Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Paddy O Fernature]

when you can make a rifle not scary with a piece of metal.

Hell yeah suck it freedom haters. but really I think the Democratic controlled California government will find some way to screw over the company like they do to everyone who doesn't fall in line with the un-American ways.

Technically, couldn't they just say it breaches CA law regarding "ROF modifications" (aka bump stock ban) as the laws are so poorly/loosely worded that they don't specify which way the alterations need to go to make them illegal....

[Gig em Aggies]

Hell yeah suck it freedom haters. but really I think the Democratic controlled California government will find some way to screw over the company like they do to everyone who doesn't fall in line with the un-American ways.

Technically, couldn't they just say it breaches CA law regarding "ROF modifications" (aka bump stock ban) as the laws are so poorly/loosely worded that they don't specify which way the alterations need to go to make them illegal....

I'm pretty sure they are already doing that. In reality the Feds should just let California go since it is so out of whack with US constitutional rights.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Technically, couldn't they just say it breaches CA law regarding "ROF modifications" (aka bump stock ban) as the laws are so poorly/loosely worded that they don't specify which way the alterations need to go to make them illegal....

I'm pretty sure they are already doing that. In reality the Feds should just let California go since it is so out of whack with US constitutional rights.

I'm hoping the Feds roll up a thick newspaper, and smack California squarely on the nose (aka take them to federal court).

[Grinning Dragon]

I'm pretty sure they are already doing that. In reality the Feds should just let California go since it is so out of whack with US constitutional rights.

I'm hoping the Feds roll up a thick newspaper, and smack California squarely on the nose (aka take them to federal court).

*Release the Thomasanator*
I think it would be best to let justice Thomas take the lead on those and the other 8 just nod in agreement with Thomas.

[Gig em Aggies]

I'm hoping the Feds roll up a thick newspaper, and smack California squarely on the nose (aka take them to federal court).

*Release the Thomasanator*
I think it would be best to let justice Thomas take the lead on those and the other 8 just nod in agreement with Thomas.

just change Stewie and Brian to the SCOTUS and you have a meme for 2nd amendment supporters ----> https://youtu.be/dLljAXysNtM

[Grinning Dragon]

Giffords Gun Control Org Releases Annual Gun Control Scorecard – How Did Your State Do?
My state did great, after all an "F" = "A" for those who prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.

[Frostnia]

Giffords Gun Control Org Releases Annual Gun Control Scorecard – How Did Your State Do?
My state did great, after all an "F" = "A" for those who prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.

Damn, mine's only a C-

[The Two Jerseys]

Giffords Gun Control Org Releases Annual Gun Control Scorecard – How Did Your State Do?
My state did great, after all an "F" = "A" for those who prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.

Let me guess, for the "10 worst gun death rates" they included shit like "Bubba done forgot to unload his gun before cleaning it" to inflate the numbers.

Because unlike in the "A" states that I've lived in, at no point while I was traveling through Montana and Wyoming last summer did I ever worry about being the victim of a gun crime.

[Licana]

Giffords Gun Control Org Releases Annual Gun Control Scorecard – How Did Your State Do?
My state did great, after all an "F" = "A" for those who prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.

Let me guess, for the "10 worst gun death rates" they included shit like "Bubba done forgot to unload his gun before cleaning it" to inflate the numbers.

Because unlike in the "A" states that I've lived in, at no point while I was traveling through Montana and Wyoming last summer did I ever worry about being the victim of a gun crime.

Of course, if it were based on murders they would have to put non-F states on their list.

[Frostnia]

Giffords Gun Control Org Releases Annual Gun Control Scorecard – How Did Your State Do?
My state did great, after all an "F" = "A" for those who prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.

Let me guess, for the "10 worst gun death rates" they included shit like "Bubba done forgot to unload his gun before cleaning it" to inflate the numbers.

Because unlike in the "A" states that I've lived in, at no point while I was traveling through Montana and Wyoming last summer did I ever worry about being the victim of a gun crime.

Also note that there are several states with Fs or D-s that aren't on the list

[Big Jim P]

Giffords Gun Control Org Releases Annual Gun Control Scorecard – How Did Your State Do?
My state did great, after all an "F" = "A" for those who prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.

Texas got an F. Just wait till we pass Constitutional Carry.

[Valklanis]

Here's my take on gun control.

I'm a proud American, I'm a republican and I own many guns, including an AR-15 and HK USP, along with some hunting firearms like a Mossberg 500 and a Remington 770. I fully support the Second Amendment, and I believe that everyone should have at least some experience at least once with the safe operation of a firearm, just to understand how firearms work, generally. I also don't like calling firearms 'weapons'.

(this is me kinda ranting about the demonization of guns, skip to below for the actual argument lol) I mentioned me having an AR-15 for a good reason. The AR-15 is often, frankly, demonized by the media for being a big bad military weapon and a "WEAPON OF WAR", a loaded term at that. The AR-15 was used once or twice by some units in Vietnam, and that's about it. Some units today I believe use them, but the majority of the US military just use the M4A1 carbine now. Also, the M1911 is a "WEAPON OF WAR" too, so does that make it more dangerous now? The AK-47 shoots a more powerful round than the AR-15 and is cheaper, but it never gets attention by the media because we don't use it in the military, and it doesn't look "military-like" compared to the AR-15, M4A1, HK416, ect. Also, fun fact, handguns kill more people than rifles. Not just assault rifles, but all rifles, in general ( SOURCE ). Figured I mention that too. I digress though.

I think that the people who open-carry inside Wal-Mart and gas stations and stuff is kinda douchey, to be honest. Like, if you walked into a store with a firearm, what do you think people are gonna assume? I'd assume robbery. However, however bullshity it might be, it's a right given to us by the constitution, and it must be protected. In most circumstances, in my opinion, open-carry is perfectly fine. Open-carrying a handgun for your protection is reasonable I believe. For those who don't know, it is unfortunately easy to modify an assault-rifle styled firearm, like the AK-47, to fire fully automatically. In Layman's terms, all you need to do is file off a little mechanism that stops the firearm from firing fully automatic. That was very simplified, so other gun enthusiasts, please don't murder me in a reply lol. Of course, a piece of paper that says, "You can't have fully automatic firearms!" doesn't stop someone who has their heart set on getting one from making their gun shoot full-auto. While I'm not quite sure how to stop people from doing that, besides the outright, "BAN THE GUNS THEN" claim, I think some sort of harsher punishment needs to be enforced on those who are caught with illegally modified firearms, and the government should start cracking down HARD on illegally modified or obtained guns.

tl;dr: Guns aren't inherently bad, just need to make more effort to find criminals who do illegal shit with them and start crackin' down on illegally obtained/modified firearms.

Sorry for mistakes in this post by the way, it's 4:30 AM where I am lol. Please correct anything I've mistaken or gotten wrong for me, if you find anything.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Giffords Gun Control Org Releases Annual Gun Control Scorecard – How Did Your State Do?
My state did great, after all an "F" = "A" for those who prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery.

My state is almost at an F.

[The Emerald Legion]

Here's my take on gun control.

I'm a proud American, I'm a republican and I own many guns, including an AR-15 and HK USP, along with some hunting firearms like a Mossberg 500 and a Remington 770. I fully support the Second Amendment, and I believe that everyone should have at least some experience at least once with the safe operation of a firearm, just to understand how firearms work, generally. I also don't like calling firearms 'weapons'.

(this is me kinda ranting about the demonization of guns, skip to below for the actual argument lol) I mentioned me having an AR-15 for a good reason. The AR-15 is often, frankly, demonized by the media for being a big bad military weapon and a "WEAPON OF WAR", a loaded term at that. The AR-15 was used once or twice by some units in Vietnam, and that's about it. Some units today I believe use them, but the majority of the US military just use the M4A1 carbine now. Also, the M1911 is a "WEAPON OF WAR" too, so does that make it more dangerous now? The AK-47 shoots a more powerful round than the AR-15 and is cheaper, but it never gets attention by the media because we don't use it in the military, and it doesn't look "military-like" compared to the AR-15, M4A1, HK416, ect. Also, fun fact, handguns kill more people than rifles. Not just assault rifles, but all rifles, in general ( SOURCE ). Figured I mention that too. I digress though.

I think that the people who open-carry inside Wal-Mart and gas stations and stuff is kinda douchey, to be honest. Like, if you walked into a store with a firearm, what do you think people are gonna assume? I'd assume robbery. However, however bullshity it might be, it's a right given to us by the constitution, and it must be protected. In most circumstances, in my opinion, open-carry is perfectly fine. Open-carrying a handgun for your protection is reasonable I believe. For those who don't know, it is unfortunately easy to modify an assault-rifle styled firearm, like the AK-47, to fire fully automatically. In Layman's terms, all you need to do is file off a little mechanism that stops the firearm from firing fully automatic. That was very simplified, so other gun enthusiasts, please don't murder me in a reply lol. Of course, a piece of paper that says, "You can't have fully automatic firearms!" doesn't stop someone who has their heart set on getting one from making their gun shoot full-auto. While I'm not quite sure how to stop people from doing that, besides the outright, "BAN THE GUNS THEN" claim, I think some sort of harsher punishment needs to be enforced on those who are caught with illegally modified firearms, and the government should start cracking down HARD on illegally modified or obtained guns.

tl;dr: Guns aren't inherently bad, just need to make more effort to find criminals who do illegal shit with them and start crackin' down on illegally obtained/modified firearms.

Sorry for mistakes in this post by the way, it's 4:30 AM where I am lol. Please correct anything I've mistaken or gotten wrong for me, if you find anything.

Honestly, the ban on fully automatic weapons is in and of itself illegal/unconstitutional.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe on something is to limit it. It's literally unconstitutional to put any limits on civilian militarization.

[Valklanis]

Honestly, the ban on fully automatic weapons is in and of itself illegal/unconstitutional.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe on something is to limit it. It's literally unconstitutional to put any limits on civilian militarization.

Correct you are, my friend! I just didn't want to delve into it. I've always boiled the Second Amendment down into, "If the military can have it, the citizenry should be able to have it too". Obviously with some exceptions, like uh, fuckin' nuclear warheads and uuuuuhhhhh napalm bombs lol.

In an entirely hypothetical and just-for-explanation situation, the military could pretty easily outgun civilians, even the civilians who own fully automatic firearms, and the few who can actually own and operate the heavy duty vehicles with live guns on them. To avoid tyranny, I think it's only fair that the Second Amendment protects fully automatic firearms.

[Grinning Dragon]

Honestly, the ban on fully automatic weapons is in and of itself illegal/unconstitutional.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe on something is to limit it. It's literally unconstitutional to put any limits on civilian militarization.

Correct you are, my friend! I just didn't want to delve into it. I've always boiled the Second Amendment down into, "If the military can have it, the citizenry should be able to have it too". Obviously with some exceptions, like uh, fuckin' nuclear warheads and uuuuuhhhhh napalm bombs lol.

In an entirely hypothetical and just-for-explanation situation, the military could pretty easily outgun civilians, even the civilians who own fully automatic firearms, and the few who can actually own and operate the heavy duty vehicles with live guns on them. To avoid tyranny, I think it's only fair that the Second Amendment protects fully automatic firearms.

One critique I would like to posit in your previous post, would be to avoid the use of generalized phrases such as:

along with some hunting firearms like a Mossberg 500 and a Remington 770.

Just about 99% of firearms can be used to hunt game. Setting up a difference in firearms where none exist, plays into those who would love nothing more than to ban a firearm based on cosmetics. I will admit I too had been guilty of doing the same.

[Grinning Dragon]

Ahh, from the tales of a self professed ballistics expert because "I'm in the medical field" is another story of how bullets from an AR15 are some how "MORE" dangerous and deadly than say, oh, I don't know a bolt action firearm or one that looks like granddaddies rifle and proceeds to interject her laughable professional ballistics acumen at every turn in comparing a .223/5.56x45 to that of a 9mm.

The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun

Perhaps the wankstain should just stick to her intended profession and be thought a fucking moron than to remove all doubt by opening her mouth.

[Valklanis]

One critique I would like to posit in your previous post, would be to avoid the use of generalized phrases such as:

along with some hunting firearms like a Mossberg 500 and a Remington 770.

Just about 99% of firearms can be used to hunt game. Setting up a difference in firearms where none exist, plays into those who would love nothing more than to ban a firearm based on cosmetics. I will admit I too had been guilty of doing the same.

Hmm, never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. I'll have to start correcting myself in the future then. Thanks for pointing that out lol

Ahh, from the tales of a self professed ballistics expert because "I'm in the medical field" is another story of how bullets from an AR15 are some how "MORE" dangerous and deadly than say, oh, I don't know a bolt action firearm or one that looks like granddaddies rifle and proceeds to interject her laughable professional ballistics acumen at every turn in comparing a .223/5.56x45 to that of a 9mm.

The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun

Perhaps the wankstain should just stick to her intended profession and be thought a fucking moron than to remove all doubt by opening her mouth.

Reminds me of that news station that was like, "Check out the damage caused by this AR-15!" or somethin', and it was like a fuckin' TWELVE GAUGE SHOTGUN that just blows a watermelon, which is like 5 meters away, to bits lol

found the video lol

(I made two posts on accident addressing both replies, then realized what I did, so I just edited this lol)

[Hammer Britannia]

found the video lol

How the hell would someone fall for this?

[Paddy O Fernature]

found the video lol

How the hell would someone fall for this?

Have you met an anti gunner before?

They wouldn't exist if facts alone were the deciding factor in the debate.

[Gig em Aggies]

How the hell would someone fall for this?

Have you met an anti gunner before?

They wouldn't exist if facts alone were the deciding factor in the debate.

I know a guy who can sniff out fake news. but I read the state grading map and wouldn't you know it almost every single Red state got an F while states that are blue got an A even though most murders and crimes with guns occur in the blue A states.

[Pope Joan]

His latest response seems to be to come down hard as pro-abortion and anti gun,

like that addresses the issue

but it may firm up his base

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Honestly, the ban on fully automatic weapons is in and of itself illegal/unconstitutional.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To infringe on something is to limit it. It's literally unconstitutional to put any limits on civilian militarization.

Correct you are, my friend! I just didn't want to delve into it. I've always boiled the Second Amendment down into, "If the military can have it, the citizenry should be able to have it too". Obviously with some exceptions, like uh, fuckin' nuclear warheads and uuuuuhhhhh napalm bombs lol.

In an entirely hypothetical and just-for-explanation situation, the military could pretty easily outgun civilians, even the civilians who own fully automatic firearms, and the few who can actually own and operate the heavy duty vehicles with live guns on them. To avoid tyranny, I think it's only fair that the Second Amendment protects fully automatic firearms.

Napalm is actually legal, surprisingly enough.

Granted, finding a DOT-legal napalm-can is a tad troublesome.
-IIRC, most commercially refurbished flamethrowers are de-facto approved containers for gasoline/napalm and are about as unregulated as tannerite.

Similarily, a bag or tunnel full of oxy-acetolyne and a spark-igniter is legal, too.
-Noise and fire ordnances aside.

[Grinning Dragon]

Correct you are, my friend! I just didn't want to delve into it. I've always boiled the Second Amendment down into, "If the military can have it, the citizenry should be able to have it too". Obviously with some exceptions, like uh, fuckin' nuclear warheads and uuuuuhhhhh napalm bombs lol.

In an entirely hypothetical and just-for-explanation situation, the military could pretty easily outgun civilians, even the civilians who own fully automatic firearms, and the few who can actually own and operate the heavy duty vehicles with live guns on them. To avoid tyranny, I think it's only fair that the Second Amendment protects fully automatic firearms.

Napalm is actually legal, surprisingly enough.

Granted, finding a DOT-legal napalm-can is a tad troublesome.
-IIRC, most commercially refurbished flamethrowers are de-facto approved containers for gasoline/napalm and are about as unregulated as tannerite.

Similarily, a bag or tunnel full of oxy-acetolyne and a spark-igniter is legal, too.
-Noise and fire ordnances aside.

Naplam isn't hard to manufacture at home its nothing more than gasoline, petroleum oil, magnesium and sodium nitrate.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Napalm is actually legal, surprisingly enough.

Granted, finding a DOT-legal napalm-can is a tad troublesome.
-IIRC, most commercially refurbished flamethrowers are de-facto approved containers for gasoline/napalm and are about as unregulated as tannerite.

Similarily, a bag or tunnel full of oxy-acetolyne and a spark-igniter is legal, too.
-Noise and fire ordnances aside.

Naplam isn't hard to manufacture at home its nothing more than gasoline, petroleum oil, magnesium and sodium nitrate.

Or styrofoam dissolved in gasoline for improved napalm-B.

Ofc, that jellied gasoline is THICC and needs higher pressures to flow correctly. Otherwise it's like trying to squirt frozen-yogurt out of a super-soaker.
-Somewhere betwwen 45 and 90 PSI and a tube of twice the thickness to get a ahlfway-decent flow-rate.

Normal garden-hoses will neither take those sorts of pressures, nor resist being dissolved by the petrochemicals.

May as well disclose ahead of time that any enthusiastic backyard hobbyist probably doesn't have the resources to use Napalm-B safely.