Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

[Bacle]

No, but you'll have a bunch of citations from conservative media I hope?

No, I learned about it from talking to a TX NG guy on a Discord I am part of; it was the first place I had heard about.

Because as you say, the conservative media doesn't cover the actual conditions faced by the NG troops on the border except in relation to the illegal they detain and process.

Doing so would put a bad light on Texas, DC, the whole immigration issue, the DoD, and Mexico, so stories of NG people getting hit or shot at patrolling the border tend to get buried, if they are published at all.

Both the Dems and GOP have reasons to want to bury the real conditions on the border faced by the TX NG units.

And for other evidence, this was back in October:


So how about admitting this isn't lies and bullshit, and that the cartels are actively firing across the border at US NG units and LEOs.

I get you hate the any form of government as an AnCap, but I thought you had better critical thinking skills than this; I think your kneejerk dislike of the military and gov in general is leading you to some rather foolish rhetorical corners.

 

[Zachowon]

No, but you'll have a bunch of citations from conservative media I hope?


Seriously, give me actual evidence of a bunch of NG being shot, and I'll start to care. But I've been given none. And thinking war will stop this is still the dumbest thing I've ever heard. War will cause gallons more blood to flow as the cartels export their violence to America, as they'd have nothing to lose.

Bacle has shown evidence.

And my brother in law is in the TX NG. As are some of my coworkers family. I also worked with someone who was Active Guard Reserve and was friends eith the former Texas NG CG.

This shit is happening and is being covered up by Texas NG and the DoD because it is showing that we arnt actively making sure those we love are not safe.

That our military should be protecting our borders.
Look, the only way to stop illegal immigration fully from the south. Even if a wall, is to stop the cartels

 

[PsihoKekec]

We are not allowed to actively protect the border

In other words, the government doesn't want to do anything about it. And now you want the same government that makes the border insecure, to wage war in Mexico to make the border secure? I have a slight feeling that this wont work out.

We have a large population that are basically endepted to the cartels.

Which I'm sure has nothing to do with how USA is waging ''war on drugs''. Or federal agencies facilitating drug trade to finance their shenanigans.

 

[Zachowon]

In other words, the government doesn't want to do anything about it. And now you want the same government that makes the border insecure, to wage war in Mexico to make the border secure? I have a slight feeling that this wont work out.




Which I'm sure has nothing to do with how USA is waging ''war on drugs''. Or federal agencies facilitating drug trade to finance their shenanigans.

Because Mexico doesn't want us to do anything on the border.
That's why. If they had a president that was wanting actual help we would

 

[PsihoKekec]

Oh right, I forgot you are incapable of second guessing your chain of command.

 

[Zachowon]

Oh right, I forgot you are incapable of second guessing your chain of command.

No.
I can second guess it.

 

[Bacle]

So @Abhorsen, are you ever going to admit you were wrong about the situation on the border with the NG/LEO's/Border Patrol?







Or do you need more evidence the cartels are not afraid of the US and will fire on our border enforcement units?

 

[Abhorsen]

No.
I can second guess it.

This seems an entirely theoretical exercise.

So @Abhorsen, are you ever going to admit you were wrong about the situation on the border with the NG/LEO's/Border Patrol?

Shockingly, I try not to be online all the time. So yes, there's certainly a problem with people shooting across the border. No, it doesn't justify a war. Just allow the US troops to shoot back.

There still isn't what I originally talked about: more than the rare cartel killing of Americans in America. I realize that I missed cross border shootings, but that seems to be the only exception, because they know there isn't retaliation for them. The original situation is not a cross border shooting, so my original stance stays (that, if it's as described, guy did a murder because he didn't wait until he was threatened).

 

[Typhonis]

More Than Half Of The Country’s Attorneys General Sue The Federal Government Over ATF Pistol Brace Final Rule

Well, when 25 attorney Generals sue the US attorney general and the ATF you know something is up. Apparently, anyone with a pistol brace has to register it as a short-barreled rifle.

 

[Sailor.X]

You know instead of suing over the Pistol Brace more meaningful results could be gotten by getting the ban on short barreled rifles and shotguns overturned. Just saying.

 

[Cherico]

You know instead of suing over the Pistol Brace more meaningful results could be gotten by getting the ban on short barreled rifles and shotguns overturned. Just saying.

Its being worked on we have several generations of bullshit to rip apart and we are making progress.

 

[Yinko]

Please poke holes in my idea, this was something that occurred to me the other day and I don't know if it's dumb or not.

The purpose of gun control is (supposedly) to limit more dangerous guns but still let people have self-protection. The move to ban SBR's and suppressors was both pushed due to the fear that they could be used by criminals more easily. Today, that is not a serious consideration. Currently one of the bigger pushes is for smaller calibers ("para bellum literally means for war!") because they are less damaging. Interestingly, two things which reduce the muzzle velocity of a bullet are shorter barrels and suppressors.

If you want to make guns less dangerous then flip the laws. Require suppressors and make a barrel over 14" require a tax stamp.

Of course, this is all predicated on the idea that they are being honest about their motivations. I know.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

@Yinko

Nah, at this point I concede nothing to them.

 

[Zachowon]

Please poke holes in my idea, this was something that occurred to me the other day and I don't know if it's dumb or not.

The purpose of gun control is (supposedly) to limit more dangerous guns but still let people have self-protection. The move to ban SBR's and suppressors was both pushed due to the fear that they could be used by criminals more easily. Today, that is not a serious consideration. Currently one of the bigger pushes is for smaller calibers ("para bellum literally means for war!") because they are less damaging. Interestingly, two things which reduce the muzzle velocity of a bullet are shorter barrels and suppressors.

If you want to make guns less dangerous then flip the laws. Require suppressors and make a barrel over 14" require a tax stamp.

Of course, this is all predicated on the idea that they are being honest about their motivations. I know.

Wanna know the hole I'm gonna poke.

2nd amendment is absolute

 

[Bacle]

Wanna know the hole I'm gonna poke.

2nd amendment is absolute

Let's qualify this very carefully, 2A doesn't cover CBRN or AA missiles.

Bubba wants a howitzer/tank/armed merchant, fine so long as he has OSHA approved storage for all the exploding bits and a private range/port/income that allows it; Bubba doesn't get a Stinger or a nuke.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Let's qualify this very carefully, 2A doesn't cover CBRN or AA missiles.

Bubba wants a howitzer/tank/armed merchant, fine so long as he has OSHA approved storage for all the exploding bits and a private range/port/income that allows it; Bubba doesn't get a Stinger or a nuke.

Why not a Stinger?

 

[Zachowon]

Let's qualify this very carefully, 2A doesn't cover CBRN or AA missiles.

Bubba wants a howitzer/tank/armed merchant, fine so long as he has OSHA approved storage for all the exploding bits and a private range/port/income that allows it; Bubba doesn't get a Stinger or a nuke.

AA is fine.

 

[Bacle]

Why not a Stinger?

AA is fine.

FAA would probably disagree, as would most airlines.

AA on an armed merchant maybe is ok, but not a backyard SAM site.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

If I can have a tank or my own fighter jet, I can have my own AA.

 

[Bacle]

If I can have a tank or my own fighter jet, I can have my own AA.

Ok, you can have Bofors, not Stingers, happy?