hour ago
There are 20k people in anytown USA with 30-50 local cops, in a state with 100 state troopers, and 1500 national
guard.
Do the math, in that population of 20k there are likely 5-10k guns and at least 10% of those gun owners might die to
defend their right to keep their guns. Americans don't comply with non constitutional laws, so your going to have
Fallujah on your hands, except in every american suburb... and guess what, unlike the middle east we won't have
sectarian rifts, there will be unity under a single banner one in which you put up. So you say, US citizenry couldn't
compete with the US military, but as president you would be the first to use the US military on the civilians. Is that
your game plan? If so, why would you do better here than in the middle east? Do you even have those kinda military
chops?
Making all the obsessive compulsive mommies of the world 'feel safe' is no reason to start and lose a civil war. You
know that, you know this is a fart in the wind type idea, but you fan the flames of a base for the purposes of stoking
votes knowing you never would and never could and wouldn't dream.
[–] PinheadLarry2323 3 points 4 hours ago
You’re not getting my guns.

Historically, buybacks have never worked, and they never will. During New Zealand’s mandatory buyback, they
received 10,000 out of 1.5 million guns. Does that sound like a success to you?
I think it’s more important to look at road accidents and more importantly - DUI/DWI which I’m sure you know quite a
bit about, Robert
[–] ReeingLib 39 points 5 hours ago
Beto still thinks that 'AR' in the AR-15 stands for 'Assault Rifle' -- change my mind
[–] Nillion 15 points 5 hours ago
Why do you feel so giddy in sending armed men to otherwise law abiding people’s houses to threaten and potentially
kill them?
No matter if your favorite candidate bleeds red or blue that war machine will keep turning.
[–] N0_Tr3bbl3 21 points 5 hours ago*

Fuck you, no we won't
Edit:
We didn't comply when King George sent people to confiscate "weapons of war."
We shot those asshats in the face and declared war on the King.
[–] _befree_ 14 points 5 hours ago
Yea pretty much every one I know (and almost everyone I know has guns) would end up in a firefight to keep their
property. Good luck convincing cops to go to war with citizens.
[–] WantonWasabi 3 points 4 hours ago
This thread almost had me throw my hat in the ring for you... Until I got to this post. For starters the AR-15 is
significantly different from the military's M-4 Carbine in that the AR-15 is not fully automatic and is therefore not an
assault rifle. It is also longer than then M-4 to meet minimum barrel length requirements for civilian weapons.
That not withstanding, the wording of the 2nd amendment is clear.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed."
It isn't about hunting, "fun", or even self defense. The 2nd amendment is about preserving a civilian militia capable of
defending their rights and freedoms from a potential tyrannical government. In that regard, we are supposed to have
weapons that can kill people on the battlefield. That's the whole point.
You are right on one point, law abiding Americans will comply with the law. And the highest law of the land is the
Constitution, not whatever law you come up with.
[–] lumaga 22 points 5 hours ago
The Second Amendment is part of the supreme law of the land. I think I'll follow that.
[–] DeleriousLlama -6 points 4 hours ago
You are limited in your right to own many kinds of weapons. Whether the line is drawn before or after AR-15s is not
an existential question. You're being hyperbolic.
The line is drawn to include all arms relevant to "the security of a free state"
[–] DeleriousLlama -2 points 3 hours ago
Then why can't we own rocket launchers? Surely allowing civilians to own rocket launchers helps protect themselves
from a tyrannical government. That's literally the point! If you can't own weapons that will help you fight against the
US military, civilians literally CAN'T protect the republic.
We literally can own rocket launchers. For someone who argues about arms laws, you dont know them very well.
Flamethrowers are legal in 49 or maybe all 50 states and will ship directly to your door with no FFL necessary. I don't
recall those being used in mass killing events, even though literally any adult could purchase one if they have a credit
card with available funds.
[–] DeleriousLlama 0 points 3 hours ago
Did a little digging. Seems you need a special permit that can take up to a year to get for EACH one you own, and the
legality of the ammunition is also questionable, as it seems it's illegal to own explosives. So you can have a rocket
launcher, but not rockets that explode? I'm a bit sketchy on the details, but from what I've gleaned, your ability to
own military grade equipment is very limited.
special permit. Up to a year to get.

Ive done the process. I know very well how it works.
it's illegal to own explosives
False. I have dozens of pounds of black powder and smokeless powder. Binary explosives are also available over the
counter.
I know people who own mortars, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, anti tank rifles, etc
[–] DeleriousLlama 1 point 3 hours ago
1) To establish a way that I'm different from candidate O'rourke, I am basically okay with what you're describing
insofar as, while I'm pro gun control, I'm fine with gun ownership so long as firearms are registered and owners
are licensed/trained. I recognize that many gun owners view that as oppression so long as the weapons do not
leave their property, but I believe that, given that the purpose of a weapon is to kill, this is a responsibility
concomitant to the lethality of the object owned. As such, owning military-grade equipment that is registered
doesn't bother me as much as it does other "liberals" (maybe it's because I'm Texan and my whole family owns
guns).
2) Your reply doesn't speak to the legality of ammunition, which is what I'm trying to understand. It's
meaningless to say, "I own a military-grade weapons, but military-grade ammunition is illegal." If the purpose is
the defense of the populous from an authoritarian government, then such a distinction renders that impossible.

[–] glockymcglockface 14 points 5 hours ago
Any of those people you asked deep in the south, not in a big city?
Oh I cannot wait for the day they try to take some deep woods south man’s guns. It’ll make for some really good
news coverage.

Doubt it...and when they don't?
[–] Tommy_2Tone 4 points 4 hours ago*
Americans will comply with the law. It will be a mandatory buyback of AR-15 and AK-47s, weapons designed for
war.
You're out of your fucking gourd pal if you think you are going to take anyone's firearms.
Let me say that again
You're out of your fucking gourd pal if you think you are going to take anyone's firearms.
Why would you suggest Americans comply with a law that is in itself illegal!! So your saying Americans
will comply BUT politicians WONT!
Because we understand that there's no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on
a battlefield.
THE EXACT REASON Americans need these is to defend themselves from lunatics like you who seek to strip the
American People of their Freedom!! Ask people in Hong Kong if the need AR's. Ask Venezuelan citizens ?? I challenge
you to be the first person to knock on a door and enforce your "Buy Back" AKA "Civil Rights Violation"
a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.
Does THIS look like a fucking deer hunt to you?
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/06/12/USAT/286ba641-39aa-4afe-b617-1c4d3687679d-
AFP_AFP_1HG1IN.JPG?crop=6835,3845,x0,y59&width=3200&height=1680&fit=bounds
Because to me its looks a hell of a lot like a battlefield!! Where unarmed people are fighting against their
own government for their own rights!!!
GOOD PEOPLE OF REDDIT (Left, Right and Center) Don't be fooled by this quack!! All this guy is doing is
taking a page from Trumps play book and trying to say the most outlandish things he can to get the most press
possible. Its the entire reason he's on Reddit in the 1st place. Him and the rest of his cronies, hell the entire party,
want to control you and everything you do. They dont want you with the ability to oppose anything they do. They
want you subservient. Step one in making you slaves, is taking away the ability and right to defend yourselves!!
2Aisntforhunting
ColdDeadHands
2Aisntforsport
2A-is-for-balancing-power-of-people-against-tyranical-government!
Tyranical-governement-is-run-by-politicians-who-want-to-take-your-rights-away-
like-Robbert-Francis
COMEANDTAKEIT
[–] gogojack 1 point an hour ago
COMEANDTAKEIT
Maybe you should shout it a little louder? That will make it true?
Get back to me when you celebrate your victory over the evil gubmint.
[–] TheBeardedMann 14 points 5 hours ago

I was really hoping for a legit answer to this question.
[–] noized 1 point 2 hours ago
I cracked up and stopped reading right after that sentence.

[–] When_Ducks_Attack 1 point 4 hours ago
I'm pretty sure that, in his mind, he gave you one.

Leftie as they come here, Mr. Beto, and I've used my ranch rifle (or what you call an "assault weapon,") to protect my
crops and stock for almost thirty years now. And never even once have I run amok and shot up a school or a mall or a
church or a philharmonic concert with it. Not once.
So why you wanna confiscate the tools of muh trade, huh? To be perfectly honest, my chainsaw(s) and kitchen
implements constitute a far greater threat to the life and limb of the foolhardy. . . .
(Shakes head sadly.) And to think I once sent you $$$. :(
[–] -Jeremiad- 2 points 5 hours ago
I’m a fan of yours but this is a ridiculously immature answer. I’m disappointed to see so little forethought and rational
expressed in this answer. There’s no chance this happens. Your bold stance on “taking” people’s guns will only
galvanize their resistance.
I know people who buy trigger, barrel, stick, etc. Everything but small part they need a serial number for. They buy a
block of metal with most of the part shaped to what they need to finish the gun and machine the final step.
Untraceable AR-15. And legal as long as they’re not machining that part for anyone else. They have plans on how to
hide them in unused water pipes and other parts of their property. They’re frankly pretty fucking terrifying when it
comes to guns and seem to get more and more radical as social media is taken advantage of to whip them into a
frenzy. I’m not sure how that’s dealt with, but telegraphing your intent to “take their guns” sure isn’t it.
I’m no proponent of guns, but I’m around a lot of people who are. What you expressed here seems to show a lack of
understanding or attention to the importance of why they want these weapons. They want guns to protect themselves
from the government. They see that as the fundamental reason the first amendment and that’s what they’re fighting
to protect and ready, willing, and in more cases than I’d like to know about, eager to have that fight be literal.
[–] fruitpants 9 points 4 hours ago

At least you'll be able to find work as a comedian when this President thing doesn't pan out for you.
AR-15s are not weapons of war and isn't used by military.

[–] Swan____Ronson 15 points 5 hours ago
Thank you. It amazing how many people think an AR-15 is the equivalent of a military/assault rifle. AR doesn't stand
for assault rifle.
[–] Hammermj88 1 point 3 hours ago
ArmaLite Rifle? So you mean calling a rifle an AR-15 is no different than calling a carbonated cola flavored beverage a
“Coke”?
Currently in army.
This is fact.
[–] Violent_Blue -7 points 5 hours ago
You're literally wrong. M16s

[–] YodasHutOnDagobah 6 points 5 hours ago
M16’s in their various iterations are illegal for civilian ownership if they weren’t manufactured and registered before
1986. These scarce firearms command a price of $15,000 plus. On top of that, no legally acquired, registered machine
gun has ever been used in a crime.
To boot, the law banning machine guns made after 1986 is unconstitutional, and Americans should be able to buy
them like any other firearm. The reason being is that the second amendment was written to prevent people like
Robert O’Rourke from trampling on our rights at governmental gunpoint.
Repeal the NFA.
[–] spinfrakow 9 points 5 hours ago
No you. Different gun, different function. Cosmetically similar.

[–] Violent_Blue -5 points 5 hours ago
Okay so it's a different gun.

Thanks for making this easy on me
[–] spinfrakow 6 points 4 hours ago
Tell me where I can buy a non-NFA post '86 M16/M4 as a non-LEO civilian? Without going to pound me in the ass
prison or having the ATF shoot my pupper. I'm waiting. I'd love to, but it is not possible under current law. They are
clearly different things. Pre-86 are almost impossible to find, afford and require a ton of red tape with ATF to get.
Third pin make all the difference.
Yeah I know, that's what I'm saying! ARs are not assault rifles.
[–] spinfrakow 1 point 3 hours ago
I have no idea what your point is. You disagree that AR-15s are not "weapons of war" citing the M16 as
evidence. Now you agree the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. What are you driving at?
That’s what I said? We don’t use AR15’s. I think you might have read my statement wrong.
I might have.. you said the AR-15 is used currently in the army? That is false.
EDIT: Ohhhh you're currently in the army. My bad
“This is fact.” Was referring to the statement that the US army does NOT use the AR-15 as the standard issue rifle.
So yeah, it’s all good.
P.S. Special forces is a different story but we won’t get into that.
Thank you for your service

[–] griffiorhs 1 point 5 hours ago
You don’t have to thank me buddy, it’s appreciated though.

How will you confiscate them? You're telling people to give up their freedoms for what, a couple hundred dollars? You
do realize that these weapons cost upwards of $700.
There is also no registry of weapons. Sales don't have to be reported to the federal govt. Good luck taking anything.
[–] stopfive 34 points 5 hours ago
And for those that don’t comply?

[–] unbalanced_breakfast 9 points 4 hours ago
The same way they comply with the laws concerning not killing people en mass? You’re an embarrassment and I’m so
thankful you didn’t fall back-asswards into representing my state.
[–] keilwerth 4 points 5 hours ago
Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country — in their
schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts... everywhere
This is an objectively false statement.
[–] GayTFGaygent 13 points 5 hours ago
Is he saying we will comply or is he desperately hoping?

[–] infriga 1 point 5 hours ago
He is saying if you don't comply (obey) then you will be a criminal that he has made you into, and will be arrested.
[–] GayTFGaygent 3 points 4 hours ago
That's what it seems like to me

[–] BitGladius 1 point 4 hours ago
It's a good chance to shoot dogs, I don't see why you're upset.
[–] GayTFGaygent 1 point 3 hours ago
Do you have any idea how costly it is to fill up a taxidermied german shepherd with tanerite? Shits expensive, I'm not
ready to part with it yet
[–] 52Hurtz 6 points 4 hours ago
What a blessing you will never hold meaningful public office, you absolute fuckwit.
[–] BobBarjonah 2 points 5 hours ago
This is truly a delusional answer. Have you read the constitution? Do you understand why the Bill of Rights were
added? Do you get this whole “American Thing”? I don’t think you do.
Good luck getting millions of rifles back. Lol. It is insanity to even think this could be pulled off. There are other things
that could be done, but of course they aren’t as headline worthy as confiscation.
It is ignorant proposals like this that will ensure you will never be elected to any meaningful position. You are also
making it a hell of a lot more difficult to defeat the moron we now have in office. Thanks Francis.
[–] Meglomaniac 5 points 5 hours ago
schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts... everywhere.
Bullshit
2018 there was 26 active shooters that killed 85 people. You’re full of shit Robert.
Speaking of concerts, color me shocked that gun control over in Europe didn’t stop an Ariana Grande concert from
being BOMBED.
Thank god they’ve gotten rid of the guns though, right?!
[–] Meglomaniac 2 points 3 hours ago
Evil will always prevail, the answer is not disarming law abiding citizens.
We have a bingo folks!

[–] Triggerman84 5 points 5 hours ago
So I assume you'll be taking ARs from the police as well? Weapons of war have no place on our streets, as you've
said.
[–] DireSheWolf 13 points 5 hours ago
WRONG. Americans WILL NOT comply. You would start a new civil war you pathetic idiot.
[–] Grimmie187 -12 points 5 hours ago*
If that's what it takes for those stubborn idiots to finally give up their retarded and outdated amendment then why
not? The tyraniccal government they're so afraid of has already been in place since '06 anyway..
We should give up free speech, while we’re at it. That way I don’t have to listen to you or Robert Francis spew this
stupid bullshit anymore.
How about the 4th? Or the 5th?
The 2nd amendment is the one that ensures all the rest of the amendments stay in place.
[–] Grimmie187 -7 points 4 hours ago
Agreed! Most of them stem from a time you people were still busy wiping out the native population anyway so time
for a fresh start. MAGA right?!
I bet the native population would be on board with the second amendment
LOL, and for good reason!

Your use of “you people” leads me to believe you’re not American.

If that is the case, nobody cares about your opinion. Go fix your own country, let us handle our own business.
What happened to freedom of speech? You gave that up real quick.. If only you could give up the 2nd as quick we
wouldn't be having this conversation!
Don’t worry, the left is coming for the 1st right after the 2nd gets gutted. That’s how tyranny works.
[–] raceme 1 point 28 minutes ago
Just wanted to say, I'm voting blue straight down the ticket but I will not be voting for any candidate that supports
mandatory buyback programs. You and the other candidates that support this are choosing a fight that you can't win.
What you will do is make sure that every republican shows up to vote without fail, and yes, I know we outnumber
them but gerrymandering is set to be an even bigger problem this time around. Gun owners probably aren't going to
"follow the law" as they believe that the Constitution of the United States superseds this law. You are actively
choosing to fight a conservative supreme court on this issue, as it was determined that the AWB was constitutional
because it didn't include a mandatory confiscation or buy back program. I'm going to be honest; I'm a gun owner, I'm
not a huge fan of the previous AWB, I haven't always leaned left though I don't agree with the right on anything these
days. I'm willing to give up my right to purchase a single fire "assault rifle" to achieve a society that is fair and just for
the sick, down trodden, and poor. A society that cares about it's citizens, and cares about it's immigrants. An
economy that creates and sustains a thriving middle class. But I'm not willing to support confiscating legally
purchased firearms from the hands of people who've committed no crime. Furthermore, this doesn't actually solve the
biggest issue facing our country, politicians don't represent us and instead represent corporations and the ultra-rich,
including the NRA. Waste your effort on the root of the problem, so that U.S. citizens can have a voice, then we can
decide as a nation how to proceed.
[–] K13E14 4 points 4 hours ago
How can you (or the government) "Buy Back" something that you (or the government) never owned? Remember the
Second Amendment restricts the Government, not the citizens.
[–] tombolger 5 points 5 hours ago
I work in a red area, the AR owners here are responsible and keep them in gun safes, but also wear t-shirts that say
"I will defend what's mine" and "come and take them." I've never head of anyone who would be in favor of a buyback
except those who are completely ignorant about guns.
[–] twr243 3 points 5 hours ago
Oh god you are really out of touch and don’t have a clue what you are talking about. That’s the most bullshit thing I
have ever heard. If these people wanted to give up their guns why haven’t they already? Just waiting for someone to
tell them what to do? You are a joke dude.
[–] keystoneclimber 1 point 22 minutes ago

- No... no we wont.
- Actually both are weapons specifically designed for civilians. (the AR-15 is a semi-auto version of the M-16, the AK-
47 a semi-auto variant as well.) No AR-15 has ever been used by any branch of the military.
Because we understand that there's no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a
battlefield.
- How about hunting tyrants engaging in Unconstitutional people control?
schools, in their grocery stores, in their churches, in their synagogues, at concerts... everywhere.
- Actually, statistically these type of things happen only in "GUN FREE ZONES" 99% of the time.
I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s fun
to shoot but would give it up.
- No you haven't. You can certainly count to 100 and I'll bet a paycheck that 100 people haven't told you that. What
you mean to say is that you lost count around 13. Besides all that, rights have NOTHING to do with "needs".
- When all else fails, appeal to parental emotion with a well placed "think about the children".
[–] shsdavid 2 points an hour ago
How will you differentiate between a home built $200 AR-15 and a very high end AR-15 which can run into the
thousands of dollars?
Just treat them the same and pay out a $50 gift card for either one?
[–] elfmachine100 14 points 5 hours ago

g
I've never broke a law in my entire life. Served 14 years in the military, my son is in the military, my daughter is a
police officer. Not a single one of us will comply with seizure of our property we risked or lives to defend your right to
own. You are the only criminal I see. You will be forcing violence upon millions and putting our police and population
at risk. You are a terrorist.
well said. I see the leftist are downvoting you

[–] richmomz 2 points 2 hours ago

That's funny. If by some astronomically improbable chance you do get elected I foresee a lot of unfortunate boating
accidents in our country's future.
[–] MavisTheOwl 1 point an hour ago
Hi Beto! First off I want to say that I was a huge fan of the way you handled the Kaepernick question a while back, I
thought you did a great job of making the case for your position without needlessly alienating the person who asked
the question. Definitely one of the best off-the-cuff answers in recent memory; well done.
Boy, you sure didn't repeat that success with your push towards forced mandatory confiscation though. Talk about a
swing and a miss. Not only have you made this gun-owning straight-dem-ticket voter question the Dems at large after
your remarks, but you've done the one thing absolutely guaranteed to mobilize and motivate the right while driving
away independents and prospective voters from the Democratic party. The "well done" this time is sarcastic.
When I heard those words come out of your mouth I started preparing myself for a second Trump term. Maybe even a
third, too -- seriously, you absolutely could not have said anything worse to drive the right to the polls. Not even
abortion is as divisive an issue as outright forced confiscation, for god's sake. If Trump does get another term, rest
assured that the clip of you saying "Hell yes we're coming for your AR15s" will play over and over again as one of the
defining moments that gave him four more years.
What a misstep. Please stop and reevaluate.
[–] BestNameOnThis 6 points 4 hours ago
I will not comply with this law. Because I’m an American. Good luck at winning
that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people

There are about 30k gun deaths per year, can you tell me how many of them are long guns, and of those, can you tell
me how many are 'assault weapons'? How many of them are suicides?
ONe DeATh iS oNE TOo mANy

/s obvi
[–] tposekany234 9 points 5 hours ago
Ya I'm just gonna report them stolen lol

I not only will not comply with such a law, but as a second amendment loving, non gun owner, I will go out of my way
to buy one of the guns you want to ban JUST so I can NOT comply with such a law because that is my right and
obligation as a freedom loving American.
[–] manfeelings839 4 points 5 hours ago
Completely ignored on the main issue, which is the people who don’t want to give them up. Why would anyone ask
about the people who are willing? I would at least respect your candor if you were willing to actually answer tough
questions, but you aren’t so I don’t.
[–] rockstarsball 3 points 5 hours ago
If Americans will comply with the law, how do you explain their lack of compliance with the laws regarding homicide,
prohibited persons in possession of a firearm, brandishing, etc? It seems like there is a threat behind this law that you
are avoiding talking about
[–] geeeffwhy 1 point 2 hours ago
does the response in Australia and New Zealand, or even New York state give you reason to believe that Americans
would comply with the confiscation?
I would like you to factor in my demographic here when making these arguments: i’m a liberal, highly educated,
professional urbanite. i would not comply with this policy. i purchased my first firearms after Trump was inaugurated.
because of the wave of fascism around the world, i can not reasonably trust any government to protect me in
extremis. as a jewish person, i cannot look upon demands to disarm as being common sense.
and to make this as clear as possible, yes, my AR-15 is a weapon of war—that is why i built it. i am prepared for the
still unlikely, but very serious possibility of needing to defend myself and family from organized hate groups,
paramilitary thugs, or whatever form of fascist oppression should arise.
given that of all gun homicides in the US, it is a very small fraction that are committed with semi-auto rifles, i find the
claim that banning these weapons would make people safer to be, frankly, disingenuous, or ignorant at best.
especially considering the failure of the first AWB to reduce gun homicides.
[–] ChristmasMetal 3 points 4 hours ago
It appears you misspelled Confiscation as "Buy Back". It's understandable when your position isn't popular to
Orwellian it.
[–] ThePocketYeti 1 point 5 hours ago
"Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a
battlefield"
The reason is to make sure the government can't disarm us and then start doing whatever the hell they want man.
[–] deja-roo 1 point 34 minutes ago

Counter to all fact. This is some deep "refuse to learn from history" territory.
The SAFE act compliance is in single digit percentage numbers. NZ compliance is the same. CA compliance with their
assault weapon legislation is the same.
You have to know that what you're saying is not true. Even the most cursory look into this would tell you this isn't
true.
weapons designed for war
So... revolvers? Is this really the dividing line? Because most common weapons had their provenance in war
applications, including swords, revolvers, muskets, etc...
Especially when that kind of weapon is so often used to kill and terrorize people throughout this country
Again, you have to know that what you're saying is untrue. You're referring to weapons that are least often used for
those things.
I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt
I don't believe you. I don't have numbers on this but I am willing to bet not only is it not countless, it's quite easy to
count. I'm going to guess there's a very, very small number of people who hold this view.
You may have met a few people like that, but in my social circle, where about 80% of the people I know are gun
owners, and most include ARs and other related rifles, the "they say they don't need it and would give it up" crowd
clocks in at a rather predictable zero percent.
[–] thomasque72 4 points 5 hours ago
You want Americans to comply with THAT law. How's it going getting them to comply with the "don't kill each other"
law? You want to disarm Americans with a healthy respect for the law. News flash: those people aren't part of the
problem!
[–] remedialrob 1 point 4 hours ago
a battlefield.
The 2nd Amendment was created so that the citizens of this country could overthrow a tyrannical government. For
that to be even marginally realistic you'd absolutely have to have weapon parity with the military. That's just the
reality of the intent behind the Amendment.
So the problem is, realistically, the Constitution. Which should have been modified and updated as our nation matured
quite a few times by now. But instead we've allowed the Supreme Court to usurp the power of Amending the
Constitution by simply making shit up out of thin air as they "interpret" the existing amendments to try and change
our country's legal culture as the society as a whole matures and changes.
So the problem is the Constitution. It's arguable that you'll be able to even get any kind of AR-15 or AK-47 ban past
the 2nd Amendment. Lord knows loads and loads of people are going to sue you over it. And with a conservative court
like we have you probably won't win.
But even if you did win, the justices would basically have to ignore the letter and intent of the 2nd Amendment to give
you a win.
So the real goal here should be to amend the Constitution. Because to be frank, gun manufacturers will just come up
with a different kind of rifle that does essentially the same thing as the AR-15 and/or the AK-47 and if you try and do
a blanket assault weapons ban... leaving Americans with nothing but shotguns, handguns, and bolt action rifles,
you're probably going to find the resistance to that kind of unilateral change to be insurmountable for one president,
or one congress to pull off.
Change the Constitution though, and that's a majority of the states agreeing to change the law that governs the entire
nation. That's much more difficult to argue against. And if people here don't want to obey "The Constitution" as many
of them use as a reason to whine about the 2nd Amendment, they can leave America and go somewhere where the
gun laws are less restrictive.
[–] screamingchicken579 2 points an hour ago

Hilarious comment, considering it's coming from someone with a criminal history. YOU didn't comply with the law.
[–] MAGAtek 4 points 4 hours ago
“Americans will comply...”

You sure about that? History has demonstrated time and time again that we absolutely will not.
[–] AlaskaYetti 4 points 5 hours ago
You do know that the US Supreme Court determined in Heller v. DC that individuals have a right to keep and bear
arms regardless that those arms were created after the amendment. Caetano v. Massachusetts confirms this case.
[–] needdavr 4 points 4 hours ago
You’re drunk, go home.

I’m a democrat.
You have good intentions, i understand that, but they just lack the structure to become sound policies and I’m sorry
to say you don’t have the ability to be president. Your words are huge dividers.
You made me put my palm to my face when you said “we will come for your AR15s...” You lumped us in with the
stereotype that “democrats want to take your guns”. The statement had zero tact.
And now this response. You never had my support to be the candidate but this just solidifies it like pressure and heat
to a piece of carbon.
[–] slo-pokey 4 points 5 hours ago
How you gonna take what you dont know that I got? Would you violate the constitution to get your way?
[–] scornucopia 1 point 3 hours ago
Would you violate the constitution to get your way?

If he's prepared to violate the 2nd Amendment, why not the others?
[–] socrateaspoon 1 point an hour ago
Hey Beto,
I don’t think you will read this, but I wanted to give you some support in this comment, despite the downvotes.
People will always say change will never happen. People will always try to downplay real issues selfishly out of their
own inconvenience.
Right now domestic terrorists use these weapons to gain a much greater platform than they deserve. Because of
countless murders and major publicity, gunners go down as martyrs for white supremacy. Nobody can reasonably
argue that everyone has the right to own a weapon of war. You don’t see people with nuclear warheads in their
backyard.
Despite what everyone thinks, people will comply with the law. An assault rifle is useless to own if it’s illegal to bring it
to a gun range.
I really hope that you keep this part of your campaign because so few politicians are too chicken to denounce guns. It
is the most attractive part of your campaign for me, and my entire family.
Thanks for the ama!
[–] Against_Opportunism 2 points 5 hours ago
Why should American citizens disarm themselves to a despotic, imperialist-capitalist state that uses its foreign military
to kill scores of innocent people? The same military you unequivocally support.
[–] SmokeANDjoke 1 point 13 minutes ago
Your lack of knowledge on military weapons and civilian weapons is pathetically sad. Seeing as no one bought their
rifles from the government then it really isn’t a buyback is it? It’s confiscation , kinda like how hitler disarmed his
population. You literally want to dismantle the 2nd amendment because you are trying to buy votes. You say nothing
on the fact that most murders come from hand guns, or the fact that most illegal acts of violence by firearm happened
by people that couldn’t own them in the first place. How can you disarm the good people, because the democrats
disarmed Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and the crime rate and murder rate there is through the roof. Sit down Francis
and don’t talk about what you don’t know, maybe if you wanted to actually have a chance to win be the first
democratic candidate to listen to the other side of the aisle . You are just as bad and the republicans that never want
to work together.
[–] fuckeveryone________ 19 points 5 hours ago*
I won't comply, nor will the vast majority of gun owners. You'll have to order your goons to kill us and pry our AR-15s
from our cold, dead hands. Are you prepared to do that?
[–] itty53 -4 points 5 hours ago
/r/iamverybadass is having a stroke watching this thread.

[deleted]
[–] passionlessDrone 4 points 5 hours ago
Appropriate username.
[–] stinking_badgers 7 points 5 hours ago
Username checks out

[–] HeartyBeast -8 points 5 hours ago
You'll have to kill us and pry our AR-15s from our cold, dead hands
Well I suppose if it comes down to a choice between you or the cold dead hands of a class of schoolchildren
Why? They account for less than a hundredth of a percent of firearm violence. Stop appealing to emotion like a bitch
and just admit you're afraid of the scary black guns.
[–] HeartyBeast 0 points 4 hours ago
That stat says more about the scale of gun violence in the US, than anything else. Baby steps.
[–] SociallyWellAdjusted 2 points 4 hours ago*
Included in that statistic is the vast majority of gun deaths, which is suicide (67%). On the other side of the coin,
homicide is almost exclusively committed with handguns by gang members against other gang members. Tell me how
banning AR-15s would do anything again?
[–] HeartyBeast -1 points 4 hours ago
Are you arguing that the number of people killed in mass shootings is to small to worry about, or that restricting sales
of certain weapon types would have no effect on the number of people killed in each mass shooting?
[–] Lethik 0 points 5 hours ago*
Awww, that's cute, you think that a single citizen could actually stand up to the US military or very heavily militarized
police forces.
[–] istural 1 point 2 hours ago
Yea Vietnam and Afghanistan and the Arab spring didn’t happen.
[–] lagrandenada 0 points 5 hours ago
This opinion is so completely strange to me. But I am certain of one thing: Gun ownership is important to you.
[–] fuckeveryone________ 3 points 5 hours ago
Are you not an American? I ask because I'd expect any American to be somewhat aware of gun culture--even
Americans who live in mostly liberal, urban areas. Gun culture in the US (especially in rural parts of the US) is integral
to our national identity. All of the freedoms laid out in the Constitution are important, but without an armed citizenry
there is little deterrent to a tyrannical government who would take those freedoms away.
I am aware but it's still strange to me because I cannot identify with it in anyway. Not saying it's wrong but I have no
personal connection is all. But on the Constitutional thread: I tried a thought exercise with a gun owner on reddit and
he refused to engage in it. I'm going to try with you.
The Constitution, specifically the second amendment protects our right to bare arms. My assumption is that you would
agree with the following statement: "the second amendment right to bare is not infringed when the government
prohibits personal ownership of thermonuclear weapons." I assume this because this is our top level. The most
dangerous weapon known to man surely can be made illegal without violating the Constitution. On the bottom, we
have a BB gun. I assume you agree with this statement: the Constitution would be violated by a ban on BB gun
ownership. Surely the least dangerous "arm" can't be made illegal without violating the Constitution. So we now have
a gap of a ton of weapons between nuke and bb gun. Can you provide me with a line drawn in the middle where the
second amendment becomes infringed? I'm not trying to be a smart ass or anything. I'm asking in good faith where
you personally draw that line (nothing that the Constitution itself has none) and then compare it to mine and try and
find common ground.
I don't think private citizens should own nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I don't think the government should
own them, either. Nuclear non-proliferation is one of the most important national security issues we face, particularly
as rogue nations like Syria and North Korea move closer towards nuclear capabilities. It would be great if those
weapons didn't exist at all, but we need them as a deterrent for the time being.
With that exception, I think private citizens should have access to anything the US military has access to. In the time
of our founding, private citizens owned cannons and warships. Today, I don't see why a private citizen shouldn't be
able to own a Humvee with a roof-mounted M240 and a Howitzer. Yes, those are dangerous weapons of war, and
that's exactly why our right to own them ought to be protected. A society in which the government has a monopoly on
violence is a society that won't remain free for very long.
It may surprise you that machine guns, tanks and artillery are privately owned already. There's a lot of legal
maneuvering that's necessary for ownership which makes them prohibitively expensive for anyone who isn't loaded. I
think that's an infringement.
Anyway, I'm totally open to this dialogue. I wrote my above thoughts in a little bit of a hurry so I apologize if I wasn't
clear. I'll have time to respond in detail tonight/tomorrow if you'd like to continue discussing.
[–] lagrandenada -1 points 4 hours ago
Well to be honest we can't really have a discussion because your starting point is too extreme. If you think citizens
should have everything the military has, notwithstanding your opinion on nuclear proliferation, then I don't think we
have common ground. For me, if you and I were negotiating the future of gun ownership in the US, and only you and
I are the decision makers, you would have to compromise your entire position because your starting point is just so
far away from what I could even discuss. It would be as if, from your point of view, I said BB guns should be taken
away too. It would, I assume, be a complete nonstarter from your end. Instead I would approach it as finding a
definition for "arms" that we can both stomach, even if that definition is too inclusive for you and not inclusive enough
for me. The entire idea of democracy is comprise, really, because democracy recognizes there a different points of
view. Your position is without compromise. To be honest, a hardened position without room for movement in any
direction is likely a bigger threat to our democracy, and I would argue is a state of mind that the people in power want
us to have.
[–] fuckeveryone________ 3 points 4 hours ago*
You and I see this issue fundamentally differently. You want a compromise, but I think our Constitutional rights
should never be the target of compromise. Gun owners have compromised away enough of our rights with the NFA
in the 1930s, the GCA in the 1960s, the FOPA in the 1980s, and the AWB in the 1990s. We can keep compromising,
but pretty soon there won't be anything left.
Thank you for at least being willing to be open and discuss this respectfully. Not enough of this kind of thing
happens in the US. We probably have a lot more in common than not: we both want to be free and we both want to
be safe, but we have different ideas of how to get there.
[–] DabSlabBad 2 points 4 hours ago
No more comprimise
It's interesting that you keep bringing up the constitution without arguing for what "arms" means. Basically your
opinion can be summed up like this:
The constitution says the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. Arms means any weapon of any kind used by
the government. Therefore, any arm used by the government cannot be made illegal, or the second amendment
right to bare arms is infringed.
I hope seeing the shear simplicity in your thinking will drive you to find a new way of thinking about things.
Notice that I don't have to reference a single other moment in history or contemporary life to fully capture your
opinion. Your opinion is 50% philosophy and 50% what the second amendment says. But thanks for everything
u/fuckeveryone_______. This has been an interesting discussion.

I think an argument can be made that nuclear weapons arent covered by the second amendment because they would
not be useful for either side in a war between the government and the people. They would not be useful for defending
the country from foreign invaders either. Detonating them on our own soil benefits nobody. Detonating them on
foreign soil isnt the job of an American citizen. This argument doesnt apply to non-nuclear bombs, tanks, rifles,
artillery, jets, armor etc.
[–] itty53 0 points 5 hours ago
/u/fuckeveryone________
My ancestors died building this country and securing the liberties too many people take for granted. I'm not going
to give up any more freedom than we already have--and we've given up so much. I'd die, too, to water the tree of
liberty.
And then he deleted his comment. Because that's how much he cares here. "I'd die... but not endure downvotes
anonymously, that's too much".
[–] fuckeveryone________ 1 point 5 hours ago
I don't care about the downvotes. I was annoyed by the dozens of responses and messages I got. I've also deleted
popular comments that I've left for the same reason. I absolutely stand by what I said.
[–] itty53 1 point 4 hours ago
That's what Disable Inbox Replies is for, dumbass. And I'm sure you delete your popular comments, of course, all
guys who are badass do that.
[–] fuckeveryone________ 1 point 4 hours ago
I sincerely don't know what you're referring to. I'll look into it. Thanks!
[–] shanko -4 points 5 hours ago
Lmao this dude voted for trump

Trump banned bump stocks and wants to take our guns first and give us due process later. As if it's any of your
business, I won't be voting for him again.
[–] pwilks52 2 points 4 hours ago
I like your attitude but he's still a better option than any of the clowns on the left.
I live in a red state so my vote is mostly symbolic. I understand that that's a luxury not everyone has. If I lived in a
battleground I'd likely vote for Trump--not to vote for him per se, but to vote against his opponent. I'll still be voting
for down-ballot conservatives.
[–] ndphillips -5 points 5 hours ago
Man, I bet this poster felt alpha as fuck as they typed this response.
Like John Rambo himself.

Now for more tendies!
[–] NeverTrustAName -1 points 5 hours ago
I, for one, would fucking love to

[–] bareborn 3 points 5 hours ago
This makes no sense. You drunk again Beto?

[–] Plethorius 1 point 3 hours ago*
Oh my, you were serious. Let me put it this way. I live in the south where there are more guns than people. Reddit is
the most liberal thing I see on a daily basis. I know people who bought another AR and more ammo every time
Obama even said the word "gun". I myself lean left these days on many issues including healthcare, abortion, raising
minimum wage, and drugs. Gun control (or confiscation) isn't one of them.
You're delusional if you think people are going to line up to have their rights taken away while the criminals do
whatever they want. If "complying with the law" was a given, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation,
would we? Last I checked, murder was against the law. Hell, you can't even get people in actual liberal states to
comply with weapons and magazine bans.
Unbelievable that something like this is coming out of the mouth of a Texan. Get your feet back on the ground
because I don't think you fully understand what you're suggesting here, or the consequences of it. In fact you've
probably single handedly set the gun control debate back by 20 years.
[–] BigDikJim 4 points 4 hours ago
Beto: Americans will comply with the law.

Millions of Americans: No, no I don’t think I will.
[–] TheShmud 2 points 4 hours ago
haha yes
[–] C-Makimaki 2 points 2 hours ago
We will comply with the law...the 2nd amendment is the law and you're breaking it. So yeah, I'll comply with the
constitution.
[–] kharmatika 1 point 3 hours ago
What are you going to do when millions of gun bearing Americans don’t comply with having their constitutional rights
infringed upon? Our second amendment rights don’t guarantee our weaponry for nothing, they guarantee it in case of
governmental tyranny. How do you suggest we protect ourselves in case of governmental corruption? Are you going
to arrest all of us?
And if you so much as breathe “the government would never get to a place where revolution would be necessary”,
you’ve lost every one of those Americans. Trump got elected. Our government is half way toward tyranny currently
with his Putin dick sucking.
Also, you plan to legalize marijuana and end the war on drugs, which you state will decrease our reliance on the
Cartel, but this mandatory buyback would stimulate the illegal cartel gun trade. Aren’t you just trading a less popular
war for a more popular one?
[–] __TheBookofEli__ 1 point 2 hours ago
This is honestly the dumbest thing you’ve said during your campaign and I can 100% bet on your campaign dying off
because of it. You fail to address basic gun violence stats. 2/3 gun deaths are suicide, less than 1% of gun deaths
involve rifles, and more than 75% of gun deaths in that last 1/3 are concentrated in cities housing less than 3% of the
US population and are directly related to gang violence. Your position as a know-nothing elitist trying to stamp out the
2nd amendment is clear, as are the majority of your fellow democrats running for office.
I’m a republican who absolutely hates the current administration and want to see it change, but it’s not going to
happen in a positive way by voting for people who have swung so far to the left they’re practically bleeding socialism
and dripping with statements that suggest they hate America in its current form.
[–] ProfessorZhirinovsky 1 point 2 hours ago*

Here you are, saying it is time for the War on Drugs to end because it didn't work...and yet using the same naive and
shortsighted "we'll just pass a law and people will obey it!" the Drug Warriors used, as a justification to declare a War
on Guns?
Americans will not comply with the law (we've been shouting this from the rooftops for years, in case you've missed
it). Not when that law prohibits us from doing things we feel entitled to do. We've shown that time and time again
when other things have been prohibited, and you damn well know it.
What this "answer" of yours is, is a dodging of the question. We all know the answer. You know it, and we know it.
The only way to confiscate millions of these devices throughout the country is to aggressively pursue those who have
them, and throw them in jail. When you pass a law, you have to expect it to be enforced. You have to insist on it
being enforced, because (as legal marijuana states have shown) a law that isn't enforced is freely violated, and a law
that is freely violated is doomed to failure.
[–] CAElite 1 point 2 hours ago
Ouich, and he was doing so well in the rest of the AMA. :(. I hope the responses featured in this reply chain show you
the attitude of many young Americans to politicians who wish to infringe on their rights not only to enjoy their
firearms, but to use them in their defence if the situation ever arises.
I for one really like your wide spread of policies, but your insistence of holding on to this seemingly ignorant view on
firearms ownership makes your far less palatable as a politician in my eyes.
I am a green card holder from a country where politicians have stripped peoples rights in this area, I must say the
phrase 'give an inch and they take a mile' really does ring true, this talk of forced buybacks of specific gun types is a
stark reminder of what many nations did in the 80s and 90s before all but criminalising most all forms of gun
ownership.
[–] renernavilez 1 point 3 hours ago
Is there some other way to fix the gun problem without trying to take away guns from people that don't want to give
them up? I thought about the buy back program but not as a mandatory thing. Maybe the problem gets fixed slowly
by getting less guns out there by making it harder or less tempting to get said guns into the hands of unpredictable
people. For example, could there possibly be a mandatory law that requires people that want to buy ANY gun to have
at least two qualified people to vouge for them when buying it? Also, if any crime is committed with that gun the
people involved in the buying process are charged according to the crime committed with said gun? It's a bit extreme
but there is a way of fixing this and bringing up ideas is the best way of getting an understanding of what people are
willing to comply with.
[–] whoNeedsPavedRoads 1 point 2 hours ago
It's so easy to just shift all the blame of people to a tool that you think you can ban. That somehow you think we can
cure the world or protect people from deranged others by banning something.
You can deny the constitution, try to take our guns, take our cars, take our privacy, put us in a nice and soft little
padded-down room, but in the end violent people with hate, terrorists, and the mentally ill will still exist and they are
clever enough to outsmart you, time and time again.
The government cannot protect us as well as you claim, and it's pretty easy to be confident about the state protection
when you surround yourself with armed personnel and leave the country to the wolves.
You're not taking anything from us and my tax dollars aren't going to a crappy buy-back system that's going to rip
lawful gun owners off. The constitution guarantees our right to weapons to fight a tyrannical government. How do you
expect us to keep the capacity to fight a world superpower when you want to disarm us? It won't happen, but the
logic is fundamentally flawed as well.
[–] vkapustin 7 points 5 hours ago
Do you understand why the founders wanted civilians to have weapons?


g
Are AR15/AK47 the only weapons available? no. I can't go out and buy a whole list pages long of weapons right now,
but there are also TONS I could go buy. So gun restrictions are not preventing people from getting weapons. Just
certain ones.
[–] StillLikeBeer 3 points 4 hours ago
You are full of shit.
[–] thinsoldier 2 points 5 hours ago
What about the many other kinds of guns that are functionally identical to AR-15s? https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=0s7_1Gfq2eo
What about low recoil semi-automatic shotguns? https://youtu.be/0bGgwVr7U08?t=212
What about universal pistol conversion kits that can turn any semi-automatic handgun into practically a semi-
automatic rifle? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tth3p8_psAY They even have things like this for revolvers.
[–] AfUzZzZyPeNgUiN 3 points 5 hours ago
Ya know...back in the day when they wrote up the constitution they used the same weapons in the battle field as they
did to hunt.....oh holy shit kinda like today!?
[–] robby241 1 point an hour ago
Who paid you and Swallwell to spout such drivel? Not only is this crap unconstitutional, it goes against so many of our
core beliefs as Americans. This is the sort of garbage that forced the Founding Fathers to write the Second
Amendment.
So even if you did manage to get out guns, what then? Are you going to ban the first amendment so we don’t offend
people, hurt feelings, print dissenting opinions? Then the Fourth Amendment in order to further quell that dissent and
butthurt? Let’s can the Fifth and sixth too while we’re st it and have a trial on the spot. So we can can the eighth too
because who needs bail if we jump right to trial?
If you Mr O’Rourke cannot recognize that slippery slope to tyranny then you are not fit to hold public office.
[–] StAugustine94 3 points 5 hours ago
Whelp this is off to a great start

[–] BallsDeepinYou1 3 points 4 hours ago
Come and take it
[–] Oh107bibi 4 points 5 hours ago
Lol, what a joke. You do realize the majority of gun violence is caused by pistols right? Also, why just ARs and AKs?
Not taking anyone’s sks?
[–] GunsAndCoffee1911 1 point 3 hours ago
Ok Beto let's just play make believe for a second and say that I do willingly participate in your "mandatory gun
buyback program" (I won't). How much are you going to give me? $100? $200? I've got almost $3000 put into my
AR15 (which, by the way, has never killed or even shot at a single person). If your program is mandatory and you
give me way less than what I paid for it I should be able to sue the federal government on that aspect alone. I bought
it all legally as the United States Constitution allows me to. Your policy will have forced me to take a huge loss.
Now let's talk about the actual process of it. It might sound easy to you now but I promise you it won't go the way
you plan. Are you going to use law enforcement and military to confiscate guns from otherwise law abiding citizens
who refused to participate? Do you realize that your law enforcement and military are laregly pro gun? It might be
easy to think of us as an entity but don't forget, we are individuals first, and we are very pro 2nd Amendment. I would
refuse to carry out your unconstitutional orders and I can't think of a single co-worker of mine who would comply. Not
only based on the principle of it, but it would also be a suicide mission.
I know you probably won't read this but if you do I will leave you with this. I challenge you to do a ride along with a
local police department or sheriff's office. You will see what the world is really like. And I think you need that.
[–] USSAmerican 1 point an hour ago
I'm telling you right now: I won't comply. None of my friends or family will comply. These aren't "weapons of war".
That's a marketing term. You don't get to dictate why we "need" any weapon, nor get to judge how we exercise a
fundamental right.
There's 10 million AR-15's and AK-47's in this country, and there's less than 300 deaths from them per year.
Additionally, AR/AK owners don't say they don't need them to hunt or self defense. You're full of shit.
Lastly, a "mandatory buyback" that's not voluntary is just another way of saying confiscation.
In short, I didn't get shot at and bleed in Afghanistan to come home to someone trying to be a two bit dictator
pushing the same draconian bullshit I encountered there.
So go fuck yourself.
[–] Dreaded_Dragnet 2 points 5 hours ago
You can pry my trebuchet from my cold dead hands, buddy
[–] VonDeckard 5 points 5 hours ago
Yeah...not sure it is that easy. Seems naive

[–] Not_Without_My_Balls 1 point 4 hours ago

lmao how stupid do you think we are? You really want to (I'm assuming by executive order) pass a law that leads to
confiscation of American Citizens personal property and you think that Americans will magically comply with the
law...because...you're...so cool? Or something? Name one law every American just complies with? Are you really this
naive or do you really think we're this stupid?
Because we understand
Who is this "we?" you speak of? Are you referring to the same people you told could keep their Ar-15s when you were
running for senate in Texas?
You are literally a spoiled brat running for president because your privilege as made you think you're entitled to it. Go
fuck yourself.
[–] honeybunchesofpwn 1 point 3 hours ago
No reason to own a weapon of war?

What if I am at war?
With all the racists, bigots, sexist, KKK, Neo-Nazi, and Alt-Right morons running around, shouldn't I be allowed to own
the same weapons they've had access to for over 50 years?
Oh also, the last time people of my ethnic heritage were forcibly disarmed, we got literally a hundred years of foreign
White Supremacist rule. Apologies, but I'm pretty sure I have a cultural and racial imperative to willingly disobey such
mandatory confiscation laws. "Never Again" and all that.
Beto, do you happen to have any British heritage? Your version of "Common sense gun laws" seems to be almost
exactly the same sorta nonsense that The British imposed on my Indian ancestors.
No thanks.
[–] Sandman_slimm 2 points 31 minutes ago
You can take my ARs Beto. But I hope you wear gloves when you do, because the barrel is gonna be hot.
[–] DansRP 20 points 5 hours ago
The nazis were following the law too. Doesn't make it right.
Might want to look a bit deeper into what "the Nazis" were doing, and who they were resisting against at that time.
[–] SameTimeOtherPlace 2 points 5 hours ago*
Did the Germans declare war in WWII or did someone declare war against the Germans?
Headlines for those who do not know their history
https://archive.org/stream/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933/JewsDeclareWarOnGermany1933_djvu.txt
"Whycome all the camps that were inspected by the Allied forces were changed to labor camps, and the only ones that
remained 'death camps' were the ones in Soviet-controlled regions that weren't allowed to be inspected?"
[–] passionlessDrone -28 points 5 hours ago
God you gun nuts and your nazi bullshit and victimization and small dicks. Get bent.
[–] DansRP 8 points 5 hours ago
Get bent
British detected. Stop interfering with our elections
[–] passionlessDrone -6 points 5 hours ago
Lol it’s just so intellectually lazy.

[–] ndjs22 1 point 4 hours ago
Don't you have a butter knife to turn in or something?

[–] passionlessDrone 0 points 4 hours ago
Another amazingly intellectually lazy argument:

“Dur, lots of things kill people, and we don’t ban those! Dur!”
Let’s imagine you and I were going to have a duel; one gets a butter knife, the other gets a pistol. You’d probably
take the butter knife seeing how as they both are weapons, right?
Let’s imagine every person at a strip club or football game has a pistol, or everyone has a butter knife. Are we really
unable to ascertain which of those situations would be more likely to result in people getting killed?
Are we really that intellectually lazy?
Find it a bit annoying when somebody from another country offers their uninvited opinion do you?
[–] passionlessDrone 1 point 3 hours ago

Who cares? I’m not the snowflake here, you are. Also, I am an American.
Would you take the pistol or the butter knife? You forgot to answer!

[–] necr0stic 1 point an hour ago
If people followed the law we wouldn't be having this conversation. Only law-abiding citizens will turn in their
firearms, and they aren't the ones committing mass shootings. All this will do is make good people more vulnerable to
being victimized by criminals and tyrannical governments.
You really think banning two types of firearms will prevent every future terrorist attack? This is extremely naive. What
comes next? All semi-autos? All knives? All blunt objects? Then you can really turn America socialist and we won't be
able to stop you, which I'm sure is your real goal. If not yours, then you are just a USEFUL IDIOT for the deep state
who's goals you are pursuing without even being aware of it.
[deleted]
[–] MtnTop304 1 point 3 hours ago
You’re delusional. Virtually nobody agrees with you on this it’s just the ones who do are amplified in the media. The
“law” you’re proposing is infringement of our rights. Saying “we understand that there’s no reason for any of us to
own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield” is speaking for yourself, not the majority. Sending
police to the doors of sensible gun owners to take their guns if they don’t comply with the buy back will get innocent
people killed. It’s almost like you want the bloodshed. It might be a cliche now but I’ll say it anyway, good people with
guns stop bad people with guns, and regardless of whether guns are legal or not bad peoples will always have them.
[–] pr_capone [ ] 1 point 3 hours ago*
"Americans will comply with the law."

Like Americans complied with the 18th amendment, right? There was no 21st amendment and alcohol is completely
out of American's lives, right?
"Because we understand that theres no reason for a any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a
battlefield."
I challenge you to name a single "government waged" war that the AR-15 has participated in where is was the issued
battle rifle. Name one, just one, and I will shut up and you will have my full attention.
"I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense, it’s
fun to shoot but would give it up."
I have met countless that say the opposite. Anecdotes mean nothing.
[–] Autski 1 point 4 hours ago
Not trying to be ignorant, but we could also advocate for increasing education and gun-safety protocols (like getting
gun safes so the weapons don't fall into the hands of estranged teenagers). Background checks are good, and
everyone is for them, but there is a massive disconnect between mental health checks and the background check.
I know we want to make this world safer for our children and ourselves and buying back guns would probably slow it,
so the conversation needs to be had. Maybe the answer is taking the assault rifles back, but it also could be forcing
ourselves to be more vigilant with individuals who are perceived threats so we can stop them before they begin
pulling triggers.
[–] FestivusErectus 3 points 5 hours ago
Quit calling it a "buy back" when it's confiscation. "Buy back" implies that the guns were originally given or sold to
citizens by the government.
[–] SucaMofo 1 point 4 hours ago
a battlefield
By this statement the police don't need them either. Or is it okay if them have them because they are fighting a war
on American soil against criminals. So America is a battlefield? Thoughts on the police having such firearms?
The Police are supposed to work for the people but is not the case anymore. If the police have a certain type of
firearm then the public should as well. What about your security detail? What firearms do they carry? If your are
protected by a certain type of firearm then the general public should have access to the same firearm.
[–] ThumperRP 1 point 16 minutes ago
Carrying concealed as I write this, but my question is, you and who's army? The United States Armed forces took an
oath, the same as you to Support and Defend the Constitution. Any and all regulations is unconstitutional, so I ask
again you and who's army will enforce any unconstitutional regulations? Americans will not comply to any unlawful
orders. You will make law abiding citizens criminals because you can't enforce the laws already on the books.
Unarmed citizens are slaves. I'd like to remind you that the last people to demand us to give up our arms, started a
revolution and built this country. How do you plan to enforce your unlawful, and traitorous buyback programs?
[–] Clickclickdoh 1 point 2 hours ago

In a previous answer, you talked about ending the war on drugs, presumably realizing the absolute failure that the
prohibition on narcotics has been... A lesson we all should have learned form the prohibition on alcohol.
So, what makes you think that simply criminalizing ownership of firearms will lead to either 1) them being turned in -
or- 2) a decrease in their criminal use?
If anything, the war on drugs led to the invention of new and more dangerous drugs in attempts to bypass the
prohibition. Do you think the same wouldn't happen with firearms, especially given the explosive growth in the home
made/printed firearms industry?
[–] PerniciousShadow 1 point an hour ago
You are full of shit. It is not “so often” used to kill people.
On average there are 13,000 murders per year in the US involving a firearm. Of those roughly 13K gun murders per
year, a long gun is used in only around 300. That’s straight from FBI crime data. Now, the FBI doesn’t keep track of
model of gun used, but they do keep track of caliber. Based on caliber, it’s estimated that only around 80 murders per
year on average are committed with what have conventionally become known as “assault rifles.” That means that only
a paltry 0.006% of ALL MURDERS in the US annually are committed with the very firearms that you want to forcibly
take from millions of Americans.
I have met countless AR and AK owners who say they don’t need it to hunt, they don’t need it for self defense,
it’s fun to shoot but would give it up.
There is that word again. Weird.
I just don't remember where in the constitution rights are qualified by needs.
Can I suggest something?
Instead of the empty "I know people a man in Missouri who" or "I talked to a woman in Texas who...". How about you
actually go door to door asking people to give up their scary guns! Have CNN follow you around. Have some police
with you for protection, they'll have guns they need for that reason of course.
This would be an excellent opportunity to lead by example!
[–] Wayne575 1 point 3 hours ago
So the m16 was designed for war, not the ar15. They look similar but are not the same gun. A very quick search in
the history of guns will show you that. Also understanding how they work will tell you the difference. So your saying,
if it was not designed for war I can keep it. The way you word this is a false narrative. If your coming for our ar15’s
say it. But stop saying they were designed for war. You are purposely trying to associate them for a purpose that they
have not ever been used in. And I find it dishonest and cowardly as well as politics as usual. This statement is a prime
example of how you are no different than any other politician!
[–] ReaperMage 1 point 5 hours ago
theres no reason for any of us to own a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.
What about for fun? Shooting guns is fun. Why do you want to take that away, especially when these "rifles" do a lot
less damage to people than handguns. How about blanket buyback programs?
Whenever I hear politicians propose banning "rifles" over real policy to regulate the circulation of guns in general, it
makes me think that they, (1) haven't read the data, (2) are pandering to voters who haven't read the data, (3) are
just "gun illiterate," or (4) want to demonize a particular gun over actually trying to solve the gun issue because it's
easier.
[–] gehnrahl 2 points 40 minutes ago
Way to try and start a civil war...but it's not like you're a serious runner for the POTUS.
[–] Maleficent_Cap 1 point 3 hours ago
there is literally supreme court precedent that says the 2A specifically is protecting our right to have weapons of
war. United States Vs Miller. Seriously a thing you should know if you are trying to run for office.
The reason sawed off shotguns get to be banned is because they have "no practical wartime use" according to some
subjective definitions.
to ban the AR15 you have to claim that its not a weapon that has practical use for wartime. But that defeats your
stupid argument of "these are designed for a battlefield". And if this is your argument, then they fall squarely under
the arguments that such weapons are protected for the citizens.
[–] knowledgeovernoise 7 points 5 hours ago
Clown
[–] pr0t0cl0wn 2 points 5 hours ago
*Furry
[–] Burninator17 4 points 5 hours ago
Democrats: the government is right wing extremist and Nazis

Also Democrats: we need to give all guns to the government.
[–] _tiredofthebullshit 1 point an hour ago
Take your downvote count as an indicator that this fucktarded idea of grabbing guns is wildly unpopular despite what
your little socialist group tells you. Furthermore, you are proving you are no different than a common crack whore in
that you’ll do and say whatever if you think it will benefit you. Remember an interview a while ago where you said
something about letting people keep their ARs and AKs?
Lol. I’d be surprised if you poll well enough to make it to the next debate. You couldn’t even bet Cruz for Senate.
What in hell makes you think you can beat Trump? Just withdraw from the race with what little dignity you have left.
[–] Cerkoryn 1 point 5 hours ago

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think the security of a free state is a pretty good justification for an AR-15. In fact, it seems like a tool that was
designed for precisely that. The military uses M-16s/M-4s instead, and those are already illegal for civilians in most
circumstances.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
-Thomas Jefferson(Spurious)
Agree with it or not, many, if not most AR-15 owners will probably be thinking exactly this.
[–] weekendmoney 1 point 3 hours ago
"Weapons of war"
Which gun was designed to reach out and give you a hug when you pull the trigger? They are ALL weapons of war.
The rifles you are attempting to ban are absolutely used for self defense. In a fight for my life, I don't want a fair
fight. I want the scale to be tipped in my favor so much that the devil himself doesn't want this fight. If I believe that
the most effective weapon platform to use is the AR-15 rifle, then that's what I will use to protect my life, my home
and my loved ones regardless of any laws on the books. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Please stop
demonizing law abiding citizens.
[–] batosai33 1 point 11 minutes ago
There are two problems with that statement.

1. The vast majority of shootings in America are committed with handguns, not rifles. Can you explain why you are
calling out the weapons used in less than 10% of shootings?
2. If all Americans complied with the law, there wouldn't be shootings of any kind. Stating that you trust people to
give back the gun that you don't trust them to own doesn't make sense. I hope you get the chance to elaborate
on this statement further, because the statement you gave here will only reinforce the mantra that the right
uses of "if it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will have guns"
[–] StraightToThePo1nt 1 point an hour ago
You're a fucking idiot drunk who caused a hit and run DUI.
Semi-Auto rifles are never used in war. Soldiers have fully automatic select fire rifles which are nothing like the
civilian rifles sold in the US.
AR-15s are hands down the best home defense weapon available. These fictional gun owners who are ready to give
up their guns are exactly that, a fiction.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about, you're a pandering fool who thinks speaking in Spanish at a
debate = more votes.
You went to Mexico to campaign.

Do everyone a favor and drop out.
No one is complying with shit even if you do win.
In that case, why not just write a law saying they are not allowed to shoot people?
[–] Brotorcycle_Bro 1 point 2 hours ago
“We take Bikini bottom... AND PUSH IT SOMEWHERE ELSE!”

[–] coluke 1 point an hour ago
That’s awesome I built all of my “ar” style weapons for shooting competitions as therapy after the military. They were
not designed for war when assembled so. But on a serious note. When debating gun rights why inflate your numbers
by including suicides by gun. If you actually believe in your stats be honest don’t try to inflate them. Rifles at a small
amount of the guns used. Also you start off by proving a point because Americans will follow the law... how’s that
going for murder being illegal? Also more people are killed by drunk drivers when will you sell your car to the govt?
[–] shiftposter 1 point an hour ago
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
US citizens need access to the same weapons that the military uses to effectively keep "A well regulated militia"
The second amendment is not about hunting or self defense.
Banning Military Style weapons is a Massive Infringement of Americans constitutional rights guaranteed by the second
amendment. The infringement you suggest directly prevents a Militia of citizens from being effective.
Progress would be Repealing the NFA.
[–] HiaQueu 1 point 3 hours ago
This response only proves how out of touch with reality you are. Comply with the law? Mandatory buyback? Like in NY
where Safe Act compliance is fuck all? How about Connecticut, where compliance with their registration law is close to
zero. Or how about New Zealand, where they have estimated a 10% compliance rate. You obviously don't know the
people you desire to rule over while ignoring the constitution. There is a good chance you couldn't even pass a
background check to buy a firearm in my state(Massachusetts). Diverted DWI will still get you a denial in most towns.
[–] hmmgross 3 points 5 hours ago
Maybe I just don't understand this but isn't a buyback program just spending tax payer money to take other people's
guns?
[–] gargoyle_mayonnaise 1 point 4 hours ago
a battlefield.
The founding fathers would most certainly disagree.
2A as written to maintain parity between the government and citizenry. If you think they wrote it just so suburban
dads could own hunting rifles you are astonishingly ignorant of context.
American rebels rose up and forcibly removed our colonial oppressors. They didn’t do it through sit-ins or internet
petitions.
I sincerely hope that after this election we never hear from you again.
[–] Exhar 2 points 5 hours ago
I am European, no one here owns guns and not allowed to own guns unless they are Police or the Army.
Bullshit. As usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#/media/File:Civilian_firearms_ownership_in_the_EU.
png
[–] Legion681 2 points an hour ago
The problem in America isn't guns, it's mental health. I am a Swiss and compared to the rest of Europe my nation is
the USA of the continent in relation to firearms ownership. Yet we have close to zero firearms related violence (we
had a total of 22 attempted murders & murders by firearms in the whole nation in 2018).
[–] jmmyt3 1 point 40 minutes ago
I don't disagree that we have a mental health crisis as well, but that doesn't discount the argument on gun control.
And Sweden has 23 guns per 100,000 (19% as many as we have). You may have more guns than other countries in
Europe, but you also have many socialist policies to keep people happy and out of poverty. Many of the conservatives
arguing with me are not in agreement with those policies to promote mental health so here we are...
[–] Gen50 1 point 1 hour ago
What can you honestly dispute about those numbers?

so us rational people
This is why people detest talking to Liberals. Your myopic worldview does not make you any more intelligent than
someone with conservative values.
[–] jmmyt3 0 points 1 hour ago*
That they are false and wikipedia proves that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-

related_death_rate
[–] Airclot 0 points 38 minutes ago
"... but at least I have a heart..." Another example of why liberals are morally bankrupt and frankly infuriating to talk
to. Someone who believes they are right because they are morally better than you is a dangerous person.
At least I don't categorize all people into one class. And I deleted it because I have the sense to realize when I'm
being on a soapbox and getting heated. Fucker
.......What? Of course I look at both sides. That's why I went from being staunchly liberal to a right-leaning
conservative over the past decade. Because I began looking at both sides of the argument. I am still plenty socially
liberal on some policies and then conservative on other ones -- as is the general population.
So you've looked at all the facts, the people dying en mass and still think "well do we really need background checks,
or licensing, or mandatory training, or maybe a ban on the weapons people are using to kill so many people?" (We
have more restrictions on buying a pet than a gun)
And you're fine with comparing fucking heart attacks to gun violence to make it less significant statistically. Do
children die of heart attacks often? That strawman doesn't make the issue less real and nobody is retorting me on that
one. That doesn't raise a red flag to a hidden agenda? The rationalization and mental gymnastics are ridiculous to
downplay this issue.
At the end of the day I just think you're blind to reality. We need to do something about gun violence besides empty
thoughts/prayers and mentioning "video games/mental health" then not doing jack shit. This is a much bigger issue
than this post entails.
[–] Gen50 1 point 9 minutes ago
I’m totally fine with universal background checks, license to carry, and strongly encouraged (tax-incentivized?)
training. I actually believe there should be much harsher laws including prison time for people who don’t lock their
guns in a safe in the event their gun is stolen or accessed to use to commit a crime. Red flag laws are good too
assuming they don’t get abused. No issues on any of those.
The number of mass shootings where a handgun is used is astronomically higher than with rifles. You are more likely
to be killed by a falling coconut each year than you are to be killed by an AR-15 via mass shooting.
I’m willing to bet more children die from cardiac arrest than being shot. Full stop. But that is not the point.
What’s the hidden agenda to you? More Americans get to keep the property they paid for? What about the fact that
the 99.9999999999% of AR-15 owners in America use them responsibly?
Doing something about gun violence is great. How about stronger background checks and red flag laws for those who
actually pose a harmful threat to society? Can we agree on that without jumping to crazy extremes like stealing
people’s property via federal mandate?
[–] itty53 6 points 5 hours ago*
The meme is reaching its final form.

You, that is. You're the meme.
Edit: Awh the big badass deleted his comment. How predictably ironic. Too bad. Here's what Lieutenant Dan over here
sad.
/u/fuckeveryone________
My ancestors died building this country and securing the liberties too many people take for granted. I'm not going
to give up any more freedom than we already have--and we've given up so much. I'd die, too, to water the tree of
liberty.
"I'd die too, but endure downvotes anonymously on reddit? Nah I'm not that strong."
You're projecting your own internal beta status onto him. Are you afraid to hold a gun?
I am a gun owner. I don't need an assault rifle because I don't like to pretend I'm some kind of military super soldier.
A .44 is all I need.
beta status
lol grow up boy.
[–] NightmareUSA 3 points 4 hours ago
I am a gun owner....A .44 is all I neeed.

Holy shit a fudd
I bet you think AR stands for assault rifle, don't you?

No need to be embarrassed, gun knowledge can be hard!

[–] itty53 1 point 5 hours ago
ArmaLite Rifle, actually. I actually know all about ARs, if you really want to go there.
Not everyone who can disassemble a rifle is going to agree with your little tough-guy schtick. We don't all need one to
feel like our cocks are big enough.

[–] bitter_cynical_angry 2 points 5 hours ago*
It worked for Jefferson et al. Were they verybadass too?

Edit: Autocorrect typo.
Yes yes, Thomas Jefferson had a fully modded AR-15, and Andrew Jackson carried an AK-47. You're right. Their kids
did too. Perfect comparison, I'm shocked I didn't think of it myself.
[–] bitter_cynical_angry 2 points 5 hours ago
I mean, they went to war when the government tried to take their guns and ammunition (after a long train of other
abuses and usurpations). Simple question: were they r/iamverybadass materiel for writing the Declaration of
Independence?
[–] itty53 0 points 5 hours ago*
They went to war because they were rich white slave owners who didn't want to pay taxes. Not over their guns, not
over their ideology, but their money. And just like today, idiots are easy to sell on that false ideology. Y'all voted for
Donald fucking Trump because he told you "I'm just like you, an idiot, look!".
Like seriously, read a history book. A real one, not one you got in 6th grade.
At the time, Washington was the richest person in history. Something they don't put in those 6th grade history books.
He had money to protect, not some lofty ideology about guns that wouldn't be invented for another 200 years.

[–] NeverTrustAName 0 points 5 hours ago
They were slave owners and shit, so definitely no

[–] bitter_cynical_angry 2 points 5 hours ago
Adams, Paine, and Hamilton owned slaves? That's news to me...

You know what et al means, right?

[–] NeverTrustAName 0 points 53 minutes ago
Fucking pedant, you know exactly what I meant. You understand implication, right?

[–] Woodzy14 3 points 5 hours ago
You understand that in real life, cool quotes don't appear before you respawn, right?
[–] UsedToPlayForSilver 2 points 5 hours ago
Is this a bit? This has got to be a bit, right?

Right guys?
[–] Blaizefed 1 point 5 hours ago
You have been watching too many movies

[–] BoulderFalcon 1 point 5 hours ago
Lmao
[–] clrdst 0 points 5 hours ago
Good riddance
[–] OHoSPARTACUS 8 points 4 hours ago
Injust laws are meant to be broken. If we have another Civil War in this country it will be in defense of the 2nd
Amendment.
[deleted]
[–] OHoSPARTACUS 3 points 4 hours ago
lmao
I see this a lot and I've addressed it in bits and pieces but I want to fully put this nonsense to bed.
Let's take a look at just raw numbers. The entire United States military (including clerks, nurses, generals, cooks, etc)
is 1.2 million. Law enforcement is estimated at about 1.1 million (again, including clerks and other non-officers.) This
gives us a combined force of 2.3 million people who could potentially be tapped to deal with a civil insurrection. Keep
in mind this also includes officers who serve in the prisons, schools, and other public safety positions that require their
presence. That total of soldiers is also including US soldiers deployed to the dozens of overseas US bases in places like
South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. Many of those forces are considered vital and can't be removed due to strategic
concerns.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the state slaps a rifle in every filing clerk's hand and tells them to
sort the situation out.
We now have to contend with the fact that many law enforcement and military personnel consider themselves patriots
and wouldn't necessarily just automatically side with the state if something were to happen. There is a very broad
swath of people involved in these communities that have crossover with militia groups and other bodies that are, at
best, not 100% in support of the government. Exact numbers are hard to pin down but suffice it to say that not
everybody would be willing to snap-to if an insurrection kicked off. Even if they didn't outright switch sides there's the
very real possibility that they could, in direct or indirect ways, work against their employer's prosecution of the
counter-insurgency either by directly sabotaging operations or just not putting as much effort into their work and
turning a blind eye to things.
But, again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you've somehow managed to talk every single member of the
military and law enforcement services into being 100% committed to rooting out the rebel scum.
There are an estimated 400 million firearms in the US. Even if we just ignore 300 million firearms available as maybe
they're antiques or not in a condition to be used, that's still 100 million firearms that citizens can pick up and use.
Let's go even further than that and say of that 100, there are only about 20 million firearms that are both desirable
and useful in an insurgency context and not say .22's or double barrelled shotguns.
It should be noted just for the sake of interest that several million AR-15's are manufactured every year and have
been since 2004 when the "assault weapons" ban ended. Soooo 2-5 million per year for 15 years....
If only 2% of the US population decided "Fuck it, let's dance!" and rose up, that's about 6.5 million people. You're
already outnumbering all law enforcement and the military almost 3 to 1. And you have enough weapons to arm them
almost four times over. There are millions of tons of ammunition held in private hands and the materials to make
ammunition are readily available online even before you start talking about reloading through scrounging.
So you have a well equipped armed force that outnumbers the standing military and law enforcement capabilities of
the country by a significant margin.
"But the military has tanks, planes, and satellites!"
That they do however it's worth noting that the majority of the capabilities of our armed forces are centered around
engaging another state in a war. That means another entity that also has tanks, planes, and satellites. That is where
the majority of our warfighting capabilities are centered because that's what conflict has consisted of for most of the
20th century.
We've learned a lot about asymmetric warfare since our time in Iraq and Afghanistan and one of the key takeaways
has been just having tanks and battleships is not enough to win against even a much smaller and more poorly armed
opponent.
A battleship or a bomber is great if you're going after targets that you don't particularly care about but they don't do
you a whole hell of a lot of good when your targets are in an urban setting mixed in with people that you, the
commander, are accountable to.
Flattening a city block is fine in Overthereastan because you can shrug and call the sixty civilians you killed "collateral
damage" and no one gives a shit. If you do that here, you seriously damage perceptions about you among the
civilians who then are going to get upset with you. Maybe they manage to bring enough political pressure on you to
get you ousted, maybe they start helping the rebels, or maybe they pick up guns of their own and join in. You killed
fifteen fighters in that strike but in so doing you may have created thirty more.
Even drones are of mixed utility in that circumstance. It's also worth noting that the US is several orders of magnitude
larger than the areas that drones have typically operated in during conflict in the Middle East. And lest we forget,
these drones are not exactly immune from attacks. There's also not a lot a drone can do in places with large amounts
of tree cover...like over a billion acres of the US.
And then even if we decide that it's worth employing things like Hellfire missiles and cluster bombs, it should be noted
that a strategy of "bomb the shit out of them" didn't work in over a decade in the Middle East. Most of the insurgent
networks in the region that were there when the war started are still there and still operating, even if their influence is
diminished they are still able to strike targets.
Just being able to bomb the shit out of someone doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to win in a conflict against
them.
Information warfare capabilities also don't guarantee success. There are always workarounds and methods that are
resistant to interception and don't require a high level of technical sophistication. Many commercial solutions can
readily be used or modified to put a communications infrastructure in place that is beyond the reach of law
enforcement or the military to have reliable access to. Again, there are dozens of non-state armed groups that are
proving this on a daily basis.
You also have to keep in mind the psychological factor. Most soldiers are ok with operating in foreign countries where
they can justify being aggressive towards the local population; they're over here, my people are back home. It's a lot
harder to digest rolling down the streets of cities in your own country and pointing guns at people you may even
know.
What do you do as a police officer or soldier when you read that soldiers opened fire into a crowd of people in your
home town and killed 15? What do you do when you've been ordered to break down the door of a neighbor that
you've known your whole life and arrest them or search their home? What do you do if you find out a member of your
own family has been working with the insurgency and you have a professional responsibility to turn them in even
knowing they face, at best, a long prison sentence and at worst potential execution? What do you do when your
friends, family, and community start shunning you as a symbol of a system that they're starting to see more and
more as oppressive and unjust?
"People couldn't organize on that scale!"

This is generally true. Even with the networked communications technologies that we have it's likely ideological and
methodological differences would prevent a mass army of a million or more from acting in concert.
In many ways, that's part of what would make an insurrection difficult to deal with. Atomized groups of people, some
as small as five or six, would be a nightmare to deal with because you have to take each group of fighters on its own.
A large network can be brought down by attacking its control nodes, communication channels, and key figures.
Hundreds of small groups made up of five to twenty people all acting on their own initiative with different goals,
values, and methods of operation is a completely different scenario and a logistical nightmare. It's a game of whack-
a-mole with ten thousand holes and one hammer. Lack of coordination means even if you manage to destroy,
infiltrate, or otherwise compromise one group you have at best removed a dozen fighters from the map. Attacks
would be random and spontaneous, giving you little to no warning and no ability to effectively preempt an attack.
Negotiation isn't really an option either. Deals you cut with one group won't necessarily be honored by another and
while you can leverage and create rivalries between the groups to a certain extent you can only do this by
acknowledging some level of control and legitimacy that they possess. You have to give them some kind of legitimacy
if you want to talk to them, the very act of talking says "You are worth talking to." And there are hundreds, if not
thousands, of these groups.
You are, in effect, trying to herd cats who not only have no interest in listening to you but are actively dedicated to
frustrating your efforts and who greatly outnumber you in an environment that prevents the use of the tools that your
resources are optimized to employ.
Would it be bad? Definitely. Casualties would be extremely high on all sides. That's not a scenario I would ever want
to see play out. It would be a long, drawn out war of attrition that the actual US government couldn't effectively win.
Think about the Syrian Civil War or The Troubles in Northern Ireland or the Soviet-Afghan War in Afghanistan. That's
what it would be.
Tell that to the Viet Cong, Taliban, Al Quaeda, etc. You're a dipshit.
[deleted]
I mean I wouldn't consider the last 2 successful. It's pretty hard after they invented drones.
Most Americans are too fat to be guerrillas.
[–] El_trabajo_te_libera 1 point 4 hours ago
Well, we're still over there fucking around 18 years later, so it's not like it was a cake walk either.
Fair point on overweight Americans. But for every fat big talking boomer, there's a few young fit guys. Not to mention
a huge number of veterans with combat experience.
[–] Banana_bandit0 3 points 4 hours ago
Giant cities with skyscrapers

[–] El_trabajo_te_libera 1 point 4 hours ago
Literally no one is talking about going head to head with F-35s.

[–] Slim_Charles 1 point 4 hours ago
Because the government uses tanks and jets to repress the people? Because the people in those tanks and jets would
just unquestioningly massacre their own people? That's not how government repression would go down. It wouldn't be
the military that you'd have to fight, but law enforcement and other federal agencies.
all of these are nitpicky, nonsemantical points: bumpstocks are legal in most states. some prohibted them after the
vegas shooting.... most didn't. and there are other ways to easily manipulate your rifle to shoot fully autimatically. so
yes, the ar 15 is fully auto within a couple of seconds, and that is intended because not disabled, by design. and of
course not all forms of government are the same, but all of them are a form of tyranny. which is exactly the point: at
which time is it your right to violently overthrow government? yeah good luck with that anyway.
don't get into discordian semantics with me, because
[–] Dframe44 4 points 5 hours ago
Try to have a little respect for others, even if you have none for yourself.
[–] paigntonbey -5 points 5 hours ago
I have alot of respect for my self. But any sort of justification for these weapons or the second amendment, whilst you
are incurring daily mass shootings doesn't deserve an ounce of my respect. Keep shooting your kids, keep thoughts
and prayer'n
[–] Dframe44 3 points 5 hours ago
'I have alot of respect for my self. A tremendous amount - the most respect.'
You sound like Donald Trump
Yeah, I do think endorsing a policy where armed men will attempt to disarm the populace of an exceedingly common
and already house hold rifle should they disobey Sounds like a dumb idea to me.
I'm for regulations and compromising solutions, but confiscation is not a compromise.
I also dislike how he uses the already sad situations of late to further this agenda. I think it's gross.
[–] Devonai 5 points 4 hours ago
I've been in the National Guard for almost 15 years. All my neighbors know I'm a soldier. One of my best friends is a
Guardsman and a police officer, has been for even longer, and all his neighbors know that.
One thing that pie-in-the-sky idealists like Beto never talk about is who is going to be confiscating these weapons?
Because it sure as shit isn't going to be us.
Why? First, we have to deal with the public backlash of the President ordering the National Guard and law
enforcement into action, and that's regardless of whether or not we, as individuals, will be put on these teams. Great,
now our neighbors despise us simply by association. Next, if we are called into action, we have to decide if there are
enough of us to refuse this blatantly unlawful order to avoid being sent to Leavenworth, or stand alone and face the
UCMJ.
So we're stuck with either going door-to-door against neighbors who already know we're the enemy, going to prison,
or desertion. If we chose the last option, good luck convincing our neighbors we're on their side now. If they believe
us, and our houses haven't been burned down yet, our lives are still essentially over.
I agree with you completely and this is exactly why I think beto is a complete and utter fool who is completely just
using the emotionally loaded aspects of the topics to support his false claims.
His policy will be very dangerous.
[–] nottatroll 7 points 4 hours ago
Why can't you have some respect

It's pretty fucking hard to have respect for someone who has none for you or your rights.
[deleted]
[–] I_Hate_Liberalism 4 points 3 hours ago
I like how you still think Walmart sells assault rifles.

Walmart has never, ever sold assault rifles. Not once. Not ever.
This is why no one takes you seriously. You clearly don;t have a fucking clue what you are trying to talk about.
[deleted]
[–] I_Hate_Liberalism 3 points 3 hours ago
I particularly liked the part where you didn't even attempt to justify all the bullshit you lied about.
Weird, because people who want to have guns confiscated call gun owners "gun nuts", "baby killers", "small dicked",
"psychopaths", but nobody seems to mind those emotional outbursts or character attacks.
[–] ASUMicroGrad 3 points 1 hour ago
You forgot ammosexual, because (and I am on the left) claiming to be allies of the LGBT community, the gun
grabbers seem to go right to claims of sexual deviancy as a way to demean gun owners.
people die from peanuts and it is stupid as shit to try to take guns away. imagine if trump dissolved congress and
enacted some crazy scheme to be more of a dictator than he already is. would you like your guns back my friend?
[–] quitecrass 16 points 5 hours ago
Remember when the 1st amendment was written, there were quill pens? And yet people have this crazy idea that the
right to free speech also applies to bytes flying around the internet.
[–] automated_bot 22 points 5 hours ago
When the 2nd Amendment was written, there were privately owned warships and privately owned artillery.
[–] Anal_Schwarzenegger -3 points 4 hours ago*
And Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark West with semi auto (I think, they may have been full auto, I can't
remember) rifles. They had a low fire rate compared to today, but you could fire something like 20 rounds before
reloading.
Edit lmao: imagine downvoting someone because you don't like the fact that they wrote lol
[–] Taco_Desperado 2 points 4 hours ago
Girandoni rifles
[–] Anal_Schwarzenegger 2 points 4 hours ago
Yes! I forgot the name. They were first made in like 1778 or 1779.
They were air rifles though.

[–] infinitytomorrow -11 points 4 hours ago
None of which fired multiple rounds per second. What's your point?
[–] automated_bot 3 points 4 hours ago
My point is that the war materiel available to the citizen was on par with that of the government.
[–] Poignantusername 8 points 5 hours ago
Remember last century when your entire continent was nearly conquered... twice? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
[–] Judge_Bredd2 6 points 4 hours ago
I'm curious, you're from Georgia right? Russia has been nibbling bits off your country for years and you're totally ok
with letting that continue? You don't think anyone who's woken up and suddenly found themselves on the Russia side
of border didn't wish they had a chance to fight back?
Google the Puckle Gun. And to stay with your point, muskets were the “military grade assault rifle” of the late 1700s.
[–] ghostofhenryvii 8 points 5 hours ago
When the first amendment was written we didn't have the internet. That doesn't change shit.
https://billypenn.com/2018/02/16/a-philly-friend-of-ben-franklin-may-have-invented-one-of-the-first-semi-
automatic-weapons/
[–] ihopethisisvalid 12 points 4 hours ago
what even is this question getting at

[–] MeIIowJeIIo -5 points 4 hours ago
What type of weapon would you rather be facing in an active shooting situation? An AR or a handgun?
[–] ihopethisisvalid -3 points 4 hours ago
none. i’d rather live in my country that doesn’t experience mass shootings daily.
[–] MeIIowJeIIo -4 points 4 hours ago
Neither does my country. OP was suggesting handguns were just as deadly as his beloved AR.
[–] Overlordutah 5 points 4 hours ago
I wouldn't mind having a school deputy who wasn't fucking coward...

[–] ihopethisisvalid 2 points 4 hours ago
You can fit a pistol in a pocket. Pistols are restricted where I live except on the range. It’s much more difficult to walk
down the street with a rifle without being noticed.
I don't have a choice as to "what weapon the shooter has."

I do have a choice as to what weapon I have. In my case, it would be a handgun along with a lot of training. These
people are cowards, and don't like it when their intended victims fight back.
[–] Taurol 1 point 3 hours ago
We can see this time and time again. One student steps in and ends the whole thing. That it is usually one person or a
few people can over power one cowardly chicken shit asshole with a gun. Most of these people commit mass shootings
are mentally ill incels, they are born and bred pathetic. Even if they had a gun they would still run if you charged
them.
[–] MeIIowJeIIo 0 points 3 hours ago
In a way you sort of do have a choice of the shooter's weapon.

Look, I don't really care, I'm not even American or in the US. Like just about every person in the world outside of the
US, I'm scratching my head. When I see an argument like yours, I'm left wondering if you have this handgun and
training just waiting (hoping) for an opportunity to be a 'good-guy with a gun'

Sure we do. We're the ones who paid for those things. What's to stop the good old boys at the national guard depot
from taking their tanks and artillery home when the civil war starts. You realize the majority of the military believes in
the second ammendment right?
[–] Thattaxguy 7 points 4 hours ago*
Vietnam didn't either. Iraq was technologically out gunned. Beating one guy with an AR isn't hard, but 1 million or
even 10 million with an AR?
[–] MasPatriot 1 point 4 hours ago
Vietnam was given military support by the Chinese

[–] Storrison 7 points 4 hours ago
If America devolved into civil war do you not think that some of our enemies that would like to see a destabilized
government would not send support to the underdogs as well?
It happened in the last civil war too.
[–] grarghll 2 points 4 hours ago
And if the United States, the most powerful and threatening country in the world, became unstable due to a civil war,
all other world powers would twiddle their thumbs and wait for it to be over?
[–] John_Holliday 1 point 3 hours ago
Whenever there's a civil war in any country, how many others jump to aid the citizens over the government EVERY
TIME? Not only are our citizens already armed, if it ever happens I guarantee multiple countries, allies or not, would
side with the citizens.
[–] Wallyfrank 12 points 4 hours ago
You’re acting real tough til the jungle starts speaking Vietnamese
Neither does the Taliban. Yet we can't seem to get rid of them
[–] bigbishounen 1 point 3 hours ago
well, once.
about help apps & tools <3

blog site rules Reddit for iPhone reddit premium
about Reddit help center Reddit for Android reddit coins
advertising wiki mobile website redditgifts
careers reddiquette
mod guidelines
contact us
Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2019 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
Advertise - lifestyles

Robert Ama Guns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robert Ama Guns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/19/2019 betoorourke comments on Hi. I'm Beto O'Rourke, a candidate for President.

IAMA comments other discussions (11) protogenxl (7,114) | | | | preferences | logout

How will you confiscate the millions of AR 15s? Progressive $$$

[–] AFuddyDuddy 18 points an hour ago Former

[–] Justice_R_Dissenting 3 points an hour ago National

[–] KingKrmit 1 point 29 minutes ago

[–] MangoAtrocity 67 points 2 hours ago All AMAs require proof.

[–] MangoAtrocity 10 points an hour ago Please note:

I think this much compensation might be contagious Useful Links!

[–] honeyyoutookthekids 31 points 2 hours ago

permalink embed save parent report give award reply

[–] SneakyThrowawaySnek 2 points 28 minutes ago

[–] palipr 1 point 16 minutes ago

Hmmm... There's technically nothing in my apartment lease that says I CAN'T

[–] y_do_i_need_to_hide 6 points 37 minutes ago

cahaseler Lead Moderator

permalink save parent report give award reply

permalink save parent report give award reply Portrait of a Lady

[–] llikeafoxx -4 points 2 hours ago clear

[–] unfriendlybot 18 points an hour ago

[–] llikeafoxx -3 points an hour ago

[–] unfriendlybot 13 points an hour ago

[–] xiolableu01 -38 points 2 hours ago

[–] Clay_Hakaari 31 points 2 hours ago

Machine guns were not “banned”

[–] Klindg 20 points 2 hours ago

[–] unfriendlybot 23 points 2 hours ago

[–] biggestofboys 7 points 2 hours ago

That sounds sick, thanks for the link lol

[–] Mega_Dragonzord 2 points 48 minutes ago

I think I just came...how did I not know this was a possibility?

[–] VRichardsen 1 point 25 minutes ago

how did I not know this was a possibility?

[–] xiolableu01 1 point just now

Civilians are not allowed to have a drone with a weapon attached

[–] crunchycrispy -9 points 2 hours ago

[–] Danskheart 2 points 2 hours ago

[–] Danskheart 1 point 8 minutes ago

I still do not understand the point you're trying to make.

[–] scottcmu -91 points 4 hours ago

So I can have biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons?

[–] crispyg 11 points 3 hours ago

[–] Junkbot 15 points 3 hours ago

[–] NeverInterruptEnemy 12 points 3 hours ago

So I can have biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons?

[–] Murse_Pat 14 points 3 hours ago

[–] Soft_Resist 72 points 4 hours ago

[–] King_Pollox -39 points 4 hours ago

[–] randomguy1411 34 points 3 hours ago

[–] MangoAtrocity 4 points 2 hours ago

[–] TheDemonClown -11 points 3 hours ago

[–] randomguy1411 27 points 3 hours ago

continue this thread

[–] Willyb524 4 points 3 hours ago

[–] Anonymous_user_of_US 1 point 2 hours ago

[–] Spartan265 1 point 2 hours ago

[–] crunchycrispy 2 points 2 hours ago

[–] Anonymous_user_of_US 1 point 2 hours ago

[–] PoopIsAlwaysSunny 5 points 3 hours ago

[–] lawyer69 9 points 3 hours ago

This is a fairly made point, regardless of where you stand on trump.

[–] Alt_Chimp -4 points 3 hours ago

[–] PoopIsAlwaysSunny 4 points 3 hours ago

continue this thread