So I was having a discussion with a friend of mine and gun control comes up. He is purple-pilled, but doesn't quite understand why people need an AR-15 salt raifu.
Then he suggests that gun owners should "compromise." But of course, we all know that compromise works both ways. A compromise is when both people get something they want and lose something they don't want to lose, in a loose sense. All 2nd Amendment protectors have been doing is losing rights and receiving nothing in return. So my suggestion was:
If you really want me to consider giving up the right to own assault rifles, what I want in return would be the following…
He then asks what about the mentally ill? Would you compromise on not letting the mentally ill get weapons?
In exchange for that, I would want the following:
I'm not saying I would make either of these deals, but I might consider it.
Would you consider any of these compromises, Holla Forums?
If a person cannot be trusted with an inanimate object then he should be locked up in a crazy house.
As for compromise I would like to have the NFA abolished at the price of background checks that don't do shit.
Nathan Lopez
How about this…
We get everything we want since we have the weapons of war.
Nathaniel Cook
Ideally, we never give up anything else on 2A.
Ideally, we fucking maintain our rights by force and repeal all gun legislation that restricts our rights to own any weapon we choose. And hopefully Trump wins and we can breathe a sigh of relief and stock up on firearms and ammo for the next leftist gun-grabber.
But of course, OP was a hypothetical scenario.
James Kelly
Put it to him this way.
I want him dead. I assume he wants to live. Now lets "compromise".
If that isnt convincing the more "reasonable" option is once all governments are disarmed, then we can discuss disarming the people.
Jose Wood
no more deals. no more discussion. act accordingly or die.
Leo James
Dubs of truth.
/my own thread
Sebastian Kelly
...
Adam Torres
the leftist argument that "you don't need that gun" is entirely falacious and isn't valid in any possible sense
to argue from the position that "you do not need it therefore it should be banned" is using a neutral position (i.e. the opinion that you don't need a gun, but providing no factual reason as to why you owning one at all would be negative), and twisting it as justification for removing your right to keep and bear arms. The idea that banning something simply because of a lack of apparent need is obviously idiotic on so many different levels. One could just as easily say that you don't "need" a home theater therefore home theaters should be banned, but this doesn't prove anything.
Sebastian Sullivan
"Shall not be infringed"
Come and take em if you want em
Mason Lewis
sorry if the wording of this is confusing. I'm dead fucking tired right now.
Ryan Young
Basically I brought it up as a point…
Why would we compromise on such an important issue to us when they utterly refuse to give even an inch on the issues they care about?
It's not a compromise at all. Every new gun restriction is a restriction to who we are as a country. Every new measure is an assault on the one thing that keeps us different, keeps us from ever having to worry about mass invasion or our own government turning against the will of the people. Every new gun control bill is an assault to what it is to be American and having your personal protection in your own hands.
Fuck this gay earth.
Jaxon Rodriguez
that's not really the point I'm trying to make
What I'm trying to say is that arguing using the neutral position of simply holding the opinion that "you don't need it" is not a valid justification in favour of banning them.
Sebastian Perry
NO COMPROMISE, NO QUARTER, NO PEACE, NO MERCY WITH GUN-GRABBING BOLSHEVISTS
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Grayson Carter
Triple dubs and a full house.
I absolutely agree. Banning something because "you don't need it" is the most communist, anti-freedom sentiment I've ever heard.
Sebastian Bell
Homeland Security has taken over gun laws. Get ready for the same people who let in a ton of mudslimes and mexicunts to meddle in gun laws without any fucking oversight.
Actually, in politics at least, it's where liberals get a little bit of what they want (and nothing they don't want) and conservatives give away less than what the liberals wanted them to, without actually getting anything for themselves.
Jose Gomez
No, you don't compromise with the enemy. You destroy them.
Jaxson Nelson
The next time someone proposes a compromise on guns you say: "Give me 40 dollars, right now." When they refuse, then say "Ok, I'll make a compromise with you. Give me 20 dollars right now."
Ian Torres
No deals because when it comes to guns you only get shitty deals. They will find a way to let non Europeans in by fuckin education further thus creating future voters who just love Mexicans.
Do the car argument. Cars kill more people than guns. He will answer but cars are for transportation and you don't need an ar15 for home defense. To which you reply I can think of many cars you don't need for transportation. Any car that can go faster than the speed limit should be banned so no more mustangs or lambos. If you are not willing to ban these cars then clearly you are not concerned about human life as these cars kill more than guns do. If having a mustang can be justified by saying I want one or they are cool. Then having an ar15 can be justified the same way as they are less dangerous.
Nathan Davis
No.
Here's what happens:
1)Assault rifles get banned. Cuckservatives enforce the law. 2) Democrats don't enforce any laws you write about immigration.
Ryder Rogers
One state introduced a law say8ng criminals caught with srolen guns get 5 years no ifs ands or buts and the violent crime rate dropped in half. I'd like that fun law as it doesnt affect gun owners and gets a lot of criminals (NIGGERS) off the streets
Hudson Ramirez
What did you friend say in response to your demands?
It got my brain turning that maybe spreading these sort of "compromises" among leftists on twitter could maybe cause some D&C. I don't as many leftists cares about trannies, faggots and niggers as they say they do and it would interesting to see if they would writes their articles and blogs asking these minorities to "take one for the team" to get assault rifles banned.
Jeremiah Stewart
Geez jolly Jim, didnt we have like a millions of these?
Blake Brooks
Yeah until someone steals a gun, and sells it to a law abiding citizen in a private sale.
Carter Wood
Here's how you fix "gun control".
Reform the NICS (National Instant Background Check System) so that it's properly updated by Federal, State, and local police department filings; Federal, Appellate, State, and local court filings; and finally some means for mental health facilities to file an update to the FBI to put a hold on persons. Also bar people from the terror watch-list from purchasing weapons.
We already require all FFL holders to require checking with NCIS before selling any party a firearm.
Trying to enforce "universal background checks" is completely retarded. You can't stop individuals from selling one another weapons. And 99% of the time some dindu gets a gun from his cousin, he didn't buy it, he borrowed it.
Get rid of all the other bullshit laws. Allow concealed carry, allow open carry (for fudd retards), and don't bog the BATFE down in retardation determining what is and what is not an SBS/SBR/pistol/rifle/whatever.
Fully automatic weapons, should be restricted. And it wouldn't fall short of the wherewithal of the 2nd Amendment since there's no real practical expectation for any 'militia' force to be able to supply full-auto weapons of purpose, like a SAW/GPMG, with ammo and barrels.
However, there should be little restriction on sound suppressors. Protecting people's hearing should be considered a public good. That's why shotgun suppressors in the UK are/were somewhat common. To prevent bird hunting from disturbing the rest of nature or the neighbors.
Michael Hughes
SHALL
Zachary Nelson
The 2nd Amendment is a provision for the people of the United States to maintain armament for militia purposes.
It's not a collectivist argument hulk of retarded gun-grabber bullshit.
It's also not a license for any schmuck to buy artillery pieces. It has to have militia use, check Supreme Court case law precedence as to the legality of items like sawed off shotguns.
^ I don't think they need to be banned on a matter of practicality. But I don't think city niggers should be allowed to buy MG42s or MAC-11s.
Oliver King
Any law that keeps niggers away from funs while restoring my right to have them as a law-abiding citizen sounds good to me.
Friend thought I brought up good points. Friend is lolbergtardian/paleo-con. He just never grew up hunting or target shooting so he's in the dark about "salt raifus." I've been begging him to go to the range and fire my evil black rifles, but something always stops him from coming.
But yeah, the left seems to think that giving this up would be "no big deal." Then giving up their pieces of the constitution should be "no big deal." When they realize what it means, they shut their cock holsters.
Nicholas Wilson
Instead of all that how about we just expel the Jews?
Camden Bennett
Expelling the Jews is always the goal, but don't forget about all Mexicans, shitskins and if we have to have niggers, then niggers should be segregated.
I don't want to hear anything about how the white man is keeping niggers down. They can have their own businesses just as whites would, their own schools and etc. If their areas of town are a blight and their education systems are in shambles, then we correctly place all blame on them. If they don't like it, they can have a one-way ticket to Liberia.
Jews are undoubtedly the main problem, without question, but they're not the only group that wants to subvert American ideology.
Camden Morales
No deals, no compromises. Pry my guns from my cold dead fingers you commie pricks.
I don't think you under stand, there is no compromises. If you try to compromise with (((them))) you're going to get fucked over.
Logan Nelson
...
Cameron Torres
Oh, I understand perfectly.
My point was to get liberals to understand exactly what we would be giving up by illustrating things that they hold dear being given up.
Liberals don't see what all the fuss is about - but touch their precious fag and tranny rights, touch their multiculturalism and diversity and all they'd throw a shit fit. But they don't understand why we would throw a shit fit over our 2A rights. If the shoe was on the other foot, maybe they'd understand it a little better, if they were asked to give up rights as well.
