Do Anti-2A/Anti-Gunners want mass shootings to happen?

[Amur8711]

https://youtu.be/zq1JbJiCFDw

[bolverk]

I've watched the segment of 'The View' Is talking out of her arse, jut because she was not able to shoot accurately at a moving target at distance dose not rule out that Eli Dicken could not, and he broken no laws, it was the policy of the Mall to discourage that carrying of firearms in the Mall but there is no weight of law behind that policy, and Eli was thanked by the manager by the manager of the Mall.

If she praised Eli she would be breaking their victim narrative, and a court has recently said that police have no duty to defend the public, so Eli took it upon himself to defend those in that Mall;

Eli did the right thing, what would those on 'The View' have had him do? Leave the Mall with is Girlfriend while the POS shooter expended all of the Magazines he was carrying? Eli showed increasable presence of mind and only used the amount of force needed to end the threat.

Those on 'The View' are upset that they have been robbed of another chance to bemoan the 'lack of common sense gun laws' when the truth be told there are enough laws on the books already to deal with 'gun violence' but there is not the political will to enforce them, and to get Illegally held firearms off the streets, The BATF is no doing the job it is supposed to like allowing 'Gunwalking' (Fast & Furious OP) and putting more illegal firearms on the streets. But instead the harass firearms owners who do everything by the book because BATF have no solid leadership and legal firearms owners are 'low hanging fruit' and that means BATF agents do no work.

[mobiusforniner]

I guess, what constitutes anti second amendment? Does reasonable gun laws make one anti-2A?

I mean, I think it is pretty reasonable to ban fully automatic firearms and rocket propelled grenade launchers. Or does pro-2A mean having access to such equipment? Where do you draw a line?

To be honest, I have several AKs and one AR. Honestly, I feel if I have to have a license to drive a car or fly a plane, I think people should have a competency test or license to own a weapon.

Does that make me anti-2A?

[Amur8711]

No, however what its doing is when that goes into effect and doesn't cut down on crime they will push for more reasonable gun laws until nothing is left.

[demonics]

Yes. You are the useful idiot anti-gunners depend on. You keep your head down, you nod and agree with people trying to end you, and you pack up and move when the laws finally come to your doorstep. Only when there's no where else to move will you wise up. And as fate would have it, you have the rest of your life to find this out the hard way... could be tomorrow, could be 30 years from now.
People like you are how these things happen: bearingarms.com/.../nypd-doing-gods-work-enforcing-law-regulating-toys-n60736


(He carries a revolver, not because he prefers them but because his state won't allow him to carry anything more substantial) and because he's a leftist, he'll gladly show up to the polls to make sure they one day prevent his stupid ass from carrying that too! And will be shocked when it happens! Thats you my guy.

[mobiusforniner]

@demonics so, by your logic everyone can and should have AK or AR rifles? Or while we are at it, bazookas and grenades? Because, you know, thats my right, too?

I am arguing in favor of common sense and finding equal footing to where our rights remain, but a reasonable action is taken to ensure competent and sane people own firearms. I go through lots of training to fly a plane and must prove it. But i dont ever fear my right to fly will be taken away.

Any 18 year old with no prior record can buy a weapon which, for all intents and purposes, was designed to kill other human beings and not have any training or licensure. That same 18 year old cannot jump into a plane and fly it...

Do you argue anybody should be able to jump into a plane and fly? No, youd think thats ludicrous...

Your perspective is based solely on fear. Fear of the domino effect. Fear of change. Problem is, our society isn't the same as it was in the 50s. We live in a society free of consequence or responsibility. Its never "our" fault. People lack general aptitude and respect of the power a firearm weilds.

[demonics]

"so, by your logic everyone can and should have AK or AR rifles? Or while we are at it, bazookas and grenades? Because, you know, thats my right, too?"

Absolutely. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.

"Common sense" doesn't mean anything. Its a buzz phrase for useful idiots. "Common sense" is also being thrown around right now in regards to upending the entirety of fossil fuels around the world and replacing them with renewables ASAP. "JuSt BuY a TeSla!" Even though there's a waiting list, and the cheapest model is $50,000. AND they still utilize fossil fuels in their manufacture. Upon citing the fact that millions of people will die as a result, (((they))) shrug their shoulders. "I just do whatever Fauci says, its just common sense!" Common sense... thats your argument really?

Flying a plane, and driving a car are not constitutional rights. The kid that can afford to purchase a plane outright won't have to worry about licensing. Kind of like how this guy doesn't have to give two shts about the various felonies he's committed. Including various gun charges:

[demonics]

As is common with most anti-gun, smooth brain, need-to-find-shit-out-the-hard-way types, in your endless, naive pursuit of keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, you only succeed in keeping them out of the hands of people who actually need them. And then turn around and blame those same people when they get murdered by someone with a sharp stick. "If... if only we had banned guns (in NYC) this poor innocent single mother of 2 (who was denied a gun permit) would still be alive today!" www.foxnews.com/.../no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-awaiting-gun-permit

None of this crap will matter anyway when people realize the feds cannot enforce any of this crap and the WH is a paper tiger of threats, and limp wristed spook influence peddlers. The Feds have been reading your emails, texts, and monitoring your purchases for at least 20 years now, have they stopped any mass shootings or terrorist attacks sir?

[mobiusforniner]

@demonics then why did they ban fully automatic weapons? would you support the average joe owning a full auto aks and ars? Why must someone have a class 3 LICENSURE to own such a weapon?

To your point and mine, I suppose, common sense isn't common.

[Amur8711]

@mobiusforminer full automatics are not banned but highly regulated to the point its impractical for the average joe. In 1934 the national firearms act was passed, this took items such as full-automatics firearms, suppressors, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and a class of firearm that classified as anyother weapon (weapons that landed between rifle, handgun, and shot) to have a $200 tax stamp to own them. They did this because it was against the law to ban them, so with the $200 tax stamp it made these items expensive enough to be the cost of a used car in the time it was passed. However it was not made to go up with inflation so today it is now a nuisance fee (believe me it is a nuisance).

Now to answer your question "why they ban fully automatic weapons" 1986 there was an ammendment added to the Firearm owners protection act that was a compromise by the NRA, who said they would fight to getthe ammendment removed after the Act passes (never did), to further restrict full automatics to the class three they are today.

So up until the 1986 it was possible for the average go to own full automatics once the tax was no longer impossible to pay for.

Yes I believe the average joe should be able to own such Firearms. Shall not be infringed!

[mobiusforniner]

Rhe 2nd amendment doesn't give an age limit, so why 18 year olds? Hell, my 8 year old should be able to buy and AK. Why not? Its his right?

Sarcasm aside, you think any body with no regard to mental comptence or aptitude should be able to buy a gun, because thats their "right"?

My mother in law got her concealed carry license. She carries a handgun with her wherever she goes. Tells me she feels "safer". she's never shot a gun before. NEVER. Not a single clue how it works. No mechanical or technical knowledge on how it cycles, how to even chamber a round. Baffles my mind...

[Amur8711]

Thats how it use to be s long as the parents didn't have anything against it.

No there are obviously people that have shown they don't have the mental capacity to own firearms and their are systems in place already for those people. Of those that seek mental help themselves maintain their rights to owning a firearm because they showed they are responsible enough.

She should go get trained, and learn ho her firearm works.

[Bl0n6eguy]

Wait... so you don't own a license for your AK or AR? Somebody call the ATF on this guy.

The second amendment was written to permit the populace access to weapons to overthrow the state should it become tyrannical, but also grant them the ability to defend themselves from harm.

I'm not an American nor live in America, but your nation is meant to be one of freedoms, and lack of red tape. The problem with giving the state the power to infringe upon citizen's rights to own the means to protect themselves... is that it would allow a tyrannical state to disarm dissidents and subjugate them without the risk of retaliation.

[Amur8711]

@BI0n6eguy thank you! Awsome to see support from the outside!

[KelleyNice]

In the last hundred years all but one mass shooting was done by the government or else it was a false flag operation. Of course those that plan false flag mass shooting want high death counts because an unarmed people are easy to control.

Many of the liberal women and many indoctrinated fools don't like for citizens to own guns and they sdon't want mass shootings.

[Chazmatazz269]

Can you cite sources to support your claims?

[KelleyNice]

@Chazmatazz269 Can you prove otherwise?

[Slingblade1126]

It's not someone's obligation to prove what DIDN'T happen. You're the one making the accusation, the burden is on you. Also, you love to call everyone "indoctrinated" when they disagree with you, do you even read half the shit you spew? Is that coming from Google or mom and dad? Maybe YouTube?

[Chazmatazz269]

Hahaha! I’ll accept that nonsense as a ‘no’. Ell oh ell!
FYI: the “prove the negative” challenge is always either a scoundrel’s response or a sign of ignorance. Either you know that it’s mathematically and empirically impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist or that something never happened and you’re hoping I don’t know that so you APPEAR more knowledgeable, or you don’t know that and you just displayed your ignorance.
It’s really simple. Share the evidence that convinced you or admit that evidence wasn’t required to convince you. I require evidence. You don’t have to; that’s your prerogative. But you can fairly expect to be challenged by those of us who do when you make such bold claims.

[KelleyNice]

@Chazmatazz269 @Slingblade1126 As one lady on GAG explained to me, "Anytime something doesn't make sense; look for the real reason." Since mass shooting seldom, if ever, occurred, prior to the push for gun control, the real reason is obvious. They are false flag operations to get the public to accept gun control. Furthermore, they don't happen in California. Since California already has gun control and is full of gun control advocates, but has lots of crazies, there are no other realistic explanations.

[Slingblade1126]

You need better sources than "one lady on gag". Gun control and the push for it is as old as the second amendment itself. Also, California has had the most mass shootings in the last decade than just about every state, and the most out of all the states in the last 3 decades. I'm against overly strict gun laws but it doesn't help my cause and case when there are people spewing this nonsense.

[Chazmatazz269]

Actually they do happen in California. They’re just not plastered on the lamestream media because we decided long ago that poor black and brown people killing each other en masse doesn’t matter. Nevertheless, they DO use statistics involving gang shootings in the “mass shooting” and gun violence reports. I don’t recognize or use “false flag” narratives because they’re based entirely on ignorance. Simmered down to its basic meaning, false flag claims are used to suggest that everyone associated with group ‘x’ is too altruistic to do something so terrible, while everyone associated with group ‘y’ is so terrible they’ll do anything to make group ‘x’ look bad. That’s fundamentally impossible. There are bad people on both sides doing bad things to themselves and others. We simply can’t solve a single problem with the “false flag” narrative or anything else that perpetuates “us vs them” tribalism. If we’re not trying to solve problems, then what the hell are we doing?

[KelleyNice]

@Chazmatazz269 You have the right to believe false flags never happen. But don't expect me take your belief seriously.

[Chazmatazz269]

Ell oh ell! You’re the one riding the conspiracy theory. I don’t care what you do or don’t take seriously. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they want to. but they view it as "if there is a mass shooter I want to protect myself!", not "lets ban guns so there's no mass shootings" they have a very selfish point of view and a god complex

[sw1916]

I don’t think anyone wants mass shootings to happen. I think anti gunners feel “no guns no shootings” however they don’t realize that in the past when gun laws were harsh, criminals found ways to obtain guns illegally, and the good guys who followed rules didn’t have anything. I think to stop mass shootings you need to put guns in hands of good law abiding citizens so criminals think 10 times before trying anything.

[Agagagagaga]

A man in Japan made a homemade shotgun and assassinated the former prime minister. It’s lunacy that people think gun laws will magically stop killing.

[sw1916]

Bottom line is, criminals can obtain weapons whether it’s illegal or not. So only want to stop them is to keep law abiding citizens with guns. No guns no shootings is absurd

[Amur8711]

The politicians do want them to happen because it further their agenda to become more powerful over their subjects. "Never let a good tragedy go to waist"

[demonics]

Can't bitch and complain about guns if there's no mass shootings... I mean its not like they go out of their way to suppress local stories of good guys with guns saving the day the 100k some odd times per year. Hell how many times have news vans shown up, with reporters salivating at the prospect of reporting on dozens of people dead only to find out the shooter was taken out before he could do any damage? They literally storm off like they'd just been punked. What does that tell you about these people?

I'll post it a million times until people wise up (With a new addition!):

[Chazmatazz269]

Yes, because it drives their narrative necessary to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens thereby making the US population easier to control. As long as the masses are ignorant, they’re easier to scare and scared people are easier to manipulate. The leftists are literally going on TV and blaming guns, not shooters, and then suggesting that the people with guns who can and will stop a shooter are criminals. That’s nothing short of bat shit crazy and their cronies are eating it up!

[Rangers]

Of course they do, they attack people who stop active shooters and it's well documented that a minimum of 82% of convicted felons are democrats with less than 0.13% Republicans.

Also name a mass murderer who isn't a radical left wing extremist, you can't do it!

[NovaCourier]

Where did you get those numbers from? I'd be interested to know.

According to a 2020 survey, 38% of white prisoners were Republicans, 30% independent and 18% Democrats.

Black prisoners were 11% Republican, 29% independent and 45% Democrat.

Source: www.prisonlegalnews.org/.../

Also, some non-leftist mass murderers for you:

Robert Gregory Bowers (Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting in 2018)

Anders Behring Breivik (2011 Noway attacks)

Wade Michael Page (Wisconsin Sikhs temple shooting in 2012)

Brenton Harrison Tarrant (Christchurch mosque shootings in 2019)

Payton S. Gendron (chief suspect in the 2022 Buffalo shooting in May)

Need I go on? It isn't a case of the left or right being bad. It's just extremists of any variety, being bad.

[Rangers]

www.google.com/.../%3foutputType=amp

www.google.com/.../jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats%3f_amp=true
I'll admit to exaggerating greatly but yeah, if you go do journalism in a jail or prison on political ideology, you probably won't find many uncle Joe's in there but a lot of Rayray and Pookie's in there

[NovaCourier]

From what I could gather, there is some truth to this in some cases, but the data doesn't include what kind of crimes that have been committed. The percentage of US prisoners in for violent and nonviolent offences is roughly half and half, but with no data on voting intention by crime type, it's impossible to determine if there's any relevance.

One thing that is interesting is that prisoners' preference for the Democrats seems to be an example of correlation but not causation. People in poverty or with low earnings are much more likely to commit crimes. You can see evidence of this in cities with higher income inequality usually having higher crime rates compared to cities with lower inequality.

Source:

At the same time, poorer people are, generally more pro Democrat. For example, in 2012, over 60% of voters on less than $25k a year voted for Obama, while almost 55% of voters earning $200k or more voted for Romney.

Source:

This is probably because Republicans are more in favour of big business, which benefits the wealthy more in the short term. Democrats are more for a big state, which usually benefits poorer people in the short term. Although, in saying that, the long term benefits of either are often hard to assess, given that the needs of a country can change far more rapidly than any policy change can hope to keep up with.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is just weird to see a "Black" dude have this position on hero shooters, when so many "Black" dudes have been shot and injured/killed. . . for being the hero.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWwQjH7T1bEhttps://www.youtube.com/embed/rb_yDM0OXiI

[demonics]

Probably because he has a high enough IQ to resist emotional manipulation from the likes of people who live in gated communities with private security.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Nobody wants mass shootings to happen.

Except for Democrats. Because they’ve always dissaproved of gun culture anyway.

And so they’re hoping for more shootings so they can exploit the situation and get what they want out of it. An unarmed society that can’t defend itself.

You know, just like they had in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That’s what the left secretely wants. They want to round up and arrest political dissidents

[Adronicus]

How does taking fire arms away from law abiding citizens solve the problem of evil people that break the law, get them anyway to commit their acts? How does leaving law abiding citizens defenseless to criminals that don't follow laws help the problem?

[FunkyMonkee]

I know! They twist all your words around in incredibly bizarre ways to prove to you that you're a racist, etc., so, why can't we twist theirs around to suit our agenda?

[Avicenna]

Some probably do, and many of them try to take advantage of mass shootings to push their totalitarian agenda of firearm confiscation from law-abiding owners.

[jshm2]

.. yet mass shootings are happening more regularly.

You must be a new kind of stupid to think adding more guns to a gun problem is going to solve the gun problem.

[Rangers]

The opinion of an admitted gang member and convicted felon is so valuable on how to solve violent crime.

Oh wait, you ARE the problem and you're mad because you can't rob me without getting a gun pulled on you, I get it

[Amur8711]

They are happening more regularly because more places ban guns. Thats where criminals have free rain to do as they please.

[BeMuse]

They are the ones executing the mass shootings so obviously...

[Wade12345]

Mass shootings don't happen in countries that ban guns.

[Amur8711]

Oh yes they do, and they been on the rise. Also if your referring to European countries you have to remember they have buffer, upon buffer, and upon buffer countries separating them from countries with high crime. The US has Mexico directly on our southern border.

[KelleyNice]

That is partly true but only because in the USA almost all mass shootings are by the government or else false flag operation to get the public to accept gun control. In the USA other than by the government, mass shooting only happened after the push for gun control.

[OddBeMe]

Yes thats our ultimate goal. Dammit, you found us out.

the video looks annoying as fck so I’m not watching.

[Amur8711]

Fine stay ignorant

[SmokinAces2000]

Only conspiracy theorists believe something as stupid as that

[Amur8711]

Did you not listen to what she said? She said he shouldn't had had a gun there because its a gun free zone. But because he ignored that gun free zone he saved countless lives, because obviously the shooter didn't care it was a gun free zone and wander to kill as many as possible. The shooter thought he wasn't going to be challenged until police arrived.

So she basically said she rather more people died, than the 22 year old that stopped the shooter, have a gun.

[SmokinAces2000]

First off that’s one person and second she didn’t say that she wanted more people to be killed

[Amur8711]

There where dozens of political and celebrities saying the same thing after the news broke.

If she had her way, thats exactly what would had happened, more people would had died. Instead it ended in 15 seconds.

[Anonymous]

No, the idea is to hav fewer shootings. Less guns = less shootings.

[Amur8711]

Wrong! Criminals knowing wherever they go to commit a crime they may be killed dentures them. Versus in a country where law abiding have no guns criminals have free rain to do as they please.

[Chazmatazz269]

skeptics.stackexchange.com/.../did-the-uk-homicide-rate-go-up-after-handgun-ownership-was-banned

In case you’re interested in facts over rhetoric.

[Amur8711]

Oh wow stats from a forum! So professional 👏

Im sorry your logic leaves people defenseless and breeds week men. Mine encourages people to take their own safety seriously and learn to defend themselves effectively.

[Chazmatazz269]

Ell oh ell! You didn’t even look, did you? Your ignorance is boundless and frankly we don’t need dummies like you speaking for us. Either know the facts or sit down and shut up while grown folks are talking, dumbass.

[Amur8711]

Im sorry but I really trying understand that jumble of supposed statistics. But as usual Anti-gun statistics make no sense.

[Opinion Owner]

This is the old "citizens with guns will stop crime" routine. It's not true despite a few anecdotes over time.

[Amur8711]

There are 500,000 to 1,000,000 a year of altercations with firearm defensive uses.

There was just on in the state of Indiana, the shooter was taken out by a citizen with a concealed gun in 15 seconds.

They happen all the time but never get covered.

[Opinion Owner]

1 anecdote. Big deal.

[Amur8711]

Did you not see the 500,000 to 1,000,000 cases?

[Opinion Owner]

here is the actual support for that or did you just make it up?

[Opinion Owner]

"where is the actual support" ?

[Amur8711]

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3

A study that was ordered by Barack Obama in 2013 by the CDC.

[Opinion Owner]

Where in that study are your contentions suported?

[Amur8711]

Read it

[Opinion Owner]

you asserted it, you support it.

[Amur8711]

I sent you the link that all the more is required when referencing something.

[Opinion Owner]

That link is off topic

[Amur8711]

www.instagram.com/.../?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

[Amur8711]

That link isn't off topic, you just won't read it.

[Opinion Owner]

I read it, and it is irrelevant. Do better.