Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Gun lovers should be very angry with the Parkland Incel.

This is good news. Thank you Mr. President, you did something even the Russian colluder Obama refused to do.

Took long enough.

Go figure Trump gets it done, Obama refused to do it

I feel safe now.

Bullets can't penetrate denim jeans or hoodies without the extra velocity a bumpstock provides.

Oh no!! What ever will all the future mass murderers do without their trusty bump stocks?!?!?!?




7RdAhTxyP64

Oh.


But what about all the mass shootings with bump stocks involved?


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-bumpstocks/trump-bans-bump-stocks-used-in-mass-las-vegas-shooting-idUSKBN1OH1WW

Oh, just one.




Did banning bump stocks bring them back from the dead?

No.


Will it prevent mass shootings in the future?

No. It's irrelevant.

Will it lower the body count in mass shootings in the future?

No. Slow and controlled firing is much more accurate.

What exactly do people think this ban will accomplish?

Help their fee fees

Tbh there are alternative ways to do this with a belt. This ban was nothing more than a failed appeasement to the left by Trump.

I love how it appeased them though.

Originally posted by Chuck_Schumer
Tbh there are alternative ways to do this with a belt. This ban was nothing more than a failed appeasement to the left by Trump.

You don't even need a belt.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You don't even need a belt.


You know nothing of my sex life.

Careful, don't be another David Carradine.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Careful, don't be another David Carradine.


His family claimed he was investigating a Chinese gang, now 'Investigating a Chinese gang' has become a euphemism for auto-erotic asphyxiation, lol.

muh freedums!

AR is half an ARSE? Oh, you mean Automatic Rifle.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Gun lovers should be very angry with the Parkland Incel.

They should be angry with Trump. It was his idea, and he said he wants to confiscate their guns. And the Trumpers cheered!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
AR is half an ARSE? Oh, you mean Automatic Rifle.

It actually means ArmaLite, the manufacturer.

Funny thing, I was raised around guns. Dad owned a gun range. Held a gun when I was 6 (edit. 6 or 7, I'm usually sketchy on the age in all honesty but it was around this time). Saw someone shot when I was 9 (accidental).

I grew up hating guns.

Edit2x. Also, it's funny that I didn't hear the term "Assault Rifle" til I was in my teens and that was due to video games. I always thought those AR rifles were ArmaLites. We call them ArmaLites here (not assault rifles). The same way a lot of ppl call photocopying machines "Xeroxes" (we do that here, too).

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It actually means ArmaLite, the manufacturer.

Funny thing, I was raised around guns. Dad owned a gun range. Held a gun when I was 6 (edit. 6 or 7, I'm usually sketchy on the age in all honesty but it was around this time). Saw someone shot when I was 9 (accidental).

I grew up hating guns.

Edit2x. Also, it's funny that I didn't hear the term "Assault Rifle" til I was in my teens and that was due to video games. I always thought those AR rifles were ArmaLites. We call them ArmaLites here (not assault rifles). The same way a lot of ppl call photocopying machines "Xeroxes" (we do that here, too). We just call them AK's or M's it's pretty much all you see out here.

Originally posted by Silent Master
What exactly do people think this ban will accomplish?

I might stop someone who wants to mass murder more quickly and doesn't know how to 'bump' the gun by other means. But even that's an extremely long shot. So it's basically nothing in the short run but empty appeasement.

In the long run though (and why the NRA is upset), this could be used as a springboard for other bans, specifically if/when someone like Elizabeth Warren wins in 2020.

The next POTUS also now has the precedent (you can thank Trump for this) to declare a National Emergency on gun violence whenever another incel shoots up a school, Temple or Mosque and really use their executive powers (especially with a Blue Congress backing them) to drop the ban-hammer on guns, like assault rifles or any semi-auto above a certain caliber or any gun with certain ammo capacity. Use your imagination of what could be done now that Trump set the precedent.

Originally posted by Robtard
In the long run though (and why the NRA is upset), this could be used as a springboard for other bans, specifically if/when someone like Elizabeth Warren wins in 2020.

The next POTUS also now has the precedent (you can thank Trump for this) to declare a National Emergency on gun violence whenever another incel shoots up a school, Temple or Mosque and really use their executive powers (especially with a Blue Congress backing them) to drop the ban-hammer on guns, like assault rifles or any semi-auto above a certain caliber or any gun with certain ammo capacity. Use your imagination of what could be done now that Trump set the precedent.
That is actually disturbing.

I remember Nancy Pelosi fantasizing about doing exactly that when conversations on the whole emergency thing started, and I'm not really a fan of the precedent this sets.

That being said, hopefully the Judiciary can hold back such a move.

The funny thing to me is that mass shootings just make for dramatic news thus the gun debate focuses around them even though they aren't even a fraction of a fraction of the shootings in this country.

I think some sort of registry could be much more effective at controlling illegal guns than these symbolic bans of scary looking guns will be at curbing mass shootings. And illegal guns are a much bigger and more real danger imo.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That is actually disturbing.

I remember Nancy Pelosi fantasizing about doing exactly that when conversations on the whole emergency thing started, and I'm not really a fan of the precedent this sets.

That being said, hopefully the Judiciary can hold back such a move.


Too late, buddy. Precedent has been set by Trump (and his cult) and dead people in mass; especially children, outright screams "National Emergency! We. Gotta. Do. Something!" and now that can be done starting in 2021.

edit: put a pin in your mind on this, this will absolutely be a thing once Trump is out of office.

Originally posted by Robtard
Too late, buddy. Precedent has been set by Trump (and his cult) and dead people in mass; especially children, outright screams "National Emergency! We. Gotta. Do. Something!" and now that can be done starting in 2021.

edit: put a pin in your mind on this, this will absolutely be a thing once Trump is out of office.
Assuming he loses in 2020, and assuming the Courts don't shut it down.

He's likely losing in 2020, but even if he wins again which is certainly a possibility, the precedent is set for the Dem in 2024. People are not just going to forget when Trump cried the National Emergency wolf.

Yeah, the courts will be the bulwark. But you never know how they'll swing in a particular political environment.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's likely losing in 2020, but even if he wins again which is certainly a possibility, the precedent is set for the Dem in 2024. People are not just going to forget when Trump cried the National Emergency wolf.

Yeah, the courts will be the bulwark. But you never know how they'll swing in a particular political environment.
He may very well lose, I just don't see it as the more likely outcome personally.

I do very much agree with Ben Shapiro on the national emergency thing that it's a bad idea because of the precedent it sets.

I do think the courts have more of an interest in the protection of the second amendment and the rights of citizens than they do in border security funding though. That sounds like it hits closer to home constitutionally

Could be gun control.. could be climate change... I would be willing to bet if it stands then it will not be the last time this tactic is used. It's not about border security or whatever specific issue it's used for. It's about undermining the role of Congress and expanding executive power.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
He may very well lose, I just don't see it as the more likely outcome personally.

I do very much agree with Ben Shapiro on the national emergency thing that it's a bad idea because of the precedent it sets.

I do think the courts have more of an interest in the protection of the second amendment and the rights of citizens than they do in border security funding though. That sounds like it hits closer to home constitutionally

Fair enough. My opinion on Trump's chances could likely change in his favor depending on were the country is a year+ from now and who is running against him, as both will be huge factors.

Shapiro got that from me.

I do agree with you there, but again, depends on the climate and dead bodies pull at the emotion trigger. When Sandy Hook happened (not a false flag), a massacre of well-to-do white kids and nothing changed, I figured we'd never get serious gun reform, because if it was going to happen, it'd have happened then. But we're in a different era now and who knows, especially with flippant National Emergency powers precedents being set. It's defo coming down the line though, mark your calendar.

Originally posted by mike brown
Could be gun control.. could be climate change... I would be willing to bet if it stands then it will not be the last time this tactic is used. It's not about border security or whatever specific issue it's used for. It's about undermining the role of Congress and expanding executive power.

Why not both.

I'm just saying I won't venture to guess specifically what type of issue is tackled, I am just more confident that the national emergency tactic is going to be too tempting not to use for either given side of the isle. Could very well be another Republican that exploits it next. That's almost besides the point to me.

Originally posted by Robtard
I might stop someone who wants to mass murder more quickly and doesn't know how to 'bump' the gun by other means. But even that's an extremely long shot. So it's basically nothing in the short run but empty appeasement.

In the long run though (and why the NRA is upset), this could be used as a springboard for other bans, specifically if/when someone like Elizabeth Warren wins in 2020.

The next POTUS also now has the precedent (you can thank Trump for this) to declare a National Emergency on gun violence whenever another incel shoots up a school, Temple or Mosque and really use their executive powers (especially with a Blue Congress backing them) to drop the ban-hammer on guns, like assault rifles or any semi-auto above a certain caliber or any gun with certain ammo capacity. Use your imagination of what could be done now that Trump set the precedent.

Americans have a history of bloody conflicts with their government when they get carried away with the oppression stuff.


I sure hope the next president is not a toxic Progressive Democrat like Pelosi. I don't want another civil war.

I'm in the reddest state in the US.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Americans have a history of bloody conflicts with their government when they get carried away with the oppression stuff. which conflicts are you referring to (other than the civil war)?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Americans have a history of bloody conflicts with their government when they get carried away with the oppression stuff.

I sure hope the next president is not a toxic Progressive Democrat like Pelosi. I don't want another civil war.

I'm in the reddest state in the US.

I honestly don't see a civil war breaking out if massive gun reform is passed. Sure, they'll be incidents of violence with certain NRA fanatic types here and there, but even if say assault (aka "sport" rifles like an AR-15 style are outright banned, majority of owners will shed their tears, not blood.

Originally posted by mike brown
which conflicts are you referring to (other than the civil war)?

American Revolutionary War
American Civil War
Vietnam War Protest Violence, too.

Originally posted by Robtard
I honestly don't see a civil war breaking out if massive gun reform is passed. Sure, they'll be incidents of violence with certain NRA fanatic types here and there, but even if say assault (aka "sport" rifles like an AR-15 style are outright banned, majority of owners will shed their tears, not blood.

But they are already saber rattling over this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZVvHL4_siQ



You're living in an affluent, liberal AF, area.

You don't get exposed to the people who will literally start killing over this. There are tons in the Midwest and Southern States. Millions. It's not a joke at all. I am not fear mongering. This is a legit problem and it is getting further and further out of hand.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But they are already saber rattling over this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZVvHL4_siQ



You're living in an affluent, liberal AF, area.

You don't get exposed to the people who will literally start killing over this. There are tons in the Midwest and Southern States. Millions. It's not a joke at all. I am not fear mongering. This is a legit problem and it is getting further and further out of hand.

They've been sabre rattling for years and years. Most of Obama's presidency. Heard many a time that a "race war" was coming after Obama's win in 2008. But we survived not doing that.

I am

Maybe I'm wrong. But when push comes to shove, the very vast majority will shed tears and not blood. Some unhinged types will kill though and that's tragic.

Originally posted by Robtard
They've been sabre rattling for years and years. Most of Obama's presidency. Heard many a time that a "race war" was coming after Obama's win in 2008. But we survived not doing that.

No, not even close to what it is, now. Those convos went from, "He's a Muslim" to "I'm stockpiling guns and ammo so we can wage a war if they keep this up."

You underestimate the bitterness and anger from the liberty-loving-gun-toting-southerners.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am

Nothing wrong with that at all. It's probably better that you aren't exposed to racist redneck types all the time especially your children.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe I'm wrong. But when push comes to shove, the very vast majority will shed tears and not blood. Some unhinged types will kill though and that's tragic.

You could be right but all it takes is a militia of 2 million to be loosely organized all over the US and for all political opponents or their families to be eliminated over night.

I don't think the DHS has considered this scenario and if they have, it's classified.

To show you, gun rights vs. gun control has been changing a lot, lately. With gun control support dropping and gun rights increasing:

https://www.people-press.org/2017/06/22/public-views-about-guns/#total


It's not a "very vast majority." It's about half who may take up arms to protect their gun rights.

I tend to doubt a massive armed rebellion for something like Ar15 being banned. If they banned all guns that is another story. I think any such rebellion will be crushed mercilessly and it will just bring us one step closer to a complete police state.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not even close to what it is, now. Those convos went from, "He's a Muslim" to "I'm stockpiling guns and ammo so we can wage a war if they keep this up."

You underestimate the bitterness and anger from the liberty-loving-gun-toting-southerners.



Nothing wrong with that at all. It's probably better that you aren't exposed to racist redneck types all the time especially your children.



You could be right but all it takes is a militia of 2 million to be loosely organized all over the US and for all political opponents or their families to be eliminated over night.

I don't think the DHS has considered this scenario and if they have, it's classified.

To show you, gun rights vs. gun control has been changing a lot, lately. With gun control support dropping and gun rights increasing:

https://www.people-press.org/2017/06/22/public-views-about-guns/#total


It's not a "very vast majority." It's about half who may take up arms to protect their gun rights.

It was more than that. They talked about hanging Obama. They talked longingly about the coming "race war". Almost like they couldn't wait to shoot people who disagreed politically with them/were different and have an excuse to do so.

I don't think I do. I know it fairly well, I just think that the vast majority of them will spill their tear ducts before shooting people, especially law enforcement.

It's a fear tactic (I don't think this is you), imo. "Take my guns and thousands or even millions will die!" More like cry.

Yeah I don't think an army of beer-bellied middle aged men wielding AR-15s poses any real threat.

Originally posted by mike brown
I tend to doubt a massive armed rebellion for something like Ar15 being banned. If they banned all guns that is another story. I think any such rebellion will be crushed mercilessly and it will just bring us one step closer to a complete police state.

Agreed. An outlaw on all guns, even strict hunting arms, sure, that changes the game/mentality. I don't think that would ever happen. The National Emergency precedent will likely be used to outlaw assault rifles and possibly put some restrictions on other arms while not outright banning them.

Originally posted by TempAccount
Yeah I don't think an army of beer-bellied middle aged men wielding AR-15s poses any real threat.

"Meal Team Six" -Focus4Chumps

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed. An outlaw on all guns, even strict hunting arms, sure, that changes the game/mentality. I don't think that would ever happen. The National Emergency precedent will likely be used to outlaw assault rifles and possibly put some restrictions on other arms while not outright banning them. Maybe. I really believe that's a waste of time but the Dems seem dead set on an empty symbolic victory on gun control rather than doing anything real. Very similar to Trump and his wall.

There could be some good to come out of it regarding looking at and revamping background checks, better cohesion between law agencies and wait times. That's what the last admin was pushing for and it got shot down every time.

Just banning this gun but not that gun without looking at the whole system/issue in place would be pretty useless in the big picture.

Right I agree with the background check stuff just not the assualt weapons ban.

I mean fully automatic guns are still "banned" without a license, yet citizens can acquire them with the necessary clearance. Just do the same with semi autos. Demolition ranch / FPS Russia videos are pretty cool tbh

I mean TBH I could really give a shit if they ban them I just don't expect it will do much to address the problem they are trying to address, which is rich white kids getting shot at school. If anything the strongest argument to ban them is that they are being trafficked en masse to Central and South America for use by the narco cartels.

Originally posted by mike brown
If anything the strongest argument to ban them is that they are being trafficked en masse to Central and South America for use by the narco cartels.

In some cases by federal law enforcement agencies.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was more than that. They talked about hanging Obama. They talked longingly about the coming "race war". Almost like they couldn't wait to shoot people who disagreed politically with them/were different and have an excuse to do so.

You're referring to a very very small portion of the population, here, when it came to Obama as president. Crazy racist types.

I'm talking about tens of millions of Americans who frowned upon those racist statement who would also get up in arms (pun intended) if all gun rights were removed.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think I do. I know it fairly well, I just think that the vast majority of them will spill their tear ducts before shooting people, especially law enforcement.

It's a fear tactic (I don't think this is you), imo. "Take my guns and thousands or even millions will die!" More like cry.

And this is where I very much disagree. Come talk to people around where I live and you'll change your mind.

Or did you think the mass-purchase of guns thing that happened a few times was just "tears"?

Empty rhetoric = tears and false bravado

Actually stockpiling weapons and ammo to wage war against an oppressive government = preparing to wage war against an oppressive government

Are you referring to the nice uptick in both gun and ammo sales every time Obama said something like "we should take a look at our gun control legislation" or the uptick whenever there's a mass shooting as people fear restrictive laws might result so they engage the "buy and stockpile while it's still legal" mindset, or strictly the militia madness types?

To your last part, I think you're talking about the militia madness types who are indeed stockpiling weapons and training themselves for whatever imaginary war they've convinced themselves is coming. I know those people exist, as you can both read about them and watch videos of them stating their reasons/beliefs. I do doubt the number that would actually go to war with the US government/military though if it came down to it.

eg "We had 1,000 trained, armed and dedicated members, but only 42 showed up when it was time." -Jimmy Bob "Jimbo" Johnson, Leader of The American Freedom Fighters United <--- I think that's more likely to happen

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you referring to the nice uptick in both gun and ammo sales every time Obama said something like "we should take a look at our gun control legislation" or the uptick whenever there's a mass shooting as people fear restrictive laws might result so they engage the "buy and stockpile while it's still legal" mindset, or strictly the militia madness types?

Yes and I find those trends disturbing.

"Mass shooting? Quick! Buy guns and ammo before they take our guns away!"



Originally posted by Robtard
To your last part, I think you're talking about the militia madness types who are indeed stockpiling weapons and training themselves for whatever imaginary war they've convinced themselves is coming. I know those people exist, as you can both read about them and watch videos of them stating their reasons/beliefs. I do doubt the number that would actually go to war with the US government/military though if it came down to it.

eg "We had 1,000 trained, armed and dedicated members, but only 42 showed up when it was time." -Jimmy Bob "Jimbo" Johnson, Leader of The American Freedom Fighters United <--- I think that's more likely to happen

I don't disagree.

But it's more like 20 million and only a few million would do anything like organize and coordinate to "take out" who they view as the oppressors.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes and I find those trends disturbing.

"Mass shooting? Quick! Buy guns and ammo before they take our guns away!"





I don't disagree.

But it's more like 20 million and only a few million would do anything like organize and coordinate to "take out" who they view as the oppressors.

Agreed, it is disturbing. What I find weird, is that the Gun Industry are the ones who profit most from mass murders, yet the conspiracy nutters never really point their conspiracy fingers at the most obvious benefactor. Not that I'd believe that conspiracy either.

I really don't see a million strong militant militia, let alone a few million. Hopefully you're wrong here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't take this as an attack, but I don't see either happening. Your scenarios would make for a decent fictional story though, have you considered being the next Tom Clancy?