That first graphic reminds me of sci fi author David Brin’s concept of a “militia rifle”.
(He published this a long time ago and I’m unclear if he still supports the idea)
Basically he argues:
Mass shootings are a problem
Resisting government tyranny is important
(He claims) historically a group of people with lower capacity rifles can hold their own against people bearing high capacity automatics, because in many-vs-many battles the individual guns’ bullet output matters less (more about which group controls which points on the battlefield permitting covering of other points)
So a mass shooter is a 1-vs-many scenario (shooter vs crowd)
Resisting government tyranny is probably gonna be a many-vs-many scenario (militia vs army)
Therefore it’s legit for people to own firearms that are low capacity, high hassle
Seems to me the California laws approach this design equilibrium.
Resisting government tyranny
this can be anything, because people aren’t going to form up militias to fight the government. literal founding fathers fan fiction material
Then why don’t more people have that style of gun?
I hear this argument all the time about different banned features and attachments. (I own and shoot often btw)
Like for braces. People say it doesn’t make you more able to kill, when it does.
When there was a brief time where braces were legally iffy, I was using a sling instead. Let me tell you something, shooting with a sling is incredibly inaccurate compared to a brace.
Every shot removes the pressure you are putting on the sling, whereas a brace every shot pushes it into your shoulder more.
Shooting with a brace is incredibly similar to shooting with a stock, essentially identical just barely less comfortable.
People are so political when they talk about guns, just be honest with yourself. You can love guns and love regulation at the same time. Maybe we just shouldn’t have crazy people and violent people owning them?
Regulation is good when it makes sense. Calling a gun an “assault weapon” and trying to figure out some ass-backwards and arbitrarily definition afterwards is not good regulation.
Because they make it easier to stay on target for rapid fire shots.
Go ahead and try to tell me that a brace doesn’t make a AR pistol more dangerous to a crowd. I’ve heard this argument a thousand times and I have worked out every angle. Let’s just be honest?
I feel like I have no place. Gun nuts completely ignore reality, gun haters have no real plan for change.
I’m curious how you feel about Hunter Biden being charged with a felony for saying he did not use any drugs on his gun registration. Almost every shooter I know is guilty of the exact same crime, yet everyone thinks it’s okay because he’s a Democrat lol. The second amendment only exists for those who you like 😂
I’ll be honest, as a gun owner I completely despise the gun community. Especially the 3D printed gun community. Filled with Nazi dog whistles, The most popular full auto loophole is called the SS
I feel like I have no place. Gun nuts completely ignore reality, gun haters have no real plan for change.
I don’t collect guns, but I think one should respect both the 1st and 2nd amendments, and it’s frustrating that neither party does so. Frankly, they both ignore reality. The GOP thinks it needs to completely combat any and all regulation presented towards them, even in the face of some mass shooting incident. And Democrats wants to call for the “ban of all guns”, even though there are millions of guns in the system and a 2nd amendment that says no. The fact that they even dared to ban handguns in Washington, DC was ridiculous. None of these laws take any middle ground, and even when they try to classify some gun type they want to ban, it’s a shitty and poorly-crafted law.
I don’t think outright bans are the answer, anyway. Most of what they do in Canada are regulations on who and how you get things. It’s possible to get what you want, but it’s harder than some kid walking into a gun convention and buying a gun with cash.
I’m curious how you feel about Hunter Biden being charged with a felony for saying he did not use any drugs on his gun registration. Almost every shooter I know is guilty of the exact same crime, yet everyone thinks it’s okay because he’s a Democrat lol. The second amendment only exists for those who you like 😂
I think Republicans were trying to find anything on Hunter for years, and this was the one thing they pinned him on. I also don’t think his pardon was a problem for the same reasons this author presented. I think the whole drug question is fucking stupid because the War on (some) Drugs only exists to selectively punish whoever they like, mostly the poor.
Why do old gun nuts ignore the beginning of every interpretation and rewriting of the second amendment?
“well regulated”
The nuts will not care until it is their child who is turned into pink mist.
Do you know how many Democrats I have met who actually want to ban all guns? Zero.
You are just parroting Fox News talking points that make the left seem like they are anti-freedom.
Go far enough left and you get your guns back.
We don’t want to strip the world of guns, we want to strip guns from those who have violent intentions and mental illness. I’m willing to bet that you agree with this and you are probably further left on this than you actually think you are
Does your opinion on braces change or do you still think that they Don’t make an AR-15 more dangerous having one? I would love to go to the range with you we can take the brace off of my AR and shoot the target, then put it back on and shoot the target. I guarantee you will miss the paper at least once without the brace. This is not me saying they should be illegal. But people like you keep trying to say that braces don’t do anything, that is an outright lie
This discussion means absolutely nothing if people have bad faith arguments. And I’m talking about both sides
Do you know how many Democrats I have met who actually want to ban all guns? Zero. You are just parroting Fox News talking points that make the left seem like they are anti-freedom.
I think you wildly misunderstand my associations. I don’t watch Fox News or any of the other GOP propaganda channels. I consider myself a liberal. I just happen to understand what the 2nd amendment was designed for.
But, I have personally met liberals who think the world’s mass shooting problems could be solved by getting rid of all guns, as if that was some achievable goal in the US. These are people who have never owned a gun in their life, who live in the city, and ironically think that the police is going to protect them when some crazy person shows up in their neighborhood, without understanding that some people in rural areas, where the police are 4-6 hours away, buy guns to actually protect themselves.
Meanwhile, Republican gun nuts are hoarding guns and if there was ever any sort of civil war in this country, they would be the ones with far more firepower. We need to get back to an age of Black Panthers, where liberals were arming themselves as a political counterbalance to armed Republican gun nuts. Just like how the Church of Satan is a political counterbalance to attempts to circumvent the separation of church and state. Every time some politician wants to post the Ten Commandments in a government building, they are there to scare off the idea, by reminding them we have a 1st amendment right to honor all religions, not just Christianity.
Where have I seen
that bullshit before?
That first graphic reminds me of sci fi author David Brin’s concept of a “militia rifle”.
(He published this a long time ago and I’m unclear if he still supports the idea)
Basically he argues:
Seems to me the California laws approach this design equilibrium.
Then why don’t more people have that style of gun?
I hear this argument all the time about different banned features and attachments. (I own and shoot often btw)
Like for braces. People say it doesn’t make you more able to kill, when it does.
When there was a brief time where braces were legally iffy, I was using a sling instead. Let me tell you something, shooting with a sling is incredibly inaccurate compared to a brace.
Every shot removes the pressure you are putting on the sling, whereas a brace every shot pushes it into your shoulder more.
Shooting with a brace is incredibly similar to shooting with a stock, essentially identical just barely less comfortable.
People are so political when they talk about guns, just be honest with yourself. You can love guns and love regulation at the same time. Maybe we just shouldn’t have crazy people and violent people owning them?
But, why outlaw braces in the first place?
Regulation is good when it makes sense. Calling a gun an “assault weapon” and trying to figure out some ass-backwards and arbitrarily definition afterwards is not good regulation.
Because they make it easier to stay on target for rapid fire shots.
Go ahead and try to tell me that a brace doesn’t make a AR pistol more dangerous to a crowd. I’ve heard this argument a thousand times and I have worked out every angle. Let’s just be honest?
I feel like I have no place. Gun nuts completely ignore reality, gun haters have no real plan for change.
I’m curious how you feel about Hunter Biden being charged with a felony for saying he did not use any drugs on his gun registration. Almost every shooter I know is guilty of the exact same crime, yet everyone thinks it’s okay because he’s a Democrat lol. The second amendment only exists for those who you like 😂
I’ll be honest, as a gun owner I completely despise the gun community. Especially the 3D printed gun community. Filled with Nazi dog whistles, The most popular full auto loophole is called the SS
I don’t collect guns, but I think one should respect both the 1st and 2nd amendments, and it’s frustrating that neither party does so. Frankly, they both ignore reality. The GOP thinks it needs to completely combat any and all regulation presented towards them, even in the face of some mass shooting incident. And Democrats wants to call for the “ban of all guns”, even though there are millions of guns in the system and a 2nd amendment that says no. The fact that they even dared to ban handguns in Washington, DC was ridiculous. None of these laws take any middle ground, and even when they try to classify some gun type they want to ban, it’s a shitty and poorly-crafted law.
I don’t think outright bans are the answer, anyway. Most of what they do in Canada are regulations on who and how you get things. It’s possible to get what you want, but it’s harder than some kid walking into a gun convention and buying a gun with cash.
I think Republicans were trying to find anything on Hunter for years, and this was the one thing they pinned him on. I also don’t think his pardon was a problem for the same reasons this author presented. I think the whole drug question is fucking stupid because the War on (some) Drugs only exists to selectively punish whoever they like, mostly the poor.
Why do old gun nuts ignore the beginning of every interpretation and rewriting of the second amendment? “well regulated”
The nuts will not care until it is their child who is turned into pink mist.
Do you know how many Democrats I have met who actually want to ban all guns? Zero. You are just parroting Fox News talking points that make the left seem like they are anti-freedom.
Go far enough left and you get your guns back.
We don’t want to strip the world of guns, we want to strip guns from those who have violent intentions and mental illness. I’m willing to bet that you agree with this and you are probably further left on this than you actually think you are
Does your opinion on braces change or do you still think that they Don’t make an AR-15 more dangerous having one? I would love to go to the range with you we can take the brace off of my AR and shoot the target, then put it back on and shoot the target. I guarantee you will miss the paper at least once without the brace. This is not me saying they should be illegal. But people like you keep trying to say that braces don’t do anything, that is an outright lie
This discussion means absolutely nothing if people have bad faith arguments. And I’m talking about both sides
I think you wildly misunderstand my associations. I don’t watch Fox News or any of the other GOP propaganda channels. I consider myself a liberal. I just happen to understand what the 2nd amendment was designed for.
But, I have personally met liberals who think the world’s mass shooting problems could be solved by getting rid of all guns, as if that was some achievable goal in the US. These are people who have never owned a gun in their life, who live in the city, and ironically think that the police is going to protect them when some crazy person shows up in their neighborhood, without understanding that some people in rural areas, where the police are 4-6 hours away, buy guns to actually protect themselves.
Meanwhile, Republican gun nuts are hoarding guns and if there was ever any sort of civil war in this country, they would be the ones with far more firepower. We need to get back to an age of Black Panthers, where liberals were arming themselves as a political counterbalance to armed Republican gun nuts. Just like how the Church of Satan is a political counterbalance to attempts to circumvent the separation of church and state. Every time some politician wants to post the Ten Commandments in a government building, they are there to scare off the idea, by reminding them we have a 1st amendment right to honor all religions, not just Christianity.
IDK why the second pic says “same capacity” when…you can see they don’t have the same capacity.
The top rifle looks like it has one of those 10-bullet mags, so the difference isn’t much.
Thank you for providing an explanation of this. I don’t know a lot about guns but this is very informative.