Probably not, since people who arent ammosexuals don’t make a big deal out of their ownership, constantly obsess over guns, or constantly talk about how they’re gonna patriotically shoot and kill everyone they deem the “other”
So the only experiene anyone has with firearms people, are generally the people who should least own firearms.
But people can’t buy whatever they want. I can’t buy drugs, but I would like to. So clearly simply wanting to buy something isn’t enough. So why are gun suppressors an exception?
Yeah but that’s the point it’s an arbitrary distinction. People somewhere make an arbitrary distinction about what people can and cannot do.
The gun nuts would go mad if the Constitution were changed but only because it’s an inconvenience to themselves. If the Constitution said you couldn’t have guns and it were changed so you could, they’d be all for that. So it’s not actually about the Constitution, it’s mostly about themselves.
So freedom of speech or assembly is arbitrary? Regardless, it is still a fact that the constitution does not grant an inalienable right to recreational drugs, making this a false equivalency. You can’t dispute that.
shh, you can’t give critique to the gun fetishists. it summons their brigading bullshit bands, the best you can get is transparent ‘it’s about safety’ lol. as if these idiots don’t already have tinnitus. Funny they won’t wear their plugs and cans to defend their ears, but they’ll whine piss and moan about paying for the suppressor tax.
they’re gravy seals who want to complete their cosplay kit.
You’re not being brigaded, you’re simply incorrect. Hearing protection is still required when using a suppressor btw as it can still result in hearing loss.
There’s always a reasonable limit to individual freedom. Like you can’t say fire in a crowded theater. If you completely uphold individual freedom at the expense of the community, everyone will eventually suffer.
Edit: keep down voting. Y’all are wrong and you know it. It’s an uncomfortable truth. Grow up.
Fire in a theatre presents a clear and immediate danger to the public and can cause immediate harm. Same with bomb in an airport. Buying a suppressor does not oresent a clear or immediate danger not cause immediate harm. A better analogy for the 2nd amendment would be open carry, which is often banned in certain places and has more restrictions. Buying 27 suppressors is closer to buying a lot of offensive t-shirts.
What does he need all shit that for? He’s only got the two hands.
Why does it matter? People should be able to buy what they want
Its not unusual for these people to be part of alt right militia movement. They’re likely buying bulk for their terrorist organizations.
Do you know how many SRA members also collect guns?
Probably not, since people who arent ammosexuals don’t make a big deal out of their ownership, constantly obsess over guns, or constantly talk about how they’re gonna patriotically shoot and kill everyone they deem the “other”
So the only experiene anyone has with firearms people, are generally the people who should least own firearms.
True. I probably should have just said that a lot of SRA members also collect guns.
But people can’t buy whatever they want. I can’t buy drugs, but I would like to. So clearly simply wanting to buy something isn’t enough. So why are gun suppressors an exception?
Seems like a false equivalency as the constitution doesn’t grant an inalienable right to recreational drugs
Yeah but that’s the point it’s an arbitrary distinction. People somewhere make an arbitrary distinction about what people can and cannot do.
The gun nuts would go mad if the Constitution were changed but only because it’s an inconvenience to themselves. If the Constitution said you couldn’t have guns and it were changed so you could, they’d be all for that. So it’s not actually about the Constitution, it’s mostly about themselves.
So freedom of speech or assembly is arbitrary? Regardless, it is still a fact that the constitution does not grant an inalienable right to recreational drugs, making this a false equivalency. You can’t dispute that.
shh, you can’t give critique to the gun fetishists. it summons their brigading bullshit bands, the best you can get is transparent ‘it’s about safety’ lol. as if these idiots don’t already have tinnitus. Funny they won’t wear their plugs and cans to defend their ears, but they’ll whine piss and moan about paying for the suppressor tax.
they’re gravy seals who want to complete their cosplay kit.
You’re not being brigaded, you’re simply incorrect. Hearing protection is still required when using a suppressor btw as it can still result in hearing loss.
There’s always a reasonable limit to individual freedom. Like you can’t say fire in a crowded theater. If you completely uphold individual freedom at the expense of the community, everyone will eventually suffer.
Edit: keep down voting. Y’all are wrong and you know it. It’s an uncomfortable truth. Grow up.
Fire in a theatre presents a clear and immediate danger to the public and can cause immediate harm. Same with bomb in an airport. Buying a suppressor does not oresent a clear or immediate danger not cause immediate harm. A better analogy for the 2nd amendment would be open carry, which is often banned in certain places and has more restrictions. Buying 27 suppressors is closer to buying a lot of offensive t-shirts.
hording weapons doesn’t hurt anyone
tell that to the 60 murdered and 413 wounded in vegas by a gun hoarder.
that was from using guns, not hording them
lol, how does one employ a horde of arms without amassing the horde?
Look we get it, this is your fetish, you’re not going to reply with any kind of reason.
I just like hording, regardless what it is being horded
go back to reddit you chud
That’s not the aspect of this that bothers me, given how many D&D players I know who own hundreds of dice.
Suppressors get used up when you use them. They’ll clog up.
baffles, wipes sure… the cans themselves? nah, not realistically a consumable.