Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[The Two Jerseys]

As you can tell from my nation's "Liberal Democratic Socialism" categorization and my gun control policy, I am pretty anti-gun, that said, I do believe that hunters should get a licsence to own a firearm, and that everyday guns should be replaced with non-lethal and quick-acting tranquilizers. Bash me all you want, I can tell that this forum is pretty pro-gun, but I want to know your thoughts on my opinion. Thanks

The right to own guns, and other weaponry, is not limited to hunting implements.

It's the right to own weapons of war.

Daily reminder that the Founding Fathers wanted civilians to own battleships.

[The Chuck]

The right to own guns, and other weaponry, is not limited to hunting implements.

It's the right to own weapons of war.

Daily reminder that the Founding Fathers wanted civilians to own battleships.

Part of Section 1, Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution brother... Letters of Marque and Reprisal...

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

*grabs armed naval vessel*

"Shall not be infringed..."

In all seriousness, I do wonder how that would impact the US and foreign relations if the govt. did start issuing letter of Marque and Reprisal and started making civilians privateers in the modern world to combat enemies of the nation. We already have P.M.C.s that do that sort of thing but it would be interesting especially when it comes to the second amendment.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

But what if we did?

*fills up car with driving intent*

"Shall not be infringed"

Merricuh!

[The Two Jerseys]

*fills up car with driving intent*

"Shall not be infringed"

Merricuh!

[Paddy O Fernature]

I mean, just shooting your dog yourself might just be easier on everyone involved.

[Gig em Aggies]

I mean, just shooting your dog yourself might just be easier on everyone involved.

yeah but then Congress will frown upon that and might take your guns away

[Kowani]

I mean, just shooting your dog yourself might just be easier on everyone involved.

yeah but then Congress will frown upon that and might take your guns away

To be fair, someone who just kills an innocent animal for no reason is not the kind of person you want armed…

[The Chuck]

yeah but then Congress will frown upon that and might take your guns away

To be fair, someone who just kills an innocent animal for no reason is not the kind of person you want armed…

It's a reference to the BATFE. In many online firearms communities, they use dark humor about how the ATF will shoot your pup when they show up due to prior incidents/etc.

[Kowani]

To be fair, someone who just kills an innocent animal for no reason is not the kind of person you want armed…

It's a reference to the BATFE. In many online firearms communities, they use dark humor about how the ATF will shoot your pup when they show up due to prior incidents/etc.

Ah, I see.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

It's a reference to the BATFE. In many online firearms communities, they use dark humor about how the ATF will shoot your pup when they show up due to prior incidents/etc.

Ah, I see.

Well... Apparently dogs don't like ATF agents and the feeling is mutual.

It actually stems from "dat SWAT TEAM SPEC-OPS TRAINING" (not my use of caps... or emphasis...) where it was deemed safer to shoot pets (sentry-doggos) rather than let them alert the owner to your presence, or later interfere with detaining the owners.

Ofc, in the original guidelines it also recommended killing small children and detroying survaillence equipment for the same reason.

Kinda why it's a bad idea to lift your "tactics" from a spec-ops field-manual written in the Vietnam-war "hush-puppy" era.
-Lit. lifted from MACV-SOG guidelines.

[Crockerland]

I do believe that hunters should get a licsence to own a firearm, and that everyday guns should be replaced with non-lethal and quick-acting tranquilizers. Bash me all you want, I can tell that this forum is pretty pro-gun, but I want to know your thoughts on my opinion. Thanks

So you want people who want to own guns to kill small animals for fun to be armed, but not people who want to own guns to defend themselves from violence and crime. Wonderful.

And yes, everywhere that guns are discussed, unless it's a propaganda forum that bans people for disagreeing (like an anti-gun subreddit or something), the discussion will almost always end up overwhelmingly pro-gun, this is because anyone who knows about guns is, 999 times out of 1000, very pro-gun. It's similar to how anyone who knows anything about GMOs, vaccines, nuclear power, etc. tend to be overwhelmingly on one side of those debates.

Paying attention to a gun debate thread long enough to form a vocal bloc would generally require that the opponents of rights be faced with facts such as:

• Every major proponent of gun control in politics is protected by armed bodyguards, with guns, 24/7
• CCW holders commit less crime than the general population and police officers
• You are more likely to die from a spacecraft/airplane crash, or from accidentally strangling yourself, than a school shooting, despite the latter apparently being an epidemic compelling us to burn the Constitution and surrender all rights to make it stop
• We have had mass shootings since the 1830s and the attempts to blame modern guns or "assault weapons" for the existence of mass shootings, or suggest banning them would put a stop to such shootings, is absurd
• Gun control in the United States has always been based off of what guns look scary rather than any mechanical factors, going back to the 1930s when short-barreled shotguns were banned from regular civilian ownership without approval from the ATF just because they were used by mafiosos, despite not being any more destructive than a regular shotgun.
• The "gun show loophole" does not exist

And many more. Being anti-gun comes closer and closer to being totally indefensible the more arguments from both sides you hear. By all means do watch Democrat politicians advocating for gun bans, they embarrass themselves constantly, making it obvious many of them have no idea what they're talking about, or aiming guns at people, or making bizarre claims like that toy guns are more regulated than real guns.

Listening to what anti-gunners and pro-gunners have to say on guns will make you extremely pro-gun.

[Licana]

everyday guns should be replaced with non-lethal and quick-acting tranquilizers.

That's a good meme I haven't seen in a while.

[Licana]

Meanwhile in Europe.

[Kowani]

Meanwhile in Europe.

Good for the Swiss.

[Northern Davincia]

Meanwhile in Europe.

Good for the Swiss.

Restrictions on rights are always bad.

[Kowani]

Good for the Swiss.

Restrictions on rights are always bad.

Nah.
Rights are what society decides they are, nothing more-and it seems that the Swiss have decided to change them.

[Northern Davincia]

Restrictions on rights are always bad.

Nah.
Rights are what society decides they are, nothing more-and it seems that the Swiss have decided to change them.

Rights begin in the state of nature. The Swiss have not done themselves any favors by limiting their own rights.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Restrictions on rights are always bad.

Nah.
Rights are what society decides they are, nothing more-and it seems that the Swiss have decided to change them.

If they can be changed and revoked on a whim they aren't rights but privileges.

[Kowani]

Nah.
Rights are what society decides they are, nothing more-and it seems that the Swiss have decided to change them.

Rights begin in the state of nature. The Swiss have not done themselves any favors by limiting their own rights.

The State of Nature never existed, it is a philosophical construct with no basis in reality.

Nah.
Rights are what society decides they are, nothing more-and it seems that the Swiss have decided to change them.

If they can be changed and revoked on a whim they aren't rights but privileges.

I believe my sig covers this one.

[Licana]

Meanwhile in Europe.

Good for the Swiss.

>getting strongarmed by foreign pressures is a good thing
I don't understand why everyone was freaking out about muh russia then

[Northern Davincia]

Rights begin in the state of nature. The Swiss have not done themselves any favors by limiting their own rights.

The State of Nature never existed, it is a philosophical construct with no basis in reality.

I define the state of nature as existing before organized societies/civilization.

[Kowani]

Good for the Swiss.

>getting strongarmed by foreign pressures is a good thing
I don't understand why everyone was freaking out about muh russia then

…Because Russia’s are clandestine interventions with the end goal of undermining the national government, and considering the end result of the referendum, it seems popular with the people.

[Washington Resistance Army]

If they can be changed and revoked on a whim they aren't rights but privileges.

I believe my sig covers this one.

That's a dangerous path to go down friend.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I believe my sig covers this one.

That's a dangerous path to go down friend.

Plenty of people just do not care, and support daddy government.

[Kowani]

The State of Nature never existed, it is a philosophical construct with no basis in reality.

I define the state of nature as existing before organized societies/civilization.

Because clearly, cavemen had no laws governing their interactions with each other or other tribes.

I believe my sig covers this one.

That's a dangerous path to go down friend.

It is the path of logic.