Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Fartsniffage]

I can't wait for blind pilots to become a thing.

If they can figure out how to do it safely, the FAA would probably allow it.

We have armless pilots already.

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things. I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

[Diopolis]

If they can figure out how to do it safely, the FAA would probably allow it.

We have armless pilots already.

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things. I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

That article that was just posted explaining how blind people safely hunt isn’t good enough for you?

[Fartsniffage]

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things. I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

That article that was just posted explaining how blind people safely hunt isn’t good enough for you?

Not really. It's not really the same as having a shotgun for personal protection.

[Tarsonis]

Can BBC tell me where I can get this mythical m-16 machine gun?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

If they can figure out how to do it safely, the FAA would probably allow it.

We have armless pilots already.

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things. I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

The article linked a few posts above can answer that.

[Gig em Aggies]

I'm back to being the curator of the Gun Control thread I have saved a draft with the links to the previous two threads as well as this one as well as the OP created for GCIII for the next incarnation for your enjoyment and despair as soon as this thread hits 499 I'll go live with the new thread


anyways not to informed about the nitpicks of politics but is it unconstitutional for a US President to mandate a gun buy back w/o clause and Congressional approval?

[Fartsniffage]

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things. I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

The article linked a few posts above can answer that.

No it can't.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I'm back to being the "Manager" of the Gun Control thread I have saved a draft for the next incarnation for your enjoyment and despair as soon as this thread hits 499 I'll go live with the new thread


anyways not to informed about the nitpicks of politics but is it unconstitutional for a US President to mandate a gun buy back w/o clause and Congressional approval?

Congress passes the laws so it might be if they are not behind it. It might violate the second amendment no matter what, depending on who interprets it.

[Galloism]

If they can figure out how to do it safely, the FAA would probably allow it.

We have armless pilots already.

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things.

Yes, technology is great!

I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

/shrug

There's no epidemic of the blind people misusing firearms, so I guess I'm not sure where the fire is.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things.

Yes, technology is great!

I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

/shrug

There's no epidemic of the blind people misusing firearms, so I guess I'm not sure where the fire is.

Agreed. Anyway, I for one have no problem with it, as long as it is done safely.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes, technology is great!


/shrug

There's no epidemic of the blind people misusing firearms, so I guess I'm not sure where the fire is.

Agreed. Anyway, I for one have no problem with it, as long as it is done safely.

How would it be done safely? Be specific.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Agreed. Anyway, I for one have no problem with it, as long as it is done safely.

How would it be done safely? Be specific.

I will do that when I'm off my phone and on a real computer.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Let's just make this a thing. Should blind people be able to own firearms?

..... Yes? Duh?

If they can figure out how to do it safely, the FAA would probably allow it.

We have armless pilots already.

You think I'm joshing, but I'm serious. I really want disabled people to be able to do things. I just can't see how it will ever be a good thing for blind people to have a gun.

It's always good for the common citizen to be armed.

Agreed. Anyway, I for one have no problem with it, as long as it is done safely.

How would it be done safely? Be specific.

Position a blind person in front of a target and help them aim at it.

[Diopolis]

Can BBC tell me where I can get this mythical m-16 machine gun?

It claimed he shot it as part of a youth program run by the military.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Can BBC tell me where I can get this mythical m-16 machine gun?

Hypothetically you'd just need to drill a 1/8th hole above the selector on your AR and install the trigger kit + sear and a new bolt.

[Diopolis]

Can BBC tell me where I can get this mythical m-16 machine gun?

Hypothetically you'd just need to drill a 1/8th hole above the selector on your AR and install the trigger kit + sear and a new bolt.

So ‘be a skilled gunsmith’.

[Nova Cyberia]

I know blind people could be independent in many areas; I just didn't think they could aim a gun.

Admittedly, that article has some impressive claims.

Iirc there are degrees to blindness.

People can still see and be considered legally blind.

[Telconi]

Hypothetically you'd just need to drill a 1/8th hole above the selector on your AR and install the trigger kit + sear and a new bolt.

So ‘be a skilled gunsmith’.

More like "be able to follow IKEA level directions and have a mediocre skill with common hand tools"

[The Two Jerseys]

Can BBC tell me where I can get this mythical m-16 machine gun?

You have to join either the Danish Army or the Dutch Marines.

Or take a time machine back to Back In the Day_TM before Army Ordnance adopted the M249.

[Grinning Dragon]

I'm back to being the "Manager" of the Gun Control thread I have saved a draft for the next incarnation for your enjoyment and despair as soon as this thread hits 499 I'll go live with the new thread


anyways not to informed about the nitpicks of politics but is it unconstitutional for a US President to mandate a gun buy back w/o clause and Congressional approval?

Congress passes the laws so it might be if they are not behind it. It might violate the second amendment no matter what, depending on who interprets it.

Unconstitutional on a few fronts for a prez to mandate a hidden confiscation scheme under the guise of a mandatory buy back.
The prez lacks the authority of the purse strings and since a prez needs a budget, that budget must originate and be passed in the house to provide the funds, then of course the obvious the prez would be violating the 2nd Amendment in trying to confiscate a common in use firearm.

Also, how can a govt buy back what it never owned in the first place? Who ever came up with that idea/name needs to be taken out back behind the barn and beaten to within an inch of their life with a rubber garden hose, leaving the brass end on one end is optional of course.

[Galloism]

Congress passes the laws so it might be if they are not behind it. It might violate the second amendment no matter what, depending on who interprets it.

Unconstitutional on a few fronts for a prez to mandate a hidden confiscation scheme under the guise of a mandatory buy back.
The prez lacks the authority of the purse strings and since a prez needs a budget, that budget must originate and be passed in the house to provide the funds, then of course the obvious the prez would be violating the 2nd Amendment in trying to confiscate a common in use firearm.

Also, how can a govt buy back what it never owned in the first place? Who ever came up with that idea/name needs to be taken out back behind the barn and beaten to within an inch of their life with a rubber garden hose, leaving the brass end on one end is optional of course.

I mean, it has a lot more in common with eminent domain.

[Grinning Dragon]

Unconstitutional on a few fronts for a prez to mandate a hidden confiscation scheme under the guise of a mandatory buy back.
The prez lacks the authority of the purse strings and since a prez needs a budget, that budget must originate and be passed in the house to provide the funds, then of course the obvious the prez would be violating the 2nd Amendment in trying to confiscate a common in use firearm.

Also, how can a govt buy back what it never owned in the first place? Who ever came up with that idea/name needs to be taken out back behind the barn and beaten to within an inch of their life with a rubber garden hose, leaving the brass end on one end is optional of course.

I mean, it has a lot more in common with eminent domain.

Taking firearms for public use? Even if that public use is destroying said property?

[Galloism]

I mean, it has a lot more in common with eminent domain.

Taking firearms for public use? Even if that public use is destroying said property?

I didn’t say it was a good thing, or even reasonable, but taking your property forcefully then giving you some money for it sounds a lot more like how eminent domain works instead of how buying something back works.

[Telconi]

Taking firearms for public use? Even if that public use is destroying said property?

I didn’t say it was a good thing, or even reasonable, but taking your property forcefully then giving you some money for it sounds a lot more like how eminent domain works instead of how buying something back works.

To be fair there is a distinction with eminent domain. Eminent domain requires the .gov to have a legitimate need for the property for some purpose important enough to justify the eminent domain seizure.

There is no legitimate reason the government needs my guns, it has plenty of it's own.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I didn’t say it was a good thing, or even reasonable, but taking your property forcefully then giving you some money for it sounds a lot more like how eminent domain works instead of how buying something back works.

To be fair there is a distinction with eminent domain. Eminent domain requires the .gov to have a legitimate need for the property for some purpose important enough to justify the eminent domain seizure.

There is no legitimate reason the government needs my guns, it has plenty of it's own.

Let's just say that seizing property with eminent domain powers is bad, especially when it's for the interests of some random company. In the UK, property was seized so Tottenham could build a new football stadium.