Liberals.. California in a nutshell. They have this law that requires handguns to be white-listed to be sold there. That might seem reasonable, since, after all california
x
Click to expand

Liberals.

Liberals.. California in a nutshell. They have this law that requires handguns to be white-listed to be sold there. That might seem reasonable, since, after all

California in a nutshell. They have this law that requires handguns to be white-listed to be sold there. That might seem reasonable, since, after all, the law was passed in the name of safety. In reality, the law almost bans handguns entirely, since there are a finite number allowed, and it only shrinks as those guns become discontinued, with no new ones added for a long time.

If you are not a citizen of the US, you probably have even worse gun laws. My sympathies if you have any wish to defend yourself, hunt, or shoot for sport.

If you are a liberal who supports the Second Amendment, then I apologize for offending you, which is seldom the reason I apologize to anyone.

NEW Liberal-
Approved Handguns!
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+62
Views: 4098
Favorited: 3
Submitted: 08/22/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to qwermy Subscribe to fucking-guns submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - pyrothermal (08/22/2012) [-]
Thank you for the apology in the description. Most people wouldn't be kind enough to do that.
Thank you for the apology in the description. Most people wouldn't be kind enough to do that.
#2 to #1 - qwermy (08/22/2012) [-]
I do know pro-Second-Amendment liberals, so I won't hang them out to dry. But liberals' flexible opinion on the Constitution usually includes dropping the Second Amendment.
+3
#4 to #1 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#5 to #4 - pyrothermal (08/22/2012) [-]
That's a head of lettuce.
+1
#6 to #5 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#7 to #6 - pyrothermal (08/22/2012) [-]
I'm sorry. I didn't understand that one.
+2
#8 to #7 - whyisthissohard **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #21 - gobnick (12/13/2012) [-]
i'm liberal, i approve of guns, just not for stupid assholes who try to find loopholes in the law and kill someone (not "he was in my house i was defending myself" cause there actually is no argument there, but i mean the kind of person that calls the cops, says they will kill someone, are told by the cops to wait for police to get there, but kill that other person anyway), it's not the weapon, it's the person
#23 to #21 - John Cena (12/13/2012) [-]
same here... hello liberal gun brethren!!!
#9 - malifauxdeux (08/23/2012) [-]
"States with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states, according to a study underwritten by a group of more than 300 U.S. mayors."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html - A nice article about gun crimes in Japan, the country with probably the strictest laws regarding weaponry. If you don't feel like reading it, I'll just let you know that gun crime is almost non-existent in that country.

You may say that these laws are bad, but they seem to be working pretty well and having a good effect to me.

Now, I'm not sure how closely you've read the second amendment, but I have to say I disagree with your interpretation. I take it to mean that people have been given the right to bear arms as militia members, but not just to play around with.

Furthermore, would you say it would be okay for your neighbor to have a missile in his back yard ready to launch? I mean, a missile is an arm in the same sense a gun is.

Also, hand guns aren't very good for home defense due to the extensive training necessary to use them safely and properly in a situation that calls for it. This is especially true if you have children who you have to keep the gun locked away from. Then you'd have to go and get it in the dark while your adrenaline is pumping and you've just been woken up before the criminal, assuming they're violent, comes for you.

Also, how often are handguns actually USED when hunting? I know a lot of people carry them, but how often are they actually used?

And, how much actual sport shooting is done with handguns? I mean, skeet shooting is usually done with a rifle of some sort, so I don't think you'd really be missing out in that respect.

I'm really curious as to what you make of this as a gun advocate. I don't expect to change your mind, but at least consider it.
#10 to #9 - qwermy (08/23/2012) [-]
I respect your opinion. Here is my response:

1. What do you mean by "lax" (handgun laws)? I agree that sales of all firearms should use a background check (many do not), but there is no need to practically ban handguns to lower crime. In fact, look at Great Britain. Since they tightened gun laws to the point of nearly banning guns, crime increased over 300%. With real guns effectively illegal (so much so that their own Olympic shooting team had to go abroad to practice), criminals use anything from knives to converted airsoft guns (dangerous as hell) to commit crimes.

2. In regards to interpretation, see the case D.C. v. Heller ( [url deleted]
The right was deemed individual, rather than tied to a militia. Whether it should be or not is up for debate; personally, I like Switzerland's system, which does tie it to militia/military service (which is mandatory for all males). However, as the US has a standing army AND law enforcement, there is no militia, so gun rights must really be either individual or none.

3. Missiles are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court determined in a case soon after the National Firearms Act (NFA) passed that it is constitutional to restrict heavy weapons like missiles as Destructive Devices, as they serve no purpose of sport or defense; they merely cause damage. Moreover, if you mean a missile you can't move, it's legally considered a weapon of mass destruction; it's not a firearm anyway.

4. You are completely correct about most arguments about handguns. They are secondary or backup weapons in almost all cases, so even the military rarely uses them in combat. Rifles are far more effective, and usually more accurate. However, handguns are portable and concealable. For hunting they are useless, for home defense, a shotgun is better, but handguns are used MORE than rifles for sport, and are the only guns for defense outside the home.
#11 to #10 - malifauxdeux (08/23/2012) [-]
1. That was from an article, I'm not entirely sure on what the standards for lax were. But it does illustrate that if guns are easier to get, then crimes with guns will increase. In England, gun crimes have been pretty strict since 1937, so it makes sense that crime in general has gone up, but actual gun related crimes are very uncommon. In the U.S in 2005, 11,346 were killed with a gun. In 2006, 59 people in England were killed with a gun. (National Institute of Justice and the BBC respectively)    
   
2. I agree with you that this is the current stance and these are the two options available from the Constitution if you were to interpret it my way. However, there's a problem with the way Conservatives want to interpret the two clauses separately. If you interpret them separately, then there's no stipulation for legal weapon ownership which becomes a logical problem when you get to the next point.   
   
3. Since there's, if you use the conservative interpretation, no stipulation for the reason for ownership or type of weapon in the Constitution, there's not an actual Constitutional reason for them to restrict those types of arms. Of course 99% of everyone would agree that they should, but there wouldn't be any Constitutional grounds for it. Furthermore, the actual practicality of a handgun as a tool for anything besides hurting other people is in question. I don't personally consider sports shooting practical, especially with rifle and bow alternatives.   
   
4. As for self defense outside of the home, carrying a handgun doesn't seem like it would actually make you or anyone else that much safer. If some one holding a gun mugs you, you trying to pull yours out will probably just get you shot instead. If you're in a crowded movie theater, trying to shoot at the guy with an assault rifle is probably going to get you and a lot of other people killed in the cross fire. And when the police show up, they won't know who the bad guy is, so they'll probably just shoot both of you.
1. That was from an article, I'm not entirely sure on what the standards for lax were. But it does illustrate that if guns are easier to get, then crimes with guns will increase. In England, gun crimes have been pretty strict since 1937, so it makes sense that crime in general has gone up, but actual gun related crimes are very uncommon. In the U.S in 2005, 11,346 were killed with a gun. In 2006, 59 people in England were killed with a gun. (National Institute of Justice and the BBC respectively)

2. I agree with you that this is the current stance and these are the two options available from the Constitution if you were to interpret it my way. However, there's a problem with the way Conservatives want to interpret the two clauses separately. If you interpret them separately, then there's no stipulation for legal weapon ownership which becomes a logical problem when you get to the next point.

3. Since there's, if you use the conservative interpretation, no stipulation for the reason for ownership or type of weapon in the Constitution, there's not an actual Constitutional reason for them to restrict those types of arms. Of course 99% of everyone would agree that they should, but there wouldn't be any Constitutional grounds for it. Furthermore, the actual practicality of a handgun as a tool for anything besides hurting other people is in question. I don't personally consider sports shooting practical, especially with rifle and bow alternatives.

4. As for self defense outside of the home, carrying a handgun doesn't seem like it would actually make you or anyone else that much safer. If some one holding a gun mugs you, you trying to pull yours out will probably just get you shot instead. If you're in a crowded movie theater, trying to shoot at the guy with an assault rifle is probably going to get you and a lot of other people killed in the cross fire. And when the police show up, they won't know who the bad guy is, so they'll probably just shoot both of you.
#12 to #11 - qwermy (08/24/2012) [-]
1. Nice statistics, but you still prove my point. Overall crime increased without guns. The reason for this is simple. Law-abiding citizens are mostly without means of self-defense.

2. As I said, it would be nice to tie gun ownership to militia service. All gun owners would be trained to use their firearms, and everyone would serve their country. Sporting firearms are not problematic, as they pale in comparison to the assault rifles every militia member has in their homes anyway. Crime in Switzerland is very low because no criminal is stupid enough to rob a certainly armed home.

In the National Guard, the closest thing to a militia in the US, the weapons are not stored at home, they are kept in armories, furthering separation between individual gun rights and militia provisions. The Second Amendment outlines the right to KEEP and bear arms. Also, all other Amendments in the Bill of Rights apply specifically to the individual, not a group. In the US, therefore, gun ownership is an individual right (with no possible way to make it a collective right). Unless the government decided to change the military from standing to militia (expensive move), the clauses must stay separate.

3. Actually, the determination of the Supreme Court on heavy weapons like missiles makes sense. It goes down to precedent. Back when the US was founded, almost everyone owned a rifle or musket (sidearms were very expensive then). Fearing a future tyrannical government confiscating everyone's means of defense), the right to own them was protected. Nobody owned, for example, a cannon, for self-defense then, and nobody owns a missile for that now. They are not protected.

4. You are entitled to your opinion about handguns (I know gun owners who hate them, only shooting rifles.) However, they are best for stopping carjacking, mugging, or store robberies. In a mass-shooting situation, people mostly duck and run, armed or not. Gun-carrying people have common sense too.
#14 to #12 - malifauxdeux (08/24/2012) [-]
1. Without disclosing the nature of the crimes or your initial point for the one country that you site, what you're saying is irrelevant. I mean, since 1980, the crime rate in the US has risen over 300% as well, however, the US has a much higher rate (4.2) of (these are per capita, so population doesn't matter here) of homicide than the UK (1.2) or Japan (.4).

Crime everywhere has increased since 1937...

2. You say that's the reason why crime is low in switzerland, but you don't provide any real evidence that that's the case. Until you do, it's just your assumption.

3. Historical precedence is irrelevant, (since that's apparently what they're basing the case on) when the wording of the Constitution clearly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, logically, I'm aloud to have a bazooka in my house.

4. They may be the best gun to have on you for trying to stop those things from happening, but over all they still aren't good. It's just increasing your risk of getting yourself killed trying to pull out your gun when they already have theirs ready and aimed at you. Your life is worth more than your wallet and sense of pride.
#15 to #14 - qwermy (08/24/2012) [-]
2. http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm (BBC News, of the gun-hating Great Britain, seems to agree with my logic.)

3. My precedent argument was not meant to directly say what the 2nd Amendment does and does not cover. On that argument, people say machine guns are not covered by the 2nd Amendment either. It is not the Constitution, however, that restricts them. My precedent argument was to define arms. Arms has generally been established, by this precedent and other logic, as short for "firearms", which a person can carry with them. Cannons and missiles were never considered to be in this category, regardless of the fact that a cannon is by design a giant rifle or musket.

4. Always depends on the situation. Usually, it's smarter to just hand over "mugger's money" (a fake wallet with lots of small bills to drop and distract a mugger as you run). But with that said, sometimes a mugger might decide to attack their victim even after they hand over money. No matter what gun you have, it doesn't come with common sense. You have to supply that yourself, and just because you have a gun does not mean you have to use it when you can. It's just nice having that option.
#16 to #15 - malifauxdeux (08/24/2012) [-]
How so? Point out the parts that help your case so I can look at them rather than having to read through both of them and try to find the parts you're looking at. It makes for easier communication. I read some of it, and what I read seemed to be saying that Switzerland was the exception to the rule, which means that in every other area besides switzerland; more guns means more problems.

I can carry a bazooka or a grenade. I can carry an assault rifle. Those should be just fine if we use the Conservative reading.

Over all though, the statistics don't lie. 3/4 of the countries we've looked at show that increased gun ownership goes hand and hand with increased gun crime and homicide rates in developed countries. (It's much more fair to compare countries with similar economic situations.) Sure, guns and hand guns have their uses, but in the grand scheme of things; they seem to be more trouble than they're worth.
#13 to #12 - qwermy (08/24/2012) [-]
Addendum due to character count:
3. I shoot handguns for sport. Pistol shooting is actually an Olympic sport, if you don't know this. And nothing against bow and arrow, but I'm not that good at it, and prefer pistol shooting. There is nothing less practical about it.

As for whether handguns were originally designed to hurt people: yes, they were. For that reason, with the right ammo, they make excellent self-defense weapons, primarily because you can't take a rifle or shotgun everywhere. That makes them no less usable for sport though.

4. There are actually hundreds of documented cases of people stopping a mugging with a concealed handgun. The NRA actually compiles and publishes them (with newspaper articles as sources) monthly in their magazine, American Rifleman, along with other cases of self defense with a firearm. Many muggers don't even have a gun anyway; some pretend to, and others have knives/clubs or use fists.

Oh, and as for the obvious Colorado shooting reference: James Holmes didn't have an assault rifle. Assault rifles are capable of automatic fire, and are therefore basically illegal and damn near impossible to acquire in the US. And again, most gun-carrying people will just run or hide during a massacre (as Colorado is a concealed-carry-legal state, this most certainly happened). If you're out-gunned (concealed handguns are tiny, often weak, and always accurate only in short range) and in a scene of hysteria, then your handgun won't help you. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have it in case you are ever mugged.
#19 to #18 - malifauxdeux (12/12/2012) [-]
****** , this **** was from three and a half months ago. Why are you commenting on it now?
#20 to #19 - Schwarzenegger (12/13/2012) [-]
I...I don't know. I thought it was recent...   
   
Mfw realizing
I...I don't know. I thought it was recent...

Mfw realizing
#22 to #20 - malifauxdeux (12/13/2012) [-]
You're not the only one either. People have been coming in and down voting this stuff long after it had run its course. Must have something to do with this content being posted in a channel.
User avatar #24 to #22 - Schwarzenegger (12/14/2012) [-]
Possibly.
User avatar #25 - zuflux ONLINE (12/15/2012) [-]
You aremicans should feel lucky. I mean, most of why people get killed so often from guns, are because of the major paranoia inducing newscasting. Sure, the gun laws are kinda liberal, and over here in Norway, the laws are very strict what regarding guns.

But then again, we have very few deaths by guns, or news corporations only covering killings, and gun cases.
#26 to #25 - qwermy (12/17/2012) [-]
Oh, really. Tell me more about how your strict gun laws stopped this guy from killing a lot of people.
User avatar #27 to #26 - zuflux ONLINE (12/17/2012) [-]
I'm not saying it's not possible. Black market.

But it is however, proven, that the media in the US cover cases that has the highest 'shock' value, and hence the term 'sensationalism.' When this is th eonly thing people see in the news, they're frightened, and turn to guns.

Another thing is, tha we have a more peacfull mentality about crimes, and we also have support structures in place to help those who have strayed, or have need for help.

To a sad, lonely, suicidal person in the US, the best option is suicide, but to be remembered, you gotta do something horrible.

ABB wanted to be remembered as a horrible person. And all the attention he got, was just what he wanted.
User avatar #17 - festan (09/02/2012) [-]
I live in Canada, love guns, and everything about them, such as mechanisms and so on. However, I'm not sure how to get a gun licence, or what guns are legal to own, and i can imagine that they would be limited to hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. I am hoping to maybe get a few handguns and an assault rifle, but I'm not sure where to get them or if they are even legal. Anyone from Canada know the gun laws well?
 Friends (0)