5 ms·

>Citation needed. I, and probably the majority of the citizens of those countries do not consider the standard test/psych eval/background check/random checks in

>Citation needed. I, and probably the majority of the citizens of those countries do not consider the standard test/psych eval/background check/random checks in the future to make sure you're following the rules to be "exceptionally onerous". Just because you've accepted the boot on your neck doesn't make it not a boot. When (not if) a currently free and democratic Western nation decides to be not so democratic anymore (whether due to invasion, international pressure from economic partners like Russia and China, or just that the assholes in power decided to seize even more power) the citizens (or rather subjects) of those countries will have no means of fighting back. You can already see it with several countries' response to covid. >What would you consider a just middle ground between "onerous requirements" and "everyone can buy any weapon without any requirements but paying for it"? My feelings on gun control can be summed up as "I want mail order rocket launchers delivered to my doorstep." The state should fear its people, not the other way around, and the best way to ensure that is to give the people the means to put a bullet (or several) into any would-be tyrants. And, regardless of what "the majority of citizens" feel about bootlicking and trampling on their own natural rights, advances in home manufacturing are quickly making any efforts to do so a pipedream.

Volundr 4y ago
If it's a choice between wearing a mask at the grocery store and the idiot next door blowing up my house with their mail order rocket launcher, I'll take the mask. If that makes me a bootlicker so be it I suppose.
- KAMSPioneer 4y ago
  I have a suspicion that I already know, but why are you jumping to a non-sequitur about masks? I tend to agree with the user to whom you're responding on this particular issue, and I still wear a mask in places such as public transit, enclosed spaces, etc. So...I guess my point is that you don't _have_ to choose between masks and gun rights. I'm unsure of why you would bring it up.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    From the comment I'm replying to: > You can already see it with several countries' response to covid. Perhaps the commenter was going for something else, but at least where I'm at we've had two straight years of people insisting they are muzzles, an infringement on our god-given rights, and the beginning of a slippery slope to tyranny. Perhaps the commenter meant something else, but since they didn't spell out what specifically about the "response to Covid" they intended to solve with a mail-order rocket launcher of all things, I was left to interpret for myself.
    - KAMSPioneer 4y ago
      Fair enough, I suppose. I immediately thought of (what I consider to be) excessive lockdowns and enforcement in countries like Australia, but I can see how you went to masks.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        It certainly could be. But even then I'm not sure I consider measures attempting to control a pandemic the height of tyranny. I realize this might sound like I'm pro-lockdown, I'm not, I actually think most countries completely botched their handling with measures both insufficient to have sufficient impact on the actual spread, while limiting enough to ensure significant damage from the measures themselves. I also take issue with the idea of gun (or rocket launcher ownership) ownership as a means of prevention. I mean look at the top countries for (citizen) gun ownership. Sure you've got the US, Serbia, Canada, Uruguay, Finland up there, not bad, But you've also got Yemen at #3 and Lebanon and #11. If that's the kind of "freedom" private gun ownership ensures, then I'm not buying. And again I'm not even that pro gun control. I think you should be required to get a background check to get one, I think you should be required to be trained on their use and safety, and I think you should be required to take reasonable measures to protect your firearms against theft. I'd say that's it, but I suppose I'm also against mail order rocket launchers. But for the most part, having met those requirements I think you should be able to buy what you want (within reason, again let's skip the rocket launcher). But as protection against government tyranny? Doubt.
prussian 4y ago
>My feelings on gun control can be summed up as "I want mail order rocket launchers delivered to my doorstep." I don't know. I'm a believer in extreme gun rights as well, but giving people the power to have rocket launching systems like MANPADS just seems a bit, dangerous.
- int_19h 4y ago
  You already have the legal ability to own a rocket launcher - it's not any different from any other "destructive device". The main barrier to ownership is finding someone willing to sell you one, and the price they would likely ask for it. There are rich collectors in US who own tanks (with active turret), artillery etc - mostly older stuff, but still plenty destructive.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    A quick google suggests that if you want your tank to have working guns and/or turret you need a Federal Destructive Device Permit, which includes a background check and ATF approval.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Destructive devices are NFA items, true. If you want to own a DD, you need to pay the $200 federal transfer tax, which is done by submitting a form to the ATF and getting a tax stamp from them. It's not a "permit", though. And there are no special limits on who can own one - if you can legally own a gun, you can legally own a DD or any other NFA item. One doesn't even need to be a US citizen or a permanent resident for that, even people on student and work visas can do it.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        This is the site that I was looking at: https://nationalfirearmsact.com/nfa-regulated-items/destructive-device-dd/ https://nationalfirearmsact.com/nfa-regulated-items/destruct..., which seems to spell out the background check as a requirement. It also says you need to be a resident of the US. Am I missing something?
sofixa 4y ago
> want mail order rocket launchers delivered to my doorstep." The state should fear its people, not the other way around, and the best way to ensure that is to give the people the means to put a bullet (or several) into any would-be tyrants. You should look into France and it's protest culture. When the people are unhappy with the government's action, they go out on the street and protest. Without any weapons, this being a civilized country where violence is only a last resort. And you know what? Governments listen and adapt, even without the fear of direct death. So i find your premise wrong to begin with. There is no natural right to murder, so i disagree that owning a weapon is a natural right. And i find it extremely funny that the country that is so proud in their "everyone should be armed so the government is afraid of the people" culture has such shitty dysfunctional governments that act against the people's interests extremely often. Where are the armed uprisings against the Patriot act, civil asset forfeiture, racist abuse, abortion restrictions, failures to combat climate change or wasting money in useless wars abroad? No? When then?

Volundr 4y ago

If it's a choice between wearing a mask at the grocery store and the idiot next door blowing up my house with their mail order rocket launcher, I'll take the mask. If that makes me a bootlicker so be it I suppose.

KAMSPioneer 4y ago
I have a suspicion that I already know, but why are you jumping to a non-sequitur about masks? I tend to agree with the user to whom you're responding on this particular issue, and I still wear a mask in places such as public transit, enclosed spaces, etc. So...I guess my point is that you don't _have_ to choose between masks and gun rights. I'm unsure of why you would bring it up.
- Volundr 4y ago
  From the comment I'm replying to: > You can already see it with several countries' response to covid. Perhaps the commenter was going for something else, but at least where I'm at we've had two straight years of people insisting they are muzzles, an infringement on our god-given rights, and the beginning of a slippery slope to tyranny. Perhaps the commenter meant something else, but since they didn't spell out what specifically about the "response to Covid" they intended to solve with a mail-order rocket launcher of all things, I was left to interpret for myself.
  - KAMSPioneer 4y ago
    Fair enough, I suppose. I immediately thought of (what I consider to be) excessive lockdowns and enforcement in countries like Australia, but I can see how you went to masks.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      It certainly could be. But even then I'm not sure I consider measures attempting to control a pandemic the height of tyranny. I realize this might sound like I'm pro-lockdown, I'm not, I actually think most countries completely botched their handling with measures both insufficient to have sufficient impact on the actual spread, while limiting enough to ensure significant damage from the measures themselves. I also take issue with the idea of gun (or rocket launcher ownership) ownership as a means of prevention. I mean look at the top countries for (citizen) gun ownership. Sure you've got the US, Serbia, Canada, Uruguay, Finland up there, not bad, But you've also got Yemen at #3 and Lebanon and #11. If that's the kind of "freedom" private gun ownership ensures, then I'm not buying. And again I'm not even that pro gun control. I think you should be required to get a background check to get one, I think you should be required to be trained on their use and safety, and I think you should be required to take reasonable measures to protect your firearms against theft. I'd say that's it, but I suppose I'm also against mail order rocket launchers. But for the most part, having met those requirements I think you should be able to buy what you want (within reason, again let's skip the rocket launcher). But as protection against government tyranny? Doubt.

prussian 4y ago

>My feelings on gun control can be summed up as "I want mail order rocket launchers delivered to my doorstep." I don't know. I'm a believer in extreme gun rights as well, but giving people the power to have rocket launching systems like MANPADS just seems a bit, dangerous.

int_19h 4y ago
You already have the legal ability to own a rocket launcher - it's not any different from any other "destructive device". The main barrier to ownership is finding someone willing to sell you one, and the price they would likely ask for it. There are rich collectors in US who own tanks (with active turret), artillery etc - mostly older stuff, but still plenty destructive.
- Volundr 4y ago
  A quick google suggests that if you want your tank to have working guns and/or turret you need a Federal Destructive Device Permit, which includes a background check and ATF approval.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Destructive devices are NFA items, true. If you want to own a DD, you need to pay the $200 federal transfer tax, which is done by submitting a form to the ATF and getting a tax stamp from them. It's not a "permit", though. And there are no special limits on who can own one - if you can legally own a gun, you can legally own a DD or any other NFA item. One doesn't even need to be a US citizen or a permanent resident for that, even people on student and work visas can do it.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      This is the site that I was looking at: https://nationalfirearmsact.com/nfa-regulated-items/destructive-device-dd/ https://nationalfirearmsact.com/nfa-regulated-items/destruct..., which seems to spell out the background check as a requirement. It also says you need to be a resident of the US. Am I missing something?

sofixa 4y ago

> want mail order rocket launchers delivered to my doorstep." The state should fear its people, not the other way around, and the best way to ensure that is to give the people the means to put a bullet (or several) into any would-be tyrants. You should look into France and it's protest culture. When the people are unhappy with the government's action, they go out on the street and protest. Without any weapons, this being a civilized country where violence is only a last resort. And you know what? Governments listen and adapt, even without the fear of direct death. So i find your premise wrong to begin with. There is no natural right to murder, so i disagree that owning a weapon is a natural right. And i find it extremely funny that the country that is so proud in their "everyone should be armed so the government is afraid of the people" culture has such shitty dysfunctional governments that act against the people's interests extremely often. Where are the armed uprisings against the Patriot act, civil asset forfeiture, racist abuse, abortion restrictions, failures to combat climate change or wasting money in useless wars abroad? No? When then?