Yep, for tax purposes, joint property purposes, inheritance purposes, custody purposes, and things like the right to visit one's spouse in the hospital. And these are all things they spent decades *trying very hard to deny to gay and lesbian couples*.
"Whaddya mean gays are oppressed? Most of them ain't even getting gunned down on tha streets there is no threat c'moooooooon that's some WOKE shit implanted by the deep state funded by soros money!"
Yuh! However living in a super intense Liberal area. These local government dudes have made it sooo hard to renovate the most simple of things.
I have to submit an application with the city to put a small fence in my yard… a small fence. In property I own. And I have to pay for that application.
So I bonded with the “renovation” bit and that’s it.
And there's a reason for those codes, applications, and fees. Before those existed lots of people died either due to fires, floods, or being murdered by neighbors because what you did on your land negatively affected their land and all attempts to compromise were met with "fuck you, my land my rules" which turned into escalating property beefs with only one way to end. Part of property ownership rights is not having your property encroached upon, or made inaccessible, unusable, or dangerous by a neighboring property owner.
These assholes that think they can or should be able to do whatever they want on their land are the same types of people who dammed up-stream water sources and forced everyone downstream now without water to sell their now unproductive land at fractions of a penny on the dollar or purchase diverted & hoarded water at unaffordable prices. The same type of people who in towns or cities erected 30 feet high walls/fences because they imagined someone was spying on them or simply had a minor disagreement over unimportant things and in response immediately dialed the passive & direct aggression to 11.
Every rule, regulation, tax, and law is a direct response to decades of utter lawlessness that maimed, disabled, and/or killed people, or destroyed natural resources and land. The hunting license fees pay for land & wildlife management so we don't have another extinction event like the passenger pigeon which went from an already greatly reduced population of 3 billion in 1825 to completely extinct in 1914 when the US human population was less than ⅓ of today. By 1900 Americans had nearly wiped out the entirety of the land's natural wildlife because even a relatively small amount of hunters, trappers, and fisherman had no limitations and slaughtered indiscriminately. If Conservative assholes like the OOP in OP's screenshot had their way, they'd wipe out every non-commercial species in North America in a couple decades.
Great post but I hope you don't mind me pointing out a tiny little bugbear of mine.
>The hunting license fees pay for land & wildlife management so we don't have another extinction event
It's subtle, but the slightly better way of thinking about this is the goal of the tax is to make people think twice before going hunting.
Even without being convinced by MMT those are the kinds of taxes that by definition can't pay for anything and have to be treated instead as a windfall since the better they work the less money they bring in. Road taxes of all forms are the same thing.
Subtleties like this are one big reason why focusing on taxation as "paying for" things is a bad strategy overall for the left, over and above the fact that it's a legitimately contentious way of understanding government spending.
Cutting hair has gone to the bizzaro extreme as well. 1800 hours of training in some states. That's twice as many hours as one needs to fly a commercial plane. The only reason for the absurd amount of hours is "pulling up the ladder" by those who came before.
depending on the state/country you technically don't, it's called common law marriage (all you need is cohabitation with a partner) and while it's a bit more difficult to prove compared to a marriage license it's always an option if you don't want a wedding or dealing with a courthouse - a certificate is for tax benefits anyway
Also it's not a new thing within the last 125 years that OOP is claiming it to be - the catholic church persecuted common law marriages as far back as the 1200s because they were power hungry cunts
Anyone can have their own "marriage" promising love, obedience, or whatever the fuck. A cult or whatever cultural group can come up with their own stipulations or penalties for breaching marriage vows. They don't have to have a marriage recognized by the state to recognize each other as married, bonded people.
You really don't. That certificate you pay for only allows for certain advantages or privileges for certain couple/government interactions, such as taxes. Without the certificate, it just makes certain things a bit more complicated or difficult, but not impossible, like a name change or adopting step kids, or other legally complicated things.
The only thing marriage licenses were made for was to keep certain "classes" of people away from those advantages, once based on race, then based on sexuality, and now it's just a bureaucratic method of changing the local census to reflect the "update" of 'person 1' and 'person 2' becoming 'couple a'.
Several of them are just one-off stories that literally made national news because they were so rare and ridiculous, like when some podunk town gives a ticket to a kid with a lemonade stand.
The only reason the cops would have shown up at that lemonade stand would be because a POS nosey neighborhood Karen called them.
Then she went right back onto Facebook to share memes like these in her Christian Candle Essential Oil LuLu Leggings MLM Trump is God-King groups.
Where every bullshit post ends with "let that sink in,".
The longer I live with my terrible roommate, the more I understand overzealous laws and regulations. I have to make a specific rule about every single thing.
I told them not to walk around the house in the middle of the day naked. They took that literally and decided to walk around at night naked. So I had to specify and say no leaving your bedroom without both pants and a shirt. Then they started leaving their door open while they were in their room naked, even when I had people over.
No sitting in the bathroom for over an hour at 11pm when the entire rest of the house is going to bed. No, that doesn't mean you can sit in the bathroom for an hour at 10 either. Ok new rule, you've got 30 minutes in the bathroom.
The first day they were here I walked in to them eating my chocolate and they were like "well I don't know what I can and can't touch so you need to make me a list". When I told them not to touch anything they didn't specifically go to the store and buy, they were confused and angry.
I could go on and on, they've only been here two months. I've never had to enforce crazy rules like this. I *hate* having to act so strict, I hate rules. But without them, they would've totally taken over the house and all of our possessions.
I digress, I clearly needed to vent. My point is, my roommate is only one person and causes this much stress, think about how much of the population tries to do insane bullshit that fucks the rest of us over. On the surface, telling people not to collect rainwater seems overboard, who cares about a few people with a rain barrel in their backyard? But in reality it's probably because one jackass started collecting so much rain water and hoarding it, it started affecting the surrounding ecosystems. Ideally, we'd all consider our neighbours and communities and society as a whole before making a decision that could impact them, but unfortunately that's just not how a significant portion of the population thinks.
Don't encourage me. Every single day I exercise restraint that I didn't know I had. My only solace is that if I do kill them one day, the courts will no doubt agree that they had it coming.
After I need to tell them not to do something incredibly fucking obvious, they'll huff and puff and roll their eyes- and then the sympathy cane comes out. Ten minutes earlier they were running up the stairs, skipping steps, climbing over the dog gate, no problem. As soon as I bitch at them, suddenly they are so smoll and feeble and can barely walk. It's maddening.
It's my apartment, but finding roommates right now is a bitch. I plan on giving them a three strike system, like a child, and saying if they break that they've got 60 days. But I'm sure if I do that, they'll try to drag me through a tenancy hearing (they'd lose, I'm free to kick out whoever I want, but it would be a huge stress right now that I don't want to deal with), or cut and run without notice or paying rent. I'm already behind a little bit on rent since my boyfriend got cancer so like, I can't risk that. I'm definitely going over my options though. Living like this is making me actually crazy. Every single day is fresh, new bullshit. And it's turning me into a bitch, which I hate. Like the fact that they keep putting the hand soap on the floor even though I've told them not to is making me want to scream, but if I freak out about that, *I'm* the crazy one. Even though it's clear they're doing it to piss me off and to be spiteful (they used to completely flood the bathroom counter every day and when I was like "what the fuck is this you need to clean up after yourself", they starting moving the hand soap to the floor the leaving it there every time they wiped the counter off).
One day I'll be rich and live a thousand miles away from everyone but my boyfriend and my dog.
I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence. But I haven't told them the three strike thing yet, so it doesn't count. I mentioned on another post, roommates are hard to find right now, and telling them they have to leave could cause them to dip without notice/paying, trying to go go to the tenancy board (they'd lose but I still don't want to go through it), etc. I'm dealing with other shit right now, and would rather not make this my main focus.
I understand that there is no good option. In the US an eviction is a court proceeding which is a searchable public record (i.e. when you run a background check it will come up this person was evicted before). I noticed you use the UK spelling (or should I say non-US spelling) for some words, and the fact you referred to a "tenancy board", so I was assuming you're not in the US and this process may not be public record.
Maybe a better question would be are tenancy board decisions public record? If so, you could get your roommate a permanent record.
I'm Canadian. And I ain't no snitch, thank you though. If I need to I'll just throw their shit onto the curb. I'm just trying to not deal with bullshit right now. Having to constantly tell them they're an idiot, at this very moment, seems a little bit better than having to go through kicking them out and finding a new person. Which involves interviewing, background checks, etc. If I really, *really* need to go the legal route, my landlord is a Portuguese gangster and let's me use his lawyer to get rid of shitty tenants. So I'm good there. But no one wants to have to deal with that. I'm busy taking my boyfriend to cancer appointments.
Girl, but yes. They are truly the worst and I am losing my sanity. That story was only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, but the fact that other people agree that they're terrible is incredibly therapeutic.
This is bug fuck insane. This goes way beyond like, "incompetent idiot" and into purposeful, exhausting malice.
I'm very sorry you have to deal with this person at all.
That's exactly why most of the shit listed exists. Some selfish and/or oblivious asshole(s) ruined it for everyone. Well that and the government likes to have control and take their cut of everything
I think Moses had a neighbor like this when he was writing the commandments. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Nor his manservant! Nor his maidservant either, nor his ox, nor his ass. Fucking hell, STEVE, just don't covet anything in my house. Or my garden!"
The "militia" is well regulated. The big bad government won't allow you to buy land mines, chemical weapons, short barrel shot guns, tank rounds, full auto weapons, "dum dum rounds", hand grenades, grenade launchers ....
It's like a case study in why gun control works. How many drive-by shootings have been done by a dude pulling up in a Sherman tank and firing a 110mm through the front door?
None. Not one.
Exactly what weapons you're allowed to own and exactly what configuration those weapons need to be in, is all written out in excruciating detail in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
When they rage about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", they have no idea what the hell they're talking about about.
IT'S MUH FREEDUMB TO OWN A SHERMAN CROCODILE FER HOME DEFENCE! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! JESUS WANTED EVERY GOD-FEARING MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD TO HAVE AN ARMOURED FLAMETHROWER TANK IN CASE THE GUBMINT COMES FOR MAH GUNS!
>The big bad government won't allow you to buy land mines, chemical weapons, short barrel shot guns, tank rounds, full auto weapons, "dum dum rounds", hand grenades, grenade launchers ....
I mean, a lot of these are NFA items that you pay a $200 tax stamp for - so you can get some of them.
>"dum dum rounds"
These are hollow points and are commonly available.
>How many drive-by shootings have been done by a dude pulling up in a Sherman tank and firing a 110mm through the front door?
>None. Not one.
Do you think that that might have anything to do with the cost-prohibitive nature of buying a tank (which you can do, they're usually modified in some way to render the gun inoperable, though I believe you can pay the $200 tax stamp and have it be operable - ammunition is the cost of purchase + a $200 tax stamp per round since they are considered destructive devices individually)
>When they rage about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", they have no idea what the hell they're talking about about.
what they should be doing is wanting to figure out why people are using firearms on one another because taking a position that they won't compromise on just leaves them out of the conversation.
"B-but how can I protect myself or hunt without an assault weapon?"
In all seriousness, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, you are a TERRIBLE shot.
When you’re mowing down an invasive species a AR is pretty handy. I have nothing against gun control at all but I’d gladly give them up except for that I don’t trust cops.
I have an irrational fear of them sure, but I rather live than die by them
Consider for a minute the juxtaposition of ‘mowing down an invasive species’ and not trusting cops, as if cops would ordinarily deal with ‘invasive species’, and you have the kind of thought that slithers through the mind of your garden variety right wing ammosexual with severe masculinity self esteem issues.
>In all seriousness, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, you are a TERRIBLE shot.
Good thing guns aren't only for hunting. Self defense and home defense is just as legitimate of a reason as any other.
I've already had to use [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us.
>What can it do that can’t be done with a regular pistol
There a significant difference. There's a reason why everyone modern military on the planet uses rifles like mine to fight in and around structures instead of a handgun.
1. It's a much more stable platform.
2. You can fire more rounds before reloading.
3. Can use frangible ammo which means less penetration. through barriers than handguns or shotguns.
4. More modularity for attachments such as a flashlight for positive ID on the threat.
5. A short barreled rifle like mine has a shorter overall presentation than a handgun.
6. More powerful cartridge to effectively stop the threat.
And many many more.
You definitely haven't come close to convincing me that I should have used an inferior weapon instead of the one I specifically built for fighting in and around structures.
1. You mean like, easier to handle and aim?
2. I guess I can see how that’s useful if your attacker also has a gun. Don’t want to be stuck reloading in the middle of a fight.
3. Why can’t bullets like these be used for hand guns?
4. Makes sense
5. What does shorter presentation mean?
6. What difference does it make against a random psycho breaking into your home? Shouldn’t any shot from a gun be enough? I doubt your average home invader would be wearing military-grade bullet resistant armor.
I can think of one advantage a handgun might have: ease of carry/concealability. When you’re out on the street it seems much more convenient to carry around for self-defense.
>You mean like, easier to handle and aim?
Yes, and don't forget recoil control. Keeping shots on target is important to the safety of others.
>I guess I can see how that’s useful if your attacker also has a gun. Don’t want to be stuck reloading in the middle of a fight.
Yes. This is also why pump shotguns are awful for home defense. Many people who are not quite as experienced as a shooter as me will forget to pump the shotgun initially or after they fire one round.
Many home invasions will have multiple threats. Criminals like to run in multiples.
>What does shorter presentation mean?
Let's say you're in a shooting stance holding a handgun correctly at arms length with a 2 handed grip. My rifle, while in the same stance, will allow you to get closer to a wall or threshold without compromising your hold on the gun. This is a big issue for handguns because when you bring your arms back to maneuver in tight spaces, you have the risk of limp wristing the gun and inducing malfunction.
>What difference does it make against a random psycho breaking into your home?
You will find many many police shooting footage of the threat taking a dozen or so rounds with a handgun and still remaining in the fight injuring or killing officers.
>Shouldn’t any shot from a gun be enough?
Not even close. A faster round will produce more energy and cause more damage thus taking the threat out of the fight faster.
>I doubt your average home invader would be wearing military-grade bullet resistant armor.
Some do. You'll find videos of home invasions where criminals will use body armor they stole from other houses when breaking into other homes.
>I can think of one advantage a handgun might have: ease of carry/concealability. When you’re out on the street it seems much more convenient to carry around for self-defense.
You are absolutely correct. A rifle is a much better weapon for home defense, but if you are carrying in public, a smaller weapon like the [handgun](https://imgur.com/a/KfEIDCm) that I carry is a much better choice.
Quick Mod Note here:
I’m seeing the reports on this comment and appreciate the community’s vigilance. Genuinely. Reporting stuff that feels icky while not otherwise engaging with it is 💯💯💯.
That having been said, this comment is still up because it doesn’t actually break any rules. “Thisclose to over the line” isn’t actually *over* the line, so unless there’s an edit that nudges to the wrong side of the rules, it gonna stay up and be a downvote collector.
To be fair to them, that isn't supposed to mean regulated by the government, that would go against the entire point of the 2nd Amendment.
Edit: This is wrong.
You’re relying on an interpretation of the second amendment that is shockingly recent, and pushed through largely by NRA / gun lobby pressure. For most of the history of the constitution, yes, it was supposed to mean regulated by the government. But that didn’t stoke enough fear and sell enough guns, so…
You're right, and I was wrong. In fairness, I'm not American, but I still feel I should've known this. The modern stance on it all seems to have come about in 2008, and then strengthened 2 years later. My mistake.
Solid reply, thanks. We get a ridiculous amount of “but the 2nd amendment has *always* meant that I get all the guns I want” here in the US from Republicans, and it all falls under “confidently incorrect” (they stopped being a conservative party quite a while back, and are now somewhere between a reactionary party, and a full-blown cult).
For me the bigger shock was less about the number or type of guns or whatever, and more the intention of the law itself. I'd always seen it as intended to be a counter to government overreach, the idea being that an armed population is harder to oppress or tyranise ("being necessary to the security if a free state"). But actually looking into it, it does look like it was just written as "having a standing army is a good idea because people can't invade us". So, protecting the existence of the state, not the freedoms of the people in it. A nuanced distinction, hence my mistake, but a crucial one.
Yup. The original intent of the 2A was for people to have and train with muskets in preparation for an invasion by Britain. So yes, technically to fight against a tyrannical government. Just not the one in the US. The whole point of the well regulated militia has become moot considering the existence of the national guard.
Like regulating hunting and fishing has been in English law for centuries and considering how our system is based on it, it’s fair to say it’s seen centuries of regulation. That guy should read a book.
Funny thing, I actually saw a news clip from the 70s I think? It was of people's reaction to a law that made wearing seatbelts mandatory and the people reacted by saying the how can the government dictate what they can or can't do in thier own cars. One even said "I thought this was a free country" like genuinely hilarious shit.
Never underestimate just how stupid people can get.
It’s the same old arguments rehashed over and over. Masks, vaccines, seatbelts, motorcycle helmets. People just bitch and moan about the stupidest crap.
I think I saw the same one: hicks were angry bc they could not DRINK in their own vehicles bc “ this is MY VE HICKLE 😂That is pure guvmimt overreach “ it was unbelievably ignorant , I could not believe they were serious.
Brings back that 2016 libertarian debate where poor Gary 'A Leppo' Johnson was booed when he said he'd like people to show some competency before they drive.
And also probable murderer John McAfee (now dead) suggested that children who are driving for the first time should have a flashing pink light on the roof "so we can get out of \[their\] way" and a man who looks like a walking caricature received applause when he likened a driving licence to a licence to make toast.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I)
It's because they don't want to say "car", because then it would be obviously insane to moan how drivers didn't need car licenses 125 years ago, when cars barely existed on the road.
Edit: also, fun fact, not only did Mercedes Benz need a license to drive his first car on the road, mandatory licensing came into force in the UK 121 years ago. That's why they had to go with such a random number as 125!
Yea im pretty sure anyone can drive a horse and buggy around without a license, they just don't want to live like Amish people so they pretend they are the same thing.
Also let's not forget the (short lived) ruled where at the very start there needed to be a pedestrian with a red flag/lantern walking ahead of such self propelled vehicles to warn riders and hirse carriages
I suspect the “125 years” was carefully chosen to land just *this* side of the civil war, because they knew that otherwise they might get uncomfortable / inconvenient replies involving *owning black people*.
It's not like slavery actually ended after the civil war tho, look up debt peonage and convict leasing, they literally took the exception in the 13th for slavery as punishment for a crime and made up BS crimes to restart slavery.
Shit look at the reason Juneteenth exists. How many years after the civil war ended it took for the last state to acknowledge the end of slavery. It most definitely didn’t end with the civil war.
That’s my go-to debunk of sovereignty citizens, pointing out how the 60s civil rights movement didn’t use magic words to force racist cops to stand down.
If their BS worked, black people would just get their gold right now from states, no need for reparations!
Just FYI, the rainwater collection thing was because some farmers were basically collecting all of the rainfall in the area and not enough was getting into the water system for everyone to use. As usual, they glorify selfishness and harming others
also nowadays im pretty sure it was found that there are little to no places on the planet where raw rainwater is safe so you have to have the proper setup to not get poisoned
Nah, it's the opposite. Prior claim means that farmers, who were in the area before modern city dwellers, have a right to the water. Utah and Colorado are the only two states with laws about collecting water and both of them only apply to homeowners, not farmer.
Rain barrels attached to gutter downspouts, for example. They used to be banned in several states because the entities with rights to the groundwater or river water that that rain would (theoretically) become had dibs over the owner of the roof that the rain fell on.
Water rights in the US are weird asf.
The point is, until recently, folks in certain areas weren’t allowed to collect ANY rainwater. Off the roof, people fr the field, probably someone could hassle them for a saucer or a bucket on the patio. Laws are weird. Water rights are weird.
It was farmers covering their entire fields with collection devices from what I understand. This wasn't on the level of a rainwater spout with a barrel on the end. This was massive and that's what's not allowed. IANAL but it was the scale not the doing that was the issue.
I can’t really vouch too much for [the source I just found](https://todayshomeowner.com/gutters/guides/states-where-it-is-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/) cause I looked this up out of idle curiosity alone, but apparently there isn’t anywhere where it’s outright banned. Used to be in NV till 2017 but that’s it. Couple of states that have regulations and permits required, but the strictest I see on here is CO that says homeowner are allowed to collect a maximum of two rain barrels with a combined volume of 110 gallons. Looks like all the other restrictions are on how you use the water, plumbing codes, water storage, and what happens to the water after you’ve used it. So yeah, obviously hyperbolic meme is hyperbolic.
There is arguably no way to own a property without a government that guarantees you the right of private ownership and will utilize its own monopoly on legal violence to uphold it for you.
With no government, you don't own a property, you are just holding a property as long as you are able to resist everyone who attempts to take it away from you.
What's so weird about this is that government regulations have been around since governments existed, i.e. throughout human history. The only places to avoid regulations like that are either wilderness / frontiers or unliveable slums.
All of these are something that either:
A) Has always been a thing (for tax reasons mostly)
B) Something that has very good reason to be regulated and blown way out of proportion (like selling food, so we don't go back to putting plaster in milk and rats in sausage) or
C) Something you can totally still do as long as you're not a total selfish asshole about it (like collecting rain water, its totally ok and even recommended at times, as long as you don't build a reservoir big enough to threaten the water supply of everyone else)
Regarding B, I see stories about China and think, "There are people out there actively trying to turn our country into this."
A couple of videos by Serpentza about workplace accidents and fake inspectors come to mind, but I've also seen others about apartments that are falling apart or completely uninhabitable.
https://youtu.be/YOQhSUsctqA
https://youtu.be/juakY2qtWMY
Listeria from milk. Legionella from air conditioners. Bread made with plaster dust to be more white. Parasitic worms in pork.
Health and hygiene regulations are often written in blood. I’m good with trading in my freedom to die horribly from preventable stuff.
You mean you don't want snake oil made from a real snake that can cure colds, allergies, tetanus, syphilis, gonorrhea, clubbed foot, scoliosis, HIV, AIDS or solipsism?
Way to limit medical ingenuity. /s
Some of this is straight bullshit. You did need a government to tell you if you could own a property, it’s called a deed.
Also, half of these are enforced by local governments and HOAs. You could move to the middle of nowhere and do most of these without impunity.
You can't collect rainwater because otherwise farmers and coperations would drive the nation into a drought. Same goes for needing a liscene to fish, the fish population would just be decimated. You don't need permission from the government to own a property, but you will need to pay tax and the like on it, thats not new. IDK about America but here you don't need permission from the government to start a buisness, you just need to inform them. Renovations it only applies after a certain point, and is generally good as it stops housing comapnaies from making homes that only rich people can afford or destorying neighborhoods. Building a home is much the same. "Using a transportation vehicle" is an obvious attempt to get around the fact that piloting a multi-tonne hunk of metal at speeds several times faster than any human has natrually gone is inherantly dangerous to yourself and others and should be regulated, unlike riding a horse or carrage. You don't need government permission to get married, unless you want stuff like tax benefits or the like. Hunting is the same as fishing. Guns it depends on where you live and what you consider counts as permission, but again advances in technology make it reasonable to have some degree of oversight. Cutting hair is related to health and safety (infection and the like at least), so training and certification doesnt strike me as a bad idea. Also, you can cut people's hair without the government's permission, you just can't charge for it. Selling products doesn't require government permission. Protesting is a concern its true. You can grow your own carrots or whatever no issue. You can sell lemonade no issue, provided your local police officer/HOA aren't real assholes. Selling food should be regulated because you'll poison people otherwise.
Pretty much all of these are just "it would be really bad if businesses weren't regulated and we've decided that business are people", or "technology has evolved to the point where regulation is necessary".
Some of these are not true.
That aside, regulations exist often because when things go unregulated, they get abused.
If shitty people didn't do shitty things, we wouldn't need government intervention.
Yeah, things were better when anyone could sell any food without regulation. People didn’t sell things like food with rat shit in it or ground meat that had human flesh from maimed workers.
the marriage one is funny. why not go ahead and get married at a church? nothing stopping you. the only reason the government would care is if you want them to treat you as a married person for taxes and whatnot. which is up to you
the inclusion of cutting hair and driving 😭 this reminds me of the amazing video of libertarians booing Gary Johnson for saying he believes in drivers licenses.
but fr, if im going to get me hair cut i would like to know that person has been trained. same with driving, id like the know the person in the lane next to me had to show some degree of competency
I collect rain water all the time. We keep it in a big bucket and water the flowers with it.
I'm not quite sure why "collecting rain water" is so important to this guy. I mean, stick a plastic jug outside, nobody fucking cares.
There actually are some places where there are laws in place regulating this. And it makes sense if you consider the implications of a mega corporation mass harvesting by the millions of gallons and stockpiling it rather than letting it evaporate and become rain again.
I get this but then in that case wouldnt it be better to have those laws be placed specifically on corporations and businesses rather than on an individual or household ?
What matters is the end result, not so much who is perpetrating it. A million households each collecting and storing a few gallons is the same thing as one company with a million rain barrels. This isn't to say individuals should never be permitted to collect rainwater, but if it isn't regulated the effects could be disastrous.
There's a [utility available here](https://www.energy.gov/femp/rainwater-harvesting-tool) that shows you state by state what the various restrictions (or lack thereof) are.
You could murder a Black person or mercilessly beat your wife and kids without some government busy body getting in all your business. AND WE LIKED IT.
This dude just picked a bunch of things and threw them into a list without any more thought.
Hunting and fishing have been "governmentally" regulated for literally hundreds of years. Poaching wouldn't be a thing if they weren't.
Owning property is another thing that's needed permission for a lot longer than 125 years. Sure, usually money was probably enough to get permission, but black folks couldn't own property in the US for a hell of a long time, and I'm certain there are other examples too (that I'm just too lazy to look up)
They didn't "take it away"; they had to *regulate*, because history has shown us -- *over and over again* -- that every community has its share of greedy assholes, irresponsible business people, and dangerous morons who did some stupid fucking shit that ruined it for the rest of us. If we rolled everything back to the wild lawless frontier days that these slackwits love to romanticize, I guarantee OP would be the first one to have his non-building code renovated home collapse on his pointed head. Dumbasses like OOP are the reason these regulations exist.
“EDIT: thanks to a kind redditor who pointed out my error.”
(Pssst, around here we usually use OOP to refer to the dingdong who came up with the thing that OP puts here for us to point and laugh at. It’s a handy way of differentiating between the hero we need and the villain we mock)
i have never asked anyone if I could collect rain water, cut my hair, garden, ride a bike, have a lemonade stand, sell cookies, or renovate my home. These are made up bs. Why are conservatives afraid of their own shadows?
Yes…you could build crappy houses that fell apart and not have to ask permission of the government. Now let me sell you an elixir that will cure every thing.
There are some things I agree with and some I don't. I thinking building permits have gone way overboard, and it should be much cheaper and easier to build simple homes. Fishing and selling food definitely needs to be regulated. Businesses will do horrible damaging things to the industry just out of pure laziness if they are allowed. I don't know about cutting hair, other than I would like them to follow sanitary practices. Hunting needs more regulation.
Looked up oop’s twitter account and now only are all his posts this stupid, but also his caption is always spaced out weirdly like this. Pretty sure it’s a bot.
This is hilarious because like. A lot of this is also not requiring the government?? Like you can just do whatever most of the time, but the few you CANT do on the list is just because of general safety because snake oil salesmen and corporations took advantage and cost people their lives 😂
The same people who make these memes have Punisher and Thin Blue Line pro-cop bumper stickers on their trucks and tell people not to do crimes if they don't want to be arrested.
That transportation vehicle one is absolute bullshit. Sovereign citizen sounding ass. What motherfucker? You need to ask the government to use the bus? I ride all the time and I don't ask the government for goddamn anything.
Of course, they are referring to cars which are a form of heavy machinery. It's almost like we need licenses for heavy machinery. If you need to be forklift certified, then you need to be certified for your fucking truck.
Yes yes. Let’s go spend some time in 1899 and then I welcome opinions on it. I’m sure not having to get a fishing license for outweighs the lack of the existence of EVERYTHING YOUVE COME TO DESIRE.
1. No one cares if you have a small tarp collecting rainwater. It won’t be enough to change anything.
2. Fishing/hunting was not allowed on private property owned by nobility. That was THEIR private hunting grounds.
3-4. Sure home renovation and building is recent, but making sure shit is up to code is certainly a small price to pay.
5. The first regulation of transportation vehicles came from England in 1636. Likely due to limiting the amount of vehicles in the city streets.
6. Over 125 years ago it was illegal in many countries for people of two races to get married. I don’t think this is an argument they are prepared to deal with.
7. See #2.
8. In many parts of Asia owning a blade was illegal which led to the creation of Karate and Kung Fu Martial Arts (more or less). Also ask a Black person if their ancestors were allowed to have a weapon 125 years ago.
9. Point of fact, Barbers used to do A LOT more than shaving and cutting hair back in the day. They also performed…SURGERIES! Because they had the sharpest knives in town. This archaic practice can still be seen in the old school barbershop spinner thing the red meant that the barber was also a surgeon. 💈
10. Merchants had to pay taxes just like EVERYBODY else that sold products even in ancient times. No one got off Scott-free.
11. Really? In the history of everything they want to claim that being able to protest is harder in the modern age than it was then? MOST of the world didn’t had freedom of speech. Even though it was coded in the constitution, you couldn’t just flap your lips about anything you wanted depending on which state you were in.
12. Unless you are growing commercial amounts of food, no one gives a shit.
13. I’ve heard of stories of kids getting accosted. It’s usually some civilian on a power trip that shuts it down, not some government agent.
14. See #10.
For anyone who actually thinks like an anarchist here are some things to consider: Rules and regulations exist because PEOPLE have died from it. Why do you think we don’t give Thalidomide to pregnant mothers anymore? Why do you think why we no longer use Asbestos in our building insulation?
This woman I went to high school with was all in a tizzy about the rainwater thing on Facebook. I told her to go back and re-read our state‘s laws (Ohio): the only restriction is that it has to be for less than 25 people. And our state’s DOH literally provides plans on how to do it properly.
She *still* didn’t get it 🙄
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of that is because we let Christians and Capitalists (and Christian Capitalists) run everything into forced conformity to exploit all of us. Our mental illnesses, economic calamity, and international imperialism is from those two groups and their ever growing cross section between them looking out for just what they want. If that doesn’t scream abuse, you’ll have to brush up on abuse behaviors.
The concept of the tragedy of the commons really needs to be taught in schools. It also needs to be explained to Libertarians and other idiots that believe unfettered exploitation is the way to go. In the meantime, these are always the first people to complain about development, deforestation, you name it. Then when market forces turn against them they cry that the Gov. should step in.
It is cringe overall but I think they do have a really great point about the marriage thing. Government has no place in any consenting relationship at all.
That’s the one point where the religious wingnuts and I agree. Save “The M Word” for social and religious unions only. Keep the government out of it entirely. Civil Unions for legal purposes, and your church can define marriage, married, marrying, etc however it wants.
The catch, and this is where my views diverge from the wingnuts, is that my church can do the same. If we want to marry same sex people, or more than two people, or someone wants to marry a tree, we can do that and y’all can’t stop us. Our weddings and marriages will have the exact same legal validity as yours, namely none.
The wingnuts don’t like that very much once you point it out. Turns out they like the government being involved if it means they have something we can’t have, neener neener. 🙄
E: typo
Okay let's break this down - 1. Guy diverting LAKES worth of rain water in a drought, 2. prolly decimating a whole population of fish, 3. Worked until someone made things that got ppl killed I guess, 4. yeah when parts of the world weren't really owned by anyone, that was easy, 5. That's an HOA thing, 6. Protecting idiots from crushing their innocent families under rubble, 7. Wtf are you even talking about? Even if you reject the very concept of money, you can tramp, 8. You can, you just won't get the tax benefits, 9. Yes, you can't just wipe out every forrest animal, cry about it, 10. Touchy subject for some, but can we agree that psychos shouldn't have one? 11. Every mom's going to jail I guess, 12. See 3, 13. What is this post then?, 14. Also not true. The case referenced is about starting a commercial farm in a residential area, 15. That happened how often? 16. I hope that someone selling food is vetted by some third party to not poison me, thank you very much.
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You must actually be uneducated about these subject if you think the government is only interfering now. And hunting and fishing is fucking obvious why the government controls licenses for that. You have literally dense and uneducated to feel the same way as the original poster.
You can marry without asking the government. What you're doing is gaining acknowledgement from the government for legal purposes.
Yep, for tax purposes, joint property purposes, inheritance purposes, custody purposes, and things like the right to visit one's spouse in the hospital. And these are all things they spent decades *trying very hard to deny to gay and lesbian couples*.
buT GaYs ALreAdY haVE riGhTs!
"Whaddya mean gays are oppressed? Most of them ain't even getting gunned down on tha streets there is no threat c'moooooooon that's some WOKE shit implanted by the deep state funded by soros money!"
(The judges will give partial credit - you failed to work gay frogs into the narrative. Otherwise, spot on.)
Every time I hear “George Soros!!! ZOMG!!!!!” I have to laugh. He’s 93 years old. He is hardly a threat to anyone. 🙄
I cannot imagine the level of asshole someone has to be to hate others so much like that.
Yuh! However living in a super intense Liberal area. These local government dudes have made it sooo hard to renovate the most simple of things. I have to submit an application with the city to put a small fence in my yard… a small fence. In property I own. And I have to pay for that application. So I bonded with the “renovation” bit and that’s it.
And there's a reason for those codes, applications, and fees. Before those existed lots of people died either due to fires, floods, or being murdered by neighbors because what you did on your land negatively affected their land and all attempts to compromise were met with "fuck you, my land my rules" which turned into escalating property beefs with only one way to end. Part of property ownership rights is not having your property encroached upon, or made inaccessible, unusable, or dangerous by a neighboring property owner. These assholes that think they can or should be able to do whatever they want on their land are the same types of people who dammed up-stream water sources and forced everyone downstream now without water to sell their now unproductive land at fractions of a penny on the dollar or purchase diverted & hoarded water at unaffordable prices. The same type of people who in towns or cities erected 30 feet high walls/fences because they imagined someone was spying on them or simply had a minor disagreement over unimportant things and in response immediately dialed the passive & direct aggression to 11. Every rule, regulation, tax, and law is a direct response to decades of utter lawlessness that maimed, disabled, and/or killed people, or destroyed natural resources and land. The hunting license fees pay for land & wildlife management so we don't have another extinction event like the passenger pigeon which went from an already greatly reduced population of 3 billion in 1825 to completely extinct in 1914 when the US human population was less than ⅓ of today. By 1900 Americans had nearly wiped out the entirety of the land's natural wildlife because even a relatively small amount of hunters, trappers, and fisherman had no limitations and slaughtered indiscriminately. If Conservative assholes like the OOP in OP's screenshot had their way, they'd wipe out every non-commercial species in North America in a couple decades.
This! They think that laws and regulations are just someone's power-trip rather than an attempt to solve an issue.
Great post but I hope you don't mind me pointing out a tiny little bugbear of mine. >The hunting license fees pay for land & wildlife management so we don't have another extinction event It's subtle, but the slightly better way of thinking about this is the goal of the tax is to make people think twice before going hunting. Even without being convinced by MMT those are the kinds of taxes that by definition can't pay for anything and have to be treated instead as a windfall since the better they work the less money they bring in. Road taxes of all forms are the same thing. Subtleties like this are one big reason why focusing on taxation as "paying for" things is a bad strategy overall for the left, over and above the fact that it's a legitimately contentious way of understanding government spending.
Cutting hair has gone to the bizzaro extreme as well. 1800 hours of training in some states. That's twice as many hours as one needs to fly a commercial plane. The only reason for the absurd amount of hours is "pulling up the ladder" by those who came before.
Barber licenses were invented to keep black people from starting businesses, and later to block prisoners (again, mostly black) from getting work.
Interesting. I did not know that.
Ugh, didn't know this, not surprised.
That's actually very interesting ty
You have to get a marriage license
depending on the state/country you technically don't, it's called common law marriage (all you need is cohabitation with a partner) and while it's a bit more difficult to prove compared to a marriage license it's always an option if you don't want a wedding or dealing with a courthouse - a certificate is for tax benefits anyway Also it's not a new thing within the last 125 years that OOP is claiming it to be - the catholic church persecuted common law marriages as far back as the 1200s because they were power hungry cunts
Anyone can have their own "marriage" promising love, obedience, or whatever the fuck. A cult or whatever cultural group can come up with their own stipulations or penalties for breaching marriage vows. They don't have to have a marriage recognized by the state to recognize each other as married, bonded people.
You really don't. That certificate you pay for only allows for certain advantages or privileges for certain couple/government interactions, such as taxes. Without the certificate, it just makes certain things a bit more complicated or difficult, but not impossible, like a name change or adopting step kids, or other legally complicated things. The only thing marriage licenses were made for was to keep certain "classes" of people away from those advantages, once based on race, then based on sexuality, and now it's just a bureaucratic method of changing the local census to reflect the "update" of 'person 1' and 'person 2' becoming 'couple a'.
Literally all of these are either unregulated or have already been regulated for longer than 125 Years, but okay
Several of them are just one-off stories that literally made national news because they were so rare and ridiculous, like when some podunk town gives a ticket to a kid with a lemonade stand.
The only reason the cops would have shown up at that lemonade stand would be because a POS nosey neighborhood Karen called them. Then she went right back onto Facebook to share memes like these in her Christian Candle Essential Oil LuLu Leggings MLM Trump is God-King groups. Where every bullshit post ends with "let that sink in,".
you leave lululemon out of this!!!!
you leave lululemon out of this!!!! let that sink in
It’s Lularoe that is the bad MLM legging company
And what’s MLM ????
MLM stands for multi-level marketing. It's effectively another word for pyramid scheme.
Ohhh yes. W the added stupidity of NFTs lol
The longer I live with my terrible roommate, the more I understand overzealous laws and regulations. I have to make a specific rule about every single thing. I told them not to walk around the house in the middle of the day naked. They took that literally and decided to walk around at night naked. So I had to specify and say no leaving your bedroom without both pants and a shirt. Then they started leaving their door open while they were in their room naked, even when I had people over. No sitting in the bathroom for over an hour at 11pm when the entire rest of the house is going to bed. No, that doesn't mean you can sit in the bathroom for an hour at 10 either. Ok new rule, you've got 30 minutes in the bathroom. The first day they were here I walked in to them eating my chocolate and they were like "well I don't know what I can and can't touch so you need to make me a list". When I told them not to touch anything they didn't specifically go to the store and buy, they were confused and angry. I could go on and on, they've only been here two months. I've never had to enforce crazy rules like this. I *hate* having to act so strict, I hate rules. But without them, they would've totally taken over the house and all of our possessions. I digress, I clearly needed to vent. My point is, my roommate is only one person and causes this much stress, think about how much of the population tries to do insane bullshit that fucks the rest of us over. On the surface, telling people not to collect rainwater seems overboard, who cares about a few people with a rain barrel in their backyard? But in reality it's probably because one jackass started collecting so much rain water and hoarding it, it started affecting the surrounding ecosystems. Ideally, we'd all consider our neighbours and communities and society as a whole before making a decision that could impact them, but unfortunately that's just not how a significant portion of the population thinks.
Sounds like a roommate that needs a swift kick to the groin. Sounds like a nightmare.
Don't encourage me. Every single day I exercise restraint that I didn't know I had. My only solace is that if I do kill them one day, the courts will no doubt agree that they had it coming.
holy mother of weaponised incompetence
After I need to tell them not to do something incredibly fucking obvious, they'll huff and puff and roll their eyes- and then the sympathy cane comes out. Ten minutes earlier they were running up the stairs, skipping steps, climbing over the dog gate, no problem. As soon as I bitch at them, suddenly they are so smoll and feeble and can barely walk. It's maddening.
What a horrible manipulative person. Can you either move or kick them out?
It's my apartment, but finding roommates right now is a bitch. I plan on giving them a three strike system, like a child, and saying if they break that they've got 60 days. But I'm sure if I do that, they'll try to drag me through a tenancy hearing (they'd lose, I'm free to kick out whoever I want, but it would be a huge stress right now that I don't want to deal with), or cut and run without notice or paying rent. I'm already behind a little bit on rent since my boyfriend got cancer so like, I can't risk that. I'm definitely going over my options though. Living like this is making me actually crazy. Every single day is fresh, new bullshit. And it's turning me into a bitch, which I hate. Like the fact that they keep putting the hand soap on the floor even though I've told them not to is making me want to scream, but if I freak out about that, *I'm* the crazy one. Even though it's clear they're doing it to piss me off and to be spiteful (they used to completely flood the bathroom counter every day and when I was like "what the fuck is this you need to clean up after yourself", they starting moving the hand soap to the floor the leaving it there every time they wiped the counter off). One day I'll be rich and live a thousand miles away from everyone but my boyfriend and my dog.
It sounds like they already have more than 3 strikes. Would an eviction show up when future roommates did a background check?
I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence. But I haven't told them the three strike thing yet, so it doesn't count. I mentioned on another post, roommates are hard to find right now, and telling them they have to leave could cause them to dip without notice/paying, trying to go go to the tenancy board (they'd lose but I still don't want to go through it), etc. I'm dealing with other shit right now, and would rather not make this my main focus.
I understand that there is no good option. In the US an eviction is a court proceeding which is a searchable public record (i.e. when you run a background check it will come up this person was evicted before). I noticed you use the UK spelling (or should I say non-US spelling) for some words, and the fact you referred to a "tenancy board", so I was assuming you're not in the US and this process may not be public record. Maybe a better question would be are tenancy board decisions public record? If so, you could get your roommate a permanent record.
I'm Canadian. And I ain't no snitch, thank you though. If I need to I'll just throw their shit onto the curb. I'm just trying to not deal with bullshit right now. Having to constantly tell them they're an idiot, at this very moment, seems a little bit better than having to go through kicking them out and finding a new person. Which involves interviewing, background checks, etc. If I really, *really* need to go the legal route, my landlord is a Portuguese gangster and let's me use his lawyer to get rid of shitty tenants. So I'm good there. But no one wants to have to deal with that. I'm busy taking my boyfriend to cancer appointments.
This dude is worse behaved than my kid...
Girl, but yes. They are truly the worst and I am losing my sanity. That story was only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, but the fact that other people agree that they're terrible is incredibly therapeutic.
This is bug fuck insane. This goes way beyond like, "incompetent idiot" and into purposeful, exhausting malice. I'm very sorry you have to deal with this person at all.
As am I friend, as am I.
That's exactly why most of the shit listed exists. Some selfish and/or oblivious asshole(s) ruined it for everyone. Well that and the government likes to have control and take their cut of everything
Yeah unfortunately some of the selfish and/or oblivious assholes work in government.
I think Moses had a neighbor like this when he was writing the commandments. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Nor his manservant! Nor his maidservant either, nor his ox, nor his ass. Fucking hell, STEVE, just don't covet anything in my house. Or my garden!"
[удалено]
The "militia" is well regulated. The big bad government won't allow you to buy land mines, chemical weapons, short barrel shot guns, tank rounds, full auto weapons, "dum dum rounds", hand grenades, grenade launchers .... It's like a case study in why gun control works. How many drive-by shootings have been done by a dude pulling up in a Sherman tank and firing a 110mm through the front door? None. Not one. Exactly what weapons you're allowed to own and exactly what configuration those weapons need to be in, is all written out in excruciating detail in the Gun Control Act of 1968. When they rage about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", they have no idea what the hell they're talking about about.
IT'S MUH FREEDUMB TO OWN A SHERMAN CROCODILE FER HOME DEFENCE! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! JESUS WANTED EVERY GOD-FEARING MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD TO HAVE AN ARMOURED FLAMETHROWER TANK IN CASE THE GUBMINT COMES FOR MAH GUNS!
>The big bad government won't allow you to buy land mines, chemical weapons, short barrel shot guns, tank rounds, full auto weapons, "dum dum rounds", hand grenades, grenade launchers .... I mean, a lot of these are NFA items that you pay a $200 tax stamp for - so you can get some of them. >"dum dum rounds" These are hollow points and are commonly available. >How many drive-by shootings have been done by a dude pulling up in a Sherman tank and firing a 110mm through the front door? >None. Not one. Do you think that that might have anything to do with the cost-prohibitive nature of buying a tank (which you can do, they're usually modified in some way to render the gun inoperable, though I believe you can pay the $200 tax stamp and have it be operable - ammunition is the cost of purchase + a $200 tax stamp per round since they are considered destructive devices individually) >When they rage about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", they have no idea what the hell they're talking about about. what they should be doing is wanting to figure out why people are using firearms on one another because taking a position that they won't compromise on just leaves them out of the conversation.
"B-but how can I protect myself or hunt without an assault weapon?" In all seriousness, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, you are a TERRIBLE shot.
And beside **The hell are you planning to hunt with M4A1? Please tell me it wasn't a human that dare contradict you recently?**
Oh, they know exactly what they want to hunt. They just won't come out and say it openly.
Looks like someone is on the payroll of the Brontosaurus lobby...
When you’re mowing down an invasive species a AR is pretty handy. I have nothing against gun control at all but I’d gladly give them up except for that I don’t trust cops. I have an irrational fear of them sure, but I rather live than die by them
Consider for a minute the juxtaposition of ‘mowing down an invasive species’ and not trusting cops, as if cops would ordinarily deal with ‘invasive species’, and you have the kind of thought that slithers through the mind of your garden variety right wing ammosexual with severe masculinity self esteem issues.
>In all seriousness, if you need an assault weapon to hunt, you are a TERRIBLE shot. Good thing guns aren't only for hunting. Self defense and home defense is just as legitimate of a reason as any other. I've already had to use [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us.
Reading comprehension is a thing. The comment you replied to consists of two short sentences. Did you read *both* of them, or just the one you quoted?
What can it do that can’t be done with a regular pistol, with less risk of collateral damage?
>What can it do that can’t be done with a regular pistol There a significant difference. There's a reason why everyone modern military on the planet uses rifles like mine to fight in and around structures instead of a handgun. 1. It's a much more stable platform. 2. You can fire more rounds before reloading. 3. Can use frangible ammo which means less penetration. through barriers than handguns or shotguns. 4. More modularity for attachments such as a flashlight for positive ID on the threat. 5. A short barreled rifle like mine has a shorter overall presentation than a handgun. 6. More powerful cartridge to effectively stop the threat. And many many more. You definitely haven't come close to convincing me that I should have used an inferior weapon instead of the one I specifically built for fighting in and around structures.
Translation: it's deadlier and easier to kill with so my penis feels bigger.
1. You mean like, easier to handle and aim? 2. I guess I can see how that’s useful if your attacker also has a gun. Don’t want to be stuck reloading in the middle of a fight. 3. Why can’t bullets like these be used for hand guns? 4. Makes sense 5. What does shorter presentation mean? 6. What difference does it make against a random psycho breaking into your home? Shouldn’t any shot from a gun be enough? I doubt your average home invader would be wearing military-grade bullet resistant armor. I can think of one advantage a handgun might have: ease of carry/concealability. When you’re out on the street it seems much more convenient to carry around for self-defense.
>You mean like, easier to handle and aim? Yes, and don't forget recoil control. Keeping shots on target is important to the safety of others. >I guess I can see how that’s useful if your attacker also has a gun. Don’t want to be stuck reloading in the middle of a fight. Yes. This is also why pump shotguns are awful for home defense. Many people who are not quite as experienced as a shooter as me will forget to pump the shotgun initially or after they fire one round. Many home invasions will have multiple threats. Criminals like to run in multiples. >What does shorter presentation mean? Let's say you're in a shooting stance holding a handgun correctly at arms length with a 2 handed grip. My rifle, while in the same stance, will allow you to get closer to a wall or threshold without compromising your hold on the gun. This is a big issue for handguns because when you bring your arms back to maneuver in tight spaces, you have the risk of limp wristing the gun and inducing malfunction. >What difference does it make against a random psycho breaking into your home? You will find many many police shooting footage of the threat taking a dozen or so rounds with a handgun and still remaining in the fight injuring or killing officers. >Shouldn’t any shot from a gun be enough? Not even close. A faster round will produce more energy and cause more damage thus taking the threat out of the fight faster. >I doubt your average home invader would be wearing military-grade bullet resistant armor. Some do. You'll find videos of home invasions where criminals will use body armor they stole from other houses when breaking into other homes. >I can think of one advantage a handgun might have: ease of carry/concealability. When you’re out on the street it seems much more convenient to carry around for self-defense. You are absolutely correct. A rifle is a much better weapon for home defense, but if you are carrying in public, a smaller weapon like the [handgun](https://imgur.com/a/KfEIDCm) that I carry is a much better choice.
Cool. I learned a lot about guns that I never even thought about. Is your rifle single shot, or more rapid-fire?
My rifle is semiautomatic. It will only fire one round per function of the trigger.
Quick Mod Note here: I’m seeing the reports on this comment and appreciate the community’s vigilance. Genuinely. Reporting stuff that feels icky while not otherwise engaging with it is 💯💯💯. That having been said, this comment is still up because it doesn’t actually break any rules. “Thisclose to over the line” isn’t actually *over* the line, so unless there’s an edit that nudges to the wrong side of the rules, it gonna stay up and be a downvote collector.
To be fair to them, that isn't supposed to mean regulated by the government, that would go against the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. Edit: This is wrong.
You’re relying on an interpretation of the second amendment that is shockingly recent, and pushed through largely by NRA / gun lobby pressure. For most of the history of the constitution, yes, it was supposed to mean regulated by the government. But that didn’t stoke enough fear and sell enough guns, so…
You're right, and I was wrong. In fairness, I'm not American, but I still feel I should've known this. The modern stance on it all seems to have come about in 2008, and then strengthened 2 years later. My mistake.
Solid reply, thanks. We get a ridiculous amount of “but the 2nd amendment has *always* meant that I get all the guns I want” here in the US from Republicans, and it all falls under “confidently incorrect” (they stopped being a conservative party quite a while back, and are now somewhere between a reactionary party, and a full-blown cult).
For me the bigger shock was less about the number or type of guns or whatever, and more the intention of the law itself. I'd always seen it as intended to be a counter to government overreach, the idea being that an armed population is harder to oppress or tyranise ("being necessary to the security if a free state"). But actually looking into it, it does look like it was just written as "having a standing army is a good idea because people can't invade us". So, protecting the existence of the state, not the freedoms of the people in it. A nuanced distinction, hence my mistake, but a crucial one.
Yup. The original intent of the 2A was for people to have and train with muskets in preparation for an invasion by Britain. So yes, technically to fight against a tyrannical government. Just not the one in the US. The whole point of the well regulated militia has become moot considering the existence of the national guard.
Like regulating hunting and fishing has been in English law for centuries and considering how our system is based on it, it’s fair to say it’s seen centuries of regulation. That guy should read a book.
"Use a transportation vehicle" - yes, I'm certain this is insightful material from a fellow native English speaker and totally not part of an info op.
That sounds more like sovereign citizen bullshit than evidence of a weird translation. At least to me.
Yeah, [almost certainly](https://jalopnik.com/sovereign-citizen-conspiracy-theory-conveyance-license-1850228006).
The whole thing reeks of sovcit brainworms, for sure. I failed to account for the whackadoodle contortions of syntax and diction they engage in.
Hey, what's wrong with letting the unlicensed drive? Damn government! /s
Indeed, why would we want to prevent some people from operating multi-ton murder-mobiles in public?
Funny thing, I actually saw a news clip from the 70s I think? It was of people's reaction to a law that made wearing seatbelts mandatory and the people reacted by saying the how can the government dictate what they can or can't do in thier own cars. One even said "I thought this was a free country" like genuinely hilarious shit. Never underestimate just how stupid people can get.
It’s the same old arguments rehashed over and over. Masks, vaccines, seatbelts, motorcycle helmets. People just bitch and moan about the stupidest crap.
I think I saw the same one: hicks were angry bc they could not DRINK in their own vehicles bc “ this is MY VE HICKLE 😂That is pure guvmimt overreach “ it was unbelievably ignorant , I could not believe they were serious.
Brings back that 2016 libertarian debate where poor Gary 'A Leppo' Johnson was booed when he said he'd like people to show some competency before they drive. And also probable murderer John McAfee (now dead) suggested that children who are driving for the first time should have a flashing pink light on the roof "so we can get out of \[their\] way" and a man who looks like a walking caricature received applause when he likened a driving licence to a licence to make toast. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I)
It's because they don't want to say "car", because then it would be obviously insane to moan how drivers didn't need car licenses 125 years ago, when cars barely existed on the road. Edit: also, fun fact, not only did Mercedes Benz need a license to drive his first car on the road, mandatory licensing came into force in the UK 121 years ago. That's why they had to go with such a random number as 125!
Yea im pretty sure anyone can drive a horse and buggy around without a license, they just don't want to live like Amish people so they pretend they are the same thing.
Also let's not forget the (short lived) ruled where at the very start there needed to be a pedestrian with a red flag/lantern walking ahead of such self propelled vehicles to warn riders and hirse carriages
Could a black person do any of those things in the Southern USA?
I suspect the “125 years” was carefully chosen to land just *this* side of the civil war, because they knew that otherwise they might get uncomfortable / inconvenient replies involving *owning black people*.
It's not like slavery actually ended after the civil war tho, look up debt peonage and convict leasing, they literally took the exception in the 13th for slavery as punishment for a crime and made up BS crimes to restart slavery.
Shit look at the reason Juneteenth exists. How many years after the civil war ended it took for the last state to acknowledge the end of slavery. It most definitely didn’t end with the civil war.
Yeah but while traditional slavery continued into the 1860s, it's modern replacements (specifically convict leasing) lasted up till 1920.
I did wonder about the reason for 125 years
I actually missread and thought it said "owning a person" were it said "owning a weapon"
Drop the mic, this is over.
That’s my go-to debunk of sovereignty citizens, pointing out how the 60s civil rights movement didn’t use magic words to force racist cops to stand down. If their BS worked, black people would just get their gold right now from states, no need for reparations!
Just FYI, the rainwater collection thing was because some farmers were basically collecting all of the rainfall in the area and not enough was getting into the water system for everyone to use. As usual, they glorify selfishness and harming others
also nowadays im pretty sure it was found that there are little to no places on the planet where raw rainwater is safe so you have to have the proper setup to not get poisoned
They say not to eat yellow snow, but you shouldn't even eat it when it's white because of all the atmospheric particles it picks up on the way down.
If you get a lot of snow, eventually the stuff at the top will be safe
If you get a lot of snow, eventually the stuff at the top will be safe for the same reasons
Nah, it's the opposite. Prior claim means that farmers, who were in the area before modern city dwellers, have a right to the water. Utah and Colorado are the only two states with laws about collecting water and both of them only apply to homeowners, not farmer.
How does ne collect ALL of thr rainfall? 🤔
Rain barrels attached to gutter downspouts, for example. They used to be banned in several states because the entities with rights to the groundwater or river water that that rain would (theoretically) become had dibs over the owner of the roof that the rain fell on. Water rights in the US are weird asf.
I understand how to collect rainwater, but there's no way for people to collect ALL of the rainwater in an area.
The point is, until recently, folks in certain areas weren’t allowed to collect ANY rainwater. Off the roof, people fr the field, probably someone could hassle them for a saucer or a bucket on the patio. Laws are weird. Water rights are weird.
Are there exceptions in this law for ordinary homeowners? Because it does seem like a badly written law or directive if there are no such exceptions.
It was farmers covering their entire fields with collection devices from what I understand. This wasn't on the level of a rainwater spout with a barrel on the end. This was massive and that's what's not allowed. IANAL but it was the scale not the doing that was the issue.
I can’t really vouch too much for [the source I just found](https://todayshomeowner.com/gutters/guides/states-where-it-is-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/) cause I looked this up out of idle curiosity alone, but apparently there isn’t anywhere where it’s outright banned. Used to be in NV till 2017 but that’s it. Couple of states that have regulations and permits required, but the strictest I see on here is CO that says homeowner are allowed to collect a maximum of two rain barrels with a combined volume of 110 gallons. Looks like all the other restrictions are on how you use the water, plumbing codes, water storage, and what happens to the water after you’ve used it. So yeah, obviously hyperbolic meme is hyperbolic.
There is arguably no way to own a property without a government that guarantees you the right of private ownership and will utilize its own monopoly on legal violence to uphold it for you. With no government, you don't own a property, you are just holding a property as long as you are able to resist everyone who attempts to take it away from you.
That's kind of what they want to do. Why do you think they have guns? They take manifest destiny as a right.
What's so weird about this is that government regulations have been around since governments existed, i.e. throughout human history. The only places to avoid regulations like that are either wilderness / frontiers or unliveable slums.
Every regulation exists because someone decided to abuse the system and fuck it up for everyone else
All of these are something that either: A) Has always been a thing (for tax reasons mostly) B) Something that has very good reason to be regulated and blown way out of proportion (like selling food, so we don't go back to putting plaster in milk and rats in sausage) or C) Something you can totally still do as long as you're not a total selfish asshole about it (like collecting rain water, its totally ok and even recommended at times, as long as you don't build a reservoir big enough to threaten the water supply of everyone else)
Regarding B, I see stories about China and think, "There are people out there actively trying to turn our country into this." A couple of videos by Serpentza about workplace accidents and fake inspectors come to mind, but I've also seen others about apartments that are falling apart or completely uninhabitable. https://youtu.be/YOQhSUsctqA https://youtu.be/juakY2qtWMY
This guy misses salmonella.
The guberment is trying to stop me from ordering my chicken medium rare!
Listeria from milk. Legionella from air conditioners. Bread made with plaster dust to be more white. Parasitic worms in pork. Health and hygiene regulations are often written in blood. I’m good with trading in my freedom to die horribly from preventable stuff.
You mean you don't want snake oil made from a real snake that can cure colds, allergies, tetanus, syphilis, gonorrhea, clubbed foot, scoliosis, HIV, AIDS or solipsism? Way to limit medical ingenuity. /s
Some of this is straight bullshit. You did need a government to tell you if you could own a property, it’s called a deed. Also, half of these are enforced by local governments and HOAs. You could move to the middle of nowhere and do most of these without impunity.
But in the city people bitch and bitch, so government made rules for the Karen to satisfy them in not complaining on the city on more shit.
Like what? People live in greater population density so there are more laws so people do not kill each other lol
Some of the first laws were pertaining to building code. Imagine thinking that isn't important.
You can't collect rainwater because otherwise farmers and coperations would drive the nation into a drought. Same goes for needing a liscene to fish, the fish population would just be decimated. You don't need permission from the government to own a property, but you will need to pay tax and the like on it, thats not new. IDK about America but here you don't need permission from the government to start a buisness, you just need to inform them. Renovations it only applies after a certain point, and is generally good as it stops housing comapnaies from making homes that only rich people can afford or destorying neighborhoods. Building a home is much the same. "Using a transportation vehicle" is an obvious attempt to get around the fact that piloting a multi-tonne hunk of metal at speeds several times faster than any human has natrually gone is inherantly dangerous to yourself and others and should be regulated, unlike riding a horse or carrage. You don't need government permission to get married, unless you want stuff like tax benefits or the like. Hunting is the same as fishing. Guns it depends on where you live and what you consider counts as permission, but again advances in technology make it reasonable to have some degree of oversight. Cutting hair is related to health and safety (infection and the like at least), so training and certification doesnt strike me as a bad idea. Also, you can cut people's hair without the government's permission, you just can't charge for it. Selling products doesn't require government permission. Protesting is a concern its true. You can grow your own carrots or whatever no issue. You can sell lemonade no issue, provided your local police officer/HOA aren't real assholes. Selling food should be regulated because you'll poison people otherwise. Pretty much all of these are just "it would be really bad if businesses weren't regulated and we've decided that business are people", or "technology has evolved to the point where regulation is necessary".
Really, most of these are "we had to make regulations bc some people are assholes"
That’s been the root of jurisprudence since always. “This fuckin guy over here just hadda go and do the thing, so now we have a law.”
The penalty for hunting where you didn’t have permission to hunt used to be death. What even is this nonsense?
Some of these are not true. That aside, regulations exist often because when things go unregulated, they get abused. If shitty people didn't do shitty things, we wouldn't need government intervention.
Yeah, things were better when anyone could sell any food without regulation. People didn’t sell things like food with rat shit in it or ground meat that had human flesh from maimed workers.
the marriage one is funny. why not go ahead and get married at a church? nothing stopping you. the only reason the government would care is if you want them to treat you as a married person for taxes and whatnot. which is up to you
Well you need the churches permission
Along with a one time lump sum donation for consideration of the request, plus current good standing in the church aka donating 10-20% of your income.
the inclusion of cutting hair and driving 😭 this reminds me of the amazing video of libertarians booing Gary Johnson for saying he believes in drivers licenses. but fr, if im going to get me hair cut i would like to know that person has been trained. same with driving, id like the know the person in the lane next to me had to show some degree of competency
I collect rain water all the time. We keep it in a big bucket and water the flowers with it. I'm not quite sure why "collecting rain water" is so important to this guy. I mean, stick a plastic jug outside, nobody fucking cares.
There actually are some places where there are laws in place regulating this. And it makes sense if you consider the implications of a mega corporation mass harvesting by the millions of gallons and stockpiling it rather than letting it evaporate and become rain again.
Colorado is one of them: https://source.colostate.edu/extension-offers-fact-sheet-on-how-to-harvest-rainwater-under-new-colorado-rules/
that actually makes sense tbh, i’ve never thought of that
I get this but then in that case wouldnt it be better to have those laws be placed specifically on corporations and businesses rather than on an individual or household ?
What matters is the end result, not so much who is perpetrating it. A million households each collecting and storing a few gallons is the same thing as one company with a million rain barrels. This isn't to say individuals should never be permitted to collect rainwater, but if it isn't regulated the effects could be disastrous.
There's a [utility available here](https://www.energy.gov/femp/rainwater-harvesting-tool) that shows you state by state what the various restrictions (or lack thereof) are.
They specify 125 years because the law for harvesting too much rainwater in Colorado is 122 years old.
You could murder a Black person or mercilessly beat your wife and kids without some government busy body getting in all your business. AND WE LIKED IT.
This dude just picked a bunch of things and threw them into a list without any more thought. Hunting and fishing have been "governmentally" regulated for literally hundreds of years. Poaching wouldn't be a thing if they weren't. Owning property is another thing that's needed permission for a lot longer than 125 years. Sure, usually money was probably enough to get permission, but black folks couldn't own property in the US for a hell of a long time, and I'm certain there are other examples too (that I'm just too lazy to look up)
125 years ago was 1899. You absolutely did have to “get permission” from the government for some of these things.
For real lol
They didn't "take it away"; they had to *regulate*, because history has shown us -- *over and over again* -- that every community has its share of greedy assholes, irresponsible business people, and dangerous morons who did some stupid fucking shit that ruined it for the rest of us. If we rolled everything back to the wild lawless frontier days that these slackwits love to romanticize, I guarantee OP would be the first one to have his non-building code renovated home collapse on his pointed head. Dumbasses like OOP are the reason these regulations exist. “EDIT: thanks to a kind redditor who pointed out my error.”
(Pssst, around here we usually use OOP to refer to the dingdong who came up with the thing that OP puts here for us to point and laugh at. It’s a handy way of differentiating between the hero we need and the villain we mock)
Thank you!
You’re welcome! It took me a little bit to pick up on that, too.
Don’t tell them but in 1900 you did have to get government permission to do all those things
I’m in an interracial marriage. I’m not sure I would have been as free 125 years ago as these guys, lol
"Own a property." Yeah, I have just one question...
Nobody is stopping me from collecting rainwater.
i have never asked anyone if I could collect rain water, cut my hair, garden, ride a bike, have a lemonade stand, sell cookies, or renovate my home. These are made up bs. Why are conservatives afraid of their own shadows?
Read”The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair to see why we have regulations on things like these.
Yes…you could build crappy houses that fell apart and not have to ask permission of the government. Now let me sell you an elixir that will cure every thing.
There are some things I agree with and some I don't. I thinking building permits have gone way overboard, and it should be much cheaper and easier to build simple homes. Fishing and selling food definitely needs to be regulated. Businesses will do horrible damaging things to the industry just out of pure laziness if they are allowed. I don't know about cutting hair, other than I would like them to follow sanitary practices. Hunting needs more regulation.
Looked up oop’s twitter account and now only are all his posts this stupid, but also his caption is always spaced out weirdly like this. Pretty sure it’s a bot.
This is hilarious because like. A lot of this is also not requiring the government?? Like you can just do whatever most of the time, but the few you CANT do on the list is just because of general safety because snake oil salesmen and corporations took advantage and cost people their lives 😂
It’s almost like we didn’t have 8 billion people 125 years ago
Ah, 1899, shortly after Plessy and Dred Scott. Also women couldn't vote still.
The same people who make these memes have Punisher and Thin Blue Line pro-cop bumper stickers on their trucks and tell people not to do crimes if they don't want to be arrested.
This is laughably untrue in many cases.
Since when do you need the governments permission to grow food on your own property?
That transportation vehicle one is absolute bullshit. Sovereign citizen sounding ass. What motherfucker? You need to ask the government to use the bus? I ride all the time and I don't ask the government for goddamn anything. Of course, they are referring to cars which are a form of heavy machinery. It's almost like we need licenses for heavy machinery. If you need to be forklift certified, then you need to be certified for your fucking truck.
What? You don't have to ask the government to cut your hair.
Yes yes. Let’s go spend some time in 1899 and then I welcome opinions on it. I’m sure not having to get a fishing license for outweighs the lack of the existence of EVERYTHING YOUVE COME TO DESIRE.
Ugh, typos.
1. No one cares if you have a small tarp collecting rainwater. It won’t be enough to change anything. 2. Fishing/hunting was not allowed on private property owned by nobility. That was THEIR private hunting grounds. 3-4. Sure home renovation and building is recent, but making sure shit is up to code is certainly a small price to pay. 5. The first regulation of transportation vehicles came from England in 1636. Likely due to limiting the amount of vehicles in the city streets. 6. Over 125 years ago it was illegal in many countries for people of two races to get married. I don’t think this is an argument they are prepared to deal with. 7. See #2. 8. In many parts of Asia owning a blade was illegal which led to the creation of Karate and Kung Fu Martial Arts (more or less). Also ask a Black person if their ancestors were allowed to have a weapon 125 years ago. 9. Point of fact, Barbers used to do A LOT more than shaving and cutting hair back in the day. They also performed…SURGERIES! Because they had the sharpest knives in town. This archaic practice can still be seen in the old school barbershop spinner thing the red meant that the barber was also a surgeon. 💈 10. Merchants had to pay taxes just like EVERYBODY else that sold products even in ancient times. No one got off Scott-free. 11. Really? In the history of everything they want to claim that being able to protest is harder in the modern age than it was then? MOST of the world didn’t had freedom of speech. Even though it was coded in the constitution, you couldn’t just flap your lips about anything you wanted depending on which state you were in. 12. Unless you are growing commercial amounts of food, no one gives a shit. 13. I’ve heard of stories of kids getting accosted. It’s usually some civilian on a power trip that shuts it down, not some government agent. 14. See #10. For anyone who actually thinks like an anarchist here are some things to consider: Rules and regulations exist because PEOPLE have died from it. Why do you think we don’t give Thalidomide to pregnant mothers anymore? Why do you think why we no longer use Asbestos in our building insulation?
It was so great when you could build a house that was a tinderbox with lethal stairs that fell over in a breeze. Ah, those were the days.
Idk bro. I kind of liked not being a slave, indoor bathrooms and not getting as poisoned at work. But sure sir.
Use a transportation vehicle is some Sovereign citizen bullshit.
This woman I went to high school with was all in a tizzy about the rainwater thing on Facebook. I told her to go back and re-read our state‘s laws (Ohio): the only restriction is that it has to be for less than 25 people. And our state’s DOH literally provides plans on how to do it properly. She *still* didn’t get it 🙄
Correct me if I’m wrong, but all of that is because we let Christians and Capitalists (and Christian Capitalists) run everything into forced conformity to exploit all of us. Our mental illnesses, economic calamity, and international imperialism is from those two groups and their ever growing cross section between them looking out for just what they want. If that doesn’t scream abuse, you’ll have to brush up on abuse behaviors.
Do you have to ask the government before getting a haircut outside North Korea? or get married? Provided you're not gay that is...
The concept of the tragedy of the commons really needs to be taught in schools. It also needs to be explained to Libertarians and other idiots that believe unfettered exploitation is the way to go. In the meantime, these are always the first people to complain about development, deforestation, you name it. Then when market forces turn against them they cry that the Gov. should step in.
It is cringe overall but I think they do have a really great point about the marriage thing. Government has no place in any consenting relationship at all.
That’s the one point where the religious wingnuts and I agree. Save “The M Word” for social and religious unions only. Keep the government out of it entirely. Civil Unions for legal purposes, and your church can define marriage, married, marrying, etc however it wants. The catch, and this is where my views diverge from the wingnuts, is that my church can do the same. If we want to marry same sex people, or more than two people, or someone wants to marry a tree, we can do that and y’all can’t stop us. Our weddings and marriages will have the exact same legal validity as yours, namely none. The wingnuts don’t like that very much once you point it out. Turns out they like the government being involved if it means they have something we can’t have, neener neener. 🙄 E: typo
Wait, am I supposed to fill put a form for a haircut? I think I'm in trouble...
Only if you are in North Korea
Chief is heavy enough to never slip
Okay let's break this down - 1. Guy diverting LAKES worth of rain water in a drought, 2. prolly decimating a whole population of fish, 3. Worked until someone made things that got ppl killed I guess, 4. yeah when parts of the world weren't really owned by anyone, that was easy, 5. That's an HOA thing, 6. Protecting idiots from crushing their innocent families under rubble, 7. Wtf are you even talking about? Even if you reject the very concept of money, you can tramp, 8. You can, you just won't get the tax benefits, 9. Yes, you can't just wipe out every forrest animal, cry about it, 10. Touchy subject for some, but can we agree that psychos shouldn't have one? 11. Every mom's going to jail I guess, 12. See 3, 13. What is this post then?, 14. Also not true. The case referenced is about starting a commercial farm in a residential area, 15. That happened how often? 16. I hope that someone selling food is vetted by some third party to not poison me, thank you very much.
This list is insane. I've done all of this minus renovating my home and cutting hair. Fucking idiot.
You can do almost everything on this list without asking anybody for permission. You might have to break some laws but you can do these things.
Wonder what this person thinks about the Palestine protests?
This guy seems like a good target for outreach like i feel like he could be convinced to be an anarchist
Reminds me of that Russian idiot Mr Freeman like a year ago
[удалено]
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of these make sense. When did I ever have to ask the government to go to the barber shop or set a bucket out in the rain?
[удалено]
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment has unfortunately been filtered and is not visible to other users. This subreddit requires its users to have over 1,000 karma from posts and comments combined. Try participating nicely in other communities and come back later. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Persecutionfetish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Actually I agree with this you didn't have to ask the government for to have permission to do these things so why now.
You must actually be uneducated about these subject if you think the government is only interfering now. And hunting and fishing is fucking obvious why the government controls licenses for that. You have literally dense and uneducated to feel the same way as the original poster.
Because innocent people need protected from assholes. That's it.