[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / d / hypno / liberty / rule34 / sl / ss / tk / vx ]

/n/ - News


Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.

8chan News Board Ring: /pn/ - Politics and News - /politics/ - Politics

File: 3c1ff8e01f7eb57⋯.jpg (56.24 KB, 500x497, 500:497, e1483722923477.jpg)


Congressman Moves to Have “Gun Free School Zones Act” Repealed

On December 8, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced that he will be chair of a new Congressional Second Amendment Caucus.

In a press release, Massie said:

“The recent election results present us with a new opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation and reverse the erosion of the Second Amendment that’s occurred over the last few decades. I look forward to working with the new President and this determined group of conservatives to promote a pro-gun agenda.”

Members of the Second Amendment Caucus will draft and sponsor pro-gun legislation, and will invite firearm experts, constitutional scholars, and pro-gun groups to speak to the caucus.

The group is already taking action: on Monday, Rep. Massie introduced legislation to repeal the law that banned possession of firearms in school zones across the United States.

Titled H.R. 34, the Safe Students Act, the bill was originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007. It repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended Act.

Gun-free zones are ideal locations for wannabe mass shooters to implement their nefarious plans – criminals are more likely to choose settings where they are not likely to be confronted with an armed person who may stop them.

While the Gun-Free School Zones Act may have been well-intended, take a look at what has happened since its implementation:


In a press release posted on January 5, Massie said:

“Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments. Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.”

“A bigger federal government can’t solve this problem. Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.”




File: d75cacc9bdf4739⋯.png (22.44 KB, 600x700, 6:7, keep-calm-and-think-of-the….png)


But do people really need automated asphalt rifles like the AK-74? How many children need to die, before we think "enough is enough"?


File: af85ded479acb1b⋯.jpg (36.54 KB, 500x628, 125:157, 1411667350633.jpg)


File: 265a15f152f3384⋯.jpeg (42.1 KB, 578x278, 289:139, image.jpeg)


>automated asphalt rifles like the AK-74

Thank you for your uneducated opinion; and for the Keks!


File: 7a8ca2ee308d99f⋯.gif (480.48 KB, 250x250, 1:1, ahaha fuck off.gif)


Disarming people is only going to get more children AND adults killed when a shooter comes in.

Criminals don't play by the rules, and rules/laws must be enforced in order to have actual power over people. Else all it is is words.

If you do not account for the black market or even simple theft when prohibiting items, all you'll get is a situation like the crime filled Prohibition era of the United States. No matter what you do, you cannot have a monopoly on a weapon, or a drug, or any other item, because even if you manage to take all the guns and drugs away from everyone somehow, people will just make their own, because like it or not, guns are in demand by criminality to the point that they will do anything to get them, because a gun is POWER. Leaving the civilian populace powerless against a criminal killer with a gun is the height of stupidity. The police respond only after a crime's been committed and reported and it takes an instant to kill someone, but civilians are already on the scene, because they are the targets. Also, i'm a civilian myself, and I don't take kindly to those who would leave me powerless because guns hurt their fee-fees.

Besides, this gun control shit violates the constitution, which was written for a damned good reason, as a check system for when government goes completely out of control.

Outside of that, if you look at shootings where no one had guns vs the shooter being shot, you will always notice a stark difference in body count.

Taking guns away from people is retarded. There's a million fucking reasons why it's a bad idea to do so.

So, even if you are trolling, go walk down a Detroit alleyway without packing heat.


File: b57e78643a0615f⋯.jpg (225.16 KB, 1347x1152, 449:384, gun_control_kills_uk.jpg)


File: b1d896bc09aa3fe⋯.png (441.99 KB, 750x750, 1:1, gun_control_fails.png)



THE OLDER STUDENTS SHOULD PACK SO if any mental student starts a spree,they can all shoot him

/killcen/'s logic is irrefutable



Lies, damned lies, and statistics



t. high school drop out



nice bait


File: 698e84e8722edcc⋯.jpg (26.81 KB, 603x466, 603:466, ADACHI.jpg)


Are you mental? public schools have security and actual police. Why is it that you always go with the insane shit right out of the gate?

Oh yeah, it's because you're frantically trying to discredit those who oppose you by putting crazy where there was none in the first place.


The statistic bit is when you omit details about the statistic itself, like the moronic gender wage gap statistic that only considers average pay between genders without consideration for jobs they tend to take, and they erroneously use that statistic to "prove" that women get paid 70 percent that men for the same job when it's a lie because they don't account for the fact that the statistic is that way because women tend to take low paying social work over high paying business and blue collar work.

If you say that Mark Twain shit, bring up EXACTLY what is wrong with the presentation of the statistic and how it's being misused, else it's not being misused and it is the truth.



File: d78d0aa9df9774f⋯.jpg (7.56 KB, 306x165, 102:55, Aramaki GiTS.jpg)


It's easy to spot a liberal, by the way.




All of them appeal to emotion, which might work in a crowd, but does not work in a text based environment where you can read a speech at your own pace. Notice the odd capitalization which portrays emotion behind words, it's the same shit they do in comics to emphasize speech.

as an example, compare:

The man ate the bread, and became sick.


the MAN ATE the BREAD, and became SICK!!!!!!!!

All it really does is make them come off as unhinged.

People who appeal to emotion on imageboards, where all conditions that require it to work are absent (namely human presence aka mob psychology and community atmosphere) are fuckin' stupid.


File: 770d63c9922c0f6⋯.jpg (59.42 KB, 710x353, 710:353, average honduran.jpg)


>thinking it's about the law

>thinking it's about the government structure

When are rulecucks going to realize that it doesn't make one shit of difference what the law or government is like. People are what make a country bad or good. This single fact that gets beat down repeatedly as we grow up and assimilate into the system is what creates so much cognitive dissonance with the majority today. If a people are good the government will be good. If the people are just, the laws will be just. It's not hard. We reap exactly what we sow.


File: a31476362e940de⋯.jpeg (39.86 KB, 356x238, 178:119, ash on computer.jpeg)


Trust me, no one's arguing that Hondurans would be little angels with guns given the social shit that's been beaten into them by criminality, but their criminal element would be REDUCED over a fair period of time.

And that's the point. You can argue all day over which country has the better people in it, but it honestly does not matter, because allowing people to actually fucking defend themselves with guns would reduce the criminal element, because people who DO want to defend themselves must become criminals to do so, and that's why Honduras is where it is today.

Laws shape the people, it's called social engineering. And countries that let the civilians keep their guns always have a better crime rate then those who ban them.

This is undeniable unless you're fucking delusional and willfully ignorant.

No one cares for your feelings, they care about not getting killed by the crazy ass drug dealer down the street, you ingrate.

I'm going to give you a challenge, go to a seedy neighborhood where everyone else has to live, after say 5:00 pm. Make sure it's in a state or country that bans guns. Go without any sort of defense, and you'll understand exactly why people need guns, or you won't because you'll be dead.



>Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)

Sounds good already.

>I look forward to working with the new President and this determined group of conservatives to promote a pro-gun agenda.”

Fucking awesome. Can't wait for discussions and comments from butthurt gungrabbing filth.



>Can't wait for discussions and comments from butthurt gungrabbing filth.

Scroll through this thread and your bound to stumble upon some ;)


File: b2b620d2486ff7f⋯.gif (8.54 MB, 480x338, 240:169, 29a26968e5b90d78abc86ded05….gif)





2nd ammendment is just good sense


File: 18e327753ee50f5⋯.png (44.47 KB, 661x442, 661:442, UK Gun ban effect on crime.png)


This is a little denser than your infographic, but it gives a slightly clearer picture and provides an international comparison for the same time frame.




>But do people really need automated asphalt rifles like the AK-74? How many children need to die, before we think "enough is enough"?

You're right, there are entirely too many gun laws, too many gun free zones that make more victims, more mass violence.

Best post of the day!


File: 1ea7ddc8c574b2d⋯.png (39.62 KB, 750x700, 15:14, 1470969620907.png)




File: 36748e315be3cc9⋯.gif (517.92 KB, 500x211, 500:211, 6caefe16-f87b-45e0-8b1d-73….gif)


I second that bump



Maybe it has something to do with race after all, huh? Just like in the US, where the reputation for gun violence comes almost entirely from blacks and mexicans who are well overrepresented in gun crime stats, up to or even over half in some areas, despite being minorities.


File: 051c85e75e865fb⋯.png (49.33 KB, 1150x860, 115:86, crime by race per capita.png)



Also note that Mexicans are counted under "white" in FBI stats for some fucked up reason.



It's a census antiquity. The White(Hispanic) or however it's put on the form refers to those who come from Spain, the only European country that is hispanic. Mexicans thought it refered to them and nobody has really corrected them


We Will MAGA.



I love guns as much as the next guy.

But could you imagine for a minute what a world would be like if only the government could obtain or use guns? Or what if the world didn't need, or had never designed or made, guns? Or what if we made them and everyone in the world was like, 'ahhhh that shit is crazy, nu uh, nope, never again'. I don't know, just think about it.

Why do people need guns? And if people need guns because other people have guns, why do people need guns? Because some people are bad or lazy? What?



>Or what if we made them and everyone in the world was like, 'ahhhh that shit is crazy, nu uh, nope, never again'.

That is just not going to happen, and governments would never give up their guns either. Once you have made something like that, there is no turning back. You could ban it, people will illegally manufacture them and have black markets anyway. Human nature. What's done is done.

The only hope we have is to make sure good people are also armed, not just corrupt governments and criminals. Could you imagine a world where only criminals and corrupt governments were armed? What a hellish shitty world that would become.



But they would have no reason to hurt innocent people. Assuming there would be an uprising and revolution and anarchist state leading to a change in regime if those people in power and the corrupt were to use their power for evil and attack the innocent.

Do you think those people in power would risk it? Besides, it's not like the average citizen can just own something as simple as a B-52 bomber, Abrams tank, or aircraft carrier. Yet, we don't seem to mind.

So again, why do people need guns? And you can't say to protect themselves from bad people with guns.



>Assuming there would be an uprising and revolution and anarchist state leading to a change in regime if those people in power and the corrupt were to use their power for evil and attack the innocent.

So your theory is let's disarm innocent civilians, let tyranny reign over us, so that we can one day "fight back" and start a "revolution"…… without being properly armed for one…..

Yah, we all know how that would end.

Face it, the more good people that are armed, the more of a deterrent on crime and oppression. Statistics have proven this.



Bruh, you gotta read some shit twice sometimes. You aren't catching what I'm saying.

Good people can turn bad. It doesn't matter if they have guns or not. Knifes kill people, explosions kill people, vehicles and so on. Do you really think only bad people would have guns in this hypothetical scenario? Or would only good people would own guns?

The debate isn't about guns anymore, it's the philosophy of good and bad and what is good and bad and why is good good and why is bad bad and what makes it good or bad and any different.



seriously, you have to stop



> it's not like the average citizen can just own something as simple as a B-52 bomber, Abrams tank, or aircraft carrier. Yet, we don't seem to mind.

Dunno about the other two, but you can own a tank.

Can't see any reason why you couldn't own them, either, if you can afford to buy one.



We had a world without guns for thousands of years.

The strong terrorized the weak. Large men raped smaller defenseless women, large men beat and robbed smaller men, large men got together and raided villages to rape rob and kill.

Guns are an equalizer. If everyone in the world owned a gun then we're all on equal footing. Take away those guns and it's back to large men terrorizing the small, the weak and the elderly.



When you have a gun and you are practiced in its operation: a mass shooter will not get very far if he attacks.


YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Swiss people are superior in many ways. That is why they are able to pick and choose what comes in and how long they stay.

Hondurans, by and large, are one step removed from the jungle.

The answer is to round up all the Hondurans and bring them to the USA. Put them on welfare and food stamps, a guaranteed income. Build free housing in the upscale suburbs, and turn them loose.





Guns are the great equalizer. Before guns, it was your physical strength and size that mattered. A child, woman, or old person had no chance against a young man with a weapon, even if they too were armed. With guns, everyone is on roughly equal footing.


bumping rational news





[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / d / hypno / liberty / rule34 / sl / ss / tk / vx ]