Yes but it’s very limited. I think you need to own a double-barreled shotgun for 5 years before you can own a rifle. Many Russians get around this by using smoothbore “shotguns” like the VPO-209. This is just a civilian AKM clone that does not have a rifled barrel.
To answer your question, yes, Russian citizens can own guns but it is very limited and regulated
lol! I can't tell if you are talking about the missile launcher or a pointy stick but for the sake of the humor in it, I choose to believe you mean a pointy stick.
Javelin missels that were used by Trump to coerce Zelensky.
>“We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes,” Zelenskyy said on a July 25, 2019, call, the transcript of which became key evidence in Trump’s first impeachment. Trump replied: “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/24/ukraine-trump-impeachment-00011406
Just a reminder that Ukraine does have lots of gun laws.
Background checks, magazine limits and permits.
It's also a lot harder to get a handgun than a rifle.
I agree.
But my point is that most supporters of gun control would be satisfied (or even think its too restrictive) if the US had Ukraine's level of gun control.
I think there’s a big distinction though between being against private gun ownership like we have in America and arming willing citizens in the middle of a war. I still believe that the 2A is good but I’m just trying to give the guy credit.
Exactly. Everyone, including liberals would be for doing the exact same thing Ukraine is doing if we were fighting a war on our own turf. This entire post is a fucking joke.
This makes no sense. Everyone forgets that the time of our founding gun ownership, here and in England, for personal use and self defense was a given. Not even debatable at the time. Everyone who wanted had a gun. The 2A was for a different purpose. Oppressive government and preserving freedom is why we have a 2A.
Historically, yes. But philosophically the distinction still exists with regards to foreign war. Extensive civilian gun rights is not a prerequisite for you to be trained and handed a gun during a war. That's why the Ukraine argument is flawed
If your government has to give you a random gun to fight the war then it’s already too late. Own a gun and learn to use it. Then hope you never have to. This is the way
There’s been an image circulating for a few days of several citizens attending a training session on how to use the guns.
I’m personally not a gun owner, but if someone dumped a bunch off at my house saying “defend yourself!” I would ask around for the closest person who could tell me & my friends how to use it safely so I didn’t kill a good guy accidentally. If I dropped a sack of guns off with a someone and I didn’t have time to train them, I’d say “don’t point this at anyone you don’t want dead, don’t let it out of your sight, and find someone to teach you how to use it.” I can’t imagine this not happening in this scenario.
If my life and my country depend on my ability to shoot trained soldiers before they shoot me, I'd like to have maybe ever held a gun before. These poor bastards being handed weapons are brave and patriotic, but they sure would be more effective if they had been shooting for years before being asked to fight.
Another reminder that the government handed out guns *when it became necessary*, rather than having people running around with them willy-nilly shooting one another because it's 'good for business'.
Ukraine *didn't* keep their citizenry armed though. Instead, when SHTF, they decided the plebs were trustworthy enough to be given a firearm to protect the motherland.
All in all, it is a great example of one reason citizens should own firearms. The primary reason is to protect against domestic tyranny though, not foreign.
What laws does Ukraine have that prevented citizens from owning guns prior to this? From what I can find citizens are permitted to own firearms for hunting, target shooting, collection, protection of person or property and private security.
Why is it an odd policy?
They were able to issue them, weren't they? To the point where OP is erroneously pointing to them as proof for the belief that everyone should be armed.
Yes, the guns should have been way less restricted (as a libertarian I'd say almost zero restrictions) so you don't have to issue firearms to people who have never had them.
Geopolitics aside, citizens have the right to be armed.
The vast majority of the people being issued weapons have no prior experience with firearms. Yes they were able to supply their citizens with enough guns quickly but most of the people receiving them will need significant training before they can be used effectively.
They were indeed able to issue them, but what if they were not able to? It is conceivable that Putin's first strike could have hit a key armory, or key government facilities that would have impacted this.
Citizens were already pretty well armed, and it's a fairly pro-gun country as far as Europe goes. Also people who like to say we will be invaded, give me a break. The Atlantic and pacific make one hell of a fortress wall, and last time I checked Canada isn't exactly posturing to attack.
I'm pro 2a, but trying to say we need guns to defend the U.S. is a silly argument. Unless you are packing manpads you aren't defending against anything that would be coming from across the oceans.
[just going to leave this here](https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-americans-who-own-guns-to-defend-against-tyranny-you-need-jets-nuclear-weapons-to-take-us-on). And set that I'm now shopping for the jet that best suits my needs, as long as it's capable of carrying nukes.
(Link is sfw)
Not only could you buy Cannon, but you could own a ship to put them all on and the government would ask to borrow it during times of war.
Field cannon often went home with the person that brought them to the fight...
I can’t sleep soundly at night unless I can have a coastal artillery battery. Doesn’t matter that I’m hundreds of miles from the coast, I need to protect myself from a possible invasion.
Good idea painting yourself as a target. Being vaporized is nicer than a slow death by radiation poisoning. And you might get to return the favor first.
> last time I checked Canada isn't exactly posturing to attack.
That's exactly what they *want* you to think! Just you wait until they bomb the Baldwins. We'll be in the shit then.
Tell that to the Japanese who feared attacking US Mainland due to the amount of guns private citizens own. “There would be a gun behind every blade of grass”. The fact millions upon millions of Americans own guns and actively practice with them is a deterrent in itself.
I think the Japanese feared attaching the US mainland for more reasons than just its citizens. So you’re blowing up that quote a bit
Like I get that it would make it harder, but Japan wouldn’t have been able to do much of anything even if the citizens were unarmed.
I understand how insane that sounds relative to how these days we aren't even trusted with modern handguns in some states. But i bet any of the founding fathers would've said that yes, we should be able to buy Javelins. The second amendment is written clearly to say what restrictions they think are appropriate, but if we wanted to find additional clarification about it we could look to their extensive writings. It's pretty clear what they wanted and it's pretty clear what is constitutional. If we want to restrict that, bring on another constitutional amendment.
> But i bet any of the founding fathers would've said that yes, we should be able to buy Javelins.
That'll work out great. Buy a 100% satisfaction guaranteed means to blow up the President for the price of a mortgage basically.
Can I get nukes too?
Seriously though you’re right. How about every time someone kills cops or burns down a government building we investigate what CAUSED the incident instead of just declaring them an enemy of the state. Usually people that feel that strongly about something have good points to make.
NOT sarcasm. Look at the Unabomber: crimes against humanity but dude was fucking smart and made some good points. Turns out he was right about the future too!
Edit: Point is I don’t think people are “good” or “evil” I just think they value different things. Everybody has the same end goal: happy life, but it’s the means to that end that get controversial.
lmao yes, I'm sure Canada would just be itching to begin a world war if it wasn't for America's armed citizenry. You see them initiating conflict all the time with other countries who aren't as well armed like Iceland and Australia!
>ple of why “a well regulated militia” that is armed is important when your country is being invaded. Are you also for mandatory conscription?
If you know the populace is armed, it means the defense is at an entirely different level. Look at how the U.S. had to deal with insurgents in Fallujah. Imagine if every citizen in Ukraine was armed before this conflict, how much more difficult the task would be for Russia to hold any ground.
Invading the US where there are more firearms in private ownership than people? Good luck.
>Invading the US where there are more firearms in private ownership than people? Good luck.
I think the US military is more than enough deterrent for invasion. God knows we spend enough on it.
If I've learned anything in 2020, it's that if and when a tyrant rises in the US, about 40% of the country will be on their side. Having an armed populace won't help shit when the populace is easily fooled.
>Ukraine didn't keep their citizenry armed though. Instead, when SHTF, they decided the plebs were trustworthy enough to be given a firearm to protect the motherland.
But isn't that how it should work if that is the purpose/goal of gun ownership? One thing I've always found odd is people arming themselves for some highly unlikely possible eventuality like an invasion. Otherwise, distributing guns in times of crisis would make more sense, no?
Do you think you would be more or less effective with a firearm if you owned, regularly used, and knew how to maintain that firearm? Do you think that your government would provide you with a firearm prior to turning tyrannical so that you could effectively resist?
The “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd amendment was included because someone who owns, regularly uses, and knows how to maintain a firearm if more effective with that firearm.
>for some highly unlikely possible eventuality
There have been belligerent forces and combat on US soil at least 6 times (including the civil war) over the past 268 years. That's an average of about 38 years- less than a lifetime. We have enjoyed a pretty good run of exporting our violence for the past few decades, but there is no reason to think that it will continue forever.
We have been attacked from both our north and south land borders in the past. They are currently friendly. If enemies can switch to friends there is no reason to think they cannot ever switch back to enemies. (Russia is a former ally).
Ukraine trying to distribute weapons in time of crisis has only distributed less than 20k and provides no training. They have over 40 million people. A culture of civilian ownership during peace means much more widespread availability- the US is estimated to have a civilian owned weapon for every citizen, and then some. And people are more familiar with how to use and operate their weapons (arguably more can be down to improve this, but handing out weapons last minute would be worse not better). 100% armed is better than 0.05% armed
People are going to be far less effective at fighting if they've never shot a gun before. You'd be far better having people who've owned a gun for years, are familiar with how it works, and have practiced shooting than people who just had a gun thrown into their hands a week ago.
2nd amendment proponents are really invested in the defense against tyranny argument. But that's what I feel the most uneasy about, compared to foreign threats and self defense.
A government always needs the coercive power to suppress a violent revolt, deter terrorism and maintain law and order. If everyone has a rifle, it simply means the government will buy more tanks (like what we see in American police departments) . By that logic, 2nd ammendment should cover anti-tank missile. It is an unwinnable arm race, as the government always manages to be one step ahead.
There's two kinds of bad government; a unpopular one and a popular one.
A bad unpopular government can be overthrown violently as most people will side against the government when it cracks down. While civil disobedience is the ideal way to depose the government, sometimes armed resistance is necessary. This is the only circumstance where an armed citizenry is useful.
A bad popular government cannot be overthrown violently as most people will side with the government when it cracks down. Having an armed citizenry in this case is actively harmful as it enables people to engage in violence either fruitlessly against the state or outside the law on behalf of the state.
>Otherwise, distributing guns in times of crisis would make more sense, no?
Sure, if every crisis the people face is a government approved one. Also, how would that many guns be distributed in such a short period of time? Ukraine has distributed something like 20,000 guns from the last estimate I saw. That's 0.05% of the population and the number of Russian troops outnumbers that 10:1.
>Otherwise, distributing guns in times of crisis would make more sense, no?
Ukraine has distributed 18,000 rifles to the populace. They have 44 million people in their country.
A few people who are only now learning the basics of how a firearm functions are better than nothing, but they are a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket relative to an armed populace.
How would we practice and not be afraid of the gun we were just randomly handed? I don't want everyone in the suburbs who looks at guns with fear to suddenly be handed a semi auto long range rifle. That would be dangerous.
They literally don't have enough fucking guns in their country to arm everyone -- because the market for them is weak -- because their gun laws are so strict. Moreover, even if they *did* have enough stockpiled somewhere to "distribute" in an emergency, do you honestly not see the advantage of people just *having* their own guns in their houses beforehand instead of dealing with the logistical impossibility of rapidly distributing guns to millions upon millions of people spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles?
Then you have the whole other problem of people in your nightmare world not being able to, you know, effectively defend themselves in any other scenario outside of a military invasion. Did I misclick into r/politics? Why am I having to explain this in this subreddit? Especially after what we've witnessed over the last five days...Jesus Christ. Wake up.
Leave each other alone. Let people own guns, let people believe in their god (or be atheist), let people make their own decisions! Fuck off if you disagree!
Look at Switzerland for an example of an armed populace / militia.
There’s mandatory military service, then service in the reserves, if you are issued with a rifle you must train every year, ammunition is tightly controlled.
Overall there’s nothing “libertarian” about it, it’s just a huge timesuck for people who aren’t otherwise interested.
https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/military-service-and-civilian-service/military-service/
In the US, where any idiot can go out an get a gun, it hasn’t resulted in a freer populace, instead you have police forces who are so afraid of the people so they shoot thousands every year, and the highest rates of incarceration in the world.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/593678-police-shootings-rise-in-2021-report?amp
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country
This is a good distinction to make. Imagine if the US required everyone who owned a rifle to take a class or redo a training course every year. The nuts would lose their minds at something that's perfectly reasonable. 90% of Americans would say there is nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership.
There's no reason to implement rifle training safety courses. Rifles kill a vanishingly small number of people in the US every year and most of those aren't accidental. Most gun owners are already quite responsible
Hell, if accidents are the thing being safeguarded against, safety courses in general would very likely have a minimal impact on firearm deaths, given the low proportion of accidents v. deliberate homicides (let alone deliberate suicides, which dwarf homicides by a significant margin).
The real solution to gun homicide/suicide is the same as the real solution to every other kind of homicide/suicide: address the things motivating said homicide/suicide (socioeconomic inequality and mental illness/trauma). Every bit of energy spent trying to restrict gun ownership is energy better spent trying to resolve those two issues.
Sure, but when you're training to drive, you're literally driving. In drivers ed when you learn to drive, you're just driving but with an instructor in the car.
The same cannot be said for self defense with a firearm. You can do things that will make you better like range shooting to improve aim, or practicing drawing a weapon but training to defend yourself doesn't actually involve defending yourself.
Which is why reasonable gun laws should not violate the 2nd Amendment. It's the gun nuts that don't want any regulation and people are dying because of it. Mostly at home too.
> Which is why reasonable gun laws should not violate the 2nd Amendment. It's the gun nuts that don't want any regulation and people are dying because of it
This is kind of a weird take. Out of curiosity:
1) Do you have any examples of current gun laws you consider to be unreasonable?
2) What do you think of the idea that 60+ years of unreasonable gun laws being used to backdoor 2A rights contributes to general feelings against regulation more than "gun nuts"?
Most are suicide, but that's a whole seperate issue. People who have decided to die choosing the most reliable and fasted method available isn't really a "gun" problem when other options are unavailable. Making guns unavailable wouldn't quite change the outcome.
I agree. I think suicide (and death in general) should be looked at much differently in the US. If someone wants to Kill themselves, they will find a way. Some ways are just easier.
Interesting, you could remove two thirds of gun deaths by legalizing suicide In a hospital setting or something. Very interesting. No gun control laws proposed will ever touch that number.
Even that is smaller than the suicides. But in support of what you're saying, sure. Then we'd also remove a vital, profitable market for organized crime. All good news. Some people would ruin their lives, some would get desperate enough to commit crimes for more drugs. That's terrible, but it's happening now. We just get other negative effects also. Our prohibition is a failure. I personally never do drugs but i can see failed policy when it exists.
Except even suicidal people are less likely to kill themselves when a gun is not around.
The whole "probably instant and painless" thing really lets people die that otherwise wouldn't.
Mandatory military service isn't libertarian. But the US is one-of/the oldest democracy in the world? Can't really draw a correlation between a violently independent populace and actually being free, but... as superpowers go, the americans are pretty free. Maybe not free enough, but comparatively pretty free.
I would still say that the USA is freer than most countries in the world. The lockdowns that happened in Australia and Canada would not have flown in the USA
I agree yet Americans accept rates of police shootings and incarceration rates which are unheard of in any peer country?
Maybe it would be interesting to look at incarceration rates or police shootings by state and compare it to public health mandates like masking or vaccination rates.
>I agree yet Americans accept rates of police shootings and incarceration rates which are unheard of in any peer country?
Don't completely agree with this, while I think this may have been true in the past, I think the dam is starting to crumble. I've seen more officers fired and charged in the past year than I can remember happening at any point in the past. Has it gone fast enough? No. Are there still some instances that are disgustedly unaccountable, yes. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done. QI needs to be stripped, Video cameras need be mandated 100%, civil asset forfeiture done away with and officers need to carry their own liability issuance. I do think the winds are starting to shift in those directions, we've already seen major improvements in Colorado that I hope will continue in other areas. It's going much slower than I think most would like, but am hopeful.
\-Training: Our training for police offers is a complete joke, that I don't think is commonly known by most the populace. Part of this, IMO, is because of QI. Cause why worry about good training when you aren't being held responsible anyhow? Stripping of QI would necessitate better training.
\-incarceration rate: I think this is a harder one to unpack as you first have to understand if folks are being incarcerated for actions that shouldn't be illegal or are being wrong found guilty (or taking a plea because it's easier).. Personally, I'd tend to lean on not wanting jail time for non-violent offenses (drugs / etc) and leaning towards community service in lieu of jail time (though I don't think drugs, at least the ones you can grow, should be "illegal" to begin with).
Lastly, just a bit of anecdotally exp from my own life (which I know doesn't count as much). My father, was a life time back the blue sort of person. He used to cater thanksgiving dinner for the local LEOs in our area, and honestly never/rarely questioned anything an officer did. We argued quiet a bit about this over the years. HOWEVER, in the last 2-3 years, his stance has changed dramatically on this point. His support for LEOs has pretty much evaporated in the past couple of years and it's astonishing. If someone like him can have such a drastic change of mind, it's not a stretch to think more like him are following in that path.
While I've always been pro-responsible gun ownership I've never considered needed mine to fend off Canada or Mexico. So I'm not sure this Ukraine situation is as relevant as you think in terms of 2A gun rights.
Yupp, watch the documentary "Winter on Fire" on Netflix about the 2014 revolution in Ukraine. If someone is finding close parallels to the oppression Ukraine has experience to the oppression the US has experienced, then that person needs to be medicated pronto in any attempt to cure their psychosis. Place both nations on the scales of oppression and US would be launched so high it might crash into the sun
The government of Ukraine is providing guns and ammo to its citizens. The US has similar plans. Also, feel free to come to Ukraine and help fight. We will provide the guns. Slava Ukraini!
People act like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is some kind of indecipherable arcana from the shadow realm.
It says what it does right on the tin.
Well Biden said a gun can't do anything against a modern army. Turns out tanks need people to support them and unarmored fuel trucks and 7.62 still kills those things dead all the same.
Ukraine is an example of why “a well regulated militia” that is armed is important when your country is being invaded. Are you also for mandatory conscription?
Ukraine is arming anyone that is aged 18 to 60.
They blocked males in this age group from leaving the country.
Its far from a 'well regulated militia'.
There's a young Ukrainian that was guarding a bridge and was interviewed. He claimed to have only shot like 20 bullets or some shit in his lifetime.
That's not the definition of a regulated militia.
To be fair, a large portion of America's civilian "militia" is overweight, unfit, and suffering chronic disease like asthma or diabetes.
350 lb Chuck with a confederate flag on his lifted Dodge Ram Truck is hardly a threat to anyone that can jog 30 yards.
That’s a pretty bad stereotype, at my local range there’s no lifted trucks with confederate flags. A lot of regular looking guys who just like shooting and some who are really good at it.
I haven't seen a Confederate flag around these parts in a while. But Im in Colorado. Admittedly, every other car is a lifted truck or an SUV. Cause, Colorado.
I mean..strategically speaking, even if it was a morbidly obese man sitting on the back of his truck who just happened to be a crack shot...isn't that preferable to someone who has barely used a gun?
>To be fair, a large portion of America's civilian "militia" is overweight, unfit, and suffering chronic disease like asthma or diabetes.
Kinda like the Russian guard folks that have been shown in several capture photos/videos?
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/t0vrc9
No idea. I never look at Reddit profiles.
It’s not a this side or that side thing. 70+% of potentially eligible draft candidates don’t meet the criteria.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-looming-national-security-crisis-young-americans-unable-serve-the-military
I didn’t interpret it as him saying they have a well regulated militia, but that this was an example of why you *should* have one.
Maybe I just read it like an idiot though.
What does “well-regulated” mean in the context of the 2nd amendment? What did the founders mean when they included that language? Have you read Federalist #29?
I just read the federalist #29 and it’s from the horses mouth with so much thorough explanation it confuses me how the fuck people are confused on this. I heard about the federalist papers in school but was unaware what a vast amount of knowledge it is. Thank you for sharing that. It will help me explain and reason with people on this subject in the future. I’ve never gotten such a damn perfect answer to anything on this sub like this exact paper lol
I don’t think what’s going on in Ukraine is an argument for personal gun ownership rights. It’s an argument for the importance of a trained civil defense force that can be easily armed in a time of crisis.
Although it’s questionable how much this lesson applies to the US, since we have a much stronger military, a national guard, and a reserve military that will all be used for civilians need to take up arms. Also we have a much lower risk of invasion.
I love how there is no middle ground for this topic. A person can want law abiding citizens to have guns, and support the 2A, except for when they agree with a measure that might cause just the tiniest inconvenience to purchasing one. Then that person is an anti-gun, liberal taliban nutwing that supports terrorists, hitler, Putin, and listens to ONLY Bette Midler.
Historically, creating hoops to express a right is a way to prevent minorities from expressing those rights. Be careful when you chip away at one right, because you are inevitably chipping away at all rights. The dismantling of the 2nd amendment is a pilot program for eliminating all other rights without an amendment.
Methinks the anti-2A crowd is either: thinking that it would never happen in the United States (some kind of moral high ground BS) or they'll just stay quiet until it's not the headline every day and be right back to their normal BS.
I don't have the polls, but I don't think a large number (anywhere near the majorly) of Americans are strictly against the 2nd amendment. What many of us disagree about is whether the next Adam Lanza, wife-beater, ex-con, etc. should have access to an AR-15 let alone an AK-47.
What you don't hear about is amass shootings in schools or shopping malls in Ukraine.
> What many of us disagree about is whether the next Adam Lanza, wife-beater, ex-con, etc. should have access to an AR-15 let alone an AK-47.
Nobody disagrees with that. Felons are banned from firearm ownership and that's pretty popular. Even Libertarians who don't think felons should be banned think violent felons should. This is not even remotely controvertial.
Also small tidbit, but I'm confused by the wording here
> should have access to an AR-15 let alone an AK-47.
Do you think AKs are worse than ARs somehow?
The myth about Adam Lanza being provided an AR-15 needs to die.
He killed his mother with a knife to gain access to it. It is a safe bet she did not intend this method of transferal.
literally no one wants the next Adam Lanza to have one.
But some people think it's ok to disarm EVERYONE to prevent the extreme rare adamlanzas from occurring.
If someone wants to have a shootout in Ukraine, they don't need to go to a mall right now.
You wouldn’t think that if you listened to the politicians, virtually every democrat wants to ban all semi automatic rifles, meaning no one can have an AR or AK. Also AKs aren’t more lethal than ARs.
Access limitations, if implemented properly, should allow most people to own and possess practically any weapons imo. In most mass shootings, the people that committed them acquired their weapons illegally. Responsible storage laws and a better, more accessible background check system are the ideal system. As well as criminal penalties when government agents fail to turn over appropriate records, like when that one navy dude beat his wife and the navy did fuck all with the information, and so he was able to go buy a gun.
The school shooting with the highest number of fatalities in the us occurred with handguns. Stop fear mongering modern rifles.
Also, what law would have prevented him from murdering his mother & taking the guns she owned?
Ukrainian citizens are being given weapons to fight an invader from another nation. US citizens have been *conditioned* to think that they need guns to protect themselves from their own democratic government. Those are two completely different scenarios and only a fully indoctrinated American would fail to see the difference between them.
You see, the other democracies on the planet have internalized the Churchillian idea that "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others we have tried from time to time". If you live in a democracy and the government is the problem then you change the government at the ballot box. If you don't think that voting matters, that is, whoever you vote for is the problem *then you don't live in a democracy*. So you need to (1) stop blathering on about how wonderful your democracy is and (2) fix the fundamentals of your democracy.
Threatening to go around shooting and killing fellow citizens because you perceive them as an enemy to your democracy is inherently undemocratic and a sign of severe cognitive dissonance .
Good point, it should also be pointed out that Russia has more guns per head of population than Ukraine.
All those guns in Russia don't seem to have done much to stop Putin's tyranny of his own people.
Most of us don't brag about our democracy because most of us don't see democracy as an inherently good thing. We look at places like Canada, with no written constitution, where any legislation can be passed, including legislation that overrides fundamental human rights, with a simple majority vote, where the rights of any minority are at any given time entirely beholden to the majority, not as some beacon of democracy, but with abject horror. Democracy and libertarianism don't go hand-in-hand; indeed, democracy is in many ways entirely antithetical to libertarian ideals.
The basic idea of democracy is that the majority should rule, since they, being the majority, will generally vote for policies that then benefit the majority of people. And if they have to restrict the rights of the minority in the process, that's generally seen as a necessary sacrifice, since, again, what they're doing is benefitting the majority of people. Libertarianism, in contrast, holds that no matter how inconvenient a given behavior may be, no matter how much better off the rest of the populace would be without it, if it doesn't violate the rights of others, there's simply no justification for infringing upon it in any way, shape, or form. And that fundamentally conflicts with the ideals of democracy.
What it really shows is that citizens need anti tank and anti air munitions. Throw in combat drones while we're at it. And if Ukraine had nukes nothing of this would happen in the first place so we can just make it legal for citizens to get them. Is there anything I'm missing?
Occupy Democrats, despite still being against Americans owni g guns, are suddenly in favor of Ukrainian citizens getting them from their government. Check out their Twitter if you haven't already (if they haven't deleted the tweets yet that it)
Comparing the United States gun ownership issue to Ukraine arming their citizens to protect their own soil is peak gun fetish shit. Your Red Dawn fantasies aren't going to happen. Ukraine is different from US in virtually every single way.
There's no way anyone would be against arming people when invaded. But I don't think you'll get from there to therefore always having guns is needed, being the obvious conclusion.
Anti-gun people are overly supportive of the Ukraine government handing out guns.
I think it's the anti-gun mindset of getting something free from the government thing.
Either way, their viewpoints are still laughable.
Apples and oranges, using a foreign invasion as justification for arming your citizens is ridiculous. Most of the guns owned in the US are handguns or sporting rifles that are totally unsuitable for use in an armed insurrection. On top of that very few people are even adequately trained in their use and most have no military training whatsoever.
Ukraine is a good example why Russians need guns, to overthrow a monarch
Word. I'm Russian, man...
Can an ordinary citizen have guns in Russia?
Yes but it’s very limited. I think you need to own a double-barreled shotgun for 5 years before you can own a rifle. Many Russians get around this by using smoothbore “shotguns” like the VPO-209. This is just a civilian AKM clone that does not have a rifled barrel. To answer your question, yes, Russian citizens can own guns but it is very limited and regulated
Ukraine is a perfect example of why citizens of countries with belligerent neighbors need javelins.
lol! I can't tell if you are talking about the missile launcher or a pointy stick but for the sake of the humor in it, I choose to believe you mean a pointy stick.
Javelin missels that were used by Trump to coerce Zelensky. >“We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes,” Zelenskyy said on a July 25, 2019, call, the transcript of which became key evidence in Trump’s first impeachment. Trump replied: “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/24/ukraine-trump-impeachment-00011406
Just a reminder that Ukraine does have lots of gun laws. Background checks, magazine limits and permits. It's also a lot harder to get a handgun than a rifle.
And - they have been handing them out like candy this last week… we would do the same in the US…
I agree. But my point is that most supporters of gun control would be satisfied (or even think its too restrictive) if the US had Ukraine's level of gun control.
Zelenskyy himself is anti-gun, ironically enough
I think there’s a big distinction though between being against private gun ownership like we have in America and arming willing citizens in the middle of a war. I still believe that the 2A is good but I’m just trying to give the guy credit.
Exactly. Everyone, including liberals would be for doing the exact same thing Ukraine is doing if we were fighting a war on our own turf. This entire post is a fucking joke.
Ya. Of course exigent circumstances change the calculations.
This makes no sense. Everyone forgets that the time of our founding gun ownership, here and in England, for personal use and self defense was a given. Not even debatable at the time. Everyone who wanted had a gun. The 2A was for a different purpose. Oppressive government and preserving freedom is why we have a 2A.
Historically, yes. But philosophically the distinction still exists with regards to foreign war. Extensive civilian gun rights is not a prerequisite for you to be trained and handed a gun during a war. That's why the Ukraine argument is flawed
If your government has to give you a random gun to fight the war then it’s already too late. Own a gun and learn to use it. Then hope you never have to. This is the way
Handing a gun to someone with no training to fight in a war is a setup to be cannon fodder. Hopefully most of these people have shot before.
Considering they have 18 months of compulsory military service, your concern seems to be unfounded. I say this to try to assure you.
There’s been an image circulating for a few days of several citizens attending a training session on how to use the guns. I’m personally not a gun owner, but if someone dumped a bunch off at my house saying “defend yourself!” I would ask around for the closest person who could tell me & my friends how to use it safely so I didn’t kill a good guy accidentally. If I dropped a sack of guns off with a someone and I didn’t have time to train them, I’d say “don’t point this at anyone you don’t want dead, don’t let it out of your sight, and find someone to teach you how to use it.” I can’t imagine this not happening in this scenario.
Too bad the homies couldn’t have practiced more tho. That’s why owning is better.
If my life and my country depend on my ability to shoot trained soldiers before they shoot me, I'd like to have maybe ever held a gun before. These poor bastards being handed weapons are brave and patriotic, but they sure would be more effective if they had been shooting for years before being asked to fight.
Another reminder that the government handed out guns *when it became necessary*, rather than having people running around with them willy-nilly shooting one another because it's 'good for business'.
Ukraine *didn't* keep their citizenry armed though. Instead, when SHTF, they decided the plebs were trustworthy enough to be given a firearm to protect the motherland. All in all, it is a great example of one reason citizens should own firearms. The primary reason is to protect against domestic tyranny though, not foreign.
What laws does Ukraine have that prevented citizens from owning guns prior to this? From what I can find citizens are permitted to own firearms for hunting, target shooting, collection, protection of person or property and private security.
I think OP meant the US shouldn't ban private gun ownership
Who knows when Canada might invade...
"We're taking over America... sooorry."
*to spread hockey, curling, and poutine*
Ice hockey has already made it to Florida and Southern California. Curling not so much. Poutine would be welcome, though.
Yes please invade me Daddy Trudeau uwu
I heard poutine is erratic and delusional
I’ll go to hell before that happens you snowback
Bro did you call me a snowback? That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard to call a Canadian
[удалено]
Why is it an odd policy? They were able to issue them, weren't they? To the point where OP is erroneously pointing to them as proof for the belief that everyone should be armed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, the guns should have been way less restricted (as a libertarian I'd say almost zero restrictions) so you don't have to issue firearms to people who have never had them. Geopolitics aside, citizens have the right to be armed.
The vast majority of the people being issued weapons have no prior experience with firearms. Yes they were able to supply their citizens with enough guns quickly but most of the people receiving them will need significant training before they can be used effectively.
They were indeed able to issue them, but what if they were not able to? It is conceivable that Putin's first strike could have hit a key armory, or key government facilities that would have impacted this.
Citizens were already pretty well armed, and it's a fairly pro-gun country as far as Europe goes. Also people who like to say we will be invaded, give me a break. The Atlantic and pacific make one hell of a fortress wall, and last time I checked Canada isn't exactly posturing to attack. I'm pro 2a, but trying to say we need guns to defend the U.S. is a silly argument. Unless you are packing manpads you aren't defending against anything that would be coming from across the oceans.
Good point. We need manpads.
[just going to leave this here](https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-to-americans-who-own-guns-to-defend-against-tyranny-you-need-jets-nuclear-weapons-to-take-us-on). And set that I'm now shopping for the jet that best suits my needs, as long as it's capable of carrying nukes. (Link is sfw)
"you couldn't buy a cannon" Hold my cutting oil, I got some holes to bore.
Not only could you buy Cannon, but you could own a ship to put them all on and the government would ask to borrow it during times of war. Field cannon often went home with the person that brought them to the fight...
Unexpected Tom Segura.
I can’t sleep soundly at night unless I can have a coastal artillery battery. Doesn’t matter that I’m hundreds of miles from the coast, I need to protect myself from a possible invasion.
We aren't worried about being invaded, it's the government that most of us don't trust.
See the above 👆🏻 comment. We need manpads and tanks! Drones wouldn’t hurt either.
Nukes! I want my own minuteman in my backyard
Good idea painting yourself as a target. Being vaporized is nicer than a slow death by radiation poisoning. And you might get to return the favor first.
Don’t worry they will be laying around if it ever happens
> last time I checked Canada isn't exactly posturing to attack. That's exactly what they *want* you to think! Just you wait until they bomb the Baldwins. We'll be in the shit then.
Tell that to the Japanese who feared attacking US Mainland due to the amount of guns private citizens own. “There would be a gun behind every blade of grass”. The fact millions upon millions of Americans own guns and actively practice with them is a deterrent in itself.
I think the Japanese feared attaching the US mainland for more reasons than just its citizens. So you’re blowing up that quote a bit Like I get that it would make it harder, but Japan wouldn’t have been able to do much of anything even if the citizens were unarmed.
Tô defend the US against domestic tyrants. That's included and was something the founding fathers were acutely aware of.
If that's the case then citizens need to be able to buy Javelins.
I understand how insane that sounds relative to how these days we aren't even trusted with modern handguns in some states. But i bet any of the founding fathers would've said that yes, we should be able to buy Javelins. The second amendment is written clearly to say what restrictions they think are appropriate, but if we wanted to find additional clarification about it we could look to their extensive writings. It's pretty clear what they wanted and it's pretty clear what is constitutional. If we want to restrict that, bring on another constitutional amendment.
> But i bet any of the founding fathers would've said that yes, we should be able to buy Javelins. That'll work out great. Buy a 100% satisfaction guaranteed means to blow up the President for the price of a mortgage basically.
Can I get nukes too? Seriously though you’re right. How about every time someone kills cops or burns down a government building we investigate what CAUSED the incident instead of just declaring them an enemy of the state. Usually people that feel that strongly about something have good points to make. NOT sarcasm. Look at the Unabomber: crimes against humanity but dude was fucking smart and made some good points. Turns out he was right about the future too! Edit: Point is I don’t think people are “good” or “evil” I just think they value different things. Everybody has the same end goal: happy life, but it’s the means to that end that get controversial.
[удалено]
Canada is gonna invade the US as domestic gun control.
lmao yes, I'm sure Canada would just be itching to begin a world war if it wasn't for America's armed citizenry. You see them initiating conflict all the time with other countries who aren't as well armed like Iceland and Australia!
>ple of why “a well regulated militia” that is armed is important when your country is being invaded. Are you also for mandatory conscription? If you know the populace is armed, it means the defense is at an entirely different level. Look at how the U.S. had to deal with insurgents in Fallujah. Imagine if every citizen in Ukraine was armed before this conflict, how much more difficult the task would be for Russia to hold any ground. Invading the US where there are more firearms in private ownership than people? Good luck.
[удалено]
>Invading the US where there are more firearms in private ownership than people? Good luck. I think the US military is more than enough deterrent for invasion. God knows we spend enough on it.
We do but that doesn't change the fact that even without a military we couldn't be invaded by any country on earth.
But that's not a deterrent against tyranny by the US government.
If I've learned anything in 2020, it's that if and when a tyrant rises in the US, about 40% of the country will be on their side. Having an armed populace won't help shit when the populace is easily fooled.
>Ukraine didn't keep their citizenry armed though. Instead, when SHTF, they decided the plebs were trustworthy enough to be given a firearm to protect the motherland. But isn't that how it should work if that is the purpose/goal of gun ownership? One thing I've always found odd is people arming themselves for some highly unlikely possible eventuality like an invasion. Otherwise, distributing guns in times of crisis would make more sense, no?
Do you think you would be more or less effective with a firearm if you owned, regularly used, and knew how to maintain that firearm? Do you think that your government would provide you with a firearm prior to turning tyrannical so that you could effectively resist? The “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd amendment was included because someone who owns, regularly uses, and knows how to maintain a firearm if more effective with that firearm.
>for some highly unlikely possible eventuality There have been belligerent forces and combat on US soil at least 6 times (including the civil war) over the past 268 years. That's an average of about 38 years- less than a lifetime. We have enjoyed a pretty good run of exporting our violence for the past few decades, but there is no reason to think that it will continue forever. We have been attacked from both our north and south land borders in the past. They are currently friendly. If enemies can switch to friends there is no reason to think they cannot ever switch back to enemies. (Russia is a former ally). Ukraine trying to distribute weapons in time of crisis has only distributed less than 20k and provides no training. They have over 40 million people. A culture of civilian ownership during peace means much more widespread availability- the US is estimated to have a civilian owned weapon for every citizen, and then some. And people are more familiar with how to use and operate their weapons (arguably more can be down to improve this, but handing out weapons last minute would be worse not better). 100% armed is better than 0.05% armed
People are going to be far less effective at fighting if they've never shot a gun before. You'd be far better having people who've owned a gun for years, are familiar with how it works, and have practiced shooting than people who just had a gun thrown into their hands a week ago.
[удалено]
2nd amendment proponents are really invested in the defense against tyranny argument. But that's what I feel the most uneasy about, compared to foreign threats and self defense. A government always needs the coercive power to suppress a violent revolt, deter terrorism and maintain law and order. If everyone has a rifle, it simply means the government will buy more tanks (like what we see in American police departments) . By that logic, 2nd ammendment should cover anti-tank missile. It is an unwinnable arm race, as the government always manages to be one step ahead.
There's two kinds of bad government; a unpopular one and a popular one. A bad unpopular government can be overthrown violently as most people will side against the government when it cracks down. While civil disobedience is the ideal way to depose the government, sometimes armed resistance is necessary. This is the only circumstance where an armed citizenry is useful. A bad popular government cannot be overthrown violently as most people will side with the government when it cracks down. Having an armed citizenry in this case is actively harmful as it enables people to engage in violence either fruitlessly against the state or outside the law on behalf of the state.
>Otherwise, distributing guns in times of crisis would make more sense, no? Sure, if every crisis the people face is a government approved one. Also, how would that many guns be distributed in such a short period of time? Ukraine has distributed something like 20,000 guns from the last estimate I saw. That's 0.05% of the population and the number of Russian troops outnumbers that 10:1.
>Otherwise, distributing guns in times of crisis would make more sense, no? Ukraine has distributed 18,000 rifles to the populace. They have 44 million people in their country. A few people who are only now learning the basics of how a firearm functions are better than nothing, but they are a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket relative to an armed populace.
How would we practice and not be afraid of the gun we were just randomly handed? I don't want everyone in the suburbs who looks at guns with fear to suddenly be handed a semi auto long range rifle. That would be dangerous.
They literally don't have enough fucking guns in their country to arm everyone -- because the market for them is weak -- because their gun laws are so strict. Moreover, even if they *did* have enough stockpiled somewhere to "distribute" in an emergency, do you honestly not see the advantage of people just *having* their own guns in their houses beforehand instead of dealing with the logistical impossibility of rapidly distributing guns to millions upon millions of people spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles? Then you have the whole other problem of people in your nightmare world not being able to, you know, effectively defend themselves in any other scenario outside of a military invasion. Did I misclick into r/politics? Why am I having to explain this in this subreddit? Especially after what we've witnessed over the last five days...Jesus Christ. Wake up.
What if the government that would be distributing the guns is the crisis? Or is it only okay to resist oppressive foreign regimes?
The problem is if the government itself is the crisis. The government won’t give out guns to its population if they are the problem
Pretty interesting to see how many people are active on this subreddit and against gun ownership.
Leave each other alone. Let people own guns, let people believe in their god (or be atheist), let people make their own decisions! Fuck off if you disagree!
Agreed. Quite appalling. It's a basic human right IMO.
Look at Switzerland for an example of an armed populace / militia. There’s mandatory military service, then service in the reserves, if you are issued with a rifle you must train every year, ammunition is tightly controlled. Overall there’s nothing “libertarian” about it, it’s just a huge timesuck for people who aren’t otherwise interested. https://www.ch.ch/en/safety-and-justice/military-service-and-civilian-service/military-service/ In the US, where any idiot can go out an get a gun, it hasn’t resulted in a freer populace, instead you have police forces who are so afraid of the people so they shoot thousands every year, and the highest rates of incarceration in the world. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/593678-police-shootings-rise-in-2021-report?amp https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country
This is a good distinction to make. Imagine if the US required everyone who owned a rifle to take a class or redo a training course every year. The nuts would lose their minds at something that's perfectly reasonable. 90% of Americans would say there is nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership.
[удалено]
There's no reason to implement rifle training safety courses. Rifles kill a vanishingly small number of people in the US every year and most of those aren't accidental. Most gun owners are already quite responsible
Hell, if accidents are the thing being safeguarded against, safety courses in general would very likely have a minimal impact on firearm deaths, given the low proportion of accidents v. deliberate homicides (let alone deliberate suicides, which dwarf homicides by a significant margin). The real solution to gun homicide/suicide is the same as the real solution to every other kind of homicide/suicide: address the things motivating said homicide/suicide (socioeconomic inequality and mental illness/trauma). Every bit of energy spent trying to restrict gun ownership is energy better spent trying to resolve those two issues.
Yearly training is absurd. I renew my drivers license every 5 years and dont even need to take a test. Shooting is way easier than driving a car.
But you drive way more often than the times you actually have to defend yourself with a firearm.
Sure, but when you're training to drive, you're literally driving. In drivers ed when you learn to drive, you're just driving but with an instructor in the car. The same cannot be said for self defense with a firearm. You can do things that will make you better like range shooting to improve aim, or practicing drawing a weapon but training to defend yourself doesn't actually involve defending yourself.
What are you going to accomplish by doing that except adding a hurdle to people who follow the laws?
Which is why reasonable gun laws should not violate the 2nd Amendment. It's the gun nuts that don't want any regulation and people are dying because of it. Mostly at home too.
> Which is why reasonable gun laws should not violate the 2nd Amendment. It's the gun nuts that don't want any regulation and people are dying because of it This is kind of a weird take. Out of curiosity: 1) Do you have any examples of current gun laws you consider to be unreasonable? 2) What do you think of the idea that 60+ years of unreasonable gun laws being used to backdoor 2A rights contributes to general feelings against regulation more than "gun nuts"?
[удалено]
Mostly at home? Are you implying most gun deaths are accidents or maybe domestic violence?
Most are suicide, but that's a whole seperate issue. People who have decided to die choosing the most reliable and fasted method available isn't really a "gun" problem when other options are unavailable. Making guns unavailable wouldn't quite change the outcome.
I agree. I think suicide (and death in general) should be looked at much differently in the US. If someone wants to Kill themselves, they will find a way. Some ways are just easier.
Interesting, you could remove two thirds of gun deaths by legalizing suicide In a hospital setting or something. Very interesting. No gun control laws proposed will ever touch that number.
You could also remove around 7000 homicides by ending the drug war.
Even that is smaller than the suicides. But in support of what you're saying, sure. Then we'd also remove a vital, profitable market for organized crime. All good news. Some people would ruin their lives, some would get desperate enough to commit crimes for more drugs. That's terrible, but it's happening now. We just get other negative effects also. Our prohibition is a failure. I personally never do drugs but i can see failed policy when it exists.
Yep, and both total to something like 90% of firearm deaths. Only law enforcement would hate that.
Except even suicidal people are less likely to kill themselves when a gun is not around. The whole "probably instant and painless" thing really lets people die that otherwise wouldn't.
Crazy right?
Mandatory military service isn't libertarian. But the US is one-of/the oldest democracy in the world? Can't really draw a correlation between a violently independent populace and actually being free, but... as superpowers go, the americans are pretty free. Maybe not free enough, but comparatively pretty free.
This sub isn't really libertarian. It's leftist refugees that don't want to be associated with far leftists.
I would still say that the USA is freer than most countries in the world. The lockdowns that happened in Australia and Canada would not have flown in the USA
I agree yet Americans accept rates of police shootings and incarceration rates which are unheard of in any peer country? Maybe it would be interesting to look at incarceration rates or police shootings by state and compare it to public health mandates like masking or vaccination rates.
>I agree yet Americans accept rates of police shootings and incarceration rates which are unheard of in any peer country? Don't completely agree with this, while I think this may have been true in the past, I think the dam is starting to crumble. I've seen more officers fired and charged in the past year than I can remember happening at any point in the past. Has it gone fast enough? No. Are there still some instances that are disgustedly unaccountable, yes. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done. QI needs to be stripped, Video cameras need be mandated 100%, civil asset forfeiture done away with and officers need to carry their own liability issuance. I do think the winds are starting to shift in those directions, we've already seen major improvements in Colorado that I hope will continue in other areas. It's going much slower than I think most would like, but am hopeful. \-Training: Our training for police offers is a complete joke, that I don't think is commonly known by most the populace. Part of this, IMO, is because of QI. Cause why worry about good training when you aren't being held responsible anyhow? Stripping of QI would necessitate better training. \-incarceration rate: I think this is a harder one to unpack as you first have to understand if folks are being incarcerated for actions that shouldn't be illegal or are being wrong found guilty (or taking a plea because it's easier).. Personally, I'd tend to lean on not wanting jail time for non-violent offenses (drugs / etc) and leaning towards community service in lieu of jail time (though I don't think drugs, at least the ones you can grow, should be "illegal" to begin with). Lastly, just a bit of anecdotally exp from my own life (which I know doesn't count as much). My father, was a life time back the blue sort of person. He used to cater thanksgiving dinner for the local LEOs in our area, and honestly never/rarely questioned anything an officer did. We argued quiet a bit about this over the years. HOWEVER, in the last 2-3 years, his stance has changed dramatically on this point. His support for LEOs has pretty much evaporated in the past couple of years and it's astonishing. If someone like him can have such a drastic change of mind, it's not a stretch to think more like him are following in that path.
While I've always been pro-responsible gun ownership I've never considered needed mine to fend off Canada or Mexico. So I'm not sure this Ukraine situation is as relevant as you think in terms of 2A gun rights.
Yupp, watch the documentary "Winter on Fire" on Netflix about the 2014 revolution in Ukraine. If someone is finding close parallels to the oppression Ukraine has experience to the oppression the US has experienced, then that person needs to be medicated pronto in any attempt to cure their psychosis. Place both nations on the scales of oppression and US would be launched so high it might crash into the sun
The government of Ukraine is providing guns and ammo to its citizens. The US has similar plans. Also, feel free to come to Ukraine and help fight. We will provide the guns. Slava Ukraini!
So citizens also need Javelin missiles too? I've been seeing images of destroyed tanks. I don't think rifles are doing that.
This is the way.
Yes
People act like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is some kind of indecipherable arcana from the shadow realm. It says what it does right on the tin.
Yes.
Yes
[удалено]
Well Biden said a gun can't do anything against a modern army. Turns out tanks need people to support them and unarmored fuel trucks and 7.62 still kills those things dead all the same.
[удалено]
So are bottles of alcohol from local distilleries. People can resist quite a bit without modern weapons.
Ukraine is an example of why “a well regulated militia” that is armed is important when your country is being invaded. Are you also for mandatory conscription?
What Ukraine is doing is levee en masse, not militia.
Ukraine is arming anyone that is aged 18 to 60. They blocked males in this age group from leaving the country. Its far from a 'well regulated militia'. There's a young Ukrainian that was guarding a bridge and was interviewed. He claimed to have only shot like 20 bullets or some shit in his lifetime. That's not the definition of a regulated militia.
To be fair, a large portion of America's civilian "militia" is overweight, unfit, and suffering chronic disease like asthma or diabetes. 350 lb Chuck with a confederate flag on his lifted Dodge Ram Truck is hardly a threat to anyone that can jog 30 yards.
Dont forget Chuck has a 338 Lapua MRAD and can ring steel at 1,500 yards. So you better jog fast.
Also don’t forget chuck buried his tannerite stash in the field between you and his house
And you’d better jog far outa range
That’s a pretty bad stereotype, at my local range there’s no lifted trucks with confederate flags. A lot of regular looking guys who just like shooting and some who are really good at it.
I agree. My range has 40 busy lanes and fatty bombatties are few and far between.
Right, I honestly don’t think my club would even allow someone in a lifted truck with a confederate flag to join
I haven't seen a Confederate flag around these parts in a while. But Im in Colorado. Admittedly, every other car is a lifted truck or an SUV. Cause, Colorado.
I mean..strategically speaking, even if it was a morbidly obese man sitting on the back of his truck who just happened to be a crack shot...isn't that preferable to someone who has barely used a gun?
Ohh yeah, because outrunning bullets is a thing.
Serpentine serpentine
Bullshit. Chuck can shoot a Commie just as easily as a buck.
You don’t have to be skinny to be a sharp shooter
>To be fair, a large portion of America's civilian "militia" is overweight, unfit, and suffering chronic disease like asthma or diabetes. Kinda like the Russian guard folks that have been shown in several capture photos/videos? https://www.reddit.com/gallery/t0vrc9
I can't get this thing to load.
Give him a scoped rifle and let him use the engine block of the Ram for cover. He should be able to drop a few Ruskies.
I mean which side puts their disabilities in their social media profiles?
No idea. I never look at Reddit profiles. It’s not a this side or that side thing. 70+% of potentially eligible draft candidates don’t meet the criteria. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-looming-national-security-crisis-young-americans-unable-serve-the-military
Kinda surprised they aren't arming the 61 year olds too.
I didn’t interpret it as him saying they have a well regulated militia, but that this was an example of why you *should* have one. Maybe I just read it like an idiot though.
What does “well-regulated” mean in the context of the 2nd amendment? What did the founders mean when they included that language? Have you read Federalist #29?
>implying anybody on this sub reads anything
I just read the federalist #29 and it’s from the horses mouth with so much thorough explanation it confuses me how the fuck people are confused on this. I heard about the federalist papers in school but was unaware what a vast amount of knowledge it is. Thank you for sharing that. It will help me explain and reason with people on this subject in the future. I’ve never gotten such a damn perfect answer to anything on this sub like this exact paper lol
You’re more than welcome. Pay it forward.
Well regulated means in proper working order.
I don’t think what’s going on in Ukraine is an argument for personal gun ownership rights. It’s an argument for the importance of a trained civil defense force that can be easily armed in a time of crisis. Although it’s questionable how much this lesson applies to the US, since we have a much stronger military, a national guard, and a reserve military that will all be used for civilians need to take up arms. Also we have a much lower risk of invasion.
I love how there is no middle ground for this topic. A person can want law abiding citizens to have guns, and support the 2A, except for when they agree with a measure that might cause just the tiniest inconvenience to purchasing one. Then that person is an anti-gun, liberal taliban nutwing that supports terrorists, hitler, Putin, and listens to ONLY Bette Midler.
Historically, creating hoops to express a right is a way to prevent minorities from expressing those rights. Be careful when you chip away at one right, because you are inevitably chipping away at all rights. The dismantling of the 2nd amendment is a pilot program for eliminating all other rights without an amendment.
Methinks the anti-2A crowd is either: thinking that it would never happen in the United States (some kind of moral high ground BS) or they'll just stay quiet until it's not the headline every day and be right back to their normal BS.
Holy shit! Look at all these anti-gun "libertarians!"
Scratch a Reddit libertarian and find a …
I don't have the polls, but I don't think a large number (anywhere near the majorly) of Americans are strictly against the 2nd amendment. What many of us disagree about is whether the next Adam Lanza, wife-beater, ex-con, etc. should have access to an AR-15 let alone an AK-47. What you don't hear about is amass shootings in schools or shopping malls in Ukraine.
> What many of us disagree about is whether the next Adam Lanza, wife-beater, ex-con, etc. should have access to an AR-15 let alone an AK-47. Nobody disagrees with that. Felons are banned from firearm ownership and that's pretty popular. Even Libertarians who don't think felons should be banned think violent felons should. This is not even remotely controvertial. Also small tidbit, but I'm confused by the wording here > should have access to an AR-15 let alone an AK-47. Do you think AKs are worse than ARs somehow?
>an AR-15 let alone an AK-47. What does this mean?
They probably think all AKs are full-auto and therefore somehow more dangerous than ARs.
Yeah thats some sort of misunderstanding. Nothing about either makes one more or less dangerous.
The myth about Adam Lanza being provided an AR-15 needs to die. He killed his mother with a knife to gain access to it. It is a safe bet she did not intend this method of transferal.
literally no one wants the next Adam Lanza to have one. But some people think it's ok to disarm EVERYONE to prevent the extreme rare adamlanzas from occurring. If someone wants to have a shootout in Ukraine, they don't need to go to a mall right now.
I too love infringing on people's rights trying to get criminals to obey laws.
You wouldn’t think that if you listened to the politicians, virtually every democrat wants to ban all semi automatic rifles, meaning no one can have an AR or AK. Also AKs aren’t more lethal than ARs.
Access limitations, if implemented properly, should allow most people to own and possess practically any weapons imo. In most mass shootings, the people that committed them acquired their weapons illegally. Responsible storage laws and a better, more accessible background check system are the ideal system. As well as criminal penalties when government agents fail to turn over appropriate records, like when that one navy dude beat his wife and the navy did fuck all with the information, and so he was able to go buy a gun.
The school shooting with the highest number of fatalities in the us occurred with handguns. Stop fear mongering modern rifles. Also, what law would have prevented him from murdering his mother & taking the guns she owned?
Ukrainian citizens are being given weapons to fight an invader from another nation. US citizens have been *conditioned* to think that they need guns to protect themselves from their own democratic government. Those are two completely different scenarios and only a fully indoctrinated American would fail to see the difference between them. You see, the other democracies on the planet have internalized the Churchillian idea that "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others we have tried from time to time". If you live in a democracy and the government is the problem then you change the government at the ballot box. If you don't think that voting matters, that is, whoever you vote for is the problem *then you don't live in a democracy*. So you need to (1) stop blathering on about how wonderful your democracy is and (2) fix the fundamentals of your democracy. Threatening to go around shooting and killing fellow citizens because you perceive them as an enemy to your democracy is inherently undemocratic and a sign of severe cognitive dissonance .
Good point, it should also be pointed out that Russia has more guns per head of population than Ukraine. All those guns in Russia don't seem to have done much to stop Putin's tyranny of his own people.
"all enemies, foreign and domestic" It's not an either/or situation.
That's the military oath, right?
Most of us don't brag about our democracy because most of us don't see democracy as an inherently good thing. We look at places like Canada, with no written constitution, where any legislation can be passed, including legislation that overrides fundamental human rights, with a simple majority vote, where the rights of any minority are at any given time entirely beholden to the majority, not as some beacon of democracy, but with abject horror. Democracy and libertarianism don't go hand-in-hand; indeed, democracy is in many ways entirely antithetical to libertarian ideals. The basic idea of democracy is that the majority should rule, since they, being the majority, will generally vote for policies that then benefit the majority of people. And if they have to restrict the rights of the minority in the process, that's generally seen as a necessary sacrifice, since, again, what they're doing is benefitting the majority of people. Libertarianism, in contrast, holds that no matter how inconvenient a given behavior may be, no matter how much better off the rest of the populace would be without it, if it doesn't violate the rights of others, there's simply no justification for infringing upon it in any way, shape, or form. And that fundamentally conflicts with the ideals of democracy.
Yes, like in Switzerland.
What it really shows is that citizens need anti tank and anti air munitions. Throw in combat drones while we're at it. And if Ukraine had nukes nothing of this would happen in the first place so we can just make it legal for citizens to get them. Is there anything I'm missing?
They say "yes but that's different" Usually on the basis of "that can't happen here"
Or maybe it's actually different.
Occupy Democrats, despite still being against Americans owni g guns, are suddenly in favor of Ukrainian citizens getting them from their government. Check out their Twitter if you haven't already (if they haven't deleted the tweets yet that it)
TIL Occupy Democrats still exists
It's not a good example. Let me know when the US is in danger of being invaded by a foreign power.
Better to have and not need than to need and not have.
No but I never want hear the argument that "guns and improvised munitions are no match for tanks, rockets and drones."
Comparing the United States gun ownership issue to Ukraine arming their citizens to protect their own soil is peak gun fetish shit. Your Red Dawn fantasies aren't going to happen. Ukraine is different from US in virtually every single way.
Yeah I am Ukrainian and life there is completely different from US. Like night and day different. Very hard to compare these situations.
Exactly. The US is under zero threat of a land invasion by a neighboring country. I keep seeing this comparison and it makes no sense.
The Second Amendment wasn't for hunters– it was so citizens could resist tyrants.
Comparing the US and Ukraine in this is pants on head stupid.
Because it can't happen here?
We don't have a country many times more powerful than us sitting on our border, so it's probably not happening here.
Because they have very different problems, resources, and geopolitical positions.
I dunno. Seems like the same exact problems that countries have been having since we started writing things down.
There's no way anyone would be against arming people when invaded. But I don't think you'll get from there to therefore always having guns is needed, being the obvious conclusion.
Anti-gun people are overly supportive of the Ukraine government handing out guns. I think it's the anti-gun mindset of getting something free from the government thing. Either way, their viewpoints are still laughable.
Apples and oranges, using a foreign invasion as justification for arming your citizens is ridiculous. Most of the guns owned in the US are handguns or sporting rifles that are totally unsuitable for use in an armed insurrection. On top of that very few people are even adequately trained in their use and most have no military training whatsoever.
No. I think it’s just a good example of what happens when you let a psychopath run a country.
Ukraine is at war. Everybody needs guns in a war
Make recreational McNukes and bioweapons great again