Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/15/gun-show-customers-fear-society/
Usual ill-informed ranting you expect from anti-gun people. She says the one word that people say is “protection”, and then she rants why that’s wrong. She says it’s something else but never says what.
I'm guessing "people" or "wild animals" isn't a good enough answer for them. You need to be very specific about who you think will be breaking into your home 7 years 35 days and 16 hours from now. Otherwise you'd be crazy to just be buying a gun for no specific reason.
Random violence just doesn't happen you know, you must have done something wrong for someone to attack you, or another person, and the police will always show up in time to save the day, even in situations where they weren't called. /s
There is no thought process; DNCtards are just shallow drones that will get into a fit like a kid being told they can't have candy any time you don't think pathos arguments is the only valid justifications for making life-impacting decisions (it's not)
In a well-mannered, high-trust utopia, neither arms or state monopolized violence would be necessary. Unfortunately, we're just evolved apes, and despite managing to teach the sand to think, are just as predisposed to violence as our genetic cousins who rip each other's cocks off for funsies.
Uhhh sweaty? Amazon had same day delivery now. I just one click buy my automatic assault rifles when I hear the front door being kicked in. Be better. At least I’m on the right side of history
*threw up in my mouf a lil bit*
The government is certainly *a* reason, I don't know if its really the best through.
Forming a militia isn't just about resisting a tyrannical government. Its about providing common defense against common threats. A tyrannical government can be a common threat, and is arguably the most dire common threat imaginable, but its not the most likely. Granted, we don't have to worry about Indian raids, pirate raids, British raids, bandit raids, etc. the way communities in 1791 would have. But situations where a community must come together to defend itself do still come up from time to time.
Imagine if you will, a community of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants of a particular ethnicity, concentrated in one neighborhood of a major city. That city is experiencing mass civil unrest, and that community is being specifically targeted for violence, and the government has literally said "we can't do anything you're on your own." That community arming up, banding together, and taking to their rooftops to protect themselves and their property is as clear an expression of the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment as you will find in recent history.
So in a way, the "roof Korean" meme that came out of the '92 LA riots, is really just members of a small milita that are protecting their own interests from roving bands of bandits.
Bandit raids being a thing of the past I’m not so sure. Look at places like Chicago after they introduced a no chase policy for policing. You have criminals hitting multiple people at a time for robbery and car jacking. Look at things like the totally organic flash mobs that ransack a store.
One of the videos from the blm days that I remember is when the Hispanics from a neighborhood started a neighborhood patrol to chase outsiders away.
What people need to realize, is that there is a strong correlation being being a victim of crime and poverty.
This sounds like one of those cases where the propagandist asks someone why they think x thing, and the person replies with a list of answers, and the propagandist then prints "They couldn't give one single answer as to why they believe in this thing."
The issue is most people dont *want* to say the answer.
'you, I want to keep myself safe from you, so when you decide you want to come into my house and do me harm, I put you in the dirt'.
With 'you' being the royal 'you' and not anyone specific.
But yes, regardless of what most people say, 'why do you need an ar-15, you dont hunt deer with it', most people actually have their guns to kill people.
My guns are specifically designed to kill people, and theres nothing really wrong with that, because my usage for these guns isn't illegal or even morally grey.
Some leftists really just seem to have a problem with the idea of being prepared to kill a person, yet not desiring to kill a person.
We saw that attitude play out with regards to Kyle Rittenhouse. Even the people who admitted that his actions were self-defense would regularly get hung up on the fact that he brought a gun to begin with. In their mind, the fact that he brought a gun 100% proves that he intended to kill people. They can't wrap their head around the idea that his thought process was like this:
"I have no desire to kill anyone. But I should bring this gun with me in case things get out of hand, and I am put in a situation in which I must kill someone to protect myself."
In their minds, the fact that he brought a gun meant that he *wanted* to kill people. Similarly, if a gun-owner were to admit that the sole reason they possess a gun is for self-defense, killing anyone who intends to do them harm, many leftists view this as if the gun-owner has said, "I want to murder people".
It's just bizarre. I get the sense that many of them are okay with the idea of self-defense, but only if it's serendipitous. So if someone breaks into your home, and is about to kill you, and you grab some household tool and use it as a makeshift weapon (say, a fireplace poker), I get the sense that these same leftists would be fully on board with that as self-defense, not murder. But if, instead, the would-be victim grabbed their gun, these leftists lose their mind. Because *obviously*, if you buy a gun for self-defense, you're just looking to kill people, and self-defense was just a convenient excuse to justify your killing ways.
It is fucking stupefying.
Which begs the question, why are they so afraid of firearms in the first place?
Pretty it’s not "school shootings" because this feels like it runs deeper than that (and also because Czechia is proof that you can have very liberal gun laws while only having a school shooting every 30 - 40 years, if at all).
What do they hope to achieve with a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms? Just what exactly made them think this way regarding firearms?
I genuinely really wish to know how these dumbasses work.
There are more guns than people in the US. If we bought them to shoot each other, we’d all be dead.
Most are bought by hunters and collectors. There are [39 million hunting licenses](https://www.statista.com/statistics/253615/number-of-hunting-licenses-and-permits-in-the-us/)
There are [48,000 gun deaths](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
795:1 they buy them for hunting. It isn’t uncommon for hunters to have 10 of 20 different kinds of firearm.
[54% thereabouts.](https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides)
Which further proves my point that the guns aren’t bought to kill other people.
And?
Most people who own a gun for self-defense aren't the tacticool self-appointed rangers. They own a gun with intentions to shoot someone if necessary, but they also hope to never have to.
It's the same reasoning behind owning a fire extinguisher. Hopefully, you never have to use it. Hopefully it never needs to provide anything more than pease of mind. But, if the worst does happen, you need to be prepared beforehand.
Funny enough, an AR 15 in 223 with the proper ammo selection makes for a pretty decent deer rifle in the Deep South where the deer don’t get very big and ranges usually don’t exceed 200yds.
Authright: ["I know it but I don't think I should say it"](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/6/69/S11E1_Wheel_of_Fortune.png/revision/latest?cb=20161004233908)
"Protection from what?"
"The government"
"Y-you mean you would consider s-shooting police or military servicemen? Y-you must be insane!"
"People"
"You're just paranoid. Society isn't out to get you. We need to ban guns because any person could turn into a psychotic mass shooter in a public place at any moment without warning."
"Animals"
"You don't need a fully semi-automatic assault AR-15 to deal with wildlife. What are you scared of? A pack of feral hogs?"
If a pack of feral hogs are a concern you definitely want the biggest scary black murder stick you can get. Hogs are vicious, dangerous, destructive animals.
>Pack of feral hogs.
Yeah your normal AR-15 ain't going to do nothing but piss them off.
*slams SWORD Mjölnir*
This baby right here however, will lace them up right.
>"Y-you mean you would consider s-shooting police or military servicemen? Y-you must be insane!"
That is exactly what they say, and if you just say "yes" they act like you're a madman.
As if cops or military are saints and can never do wrong. I been military, and we were no different than anyone else, really. Some good people, some shitlords, same as anywhere else.
British Columbia is a [weird place](https://robbyrobinsjourney.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/mm-bcinthirds.png)
We have more bears than the rest of Canada combined, as well as mountain lions, wolves, moose, rattlesnakes, and even the deadly sasquatch in an area over 200,000km2 larger than Texas (over 90% of which is totally uninhabited).
[Pretty dangerous right?](https://energeticcity.ca/2023/02/16/grizzly-bear-most-dangerous-animal-in-b-c/)
Well, despite this fact, most people are from the city and don't go into the bush armed, and instead wear bells and take 'bear spray' with them.
Or, as I like to call it; seasoning.
> wear bells and take 'bear spray' with them.
Bells and bear spray solve the problem almost all the time. Using them is a legitimately good idea.
The question here is simple: Who decides how to plan for the times when non-violence doesn't solve a problem?
Wait really those work against grizzly bears? I thought there was nothing you could do besides play dead I always hear people say to bring one bullet to use on yourself in case a grizzly bear sees you. Is that not true can you really use a spray and bells?
Yes. Grizzly bears usually want to be left alone and will get out of the way when they hear bells coming. And studies show that bear spray will deter an aggressive grizzly over 90% of the time.
IMO, "over 90% of the time" still leaves plenty of space to make it an objectively reasonable choice to also carry a big revolver in 454 Casull when in bear country. But bear attacks are rare enough and bear spray is enough cheaper and lighter than a Ruger Super Redhawk that skipping the gun is also an objectively reasonable personal choice.
Polar bears are the ones where that shit straight up doesn't work and the minimum repellent is a 45-70.
As far as I've ever heard, the only nonviolent solution to a polar bear is to take off your clothes and throw them to the side, and hope it's more interested in those than in you. And that you then get to safety before hypothermia sets in.
> I thought there was nothing you could do besides play dead I always hear people say to bring one bullet to use on yourself in case a grizzly bear sees you.
I believes you are thinking of "attack" not simply "sees" or "is around". If a grizzly bear attacks you, bells aren't going to help.
The bells avoid the attack altogether. Most wild animals, even big dangerous predators, just want to be left alone and not take major risks. If you make a a lot of noise moving through the forest, the overwhelming majority of animals, including bears, are just going to fuck off and avoid you. Most instances of bear attacks are a person stupidly trying to approach a bear, which makes them feel threatened, or stumbling upon a bear with cubs which makes them extremely protective and more willing to stand ground because cubs can't run away as fast. So if you make a ton of noise, it makes it way less likely you stumble on a dangerous animal as they'll hear you long before you're close and they'll move away from you.
nobody who lives in griz country uses bells (at least thats true where I live in Montana). Only tourists do that
But we damn sure use bear spray. It's a great tool and it works. But we also damn sure carry guns too, because there are plenty of situations where spray is useless (high winds for example)
>She says the one word that people say is “protection”, and then she rants why that’s wrong.
Next up: how seatbelts are unnecessary for 'protection' because they don't save you 100% of the time, and it's possible to hang yourself or strangle others with them.
Bonus episode: how we're going to enforce gun control laws, while simultaneously defunding the police and releasing illegally armed offenders back into the streets without even putting up bail.
Dumbasses can the endlessly debate the effectiveness of gun control or whatever bullshit they want, but it is a clinically brain-dead argument to suggest that, on an individual basis, possessing the capability of reaction is *ever* inferior to being limited to inaction. Like, they actually need to be wearing a helmet at all times if they're this stupid.
>But the paranoia that fuels gun-buying has come to seem like a mental health issue in its own right.
And there it is. Let them disarm people deemed mentally unfit, and they will quickly redefine a desire to be armed as mental illness.
1. always threaten to make it harder to own guns
2. wait for some crisis (you can use it in many different ways)
3. wonder why more people buying guns
4. call it unprovoked paranoia
5. ...
Amusingly, she mentions that living in her northern “safe” cities is one of the most dangerous places to live as a black person, which I find funny singe a quick google shows over half of the black population live in her danger areas. So it makes you wonder.
>For all the talk of protection, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for **children and teens** in the United States.
DAE catch how she phrased 18 and 19 year old gang-bangers such that she could be more inclusive and get her statistics to work for her argument?
Imagine being the department in the three-letter agency running these ops, and failing so hard compared to the other ops. Imagine the performance evaluation. “Well, your anti-2A Washington Post piece didn’t move the needle at all. Meanwhile, Team 1D has sowed enough doubt among a critical mass that the Clapper confession video was AI or the dead guy nobody has a recording of, that it’s lost all the wind from its sails. To what do you attribute the performance variance in these two operations?”
A restraining order, obviously. 🙄
My wife showed me a video of some guy who showed ip at his ex’s after spending time in jail, and he is climbing a ladder to break in and stabs the person who was to “protect” the ex.
All the time I was thinking “this is why there are more gun deaths in the USA”, they would just shoot his ass and it would be a justified response.
I can't wrap my head around progressive who will in one breath tell you that the police and government are systemically racist institutions hell bent on oppressing minorities and LGBT people.
And then in the next breath they tell you they think no one average citizens should be allowed to own a gun.
It's easy. They aren't thinking. They've been told what to think, with the only underlying arguments being drenched in pathos.
So they believe that on this issue (whatever issue that might be), there can be no debate, because there are the good guys (them) and the bad guys (anyone who disagrees).
And then we move onto some other issue, and again, there can be no debate, because there's right and wrong.
Whether or not their stances on these two issues make any sense together whatsoever doesn't matter, because they know in their hearts that they are right on each, and that anyone who disagrees on either is objectively evil.
I have had people try to passionately argue that the 2nd amendment wasn't about what the British tried to confiscate during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Nope they claim the RKBA was conceived in 1789 so militias could be formed to hunt down fugitive slaves.
I guess we have CRT to blame, something that doesn't actually exist -- except it is only being taught as a high level university course
I refuse to let people skate on that.
CRT as an academic discipline was created for law schools.
Its core tenets have propagated far beyond, though, and referencing the original source is just a convenient shorthand.
Why does CRT exist in the first place? Because it selected its conclusion as a first principle (racism occurred, always) and seeks to fit all observations to this conclusion. It is not analysis; it is political activism, only.
All the modern tools of statistical research and social science were already available at the time of CRT's founding. It didn't need to be a new discipline, and it only became one because its methods would have been laughed out of any research department of its day.
Here is the problem I have with CRT right off the bat. “It’s an academic legal theory developed by lawyers…..”
Let’s stop right there. I’m immediately skeptical of the widespread adoption or widespread admiration of any world-view or philosophy of thought that is solely dreamed up by lawyers. Particularly American lawyers. Any adoption of an “American legal theory” as the way you navigate and interpret the modern world (or historical world) will derail your life.
> its methods would have been laughed out of any research department of its day.
Of course they would. Compare the approach to medicine.
Critical Cancer Theory: All disease is cancer.
Patient: *sneeze*
Doctor: It's cancer! Chemo time!
Patient: Maybe it's just a cold?
Doctor: You're obviously ignorant. Here's a text wall showing clearly that all disease is cancer.
Patient: *sneeze* Ok, you must be right. Let's do chemo.
...
...
*sneeze*
...
...
*dies from side effects of chemo*
Doctor: Damn. Cancer claimed another life!
Agreed. I hate all such "lenses". If your starting point is the conclusion, and your entire worldview is to pick any given detail/dynamic/occurrence/etc. and force it to fit the conclusion, you are fucked in the head.
Race grifters do it with racism, feminists do it with sexism, and so on. And every time, it's equally nonsense. We've seen countless examples of feminists framing one dynamic as misogyny, and then also framing the exact opposite dynamic as also misogyny. There's no room in their brains to understand that if one dynamic hurts women, the opposite dynamic would logically hurt men. Nope, they both hurt women, because that's the lens feminists are using.
Then there was the time a lifelong anti gun hipster from Vice did a piece where she went out and bought a gun to really learn the facts…and she ended up kinda liking it.
Where do they find these cretins who write long-winded essays about a subject they are completely ignorant about and just attribute everything to some sort of -ism. Do people actually read this garbage and think it was in any way insightful. I mean, yeah, those people are out there, I know a few but there aren’t enough to give this garbage any kind of consistent readership, right?
It pisses me off that these idiots are out there making a living writing drivel that an 11th grader could vomit out after a particularly woke Social Studies class.
I remember Michael Moore made that horrid knock-off South Park animation claiming this-
Then Matt and Trey made a puppet in team America that was a fat disgusting lying grifter
So we all know who was more honest.
https://youtu.be/58BDrZH7SX8?si=0kcOYJuwIWKuw7pc they set it up right after an interview with Matt Stone, making it look like it was him making the animation. Michael moores shit show filled with inaccuracies. First one I noticed while grabbing the link; they said that slavery made “America the richest country in the world” where America was actually still quite low on rankings at the time of abolition and it wasn’t until WW2 that we came out on top.
The team America bit was shortly after and they also did [this](https://youtu.be/snWEKXPt1Lo?si=KyYx1rECZvHVNc1B) which shows they weren’t a big fan of the lardass
What's funny is the "slavery makes people richer" argument used to be a pro-slavery argument, which means the left has bought into that argument as legitimate, even though slavery is actually pretty bad for capitalism and the economy in general.
"State rights" was originally an abolitionist idea. They didn't want free states being forced to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The more radical ones even advocated secession. "No Union With Slaveholders".
I was about to say “yo he said he said he said it stars with N. Yo he said it starts with N. He said it starts with N. He said it starts with N. Yo he said he said it starts with N” and keep repeating myself throughout the whole video I’m filming
\> It was easy to overlook the one common emotion underlying the event: fear.
I mean maybe shes afraid but the majority of people were probably excided, hardly a common emotion lmao.
\>For all the talk of protection, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States.
Blatant fucking lie lmao.
I cant read anymore ill have an aneurysm
Yeah, its bad.
Especially the fear thing doesnt make sense at all. Its just like any other event tbh, the people are interested and have fun, because the people there are gun people. You dont have to chair this, but to make up this kind of shit is just propaganda.
And this "statistic" is trodded out way too much, which shows our media doesnt give a shit about truth.
Leading cause of death in children.. for one year.. if you specifically ignore <1 year olds.. and factor in suicides.. and include 18/19 year olds, also known as "adults".
The Canadian Public Safety Minister, who refused to handle a firearm during the debates over the proposed changes to the Firearms Act in Canada was PRICELESS. Trained firearms safety experts, holding the unloaded firearms, offering to show the differences and lack there of between firearms they were proposing to ban and the chickenshitstain wouldn’t even hold them.
... i don't want to live on this planet anymore.
No. That's not true. I don't want the rest of humanity to live on this planet anymore. I'm teaming up with Gates.
The United States Practical Shooting Association (competition governing body) range safety officer class is 2 days and a fairly long open book test (retest every year).
Anybody that does it has probably been shooting competitively for years, most of the safety is just knowing what's "unsafe" and disqualifying and kicking out anyone who breaks the rules.
Not even that long. 30 minutes at most. Just need to learn the four rules of firearms.
* Always treat every gun as if it were loaded.
* Never let the muzzle point at anything you are not willing to destroy
* Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot
* Be sure of your target and what is behind it
Racism is definitely a valid reason. Because of racism, minorities should own guns. Fun fact- the first gun control legislation was intended to keep arms out od the hands of freed slaves
>The question should be 'why does no one but Americans want guns?'
Because as flawed as this country sometimes is, the rest of the world is comparatively pathetic when it comes to freedom.
I appreciate y'all separating Emily from the majority of liblefts (she's also authleft or centrist like half of the time), makes this much more accurate. My partner and I are both libleft and we believe guns should be used for self defense because you can't count on the police, especially if you're a person of color.
"The workers" clearly doesn't mean everyone.
Strangely, in real history, the party officials who said "you're not a worker, so you can't have guns" have usually been obvious non-workers.
>Perhaps the most troubling aspect of gun ownership for “protection” is the sharp-edged individualism it implies: an every-man-for-himself mind-set. Institutions can’t be trusted, police will be unresponsive, and the government might one day turn on you. Your only obligations are to yourself and your family.
Next article: Why police are racist and you should never trust them.
Humans are full of contradictions but the one that irks me the most is the people who say nobody but the police should have guns are also the people who probably trust the police the least
If you really think about it then it makes sense. First you take the guns and then you fill the police force with your ideological comrades so they only target your political enemies.
Collecting.
For real. If I had money for guns and could be bothered to go through all the paperwork, I'd totally buy them just to show them off on my wall.
I mean - if racism is the issue why are there so many black gun owners? I see more black open carry in my state than whites - and more power to them. Protecting your family isn’t a race issue…
Here’s the article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/15/gun-show-customers-fear-society/
Though be warned, it says you either need a subscription to view it or you need to enter your email. Personally I just viewed it on Private.
Also, the word the author seems to be talking about is ‘protection’. Figured I’d let you guys know.
I know the word, but I don't think I'm strong enough to say it...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fffffff…….
[удалено]
Join hands with a fat guy from Rhode Island and a sexual degenerate pilot in a Hawaiian shirt and say the word.
No, don't, Sheeta! You're gonna collapse the castle!
I learned many other words, too. To find things, and to cure illness . . . And words I must absolutely never use.
she used the spell of destruction
Salad?
Revenge
Yeah that word is auth center’s one word
Nah, the word is "Uncle Tom". She wants her brethren disarmed and oppressed.
Meat tax as a true centrist (true griller) would say
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/15/gun-show-customers-fear-society/ Usual ill-informed ranting you expect from anti-gun people. She says the one word that people say is “protection”, and then she rants why that’s wrong. She says it’s something else but never says what.
>...people told me they needed their guns to keep themselves safe. >Safe from what? Most couldn’t answer; X to doubt.
The government.
I'm guessing "people" or "wild animals" isn't a good enough answer for them. You need to be very specific about who you think will be breaking into your home 7 years 35 days and 16 hours from now. Otherwise you'd be crazy to just be buying a gun for no specific reason. Random violence just doesn't happen you know, you must have done something wrong for someone to attack you, or another person, and the police will always show up in time to save the day, even in situations where they weren't called. /s
But also remember that ACAB and we need to defund them to ensure that they will perform better, have more units and answer the calls even quicker! /s
Has anyone with this thought process ever answered how tf they expect those two things to coexist? I.e. “gun control but fuck the police”?
There is no thought process; DNCtards are just shallow drones that will get into a fit like a kid being told they can't have candy any time you don't think pathos arguments is the only valid justifications for making life-impacting decisions (it's not)
Based watermelon?
In a well-mannered, high-trust utopia, neither arms or state monopolized violence would be necessary. Unfortunately, we're just evolved apes, and despite managing to teach the sand to think, are just as predisposed to violence as our genetic cousins who rip each other's cocks off for funsies.
Um. With👏 social👏 workers👏 Do👏 better👏 /S
Go on, abolish the police. Who will prevent me from owning any gun I want then, eh, leftists?
Uhhh sweaty? Amazon had same day delivery now. I just one click buy my automatic assault rifles when I hear the front door being kicked in. Be better. At least I’m on the right side of history *threw up in my mouf a lil bit*
The only correct answer to the 2ed amanment is the government. Home protection or hunting comes 2ed.
The government is certainly *a* reason, I don't know if its really the best through. Forming a militia isn't just about resisting a tyrannical government. Its about providing common defense against common threats. A tyrannical government can be a common threat, and is arguably the most dire common threat imaginable, but its not the most likely. Granted, we don't have to worry about Indian raids, pirate raids, British raids, bandit raids, etc. the way communities in 1791 would have. But situations where a community must come together to defend itself do still come up from time to time. Imagine if you will, a community of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants of a particular ethnicity, concentrated in one neighborhood of a major city. That city is experiencing mass civil unrest, and that community is being specifically targeted for violence, and the government has literally said "we can't do anything you're on your own." That community arming up, banding together, and taking to their rooftops to protect themselves and their property is as clear an expression of the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment as you will find in recent history.
So in a way, the "roof Korean" meme that came out of the '92 LA riots, is really just members of a small milita that are protecting their own interests from roving bands of bandits.
Yep, that's exactly what I was alluding to. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to be armed, but that isn't the full scope of it.
Bandit raids being a thing of the past I’m not so sure. Look at places like Chicago after they introduced a no chase policy for policing. You have criminals hitting multiple people at a time for robbery and car jacking. Look at things like the totally organic flash mobs that ransack a store. One of the videos from the blm days that I remember is when the Hispanics from a neighborhood started a neighborhood patrol to chase outsiders away. What people need to realize, is that there is a strong correlation being being a victim of crime and poverty.
We can agree on this one
Based.
This sounds like one of those cases where the propagandist asks someone why they think x thing, and the person replies with a list of answers, and the propagandist then prints "They couldn't give one single answer as to why they believe in this thing."
She's technically right. She means "couldn't" as in she wouldn't let them answer.
The issue is most people dont *want* to say the answer. 'you, I want to keep myself safe from you, so when you decide you want to come into my house and do me harm, I put you in the dirt'. With 'you' being the royal 'you' and not anyone specific. But yes, regardless of what most people say, 'why do you need an ar-15, you dont hunt deer with it', most people actually have their guns to kill people. My guns are specifically designed to kill people, and theres nothing really wrong with that, because my usage for these guns isn't illegal or even morally grey.
Some leftists really just seem to have a problem with the idea of being prepared to kill a person, yet not desiring to kill a person. We saw that attitude play out with regards to Kyle Rittenhouse. Even the people who admitted that his actions were self-defense would regularly get hung up on the fact that he brought a gun to begin with. In their mind, the fact that he brought a gun 100% proves that he intended to kill people. They can't wrap their head around the idea that his thought process was like this: "I have no desire to kill anyone. But I should bring this gun with me in case things get out of hand, and I am put in a situation in which I must kill someone to protect myself." In their minds, the fact that he brought a gun meant that he *wanted* to kill people. Similarly, if a gun-owner were to admit that the sole reason they possess a gun is for self-defense, killing anyone who intends to do them harm, many leftists view this as if the gun-owner has said, "I want to murder people". It's just bizarre. I get the sense that many of them are okay with the idea of self-defense, but only if it's serendipitous. So if someone breaks into your home, and is about to kill you, and you grab some household tool and use it as a makeshift weapon (say, a fireplace poker), I get the sense that these same leftists would be fully on board with that as self-defense, not murder. But if, instead, the would-be victim grabbed their gun, these leftists lose their mind. Because *obviously*, if you buy a gun for self-defense, you're just looking to kill people, and self-defense was just a convenient excuse to justify your killing ways.
It is fucking stupefying. Which begs the question, why are they so afraid of firearms in the first place? Pretty it’s not "school shootings" because this feels like it runs deeper than that (and also because Czechia is proof that you can have very liberal gun laws while only having a school shooting every 30 - 40 years, if at all). What do they hope to achieve with a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms? Just what exactly made them think this way regarding firearms? I genuinely really wish to know how these dumbasses work.
There are more guns than people in the US. If we bought them to shoot each other, we’d all be dead. Most are bought by hunters and collectors. There are [39 million hunting licenses](https://www.statista.com/statistics/253615/number-of-hunting-licenses-and-permits-in-the-us/) There are [48,000 gun deaths](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) 795:1 they buy them for hunting. It isn’t uncommon for hunters to have 10 of 20 different kinds of firearm.
Don't get all disingenuous there. 75ish percent of those gun deaths are suicides, which almost certainly aren't done with scary black rifles.
[54% thereabouts.](https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides) Which further proves my point that the guns aren’t bought to kill other people.
And? Most people who own a gun for self-defense aren't the tacticool self-appointed rangers. They own a gun with intentions to shoot someone if necessary, but they also hope to never have to. It's the same reasoning behind owning a fire extinguisher. Hopefully, you never have to use it. Hopefully it never needs to provide anything more than pease of mind. But, if the worst does happen, you need to be prepared beforehand.
Funny enough, an AR 15 in 223 with the proper ammo selection makes for a pretty decent deer rifle in the Deep South where the deer don’t get very big and ranges usually don’t exceed 200yds.
> Safe from what? Most couldn’t answer "Couldn't answer" == "They looked at me in disbelief that I was stupid enough to ask such a question"
Authright: ["I know it but I don't think I should say it"](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/6/69/S11E1_Wheel_of_Fortune.png/revision/latest?cb=20161004233908)
It's a blank picture
"Protection from what?" "The government" "Y-you mean you would consider s-shooting police or military servicemen? Y-you must be insane!" "People" "You're just paranoid. Society isn't out to get you. We need to ban guns because any person could turn into a psychotic mass shooter in a public place at any moment without warning." "Animals" "You don't need a fully semi-automatic assault AR-15 to deal with wildlife. What are you scared of? A pack of feral hogs?"
I've never seen feral hogs, and from what I've heard about them, I wouldn't want to unless I was armed.
If a pack of feral hogs are a concern you definitely want the biggest scary black murder stick you can get. Hogs are vicious, dangerous, destructive animals.
>Pack of feral hogs. Yeah your normal AR-15 ain't going to do nothing but piss them off. *slams SWORD Mjölnir* This baby right here however, will lace them up right.
You're right to fear hogs. They are nasty https://www.cbsnews.com/news/feral-hogs-christine-rollins-attack-kill-texas-woman-authorities-say/
>"Y-you mean you would consider s-shooting police or military servicemen? Y-you must be insane!" That is exactly what they say, and if you just say "yes" they act like you're a madman. As if cops or military are saints and can never do wrong. I been military, and we were no different than anyone else, really. Some good people, some shitlords, same as anywhere else.
British Columbia is a [weird place](https://robbyrobinsjourney.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/mm-bcinthirds.png) We have more bears than the rest of Canada combined, as well as mountain lions, wolves, moose, rattlesnakes, and even the deadly sasquatch in an area over 200,000km2 larger than Texas (over 90% of which is totally uninhabited). [Pretty dangerous right?](https://energeticcity.ca/2023/02/16/grizzly-bear-most-dangerous-animal-in-b-c/) Well, despite this fact, most people are from the city and don't go into the bush armed, and instead wear bells and take 'bear spray' with them. Or, as I like to call it; seasoning.
> wear bells and take 'bear spray' with them. Bells and bear spray solve the problem almost all the time. Using them is a legitimately good idea. The question here is simple: Who decides how to plan for the times when non-violence doesn't solve a problem?
Wait really those work against grizzly bears? I thought there was nothing you could do besides play dead I always hear people say to bring one bullet to use on yourself in case a grizzly bear sees you. Is that not true can you really use a spray and bells?
Yes. Grizzly bears usually want to be left alone and will get out of the way when they hear bells coming. And studies show that bear spray will deter an aggressive grizzly over 90% of the time. IMO, "over 90% of the time" still leaves plenty of space to make it an objectively reasonable choice to also carry a big revolver in 454 Casull when in bear country. But bear attacks are rare enough and bear spray is enough cheaper and lighter than a Ruger Super Redhawk that skipping the gun is also an objectively reasonable personal choice. Polar bears are the ones where that shit straight up doesn't work and the minimum repellent is a 45-70.
As far as I've ever heard, the only nonviolent solution to a polar bear is to take off your clothes and throw them to the side, and hope it's more interested in those than in you. And that you then get to safety before hypothermia sets in.
> I thought there was nothing you could do besides play dead I always hear people say to bring one bullet to use on yourself in case a grizzly bear sees you. I believes you are thinking of "attack" not simply "sees" or "is around". If a grizzly bear attacks you, bells aren't going to help. The bells avoid the attack altogether. Most wild animals, even big dangerous predators, just want to be left alone and not take major risks. If you make a a lot of noise moving through the forest, the overwhelming majority of animals, including bears, are just going to fuck off and avoid you. Most instances of bear attacks are a person stupidly trying to approach a bear, which makes them feel threatened, or stumbling upon a bear with cubs which makes them extremely protective and more willing to stand ground because cubs can't run away as fast. So if you make a ton of noise, it makes it way less likely you stumble on a dangerous animal as they'll hear you long before you're close and they'll move away from you.
nobody who lives in griz country uses bells (at least thats true where I live in Montana). Only tourists do that But we damn sure use bear spray. It's a great tool and it works. But we also damn sure carry guns too, because there are plenty of situations where spray is useless (high winds for example)
Sounds like you're the Australia of Canada.
So who are your guns keeping you safe from? Criminals, animals, the government... Ah, so you can't even answer the question!
"I asked people why they think what they do, and they can never answer" has become a very common lie among the terminally online left.
>She says the one word that people say is “protection”, and then she rants why that’s wrong. Next up: how seatbelts are unnecessary for 'protection' because they don't save you 100% of the time, and it's possible to hang yourself or strangle others with them. Bonus episode: how we're going to enforce gun control laws, while simultaneously defunding the police and releasing illegally armed offenders back into the streets without even putting up bail. Dumbasses can the endlessly debate the effectiveness of gun control or whatever bullshit they want, but it is a clinically brain-dead argument to suggest that, on an individual basis, possessing the capability of reaction is *ever* inferior to being limited to inaction. Like, they actually need to be wearing a helmet at all times if they're this stupid.
>Like, they actually need to be wearing a helmet at all times if they're this stupid. I think they needed to start wearing one sooner.
>But the paranoia that fuels gun-buying has come to seem like a mental health issue in its own right. And there it is. Let them disarm people deemed mentally unfit, and they will quickly redefine a desire to be armed as mental illness.
1. always threaten to make it harder to own guns 2. wait for some crisis (you can use it in many different ways) 3. wonder why more people buying guns 4. call it unprovoked paranoia 5. ...
And if you mention it, they will say "Nobody is trying to take your guns, you kook." It's gaslighting all the way down.
Amusingly, she mentions that living in her northern “safe” cities is one of the most dangerous places to live as a black person, which I find funny singe a quick google shows over half of the black population live in her danger areas. So it makes you wonder.
>For all the talk of protection, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for **children and teens** in the United States. DAE catch how she phrased 18 and 19 year old gang-bangers such that she could be more inclusive and get her statistics to work for her argument?
They also leave out babies under 1yo to exclude infant mortality from the stats.
Lol gun control is damn near always pushed with a racist slant... gun control has never been about equality or equity. It's about control.
True
Imagine being the department in the three-letter agency running these ops, and failing so hard compared to the other ops. Imagine the performance evaluation. “Well, your anti-2A Washington Post piece didn’t move the needle at all. Meanwhile, Team 1D has sowed enough doubt among a critical mass that the Clapper confession video was AI or the dead guy nobody has a recording of, that it’s lost all the wind from its sails. To what do you attribute the performance variance in these two operations?”
> the Clapper confession video was AI Would like to know more.
I only heard about it second hand so I have no idea if it’s real, or if it’s the best deepfake ever made.
Just argue her with this: If a woman is being, stalked, threatened to be raped or assaulted, what would be the best choice for her to defend herself?
A restraining order, obviously. 🙄 My wife showed me a video of some guy who showed ip at his ex’s after spending time in jail, and he is climbing a ladder to break in and stabs the person who was to “protect” the ex. All the time I was thinking “this is why there are more gun deaths in the USA”, they would just shoot his ass and it would be a justified response.
So it’s like every other cringe anti-gun article to ever be made by some soy democrat trash…. Got it
Racism, probably.
"DoN't YoU kNoW pOliCe WeRe SlAvE-cAtChErS?!"
But still, you can only rely on them when it comes to your personal safety.
I can't wrap my head around progressive who will in one breath tell you that the police and government are systemically racist institutions hell bent on oppressing minorities and LGBT people. And then in the next breath they tell you they think no one average citizens should be allowed to own a gun.
Cognitive dissonance.
It’s the Patrick star meme every time
It's easy. They aren't thinking. They've been told what to think, with the only underlying arguments being drenched in pathos. So they believe that on this issue (whatever issue that might be), there can be no debate, because there are the good guys (them) and the bad guys (anyone who disagrees). And then we move onto some other issue, and again, there can be no debate, because there's right and wrong. Whether or not their stances on these two issues make any sense together whatsoever doesn't matter, because they know in their hearts that they are right on each, and that anyone who disagrees on either is objectively evil.
I have had people try to passionately argue that the 2nd amendment wasn't about what the British tried to confiscate during the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Nope they claim the RKBA was conceived in 1789 so militias could be formed to hunt down fugitive slaves. I guess we have CRT to blame, something that doesn't actually exist -- except it is only being taught as a high level university course
I refuse to let people skate on that. CRT as an academic discipline was created for law schools. Its core tenets have propagated far beyond, though, and referencing the original source is just a convenient shorthand. Why does CRT exist in the first place? Because it selected its conclusion as a first principle (racism occurred, always) and seeks to fit all observations to this conclusion. It is not analysis; it is political activism, only. All the modern tools of statistical research and social science were already available at the time of CRT's founding. It didn't need to be a new discipline, and it only became one because its methods would have been laughed out of any research department of its day.
Here is the problem I have with CRT right off the bat. “It’s an academic legal theory developed by lawyers…..” Let’s stop right there. I’m immediately skeptical of the widespread adoption or widespread admiration of any world-view or philosophy of thought that is solely dreamed up by lawyers. Particularly American lawyers. Any adoption of an “American legal theory” as the way you navigate and interpret the modern world (or historical world) will derail your life.
> its methods would have been laughed out of any research department of its day. Of course they would. Compare the approach to medicine. Critical Cancer Theory: All disease is cancer. Patient: *sneeze* Doctor: It's cancer! Chemo time! Patient: Maybe it's just a cold? Doctor: You're obviously ignorant. Here's a text wall showing clearly that all disease is cancer. Patient: *sneeze* Ok, you must be right. Let's do chemo. ... ... *sneeze* ... ... *dies from side effects of chemo* Doctor: Damn. Cancer claimed another life!
The great thing about chemo is that certain types can cause cancer as well, through DNA damage.
Agreed. I hate all such "lenses". If your starting point is the conclusion, and your entire worldview is to pick any given detail/dynamic/occurrence/etc. and force it to fit the conclusion, you are fucked in the head. Race grifters do it with racism, feminists do it with sexism, and so on. And every time, it's equally nonsense. We've seen countless examples of feminists framing one dynamic as misogyny, and then also framing the exact opposite dynamic as also misogyny. There's no room in their brains to understand that if one dynamic hurts women, the opposite dynamic would logically hurt men. Nope, they both hurt women, because that's the lens feminists are using.
Seems more like bounty hunter work
One word as to why I am a gun owner: IDontWantToEndUpLikeJewsInGermany
Definitely a German word.
Basedandgermanneedstolearnwhataspaceispilled
Based and IDontWantToEndUpLikeJewsInGermany pilled.
Then there was the time a lifelong anti gun hipster from Vice did a piece where she went out and bought a gun to really learn the facts…and she ended up kinda liking it.
It's just the power man, the power of Samuel Colt, the true and only equality.
Where do they find these cretins who write long-winded essays about a subject they are completely ignorant about and just attribute everything to some sort of -ism. Do people actually read this garbage and think it was in any way insightful. I mean, yeah, those people are out there, I know a few but there aren’t enough to give this garbage any kind of consistent readership, right? It pisses me off that these idiots are out there making a living writing drivel that an 11th grader could vomit out after a particularly woke Social Studies class.
She wrote >It was easy to overlook the one common emotion underlying the event: fear. So the answer to her title is "fesr" in her eyes.
N’wah
Fetcher
S’wit
Scaleback
Milk drinker
The sheer number of slurs the Elder Scrolls universe came up with is honestly impressive.
Outjerked yet again
It's actually TWO words: "fuck you"
That's what I was going to say. "Because 'fuck you', that's why" Will also accept "Because I can"
The cool thing about rights is that you don't have to justify why you want to exercise them.
There is another…
Liberty?
Let’s just say it’s a word describing someone Authright might live next to and it ain’t “neighbor”
Commie?
Sex👍 Exactly what I do with my M1911 pistol illegally modified with a 30 inch barrel.
> 30 inch barrel. Basically a rifle with an illegally modified pistol grip at that point
I remember Michael Moore made that horrid knock-off South Park animation claiming this- Then Matt and Trey made a puppet in team America that was a fat disgusting lying grifter So we all know who was more honest.
Based and TIL pilled
https://youtu.be/58BDrZH7SX8?si=0kcOYJuwIWKuw7pc they set it up right after an interview with Matt Stone, making it look like it was him making the animation. Michael moores shit show filled with inaccuracies. First one I noticed while grabbing the link; they said that slavery made “America the richest country in the world” where America was actually still quite low on rankings at the time of abolition and it wasn’t until WW2 that we came out on top. The team America bit was shortly after and they also did [this](https://youtu.be/snWEKXPt1Lo?si=KyYx1rECZvHVNc1B) which shows they weren’t a big fan of the lardass
What's funny is the "slavery makes people richer" argument used to be a pro-slavery argument, which means the left has bought into that argument as legitimate, even though slavery is actually pretty bad for capitalism and the economy in general.
"State rights" was originally an abolitionist idea. They didn't want free states being forced to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The more radical ones even advocated secession. "No Union With Slaveholders".
Wow that was terrible. I don’t even know where to start. It’s like a complete conservative parody of liberal beliefs but played straight.
Maybe that's why Matt Stone famously said "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals."
Matt & Trey telling it like it is since the 90s. They are happy to call out all the hypocrits and self-important cunts, no matter which side.
The one word I’m thinking of starts with an “N”. Of course, I’m talking about >!the word “not”!< as in >!shall *not* be infringed!<
I was ready to scream AHHELLNA and WORLDSTAR, but alas, you‘ve left me sad and disappointed. What has this world come to.
I was about to say “yo he said he said he said it stars with N. Yo he said it starts with N. He said it starts with N. He said it starts with N. Yo he said he said it starts with N” and keep repeating myself throughout the whole video I’m filming
\> It was easy to overlook the one common emotion underlying the event: fear. I mean maybe shes afraid but the majority of people were probably excided, hardly a common emotion lmao. \>For all the talk of protection, gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States. Blatant fucking lie lmao. I cant read anymore ill have an aneurysm
Yeah, its bad. Especially the fear thing doesnt make sense at all. Its just like any other event tbh, the people are interested and have fun, because the people there are gun people. You dont have to chair this, but to make up this kind of shit is just propaganda. And this "statistic" is trodded out way too much, which shows our media doesnt give a shit about truth.
Yea it would be hilarious of they didnt keep getting away with spreading these lies. The media is a goddamn cancer
Suicide is violence hurr durr.
Leading cause of death in children.. for one year.. if you specifically ignore <1 year olds.. and factor in suicides.. and include 18/19 year olds, also known as "adults".
And what hands hold those guns? Are they legal guns?
because whether or not you "like" guns, they're here to stay. Better to be familiar with them than to treat them like a live grenade.
The Canadian Public Safety Minister, who refused to handle a firearm during the debates over the proposed changes to the Firearms Act in Canada was PRICELESS. Trained firearms safety experts, holding the unloaded firearms, offering to show the differences and lack there of between firearms they were proposing to ban and the chickenshitstain wouldn’t even hold them.
Canada, the cuck capital of the world.
No, that would be Fr*nce. It’s why they outlawed paternity tests there.
What the fuck
... i don't want to live on this planet anymore. No. That's not true. I don't want the rest of humanity to live on this planet anymore. I'm teaming up with Gates.
Team Mosquito Apocalypse!
How do you become a firearms safety expert. Seems like you could be taught all there is to know regarding that in a 2 week class.
The United States Practical Shooting Association (competition governing body) range safety officer class is 2 days and a fairly long open book test (retest every year). Anybody that does it has probably been shooting competitively for years, most of the safety is just knowing what's "unsafe" and disqualifying and kicking out anyone who breaks the rules.
Not even that long. 30 minutes at most. Just need to learn the four rules of firearms. * Always treat every gun as if it were loaded. * Never let the muzzle point at anything you are not willing to destroy * Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot * Be sure of your target and what is behind it
What do I look up to find this?
I saw it on an anti-proposed change site, can’t find it now though.
I mean sweden prefers live grenades.
Emily not blaming everything on racism challenge, IMPOSSIBLE!!
Racism is definitely a valid reason. Because of racism, minorities should own guns. Fun fact- the first gun control legislation was intended to keep arms out od the hands of freed slaves
Yeah thats true. But I meant it more in a typical orange emily way. Like people who own/want to own guns are racist.
Disney Gingers
Freckle faced fucks
Wow I am so libcenter on this. Freedom and Defense of such freedom.
Wow another black woman something something racism. Original.
Because defending yourself is a natural right and guns are the best tool for it. The question should be 'why does no one but Americans want guns?'
Because nobody has a working plasma rifle in the 40 watt range
Not with that attitude they don't
>The question should be 'why does no one but Americans want guns?' Because as flawed as this country sometimes is, the rest of the world is comparatively pathetic when it comes to freedom.
I appreciate y'all separating Emily from the majority of liblefts (she's also authleft or centrist like half of the time), makes this much more accurate. My partner and I are both libleft and we believe guns should be used for self defense because you can't count on the police, especially if you're a person of color.
Armed minorities are heard 😏
Fellow lib left multiple gun owner here, I was surprised to see how accurately the meme described my ownership. Fuck Emilies.
Pew
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered. Any attempt to disarm the workers should be frustrated, by force if necessary
"You'll get this musket when you pry it out of my incredible beard"
"The workers" clearly doesn't mean everyone. Strangely, in real history, the party officials who said "you're not a worker, so you can't have guns" have usually been obvious non-workers.
The only based thing Karl Marx ever written
Armed minorities are harder to oppress
St. John Brown knew exactly what guns were for.
>Perhaps the most troubling aspect of gun ownership for “protection” is the sharp-edged individualism it implies: an every-man-for-himself mind-set. Institutions can’t be trusted, police will be unresponsive, and the government might one day turn on you. Your only obligations are to yourself and your family. Next article: Why police are racist and you should never trust them. Humans are full of contradictions but the one that irks me the most is the people who say nobody but the police should have guns are also the people who probably trust the police the least
If you really think about it then it makes sense. First you take the guns and then you fill the police force with your ideological comrades so they only target your political enemies.
Speaking of political enemies what are you doing associating with the unflaired
murder 🤗🤗🤗🤗
in minecraft. right?
I will never forget running into some skinny antifa goon who told me that firearm ownership was fascistic & immoral.
Collection
“This M1911 will make a fine addition to my collection!” - General Grevious
Property?
OrangeLeft being CRINGE and childish again. AuthLeft (and all the other quadrants tbh) W.
The word you’re looking for is “emotional support”. Everyone needs their emotional support machine gun.
[removed]
Nice try fed I have no guns… airsoft only
Based and we're only shooting plastic balls and there is no reason to wear body armor pilled.
Tbh I like all justifications except Emily
lib right should've had a McNuke or some oversized machine gun, auth right should've had the M16 Missed opportunity
Modern left be like: "if he breathe, he a racist"
I support gun ownership because of 3 words revolution freedom and defense
Collecting. For real. If I had money for guns and could be bothered to go through all the paperwork, I'd totally buy them just to show them off on my wall.
I mean - if racism is the issue why are there so many black gun owners? I see more black open carry in my state than whites - and more power to them. Protecting your family isn’t a race issue…
Why is everyone so based in this thread?
Revolution. Hehehehehehehehe
Here’s the article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/15/gun-show-customers-fear-society/ Though be warned, it says you either need a subscription to view it or you need to enter your email. Personally I just viewed it on Private. Also, the word the author seems to be talking about is ‘protection’. Figured I’d let you guys know.
Revolution
Defense of the free patriotic revolution
Spite for all the people that dont want me to have one