Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Speaking on the subject of substituting other weapons for guns, I thought Sweden was interesting. Sweden has some tight gun control laws but strangely poor legal control of their explosives (being caught carrying a grenade used to be a 6 month sentence while a pistol was 2-6 years). As a result, Sweden has bombings and grenade use at an absurd rate, they actually have about the same number of bomb attacks as Mexico.
en.wikipedia.org
web.archive.org
Bombings in Sweden - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Why Swedish gangs use hand grenades (and what the country is doing about it)
In the latest edition of our <a href=https://www.thelocal.se/tag/sweden+in+focus>Sweden in Focus</a> series, The Local looks at Sweden's struggle to crack down on hand grenades and illegal weapons.
web.archive.org
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
With most common being M-75, although on the picture there are also many M-52 with M-75 fuze
f1onagher
Well-known member
I've not been impressed with the supreme court as of late but what the fuck? Who thought that was in any way permissible and not an open invitation for abuse?
They've been talking about that a bit over on SB's gun control thread. Apparently grenades are classified as flammable devices rather than weapons so the jail time is shorter than using a gun.Speaking on the subject of substituting other weapons for guns, I thought Sweden was interesting. Sweden has some tight gun control laws but strangely poor legal control of their explosives (being caught carrying a grenade used to be a 6 month sentence while a pistol was 2-6 years). As a result, Sweden has bombings and grenade use at an absurd rate, they actually have about the same number of bomb attacks as Mexico.
Bombings in Sweden - Wikipedia
Why Swedish gangs use hand grenades (and what the country is doing about it)
In the latest edition of our <a href=https://www.thelocal.se/tag/sweden+in+focus>Sweden in Focus</a> series, The Local looks at Sweden's struggle to crack down on hand grenades and illegal weapons.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
It does point a lot to why gun control advocates are so eager to frame things as gun deaths rather than allow other weapons to be involved in the calculation, people without access to guns just substitute other weapons.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
That happens because the people pushing for anti-gun legislation are merely trying to destroy what guns represent; namely, one's ability to exert power over one's environment. They want us all subservient to the state, like them, but they don't really care what criminal elements do; except insofar as they can be used to justify increasing the state's control over your life.Speaking on the subject of substituting other weapons for guns, I thought Sweden was interesting. Sweden has some tight gun control laws but strangely poor legal control of their explosives (being caught carrying a grenade used to be a 6 month sentence while a pistol was 2-6 years). As a result, Sweden has bombings and grenade use at an absurd rate, they actually have about the same number of bomb attacks as Mexico.
Bombings in Sweden - Wikipedia
Why Swedish gangs use hand grenades (and what the country is doing about it)
In the latest edition of our <a href=https://www.thelocal.se/tag/sweden+in+focus>Sweden in Focus</a> series, The Local looks at Sweden's struggle to crack down on hand grenades and illegal weapons.
OK, so, the origin of this idea actually has a legitimate reason for existing, but it exists due to how other property and privacy rights intersect.
Long story short, under normal circumstances, Police are not allowed to break into an automobile without a warrant, as the courts have held that private property rights and the requirement for a warrant extend to automobiles as private property.
However, unlike houses, automobiles are mobile and as complex machines they can have... issues. So what do the police do if they find an automobile broken down, abandoned, and causing a traffic hazard on a public thoroughfare? Getting a warrant to move a car when it is an immediate hazard to traffic (thus impacting public safety) was seen as being a bit excessive. Hense the carve out being discussed in this case, it would allow police to break into and move a private vehicle out of traffic when there was immediate need. It was originally meant as a very narrow exception, and its application when it comes to motor vehicle matters is well litigated and clear. The police pulling it out here is them literally just throwing anything they can at the wall to justify their actions, and I suspect the courts are not going to allow it, as when you get every civil rights group lined up on the same side of things and issuing a JOINT AMICUS BRIEF (no, seriously, the ACLU, the ACU, and CATO issued a JOINT BRIEF against the police's position) condemning the police's position, the courts are going to sit up and take notice. Everything about this case stinks of police misconduct.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
Cars? Really? Wouldn't anything like that come under probabale cause or whatever they used for moving broken down coaches or carts out of the way at that point? Sounds like even that was an excuse to me. Why would a tow permit give any cause for use in a entry warrant?
Because towing takes time and a tow truck can be delayed/prevented to getting to a broken down vehicle by the vehicle itself. The more common way to move a broken down car out of traffic is to put the car in neutral (which can be done without power), and physically moving the car. But to gain access to the gearshift, you need to gain entry into the car.
And probable cause does not work that way. Probable Cause is shorthand for "Probable Cause of the Commission of a Crime". A car being broken down in the road isn't a crime that gives police the ability to enter private property.
My brain exploded when Tucker came in out of nowhere!🤯
Better lock and load up; get ready for the 2nd US Civil War, because otherwise you're going up the chimney in a cloud of smoke. That's if you aren't starved to death or tortured to death, that is.
So fun story, my section pointed it out in the extremism training today.
If the government strays away from the constitution and the military is there to enforce it...as we are not there to do Congress or the president or the judicial. We are there for the Constitution, when do we say the government is wrong?
Funnily enough, it seems most in the military at least those I work with, seem to think the mikitary is trying to be used for other means, and that eventually there will be a stance taken by the military which is "No More."
If the government strays away from the constitution and the military is there to enforce it...as we are not there to do Congress or the president or the judicial. We are there for the Constitution, when do we say the government is wrong?
Funnily enough, it seems most in the military at least those I work with, seem to think the mikitary is trying to be used for other means, and that eventually there will be a stance taken by the military which is "No More."
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Well, that's the point of this indoctrination campaign, to flush out those who are willing to say no and indoctrinate the rest.
Except when nearly everyone in the military thay is not trying tk get in favor wkth the politicians arnt buying it?
Like especially the Intel world. We literally question everything
Representative Jason Crow had clarified what the 2nd Amendment actually meana apparently.
Damnable deer trampling our rights and flower beds!
Damnable deer trampling our rights and flower beds!
Last edited:
He is a dosgrace if a Ranger.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Let's see if that goes to the Supreme Court.