|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 03 2015 12:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 11:38 cLutZ wrote:On December 03 2015 11:25 DucK- wrote:
What's the reason for allowing normal people to carry automatic weapons? I'm fine with handguns if it is meant for 'protection' or hunting rifles against wild animals, but automatic rifles?
Every state should ban it, there's no reason for a normal person to have access to military grade weapons. Automatic weapons are, and have been banned for over 50 years. By making this statement you have proven that you know less than Jon Snow. On December 03 2015 11:31 Kickstart wrote:
Well for the US the answer is simple. It is because the consensus is that our Constitution says we can have them. So unless it is reinterpreted or changed (good luck with either of those), it will be hard to flat out ban things. Whether or not that is good policy is a different question.
Some argue the second amendment was only meant to apply to militias, but the consensus has been that the phrasing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means that almost any regulation or ban is an infringement. The militia clause is, arguably, worse for the government position, because if you accept such an argument, the militia (composed of all the males in a state) must have access to all weapons necessary to combat a foreign state. Which means nukes and tanks. The Scalia interpretation is the most modest, plausible, interpretation, unless you read the 2nd Amendment as a nullity. I just wanted to point out that DucK is from Singapore. That may be why he asked such a question. Try not to come off as a dick.
If he asked such a question, he either was intentionally dishonest, or was buying into someone else's lies. Lies that he should have known that person was telling. There is no excuse for this mistake unless you are new to America, which if he was, he would not have put 'protection' in quotes. Also, none of the big 3 + CNN and FOX have used the words automatic weapons.
|
He has it next to his name, just like you have United States next to yours. I'm assuming that's his location. Either way, he asked a question that could have been explained to him in a respectful manner without insults.
|
On December 03 2015 13:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
He has it next to his name, just like you have United States next to yours. I'm assuming that's his location. Either way, he asked a question that could have been explained to him in a respectful manner without insults.
But then this wouldn't be the thread we know and love.
|
On December 03 2015 13:26 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 13:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
He has it next to his name, just like you have United States next to yours. I'm assuming that's his location. Either way, he asked a question that could have been explained to him in a respectful manner without insults. But then this wouldn't be the thread we know and love.
By all means, be passionate about your stance and argue and all that. I'm not saying don't. But to assume that everyone here is an American or versed in American law, that's just stupid.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
they used guns this time but id be extremely concerned over a combination of unpenetratable communication and explosive device design transmittable over these channels.
remote radicalization and terrorism organizing is pretty serious
|
On December 03 2015 13:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
He has it next to his name, just like you have United States next to yours. I'm assuming that's his location. Either way, he asked a question that could have been explained to him in a respectful manner without insults.
Yes, and? Either he is ignorant and asking a question without foundation (aka he just assumed there were automatic weapons because he plays a lot of Call of Duty), he asked a question based off of false reporting (which means he gets his reporting from a source from the left of MSNBC), or he was being intentionally dishonest.
|
I think he got as warm a welcome talking specifically on automatic weapons and military-grade weapons as any dumb American wandering into the Europe-focused threads that exposes his ignorance at square one. More sometimes, considering that it's an 'in' thing.
Chill out. Both sides should have thick enough skins to weather some mild barbs given the tenor of the debate thus far.
|
On December 03 2015 11:52 xDaunt wrote:
Well, now we know why terrorism hasn't been ruled out. One of the shooters has been ID'd as Syed Farook. Another shooter was his brother.
'Syed Farook.' Cmon people. Do you need to be sure the wind exists when you see the trees bending?
F*king Islamists at it again. F*K ISIS.
User was warned for this post
|
United States44203 Posts
It is possible for a brown person to do things for their own motives. Why don't we wait and see?
|
On December 03 2015 16:01 KwarK wrote:
It is possible for a brown person to do things for their own motives. Why don't we wait and see?
No. Only when a white man does it is it acting on their own and not a product of any rhetoric. C'mon KwarK you are smart enough to know this.
|
I am missing the sarcasm in the responses or the seriousness of the OP?
|
New York Times is reporting they used AR-15 assault rifles.
Did they raid a military armory? Where the hell did they get non-NFA, state-legal machine guns?
|
I made a suggestion along the lines of raising the cost to purchase a weapon, get a permit, and a limit on the amount of ammunition a person could legally own in the gun control thread. See it popping up in here. If you make something stupid expensive, then only a select few will be able to afford them and you can regulate that part. Will it stop people from amassing a small arsenal? Probably not, but the people who buy ammo in bulk should be watched closely anyway.
I go to school with a lot of kids from the middle east and I don't want them to be profiled in anyway because a select few may have done this.
|
On December 03 2015 16:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I made a suggestion along the lines of raising the cost to purchase a weapon, get a permit, and a limit on the amount of ammunition a person could legally own in the gun control thread. See it popping up in here. If you make something stupid expensive, then only a select few will be able to afford them and you can regulate that part. Will it stop people from amassing a small arsenal? Probably not, but the people who buy ammo in bulk should be watched closely anyway.
I go to school with a lot of kids from the middle east and I don't want them to be profiled in anyway because a select few may have done this.
A lot of states feel the same way about abortion and voting. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as far as the law is concerned; Texas abortion clinic "safety" regulations are just as legal as New York's gun "safety" legislation.
Incidentally, California has the strongest gun laws in the United States, per the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. This includes assault weapon bans, destructive device (machine gun) bans, universal background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, firearm permits, firearms registration, written tests, and shall-issue carry laws. They also have an ammunition tax to lower ammunition purchases.
Apparently none of this mattered for this incident. I bet the attacked social services center was a gun-free zone, too.
|
Cali laws mean shit if all their neighboring states have lax laws. Its like those places where they are dry counties, since they aren't the norm you simply just drive to where they aren't to get your booze.
|
On December 03 2015 16:59 Slaughter wrote:
Cali laws mean shit if all their neighboring states have lax laws. Its like those places where they are dry counties, since they aren't the norm you simply just drive to where they aren't to get your booze.
Does this mean that Texas abortion "safety" measures mean shit because neighboring states have laxer requirements for clinics and drugs? The Supreme Court would be happy to hear that, they could immediately eliminate that particular case from the docket.
Or do you seriously believe that this couple smuggled stolen machine guns across Arizona, Nevada, or Mexico's border? Did they buy these guns from someone who did the same? Because I'm pretty sure it's illegal in every state to raid armories for AR-15 assault rifles, and definitely illegal to ship them across state lines without a Class III dealer.
I don't know if the military even has AR-15s any more. It's more probable they were taken from a police force.
|
On December 03 2015 17:09 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2015 16:59 Slaughter wrote:
Cali laws mean shit if all their neighboring states have lax laws. Its like those places where they are dry counties, since they aren't the norm you simply just drive to where they aren't to get your booze. Does this mean that Texas and Mississippi abortion "safety" measures mean shit because neighboring states have laxer requirements for clinics and drugs? Or do you seriously believe that this couple smuggled stolen machine guns across Arizona, Nevada, or Mexico's border? Because I'm pretty sure it's illegal everywhere to raid military armories for AR-15 assault rifles.
I was talking in general. If a state has laws preventing someone from getting an item they want its no big deal to drive to the next state and buy it then drive back. Illegal sure but the access is still there and crossing state lines is easy as pie. There are all kind of loopholes when buying guns so one state having strict laws means little if its not uniform. The same applies to whatever shit laws those states have with abortion measures. If you have the means of transportation you can go get the procedure outside your state. The problem mostly is for the poor in this case who might not be able to afford doing that.
I am more concerned with the illegal guns that are apparently easy to get and are in large quantities. I already posted like a page or 2 back about this. Ending these types of things takes solutions that approach it from multiple angles.
|
there was another mass shooting today? jesus...
|
On December 03 2015 17:16 Slaughter wrote:
I was talking in general. If a state has laws preventing someone from getting an item they want its no big deal to drive to the next state and buy it then drive back. Illegal sure but the access is still there and crossing state lines is easy as pie. There are all kind of loopholes when buying guns so one state having strict laws means little if its not uniform. The same applies to whatever shit laws those states have with abortion measures. If you have the means of transportation you can go get the procedure outside your state. The problem mostly is for the poor in this case who might not be able to afford doing that.
I'm glad we're talking in general. After all, it would be tasteless to use an apparently-irrelevant tragedy to push for measures that have absolutely nothing to do with the precipitating event in the first place.
However, as long as we're talking in general, I was under the impression that criminals are also, generally speaking, poor people. Why do they not face the same issues as poor people who seek abortions? Guns are far more expensive than road trips, especially after markup from smuggling them.
On December 03 2015 17:16 Slaughter wrote:
I am more concerned with the illegal guns that are apparently easy to get and are in large quantities. I already posted like a page or 2 back about this. Ending these types of things takes solutions that approach it from multiple angles.
I am also concerned that every angle considered by you is blind to the fact that it will take the police, on the balance, more than ten minutes to arrive on-scene to a given incident.
Why does California make it so difficult for civilians other than cops to carry guns? If we're still talking generally about shootings, illegal guns will be carried illegally. Why not subsidize the carry training courses and background check process so poor people can defend themselves if they absolutely have to? Why restrict new gun listings on the California legal gun registry to 2000+ dollar guns that only the wealthy can use?
I get the feeling that "multiple angles" simply means "get rid of as many guns as humanly possible, legally held or not".
|
Maybe you should actually read the post I mentioned. Instead of being condescending, try to actually argue like a proper person and make points. I know this is the US politics thread where its just a shit show of mud slinging but you are going straight to being a rude asshole in your posts. Instead you are literally just talking past me addressing things I never said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
