this is a troll post
a man card may have never been issued
cucks hate him because of this one little secret
General What gun regulations do you support?
- Thread starter Toelocku
- Start date
a man card may have never been issued
cucks hate him because of this one little secret
divisive media does not help the situation
IMO we need media regulations
Ban Propaganda/Divisive media
Make Propaganda Illegal Again
Barack "modernized" the smith mundt act and made it legal for the Media to push false narratives and outright lie to it's citizens and audience...your media is not media, it is currently a brainwash
FYI I voted for barack once...but the facts are the facts
Propaganda is the #1 problem IMO...but nobody wants to admit they are being lied to from nearly every angle, it is rather paradigm shattering
IMO we need media regulations
Ban Propaganda/Divisive media
Make Propaganda Illegal Again
Barack "modernized" the smith mundt act and made it legal for the Media to push false narratives and outright lie to it's citizens and audience...your media is not media, it is currently a brainwash
FYI I voted for barack once...but the facts are the facts
Propaganda is the #1 problem IMO...but nobody wants to admit they are being lied to from nearly every angle, it is rather paradigm shattering
Last edited:
Those aren't the facts, though:
"The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 was introduced by U.S. Congressman Mac Thornberry on May 10, 2012 in the House of Representatives. U.S. Congressman Adam Smith (politician) was a Co-sponsor..."
I don't know how you come to the conclusion Obama was to blame for that. Genuinely curious as to how you got there. And the "news media" should absolutely be censured for the bile and bullshit they spew out there nightly. Between that and "Citizens United" we've essentially lost the ability to separate fact from fiction in the press.
regulate like cars and driver's license.
first, people should get a gun license by passing the written and practical application tests. In order to apply for a license, you must be 21 and have to be registered without any red flags. The registration process is like joining the military but more for the purpose of mental screening or back ground check going back 10 years (kind of similar from applying for security clearances).
there's no restrictions on type of guns and bullet calibers (except guns with rate of fire equal to automatic rifles and 50 caliber rounds), just the type of tests are different from, if you're going for a pistol license or bolt action rifle license or semi-automatic rifle license. Or conceal carry or open carry tests all varies. (conceal carry license will cover immediate action drills for how to properly take down a mass shooter).
license test includes
-demonstration of firearm handling and safety
-demonstration of safety procedures (like if gun jams, proper steps to follow)
-demonstration of range safety procedures
-demonstration of proper shooting fundamentals
-and more could be added...
all this should cover the back ground checks and you're good to purchase a gun if you have a gun license. You must re-take the test (but more like a shorter version) every 8 years or so and this must be done even if you already own a gun and also all guns must be registered, caught with none-registered gun, penalty is heavy.
If you get into any kind of trouble with the law, you're license gets suspended (turn your gun in temporarily), depending on severity of the crime, could be revoked and if you were already a gun owner, you must turn that shit in to the police and they can donate for an auction.
they need an armory guarded by the military and some kind of data base and licensing organization like the DMV for cars.
this seems pretty fair, pretty much all the standing operating procedure for law enforcemnet and the military.
first, people should get a gun license by passing the written and practical application tests. In order to apply for a license, you must be 21 and have to be registered without any red flags. The registration process is like joining the military but more for the purpose of mental screening or back ground check going back 10 years (kind of similar from applying for security clearances).
there's no restrictions on type of guns and bullet calibers (except guns with rate of fire equal to automatic rifles and 50 caliber rounds), just the type of tests are different from, if you're going for a pistol license or bolt action rifle license or semi-automatic rifle license. Or conceal carry or open carry tests all varies. (conceal carry license will cover immediate action drills for how to properly take down a mass shooter).
license test includes
-demonstration of firearm handling and safety
-demonstration of safety procedures (like if gun jams, proper steps to follow)
-demonstration of range safety procedures
-demonstration of proper shooting fundamentals
-and more could be added...
all this should cover the back ground checks and you're good to purchase a gun if you have a gun license. You must re-take the test (but more like a shorter version) every 8 years or so and this must be done even if you already own a gun and also all guns must be registered, caught with none-registered gun, penalty is heavy.
If you get into any kind of trouble with the law, you're license gets suspended (turn your gun in temporarily), depending on severity of the crime, could be revoked and if you were already a gun owner, you must turn that shit in to the police and they can donate for an auction.
they need an armory guarded by the military and some kind of data base and licensing organization like the DMV for cars.
this seems pretty fair, pretty much all the standing operating procedure for law enforcemnet and the military.
1
1372
Guest
1
1372
Guest
I'm sure the squirrels, birds and empty beer cans are terrified.
You don't need a driver's license to own a car, you only need a driver's license to operate a car on public roads.
How did you arrive at the 50 caliber conclusion?
M
member 3289
Guest
Point me to the man who shoots squirrels
He's the dork with the pellet gun.
M
member 3289
Guest
Gray squirrels are native, so there's no shooting them in city limits. Outside of that, you'd need a hunting license.
We use pellet guns for green iguanas and all the other invasive reptiles.
M
member 3289
Guest
PETA can suck a dick
Those green iguanas are just looking for a better life in Florida.
I think you are confusing weapons and firearms. I do not own any weapons. If you are just generalizing the word weapons then we ALL have hundreds of weapons in our homes.
Nope
My view is that guns are awesome toys, maybe one of the most fun toys a grown up can play with. Most people who I know who own guns own them because of this fact. Usually they also mutter something about personal safety or protection from tyranny, but they don't have very developed ideas on what this means when you press them further. In recognition of that, it's only natural that people would want bigger and better guns that can load faster and destroy more things quickly.
So it's my feeling that people should be able to play with these toys in designated spaces like gun ranges, etc. They should be licensed to do so and their higher capacity weapons should be stored on site. Gun range/storage facilities should be granted non-profit status and should not be allowed to also sell or buy firearms. A strict firewall should be kept between them as a licensing, storage, and usage facility and the sale of firearms.
This leaves us with the actual issues of self defense and hunting, neither of which require high capacity firearms. Simple shotguns and hunting rifles should be allowed in the home with state level (rather than federal) licensing. There shouldn't be mental health screening because I tend to find people are more likely to grow up with guns already in their lives before they know about their own mental health and so adding this requirement would disincentivize people who need it from seeking treatment. Instead licensing should focus on safe handling and criminal history.
At the same time, federal monies should be committed to establishing and/or expanding mental health services in high gun ownership communities as well as communities with high incidences of gun violence. It won't be a silver bullet, if you pardon the bad pun, but it will help.
This only leaves us with the problem of handguns, which I believe should be eliminated from society. Cops shouldn't have them and neither should private citizens. An aggressive buyback program followed by a ban should help, but it would be a challenge to stop their illegal flow, as we've seen in the UK. I honestly don't know how this would be accomplished, but all of the people I know who have died in firearm related circumstances have died via handgun, and that number is much higher than I wish it were. Obviously there needs to be more emphasis on the social problems that lead people to pick up a gun, but handguns being so easy to get is an indicator of their easy flow through the market. Giving them biometric safeties is one way to curb some of their circulation, but interventions like that would only work in an already recessed gun market. If people still wanted to play with them, they could also go to the storage lockers, but would be quarantined from home use.
Of course the problem with any central location for weapons is the risk of theft, but armories have existed for centuries without somehow having to repel attackers all that regularly.
I've proposed a similar schema on here before only to be told that the 2nd amendment makes unmolested ownership uncontestable, but that's led to some quibbles over the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, who were responding to specific historical circumstances. Another answer to that challenge is that we today have many caveats to how much we can exercise the far more important first amendment. Freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and certainly to redress grievances to government have so many limitations on how, when, and where we may exercise them that we just accept and often encourage. For some reason, this same standard isn't applied by 2A fundamentalists, who only grudgingly concede to the restrictions on gun type ownership or open display now.
So it's my feeling that people should be able to play with these toys in designated spaces like gun ranges, etc. They should be licensed to do so and their higher capacity weapons should be stored on site. Gun range/storage facilities should be granted non-profit status and should not be allowed to also sell or buy firearms. A strict firewall should be kept between them as a licensing, storage, and usage facility and the sale of firearms.
This leaves us with the actual issues of self defense and hunting, neither of which require high capacity firearms. Simple shotguns and hunting rifles should be allowed in the home with state level (rather than federal) licensing. There shouldn't be mental health screening because I tend to find people are more likely to grow up with guns already in their lives before they know about their own mental health and so adding this requirement would disincentivize people who need it from seeking treatment. Instead licensing should focus on safe handling and criminal history.
At the same time, federal monies should be committed to establishing and/or expanding mental health services in high gun ownership communities as well as communities with high incidences of gun violence. It won't be a silver bullet, if you pardon the bad pun, but it will help.
This only leaves us with the problem of handguns, which I believe should be eliminated from society. Cops shouldn't have them and neither should private citizens. An aggressive buyback program followed by a ban should help, but it would be a challenge to stop their illegal flow, as we've seen in the UK. I honestly don't know how this would be accomplished, but all of the people I know who have died in firearm related circumstances have died via handgun, and that number is much higher than I wish it were. Obviously there needs to be more emphasis on the social problems that lead people to pick up a gun, but handguns being so easy to get is an indicator of their easy flow through the market. Giving them biometric safeties is one way to curb some of their circulation, but interventions like that would only work in an already recessed gun market. If people still wanted to play with them, they could also go to the storage lockers, but would be quarantined from home use.
Of course the problem with any central location for weapons is the risk of theft, but armories have existed for centuries without somehow having to repel attackers all that regularly.
I've proposed a similar schema on here before only to be told that the 2nd amendment makes unmolested ownership uncontestable, but that's led to some quibbles over the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, who were responding to specific historical circumstances. Another answer to that challenge is that we today have many caveats to how much we can exercise the far more important first amendment. Freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and certainly to redress grievances to government have so many limitations on how, when, and where we may exercise them that we just accept and often encourage. For some reason, this same standard isn't applied by 2A fundamentalists, who only grudgingly concede to the restrictions on gun type ownership or open display now.
He signed it when he was the president with final say on it passing or not.
It was in that specific NDAA that passed on his watch...blame whoever u want, but legalizing propaganda against the people is a very fucked up thing to do.
Nothing I post is about left/right FYI
He should have vetoed it and made it clear that propaganda was being legalized, if it passed again after making a stink/veto about it then so be it(most vetoes bring about change and are not overridden)...all those who voted yes on it, and he are to blame...fuck all those slimey sellouts
Last edited:
Fudd
The problem with this conclusion is it's very obviously an emotional reaction and not a pragmatic one. I find it generally concern that the further restriction crowd says "Well, we need to ban "ABC" and I guess work on the root causes if we have time to get around with it." Banning firearms to solve a homicide problem is a facile approach.
I'm also curious how you would define a "Hunting" rifle or shotgun.
M
member 3289
Guest
Pine squirrels tear shit up, bro.
Haven't shot any greys, but from what I understand they're delicious.