Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Asle Leopolka]

1. Go to google
2. Search "gun control"
3. Look at the first result

whats the point we all know that the Democratic party is all about violating the Constitution w/o legitimate cause

Taste of things to come. Bloomberg has the money to blanket all media with this bullshit.

[West Leas Oros 2]

whats the point we all know that the Democratic party is all about violating the Constitution w/o legitimate cause

Taste of things to come. Bloomberg has the money to blanket all media with this bullshit.

Oh! You meant the news articles.

[Asle Leopolka]

Taste of things to come. Bloomberg has the money to blanket all media with this bullshit.

Oh! You meant the news articles.

Nope. Michael Bloomberg dropped millions of dollars on Google advertisements so the first thing you see are links to his gun control policies.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Oh! You meant the news articles.

Nope. Michael Bloomberg dropped millions of dollars on Google advertisements so the first thing you see are links to his gun control policies.

Oh, I see. Good old moneyed interests at work.

[Gig em Aggies]

Nope. Michael Bloomberg dropped millions of dollars on Google advertisements so the first thing you see are links to his gun control policies.

Oh, I see. Good old moneyed interests at work.

wasn't the DNC the party that wanted to get money out of politics? I mean how can you talk about taking away guns by force and also talk about getting money out of politics?

[Pax Nerdvana]

Oh, I see. Good old moneyed interests at work.

wasn't the DNC the party that wanted to get money out of politics? I mean how can you talk about taking away guns by force and also talk about getting money out of politics?

Gotta love hypocrisy, amirite?

[Cantelo]

1. Go to google
2. Search "gun control"
3. Look at the first result

whats the point we all know that the Democratic party is all about violating the Constitution w/o legitimate cause

That's a pretty heavy accusation. What proof do you have of this being the case?

[Grinning Dragon]

whats the point we all know that the Democratic party is all about violating the Constitution w/o legitimate cause

That's a pretty heavy accusation. What proof do you have of this being the case?

Look at the current crop of dems running and in both the house and senate, let alone the dem platform on firearms. BGC, red flag, assault weapon bans, etc, are all ideas/beliefs that violate enumerated negative rights.

[Genivaria]

What about government militia where everyone is part of the militia via universal conscription?

[Kowani]

Oh, I see. Good old moneyed interests at work.

wasn't the DNC the party that wanted to get money out of politics? I mean how can you talk about taking away guns by force and also talk about getting money out of politics?

Clearly, not everyone in the Democratic Party is part of a hivemind. (And considering the DNC’s wealthy backers, they’re probably the portion most opposed to campaign finance reform.)

[Grinning Dragon]

What about government militia where everyone is part of the militia via universal conscription?

Ah yes, Title 10 Section 311.

[Cantelo]

That's a pretty heavy accusation. What proof do you have of this being the case?

Look at the current crop of dems running and in both the house and senate, let alone the dem platform on firearms. BGC, red flag, assault weapon bans, etc, are all ideas/beliefs that violate enumerated negative rights.

1. By "bcg" I assume you mean background checks. I honestly do not have an issue with this at all; even though I feel like a BGC is more theatrics than anything, it's at least something to prevent people from getting guns that have a criminal record. I can't see how doing the minimum to make sure a person doesn't have a rap sheet is a violation of any rights.

2. "Red flag" laws are something I'm also supportive of. If a person is likely to be a danger to themselves or others and there is reasonable suspicion for it, then I believe its justified.

3. "Assault weapons" bans are something I'm against. It's mouth breather logic that an AR-15 is banned for being scary looking yet I can get a wood-stock AR-7 and it's perfectly fine because reasons, even though they are both semi-automatics and do the exact same thing. FFS, handguns are the weapon of choice for 99% of criminals yet nobody leads a crusade against them, and I can buy the same exact model handgun the military uses (which is a Sig Sauer but they've also used Berettas, Brownings, etc). The only ban I can agree with when it relates to rifles is bump-stocks because let's face it, it's a loophole to make a semi-auto behave like an automatic.

[Grinning Dragon]

Look at the current crop of dems running and in both the house and senate, let alone the dem platform on firearms. BGC, red flag, assault weapon bans, etc, are all ideas/beliefs that violate enumerated negative rights.

1. By "bcg" I assume you mean background checks. I honestly do not have an issue with this at all; even though I feel like a BGC is more theatrics than anything, it's at least something to prevent people from getting guns that have a criminal record. I can't see how doing the minimum to make sure a person doesn't have a rap sheet is a violation of any rights.

2. "Red flag" laws are something I'm also supportive of. If a person is likely to be a danger to themselves or others and there is reasonable suspicion for it, then I believe its justified.

3. "Assault weapons" bans are something I'm against. It's mouth breather logic that an AR-15 is banned for being scary looking yet I can get a wood-stock AR-7 and it's perfectly fine because reasons, even though they are both semi-automatics and do the exact same thing. FFS, handguns are the weapon of choice for 99% of criminals yet nobody leads a crusade against them, and I can buy the same exact model handgun the military uses (which is a Sig Sauer but they've also used Berettas, Brownings, etc). The only ban I can agree with when it relates to rifles is bump-stocks because let's face it, it's a loophole to make a semi-auto behave like an automatic.

Not a fan of one proving their innocence in exercising an enumerated right, if one would not apply the same standard to other enumerated rights it needs to be struck.
Red flag laws are based on hearsay, and deny a person their 2nd Amendment and 5th Amendment right, more of the take the guns, then due process later Sorry no, due process first.
Never agreed with the bump stock ban nor do I agree with the tenets of the NFA, or the 68 GCA, or the hughes act.
After all it's pretty clear the intent of the framing of the 2nd Amendment that the people should retain all of the terrible implements of war.

[The Two Jerseys]

Gun grabbers: "We need to follow Australia's example on gun control!"

Me: "You mean take gun advice from a country where an episode of one of the leading TV series on the state broadcaster has a character suffering an accidental discharge when she drops her hideously tacky gold-plated revolver, then puts her booger hook on the bang switch after picking it up? Gonna pass on that..."

[Cantelo]

Not a fan of one proving their innocence in exercising an enumerated right, if one would not apply the same standard to other enumerated rights it needs to be struck.
Red flag laws are based on hearsay, and deny a person their 4th Amendment right, more of the take the guns, then due process later Sorry no, due process first.
Never agreed with the bump stock ban nor do I agree with the tenets of the NFA, or the 68 GCA, or the hughes act.

The bump stock/automatics ban is something I feel more strongly about, I'll respond to it more directly;

Automatic weapons aren't something needed by the general populace. Yes, the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but it doesn't give us the right to bear any and all arms. From District of Columbia vs. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Automatic weapons are rightfully only in the hands of the military and police; we can legally get them as civilians, but its a long process and they're usually extremely expensive. I think the potential for automatic weapons to be used in crimes is far too great; look at the Waco siege and imagine if they had automatic weapons, or any shootout with cops. Legalization of automatic weapons would imply a surge in their presence in the black market because they'll inherently be more plentiful and easier to gain access to.

Similarly, we can see the damage that bump stocks can do when we look at the massacre that happened in Las Vegas.

[Grinning Dragon]

Not a fan of one proving their innocence in exercising an enumerated right, if one would not apply the same standard to other enumerated rights it needs to be struck.
Red flag laws are based on hearsay, and deny a person their 4th Amendment right, more of the take the guns, then due process later Sorry no, due process first.
Never agreed with the bump stock ban nor do I agree with the tenets of the NFA, or the 68 GCA, or the hughes act.

The bump stock/automatics ban is something I feel more strongly about, I'll respond to it more directly;

Automatic weapons aren't something needed by the general populace. Yes, the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but it doesn't give us the right to bear any and all arms. From District of Columbia vs. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Automatic weapons are rightfully only in the hands of the military and police; we can legally get them as civilians, but its a long process and they're usually extremely expensive. I think the potential for automatic weapons to be used in crimes is far too great; look at the Waco siege and imagine if they had automatic weapons, or any shootout with cops. Legalization of automatic weapons would imply a surge in their presence in the black market because they'll inherently be more plentiful and easier to gain access to.

Similarly, we can see the damage that bump stocks can do when we look at the massacre that happened in Las Vegas.

Fully aware of Heller decision and I still disagreed with that part of it.
Still disagree on the heavy restriction of full autos and need is subjective, not to mention the 2nd Amendment isn't about need, and I never needed a bump stock, I got fingers, rubber bands also work.
I never bought into the argument that full autos are more dangerous than other type of firearm, any firearm is dangerous when used improperly.

[Genivaria]

Gun grabbers: "We need to follow Australia's example on gun control!"

Me: "You mean take gun advice from a country where an episode of one of the leading TV series on the state broadcaster has a character suffering an accidental discharge when she drops her hideously tacky gold-plated revolver, then puts her booger hook on the bang switch after picking it up? Gonna pass on that..."

I'm not sure that a TV show is the best argument...

[Cantelo]

The bump stock/automatics ban is something I feel more strongly about, I'll respond to it more directly;

Automatic weapons aren't something needed by the general populace. Yes, the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, but it doesn't give us the right to bear any and all arms. From District of Columbia vs. Heller:



Automatic weapons are rightfully only in the hands of the military and police; we can legally get them as civilians, but its a long process and they're usually extremely expensive. I think the potential for automatic weapons to be used in crimes is far too great; look at the Waco siege and imagine if they had automatic weapons, or any shootout with cops. Legalization of automatic weapons would imply a surge in their presence in the black market because they'll inherently be more plentiful and easier to gain access to.

Similarly, we can see the damage that bump stocks can do when we look at the massacre that happened in Las Vegas.

Fully aware of Heller decision and I still disagreed with that part of it.
Still disagree on the heavy restriction of full autos and I never needed a bump stock, I got fingers, rubber bands also work.

Your fingers aren’t going to fire a gun at the same rate as if it were an automatic, so rapid fire doesn’t really count; otherwise, automatics wouldn’t be needed. Sure you can use a rubber band, a shoe string, etc but looking it up it seeeems the ATF considers that illegal(?)

You can say you disagree with the legislation, but there’s nothing else to go off of. The Supreme Court, the interpreters of the constitution, essentially said that the Second Amendment does not guarantee your right to automatic weapons. If we don’t hold them to be the deciders of what the Constitution says, then there’s no point in the rule of law at all.

[Grinning Dragon]

Fully aware of Heller decision and I still disagreed with that part of it.
Still disagree on the heavy restriction of full autos and I never needed a bump stock, I got fingers, rubber bands also work.

Your fingers aren’t going to fire a gun at the same rate as if it were an automatic, so rapid fire doesn’t really count; otherwise, automatics wouldn’t be needed. Sure you can use a rubber band, a shoe string, etc but looking it up it seeeems the ATF considers that illegal(?)

You can say you disagree with the legislation, but there’s nothing else to go off of. The Supreme Court, the interpreters of the constitution, essentially said that the Second Amendment does not guarantee your right to automatic weapons. If we don’t hold them to be the deciders of what the Constitution says, then there’s no point in the rule of law at all.

I can bump fire all of my semi auto rifles with just my fingers, it isn't hard, although it is a waste of ammo.

[Cantelo]

Your fingers aren’t going to fire a gun at the same rate as if it were an automatic, so rapid fire doesn’t really count; otherwise, automatics wouldn’t be needed. Sure you can use a rubber band, a shoe string, etc but looking it up it seeeems the ATF considers that illegal(?)

You can say you disagree with the legislation, but there’s nothing else to go off of. The Supreme Court, the interpreters of the constitution, essentially said that the Second Amendment does not guarantee your right to automatic weapons. If we don’t hold them to be the deciders of what the Constitution says, then there’s no point in the rule of law at all.

I can bump fire all of my semi auto rifles with just my fingers, it isn't hard, although it is a waste of ammo.

Bumpfiring with just your fingers doesn’t offer the same “accuracy” and fire rate as an automatic. You can (usually) rely on an automatic firing a steady stream of bullets 100% of the time with no fear that moving your finger from a certain Goldilocks position will cause it to stop.

It’s like the difference between jerryrigging a cheap RC plane with a camera vs. buying an actual drone.

[The Emerald Legion]

I can bump fire all of my semi auto rifles with just my fingers, it isn't hard, although it is a waste of ammo.

Bumpfiring with just your fingers doesn’t offer the same “accuracy” and fire rate as an automatic. You can (usually) rely on an automatic firing a steady stream of bullets 100% of the time with no fear that moving your finger from a certain Goldilocks position will cause it to stop.

It’s like the difference between jerryrigging a cheap RC plane with a camera vs. buying an actual drone.

Or you could just replace the trigger with a hand crank.

https://youtu.be/zl_8NDANRbY

This is totally legal.

Which is besides the point that there's literally nothing stopping anyone from mixing up mustard gas, or fucking explosives or gods only know what else.

You can't stop massacres. You can only change the form they take.

[Grinning Dragon]

I can bump fire all of my semi auto rifles with just my fingers, it isn't hard, although it is a waste of ammo.

Bumpfiring with just your fingers doesn’t offer the same “accuracy” and fire rate as an automatic. You can (usually) rely on an automatic firing a steady stream of bullets 100% of the time with no fear that moving your finger from a certain Goldilocks position will cause it to stop.

It’s like the difference between jerryrigging a cheap RC plane with a camera vs. buying an actual drone.

Even firing in full auto, accuracy is affected considering full auto is used as suppression fire. I've been behind the giggle switch many a times in my life of both light and heavy, and I really don't see what the big deal is or why there is such a fear of those firearms, its a tool, I apply the same standard to full autos as I do to those who vilify the made up assault weapon class, all based on illogical fear. If WRA would pop in I believe he could back up the claim of more than 5 million unregistered full autos in America, (which is a good thing IMO). Which would indicate full autos aren't a problem and should be readily available at FFLs.

[Grinning Dragon]

Bumpfiring with just your fingers doesn’t offer the same “accuracy” and fire rate as an automatic. You can (usually) rely on an automatic firing a steady stream of bullets 100% of the time with no fear that moving your finger from a certain Goldilocks position will cause it to stop.

It’s like the difference between jerryrigging a cheap RC plane with a camera vs. buying an actual drone.

Or you could just replace the trigger with a hand crank.

https://youtu.be/zl_8NDANRbY

This is totally legal.

Which is besides the point that there's literally nothing stopping anyone from mixing up mustard gas, or fucking explosives or gods only know what else.

You can't stop massacres. You can only change the form they take.

Seeing as how it is treated as no different than a Gatling Gun. Wish I had the extra cash to buy a Gatling Gun.

[Telconi]

Fully aware of Heller decision and I still disagreed with that part of it.
Still disagree on the heavy restriction of full autos and I never needed a bump stock, I got fingers, rubber bands also work.

Your fingers aren’t going to fire a gun at the same rate as if it were an automatic, so rapid fire doesn’t really count; otherwise, automatics wouldn’t be needed. Sure you can use a rubber band, a shoe string, etc but looking it up it seeeems the ATF considers that illegal(?)

You can say you disagree with the legislation, but there’s nothing else to go off of. The Supreme Court, the interpreters of the constitution, essentially said that the Second Amendment does not guarantee your right to automatic weapons. If we don’t hold them to be the deciders of what the Constitution says, then there’s no point in the rule of law at all.

Guess we need a better Supreme Court then don't we?

[The Two Jerseys]

Bumpfiring with just your fingers doesn’t offer the same “accuracy” and fire rate as an automatic. You can (usually) rely on an automatic firing a steady stream of bullets 100% of the time with no fear that moving your finger from a certain Goldilocks position will cause it to stop.

It’s like the difference between jerryrigging a cheap RC plane with a camera vs. buying an actual drone.

Even firing in full auto, accuracy is affected considering full auto is used as suppression fire. I've been behind the giggle switch many a times in my life of both light and heavy, and I really don't see what the big deal is or why there is such a fear of those firearms, its a tool, I apply the same standard to full autos as I do to those who vilify the made up assault weapon class, all based on illogical fear. If WRA would pop in I believe he could back up the claim of more than 5 million unregistered full autos in America, (which is a good thing IMO). Which would indicate full autos aren't a problem and should be readily available at FFLs.

Every time the gun haters talk about how "dangerous" automatic weapons are, I think of this.