Movies and games
Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
yeah mostly. also because politicians are idiots.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Yep. Everybody thinks that putting a suppressor on the gun suddenly makes it as silent as a blow dart!
Someone slipped suppressors into the NFA, and then Hollywood made things worse by making suppressors seem way more effective than they are, while also making them mostly used by criminals and assassins.
Yup. There is a whole lot of more considerations and engineering between sticking a silencer on a gun and *really* silencing a gun.
This is an article on the matter and very interested parties handling it (mafia and CIA) from before current year era.
time.com
OTOH sticking a suppressor on a nearly meter long rifle with supersonic ammo is more about avoiding hearing damage than stealthy assassinations.
This is an article on the matter and very interested parties handling it (mafia and CIA) from before current year era.
CRIME: New Mafia Killer: A Silenced .22
The FBI had a surprise for urban and suburban dwellers fending off muggers, sluggers and druggers when it announced that for the first time in four years, the U.S. crime rate has not increased....
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Congress has too
stephen the barbarian
Well-known member
the best answer i've found is the rumor that the interior dept. had it added out of concern that poachers would use suppressors to hide their activities.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Vatnik
It boggles my mind that there is an aspect of gun control where my country (and much of EU) is better off than USA.
mrttao
Well-known member
demonrats want you to be deaf because they hate you.
also, I have seen a video recently that noted that in some euro countries, if you are one of the lucky few granted a license to own a gun, then it is against the law to fire the gun WITHOUT a silencer. as it is considered a public menace to do so.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
They should be abolished since they have effectively been a rogue agency for some time.
One of the few European gun laws I could get behind, at least if applied to rifles. Handguns carried for self defense need to be small enough to conveniently carry, and a silencer would hinder that.
MarkWarrior
Well-known member
Sure, they typically can enhance velocity though. And most people shooting don't stretch out past 300 yards. I don't know any range in my immediate area that goes beyond 500. For most civilian cases, that's perfectly fine. I'd love to find a range that let's me get good enough to try at 600+ yards. But I'd have to make my own range for that 'round here.
mrttao
Well-known member
not a new video. all the comments mention it being from 2018
also
involuntary civil commitment
Article: Involuntary civil commitment refers to the legal process by which individuals are admitted into a treatment facility or supervised outpatient treatment against their wishes. This can be done for various reasons, including mental illness, serious developmental disability, and/or substance abuse as defined by current statutes .
In the case of mental illness, the typical commitment standard is posing a danger to self or others, with almost all states construing the inability to provide for one's basic needs as a danger to self. This means that an individual may be subject to involuntary civil commitment if they pose a threat to themselves or others, or if they are unable to provide for their basic needs due to their mental illness.
In terms of process, every state provides for a hearing , the right to counsel , and periodic judicial review , while most states have statutory quality standards for treatment and hospitalization. This ensures that individuals who are involuntarily committed have the opportunity to challenge their confinement and receive appropriate treatment and care.
In Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) , the Supreme Court held that a higher standard of proof is required for involuntary civil commitment than for other civil cases.
I know plenty of outdoor ranges that do in various states.
But most people don't take into account how suppressors work and will have a lot of initial hearing damage out of it
Danke for this.not a new video. all the comments mention it being from 2018
also
involuntary civil commitment
www.law.cornell.edu
Article: Involuntary civil commitment refers to the legal process by which individuals are admitted into a treatment facility or supervised outpatient treatment against their wishes. This can be done for various reasons, including mental illness, serious developmental disability, and/or substance abuse as defined by current statutes .
In the case of mental illness, the typical commitment standard is posing a danger to self or others, with almost all states construing the inability to provide for one's basic needs as a danger to self. This means that an individual may be subject to involuntary civil commitment if they pose a threat to themselves or others, or if they are unable to provide for their basic needs due to their mental illness.
In terms of process, every state provides for a hearing , the right to counsel , and periodic judicial review , while most states have statutory quality standards for treatment and hospitalization. This ensures that individuals who are involuntarily committed have the opportunity to challenge their confinement and receive appropriate treatment and care.
In Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) , the Supreme Court held that a higher standard of proof is required for involuntary civil commitment than for other civil cases.
mrttao
Well-known member
you are welcome...
yea, I am ok with the crimianlly insane not owning guns.
the one and only exception I allow for the 2nd amendment.
if the demonrats have the legal power to throw innocents / their political opponents into an insane asylum then we are already cooked.
if anything. this is a far less extreme version of red flag law.
currently half the states or so have red flag law.
this allows any judge to just issue an order to seize your guns for being a "danger to society" according to the judge's own personal emotions.
This on the other hand has the protection of requiring you to FIRST be thrown in an insane asylum by court BEFORE they can take your guns.
I jist saw someone trying to make it a this term thing.
So thank you now I can show this
Jesus Christ, fuck the FBI:
Miller's Double Crossing
This essay tells the true story of what happened to Jackson "Jack" Miller, one of the defendants in United States v. Miller (1939), as told by his dau
papers.ssrn.com
Article: On April 17, 2021, I received an email from Jack Miller’s great-granddaughter Karen Hale-Miller. She told me that she loved my article, because it was the first time anyone had tried to tell her great-grandfather’s true story, which was incredibly gratifying to hear. But she also told me that almost everything I thought I knew about what happened to Miller was false. I was right that Miller was a test case stage-managed by the government. But I was wrong about how Miller got involved, because the government lied, with the help of the press.
In a nutshell, Oklahoma law enforcement officers coerced Miller to participate in bank robberies they helped plan. They chaperoned Layton and Miller to Siloam Springs, where they were arrested for violating the NFA. And they murdered Miller in cold blood.
But that’s not all. They also tarnished Miller’s memory, hatefully describing him as a “big, yellow punk.”22 They lied about what he did, painting him as nothing more than a thug, in it for himself. They lied about who he was, ignoring his prominent role in the Cherokee community. And they lied about how they treated him, in order to protect themselves.