So. Right off the bat, sorry if this starts a shit storm. Wandered in from another board with a question.
I am not a gun person. I understand people collect guns much like they collect stamps, I understand people like hunting and I understand there are locations where having a weapon available offers peace of mind.
I also understand there are those who enjoy the thought of having enough firearms to equip a small army.
My question? Where do you draw the line?
At what point do you think weapon ownership should be considered excessive? Either in quantity of weapons, Quality of weapons or potential danger of misuse?
Is there such a thing as too much gun?
I ask this of you as people who (I assume) actually know a bit about the topic.
Country? Law? Politics? fuck it.
All I want to know is if there is a point where you think "Shit, that guy has too many guns/super killy guns" and roughly what that point is.
>Is there such a thing as too much gun?
Nope
Guy this is a board for the discussion of firearms/ weapons themselves, not necessarily the connotations and mindsets around them. Go to /pol/ for a better discussion. Cheers
how about you fuck off
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>29819701
>All I want to know is if there is a point where you think "Shit, that guy has too many guns/super killy guns" and roughly what that point is.
NEVER
>>29819715
>inb4 we all get b&
What about nukes? Give every man, woman, and child a nuke.
>>29819701
NEVER ENUFF DAKKA
>>29819735
I just want to ask gun guys a question about their opinion on guns.
I don't want the hear round 8 million of gun control bitching by Americans.
>Is there such a thing as too much gun?
>>29819701
Gun laws don't work for the same reason murder laws don't work. It's really that simple in the end.
>>29819735
90% of this board is Americans/ Canadians
>>29819807
The fuck are you talking about?
The question is: Is there such a thing as too much gun?
Fuck the laws.
Is there a point where you would be concerned about the quantity/quantity of weapon another person has?
>>29819838
Nope.
If anything it's my reaction would be less concerned, more impressed.
>>29819765
Super killy guns?
Why does it matter. All guns can kill. And at most you can shoot 2 guns simultaneously.
So what does it matter if i have 35 or 2.
The tools dont make the criminal. If I was intent on killing some one my lack of a gun is not a problem.
If i leave my gun all alone. All it does is sit there. Gathering dust. It isnt going to go all killy on its own.
>>29819838
no, the Australian example shows that at one time people didnt have laws against anything besides full autos
not they have registration for air rifles and paintball guns
the overall homicide rate, suicide rate, and home invasion rate have not changed off their steady decline since well before the laws
Literally the right of the people is stated in 2 other amendments but how fucking hard is it to understand what it means in the second? The right of the fucking people.
>>29819891
now they have registration*
also to add, a non biased senate inquiry started by the anti gun lobby came back with the results of "gun laws didnt do shit"
>>29819838
I'm not really concerned with the amount of guns a person has. They can only really use one at a time, so quantity doesn't really seem to matter.
>>29819792
Im a noguns, so i don't know how much my opinion is worth, but here it is:
Yes to all calibers
Yes to all clip sizes
Yes to semi auto and bolt action
Yes to tasers, pepper spray/gel
Permit for semiauto (basic, nothing special)
Permit for CC
Registration for all firearms (penalty if firearm in your name is used in crime)
Widespread gun safety information (may or may not be mandatory)
No to anything that violates the Geneva Conventions
No to tanks, artillery, cannons, and mounted weaponry (you can't strap a semiauto 50 cal to your goddamn truck)
No to full auto
No to select fire (burst fire)
No to incindiary rounds in dry climates
No to tear gas, or similar crowd control items.
>>29819779
if someone can afford a nuke, then they could do a whole lot more damage spending the same amount of money on other things
>>29819928
why do you say no to the things on the bottom
If you're not speaking in legal terms, why does it matter how many firearms a person has you nosy faggot? Mind your own fucking business.
>>29819838
OP i understand, these guys quickly assumed it was a question of legality and went constitutional on you.
I think what OP means guys is that at a certain point, a mass arsenal of weapons under civilian control eventually carry's much higher risk to public safety than is defend-able or explainable.
>>29819701
How come nobody is ever concerned about owning to many stamps?
Stop having double standards.
>>29819701
There is a such a thing as too much gun, when you're not able to afford any more. No gun is more "super killy" than another.
The only time a dude has too many is when he has every gun, and I have none. The greedy prick.
>>29819701
>too many guns
Yes, there is an acceptable limit. It's when your credit card starts getting declined.
>>29819928
This makes no goddamned sense. Imagine trying to manage all those rules and exceptions. Next he's going to tell us how we need more govt and more laws to protect us all from ourselves.
>>29819928
>civilians having to abide by the Geneva Convention
Fucking why?
>>29819928
>No to anything against Geneva Convention
So ban hollowpoints?
>No to mounted weaponry
So I shouldn't be allowed to mount a .22 to my truck? What's the difference between that and just standing in a flatbed shooting my .22?
>>29819995
/THREAD X A BILLION INTERWEBS
>>29819701
YOU WANT TO CONTROL VIOLENT DESTRUCTIVE, MURDEROUS CRIME.???
STOP IGNORANT TRASH LIKE GHETTO STREET MONKEY NIGGERS AND DUMB WHITE TRASH REDNECKS FROM BREEDING
>>29819928
>No to full auto
wtf dude, I love full auto and I already pay extra money to have it :(
it's just so fun, and lets be honest limiting civvie ownership wont impact criminal ownership
>>29819958
Well there's the Geneva conventions. I don't think i need to explain why those are important, and why those weapons constitute war crimes
Tanks, artillery, etc is because of things like Killdozer. We just can't stop them. And i don't want some fudd NDing artillery and hitting my house
Full auto/select fire is because in mass shooting scenarios, you can do more damage in less time with the higher fire rate. Same reason why i would have permits for semi auto. You never see shootings with a mosin nagant
No incindiary in dry climates is to help prevent wild fires. A lot of dry states have regulations on fire works for the same reason.
No tear gas because of the anarchy that would happen from a guy tossing tear gas into a bank, a gun store, any store really. Even in the street it can be nasty stuff, and so it gives one individual the power to subdue many at once.
Oh and no grenades, for the same reason.
The United States constitution does not only cover our rights to a certain extent.
Why would the 2nd amendment only go so far?
Should the 1st only go so far too?
If I can't have full auto then you can't have social media because that's too much free speech.
I don't think people have a use for artillery or napalm or nukes or full auto but who the fuck am I to say what other people need.
>>29819701
Women collect shoes and don't get reamed like a man collecting guns.
Men get called a number of things like weaboo for collecting anime figures or a dork/geek etc. But if a girl does it then it's ok.
This is an extreme example of it where someone wants to throw laws at it and take the collection away.
Why the fuck should you care?
>>29819928
>Im a noguns, so i don't know how much my opinion is worth
not much
>>29819701
I draw the line at explosives.
I would want..
>Over the counter supressors, with no background checks or tax
>Repeal the laws against SBRs and AOW and what not
>Move the 200 dollar stamp to machine guns
>Move legal handgun purchasing age down to 18 for dealers
>National constitutional carry
>Get rid of most gun free zones
>>29819928
That sounds like it could be abused to no end. If there's a gun registery put into place, we might as well admit defeat.
Also how does a gun mounted to a vehicle make it any worse? Why even have laws against it? How often do you hear about people getting mowed down in the US by technicals. Do you live in Iraq or something?
And what makes crowd control substances more dangerous in civilian hands? They're really only useful in very niche situations.
You sound like a statist.
>>29819701
I have two hands
I can only effectively operate a maximum of
TWO
W
O
GUNS
U
N
S
so who cares how many I own?
>>29820075
>Well there's the Geneva conventions. I don't think i need to explain why those are important, and why those weapons constitute war crimes
I think you do
>>29819838
>Is there a point where you would be concerned about the quantity/quantity of weapon another person has?
If they do not have one and if they could do better
>>29820075
I just hope you understand you are a retard.
People willing to buy those things legally typically aren't the ones going to use them illegally.
Yeah there's certain circumstances that show otherwise but there is plenty of bomb making supplies avaliable pretty much everywhere and very few bombs going off.
Having laws like that only affect the people willing to obey them, so the entire argument of having said laws is pretty retarded if the crowd you're worried about would just break the laws anyways.
>>29820075
>>29819928
I don't think you know where you are.
>>29820042
Hollowpoints are okay, i never really understood why those were an issue. I mean you're shooting the guy anyway
I hadn't considered mounting a .22
I mean i guess it would be fine. I think a better line to be drawn is "if you can't hold the gun anymore". No semi auto GAU-8s
>>29820024
Would you rather i just ban everything? I think the above rules (which aren't that many) are fairly even.
>>29820034
>Ok let me take my anthrax to the shooting range
>>29820075
Do I have to explain to you the benefits of using hollow point rounds over FMJ, especially in a CCW?
I've seen shootings with pump action and double barrel shotguns. The Cumbria shooter in Britain used both a bolt action rifle and a double barrel shotgun.
Tanks and artillery are technically legal to own in most states. How many times have they been used in mass shootings?
Grenades are legal as well. Again, gimme a time they were used in a mass shooting.
Please go and stay go.
>>29820075
>we just cant stop them
whos "we"? the military definitely could, and any other civilian with a tank also could
>mass shooting scenarios
and that person could be put down with a single bullet by another person carrying a gun
incendiaries in dry climates I could understand for the same reason as fireworks
>no teargas
so only the government should be able to gas a bunch of people?
as much as I personally don't like the idea of a bunch of idiots owning explosives anywhere near me, its not like the government isnt also a bunch of idiots, and I dislike the idea of the government having a monopoly of force even more
>>29820075
>>29820160
I really hope this is bait.
>>29820160
Well if you say Geneva Convention items should be banned, that covers HPs. So you shouldn't be allowed to mount a gun if you're not able to hold it in your hands otherwise is basically what you're getting at?
The thing is, you're saying to ban things that aren't really a problem. Even if you require permits for semi-autos and CC, that won't stop people from legally purchasing a semi-auto and going on a rampage, or from someone just taking a pistol and shoving it in their waistband. What would a permit system actually do, or registration for that matter? We have permits in NJ, and that doesn't stop gangbangers in Newark and Camden from going out with their Glawk Fotays.
>>29820160
I now want a semi-auto shoulder-fired GAU-8.
>>29820232
try hague peace conference
>>29820242
make it a handgun and its fine
So nobody would be concerned if you saw a random dude with several thousand guns, machine guns or outright artillery pieces?
>>29820286
I would never see that because theres no dude who could carry all that at once
I really dont think you understand that one person couldnt use all those together by himself, he'd need thousands of others to help him
>>29819995
I swear to god, the moment I learn how to shoot someone with stamps, I am hunting every single one of you fucking degenerates down.>>29820009
>>29820286
>>29820302
itd be a helluva nuggetfest
>>29820117
Bombs are very difficult to make properly.
The people that would use artillery ILLEGALLY can't get one. And it protects us against negligence too.
Not having any tank salesmen makes it difficult to buy one. Go ahead, try to fed ex a tank to your house.
>>29820170
I said hollowpoints are fine, bruv.
Tanks/killdozers don't get used often, but they have gone on rampages before. Multiple times. And the police could do nothing. >>29820176 the military wasn't THERE, and they would have to wreck the road in the process. You can't even flip an abrams over with a helicopter. I did the math a while back, you would TWO chinooks side by side for one scrub in a tank. And by then he's already gone through two houses, 6 squad cars, and a deli.
ARE grenades legal? Because if they are those would be really easy to use. That sounds like a big deal
>have grenades
>lob over fence into concert
>disappear into the night
>>29820327
They are legal as NFA destructive devices
>>29820286
NUGGET FEST 2017 OR BUST
>>29820327
You can buy tanks w/ a working cannon you gnome.
Just because it's hard to make a bomb doesn't mean it's impossible.
Are we just banning things that are hard now?
>>29820302
I understand there limits on how many guns a person may use.
My concern would be why that person has the fire power to equip a small army.
That being that the person may be considering equipping a small army.
>>29820327
Are you an idiot?
A tank is way outside the maximum cube volume allowed through Fed-Ex.
You need an actual cargo carrier. If you are going something the scale of a Abrams or Leopard you also need to factor in the cost of the over width permit and pilot truck.
>>29820251
I stand corrected
>>29820327
Right, my bad, I wrote my reply before I saw your second one. As for tanks, I remember a police chase that involved one, but if I remember correctly the tank was stolen from a National Guard base or some shit.
And yes, they're legal as destructive devices under the NFA. Just need a tax stamp, and someone to sell it to you. Correct me if I'm wrong. Of course, you could just make a pipe bomb for that same purpose.
>>29820378
That would be a militia, a well-regulated one being necessary to the security of a free state.
>>29820357
We're banning weapons that can cause mass destruction relatively easily. And be real, you weren't gonna buy a tank anyway. So your personal firepower is relatively weakened by other people owning tanks.
Show me where i can buy a fully functional tank.
>inb4 tanksrus.gov
>>29819838
>Is there a point where you would be concerned about the quantity/quantity of weapon another person has?
No. A person that has a lot of guns is definitely an enthusiast, not a mass murderer.
I'm concerned about all the niggers with a Hi-Point.
>>29820404
Like the Crips, right?
>>29820405
>Show me where i can buy a fully functional tank.
mortar investments
You have to pay for shipping though, and it ain't cheap.
>>29820378
>My concern would be why that person has the fire power to equip a small army.
>That being that the person may be considering equipping a small army.
why is that a concern?
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss ... Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
>>29820405
http://www.armslist.com/posts/4616205/oklahoma-city-oklahoma-nfa-firearms-for-sale--fully-operational-main-battle-tank-with-120mm-live-cannon
>>29819701
Don't tread on me
D
O
N
T
T
R
E
A
D
O
N
M
E
>>29820378
So now you're worried about small armies?
So what if instead of one guy with 10 guns, you have 10 guys with one gun?
You don't fucking get it do you?
Laws will do NOTHING. People who intend to inflict harm don't give a FUCK about the laws. So making it harder for a law abiding citizen to do whatever doesn't exactly stop the bad people does it?
What it does do is give the criminal an advantage, and it punishes everyone for the acts of a few.
>>29820405
>my cock is a weapon of mass destruction
So who gets to make these laws?
Gun experts?
Doctors?
Politicians?
The people?
Again, you don't fucking get it.
http://www.armyjeeps.net/walkerbulldog0326/Index.htm
>>29820405
If you can't even buy one, why waste the time and money to create a law against it? Either it's a big enough issue that we have to make a law, or such a trivial issue that a law isn't needed.
>>29820418
You're saying the Crips are a militia?
>>29820443
Well shit, good thing I just got my tax return.
>>29819903
Is that some weird Winchester Wildcat?
>>29820378
>why that person has the fire power to equip a small army
Since you already have an understanding of other hobbies, just flip it.
Why would anyone have enough RAM to supply a small army? Wait, seeing as it's only RAM and not entire computers, and small armies literally cannot operate on just "how much RAM they have," they have to rely on other things such as water, food, sleep, shelter, vehicles, fuel, et cetera, does someone having enough RAM to equip a small army even matter?
What if they have enough zip ties to clean up the guts of an entire SQUAD'S computers? Wait what? Does that matter either? Hell no.
Having a collection of guns large enough to arm a small or even large army really has nothing to do with the ability to actually HAVE a functional army. Otherwise factories wouldn't operate, for anything, at any time, in any place. They would constantly have the means to equip a small army, if they did. But that's how it be and it do. It's like you're looking at firearms as more than just inanimate, singular objects. Yeah they're militaristic but so are combat boots. Combat boot collectors with enough to equip an army, doesn't mean it means anything at all.
>>29820428
Wow. Those are actually really cheap too holy shit
Brb gonna rob a bank with a T-34
>>29820465
>Those are actually really cheap too holy shit
Those are the base prices. You'll have to pay restoration, then shipping over the atlantic, which is 25$ per pound. So, yeah..
>>29820461
Yes, i am. Or rather, im making a counterpoint. Stockpiling funz for a gang war. I don't actually care about amassing guns though, so...
>>29819701
Responsible firearm owner here. There really IS a plateau where you realize you have enough firearms to satisfy both your hobby of shooting, and your sense of self preservation and your patriotic duty.
I have:
>1 cowboy revolver
My first purchase. It's distinctively different and a pleasure to shoot, cowboy style. It's like the Old West.
>1 Colt 1911
My practical handgun choice. Also fun to shoot, but different
>M1A
My rifle I use for range practice, and for any potential dangerous situations in my community.
I keep all of them locked up.
They're expensive -- a decent firearm will cost you $600 - $1200. That dents any young man's paycheck. So yes, there does come a time when you say "I have got enough for now". -- unless you're Ted Nugent.
I live in the US in California.
>>29820075
>Full auto/select fire is because in mass shooting scenarios, you can do more damage in less time with the higher fire rate.
Sounds like a good way to waste ammo, actually. I don't know if you've ever shot a full auto weapon before, but it's real easy to fire off more than you mean to.
>Same reason why i would have permits for semi auto. You never see shootings with a mosin nagant
You will never, ever remove all the semiautos from the US. They could be made illegal tomorrow, and I'd expect them to still be around for decades. People will stash them, and steal them. The more enterprising criminals will figure out how to make them and sell for profit (hint: it's not hard with a little metalwork knowledge or a 3D printer). Our gangs will not be disarmed no matter what I you do. Disarming the good citizens will not have the positive effect you're hoping for.
>>29819701
Like just about anything, it becomes a problem when it starts to negatively impact your life. Can't afford to buy people food because you need to buy more .338 Lapua mag? Can't open your front door all the way because there's a pile of guns partially blocking it? Guns all over the bed because there's nowhere else to put them, horrible nightmares about being crushed when your pile of guns collapses on you?
That is where I would start evaluating whether or not it was too much. Even then, it might be fine.
>>29820483
The difference between a militia and a gang lies in its actions. A militia exists to protect the rights, lives, and properties of citizens. However, once that militia starts committing murder, robbery, rape, assault, drug crimes, protection rackets, illegal prostitution, etc., then it becomes a gang.
It's like, what's the difference between a government and a corporation? One can legally hold you at gunpoint to give them money, the other cannot.
>>29820512
To be fair, he didn't say ban semi-autos, just require a permit for them. Still, I agree with your principles
>>29820464
If I have a storage unit full of bolts in various sizes, maybe the Government should step in and put a limit on that. If any group wants to fund their militia, all they need to do is raid my storage unit and they are BAM able to now operate.
Same with knowledge. I personally have enough knowledge in my head and in books to literally train, from the ground up, an entire foot mobile assault force. I have enough knowledge to arm a small army. They don't even need weapons.
What's more dangerous, the ability to supply a small army with empty weapons that they don't know how to use,
or the ability to train and entire small military force which does not need firearms?
I know that this is reduction ad absurdum(im?) but the entire premise of limiting the ownership of inanimate objects based on unrealistic dangers is pretty absurd.
>>29819928
Stupid.
>>29820075
>same reason why I would have permits for semi auto. You never see shootings with a mosin nagant.
>semi-auto
>mosin nagant
Wew lad
>>29820533
How thorough and well thought out
I'm indecisive on suppressors though. I mean if i was gonna shoot people, it'd be with a suppressor
>>29819701
>Where do you draw the line?
When the constitution was drafted, you could own privatized warships.
So basically when I can own my own aircraft carrier fully loaded with a couple platoons of marines, and a squadron F-35 pilots, I will be satisfied.
All kidding aside, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means that any US citizen should be able to own any weapon or ability that the US Govt has access to.
So basically, anyone should be able to own anything with a NSN number, without any delay, due to the fact the whole reason for the 2A was a countermeasure to prevent tyranny, foreign or domestic.
>>29820561
Musty nigglets are bolt action, which was my point. Mass shootings are exclusively done with semi auto or full auto weapons
>>29820569
Suppressors are retarded to well suppress. Shit I can make one out of a paint can and stick it on my gun for like $20, and it'll perform the necessary function.
>>29819928
>Clip
>Permit for semi auto
>"""""basic"""""""
>Registration
The rest is too retarded to repeat.
Thank god you don't make any policies.
>>29820569
theyre extra cost, weight, bulk, and maintenance that need to be thoroughly reliability tested paired with the firearm before you trust your life with it
and on top of that they do not make for hollywood quiet of most guns, but enough to be "hearing safe" and reduce chances of deafness or tinnitus in a defense situation without ear pro
>>29820569
As someone who's home defense gun is an AR, I'd really love to have a suppressor. I have to wear plugs and earmuffs just to go to the range with it. I really wouldn't wanna have perforated eardrums if I ever had to use it.
>>29820594
First off, what do you define as a mass shooting?
Secondly, give me one shooting that was committed with a full-auto gun. I can give you a list of shootings pulled off with bolt action, pump action, and double-barrel firearms.
>>29819928
your opinion is worth nothing and it's contents mean you should kill yourself.
>>29820286
He's clearly a collector who's invested copious amounts of time and money into his collection.
I have north of 40 computers, does that make me a hacker?
I have 14 HTs, does that make me a spy?
>>29819928
>Registration for all firearms
This part is on us gun owners to not be lazy dumbasses.
Keep that fucking info just in case something gets stolen.
>>29820609
clip/magazine, w/e
Basic as in no wait time, just a background check and that's it. Check for previously diagnosed psychosis and violent crimes.
The registration is supposed to help with owner accountability. If you don't lock your gun up and your autistic kid shoots up a school with it, that is, to a large degree, your fault.
>>29820569
If I was gonna shoot people, it'd be with a gun.
>>29819701
Its not about how many guns/what kind. It is about the behavior the owner displays, both in terms of acting intelligently and safely and in terms of anger, psychological issues.
>>29820569
The Geneva Convention decisions all hinged directly on uniformed combat, POWs, modern weapons, the advents of force numbers vs medical care.
To force Geneva Convention rules on civilian self defense weapons would be......well let's just say I'm pretty sure that you aren't familiar with the Geneva Convention rulings and the dangers of civilians carrying ball ammunition for self defense. It's a really bad idea.
>>29820594
>Mass shootings are exclusively done with semi auto or full auto weapons
No. The smallest amount of research would prove otherwise.
>>29820686
>clip/magazine, w/e
Your massive ignorance is showing.
>The registration is supposed to help with owner accountability.
It would be instantly abused, and do keep in mind that you have hundreds of millions of unregistered firearms in circulation already.
>>29820634
The suppressor thing is an interesting thought. How about this:
Suppressors that make guns "hearing safe" are fine. But if a supressor "silences" a gun (let's say, under a certain decibel), then it's not fine. If a gun goes off, the neighborhood should know.
>>29820594
mass shootings are 'exclusively' done with smokeless powder brass cartridge loading firearms
only black powder steel cased "all other weapons" should be legal
>>29820744
Unless you're shooting a .22, I think most guns make an audible noise.
Bows are silent, but I'd doubt you'd see any laws restricting them
>>29820744
you know, if you could actually place a decibel level I'd be willing to engage this argument but you just really do not understand anything about firearms
>>29820744
What is the legal definition of a neighborhood?
Also, that's simply not how suppressors work. It all depends on the gun it's being used with and the type of ammunition.
While you're here, find any examples of a machine gun being used in an undefined mass shooting?
>>29820744
>If a gun goes off, the neighborhood should know.
That's not hearing safe then.
What if I want to plink cans at 2 AM to test my NODs? Should I wake up the neighbors?
Oh by the way, no supressor is that quiet, and I highly suspect you have zero clue about anything to do with firearms.
>>29820722
I'll admit I'm not particularly familiar with it, but im more referring to the idea that nukes, zyklon B, mustard gas, cyanide, anthrax and other potential WMDs should be banned
>>29820758
I said semi autos are fine with a permit, senpai
>>29820728
Are they not? Shotguns i can understand to be a different story, but like i said nobody uses a mosin to shoot schools
>>29820758
If that were the case, you'd probably see a mass shooting done like pic related.
>>29820798
>Are they not? Shotguns i can understand to be a different story, but like i said nobody uses a mosin to shoot schools
Do your research.
>I said semi autos are fine with a permit, senpai
How about fuck you, they've been fine without a permit for 200 years.
>>29820788
Not him, but North Hollywood. Shows how much of an effective babbykilling machine that full auto is. The perps fired off something like 2500 rounds in full auto, wounded 18 people, and didn't kill a single one.
>>29820686
>Check for previously diagnosed psychosis and violent crimes.
I'm an old man and Vietnam war vet. If I got into a reported fight as a teenager and was found to have started the fight, should I be stripped of my right to defend myself from violent criminals for the rest of my life?
I'm a single mom, my kid has Asperger's, I've been a registered nurse for 5 years now. If I went through a bout of psychosis as a side effect of those "shift-work disorder" medications from a few years ago, then I literally am stripped of the right to own a home defense weapon for the rest of my life?
These are both the circumstances of real people that I know, I think checking backgrounds should not strip the individual rights of a person. We should all have an equal right to merely defend our lives from violent criminals. These are people's lives we're talking about, people have the right to own a firearm for defense, even if they've made a mistake in the past. Equal human rights yo.
>>29820798
But its ok if the government owns those?
>>29820798
semi autos are fine with citizenship
>>29820797
Im a noguns, like i said. If supressors don't get that quiet, then it doesn't matter, now does it?
>>29820781
The decibels should theoretically ne quiet enough so you don't get hearing damage, but loud enough so your neighbors can hear
>>29820797
Dont plink cans at 2AM in suburbia.
>>29820798
>nukes, zyklon B, mustard gas, cyanide, anthrax and other potential WMDs should be banned
None of those are firearms. I know they probably got brought up for a reason and I just didn't read it yet but in the civilian world that would be a hazmat issue, rather than a firearms issue
>>29820838
>Dont plink cans at 2AM in suburbia.
Why not?
Say, hypothetically, I live outside of the suburbs. Why should I have my rights stripped for a bunch of losers I don't live near?
Why do the neighbors need to hear anyways?
>Im a noguns,
I can tell.
>like i said. If supressors don't get that quiet, then it doesn't matter, now does it?
Because now you've created a precedent for banning shit based on arbitrary criteria.
>>29820798
Big difference between banning all Geneva Convention items, and CBRN weapons.
What would be the requirements for a semi-auto permit?
>>29820826
Ah, but the rifles used in North Hollywood were illegally converted to full-retard. So obviously laws didn't stop them. I know we probably agree, just pointing that out for OP.
>>29820838
Suppressors can make my AR quiet enough that my ears don't bleed after shooting an intruder. So what decibel level would that be, that it's quiet enough to not get hearing damage, but loud enough for my neighbors to hear? You wanna make the law, give us some parameters. Keep in mind not everyone in the country lives the exact same distance from their neighbors.
This thread has turned into a "I don't understand computers but let me tell you how to develop a program" situation
>>29820838
>The decibels should theoretically ne quiet enough so you don't get hearing damage, but loud enough so your neighbors can hear
there is no such level
even a suppressed muzzleblast can be heard from hundreds of yards away in open air, but an unsuppressed muzzleblast might not be heard from inside a home
The nature of your eardrum health is that virtually no sound level out of conventional arms can be 100% hearing safe, but every bit helps as does ear protection
>>29820826
>theyve been fine
>200 years
Even i know semiauto wasn't around 200 years ago.
>>29820829
I would feel bad for the vet. He could try to appeal, but if it doesn't work, it's just one guy. And don't forget that the background check is just for semi auto, he'll be fine.
>>29820868
Im talking weapons in general, since grenades also aren't firearms
>>29820869
If you live in a place where the neighbors don't mind or won't hear, then it doesn't matter if you have a suppressor or not.
The neighbors need to hear because a gun just went off near their house. What if that was you attempting to defend yourself? Or failing? Or some street thug doing a drive by?
And the criteria isn't arbitrary, I've given the criteria. I just haven't given a specific decibel range because i don't know what that range is without research.
>>29820911
Interesting. Well IF that's the case, then suppressors are fine.
>>29820926
>The neighbors need to hear because a gun just went off near their house.
Says you.
>What if that was you attempting to defend yourself? Or failing? Or some street thug doing a drive by?
Wouldn't want to be on the other end, for one.
What it it was me misfiring, or shooting targets, or testing out hand loads?
>>29820926
It is arbitrary. It's your personal preference for what's loud and what's not.
>>29820926
>it's just one guy.
You are morally bankrupt but it's not because you're bad, or anything of the sort. You are just really young and inexperienced in life. Which is fine. But it might explain why you are having to pretend to understand a lot of the concepts in this thread.
>>29820634
>Secondly, give me one shooting that was committed with a full-auto gun.
this proves his point you garbage brain
>>29820973
For starters, getting in a fight wouldn't necessarily constitute failing the background check. Everyone's gotten in a fight at some point.
And if one guy doesn't get to have semi auto guns if it keeps three spergs from killing their classmates easily, then it's just one more service i can thank him for.
>>29820926
It still matters to me if I have a suppressor, because I like having a sense of hearing. But after >>29820947 I guess we're on the same page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
A rapid-fire gun developed years before the Constitution was even thought of.
You might enjoy this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
You still didn't say what would be required to get a semi-auto permit.
>>29821011
How? He says that "mass shootings" are exclusively committed with full-auto and semi-auto guns. But he can't provide me with an example of a machine gun in a mass shooting.
>>29821030
So it's ok to deny someone their Constitutional rights if it MAY protect someone else in an unrelated situation.
>>29821030
Also, if you get in a fight and are charged with felonious assault, then it does constitute failing a background check. Just a hypothetical.
>>29821062
Don't forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
It was some neat shit. There were some other innovative designs that allowed multiple shots to be fired before reloading.
>>29821062
>are you ready for this
The constitution doesn't say everybody can have semiauto guns. It's actually really vague about the whole guns thing in general. After all, you're not part of a militia.
I said in >>29820686 that the background check is essentially check for previously diagnosed psychosis and violent crimes (focusing more on felonies)
>>29821087
Funny thought: by ATF definition if that duck foot used cartridges it would be a full auto.
>>29819701
No. You can either be trusted with guns or you cannot.
Someone who can be trusted can be trusted with ALL of the guns. Someone who cannot be trusted, cannot be trusted with even the most pathetic break-action .22
>>29821133
This has to be bait now...
>The constitution doesn't say everybody can have semiauto guns. It's actually really vague about the whole guns thing in general. After all, you're not part of a militia.
It says "arms."
Guns are Arms.
It doesn't say that you need to be in a militia, it says that the right of the *>!*PEOPLE*!<* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the right of the militia or the right of the people in the militia, the right of the people.
>>29821133
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is vague?
The Militia is all able-bodied males, ages 17-44. The purpose of the Second Amendment is so everyone can have guns in order to arm the militia if ever needed. Plus, I'm in the Guard, so either way I'm also a part of the organized militia.
Also, you're not advocating a permit system. You're advocating background checks.
>>29821133
Refute this seriously
>>29821133
>After all, you're not part of a militia.
You stupid fuck. Learn some shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
Welcome to the Reserve militia. When you're needed, the proper government official will tell you so.
>>29820926
first gatling machinegun was 150 years ago
revolver firearms existed since the 17th century with removable cylinders as paper cartridges were the best technology for loading at the time
in 1777, congress sought a bid on the belton flintlock, a firearm that could fire "sixteen or twenty [balls], in sixteen, ten, or five seconds of time" but turned it down after the price was noted to be high
other kinds of repeating arms have existed for a long time--lever actions as early as 1830s, bolt actions in 1820s, belt-fed since 1840s
semi automatic rifles and have existed since 1880s
>>29821218
From my understanding, the Militia Act just basically federalized state militias and created the National Guard. That said, US Code defines the militia as I mentioned in >>29821176
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
>>29821151
So are you suggesting that the permit should be for all guns, then?
Because some people obviously cannot be trusted with guns
>>29821164
Bruv. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's not even a proper sentence, by modern standards. It's vague, very much so. Especially when you ask "What constitutes arms"? Nuclear warheads can be considered arms. But I'll be damned if my neighbor is getting one of those.
>>29821260
>It's not even a proper sentence, by modern standards.
No shit, retard. It was written two centuries ago.
>>29819928
>I'm a noguns
Don't think you needed to state that. We all figured it out with your post.
>>29821260
>, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There, you said it yourself.
>>29821199
Breakfast =/= militia. A person is a part of a militia. But a person isn't a part of food. It's a strawman, especially since it's impossible for breakfast to claim ownership of something.
>>29821260
>permit
SHALL
>It's vague, very much so
Multiple high courts including the Supreme Court disagree.
>>29821133
>The constitution doesn't say everybody can have semiauto guns. It's actually really vague about the whole guns thing in general. After all, you're not part of a militia
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
This is literally stating that it is the right of the populace to keep and bear arms, which enables them to construct a well regulated militia, which is necessary to security.
Therefore the right of the populace to keep and bear arms is necessary. It enables them to keep a well regulated militia in the case of having to defend a free State.
>>29819701
>>29819838
Who the fuck cares? You can only hold 1 gun at a time, moron. What kind of shit bait is this?
>>29821308
>leaving out the first half of the sentence
It's one sentence. You can't pick and choose what suits your narrative. I'm saying it's vague.
>>29820378
>tfw enough weapons to equip a small militia
feels good man come for em dems
>>29821329
Read https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
>>29821249
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
>Literally says the same thing as the blurb in >>29821218
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
>For some reason he felt the need to explain it to me anyway
WHy the fuck are people doing this to me lately? Am I not writing fucking english, or did /k/ as a collective suddenly develop comprehension problems overnight?
>>29821341
I cut off the beginning, because apparently its too confusing for you
>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Nothing about people needing to be in the militia to bear weapons.
For the rest, see above and maybe read it this time.
>>29821260
Again, your idea of a permit is a background check system, which we already have. A permit system wouldn't have stopped any mass shootings. Again, we have them in Jersey, and it doesn't stop violent crime.
>>29821275
This. Shakespeare isn't proper English by modern standards, and we still teach his writings in school.
>>29821341
Let's break it down Barney style:
>A well regulated militia
The militia is all males, ages 17-44, according to US Code. Well regulated, in this context, means well supplied by the government. Not controlled; supplied. This is clarified in the Federalist papers.
>, being necessary to the security of a free state,
The commas are important. This shows that a well armed citizenry is the only way to defend against tyranny, foreign or domestic.
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The ability of the citizens of the US to possess and use weaponry must not be banned or restricted. This is to ensure that the people not only have means to defend themselves against any threats, but also to supply their neighbors with arms should they ever need to use them.
Read Federalist 29, Concerning the Militia.
>>29821354
Chill nigger, I was just pointing out exactly where it clarifies what the Reserve Militia is. We agree here.
>>29819928
>i am noguns
opinion discarded
>>29821332
Um ... maybe that's not what I was talking about? Look, the facts show that most gun owners are:
>white
>old
>male
Am I really out of line to suggest that assault weapons like a 9mm glock machine gun are actively contributing to racism in this country? Nobody needs a bazooka or machine gun, and yet they are used by millions of whites every year to gun down unarmed PoC. That's wrong, and something needs to change.
>>29820075
you're a fucking idiot
>>29821317
I'm not saying a breakfast is equal to a militia. The point is the sentence structure is the exact same. No food cannot posses an item but the point is it doesn't matter because of how the sentence is written. The Militia is separated by the right to bear arms.
>>29821354
Im talking about the different ideas of what the amendment means.
Im not part of the national guard.
>>29821317
>It's a strawman
I remember the days when not everything was a fucking "strawman" and people made examples using another subject to illustrate their point better.
>>29821397
Again, please post a single instance of a machine gun, or a bazooka, being used to kill anyone of any color, outside of wars. Even better, give me an example from 2015, since you say it happens every year.
>>29821415
Just because you're not in the National Guard doesn't mean you're not in the Militia.
>>29821397
Ok now THAT'S satire. For the record, i am >>29819928, not PoC guy
>>29821414
Militia can own things. Breakfast cannot. In your example, there is only one reasonable option. In reality, there are two, one where militia have rights, and one where the people do. It is therefore a strawman, as it does not adequately deptict the issue.
>>29821470
>. It is therefore a strawman
>>29821437
I don't even want to read through this thread more than the first few posts. I know it's just going piss me off.
>>29821446
>please post a single instance of a machine gun, or a bazooka, being used to kill anyone of any color
Yeah ok. I'm talking to a racist idiot in denial. I thought we could actually have a conversation.
HOW ABOUT LOOKING AT EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF POLICE SHOOTING UNARMED BLACK KIDS IN COLD BLOOD?! FUCK YOU! MILLIONS OF PoC ARE KILLED BY WHITE MALES EVERY SINGLE YEAR AND YOU ARE GOING TO ACT LIKE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN! BAN MACHINE GUNS AND FULL AUTO BAZOOKAS! GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL! FUCK I'M PISSED!
>>29821470
Again, the people make up the militia. Glad to hear that wasn't your post though.
>>29821470
Here you go, they will be more eloquent than me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5IYKMalBEU
>>29821493
Im being memed, he isn't the noguns.
>>29819928
Fuck off you leftist scum sucker.
>>29821513
Ever see that episode of Bullshit? Absolutely fantastic. But in that clip, I feel that they go right over the fact that the people make up the militia. They don't go enough into the wording and its context back then.
>>29821539
I think they did it just fine.
> surroundedbyidiots.jpg
Holy fucking shit guys- reading comprehension. OP's question literally had nothing to do with gun control.
From a philosophical perspective, gun ownership is a lot like car ownership. When does a guy have too many cars? Green house emissions and pollution are going to become one of the leading causes of death in the next century yet- is the guy that has 100 cars an issue? A collector may own a hundred cars and drive 3 or 4 of them. Is he significantly contributing to the global issue? Is a gun collector that shoots his/her guns for sport once contributing to muh "gun biolence ebidembic"?
Also-OP is a huge faget
>>29821539
>clip
>>29821133
First of all, the state of Massachusetts tried your argument before the supreme court a month ago. It failed miserably and the were voted against 8-0.
Second of all, the Dick act of 1903 categorizes the militia into the organized and unorganized components. The organized component consists of the reserve components of the military as well as the national guard. The unorganized militia consists of men age 16-45 or 65 if they're veterans.
And because the fourteenth amendment is a thing...
>>29821353
>Read https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Done and thank you
>>29821687
>OP's question literally had nothing to do with gun control.
Well.....not in the beginning, it didn't. But then OP turned it into a forum for him to elaborate on and enhance his own drafting of the No Guns Firearm Restrictions Act of 2016
>>29821928
Just for the record, OP and noguns are two different people
>>29819701
The only thing I have issue with regular people owning are Davy Crocketts. Everything else, no problem here.
I am a complete and total supporter of gun control. However, only when that means literally no one has guns, including police and military.
Until then, all free people carry the responsibility of having arms equal or superior to their governments to fend off invading tyrants or change their government if it ever becomes too authoritarian. Of course, that is one man's opinion, and I accept that it is at least moderately batshit.
>>29819765
Dr Kreiger is best doctor.
>>29819701
Agree, some people has too many guns, it's so dangerous.
So we should start with limiting the ones who have the most guns and have a proven record of killing innocents: the government.
>>29822005
Then people just kill with swords and arrows again, nothing is solved.
>>29819701
no, and the fact you even ask that question tells me your definantly not of the like minded individuals here.
jay leno has a a warehouse full of cars, a lot of them not even street legal, do i think he has too many? no, he obtained them with his own money legally, why should he be limited?
its about freedom anon, you do not have the right to limit me. you have the right to say what you wish, but not the right to stop others from being free, now go scamper back to mlp.
>>29822079
honestly a return to strength based combat would be a good thing since it would show the world just what guns can mean for the weak again
>>29819701
>Where do you draw the line?
I don't
>At what point do you think weapon ownership should be considered excessive?
Never ever
>Either in quantity of weapons, Quality of weapons or potential danger of misuse?
Never
Ever
>Is there such a thing as too much gun?
Not in this universe.
The only exception I can think of is if the collection is #rekt-ing your finances to the point where you're in large amounts of debt and you're about to be bankrupt because of it.
That's about it though.
i cant fucking breath threw all the bubba and libtard.
>>29819701
>too much gun
>>29821493
>HOW ABOUT LOOKING AT EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF POLICE SHOOTING UNARMED BLACK KIDS IN COLD BLOOD?!
>But no, ban civilian gun ownership
This is the funniest bait I've read in a good while.
>>29819928
>Im a noguns, so i don't know how much my opinion is worth
absolutely nothing
>I don't own any cars, but I think there should be these rules for people who own cars.
>I don't own any power tools, but I think there should be these rules for people who own power tools.
>I don't own a clothes drying machine, but I think there should be these rules for people who own clothes drying machines.
>I don't own a hotplate, but I think there should be these rules for people who own hotplates.
>I don't own a hammer, but I think there should be these rules for people who own hammers.
>I don't own a metal chair, but I think there should be rules for people who own metal chairs.
>I don't own a baseball bat, but I think there should be these rules for people who own baseball bats
>>29819701
>Is there such a thing as too much gun?
No
What's the difference between 30 guns and 100 guns?
>>29819701
>At what point do you think weapon ownership should be considered excessive? Either in quantity of weapons, Quality of weapons or potential danger of misuse?
No such thing as excessive. Until you start spending too much money, and your family starts suffering from that.
>Is there such a thing as too much gun?
Nope.
I am poor as shit, and between my wife and I have five guns. We have spent ~$1k and were given two. My family doesn't suffer from us buying guns, but it would suffer if someone busted in and tried to steal all of our assets. It would suffer if they tried to kidnap my son or worse. I have my G23 I carry everyday. I have an old .38 spl, I have a Mosin 91/30, a .22lr cheap semi-auto, and wife carries a Taurus PT111.
WE NEED MORE.
>>29819928
>permit for guns
>registration
>no large arms
>no full auto
>no burst
>no incendiaries
>no tear gas
Get fucked you communist faggot
>>29820464
>tfw no designated marksman GPU
>tfw no anti-materiel monitor
>>29820512
Well alot of people buried their semi autos and pump actions in australia
>>29820484
cuck
com an get em fagit as comie baeterds
>>29820075
I didn't know someone could be so ignorant and clueless of facts, logic, statistics, and basic reasoning.
>>29820075
so you don't like hollowpoints that have less barrier pen in case your faggot family is there on the sidelines? do you want innocents to be shot by the police more? what kind of person are you!
>>29820106
>twogunz
>effective
Kay dere, Roland Deschain. Sorry they made you black for the movie.
>>29821695
lol
>>29822121
through
>>29819701
>All I want to know is if there is a point where you think "Shit, that guy has too many guns/super killy guns" and roughly what that point is.
Absolutely not. A man with a single semi automatic rifle and a ton of ammunition is just as capable of doing damage as a man with a gorillion different weapons. Having a bunch of guns really doesn't make you more dangerous than having one gun.
That said, shall not be infringed, faggot.
>>29821260
>It's not even a proper sentence
All you have to do is remove the first and third comma and it makes perfect, clear sense.
>>29819701
no. would you put a limit on how many cars or coins a collector could have?
>>29820411
/thread
here are five questions which always get funny results from marxists when asked in this order.
>Do you believe the government should have as much power as it does?
>Do you believe the police force should have as much power as it does over you?
>If we are all equal, do you believe a police officer should be able to dictate when to kill you?
>Should police officers and other government bodies be the only people allowed to carry guns?
>Do you agree with Marx that the working class should be allowed to carry weapons of equal ability to the oppressive class?
>>29820378
>The ability to equip a small army is not the ability to have maintain and find a small army to equip.
No one will ever find a 1000 people willing to support their revolution so long as there is no need for it.
>>29819701
>At what point do you think weapon ownership should be considered excessive?
I don't understand the question.
>>29822103
Why would you refer somebody who hates freedom to the board that was created so Moot wouldn't have to sift through an inbox full of the whining of babies who hated freedom?
The only reasonable limitation is on the amount of munitions you can store because that controls size of the explosion should a fire break out in a home. A few hundred pounds of gunpowder (loose, not in an actual bullet, lighting a bunch of bullets on fire more or less safe given you have some distance and can clean up the lead) is more than enough to seriously damage the structure of an highrise apartment building or seriously damage nearby structures.
That is something, however, that a local municipality decides on. Country and Urban standards there are going to be different.
Otherwise, why the hell do you care if I own 1 gun or 5000? I'm not going to raise an army overnight and even if I do I have to deal with the fact the rest of society is well-armed and are not just going to keel over at the first sign of trouble. It's only when you start taking away the guns and making everyone defenseless that you need to worry about the hoarders.
Stop drinking the cool-aid the media monopolies are feeding you.
>>29821470
>It is therefore a strawman,
You are confusing "strawman" with "false analogy."
A false analogy is an analogy which is invalid for a certain reason
A strawman is a misrepresentation or mischaracterization of your opponents views which is easier for you to argue against.
That said, the analogy is certainly not invalid just because breakfast can't posses things.If we're being pedantic about it, inclusion of items into a particular breakfast is a type of possession. Sets possess elements, dogs may possess spots. What you're really on about is human volition and capacity to act on human society.
...Which still doesn't hold water, as your point was about the semantic structure of the amendment itself.
>>29822374
I'm something of a marxist, though with anarchist, market libertarian and reactionary sympathies.
>no
>no
>no, though the premises don't make sense. Marxist ideas do not presuppose equal ability, skill sets, capacity for judgement, moral sense, etc, merely that people are equally deserving of the essentials of life and freedom from coercion. The police's priori allegiance to the bourgeois state represents an additional conflict of interest.
>no
>allowed by whom, the bourgeois client-state? That moral framework is again irrelevant. The proletariat certainly *should* obtain arms for itself to defend a revolution against violent suppression in perpetuity and in a decentralized, democratic manner (much the exact intent of the 2A applies here.) Stalin's betrayal and hijacking of the revolution wouldn't necessarily have been prevented altogether by a well-armed, self-actualized and freedom loving proletarian militia, but he would have certainly faced a harder time of it.
Have I memed myself, or were you using "marxist" as a nondescript political slur like the SJWs use "fascist"?
>>29819701
Disregarding gun control overtones, it's like any other hobby. 4TB of anime porn may seem obsessive/creepy to some, others may admire the comittment/interest it shows.
Why do you need 5TB of hard drive space?? Only child pornagraphers need 5TB of hard drive space.
Also you don't need a enterprise grade server for hobbies, only the government and businesses should have enterprise grade server equipment. Can you image trying to setup a home network with a enterprise grade server?!
No one needs 30 rack servers
>>29821317
A militia being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
These are called compound sentences with two but equal points preventing infringement on bacon and eggs, breakfast food and peoples right to group and eat breakfast to maintain a healthy day.
>>29822220
>designated marksman GPU
Fuck, my sides vult
>>29822863
Don't forget vidya pirates there bucko
Legitimate owners can just uninstall and reinstall anyways. Nobody needs a high capacity pirate HD.
>>29819928
this fucking retard
i bet hes from california
Nope. No such thing as too much.
>Enough is NEVER enough!
>>29819928
This man doesn't like to have superior force. Bootlicker.
>>29819701
I guess if you ran out of storage space you would technically have "too many" guns. You would just have to build additions to your dwelling using nugget crates, which would of course be full of nuggets. So really you can have infinite guns if you use your guns to store your guns.
>>29820075
Nanny state faggit here
>>29820077
This guy gets it.
>>29820088
Too bad explosives are a natural right.
>>29819701
Weapons are a natural right.
>>29820286
Nope. i'd be excited.
>>29820327
This guy has no clue what he is taking about.
>>29820378
What is the point of the second amendment Alex?
>>29819735
>Go to /pol/ for a better discussion.
>/pol/
>better discussion
>>29821397
GF is Thai, super qt carry patootie.
Fuck off with this bait shit.
>>29819701
Honestly? I'm a bit of a liberal fucking stickler when it comes to certain people owning firearms. I get a little edgy when the person is a bit off or is obviously planning to use them for purposes that might not be on the up and up.
That being said, the 2nd Amendment is for everyone. I don't really have a choice - it's an important Amendment and I use it as defense as to why I should own firearms, so I can't really turn against it and say, "Everyone should own as many as they like, except for THESE people-"
So at no point do I consider it excessive, for better or worse. There's no such thing as too much gun. All we are is gun. All we need is gun.
>>29823220
>All we are is gun. All we need is gun.
How durdenesque
>>29819701
In general, I'd draw the line at any device than has the potential to kill or destroy many more bystanders compared to an intended target. As well as weapons that by definition are indiscriminate (e.g: WMD, chem weapons...)
Let's say guided missiles, large HE payloads, and such are not ok
Were it for me, RPGs and granades would be ok, as well as anything with less than 10-12m kill radius. While ATGM, Manpads and others would be permabanned
>>29819701
My philosophy is to have a gun for every kind of niche. Not that it is always necessary, but because it is fun. Lever actions for western game. Bows for up close. Shotguns for bird. Muzzleloaders and nuggets for nostalgia. .22's for pest and plinking. Handguns for CC. And of course a variety of different caliber scoped guns because each caliber performs differently at the distance and game you target. I draw the line where there is no niche that I cannot fulfill with a reasonable setup. I could easily hunt a black bear with a 20 ga slug even though that semi auto 300 win mag looks amazing to buy. As for the danger aspect of gun ownership, you have to understand that they are tools used to kill. There is power behind each one and their use or misuse is 100% dependent upon the shooter. I trust that every reasonable gun owner knows this and there fore should not be hindered to buy weapons unless they cannot adhere to being responsible. That being said I never have the feeling about a person having too much "Killy" guns or too many. Out of anything I feel comeradre with that person's passion for firearms.
>>29819735
literal newfag
/k/ used to have threads like this all the time, and they were informative and helped people form intelligent opinions.
>>29819701
Too many guns?
Not really such a thing.
A gun too dangerous?
Not really such a thing, see: in the old days people owned private navy ships. Nukes obviously should only be in the hands of "responsible" people but the price and the existence of NATO ensures that anyway.
Danger of misuse?
Sure, if someone needs to be committed or for some period afterwards you might not want them to have guns, or if they are literally a psychopath.
>>29822175
Because i understand what guns can do. I don't own a hot plate,but i know more or less how they work and the possible dangers of owning one.
>>29822185
70 guns
>>29819701
Lets put this into perspective.
If you tried to buy as few guns as possible, but wanted home defense, to carry concealed, to hunt mule deer and coyotes, and to shoot USPSA you would have at minimum:
1. AR-15 (both home defense and coyote hunting).
2. Competition handgun.
3. Compact carry handgun.
4. Deer gun.
And again, that's the bare minimum, I have:
1. AR-15.
2. Home defense/production division competition gun.
3. Carry gun.
4-7 .22 guns (a handgun, a pump action, a bolt action, and a semiauto rifle) for teaching/plinking Most of these were given to me as a child or inherited.
8. nugget I bought when I turned 18 just because I could.
And I consider myself to be a very practical shooter who doesn't buy much.
Eventually I'm going to get:
9. 9mm short barreled rifle as a better home defense gun.
10. A dedicated deer rifle or general purpose .308, not sure.
11. A bird gun in case someone wants to go shoot birds, but I don't have anyone to shoot birds with right now.
>>29822374
As a Marxist:
Yes, provided the government is run by the people
Yes, provided see above
Yes, and i should have the same right.
No, because muh freedoms
Lastly, Marx never said that. At least, it's not in the manifesto. He would, however, want to actively overthrow the bourgeoisie violently, so, from Marxist perspective, yes? Or no, since we should have more for the overthrow.
However with that last question, it's important to understand that, since i don't think we should overthrow our current government, the Marxist idea of owning equal or more guns for that purpose is moot. I think the police and military should be the only ones with access to the biggest baddest stuff. Like artillery.
>>29819903
Do you have a source for that? I would love to be able to shove that at some people I know.
>>29819765
I never noticed the two buttstocks on that MP5 before...
>>29822993
I currently live in Indiana, but i grew up on military bases. Im gonna get a rifle over the summer and shoot it with my dad.
>>29819701
> super killy guns
> super killy
> killy
>>29819928
> Geneva Convention applying to civilians ever (go read the fucking wikipage at least you colossal waste of air)
> gun registration ( um yea no, it's not a fucking car)
> incendiary in dry climates (people fucking smoke!)
> clipsclipsclipsclipsclips
Are you five?
This has to be bait...
Why am I so easy to troll when I'm on /k/
>>29819735
>/pol/
>Worthwhile for anything.
How about fuck you. How about that?
>>29822238
> I live in a fly over state the post
>>29819701
So. Right off the bat, sorry if this starts a shit storm. Wandered in from another board with a question.
I am not a speech person. I understand people collect articles of free speech like they collect stamps. I understand people like watching movies and I understand there are times when speaking freely offers peace of mind.
I also understand there are those who enjoy the thought of having enough free speech to start a riot.
My question? Where do you draw the line?
At what point do you think free speech should be considered excessive? Either in quantity of spoken thoughts, or potential danger of misuse?
Is there such a thing as too much free speech?
In that same vein, there is never too much weaponry for the individual and national defense.
>>29819928
>ima no guns
get out
>>29819701
>Is there such a thing as too much gun?
You're on the wrong board m80.
I could own the entire arsenal of the US military and I'd still want another B2 bomber.
>>29824458
/thread
>>29820378
A perfect example that shows your fears of someone owning "the firepower to equip a small army" are ridiculous is that guy in California who had over 1,000 firearms in his house.
He was a collector and enjoyed target shooting. You know how many people were killed by any of his guns over the decades of him owning them? 0
Stop being so prejudice of legal guns owners anon, they're not the ones you should be worried about.
>>29820327
>tanks have gone on rampages
>thinks tanks can be operated by one user
>>29824409
>Shitting on the most powerful board on the internet
Did /pol/ beat you up and take your gf?
>>29821133
>you are not part of a militia
The moment an owner of firearms decides he is he is.
>>29824588
> pol
> powerful
Pick one
>>29819754
This desu
