Anonymous #3 3w

Which red flag is apparently controversial for 2A absolutists who think background checks are attacks on their culture. Apparently beating their spouse goes hand-in-hand with gun ownership as part of their culture.

7

Anonymous #3 3w

Prohibiting especially violent people, like actual domestic and sexual abusers, murderers, etc from owning firearms is fine in my mind. The other ways that blue states have been instituting red flag laws, like expanding DV charges to include two friends consensually wrestling, denial of due process, and usurpation of firearms rights without evidence or conviction are what the 2A Absolutists take issue with.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Not to mention that if our legislature actually wanted to make the firearms laws prohibit especially dangerous people from owning, using, possessing firearms, they could just fix 922g. We have federal law in place to prohibit classes of people seen as especially dangerous from owning firearms, except it applies more to stuff like smoking weed or having anxiety than stuff that correlates heavily with being a dangerous person.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I want to tell you why mag caps are a dumb idea but I feel like I'm going to inspire even more dumb legislation so I'll just keep my mouth shut

1

Anonymous #4 3w

I mean im curious. Do you have a reason that isn’t “sometimes people need to shoot a bunch of things really fast”

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Well one obvious reason is that nothing physical is indestructible. Even if your magazine is "locked", there has to be a way to unlock it, and a way to deny the system that requires it to be locked in place while loading from doing so. Another is that magazines are not the only form of reloading your firearms storage of ammo quickly, and are not even really the preferred method in doing so if alternatives are available such as belt feeding

1

Anonymous #2 3w

However, this is not an idea that is exclusive to belt feeding and magazines, there are many other implements like stripper clips which are comparable in speed and performance to reloading with a magazine when the firearm is designed to use them.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Even if there were a comprehensive list of these firearm loading implements, some innovative mind would certainly come up with a new mechanism of loading quickly and efficiently that might even overcome the hurdles of magazines, something we've seen with FRTs and the legality of machine guns.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

So long winded way of saying it's technologically infeasible to prevent loading of a firearm's storage of ammo from occurring quickly. Now there is the logical question, does it affect our rights? The banning of an entire class of firearms not under the "dangerous and unusual" clause would certainly affect our rights. After that we must question, what goal are we actually trying to accomplish, and is this the correct mechanism to do so? We are trying to prevent violent crime, a police issue.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

I would argue that infringing upon our rights in pursuit of stopping a crime issue is not the correct way to approach it.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

To be clear when I say msg caps I mean regulating production of ammo styles and guns that facilitate fast reload

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Yeah that'll never happen unless you ban reloading and raid every hick's house in America

1

Anonymous #4 3w

And necessarily we infringe the right to bear arms by making literally anything that could harm someone else illegal Bombs are arms. Poisons are arms. Bioweapons are arms

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Hell, what category of cartridges and guns are you even referring to? Every cased cartridge in existence and every autoloader?

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Yeah and those are restricted in constitutional terms. Bombs, poisons, and bioweapons all pose a real danger to the user, and are not in common use of the military or the people.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I don't know if you know this, but your average 9mm concealed carry pistol is used in a lot more gun crime, fires at a faster rate, and shoots a bigger bullet than an AR15.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Ok, regulate ammo size then? You act like it’s a gotcha that one particular method of restriction isn’t gonna 100% address the problem. You’re just adding sections to my bill

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Ammo size? Like the dimensions of the cartridge?

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Like I think we agree restricting based on who someone is isn’t a good way to regulate rights But the same way not all cars are street legal not all weapons should be consumer products

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I don't think either is a great way to "regulate" a right that is a restriction on government.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Unless, what you are trying to do, is not "regulate" it, but "regulate" it away.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Cars being illegal on the road are mostly due to their dangerousness towards the user and possible unintentional danger towards other drivers or pedestrians. The danger in firing a gun towards someone is the purpose of a gun, and does not take away from the right.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

So I should be able to stockpile ricin right

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Poison is both dangerous to the user and unusual in the context of military and civilian use of arms

1

Anonymous #4 3w

guns are dangerous to the user without proper training and ricin would be more common in civilian use if it weren’t a scheduled substance

1

Anonymous #4 3w

also more than anything shouldn’t you have a right to determine your own wellbeing? nothing screams nanny state more than “you can hurt others but you can’t give yourself an ouchie wouchie”

1

Anonymous #2 3w

No they aren't, if you even follow one gun safety rule at a time you are OK 99.99% of the time. Ricin is a poison that can be absorbed through the skin, so if you aren't a chemist I wouldn't even handle it.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

It's basically the same as a car, you have to both aim it at someone and physically manipulate the device to harm someone with it, and in a lot of cases you will also have to disable a physical safety feature.

1

Anonymous #4 3w

In 2024 1,457 people died from accidental firearm discharge in the US

1

Anonymous #4 3w

you’re allowed to take the stance that weapons shouldn’t be regulated at all but don’t pretend like it’s actually coherent that some weapons are regulated and others aren’t from the standpoint of a 2A purist

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Well I wouldn't actually be a 2A purist if I didn't include the prohibitions on weapons that are explicitly allowed by the constitution

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Highly likely that every single one of those 1457 was disobeying all or most of the rules of gun safety, although that doesn't at all take away from the tragedy of their deaths.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

But it's perfectly logical to say that if your gun is never pointed at something you do not want to destroy, it's impossible to have an accident where it destroys something you do not want.

1