T O P
auditgovtcorruption

Well, if they can't win their fight and take our guns, they will do whatever they can to bankrupt the gun and accessory industry. They are already coming down hard on the manufacturers and industry itself. It's about control, whatever way they can get it. Its about control of the people. Disarming the people. The 2nd amendment is robustly protected by the Supreme Court. However its not the same when it comes to the gun industry. They will target and laser focus their efforts to cripple and destroy by implementing aggressive tactics on the industry itself. They will accuse companies of deceptive marketing and advertising, etc. If their are no gun companies, there are no more guns. If there are no more ammo companies, no more ammo available for citizens. Many view at Ruling 2021r-05F as an attack only on our Second Amendment, but that is not the case. The standard this rule will set if it is not fought and eradicated in the below-mentioned CRA Rejection letter headed by Senator Cruz and supported by 21 of his Senator Collogues, will allow obscure case-law tactics with infinitely overreaching abilities to apply opaque strategies that provide regulators the subjective ability to essentially enforce their feelings, rather than logic and fact on unsuspecting citizens! Regarding Rule 2021R-05F, this ruling is not effective until 8.22.2022. 22 Senators, headed by Senator Cruz have initiated a CRA rejection through Congress based on the unconstitutional nature of 2021R-05F. To keep up with the status of the specific CRA filing by Team Cruz, you can bookmark this link https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/45?s=9&r=2 not much out there...but the link above and a few articles online like this https://armoryden.com/worried-about-purchasing-a-solvent-trap-for-firearm-cleaning-and-storage-22-senators-challenge-rule-2021r-05f-with-cra-submission/ It amazes me that with all of the propaganda and hype surrounding the seriousness of solvent trap control (ridiculous if you say it out loud), that communist rule 2021R-05F would not contain more specifics – isn’t the generalization and lack of specifics surrounding such a seemingly important topic a little odd? Not really…because the ATF knows they will lose the logic battle if they add specifics because they are unable to regulate the cylindrical shape or geometric shapes lol. If they claim solvent traps should be regulated and provide the specifics or parameters to the public, they must regulate all Maglites, all tubes or piping at Home Depot and other stores such as Lowe’s, then where does it end. It’s insane that they think they can provide no parameters and think it will be ok to enforce such a rule? If rule 2021R-05F goes live in August 2022, get ready for a battle and say goodbye to America as you know it! The generalities the ATF are trying to skirt by on are communist to say the absolute least! I can’t find much specific to solvent traps from an analysis point of view, but this one seems like a good one! https://armoryden.com/worried-about-purchasing-a-solvent-trap-for-firearm-cleaning-and-storage-22-senators-challenge-rule-2021r-05f-with-cra-submission/ They are demonizing firearm ownership, bankrupting the industry and choking the oxygen to the gun culture.


freak459

It takes YEARS for that garbage to make it's way through the courts.


lpbale0

Don't shoot me... But shouldn't we address gun free zones first? I'm not trolling, but if full auto weapons become available in general, then public mass shootings are going to be far worse. I'm all for repealing the NFA and all things such, but you have to take into account all the potential fallout. Keep in mind what happened at Columbine, Parkland, and Uvalde, the cops just stood by and played with their dingdongs, and because of court rulings such as Bowers v. DeVito and Monfils v. Taylor they have absolutely nothing compelling them to do anything about these situations. Until we get rid of gun free zones and let the average citizen carry in those places those atrocious acts will only be exacerbated, which will result in a public outcry for something to be done, and then we will be right back where we are starting now. It will also likely result in a further escalation of the militarization of the civilian police forces in response to a shift in the balance of firepower away from the local authorities, and while I bo believe that the best way to stop an armed madman is an armed good guy, having a full auto Mexican standoff at the local food mart between two people doesn't bode well for gun rights either. NB4 "this dude is a libtard".... No, I'm not, I think the gay couple nextdoor should be able to protect their pot patch with bazookas, but I am a realist and think there are certain things that need fixing before we allow armed madmen to have that kind of fire power since the state has no obligation to protect us from harm or death at the hands of a deranged lunatic. With that said, does anyone know where I can buy a Beretta 93?


Tonytiga516

The laws in ny got stricter after the ruling 😂


SuperMoistNugget

Good


freak459

Yeah, but in case you weren't paying attention.... AFTER the recent SCOTUS ruling..... NY gun laws got 1000% WORSE.


Meloonz619

for now.


PerspectiveOk8157

I am or will be soon in the market for rifles and shotguns. Any suggestions? Primary reason is defense and the possibility of hunting


Meloonz619

Palmetto State Armory has a pretty good selection of mid-level rifles.


JustinCayce

You misspelled "infringements".


GunzAndCamo

Cam Edwards was all over this on his show today. Ya know. I'm not really the huntin' sorta gal, but if this headline were literally true, I'd be at the DNR getting my license.


Pigeon__Man

I hope so but Dems are retaliating with a slew of new BS laws. Look at NJ. And one commenter here told me how CA added A ton of places to be restricted to CCW that weren’t before.


ThisFreedomGuy

Some of us have been celebrating since that day!


stopbotheringme1776

Thank you trump !


HWTechGuy

Good.


CrazyGreek84

Abolish the NFA & ATF


unclefisty

“The gun rights movement has been given a weapon of mass destruction, and it will annihilate approximately 75% of the gun laws eventually,” said Evan Nappen, a New Jersey gun rights attorney. Oh God I'm almost there just a bit more.


nospam310

What I am really hoping they attack is the lifetime ban on felons regardless of the nature or age of the felony.


LordFixxamus

Big facts, this country was founded by 15 year old felons with guns. We have to keep in mind our American Spirit - we have been charged with the defense of liberties for future generations, every single citizen is supposed do their part.


mjace87

Kind of old news but maybe it will show some people that making all these new laws are pointless when all the old ones are being overturned.


DSSMAN0898

All gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL...


ajomojo

Fake news times 10


Bigirondangle

https://ifunny.co/picture/EasWYH2H9


ib_killinittheoutlaw

Good, get rid of all gun control laws


alqpoe

What do you think should be the penalty for someone who restricts or denies one of our rights?


IDrinkMyBreakfast

DEATH Edit1: okay, okay. TARRED AND FEATHERED Edit2: dammit! A STERN GLARE AND STRONG FINGER-WAGGING Edit3: SIGH! Forgot /s


[deleted]

Funny I read the title of your post and just assumed it was coming from a pro gun source. Disturbing that people see the acknowledgement of our rights being a bad thing.


merc08

> “The gun rights movement has been given a weapon of mass destruction, and it will annihilate approximately 75% of the gun laws eventually,” said Evan Nappen, a New Jersey gun rights attorney. Also read as "at least 75% of the gun laws on the books are a violation of our fundamental rights and nothing will be done to the people who passed them."


[deleted]

[удалено]


sailor-jackn

I wouldn’t bet on that.


[deleted]

I could see suppressors and SBRs getting struck from it, but I don’t see automatic weapons coming back in this political environment.


sailor-jackn

It has nothing to do with the political environment. I’m not saying legislation will be passed to revoke the NFA or the Hughes amendment. Both are obvious constitutional violations, using the THT standard, and could not stand up to a challenge in the court.


codifier

Now you will see authoritarianism in action as Governments scramble to not give up that power. Sometimes the Courts help them such as the games 9th Circus is playing with *Bonta*. For those playing the home game they vacated the ruling after *Bruen* down to the district court. Why is that a big deal? Because the district court is Saint Benitez. The 9th pretty much said "in light of bruen you need to make a new ruling" when Benitez's ruling already matched SCOTUS. This is a delaying tactic to help the State of California out; now even if Benitez fast tracks and issues a TRO on the State they can appeal to guess who... the 9th who then can drag their feet on the appeal. Then when he rules against CA **again** that gets appealed to 9th who can drag their feet, again. They know in light of *Bruen* they can no longer just rubber stamp CA's "public interest" excuse, and they are actively trying to help drag the process out on purpose.


LeftismIsStatism

SHALL


sailor-jackn

NOT


SaltyPringles97

PASS


IDrinkMyBreakfast

DAMMIT!


iJacobes

GOOD


joey2fists

Good… Shall not be infringed


TheTardisPizza

>“We will see a lot of tax dollars and government resources that should be used to stop gun crime being used to defend gun laws Then don't waste that money attempting to infringe on our rights.


imnotabotareyou

Based


A-Cheeseburger

I like how they want to ban all semi autos (as part of the awb) when they are the majority held today. Imagine if the gov said, “we are limiting the freedom of speech only to word of mouth, no books, tv shows, radio,etc..” people would flip. I also love how they always bring up that gun violence/ mass shooting is at an all time high or an uptrend, while it’s currently the most difficult time to get a gun in this country, save for maybe 1775. In the 20’s let’s just say, I could buy a gun with no background check and no limits on anything, the NFA didn’t exist yet. Nowadays, (at least in my state) I have to be 21 to buy a pistol or any semi auto rifle, the transaction requires a lengthy and in depth background check, I believe there’s even a 10 day waiting period. I’m not saying tighter gun laws lead directly to more crime, but looking at the stats, they obviously haven’t helped.


Chance1965

Words matter. It’s not an “expansion” of gun rights. It’s a constitutional restoration that needs to go even further.


codifier

Its like going to the dentist and some idiot says you're getting your rotten, broken teeth expanded, not restored.


sailor-jackn

Exactly. They are trying to drive the narrative with what amounts to a lie.


MrEd57076

The anti's have numerous carefully chosen words. Chosen for a particular effect. Like "gun buyback". They know they can't buy back something they never owned. Its carefully chosen words to foster the notion that our guns, and more importantly, our rights, come from government. It aint true. But it doesnt keep some people from believing it if they hear it enough.


Chance1965

Oh I know! I frequently point out that certain words are used to create an emotional response like “assault weapon” and “gun violence”. They know exactly what they’re doing/saying. Pandering to the uneducated, uninformed and ignorant who have no reason to disbelieve what they see and hear on CNN, MSNBC, The View etc.


Quattro2point8L

What should we call it instead of gun violence?


Chance1965

There is no such thing as “gun violence”. A gun is an inanimate object incapable of violence or any other independent action. The correct description is “interpersonal human aggression or violence “. People commit violence. The instrument of that violence is not the cause of the violence.


Quattro2point8L

I agree with you. "Violence with or killing by a gun" is more accurate then. Death by bullets.


codifier

Add "gunman" to the list. For one it's never "knifeman", "clubman", or "bombman", and two the left wants to rename any *man* suffix into *person* yet not "gunman". Psyops.


Chance1965

All true and correct


[deleted]

Any Politician or law they attempt to pass that goes against the Constitution is illegal. I will not follow that tyrant's 'law.' That tyrant needs to be removed from Office and placed in jail. Or we can remove them physically. Their choice.


codifier

Punishable by up to death. >TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 >Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


[deleted]

I just wish that our own government would abide by its own laws.


codifier

They never do, and inevitably seek to usurp power and not govern itself hence a free state requires that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.


Only_Fudge_1812

NFA up next 🔪


Raging_Red_Rocket

Dear baby Jesus


EternalMage321

I wonder if the NFA was gone, would we get a tax refund?


alkatori

Nuke Hughes first.


bakedmaga2020

Wouldn’t repealing the NFA also repeal Hughes in the process?


alkatori

I don't think so. Read 922(o) it doesn't say anything about the NFA or registry.


Shotgun_Sentinel

Why? If the NFA goes so does Hughes, and I would argue the NFA is much more unconstitutional than Hughes.


AM-64

I don't think that's necessarily true as the direct text of the Hughes Amendment is: *"An amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment."* https://www.congress.gov/amendment/99th-congress/house-amendment/777/all-info It doesn't cite or even update the NFA according to the text, so they end up being separate issues as far as I understand the law.


the_Legi0n

Optically NFA seems easier, suppressors and SBR's are less scary than full auto guns? I think?


PromptCritical725

Hughes is arguable lower fruit because it's an actual ban, and currently burdens machine gun access far more severely than the NFA.


alkatori

It seems that we should have an AWB struck down first so that we gain more momentum.


PromptCritical725

There are challenges to both AWBs and the NFA submitted to courts already so I guess the race is on.


sailor-jackn

Actually, the NFA is equally low hanging fruit, because the people who wrote it are on record admitting it’s basically a poll tax on 2A, intended to keep people from buying certain weapons, used as an unconstitutional go around of 2A.


CaliJudoJitsu

Seems to me if the NFA was struck down then the Hughes amendment goes away with it. Or am I mistaken? NFA > Gun Control Act of 1968 > Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) w/ Hughes amendment. Aren't the last two essentially updates or mods to the older NFA laws?


mmgc12

So, how someone explained it too me is: The NFA and the Hughes Amendment, which is part of FOPA, are two different sections in the US Code. So, if the NFA was struck down, what it would actually do is remove the tax stamp, and remove the restrictions on the weapons that are regulated by the NFA, as written in US Code. So afaik, this means that you just wouldn't have to pay the tax stamp or file a form 4 for the transfer of a machine gun, but post-86 samples are still banned by FOPA and the Hughes Amendment.


elevenpointf1veguy

But a poll tax is more difficult to remove than an entire, blanket ban on a right. Hughes is easy money. NFA is pretty easy, but not as easy as Hughes.


btv_25

Insert "Why not both" GIF here.


sailor-jackn

The Hughes amendment is the easier of the two, but it’s definitely unconstitutional to charge a tax to exercise a right.


elevenpointf1veguy

It is unconstitutional, agreed. It's not equally low hanging, however. It will be SIGNIFICANTLY easier to get rid of Hughes.


Only_Fudge_1812

That is our stepping stone. I can see it happening.


alkatori

I'm looking forward to fixing all my rifles when that happens. I don't know of any group putting donations together for a case on it yet. But I'm hoping it happens soon.


CaliJudoJitsu

Yep, if it ever happens you can bet there would be a huge market for mod kits or gunsmith conversion services for all the existing rifles out there. Having a select fire option would be bad ass.


alkatori

For a bit. My guess is drop in components will be sold out for a long long time. But normal M16 and AKM parts will bounce back relatively quickly. I'm sure PSA and a few other companies will start cranking them out. Along with 3d printed jigs and FCGs.


hidude398

If the NFA dies, you can make do with a wire coat hanger while you wait on your real deal big boy machine gun parts to arrive


forgan_reeman

Drill presses and carbide bits gonna be sold out everywhere.


AM-64

As a machine shop owner that'd suck (at least for Carbide tools) however, for most gun stuff you can get away with HSS(High Speed Steel) or Cobalt (which is basically a harder version of HSS) tooling


m1st3r_and3rs0n

7075-T6 is pretty soft, though a layer of type III hardcoat may dull things up over time.


AM-64

It depends on how many rifles but even "hardcoat" isn't that hard compared to something like Steel. A Cobalt Drill would be fine (they even work okay in heat treated steel, depending on the number of holes) The issue with Carbide is it's incredibly brittle and unless a drill press is used (at minimum) it's pretty likely to break. (If we really want to get into the specifics I have a machining background and own a machine/fabrication shop)


CockBlocker

\* furiously takes notes \*


weredragon357

Smart people might stock up on those in advance.


Torinojon

This couple with the weeping and nashing of teeth from all the NRA fudds crying about "muh guns ain't worth nothin now"


rugernut13

Fuck anyone and everyone who would vote to restrict the rights of others in order to keep their shit more valuable. Those, in no uncertain terms, are traitors.


engeldestodes

Don't forget that most of our founding fathers risked everything for our freedom. They were some of the richest men in the country but were willing to throw it all away in the name of liberty. The boomers who would throw our rights away to protect an investment are no better than the Tories.


T_Narg_Pirate

I 100% agree with you about anyone who values profit above freedom. Except, it's not about boomers. My suspicion is that boomers would NOT be the primary demographic of concern.


ChineWalkin

Bankrupt them.


AkitaNo1

Amen. A mortal sin level of greed.


ClearAndPure

That would be hilarious to watch, TBH.


06210311200805012006

i can't even.


Twarrior913

Justice Thomas is a fucking legend.


codifier

Don't say that in r/ccw they will leap on you and start throwing words like insurrectionist and other left-wing labels. That sub is loaded with temporary gun owners.


PostingUnderTheRadar

That's honestly most gun subs these days from what I'm seeing...


Trevelayan

When the fuck did that happen? I haven't participated in that sub in a long time, it used to be pretty based?


codifier

I am not certain when but just over time I have noticed a lot of left ideals getting upvoted and small/no government stuff being downvoted and attacked. If I were to guess it would be due to the big influx of new gun owners in 2020, brought a lot of liberals in.


Twarrior913

It was on the front page of ccw. A bunch of people who supposedly against government over-reach are apparently mad the court isn’t legislating from the bench, can’t make this shit up.


Twarrior913

It’s reddit, it wouldn’t be the same without braindead hypocritical users.


ntvirtue

Where can I get tags?


direwolf106

"WAH we have to recognize that shall not be infringed means what it says wah!"


[deleted]

[удалено]


i_shoot_guns_321s

Desantis, is that you? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-gov-ron-desantis-suspends-liberal-state-attorney-andrew-warren.amp


WhtRbbt222

Desantis just suspended one in Florida for this very reason.


sailor-jackn

Get rid of Soros, while you’re at it.


MisanthropicZombie

Time is on our side, he's 91 and the rituals can only slow the reaper.


sailor-jackn

Wow dude! You must have been reading my mind. lol


seippolf

Nooo don’t rob 8 banks over the course of 4 months… we’ll give you a 4 week sentence this time if you do!


AbominableDerp

The thing not being talked about much is that just about every state directly effected by the ruling has passed new infringements which are INSANE. Things have gotten worse. Hopefully this will turn around quickly.


sailor-jackn

These new infringements will definitely be slapped down. They directly go against the Bruen ruling.


AbominableDerp

Some of them do, directly. Some of them kind of don’t. Like in NJ they just made training a requirement to buy a gun. Not just to carry a gun, but to buy a gun.


michaelj9323

Still a violation of our rights. I’ve never heard of anyone needing to take a test or having to qualify for “good cause” in order exercise their freedom of speech.


CaliJudoJitsu

Not exactly backed by text, history or tradition there, NJ. Sounds like the dumb anti-2A shit CA tries to do.


madmouser

It's not like that was unexpected. Look at Caetano and the 9-0 bitch slap that SCOTUS handed down in response. And that was just the post-Heller freakout.


pongo000

Cry me a fucking river. We’ve waited for this for a *long* time.


HEMSDUDE

The sky is falling The sky is falling The sky is falling 🐣🐥🐥🐥🐥🐥🐥🐣


BlarssedBe

> “Basically, the Supreme Court has given an invitation for the gun lobby to file lawsuits against virtually every gun law in America,” Lowry said. As if it's a bad thing that we should get to fight for our side. Anyone wanna go halfsies on this dick bag's ticket to China?


sailor-jackn

These people don’t believe In rights, except for theirs.


Local-Carpet-7492

Only if he’s in the unheated cargo hold.


rascal10004

I'd rather send half for a flight half-way to China. His plane can end up like the USS Indianapolis for all I care (and hopefully chock full of other anti-2A fearmongers.)


BlarssedBe

I concur. We'll call it Operation Indiana.


PromptCritical725

FPC Lawsuit Printer go brrrrr....


Rapidfiremma

I mean considering the Constitution litteraly says "shall not be infringed" that means all gun laws are unconstitutional, so yes we need lawsuits against every single one.


elevenpointf1veguy

Nah, it doesn't mean all gun laws are infringements, only gun laws pertaining to the people are infringements. The government could place regulations and laws on firearms purchased and used by the .mil, and laws regarding their use, storage, and other things, and that's all perfectly acceptable.


spartan1008

I mean yea, I should be able to own an automatic ar 15, because I am a law abiding citizen. but I still think that felonies should result in the loss of gun right. so maybe infringe a little.


Reddit16494926251849

The more rights oriented thing to do is to make the petitioning process transparent and expeditious. This way there is a restriction but it's one that can be overcome as long as you can prove reform after your internment. That being said permanent prohibition is dumb. I know plenty of folks who have felony records for dumb shit like simple possession when they were young. That precludes them from participating in society meaningfully however we're getting into a different story. End of the day gun rights are the same as every other right.


Reddit16494926251849

Yes assume burden of proof is on the state to continue to deny your constitutional rights to speech, representation, gun ownership, and anything else.


TheRealGuyTheToolGuy

Some people would argue that if you can’t trust a person with a gun, they shouldn’t be in society period. Maybe there should be something between a misdemeanor and a felony that is serious, but ultimately retains peoples rights. A place for people who commit tax crimes, or people who stole an expense item, but weren’t displaying violence. People who aren’t violent deserve to have the right to vote and carry firearms regardless of their criminal history.


JustMeAgainMarge

When someone is found to have voluntarily infringed the rights of others basic rights, they forfeit their own rights. If I attack you, I have infringed upon your right to be safe in your own person, possibly your right to liberty, and maybe even your right to life. I forfeit my rights by attacking you. Hence you may kill me without repercussion in defense of your own rights. This is the basis of self defense. Likewise, this is also the basis for incarceration. You forfeit your freedom and liberty by infringing on others rights. You steal (infringing on someone's right to property) you can be imprisoned. You can justly forfeit your 2nd amendment rights(and/or any and all other rights) when you commit a crime by infringing on others rights. To secure each of our rights, governments are instituted among men. That is the only legitimate purpose of government. The general welfare, the common defense, justice, domestic tranquility... these are all a part of securing our natural rights. Remember, the government doesn't give you anything. It can't. It has nothing to give. It only has what we give it. And we can give up our rights, through inaction, through fear, through violence, through crime. But WE give them up.


68696c6c

Only violent felonies imo.


HollywoodJones

If someone can be trusted to be out of prison then they should be able to exercise their rights.


Kinkayed

Thing about that, “felony” is a descriptive word of a crime with shifting enforcement and definitions. We need a short list of genuine harm to other crimes that are violent felony level, then separate bucket for every other crime.


Doctor_McKay

I don't see that as an infringement. Due process is how your rights are legally taken away.


spartan1008

I'm with you, not disagreeing at all. thats the whole point of my comment.


Imaginary-Voice1902

Why? Most felonies are not violent or any threat to public safety. Even if they were people who kill someone with a knife aren’t prohibited from owning knives upon their release.


IDrinkMyBreakfast

What are your thoughts on murder? If that person removed another person’s ability to Express their rights, should be murderer then lose their own rights?


Imaginary-Voice1902

For the remainder of their sentence yes.


UnitCell

Perhaps we can make felony convictions exclusive to punishing particularly despicable acts against society again? Victimless compliance crime bullshit has sort of taken the scare factor out of "felon" for me. No doubt there are some truly scary people who should have their gun rights revoked, but these should also be and remain locked behind bars. Johnny Pothead should certainly have all his rights, inlcuding the ones recognized in the 2A.


SweetyMcQ

That makes 100% sense to me. No one gives a fuck about felony drug convictions, but violent crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery, etc are probably severe enough to warrant losing your 2a rights for good.


spartan1008

look if states can take away your right to vote based on a felony, then i think gun rights are the same, but we are splitting hairs. every one should be allowed guns except people who are violent felons who have been convicted in a court of law. I think we all know I was not talking about income tax evaders.


melethana

But you don't have the right to vote in federal election. That was the center of Gore's lawsuit in 2000. The Constitution says that voting cannot be \*restricted\* based on sex, race, previous condition of servitude, etc. Now there may be individual STATES that guarantee a person to vote in a state or local level election.


sailor-jackn

Absolutely!


Casanovagdp

If they are too dangerous to get their rights back they are too dangerous to be out on the streets. Plenty of non violent felonies out that shouldn’t bar you from your constitutional rights. The prison system is as fucked as everything. There’s a part of the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment and a lifetime stigmatization of being a felon is both. If prisons were about actual rehabilitation and not just incarceration it would be a lot different. We also need to fix what causes some of these issues.


Rapidfiremma

I could see them losing them when convicted, but once they pay their debt to society they should be able to get them back. You shouldn't be striped of rights for life when doing something stupid as a teenager.


spartan1008

this has been an argument made for people stript of there voting rights for years, If you lose your voting right due to a felony, you should expect the same thing for other rights.


Rapidfiremma

People should get all of their rights back if they are rehabilitated and paid their debt to society.


spartan1008

yea, just because the terrorist gets out of gitmo, doesn't mean I want him armed. serving your time, and changing who you are, are two completely different things.


Rapidfiremma

Well if they are a terrorist they shouldn't be let out of Gitmo, they should be locked up for life or put down.


spartan1008

thats not how our system of laws work. cartel members, mobsters, gangsters, they all serve there time and go right back to there bullshit.


Rapidfiremma

Well technically Gitmo isn't part of our legal system, terrorists can be locked away there for life without even a reason. But I get what you are saying, we need justice reform, easier on bullshit like drugs and much much harder on violent crimes.


BagOfShenanigans

So long as the justice system continues to falsely convict and so long as there are victimless laws being enforced, "due process" should not be used to strip people of their rights.


XSV

I mean you kill 21 people (19 children)when you are a teenager, I think you should be stripped of your life. (Yes of course I know he was).


RiverRunnerVDB

If you do something like that you should be executed as soon as you’re convicted.


Rapidfiremma

That person should never see the light of say again to have any rights to exercise.


IDrinkMyBreakfast

This is the way. If you remove a persons ability to exercise their rights via a crime, then you lose yours


z7r1k3

No argument from me. If the crime is too severe to let the criminal back out on the street with his full rights, including gun rights, then the crime is too severe to let the criminal back out on the street at all.


C4rdiovascular

If you get completely charged with a **felony** as a "stupid teenage mistake", it probably wasn't just a simple "stupid teenage mistake". **This isn't accounting for being legally fucked in other ways, though.** Edit: felt the need to bold my last statement since a lot of people seem to think I agree felons should lose their rights, I don't, but I don't like the nuanced (whether intentional or not) implication that felons are somehow victims.


bionic80

> If you get completely charged with a felony as a "stupid teenage mistake", it probably wasn't just a simple "stupid teenage mistake". That's why you charge them as an adult.


ohnomyapples

You could get charged with a felony for wire fraud or bad checks. What the fuck does writing bad checks have to do with guns or gun rights? Nothing, so why do you lose them?


C4rdiovascular

Well you know what they say: *"Can't do the time, don't do the crime."*


norfizzle

You probably break federal laws every day. https://lawlinguists.com/break-law-every-day/


C4rdiovascular

Ironically I haven't done any of those, much to my surprise.


norfizzle

It's not the best link, just the first I found. My point is more that there are so many laws, it's impossible to know all of them, and many are punished more harshly than they should be. Like losing 2A rights for non-violent crimes.


ohnomyapples

Cool. Thats not doing the time though, considering you do the literal, actual time, and this is a separate, completely unrelated infringement of rights for the sake of infringing rights and nothing more. if anything, its an unusual punishment.


Rapidfiremma

I did loss prevention for 12 years, in FL you steal $300 that is a felony and you lose your gun rights over that. Now that is a stupid teenager mistake, I caught tons of otherwise good kids that I'm sure turned into productive members of society that shouldn't have their right to self defense gone for life over that.


C4rdiovascular

Fair enough.


little_brown_bat

Whack a mailbox with a baseball bat? Believe it or not, felony.


bteam3r

yes.png


MasterTeacher123

The “gun lobby” is their favorite boogeyman


Dracon1201

I get tired of rolling my eyes every time a leftist comments about Marx "supporting gun rights" and then simps for a politician who does no such thing or says they think we need more gun control.


Imaginary-Voice1902

The gun lobby which is much smaller than the gun prohibition lobby by income.


Landmark520

The billions of legal gun owners and their rights groups are the "gun lobby". But our anti-gun groups funded by one of the richest billionaires in the country is "grass roots". /s


PineappleGrenade19

I always see this as some sort of weird scapegoat in leftist subs and I'm wondering if they truly have no idea how much money someone like Bloomberg is dumping into getting them banned or if they're genuinely ignorant.


sailor-jackn

They, as far as the individuals as opposed to the politicians, are completely ignorant. They don’t know their money is coming from oligarchs. They have no idea what gun laws even exist. They all think you can just walk onto a Walmart, put your money down, and buy any gun you want without even getting a background check. They actually believe that constitutional carry makes it easier to buy a gun. And, they believe that 9mm will blow your lung right out of your body and .223 will liquify your organs. They even believe an AR can fire off 30 round in less than half a second.


Seared_Gibets

Ooooh I don't know. They can't be that ignorant, right? I mean, every gun owner knows how much fun red-hot clipizines are don't they? Why just this past weekend I saw one getting used at the range! 🤣


Charming-Ad-8329

It’s hard to escape left wing bs on most topics on Reddit. Why even bother when the mods ban you for your opinion.


PineappleGrenade19

Oh I certainly wasn't actively commenting lol I know better. It was more like I was reading comments to guage people's reactions, sometimes they surprise you.


MasterTeacher123

Yeah their hate for billionaires goes out the window when it comes to gun control. Now It’s totally ok for one to pump millions of dollars into campaigns/politicians. Also the laws he wants are going to disproportionately attack poor/working class peoples another group they claim to love.


Imaginary-Voice1902

It shows their blind spots and just how much they are foaming at the mouth to ensure the supremacy of the state.


codifier

>Yeah their hate for billionaires goes out the window when it comes to ~~gun control~~ *anything* they like. Billionaires bad. Unless they're funding gun control, activist DAs, left-wing politicians, "climate change" meetings across the globe. Or until Sanders or one of his pals becomes one (millionaires bad stopped being the narrative when he became one) Then billionaires good.


MasterTeacher123

Remember the bernie bros in 2020 who flooded this and other gun subs trying to recruit people to vote for him 🤣


PromptCritical725

First rule of politics: Everything is bad when they do it, the same things are good when we do them. I just got into this in another sub because of that tired "rural people are stupid for voting GOP and not in their own interest." The same people will shit on you FOR voting GOP if it is in your interest, and will lionize rich assholes like Bloomberg for voting and supporting things expressly NOT in their best interest, and will absolutely flip shit if you imply poor people are voting in their interest because the dems buy their votes by offering them free shit.


JustynS

This whole "voting against their interests" thing stems from them being largely materialists that don't place any value on liberty. Poor people in red states, by and large, prefer to be left alone instead of having a state apparatus that allows you to live without responsibilities whereas leftists highly value quality of life over liberty because they really don't actually place any value on self-determination. They oppose slavery for similar reasons, not because it's a theft of one person's freedom so someone else can reap the benefits of it. They care that one person is being treated differently than another and is having extremely poor living standards. They don't care about the fact that the slave has no say in their life, they care that the slave isn't living in the master's house.


Dav_Dabz

Most likely both.