Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BenMcKeamish t1_iwfhaxr wrote

Reply to comment by brianinohio in TIL that a district in India’s Punjab state requires prospective gun owners to plant 10 trees and take pictures with them as proof by cjfullinfaw07

American gun owner chiming in. I have no issue with that. That’s trivial. I’m a hunter and outdoorsman, and the additional trees would restore habitats for the game I hunt. As farmland turns into tract housing, at least in my area, wild animals start to disappear. I would support natural conservation efforts as a condition of my hunting license, gun purchase, or even just as a matter of civic duty. Why not? I’ve already better than tripled that quota.

50

brianinohio t1_iwfhryw wrote

Cool. Good on you man. I didn't mean to attack gun owners. Was just thinking more big picture. Politics wise. Can't really see Republicans playing around with 2nd amendment. They're just so hardcore there.

−18

BenMcKeamish t1_iwfjpyx wrote

Just take into consideration that, simply because we have two dominant parties doesn’t mean the people only have two dominant mindsets, nor are the parties necessarily polar opposites in their interests. I’m not a Republican, but I will say that there should be no barrier for a person of good legal standing to purchase and possess a firearm of any kind in this country. I do differ from many of my right-leaning countrymen in allowing for some creative civics in the process, such as dropping a few trees in the ground.

10

pslessard t1_iwgbbi4 wrote

The people may not have two dominant mindsets, but the politicians do, and the only mindset of the Republican party the past several years is "Don't let the Democrats do anything." Seriously, they didn't even write a platform in 2020. You personally may not have a problem with planting trees, but I guarantee you the politicians would make a huge deal out of it, not because the people actually care about it, but because they want to drive engagement in their voter base

−3

rabbyburns t1_iwg7q6n wrote

> a person of good legal standing

Who is now in possession of a dangerous tool with which they can quickly lose that standing.

Being in good legal standing is a good minimum bar, but it absolutely shouldn't be the only bar.

−9

brianinohio t1_iwfk7pb wrote

Understood...like I said, I got nothing against gun owners, or anyone who follows the laws and constitution. I just don't think the Republicans would ever negotiate in the sense that guns and the environment would ever meet...lol

−11

iRecond0 t1_iwfnigp wrote

I think you watch far too much cable news.

14

brianinohio t1_iwfnkjl wrote

Whatever....I don't watch cable news.

1

iRecond0 t1_iwfnvwb wrote

How many trees have you planted btw?

2

brianinohio t1_iwfnzao wrote

I don't know....20 maybe....what the fuck has that to do with anything?

4

iRecond0 t1_iwfoi1r wrote

See how aggressive you’re being? I haven’t even pressed you about how ignorant your comments are yet. Look up the Pittman-Robertson Act and then ask yourself who contributes to that more, democracts or republicans.

6

brianinohio t1_iwfoln3 wrote

Not being aggressive....you asked a stupid question.

6

iRecond0 t1_iwfoznz wrote

K, good luck with your sweeping generalizations of millions of people. Thanks for planting trees.

6