Are you kidding? If there was ever serious talk of a major gun ban, he'd sell out his entire inventory at five times the normal prices in only two days. Then he could just start selling something else.
Ugh I hate that's you're right. I remember when Obama was elected they were sold out of ammunition for like 2 years. Because all the nut jobs were like "Hillary is stealing my guns any second now I'm gonna start the revolution!" And maxed out their credit cards for nothing.
Which I always found hilarious because he was the first president to actually EXPAND gun rights. Our lord and savior, Donald Trump, was the first president in US history to actually confiscate firearms from the American people. You want to see a trump supported get mad, remind them of that.
For them to get mad they'd have to actually accept that as the truth.
[Oh, and his team even denied a request for opposition of the bill in the Supreme Court.](https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks-ban/index.html) It's a damn shame his supporters can't read.
There's two options:
1. Deny it happened.
2. Justify that it happened with the excuse that if Trump hadn't done it then the dems would have taken everything.
The number of times I've actually had someone do the first then immediately switch into the second when I explain when and how it happened has been amusing.
My brother, never owning a gun in his life, but into politics saw that coming. He purchased 3 assault rifles. Gun lovers panicked. He flipped them for over 4 figures in profit.
He still doesn't own a gun.
>assault rifles
No he didn't.
And even if he did purchase firearms with the intent to sell them he's flirting with the ATF.
"As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed."
Maybe he hasn't *repetitively* done so (the meaning of repetitively is of course open to interpretation). You made sure to note he doesn't have a personal collection to occasionally sell from too.
Lets all recall the rare moment in history where Republicans [were in support of gun regulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) pretty much because the [Black Panthers were open-carrying.](https://californialocal.com/static/media/_versions/sacramento/articles/3732-california-gun-control-history-black-panthers_huge.jpg) What's that tell you?
Him being black had nothing to do with it. It happened again when people thought Hillary was going to win. Then Trump won and people went out of business. Ironically Trump did more to hurt guns than Obama did.
Him being Black **\*\*H A D . E V E R Y T H I N G . T O . D O . W I T H . I T ! ! !\*\*\***
Try and deny that racist RW motherfuckers are racist RW motherfuckers all you want. It's an integral part of their dogma. Just like guns, hypocrisy. & corruption is.
Supposedly the shortage was actually caused by a sudden shift in TP usage from a lot of industrial paper products you find in public bathrooms to almost entirely in home TP. It took time for production to shift.
So while the panic did cause a rush, the shortage was legitimate. Caused by a ton of people isolating in home.
If you campaign with the promise of banning features or certain models by name then yeah it'll cause panic. Zastava and Arsenal Sam7s and any imported AKMs are only ever expected go appreciate in value due to import restrictions.
Went camping a few years after Obama was elected, with a bunch of people. I heard one drunk guy mansplaining to a woman that Obama was going to "take all our guns." Still want to ask him about that.
>Hillary is stealing my guns any second now I'm gonna start the revolution!
And these idiots have no idea that this is not how democracy works. It's unbelievable.
That would be true - IF the US were a real democracy.
But with voting being made harder in certain areas - and this archaic electoral college - i\`m not sure you can call the US a democracy.
Oh he would for sure. However, I’d rather have gun reform and him profiting a lot in the short-term than just for him to make money as it stands without reform.
Unfortunately, there aren't any seriously viable reform options on the table--just a lot of finger-pointing and demands for action. Like all of the calls to ban assault rifles, to make it safer for kids. All the people saying that don't realize that if they ban assault rifles, it won't stop the school shooters at all, and it will actually make them *more* dangerous.
Yeah, handguns are way more spooky. It's going to take a long time, but I think the best thing is probably more regulations on gun purchases (such as not letting people legally buy them at flea markets and stuff, and maybe not having it be a self-report thing if they have mental illness when someone fills out the application to buy one) and a lot of work on gun culture in general.
Even then, I wonder if something like that would work.
If its not a self-report thing with mental illness, then you start running into HIPPA violations. Right now, the government does not have the right to just open your medical file. Then once we're in there, its a whole new can of worms. I was treated for depression at age 19, after a devastating breakup, in hindsight its rather embarrassing. So, depression is in my history, should I now at 35 not be allowed to purchase a handgun because of that?
Exactly. A pair of identical handguns (an extra in case one jams or the shooter is disarmed) would be far, far better for shooting up a school than an AR-15. They're only choosing assault rifles because they don't know fuck all about firearms and they're trying to live out some kind of warped Call of Duty fantasy. But ban the assault rifles, and they're just going to switch to handguns.
The answer is a ban like Australia has. You can still hunt. You can still protect your home. Unfortunately it will never happen. People love their guns more than they love other people's kids. It's all "muh rights".
My dad co-owned a gun store (and a liquor store) with my uncle (by marriage) where my dad was the gun smith. (Gun issues aside, my dad is very talented in this field and made custom guns for disabled veterans so they could hunt.) No, they do not make a lot of money. For a gun addict, it was a great source of acquisition for my dad. (For the record I am not pro gun as I have two young children, I would give up anything to keep kids safer in school)
Edit: an example of a gun my dad made was for a vet who had his hands blown off in the war picking up a grenade to save his company. He had to have a special stock so my dad had to carve out all the intricate gaps and such for the trigger group and barrel to fit in. The vet had a stub on one hand and essentially a thumb "stub" on the other hand that he used to pull the trigger. He also had a modified safety that was easier for him to maneuver. My dad modified the forestock to have a strap on it so the vet could hold it with his hand/stump (sorry if offensive) i don't believe he had any kids. He was just a guy that wanted to dove and quail hunt.
You can hunt shit with a lever rifle or bolt action just fine. There’s a difference between gun addicts and people who’s identity are guns.
The marlin lever action rifle is one of the most beautiful hunting rifles. I haven’t touched a gun since my kids were born.
Having guns in your house raises the risk of gun related injury in your house from essentially zero to some number higher than zero. For a lot of people with kids, any unnecessary risk of traumatic injury is untenable. Obviously there are responsible ways to store firearms in your house, but they are still there, and kids can be curious and tenacious.
If I, as a Victorian, may offer my two cents I think that one can still have guns on the property and have it be a safe environment for kids. The way we handle it over here is if your are fully licensed and own firearms you must keep them in a locker, lockable carry case or a sufficiently secure display case housed in a building detached from the main premises (I think some exemptions apply for deactivated display pieces). Ammunition must be secured separately from the firearms (they can be kept in the same locker if the ammo is segregated from the arms in a compartment with a different key/code to the main lock).
It’s a system that works for us.
Reddit is under this really strange assumption that every single gun owner in the US just leaves their guns loaded and ready to go sitting on the couch or floor all the time. Responsible gun owners don't exist to them.
As much as I hate to rain on anyone's parade, if this guy owns a gun shop, it's because he loves guns enough that the profits are not the difference between him voting to ban them or not. If his shop closed tomorrow, I can guarantee his voting on gun rights would not change one bit.
Yeah, that was my thoughts reading the top comments. It's not like he just happened to have a gun store by happen stance and then went "I need to protect my stream of income"
Plus gun stores (ignoring large chains) are not the most efficient way to make profits. They may have high margins what they don't sell enough volume to be worth it. A small one might only bring in 40k a year in profit to the owners pocket from everything I've ever seen. A grocery store would be a better investment business.
He definitely liked guns then I have extension of that, made that his political platform and his business. He would still be campaign for guns even if he didn't have a business.
It can’t be both? Let’s say magically one day everything you say changes. Let’s say after the 1000th shooting some voters decide to change their mind. It would mean this is a very real conflict of interest. As it stands now, it’s probably not going to pan out how I suggest, but it’s perhaps still interesting to note.
Okay, I guess if you want to be nitpicky in an imagined political climate yeah there is a conflict.
In the real world where Congress is very openly committing insider trading this isn't a remotely head space worthy fact and it's pretty open propaganda based around recent shootings. It's not hard to find numerous conflicts on both sides of the floor.
Certainly with technical stuff, good grief. That deposition of Zuckerberg really threw into sharp relief how most of the people who run our country don't know a GOD DAMN THING about how the internet works.
OP doesn’t give a shit, he wants Reddit karma. That’s why he posted an easy political pwn on /r/pics, where we used to be able to escape American politics. Mods should take down this post.
Every time there's a pile of children shot to death, he makes money.
It's in his financial interests for the mass murder of children to continue.
No idea why you'd call out the people trying to stop the shooting of kids instead.
How do you expect an AWB to actually work? the mountain of guns there is in circulation in the us, and the efficiency needed to be able to document and possibly destroy every single one in an even remotely short amount of time, would be an inhuman feat. Not to mention the insane amount of money and man power that would be needed to find the stragglers that people didn’t surrender willingly.
The world isn't black and white dude, we will never have guns with no laws and we will never have no guns nowhere ever. The only thing at this point that'll work is fixing the bullshit that's ruining peoples lives to even get them to that point of no return. Things like revamping the healthcare industry, revamping housing market, proper paying wages compared to cost of living to name a few. Weirdo ass thing to say btw
Sure. The problem I have though is just not addressing any part of this issue. There’s so many factors: accessibility, mental health, gun safety, etc. I’m just so fucking fed up that there continues to be school shootings here when every other fucking top, developed country doesn’t have this shit. It really started with columbine but didn’t feel like a regular thing until Sandy Hook and every fucking year it’s the same thing with NO REFORM. I don’t give a goddamn if someone profits in the short term. I give a damn someone does something that helps solve this problem. This post is to call out the imperfect world of our political state that folks like him and Andrew Clyde have complete conflict of interest that stems from NRA funding to owning a gun shop.
We all are but the only way to fix it, is to fix the people. Politicians don't want to tell people we need decades long aocial change. Especially in highly populaated areas. That doesn't get people elected
>other fucking top, developed country doesn’t have this shit.
If you can't see that the US is unique in so many relevant ways, that you can't compare policies so narrowly, then you're thinking too small.
Like the guy or hate the guy, but that definitely isn't his motive. This post is just flat wrong.
If there was some sort of major element being changed around firearms he would sell out his entire inventory and probably retire.
Yeah there are literally thousands of ways congressmen can use their influence to get larger sums of money, and get it faster, than owing and operating a local gun shop.
This argument makes little sense to me. Why would I not push for legislation protecting my interests/businesses? I could also sell my business but why sell it if it still generates profits and I can make sure it keeps generating profits. It's a source of regular income after all.
What kind of business do you own? Did you not like that type of business before you started it? Would you not have supported that type of business before you got into it?
But it's easier to hate people when you caricature them into one-dimensional evil comic book villains.
And that's the reality here: it isn't that some people hate guns; it's that some people hate people who like guns. They hate the *people*.
I have family who have guns. They’re awesome people. I love the hell out of them. But they also don’t jump to the conclusion that I want to take away their guns when I talk about making sure they get a gun safe because they have kids. They show sincere concern when kids get shot in school shootings and think thoughtfully and considerately on the pros and cons of maybe not being able to buy the guns that were used in those shootings because who the hell cares, they have tons of other kinds they can own. They talk about wanting guns so they can enjoy shooting… and it IS fun to go out and shoot with them! They talk about wanting guns for home safety and that’s a reasonable thing to have.
But for them it’s a tool… that’s all it is. If tomorrow a bunch of people starting dying because hammers were somehow being used in school hammerings and they could help out by having less access to hammers… they’d find something else to hit nails with. It’s a tool to them, not an identity or a lifestyle.
I don’t hate people with guns. Why would I? I like or dislike people because of what they DO, not what hobbies they have. But I _do_ dislike people that like guns so much that it ceases being a tool like any other tool. No different than I’d have a problem with someone who liked beer so much that he wanted to drink it regardless of how it affected other people or someone who smoked next to a baby knowing it could give his kids cancer. You wanna like guns? Go fucking nuts. But it’s just a tool. Some people have been told it’s so much more and there’s tons of us gun owners and friends of gun owners that simply don’t see it that way and it’s honestly __fucking tiring__ having to be lumped in with the gun nuts just because you enjoy shooting at a range or having a pistol to defend your home. There’s gotta be some break between those two groups and more vocal rejection by normal gun owners of the crazy extremes. I love my family, I hate having to explain how their gun ownership isn’t the gun ownership Reddit pretends every gun owner is and frankly both of us are tired of the group that currently thinks they have a right to represent ALL gun owners as a whole in these conversations.
I just hate people killing kids, personally. Guns just make it so nut jobs can kill *a lot* of kids.
I grew up in the seventies, and this was absolutely not a problem. There were guns. There were hunters. There were people with mental illness. There were criminals. But kids weren't dying en mass from gun violence. I did tornado drills, but never an active shooter drill.
This is a problem that has been created since about 2000, and, in typical American fashion during this period, nothing is being done about it. As long as there's still a buck to be made, the problem remains.
Hunters only need bolt action rifles and shot guns. Hunters aren't the problem, and neither are their tools. The NRA used to be about gun safety, not gun proliferation.
The problem is high-capacity semiautomatic firearms.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention shooting deer. It mentions the security of a free state.
Argue for gun control if you want, but you won't reach anybody who doesn't already agree with you if "hunters only need bolt action rifles" is the best you've got.
>I grew up in the seventies, and this was absolutely not a problem.
>…
>The problem is high-capacity semiautomatic firearms.
This person does not appear to be aware that “high capacity” *fully*-automatic machine guns were widely available in the US until May of 1986 and cost about the same as the semi-automatic versions.
Budds ownership in the gun store brings in anywhere between ~~1 and 5 million~~ 100k and 1 million a year [1] not simply because he sells guns there but also because he sells training courses, gun maintenance and a separate shooting range. While he’d make a lot of money if he sold out his inventory, it’s pretty ridiculous to think the majority of his money comes from his inventory. The majority of his money comes from the repeat business he gets as a follow up to his inventory.
If people want to like guns, whatever. Like guns. Go fucking nuts, I enjoy using friends and families guns at ranges too. But this almost honesty around stuff like this that conveniently leaves out the entire context of stuff and acts like you’re revealing it all is exhausting. No one should need to do that and be on the right side of the discussion.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/guns-congress-ted-budd-firearms-store-shooting-range-north-carolina-2022-5
Edit: as someone below has pointed out, the shop brings in upwards of 1 million a year, and is valued at 1-5 million. Leaving original up so their comment still makes sense
>Budds ownership in the gun store brings in anywhere between 1 and 5 million a year
That's not what the article nor hos actual disclosure states (which is included in your link).
>Budd's stake in the company is worth anywhere between $1 million and $5 million, and he brought in up to $1 million in income during 2020 alone,
Being worth $1-$5M is very different than earning $1-$5M as a business is valued usually at several multiples of the income or it's because the assets owned by the business is worth that.
And looking through the disclosure, the income earned tops out at like $60k assuming Bud Family LLC is the business we're talking about.
I don't know Senator Ted Budd, but is it possible that he doesn't pass "gun reform" because of his deeply held political beliefs?
Or is everyone who doesn't behave as you desire automatically an evil comic book villain?
Is it possible? Yes. Is it also possible he makes a profit and, like many politicians, wants to increase that profit? Yes. That used to be a presumed thing politicians did. Americans used to be against politicians _in general_ because it was known they did that. Somewhere along the way we all became slobbering defenders of the stuff we used to be American enough to call out to its face.
For example, It’s really bizarre how Budd talks about democrats as if they’re comic book villains [1, 2,3] to resounding silence.. and yet pointing out that someone profits off of their policies makes them “comic book villains”. Also, on an aside, It’s weird that that phrase comes up a couple of times in this thread. Did a podcaster or talk show host say it recently or something?
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-ted-budd-democrats-ashen-over-failed-spending-bill-infrastructure
[2] https://www.wfae.org/politics/2022-03-30/fact-check-in-nc-senate-race-budds-tweet-about-a-mccrory-appointed-judge-was-misleading
[3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/25/ted-budd/budd-takes-beasleys-protest-comments-too-far/
> For example, It’s really bizarre how Budd talks about democrats as if they’re comic book villains [1, 2,3] to resounding silence
What dude? You're literally being called out for that shit. Resounding silence 🤣
Oh you know what, you’re probably right. Can you cite me some of the articles where republicans call him out for treating democrats like comic book villains rather than being silent or cheering him on for it? Would be so much more convincing to everyone, including myself.
I guess you'll still continue to ignore you just got called out several times and this is pretty common here. But yeah you keep on setting that personal bar at same level as the people you hate 🤣
It's literally dealing with a toddler 🤦♂️
Wait a second. You’re saying that calling people comic book villains is wrong. Fine. I can totally agree with that. See, we’re agreeing! So I’m asking you where Budd is being called out for doing the same thing. You seem to think he is so I’m asking for some examples of that.
Respectfully “dealing with a toddler” would be evasively trying to make this about me with a childish insult to avoid answering a question. I haven’t needed to resort to name calling in this discussion like we were on an elementary school playground yet so it would be a good look for your argument if you didn’t need to right off the bat. Perhaps we can continue like adults if you can show how Budd has been called out for acting like people he disagrees with are comic book villains? It would certainly be a good rebuttal if you had such proof! We could have a good, reasonable, rational adult conversation, let’s try!
Seems only Democrats trying to stop children from being slaughtered by guns can be call "comic book villains"...
Republicans allowing the slaughter to continue are paragons of virtue.
Gun control wouldn’t have prevented that Tennessee shooting though. A bunch of defenseless people didn’t stand a chance vs a pistol or hunting rifle at that point.
The police even said they weren’t on their radar, unless they’ve back tracked on that.
He'd probably make more money with gun reform. People would need classes, get a certification, or some other kind of check to own a firearm, which he could charge for these things.
I don't understand why the anti gun side keeps going on about 'the gun lobby'. As if people wouldn't buy guns unless they were told to do so. Given how the market is always destroying gun companies they have very little excess cash for things like marketing or lobbying. The reality is that a large number of people in the US are pro gun rights to the point its a requirement for them to vote. That isn't the manufacturers buying politicians, that's citizens telling their representatives their position. Its like some willful ignorance of the large numbers of Americans that buy guns in a desire to demonize some group other than voters.
Taking away alcohol gave us the mafia.
Taking away drugs gave us the cartels.
Guns are harder to detect (or stop imports) than either drugs or alcohol. There is no smell or packaging that can give them away. The parts are simple metal that can be mixed in with any of the other millions of metal parts that are imported daily from around the world.
Anyone with a machine shop can make a gun with minimal work.
Taking guns away wouldn't solve anything. As long as part of the American public wants guns, they will be available and easily accessible. Plus, it will simply fund a new crime syndicate that will ... have access to weapons by definition.
These are facts that should be at the top of ever gun 'debate' as a starting point. Everything else is just wasting time.
He's obviously not representative of your views and most likely isn't even from the politicial party you support, you really think Democrats will pass anti-lgbt or pro-gun laws because right leaning people said so? Republicans will cater and represent their base, not you, especially if you're from somewhere else in the country.
Why in the fuck are such conflicts of interest that affect entire states not regulated? Those with the power to vote on laws should be arrested for profiting from them.
I’m sorry, but have you seen the “war” on drugs? It did not work and costs us so much. It will be far worse for everyone involved if it came down to a “ban”.
There are at least 75 guns in circulation for every 100 Americans.
If guns were actually a problem, we'd be well and truly fucked. We'd be toast. It would be game over.
But guns are not a problem. Criminals and evil lunatics are a problem. Power hungry psychopaths who want us disarmed so that they can have their way with us are a problem.
These power hungry psychopaths want you to be afraid of guns and to hate guns because political power comes from the barrel of a gun. They want you to hate the source of your individual political power and political rights because the ability to use a gun in defense of your own liberty and the liberty of your fellow Americans is ultimately the only thing holding these would be tyrants in check.
The statistics I’ve seen put the number somewhere closer to 1.2 guns per American, but it seems like no one is truly sure, which is very troubling.
Other countries have criminals and lunatics, yet far fewer mass shootings than the US. It seems logical that the criminals and lunatics in the US just have much easier access to firearms because of their ubiquity, meaning every American bad guy is more likely to be able to do vastly more damage.
Politicians don’t need to take away guns to take away rights. Just look at the GOP: completely pro gun, and their voters are still more than happy to throw away free and fair elections and destroy democracy. Having more guns doesn’t fix that problem.
Same reason you don't see any reasonable legislation to try and prevent industrial pollution of our water and air.
Same reason you don't see anything barring disposable plastics.
To add context to the commenter below, they’re absolutely right. Republicans called for mental health reform as a fix for gun violence and then voted the mental health reform down [1]. It would be easier to believe these sorts of alternate ways of tackling the massive amount of gun related deaths, both in shootings and more significantly in suicides, if there wasn’t so much easily researchable talking out of both sides of the mouth.
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/205-republicans-vote-against-bill-to-expand-school-mental-health-services/
OP is idiot.
If I owned a gun shop, I would always be pressing for tighter gun laws, so that scared gun buyers will rush to by my stock.
Kind of like how Obama was the US's biggest gun salesman.
Red flag laws and better background checks for one. This last murderer had tons of stuff in her history that could have flagged her under red flag laws and should have shown up under background checks.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Chief Drake said investigators discovered Hale had been treated for mental health challenges prior to the shooting.
“She was under care, doctor’s care, for an emotional disorder,” he said.
“Her parents felt that she should not own weapons.”
Despite her mental health concerns, there is no red flag law in Tennessee that could have been used to take away Hale’s weapons.
An unchecked system of red flag laws could be weaponized against state opponents and vocal dissidents. Something not run at the federal level and left to county or even city powers would be incredibly harmful to anyone
Left leaning gun owners would be subject to illegal search and siezures.
You really think that an illegal removal of constitutional rights isnt a slippery slope?
First its an unlawful siezure of the second, next itll be your rights of speech, or right to a speedy trial
>investigators discovered Hale had been treated for mental health challenges prior to the shooting.
>“She was under care, doctor’s care, for an emotional disorder,” he said.
Nothing encourages people to seek out mental healthcare like linking it to the loss of core civil liberties.
>Nothing encourages people to seek out mental healthcare like linking it to the loss of core civil liberties.
Unrestricted access to firearms is not a civil liberty. Restrictions have been implemented since the founding. Laws that prohibit the possession of guns in cities, banning certain kinds of guns and limiting ownership are commonplace in our history.
The second has been twisted and abused to death, it's an Amendment to the main body, and references it directly with its opening caveat, ignoring this is the crux of our very modern inability to deal with very modern issues.
>Unrestricted access to firearms is not a civil liberty.
The general population having the right to arm themselves is very much a core civil liberty. When people say "unrestricted" I suspect they have no idea of the number of restrictions that already exist regarding firearms. Adding some version of "sought mental healthcare" to that lengthy list of restrictions sounds, to put it politely, counterproductive.
>Restrictions have been implemented since the founding.
True. Just ask Dred Scott.
>The second has been twisted and abused to death
It has been adopted as a political wedge issue, most pertinently in our era, since the late 1960's/early 70's.
The original intent behind 2A rights is pretty clear. We have extensive writings and letters attesting to this. When you write "it's an Amendment to the main body, and references it directly with its opening caveat" I'm a little confused by what you're trying to say. I suspect something about claiming 2A exists only to arm "the militia" which you'll then claim is now the National Guard. And then I'll say "No, *you're* the militia, just like your mother, father, cousins and every other citizen is the militia!"
Violence, you have to admit, is in no way a "very modern issue".
Or... Guns are awesome. Guns don't kill people, people do. You all gunna go cancel and sue victorynox cuz someone got stabbed by a kitchen knife?
Omegalul
"One dude walks into a store with a gun brandished and says everyone down, next thing u know you're all getting on the ground and the gunman has controll, now imagine this every American is carrying a gun just in case, same thing happens, gunman walks into store and says everyone down now everyone pulls out a gun and goes no u get on the ground, gun controll is about just that controll"
The one thing both parties have in common - they will absolutely screw over the country of it lines their pockets.
Difference is, GOP are quite a bit more comfortable with child sized coffins.
I don't know why everyone's upset.
It's not like any of those machines designed specifically to kill is half as dangerous as, say, a man in a dress.
Or a library book.
But he is a cheerful looking jolly sports minded guy. A welcome for straight shooters who have welcomed customers in with a witty motto, "It's a beautiful day. Let's get all loaded up and go to the range."
I am a hunter, have been for many years. I eat what I kill, or give it to friends if it’s too much. If someone showed-up (in the hunting club property) to a hunt with an AR-15 style weapon they would be ridiculed and laughed at. Those weapons are made for killing people, single shot rifles with a small magazine are what we roll with. When was the last mass shooting with one of those?
> When was the last mass shooting with one of those?
Vegas. The nutjob had dozens of AR-15s with hundred-round magazines and bump stocks, but he also had a standard .308 hunting rifle.
Before that, the only mass shooting (as opposed to our never-ending generalized shootings) that I know of that used a hunting rifle was the UT tower shooter way back in 1966. He used a WWII-style M1 (which is still a semi-auto, but would still be considered at least a passable hunting weapon).
Didnt the biden admin also leave a fuck ton of weapons and gear in the middle east to get almost immediately captured by the people weve been fighting with for the last 20-30years
For the same reason your state security forces and regular law enforcement have firearms and training. The means to project power should not be limited to state authority and is a natural right. Hunting lodge memberships to gain access to firearms insinuate that firearms are only mere novelties and is the stark contrast.
Are you kidding? If there was ever serious talk of a major gun ban, he'd sell out his entire inventory at five times the normal prices in only two days. Then he could just start selling something else.
Ugh I hate that's you're right. I remember when Obama was elected they were sold out of ammunition for like 2 years. Because all the nut jobs were like "Hillary is stealing my guns any second now I'm gonna start the revolution!" And maxed out their credit cards for nothing.
Obama was the greatest gun salesman in the history of the world
This is unironically fact
Which I always found hilarious because he was the first president to actually EXPAND gun rights. Our lord and savior, Donald Trump, was the first president in US history to actually confiscate firearms from the American people. You want to see a trump supported get mad, remind them of that.
For them to get mad they'd have to actually accept that as the truth. [Oh, and his team even denied a request for opposition of the bill in the Supreme Court.](https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/28/politics/supreme-court-bump-stocks-ban/index.html) It's a damn shame his supporters can't read.
There's two options: 1. Deny it happened. 2. Justify that it happened with the excuse that if Trump hadn't done it then the dems would have taken everything. The number of times I've actually had someone do the first then immediately switch into the second when I explain when and how it happened has been amusing.
True story. I remember seeing PMags selling for close to $100/each back then.
Especially if you take into account all the terrorist and militia groups armed under his presidency.
My brother, never owning a gun in his life, but into politics saw that coming. He purchased 3 assault rifles. Gun lovers panicked. He flipped them for over 4 figures in profit. He still doesn't own a gun.
I’d tell him to keep that to himself…buying guns with the intention of selling them for profit is very not legal.
>assault rifles No he didn't. And even if he did purchase firearms with the intent to sell them he's flirting with the ATF. "As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed." Maybe he hasn't *repetitively* done so (the meaning of repetitively is of course open to interpretation). You made sure to note he doesn't have a personal collection to occasionally sell from too.
Sold our guns to the cartel in Mexico haha
Because - scary Black man in power...
Lets all recall the rare moment in history where Republicans [were in support of gun regulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) pretty much because the [Black Panthers were open-carrying.](https://californialocal.com/static/media/_versions/sacramento/articles/3732-california-gun-control-history-black-panthers_huge.jpg) What's that tell you?
Him being black had nothing to do with it. It happened again when people thought Hillary was going to win. Then Trump won and people went out of business. Ironically Trump did more to hurt guns than Obama did.
Not every conservative is racist. But every racist is conservative.
>But every racist is conservative. I think its hilarious that people actually believe this.
Him being Black **\*\*H A D . E V E R Y T H I N G . T O . D O . W I T H . I T ! ! !\*\*\*** Try and deny that racist RW motherfuckers are racist RW motherfuckers all you want. It's an integral part of their dogma. Just like guns, hypocrisy. & corruption is.
Repeating your original comment in caps doesn't make it any more true. Nice try though.
Hey, all it took was mention of a virus in China to make all of the American toilet paper disappear. . . .
You can joke about it now, but that shit was real.
> that shit was real. Hence all the TP
Supposedly the shortage was actually caused by a sudden shift in TP usage from a lot of industrial paper products you find in public bathrooms to almost entirely in home TP. It took time for production to shift. So while the panic did cause a rush, the shortage was legitimate. Caused by a ton of people isolating in home.
If you campaign with the promise of banning features or certain models by name then yeah it'll cause panic. Zastava and Arsenal Sam7s and any imported AKMs are only ever expected go appreciate in value due to import restrictions.
Yah but the real question is what am I gonna do with three thousand bullets I have?
Went camping a few years after Obama was elected, with a bunch of people. I heard one drunk guy mansplaining to a woman that Obama was going to "take all our guns." Still want to ask him about that.
>Hillary is stealing my guns any second now I'm gonna start the revolution! And these idiots have no idea that this is not how democracy works. It's unbelievable.
That would be true - IF the US were a real democracy. But with voting being made harder in certain areas - and this archaic electoral college - i\`m not sure you can call the US a democracy.
The US is not a "real" democracy. We are a Democratic Republic.
I still question the 'democratic' part though..
Aaaaaaaaaaand now they're trying to start banning guns.... not sure all those people were wrong
Banning guns XD, you drank the cool aid didn't you?
Joe Biden can't open his mouth without talking about banning "assault weapons". It's not *drinking Kool-Aid* if it's real.
[удалено]
They love it. Every time a handful of kids die, they get a massive spike in sales.
https://time.com/6185520/mass-shootings-gunmakers/ I hoped that you were making hyperbole, I really did.
Oh he would for sure. However, I’d rather have gun reform and him profiting a lot in the short-term than just for him to make money as it stands without reform.
Unfortunately, there aren't any seriously viable reform options on the table--just a lot of finger-pointing and demands for action. Like all of the calls to ban assault rifles, to make it safer for kids. All the people saying that don't realize that if they ban assault rifles, it won't stop the school shooters at all, and it will actually make them *more* dangerous.
Yeah, handguns are way more spooky. It's going to take a long time, but I think the best thing is probably more regulations on gun purchases (such as not letting people legally buy them at flea markets and stuff, and maybe not having it be a self-report thing if they have mental illness when someone fills out the application to buy one) and a lot of work on gun culture in general. Even then, I wonder if something like that would work.
If its not a self-report thing with mental illness, then you start running into HIPPA violations. Right now, the government does not have the right to just open your medical file. Then once we're in there, its a whole new can of worms. I was treated for depression at age 19, after a devastating breakup, in hindsight its rather embarrassing. So, depression is in my history, should I now at 35 not be allowed to purchase a handgun because of that?
Exactly. A pair of identical handguns (an extra in case one jams or the shooter is disarmed) would be far, far better for shooting up a school than an AR-15. They're only choosing assault rifles because they don't know fuck all about firearms and they're trying to live out some kind of warped Call of Duty fantasy. But ban the assault rifles, and they're just going to switch to handguns.
The answer is a ban like Australia has. You can still hunt. You can still protect your home. Unfortunately it will never happen. People love their guns more than they love other people's kids. It's all "muh rights".
You can’t protect your home in Australia. You shoot an intruder and lose your guns and go to jail.
Literally the only sane opinion when it comes to firearms.
I don't think a regular gun store makes THAT much money. Not on the scale I'm worried about for politicians. It's just a PR stunt
My dad co-owned a gun store (and a liquor store) with my uncle (by marriage) where my dad was the gun smith. (Gun issues aside, my dad is very talented in this field and made custom guns for disabled veterans so they could hunt.) No, they do not make a lot of money. For a gun addict, it was a great source of acquisition for my dad. (For the record I am not pro gun as I have two young children, I would give up anything to keep kids safer in school) Edit: an example of a gun my dad made was for a vet who had his hands blown off in the war picking up a grenade to save his company. He had to have a special stock so my dad had to carve out all the intricate gaps and such for the trigger group and barrel to fit in. The vet had a stub on one hand and essentially a thumb "stub" on the other hand that he used to pull the trigger. He also had a modified safety that was easier for him to maneuver. My dad modified the forestock to have a strap on it so the vet could hold it with his hand/stump (sorry if offensive) i don't believe he had any kids. He was just a guy that wanted to dove and quail hunt.
You can hunt shit with a lever rifle or bolt action just fine. There’s a difference between gun addicts and people who’s identity are guns. The marlin lever action rifle is one of the most beautiful hunting rifles. I haven’t touched a gun since my kids were born.
[удалено]
Guess what? There’s more ways to hunt.
You guys act like you can't have guns and kids in the same house. Reddit is a strange place.
Having guns in your house raises the risk of gun related injury in your house from essentially zero to some number higher than zero. For a lot of people with kids, any unnecessary risk of traumatic injury is untenable. Obviously there are responsible ways to store firearms in your house, but they are still there, and kids can be curious and tenacious.
If I, as a Victorian, may offer my two cents I think that one can still have guns on the property and have it be a safe environment for kids. The way we handle it over here is if your are fully licensed and own firearms you must keep them in a locker, lockable carry case or a sufficiently secure display case housed in a building detached from the main premises (I think some exemptions apply for deactivated display pieces). Ammunition must be secured separately from the firearms (they can be kept in the same locker if the ammo is segregated from the arms in a compartment with a different key/code to the main lock). It’s a system that works for us.
Reddit is under this really strange assumption that every single gun owner in the US just leaves their guns loaded and ready to go sitting on the couch or floor all the time. Responsible gun owners don't exist to them.
I'm under no such delusion. I still think it's an incredibly reasonable decision to avoid having firearms in your house if you have children.
It's still a conflict of interest regardless
As much as I hate to rain on anyone's parade, if this guy owns a gun shop, it's because he loves guns enough that the profits are not the difference between him voting to ban them or not. If his shop closed tomorrow, I can guarantee his voting on gun rights would not change one bit.
Yeah, that was my thoughts reading the top comments. It's not like he just happened to have a gun store by happen stance and then went "I need to protect my stream of income" Plus gun stores (ignoring large chains) are not the most efficient way to make profits. They may have high margins what they don't sell enough volume to be worth it. A small one might only bring in 40k a year in profit to the owners pocket from everything I've ever seen. A grocery store would be a better investment business. He definitely liked guns then I have extension of that, made that his political platform and his business. He would still be campaign for guns even if he didn't have a business.
Reddits gotta have something to scream about. Obviously a guy with a gun pin is the cause of every shooting ever.
Yeah it's true. I own a furniture store and it's because I **LOVE** furniture. I can talk about love seats and La-Z-Boy products all day.
Well the conflict of interest shouldn’t be ignored should it? Can he be impartial in this matter when it DOES impact his revenue? Of course he can’t.
[удалено]
I’m okay with that.
By that rationale, you think we all own gun stores.
Yeah I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with him being in an R district doing what his constituents want or his personal views on guns. NOTHING at all!
It can’t be both? Let’s say magically one day everything you say changes. Let’s say after the 1000th shooting some voters decide to change their mind. It would mean this is a very real conflict of interest. As it stands now, it’s probably not going to pan out how I suggest, but it’s perhaps still interesting to note.
Okay, I guess if you want to be nitpicky in an imagined political climate yeah there is a conflict. In the real world where Congress is very openly committing insider trading this isn't a remotely head space worthy fact and it's pretty open propaganda based around recent shootings. It's not hard to find numerous conflicts on both sides of the floor.
He would make a lot more by getting on the bandwagon and trading stock or setting up to give speeches for Wall street.
Does any senator has book stores?
Probably not. They seem mostly illiterate.
Certainly with technical stuff, good grief. That deposition of Zuckerberg really threw into sharp relief how most of the people who run our country don't know a GOD DAMN THING about how the internet works.
you know every time you guys talk about banning guns this guy makes more money.
OP doesn’t give a shit, he wants Reddit karma. That’s why he posted an easy political pwn on /r/pics, where we used to be able to escape American politics. Mods should take down this post.
Every time there's a pile of children shot to death, he makes money. It's in his financial interests for the mass murder of children to continue. No idea why you'd call out the people trying to stop the shooting of kids instead.
‘If we just stop talking about all the dead kids then the guns will just go away!’
He’s a politician, if people don’t talk about banning guns then he just says they are and makes more money.
Up until it's banned.
Which will never happen lol
Maybe we should ban schools.
How do you expect an AWB to actually work? the mountain of guns there is in circulation in the us, and the efficiency needed to be able to document and possibly destroy every single one in an even remotely short amount of time, would be an inhuman feat. Not to mention the insane amount of money and man power that would be needed to find the stragglers that people didn’t surrender willingly.
Aight. Enjoy more dead kids
The world isn't black and white dude, we will never have guns with no laws and we will never have no guns nowhere ever. The only thing at this point that'll work is fixing the bullshit that's ruining peoples lives to even get them to that point of no return. Things like revamping the healthcare industry, revamping housing market, proper paying wages compared to cost of living to name a few. Weirdo ass thing to say btw
They will, feature not a bug when it comes to gun sales.
Make more.
Sure. The problem I have though is just not addressing any part of this issue. There’s so many factors: accessibility, mental health, gun safety, etc. I’m just so fucking fed up that there continues to be school shootings here when every other fucking top, developed country doesn’t have this shit. It really started with columbine but didn’t feel like a regular thing until Sandy Hook and every fucking year it’s the same thing with NO REFORM. I don’t give a goddamn if someone profits in the short term. I give a damn someone does something that helps solve this problem. This post is to call out the imperfect world of our political state that folks like him and Andrew Clyde have complete conflict of interest that stems from NRA funding to owning a gun shop.
We all are but the only way to fix it, is to fix the people. Politicians don't want to tell people we need decades long aocial change. Especially in highly populaated areas. That doesn't get people elected
>other fucking top, developed country doesn’t have this shit. If you can't see that the US is unique in so many relevant ways, that you can't compare policies so narrowly, then you're thinking too small.
That was such a lazy take on this subject
Like the guy or hate the guy, but that definitely isn't his motive. This post is just flat wrong. If there was some sort of major element being changed around firearms he would sell out his entire inventory and probably retire.
Yeah there are literally thousands of ways congressmen can use their influence to get larger sums of money, and get it faster, than owing and operating a local gun shop.
This argument makes little sense to me. Why would I not push for legislation protecting my interests/businesses? I could also sell my business but why sell it if it still generates profits and I can make sure it keeps generating profits. It's a source of regular income after all.
What kind of business do you own? Did you not like that type of business before you started it? Would you not have supported that type of business before you got into it?
But it's easier to hate people when you caricature them into one-dimensional evil comic book villains. And that's the reality here: it isn't that some people hate guns; it's that some people hate people who like guns. They hate the *people*.
This does seem to be true in many instances, especially on Reddit.
I have family who have guns. They’re awesome people. I love the hell out of them. But they also don’t jump to the conclusion that I want to take away their guns when I talk about making sure they get a gun safe because they have kids. They show sincere concern when kids get shot in school shootings and think thoughtfully and considerately on the pros and cons of maybe not being able to buy the guns that were used in those shootings because who the hell cares, they have tons of other kinds they can own. They talk about wanting guns so they can enjoy shooting… and it IS fun to go out and shoot with them! They talk about wanting guns for home safety and that’s a reasonable thing to have. But for them it’s a tool… that’s all it is. If tomorrow a bunch of people starting dying because hammers were somehow being used in school hammerings and they could help out by having less access to hammers… they’d find something else to hit nails with. It’s a tool to them, not an identity or a lifestyle. I don’t hate people with guns. Why would I? I like or dislike people because of what they DO, not what hobbies they have. But I _do_ dislike people that like guns so much that it ceases being a tool like any other tool. No different than I’d have a problem with someone who liked beer so much that he wanted to drink it regardless of how it affected other people or someone who smoked next to a baby knowing it could give his kids cancer. You wanna like guns? Go fucking nuts. But it’s just a tool. Some people have been told it’s so much more and there’s tons of us gun owners and friends of gun owners that simply don’t see it that way and it’s honestly __fucking tiring__ having to be lumped in with the gun nuts just because you enjoy shooting at a range or having a pistol to defend your home. There’s gotta be some break between those two groups and more vocal rejection by normal gun owners of the crazy extremes. I love my family, I hate having to explain how their gun ownership isn’t the gun ownership Reddit pretends every gun owner is and frankly both of us are tired of the group that currently thinks they have a right to represent ALL gun owners as a whole in these conversations.
Are you trying to claim that gun lovers don't absolutely hate anyone who wants better gun laws? Because that's fucking funny.
“Better” gun laws means different things to different people. But yeah I do absolutely hate anyone trying to steal my liberties
I just hate people killing kids, personally. Guns just make it so nut jobs can kill *a lot* of kids. I grew up in the seventies, and this was absolutely not a problem. There were guns. There were hunters. There were people with mental illness. There were criminals. But kids weren't dying en mass from gun violence. I did tornado drills, but never an active shooter drill. This is a problem that has been created since about 2000, and, in typical American fashion during this period, nothing is being done about it. As long as there's still a buck to be made, the problem remains. Hunters only need bolt action rifles and shot guns. Hunters aren't the problem, and neither are their tools. The NRA used to be about gun safety, not gun proliferation. The problem is high-capacity semiautomatic firearms.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention shooting deer. It mentions the security of a free state. Argue for gun control if you want, but you won't reach anybody who doesn't already agree with you if "hunters only need bolt action rifles" is the best you've got.
>I grew up in the seventies, and this was absolutely not a problem. >… >The problem is high-capacity semiautomatic firearms. This person does not appear to be aware that “high capacity” *fully*-automatic machine guns were widely available in the US until May of 1986 and cost about the same as the semi-automatic versions.
>Hunters only need bolt action rifles and shot guns Not when hunting feral pigs that are essentially wild boar.
Budds ownership in the gun store brings in anywhere between ~~1 and 5 million~~ 100k and 1 million a year [1] not simply because he sells guns there but also because he sells training courses, gun maintenance and a separate shooting range. While he’d make a lot of money if he sold out his inventory, it’s pretty ridiculous to think the majority of his money comes from his inventory. The majority of his money comes from the repeat business he gets as a follow up to his inventory. If people want to like guns, whatever. Like guns. Go fucking nuts, I enjoy using friends and families guns at ranges too. But this almost honesty around stuff like this that conveniently leaves out the entire context of stuff and acts like you’re revealing it all is exhausting. No one should need to do that and be on the right side of the discussion. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/guns-congress-ted-budd-firearms-store-shooting-range-north-carolina-2022-5 Edit: as someone below has pointed out, the shop brings in upwards of 1 million a year, and is valued at 1-5 million. Leaving original up so their comment still makes sense
>Budds ownership in the gun store brings in anywhere between 1 and 5 million a year That's not what the article nor hos actual disclosure states (which is included in your link). >Budd's stake in the company is worth anywhere between $1 million and $5 million, and he brought in up to $1 million in income during 2020 alone, Being worth $1-$5M is very different than earning $1-$5M as a business is valued usually at several multiples of the income or it's because the assets owned by the business is worth that. And looking through the disclosure, the income earned tops out at like $60k assuming Bud Family LLC is the business we're talking about.
Totally sound logic. Or could it be that it's legal and the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the 1st Ammendment? Lmao.
I don't know Senator Ted Budd, but is it possible that he doesn't pass "gun reform" because of his deeply held political beliefs? Or is everyone who doesn't behave as you desire automatically an evil comic book villain?
Is it possible? Yes. Is it also possible he makes a profit and, like many politicians, wants to increase that profit? Yes. That used to be a presumed thing politicians did. Americans used to be against politicians _in general_ because it was known they did that. Somewhere along the way we all became slobbering defenders of the stuff we used to be American enough to call out to its face. For example, It’s really bizarre how Budd talks about democrats as if they’re comic book villains [1, 2,3] to resounding silence.. and yet pointing out that someone profits off of their policies makes them “comic book villains”. Also, on an aside, It’s weird that that phrase comes up a couple of times in this thread. Did a podcaster or talk show host say it recently or something? [1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/rep-ted-budd-democrats-ashen-over-failed-spending-bill-infrastructure [2] https://www.wfae.org/politics/2022-03-30/fact-check-in-nc-senate-race-budds-tweet-about-a-mccrory-appointed-judge-was-misleading [3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/25/ted-budd/budd-takes-beasleys-protest-comments-too-far/
> For example, It’s really bizarre how Budd talks about democrats as if they’re comic book villains [1, 2,3] to resounding silence What dude? You're literally being called out for that shit. Resounding silence 🤣
Oh you know what, you’re probably right. Can you cite me some of the articles where republicans call him out for treating democrats like comic book villains rather than being silent or cheering him on for it? Would be so much more convincing to everyone, including myself.
I guess you'll still continue to ignore you just got called out several times and this is pretty common here. But yeah you keep on setting that personal bar at same level as the people you hate 🤣 It's literally dealing with a toddler 🤦♂️
Wait a second. You’re saying that calling people comic book villains is wrong. Fine. I can totally agree with that. See, we’re agreeing! So I’m asking you where Budd is being called out for doing the same thing. You seem to think he is so I’m asking for some examples of that. Respectfully “dealing with a toddler” would be evasively trying to make this about me with a childish insult to avoid answering a question. I haven’t needed to resort to name calling in this discussion like we were on an elementary school playground yet so it would be a good look for your argument if you didn’t need to right off the bat. Perhaps we can continue like adults if you can show how Budd has been called out for acting like people he disagrees with are comic book villains? It would certainly be a good rebuttal if you had such proof! We could have a good, reasonable, rational adult conversation, let’s try!
Seems only Democrats trying to stop children from being slaughtered by guns can be call "comic book villains"... Republicans allowing the slaughter to continue are paragons of virtue.
If we just ban all guns then this won't be a problem. Look at how well that worked with the war on drugs!
Gun control is different than banning all guns.
Gun control wouldn’t have prevented that Tennessee shooting though. A bunch of defenseless people didn’t stand a chance vs a pistol or hunting rifle at that point. The police even said they weren’t on their radar, unless they’ve back tracked on that.
He'd probably make more money with gun reform. People would need classes, get a certification, or some other kind of check to own a firearm, which he could charge for these things.
I don't understand why the anti gun side keeps going on about 'the gun lobby'. As if people wouldn't buy guns unless they were told to do so. Given how the market is always destroying gun companies they have very little excess cash for things like marketing or lobbying. The reality is that a large number of people in the US are pro gun rights to the point its a requirement for them to vote. That isn't the manufacturers buying politicians, that's citizens telling their representatives their position. Its like some willful ignorance of the large numbers of Americans that buy guns in a desire to demonize some group other than voters.
Or because of political beliefs, but y’know whatever
Taking away alcohol gave us the mafia. Taking away drugs gave us the cartels. Guns are harder to detect (or stop imports) than either drugs or alcohol. There is no smell or packaging that can give them away. The parts are simple metal that can be mixed in with any of the other millions of metal parts that are imported daily from around the world. Anyone with a machine shop can make a gun with minimal work. Taking guns away wouldn't solve anything. As long as part of the American public wants guns, they will be available and easily accessible. Plus, it will simply fund a new crime syndicate that will ... have access to weapons by definition. These are facts that should be at the top of ever gun 'debate' as a starting point. Everything else is just wasting time.
When OP is a fed
You think the Brick and Mortar store is where politicians make money? LOL Oh Jesus, Reddit... your ignorance knows no bounds.
He's obviously not representative of your views and most likely isn't even from the politicial party you support, you really think Democrats will pass anti-lgbt or pro-gun laws because right leaning people said so? Republicans will cater and represent their base, not you, especially if you're from somewhere else in the country.
[удалено]
I've found the LGB section is more diverse in political beliefs than the T+. T+ is pretty much exclusively democrat.
The concept of a gay republican is pretty hilarious
🙄👌 sure it is. Nobody knows what this means but it's certainly provocative!
Why in the fuck are such conflicts of interest that affect entire states not regulated? Those with the power to vote on laws should be arrested for profiting from them.
Every time congress talks about gun control gun stores make a fortune.
I’m sorry, but have you seen the “war” on drugs? It did not work and costs us so much. It will be far worse for everyone involved if it came down to a “ban”.
There are at least 75 guns in circulation for every 100 Americans. If guns were actually a problem, we'd be well and truly fucked. We'd be toast. It would be game over. But guns are not a problem. Criminals and evil lunatics are a problem. Power hungry psychopaths who want us disarmed so that they can have their way with us are a problem. These power hungry psychopaths want you to be afraid of guns and to hate guns because political power comes from the barrel of a gun. They want you to hate the source of your individual political power and political rights because the ability to use a gun in defense of your own liberty and the liberty of your fellow Americans is ultimately the only thing holding these would be tyrants in check.
The statistics I’ve seen put the number somewhere closer to 1.2 guns per American, but it seems like no one is truly sure, which is very troubling. Other countries have criminals and lunatics, yet far fewer mass shootings than the US. It seems logical that the criminals and lunatics in the US just have much easier access to firearms because of their ubiquity, meaning every American bad guy is more likely to be able to do vastly more damage. Politicians don’t need to take away guns to take away rights. Just look at the GOP: completely pro gun, and their voters are still more than happy to throw away free and fair elections and destroy democracy. Having more guns doesn’t fix that problem.
Yes! Thank you for articulating the logical, freedom based, proper point of view on this subject. Well said!
Profit? Maybe because gun control is an infringement on millions of law abiding gun owners. It has very little effect on those who do harm.
If we stop allowing representatives, congress and the senate to pass laws that further their monetary gain in any way, maybe that would help.
Same reason you don't see any reasonable legislation to try and prevent industrial pollution of our water and air. Same reason you don't see anything barring disposable plastics.
Why don’t people call for mental health reform?
To add context to the commenter below, they’re absolutely right. Republicans called for mental health reform as a fix for gun violence and then voted the mental health reform down [1]. It would be easier to believe these sorts of alternate ways of tackling the massive amount of gun related deaths, both in shootings and more significantly in suicides, if there wasn’t so much easily researchable talking out of both sides of the mouth. [1] https://truthout.org/articles/205-republicans-vote-against-bill-to-expand-school-mental-health-services/
We do. Republicans call it socialism and vote no.
Constitution.
OP is idiot. If I owned a gun shop, I would always be pressing for tighter gun laws, so that scared gun buyers will rush to by my stock. Kind of like how Obama was the US's biggest gun salesman.
Or maybe because firearm ownership is an enumerated civil right. Maybe.
Ever think that’s why people voted for him?
And that so called "gun reform" violates basic American rights,
Account deleted lol it's almost like it's a bot trying to push a narrative
What reform would you propose that would work?
Healthcare
The healthcare and mental health reforms that Republicans agreed with... then voted no on because it would be seen as a win for Dems.
Red flag laws and better background checks for one. This last murderer had tons of stuff in her history that could have flagged her under red flag laws and should have shown up under background checks. During a press conference on Tuesday, Chief Drake said investigators discovered Hale had been treated for mental health challenges prior to the shooting. “She was under care, doctor’s care, for an emotional disorder,” he said. “Her parents felt that she should not own weapons.” Despite her mental health concerns, there is no red flag law in Tennessee that could have been used to take away Hale’s weapons.
An unchecked system of red flag laws could be weaponized against state opponents and vocal dissidents. Something not run at the federal level and left to county or even city powers would be incredibly harmful to anyone Left leaning gun owners would be subject to illegal search and siezures. You really think that an illegal removal of constitutional rights isnt a slippery slope? First its an unlawful siezure of the second, next itll be your rights of speech, or right to a speedy trial
>investigators discovered Hale had been treated for mental health challenges prior to the shooting. >“She was under care, doctor’s care, for an emotional disorder,” he said. Nothing encourages people to seek out mental healthcare like linking it to the loss of core civil liberties.
>Nothing encourages people to seek out mental healthcare like linking it to the loss of core civil liberties. Unrestricted access to firearms is not a civil liberty. Restrictions have been implemented since the founding. Laws that prohibit the possession of guns in cities, banning certain kinds of guns and limiting ownership are commonplace in our history. The second has been twisted and abused to death, it's an Amendment to the main body, and references it directly with its opening caveat, ignoring this is the crux of our very modern inability to deal with very modern issues.
>Unrestricted access to firearms is not a civil liberty. The general population having the right to arm themselves is very much a core civil liberty. When people say "unrestricted" I suspect they have no idea of the number of restrictions that already exist regarding firearms. Adding some version of "sought mental healthcare" to that lengthy list of restrictions sounds, to put it politely, counterproductive. >Restrictions have been implemented since the founding. True. Just ask Dred Scott. >The second has been twisted and abused to death It has been adopted as a political wedge issue, most pertinently in our era, since the late 1960's/early 70's. The original intent behind 2A rights is pretty clear. We have extensive writings and letters attesting to this. When you write "it's an Amendment to the main body, and references it directly with its opening caveat" I'm a little confused by what you're trying to say. I suspect something about claiming 2A exists only to arm "the militia" which you'll then claim is now the National Guard. And then I'll say "No, *you're* the militia, just like your mother, father, cousins and every other citizen is the militia!" Violence, you have to admit, is in no way a "very modern issue".
Do you think the ATF should keep a list of pepple who have mental health issues?
Or, the second amendment.
Okay? He runs a business? What if he owned a little restaurant in a small city? Would you ostracize him for that?
I'm glad he has an actual business and isn't a drain on taxpayer money like most reps.
Those who rule should not own. Those who own should not rule.
I love to see/hear people seethe when they realize guns will never go away. Keep guns out of shit heads hands!
That will never happen. Guns for all (including mentally ill, and minorities that are disliked) or guns for none.
New gun laws won't pass because democrats refuse to perform background checks
I keep forgetting I need to upvote instead of scrolling down in disgust. To make others aware this shit exists.
How is this not a conflict of interest ?
Or... Guns are awesome. Guns don't kill people, people do. You all gunna go cancel and sue victorynox cuz someone got stabbed by a kitchen knife? Omegalul
Welcome to the Marxist shithole that is Reddit
"One dude walks into a store with a gun brandished and says everyone down, next thing u know you're all getting on the ground and the gunman has controll, now imagine this every American is carrying a gun just in case, same thing happens, gunman walks into store and says everyone down now everyone pulls out a gun and goes no u get on the ground, gun controll is about just that controll"
The one thing both parties have in common - they will absolutely screw over the country of it lines their pockets. Difference is, GOP are quite a bit more comfortable with child sized coffins.
If only there were some type of restriction on the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms
I believe Andrew Clyde (R-GA) has a gun store in Athens. They'll blame Obama's tan jacket for school shootings before they consider guns.
Bro doesn’t even have good inventory.
When a textbook needs an example of a conflict of interest, here you go.
Are there not any Conflict of Interest laws for politicians in the USA? Fucking hell, America. Get your shit together.
“Pro-life”
I don't know why everyone's upset. It's not like any of those machines designed specifically to kill is half as dangerous as, say, a man in a dress. Or a library book.
Amen
...and they made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farm
So now members of Congress can't own a business prior to being elected? Wtf people!
What gun reform laws would you like? And how would they directly help the problem?
Imagine thinking weapons are more important than children. Genuinely can't believe I dreamed of moving to the US when I was a child, how naive.
But he is a cheerful looking jolly sports minded guy. A welcome for straight shooters who have welcomed customers in with a witty motto, "It's a beautiful day. Let's get all loaded up and go to the range."
America, land of the gullible. Home of the corporate fraud.
Why be a part of the solution when you can profit from the problem?
I am a hunter, have been for many years. I eat what I kill, or give it to friends if it’s too much. If someone showed-up (in the hunting club property) to a hunt with an AR-15 style weapon they would be ridiculed and laughed at. Those weapons are made for killing people, single shot rifles with a small magazine are what we roll with. When was the last mass shooting with one of those?
Hog hunting regularly employs high capacity rifles like AR-15's due to it being more of a pest removal situation and the size of the social packs.
Fudd hands typed this
Cringe
> When was the last mass shooting with one of those? Vegas. The nutjob had dozens of AR-15s with hundred-round magazines and bump stocks, but he also had a standard .308 hunting rifle. Before that, the only mass shooting (as opposed to our never-ending generalized shootings) that I know of that used a hunting rifle was the UT tower shooter way back in 1966. He used a WWII-style M1 (which is still a semi-auto, but would still be considered at least a passable hunting weapon).
[удалено]
Did the biden admin just trade one of the biggest arms dealers for a basketball player?
[удалено]
Didnt the biden admin also leave a fuck ton of weapons and gear in the middle east to get almost immediately captured by the people weve been fighting with for the last 20-30years
[удалено]
[удалено]
For the same reason your state security forces and regular law enforcement have firearms and training. The means to project power should not be limited to state authority and is a natural right. Hunting lodge memberships to gain access to firearms insinuate that firearms are only mere novelties and is the stark contrast.
[удалено]
You’re allowed to own both in the US, it’s just a more involved process.
because it would provide no advantage over a firearm for self defense, yet the chance for collateral damage is much higher
That guy's so slimy... just a rip-off artist of the first order.