Liberals - you can have all the rights you want as long as we are okay with them.

Yup, democrats are delusional to believe they are in the party of Kennedy or even Clinton. They are in the party of Mao and Uncle Joe.

I could not have said it better myself, Blue.

Substitute the word commie for liberal.

People who deny others rights are the antithesis of liberal.

Yea. The protest of the 60s and 70s seem to have lost there meaning and fallen on deaf ears.

a 1960s liberal would be considered a Nazi to todays woke leftist liberals.

Jon Kennedy was just as Conservative, if not more than George W. Bush.

Because the people that want to do that are not liberals in the classic sense. They are Marxists.

agreed 100% what is so horrible is that half of them don't even know what they truly are.

The Democrats are trying to protect the first and fourth amendment more than the Republicans, who not only supported black people being killed for no reason, but also rolled in the troops during BLM PEACEFUL PROTESTS. Not all BLM rallies were peaceful, but most were. As for the 2nd amendment, my meme explains it all. Here's a headline from the satirical news organization The Onion every time there is a mass shooting: No way to stop this, says only country where this routinely happens. The fact is that your second amendment is a stupidly outdated law. It used to make sense, yes. Now it kills more than anything.

Another Cookie cutter liberal account with only 10K points lmfao... sorry kid, I already have the record your trying to sell me. BLM protest 2 billion in property damages, 20+ murdered, including black individuals that were just trying to make a living. That outdated law stops anywhere from 500K to 3 million crimes a year - https://www.cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54/4038-cdc-admission-guns-used-far-more-often-in-self-defense-than-crime
btw women use conceal carry to even the playing field against men, in 2019 women made most CC hand gun purchases, and crime has been in a steady decline since 1991 except in liberal states that deny citizens the right to protect themselves like Chicago and Detroit. stop copying and pasting these debunked liberal brain dead broken record arguments.

That argument doesn't work on me. I'm not American. I'm Canadian, and I can see the trouble your country nearly averted. Don't come at me with that BS. I can see that that is a completely conservative lobbyist site, and therefore is not trustworthy. If you can link where the CDC said that than that would be good. Now where are the crime statistics for Chicago and Detroit? Also, Mass Shootings are up.

okay, over the week end of 5/14/ 21 in Chicago my home town 50 shot 8 dead including a 13 year old riding his bike. - https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/50-shot-8-fatally-in-chicago-weekend-violence this is just this past weekend from gang violence.
guns used in self defense - 2nd link is to the cdc
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
What is defensive gun use? How often does it occur?
Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence external icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

I am trying to find a left wing site that claims guns save lives but I seem to be unable to find a left wing sight that uses actual facts and statistics. So I hope the cdc site works for ya.

The CDC site is credible, yes.

So yes, I will admit you are right in that fact. However, my counterpoint is here in Canada, we have stricter gun regulations and less deaths from gun violence, as well as a lower or similar serious crime rate here by like at least 2X. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime, https://www.numbeo.com/crime/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Canada&country2=United+States, https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/canada/usa?sc=XE29. So while I will admit your point is indeed true, I do have a counter argument. I as well liked how you linked not one, not two, but 3 sources in your defence. I have never seen someone link more than 1.

Sorry I wanted to link this in my last comment - gang member demographics - https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Demographics

very interesting.

I also wanted to apologize if I came off as rude in anyway. You understand that so often when I post links that support my points and 99% of the time when I am speaking with someone on the left side of the fence , my sources get completely ignored and I get called a nazi ;D - I appreciate the fact you mentioned that my sources backed my point of guns stopping between 500K and almost 3 million violent crimes a year. I understand that Canada has lower crime rates as well, but lets look at population / immigration/ and what countries you border. nearly half of all American gang members are Mexican, Mexico is an extremely violent country , and we have an open border with it, lets look at numbers now, you have in Canada approx. 38 million people, right? American has 350 million , 10x your total population ... can we agree that could be a contributing fact of our crime rates compared to yours? If we look at crime per capita our rates are very close - America is a very safe country in general with the population density we have. In fact America outclasses countries like England in safety when it comes to violent crimes, like rape and robbery. America is unique because we do have our constitution, and it is and always will be the envy of the world, that is why our immigration is over 3million a year. People crave freedom, people have the right to protect themselves from criminals - and everyone who immigrates here basically feels that way.

Actually, you are one the most level-headed conservatives I have seen on this blasted alt-right stream. I do agree on the population fact, however for the per capita, I think guns maybe a factor. As a foreigner to the US, I'm just disgusted at the amount of gun violence. I think the problem with the way to tackle it IS the second amendment. Not the amendment itself, that part's fine. It's the way that it's interpreted. I believe there is a way to keep the amendment as well as having gun control. As long as you pass a background check, you should be allowed to own a gun. I think that's what everyone in the US wants, good gun control where if you want a gun legally as a once-in-a blue moon defence system, it should be fine. I think the problem is the method of gun control, a half-ass way. That's just my opinion though, that's what could work.

I have no problem with measure to keep felons, domestic abusers , and the -legally defined -mentally unfit from ever come close to a firearm. Just so you understand , though I am fairly sure you know I am a gun owner, the process I went through was as follows - to acquire a pistol here in Chicago, I had to go through a 6 month long back ground check, ruling out that I am a felon, domestic abuser or mentally unfit, this information was ran through the FBI and then through the Springfield Police department to ensure I was a legally mentally fit American citizen of IL,(IL capital police), once I passed the background check, I had to pay 1000 dollars to take a 16 hour safety class , 2 days - I learned about proper handling, and storage , and also some legal information . (Most of which I knew) Only then was I issued a foid card in IL..All these safety measures in place in IL and Chicago is one of the deadliest places in America. After everything I mention that I was forced to do, simply to exercise my right to defense .. I mean, what other law ( that would fall under common sense ) Should I be forced to pass, to own a side arm as a legal citizen defined by Springfield police and the FBI ?

yes. However the fact remains that gun control in America without trespassing on the current way the second amendment is written and interpreted is nearly impossible. We need to change the outdated law to allow for legal ownership with very little chance of crime.

imgflip has decided that our conversation has gone on long enough, but let me end by saying this - there are examples to contradict the idea that no guns means less crime - Mexico - illegal for citizens to have firearms,, worse drug cartel violence this side of the world, - has all out war with fully automatic weapons in broad daylight. Also when you look at total crime rates in countries that have limits on civilians owning firearms, including rape, robbery , assault, and battery - those crime stats are 2 and 3 times higher than America, that is why I used England as an example, their violent total crime rape is almost 2700 per 100K people , America is 700ish per 100K total crime per capita . My final comment on this topic will be this " I believe you and I agree that violence of any kind or form should be condemned including gun violence" , but I think we disagree on the causes of such violence - using a broad stroke to try to end gun violence by denying citizens the right to protect themselves is a step in the wrong direction in protecting ourselves. IMO - and in closing - The US constitution has always evolved in the direction of granting more people more rights, never limiting current rights or eliminating them - it must never be used to deny people the very rights it is used to protect.

I respectfully disagree. But, it was fun finally having a civil debate for once with a conservative. Thanks for this.

BTW, changing the 2nd amendment would only make it more difficult for citizens to gain access to self protection, the Chinese and Mexican cartels that ship thousands of guns into America would still be doing it, the 1.4 million gang bangers would still have access to firearms on the black markets .. we would only punish American citizens .. I can not agree in anyway in changing our constitution in an effort to deny people their rights.

I am sorry to say , but I completely disagree. The Idea that American citizens, have the Birth right of self defense should not be changed at all. Mental health should be invested in, facilities to address mental health should be financed and well funded, and our economy needs to be boosted again with fabrication , and development.. making idle hands almost nonexistent. After school programs need to be well-funded to keep kids off the streets, 80 % of total homicides from guns are due to gang violence in America. There is a cultural issue that needs to be addressed , people raising kids to be drug dealers and gang members needs to be discussed, if we limited gang activity in America - and severely punished criminal activity - gun violence would come to a stand still, aside from suicides. But if someone wants to die , pills are just as available for them to use.

But why do areas with no legal guns or very little legal guns have much lower gun crime rates? For example, all the top 10 per capita video game consumers have a lower gun murder rate COMBINED than the US alone. Why is that if not guns?

have you noticed that mass shooting only happen in soft target areas where guns are banned.... hmmmm.. maybe is citizens were armed lunatics would not have so many targets to kill at will.

They aren't liberals anymore, just leftists.

Li-Ber-Al: A person on the centre-left side of the political spectrum. Le-ft-ist: A person on the left of the political spectrum. Gee, maybe they've always been leftists?

no, liberals and leftists are two different things, just like a conservative and a neo Nazi are two completely different things. both on the same side of the spectrum, but miles apart.

For sure. I miss back when the greatest threat to our freedom was the patriot act...