It's a threat to their masculinity.
figmentPez
Staff member
They could be used to forcibly remind men that women exist for non-sexual purposes. This would be a very embarrassing thing for the major sources of
Tampons Confiscated, Guns Allowed as Texas Senate Debates Abortion
State troopers confiscated tampons and maxi pads from people entering the Texas Senate gallery on Friday afternoon as senators began debating a controversial new abortion regulations that are almost certain to pass.
www.theatlantic.com
Non-twitter news source.
I'm pretty sure you can throw a gun at a legislator, too.Tampons Confiscated, Guns Allowed as Texas Senate Debates Abortion
State troopers confiscated tampons and maxi pads from people entering the Texas Senate gallery on Friday afternoon as senators began debating a controversial new abortion regulations that are almost certain to pass.
Non-twitter news source.
Evidently, the last time Texas tried to pass this legislation, people in the gallery disrupted the proceedings by throwing pads and the like. I don't imagine anyone threw guns the first time
Traditionally, you wait to throw your gun at someone until after you have expended all your ammunition.
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
It is not illegal to own a bazooka (or an RPG for that matter) but you pay very hefty transfer taxes on them and the ammunition.
Dave
Staff member
This is stupid for several reasons. First, it's a single shot weapon so ammunition costs is not a thing. Second, the one he's wearing has already been fired so it's nothing more than an inert tube. Third, this proves it's not about exercising his rights to anything is is more for intimidation than anything.
Big fucking surprise.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ammo isn't a thing for a single shot LAW, sure, but it is for other recoilless rifles and RPGs. Last I looked into it, the transfer fee (tax) on purchasing such things was a flat $200 a pop. As in, per round.
Dave
Staff member
As it should be. Actually it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be available to fucking civilians. But in the case of the picture in question, your point was not right. For other weapons of the same type, yes, but not the subject at hand.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, my post was a little nebulous I guess, because I expanded it ("This is not illegal to own, and neither are other things like it"). So yeah, this guy is a chuuni dumbass for hauling around an empty tube on his back to look intimidating. But it's not illegal.
I disagree about what should be available to civilians, but you know that, and I know you know that, and we both know there's not much point in hashing it all out again.
It's not real freedom until i can own my own nuke, and y'all know it...
GasBandit
Staff member
There's actually no law preventing private ownership of nuclear weapons.
Just a whole lot of restrictions on the fissile material it takes to make them.
Does any country have laws that say you can't build your own nuke?
GasBandit
Staff member
You know, I'm not sure, actually.
Might want to check Sealand.
Also discovered this yesterday:
Yes, you're looking at a 2-shot 12ga top-break pistol that you can buy for about $500 and have mailed to your door.
But it's okay! It's legal because it's a black powder pistol, which means it is considered part of the musket family. Just a veeeery short one.
The reviewer suggests that it is good for close-range use only, but not exactly suited for things like suprise duck hunting. Penetration is lackluster, and maintenance/loading are a chore.
Sooooo it looks intimidating, but it's really not very effective for defense...and should appeal to the people who fit that exact description.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Gonna need a citation on that. WMD is a treaty thing, not a law enforcement thing, from what I've read. At least in the US.
Right, but those are considered to be "sawed-off shotguns" and therefore subject to restrictions similar to those imposed on machine guns--extra tax, registration, documentation of transfer, etc. The Diablo is no doubt marketed to people who do not wish to be burdened with such things.
--Patrick
Maybe not illegal to own but certainly illegal to use, threaten, or attempt or conspire to use a WMD. Although - from a purely theoretical POV - it might be interesting to see someone defend themselves from being charged with threatening to use a nuke by claiming 1st Amendment rights.
I suspect that if someone did own, or was attempting to build, their own WMD in the US that the US Gov would treat the mere possession of said WMD as an attempt to use it & charge them appropriately. I further suspect that such a person would almost certainly be "killed resisting arrest", regardless of how much they actually resisted.
I'm pretty sure this was a plot in metal gear
figmentPez
Staff member
"Oh no! We didn't violate the treaty. You see, that bomb belongs to one of our citizens. The government of our honorable country bears no responsibility for what a citizen owns."
Governments are bound by treaties. Citizens are bound by laws. I'm assuming that this is what Gas is referring to.
That said:
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2009&context=facpub
"In the United States, treaties also have the status of law in the domestic legal system. The Supremacy Clause declares treaties to be the "supreme Law of the Land" and instructs the courts to give them effect."
Article VI can be read in full here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi but I'll quote the relevant clause
figmentPez
Staff member
Yes, and if governments are bound by treaties, then they must enforce them, and I don't see how anyone would buy the "I'm not responsible for the WMDs my citizens own, that I was fully aware of, and intentionally gave them the right to possess."