Anonymous #2 7w

In fact for this reason I wouldnt even call myself conservative. I would vote against these people if they weren't literally the only ones in favor of my rights

1

Anonymous #1 7w

why do u vote conservative? like what is the appeal?

2

Anonymous #2 7w

i mean that at least makes sense. I don’t agree with u nor do i think its like the most moral position when u look at the pro 2a candidates (generally speaking) but at least it’s consistent and understandable. I also do like guns

4

Anonymous #2 7w

are u like an absolutist ? or would u be okay if they just took away high capacity mags and things that make full auto possible ?

6

Anonymous OP 7w

Eh depends on the state tbh. KY has a lot of pro gun options, somewhere like TX not so much.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

All my mags are standard capacity but if they banned them I probably would just not notice and disobey the law

1

Anonymous #2 7w

i think texas is probably about the same, as someone who lives in the south, but i mean more so that the people who are pro 2a are usually the same “let’s bring back carpet bombing” crowd

6

Anonymous #2 7w

Yeah but i mean like if u really liked someones platforms, but they were anti gun, basically what i’m trying to know how far is too far. Would u still support if they said no capacity mags? no bump stocks? no ars at all? what’s the line for u

8

Anonymous OP 7w

Well in KY they have Massie on one side and then pro Israel GOP republicans on the other. In TX they have pro Israel GOP republicans on one side and anti gun democrats on the other

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Thats literally the only point of policy I'm paying attention to besides MAYBE foreign affairs, and definitely the only one I'm voting on. I wouldn't even like their platforms if they're what you're describing.

0

Anonymous OP 7w

The line would be wanting to restrict gun rights at all

1

Anonymous #2 7w

so i guess that goes back to the where’s the line question, because the best texas dem is only anti AR, not anti gun in general, which i think is a rational stance to take

8

Anonymous OP 7w

ARs are a gun platform though, you can't be pro gun and anti AR.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

but like why? politics dictate literally every aspect of ur life, ur job, how much u take home, the roads u drive on, the cars ur allowed to drive, the safety of ur neighborhood, the lands that u use those very guns on, like i’m not saying u have to be clued in on it, but only caring about guns seems myopic. Like what’s the point of buying guns if there’s no land or wildlife to use them on ?

6

Anonymous OP 7w

I don't know shit about roads, economics, or land distribution, I know a little bit of shit about guns.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

you can be though, an M60 is also a gun platform, thomas massie doesn’t think we should be able to have those, and u think he’s pro gun?

8

Anonymous OP 7w

When did Massie say that? You might have just changed my take on him

1

i hear u, i am genuinely trying to have a good faith discussion and i hear ur points, but the thing is the conservative party isn’t aligned with this in reality. Border control 100% they’re better, but crime they’re just not, trump has pardoned something like 1600 people, including sex traffickers, narco terrorists, and crypto billionaires. Additionally the cutting down on the DOJ has lead to 23 million active cases being cut down. doj workers, like not political people, say they aren’t -

2

able to persue sex crimes or fraud anymore, because trump has them looking exclusively for either immigrants or democrats. like you can chose to believe that or not, but the statistics prove it. additionally, this is the worst period of fraud in us history, like the president is a crypto scammer bro

2

i’m not gonna touch the dei rabbit hole, but every war in the past 20 years have been started by conservatives, they’re the originator of the world police platform

2

Anonymous #2 7w

while he’s never outright stated it, he’s also never proposed a bill to make them legal or stop the restrictions that prevent people from owning them. Why on earth do u think that citizens should have LMGS?

5

Anonymous OP 7w

They're bearable arms and the only history or tradition of legislating them originates out of jim crow era racism

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Big thing in 2024 was affordability. Other major things I was in favor of was Epstein list transparency, border security, and the 2020-2024 woke ideas weren’t my favorite I thought there was a lot of blame being thrown around that helped nobody

0

Anonymous OP 7w

Also he literally owns one personally and has voted to repeal the NFA, I think the implications are pretty obvious

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I’m also relatively pro 2a and I’m pretty anti-abortion in most circumstances

1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

OP has been good faith with everyone here, including you. The only one being disingenuous and not engaging in good faith, is you. The other commenters above were able to have honest conversations quite easily, why aren’t you?

0

Comment Deleted

0

can you tell me a war that america was involved in that was started by a democrat? and there’s a difference between a discussion and a debate. I’m not trying to change ur mind, i’m trying to understand how you can support certain principles and ideals then vote against them?

2

I’m going to need you to calm down. You seem to think that discussion and debate are synonymous. I haven’t told any lies. But what do you mean by ur second point ? like what are those supposed to prove me wrong about?

4

and you are actively being dishonest and disingenuous, that is my point. cut this manipulative shit out.

1

how are u deciding im coming in bad faith? And of course crime stats are going down if the doj isn’t prosecuting cases ? I did misspeak, it was 23000 federal cases. It was not intentional, and i’m correcting myself, because this is a good faith discussion, but could u enlighten us as to what city u live in that crime is at a low?

6

Comment Deleted

0

I won’t apologize for something i did not do. iraq iran and afghanistan, the 3 wars weve been involved in, have all been started by republicans. Like what am i missing?

5

libya was a combat operation to reinforce a UN restitution we were already involved in (since 1973). We were responding to gadafis air assaults on our own allies, and then we removed our self when the situation was out of our control. So we didn’t start a war, we we were supporting our allies, and we bowed out when we weren’t useful anymore. Like that’s exactly inline with how america should act no?

3

no world policing, just direct response to action against our allies, and most importantly, we didn’t start the war. So please tell me where the lie is?

6

Anonymous OP 7w

hell, Libya was only 12 days too; march 19th 2011 - march 31st 2011 (when we transferred control of the operation to NATO) and he wants to claim you’re the dishonest one here🙄

6

Anonymous #1 7w

so now I do have to ask that affordability is getting worse, Trump says he wants housing prices to increase. And the Epstein files debacle, are u thinking about voting blue?

6

Anonymous #4 7w

like genuinely so hostile just to be wrong 😭

6

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

i’m sorry? you think libya is the reason that there’s terrorist attacks in africa? please expand on that. And whether or not i think it was a good thing is irrelevant, what matters is that it’s not a war that we started. What happened to intellectual honesty. It seems as if you don’t want to have a good faith discussion anymore

1

no a terrorist cell that is allegedly backed by iran killed 3, not 4, service members in jordan. That’s just a blatantly dishonest false comparison. We’ve conducted plenty of strikes on iran, like the nuclear facilities last year. This is purely a regime change war of choice.

1

Comment Deleted

0

i also wanna point out that those 3 serve members were killed in 2022, and trump never mentioned them (to my knowledge). To say the incidents are directly correlated is just wrong. like i genuinely don’t understand how you come in here on some good faith high horse, demand an apology then spread nothing but bullshit. Like you didn’t wanna debate, but u say “thanks obama”. Gtfo. If u wanna debate i will dunk on u every time.

1

boko haram is the origin point of almost all of that, and they were founded in 2009. So are u slow or something?

1

Anonymous #2 7w

the NFA has nothing to do with the decades old LMG laws lmao

6

Anonymous OP 7w

The NFA is the only law regulating an M60

1

Anonymous #2 7w

and like, not to strawman here, but ur belief that every american has the right to own machines capable of mass destruction and murder is because some guys (who wrote rules on how to change these exact rules), who couldn’t even comprehend the firepower we have now, said so? like the idea of some 18 year old in downtown naperville running around a suburb with an m60 or an rpg doesn’t give u pause?

6

Anonymous OP 7w

and i’m not sure what ur referencing here, but the sullivan law wasn’t exactly jim crow, and the 1934 firearms act certainly wasn’t

6

Anonymous #2 7w

wow okay didn’t realize he wanted to repeal that NFA. maybe it’s a good thing he’s out of congress that’s fucking insane

6

Anonymous OP 7w

The Sullivan act, despite having nothing to do with the current restrictions on M60s due to them being an NFA item, was actually intended to prevent African Americans from exercising the 2A

1

Anonymous #2 7w

that’s a highly debated topic tho it’s not widely agreed if that was the main purpose. And it restricted rights for all new yorkers regardless of

5

Anonymous #2 7w

Even more so it was intended to affect Italians though

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Also the idea that the founders didn't have this type of firepower is laughable. They commanded an entire army with artillery and warships, I think they could conceive of a gun that reloads using mechanisms.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

laughable? i’m sorry i don’t think you understand the difference between what u just mentioned and an M60. It would take roughly 150 infantry to equal the output of one m60. We can have brigades of them flying around in helicopters. And comparing artillery and warships to people owning m60s is just a braindead comparison. Like what?

6

Anonymous OP 7w

So do we ban the helicopter? Because what you described isn't a fair fight of people with muskets, warships, and artillery against people with LMGs, you had to give the guys with LMGs air superiority for it to even be a win in theory.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I still think that any one M60 is a laughable amount of firepower in comparison to the revolutionary army

1

Anonymous #2 7w

Not to mention that you literally just made up a measure in which the founders would have been able to conceive of this; equivocating the firepower of an M60 to a tangible number of musketmen

1

Anonymous #2 7w

what are u talking about??? i brought up military capabilities because u did?? Air superiority and air ships + guns is something he genuinely could not comprehend.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

So we should ban the helicopter?

1

Anonymous OP 7w

You're basically just making the argument that the founders weren't aware of the progression of technology

1

Anonymous #2 7w

then you would be an idiot, the revolutionary army had about 30k people. That’s maybe 2000 m60s. Like a platoon capable of wiping out the army would blow his mind

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yes, 1/2000 of an army's firepower is typically a laughable amount to them.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

rage bait. Nothing i said implies that. You said that it was laughable to think he couldn’t comprehend them because he commanded an army, i showed u how he couldn’t comprehend them in comparison to our army. What ?

1

Anonymous #2 7w

no. im saying they couldn’t predict what was to come, like literally anyone else

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I can't see how what you said would not imply that, we just went over how LMGs should be banned because of their efficacy in combat, yet air superiority doesn't get that same treatment? I think you may just be a hoplophobe

1

Anonymous OP 7w

"What was to come" being the progression of technology

1

Anonymous #2 7w

yeah, it is laughable to compare the revolutionary army, with 1/2000 of the firepower to a troop of m60s. You should feel pretty stupid for thinking that. 🤣

5

Anonymous #2 7w

progression of technology= general trend. m60 = specific prediction that he couldn’t account for. Like this is super simple this has to be rage bait

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Well if they could have predicted that technology would progress to the point that guns are leagues more effective, it doesn't matter if they predicted the M60 specifically or not. They still understood the issue at hand.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

no, this thread was talking about specifically how the founding fathers couldn’t comprehend modern firepower, you brought up the military comparison. Please try to keep up.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

The founding fathers comprehension of modern firepower is directly a military comparison in and of itself

1

Anonymous #2 7w

you think that they predicted a single gun would be able to generate the output of 150 revolutionary soliders with 10 times the range? that’s a stupid thing to say

1

Anonymous #2 7w

then why say some stupid shit like “we should ban helicopters”?

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Yes, some had even seen the puckle gun. It wasn't like reloading was some mystical fucking concept that they had no idea could be done my mechanisms.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Because they offer similar efficacy in killing by giving you air superiority as having an M60 would

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Even if the British just had a single helicopter and means of fueling it we would be completely fucked in the revolution

1

Anonymous #2 7w

i’m going to respond in a new thread to clear this up 1. Constitutional absolutism is stupid. The wrote laws in the constitution telling you how change it 2. None of the founding fathers could’ve accurately predicted the deadly capability of an m60 or high rate of fire, high stopping power, high capacity long ranged (by their standards) weapon 3. Common sense dictates that with crime as it is in the country allowing people to be able to buy LMGS whenever they want with no restrictions is stupid

3

Anonymous OP 7w

they wrote*

5

Anonymous OP 7w

1. Then just admit you want to change it instead of pretending to be pro 2A 2. To say they couldn't have predicted an M60 as a whole is to say they could not have predicted the advances in all of the listed subjects individually which is simply untrue 3. This same logic could be applied to all guns or all weapons, we can figure out ways to deny criminals access without having unjust denials and excessive taxation/burdening to law abiding citizens

0

Anonymous #2 7w

1. i never pretended to be pro 2a, i said i like guns, and i am fully content with a hunting rifle, shotgun, and pistol. I don’t need an AR to kill a deer i have skill.

5

Anonymous #2 7w

2. It’s not about predicting them individually, the point is predicting them together What don’t u understand about that?

2

Anonymous OP 7w

oop🫢

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I promise you its easier to shoot deer with a 30/06 and a 3-9x scope than a 223 running a red dot but whatever

1

Anonymous #2 7w

but denying them to criminals is a restriction? it doesn’t say “the right to bear arms for non criminals” now does it? and an 18 year old probably isn’t a criminal, but that doesn’t stop him from doing dumb stuff. that doesn’t account for mental health, or delays to cut down on crimes of passion. All those are restrictions on ur 2a. if u think their bad ur stupid and there’s no point in this

6

Anonymous #2 7w

LMAO LARP

4

Anonymous #2 7w

30/06 requires recoil control not present in a 223, but far more importantly. You get one shot. You can get a good 3-4 on a deer, or a lot more if they’re running through a field in an AR. have u ever even been hunting ?

4

Anonymous OP 7w

Depends on the candidate. I don’t really care about party so long as the candidate has shared values with me

0

Anonymous OP 7w

They literally had seen some of the things listed progressing in their lifetimes, namely puckle guns (repeating firearms) were known by founders and marksmen (shooters with higher velocity and better accuracy muskets) were used in the revolutionary military. The thought that they couldn't conceive of these being put together is just to say they couldn't conceive of technology improving. The same could be applied to the 1A in saying ban self expression on the internet.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

If you can't run your bolt well don't talk to me about hunting with semi autos lol

1

Anonymous #2 7w

You're out there to take down an animal ethically not play cowboy

1

Anonymous #2 7w

it’s not about running your bolt well, it’s just physics. Deer run faster than humans reload. American sniper couldn’t drop a white tail darting away from a gunshot in the woods. A clearing maybe you can get two. But two is a whole lot different than 4-6

1

Anonymous #2 7w

what the fuck does this even mean in this context? which gun are u even trying to say is more ethical and which ones playing cowboy?

1

Anonymous OP 7w

For one, you should be able to aim and get sight picture back quick enough to know if you need a follow up, if you got too much gun for your own good then you won't be able to and you're banking on hitting dead on, first time every time. Some people do, but thats why I call it playing cowboy. Its cocky.

1

Anonymous #2 7w

i can’t tell if ur intellectually dishonest or intellectually impaired lmao. “yeah some people shot far and there was a reloading gun, surely they can put that together and conceptualize an m60”

1

Anonymous #2 7w

like my god your so stupid u shouldn’t be allowed to vote. You don’t know anything about economics, roads, land preservation, guns, or anything else

1

Anonymous OP 7w

I don't think necessarily a 30-06 is more ethical than a semi or vice versa for this purpose because its depending on what the shooter can handle better.

1

Anonymous OP 7w

Well yeah if you're not trying to hunt big clearings then you should not have a 30-06

1

Anonymous #1 7w

If you care about affordability you should be a leftist. And don’t fall for the culture war divisions

9

Anonymous #2 7w

yeah u just don’t know what ur talking about. This is only applicable if ur hunting in wide open fields, and if u know anything about deer, they very rarely get caught out there. You’re either in the woods or hunting the treeline, where it’s physically impossible to get another bead on them before they’re lost in the bush. So you genuinely have no idea what ur talking about

1

Anonymous #2 7w

that’s also why tracking exists. I understand that killing them quickly is more “ethical”, but we’ve been hunting and tracking throughout human history. Don’t try to bring up ethics so u can feel superiority about a goddamn AR. It’s the less skilled platform

1

Anonymous #2 7w

yeah if u don’t know what ur talking about u shouldnt speak.

1

Anonymous #1 7w

mamdani the guy

3

Anonymous #1 7w

If your primary issue is affordability then you should be voting DSA. The last 50 years of this country have been dominated by right wing neoliberal economics, which has only made essentials less affordable and consumer garbage cheaper and shittier than ever.

6

Anonymous #1 7w

what were the values you supported then??? cuz reps ran on culture war bs pretty much. dont try an tell me you care about immigration that much either

1