26 Dead including children at San Antonio Church massacre

[Camicon]

So you would be okay with having the same level of gun control as the UK?

No.

Canada has some better ideas, but so much of theirs doesn't make sense that I wouldn't want a carbon copy here either.

What do you think doesn't make sense about Canada's firearm regulations?

Right. So if firearms are an integral part of being free, logically, it would stand to reason that nobody was free before they existed.

Sure, I'll go with UMN's answer.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? UMN gave a shitty answer, and you won't have much luck defending it.

[Ifreann]

And the government can't regulate speech because...wait...they can...huh

---

Lies make Baby Jesus cry.

The government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety.

Whose safety is threatened by defamation? By copyright infringement?

---

And the government can't regulate speech because...wait...they can...huh

---

Lies make Baby Jesus cry.

Then stop lying?

No lies here. The Democratic party doesn't oppose private gun ownership, clear as day.

[The East Marches II]

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? UMN gave a shitty answer, and you won't have much luck defending it.

With a foe like you? I'd have no problem pulling that off.

[Thermodolia]

Um no. France, the UK, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and several other nations have not banned civilian ownership of weapons

So you would be okay with having the same level of gun control as the UK?

Not in the slightest.

[Thermodolia]

And since Chicago keeps coming up, here's someone disassembling the argument.

It's illegal to buy a gun in a state you don't live in.

[Irona]

So you would be okay with having the same level of gun control as the UK?

No.

Canada has some better ideas, but so much of theirs doesn't make sense that I wouldn't want a carbon copy here either.

But you do think that if guns were completely banned in Britain we would become a dictatorship? I mean that's literally what your arguing.

[Camicon]

Nobody in Canada has the right to own a weapon, of any kind.

Yes but they said banned not the word rights

And Wysten said:

They are what keep democracys a float without the people to have the rights to resist tyrants tyrants can have control with little to no resistance from the people.

So, they were both wrong.

[The East Marches II]

And since Chicago keeps coming up, here's someone disassembling the argument.

It's illegal to buy a gun in a state you don't live in.

Keshiland also presented this argument and was torn apart. I don't think we can do much better than that tbh.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And since Chicago keeps coming up, here's someone disassembling the argument.

>actually using Twitter as a source

[Irona]

And since Chicago keeps coming up, here's someone disassembling the argument.

It's illegal to buy a gun in a state you don't live in.

If only mandatory background checks were required federally! That would help stop people going cross-state.

[Telconi]

My point being that is part of being free and the rest of the world wouldn't know about being free in the first place.

Right. So if firearms are an integral part of being free, logically, it would stand to reason that nobody was free before they existed.

They are what keep democracys a float without the people to have the rights to resist tyrants tyrants can have control with little to no resistance from the people.

They are what states use to maintain their sovereignty. They are not an integral part of democracies.

I'don't agree with that, just as you don't need to write a political column in order to be free, or vote, or assemble with other people, or practice religion. You simply need the right to do these things.

So what other manufactured products do we need to have a right to own in order to be free? Blankets? Box springs? Slip-and-slides? Pants?

Books, newspapers, Internet modems, telephones, printing presses, video cameras, tape recorders, pens, pencils, paper, I could keep going...

[Thermodolia]

Yes but they said banned not the word rights

And Wysten said:

They are what keep democracys a float without the people to have the rights to resist tyrants tyrants can have control with little to no resistance from the people.

So, they were both wrong.

Not going to disagree with you on that one

[Camicon]

So what other manufactured products do we need to have a right to own in order to be free? Blankets? Box springs? Slip-and-slides? Pants?

Books, newspapers, Internet modems, telephones, printing presses, video cameras, tape recorders, pens, pencils, paper, I could keep going...

Ok, let's start with those.

Care to point out where those items are guaranteed as a right to citizens of the United States?

[Telconi]

The government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety.

Whose safety is threatened by defamation? By copyright infringement?

---

Then stop lying?

No lies here. The Democratic party doesn't oppose private gun ownership, clear as day.

Care to explain how a platform advocating for the banning of guns isn't opposed to pricate ownership of those guns?

[Sovaal]

No.

Canada has some better ideas, but so much of theirs doesn't make sense that I wouldn't want a carbon copy here either.

What do you think doesn't make sense about Canada's firearm regulations?

The utter inconsitancy. AK's are in the prohibited section, save for Finnish Valmets cause they're less evil I guess. AUGs are banned but Tavors and Type 95's are in-restricted, as in you can go into a store and walk out with one, and ARs are restricted yet as said similar firearms aren't. Makes no sense in the slightest, seems like they literally banned whatever they saw in a gun magazine and only spared the AR due to target shooting.

[Thermodolia]

It's illegal to buy a gun in a state you don't live in.

If only mandatory background checks were required federally! That would help stop people going cross-state.

Um they are. Have you ever purchased a gun in your life? You have to get an FBI background check before you can purchase it

[Telconi]

Books, newspapers, Internet modems, telephones, printing presses, video cameras, tape recorders, pens, pencils, paper, I could keep going...

Ok, let's start with those.

Care to point out where those items are guaranteed as a right to citizens of the United States?

All of those fall under the first amendment freedom of the press, expression, and religion.

[Camicon]

What do you think doesn't make sense about Canada's firearm regulations?

The utter inconsitancy. AK's are in the prohibited section, save for Finnish Valmets cause they're less evil I guess. AUGs are banned but Tavors and Type 95's are in-restricted, as in you can go into a store and walk out with one, and ARs are restricted yet as said similar firearms aren't. Makes no sense in the slightest, seems like they literally banned whatever they saw in a gun magazine and only spared the AR due to target shooting.

Care to provide a source detailing those specificities?

[Irona]

If only mandatory background checks were required federally! That would help stop people going cross-state.

Um they are. Have you ever purchased a gun in your life? You have to get an FBI background check before you can purchase it

Not at gun shows

[Petrasylvania]

So Trump is insisting this is a mental health issue rather than anything else.

Didn't he sign an EO in February removing mental health checks from the buying process?

And didn't Sandy Hook teach us that mental background checks don't matter when you can kill your mom and take her gun?

And how many mass shooters had to kill their mothers as opposed to just buying their guns? It's strange the It Failed To Stop X So Repeal It standard is always applied to firearms regulation but nothing else, like drunk driving laws or any criminal laws for that matter.

[Telconi]

Um they are. Have you ever purchased a gun in your life? You have to get an FBI background check before you can purchase it

Not at gun shows

Yup, they still need a NICS check.

[Camicon]

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? UMN gave a shitty answer, and you won't have much luck defending it.

With a foe like you? I'd have no problem pulling that off.

Alright then, let's get started.

So I guess nobody was free prior to the creation of firearms?

In terms of modern notions of democracy? That would probably be somewhat accurate.

UMN - and you - are arguing that the right to own a firearm is necessary in order to be "free", in terms of modern notions of democracy.

My counterpoint: firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise. You will not find a single definition of "democracy" within the field of political science that includes the ownership of firearms.

And... yeah, we're done here. UMN's argument is shit.

[Telconi]

And didn't Sandy Hook teach us that mental background checks don't matter when you can kill your mom and take her gun?

And how many mass shooters had to kill their mothers as opposed to just buying their guns? It's strange the It Failed To Stop X So Repeal It standard is always applied to firearms regulation but nothing else, like drunk driving laws or any criminal laws for that matter.

I'll take "What the fuck is the drug war?" for five hundred Alex.

[The East Marches II]

And didn't Sandy Hook teach us that mental background checks don't matter when you can kill your mom and take her gun?

And how many mass shooters had to kill their mothers as opposed to just buying their guns? It's strange the It Failed To Stop X So Repeal It standard is always applied to firearms regulation but nothing else, like drunk driving laws or any criminal laws for that matter.

Yet gentlemen on your side are more than willing to apply such logic to drugs

[Camicon]

Ok, let's start with those.

Care to point out where those items are guaranteed as a right to citizens of the United States?

All of those fall under the first amendment freedom of the press, expression, and religion.

Then you can certainly find something - a Supreme Court ruling, a constitutional amendment - the states as such.