Resistance1000
21778
881
25
Aug 18, 2026 2:01 PM
Resistance1000
21778
881
25
zylokun
Actually yeah, that does sound reasonable. I like all of this.
Crosseyedcockatoo
They absolutely would support anything they thought would take rights away from their supposed ‘enemies’, which is anyone who doesn’t bow down to the same monsters or have the same sins as they do.
Then they would cry about what they gave up in sacrifice to their cause and blame those same ‘others’.
imnottom
wait, so republicans are currently allowing illegal immigrants to purchase and carry guns?!?!
unluckyandbored
It'd keep a lot of women and minorities from owning guns. So...yeah, actually they'd probably be cool with it.
KillingTlme
Owning a gun should be more regulated than owning a car and gun owners should cover the insurance and registration cost of all injuries or deaths caused by civilian owned guns.
TheOriginalAmberRose
I wonder if JD Vance can produce a birth certificate with his current name.
UnluckyLunkhead
How about firearms law infringements leading to bans.
powwerbottom
Aaaand it turns out that, just like voting, if the fascists don't like you they will just make up a reason why your right to do it doesn't apply
craiglewis782
Re: citizenship. I knew a dude with a work visa, working on his green card. He wanted to buy a rifle for target practice, in Cali. He spent weeks working on the paperwork, getting everything in order. He was approved, and the gun shop said that's the first time they've ever seen someone without citizenship get approved.
He's Russian too. He's since gotten his citizenship.
B99Reactions
this is an AI generated post. wtf
baadf00d
A weird thought. If they are the dumb ones, how are they able to jump through all these hoops better than dem supporters. I mean obviously these changes are better for them, why? Confused european here, don't shoot me for asking.
Trelkeen
I've said all along. Anything that applies too one part of the bill of rights/constitution should apply to all of it or none of it.
This is no different. The number of Republicans who have raged me at for opposing this law by trying to present it as, "just needing an ID to vote" is off the charts. Like most tribalists they simply want "their side" to win without worrying about the actual details.
MissDeeMeanor
Groan.....
TheRealArclight
^^^^..this person loves school shootings.
trinxter
I think a failed check of the right to buy a gun should result in deportation.
evilgriff
I bet you’re fun at parties /s
CallMeMcGyver
Sound extremely reasonable and I'd add about ten more things to that list.
CallMeMcGyver
Ooooh boy, the fascist snowflakes are out in force downvoting this morning. They love to hump their guns and they hate immigrants who aren't pedophiles like them, so they're gonna be crying tears of blood reading this. Lol what a bunch of PATHETIC losers. PATHETIC LOSERS! Did you pathetic losers read that? PATHETIC LOSERS!
NotSinceTheAccidend
Ammosexuals.
synfinitehell
If those pathetic losers could read, they'd be very upset.
RichardCheeseESQ
313 up votes, 15 down votes. Yes out in FULL force. Stop being such a drama victim
Relictivity
There’s a lot of gun cosplay on this site. I don’t get it.
LeifHietala
I can answer your last question: no.
The pathetic losers do not read.
MeestowKitty
You know there are liberal gun owners right?
[deleted]
[deleted]
MeestowKitty
Actually they do. A lot of liberal gun owners disagree with the attempt to limit access to guns because they see it as a class issue. Most firearm restrictions are less about safety and more about increasing the cost of getting a gun, thus restricting it to those with mean, (the ones LEAST likely to need a gun for self defense). They also see guns as a tool by the people to protect themselves from state sponsored violence.
loSpaceHero
librul gun owners probably understand the current threat to voting, election integrity and democracy by the SAVE act.
MeestowKitty
They do, absolutely. A lot of them also understand the threat posed by restricting access to firearms when a clearly authoritarian and fascist regime is attempting to seize control of the government, and is meting out deadly violence against unarmed, and innocent civilians on a regular basis.
slinkiisu
And? They aren't the ones humping their guns in Christmas pictures with their kids.
MeestowKitty
Right, but they might also be the ones downvoting this. Most liberal gun owners live in liberal states, and they actually have to deal with a good chunk of the things on this list, or some variant of them. So given how left leaning imgur tends to be, its likely a good share of downvotes are people like that.
DorkJedi
lefty gun owner in a lefty state. get fucked, ammosexual. this is perfect.
myownalarum
So why would they be offended by the comparison of those restrictions to the voting restrictions in the save act? Liberal gun owners wouldn't be for taking away voting rights.
MeestowKitty
Correct, but a lot of liberal gun owners would see that some of these restrictions are already in place in their own liberal states, and would both be annoyed at this particular argument, and see that its not the "gotcha" that it seems to be.
baadf00d
Confused european here. Why can the rep voters jump through these hoops better than dem voters? I thought they were supposed to be the 'challenged ones'?
StellarJay77
For several reasons, most is to do with how highly motivated they are through their misguided and misinformed hate of "others" who they blame for all their problems. Also the requirements are not nearly as strictly enforced in high density Conservative areas (read: racist, white, rural). Adding friction to voting in cities means voting is much more difficult for progressive voters and on top of that many polls are run by Conservatives who are more strict with the requirements for brown people.
TLoATDaE
Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe require a safety course, too, so that the applicable use laws are understood as well.
rproffitt
The voting safety course in the USA is a bit extreme.
Wapusk
How do you mean? It was called Civics, it was taught at the Jr. High School level.
Poestis
With that, then they should require a deep dive cannidate research coarse as well before voting, haha.
WestieTree5
There's a new required safety gun course in CO and they're losing their minds over it
mouthfullofpebbles
This breaks my mind, honestly can't wrap my head around the concept? To even be the slightest upset over a safety course, something that all gun enthusiasts reasonably should love? I live in a western culture too, there are so many similarities, but this... it's like reading about some martian culture, or an alternate universe mad max fanfic. It's giving ritual soccer with decapitated heads or dangling your newborn over the scorpion pit to se if it is worthy of survival type of civilisation!
WestieTree5
Half of it is just what they teach in Hunter Saftey and if you have that already the class is ⅓ as long. I've been at forest ranges without range masters and feared for my life from negligence
mithiwithi
They'll demand they shouldn't have to do the safety course if their grandfather owned a gun.
samanthadlcruz
the 2nd amendment has that "well regulated militia" bit that they just love to ignore - the militia act of 1792 specifically defined the members of the militia as all "able bodied adult white males" between the age of 18-45. that specific criteria was in place until the 1860s. arguments for the militia included that it was essential to quell insurrections (such as slave revolts and uprisings by native americans). The 2nd amendment has ALWAYS been an instrument to insure white supremacy.
samanthadlcruz
the militia was used in several states as the "slave patrols" - armed bands of white men that 'patrolled' for runaway slaves, searched slave quarters (and searched native americans) seizing any weapons they found - making the militia Americas first GUN CONTROL agency.
68mano
I thought a real I.D. was proof that you met the requirements. You have to show your BC, address verification, and whatever other information you have. WTF?
PileOfWalthers
It pretty much is like this, even in Texas. If you wanted to make a point, you didn’t.
PileOfWalthers
Except you don’t need to be a US citizen to buy and own guns, obviously, so you don’t need to prove your citizenship.
WoeToHice
So what the fuck are you even saying then?
PerpetualExhaustion
That’s not true, and you know it. Back when I was in college, the university I was going to experienced a school shooting. Five victims. The perpetrator had two guns, one was his father‘s and the other was purchased at a gun show through the gun show loophole. No background check required. You’re talking out your ass and you know it. So why don’t you quit being a brain dead little bitch, stop cum guzzling right wing talking points and actually step into reality with the rest of us? People
PerpetualExhaustion
Die because of retards like you. I’m not advocating for getting rid of the second amendment, but there is much more reasonable ground from where we are now. Reasonable gun control laws are a must. Or are you still willing to accept the death of children in schools?
codenameRadical
You don't need to be a citizen, a drivers license is sufficient for ID, if all your docs aren't absolutely flawless it won't stop things from working out, you absolutely can mail the application, and background checks have a loophole that says that after 3 days, if it somehow isn't done, you just get approved, rather than having to wait however long it takes. That's all in Texas, btw.
PileOfWalthers
DL is not enough to buy a gun. You need to pass a background check, too
You must appear in person, guns can't just be mailed to your house.
If you fill out John Middlename Doe and your license says John M Doe, your background check gets rejected/delayed.
You can't buy guns online unless you have them shipped to a store where you have to pick them up in person. And pass the background check, see above.
If you lost your ID, tough shit, you're not buying a gun today.
DorkJedi
which ones are already in place. it lists 7 points. which ones?
nwafellows
As a liberal gun owner in NY, some of these actually are indeed how it's done here. And that was for bolt-action, any semi-automatic or handgun purchase would have been much more difficult. I'm not advocating for this being the way for voting, not by any stretch, just putting it out there that some states do have similar restrictions which gun nuts will latch on to as "ah-ha!" gotcha moments, but it's really not a 1:1 comparison.
xj4low
Im in Texas and there are car dealerships that give you a shotgun if you buy a truck here or in oklahoma.
Atomic2
Yea this logic would 100% be abused by gun owners to justify voter ID laws.
cadesama
I think it's totally fair to apply a different standard for a civic responsibility as opposed to a privilege. They just have it backwards, IMO
ShieldAnvil1
Yep I was thinking the same thing but I was not sure how to say it but you summed it up nicely.
CrackWhoresAndCheese
You do not need your social security card and birth certificate to purchase in most states. You need those to just get a Real ID. And at the moment only five states Real ID qualify as proof of citizenship. Those are MN, MI, NY, VT and WA. Your ID does not need to have your maiden name if married or you change your name.
ShieldAnvil1
If you read he does ay "some of these" which is very different form "all of these"
DorkJedi
which ones are already in place. it lists 7 points. which ones?
nwafellows
Where do you live? Here in NY, I live in a farm so guns are just another tool. I've bought several - The ID isn't enough, you have to go through other layers of approval. If the form submission doesn't match your name or address PERFECTLY it will be denied. I can't do it by mail or internet, I have to go in to the store. If I lose my ID I have to buy a new one and if the clerk keys in something wrong I'm delayed -- has happened. This doesn't even mention my county's Sheriff approval of my gun.
CrackWhoresAndCheese
Pretty much none of them in most states. Especially in the states it would upset the most when purchasing a gun. New York is one of the strictest states.
YouEatYellowSnow
No joke, some of the southern states all you need to do is fog a mirror. You can even carry a gun if you are blind in Iowa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWtEF65czq0
Kemi337
Yeah and I would make the argument it should be more difficult to get a tool designed to kill things than it should be to cast a ballot.
MeestowKitty
Why? Both are enumerated rights in the constitution. Both are aspects of living in a free society. Both have violence connected to them at the root in one way or another. Why shouldn't they be equally difficult/easy to access? Look at what voting has gotten us currently. Trump in office a second time, violence against Trans and POC Americans across the nation, collapse of world stability even further, ruin of our reputation, etc. Seems pretty violent and destructive to me.
ShieldAnvil1
I think the purpose here is to argue a like for like though, you can not argue that guns are a right and then make it easier than voting, which is also a right. It is a bad faith argument from gun advocates to saygetting guns should be easier becase it is a right while arguing voting should be harder even though it is a right.
MeestowKitty
Yeah, fyi, a lot of this is actually already to some degree or another how it works in liberal states with guns.
rdewalt
>in liberal states
This doesn't apply to just blue or red states, this is a federal law. And Gun Humpers are going to screech and scree about how their guns are sacred and more important and completely miss the points of this.
Republicans do not want people to vote. And nothing anyone will ever say or write, will EVER change them. Gun humpers can't be reasoned with either. So trying to get them on your side with infographics, will fail unless the sole message is "SHAL NOT INFRONGLE"
MeestowKitty
You're Frongling on my rights!
codenameRadical
Illinois allows you to apply online for your foid card. They don't require a federally issued ID. They don't compare your identification against other stuff, except to check legitimacy. Married women with unmatched birth certificates will not be rejected. While you must be a resident of the state, you do not need to be a citizen. Frankly, none of these apply, at all.
MeestowKitty
To IL maybe, but its one of 13 states with purchase permits, and as I mentioned the actual purchase of the gun WILL require a government ID which does require all of these documents. You're right regarding married women and maiden names but I didn't say these points applied perfectly, but that they applied to some degree or another.
codenameRadical
Illinois license requirements are: Proof of signature. Proof of DoB, including a number of things that aren't birth certificates, social security if you have one, or establish that you're not eligible, and proof of residency can be established with a utility bill. None of this says "take your BC in person to an appointment only location, of which there are very few, hundreds of miles apart, and also it must match character for character with every other document."
MeestowKitty
Once more, you are solely focusing on IL. My main point is that states with permit laws do sometimes have requirements equal to or greater than those listed in the original post.
codenameRadical
California just requires a written safety test. Frankly, the most onerous requirement some states have is a safety course, which ... seems entirely reasonable. Remember, voting is meant to be free and trivial to access. Firearms are a purchase, and therefore the notion of a cost as a barrier doesn't apply provided the cost isn't some stupid amount. None of them require that you have several federally acceptable documents that all match, character for character.
DorkJedi
which ones are already in place. it lists 7 points. which ones?
MeestowKitty
Ok, angry person:
-NJ, NY, CT, IL, CA, MA to name a few require a permit to purchase.
-While you don't need to have citizenship documents, you must appear in person for all firearms purchases, and in states like NJ with slow NICS checks that can mean driving out to a store twice.
-All your documents have to match or it will get kicked back, one of the things that Trans people are angry about with the new changes to the 4473
-You can't buy a gun by mail or online without going through an FFL
DorkJedi
permit does not require the supporting docs like you said, DL is fine, so not applicable. Don't need "all your documents" again, so not the same. It does not say "buy", it sais "apply". and you abso-fucking-lutely CAN apply online. NONE OF THE ARE USED BY ANY STATE.
MeestowKitty
Permit DOES require supporting docs, and most require you to have references, training (which costs money), etc. You can apply online for the permit, but you cannot buy a gun online and must do so in person.
DorkJedi
so you are just going to stick to your lie. who's paying you to lie online? Name the state that requires SS card and birth certificate, and will NOT accept real-ID. Go ahead, fucking name the state, shill.
MeestowKitty
-In states like those listed above, if you lack your documentation you have to order it again, and in most cases cannot buy a gun until you have it settled, and in states with ownership permits, may have to surrender the guns you have until it is resolved.
-Several of these states have rules in place that if you get denied a permit, for whatever reason, unless you go through a lengthy court battle, you are permanently banned from reapplying ever.
MeestowKitty
-While there is no "election cycle" for gun ownership, there are time limits, expiration dates, etc, and if you fuck up you go to jail, lose your rights, have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to resolve it, etc.
codenameRadical
If you lack a state ID, maybe. But if you can drive to a gun shop, guess what you definitely have? In Illinois, you can appeal a rejection if there was a problem. That said, the main reasons for denial are felony convictions or domestic battery history, and ... it's not that you can't apply again, so much as ... well, you won't not have that history later. And yes, in states with ownership permits, you need the permit for ownership. That part feels obvious.
MeestowKitty
Again, there are 13 states with permit requirements and you're solely focusing on IL. I get that you're likely from there, but you have to accept that it isn't the only state with these laws.
This license argument isn't the gotcha you think it is. You still NEED those documents to be able to buy a gun. You're proving the point, not disproving it.
evilspock
It is not unreasonable to suggest your burden of proof for gun ownership be similar to your burden of proof to vote.
They are both rights the constitution guarantees.
Note this isn't an argument *for* these regs.
wabitgirl
It's unreasonable to suggest that voting should require anywhere near the level of scrutiny that getting a gun does. One is a tool of destruction (yes, that is what guns are, no, there is no exception, yes even air rifles are made to break things, even if that thing is only a target, guns are only a tool of destruction, END LIST) and the other is a civic duty. Completely non-analogous, and only an American would even suggest that making guns as accessible as voting is reasonable.
wabitgirl
Note: This does not mean you cannot enjoy guns, or that no one should have them, but this whole bullshit rhetoric of them being a right and not a fucking weapon designed to destroy whatever you point them at is psychotic. The are a single purpose tool and their purpose is removing things.
MeestowKitty
What do you think voting does? You grasp that ALL political power comes with the threat of state sponsored violence, right? Like if they pass a law, and I don't abide by it, men with guns come to kidnap me and put me in a cage. Voting is just as, if not MORE, violent as gun ownership. The US government has killed more people since its inception that all mass shootings combined.
wabitgirl
You are addressing the politics of voting vs gun ownership. That is very much not what I'm addressing here. I am addressing a physical object: a gun. A gun is a tool, like a hammer, saw, or broom. Its purpose is to destroy things. End of list.
I'm all for discussing how voter manipulation and abuse is constantly used to harm societies, but that's a completely different conversation than the one I am having here. Do you want to discuss voting vs gun ownership instead?
MeestowKitty
"It's unreasonable to suggest that voting should require anywhere near the level of scrutiny that getting a gun does. One is a tool of destruction (yes, that is what guns are, no, there is no exception, yes even air rifles are made to break things, even if that thing is only a target, guns are only a tool of destruction, END LIST) and the other is a civic duty." I'm going off of you comparing the two in your comment here. One is a civic duty that leads to countless deaths, the other is a tool (1
evilspock
You read what I said and are arguing about the exact opposite. Go look again. We are violently in agreement.
To repeat: voting should be *at least* as easy as obtaining a gun. Easier ideally.
wabitgirl
Ah, fair, my bad in the interpretation.