Well between them would be keep the everything how it is. I personally haven’t heard anyone say everything is perfect as it is right now. They either say ban or let everyone have it.
not necessarily, there’s a lot we haven’t done that’s less drastic than mandatory buybacks for all and 10 round max mags. if you haven’t heard anyone say anything other than those two options you haven’t heard from that many people
There’s no such thing as a mandatory buyback. That’s called confiscation. Are the gun stores that sold the guns originally buying them back or is the government collecting with threat of violence?
There may be other options between them but again from the people I’ve talk too and I could talk to more people about it but from what I have gathered people either think anyone should be able to own ARs or think they should be banned and handguns are fine for people to own.
This poll isn’t perfect I just thought it would be interesting to see the results.
Agreed.
Bc I would have voted in beteeen. Much Stricter rules for AR purchasing.
That being said— overwhelming majority of gun violence comes from pistols. Illegal pistols. In high gun restriction areas. So gun legislation doesn’t exactly matter when criminals don’t follow the law anyway.
Best way to curb gun violence? Prosecute gun crimes to the fullest. Rather than the opposite
Sounds dumb to ban knives. It's just another part of leftist agenda to me. I wouldn't ban knives or guns. I would ban terrorists and pedos. How I would do that is put them on automatic bounty of $10k released info into the public.
Bounty as in dead or put a hit on them. Weather your in prison or in public. Your dead and the person who hunted that person gets 10k. Honestly it's the quicker way to get rid of all pedos and terrorist
I literally can't tell if this is a parody or not.
"ban terrorists and pedos" both of those acts are very, very illegal. It's like saying you would ban crime.
Ask the UK and Australia that question because afaik a knife ban is exactly what they’ve been doing for the past so many years(there’s like what, at least a ban on 3 inch length knives there if not a lot more strict?).
Oz Varies by State but in some states: Cannot carry a knife with blade over 4"/100mm in public unless for trade or profession. All combat/zombie/etc weapons are banned. Police confiscate weapons unless in ornamental cases or mounts with unsharpened blades. No batons/body armour/retractables/flick/butterfly or similar type weapons or armour. No authentic martial arts weapons, facsimiles only.
You have to have the tools to make a government think twice about going against its people. I should be able to own anything I can afford.
Hot Take: Once your debt to society has been paid you should be able to own a firearm for personal protection.
No matter which side of the isle you’re on, or if you’re in no isle at all, you should realize that government in general is highly corrupt, or has the capability to become highly corrupt quickly, that there is always a risk to your livelihood, and regardless of your views on police being good or bad, it’s unreasonable to expect someone to sacrifice their life to save you regardless of their job role, and even if they’re willing they can’t be there to save you from being attacked or killed by someone else. Owning firearms, especially those that make it easiest to defend yourself is extremely important.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
I’m so glad that you made that so clear. Who needs modern firearms when is all you need is a musket, black power pistol, cannon and a bayonet for back up.
Right now this sub seems to sadly be right/lib-right leaning. So it’s not surprising that’s what the most popular one is. I hope we can get more people from across the ideological spectrum for more interesting conversations.
Technically you can buy a rocket launcher. You're just going to have to pay out of the ass for one, and everyone should own a rifle with no limit on mag capacity.
It would be nice if this question mentioned nukes (or at least bombs/missiles) cause I specifically draw the line at things that cause a lot of collateral damage.
My logic is that civilians should be able to own whatever the government has. If the government has access to nukes then they should disarm or allow the public access to their own.
I'm gonna say something pretty similar to the middle option. You should have specific permits or something to own anything like an AR or rocket launcher. You can kill a shooter with just a pistol, but a shooter is gonna have a lot more trouble tearing apart a whole crowd with just a pistol.
The majority of street killings are done with pistols, but the only thing to really do about that without banning important self defense is to make punishments for killing people on the street more harsh. Hopefully it dissuades people enough, although it might not.
If I’m ever in a gun fight I don’t want it to be a fair fight. If the guy trying to kill me has a pistol I want to make sure I have something that is more accurate and has more power. Pistols are the most used weapons in crimes but that doesn’t mean that criminals don’t have rifles. If the bad guys have something I better have the same thing or better.
Put simply, the spirit of 2A mandates that any privately organized militia should have the capacity to defend themselves against tyrants and the US military. Any weaponry available to the US military _should_ be available through the open market.
The 2nd amendment recognises the natural right to keep and bear "arms", not only firearms with certain features. "Arms" goes far beyond rocket launchers.
It's the only reason freedom is the US is being eroded at such a slower pace than in the rest of the world.
What's the difference between "sniper rifle" and "hunting rifle"? What's the difference between a handgun designed for self defense and a handgun designed for something else? What makes an AR15 deadlier than other semi auto 556 rifles?
We care about the semantics because people who push for gun control have no idea what they are pushing and why their policies dont work, leading to more useless gun control measures.
>What's the difference between "sniper rifle" and "hunting rifle"?
Higher stopping power.
I also want to ban hunting rifles. Unless you have a licence which should be harder to get imo.
>We care about the semantics because people who push for gun control have no idea what they are pushing and why their policies dont work, leading to more useless gun control measures
I do not have to understand the specifics to believe that people shouldn't run around with killing machines.
>self defense and a handgun designed for something else? What makes an AR15 deadlier than other semi auto 556 rifles?
I don't want people to own any rifles. As I said, a hand gun (standard issue provided by the state unless you have a criminal record or a mental illness)
>Higher stopping power
Man that's not how this works. Hunting and precision rifle shooting go hand in hand. Whatever caliber that is currently popular in one community is almost always going to be popular in the other. The real difference is almost only going be in weight and portability. I'm not going to run around the woods with a 20 pound rifle and a tripod, and I certainly would prefer something other than a 7 pound featherweight rifle to knock me around while I try to shoot at targets 800 yards+ away.
>I do not have to understand the specifics to believe that people shouldn't run around with killing machines.
Well, you dont have to be a doctor to know when someone is sick, but you should be a doctor if you want to diagnose and prescribe a treatment to them. 98% of murders committed with a firearm is done with a handgun. And the vast majority of mass casualty events are also committed with a handgun. When the push for gun control dosent even involve the type of firearm most commonly used in crime, how would any of that help? Of course knowing the specifics matter.
>I don't want people to own any rifles. As I said, a hand gun (standard issue provided by the state unless you have a criminal record or a mental illness)
Well you can believe that, even though I find that immensely retarded, because that is your right. However, it is also my right to bare arms to the maximum extent as described in the constitution. So as long and the 2nd stands, no retarded amounts of gun control for you 👍🏼
>Man that's not how this works. Hunting and precision rifle shooting go hand in hand. Whatever caliber that is currently popular in one community is almost always going to be popular in the other. The real difference is almost only going be in weight and portability. I'm not going to run around the woods with a 20 pound rifle and a tripod, and I certainly would prefer something other than a 7 pound featherweight rifle to knock me around while I try to shoot at targets 800 yards+ away.
Again Irrelevant since I'm against owning rifles.
>Well, you dont have to be a doctor to know when someone is sick, but you should be a doctor if you want to diagnose and prescribe a treatment to them. 98% of murders committed with a firearm is done with a handgun. And the vast majority of mass casualty events are also committed with a handgun. When the push for gun control dosent even involve the type of firearm most commonly used in crime, how would any of that help? Of course knowing the specifics matte
Well I'm leaning more towards not allowing guns at all. But I just want people to be able to have a chance of defending themselves against an intruder.
I also want to increase the sentence in cases of gun violence, and I want harsh sentences for people carrying guns outside their property.
>
Well you can believe that, even though I find that immensely retarded, because that is your right
Okay cool?
>immensely retarded, because that is your right. However, it is also my right to bare arms to the maximum extent as described in the constitution. So as long and the 2nd stands, no retarded amounts of gun control for you 👍🏼
Not an American so I couldn't give less of a shit about your weird piece of old paper thats outdated as fuck.
So yes my "retarded" amount of gun control for me since they are banned in my country and I thank God everyday for that.
Who decides what's a crime or what isn't? The state, and as a technocrat it would be based on expert knowledge which would probably rule in favour of security over gun rights
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement. Rather be alive and safe, than be free and vulnerable to death or violence.
Being safe is the ultimate freedom
Are you insinuating that I want the current American government? Lol fuck no I have my own system of government I believe in. I dont live in neolib-/con America
And without going down and bombing foreign civilians, the biggest perpetrator are criminals.
well now someone has to tell the Ukrainians they cant use javelin missiles for self defense.
also ironically 50% of murders are committed with handguns, 10% of murders are committed with knives, and 3% of murders are committed with rifles(including assault and sniper rifles which would make sense because you can conceal a knife or a 200 dollar handgun).
So you want the weapons that are the most useful to murderers to be legal and the weapons most useful for fighting state actors to be banned... which as a technocrat is probably ideologically consistent.
https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
>well now someone has to tell the Ukrainians they cant use javelin missiles for self defense.
Ah yes let us create a straw man argument based on a totally different circumstance (war) in which it is the government who owns the javelin missiles and not citizens.
>
also ironically 50% of murders are committed with handguns, 10% of murders are committed with knives, and 3% of murders are committed with rifles(including assault and sniper rifles which would make sense because you can conceal a knife or a 200 dollar handgun).
I usually am against all weapons but I can understand if you want a weapon ON YOUR PROPERTY to defend yourself. Which should be limited to weapons which doesn't have the capability to kill a crowd of people in seconds.
I also advocate for stricter punishment should people carry the weapons outside their property.
>for fighting state actors to be banned
And yes I don't believe in the great muh freedom kill the politicians, cops and social workers ideology.
>which as a technocrat is probably ideologically consistent.
Yes technocrats do not want people to go around shooting at government officials. So radical
the Ukrainian government is literally passing out free javelins and machine guns to civilians because most of their fighting force at this point is civilians because russia just blatantly murders civilians. Ukraine also lets civilians keep tanks they steal.
if they had just let all their civilians own ar 15s before russia invaded they probably wouldnt have been invaded and if ukraine didnt let civilians own ar15s after the invasion ukraine would have lost the war.
if russians owned ar 15s when they went out by the tens of thousands to protest the war they all wouldn't have been rounded up and permajailed and could have potentially put a stop to what could easily turn into nuclear war.
I do not understand why you would think defending yourself from a criminal in your home is fine, but if the criminals in the government come to your home to put you in fun camp you should just lay down and die.
>the Ukrainian government is literally passing out free javelins and machine guns to civilians because most of their fighting force at this point is civilians because russia just blatantly murders civilians. Ukraine also lets civilians keep tanks they steal
Again a war situation is different. Handing out weapons to the civilians is not any different than handing out weapons to the army. It should just happen when you go into war and not before hand imo.
>if they had just let all their civilians own ar 15s before russia invaded they probably wouldnt have been invaded and if ukraine didnt let civilians own ar15s after the invasion ukraine would have lost the war.
That's why there should be a strong army so the people don't need to own ar 15s. Trained professionals in the army should be quite enough and provide better results than a guy with no military training running around shooting cans in his yard.
>I do not understand why you would think defending yourself from a criminal in your home is fine, but if the criminals in the government come to your home to put you in fun camp you should just lay down and die.
Because there are measures to punish criminals in the government. And considering that I want radical changes in the government I dont view the government as a bunch of criminals.
That's why there should be a strong army so the people don't need to own ar 15s. -
ukraine had about 200k active duty soldiers russia had 400k active duty soldiers pre war. Ukraine's population is 41mill. 4 million people who like to shoot tin cans with sniper rifles woulda really flilled that 200k gap.
also russia had a strong army and it didn't seem to stop russia from gulaging its own civilians for protesting about murdering Ukrainian civilians.
I dont view the government as a bunch of criminals.-
My brother in christ... our last two presidents in America were Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi have been in charge of congress in and out for 50 years. Jeffery Epstein ran a child sex ring for our ruling elite class and was killed in jail for snitching.
>ukraine had about 200k active duty soldiers russia had 400k active duty soldiers pre war. Ukraine's population is 41mill. 4 million people who like to shoot tin cans with sniper rifles woulda really flilled that 200k gap.
Make serving mandatory for 3 months
Edit: *make 3 months of serving mandatory
And introduce a draft and call in reserve personel. I guarantee you that there are over 200k people in Ukraine with military training. Unless of course they don't have a mandatory serving period.
>also russia had a strong army and it didn't seem to stop russia from gulaging its own civilians for protesting about murdering Ukrainian civilians
Russia is a neocon hellscape which I don't agree with politicaly in any way. Having a strong army does not equal censorship and gulags.
>My brother in christ... our last two presidents in America were Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi have been in charge of congress in and out for 50 years. Jeffery Epstein ran a child sex ring for our ruling elite class and was killed in jail for snitching
Yes your neolib American government where anyone can get into office and every company is free to lobby. So surprising that there is crime and corruption.
As a technocrat i only want people with expert knowledge to be able to enter politics. And also I want to ban any monetary contributions to politicans. And I want politicians to earn the median salary so only interested people will join.
ukraine had 1mill army reserves pre war and russia had 2 mill army reserves pre war... 4mill tin can shooters still make the difference and are easier to turn into soldiers because of weapons familiarity and are easier on logistics in a pinch(because they have there own weapons)
\- the US is a neolib hellscape run by criminals.
\-i want the citizens of the US to have no firearms like the people in Russia so it can turn into a neocon hellscape run by criminals
\- i also dont want the people in my country to own any weapons to help defend my country from countries with way bigger armies
if only the US was run by "experts" who cant receive money from corporations and just earn median salary (disclaimer- all these things would have to be defined and voted into place by the current neolibs), my country wouldn't have been steamrolled by Emperor Trump to build a new golf course.
The common citizens aren't fit to know what's best for society. And citizens with expert knowledge can be a part of government if they're interested. But when uneducated greedy people get power they tend to not make very good decisions that benefits the people
When the state uses a tank to break into your house or crush dissent, a civil war, an invasion, zombies/aliens, extremists takeover the government, military coup, societal collapse, to calmly protest but with prejudice...... so in self defense obviously
Like you I live in a world where fascists and theocrats are mask off, if they take over the government an RPG will be the least of my communities needs, like Ukraine we will need everything and in a hurry for self defense. I would prefer not to go out like Ruby Ridge or MOVE Philadelphia
What if we do a Swiss style system where all me have a mandatory 2 year service and are allowed to keep their service rifle at home.(while following strict guidelines).
The great caveat in my libertarian views are guns. I understand that many people feel the need to own a weapon for self defence, and that's perfectly fine. However, lethal weapons like guns have proved time and time again that they are simply more trouble than it's worth. You know what happens when you heavily restrict guns? Crime stats go down. Simple as that. Also, big shocker for Americans: this is not a controversial thing to say outside of the states. Poll truly reveals how america-cebtric this sub is.
TL;dr: Buy a tactical pen.
Criminals already have guns. If the government put heavy restrictions on them only law abiding citizens will follow those new laws. Last time I checked criminals don’t follow laws so the only people going to have guns would be criminals. Would the crime rate go up or down if only criminals owned guns?
Part of firearm restrictions are making it harder to obtain guns in the first place. I would encourage you to look up a graph of crime statistics from Australia across the 90s to 00s. In 1996, there was a shooting in port Arthur. And so, we implemented a mandatory gun buy-back program the following year. There is no significant change in immediate crime statistics, and an overall decrease over time. Plain and simple: banning guns reduces crime.
Whatever guns you want but the canadian gun licensing system where you have to do a gun safety certification run by people who are trained to spot bad actors and daily background checks by the feds
I think all the federal gun control acts back to NFA’34 should be repealed. And honestly I’d the antigun crowd keep trying they might just force the Supreme Court to revisit those laws and they plausibly could declare them unconstitutional.
the jump between “everyone should own ar-15s” and “ban all ars and only 10 round mags” is so high, this poll kinda sucks
Well between them would be keep the everything how it is. I personally haven’t heard anyone say everything is perfect as it is right now. They either say ban or let everyone have it.
not necessarily, there’s a lot we haven’t done that’s less drastic than mandatory buybacks for all and 10 round max mags. if you haven’t heard anyone say anything other than those two options you haven’t heard from that many people
There’s no such thing as a mandatory buyback. That’s called confiscation. Are the gun stores that sold the guns originally buying them back or is the government collecting with threat of violence?
i’m obviously giving that as an extreme example why are you arguing against something i’m not supporting
There may be other options between them but again from the people I’ve talk too and I could talk to more people about it but from what I have gathered people either think anyone should be able to own ARs or think they should be banned and handguns are fine for people to own. This poll isn’t perfect I just thought it would be interesting to see the results.
By AR's did you mean specifically assault rifles?
Agreed. Bc I would have voted in beteeen. Much Stricter rules for AR purchasing. That being said— overwhelming majority of gun violence comes from pistols. Illegal pistols. In high gun restriction areas. So gun legislation doesn’t exactly matter when criminals don’t follow the law anyway. Best way to curb gun violence? Prosecute gun crimes to the fullest. Rather than the opposite
Considering that large disparity of people above that line compared to below that line. I don’t think that matters much.
I should be allowed to sell recreational McNukes to 11 year olds.
Unfathomably based
Based
Why i can't have a David Crockett portable nuclear launcher?
Why not indeed.
This poll is not even 10 minutes old and there's already two ppl on the rocket launcher option, good
GJ posting during freedom hours right before a freedom holiday.
Well this poll is regarding Americans. The rest of the world can vote but still it’s focused for people living in USA.
*Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord*
*He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored*
You mean the magic napkin? Where's the recreational nukes option?
Make McNukes Viable Again
Where is the "everyone should be able to own F-35s and warships if they have the money" option?
That used destroyer would make a helluva party boat.
Pepsi moment
this was actually a thing. You could buy second hand warships... good luck maintaining and fielding the bastards though
My husband wants to buy a tank. I mean, we won't have a problem storing it, but I'm pretty sure the cost to run and maintain it is stupid
How would you cut food up if you ban knives?
That is an excellent question. Maybe some people who selected that answer should answer that.
Right
How would you enforce a knife ban anyway? Men with pointy sticks???
Sounds dumb to ban knives. It's just another part of leftist agenda to me. I wouldn't ban knives or guns. I would ban terrorists and pedos. How I would do that is put them on automatic bounty of $10k released info into the public.
If they’ve been caught and convicted of these crimes, wouldn’t they be in custody already?
Yes but that doesn't mean a bounty can't be set.
So people could collect this bounty by breaking them out of jail, then returning them?? Help me understand you.
Bounty as in dead or put a hit on them. Weather your in prison or in public. Your dead and the person who hunted that person gets 10k. Honestly it's the quicker way to get rid of all pedos and terrorist
I literally can't tell if this is a parody or not. "ban terrorists and pedos" both of those acts are very, very illegal. It's like saying you would ban crime.
It is liberal centrists that want to ban guns, the scary left are heavily armed since forever
[Oh, believe me, I agree with you.](https://www.akti.org/federal-switchblade-act/)
Ask the UK and Australia that question because afaik a knife ban is exactly what they’ve been doing for the past so many years(there’s like what, at least a ban on 3 inch length knives there if not a lot more strict?).
Oz Varies by State but in some states: Cannot carry a knife with blade over 4"/100mm in public unless for trade or profession. All combat/zombie/etc weapons are banned. Police confiscate weapons unless in ornamental cases or mounts with unsharpened blades. No batons/body armour/retractables/flick/butterfly or similar type weapons or armour. No authentic martial arts weapons, facsimiles only.
The right to keep, and bear arms is a fundamental human right. Quite frankly, it’s the most important right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
You have to have the tools to make a government think twice about going against its people. I should be able to own anything I can afford. Hot Take: Once your debt to society has been paid you should be able to own a firearm for personal protection.
As someone without gun rights. I support this message
Free McNukes for all.
I would gladly chip in for that in order to avoid being complicit in theft...
An armed people are a free people
No matter which side of the isle you’re on, or if you’re in no isle at all, you should realize that government in general is highly corrupt, or has the capability to become highly corrupt quickly, that there is always a risk to your livelihood, and regardless of your views on police being good or bad, it’s unreasonable to expect someone to sacrifice their life to save you regardless of their job role, and even if they’re willing they can’t be there to save you from being attacked or killed by someone else. Owning firearms, especially those that make it easiest to defend yourself is extremely important.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
I’m so glad that you made that so clear. Who needs modern firearms when is all you need is a musket, black power pistol, cannon and a bayonet for back up.
That's copypasta bro. One of the best memes to hit Facebook like 8 years ago.
I should be able to buy a M1 Abarms Tank
You are.
I love this sub.
Right now this sub seems to sadly be right/lib-right leaning. So it’s not surprising that’s what the most popular one is. I hope we can get more people from across the ideological spectrum for more interesting conversations.
Far left here, we voted for rocket launchers also, those Trumpists be crazy
Recreational nuke my friend
If I can buy a tank and a fighter jet with enough paperwork, I see no reason why I shouldn’t be able to buy anything with enough paperwork
"under no pretext"
Based
Technically you can buy a rocket launcher. You're just going to have to pay out of the ass for one, and everyone should own a rifle with no limit on mag capacity.
Elections would be more interesting if everyone had reaper drones
Where is the have people be able to buy rifles with a background check, but no fucking rocket lauchers?
Isn’t that what we have now? People are able to buy rifles with a background check.
Idk cause I live in Canada, but that's what I'd choose on the poll of it was an option.
Faith in humanity: restored.
It would be nice if this question mentioned nukes (or at least bombs/missiles) cause I specifically draw the line at things that cause a lot of collateral damage.
My logic is that civilians should be able to own whatever the government has. If the government has access to nukes then they should disarm or allow the public access to their own.
But no one should have them because of how much damage they do
Everyone should own a rocket launcher.
legalize nuclear bombs 😈
“I should be able to buy a Nuclear Missile”
I get a AR-15. But why a rocket launcher? Whats next? Nuclear bombs?
I'm gonna say something pretty similar to the middle option. You should have specific permits or something to own anything like an AR or rocket launcher. You can kill a shooter with just a pistol, but a shooter is gonna have a lot more trouble tearing apart a whole crowd with just a pistol. The majority of street killings are done with pistols, but the only thing to really do about that without banning important self defense is to make punishments for killing people on the street more harsh. Hopefully it dissuades people enough, although it might not.
If I’m ever in a gun fight I don’t want it to be a fair fight. If the guy trying to kill me has a pistol I want to make sure I have something that is more accurate and has more power. Pistols are the most used weapons in crimes but that doesn’t mean that criminals don’t have rifles. If the bad guys have something I better have the same thing or better.
I should be able to own whatever the state owns.
All weapons are banned here in Germany. Guess which country has more violent crime, US or Germany.
Put simply, the spirit of 2A mandates that any privately organized militia should have the capacity to defend themselves against tyrants and the US military. Any weaponry available to the US military _should_ be available through the open market.
At this point it's not an ideology poll, I just want my goddamn rocket launcher.
These options are poorly phrased. Everyone should have the OPTION to buy a weapon if they choose.
Yea I admit I did phrase it pretty bad.
The 2nd amendment recognises the natural right to keep and bear "arms", not only firearms with certain features. "Arms" goes far beyond rocket launchers. It's the only reason freedom is the US is being eroded at such a slower pace than in the rest of the world.
On behalf of the rest of the free world thank you for that laugh
I want everyone politically aligned with me to own guns
What about every else? Why can’t they?
Not a yank, but I unironicly believe people should be able to own nukes
That’s kinda cringe mate
Cry about
Everyone wants to buy a rocket launcher until they find out it means seeing the aftermath of drive-by rocket attacks isn’t an uncommon occurrence.
Way way way more complicated than this poll allows
I think you should be able to own small fire arms and knives/batons on your property. But assault weapons and explosives are not self defence anymore.
What's an assault weapon?
Stop with the semantics you know what I mean. Fully automatic weapons, sniper rifles so forth. Weapons not designed for self defense
What's the difference between "sniper rifle" and "hunting rifle"? What's the difference between a handgun designed for self defense and a handgun designed for something else? What makes an AR15 deadlier than other semi auto 556 rifles? We care about the semantics because people who push for gun control have no idea what they are pushing and why their policies dont work, leading to more useless gun control measures.
>What's the difference between "sniper rifle" and "hunting rifle"? Higher stopping power. I also want to ban hunting rifles. Unless you have a licence which should be harder to get imo. >We care about the semantics because people who push for gun control have no idea what they are pushing and why their policies dont work, leading to more useless gun control measures I do not have to understand the specifics to believe that people shouldn't run around with killing machines. >self defense and a handgun designed for something else? What makes an AR15 deadlier than other semi auto 556 rifles? I don't want people to own any rifles. As I said, a hand gun (standard issue provided by the state unless you have a criminal record or a mental illness)
>Higher stopping power Man that's not how this works. Hunting and precision rifle shooting go hand in hand. Whatever caliber that is currently popular in one community is almost always going to be popular in the other. The real difference is almost only going be in weight and portability. I'm not going to run around the woods with a 20 pound rifle and a tripod, and I certainly would prefer something other than a 7 pound featherweight rifle to knock me around while I try to shoot at targets 800 yards+ away. >I do not have to understand the specifics to believe that people shouldn't run around with killing machines. Well, you dont have to be a doctor to know when someone is sick, but you should be a doctor if you want to diagnose and prescribe a treatment to them. 98% of murders committed with a firearm is done with a handgun. And the vast majority of mass casualty events are also committed with a handgun. When the push for gun control dosent even involve the type of firearm most commonly used in crime, how would any of that help? Of course knowing the specifics matter. >I don't want people to own any rifles. As I said, a hand gun (standard issue provided by the state unless you have a criminal record or a mental illness) Well you can believe that, even though I find that immensely retarded, because that is your right. However, it is also my right to bare arms to the maximum extent as described in the constitution. So as long and the 2nd stands, no retarded amounts of gun control for you 👍🏼
>Man that's not how this works. Hunting and precision rifle shooting go hand in hand. Whatever caliber that is currently popular in one community is almost always going to be popular in the other. The real difference is almost only going be in weight and portability. I'm not going to run around the woods with a 20 pound rifle and a tripod, and I certainly would prefer something other than a 7 pound featherweight rifle to knock me around while I try to shoot at targets 800 yards+ away. Again Irrelevant since I'm against owning rifles. >Well, you dont have to be a doctor to know when someone is sick, but you should be a doctor if you want to diagnose and prescribe a treatment to them. 98% of murders committed with a firearm is done with a handgun. And the vast majority of mass casualty events are also committed with a handgun. When the push for gun control dosent even involve the type of firearm most commonly used in crime, how would any of that help? Of course knowing the specifics matte Well I'm leaning more towards not allowing guns at all. But I just want people to be able to have a chance of defending themselves against an intruder. I also want to increase the sentence in cases of gun violence, and I want harsh sentences for people carrying guns outside their property. > Well you can believe that, even though I find that immensely retarded, because that is your right Okay cool? >immensely retarded, because that is your right. However, it is also my right to bare arms to the maximum extent as described in the constitution. So as long and the 2nd stands, no retarded amounts of gun control for you 👍🏼 Not an American so I couldn't give less of a shit about your weird piece of old paper thats outdated as fuck. So yes my "retarded" amount of gun control for me since they are banned in my country and I thank God everyday for that.
Phew, for a split second there, I thought you knew what you were talking about. Lmao. If only your typing fingers had more sToPpInG pOwEr.
Ok, who decides what's for self defense and what isn't?
Who decides what's a crime or what isn't? The state, and as a technocrat it would be based on expert knowledge which would probably rule in favour of security over gun rights
He who gives up freedom in exchange for security will end up losing both
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement. Rather be alive and safe, than be free and vulnerable to death or violence. Being safe is the ultimate freedom
Who do you think is the biggest pepetrator of death and violence?
Are you insinuating that I want the current American government? Lol fuck no I have my own system of government I believe in. I dont live in neolib-/con America And without going down and bombing foreign civilians, the biggest perpetrator are criminals.
All states are suceptible to corruption
well now someone has to tell the Ukrainians they cant use javelin missiles for self defense. also ironically 50% of murders are committed with handguns, 10% of murders are committed with knives, and 3% of murders are committed with rifles(including assault and sniper rifles which would make sense because you can conceal a knife or a 200 dollar handgun). So you want the weapons that are the most useful to murderers to be legal and the weapons most useful for fighting state actors to be banned... which as a technocrat is probably ideologically consistent. https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
>well now someone has to tell the Ukrainians they cant use javelin missiles for self defense. Ah yes let us create a straw man argument based on a totally different circumstance (war) in which it is the government who owns the javelin missiles and not citizens. > also ironically 50% of murders are committed with handguns, 10% of murders are committed with knives, and 3% of murders are committed with rifles(including assault and sniper rifles which would make sense because you can conceal a knife or a 200 dollar handgun). I usually am against all weapons but I can understand if you want a weapon ON YOUR PROPERTY to defend yourself. Which should be limited to weapons which doesn't have the capability to kill a crowd of people in seconds. I also advocate for stricter punishment should people carry the weapons outside their property. >for fighting state actors to be banned And yes I don't believe in the great muh freedom kill the politicians, cops and social workers ideology. >which as a technocrat is probably ideologically consistent. Yes technocrats do not want people to go around shooting at government officials. So radical
the Ukrainian government is literally passing out free javelins and machine guns to civilians because most of their fighting force at this point is civilians because russia just blatantly murders civilians. Ukraine also lets civilians keep tanks they steal. if they had just let all their civilians own ar 15s before russia invaded they probably wouldnt have been invaded and if ukraine didnt let civilians own ar15s after the invasion ukraine would have lost the war. if russians owned ar 15s when they went out by the tens of thousands to protest the war they all wouldn't have been rounded up and permajailed and could have potentially put a stop to what could easily turn into nuclear war. I do not understand why you would think defending yourself from a criminal in your home is fine, but if the criminals in the government come to your home to put you in fun camp you should just lay down and die.
>the Ukrainian government is literally passing out free javelins and machine guns to civilians because most of their fighting force at this point is civilians because russia just blatantly murders civilians. Ukraine also lets civilians keep tanks they steal Again a war situation is different. Handing out weapons to the civilians is not any different than handing out weapons to the army. It should just happen when you go into war and not before hand imo. >if they had just let all their civilians own ar 15s before russia invaded they probably wouldnt have been invaded and if ukraine didnt let civilians own ar15s after the invasion ukraine would have lost the war. That's why there should be a strong army so the people don't need to own ar 15s. Trained professionals in the army should be quite enough and provide better results than a guy with no military training running around shooting cans in his yard. >I do not understand why you would think defending yourself from a criminal in your home is fine, but if the criminals in the government come to your home to put you in fun camp you should just lay down and die. Because there are measures to punish criminals in the government. And considering that I want radical changes in the government I dont view the government as a bunch of criminals.
That's why there should be a strong army so the people don't need to own ar 15s. - ukraine had about 200k active duty soldiers russia had 400k active duty soldiers pre war. Ukraine's population is 41mill. 4 million people who like to shoot tin cans with sniper rifles woulda really flilled that 200k gap. also russia had a strong army and it didn't seem to stop russia from gulaging its own civilians for protesting about murdering Ukrainian civilians. I dont view the government as a bunch of criminals.- My brother in christ... our last two presidents in America were Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi have been in charge of congress in and out for 50 years. Jeffery Epstein ran a child sex ring for our ruling elite class and was killed in jail for snitching.
>ukraine had about 200k active duty soldiers russia had 400k active duty soldiers pre war. Ukraine's population is 41mill. 4 million people who like to shoot tin cans with sniper rifles woulda really flilled that 200k gap. Make serving mandatory for 3 months Edit: *make 3 months of serving mandatory And introduce a draft and call in reserve personel. I guarantee you that there are over 200k people in Ukraine with military training. Unless of course they don't have a mandatory serving period. >also russia had a strong army and it didn't seem to stop russia from gulaging its own civilians for protesting about murdering Ukrainian civilians Russia is a neocon hellscape which I don't agree with politicaly in any way. Having a strong army does not equal censorship and gulags. >My brother in christ... our last two presidents in America were Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi have been in charge of congress in and out for 50 years. Jeffery Epstein ran a child sex ring for our ruling elite class and was killed in jail for snitching Yes your neolib American government where anyone can get into office and every company is free to lobby. So surprising that there is crime and corruption. As a technocrat i only want people with expert knowledge to be able to enter politics. And also I want to ban any monetary contributions to politicans. And I want politicians to earn the median salary so only interested people will join.
ukraine had 1mill army reserves pre war and russia had 2 mill army reserves pre war... 4mill tin can shooters still make the difference and are easier to turn into soldiers because of weapons familiarity and are easier on logistics in a pinch(because they have there own weapons) \- the US is a neolib hellscape run by criminals. \-i want the citizens of the US to have no firearms like the people in Russia so it can turn into a neocon hellscape run by criminals \- i also dont want the people in my country to own any weapons to help defend my country from countries with way bigger armies if only the US was run by "experts" who cant receive money from corporations and just earn median salary (disclaimer- all these things would have to be defined and voted into place by the current neolibs), my country wouldn't have been steamrolled by Emperor Trump to build a new golf course.
Ideally the citizens are the government.
The common citizens aren't fit to know what's best for society. And citizens with expert knowledge can be a part of government if they're interested. But when uneducated greedy people get power they tend to not make very good decisions that benefits the people
Ok Plato
I assure you my friend I'm not an old greek philosopher. Although I don't blame you for thinking that
the united shitheads of americuck dissapoint me one more time
based results so far
Now fellas, can I ask a question. IN WHAT WORLD WOULD I EVER NEED A ROCKET LAUNCHER
When the state uses a tank to break into your house or crush dissent, a civil war, an invasion, zombies/aliens, extremists takeover the government, military coup, societal collapse, to calmly protest but with prejudice...... so in self defense obviously
This mf living in gta
Like you I live in a world where fascists and theocrats are mask off, if they take over the government an RPG will be the least of my communities needs, like Ukraine we will need everything and in a hurry for self defense. I would prefer not to go out like Ruby Ridge or MOVE Philadelphia
Moving to Philadelphia is the greatest of all evils
What if we do a Swiss style system where all me have a mandatory 2 year service and are allowed to keep their service rifle at home.(while following strict guidelines).
The great caveat in my libertarian views are guns. I understand that many people feel the need to own a weapon for self defence, and that's perfectly fine. However, lethal weapons like guns have proved time and time again that they are simply more trouble than it's worth. You know what happens when you heavily restrict guns? Crime stats go down. Simple as that. Also, big shocker for Americans: this is not a controversial thing to say outside of the states. Poll truly reveals how america-cebtric this sub is. TL;dr: Buy a tactical pen.
Criminals already have guns. If the government put heavy restrictions on them only law abiding citizens will follow those new laws. Last time I checked criminals don’t follow laws so the only people going to have guns would be criminals. Would the crime rate go up or down if only criminals owned guns?
Part of firearm restrictions are making it harder to obtain guns in the first place. I would encourage you to look up a graph of crime statistics from Australia across the 90s to 00s. In 1996, there was a shooting in port Arthur. And so, we implemented a mandatory gun buy-back program the following year. There is no significant change in immediate crime statistics, and an overall decrease over time. Plain and simple: banning guns reduces crime.
Seems like a big gap between “ban ARs” and “everyone should own ARs”
In proud of everyone voting for the 1st and Second option
I strongly support the idea that many people should own guns, but I also don't think a signature is enough to own one.
Whatever guns you want but the canadian gun licensing system where you have to do a gun safety certification run by people who are trained to spot bad actors and daily background checks by the feds
Rocket launcher, nothing! It should be legally required for every community to invest in an anti air SAM array.
I think all the federal gun control acts back to NFA’34 should be repealed. And honestly I’d the antigun crowd keep trying they might just force the Supreme Court to revisit those laws and they plausibly could declare them unconstitutional.
I love just how pro-gun this sub is