5 ms·

Taking some leads to all. It's not something that should be compromised on. Gun restrictions won't end until ownership is so legally complex and time consuming

Taking some leads to all. It's not something that should be compromised on. Gun restrictions won't end until ownership is so legally complex and time consuming that nobody can reasonably do it anymore. Of course it won't be an outright ban. That would never succeed. The frog in boiling water analogy applies here perfectly.

Brybry 4y ago
"Taking some leads to all" logic doesn't really follow. If that idea applied then the US would already not have guns as many types of firearms (ex. fully automatic) and weapons (explosive munitions) are heavily restricted (and have been for a very long time).
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > are heavily restricted They aren’t. Just pay the $200 tax and wait for the ATF to process your transfer form. (3 months to a year, generally) Unless explicitly banned your state, if you can legally own a firearm, you can legally own an NFA item. Including explosives and automatic firearms. Which is why the NFA is generally bullshit. It’s pointless extra bureaucracy that ultimately achieves nothing but delays.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Why is this downvoted? This is very much true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons
desperadovisa 4y ago
babypuncher 4y ago
Would that really be a bad thing? Most other developed nations seem to get by fine with very strict rules on gun ownership, and coincidentally they have far lower rates for gun violence. When something has far more capacity for harm than practical utility, it makes sense to regulate the crap out of it. Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm.
- loceng 4y ago
  Here's a comedic piece by Awaken with JP, where he points out many historical events where within ~2-10 years of a government taking the guns away from the population then genocide occurred: "Why Guns Must Be Banned Now!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    This is the same guy who didn't know the difference between Infection Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Ratio, then compared the The IF Ratio of Covid to the IF Rate of the Flu and proclaimed the Flu was deadlier because math, and straight faced didn't realize he had two orders of magnitude error. Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.
    - loceng 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.
ribosometronome 4y ago
>Taking some leads to all. Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US led to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.
- MrPatan 4y ago
  Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US is leading to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.
  - croes 4y ago
    I see nothing of a ban
    - WFHRenaissance 4y ago
      No ban, just increasingly restrictive laws on ownership and use that end up resulting in something tantamount to a ban. Look at gun ownership in most countries in Europe if you want an idea of what the future could look like. Then give some thought to what Europe was like in the early 20th century!
      - mulmen 4y ago
        As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. It's not clear that gun laws themselves even enabled the rise of fascism or that they had any negative impact on quality of life. With widespread gun ownership early 20th century Europe could have been even worse. This argument is so tired it has it's own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument > "The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on."
alangibson 4y ago
> Taking some leads to all No it doesn't. Here in Austria, only cops have pistols and semiautomatic arms virtually don't exist. However most of the guys I know have at least one hunting rifle.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Ever growing restrictions start creeping in. In many US states where handguns are hard to acquire it is now difficult to buy small caliber rifle ammunition that can be used in some handguns.
  - throwaway742 4y ago
    Take for example California's "safe handgun roster". They added a new rule that for every one pistol that is added three are removed. It's hard to construe that regulation as anything other than a backdoor attempt at banning pistols.

Brybry 4y ago

"Taking some leads to all" logic doesn't really follow. If that idea applied then the US would already not have guns as many types of firearms (ex. fully automatic) and weapons (explosive munitions) are heavily restricted (and have been for a very long time).

sgjohnson 4y ago
> are heavily restricted They aren’t. Just pay the $200 tax and wait for the ATF to process your transfer form. (3 months to a year, generally) Unless explicitly banned your state, if you can legally own a firearm, you can legally own an NFA item. Including explosives and automatic firearms. Which is why the NFA is generally bullshit. It’s pointless extra bureaucracy that ultimately achieves nothing but delays.
- tekknik 4y ago
  Why is this downvoted? This is very much true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

desperadovisa 4y ago

babypuncher 4y ago

Would that really be a bad thing? Most other developed nations seem to get by fine with very strict rules on gun ownership, and coincidentally they have far lower rates for gun violence. When something has far more capacity for harm than practical utility, it makes sense to regulate the crap out of it. Most people buying AR-15s in the US are not buying them to keep pests off their farm.

loceng 4y ago
Here's a comedic piece by Awaken with JP, where he points out many historical events where within ~2-10 years of a government taking the guns away from the population then genocide occurred: "Why Guns Must Be Banned Now!" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY
- SigmundA 4y ago
  This is the same guy who didn't know the difference between Infection Fatality Rate and Infection Fatality Ratio, then compared the The IF Ratio of Covid to the IF Rate of the Flu and proclaimed the Flu was deadlier because math, and straight faced didn't realize he had two orders of magnitude error. Then he post a video making fun of his video getting removed due to misinformation that he never retracted or corrected.
  - loceng 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.

ribosometronome 4y ago

>Taking some leads to all. Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US led to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.

MrPatan 4y ago
Like how the Assault Weapons Ban in 94 in the US is leading to the complete and total restriction of guns in the US.
- croes 4y ago
  I see nothing of a ban
  - WFHRenaissance 4y ago
    No ban, just increasingly restrictive laws on ownership and use that end up resulting in something tantamount to a ban. Look at gun ownership in most countries in Europe if you want an idea of what the future could look like. Then give some thought to what Europe was like in the early 20th century!
    - mulmen 4y ago
      As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. It's not clear that gun laws themselves even enabled the rise of fascism or that they had any negative impact on quality of life. With widespread gun ownership early 20th century Europe could have been even worse. This argument is so tired it has it's own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument > "The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on."

alangibson 4y ago

> Taking some leads to all No it doesn't. Here in Austria, only cops have pistols and semiautomatic arms virtually don't exist. However most of the guys I know have at least one hunting rifle.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Ever growing restrictions start creeping in. In many US states where handguns are hard to acquire it is now difficult to buy small caliber rifle ammunition that can be used in some handguns.
- throwaway742 4y ago
  Take for example California's "safe handgun roster". They added a new rule that for every one pistol that is added three are removed. It's hard to construe that regulation as anything other than a backdoor attempt at banning pistols.