-
There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.
When guns become a fetish.
- Thread starter Climber
- Start date
dmaxAl
Active member
Ant
Pink Freud
What is that you're holding btw?
NorCalAthlete
O_o
Nice.I've heard she's gone on a few social rides and Hooli's met her apparently along with a couple other BARFettes.
Abyss
Anhedonia
Hey, you know who is absent in this conversation? Daks! 
the donald
New member
I often wonder if guns weren't fun, If they'd still be fought for so hard.
Like pretty much no one cares at all about the NSA stuff And encroaching on our fourth amendment rights, or how they target journalists and 1st amendment rights. But those don't have a fun thing attachted to them.
Any mention at all of restricting certain guns, which happen to be the most fun, and people go nuts. Hear s story about how the NSA uses cell phones apps to spy on us and bypass phone carriers, and we could care less.
even tho its the restricting of THOSE rights, which are far more taking away freedoms than the 2A.
and for the new antarius' law
funny enough.
it is the same people fighting for our right to keep and bear arms that speak out against those other things you say.
then the ACLU that speaks against those violations and against the RKBA.
I am not sure I agree with your summation that people do not care about the NSA/Govt. encroaching on 1st and 4th amendments. I would look at it from a "what is most effective" point of view. It is much easier to defend my 4th or 1st amendment rights with an intact 2nd amendment.
I would not agree that a private citizen need access to any weapon the US Military has, i.e. there are limits to the 2nd. I do however believe that any weapon afforded to the Police should also be available to a private citizen.
Attachments
Last edited:
R1-Limited
New member
guns = dicks
Well that explains the snub nose
Well that explains the snub nose
Asphaultnaut
Own the Mess You've Made!
when people say the same thing about Bay Area Bubble sacred cows like legalizing drugs or gay issues, they're called out. If anyone anywhere were to say that the people most passionate about the 1st Amendment were the ones who "fetishized" it and shouldn't have it, they'd be torn apart.
Why should the 2nd be any different?
If "comfort" were anything that suddenly excused such an attitude, then all those homophobes would be off the hook. But that sht don't fly.
Why should the 2nd be any different?
If "comfort" were anything that suddenly excused such an attitude, then all those homophobes would be off the hook. But that sht don't fly.
NorCalAthlete
O_o
It's not about needs. Are you aware that a minigun is perfectly legal to own even in CA? They're several hundred thousand dollars and you'll spend thousands in ammo every time you shoot it, but they're legal. Most citizens simply can't afford the cost of the higher end military hardware - coincidentally one reason I think corporations should never be considered citizens but that's a separate discussion. Main point is the second amendment says "arms". Not "keep and bear small arms" but just "arms". Arms is a term that CAN include everything from rifles to artillery to whatever goes boom or bang.
The second amendment specifically says shall not be infringed. By its very definition, ANY limit is infringement.
Asphaultnaut
Own the Mess You've Made!
LOL you realize your EBR is chambered only for .22LR? not a police weapon by any means.
in order to own a minigun you need a Class III. I cannot even find the procedure by which one applies for such a license in CA, and I suspect like CCW, it does not have to be issued. Other concerns are how CA has decided State trumps Fed law on 2A issues. IIRC even the Hollywood armorers are pretty much grandfathered in and there's so few people able to get a class III that Hollywood often has a shortage. It's gotta be pretty bad when the guys who bought enough government to force in the DMCA, can't get enough legal NFA toy operators for all their blockbusters.
grenades are even worse, again I could be mistaken but IIRC you have to register each explosive at the same prohibitive cost. Not just the launcher but the ammo.
what I find amusing are how a bunch of even podunk PD's are getting MRAPs from the Sandbox, after our Prez goes off about military weapons having no place on America's streets. Apparently, that only applies to the citizenry.
Last edited:
LOL you realize your EBR is chambered only for .22LR? not a police weapon by any means.
Yes, the photo was simply an extension of the "Antarious law" joke Kevin had made. I.E. to speak about guns you must own them.
morthrane
Help I'* being Oppressed!
Where in the world is Daks? Hey Daks, I'm gonna go to the range today and stroke my dicks. You in? 
I'm sorry, but you must misunderstand the historical context of the 2nd Amendment. Many (wealthy) citizens and towns owned cannons, not just small arms. There's a reason why the amendment doesn't specify small arms...
Your overall message is that there's no need for such weapons (whatever they are) and that the 2nd Amendment is limited in scope despite there being no indication.
I'm sorry, but you must misunderstand the historical context of the 2nd Amendment. Many (wealthy) citizens and towns owned cannons, not just small arms. There's a reason why the amendment doesn't specify small arms...
I lol'd
So I guess you are a textualist/originalist?
To me, the standard for interpretation is what is "reasonable" (unfortunately, that is subjective).
The 2nd states that we have the right to bear "arms." "Arms" could (or even "should," from a logical perspective) include cannons, tanks, etc. (I'm sure you get my point). I never really understood the textualist perspective, because obviously times change (the founders can't be expected to have understood or even had any idea of the issues that would arise with technological/societal change), and because that essentially makes the founders "god"-like (putting all faith into them).
The 1st states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" (incorporated to local/state governments). Yet, most of us understand and accept certain abridgments, such as noise ordinances, the outlawing of the proverbial "fire!!!" in a theater, etc.
morthrane
Help I'* being Oppressed!
Not really, but I do think the spirit of a law is as important as the letter. The bottom line here is that "reasonable", while admirable, ends up being a tool to limit and remove Rights. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, and all that.
Not can or even should. Arms did include military weapons like cannon, hence my point. The importation ban and later attempt at confiscation of small and large arms was a major factor in the Colonial rebellion; in some opinions, that was the fire that lit the fuse.
Nothing much has changed, despite what others would maintain. People are still fucking people, politics and corruption are natural bedfellows, etc. Medical technology has gotten better, weapons more refined, but the philosophy hasn't really changed at all.
Straw man BS: shouting fire in a theater isn't expressing a political viewpoint.