NATION

PASSWORD

Gun Control III - the Gunnening

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Gun Control n Stuff - Only 2 Options Pick Carefully

If my neighbors dog craps on my lawn I have a god-given right to respond with the use of force up to and including recreational nuclear warheads
556
51%
Guns are literally the embodiment of all evil ever created by mankind, and when the last gun is finally destroyed the entire world will be at peace
172
16%
I'm lame and choose not to use a poll with wild stereotypes about both sides because I'm lame
366
33%
 
Total votes : 1094

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 3919
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:35 pm

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:
Arengin Union wrote:Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.

Honestly Jerry Brown was always a bad dude.

But it definitely isn't treason...
Warning: Poster is a Bad Person.

From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Militant Atheist and Juris Doctor. Social liberal, but totally a closet Autocrat.

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5831
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:10 pm

I can almost hear the familiar sound of a klaxon going off at various anti freedom/gunners hq, when it was learned kav was confirmed
The Anti-Gun Left Isn’t Taking the Kavanaugh Confirmation Well
“The Senate’s vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh is indefensible… It’s clear that Kavanaugh will be a servant to partisanship instead of maintaining a fair and impartial judicial system for all Americans.” — Giffords (@GiffordsCourage) October 6, 2018

I think this is giffords code for welp folks, the jig is up and no longer able to push bullshit emotionally charged laws to strip citizens of their right to keep and bear arms.
I prefer Dangerous Freedom over peaceful slavery! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Gun-Control is the belief that declawing the cat will protect it against other animals; also why are anti-gun people so violent?
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery!
Socialism- the herpes of economic systems.
My Constitutional Rights trump your dead. Proud American infidel since the 1970's-Deus Vult
The made up term "toxic masculinity" is founded on nonsense psychologism

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Senator
 
Posts: 3516
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:28 pm

Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proud Red Tory.
An 8 Power Civilization, with Tier 9 Technology and Type 7 Influence.
I use NS stats for the Economy and GDP spending only.
Working on this right now!

The world needs more love, and peace. Where you live shouldn't determine whether you live. But if you're a cold-blooded killer, rapist, pedophile, or terrorist, you deserve to suffer whatever miserable fate the universe hands you.

P.S Education, Welfare, Healthcare, the Military and Police forces, and Capitalism can all go hand in hand, if we just try.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
My favourite revenge would be:
Genivaria wrote:Giving him an anal probe with a bayonet?

User avatar
Loben
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1996
Founded: Sep 27, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Loben » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:29 pm

no
9mm

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Senator
 
Posts: 3516
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:30 pm

Loben wrote:no
9mm

I'm tryna get around the licensing xDDD
Proud Red Tory.
An 8 Power Civilization, with Tier 9 Technology and Type 7 Influence.
I use NS stats for the Economy and GDP spending only.
Working on this right now!

The world needs more love, and peace. Where you live shouldn't determine whether you live. But if you're a cold-blooded killer, rapist, pedophile, or terrorist, you deserve to suffer whatever miserable fate the universe hands you.

P.S Education, Welfare, Healthcare, the Military and Police forces, and Capitalism can all go hand in hand, if we just try.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
My favourite revenge would be:
Genivaria wrote:Giving him an anal probe with a bayonet?

User avatar
Hurtful Thoughts
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5286
Founded: Sep 09, 2005
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Hurtful Thoughts » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:48 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

Short answer: "Probably not within an amount of time relevant to improving your chances of survival."

Would mostly just frighten and piss them off enough to get crimminal charges filed against you.

Most airguns over here don't jump the curb out of airsoft territory until about 600 to 900 FPS and that's only for squirrels.
Becaus 570 fps is literally airsoft velocities. You are asking if you can kill with airsoft if you replace the plastic with lead.
Last edited by Hurtful Thoughts on Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Factbook and general referance thread.
HOI <- Storefront (WiP)
Due to population-cuts, military-size currently being revised

The People's Republic of Hurtful Thoughts is a gargantuan, environmentally stunning nation, ruled by Leader with an even hand, and renowned for its compulsory military service, multi-spousal wedding ceremonies, and smutty television.
Mokostana wrote:See, Hurty cared not if the mission succeeded or not, as long as it was spectacular trainwreck. Sometimes that was the host Nation firing a SCUD into a hospital to destroy a foreign infection and accidentally sparking a rebellion... or accidentally starting the Mokan Drug War

Blackhelm Confederacy wrote:If there was only a "like" button for NS posts....

User avatar
Gig em Aggies
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6646
Founded: Aug 15, 2009
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Gig em Aggies » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:56 pm

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Jolthig wrote:I fail to see the need to stock up guns against tyranny. I mean, guns can't fight against bombs or cruise missiles or tanks can they? The government would crush the armed militias.

It's more reasonable to have a gun for self-defense from a criminal, than against the government. It's simple paranoia that gun manufacturers want their buyers to believe.


I don't want my buyers to be paranoid, I just want to increase my prof... I mean, I want to promote firearms sports.

What was that GM? I think you cut out there.
“One of the serious problems of planning against Aggie doctrine is that the Aggies do not read their manuals nor do they feel any obligations to follow their doctrine.”
“The reason that the Aggies does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the Aggies practices chaos on a daily basis.”
“If we don’t know what we are doing, the enemy certainly can’t anticipate our future actions!”

User avatar
Arengin Union
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8307
Founded: Feb 23, 2016
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Arengin Union » Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:31 pm

Kernen wrote:
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Honestly Jerry Brown was always a bad dude.

But it definitely isn't treason...

Disregarding civil rights is alwasy treasonous.
"I do as I please"
-King Abraham Markev final words before jumping into a cage to fight a lion.

Proud member of the Federation of Allies

User avatar
Gun Manufacturers
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9288
Founded: Jan 23, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gun Manufacturers » Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:48 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.


Sure, if you use it to bludgeon a home invader to death. If you shoot a home invader with one though, you might injure them, and you'll definitely piss them off.
Any accident you can walk away from is one I can laugh at.

DOJ's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fi ... -p0126.pdf

Natapoc wrote:...You should post more in here so I don't seem like the extremist...


Auraelius wrote:If you take the the TITANIC, and remove the letters T, T, and one of the I's, and add the letters C,O,S,P,R, and Y you get CONSPIRACY. oOooOooooOOOooooOOOOOOoooooooo


Maineiacs wrote:Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll sit in a boat and get drunk all day.


Luw wrote:Politics is like having two handfuls of shit - one that smells bad and one that looks bad - and having to decide which one to put in your mouth.

User avatar
Crockerland
Senator
 
Posts: 4525
Founded: Oct 15, 2015
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Crockerland » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:40 am

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.
I'm Gay. Not "queer" or any other offensive slurs that you think are omg so cute and quirky.
PROUD SUPPORTER OF:
National Liberalism, Nuclear & Geothermal Power, GMOs, Vaccines, Self-defense/gun rights, Biodiesel, Gay marriage, Transgender rights, Universal healthcare, Constitutional Carry, Emotional Support Twinks

US presidents 1796-2016 ranked / Worst of the UN / On the NRA and GOA / Strip the Wounded Knee murderers of the Medal of Honor / Is it Still Gay if the Boy is Cute?
"Freedom means freedom for everyone." -Former acting president Dick Cheney on gay marriage

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 3919
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:23 pm

Arengin Union wrote:
Kernen wrote:But it definitely isn't treason...

Disregarding civil rights is alwasy treasonous.

Thats a goalpost shift, though.

Treasonous, insofar as it is an adjective to describe an act, behavior is not itself treason. It isn't giving aid to the enemy with sufficient certainty to stick as a charge. It doesn't betray the sovereign or the government. It doesn't even necessarily betray the people if there is a legitimate policy argument in favor. And you can't say there are no legitimate policy arguments. We disagree with their efficacy, legality, or moral justification, but they aren't inherently illegitimate.

My point is just that it's clearly rhetorical hyperbole to call it treasonous or treason, and we ought not sink to gun grabber levels by engaging in hyperbole.
Warning: Poster is a Bad Person.

From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Militant Atheist and Juris Doctor. Social liberal, but totally a closet Autocrat.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Senator
 
Posts: 3516
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Greater Cesnica » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:31 pm

Crockerland wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.

I mean, if I get licensing, there are certain legal groups that will help me fight the retarded laws that are against me defending myself with a firearm against a deadly threat.
Proud Red Tory.
An 8 Power Civilization, with Tier 9 Technology and Type 7 Influence.
I use NS stats for the Economy and GDP spending only.
Working on this right now!

The world needs more love, and peace. Where you live shouldn't determine whether you live. But if you're a cold-blooded killer, rapist, pedophile, or terrorist, you deserve to suffer whatever miserable fate the universe hands you.

P.S Education, Welfare, Healthcare, the Military and Police forces, and Capitalism can all go hand in hand, if we just try.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
My favourite revenge would be:
Genivaria wrote:Giving him an anal probe with a bayonet?

User avatar
Saiwania
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15276
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Saiwania » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:52 pm

Arengin Union wrote:Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.


That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11278
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:52 pm

I don't support any forms of gun control apart from, perhaps, an age limit around 16.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11278
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:54 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Crockerland wrote:Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.

I mean, if I get licensing, there are certain legal groups that will help me fight the retarded laws that are against me defending myself with a firearm against a deadly threat.

Honestly, if someone is in your home with no right to be their you should have a right to stand your ground.

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 3919
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:55 pm

Saiwania wrote:
Arengin Union wrote:Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.


That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.

I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.
Warning: Poster is a Bad Person.

From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Militant Atheist and Juris Doctor. Social liberal, but totally a closet Autocrat.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11278
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:56 pm

Kernen wrote:
Saiwania wrote:
That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.

I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.

The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 3919
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:59 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Kernen wrote:I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.

The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.


There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.

But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.
Warning: Poster is a Bad Person.

From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Militant Atheist and Juris Doctor. Social liberal, but totally a closet Autocrat.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11278
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:01 pm

Kernen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.


There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.

But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.

Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 3919
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:04 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Kernen wrote:
There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.

But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.

Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Literalism is basically the worst theory.
Warning: Poster is a Bad Person.

From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Militant Atheist and Juris Doctor. Social liberal, but totally a closet Autocrat.

User avatar
Washington Resistance Army
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40060
Founded: Aug 08, 2011
Father Knows Best State

Postby Washington Resistance Army » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:05 pm

Kernen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Literalism is basically the worst theory.


Living document laughs at your claim.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11278
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:06 pm

Kernen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Literalism is basically the worst theory.

Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 3919
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:08 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Kernen wrote:Literalism is basically the worst theory.

Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.

Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.
Warning: Poster is a Bad Person.

From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Militant Atheist and Juris Doctor. Social liberal, but totally a closet Autocrat.

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11278
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:10 pm

Kernen wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.

Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.

You see, I'm not of the belief that societal stability is a particularly necessary thing. I think it's more important to know exactly where you stand; that your rights are not going to be removed based on a policy reason, or even more callously, the 'floodgates argument.'

User avatar
Kernen
Senator
 
Posts: 3919
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Kernen » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:12 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Kernen wrote:Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.

You see, I'm not of the belief that societal stability is a particularly necessary thing. I think it's more important to know exactly where you stand; that your rights are not going to be removed based on a policy reason, or even more callously, the 'floodgates argument.'


Justice, though the heavens fall? Law is not a suicide pact.
Warning: Poster is a Bad Person.

From the throne of Khan Juk i'Behemoti, Juk Who-Is-The-Strength-of-the-Behemoth, Supreme Khan of the Ogres of Kernen. May the Khan ever drink the blood of his enemies!

Lawful Evil

Militant Atheist and Juris Doctor. Social liberal, but totally a closet Autocrat.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abarri, BeatsMe, Bluelight-R006, Camelone, Dogmeat, Free Toast, Hadin, Nolo gap, Telconi, The Grims, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads