The lawful good ATF agent has come to take away the guns of the chaotic good militia citizen

>Lawful Neutral: The right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.*

>Neutral: I don't know anything about guns so I don't have an opinion on the matter.

>Chaotic Neutral: Everybody should be allowed to have whatever guns they want, because I think guns are fun and I want to keep mine.

>Lawful Evil: Ban those shoulder thingies that go up.

>Neutral Evil: You want to keep your gun rights? Sure, I can do that. Just make sure you vote for me.

>Chaotic Evil: Today was a good day, didn't even have to use my AK.

He didn't *have* to use his AK. He did so just because he wanted to.

>"You are now allowed to do this"
>Neutral

Neutral Good is neutrally good, not goodly neutral. They are interested in good for good's sake without concern for laws, biases or conventional social order.

Therefore "I don't care about your 'Constitution', people shouldn't be getting shot" is a logical Neutral Good position.

t. Chaotic Evil

Now you're getting it.

>the lawful good ATF agent shot the druid's dire wolf that was tied to a tree as to not intimidate the general people

>>Forcing other people to do an action against their will
>>Good
Anarchist spotted.

>chaotic good
>good

Really?

Pro-tip: just because your character thinks their alignment is Good, that don't make it so.

youtube.com/watch?v=4wal8fuRZWw

Given their insane "rulings" I doubt you can even consider the ATF lawful.

How many times were sig braces illegal, not illegal, then illegal again?

generally the aim of enforcing the law is to prevent evil people from harming others, or to eliminate circumstances likely to result in harm to others.

disarming irresponsible whackjobs falls squarely into that category. because, of course, if they weren't irresponsible whackjobs, they wouldn't have armed themselves to the teeth in the first place.

That's right, they're adhering to ancient and treasured traditions enshrined in American philosophy and law, they're LG.

What the hell is this Eurofaggot bullshit?

How many good/neutral aligned people will have their rights infringed for every evil aligned disarmed?

Isn't that why there's the presumption of innocence?

The actual NG position would be "guns save far more lives than they take and it takes police an average of eight minutes to respond, therefore everyone should have a gun regardless of whether Jamal's parents cry on TV that he died without ever getting to rape anyone"

>mfw all these people butthurt about the militia don't know that under the Dick Act all able bodied males in the US are considered militia and would technically be expected to maintain proficiency with firearms.

>Defending yourself means you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself

>guns save far more lives than they take and it takes police an average of eight minutes to respond, therefore everyone should have a gun
This could also be a Neutral Good position, it just derives from a specific idea of "good." You can arrive at different conclusions through the same style of logic.

>all able bodied males in the US
Whoa, that's like almost five percent of population?

Everyone keeps trying to determine who is lawful and who is chaotic, but I think it comes down to this.

ATF agent
>law enforcement will provide your protection, you don't need guns

Militia citizen
>the enforcers of law are insufficient protection for the citizenry, every person should provide for their own defense through guns

I think that would put the the militiaman squarely in the territory of the chaotic and the ATF agent in the territory of the lawful. As someone else once said, the lawful vs chaotic spectrum can better be described as collectivist vs individualist.

>ATF
>any kind of good
Reminder that the bulk of the FOPA was spelling out to the ATF that they couldn't lie to people just so they could make arrests when they believed the government agents.

>I take initiative
>reach into my pocket for dice
>get shot

ATF is fully LN, enforcing the laws of society as directed by their superiors without "good" or "evil" factoring into it.

Militias are CN, at least in the American context. They typically don't actually DO anything that would earn them a G or an E, but they tend to exist now as a paranoid reaction to perceived government overreach. Under all legal precedent the National Guard is the modern day "militia": until 2008 the Second Amendment wasn't even interpreted as an individual right because of how the "prefatory clause" was interpreted. In this context it's the Heller decision that's an unusual act of judicial activism by right-leaning Justices.

The civilian 'militia' movement exists on shaky legal ground and often involves plans to resist government actions by force of arms. They're Chaotic as fuck.

I'd argue more lawful neutral, if all you're doing is enforcing the law regardless of it being good or just is not lawful good.

>Under all legal precedent the National Guard is the modern day "militia"
Actually legally speaking the militia is all able-bodied males from the ages of 17 to 45.

>until 2008 the Second Amendment wasn't even interpreted as an individual right because of how the "prefatory clause" was interpreted
True, but the Founding Fathers certainly meant it as an individual right based on everything they had to say about it.

>thinly veiled /pol/k/ thread
fuck off

>true neutral gun confiscating evil guns

Disarming law abiding citizens is a CE act, period.

>t. a nogunz Bong

Don't be a loon, bin that spoon.

Except that the militiaman is acting well within his rights and the traditions of his country. The ATF agent isn't.

ATF agent
>the law won't allow us to outlaw guns, so we're going to bypass the law by pretending to be a tax collection agency

Tell that to the kids at Waco. Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno wanted the siege finished and out of the news, so they murdered every last cultists with the eager help of the ATF.

Which is why I described the Heller decision as activism. From 1903 to 2008 the "militia" was explicitly meant to be Federally-organized, inactive forces which were consolidated into the National Guard. It's a novel re-interpretation of the prefatory clause to mean both the organized forces AND all able-bodied males that was advanced in 2008 with no real justification to overturn the established de jure definitions.

And really, it's a hell of a shoddy argument. There's nothing in the words "well regulated" that can be reasonably interpreted as "any untrained chucklefuck" instead of Federally-organized units unless you're trying to deliberately obfuscate the meaning of the clause. Which, accounting for the typical linguistic conventions of the time, CLEARLY means organized militias overseen by the Government. And for that matter, if we're gonna split hairs over archaic definitions then under this reinterpretation women have no Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms. Plus, in the obiter dictum material the Court held that the Heller decision doesn't stop the Federal government from issuing further laws about what guns can be made available to the citizenry, taxes to be applied, or stuff like background checks and carry restrictions. It's a very hypothetical "right", and one that under Heller can still be regulated.

tl;dr gun politics in the United States are a fucking mess and we really should just fucking start over from scratch.

>the """Lawful Good""" ATF agent shoots your fucking dog after selling guns to cartel members

I play a lot of Delta Green, a game about being a Federal Agent. ATF is the most fun agency to be from, since no matter what ridiculous and clearly illegal thing you want to do, you can cite a news article or DOJ Investigation when the GM calls you on it.

>ATF is fully LN, enforcing the laws of society as directed by their superiors without "good" or "evil" factoring into it.

Er, no. I don't think society ever asked the ATF to create an illegal multi million dollar tobacco smuggling operation to fund themselves without budgetary oversight
nytimes.com/2017/09/08/us/atf-tobacco-cigarettes.html

Or to threaten people with spurious prosecution in order to entrap them in fictional sting operations
s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1093640/031118524877.pdf

>ATF
>Good

They're lawful evil at best.

Literally none of that shit is true, the militia has been defined as "civilians with guns equal to what the military has" since Washington's day and no amount of Europhile liberal overreach will change that. Furthermore, the right OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is self-explanatory and supported by all supplementary writings of the Founding Fathers. Shall not be infringed, cuck. Now fuck off back to /leftypol/.

>It's a novel re-interpretation of the prefatory clause to mean both the organized forces AND all able-bodied males that was advanced in 2008 with no real justification to overturn the established de jure definitions.
Except as you just mentioned the militia being defined as the National Guard didn't even come into being until 1903, so the really the 2008 redefinition was more reactionary designed to bring it back in line with what the Founding Fathers had intended.

>There's nothing in the words "well regulated"
Well regulated was a commonly used saying in those times that meant "in working order", not "has regulations". Not to mention that it's a prefatory clause, it doesn't actually have any effect on the main clause (that being that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) but only gives us the reasoning for it.

Other than that, you're right though, and I would agree that we should start over from scratch, or at least get rid of the prefatory clause that seems to cause a lot of confusion.

>detect evil pings on their dog

Not just in the US. By the current definition, any able bodied male between 18 and 45 who is a citizen or has declared intent to become a citizen is a member of the US militia. Jose can have all the guns he wants as long as he knows what country is the best in the world.

>government agencies
>good
They’d be LN at best and LE most of the time instead.

>but there should be greater barrier of entry on the ability to own a gun
>shall not be infringed
Do you not know what infringed means?

>>law enforcement will provide your protection, you don't need guns
If a law enforcement official says this, they are lying directly to your face. There are about a dozen supreme court cases that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the police have no duty to protect, only to enforce the law and catch the criminal in the end.

I've seen the "smuggling operation" stuff before. It was an agent operating out of one of their offices that never received authorization for forming a slush fund from assets whose proper handling he couldn't immediately determine. The company that was supposed to be auditing his operations also never did so, meaning that none of his superiors actually knew what was going on. At most there was a hush-hush understanding among some agents that this was the guy that made things happen.

It's like arguing that all cops are evil because some cops blew away some black guys on camera. Yeah, those cops are assholes. But while you CAN use that fact to argue that a specific unrelated cop is an asshole, doing so makes YOU the asshole.

>guns save far more lives than they take
Statistics don't support that and when standards of living, income inequality, and population density are taken into account total violent crime rates are approximately the same between regions with significant and little proliferation of firearms. Eg. you can say "look Japan doesn't have guns and they have low crime rates" while the opposite side says "look Switzerland lets everyone have a gun and they have low crime rates."

Imagine being a shill. Imagine being mad at Veeky Forums and, specifically, /pol/, so you grab dozens of eager "raiders" and go there only to find out that what they do to each other is far worse than any shitposting you and your merry band of faggots can come up with. So you go to other boards hoping for allies. You go to /k/ and agitate against cops and old boomers only to find out that /k/ hates almost anyone and your views are a drop in the bucket and your gun violence threads just give them an excuse to fling their cosmoline-laced shit at you and chant SHALL. You try other boards, but all you get is rused and bruised by trolls far more proficient than you. So finally you come here, to Veeky Forums, where you've been making JERUHMEE threads for a good while because many of your now-depleted raid squad are from r/MTG...and you shitpost here, with this thread, only to find out that your views have no purchase on a website so full of vitriol and no beachhead can even be established. I almost feel bad for you sorry lot.

What was done in 1903 was unconstitutional. Simple as that.

>Which, accounting for the typical linguistic conventions of the time
If you actually accounted for the conventions of the time, "well regulated" means tidy and competent. It means everyone having dependable guns that share ammo so that logistics are simple and easy on every scale. It means everyone knows how to use those guns in case they have to.
If it were actually applied today, everyone would get a basic bitch rifle chambered in 5.56 and would be expected to get at least a few hours of range time every now and again.

False equivalency, those cops were heroes.

Because before 1903 there were still ACTUAL militias. The National Guard was the result of a reorganization. Between 1903 and 2008 the understanding that "this is the militia" was clear, and the question of "what does this amendment really mean" was clear.

And your understanding of the prefatory clause disagrees with every legal interpretation prior to 2008... and I mean EVERY one. Heller was an act of judicial activism of the kind conservative politicians and judges SCREAM about unless it suits them, and as a firmly-committed centrist the hypocrisy disgusts me.

en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#George_Mason
>I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

Illegals have the right to a noose and hands to help them into it, nothing else.

This is a good post.

>Because before 1903 there were still ACTUAL militias
Implying that after 1903 there weren't actual militias. Or, rather, that the reorganization into the National Guard wasn't a militia in any Constitutional sense, certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

>And your understanding of the prefatory clause disagrees with every legal interpretation prior to 2008... and I mean EVERY one
Care to give some examples? Preferably early ones, before the 1900's if possible.

Was Washington, dare I say this, /ourguy/?

"Lawful good" = "pre-nation-state ethics", trying to apply it to anyone who works for a modern government is idiotic on its face.

They support it when they don't come from the Brady campaign. Why are you even trying to shill your radical agenda here? /pol/ is that way, and they have infographics for you. The simple fact is, when gun ownership goes up violent crime goes down. It just frightens effete little boymen who flinch at loud noises, so you scream for Mama Government to take the scary thing away.

>tfw I will never fullfill the dream of running an 18th century Not!American Revolution game, in which your players follow their staunch philosopher-commander through thick and thin.
why keep on living?

> The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution

>For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

>They support it
>Doesn't post said data that supports it

>Why are you even trying to shill your radical agenda here?
I am also I don't oppose gun rights I am calling you out on being a disingenuous fuck.

Intended to establish a baseline for discussion instead of the usual "the one who agrees with my position is good" that such a bait thread would imply. But to clear up contention here's my reasoning.

>Lawful Good: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but there should be greater barrier of entry on the ability to own a gun.
A Lawful Good character acts according to the law for the sake of good, not for the law's own sake. The laws of the land must be followed, but the spirit and intention behind the law are what's important, not the wording or tradition.

>Neutral Good: Civilian ownership of firearms should not be allowed.
A Neutral Good character cares about good for the sake of good, everything else be damned. If laws, rights and traditions threaten the safety of the innocent then they should be changed.

>Chaotic Good: Everybody should have a gun. If you try to do evil with yours, you get shot.
A Chaotic Good character believes in freedom for the sake of good. Laws and regulations don't matter, good is determined and enforced by the choices and actions of individuals.

>Lawful Neutral: The right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.*
A Lawful Neutral character cares only about the laws that they put their beliefs behind. Personal opinions on the subject don't matter, because the answer is written right there by people who knew better than you do.

>Neutral: I don't know anything about guns so I don't have an opinion on the matter.
A Neutral character knows what they don't know, and will follow a good idea one way or the other if presented with one. If there's a proven solution then go with that, otherwise just leave it be.

>Chaotic Neutral: Everybody should be allowed to have whatever guns they want, because I think guns are fun and I want to keep mine.
A Chaotic Neutral character only considers the outcome they want. Facts and logic don't really matter one way or the other unless they're being used to argue for the outcome you want.

>Lawful Evil: Ban those shoulder thingies that go up.
A Lawful Evil character uses the law to get what they've decided they want, whether or not it's really a good idea. There should be no distinction between your position and the law; if the law doesn't represent your opinion, then change it so that it does.

>Neutral Evil: You want to keep your gun rights? Sure, I can do that. Just make sure you vote for me.
A Neutral Evil character is entirely out for themselves. The debate doesn't matter for shit one way or the other, but pandering is good for business.

>Chaotic Evil: Today was a good day, didn't even have to use my AK.
A Chaotic Evil character does exactly what they want. Who cares what's legal or illegal when you were going to break the law anyway?

>"Forcing other people to do an action against their will" cannot be Good
So it's impossible to be Lawful Good because Laws encroach on others' freedoms? Absofuckinglutely not.

>mfw this makes me militia
>mfw Euros will never know this feel

What's a good course to take to learn how to oper8 on the squad level and do small unit tactics? Might be fun.

>not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution
not giving guns to traitorous loyalists and niggers just seems like common sense, user

>For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
I would support this. Every man should not only have arms, but be capable of bearing arms.

Paintball?

>enforcing the law

>Hurr I'm going to spout progressive views and vote progressive and claim to be a centrist

Do you actually expect this to work? The people are the militia and that has been understood since before 1776. A power grab in the 1900s that was reversed by constitutionalists is simply a blip on the radar, a temporary subversion of justice. For a century our gun rights were being chipped away and now we're taking it back, simple as that. You can either be a disarmed serf or an armed citizen, which will you choose?

Feel free to use it as copypasta if you want.

If you found out a fellow player in your gaming group was illegal, what would you do? What would you really do?

Almost all of the Founding Fathers were based as fuck.

Find a system for it. How deadset are you on the colonial aesthetic?

If you found out a fellow player was a criminal, would you not report them to the proper authorities?

>the Second Amendment wasn't even interpreted as an individual right

Does that mean the 1st, 4th aren't either, since they also talk of "the right of the people"?

>not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution
So the people that they didn't even consider to be "people", and traitors weren't allowed to have guns. Okay.

>A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
That's literally a pro-gun law, it forced people to have guns, it didn't limit them from having them.

>Non citizens didn't get guns

Gee. How intrusive. There's nothing there that doesn't sound fantastic although I think we can allow minorities to own guns now even if they're far more statistically likely to commit crimes with them.

>mandatory military-tier rifles

Hello boner, my old friend.

Google it cuckboi.

>Still trying to push gun grabbers as potentially NG

Go back to England redcoat.

>people who didn't have rights, didn't have rights
>People who did not fight for their rights (and possibly were loyal to a foreign power), were not granted their rights
>Owning a weapon of war was expected and carried some responsibilities in line with the right itself
Got any other hot takes? If anything I wouldn't mind that coming back on a state level.

>Countries that own 48% of the world's guns: USA
>Countries that have been to the moon: USA
>Countries that are global hegemons: USA

Success breeds jealousy.

>ITT we identify the anons who own firearms and the anons who don't

>people who disagree with me can't be good
>mine is the correct position, because if it wasn't I wouldn't hold it

HMMM.

Depends on how shitty they are. But odds are they deserve some ICE if they are playing hobbies instead of working towards citizenship.