Alright, I know there are nogunz liberals lurking here, and it's time for you to come out of the woodworks and seriously explain to me why pistol grips, flash suppressors, muzzle brakes, collapsing/folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and large magazines need to be banned.
As far as I know, rifles are involved in a statistically negligible number of firearms deaths.
While we're at it, you can explain how extensive background checks, fingerprinting, and a federal registry aren't enough to be allowed to obtain NFA items. Or why full auto produced after 1986 are any worse than other full autos. Or why suppressors need to be NFA when they aren't anywhere near as silent as the hollywood assassination machines.
You can also explain why people who are cleared via self defense shouldn't be granted immunity from civil lawsuit, or why self defense shouldn't apply outside one's home, or why protecting one's property shouldn't also apply under castle doctrine.
Also, you can explain to me why conceal carry shouldn't be shall-issue? Why should the government be allowed to decide that a law-abiding citizen willing to go through classes and training doesn't really need the ability to defend himself?
Why don't you explain why even if you don't think these things should be as available as a fudd rifle, why they should be outright banned instead of regulated similarly to the NFA (that is, taxed and registered, but not banned)?
Why don't you just wake up to the fact that there's a much stronger correlation between violent crime and the proportion of blacks and hispanics in a state than between gun ownership or gun laws and violent crime? Why is this point so often ignored?
In fact, why would banning guns on college campuses be a better idea than letting ccw holders carry on campus? Wouldn't someone intent on bringing a gun to pull off VT 2: Cho Seung Boogaloo do so regardless its legality?
Come at me, liberals. I am ready.
You weren't here for the progun thread last night. There was a euro/spic nitpicking at statistics and dodging assertions that nigs have more to do with crime than guns.
Then he claimed victory when America went to sleep.
Ah, professor. Glad I caught you. I was in your wumbology 101 course last spring, and was wondering you thought a doctorate or a masters would be sufficient to enter the research field with?
Because a respectable percentage of libtards have nothing better to do than troll gun owners and lurk on /k/ in order to find things to point at when they whine that everyone in the "gun community" is a violent extremist.
I think you're over-thinking it
What happened is you got trolled
This happens because what's the best way to get a rise out of someone on a gun board? Pretend to be anti-gun.
You're proving it true right now.
You know, I actually tried to play devils advocate and argue against those points... but I couldn't, becuase I'm not a total fuckwad.
God damn I hate being a person that uses logic and common sense instead of MUH FEELINGS and MUH KIDS.
>As far as I know, rifles are involved in a statistically negligible number of firearms deaths.
Sure, they just kill the little elementary school children, the movie houses filled with families, the summer camp children, and the like. Just wonder who the assault rifles missed killing because of that pesky ban? Hmmm. So basically you're saying if it ain't broken don't fix it? Because just a few mass murders are committed by people using assault weapons; we should abandon trying to keep them out of the hands of the masses, because they are needed for what exactly? Shooting squirrels? Or 5 or 6 year old children at school? One child is one child too many, I may add. But as an anon wrote a few days ago, gun-control groups are leaving this issue and concentrating more on hand-gun legislation. Why worry about what the politicians' are doing? It's not like they are going to get anything done or passed anyway! Their too busy doing nothing and getting paid for it. And may I add getting re-elected over and over again to do nothing!.
They re-categorized it again, It's WUM338.
Class begins next Monday, better register while there are still seats. Then again it's a wumbo forum so adding shouldn't be a problem.
"Trolling" is trying to get a certain reaction and consequence out of an intended target. Pretending to be an anti-gun on here is about as an impressive feat than shit slinging and flaming.
The OP in this regard is not only enforcing his belief in pro-gun arguments, but learning new facets and tidbits along the way. Real trolling is getting a bunch of people to call the Mormon Church asking for Battletoads or the whole thing with jesse slaughter. This is just pathetic at best
>"Trolling" is trying to get a certain reaction and consequence out of an intended target. Pretending to be an anti-gun on here is about as an impressive feat than shit slinging and flaming.
I never said it was impressive, it's just really fucking easy to do, but for some reason OP thinks it's all a conspiracy.
Yeah, look at these assault rifles! They killed over 30 people in Virginia!
You're preaching to the choir mate. Go to /pol/, and I mean that not as an insult, I mean it. They have as much liberal nazis as there are basement nazis, but be prepared for you to get answers equivalent to being yelled at by 13 year olds who just read Mein Kampf and/or Atlas Shrugged.
It's a scary place that will drain you of your faith in humanity faster than watching congress sessions on TV.
Not nogunz, but still liberal. I personally believe that pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc. are retarded for determining whether or not something should be illegal. There could be an argument made for collapsing/folding stocks if you want concealment, but still.
Limiting magazine size is just an attempt at making the shooter reload more often, giving potential victims time to escape or some shit like that.
Full-autos produced after 1986 weren't grandfathered in, it's just legalese bullshit that's part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It would have been more difficult to get all the pre-1986 machine guns out of the country than to just ban the sale of machine guns made after the law went into effect.
CC shouldn't be shall-issue because, generally speaking, even an idiot that can't even field-strip their weapon would be given a license if it was shall-issue. If an untrained man with a CC pistol finds himself in a mall-shooting scenario, then you've got two shooters out for blood in a target-rich environment. In addition, it could lead to situations where you have an armed, intoxicated man in a bar looking for a fight. Besides, carrying a gun and dispensing justice is generally the police's job.
Banning the ownership of something, rather than regulating it, is more profitable for the government because then they get to collect big money from violators. Not to mention it calms down soccer moms more, too.
Banning guns on college campuses is a better idea than letting CCers on campus because of the reasons above. Given the fact that they're college students, they're more prone to intoxication as well. I don't know if this is the case at all campuses in America, but mine has its own armed police force for when shit goes wrong.
Liberals tend to think that blacks and hispanics are victims of systematic racism and therefore more prone to committing crimes, so this correlation is ignored. Besides, making that connection would make you look racist.
Holy shit all that liberal cancer
Guys, it's removal time.
Well put anon.
I can see little to no faults in your statements here.
Especially with concealed carry. It does make sense that people who do this should at least knowledgeable of how to gauge a situation.
I love these. I know they are satire but bet you money you could find people who would not only believe this bit think with this logic
That people who think like that live in the same country as me disturbs me greatly.
Then again, it's /b/, so getting rustled is par for the course.
But anon where will the government get all its delicious monies from if not drug users/dealers/mules?
>Alright, I know there are nogunz liberals lurking here, and it's time for you to come out of the woodworks and seriously explain to me why pistol grips, flash suppressors, muzzle brakes, collapsing/folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and large magazines need to be banned.
It was never about the Assault Rifles you idiotic faggot, we want all guns banned, the more guns we can make look scary to the public the more we can pass laws and actions to get these things removed from society.
The goal has always been to demonize them, do we know what they do? No. Do we care? No. we just want them gone.
We did it with Handguns in the 80s and 90s
We've been doing it with Assault weapons from the mid 90s to now
And we'll move on to sniper rifles next, we've already trashed you guys as much as we could, and now we have foot holds in big states like New York and California (which are all that really matter for the plans thus far).
The next step is to turn on the "hunters" and "sensible gun control sportsmen" that have been so willing to help us up until this point. After that's all said and done we just need to demonize shotguns with their "firebreathing rounds" and what not, then the legislation will spread like a slow burning fire through the country, again we already have the big states, the ones that matter, now we just wait for social media, youtube, videogames and whatnot to change opinions of the youth.
We could never possibly win an outright ban, so this is the most effective way to do it. So effective in fact that there's little to nothing you gunfags can actually do other than slow down the inevitable process.
>why pistol grips, flash suppressors, muzzle brakes, collapsing/folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and large magazines need to be banned.
I'm not a libtard but I can see their vein of thinking, so just to play deviled avocado...
>Flash suppressors help a shooter hide himself better
>collapsible stocks can make carbines more easily concealed
>Pistol grips are supposedly more accurate (not sure where they get this from, it's just what I've heard from libtards)
>Bayonets help the killer go stabby stabby? idk lol
>Larger capacity magazines allow a shooter to pop off more shots and endanger more people before he has to stop and reload
Now, understand that the people who make those claims probably don't know jack shit about guns, firefights or shootouts.
The only response you need for most of those:
Pistols, cars, and regular knives
Good luck with your great plan.
A total ban on firearms at any point now or in the future would be about as effective as prohibition was (I.e. not at all)
> but less guns to commit crimes with!
You mean bigger market for criminals to exploit.
Have fun in your fantasy land
Ok. You do that. We're going to give each and every one of you a lead necklace.>>22847755
i really dont agree with the american anti-gun lobby, but i can explain a bit
only idiots want to ban these
what possible reason could you have for wanting a flash suppressor that isnt in order to shoot something and not have anyone know?
see the pistols comment
its meant to be in order to stop people from concealing rifles, but i think it really doesn't matter
this is really stupid, they cant ban the gun so they're trying to ban the knife on the gun
basically you dont need that many bullets unless you're going to be involved in a serious firefight, which should never really happen
>While we're at it, you can explain how extensive background checks, fingerprinting, and a federal registry aren't enough to be allowed to obtain NFA items.
i dont know what you;'re referring to here but background checks is to stop insane people from having guns, duh
>Or why full auto produced after 1986 are any worse than other full auto
legal technicality, not like people fell strongly about this specific point
>Or why suppressors need to be NFA when they aren't anywhere near as silent as the hollywood assassination machines.
because they're still really fucking quiet and there is no need to be that quite unless you dont want to get caught
the next to lines are referring to specific laws i dont know about
then you start spouting /pol/ tier shit, what do you want us to do? ban black people?
yo're right about the college campus one, that's more just trying to stop people from buying guns by making their life harder and thus reducing the amount of guns in circulation. which is pretty stupid.
i live in bongland, in london no less, though ive been hunting with double barrels in the country with my uncle a couple times
i just come here to discuss military history and war and shit
Your arguments are completely bollocks and anyone in this board can debunk them.
>Your arguments are completely bollocks and anyone in this board can debunk them.
if its so easy why cont you?
also im not seriously anti-gun, im just not pro-gun
>I agree with anything but suppressors. Why would those be legal? You don't need to prevent people from hearing you shoot if you're doing it legally
Yeah why the fuck should you want to protect your hearing and cut the noise pollution that comes with shooting.
Ban them cause criminals murdering people will follow the rules.
1. all firearms are potentially deadly and trying to regulate them based on any perceived +/- lethality is stupid as fuck
So you don't get fucking muzzle flash? Why do people even need to justify this shit?
Don't increase deadliness. Criminals can just chop them off.
>bayonet lug bans
Stupid as fuck.
Why do you need to justify owning shit? If you want to pull the libbytard card then the FBI states that the avg. number of shots in a shooting is two rounds. Nobody gives a shit and nobody has to justify shit.
Constitution already gives you your rights. Gov't will always abuse their position to rape you since it's their discretion. See people getting dq'd for depression (99.99% of all faggots have it at some point) and counties that technically issue but you have these retarded sheriffs that deny every application.
More shit you don't need to justify owning when you're in a free country. Would like to add that you would have to have squad support to actually use FA weaponry effectively.
So people don't go deaf as much? Jesus Christ, I can't believe people actually support banning safety features.Suppressors don't reduce the supersonic crack when you fire ultrasonic ammunition. Even when you have subsonic ammunition through a suppressor, you can still hear it.
>then you start spouting /pol/ tier shit, what do you want us to do? ban black people?
You don't ban things to solve problems, you give people the freedom to do so because that's what America is about.
>college campus carry bans
Discriminating on grounds of race and stereotypes.