Thanks Biden, guess I have some shopping to do before prices go up.
I buy stock when these things happen and sell when it cools down. You folks pay me a TON. Thanks!
God bless capitalism <3
This is a fucking retarded take and I vote Democrat. Jesus.
Holy deep fried frankenfuck will the Democrats NEVER LEARN?!?!?!?!
AFTER!
You talk about guns AFTER the election!
What in the actual pogostickingpopejohnpaul is he THINKING?!?!?
The optics are 1000% awful here.
Uvalde wasn’t enough, but a potshot at the planet’s most notorious living felon is?
That fucking horrible assassination attempt would have happened with or without the AR, this is just another knee-jerk emotional reaction, and it could NOT come at a worse time (pre-election). We’re fucked.
As a foreign, I don’t know why US need to buy real AR-15 at home.
If you want to play, buy Airsoft. If you want to hunt, buy a rifle.
I can think of literally no better reason to keep ARs legal than the events of last week.
Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government. If the rise of fascism in America isn’t the time to use it, it’s meaningless.
The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check. That ship has sailed, so it already lost a lot of its bite, but any power it still has can only be justified for that purpose
Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government
Nope. Judging by how they used militias at the time, they meant it for defending the federal government against both invasions and rebellions. The “defense against tyranny” reason is just an invention of people trying to justify their guns.
The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check
Nope. There WAS no federal army at the time. They used militias IN STEAD OF a standing army, not as a check on an existing one. Which of course invalidates the entire amendment now that the country has the biggest and most advanced military in the history of humanity.
All of that being said, I consider assassination of a tyrant you can’t rid the people of in any other way the only form of murder that’s acceptable as it serves the common good.
Putin is one such tyrant, Orban probably is, and Donald Trump DEFINITELY is. The world would have been a much better place if Crooks had been a better shot.
I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said. We don’t have to speculate what the founders intended, they wrote it down. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s ask Alexander Hamilton from federalist 29
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said
The Federalist Papers was a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it’s for the security of the nation and doesn’t mention tyranny at all.
Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.
It’s a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.
I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.
Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn’t agree on everything.
The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.
The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.
You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.
The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.
You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.
in b4 /pol mods delete this for “inciting violence”.
Everyone gets a free scope and 100 hours of shooting lessons with purchase.
Scopes aren’t versatile enough for the AR platform. Free LVPO with purchase and 100 hours of training.
Ok, but can you throw in an M203 and a leaf sight? Maybe a box of 40mm HEDP? Indirect fire is a real game-changer.
1 in 5 Americans score adequately high enough in their spacial reasoning to qualify for an M32 or M320 credit. The M203 will only be available on surplus legacy rifle systems via lottery.
It’s Pete coming for yo guns energy. Please drop the guns dems for the love of your country.
“Fun” fact: those kids would be old enough to vote this year, had they not been gunned down.
Handguns used in ~2/3 of all gun murders in the U.S.: I sleep
AR-15 used in one assassination attempt of geriatric running for president in 2024: REAL SHIT
Bro why? I’d vote for a fucking shoe over him at this point, unfortunately it’s between sundowners and down syndrome. These guys want to destroy everything this country was founded on and developed over the years and banning a gun is where you go?!
At this point it’s intentional sabotage. No one fucking wants this. It won’t change anything. Just leave it the fuck alone and start doing something for the lower and middle classes to secure your goddamn votes. Or just let the conservatives use your stupidity as a stepping stone to steal your voters by fulfilling their fear mongering.
The type of rifle isn’t the problem here. If the shooter had used something better it’s likely Trump wouldn’t have survived.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
“Charles Whitman killed seventeen individuals and wounded at least thirty-one others over the course of thirteen hours before he was killed on the observation deck of the UT Tower on August 1, 1966.[72]”
And of course, infamously:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
With the Texas tower shooter it was the shooter himself the difference. He was a Marine sharpshooter. Oswald was also a former Marine.
These guys were extensively trained.
Banning guns is a losing policy for democrats. It only ever hurts them. I really wish they’d stop lighting political capital on fire with statements like this
I said this decades ago… if Dems dropped the gun shit and embraced safe shooting sports, they would win every damn election.
The number of people I know who won’t vote for them because of gun shit is too damn high. There are cheaper ways to solve gun violence anyway. Single issue voters are dumb, but democrats need to accept that they exist and this is the biggest single issue
Gun rights are a MAJOR factor in why many people I personally know refuse to consider voting Democrat.
They will wax poetic all day about how much they detest Trump… but then end with, “At least he won’t take away our guns.”
I actually know a guy who plans on voting for Trump simply because “They can’t drag me to the concentration camps if I have guns”
He doesn’t think Biden wants to drag him off btw, he thinks Trump will… but it won’t matter because he had guns…
Which is hilarious cuz trump said he would
We’d have universal healthcare and constitutional abortion rights if nothing else.
Rich people would lose a lot of money should that ever happen, so whenever things start to look even a little good, you bet your ass some idiot in the Dems is going to scream “hell yes we’ll take your guns”.
I want you to imagine the following scenario:
The RIAA: “Internet file sharing of mp3s is eating into our profits. Government, we want you to ban the Rio Volt SP250 mp3 player.”
The Government: “Yes, banning only that specific make and model of mp3 player and none of the rest of Rio’s product catalog, or any mp3 players manufactured by any other brand, will completely and permanently address this scourge of copyright infringement. Consider it done.”
That’s you! That’s how DUMB you sound!
–GLaDOS.
Here’s what happens when you ban a firearm by name: manufacturers change some extremely minor detail, change the model number, and keep selling it. The Tec-9 open bolt machine pistol was used in a few school shootings in the 90’s, most prominently the Columbine massacre. California banned the gun by name in state law. The manufacturer responded by moving the sling ring from one side of the gun to the other and calling it the Tec-DC9, with “DC” standing for “Designed for California.”
It’s not an engineering problem. Banning individual makes and models is how you solve (or at least end) an engineering problem. This is a culture problem.
At least he is sticking up for Vice President Trump
Nooo, let’s not. We’re gonna need those pretty soon from the looks of it.
