Gun Control
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So /k/, thoughts on what should and shouldn't be legal? Should citizens have access to the most powerful weapons they can actually afford or should some weapons honestly be restricted?
I think fully automatic weapons should be legal but not mortars and other heavy ordinance.
>>29746307
Doesn't stop explosives from being used illegally, now does it?
Anyone who's going to take the time and effort to go through legal channels to get that shit isn't going to use it for ill purposes.
>>29746307
Whatever the government is allowed to have, the citizens should be allowed to have too.
>>29746307
If canons were allowed when the second amendment was written then we should have full access to whatever explosive ordinance the US military has access to.
>>29746307
The sticky literally says no threads about gun control.
You're fucking retarded
>>29746307
>anon's ideas on gun control
i'll add it to my long list of random people's opinions
>>29746326
/thread
>>29746334
I can get behind that logic. Does it just come down to whoever can actually afford the weapons then or will people be dumb enough to take out loans for their weapons?
>>29746326
If that was the case, shouldn't some sort of safety programs be implemented to train people from killing themselves?
>>29746335
holy christ fuck off
>>29746364
That actually sounds alright, you buy a grenade launcher and before they hand it to you they take you a range and give you the ins and outs.
Sounds fun
>>29746364
I doubt it's very hard.
>>29746364
No, it is not the government's job to prevent you from killing yourself, other people maybe but not yourself.
>>29746307
Why are these threads always started by statist fucks?
>>29746410
This is where I stand honestly. I think we should have basic and small firearm training in schools and when you want to buy heavier stuff, you have to get a certification that shows you know how to handle and operate the heavier weapons. Not a license though because those create easily manipulated systems.
>>29746355
People take out loans for guns now. Shit a barret is around 10k for the low end models. There are programs some manufacturers offer where they loan you money to buy their gun and pay it off like a car. Daniel defense does this I know of.
>>29746441
I mean loans from banks. If the manufacturer offers a "loan" or structured payment, I don't see a problem.
EVERYTHING shy of nuclear; full auto, grenades, cannons, missles, tanks...whatever one can afford.
>>29746430
Better yet instead of forcing people to HAVE to take the training and other hoops. You could say if you want you can get $500 or some large chunk knocked off if not it will be that much more expensive to acquire along with subsequent ammo purchases.
>>29746334
The second amendment says that your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How does one bear a brick of C-4 or a Bradley?
>>29746458
That would actually be good motivation for people to actually take the training instead of going through other methods to get the weapons, they could get certified and get a huge discount.
I'm one of those idiots that thinks competence in proportion to deadliness, indiscriminate nature, and mental health should play a role in what citizens should be allowed to own.
If you can train for it and aren't a mouth breathing idiot you should be able to own it.
It's truly unfortunate that a government can't be trusted to make those determinations. Although I mentally played with the idea of mandatory firearms classes in high school and having a diploma act as a 'licenses'. Such a system is riddled with flaws so I'm still praying one day the sane people will outnumber the incompetent and retarded.
>>29746448
It's not from the manufacturer per say. They run it through a bank still. But I get you point.
Hell people still take out loans for Barrets.
Hell I was in the process of wanting to get a BTR for 13k and I was approved for the loan threw my bank.
I'm sure when people get tanks or older military aircraft they take loans out.
That or be retarded rich.
>>29746478
Being retarded rich would help a lot of people. It seems insane that a bank would support a loan for something like that but I guess money talks and shit walks.
>>29746463
very carefully
>>29746473
What is the flaw with mandatory classes? Let the educated get guns while those who choose not to be educated get bent.
>>29746463
C4? Skilfully. Bradley ? Badassally . or you know grocery runs or blowing apart hogs .
>>29746448
Not a "loan" loan, but I got my first credit card for the sole purpose of buying guns that my first job didn't allow me to afford.
I probably wouldn't do that again, but I still have them all, & it's been so long that it seems worth it.
>>29746511
Alright, that makes more sense. If it was direct loans with "official" contracts, it would seem insane.
>>29746307
I feel that any normal, law abiding citizen should be able to buy whatever the hell they please. The only reason full auto is banned the way it is is because it scares people.
The sbr / sbs laws only existe(d) to make revenue, not keep people safe.
Gun control is never, ever about keeping the poor chilluns safe or keeping the guns away from people who intend to do harm. It's about stopping the law abiding people who love their country from revolting and killing evil politicians, something we desperately need.
I fully support gun safety and background checks / safety classes, ONLY if they are free / quick / and truly intended to keep gun owners safe instead of being a fucking roadblock.
Id be okay if I had to take a day class to learn to handle a firearm properly, but it better be free, easy, and it better not infringe the second amendment.
I also think at 18 you should be able to buy handguns too.
>>29746504
The problem with something being "mandatory" is its another chance for the govt to chip away at your rights.
>>29746540
I agree on classes and programs that teach firearm safety 100%. The handgun law is also fucking retarded.
>>29746558
see
>>29746458
I like this posters idea
>>29746430
Yeah and we can hold the weapon license training at the same place you get your speech license to save on costs
>>29746585
A certification and a license aren't the same thing. I hope you are aware of that. I'm certified to work on computer hardware. I don't need a license to do it, I just have a piece of paper that says I know what I'm doing.
>>29746596
The statist anon is talking about licensing. A certification is totally different and non restrictive to the individual by your own admission. You can still work on and buy computer parts without one, but not many people would pay you.
Threads about politics and gun control belong on >>>/pol/
>>29746664
True, but it's here and it's happening
If you restrict my ownership of certain classifications of firearms with no supporting evidence to suggest i'd misuse them to hurt others, then you are basically saying i'm guilty until proven innocent and this violates one of the most basic rules of a free society.
>>29746307
I think it all should be available unless you prove a danger to society. We actually have a decent system outside how fucktarded the NFA system is.
>>29746664
When Heller came down we had a stickied thread for it. Same for when BOPE went in and cleared out the favelas. Same for Operation Cast Lead. Violency stuff and firearms legislation have always been /k/.
>>29746664
Kys
>>29746469
I agree with this. If you take firearm courses they should either be tax deductible or afford you a discount on your purchase.
>>29746752
>think it all should be available unless you prove a danger to society
>prove a danger to society
>prove
And this is the contention point that is shrouded in ambiguity and conjecture and "proof" could be a countless different things to many different people.
To me, detailing the elaborate plan to shoot up your high school in a text message would be reason enough to warrant an investigation.
To the Brady Campaign, the idea of buying a gun for self defense could be "proof" that you're a danger to society with the intention to hurt others.
Can be spun any way the majority wants, and this is why the 2nd amendment exists. Unadulterated freedom unable to wrestled away by the fear mongering majority....Well that's how it's supposed to work in theory, at least.
>>29746478
It's "per se". I don't like to be that guy but I am
>>29746335
>If you want to civilly discuss gun rights and law, that you have a vested interest in because of your hobby and interests, too bad. We have a board specialized for that purpose where you can't do that either because it's nothing but a cesspit of interracial fetishists
Meanwhile what are gun control advocates doing? Discussing gun control and not being silenced about it.
>>29746326
So should Achmed be allowed to walk into his local gun store and walk out with a nuclear weapon? Or should America's nuclear arsenal be scrapped?
>>29746458
That's stupid, then taxpayers are forced to shoulder the burden
>>29746925
People walk to Bernie's bullshit tax plan in droves, why not support teaching people not to be retarded with guns?
>>29746307
The right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right that is enumerated, not granted, by the 2nd ammendment. However, that right was enumerated and the government was restricted for the sake of the militia.
What "the right of the people to bear arms" protects is philosophical, but it's tied to the right of self-preservation through self-defense. What you need for self-defense is entirely determined by who or what is threatening your right to self-preservation. A nuke wouldn't be useful for this, a standard infantry rifle probably would.
But the "shall not be infringed" part is tied to the sake of the militia. For this I agree with the scotus majority that common weapons held by private citizens are what is protected. As that is what they would bring and use in service of the militia.
Every free citizen should be allowed to own any piece of weaponry they desire, short of WMDs.
WMDs should stay restricted simply because the potential "ND"s could kill a shitload of people.
>>29746966
All guns can kill a shitload of people
>>29746463
>Right to keep arms
Hey that's not good enough, citizens should be able to carry them in case of confrontation too, like lawful self defense or resisting tyranny
>Right to keep and bear arms
>200 years pass
OH WELL since you can't both keep and bear this weapon, it's not protected
Fuck off retard
>>29746966
Honestly the restriction of WMD's is probably masturbatory to begin with. I seriously doubt there would be any company that would be able to sell every day people WMD's in good conscious to begin with.
The compromise I'll offer is that anti-guns knock off their bullshit immediately and I'll refrain from having them hung in the streets for treason.
>>29746913
>implying any nuclear weapon would be cheap enough to allow anyone to buy it
>>29747042
What if a Saudi billionaire decides to donate an obscene amount of dirty Arab oil money to Al Queda and they go to the local gun store and buy a nuclear weapon?
>>29746913
>Implying any gun store would somehow be smart enough to procure nuclear weapons but still be retarded enough to sell them
>Implying Achmed would even be able to afford one unless his uncle was literally a sand nigger oil tycoon
>>29746976
A 2Mt warhead or the right virus would kill more. Way more. Way way more.
>>29746985
I think the most likely scenario is some jackass chemist cooking VX for fun in a large city.
Or when some lab worker wants to grow some anthrax for sale because he's late on his rent.
Not saying these couldn't happen anyways, but should WMDs be free we couldn't do anything about it.
I don't see WMDs being very usefull in a fight against tyrannical government. In a global conflic they make sense but hardly in a civil war.
>>29747042
Seriously, the resources required to manufacture and maintain a nuclear weapon exceed most nations. There may not be a private individual alive who could hack it. If they could, they would essentially be more powerful than most nation states anyway.
>>29747074
I just realized that this message probably made some red lights blink in some ubderground computer facility.
>>29746421
It is the governments job to keep you from killing other people though. Some retard who has no idea what he's doing fucking around with a howitzer in his suburban backyard could easily be extremely dangerous.
>>29747063
That's the day Saudi Arabia stops existing
>>29747086
It's time to crash this thread
come get me FBI ill be waiting with dick in hand
>>29747094
Pre-crime basically
>>29747094
>It is the governments job to keep you from killing other people
No, it's the governments job to prosecute you for killing other people. It's already been established that the police has no duty to protect your life for a while now.
>>29747071
Osama Bin Laden's family were sand nigger oil tycoons. Sand nigger oil tycoons make daily donations to Islamic terrorists. If you make nuclear weapons available to the public then some crazy idiot will get their hands on them.
>>29747116
Congrats! You found a barely plausible scenario for one of the points!
Now the previous one?
>>29747128
M8 a nuclear weapon costs about $100 million to make, which means that buying one wouldn't be all that much for a rich Saudi asshole who sympathizes with ISIS. Not to mention that allowing civilians to possess WMDs would also likely result in their production by private companies who would surely sell them to anybody who wanted them, including terrorists and rogue states.
>>29747111
>No, it's the governments job to prosecute you for killing other people.
Right, because if the government had hard evidence that somebody was planning on killing another person I'm sure that they would do nothing.
>It's already been established that the police has no duty to protect your life for a while now.
Shown how? By who?
>>29747238
Warren v. District of Columbia
>>29747063
>LGS
>Having enough money to stock a nuke
Right.
>>29747212
You're a moron. it's not just the cost, it's the fucking materials and infrastructure. This isn't buying a loaf of bread from Safeway.
>>29746925
So are a multitude of things. Honestly I would like a good chunk of the money of a first time purchase of say a 40mm granade launcher just to learn how to accurately use it and safely.
It would be like a tutorial for a game. Awesome you learned how to use that at a approved range/instructor/ class? Here's some of your shekels back for being a safer owner along with a paper saying you can now get %30 all future ammo purchases and not having to go through training again when you buy the same launcher.
>>29746491
Personal loans can literally be for anything. I gave a guy 3000 for his bachelor party, he told me I didn't ask, and it was perfectly fine. Good credit, good income, got me the loan dollars towards my monthly goal, it's not late or overdue six months later, and we're making money off it.
This is America dude, as long as you can pay it back with interest we don't give a fuck what you spend it on. We're actually not even allowed to ask what a personal loan is for since it might influence us in decision making.
>>29747374
/v pls go
>>29747419
Autism : the post
>>29746307
>So /k/, thoughts on what should and shouldn't be legal?
I believe that literally everything should be legal, but that it can (and should) be regulated in certain circumstances. I'm not a fan of total unconditional bans.
Suppose that 300 years from now, people will own private spacecraft the way we own cars today, and humanity will be spread out all over the solar system. Would it matter very much if people privately owned nukes? I don't think it would be nearly as big of a concern as it is now. They would probably have regulations stating that you can't fly too close to a population center if you're armed with nukes. But if you want to blow up some space rocks in the Oort cloud, nobody will give a shit. Hell, they probably won't even notice.
As for what kind of regulations we should have right here and now....
Personally, I'm not too concerned if people own small arms of any variety. I don't think we need mandatory licenses or permits or training classes. There should be laws against irresponsible gun handling and use, like there already are to some extent.
For privately owned WMDs kept in populated areas, I think you should pay insurance.
The insurance company will decide what safety measures should be in place. They'll periodically inspect your weapon and method of storing it. They'll also probably want to background check you, and see various sorts of certification that show you know how to operate the weapon, and know when it can be legally used, etc. It's hard to predict what requirements they'd have, though I suspect shit will get ridiculous when you want to buy a nuke.
>>29747244
>The Court explained that "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."
How can anyone not take this is perfect proof that "public, corporate, or collective" rights are not rights at all. You can't serve and protect the public at large, only individuals. If everyone in washington DC was being raped in their home at the same time, would the police have a duty not to fuck up royally then?
>So /k/, thoughts on what should and shouldn't be legal?
Gun control
>>29746430
Ubiquitous training in schools is the only certification/licensing process I'm comfortable with. Otherwise, if you have to take a course/get a license it works as a defacto arms registry, letting the government know exactly who has weapons and where they live.
>>29746335
I hope you are killed by sitting in the tub.
>>29746307
You can legally acquire just about anything short of WMDs, you just have to go through a lot time, money, and frustration to get them. I'm okay with that. If Tyrone breaks into a gun store and steals three revolvers and a Glock its no big deal. He breaks in and steals a belt fed machine gun and a case of grenades and you might have a real fucking problem.
More gun control, in most cases, reduces crimes committed with firearms. However, it usually has a negative impact on the overall crime rate.
Personally,there should be 'tiers' of weapons. And the only way to progress to get high powered weapons and such is to have a liscense for that tier for X amount of time. To get the next tier, you would have to complete a certain amount of training and pass with like an 80% to get the liscense fir the next higher tier. That way stupid people, and irresponsible people could still have firearms,just limited on what they can have.
>>29746307
But full auto is legal anyway
>>29749731
I think they mean being able to register new full-auto, i.e., a repeal of the Hughes Amendment
>>29746988
>>29749766
They should restructure the NFA
Class A
>any firearm that fires one round per pull of the trigger regardless of overall length and barrel length or bore size. Any accessories are not regulated.
So you can buy a rifle with a 10 inch barrel and a supressor off the shelf with a 4473 and and background check.
Class B
>any firearm that fires more than one round with one pull of the trigger and any firearm chambered for a round greater than .51 caliber. You need to submit a form to the atf explaining what you intend to do with it, you have up to 1 year go appeal the decision. but, yiu dont need a background check or a 4473 to purchase at an FFL with consent from the atf. So you need to tell the atf why you want a full automatic 20mm cannon, and once you're approved, you can pick it up from the FFL with no paperwork because the atf already did it
>>29746335
GUN RIGHTS
ARE
GUN RELATED
U
N
R
E
L
A
T
E
D
>>29749731
Not making more machine guns.
>>29749942
I was thinking more this:
>Class A: Any firearm that fires more than one round with one pull of the trigger
>Class B: Any cartridge, shell, or artillery ammunition with a diameter greater than 20 mm, or any high explosive, mine, or depth charge
For Class A, registration with the federal government is needed, but it is shall-issue. Class B, a short and free training course is required, passing grade 70%, if pass then shall-issue as well. All other arms simply require a background check, with no personal information being recorded at all.
>>29747094
Actually it's not their job
>>29746966
This is the same argument to ban small arms
>>29747116
Didn't know the Brady campaign was joining us
>>29747238
Multiple police incidents followed by court rulings. NYC was the most notible
>>29750395
Not the guy, but regarding WMDs:
>Chemical/Biological/Radiological: Indiscriminate weapons, they cannot be targeted the same way as conventional arms, and the first two have been banned from use by even governments.
>Nuclear: should be allowable, although would probably be prohibited from being detonated in the atmosphere until clean fusion weapons are invented.
In any case, nukes would be extremely expensive, and weapons of any appreciable power would likely remain out of reach of the public for some time.
>>29749568
Brady please go
>>29747042
>>29747079
>mfw three or four elderly billionaires buy themselves nukes and the old Yucca Flat testing grounds
>mfw Big Sandy Nuke Shoot 2027
>>29749704
Didn't know "stupid" people were not part of the people.
>>29749942
Background checks are an infringement.
I think if there were private WMD pointed at the capital it would do wonders to keep the politicians on their toes and end corruption lol.
>>29749963
The rules on the sticky are
/k/
R
E
L
A
T
E
D
