What do you mean when you say ‘pro gun?’ Do you mean you are in favor of guns being legal with absolutely no regulation whatsoever or do you mean that you are in favor of guns being legal but highly regulated?
It’s really not an either/or situation like some people think it is.
I want them to repeal the NFA, along with many of the other laws designed to disarm the poor, and people of color. And in general getting rid of a lot of the laws that do virtually nothing to affect criminals.
Should there be any laws at all regarding guns and who can have them? Should five-year-olds be allowed to have guns? Should dangerously psychotic people who are regularly institutionalized have guns?
Do you want many gun regulations, some gun regulations or no gun regulations? Because people who want any of those things can and do call themselves “pro-gun.”
Why you and others seem to think “pro-gun is what I believe and not anything else” is beyond me.
If you are over the age of 18 and not mentally adjudicated you should be allowed to purchase guns. If you’re under 18 and “gifted” a gun then just like the child, it’s the parents prerogative to make sure it’s safe. If we trust you to be out of prison then you should be allowed all of your rights back as a citizen (none of this you got a felony you’re never allowed to vote garbage). Outside of that I want very few other restrictions.
What if OP thinks differently? What if they think you shouldn’t have a gun if you’re mentally ill but also believe that 12-year-olds should be allowed to purchase guns?
Does that mean they are not pro-gun or does that mean “pro-gun” is too broad a term?
I want sensible gun laws, but I also want gun laws to make sense.
That means, removing all restrictions on items like suppressors, AR15s, SBRs, etc. But allowing only people that can show they are competent to own them.
Agreed. Especially about suppressors. It’s a safety devise. It will save your ears. Countries like Sweden and Norway even get that aspect, suppressors are encouraged to keep the peace with neighbors and are not regulated like firearms even. Anyone can own one as soon as they can own a gun.
I was shocked at the suppressor cost and process having recently gone through it. I got a suppressor for my .22, I primarily use it when I’m out walking my small dog. I can fire the .22 and it isn’t loud (I was not expecting it to be movie gun quiet but it is) so it is ear protection for both of us, he doesn’t startle, and my neighbors are far enough apart they would never hear it. So next time coyotes see him as food instead of challenge my unarmed willingness to defend my dog I’ll be more prepared.
It’s an expensive, long, and involved process that disadvantages folks with less resources than myself which bothered me.
Yeah, I guess it’s relative. It didn’t bother me paying for the stamp but I’ve been at points in my life where I had to make sure I could get enough gas to make it to work. Granted a firearm and suppressor wouldn’t be on my radar in those conditions but my mind has a tendency to go that direction whenever I’m exercising what I consider a freedom. In another conversation I’m complaining about $3,500 so far into ortho treatment for one of my sons, with insurance. Not because it put me out but how many families and kids aren’t getting effective care because they’re in a less fortunate place? Sorry, got off topic.
In my state you can just walk into a store at 21 and buy a handgun then concealed carry it. You don’t have to prove proficiency, know you to service or maintain it, or even prove you know basic gun safety rules. All you do is bring money and ID, then wait for the waiting period to expire. It is bonkers.
And are they pro-gun where it’s on the side or do they talk about being all supportive while prioritizing it over healthcare and actually well supported and well researched economic policy? I think guns are neat and used to have my license but I’d never put them ahead of literally any issue. Progun politicians don’t build better societies or respect people’s basic human rights.
Kinda sick of the “I care about human rights up until they affect my ability to own a firearm” group. They’re just tiresome.
I’m in Texas right now, and tbh I feel like Democrats would be able to do a lot more good here if they let go of gun control for now and focused on actually being electable in Texas so they can work on the multitudes of other issues there are to fix. You could even probably reduce shootings by fixing social issues, but you have to be elected first. If they did well long enough to prove some more liberal ideas work, people may trust them enough for gun control to happen one day.
Bruh, after Beto lost to Greg Fucking Pissbaby Asshole Fuckface Abbott, I started to think the Dems here are doing it on purpose. Beto got decently close, and the only thing Republicans could play against him was the “Hell yeah I’m taking your guns!” Clip over and over. If they didn’t have that clip of him getting emotional (in response to a hometown shooting), then he would have won.
I really am wondering why we don’t have a decent pro-2A Dem candidate, and the only thing I can think is that Texas Dems don’t want to win.
The backbone of the Democrats as a party is the reliable fundraising from the liberal-conservative dems. The corpo Dems like Biden and Harris. They allow the progressives to say the promises and then withhold those promises. Those corporate pandering Dems are also the ones who scream loudest about guns being evil instead of finding understanding, like so many other issues.
Those corporate Dems are also likely to collab with Conservatives and then say “I know they have only been acting in bad faith for a decade but maybe THIS time things will be different.” And no one is surprised or learns anything. Then repeat.
Progress doesn’t happen with corporations involved. Progress happens when decision are made and enforced upon corporations.
I’m with OG OP, liberal with firearms. Raised in Texas, veteran, and came to my senses regarding the politics I was raised in. I both (a) like shooting and (b) feel the need to have home protection. I think they should be regulated.
With that, I don’t understand your comment at all.
being all supportive while prioritizing it over healthcare and actually well supported and well researched economic policy
I will be honest with you. This makes no sense. One is economic while the other is fanaticism. You are comparing apples to oranges. Let me flip your closing statement on you:
Kinda sick of the “I care about human rights up until they affect my ability to take away firearms” group.
Because, again, this proposed stalemate is idealists vs fanatics drawing lines in the sand. You can’t just blame one side. The fact there is no movement is the entire point of polarization in politics.
It makes plenty of sense: There are scores of people who will vote for the absolute scum of the earth if it means they can keep their firearms. Losing even the slightest grip on their firearms is the dealbreaker and not the myriad of human rights abuses and other heinous shit conservative parties get up to.
You can separate the groups out all you want but it doesn’t matter once that vote is cast, and pro-gun politicians come with all the extra baggage. Your vote doesn’t come with a note saying “guns only, please don’t violate minorities’ rights/destroy the economy to enrich the least deserving people imaginable”. Your vote just says “yes” and they take that as far as they can go. They don’t give a shit about you or your opinion after you helped put them in power.
You know what will make you safer? Voting for parties that will create policy that helps reduce poverty. Unlike gun ownership that’s actually a well-documented way to make everyone safer.
Marx also wrote extensively on “the Jewish question”, the man should not, nor would he have wanted, to be taken as an orthodoxy of leftist doctrine.
I believe the proletariat can well be armed without anything of the sort of shameful nakedness which governs US gun ownership and responsibility, gun ownership of the proletariat is well possible in many countries that have far more sensible laws regarding firearms than the US.
Marx routinely expected too much from people. The proles do nothing with their guns except execute each other while their government gets away with horrific things and the human race hurtles towards extinction.
It’s time to accept that guns are no better at solving social problems than they are at solving plumbing issues and tech complaints.
I believe guns should be able to abort as many babies as they want to. But I don’t believe in Marijuana. Like, I don’t believe pot exists. It’s a conspiracy theory to make people think a plant could make you lazy or creative. Think about it.
I’m in favor of guns the way they do it in, IIRC, Switzerland? One of the countries in that part of the world anyway (I’m always confusing them with each other). They have nearly as many guns in the hands of public citizens, with none of the crime. If they can do it, so can we.
me personally, i like the fact that i have the capability of owning one. Much like anything else in life, i like being in control of things i interact with and use from day to day life. It’s why im a linux user, it’s why i self host a lot of services that i use. I do not like being dependent on others for things that i know i adequately provide for myself.
It’s no more than feeding my individualism at the end of the day. And i don’t think that’s a negative thing. I’m sure people would tell me im a shitty person for not wanting to contribute to society, but i also never wanted to exist in the first place, so i think it’s a little fucking daft to claim that i owe something to a thing i’m not particularly fond of to begin with. But that’s a different rant altogether so.
I’d describe myself as fairly liberal. I’m from Vermont and I am pretty bummed that neither Howard Dean nor Bernie Sanders got to be president. I’ve voted D in every presidential and congressional election for the last twenty years.
A couple elections ago I was doing non-partisan voter registration, just standing out in front of a big box store asking people to register to vote. It felt great because I got the feeling that I was directly helping, and even if I was registering some people who would go on to vote R, I actually believe that the more voters there are, the healthier the democracy.
I asked one young guy to register and he asked me “Do you believe in the right to keep and bear arms?”
And I thought about how the marjority of gun deaths in any given year are suicides and how we have an absolutely unacceptable number of mass shootings in this country, and how by all that is reasonable that we ought to be able to do something about it.
And then I thought about my uncles who hunt white tail deer to help control the population, and my friend who is a self-employed gem cutter and who has been robbed and who now owns a pistol for self defense.
And in all honestly, I said “Yes,” though on the inside I thought “…but probably not in the exact same way that you do,” and that young guy registered to vote.
Yes is probably the best answer you can give someone like that because they see it as only having two absolute answers. To say yes with conditions would be heard as a no after years of brainwashing.
I support the spirit of the second amendment, but also think it was written badly, or at least very restrictive to the time period it originated in and not adaptable to a changing society. It's not a surprise that it remains hotly debated and disagreed on its meaning though, since even the first amendment that is much clearer on its intent is now also debated by some to suit their own purposes and not for the greater public good.
I joined up with liberalgunowners on that other site for a while, thinking I might find kindred souls that were pro-shooting sports, but understood that the way we handled gun ownership in this country had some problems.
Nope.
They were just as devoid of nuance and reason when it came to gun ownership as the conservatives. They figured slapping a rainbow or a “no step on snek” patch on their molle tacticool gear was good enough, but thoughts and prayers if a gay nightclub got shot up.
So yeah, I think guns are fun and have a place in hunting and other sports. But not like what we’ve got now.
Yeah I’m a gun enthusiast. I really like the laws the way they are now as they relate to me. So I get it. But how many mass shootings do we need before we admit there’s a problem right now? Maybe far in the future we can consider relaxing some of the regulations again. But right now, something about the current social situation is basically creating domestic terrorists. We need to start locking things down until it stops.
Personally, I’m going to need at least 10,000 kindergarteners gun down in their class room before I’ll consider changing our sacred god given gun laws.
Jesus wouldn’t want it any other way, as specified in Arms 3:16-108 in the Bible.
Part of the problem is that nobody is actually “Pro-Gun”.
What you have is “Pro-White people gun dealers” on one end and “Pro-Cop” on the other. Selling AR-15s and antique rifles to people who think having more hardware in the house makes them safer? Sure. Giving the municipal government endless license to harass and surveil anyone too young or brown to be considered a Real American? Absolutely.
But neither of these groups want you to carry a gun into, say, a congressional building. Neither want to disarm the police or downsize the military. Neither want to see an armed Black woman or Arab man walking towards them.
The only real debate is whether a cop should be allowed to arrest a white guy at a gun show
I love guns. I adore guns. Guns are great. They’re fascinating pieces of engineering, tools, and exercises of skill. I would never own one (to my great regret) due to the increased risk of suicide from gun-owners, but I think that responsible gun ownership is a great thing and a cultural cornerstone of Americana.
But no one in the US who claims to be pro-gun should be allowed anywhere near a gun.
Maybe in some frozen waste like Canada where it’s not completely piss-easy to get a gun, one can describe oneself as pro-gun. But in the US? No.
Oh it’s piss easy to get a Gun in Canada… You just have drive down to the States.
Seriously though around 70 percent of guns used in criminal activities up here are traced back to sources in the States and were never legally imported, purchased or even stolen from homes inside Canada. When people point at us and say “Gun control doesn’t work see!?” it’s in part because gun trash bleeds over boarders.
I have a sense that you know all this, but, just wanted to chime in- the system in Canada where you have to take a course and pass a screening is costly & a pain in the ass. Bottom line, legally, it’s neither fast nor easy to get a firearm in Canada, and on top of that, the RCMP can deny any application that they see fit. But ultimately, I think the existing licensing system is a reasonable management of risks, and overall a good thing.
Unfortunately, gun control here is a wedge issue, and political points are easily scored by banning / confiscating guns from legal owners, who, as you mention, were never the problem in the first place. Actually fixing the gun crime issue here would be difficult, costly, and an optics minefield.
IMO, the penalties for being found with an illegal firearm or using a firearm to commit a crime should be much more severe. Surely people of all political stripes could get behind that? But, no. We’re in a situation where, on the left, any policy that doesn’t include a sweeping ban is criticized as unacceptable and weak. It sucks, because it means that the actual problem affecting citizens goes unsolved, and nobody seems to care.
Also, how come when people argue about like, gun related shenaniganery, they always talk about like, oh, well, if the government comes and hits you with a drone strike, then, you’ll be fucked. I mean, no shit sherlock.
For one, that’d be fucking nuts, I think that’d probably make it on the nightly news and probably the president would undergo serious investigation and maybe get impeached.
For two, I think probably you are more likely to use a gun to walk around and not get fucking killed by the police when you decide to protest outside of a courthouse, or walk around your community to make sure the cops don’t harass people or shoot people without being beholden the the community which they are also supposedly serving. Especially if there’s more than one of you, if there’s only one of you and the cops come around and have no idea who you are and you’re waving a gun around, then you’re probably gonna get the police called on you, and you will probably maybe get shot. Black panthers did it, anywho, and they were cool, so that’s really all I’m saying.
For three, how does this like, insane civil war scenario come about? How come that’s the main default scenario everyone’s heads go to whenever this shit comes up? That’s insane. You’re telling me that the military, a military made up of like, a bunch of dudes who mostly just wanted free college as far as I can ascertain, you’re telling me that they’d just like go and unflinchingly steamroll the normal citizenry and become part of a fascist dictatorship? That also strikes me as kind of nuts. You might not be wrong, but it does strike me as kind of nut,s and probably like they would have a huge discipline problem considering the amount of the military which has like pretty radically different political views. You’d probably have to see the centrist liberal types, the monoculture, slide way harder to the right, by which I mean, a couple inches. I find it more likely that, as we saw with BLM, if the US was to undergo civil unrest, it would probably be confined to a couple discrete locations and probably it wouldn’t be that well organized, both in execution or opposition. Probably also you’d just see an embrace of guerilla tactics, and, I mean, we’ve seen the modern military’s track record as far as that goes.
So, I dunno. Seems like a pretty stupid conversation to me. Someone hit me with the self-defense thing too so I can argue about how that’s really stupid and self-defense is stupid and dumb
Okay so most people would be like, “Oh everyone but me, should not be allowed to have guns, because I’m morally righteous, and think of the power, and think of how cool I am and how cool I would be with a cool gun.”, right. That’s the only position people have, I think, there’s people who have that position, and liars who are lying. Okay, cool.
But me, no. Me, I think everyone but me should have a gun. To even the odds, for the rest of you.
I’ve seen a conga line of Joe Rogan heads insisting there is an underground anti-meat campaign to target and harass carnivores, nationally.
However, I was eating bbq down in Texas just this weekend, completely unmolested.
The argument is always for the greater good and from a position of superiority.
Sure. Because we produce (and then waste) enormous amounts of meat. And the production of meat consumes an enormous amount of arable land and potable water. And we absolutely would be much better off - from a climate change perspective - if we weren’t growing almonds to feed to cows to feed the choicest bits of to people.
Vegans have us all dead to rights, logically and ecologically.
But they’re a tiny minority working against the capitalist drive, and also they’re soy and gay.
Mostly they’re the whipping kids of an industry that does unfathomable cruelty and waste and then feels the need to complain about how they’re the victims.
That’s just authoritarianism
Go look up the time Oprah Winfrey was forced to apologize to the Texas Cattle Ranchers Association because she mentioned a burger gave her food poisoning.
Right wing objections are different topic. I was speaking as a liberal/leftist and their feelings towards vegans.
Veganism has its own propaganda. The claims that it is better are always cherry picked to prove the point. I am not interested in arguing with what is essentially a religious movement.
Your mention of Oprah apologizing isn’t authoritarianism. It’s capitalism. The force was monetary.
Veganism will happily pass laws to enforce their belief that meat eating is evil.
The meat industry will happily pass laws to protect their profits.
Veganism has its own propaganda. The claims that it is better are always cherry picked to prove the point. I am not interested in arguing with what is essentially a religious movement.
Right, so here’s where the conversation really breaks down. There’s some really basic math that goes into why - up until very recently in human history and a very agriculturally rich area like the territory over the Ogallala Aquifer - you couldn’t get a pound of rib eye for $5. Raw material consumption to produce a pound of beef is orders of magnitude above production of wheat or corn or rice.
That’s not an article of religious dogma or a cherry picked factoid. That’s a hard truth anyone in the cattle industry can tell you. You’re not driving hundreds of thousands of head of cattle through Southern France or Ukraine’s black earth or the central desert of Australia. The industry only works because of an artifact of geography that is the central plains. And we get to produce these enormous surpluses for a limited time, as we cannibalize the territory with an invasive disease-spreader replacement to the native species.
How quickly we move through our available surplus is predicated on how aggressively we farm cattle. And thanks to our capitalist growth model, we’re going through it at a breakneck pace. All the moreso because of state subsidies fueled by kickbacks and corrupt business practices.
Your mention of Oprah apologizing isn’t authoritarianism. It’s capitalism. The force was monetary.
It wasn’t just monetary. The terms of the settlement required Oprah to apologize on air. What’s more, there is always an implied threat of violence behind a monetary penalty. Try not paying a fine or a debt and see what happens next. Repo men routinely pack heat.
The meat industry will happily pass laws to protect their profits.
Empowering Corporations restricts the rights and freedoms of individual peoples, so no. Also, in the USA at least, I’ve never met a self-described liberal who supports deregulation or opposes taxation of corporations.
It’s literally the foundation of neoliberalism, my guy.
If you want to draw a line between neoliberalism and liberals, fine, but when you start asking “liberals” for their stances on the distinguishing beliefs not a whole lot of them support going back to the New Deal or even Kennedy era type beliefs on the role of government.
Yeah, I’m telling you that they don’t exist for decades now. Modern day neoliberals call themselves Libertarians. In the 1900s there were self-identified neoliberals who copied the moniker used to describe 1800s thinkers. Nowadays it’s just an insult that tankies use to justify their both-sides bullshit.
With a quick search on multiple search engines I cannot find any modern groups who self-identify as Liberal and also as Neoliberal Laissez-Faire Capitalists. Because deregulation generally opposes liberalism as it stands in today’s politics.
More or less. The idea of “life, liberty and private property” from og liberalism didn’t specifically mean a right to be alive or have one’s needs met it was more about individually choosing what style of life and career you want. Likewise the ideology of having your personal property always protected as sacrosanct from the government mediation has been pretty good for corporate interest.
That whole “pursuit of Happiness” thing was just Jefferson riffing on John Locke but the sentiment was basically the same. Liberal was hot branding back in the day to mean “generally permissive” but it’s been a hot minute and people have really started to peel back the label.
For most of the 19th century and most of the 20th one, liberals were divided at best and opposed at worst when it came to positive rights (this is, rights tied to positive freedoms that the state must ensure you have, as opposed to not preventing you from reaching them, such as getting access to social housing even if you’re bankrupt); while left-wing ideologies (save for leninists) were promoting both political and social rights.
Even if you want to refer to contemporary liberals in the current year 2024 (and forget what liberals were doing in 2007), the leaders of political liberalism in the US aren’t keen in creating real public housing options (while the cost of housing skyrockets) or public healthcare options (while medicare eats away the government’s budget (without offering full coverage for everything to everyone) because it’s paying a premium, since it depends on private prices). In Europe, liberals are the ones who promote market economy over social rights, with their only saving grace being that they aren’t as batshit crazy as plenty of parties to their right. If you want to find political camps that defend both political and social rights, you have to look at socialdemocrats and socialists.
Present some examples, I’ve never met self-identified liberals who oppose public healthcare or housing. Literally all of the public healthcare and housing options available in the USA were from progressive reform from what the media often refers to as “liberals”. Where are these supposed “Negative Liberty Liberals” that you people keep ranting about? That Stanford paper you brought up uses an example from 70 years ago, when Liberal was a moniker chosen by Laissez-Faire Market and Anti-Tax proponents who today would align with what is referred to as Libertarian.
(Article in Spanish) The origins of the healthcare collapse: the cuts of CiU and the tri-party ; Note: Catalan politics have long consisted a competition between liberal, socialdemocratic and left-wing parties, where the liberal ones have always incentivized private companies over public services, with the support of minoritarian Conservative parties.
There is little doubt that the positions of the FDP on healthcare could be shared by the businessmen who built their fortune on private for-profit clinics. In its electoral platform, the party says: “We reject unequal treatment of private, public and non-profit hospitals operators just as strongly as we reject a planning sovereignty of the health insurance funds for health care structures”. That means that the FDP thinks that private hospitals should, for example, get the same amount of public investment than public and non-profit hospitals.
Which is ultimately a form of corrupting the basis of a public healthcare system, making people think they will receive worse care if they won’t pay for private services and pushing the public system towards its collapse.
Present some examples, I’ve never met self-identified liberals who oppose public healthcare or housing
Yeah, no shit? The average voter in the US doesn’t understand the difference between liberalism, socialdemocracy and socialism, so they’ll call themselves liberals even if they don’t understand the nuances of the term, while the average Democratic politician understands that they shouldn’t express opposition to public policies that poll well with voters, even if they certainly don’t intend to promote them. Because they barely have any politicians competing against them from their left, they aren’t exposed not defending an actual public option.
Your ass in here making me study Canadian Politics all of a sudden, but fine I’m game. Two things:
The Liberal Party of Canada is the oldest party of Canada founded in 1867, their name by now has absolutely zero bearing on the definition of the words. That said, Trudeau is more unpopular with Canadians with each passing day, clearly not aligned with his constituents. The conservative proposal by Doug Jones was discussed by Liberal Party members in September as something they oppose.
I literally cannot find that vote that NDP talks about in the current session of the 44th Parliament of Canada, not saying I don’t believe you, but I cannot actually find out more about it because none of the articles actually mention the name of the Bill. I did, however, find information about the Pharmacare Act C-64 which will potentially make medications for Diabetes as well as contraceptives free for all citizens and funded by the public entity. So, I guess you have the “fake” liberals to thank for it.
Same. But I’m also for gun control as well. Like, don’t ban them outright, just make them a whole hell of a lot harder to get. Like really hard. I live in an area that has bobcats, bears, and the occasional mountain lion. I own a pistol to protect myself and my critters (a flock of ducks and two dogs) in case of an attack. I don’t want to use it and it won’t kill a big predator like a bear or mountain lion, but I only want it to scare the animals off if they get too close. It hasn’t left the locked drawer I keep it in since I bought my house in 2022. I’m hoping it’ll never have to come out.
Reading these comments it seems like most of the anti gun crowd thinks pro gun is about machismo at the cost of tragedy. It’s mainly about protection of the people from the government. It’s the last failsafe to keeping free in the case of tyranny. We all agree there needs to be better regulation because in the past and currently the laws are designed over feelings and not facts, for example barrel length restrictions or pistol grips that mainly only effects the ergonomics.
As someone who flips between the two I’ve noticed neither side seems to really get where the other side is coming from. The anti gun people don’t get that there is a certain amount of fear of government, or how guns work. The pro gun people tend to not understand that the government is already tyrannical, the cops have military weapons, and that a lot of gun enthusiasts are exactly the sort of people who we shouldn’t let have guns.
The people I want armed are the people who dread having to use a gun on another person and have a level of fear and respect for these tools and a level of trust that very few strangers have any desire to initiate violence. Meanwhile I keep hearing coworkers talk about how they have couch guns and saying how they draw when strangers approach them. Mentally unstable people with guns are a real problem and we as a country seem to insist on doing nothing that could actually help.
Your government fucks you up, every single day, week after week, year after year and the only people who own guns are the ones that are too cowardly to use them.
It’s mainly about protection of the people from the government.
Lol sure there John Wayne.
I legit can’t think of another country with people that LARP more about revolution than the US. Most affluent country in the world and you’re constantly imagining youselves forming up and fighting back against tanks and helicopters (or your fellow citizens who happen to vote for the other team). It’d be funny if it wasn’t so tragic and bizarre.
guns to me, are more about sport and the potential for them to be useful to you in rare circumstances, more than shooting at an f35 that is launching a nuclear warhead at me from three miles away.
One problem with the anti-tyranny argument is that guns would much more easily be the means by which tyranny is implemented than the means by which it is taken down. Imagine a more well-armed Jan 6. Then of course once the dictatorship is in place, eliminating the right to bear arms - or more likely, making it exclusive to the dictator’s allies - becomes trivial.
Now in that case, conceivably a pre-existing right to bear arms could be used to stash weapons for a resistance movement that might gradually over the course of a decades-long civil war reestablish some semblance of democracy. But by that point we’ve already lost, haven’t we?
to be fair, being pro gun is typically about machismo power fantasy at the cost of that.
if youre going to fight the people who are genuinely ruining your life, guns, especially in the way Americans think of them, are not the primary tool for the job. if youre going to defend your home, also a bad tool. do not fire a gun indoors.
add to that: the people mostly advocating for chemical guns are against the proliferation of other effective weapons for the purpose (anti drone and anti armor weapons, ied’s) and against fighting the people you actually need guns to fight, and can’t just talk shit out with.
so while I do not give a shit about guns, someone saying they’re pro gun is a huge red flag, and most ‘pro gun’ rhetoric is shit.
Add comment