- Joined
- Dec 15, 2017
Imagine hating guns, must've never felt the power of God in your hands, for shame
The Gun Control Debate Thread - Controlling autism since 2022
- Thread starter updoot farmer
- Start date
José Mourinho
The Special One
Forum Staff
Retired Staff
Global Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Montalbane
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2020
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2019
Blueballed agained with this mass shooting. I can't wait for people to get shot and killed so I can get my brownie points in this corner of the internet. But oh so, foiled again.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2022
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In this text, the only “sensible” amount of “gun control” that can be regulated isn’t gun control but rather people control.
The main purpose of the Second Amendment is to “maintain free State” with a militia. Meaning that the militia, compromising of the people, must be well armed against all enemies that threaten their life, liberty, and prosperity (including THE GOVERNMENT). Notice that “well regulated” comes before “Militia,” and not ever before “arms.” This means that measures that control what type of people are completely constitutional and rightfully so. Mentally ill retards such as Chris Chan aren’t gonna be useful in overthrowing the government. So therefore I’m not opposed to UBCs or Medical/Psychological assessments in order to get weapons. As a member of the militia (you are too if you’re an American citizen or permanent resident between 18 and 65,) I don’t think it is our best interests to have mentally ill retards, violent criminals, or other undesirables to have weapons. They are liabilities. However I am concerned about red flag laws as they may potentially violate the 14th amendment. Any right that must be taken away from a person must be through due legal process first.
However to which extent what arms can be allowed/regulated/banned is more arbitrary. From my interpretation, whatever is necessary to “maintain a free state” and to fight governments is fair game. Unfortunately that does mean no nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and other WMDs
.
Finally, gun rights is a social deal breaker for me. If you believe in gun control beyond the extent that I lined out, you’re a moron who trusts the government too much and you are threatening our rights to keep and bear arms. I can tolerate and be friendly socialists, liberals, and even faggots. But if you are for gun control beyond what the Constitution lines out, I don’t want anything to do with you and I wish the worst for you.
TL;DR: Background checks are good, assault rifle bans bad. Don’t advocate for gun control, advocate for people control.
In this text, the only “sensible” amount of “gun control” that can be regulated isn’t gun control but rather people control.
The main purpose of the Second Amendment is to “maintain free State” with a militia. Meaning that the militia, compromising of the people, must be well armed against all enemies that threaten their life, liberty, and prosperity (including THE GOVERNMENT). Notice that “well regulated” comes before “Militia,” and not ever before “arms.” This means that measures that control what type of people are completely constitutional and rightfully so. Mentally ill retards such as Chris Chan aren’t gonna be useful in overthrowing the government. So therefore I’m not opposed to UBCs or Medical/Psychological assessments in order to get weapons. As a member of the militia (you are too if you’re an American citizen or permanent resident between 18 and 65,) I don’t think it is our best interests to have mentally ill retards, violent criminals, or other undesirables to have weapons. They are liabilities. However I am concerned about red flag laws as they may potentially violate the 14th amendment. Any right that must be taken away from a person must be through due legal process first.
However to which extent what arms can be allowed/regulated/banned is more arbitrary. From my interpretation, whatever is necessary to “maintain a free state” and to fight governments is fair game. Unfortunately that does mean no nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and other WMDs
. Finally, gun rights is a social deal breaker for me. If you believe in gun control beyond the extent that I lined out, you’re a moron who trusts the government too much and you are threatening our rights to keep and bear arms. I can tolerate and be friendly socialists, liberals, and even faggots. But if you are for gun control beyond what the Constitution lines out, I don’t want anything to do with you and I wish the worst for you.
TL;DR: Background checks are good, assault rifle bans bad. Don’t advocate for gun control, advocate for people control.
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
Does the fact it explicitly states it exists to violate the Bill of Rights actually hurt its chances? I've heard a lot of House Representatives and Senators don't even read half the shit they pass and just pass it on face value promise.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2022
Your views are basically identical to mine.“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In this text, the only “sensible” amount of “gun control” that can be regulated isn’t gun control but rather people control.
The main purpose of the Second Amendment is to “maintain free State” with a militia. Meaning that the militia, compromising of the people, must be well armed against all enemies that threaten their life, liberty, and prosperity (including THE GOVERNMENT). Notice that “well regulated” comes before “Militia,” and not ever before “arms.” This means that measures that control what type of people are completely constitutional and rightfully so. Mentally ill retards such as Chris Chan aren’t gonna be useful in overthrowing the government. So therefore I’m not opposed to UBCs or Medical/Psychological assessments in order to get weapons. As a member of the militia (you are too if you’re an American citizen or permanent resident between 18 and 65,) I don’t think it is our best interests to have mentally ill retards, violent criminals, or other undesirables to have weapons. They are liabilities. However I am concerned about red flag laws as they may potentially violate the 14th amendment. Any right that must be taken away from a person must be through due legal process first.
However to which extent what arms can be allowed/regulated/banned is more arbitrary. From my interpretation, whatever is necessary to “maintain a free state” and to fight governments is fair game. Unfortunately that does mean no nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and other WMDs
Finally, gun rights is a social deal breaker for me. If you believe in gun control beyond the extent that I lined out, you’re a moron who trusts the government too much and you are threatening our rights to keep and bear arms. I can tolerate and be friendly socialists, liberals, and even faggots. But if you are for gun control beyond what the Constitution lines out, I don’t want anything to do with you and I wish the worst for you.
TL;DR: Background checks are good, assault rifle bans bad. Don’t advocate for gun control, advocate for people control.
As for the dangers of "red flag laws", that is another one of those things that leftoids want so badly to pass, without realizing it's a double-edged sword. Right now, it's politically popular to blame the "alt right", but the political landscape could very easily change, and often it does.
Not to mention, if anyone deserves to be put on a "red flag" list, it WOULD be all the supporters of ANTIFA/BLM, or self-professed "socialists" who preach their love for the USSR/CCP, since those are the ones who actually carry out most of the politically-motivated violence in the USA.
Imagine if "red flag laws" were used against the left-wing, instead. Oh, you sympathize with BLM and ANTIFA? Congrats, you will be plopped on that "red flag" list for supporting terrorist organizations. And where do "red flag laws" stop? Do they stop with *just* firearms ownership, or will they extend to what kinds of cars you'll be allowed to operate, if at all?
Eventually, this train of thought leads to being able to completely cast someone out from society, which the left thinks they want as a weapon without realizing that it can be used against them more easily.
- Joined
- May 5, 2022
The issue with this, is that the conservatives (who are the major force against "gun control") are always trying to keep the status quo. This is like trying to keep sand from getting into your basement trapdoor while living in a desert and some jackass is shoveling on while you try to sweep it off. Something always gets through.
The reason the left does this is because they know that, and they think it will be successful by shifting the consensus over time enough that there is no right left to preserve.
In order to protect the right to keep and bear, you must always be pushing in the radical conclusion against whatever the other is pushing, that is unfortunately US politics in a nutshell.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2022
Yeah, and as a result the conservatives basically sell your rights away piecemeal rather than all at once. Although with how many people on the right are radicalizing, I'd say the left wing is playing an extremely dangerous game and getting way more than they bargained for, and those chickens will be coming home to roost soon.
- Joined
- May 5, 2022
The issue with this argument is that the government would have to go retard and alienate both the at home population and whatever minority that would do their dirty work (in the Spanish Civil War the Moroccans). It may very well boil down to which side is more willing to murder, rape and enslave their opponent's families. I have a feeling it won't be the "conservatives" since they have cucked eternally on all issues on the guise of optics (hence the term "conservicuck").
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2022
From what I've personally noticed, most right wingers who would engage in such behavior are very hush-hush over it for obvious reasons, and that "violence" is usually a binary between "Can't we talk this out?" and "1776 MOTHERFUCKERS!".
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
Yeah I think red flag laws are extremely prone to political abuse. Because even a country government can declare a certain political movement “a terrorist organization,” and then gun grabbing would start for those “associated members.”
Gun confiscation should follow principles of the 4th amendment, it can’t happen without warrant or probable cause. And that probable cause needs to be an objective, imminent danger or risk. For example, saying that you’re a “communist” isn’t grounds for confiscation. Saying that you’re gonna kill your neighbor for being a “petit bourgeois” is.
updoot farmer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2021
Just so that you know, there are a lot of cases that this is already thrown out the window, even in states with no red-flag laws. For example: custody battle over kids and bipolar spouse files a protective order? Hope you had a boat accident, or have a good specialty lawyer you can call after court rules the custody case in your favor, cause getting your collection back will be an utter pain in the cunticles. Probable cause is a very very loose term that's already abused to no end.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2022
"I smelled weed in his car!"
Any wonder why police love throwing this one out? Because it's almost impossible to prove they're lying, especially when they're not above planting drugs on you, and then that gives them all the justification they need to ransack your car and your physical person.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
When did smell become probable cause? I thought only a dog signaling a smell of narcotics could be probable cause?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
That’s why I said it needs to be some sort of “objective imminent danger or risk.” But now that I think of it, any imminent danger or risk to have guns confiscated is redundant as the person can be detained or even arrested anyway. I can’t think of situations where a person should have their guns taken away for their own or others’ safety, but not even arrested.
Sicklick
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
Who needs a gun when you can make a machine crossbow out of plywood from scratch?
Joerg Sprave was able to make a Chu Ko Nu that has a high muzzle velocity, since crank-powered repeating bows tend to be weak. He used a power drill for the mechanism (battery-powered, not corded), which is activated depending on how tightly you press the trigger and some rollers instead of springs. Otherwise he would've had to use steam power or pneumatics, which is something he didn't have the inventory for (most people probably wouldn't). While it isn't really much of a workable weapon (eventually the drill would catch on fire unless you were able to space out certain components), but it most certainly demonstrates that such a concept works.
As for 3D printing, I don't know too much about it, but I'm pretty sure the feds can regulate that too and ban it for certain people, although I'm not entirely sure about to what extent the ban on 3D printers would work.
Joerg Sprave was able to make a Chu Ko Nu that has a high muzzle velocity, since crank-powered repeating bows tend to be weak. He used a power drill for the mechanism (battery-powered, not corded), which is activated depending on how tightly you press the trigger and some rollers instead of springs. Otherwise he would've had to use steam power or pneumatics, which is something he didn't have the inventory for (most people probably wouldn't). While it isn't really much of a workable weapon (eventually the drill would catch on fire unless you were able to space out certain components), but it most certainly demonstrates that such a concept works.
As for 3D printing, I don't know too much about it, but I'm pretty sure the feds can regulate that too and ban it for certain people, although I'm not entirely sure about to what extent the ban on 3D printers would work.