Jon Stewart stays bringing the heat on gun crime statistics.

[Formerly Black Trash]

That's my point. At MOST a pistol/shotgun for home or personal protection. And even those should be HARD TO GET. But Pandora's box been opened since the 80's ain't no going back now.

America high key sucks

 

[Everythingg]

I NEVER said anything about giving up guns and my comment you’re quoting doesn’t say that either. If you’re going to comment on my post you should either try to understand what I wrote, and if you’re not sure you should probably go back and read my other comments for context.

Saying that we shouldn’t treat guns like necessities is not the same as taking guns away from people.

The right to defend oneself from another person OR a tyrannical govt (constitution’s words) IS a necessity. Nobody from the govt (or anyone that rolls around with armed security) should be telling average citizens that their ability to do that should be limited because some novo (that obviously doesn’t care about following laws) committed a crime…

 

[Prodyson]

The right to defend oneself from another person OR a tyrannical govt (constitution’s words) IS a necessity. Nobody from the govt (or anyone that rolls around with armed security) should be telling average citizens that their ability to do that should be limited because some novo (that obviously doesn’t care about following laws) committed a crime…

Sometimes I feel like you guys don’t know the definition of words. It’s a RIGHT granted to you by the constitution, not a necessity. And any right given to you by the government can be regulated by that government. And if you don’t like the laws and regulations put in place by the government that sanctions your freedom, then leave. Ain’t that the argument y’all like to use?

Edit: The only reason a gun might be deemed a necessity is protection against other people with guns. But guns alone aren’t necessities

I also did NOT say that people shouldn’t be able to have guns. I said we shouldn’t treat the purchase and sale of guns like they are necessities. We have no reason to be eager to sell people guns as quickly as possible, especially not semi-auto rifles. My point in making that comment is that if whatever regulation someone creates affects how long it takes to get a gun or how easy it is to get guns with large capacities and high fire rates, I don’t really care because in most cases someone will survive just fine for the few weeks/months they have to wait.

Furthermore, the constitution isn’t some perfect document that can’t be questioned, regardless of how much we worship it. There’s a reason amendments exist. Hell, we’ve even proven that the amendments aren’t perfect either.

 

[OSUBaneBrowns]

The constitution gave Americans the right to bear arms. They did not defined what type of arms that they should be able to carry or not. The main problem in our society is that there is no uniform gun laws that each state has to follow. Some states make it easy to get one while others make it harder. For example, I live in CA and in the process of buying a AR-10 as my first weapon. I had to take a 30 question test before the dealer gave me my firearm safety certificate. I then have to submit a form with the CA DOJ with my info and currently on the 10 day hold while they review it and give me the green light to pick it up. I don't mind this since this weapon would mostly just be a range gun and worst case scenario tool if I have to defend myself or someone else from death. I'm planning on buying a standard 9mm gun in the near future as my home defense tool since the AR-10 is technically overkill.

You may now want to ask why I buying a AR-10? To tell you the truth, I wasn't planning on it either but after doing some research and watching videos on Youtube, I feel that it was the better weapon for me at this time. I want to have a gun that is versatile and can have fun shooting it at the range if I'm just bored. Plus CA put so many regulations on this type of weapon that I can really only shoot 10 rounds before I have to disassemble it just to reload the magazine.

I do understand why people want to have guns removed. I also understand why people want to have access and keep their guns too. The majority of citizens who have weapons only use them for self-defense, hunting, or just for shooting at the range and there is nothing wrong with it. It just that when you hear about a mass shooting, suicide, or a criminal activity with a gun is where people start claiming for better guns laws and that hard to do since there is no uniform law for all states to follow and the right to have one is within the constitution. We all know that the GOP will fight to the end to keep it as is, even it means endangering people lives in the process. The entire gun policy is fukked up but we have to find ways to adopt to it for now.

At the end of the day, criminals do not fight fair, so law abiding citizens should be able have the necessary weapons to protect themselves if they are in danger. At the same time, I really do wish for strict guns laws where it difficult for everyone to get one. Until that day comes, this will always be a problem that we have to deal with unfortunately.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

The constitution gave Americans the right to bear arms. They did not defined what type of arms that they should be able to carry or not. The main problem in our society is that there is no uniform gun laws that each state has to follow. Some states make it easy to get one while others make it harder. For example, I live in CA and in the process of buying a AR-10 as my first weapon. I had to take a 30 question test before the dealer gave me my firearm safety certificate. I then have to submit a form with the CA DOJ with my info and currently on the 10 day hold while they review it and give me the green light to pick it up. I don't mind this since this weapon would mostly just be a range gun and worst case scenario tool if I have to defend myself or someone else from death. I'm planning on buying a standard 9mm gun in the near future as my home defense tool since the AR-10 is technically overkill.

You may now want to ask why I buying a AR-10? To tell you the truth, I wasn't planning on it either but after doing some research and watching videos on Youtube, I feel that it was the better weapon for me at this time. I want to have a gun that is versatile and can have fun shooting it at the range if I'm just bored. Plus CA put so many regulations on this type of weapon that I can really only shoot 10 rounds before I have to disassemble it just to reload the magazine.

I do understand why people want to have guns removed. I also understand why people want to have access and keep their guns too. The majority of citizens who have weapons only use them for self-defense, hunting, or just for shooting at the range and there is nothing wrong with it. It just that when you hear about a mass shooting, suicide, or a criminal activity with a gun is where people start claiming for better guns laws and that hard to do since there is no uniform law for all states to follow and the right to have one is within the constitution. We all know that the GOP will fight to the end to keep it as is, even it means endangering people lives in the process. The entire gun policy is fukked up but we have to find ways to adopt to it for now.

At the end of the day, criminals do not fight fair, so law abiding citizens should be able have the necessary weapons to protect themselves if they are in danger. At the same time, I really do wish for strict guns laws where it difficult for everyone to get one. Until that day comes, this will always be a problem that we have to deal with unfortunately.

If having less guns results in less deaths overall, I don't think law abiding citizens should have access to guns

It doesn't matter, because guns are here to stay

 

[OSUBaneBrowns]

If having less guns results in less deaths overall, I don't think law abiding citizens should have access to guns

It doesn't matter, because guns are here to stay

Agreed to disagree. The majority of people who have guns do not use them for criminal activity or self harm. Anything can be used as a weapon against someone (knife, bat, rope, etc..). If someone wants to do ill will on someone, they will find a way to do it. In my opinion, we need uniform strict standards on gun control and ownership but the powers that be will not let that happen.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Not enough kids get killed at one time by guns for this Nation to address this issue in the manner it should be.​

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

Agreed to disagree. The majority of people who have guns do not use them for criminal activity or self harm. Anything can be used as a weapon against someone (knife, bat, rope, etc..). If someone wants to do ill will on someone, they will find a way to do it. In my opinion, we need uniform strict standards on gun control and ownership but the powers that be will not let that happen.

I'm not even arguing that

I'm arguing if banning guns, meant a big traction in gun deaths across America, it should be a no Brainerd

But it doesn't matter either way because they are here to stay

 

[ViShawn]

Black folks on the pro gun-control team are insane.

https://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-official-ados-discussion-thread.691792/post-48406258

Just a different form of c00n if you ask me.

Great fukking book!

 

[Everythingg]

Sometimes I feel like you guys don’t know the definition of words. It’s a RIGHT granted to you by the constitution, not a necessity. And any right given to you by the government can be regulated by that government. And if you don’t like the laws and regulations put in place by the government that sanctions your freedom, then leave. Ain’t that the argument y’all like to use?

The constitution outlines the right for people to bear arms in self defense. And in life, self defense IS a necessity. Your post is straight semantics.

“If you don’t like it you can leave” is also a terrible argument because another right given to citizens (first amendment) is the right to redress (criticize) the govt

Edit: The only reason a gun might be deemed a necessity is protection against other people with guns. But guns alone aren’t necessities

I also did NOT say that people shouldn’t be able to have guns. I said we shouldn’t treat the purchase and sale of guns like they are necessities. We have no reason to be eager to sell people guns as quickly as possible, especially not semi-auto rifles. My point in making that comment is that if whatever regulation someone creates affects how long it takes to get a gun or how easy it is to get guns with large capacities and high fire rates, I don’t really care because in most cases someone will survive just fine for the few weeks/months they have to wait.

Furthermore, the constitution isn’t some perfect document that can’t be questioned, regardless of how much we worship it. There’s a reason amendments exist. Hell, we’ve even proven that the amendments aren’t perfect either.

While militarizing the police they’re pushing gun control. People who roll around with armed security guards are telling average Americans to give up their/certain guns. The govt is telling the populace to give up certain guns when the 2nd amendment was put in place IN CASE of a tyrannical govt. all because criminals commit crimes. It’s always going to be a terrible argument coming from a govt that rather have an unarmed populace than an armed one…

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Just a different form of c00n if you ask me.

Great fukking book!

Irrelevant book since guns/'armed resistance' didn't get the Civil Rights Bill passed.

The 'True c00ns' are Black people who think they need them and use 'White Supremacist' talking points to resist gun control.​

 

[ViShawn]

Irrelevant book since guns/'armed resistance' didn't get the Civil Rights Bill passed.​

It was just as an important strategy as non-violence to gain our Civil Rights. Also many amongst the ranks of the the non-violent movement weren't 'non violent'. Many leaned on other organizations like the Deacons of Defense to protect them during marches. They just use non-violence as a political strategy. The alternative reality was The Black Panthers, the NOI, etc who would use violence and armed resistance to have their way. The non-violence movement was more palatable for America.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

It was just as an important strategy.

No, it wasn't. It actually hindered Civil Rights giving 'White Supremacists' more reason to deny them to 'those violent negroes'.​

 

[Shadow King]

Niqqas think gun regulation/uniform laws means stripping guns from them

 

[InfraRed]

You can come with facts and stats all day these people don't care and will not budge nor change their minds on the issue.