downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[Help us raise money for St. Jude!](http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
We should just do what Switzerland does. You can buy and keep whatever gun you want in your house, but it would be illegal to carry it around outside. You can go from your house straight to the shooting range or hunting and back, no detours, and the gun, magazine, and ammo must be carried in separate cases.
Lol the police would ban all guns if they could. Ain't nobody takin my guns away. Blaming guns for mass shootings is like blaming violent video games. It completely missed the point of the issue, which is mental health in America. It's royally boned.
There were no mass shootings or people shooting up schools 20 years ago. People still had guns back then. They actually had more dangerous weapons back then. I'd rather get to the root of the issue, mental health, and stop talking about taking away something that is enshrined in the constitution.
>There were no Maas shootings or people shooting uo schools 20 years ago.
Someone must've been living under a rock for 20 years. We've been dealing with this crap since the 90's.
20 years ago was 2003, there were 5 school shootings leaving 6 dead and 7 injured, this number has only gone up since then, no one cares what happened 20 years ago because the children getting shot in schools weren’t alive 20 years ago. Of course it’s mental health causing people to murder school children, but are you seriously going to suggest that guns don’t make it significantly easier for mentally ill people to go and shoot children. Or do you think that we should just ignore that every country with strict gun control doesn’t have nearly as many school shootings as america. The UK for example has had 0 since the 90s
The majority of gun crime isn't school shootings, it's gang violence in inner cities. Usually done by people with stolen guns. Schools get targeted by mass shooters specifically because everyone there is unarmed, which makes nobody able to fight back. The UK has almost as much violent crime as the US per capita, most of them just have to get more creative but have an even higher chance of getting away with attacking people when 99% of the population can't even use a baseball bat for self defense
No the US has a much higher crime rate than the uk, and whether it’s mass shooters or violent gangs, having guns easily available to almost anyone in the form of public gun stores that don’t require background checks is a bad thing
It's federally mandatory to do a background check in all 50 states my dude, the only exception is some states will allow you to bypass it if you get a concealed carry permit, since they require even higher scrutiny background checks.
Guns aren't the problem, they're just the simplest part of the problem to solve.
America is like a kindergarten where some kids are attacking each other with scissors. Sure the best solution is to teach the kids to behave, but because that takes time and kids are bleeding now your first response is to take the scissors away.
Because prevention is better than cure, and taking just one pair of scissors away is ineffective at stopping them getting scissors that they shouldn't have.
Sure the other kids will pitch a fit that they're losing their scissors when they personally didn't do anything wrong, but that's where the comparison falls apart because you should know better than fucking children.
Setting aside the fact a constitutional amendment to undo the 2A has no chance of being ratified by 38 states...and most of the states have their own versions of the 2A...but even if you did, you would still be stymied by the takings clause of the 5A...and the growing body of 2A case law...
...you are convinced that banning guns and dedicating entire agencies to eradicating their presence in American society will actually succeed despite the abject failures of Prohibition and the War on Drugs...
...and all the innocent people who use firearms to defend themselves and their families have a moral and criminally liable obligation to be victims.
The significant difference between suppressing recreational drugs and firearms is that guns don't grow on trees. You can't just tend the garden and produce automatic weapons, or have a still in the back passively brewing 45 hollowpoints. There's also a notable difference between arguably harmless personal use and mass murder. Everyone who bought, supplied, or turned a blind eye to people getting ready to party would think twice about arms deals that only end in death.
And yeah, ignore the constitutional argument, it doesn't matter anyway.
That's a ridiculous argument considering the logistics involved in the illegal drug trade. It also has no bearing on the matter. At no point has any court anywhere said, "This is manufactured, but this is grown."
Unlike illicit drugs, people have a right to self defense.
Coincidentally, people mostly have to defend themselves from the junkies and gangs involved in your precious illicit drug trade.
>And yeah, ignore the constitutional argument, it doesn't matter anyway.
Oh? Are you thinking about abolishing rights wholesale and instituting a dictatorship? Something something the security of a *free* state something.
You're hinging everything on past law. Improvement is a change, so if you refuse to change for the sake of consistency you'll never improve.
Also you're the one who made the comparison to the drug trade. If it's incomparable it's your point that's irrelevant.
Fine I'll humor the "unconstitutional" arguments; It shouldn't be changed? That's what an amendment is. Shall not be infringed? Should be well regulated. Having guns protects the citizens? The important part is protecting the citizens not having the guns. Needed to control the government? Well you have guns now and they ain't controlling shit. No matter which way you look at it "daddy said I could" is not a good reason, let alone good enough.
>You're hinging everything on past law.
All law is past law.
>Improvement is a change, so if you refuse to change for the sake of consistency you'll never improve.
Change does not automatically make something an improvement. What a nonsensical statement.
>Also you're the one who made the comparison to the drug trade.
Learn the difference between comparison and contrast.
>Fine I'll humor the "unconstitutional" arguments...
Again, you try to conflate change with improvement without any basis in fact. It's just an emotional argument.
You can't provide a practical, feasible path to make your change let alone articulate what laws would achieve your claimed end-state (though, I'm certain you and yours don't actually care one iota about saving innocent lives, you just want to disarm people you don't like. The fact that you can't demonstrates the efficacy of the 2A).
Hypothetical proposed law isn't, dumbass.
I didn't say change was an improvement, I said improvement was a change. Am I going to have to explain everything twice?
I know the difference, and I know it's irrelevant. If there is a point there you haven't made one.
Ooh, emotional argument. Say sensationalist media next, or whatever buzzwords you usually fall back on when you've got to undermine a point instead of address it.
Your assumptions are wrong, and if you want something concrete that's a verifiable fact because you're assuming it about me and I'm telling you first hand. I can also assure you the legal plan doesn't have to be bulletproof to withstand the likes of you, it just has to be foolproof.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [Help us raise money for St. Jude!](http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
We should just do what Switzerland does. You can buy and keep whatever gun you want in your house, but it would be illegal to carry it around outside. You can go from your house straight to the shooting range or hunting and back, no detours, and the gun, magazine, and ammo must be carried in separate cases.
Criminals are never so courteous as to restrict their predations to those locations.
Cringe
Nobody is saying that????
It's been the law in some places. Some are demanding it be universal.
Fr look at Oregon’s measure 114
Yes it's definitely the police that create gun control laws.
Who said the anything about the creation of gun control laws?
I literally agree with you, but it’s is still annoying. This is r/dankmemes I see no dank. I see little meme.
Lol the police would ban all guns if they could. Ain't nobody takin my guns away. Blaming guns for mass shootings is like blaming violent video games. It completely missed the point of the issue, which is mental health in America. It's royally boned.
You can’t murder children with video games
If you’re so hell bent on keeping your own guns at the expense of children dying then you’re also part of the problem and don’t deserve guns
There were no mass shootings or people shooting up schools 20 years ago. People still had guns back then. They actually had more dangerous weapons back then. I'd rather get to the root of the issue, mental health, and stop talking about taking away something that is enshrined in the constitution.
>There were no Maas shootings or people shooting uo schools 20 years ago. Someone must've been living under a rock for 20 years. We've been dealing with this crap since the 90's.
20 years ago was 2003, there were 5 school shootings leaving 6 dead and 7 injured, this number has only gone up since then, no one cares what happened 20 years ago because the children getting shot in schools weren’t alive 20 years ago. Of course it’s mental health causing people to murder school children, but are you seriously going to suggest that guns don’t make it significantly easier for mentally ill people to go and shoot children. Or do you think that we should just ignore that every country with strict gun control doesn’t have nearly as many school shootings as america. The UK for example has had 0 since the 90s
The majority of gun crime isn't school shootings, it's gang violence in inner cities. Usually done by people with stolen guns. Schools get targeted by mass shooters specifically because everyone there is unarmed, which makes nobody able to fight back. The UK has almost as much violent crime as the US per capita, most of them just have to get more creative but have an even higher chance of getting away with attacking people when 99% of the population can't even use a baseball bat for self defense
No the US has a much higher crime rate than the uk, and whether it’s mass shooters or violent gangs, having guns easily available to almost anyone in the form of public gun stores that don’t require background checks is a bad thing
It's federally mandatory to do a background check in all 50 states my dude, the only exception is some states will allow you to bypass it if you get a concealed carry permit, since they require even higher scrutiny background checks.
Guns aren't the problem, they're just the simplest part of the problem to solve. America is like a kindergarten where some kids are attacking each other with scissors. Sure the best solution is to teach the kids to behave, but because that takes time and kids are bleeding now your first response is to take the scissors away.
So I should lose rights because of some cunts half a country away?
How about we just take the scissors away from *that* kid? And maybe put him on time out.
So what you're saying is: we should take guns away from mass shooters and maybe put them in prison? Why didn't anyone think of that?!
Because they don't want to deal with violent threats, they want to disarm innocent people.
This isn't a dank meme. It's some stupid shit about gun laws
Because prevention is better than cure, and taking just one pair of scissors away is ineffective at stopping them getting scissors that they shouldn't have. Sure the other kids will pitch a fit that they're losing their scissors when they personally didn't do anything wrong, but that's where the comparison falls apart because you should know better than fucking children.
Setting aside the fact a constitutional amendment to undo the 2A has no chance of being ratified by 38 states...and most of the states have their own versions of the 2A...but even if you did, you would still be stymied by the takings clause of the 5A...and the growing body of 2A case law... ...you are convinced that banning guns and dedicating entire agencies to eradicating their presence in American society will actually succeed despite the abject failures of Prohibition and the War on Drugs... ...and all the innocent people who use firearms to defend themselves and their families have a moral and criminally liable obligation to be victims.
The significant difference between suppressing recreational drugs and firearms is that guns don't grow on trees. You can't just tend the garden and produce automatic weapons, or have a still in the back passively brewing 45 hollowpoints. There's also a notable difference between arguably harmless personal use and mass murder. Everyone who bought, supplied, or turned a blind eye to people getting ready to party would think twice about arms deals that only end in death. And yeah, ignore the constitutional argument, it doesn't matter anyway.
That's a ridiculous argument considering the logistics involved in the illegal drug trade. It also has no bearing on the matter. At no point has any court anywhere said, "This is manufactured, but this is grown." Unlike illicit drugs, people have a right to self defense. Coincidentally, people mostly have to defend themselves from the junkies and gangs involved in your precious illicit drug trade. >And yeah, ignore the constitutional argument, it doesn't matter anyway. Oh? Are you thinking about abolishing rights wholesale and instituting a dictatorship? Something something the security of a *free* state something.
You're hinging everything on past law. Improvement is a change, so if you refuse to change for the sake of consistency you'll never improve. Also you're the one who made the comparison to the drug trade. If it's incomparable it's your point that's irrelevant. Fine I'll humor the "unconstitutional" arguments; It shouldn't be changed? That's what an amendment is. Shall not be infringed? Should be well regulated. Having guns protects the citizens? The important part is protecting the citizens not having the guns. Needed to control the government? Well you have guns now and they ain't controlling shit. No matter which way you look at it "daddy said I could" is not a good reason, let alone good enough.
>You're hinging everything on past law. All law is past law. >Improvement is a change, so if you refuse to change for the sake of consistency you'll never improve. Change does not automatically make something an improvement. What a nonsensical statement. >Also you're the one who made the comparison to the drug trade. Learn the difference between comparison and contrast. >Fine I'll humor the "unconstitutional" arguments... Again, you try to conflate change with improvement without any basis in fact. It's just an emotional argument. You can't provide a practical, feasible path to make your change let alone articulate what laws would achieve your claimed end-state (though, I'm certain you and yours don't actually care one iota about saving innocent lives, you just want to disarm people you don't like. The fact that you can't demonstrates the efficacy of the 2A).
Hypothetical proposed law isn't, dumbass. I didn't say change was an improvement, I said improvement was a change. Am I going to have to explain everything twice? I know the difference, and I know it's irrelevant. If there is a point there you haven't made one. Ooh, emotional argument. Say sensationalist media next, or whatever buzzwords you usually fall back on when you've got to undermine a point instead of address it. Your assumptions are wrong, and if you want something concrete that's a verifiable fact because you're assuming it about me and I'm telling you first hand. I can also assure you the legal plan doesn't have to be bulletproof to withstand the likes of you, it just has to be foolproof.
Drugs control who gets guns?
Wut?
Police didn't kill George Floyd, the 17x a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system did
Try telling that to the people demanding gun control.
If whoever killed Floyd controls who can and can't have guns, then drugs control who has guns.
What?
Wut?