/k/ - Weapons

Na jk I'm from England aka gun free zone

Making a gun free thread™ on /k/™ violates the NAP™.

CHILD SLAVES™! FETCH THE MCNUKES™

>>575278

>implynig ancap society would last long enough to get their hands on nuclear technology without wiping themselves out via feudalistic wars

>>575275

Wow, I've never seen this meme before.

14 MOA

>>575266

>Bottom left

>SD9VE

Great for a first pistol, and they go for $230 new on gunbroker all the time. The only real problem is the 8lb trigger until your fingers get /fit/ enough for it. Unless you get the apex trigger kit

>>575281

>Ancap = feudalism

It's time to stop posting

>>575284

What would you say is the heaviest trigger pull of any commercial or standard issue firearm? Not a one off modification but something like that from the factory. Wouldn't the Nagant revolver be up there?

>>575283

>the NAP means whatever I want it to mean

>>575285

that's what it would immediately devolve to you mentally retarded anarchist

>>575286

I wouldn't know what the heaviest is, but it's rare for a pistol (double action on a revolver included) to go over 6lbs of pull. For rifles you rarely see anything over 10lbs but at that point you're dealing with the bargain bin.

*gets shot*

>>575288 (heiled)

I'm in full agreement with you emufriend but don't respond to bait as obvious as "le child slaves lol". Given this is exactly what happened in the war thread I'm beginning to think it's meant to be intentional derailment.

>>575290

The short reset of a Sig DAK gun is specced at 8.5 lbs and on some models has been recorded as high as 9.

>>575264

Does that sign come in portable form? I've been looking for a lightweight alternative to a CC pistol.

>>575298

>anything that points out intrinsic flaws with something i like is bait!

>>575295

>Trying to explain to people the difference between normative and positive claims.

You might as well be arguing with Christfags.

>people are getting this assblasted over silly ancap memes

wew

>>575308

>Why don't we do something like this to our ships these days?

Because cost-saving techniques prevent defense companies from selling their sci-fi meme ideas to Congress to the tune of a gorillion shekels.

>>575295

>>575298

>>575301

>>575303

Thread created on liberty. Direct all shitposting to this thread.

https://8ch.net/liberty/res/82415.html

>>575313

Stick to your thread, and stay the fuck off of /k/, lolberg. Go worship your jewloving mexican crimelord elsewhere.

>>575313

>/liberty/

>the shithole overrun with braindead leftists

yeah, you would be a crossposter from there wouldn't you. you must legitimately have a room-temp iq. what >>575303 said, google the terms if you have to. NAP is a subjective principle as it has no guidelines, "dispute resolution" is a fantasy and holds similarly zero sway. you can say 'kids do not have these things', i can say they do, you can't do jack about it because that's violating the NAP- or, rather, maybe you interpret that as violating the NAP and others don't, then they interpret you as violating the NAP because you're seen as the aggressor and now everyone has a CB on each other and tada you're back to feudalism. it's in every company's best interest to get rid of their competition. i don't know why you think they wouldn't.

>>575275

>Only 8”

You could barely mix a tall glass of chocolate milk with that scrub

>>575367

You meatballs of all people should know the flaws of "anarchy" as a political ideal.

>>575284

The stock trigger isn't that bad unless you're a woman.

>>575366

Once you get much over 8 inches the weight distribution and balance goes to hell, and you grant your opponent a potential leverage advantage over you in a parry. 8 inches is the optimal operational spoon length, 9 to 10 inch spoons do have their (very specialised) uses for specific scenarios; anything over 10 inches is for display or ceremonial use only.

>Oh, but it's just a spoon!

No, it is a very finely tuned piece of precision military engineering. If you're particularly interested in the subject then try getting hold of a copy of "Spoons West!" by Nick Spark, it provides you with a good foundation for a solid understanding of the physics and theory in use with contemporary spoon design/doctrine and the American chapter of their development as a modern weapon system.

>>575382

I'm complaining about the comparison, I know an*rchists are retarded

>>575404

Well Glocks are considered grenades so maybe they are allowed?

Is this the 4/k/ refugee thread?

>>575471

The image is simplified, obviously the area of effect would include any harmful clouds of radiation.

>>575494

what do you classify as harmful? technically, nukes spew fallout all over the planet and it's very possible for someone somewhere to consume food that's been endued with strontium or caesium or any other lasting isotopes, which cause anything from terminal cancer to bone disorders, all of which violate the NAP

>>575494

>>575471

The principle remains the same, though. If you can keep all the radiation and fallout within the boundaries of your own property, then go ahead - stockpile as many nukes as you want, and detonate them on a whim. Otherwise, be prepared to end up to end up a starving and penniless pariah after all your assets are liquidated to pay compensation to all the people who you gave cancer to, and whose homes are now uninhabitable. Good luck buying food or paying rent, because you're never going to finish paying that off. Voluntarily being incarcerated in a private debtor's "prison" would honestly be the best option the only option available at that point. That is, so long as nobody murders you first. The whole planet's going to hate your guts, and not only can you not afford protection from a DRO, but there's no way they would take you on as a charity case either. You're bad PR, and you've already proven that you're more trouble than you're worth. A person who manages to fuck up so royally would quite literally become an outlaw.

>>575496

>what do you classify as harmful?

I'd assume he's counting harmful as "anything that causes harm".

>to consume food that's been endued with strontium or caesium or any other lasting isotopes, which cause anything from terminal cancer to bone disorders

Sounds pretty damn harmful to me. I know I'd sure as hell take offence to someone dusting my food with strontium isotopes, even if it didn't give me a terminal illness. If you shoot at someone with a gun, but you miss, that doesn't mean you didn't attack them.

>>575494

>>575496

>>575504

They don't leave fallout when they're detonated in the air, you dumbasses. Do any of you even know how a nuke functions at all?

>>575471

If he airbursts it, there's no fallout, but fallout would fall under "aggression" especially if its strong enough to kill a cow. That's technically a radiological weapon.

>McPolice

It's funny you say that as a joke but being able to sue your neighbor for something like that and have private police shoot his ass would be a much better solution than what we have now. Government detonated hundreds of nukes on our soil and poisoned close to fifty million people, what fucking recourse do we have there?

>>575496

>what do you classify as harmful?

Something that causes harm, what kind of fucking question is this? Deliberate physical damage.

>consume slightly irradiated food

First of all that wouldn't cause harm, and might even be beneficial.

Second of all this falls under the same rules that govern pollution control in libertarian systems, which is suing for damages. Aggression is about intentionally inflicting damage on someoene (harm), that might be provable with a blast radius or even fallout, but not trace elements that enter somebodys food chain and maybe cause cancer a century down the line, but only if they eat it by accident without checking.

Third of all there's a period of limitations. If I leave an openly visible hoe in the public commons, you know about and accept the danger, and you trip over a rock, fall on it, and get stabbed, I haven't broken NAP or even harmed you myself. You can sue me for littering but not assault.

By the way pushing this hard just explains how desperate you are.

>>575504

>>575514

are you guys legit retarded? how can you not see what i'm getting at; there's degrees of harmfulness that can be interpreted, again, in multiple different ways via people's viewpoints. if someone gets cancer inadvertently because of nuclear fallout, they've been harmed, but who decides if it's able to be acted on or violated the NAP? it wasn't deliberate.

>consuming irradiating food is beneficial

no

>suing for damages

if you're able to be sued for it, how has it not violated it the NAP?

> not trace elements that enter somebodys food chain and maybe cause cancer a century down the line, but only if they eat it by accident without checking

ah, of course, it's on the consumer to check every piece of bread they eat for radioactivity, and harm is rendered moot if it happened long enough ago.

>and you trip over a rock, fall on it, and get stabbed, I haven't broken NAP or even harmed you

false equivalency, quite a difference between deliberately detonating a nuke and someone killing themselves which you had no part in

>desperate

what's desperate here is your degree of mental gymnastics to justify your epic snowflake contrarian retardation

>>575511

do you?

https://web.archive.org/web/20050310061855/http://www.cddc.vt.edu:80/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b1.htm

>>575517

I already explained that if fallout is serious enough to result in death it is basically a radiological weapon and it does break NAP. The only way your special snowflake situation applies is if it doesn't cause death, which makes it a basic pollution issue like any other pollution issue in libertarian models.

>it's on the consumer to check

Or you can pay a company to check it for you, which is what the FDA is supposed to do except it doesn't and you can't sue it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Read your own link tard:

>In an air burst, for example, occurring at an appreciable distance above the earth's surface, so that no large amounts of surface materials are sucked into the cloud, the contaminated particles become widely dispersed. The magnitude of the hazard from fallout will then be far less than if the explosion were a surface burst. Thus at Hiroshima (height of burst 1670 feet, yield about 12.5 kilotons) and Nagasaki (height of burst 1640 feet, yield about 22 kilotons) injuries due to fallout were completely absent.

>>575523

>if fallout is serious enough to result in death it is basically a radiological weapon and it does break NAP

okay, so now the precedent is set that if anything causes harm or death, even if it's second or third hand, it violates the NAP. correct?

>Or you can pay a company to check it for you

so basically, yes. ancap is just one giant retarded meme.

>Read your own link

remember when the guy i was responding to said

>They don't leave fallout when they're detonated in the air

>>575524

How is fallout second or third hand?? It's a direct result of the explosion, it is irradiation of particles which are then inhaled, swallowed or cover clothing. That's direct harm, and you should kill or sue them immediately, not wait forty years to eat a tomatoe with a sub-lethal level of fallout on it so you can sue them for pollution…

If you want to be autistic about it atom bombs that explode in the air don't produce any harmful fallout.

>so basically, yes.

A) Not ancap. B) Nigger did you just imply the FDA is a better solution than a private company checking food? This is why commies are retarded.

>>575278

>slaves

>not violating the NAP

>>575528

That's the whole point and part of why ancap is such a meme: you can't enforce the NAP if you don't have any mcnukes. All the ancapists would actually be the human slaves with current government officials actually owning everything.

>>575526

that's quite contrary to what you said above. pick one

>not being anarchist = commie

this is your brain on <50 iq

>>575535

You are a communist because you believe a government run food safety service is more efficient than a private one. I am not an Ancap, stop lying about me. I have been consistent and clear about what I believe, what I mean to say, and what my argument is in this threat. It is not incumbent on me that you purposefully choose to misinterpret what I say.

>>575554

>everyone I don't like is a communist: an anarchist's guide to internet discussion

you are antifa because you believe a private business is always more efficient than a government run one. it's mind-boggling how someone can legitimately be this stupid. you'll move your goalpost at the drop of hat- not out of a deliberate attempt to win or skew the argument- but rather because you don't even have the mental capacity to realize what your point was in the first place. how is possible for a human being that understands language still be unable to realize what the difference is between non-profit regulatory oversight and businesses purely interested in profit who have no real incentive to actually check your food in the first place? one establishes industry-wide minimum standards, other checks your food prior to it being irradiated in exchange for cash, and you don't even know if it really checks your food or not.

>>575557

>What is Public Choice Theory, the post

>>575557

>you believe a private business is always more efficient than a government run one

Because it is. By definition. State-run institutions cannot solve the knowledge problem, and as such are fundamentally unable to even gauge what market demand is, let alone be able to respond to it. Further, because government institutions can run up debt pretty much indefinitely (just print more lol) there's no incentive for the organization to remain efficient or solvent. Because of Keynesian rhetoric about "creating jobs" and the fictional multiplier effect, government workers are almost never fired for incompetence or misconduct, except in very, very extenuating circumstances, meaning the organization just keeps expanding with useless makework jobs staffed by incompetent retards who see the job as little more than welfare.

>non-profit regulatory oversight

The fact that it's paid through taxes doesn't magically turn the organization more benign and competent, you mongoloid. Again, have a look through Public Choice Theory. The FDA, the ATF, and similar regulatory agencies are under no impetus to make their judgments morally or rationally; instead, approvals and denials are made on a basis of bribery, political clout, and the will of whatever administration happens to be in power. See: the ATF banning 7n6 for import because it was "armor piercing". They didn't do that because of any rational analysis, but because Crimea had just happened and King Nigger was pushing hard on the "muh Russia" narrative. The EPA, the FDA, USDA, and the rest of the alphabet soup are no different in this regard.

>businesses purely interested in profit

>have no real incentive to actually check your food

You really don't know how incentives work, do you? Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be parroting leftist talking points. The private agency is motivated by profit, you at least managed to get that figured out. They receive this profit from the end user, in this case the consumers of the food to be regulated. In order to continue to get revenue the agency must provide a service of sufficient quality that the end user is willing to pay for it. Ergo, the business is incentivized by profit to provide a good service.

>b-but muh bribes! All the evil food corporations would just buy out the regulatory agencies!!

Competition. Unlike a government-run institution there will 1) be no private monopoly on the regulatory business, and multiple approval agencies would be able to compete and 2) without the authority of government behind them the private agencies will have no way to force their verdicts upon the people. As a result, if the agencies make a decision that you disagree with you're perfectly free to ignore that decision and act in your own interests as a consumer and a market actor.

>>575575

>By definition

no. retard

>State-run institutions cannot solve the knowledge problem

yes, they can. you have nothing past 'b-b-but look at these enforcement agencies under a completely different branch', which is unprovable and anecdotal too, to prove otherwise.

>just print more lol

<hurr i have literally no idea what inflation is, how national debt works or even the restrictions on printing the USD

> of any rational analysis, but because Crimea had just happened and King Nigger

do you realize that this very statement defeats anything else you had to say in that paragraph? checks and balances are a thing, king nigger has different powers over different sects, and different types of government exist too.

>doesn't magically turn the organization more benign and competent,

never said they did, moron. they don't make profit themselves; non-profit.

>n order to continue to get revenue the agency must provide a service of sufficient quality that the end user is willing to pay for it

you're missing the entire point. per usual. the end user does not always know the exact quality of the service they receive nor can they always rationally judge it. you ship your food off to be judged. they can ship it out without even unpackaging it and no one will ever be able to tell, using any measure of excuse if someone does get sick or whatnot. of course, then there's bribes, and the fact there's no oversight on by who or how the food is being judged.

>competition. no private monopoly on the regulatory business

think for half a second, how would private regulatory agencies compete?

>without the authority of government behind them the private agencies will have no way to force their verdicts upon the people

uhuh, yeah that's exactly the problem. they have no way to force their verdict on people. companies can shit out whatever they want, and as long as the consumer still pays for it, through any means possible, it will stay so.

>>575533

>you can't enforce the NAP if you don't have any mcnukes

Today I learned that nuclear weapons are the only possible means of defense against aggression. Thanks, internet.

>>575367

I'll double-down on everything I said. Memes aside, the argumentation provided has never(not a single time in my experience) advanced past regurgitating a fallacy-rich belly full of rhetoric they were spoonfed. If you want to prove me wrong, please show an argument that successfully defends the fundamental claims of Christianity and I'll take it for what it is. In all reality, as with every challenge like this, there will either be silence or memeposting and attempts to change the topic.

That is the futility of trying to explain to people that everything they care about isn't that important, or that importance itself doesn't truly exist in the same way rocks and trees do.

>>575580

>Off topic meta posting

>All mods have done illegal shit

>Every board bans you for opinions

>Everyone is one person, and that person takes shitty memes 4cuck cross posters spam

<Lol Its reddit XD

Did summer come early this year?

>>575597

That's a nice list of companies to avoid forever, thanks.

>>575621

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

>>575582

>By definition

>no. retard

Since you called him a retard, care to respond how government orgs solve the knowledge problem?

>>575533

>That's the whole point and part of why ancap is such a meme

>All the ancapists would actually be the human slaves with current government officials actually owning everything.

You're a fucking idiot.

>>575716

>muh intangible unprovable thought experiment is undeniably true for everything that governs ever

sometimes i wonder, is it drugs which drive people to this retardation, or merely genetic iq?

>>575404

irl how hard is it for an America to _legally_ acquire shit like grenades and rocket launchers? I know it's hard, but I want the details of how it can be done legally

>>576103

*American

>>576103

Step one, see if they're legal in your state. Some states ban all NFA, some ban all DD, some only ban explosive DD. If there are no restrictions on DD in your state, proceed to find the one you want to buy. Pay the seller, then fill out the transfer paperwork and send $200 to Uncle Sam. Wait 6-18 months for the paperwork to go through and then take possession of your new toy. If it is explosive you may have to be in compliance with regulations on storing explosives which is more paperwork. If you can't find what you want to buy there are other forms you can submit to be allowed to make the item. It's really not super difficult just time consuming and expensive.

>>575264

Faggot

>>575278

Non-Aggression Pact?

>>575287

Feudalism isn't nearly as bad as ANCAP. It involves real cooperation, a love for your neighbor, and actual management, none of which the NAP would allow for. Feudal society is what forged Europe out of the ashes of the Roman Empire, a truly patricians society where you work and live with the people you actually deal with on a weekly basis instead of people 1000s of miles away telling you how to manage your village.

>>575640

Is it bad that I own stocks of some of those companies through ""charles Schwab""?

Would we need nuclear bunker busters to eliminate Iran's facilities?

>>576205

>Is it bad that I own stocks

Absolutely

>>576205

stocks are jewish, buy gold, silver, guns, bullets, bitcoin

or support corporations you like, such as gun manufacturers or gold and silver mining and extraction corporations(not gold and silver certificates).

>>576207

yes, for the civilian populations

We need guns so we can end factors like op

>>575642

Meaning mountain in German and probably Dutch and the other Germanic languages and not inherently Jewish. Though when it’s a mountain of something valuable (ie; goldberg, silverberg, zuckerberg) then you probably got a kike.

>>576261

Titanic was sunk by an ice(((berg))).

>>576273

Which proves kikes did 9/11

>>576261

What I personally find interesting, as far as Jewish surnames are concerned, is how they perfectly epitomise the greedy, shekel-grubbing 'stereotype' they'd want to aviod: Gold, Goldberg, Silverman, Goldstein, etc.

>>576240

>bitcoin

>buy this digital asset that's a bubble unstable more than CS:GO knife pictures.

>>576322

>not investing in star citizen ships(.jpeg)

>>576322

>>576315

somebody panicked and sold on the dip.

>>576334

I only buy high and sell low.

(^:

>>576245

What's the word before "guns" in the first pic?

>>575674

>>575673

So I just accused you of only regurgitating stuff you've been spoonfed. I then asked for a successful argument defending the fundamental claims of Christianity.

You point to a very old spoon feeding from a philosofag. You haven't even taken the time to explain any of the arguments in your own words (demonstrating a likelihood you do not know what it is you reference). If we're just going to point at what other people said, should I just link you some of the criticisms that have popped up in the last several hundred years? Or do you expect for me to explain to you what these five arguments are in order to then explain why they are flawed?

To follow this up, you attach an image containing a thread talking about a holy shroud the same way ufologists talk about the properties of implants that defy science.

Do you not consider these posts regurgitation?

Do you not know the difference between presenting an argument and merely alluding to one?

The asymmetry of time invested isn't even the major problem here(though spending minutes on a 30 second shitpost is tiring).

Let's say I list out Thomas Aquinas's arguments and refute them. You can now either respond to the refutation, or you can change the subject to that of flaws in my interpretation of his arguments. It's for this reason you must provide an argument in order for me to argue against it.

>>576536

Does an argument need to be original to be valid? And how many know of the arguments saint Thomas proposed, or even of his existence? And lastly, what better use of the internet than to use it as a knowledge base? I'm more interested in the objections you personally have against his argument than in presenting them all over again when they're so easily accessible.

Regarding the shroud picture, did you investigate any of its claims? Dismissing an argument because of its perceived tone is a great way to save time but it can also throw you off the right track more than desirable. It's happened to me in the past and I don't recommend falling for it.

>>576717

You do not even address the objections I raised. Provide an argument in your next post's text or this is my last response.

>>576838

You're the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect, you can't even see my replies to your points, let alone understand them. I wish you the best.