noauthority.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Long live NAS!

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.4K
active users

@Murray_N i mean firearms training the citizen is fine. that's how the USA is supposed to be anyway. networks of civil militias.

mostly though you just gotta stop militarizing the police.

@freemo @teknomunk @realcaseyrollins

@icedquinn @teknomunk @Murray_N @freemo I don't get the phrase "militarizing the police". I don't think I'd want to live in a country where cops *can't* have guns, like in the .

People should just be able to use any gun the cops can use.

@realcaseyrollins @icedquinn @Murray_N @freemo

I would go a step further and say that it should be legal for people to own (and use responsibly) any personal arm that mikitary infantry can. The people should be on parity with both the police and the military to the greatest extent possible.

@teknomunk @icedquinn @Murray_N @freemo Nah, I wanna keep the caveat that this should only apply to arms the police can use.

The police cannot use tanks or rocket launchers, for example, so it's fine if citizens cannot. What do cops need a tank for, realistically? And if a cop doesn't have a tank, the citizens don't need tanks either.

@realcaseyrollins @icedquinn @Murray_N @freemo

There was a reason I specified infantry arms specifically.

Do I think citizens could responsibly use a rocket laucher? Yes, given ranges specifically built for the purpose like the military have, appropriate training requirements (well regulated in the 2nd amendment refers to training) and prohibiting criminals and those with diagnosed and legally ajudicated mental health defects. Cost alone would prevent most people from owning, much less using, a rocket launcher.

Same thing for automatic guns, grenades and other items that you would expect an infantry soldier to carry.

None of this, of course, removes the responsibility to not cause bodily harm or kill others, or damage the property of others.

I am okay with crewed weapons like tanks, artillary, jets and ships being treated differently, and in particular requiring a level of insurance to be carried to be able to legally operate them with active weapons. A tank without a functional gun is not much different than a tracked backhoe.
casey is remote

@teknomunk @icedquinn @Murray_N @freemo I think one problem with legalizing RPGs for citizens is that either a) citizens could attack law enforcement while they have no recourse for self defense due to a lack of comparable weaponry, and b) terrorists could get their hands on such a weapon and attack the government or citizens, with similar results.

@realcaseyrollins

Wait, I didnt know Role Playing Games were illegal!

In all seriousness though my stance is similar to yours but one step up... Any weapon allowed on US soil, to be used against US citizenry, by the government should be legal to own by a citizen.

That would mean either we would need to make it illegal to deploy the national guard against its own citizens or would need to allow US citizens to have military weapons. I'd be ok with either of these two outcomes.

@teknomunk @icedquinn @Murray_N

@realcaseyrollins @icedquinn @Murray_N @freemo

The police (and military) currently have access to more weaponry than the rest of us do. I don't foresee tbem ever having access to less weaponry than the citizens, so between the two options "citizens have less weaponry than police/military" and "citizens have access to the same weaponry as police/military" I prefer the latter.

@teknomunk

I always thought it was silly when people went "The military has more weapons than you"... my response is usually "and how is that an argument to give them a bigger advantage than what they already have?"

@realcaseyrollins @icedquinn @Murray_N

@realcaseyrollins @icedquinn @Murray_N @freemo

> citizens could attack the police

Police that are on good terms with the citizens would have other citizens come to their aid if attacked by one.

Police on bad terms with the citizens would be left to fend for themselves.

The first is objectively better for everyone involved. Those fearing general civilian armerment expect or have the latter and want more powerful weapons.