a lot of people legitimately believe that the main reason they need guns is to protect themselves from the government

which an assault rifle wouldn't exactly help much with if the armed forces were after you but shrug

Right, but when that does happen you can sit at home under your bed with your dick shriveled up right next to mustardoverlord while you suck on each others thumbs in a fetal position.

Don't tell me how to defend myself, my family or my property.

I'm very secure with the fact that my sense of self-worth is not tied to a ludicrous sense of masculinity that I feel the need to affirm every 2 seconds.

If there is open warfare in the streets, you me and everyone else are fucked.

This is where I disagree with you. I don't think that assault weapons are deserving of an all out ban. I have this opinion because they really never accounted for a high amount of murders in this country, or even a high amount of gun murders . Perhaps a better compromise would be a special permit for assault weapons that is difficult to get, only allowing it to be home/taken to ranges, but not impossible to acquire

A big problem I see in my home-city of New York is that they make it near impossible for you to acquire a concealed carry permit for pistols, having to state a reason for owning the gun, and having to go through grueling red tape and months of waiting before you get your permit. I would like to see this end, and while Trump hasn't said anything specific on this issue, I don't see him not addressing it in the future.

Another thing I would support is if Trump made all states recognize a ccw permit from any state. Again, not sure if Trump has said anything of this but it wouldn't surprise me if he would.

Why do you have to insult him here? I agree with you on policy but you don't have to be an asshole about getting your point accross..

@752
>I don't know how he can be a racist if he has also treated so many minorities with such great respect and hired so many of them to work at his company

Treating individuals well doesn't mean you're not still working to prevent them from rising into the upper classes

753
>people aren't poor because there black your social standing isnt determined by your race the president was literally black racism is not so widespread

Black people are still objectively less likely to make it into the middle and upper middle class. Having a black president doesn't change the fact that black people as a whole are far less likely to be successful.

>just because there is a larger number of minorities who are poor than does not mean we need to put legislation in to help them

I didn't say you had to. I said that legislation that keeps poor people poor is also racist because poor people are mostly minorities. As a result any legislation that limits social mobility (encourages the cycle of poverty) is racist because it keeps race correlating with social status.

>republicans are conservative so they don't put legislation in to help people economically for the most part this economic policy does not make them racist

Republicans are barely conservative and they do a lot of legislation to help people economically. Their way of doing this is by encouraging businesses and entrepreneurs through tax breaks as well as passing legislation that helps corporations while blocking bills that limit them. Corporate welfare is a big fucking deal in America, especially after Bernie's campaign and the fact you're not aware of it says volumes about how well informed you are.

I've gone over several times how racism is using race to maintain socioeconomic stratification but I'm gonna repeat myself for the 4th or 5th time because you really don't seem to get it:

HATING BLACK PEOPLE ISN'T RACISM (it's prejudice)

CREATING A SOCIETY WHERE BLACKS ARE LESS PRIVILEGED THAN WHITES IS RACIST

you keep thinking that when someone says Republicans are racist they mean the first one when most don't. A fair portion probably do, but realistically that's not a huge percentage. The majority of Republicans do support the second because the majority of Republicans propose and endorse bills that limit the social mobility available to the lower classes.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

The FBI's Supplemental Homicide
Reports show that 57% of all murders
in 1993 were committed with handguns,
3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns,
and 5% with firearms where the type
was unknown.

1993 I know, but the case still stands. The only issue I can see with "assault weapons" is the maximized amount of damage they can do, in which case a ban on larger magazines would suffice enough.

"Assault weapon" just goes to show how much mainstream media you eat up, fearmongering term.

If more people have assault weapons in the hypothetical case that the US becomes tyrannical, conflict between citizens and the military will be forced. Forced conflict, rather than citizens not revolting and having their rights surrendered makes these military units more likely to mutiny*, and encourages citizens to fight against the government because they know people have access to these assault weapons. The main point is that having assault weapons encourages forced conflict in the face of tyranny, which makes fighting a war on citizens harder.

*Mutiny because US soldiers would probably not be okay with shooting their neighbor.

~~~~

also as a point to rocketslay, a lot of Americans feel they shouldn't need to justify their right to own guns, no matter how advanced they become.

what.

i concur

LOL can't wait for our schools to teach my brother about how the pyramids were used to store grain if carson gets put in there

That's what you think Dr. Ben Carson is, a token? You are the one now sounding like a racist. Do you really think he is just doing it for show, or do you think he actually admires and respects Dr. Ben Carson? And secondly, if Trump is a racist why would people like Dr. Ben Carson endorse Trump and campaign for him?

People love playing the race card, and I've had it played on me several times even. I'll be the first one to say that I respect Dr. Ben Carson more than Trump, and always have.

i dont have any guns and i dont know anyone that does

i have felt more institutional racism under affirmative action than i could ever feel under any of donald trump's plans

jesus fucking christ

57% of homicides were committed with handguns so we shouldn't ban any guns...

Unless your position is we should ban handguns but not "assault weapons" which would be even more stupid.

Her point is that banning assault weapons accomplishes nothing. How does banning assault weapons make the 57% of handgun homicides go down? There will never be an all-out ban on handguns, too many people from both sides oppose that, but banning assault rifles really doesn't accomplish much..

earlier you said you were a 4.0 student?

affirmative action could only negatively affect you if you were at the VERY bottom of your class

Yeah, Carson is a token. He has no qualifications for anything at a government level. He knows absolutely nothing about healthcare from an administrative point of view. It would be like making a grocery clerk the CEO assuming that since he knows how to do the floor stuff he can figure out the rest.

I feel, based on her earlier posts in this thread, she thinks you shouldn't ban any guns at all, not just that you banning assault weapons is pointless. Which is not, in my opinion, the logical conclusion to draw from the very stats she posted.

getting "shafted" by affirmative action is feeling institutional racism? get fuckin real lol

It was in response to mustard who said that he wanted an assault weapons ban..

Right, but linking those stats and saying "an assault weapons ban is pointless because most homicides in the U.S. are committed with handguns" doesn't seem like a good argument to me. When most homicides are committed with some form of gun, I believe the solution is to ban all firearms. And how the U.S. homicide rate compares to other high-income countries would indeed suggest that the U.S. needs to ban firearms if they want the homicide rate to decrease.

The NRA has too much power for that to happen anytime soon anyway, so it's just theoretical.

I don't agree with this solution, as places like Chicago make it very difficult to acquire guns, yet the murder rate is very high. Compare that to a place like Texas, where the gun laws are very lax, yet the murder rate is very low. Prohibition is often never the solution to a problem, as evinced by the historic attempt to prohibit alcohol, and our current failing attempts to prohibit drugs.

I cannot think of any other issue why the homicide-rate in the U.S. would be higher than all other high-income nations except our ability to purchase guns freely. Perhaps I'm wrong but that seems to be the difference. Stricter gun laws in certain places in the country don't necessarily suggest that bans on guns don't help homicide rates if people can just get their guns from other places in the country.

If, however, the homicide rate stays the same in all places in the U.S. that have enacted stricter gun laws but the number of gun related homicides decreases while other methods for committing homicide increase, perhaps you could argue that guns are not the cause for higher homicide rates in the U.S.

It can also be argued that if every state all over the country had uniform, lax, gun laws, than the overall murder rate could fall. Again, this is using Texas and other states with lax gun laws as a model. If everyone owns guns and is encouraged to purchase them, then less people will try to rob/attack others in fear that they too own a gun.

The only exception to my last argument is the gang on gang violence in Chicago, but that is mostly criminals using illegal/black market guns to murder other criminals who sport illegally acquired guns, so all out prohibition won't help anyone.

trying to use Chicago to explain why gun laws don't work is like trying to use the most recent Measles outbreaks to prove herd immunity is bullshit

Chicago doesn't exist in a vacuum, all the surrounding areas have lax gun laws that make acquiring one a day trip at worst. The problem with trying to use comparative stats to discuss gun laws is that both sides can point to other areas to show where gun laws are good or bad. Japan has strict gun control and a far greater suicide rate than the US while Australia has strict control and lower homicide rates that can be measured as decreasing since gun bans took effect.

So many cultural and socioeconomic factors play into things like crime and gun violence as well as suicide and mental health that it becomes nearly impossible to even try to test gun laws in a scientific way. This makes most of the stats basically useless for comparison.

I don't think it's common sense that everyone having guns would result in less gun violence. I could only see that resulting in more violence, not less. Either way, the U.S. already HAS the highest amount of guns per capita and yet has quite high homicide rates, especially for a high-income country. So this argument just doesn't make any sense.

I mean once again, look at Texas. Very lax gun laws, tons of gun ownership. They have a very low crime rate.

Also, the overall homicide rate in the US is on a downward trend.

Good point, but still, perhaps total gun prohibition is not the solution? I can see how an increase to our education system can do a lot more for the crime/poverty in Chicago than an all-out gun ban could. If we improve our pre-schooling systems than more educated will come out of Chicago rather than criminals. http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/early-learning/ELCLinkCrimeReduction-Jul02.pdf

I just find the notion to ban "assault weapons" outright kind of ridiculous when the vast bulk of these weapons aren't the ones used to commit homicides. Even though I cited 3% of all homicides in 1993 were committed with rifles, half of them could very well have been bolt-action sporting rifles. In evidence lockers throughout the nation right now, plenty of the weapons involved in homicides are very budget minded and cheap pistols such as hi-points, etc. seems to indicate that there are socioeconomic factors at play.

If you were to remove several of the gang violence hotspots throughout the nation I can guarantee that our homicide rate would be more in line with that of other nations.

Obama and Hillary didn't know shit about healthcare either. They supported the most disastrous healthcare reform we have ever seen in this country. Obama either totally lied about his plan for healthcare reform, or was incredibly naive when he made promises like "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Thanks to Obama my healthcare shot up from $200 to $330 a month in 1 year and should be going up by another 20% in 2017. That is basically a doubling of rates in 2 years.

Also how naive are you to think that a man that has been a MD for years doesn't know anything about healthcare reform, how insurance works, and what patients want from doctors. I'm guessing you'd nominate someone from a pharmaceutical company or some hospital exec that will do nothing but shill their way to increase profits for the insurance companies.

Various spokespeople, Gingrich, etc seem to be rowing back on some of the more fantastical promises already. "Campaign device", "campaign talk" are the phrases being thrown out. Be interesting to see whether this is official Trump positioning, or whether these are attempts to pre-emptively dampen down his promises and there will be friction with the party.

Frankly I think it is a good idea that it be left to the states because I think that is an issue that is more easily solved on a smaller scale amongst a more homogenous group