# Your future if they take your guns: the reality of owning a gun in The Netherlands, Europe.



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

Your future if they take your guns: the reality of owning a gun in The Netherlands, Europe.

As a legal and law-abiding Dutch gun owner, I thought I'd chime in and give you a realistic picture of what's in store for you if you one day lose this important political cause. Reddit is full of opinionated left-leaning Europeans who have never even touched a gun, so anything they say should be taken with a big grain of salt. It's a long read, but there's a lot to unpack here, and I promise you it's shockingly absurd enough to override any potentially short attention spans out there.

As an aside, let me point out something incredibly important that no-one ever seems to talk about when it comes to discussions of this nature: the psychology of gun control (and by extension) of self-defence. _"Progressivism"_, almost by its very nature, is the embodiment of the slippery slope argument. Progressive generations rebel against what is considered the status quo, until they settle on something they personally consider reasonable. Sometime later, a new generation is born and grows up with the new progressive ideals being considered _status quo_, leading to a new wave of political rebellion that settles on yet a more progressive societal paradigm. The compromise between standing still and moving forward is always moving forward, even if only a little bit at a time. More on that later.

I've picked out a few of the more laughable or totalitarian-sounding things that are part and parcel of living in a country with strict gun control.

Joining a club

To own a gun, you must have been a member of a shooting sports club (pretty much a gun range that requires you to become a permanent member) for at least a year. During this year, you'll have to pass two club-internal "background checks" of sorts. The first one happens right after you sign up to join a club. A designated committee arranges a meeting with you, where you're seated opposite the committee and answer a lot of vague, personal questions. The meeting is aimed at determining if they consider you to be sound of mind and if they feel confident accepting your application to join the club.

The committee consists of people with no professional or otherwise relevant experience in psychology or social work. Any member of the committee may veto your membership application without having to explain their decision to you or their fellow committee members. As you can imagine, this is a recipe for discrimination on the basis of personal antipathy or prejudice with no accountability or transparency. The second meeting with the committee happens right after you apply for a private gun ownership permit (after your first year at the club is over), and is nearly identical in set-up and execution.

Government Background Checks

The first time you'll notice the truly totalitarian undertones of the whole gun control system is during your government-mandated background check, which follows if you successfully went through the aforementioned steps. The best example of this is the _"e-screener"_: an online, fully automated psychometric test/questionnaire that the government charges a ridiculous $60 for. A few examples of questions (I'm not making this up):

_"Do you always wash your hands before dinner?"_

_"Would you litter paper waste if there were no trash can nearby?"_

_"Do you have lots of friends?"_

On the basis of your answers, the test passes a legally binding judgement. Remarkably, you may also fail the test by giving _"too many socially acceptable answers"_, i.e. by being too well behaved. The common thread in the test is supposedly to test for impulse control, though it's obvious the test is an almost comical Orwellian masterpiece (make no mistake though: this ridiculous abomination can make or break your ambitions of becoming a firearm owner) whose diagnostic outcome depends purely on a subjective, government-approved template personality - and, of course, on political compliance.

One of the more sinister case-questions that stuck out to me was one where a scene was depicted in which you were going for a walk through a dark forest late at night with your wife. Your wife is then charged by a man with the intent to rape her. You carry a (legal) pocket knife on your person. What do you do? I'll get back to this question when I get to the psychology of societal restrictions on self-defence, and what that means to your country if you budge even a centimeter (or inch) when it comes to gun rights.

_Spoiler: if you answered the above question with "I'd use my perfectly legal pocket knife to protect my wife against violent rape", you could have kissed your plans of owning a gun one day goodbye._

You've got your gun: now what?

In terms of storing your gun, you've got two options. One is to store it at your club, the other is to install a gun safe at home that must be approved by the National Police (equivalent of feds). The safe must be bolted into the floor and walls, or must weigh 200 kg (about 440 pounds). Ammo and guns must at all times be stored separately.

The police have the right to show up at your door unannounced to check if you're (still) storing your firearms and ammunition properly.

Say you've been at the gun range, and want to swing by your local supermarket to pick up some groceries on the way home. Or you want to pick up your kids at the in-laws. Congratulations, you just lost your firearms license. As per law, you are required to take the most direct route home when transporting your firearm. Stopping for gas is allowed only if you can prove it was absolutely necessary, and if you can prove it's en route to your home. In addition, during transport, your firearm and your ammunition needs to be separately stored at all times.

Screw the details: the psychology and sinister reality of vilifying self-defence.

You could spend all day picking apart the absurdities of the details, but the totalitarianism inherent in this whole thing extends far beyond guns, and IMO, is more important than squabbling about things such as gun safe requirements.

_Sidenote: as everyone in this sub knows, once you subtract suicides and gang-related homicides (which we don't have in The Netherlands for reasons that are entirely cultural and societal, unrelated to gun control), you'll come to find that our homicides per capita aren't significantly lower than those in the US. In any case not enough to warrant the far-reaching gun control we have._

Either way, the psychology of firearm bans is a dangerous and insatiable one. Liberals in the US, who to their credit don't discredit mainstream science nearly as much as most republicans do unfortunately, turn out to be surprisingly unscientific when it comes to this discussion. Terms are made-up on the fly (assault weapons), statistics are ignored (i.e. the efficacy of firearms bans), the cultural component of the debate is avoided completely (i.e. the issue isn't guns, it's gang violence unique to a developed country such as the US).

The same is true with my friends here in The Netherlands. They recoil at the sight of a gun. I have friends who refuse to even touch one of my completely legal and unloaded guns, or who are visibly shocked if I pull one out of my safe in preparation of going to the range later that evening. I keep it to myself mostly.

Guns, and by extension weapons, are a symbol of masculinity, of violence, of aggression to them. These people inherently don't like them because they inherently don't like the feelings they associate with them.

And, as is to be expected, they will ban anything else that evokes similar feelings. Just look at the state of knife laws in the UK, or more specifically London. Turning to my country: here is a forum run by our National Police Corps where ordinary citizens can ask questions, and where qualified policemen can answer. The OP lays out a few situations in which physical violence is imminent, and asks in which situation he's allowed to use violence for self-defence (e.g., being surrounded by guys who are clearly about to use violence, or being grabbed by someone).

The answers are the stuff of horrors.


You have an obligation to try to flee first. Defending yourself while you also had the opportunity to flee will always be considered excessive violence in a trial.


If you really, really don't have _any_ other options but to defend yourself, be prepared for a lengthy 2-year long lawsuit that will cost you your savings.


This one, as explained by the last post in that thread, is the worst one: hitting someone to defend yourself after they've assaulted you is not allowed, because it is not certain the assault will continue past the first punch (hitting them would be categorized as proactive violence, which is unacceptable). The only thing you're allowed to do in case you cannot flee, is to parry the punches (i.e., become a pro-boxer and parry potentially devastating punches). Anything beyond parrying is violence, and only a judge can evaluate whether you were justified in using it (see item 2.)

As you can see, violence has been abstracted away into a process that only makes sense on paper and in judicial terms. Imagine having to flee knowing your attacker might catch up to you (men who assault or rob people usually aren't overweight 70-year olds), because that's your duty as per Dutch law. Imagine having to accept the risk that the guy who's punching you might knock you out and stomp on your head - causing lifelong brain damage (we've had a slew of such incidents happen here) - because you're not allowed to neutralize your attacker - you're only allowed to keep on parrying until you find a chance to flee, or until your attacker just gives up.

In the case of a home invasion, your guns are useless. Ammo and firearms are stored separately, so you'd have to open up two safes, load everything up, and get to the scene in time. Not to mention that, by Dutch law, you are required to allow the home intruder to flee first (with your belongings) or else any defensive violence that you use to protect yourself and your family will be deemed potentially excessive (see item 2.)

As for the question on that e-screener test? The one about your wife getting assaulted by a rapist? Yeah, forget the pocket knife. You two have an obligation to flee the scene first. At most you can try to parry the attack, but that will of course quickly end up becoming a scuffle, at which point you better suit up for court. To successfully pass the test, grit your teeth, swallow your principles, bend over, and answer the way the government wants you to answer. They're not stupid. They know what lots of people are thinking. But that's not the point. The point is to drive home that you're under their thumb, and that you'll publicly declare what they want you to declare. Swallowing your principles is exactly the intended psychological effect.

Alienating people from their right to defend themselves is the most inalienable right of all. All other rights follow from this one intrinsic capacity of humans. Don't allow anyone to take your guns. Everything else _will_ follow. By necessity.​This is the left's goal -- or rather, a waypoint towards the goal of a completely disarmed American citizenry.  Criminalizing self-defense.  

They don't care about gun crime committed by criminals.  Never have, never will.  You ask gun-control advocates how they plan to disarm criminals, and you get crickets in reply, or vague promises that boil down to "criminals will start obeying the law once THIS one is passed!" 

Quite simply, they want law-abiding people helpless against leftist tyranny.  

Oh, and a man who will not defend his wife against a rapist with any means at his disposal is no man at all.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 8, 2020)

Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.


Oh, not all at once.  It's done incrementally.  An AWB ban here, a magazine size limit there...it all adds up.

And leftists are working for it, there can be no doubt.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Mar 8, 2020)

ah. election times. same old shit


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

L.K.Eder said:


> ah. election times. same old shit


I know this will come as a shock to you, but you haven't actually disproved anything.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > ah. election times. same old shit
> ...


lol. cute


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

L.K.Eder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


Run along now.  No one's interested in your desperate attempts to deflect.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


not many are interested in your lame attempt at scaring merkins. they will come for your GUNS, welshing lameman!
if your little thread cannot get responses on the cough merits cough, then be grateful for my help bumping it.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

L.K.Eder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


You can deny reality all you want; I expect nothing less from you.


----------



## Confounding (Mar 8, 2020)

They're gonna get the guns sooner or later. The government only gains more control. It never relinquishes any. It's disappointing because I love the second amendment as much as anybody, but at the same time I don't think it'll be that huge of a deal when it happens. It's not like armed militia could fight the government anyway. Uncle Sam won a long time ago. Life goes on.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.
> ...



Watch Virginia.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


i guess you convinced me. i will vote for the party that lets me keep my guns. but i am also interested in preventing women from aborting children just for fun. can you give me advice on who to vote for?


----------



## Tax Man (Mar 8, 2020)

Did not you hear about the gun confiscation by Obama? Man there are warehouses full of air all over.
I love the panicked outrage of gun confiscation idiots. If any kind of law is made it will be for military style weapons of which no one needs for legal hunting or target practice.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

L.K.Eder said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


Run along now.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 8, 2020)

Tax Man said:


> Did not you hear about the gun confiscation by Obama? Man there are warehouses full of air all over.
> I love the panicked outrage of gun confiscation idiots. If any kind of law is made it will be for military style weapons of which no one needs for legal hunting or target practice.



As I recall, the 2A doesn't permit the government to decide the question of need, nor are hunting and target practice considered.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

Tax Man said:


> Did not you hear about the gun confiscation by Obama? Man there are warehouses full of air all over.
> I love the panicked outrage of gun confiscation idiots. If any kind of law is made it will be for military style weapons of which no one needs for legal hunting or target practice.


You don't get to dictate who needs what, especially based on your ignorance.


----------



## Tax Man (Mar 8, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> > Did not you hear about the gun confiscation by Obama? Man there are warehouses full of air all over.
> ...


You are correct but!!! There is a possibility that military style weapons, fully automatic like the illegal Thompson 45 auto, could be made illegal.


----------



## Tax Man (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> > Did not you hear about the gun confiscation by Obama? Man there are warehouses full of air all over.
> ...


So my opinion, to you,  makes me ignorant?  Talk about ignorant.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 8, 2020)

Tax Man said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Tax Man said:
> ...



Full automatic is already restricted, but not illegal.  They are treated as tax revenue generators.  You pay the fees and buy a safe.


----------



## Vastator (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.
> ...


Look at all the strictures supposedly "law abiding" gun owners proudly proclaim to adhere to. Does the boot licking ever end..? Only in rare cases; amongst the dwindling few; when "they" get around to them...


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.
> ...




Incrementally has always been the key.   And that's why its so important to avoid the Slippery Slope and just say "no".

There is no "reasonable"gun control, and if the Democrats were to get in anything, it just whets their appetite for more.

I remember the Clintonian Era's Draconian Assault Weapon Ban enacted in the 1990's.   You would have thought that it would have satisfied the Brady Bunch and other groups of control freaks.  Not at all, it just pushed them further down the road to perdition.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

Tax Man said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Tax Man said:
> ...


No, your ignorance about firearms makes you ignorant.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

Vastator said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


So, leftists want to ban firearms -- and you blame gun owners.


----------



## Vastator (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Some, "yes". Those who coddle up to power mongers in hopesof being the last to have theirs taken; are little more than boot licking sycophants who are every bit as dangerous as the tyrants they support. Where do you think they get their "stormtroopers" from?


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

Vastator said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


Since you put it that way, I agree.

That's why it's important pointing out the danger to freedom.  The rally in VA was important and got the leftist would-be totalitarians' attention.  

Those sort of public showings need to happen nationwide.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> Your future if they take your guns: the reality of owning a gun in The Netherlands, Europe.
> 
> As a legal and law-abiding Dutch gun owner, I thought I'd chime in and give you a realistic picture of what's in store for you if you one day lose this important political cause. Reddit is full of opinionated left-leaning Europeans who have never even touched a gun, so anything they say should be taken with a big grain of salt. It's a long read, but there's a lot to unpack here, and I promise you it's shockingly absurd enough to override any potentially short attention spans out there.
> 
> ...


This fails as a false comparison fallacy as well as a _post hoc_ fallacy.  

The United States is neither the Netherlands nor Europe; and that certain legislation might be passed in Europe doesn’t mean it will be passed in the United States.

The thread premise is just another example of the right’s dishonesty and demagoguery.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.
> ...


This is a lie – no one is going to ‘take’ anyone’s guns.


----------



## Vastator (Mar 8, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Your future if they take your guns: the reality of owning a gun in The Netherlands, Europe.
> ...


And your post is nothing more than fear driven obfuscation, in the face of fact driven, historically, fact driven relativism.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2020)

L.K.Eder said:


> ah. election times. same old shit


True.

The same idiotic lies from the right.


----------



## Vastator (Mar 8, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


People are already taking others guns. And have been. Where the fuck have you been?


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Your future if they take your guns: the reality of owning a gun in The Netherlands, Europe.
> ...


So we'll just put you down as pretending NUH UH is a rational rebuttal.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 8, 2020)

Netherlands murder rate is 5 times lower than the US
US violent crime rate 23 times MORE than the Netherlands
Netherlands vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats


----------



## Vastator (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Netherlands murder rate is 5 times lower than the US


What is their diversity rate?


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 8, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...





They aren't going to do it tomorrow, maybe not the day after that.

But it is the goal of the left, and they've done it in other liberal countries.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 8, 2020)

Vastator said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Netherlands murder rate is 5 times lower than the US
> ...


diversity is not an indicator 
......Chicago is in the same country as St Louis, Mo--comparable diversity....very pro-gun StL has a much higher murder rate.....NYC and LA same country as StL...NYC a very, very much lower murder rate than StL....LA has a much lower murder rate


----------



## Vastator (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


How cute... You still under the impression that so diverse a nation as ours can assume parity ,city,to city; when compared to a nation smaller than many of our states..? How cute...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.


Hey buddy one election and look at what was once a pro-gun Virginia 
1 election and within 2 months it went to California of the east.
All it takes it democrats winning elections either Federal or statewide.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

Tax Man said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Tax Man said:
> ...


The NFA According to shall not be infringed is illegal
And according to U.S. vs Miller Military-style weapons are most assuredly is protected by the second amendment.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


That itself is a lie.

Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment

Dem congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons

Beto O'Rourke: 'Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47'

If all you're going to do is lie, I suggest you _shut the fuck up_.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 8, 2020)

Vastator said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Netherlands murder rate is 5 times lower than the US
> ...


GODAMN people--take away black murders and the US rate is still many times higher


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


This is a lie some states have taken illegally firearms via red flag laws 
Joe Biden has stated he will take guns if he wins he stated that sitting at a table with Robert Francis


----------



## harmonica (Mar 8, 2020)

Vastator said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


thank you ---yes......so the OP is wrong according to you
ALSO---hahahaha strict gun contolled NYC has a population of 8 MILLION.....very pro-gun StL Mo population 320,000---but NYC murder rate many times less......NYC population also much denser .....Chicago and LA populations many times more than StL, but their murder rates are many times lower


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


Actually it's not gun for gun population the U.S. has one of the lowest murder rates with guns.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Netherlands murder rate is 5 times lower than the US
> US violent crime rate 23 times MORE than the Netherlands
> Netherlands vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats


17 million people all basically on the same page compared to 320 million people on over a million different pages.......


----------



## harmonica (Mar 8, 2020)

Harry Dresden said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Netherlands murder rate is 5 times lower than the US
> ...


1. you have no facts or stats for your claim
2. the most comparable countries to the US have much lower murder rates
3.again--very pro-gun StL [ which is in the SAME country--same page ] has a much higher murder rate than Chicago, LA, and NYC...please explain that one


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


homicide rate 2020
Stl 24 
https://www.slmpd.org/images/Homicide_Stats_for_Website.pdf
Chicago 78
Tracking Chicago homicide victims
Since Jan. 19
LA 59
The Homicide Report
New York City 23
But other crimes are up 
NYPD Announces Citywide Crime Statistics for January 2020


----------



## harmonica (Mar 8, 2020)

Vastator said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


...NYC with a population 25 times *more* than very pro-gun StL has a much lower murder rate...also, NYC has many, many more gangs/etc


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


inncorrect


----------



## harmonica (Mar 8, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


hahahhahahahahah--you fked up big time----from now, all your stats/posts are crap
Chicago--78 murders--NOT the rate
StL 2019 -193..Chi -490
StL population 320,000  ...Chi -2.7 MILLION--murder rate about THREE times lower
St. Louis homicide total hits 193 for 2019

FURTHER proof--StL named in top 10 most dangerous cities--sometimes # 1--Chi, LA, and NYC not even in top 10!!!!!!!!!!BOOOM
this link is from a StL news station!
St. Louis named 'most dangerous' city in new ranking | WalletHub report
The most dangerous cities in America, ranked
Crime in St. Louis - Wikipedia
Chicago's homicide rate decreases for the third straight year - CNN


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


was i wrong?.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


I posted the homicides for each city for the year  2020 
Do try and keep up


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 8, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > Guns will not be taken in this lifetime.
> ...



95% of the state is now 2A sanctuary.  Police in those counties will not participate in any ordered infringement.  The National Guard cannot be used to enforce domestic law.

That leaves Northam the State Police.  I doubt they'd bother.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

Harry Dresden said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


he was wrong that's for sure.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 8, 2020)

harmonica said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



Doubtful.  Show the numbers for homicide.  Per capita.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


yes 95% of the state of a second amendment sanctuary but those anti-gun laws are still on the books and all it will take is the removal of a few sheriff via elections


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> They don't care about gun crime committed by criminals. Never have, never will. You ask gun-control advocates how they plan to disarm criminals, and you get crickets in reply, or vague promises that boil down to "criminals will start obeying the law once THIS one is passed!"



Actually, we've given you specifics, you just don't like hearing them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > They don't care about gun crime committed by criminals. Never have, never will. You ask gun-control advocates how they plan to disarm criminals, and you get crickets in reply, or vague promises that boil down to "criminals will start obeying the law once THIS one is passed!"
> ...


those specifics cannot supersede "shall not be infringed" or U..S VS Miller ruling military style weapons are protected by the second amendment.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 8, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Billy_Kinetta said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I live in Virginia.  Such elections are currently unlikely.  

And if such were to happen, gun owners would simply shift gears.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Kinetta said:
> ...


nothing wrong with that but things change


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 8, 2020)

Confounding said:


> They're gonna get the guns sooner or later. The government only gains more control. It never relinquishes any. It's disappointing because I love the second amendment as much as anybody, but at the same time I don't think it'll be that huge of a deal when it happens. It's not like armed militia could fight the government anyway. Uncle Sam won a long time ago. Life goes on.


I'm sure glad our forefathers didn't think the way you do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

Confounding said:


> They're gonna get the guns sooner or later. The government only gains more control. It never relinquishes any. It's disappointing because I love the second amendment as much as anybody, but at the same time I don't think it'll be that huge of a deal when it happens. It's not like armed militia could fight the government anyway. Uncle Sam won a long time ago. Life goes on.


You got a lot to learn about history


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> those specifics cannot supersede "shall not be infringed" or U..S VS Miller ruling military style weapons are protected by the second amendment.



Sure they can. Second Amendment is about well-regulated militias. If you aren't a member of a militia, NO GUN FOR YOU. 

That was easy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > those specifics cannot supersede "shall not be infringed" or U..S VS Miller ruling military style weapons are protected by the second amendment.
> ...


well regulated when the second amendment was written mean as to be expected in working order
And the people are the militia look up the word and statue regrading unorganized militia
NOT THE GOVERNMENT it doesn't have a second amendment protected right
you're to easy  you better go back to the play pin


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> well regulated when the second amendment was written mean as to be expected in working order
> And the people are the militia look up the word and statue regrading unorganized militia
> NOT THE GOVERNMENT it doesn't have a second amendment protected right



That's your interpretation.  

Maybe you need to get a Blue Box, go back and time, and tell the Founding Slave Rapists to write it more clearly. 






"The Right of Billy Bob and Cleetus to done have themselves some military grade automatic weapons shall not be infringed, because they don-der be a militia!"


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > They don't care about gun crime committed by criminals. Never have, never will. You ask gun-control advocates how they plan to disarm criminals, and you get crickets in reply, or vague promises that boil down to "criminals will start obeying the law once THIS one is passed!"
> ...


You have given no specifics.  You're not interested in disarming criminals.


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > those specifics cannot supersede "shall not be infringed" or U..S VS Miller ruling military style weapons are protected by the second amendment.
> ...


OH MY GOSH NO ONE EVER PUT IT THAT WAY BEFORE UR RITE IMMA GIVE UP MY GUNS NOW

That's what you expect people to say.  No one ever has.  No one ever will.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > well regulated when the second amendment was written mean as to be expected in working order
> ...


dumb ass that's not my interpretation 
In U.S. Code it defines what is a militia

*10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
So you want to show me where it states the government has a second amendment right?
WHO IS THE MILITIA? THE WHOLE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA. George Mason


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > well regulated when the second amendment was written mean as to be expected in working order
> ...


Back then civilians owning military-grade weapons was legal, up to and including warships.  

You okay with that?


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


This is the part where Iosef sputters in impotent rage, angry that people are allowed to resist his hoped-for leftist tyranny.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I want him to show me where the government has a second amendment right


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


little Joe


----------



## daveman (Mar 8, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


Don't hold your breath.  He doesn't believe in the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2020)

daveman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


this is true.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 9, 2020)




----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 9, 2020)

daveman said:


> You have given no specifics. You're not interested in disarming criminals.



Where do you think Criminals are getting their guns from?  The same place mass shooters and people who kill their spouses get there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 9, 2020)

daveman said:


> Don't hold your breath. He doesn't believe in the Constitution.


Sure I do. I just don't think it's a suicide pact.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 9, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You have given no specifics. You're not interested in disarming criminals.
> ...


And specifically where do they get those guns.


----------



## Picaro (Mar 9, 2020)

WE will never be safe until a bunch of Burb Brat drunks are allowed to carry their four rifles, six pistols, and assortment of knives around in Wally World while they grab a loaf of bread and a 12 pack.


----------



## daveman (Mar 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > You have given no specifics. You're not interested in disarming criminals.
> ...


Somebody's been lying to you, and you lack the wit to question it.

How about we ask the criminals who used guns in the commission of the crimes for which they were incarcerated where they got their guns?
Table 5:  The biggest source is:  Off the street/underground market a 43.2%

What's that mean?  a Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs

Oh, gosh.  It looks like criminals buy guns illegally.  How dare they not obey the law!

Oh, and hey, this is interesting, too.  You know those AR-15s you wannabe-totalitarians wanna ban?  

Table 3:  Rifles were used in only 0.8% of the crimes that got the prisoners incarcerated.

Are you through making yourself look stupid yet?  I'm guessing not.


----------



## daveman (Mar 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Don't hold your breath. He doesn't believe in the Constitution.
> ...


You know what's a suicide pact?

People voting for gun control.



 

If you think you're too dangerous and unhinged to own weapons, you probably are.  But fuck you if you want me disarmed.


----------



## daveman (Mar 11, 2020)

Picaro said:


> WE will never be safe until a bunch of Burb Brat drunks are allowed to carry their four rifles, six pistols, and assortment of knives around in Wally World while they grab a loaf of bread and a 12 pack.


Do you trust government with your life?


----------



## Picaro (Mar 12, 2020)

daveman said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > WE will never be safe until a bunch of Burb Brat drunks are allowed to carry their four rifles, six pistols, and assortment of knives around in Wally World while they grab a loaf of bread and a 12 pack.
> ...



Do you trust morons who carry around 6 weapons just to go buy some celery to actually protect you from anything?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 12, 2020)

daveman said:


> Table 5: The biggest source is: Off the street/underground market a 43.2%
> 
> What's that mean? a Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs



again, there wouldn't be an illegal market without a legal market.  

So, yeah, some gun runner goes to Virginia and buys a trunk load of guns, and then drives up to NYC and sells them out of his trunk.  You think the gun industry doesn't know this is happening?


----------



## daveman (Mar 12, 2020)

Picaro said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


I trust them to protect themselves and their families.  They're not responsible for protecting me and my family.  That's my job.

99.999% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.  Or the day before.  They won't tomorrow, either.

And few people carry 6 weapons.  You irrational gun-haters sure do lie a lot.  And I guarantee that unless you live in some leftist shithole that has criminalized self-defense, some of the people you encounter are carrying concealed.


----------



## daveman (Mar 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Table 5: The biggest source is: Off the street/underground market a 43.2%
> ...


There is no legal market for methamphetamine.  Therefore, according to what you're using instead of logic, there is no illegal market for methamphetamine.

Silly Commie.  No totalitarianism for you!


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 13, 2020)

daveman said:


> There is no legal market for methamphetamine. Therefore, according to what you're using instead of logic, there is no illegal market for methamphetamine.



Guns are harder to manufacture than Meth....  

Other countries have banned guns effectively. Others allow people to have them, but still manage to keep them out of the wrong hands.   

This isn't complicated, Dave...


----------

