NationStates

Fartsniffage wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Eh, fourteen with stipulations, 18 for unrestricted purchase rights.

Even though people at that age don't have a fully developed brain?

Fartsniffage wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Sure, we allow them to operate motor vehicles, seems like a decent enough time to allow them to purchase firearms.

Don't young drivers have by far the highest number of accidents?

>We should take away people's rights because of demographic statistics
>Black people commit the majority of murders in the US despite accounting for only 16% of the population
What's going on, big guy? Are you making some kind of racist implications here?

Crockerland wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Even though people at that age don't have a fully developed brain?

Fartsniffage wrote:
Don't young drivers have by far the highest number of accidents?

>We should take away people's rights because of demographic statistics
>Black people commit the majority of murders in the US despite accounting for only 16% of the population
What's going on, big guy? Are you making some kind of racist implications here?

Daily reminder that gun control is racist.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Crockerland wrote:
>We should take away people's rights because of demographic statistics
>Black people commit the majority of murders in the US despite accounting for only 16% of the population
What's going on, big guy? Are you making some kind of racist implications here?

Daily reminder that gun control is racist.

Especially when you consider the harshest gun control laws tend to be in urban environments, which also tend to have significant minority populations. Why don't leftists want minorities to be able to defend themselves?

Northeast American Federation wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Daily reminder that gun control is racist.

Especially when you consider the gun control laws tend to be in urban environments, which also tend to have significant minority populations. Why don't leftists want minorities to be able to defend themselves?

Because they need us to be constantly brainwashed, powerless and believe that they are looking out for us when in fact we're just voting pawns in their little plantations and they will ignore us and move onto the next oppressed minority or controversial issue like manspreading or misgendering.

Arengin Union wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:Especially when you consider the gun control laws tend to be in urban environments, which also tend to have significant minority populations. Why don't leftists want minorities to be able to defend themselves?

Because they need us to be constantly brainwashed, powerless and believe that they are looking out for us when in fact we're just voting pawns in their little plantations and they will ignore us and move onto the next oppressed minority or controversial issue like manspreading or misgendering.

Paternalism disturbs me when it comes to politics.

Arengin Union wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:Especially when you consider the gun control laws tend to be in urban environments, which also tend to have significant minority populations. Why don't leftists want minorities to be able to defend themselves?

Because they need us to be constantly brainwashed, powerless and believe that they are looking out for us when in fact we're just voting pawns in their little plantations and they will ignore us and move onto the next oppressed minority or controversial issue like manspreading or misgendering.

Yeah, all those urban areas run almost exclusively by a certain political party have really turned out great, and really done well by everyone, huh.

So let's assume the GOP does at least decent this election cycle. What are the odds that we'll see something like national concealed carry anytime soon?

Northeast American Federation wrote:

Arengin Union wrote:Because they need us to be constantly brainwashed, powerless and believe that they are looking out for us when in fact we're just voting pawns in their little plantations and they will ignore us and move onto the next oppressed minority or controversial issue like manspreading or misgendering.

Yeah, all those urban areas run almost exclusively by a certain political party have really turned out great, and really done well by everyone, huh.

So let's assume the GOP does at least decent this election cycle. What are the odds that we'll see something like national concealed carry anytime soon?

Never because they don't have enough votes in the Senate.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:Yeah, all those urban areas run almost exclusively by a certain political party have really turned out great, and really done well by everyone, huh.

So let's assume the GOP does at least decent this election cycle. What are the odds that we'll see something like national concealed carry anytime soon?

Never because they don't have enough votes in the Senate.

Not even with the simple majority?

Northeast American Federation wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Never because they don't have enough votes in the Senate.

Not even with the simple majority?

Not unless they wanted to do some fuckery like try and pass it via budget reconciliation.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:Not even with the simple majority?

Not unless they wanted to do some fuckery like try and pass it via budget reconciliation.

I mean, it would hardly be the first time Congress stuffed some lines into a law that had nothing to do with most of the rest of its content.

Though I suppose since the Supreme Court has long since become a de facto legislative body, we might get something good from them.

Northeast American Federation wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Not unless they wanted to do some fuckery like try and pass it via budget reconciliation.

I mean, it would hardly be the first time Congress stuffed some lines into a law that had nothing to do with most of the rest of its content.

Though I suppose since the Supreme Court has long since become a de facto legislative body, we might get something good from them.

...not really. SCOTUS acts like a court, not a legislature. Even from a skeptical view.

Guns are ok, but we need more than guns - tanks, missile launchers, grenades, etc. This would keep the government in check. Why do we need gun control? It's so retarded just like any control.

As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I see no issue with guns or any weapon.

NPCA wrote:Guns are ok, but we need more than guns - tanks, missile launchers, grenades, etc. This would keep the government in check. Why do we need gun control? It's so retarded just like any control.

As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I see no issue with guns or any weapon.

^^^this

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

NPCA wrote:Guns are ok, but we need more than guns - tanks, missile launchers, grenades, etc. This would keep the government in check. Why do we need gun control? It's so retarded just like any control.

As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I see no issue with guns or any weapon.

^^^this

What about Recreational McNukes™?

Northeast American Federation wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:^^^this

What about Recreational McNukes™?

Lose the Mcnukes they have too much oil I prefer Wally World brand nukes

Gig em Aggies wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:What about Recreational McNukes™?

Lose the Mcnukes they have too much oil I prefer Wally World brand nukes

Might want to rethink that one. Since alot of welfare-mart's products are from China, the Chinese may have put in backdoor code on the guidance systems.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Gig em Aggies wrote:Lose the Mcnukes they have too much oil I prefer Wally World brand nukes

Might want to rethink that one. Since alot of welfare-mart's products are from China, the Chinese may have put in backdoor code on the guidance systems.

Alright Costco's it is.

Is it just me or is there nowhere near as much campaigning on stricter gun control as might have been expected this election cycle?

Northeast American Federation wrote:Is it just me or is there nowhere near as much campaigning on stricter gun control as might have been expected this election cycle?

Tap on wood but it seems like the anti gun side realizes the court isn't on their side now and are trying to quiet down about things.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:Is it just me or is there nowhere near as much campaigning on stricter gun control as might have been expected this election cycle?

Tap on wood but it seems like the anti gun side realizes the court isn't on their side now and are trying to quiet down about things.

I'm surprised it's such radio silence, though. It was only a few short months ago they were chomping at the bit over it. And we know there's no way in hell their base has all of a sudden seen the light about the issue.

Northeast American Federation wrote:Is it just me or is there nowhere near as much campaigning on stricter gun control as might have been expected this election cycle?

You're right. I think I only saw one gun control ad on YouTube, and no progun ads at all. I think YT is a little biased...

Pax Nerdvana wrote:

Northeast American Federation wrote:Is it just me or is there nowhere near as much campaigning on stricter gun control as might have been expected this election cycle?

You're right. I think I only saw one gun control ad on YouTube, and no progun ads at all. I think YT is a little biased...

Actually, I see quite a few ads promoting conceal carry. Then again, I do watch a lot of right-wing videos and stuff that supports guns. Maybe your watching patterns has an effect on what ads you see?

Northeast American Federation wrote:Is it just me or is there nowhere near as much campaigning on stricter gun control as might have been expected this election cycle?

I would suspect they know it's a loosing position and turns people off during an election and would most likely turn voters off and vote for the other person or not vote at all.
McCaskill was caught on a hidden camera that she is all for gun control and all kinds of bans but has been keeping it quiet while out campaigning.

Huntpublic wrote:

Pax Nerdvana wrote:You're right. I think I only saw one gun control ad on YouTube, and no progun ads at all. I think YT is a little biased...

Actually, I see quite a few ads promoting conceal carry. Then again, I do watch a lot of right-wing videos and stuff that supports guns. Maybe your watching patterns has an effect on what ads you see?

I use private mode, so it probably doesn't affect it too much. I mostly watch toy reviews and stuff on YT, so I doubt that tells YT what I am politically. Mayeb YT automatically assumes you're a gun control person, which I'm not?

Pax Nerdvana wrote:

Huntpublic wrote:
Actually, I see quite a few ads promoting conceal carry. Then again, I do watch a lot of right-wing videos and stuff that supports guns. Maybe your watching patterns has an effect on what ads you see?

I use private mode, so it probably doesn't affect it too much. I mostly watch toy reviews and stuff on YT, so I doubt that tells YT what I am politically. Mayeb YT automatically assumes you're a gun control person, which I'm not?

Oh, if Youtube can tell what you are political just based off of toy reviews, you've got something to worry about lol,

but the ads were for concealed carry so YT (or maybe google in general) probably figured out that I like guns just based off of my browsing patterns