politics

But ... Lemmy can do gifs? Am I misunderstanding?

The hell they aint

someone should show him betos runs, yea it wont work.

We agree on what "gun control" means. We do not agree on the need for gun control, nor do we agree on the affects of gun control on the right to keep and bear arms.

Mandatory background checks

That means forced to go to an FFL dealer before trading guns with your friends and neighbors. No private sales, even to trusted parties. Unacceptable. Every legitimate purpose that a mandatory background check provides can be accomplished by creating public access to NICS. With that in place, every seller can know, and so is expected to know their buyer's status. But, "public access to NICS" is not part of our shared definition of "gun control", and has been fervently opposed by Democratic leadership every time it has been proposed.

waiting periods,

Even in theory, waiting periods can only achieve their intent with first-time gun buyers. For everyone else, they serve no purpose other than to hassle gun owners. You could theoretically walk in to a gun store with an AR15 hanging from your chest, a Remington 870 over your shoulder, a S&W 500 holstered on your waist, a 1911 on your hip, a Glock 26 on your ankle, and an LCP in your pocket. But, while you're walking around with three defensive pistols, a big game handgun, a shotgun, and an intermediate caliber rifle, the clerk at that gun store won't let you leave with a bolt-action .22LR plinker. Suffice it to say, waiting periods are unacceptable.

bans on previously convicted violent criminals owning guns,

The only reason to even mention such bans is to deceive people into thinking they don't already exist. They do. That deceit is completely unacceptable.

potentially magazine limits

The usual limits proposed are 6 or 10 rounds. These numbers are not derived from any studies on defensive need. They do not consider whether 6 to 10 rounds is sufficient to stop a deadly threat. They do not consider multiple attackers. Unacceptable. The various proposals often apply to guns that can accept such magazines, rather than the magazines themselves, and would thus make most existing guns illegal. Only firearms with fixed magazines could comply with such laws. Unacceptable.

limits on fully automatic licenses

Fully automatic firearms, suppressors, SBRs and SBSs are already overburdened with excessive licensing restrictions. Unacceptable.

Harassing gun owners with these ridiculous gun control measures is costing elections. David Hogg was brought to the DNC by the inept leadership to support their losing message on gun control. He and his pet issue are part of what the Guillotine Party needs to excise.

Gun control seems to mean 'a little more'. This comic is popular among gun owners because it reflects the feeling of constantly ratcheting 'compromise'.

A perfect example of that is background checks. The original bill was a compromise, All gun sales at gun stores are required to have a background check, but the compromise is that private sales between one person and another are exempted. That was a negotiated compromise between the pro gun and anti-gun side. I think for the most part it was a decent compromise. But now the anti-gun side is trying to roll it back calling it the 'gun show loophole' which is horribly named because a gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check anyway, and most gun shows require background checks for all sales either from a dealer or a private citizen.

The problem with universal background checks is the concept of a transfer. For example, under some proposals, if you want to lend somebody your hunting rifle to go hunting with, that might count as a transfer, which means you have to go to a gun store and pay about $50 and fill out paperwork to legally transfer ownership of the gun to them. And then when they return they have to transfer it back to you.

You should also know that an awful lot of gun owners absolutely hate the NRA. They serve a useful purpose, but their constant deranged rabble rousing fundraising makes gun owners look like paranoid morons.
What I would much prefer to do is outreach and education. An awful lot of gun control laws are based on a total misunderstanding of what guns do and how they work and what makes them powerful or not, I think if more Democrats actually understood guns you would see fewer attempts at bad laws that do nothing to increase safety but just try to turn the screws on gun owners.

So like… I was in my early thirties when this happened. I know. I remember. I watched some of the news livestreams as it went down.

I said what I said understanding that.

I am by no means trying to diminish, demean, discredit, disparage, or otherwise detract from his experience. Im saying that I am very fucking concerned that an actual war is coming, and disarming right before a war is a great fucking way to get killed.