/r/progun
This is a place for discussion and debate of Second Amendment related topics, with a Pro-2A emphasis.
Civil debate is welcome and encouraged. Even if you're completely opposed to 2A, you're welcome to share your thoughts here, as long as you maintain civility.
Reddit Gun Network Subreddit List
Second Amendment Foundation Amazon Link
Rules:
1: Debate and civil discussion is allowed and encouraged. Insults, trolling, and brigading will be removed and may result in a ban at moderator discretion.
2: It shouldn't have to be said, but racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc of any kind is not allowed.
3: No Memes. No low quality image/meme submission that don't contribute in a meaningful/intellectual way towards gun politics. Do not post screenshots of tweets, Facebook, instagram, articles - post the actual link.
4: This is a pro gun subreddit. All posts must related to gun politics, and civil discussion is encouraged.
5: Any threats or intimations of violence will result in an immediate and permanent ban.
6: No discussing of the private sales of firearms or any other reddit banned items.
7: No reposts within 1 year. No crossposting.
8: Follow all Reddit-wide rules (i.e. DO NOT post personal information of any user, obscure usernames, etc.). We actively discourage linking to reddit threads, but if you do - please be sure to utilize the "np." prefix to discourage participation in the linked thread. Brigading will be answered with bans.
All rules subject to moderator discretion
See also:
State/regional subreddits
Other regional/international gun subreddits
/r/pdxgunnuts (OR) | /r/PhillyGuns (PA) |
/r/TxGuns (TX) | /r/austinguns (TX) |
/r/DFWGuns (TX) | /r/HoustonGuns (TX) |
/r/SanAntonioGuns (TX) | /r/BayAreaGunMeetups (CA) |
/r/northeastguns | /r/CanadaGuns |
/r/SwissGuns | /r/aussieshooters |
/r/gunmeetups |
/r/progun
From what I understand when you apply they can deny you a permit to carry for any number of reasons, some valid, some that appear arbitrary. But if you don't get approved for the pistol permit, you're right to bear arms in Connecticut has essentially been stripped from you. How is that legal?
I am not even sure how "suitability" is even legal to get a permit. I mean they could say something stupid like only members of one political party can have them. As far as I know suitability is not in the Second Amendment. Regulation and outright banning are two different things. I'm not talking about a felon or someone with one of the charges they say disqualifies you, although I am against that, too, nothing should disqualify you from rights unless you are IN custody, but to say you're not being able to carry in public means you also cannot have one in the home that never leaves the house (unless you move), essentially strips that right away completely.
So why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled on that? I kind of thought they did with the Heller case, but did they leave it open to interpretation by the states? I found an article here on it. The "suitability review" is what I am talking about: how is that legal? Like the article says it is arbitrary and could take years to appeal if they say no.
For the record, I have not applied, but may choose to do so in the near future, I am just curious about how things like that are legal.
Now that Hunter Biden has been pardoned for the crime of being in possession of drugs while possessing a firearm, I think now is as good of a time as ever to federally legalize firearm ownership for recreational/medical marijuana users. It's a victimless crime, marijuana use and firearm crimes have zero correlation, and it's also 100% unconstitutional as it's just another excuse to bar people (especially people of color historically) from firearm ownership. Thoughts?
I was wondering how others feel about Biden pardoning Hunter? It seems to me that the left loses meat in their argument for further restrictive legislation, when exixting laws are not enforced (at least if you know the president apparently).
In case anyone has forgotten.
How likely is it that we can get the NFA repealed now that Republicans have control of the house and senate?
We don't have the numbers in the Senate to get anything substantial passed, such as the SHUSH Act due to the lack of a Filibuster proof majority even if their was the will to do so (which I dont believe there is in either chamber) and our margins in the House are even thinner than the last Congress. So hope for the legislative branch is all but gone.
By a miracle of God, if the Republicans grew a pair of balls, they could attach it to a reconciliation bill, which can't be filbustered. But let's be real. That isn't likely.
However, I am still hopeful that on the net/net, the Trump presidency will indirectly be a win for the 2nd Amendment via the judges Trump appoints to the Federal Judiciary and hopefully the Supreme Court if a vacancy arises.
To be clear, this isnt meant to be a debate or argument, i just want to hear what yall think on this topic to gather a general consensus in a civil and genuine manner. The following describes the situation and my take/thoughts about it:
There is a channel on youtube which covers 2a news and one of the topics was a man who "illegally" resided in the US whom was in possession of a firearm. The guy got caught BUT the judge ruled in favor of him citing the 2nd amendment. I thought this was fairly agreeable but people in the comments (along with the host of the video) did not like this at all the main point made was that "he entered illegally and therefore has NO RIGHTS!!" which kinda baffled me because are we suddenly in favor of the government having a say on our (what is in my opinion an inalienable right) right to firearms? Granted, I can make exception to people like sex offenders and domestic abusers/violent felons since there is definitive reason to say "this person shouldn't own a gun", but as I see it to apply this same restriction on people who are, more often than not, just looking for a better life and job to support their family? Because of what the government of all people has said should apply to these people? Further, ideas of other illegal activity might be asserted in which illegally entering would be a step among many.
I find it similar to comparing someone who smokes weed every now and again to a drug dealer affiliated with cartels - I'm sure there are cases that might be true but there should be a burden of proof to push that idea; in this case though its more like instead of doing that we just say "doing drugs of any kind is now illegal, now the problem of drug dealing is solved!" - which I mean, probably not? Even then, who are you to say what I should and should not take/smoke if it doesnt directly affect anybody?
I think in general any regulation of our rights is a net negative and that the right to self preservation (and by extension the ownership of firearms, that being the most technologically adequate means as of now) should not be touched by the government with exception to those who have, in a court of law, proven they will abuse this power. I'm not pro-illegal immigration though to be clear, I think illegal immigration should be stopped and that our borders should be secure - I just think being complicit is any such regulation sets a dangerous precedent with respect to idea that the right to self preservation(especially by means of firearms) is inalienable.
Idk, that's my thoughts on it though and would like to hear what yall think on the topic.
I asked someone recently and they gave some answers I was expecting such as mandatory gun registration, capacity restriction, and banning urban open carry.
But they also gave a couple policies that really blew my mind: a complete civilian handgun ban and a ban on all semi automatic firearms.
To me, it was not well thought out to call those "common sense" and it has me wondering if the majority of people who bring up "common sense laws" are actually pushing heavy handed bans like this.
I might go as far as to call it disingenuous, but maybe most people who use this term do not go as far. What are the usual items you encounter under the "common sense" umbrella?
Hello folks. I'll start with the caveat, I understand some people here would not like new people from other countries in America, but I'm sorry, this is intended for those who don't mind, or who like new people who align with their beliefs.
I'm a Colombian citizen living in Colombia. Since I have memory I have been madly in love with firearms, their mechanics and functioning, and today I sometimes help in instructing people and security personnel in a security academy.
Colombia is an abdolute POS for someone like me, and safe to say, it is a country that blatantly and grossly violates people's basic human right of bearing arms for their self defense unless you are wealthy enough to pay for a bunch of paperwork and USD3.2K for A SIMPLE GLOCK 19 5 GEN OR A 43X, and don't let me get started with the costs and availability of ammunition and the stupid processes for carry permits.
For a good long time now it has been my dream to work as a firearms instructor or otherwise in the firearms industry; it's the only thing that authentically makes me feel alive and that I love with true passion, but this country, and what's more, our Kamala Harris+Nancy pelosi (in terms of political affiliation) of a president is a complete numbnut when it comes to firearm laws and planned a complete civilian disarment since the beginning of his campaign.
Now, to the core matter, how eady or how difficult would it be for a foreigner to not only live 100% legally in the US and start working in this field? I sometimes lose all hope, but there's a small glimmer of it if I could somehow end up living in the US. I'm a fervent supporter of the 2A since the first time I read it, and it's one of my core values, but for me, this won't go anywhere here.
Thanks for reading this lame sob story, and feel free to ask how firearm laws and prices are here if you want to get pissed off for free.