So, serious discussion. This coming from a guy with a CHL.
I understand there are many responsible gun owners out there. I consider myself one. But how many else out there are just absolute shit-for-brain losers who have no reason owning a gun, much less carry?
I am 100% for gun ownership, for your own home, hunting, recreational purposes. But, even to that extent, I feel like there needs to be at least basic training (such as gun safety, and the responsibility of owning a gun) and a thorough background check. At no point am I saying limit guns. I am wanting those who will own guns to be well informed and responsible.
Now for carrying, I feel like the bar is set way too low. I can't tell you how many retards I've seen getting their CHL/LTC. In my own class I've had a handful of ladies fucking filled up the whole fucking target sheet and received certifications. They didn't even check. I'm fucking terrified that there are these people out there carrying. I do not trust my life in the hands of these people when it comes down to added adrenaline and stresses in real life situations.
I believe there needs to be more advanced training for those who wants to carry and it should be required. Maybe a full background check and qualification every year/two to make sure you're still qualified to carry. Much like LEOs and other government agencies having to.
I just want people who carry to be more well-trained and responsible.
Is my line of thought wrong? Can we civilly discuss why it is?
>>29715167
>I am 100% for gun ownership, for your own home, hunting, recreational purposes. But
>how many else out there are just absolute shit-for-brain losers who have no reason owning a gun, much less carry?
>I feel like the bar is set way too low.
Elitist Statist detected.
Shall not be infringed.
Nice troll thread.
>>29715167
>I think there should be a traceable record of gun owners blah blah
No.
Shall not be infringed.
You also sound far to paranoid to be carrying a gun yourself. You should probably seek psychiatric help.
As always, the mindset of the statist is that they consider themselves to be the pinnacle of virtue and responsibility, but all other people to be filthy uneducated peasants.
The mindset that "I know better than you" goes back centuries.
OP, you are not an exceptional person. You do not know how to live anybody else's lives better than they do.
You are exactly the kind of person who should have as little power as possible.
>>29715202
>thinking elitist is an insult
>thinking statist is an insult
Kill yourself poltard.
>>29715231
>Taking either of those as an insult
Whoa, someone's a little insecure about their beliefs it seems.
>>29715202
>>29715206
>shall not be infringed
First time on /k/ to be honest but I've seen this in two threads already.
I didn't say take away guns, did I? Hell, have an arsenal in your home if you want to. But what's wrong with ensuring people who actively carry to be well trained and responsible? Just answer that question.
No memes, please.
>>29715250
Of course he is.
Statists are some of the most emotionally fragile people on the planet.
Essentially they feel like they can't control their own lives, so they try to control other people's lives instead.
Gotta be 6'2 and over
>>29715250
Of course he is.
You have to be insecure to have a belief system like that in the first place.
>>29715263
Maybe you should look up the definition of "infringed" there Gomer Pyle.
>>29715167
Why do you feel this way?
>>29715263
Because when fuckwits like you try to decide who can and cannot own guns, they always default to deciding that their political opponents aren't "well trained or responsible".
Remember the voter literacy test?
It existed for the sole purpose of stopping blacks from voting.
>>29715228
Can you give me a context of what a "statist" is? Besides those descriptions. Could it be just anyone with that mindset (essentially Napoleon Complex) or is it someone who bought into the sheepish ideas?
I don't believe I'm an exceptional person but I think as responsible members of society shouldn't it be a standard of sorts?
>You are exactly the kind of person who should have as little power as possible.
This bothered me a bit because I'm not sure how you got that but I'll think on it.
>>29715263
>I didn't say take away guns, did I?
You did. From anyone who doesn't meet your criteria.
>But what's wrong with ensuring people who actively carry to be well trained and responsible?
It ensures that only people who are considered 'well trained' or 'responsible' by whoever determines the meaning of these are allowed to own and carry weapons.
I'd also like to point out in a vast majority of places in the world these tests already exist, even in the US
>>29715167
>>29715167
>I am 100% for gun ownership, for your own home, hunting, recreational purposes.
>but
>>29715280
Good deal.
>>29715287
I see your point of limiting accessibility. I never saw it from that angle. Good analogy.
>>29715284
I thought I would trust someone with training more with my life in an active shooter situation who is more trained that your average 18 yr old girl who just got a gun for her birthday (an example of a girl I know personally) who got a CHL but still doesn't consider the bullet's trajectory and that there might be things behind the target when she shoots.
It scares me.
>>29715292
Statism is basically the notion that government as a concept is always by definition virtuous and just, and that they always know better than the population.
It's the idea that you see yourself as a superior class of being to others, and that you think it's impossible that they could ever know how to live their lives and understand their personal situation better than you.
It leads to governments perpetually getting bigger and more powerful under the guise that if they get big enough, they'll finally be able to legislate away personal responsibility.
Anybody who has such an obsession with exerting power and control over others should stay the hell away from positions of power.
>>29715263
>I didn't say take away guns, did I?
>Unless of course you don't meet the requirements I think there should be to own guns
Your thinly veiled bullshit isn't getting anyone here, friend.
But what's wrong with ensuring people who actively carry to be well trained and responsible?
I feel the same about people driving cars.
>>29715167
the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns, wanting to own a gun is a sign of mental illness, the mentally ill should not own guns,
>>29715292
Statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.
To have a kind of test be passed in order to practice your human rights through the state is inherently wrong to someone who isn't a statist.
>>29715297
>who's to say
Buy all the guns you want and use it for protections, for rights, whatever.
But when you start carrying on the streets, does it not make sense for those people to be more trained? Is that too much to ask?
I don't care if it's up to my standards or not, could be one set out by the NRA as long as it ensures the carrier, who will have lives to be responsible for, to be able to handle the situation.
>>29715167
Thats totally reasonable, although /k/ will never admit it. The reason it's a non-starter is that if you go there, compromise means that you'll end up a step further. You get a default registy of gun owners. And then the next step and he next.
So pro-guns rightfully do not give an inch. Everything you lose, you will not likely get back, when it comes to thid peculiar right. And yes, it's very peculiar. And it gives me some reassurance that, no matter how far we stray from liberty and morality and God, there is some freedom here.
>>29715263
if you would like to fuck off OP I'm sure you can find some help.
>>29715353
you really should learn to quit while you're ahead.
>>29715167
>Can we civilly discuss why it is?
Of course
The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. A right does not need a license. A right does not need a safety class.
Unfortunately every passed law and ruling is a slippery slope or foot in the door these days. Right now gun owners are too concerned with getting the supreme law of the land to mean what it fucking says to have the luxury of handing some of it over for a perception of safety.
Gun deaths as a result of accidents are low. Armed citizens shoot more accurately and cause less collateral damage than cops. There is correlation between armed law abiding citizens and reduced crime. Why fuck with something that's working?
>>29715330
>I thought I would trust someone with training more with my life in an active shooter situation who is more trained that your average 18 yr old girl who just got a gun for her birthday (an example of a girl I know personally) who got a CHL but still doesn't consider the bullet's trajectory and that there might be things behind the target when she shoots.
It scares me.
Then start making range time as culturaly integrated as eating breakfast and doing chores. Limiting access does not make people better at something.
>>29715340
Because who decides what the definition of "well trained and responsible" is?
Will it just involve handing out a pamphlet with each gun sale that shows the four safety rules?
Or will it involve 6-8 months of training and competition like it does in Australia?
Maybe it can involve a test - like the voter literacy test. Black, hispanic? Tough luck!
Maybe anybody who wants a gun is by definition "not a fit and proper person". There have been attempts made about this one, too.
I sure as hell don't trust you to make that decision.
>>29715340
It's been determined through due process under the United States Constitution that driving automobiles in public is a privilege granted.
Explicitly stated in the United States Constitution is that every Citizen is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.
This is the difference.
>>29715337
>>29715347
Fuck me and I've always thought myself as being on the right side of the spectrum.
Solid definitions. Thanks, boys. I'll need to think on this with the new thought of statism added. I can definitely see that in myself though.
>>29715353
See:>>29715388
and>>29715386
and>>29715338
and>>29715287
>>29715330
its 21 to own a pistol and I'm sure in my state at least you have to be 21 for CHL.
seriously quit now.
>>29715358
>>29715376
I see the slippery slope and I understand it. Is there no way to make responsible standards and then keep them there?
In addition to the variety of well-deserved invective on offer, it's worth remembering that a number of states now have Constitutional carry, a good many more don't require any kind of background checks or whatever on private sales, and this wild, crazy, free-swinging laxity about just who can keep and bear arms seems to have changed exactly dick. Empirically, letting Joe Schmoe own and carry a gun is not a problem, even if he seems like a dumbass to you.
>>29715416
Culturaly.
>>29715393
Just remember that other people will always know how to live their lives better than you do.
Even if that involves making what you might see as bad decisions like smoking, eating sugary food or riding a pushbike without a helmet.
>Yes, there are heavy restrictions on all of those things in different parts of the world
Just think about these questions:
>If someone can't control their own life, how can they be expected to control the lives of others?
>Who has the ability to make decisions for others, when everybody individually thinks that they know best?
>>29715416
No
There is not.
It will always be used as a tool by the opposition. It will always be another baby step.
There is unfortunately no way around it.
>>29715416
Nope, because governments have shown time and time again that they can't be trusted.
>>29715393
I recommend Michael Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority for an accessible and well-reasoned discussion of the subject.
>>29715416
If the road that you followed brought you here, of what use was the road?
>>29715377
This would be my wish if it could. Maybe mandatory military service like in some countries. Could be simple basic 2 years but in those two years you will have learn to be trained in firearms discipline. But compulsory service is not very likely so the next step up is to at least provide more advanced training for the people who will be carrying?
>>29715167
STATIST GET OUT, REEEEE.
No, but seriously, the problem you're offering is one of definition, and one of moral standard.
For instance, in Illinois CC is legalized, but there are no gun ranges in the city of Chicago that are truly open to people. So, the city has defacto outlawed CC for its citizens. You're asking the state to set a bar for what is legal in what is supposedly an inalienable right.
As for shits for brains, are shits for brains not entitled to self defense? If not, why do we let them vote or interact with society at large?
Finally, with all this said and done, would it actually do a fucking thing? Hell, I'd honestly side with you more if
>Go to public school
>Go to a citizenship class
>Get taught basic gun safety, legal rights, how to vote and pay taxes
But no. You're putting the responsibility back on the private individual to seek an inconvenient certification so you feel safer around your fellow man while the government puts up barriers to limit citizen's rights.
>>29715447
That's not what I meant. Your statism is showing again.
I meant making trips to the range and gun education as common in a household as any other chore.
>>29715167
>Thoughts on qualifications on gun ownership/carrying
In a perfect world, yes, requiring people to either take a safety class or show that they are knowledgeable of gun safety would be great. However, we don't live in a perfect world and there is historical precedent of systems that put barriers between people purchasing a gun like that being abused in the US, so no.
>>29715430
This is fair. I have some thoughts off of this but it no longer relates to guns but more of society/government so I'll abstain.
>>29715428
>>29715435
>>29715443
>>29715445
That's unfortunate as fuck.
This thread is truly glorious, /k/.
It's great to see an anti get so thoroughly BTFO by a concentrated effort.
>>29715447
>mandatory military service
Go fuck yourself.
You aren't even worth arguing with if you think this is ok in any way.
I'm a terrible shot but anytime I will use my gun will be in close range so it's irrelevant.
I wouldn't mind requiring more initial practice though.
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4p0gE8kLc
>>29715461
>>29715470
Then I guess it would be something that should be taught versus feared. Maybe a home ec type of class. I think it falls under money management as something that needs to be taught to kids as well.
Fair point.
>>29715538
>expecting me to give clickbait views
Not even once friendo.
>>29715503
I said maybe. As in an option where people can, in addition, learn firearms discipline. But as two people point out, it could be taught as a civil obligation instead and that makes more sense.
>>29715167
nope, sorry. cant find anything in here about having to be "qualified". have you considered not being a statist cuck?
>>29715568
>Civil Obligation
I like that. It's exactly the point of it all, lol.
>>29715593
Can you even read that?
>>29715600
try clicking on it
I think people should have to prove they are competent enough to touch a gun, but this leads to the government deciding who is capable of having a gun. So, as usual, there is no good way to go about doing this.
SHALL
>>29715615
No I meant you. You seem like the type to get offended when people remind you how dumb and ignorant you are
I live in a place that requires you to take a 'test' and pay money to the government before you can even be allowed to own a firearm.
The tests are so ridiculously easy only a brain dead moron could fail them. But I sitll have to pay money every 5 years just to prove to the state that I am not a brain dead moron.
Let that sink in. I have to PAY money to express my 2nd Amendment RIGHTS. 25 dollars to the state for a sham of a test just to own a gun.
>>29715659
>tfw it takes about 9-12 months of payment, training, licensing, registration, fingerprinting, permits to get a handgun in Aus
>It can cost up to $1k before you can even buy a gun
>This is what OP actually wants
Every American should be issued a M4A1 and a M9 when they turn 18.
No lousy permits or training needed to carry.
300 meter pop up target ranges and 3 gun competition ranges everywhere, with cheap ammo available at the range.
>>29715652
>assmad statist cuck detected
find me one piece of evidence that requiring some sort of qualification before you can carry reduces accidental injury or death. bootlicking cucks like you are worse than anti-guns.
>>29715690
>Socialised guns
RIP economy
>>29715167
> I feel like the bar is set way too low.
If you want to be worried about something, you ought to be worried about who gets a driver’s license…
Any “Jim Crow” firearm ownership qualifications can be and will be used to deny civilian gun ownership.
>>29715690
>>29715701
Eh, Switzerland seems to do just fine with basically this. Just make it tax-deductible.
>>29715701
it is time the government started buying guns for Americans. Instead of buying guns for cartels, terrorists, "moderate" rebels, israel, etc.
>>29715267
>>29715270
>Double posting.
It's not the elitist that's offended.
>>29715756
>Being a cuck
>>29715167
in my opinion i feel that the background check is necessary.
Opinions are like assholes but since you asked:
1. "indiscriminate" weapons should be banned, which they are.
2. There should be no regulation period for owning and having guns.
3. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to walk around (to bear) with guns, uninfringed.
Here's where people are going to attack me. I do not think safety training is an "infringement" and if you are going to carry a gun you need to understand what it means to have a safe back drop, when it's legal to shoot, basic rules of firearm safety etc... So yes, I'm all for a required coarse to carry a gun. In fact, I think it should be tough enough, including competency testing, to make it just slightly prestigious. We'll call it a one time firearms certification that you have to get. Then you can carry open, or concealed, pretty much anywhere. That's how it would work if I were king.
Furthermore, I think there should be levels of accomplishment or certifications you can get on your firearms certification like "master marksman", "situation awareness accreditation", "ballistics safety expert" etc... These would be administered either by the civilian marksmanship program or the sheriff's office and the fees would be nominal but adequate to offset most of the cost. It would be mandatory to have the classes every other month at the minimum. The point would be to ad prestige to gun ownership beyond the basic safety training and to encourage greater competency among the gun community.
These things will never happen though because people either want more regulation with more background checks (read as registry) and an outright ban or on the other side, no rules at all. So this is just like, my opinion man.
>>29715715
That's such a beautiful action.
>>29715795
Why is that?
>>29715821
>tl;dr Boyscouts but with guns
>>29715167
Fuck off you Clinton shill. I've been seeing these threads daily. "I'm for gun ownership BUUUUUUUUUUT". Makes me start believing the forum sliding /pol/ conspiracy horseshit. If people feel the need to defend themselves, they should be able to do so immediately. Yes there will be some fucking assholes with guns, BUT THERE ALREADY ARE. And even with this mandated training, there will continue to be. Everyone takes a test and training in order to get a drivers license. There are still retards driving cars that shouldn't.
That's just how it is, and honestly how it should be.
>>29715690
>Every American should be issued a M4A1 and a M9 when they turn 18.
Sounds like a bad idea. The M4A1 and M9 are to expensive and take to long to produce for that role. How about just a manually operated pistol carbine made entirely out of stampings sans the barrel (as if the locking surfaces can be made out of stampings it would be cheaper/faster to make than a straight blowback gun) so we can keep costs down since you would need to crank out ~10,000 per day (3,650,000 per year)? Even if you were just making FP-45 Liberators you'd need ~33,000 people working year round to put out enough (actually less due to the advances in automation, but still).
>>29715874
Boy Scouts don't shoot guns anymore?
>>29715821
Weird, back in the day, the NRA used to hold local shooting matches and award patches and the like for skillful shooting. It's almost like this idea has been done already, except soccermoms started to not like such scary things being held in their little suburb for whatever fucking reason, and slowly but surely people became less and less educated on guns, and now there are idiots with guns who are used as an example of why no one should own gunw to begin with.
>makes a thread asking my standing idea of guns to be challenged
>40% are fair and civilized inputs
Solid thread, guys. I've learned a tad more than I intended to. Thanks for the inputs, everyone. I'll reconsider my position on guns and the other factors around them.
>>29715821
I think I agree with this post the most.
>>29715997
>the supreme law of the land isnt a fair and civilized argument against your statistically unbacked claims
consider forming opinions around facts instead of feelings in the future. maybe people will be more likely to take your beliefs seriously.
>>29715756
>so new he doesn't know it's called samefagging
>doesn't know how to check before calling samefag
Top kek
>>29715997
Easiest way to see it is to look at teen pregnancies. Banning premarital sex under religious reasons doesn't do shit, but providing thorough sex ed in schools and accessible birth control works wonders.
Education, not legislation.
>>29715167
>CHL
What is a CHL?
We have constitutional carry in Kansas.
We can carry any way we want.
OP have you driven a car? Have you seen how many retards there are on the road? Even taking your driving test should have shown you how easy it is. You trust your life to all those idiots out there, right? Car deaths aren't some freakishly huge number. And this is for something that isn't even a right.
>>29715997
Sorry you were called a statist cuck liberal shill the whole time, when you seemed to sincerely want feedback
>>29715231
>thinking statist is an insult
Thinking the government knows best.
Utter stupidity.
>>29715268
Let me guess your hight
>>29715659
Boohoo, did you not pay for your drivers license as well? Does it not need to be renewed every x years? What does a license solve anyway, plenty of incompetent retards on the roads.
>>29715568
>mandatory
>an option
You are a major retard. The system that is currently in place in the US is fine. And I say this as an australian.
Focus on the issue of low income high crime areas and focus on ways to fix that before trying to dictate gun legislation.
>>29715715
>that action
Such beauty. This is why I love guns.
A shame that the magazine for the rifle looks incredibly dorky.
>>29715167
you're forgetting a major tenet of this thing called "rights". That no one gives a fucking shit about your unfounded fears and precious feelings.
We have tens of millions of CCPs in the US and statistically the people who possess one are the least criminal demographic in the country. '
Go be a statist somewhere else m8, those house wives have the right to self defense too.
>>29715330
>I thought I would trust someone with training more with my life in an active shooter situation who is more trained that your average 18 yr old girl who just got a gun for her birthday
>so instead of that person with a gun and the chance at her plugging some autist in a trenchcoat, I'd happily die knowing she wasn't allowed to get a CC permit
the door is that way, may your chains rest lightly upon you and posterity forget you are our countryman Hilldog shill.
If you have not had your rights stripped via due process (you are not a felon and have not been adjudicated mentally deficient in court) then congratulations, you can into gun. The only legal way your rights can be stripped of life, liberty, or property is via due process as set forth by the 5th amendment. You are also to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Stealing away someone's rights without them doing anything wrong or having their day in court is about as anti-american as it gets.
The problem we have today is collectivists trying to put a collectivist spin on everything about the constitution when it's intended to protect the rights of the individual. They see one guy do something bad and assume everyone who likes X thing must be the same. They don't get how intensely stupid that is.
>who have no reason
It's a right, you don't need a reason.
When talking about a constitutional right what you feel like about it has dick all to do with it and is a horrible framework for thought on the subject.
>>29719237
Felons shouldn't be banned from owning guns.
The moment they leave prison, they've repaid their debt to society.
>>29715263
>No memes, please
I do what I want.
>>29715167
>this whole post
Your line of thinking was already tried in Britain, where mantras of "competency" and "suitability" replaced the rights-centered view on firearms.
It didn't end well.
>>29715416
You mean like some "common sense" gun control laws?
Yeah, no. Get fucked.
>requiring a license to express a right
how about no
>I am 100% for gun ownership
I'm not sure you understand what you're saying there
>>29715568
Do we get to keep the full fun service weapon?
>>29720496
Lord I wish more people had your view.
I agree completely.
>>29715388
Actually several supreme Court cases stated that vehicles for not commercial use fall under right to free travel and can not be regulated.
>>29720496
I can't agree more. Felons not being permitted to own guns is a new concept that needs to go. It's just another way to disarm a portion of the population.
>>29715167
I only want enhanced punishments for people who choose not to seek training and then go on to fuck up.
>>29722833
They also state that if you sign your right away to be governed by getting a license, you will be governed.
The right to travel was thought to be so self evident it didn't make it into law as a right for the same reason that arms almost didn't.
>>29720496
It's an issue I'm torn on. Non-violent felons have no reason to be denied and it totally is bullshit. Violent felons on the other hand have already proven they'll use force against someone, potentially lethal depending on the crime. That's a point where you ought to have to earn that back rather than get it back the moment you exit the facility.
My point though was that in the current system that's how you get your rights stripped.
>>29715167
>I feel like there needs to be at least basic training and a thorough background check
Criminals buy their guns on the black market. They are never subject to training requirements or background checks.
I don't want a situation where good guys decide not to get a gun because it's a hassle to go through a training class and pay extra for a BG check. Meanwhile, Jamal just has to head over to Tyrone's house and give him a hunnid and an ounce of weed for a hipoint.
>>29715167
get bent commie pinko
>>29715263
>>I didn't say take away guns, did I?
What the fuck do you think necessitating qualifiers like mandatory gun training and the like are? I know gungrabbers are retarded but holy shit. Fucking mental gymnasts.
>>29715447
Man, I'm saying this with all due respect, but you are what is called a "useful idiot." Have you actually thought about any of the words you've typed here ITT?
It is not the responsibility of the state to save her citizens from their own incompetence. Furthermore, if you empower the state to restrict things like gun ownership or carrying rights, you empower her to do this on ANY criteria. You may agree with one definition of who is unfit to carry a weapon, but you are unlikely to agree when that definition includes people like you. Never forget that Hitler disarmed the Jews.
I support the idea of having some sort mandatory basic gun safety class, but it should be free of charge, because I think that a fee would discriminate against low income citizens, and without background checks, because those are useless.
Reminder that the "well regulated" part of "well regulated militia" actually means "well trained", so it wouldn't be an infringement if implemented properly.
>>29715753
This is just as fucking stupid as the gun control OP is pushing for. The government doesn't buy anything for Americans. It steals their money and then redistributes it how it sees fit. It's like getting robbed then feeling happy the robber buys you some bread worth half of what he stole from you. How the fuck does he know how much bread you have at home already?
>>29715406
>its 21 to own a pistol
No it isn't; don't go spouting shit if you don't know shit
>>29715167
We should have gun ed in all public schools just like sex ed. No additional training required.
>>29724799
>"well regulated militia" actually means "well trained"
It meant that their weapons were in working order.
>>29724829
This 100%. At the VERY least kids should know how to check if the firearm is loaded, how to unload it, etc.
>>29724799
>he thinks things are "free"
The term you're looking for is "tax-payer funded."
And have fun passing that law. Liberals love to tax everyone else to death to pay for shit nobody wants, but try to get them to chip in for that and you'd be voted out of office by every stupid cunt soccermom in the country.
Only way to do it would be to make it a class in high schools, but again, good luck with that. The amount of total bullshit, let alone liberal propaganda they "teach" kids in those is insane. If you need permission slips to watch violent movies think how many stupid bitches would keep their kids out of those classes.
>>29715167
SHALL
>>29715167
NOT
>>29724845
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
>>29724939
When people say "free", they mean "tax payer funded", but please, don't allow that to stop your meaningless "big guberment libruls want free stuff hurr hurr" rants.
>>29715167
INFRINGED
>>29725021
>>29725033
>>29725040
>>29725053
>samefagging
>>29725037
You obviously haven't talked to many modern leftists. They either actually believe it's free because the government can just print more money, or they'll just tax those evil 1%ers more to cover it. It's dangerous terminology because stupid kids actually believe it.
>>29723497
Yeah I plan to take that back soon and spread the word. I wish more people knew this exposing the DMV for what they are.
>>29724821
why don't you just fuck off little boy the adults are posting.
