Gun Control 2023 (V) - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[Kernen]

owning a firearm being a right in America is absolutely absurd to someone outside of the US. The idea that owning a murder weapon is not only legal but actually seen as a fundamental right is very strange.

the right to keep and bear weapons is a necessary extension of the right to self-defense. You could argue that ownership is unnecessary to "keep and bear", but you don't seem like a commie.

Also, the American state was a product of guerilla warfare against Britain, and nobody wants to give the Brits another chance.

Also, foreign incredulity is an even worse reason to violate rights than the illegal acts of a third party.

[Undemocacy]

the right to own weapons is a necessary extension of the right to self-defense.

This is part of what seems odd, very few places in the world share this view and many of them are significantly safer to live in the the US. I just don't see how limited restrictions on murder weapons could make a place safer, when the US has dozens of mass shootings.

[Kernen]

the right to own weapons is a necessary extension of the right to self-defense.

This is part of what seems odd, very few places in the world share this view and many of them are significantly safer to live in the the US. I just don't see how limited restrictions on murder weapons could make a place safer, when the US has dozens of mass shootings.

Because the overwhelming number of guns in the US harm nobody. Punish wrongdoers. Leave the rest of us alone.

We don't particularly care about what other nations do.

[Undemocacy]

Because the overwhelming number of guns in the US harm nobody.

I would tell you to say that to the children shot at schools. But you can't, because they are dead now as a result of the overwhelming number of guns in the US.

[Galloism]

the right to own weapons is a necessary extension of the right to self-defense.

This is part of what seems odd, very few places in the world share this view and many of them are significantly safer to live in the the US. I just don't see how limited restrictions on murder weapons could make a place safer, when the US has dozens of mass shootings.

Again, their lack of education on history is not really a good argument against recognition of fundamental rights.

[Kernen]

Because the overwhelming number of guns in the US harm nobody.

I would tell you to say that to the children shot at schools. But you can't, because they are dead now as a result of the overwhelming number of guns in the US.

I am comfortable with this endeavor because I know emotional reactions make poor policies.

99.99% of all US guns harm nobody. Including scarry murder machines.

[Juansonia]

Because the overwhelming number of guns in the US harm nobody.

I would tell you to say that to the children shot at schools. But you can't, because they are dead now as a result of the overwhelming number of guns in the US.

Not because of the overwhelming number of guns, but because one particular dipshit had access to one gun(x dipshits and x guns, because there have been multiple shootings). Most civilian-owned guns aren't used in any criminal act whatsoever.

X is a low number, since the amount of mass shooting victims isn't 150 million people.

edit: Another fun fact about the United States: Civilian-owned firearms outnumber civilians by quite a bit.

[Greater Cesnica]

Because the overwhelming number of guns in the US harm nobody.

I would tell you to say that to the children shot at schools. But you can't, because they are dead now as a result of the overwhelming number of guns in the US.

I don't care.

[American Legionaries]

How could the blood possibly be on our hands when you have pretty much all of it soaked into your socks and shoes from tap dancing on the lukewarm corpses of children Lumen?

When you see innocent children being murdered on the news by a lunatic with a gun, do you think “Yes, this is the country I want to live in. Children will not stand in the way of my constitutional rights.”?

That's a far better society than the one you want.

What if it was your kid?

If my own child was tragically murdered, I would have the moral fortitude to not oppress millions of innocent people as a response.

[Adamede]

the right to own weapons is a necessary extension of the right to self-defense.

This is part of what seems odd, very few places in the world share this view and many of them are significantly safer to live in the the US. I just don't see how limited restrictions on murder weapons could make a place safer, when the US has dozens of mass shootings.

In many nations self defense isn't exactly seen as a right, at least defacto. Can't even own things like pepper sp[ray or a tazor in the UK and Canada for example.

[Greater Cesnica]

How could the blood possibly be on our hands when you have pretty much all of it soaked into your socks and shoes from tap dancing on the lukewarm corpses of children Lumen?

When you see innocent children being murdered on the news by a lunatic with a gun, do you think “Yes, this is the country I want to live in. Children will not stand in the way of my constitutional rights.”?

What if it was your kid?

Sorry I'm not swayed by pathetic attempts to appeal to emotions.

[Adamede]

How could the blood possibly be on our hands when you have pretty much all of it soaked into your socks and shoes from tap dancing on the lukewarm corpses of children Lumen?

When you see innocent children being murdered on the news by a lunatic with a gun, do you think “Yes, this is the country I want to live in. Children will not stand in the way of my constitutional rights.”?

No, but I don't think I should be punished for actions I did not commit.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

How could the blood possibly be on our hands when you have pretty much all of it soaked into your socks and shoes from tap dancing on the lukewarm corpses of children Lumen?

When you see innocent children being murdered on the news by a lunatic with a gun, do you think “Yes, this is the country I want to live in. Children will not stand in the way of my constitutional rights.”?

What if it was your kid?

To be fair, I'm certain my nephew would go down swinging if it would save the lives of his classmates.

Wasn't even afraid of chainsaws when he was 3, so why fear another metal thing that spits out metal things and makes loud noises when the person behind the gun is just a bully.

[Ors Might]

the right to own weapons is a necessary extension of the right to self-defense.

This is part of what seems odd, very few places in the world share this view and many of them are significantly safer to live in the the US. I just don't see how limited restrictions on murder weapons could make a place safer, when the US has dozens of mass shootings.

What's a murder weapon supposed to be and what separates it from other weapons?

[Grinning Dragon]

When your argument is filled with nothing but emotionally driven propaganda terms such as "murder weapon", "murder machine", "weapon of war", "assault weapon"
"Tell that to the dead X". Your argument is built on nothing and there really isn't anything to reason or argue.

[Thermodolia]

owning a firearm being a right in America is absolutely absurd to someone outside of the US. The idea that owning a murder weapon is not only legal but actually seen as a fundamental right is very strange.

It's true that a lot of people are uneducated on the immensely long history of the right to bear arms - right to bear arms actually predates firearms specifically by a very long period, along with most other known rights (including speech, religion, press, and against unreasonable search and seizure) and may (emphasis on may) actually be the reason the concept of rights even exists in the first place.

I read somewhere once that in medieval England it was a man’s right to carry a sword for defense. Imagine having less rights than a Medieval English peasant

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's true that a lot of people are uneducated on the immensely long history of the right to bear arms - right to bear arms actually predates firearms specifically by a very long period, along with most other known rights (including speech, religion, press, and against unreasonable search and seizure) and may (emphasis on may) actually be the reason the concept of rights even exists in the first place.

I read somewhere once that in medieval England it was a man’s right to carry a sword for defense. Imagine having less rights than a Medieval English peasant

Middle English law on self defense was indeed one of several things the 2A was based on. Lotta folks either don’t know or forget that the founders didn’t just make stuff up as they went; there was a pretty fair amount of attention paid to legal ideas and precedent going back a few centuries.

[Galloism]

I read somewhere once that in medieval England it was a man’s right to carry a sword for defense. Imagine having less rights than a Medieval English peasant

Middle English law on self defense was indeed one of several things the 2A was based on. Lotta folks either don’t know or forget that the founders didn’t just make stuff up as they went; there was a pretty fair amount of attention paid to legal ideas and precedent going back a few centuries.

And it’s actually quite a bit older than that even.

It’s probably older than our written records, but that makes it hard to quantify.

[Senkaku]

Because the overwhelming number of guns in the US harm nobody.

I would tell you to say that to the children shot at schools. But you can't, because they are dead now as a result of the overwhelming number of guns in the US.

We're the world's arms dealer, so unless you have a plan to unwind the American empire overnight, I don't know if there's much to be done. There's a war on in Mexico and Central America that demands a lot of small arms, and if we want to be the ones making money from selling to them, then Americans need to be able to buy and sell guns with minimal restrictions, especially across state lines. We've also got vulnerable oligarchs to protect, a caste system to maintain, a police state to operate, and a huge population to keep in line, which requires quite a lot of firepower to be in the hands of private bodyguards, vigilante militias, lone wolf terrorists, and state security forces. It would be nice if all the rhetoric from gun owners and arms dealers about the importance of having an armed population, especially an armed working class, to maintaining democracy/fighting tyranny/reducing crime were more than a pleasant-sounding cover story, but regardless our current approach is still fundamental to our political system.

[Haganham]

It's true that a lot of people are uneducated on the immensely long history of the right to bear arms - right to bear arms actually predates firearms specifically by a very long period, along with most other known rights (including speech, religion, press, and against unreasonable search and seizure) and may (emphasis on may) actually be the reason the concept of rights even exists in the first place.

I read somewhere once that in medieval England it was a man’s right to carry a sword for defense. Imagine having less rights than a Medieval English peasant

Eh... first medieval England is describing 500 bc to 1500 ad, and describing nine(?) kingdoms. Making statements about what the laws were is always going to be a game of generalities. Certainly in Danelaw it was permitted, even expected for men to be armed, and indeed to keep their weapons with them. On the other hand the reason hangers were so popular by the late medieval period is they allowed people who weren't knights to evade sumptuary laws were restricting the carrying of swords. Of course murder was very common throughout the middle ages, because it was so easy to get away with, and the laws restricting the carrying of swords was not a response to rising murder rates, but rising income among the peasantry, which was permitting them to own items previously prohibited purely by their cost, so the comparison... actually is quite apt

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I read somewhere once that in medieval England it was a man’s right to carry a sword for defense. Imagine having less rights than a Medieval English peasant

Eh... first medieval England is describing 500 bc to 1500 ad, and describing nine(?) kingdoms. Making statements about what the laws were is always going to be a game of generalities. Certainly in Danelaw it was permitted, even expected for men to be armed, and indeed to keep their weapons with them. On the other hand the reason hangers were so popular by the late medieval period is they allowed people who weren't knights to evade sumptuary laws were restricting the carrying of swords. Of course murder was very common throughout the middle ages, because it was so easy to get away with, and the laws restricting the carrying of swords was not a response to rising murder rates, but rising income among the peasantry, which was permitting them to own items previously prohibited purely by their cost, so the comparison... actually is quite apt

Now I'm curious to see those murder-rates with longswords.

And citing the works of playwrights is kinda like me citing action-movies from the 1980s to count how many nuclear wars America has won.

[Haganham]

Eh... first medieval England is describing 500 bc to 1500 ad, and describing nine(?) kingdoms. Making statements about what the laws were is always going to be a game of generalities. Certainly in Danelaw it was permitted, even expected for men to be armed, and indeed to keep their weapons with them. On the other hand the reason hangers were so popular by the late medieval period is they allowed people who weren't knights to evade sumptuary laws were restricting the carrying of swords. Of course murder was very common throughout the middle ages, because it was so easy to get away with, and the laws restricting the carrying of swords was not a response to rising murder rates, but rising income among the peasantry, which was permitting them to own items previously prohibited purely by their cost, so the comparison... actually is quite apt

Now I'm curious to see those murder-rates with longswords.

And citing the works of playwrights is kinda like me citing action-movies from the 1980s to count how many nuclear wars America has won.

https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresea ... 16%20cases.

[Kernen]

Armed yeomanship was the basis of individual liberty and citizen rights in the Anglo tradition. Denying that direct link because some states have not yet fallen into authoritarianism because of their gun laws is the worst combination of ignorance and naiveté.

[Gun Manufacturers]

If the law infringes upon an established state or federal constitutional right it doesn't matter what a minority/majority wants and the judge can only rule according to the enumerated constitutional law.

when you get what you want of zero gun laws whatsoever don't send thoughts and prayers. The blood will be on your hands because of attitudes like yours.

No, the blood will still ONLY be on the hands of those who spill it illegally.

And if you don't like a Constitutional right like the right to bear arms, feel free to try to repeal it. I'm not going to hold my breath that you'll succeed, and I'm not going to wish you luck, but I will point out that you have that avenue to pursue.

[Vrbo]

Went to North Carolina this week, shot off a bunch of rifles and pistols in the backyard. Partner has a real nice cavalry revolver, was just a bitter reminder that living in New Jersey with our level of gun control is oppressive.

In other news this week, which I have not been keeping up with in the slightest: GOP Governor Lombardo of the state of Nevada vetoes infringement on constitutional rights.

These measures include the following bills:

• AB355: Age minimum increases for semiauto shotguns and rifles from 18 to 21, with Armed Forces and Law Enforcement members being exempt
• AB 354: Ban on ghost guns through prohibiting the sale of unfinished frames or receivers, and banning firearm possession close to an election site
• SB171: Those who have been convicted of attempting or committing a violent hate crime would be banned from possession of firearms.