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

[King Arts]

FAA would probably disagree, as would most airlines.

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

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

Shall not be infringed! Tell me what that means. Once you start these kinds of limits why ban stingers that can take down helicopters but not Assault rifles or machine guns? People can have hunting rifles and maybe pistols.

 

[Abhorsen]

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.

I'd be fine with a stinger, not a nuke. Simply because nukes are not possible to use in self defense.

 

[Flintsteel]

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 idea doesn't work because your understanding of NFA 1934 is incorrect (not surprising, most people don't).

The reason SBRs were included in the NFA 1934 is because originally handguns were going to be included, as those were far more useful to criminals. Banning rifles under a certain length was to prevent the obvious work-around of cutting down a rifle for concealability. When the handgun restrictions were removed from the law, they didn't bother to remove the SBR rules. Because Congress.

Silencers were included not about criminals (because everyone knew they weren't that good - Hollywood grossly over-estimates their effectiveness), but poaching.

 

[Yinko]

poaching

Is that still a valid concern?

 

[Bacle]

I'd be fine with a stinger, not a nuke. Simply because nukes are not possible to use in self defense.

I am rather pressed for imagining when a Stinger becomes a 'self-defense' weapon for a private individual, outside of an armed merchant vessel and it's crew.

 

[Zachowon]

I am rather pressed for imagining when a Stinger becomes a 'self-defense' weapon for a private individual, outside of an armed merchant vessel and it's crew.

The ATF comes knocking

 

[S'task]

Silencers were included not about criminals (because everyone knew they weren't that good - Hollywood grossly over-estimates their effectiveness), but poaching.

Specifically poaching in the west and Appalachian mountains, where a silencer would reduce a rifle report down from "being able to be hear for miles" to "only being able to be heard one holla over".

Is that still a valid concern?

Yes and no. For common hunting rifles, arguably yes since poaching is still a thing that can happen. However, note the year the NFA was passed... 1934... in the middle of the Great Depression, when rural folks would likely use hunting to supplement their diet a LOT more than they will nowadays, so it is not as pressing.

As for silencers for handguns... those aren't commonly used for hunting anyway and are terrible for hunting, so that was never really a concern, but like all laws thing were written overly broadly.

 

[DarthOne]

The ATF comes knocking

The ATF should be disbanded and anyone who says otherwise can go pound salt.

 

[Abhorsen]

I am rather pressed for imagining when a Stinger becomes a 'self-defense' weapon for a private individual, outside of an armed merchant vessel and it's crew.

Well, there's one example right there. I'd also say self defense against the government would also qualify. The difference between nukes and stingers is that yes, both can be abused, but a nuke can't be used without being an abuse. You will end up harming third parties with it, no matter what.

Obviously, there's some dangers with legalizing everything, and I wouldn't be against localizing control of heavy weapons instead (stingers and the like), so that each town had a store house of what people wanted to have just in case. In a worst case scenario, one is able to raid the local storehouse if necessary. This, along with a Defend the guard type bill that re-centered local control of the National Guard, would be huge steps forward.

 

[Zachowon]

Basically make it so you can do an Athens TN

 

[PsihoKekec]

 

[Husky_Khan]

Big News Guys, Activist and March For Our Lives founder David Hogg, now that he is in a Ivy League school, has discovered that every legal and history Professor agrees with him on Gun Control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It's incredible how you can go somewhere and find all of your beliefs confirmed if you look in the right place.





Checkmate Child Killers.

 

[Megadeath]

It's incredible how you can go somewhere and find all of your beliefs confirmed if you look in the right place.

He said, to a room full of people he already knew agreed with him on the subject.

 

[Husky_Khan]

He said, to a room full of people he already knew agreed with him on the subject.

Taking a break from grooming Joeys to hop in here to prove yourself wrong with your own post?

 

[Cherico]

He said, to a room full of people he already knew agreed with him on the subject.

Not all thinks but the fact that Husky debates in more or less good faith tends to lead to him being givern the benifit of a doubt, the fact that he can agree to disagree also helps. Honestly unless your a real asshole or things get real heated huskys pretty polite.

 

[Megadeath]

Not all thinks but the fact that Husky debates in more or less good faith tends to lead to him being givern the benifit of a doubt, the fact that he can agree to disagree also helps. Honestly unless your a real asshole or things get real heated huskys pretty polite.

That's a hell of a thing to hear about the person who just called me a paedophile. Glad to hear you think he's an okay chap though.

 

[Zyobot]

Could probably have gone in other (related) threads, but since I'd be remiss not to post it:

 

[Bacle]

The state of Texas has officially had a mass loss of firearms do to mass boating accidents.

What wonderful 'Fuck You' to the Cali gun grabbers and their allies who keep trying to disarm the civilian populace.

 

[bintananth]

The state of Texas has officially had a mass loss of firearms do to mass boating accidents.

What wonderful 'Fuck You' to the Cali gun grabbers and their allies who keep trying to disarm the civilian populace.

Awhile back I said in the Shooty Bang Bangs thread that I was going start my daughters off with an antique Tanegashima matchlock musket and was pounced on because others thought that was a bad idea.

Now you have an example of why I thought that knowing how to use a complicated and pain-in-the-ass 16th century firearm design is an excellent idea.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Taking a break from grooming Joeys to hop in here to prove yourself wrong with your own post?

Okay, let me lay down the honest to God facts here.

Calling or implying other members to be Pedo's without any proof even in a joking matter is wrong and to boot can be considered a form of harassment at least or character assassination of another member at worst.

Repeat, this shit can get someone in trouble in RL or make them be ostracized should the rumor spread or be misspoken and people take it as a fact.

Anybody who does this from here on out against 'anybody' who happens to also be a member of this board and fails to provide recipes to prove their allegations or implications beyond a reasonable doubt will be facing infraction up to and including a permanent ban depending on the degree of the offense.