|
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 October 03 2017 04:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Congressman?! Might aswell call Santa Clause....lol
Guns are profit and profit is more important than a few dead civilians. If everybody has a gun, the idiots will kill each other and the wealthy survive. That's a win-win situation for the NRA!
Because, there's nothing a few million dollars and the best lawyers in the country can't deflect, deny or settle.....
That might sound cruel, but plain and simple... it's the world we live in.
|
The only issue I see with them having "data" on gun laws is trying to create an algorithm with said data to try and tell who may be an issue in the future, Minority Report type shit.
I think in Cali, they're testing something like this with who maybe likely to do a criminal action.
|
@dangles
if ya wanna introduce maternity and paternity test to ban wannabe parents who are deemed unfit for parenting, why don't you just say so?
|
Here is something to ponder.
Isn't there a law to restrict military grade weapons from being purchased?
How did this shooter get his hand on automatic riffles?
|
On October 03 2017 04:26 RealityIsKing wrote:
Here is something to ponder.
Isn't there a law to restrict military grade weapons from being purchased?
How did this shooter get his hand on automatic riffles?
perhaps try reading the last ten pages.
i can’t help but picture our second amendment friends sitting at home waiting for these hypothetical intruders to fill with some lead all day. every day a disappointment. while every day we have a mass
shooting.
and each day we’ll hear about the hypothetical intruder, for which there is no defense but their gun. they’re immune to baseball bats and calls to the police. probably even need silver bullets. and this completely skips over the idea of whether homocide is the right answer to home invasion(our irrefutably perfect legal system suggests it isn’t, but at least the gun owner needn’t care, it’s self defense) but that would be just another enormous can of worms.
|
On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 03:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up. I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few. If you want to look to other countries, include crime incidents against an unarmed population. Victims of terrorist violence, of rape, that had to be victimized to get justice after the fact. Any simple google search will show you gun owners in America stopping crime and ensuring peace and security in their life. You have the right to self defense with a gun. Our founders knew that, and thank God. If you want to open the can of worms at migrant violence or terrorist violence in the countries of Europe, by all means go ahead. The police violence response to the Catalonian referendum seems to be a very current example of state tyranny against a disarmed populace. They might be a little more hesitant to beat pollgoers with batons and shoot rubber bullets into crowds, and instead only call it an illegal vote instead of deploying four thousand. How many hundreds are injured because Spain's government knew they could get out the billy clubs and drag & kick people with impunity? Google searches will also show you hundreds of accidental suicides of children across the United States because their parents owned a firearm, but we probably shouldn't be using google searches to judge differential international public health impact. Good thing the NRA lobbied and made it functionally impossible to actually do those public health studies, then, huh? If only the tobacco lobby had managed that. Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals. Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:00 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:02 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 03 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:On October 02 2017 20:45 Broetchenholer wrote:
Yeah yeah, fully automatic weapons are regulated, you have to hit the trigger for those guns, which makes them completely worthless. Those semi automatic assault type weapons can basically not be used for anything....
At this point, arguing about automatic or not automatic is missing the point. There is virtually no reason to sell AR15s to your citizens. What are you afraid about? a Zombie apocalypse? Alien invasion? Or are those for deerhunting? As a strong moral check check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, of course. Are you supposed to shake off the yokes of a future tyrannical government with just pistols? Allright, so all western countries are just morons for trusting the democratic process then? I remember the reunification of Germany, when all those guys with AKMs murdered the tyrannical government, mowed down the NVA. And when those tanks roled out afterwards, thank god my father had an antitank missile he bought before or i would not be here today. How exactly are AR-15s in the hands of your population a moral check? Either your government is willing to use force against you, then AR-15s won't solve the problem, because you are going to get airstriked. Or they are not, in which case your AR-15 is either useless or you are a murderer for killing your government with it. I cannot see a single scenario in which the population being armed to the teath with handguns and semi-automatic rifles will prevent or stop an illegal activity by the state. Please tell me how you think such a scenario would look like. Other western nations are forgetting the lessons of history. You should remember you own history, where gun registries were used by the National Socialists to disarm the population. The Weimar republic had strict gun control laws even before that. My great country was aided in its rebellion by an armed populace against the dictatorial English regime. Despite your trollish hystericals, it's sound doctrine. Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. They know giving actions the appearance of routine police work/enforcement is key to their success. Airstriking will prompt more armed rebellions, because the population is already armed. Frankly, if you want to defend your home against armed robbers or robbers with a badge, I don't care if you think your AR-15 is your weapon of choice rather than a glock. I'll draw the line at fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but pick your semi-auto handgun or rifle at your leisure. I've seen enough threats of state violence against current weapon holders to make the threat legitimate. You appear to draw a false conclusion from whatever you pick from German history. Even an armed poulace would not have resisted the NSDAP's lead in any way. While it is not undisputed by scholars, it's rather safe to assume that most everyone not affected by their early actions had their favourite topic that the Nazis catered. Be it eradicating unemployment, empowerment against the winners of WW1, finding a common scapegoat, ceating a German Superstate. Just look at Göbbels... + Show Spoiler +And think again, whether the supposed disarmament of civilians, which, if you had read the wikipedia article carefully you might have known, or you willingly left it out, targeted Jews as well as Sinti an Roma and not the broad populace, actually happened. Or reconsider your assumption that an armed populace would actually have resisted Hitler and not waved their arms in approval. It's a faulty understanding to propose an ineffective resistance is proof that no armed resistance from an armed populace is ever possible when tyrants come to power. I wouldn't want to be the one telling Jews that it's better for them to die in concentration camps than resisting with violence violence on their persons. What I also find incredibly funny is the following sentence: Yes, this is actually Danglars posting!
Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. Lmfao that's exactly what GreenHorizon is complaing about - among other things. Finally we know you agree on a theoretical level, just not when it comes to PoCs. He's posted that he's a gun owner. I'll assert his right of self-defense. Just make sure to respect everyone's civil rights, yourself, including their second amendment rights. Regardless of color of skin. How about you tell all the families of those who died today that you need that right to carry an AR15, M4A1 or w/e just IN CASE someone would seize power in the future. Are we really talking about that? I did link an article related to why gun control is a poor argument in this case. If you want to tell grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss, go right ahead. You mean the article that clearly stated that it's only speculated if it's an illegal automatic rifle or just a modified semi-auto rifle, which can be obtained legally? If the person broke existing gun control laws in one way or another? Yeah, that article.
Yes, but who cares. You don't seem to (want to) understand the argument. Due to your gun laws, it is easy to get a gun which you can turn into an automatic rifle at home, and then start murdering people with it. No one knows that you broke the gun laws until you start murdering people, at which point you are already murdering people, so it doesn't really matter if you also broke the gun laws.
Show nested quote +Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon. Others before me already pointed out how to easy it is to find a guide on youtube how to modify it. Its about saving lives, because the next mass shooting is bound to happen and it will most definitely happen. It's not about finding someone to blame. You really want to tell the ppl these "human sacrifices" are necessary because we have to be prepared to fight the oppression and tyranny, which we don't even know if it ever happens in america? I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate. Also no word yet if you're telling grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss. Because you certainly started with a bang alleging that was my intent.
This discussion is always the same. I am totally fine with blaming your second amendment, because i don't think that constitutions are holy texts which are perfect in their current form, and may never be changed. Your second amendment is anachronistic and gets people killed.
I know exactly how this discussion plays out:
Some dude in the US kills a bunch of people with a gun.
A: Maybe if people in the US didn't have so many guns, there would be less people killed with guns.
B: But if people didn't have guns, only criminals have guns! We have to protect ourselves! Also government tyranny!
A: Other country which have sensible gun laws don't have this problem with people killing random people with guns in this amount
B: American exceptionalism!!! And there is no data from the US that supports that easier access to guns means that people can more easily get a gun to kill people with
A: Because it is illegal to gather that data in the US due to laws pushed through by the gun lobby. But look at all these other countries.
B: Only american data works! America is so exceptional it can never be compared to another country! Also tyranny!
Also, there will be a bunch of weird ideas like that people who are for gun control want to ban all people from having guns. And the weird inability to understand that the availability of legal guns also influences the availability of illegal guns.
It never works. So you will have to live with a random dude snapping and grabbing a gun to kill a bunch of people every few days forever. Because there is nothing that can be done. Except in all of the other countries which don't have this problem to this extent.
|
Its important to remember that if it turns out this was a mental health issue, that isn't some giant unsolvable problem that should lead us to think that doing nothing is the answer.
Mental health is something that could be improved by having a mental health system which emphasizes talking about problems and not just dosing your life away.
That could save lives.
The funny thing is, I don't see many people ever disagreeing with this, but you rarely see it debated in terms of the government taking action to do something about it.
The benefits are not immediate enough to spend the political capital.
|
The Second amendment:
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun.
I would also question the necessity of a well-regulated militia to maintain the security of a free state. We have the most powerful military in the world and it's not even close. We don't need a citizens' militia to defend America from invaders and we have a whole political process to defend us from the military itself (and your small-arms fire isn't going to stop airstrikes).
Then there's the issue of police. It turns out that a whole hell of a lot of police in America have been gunned down in the line of duty. Police in America are much more on-edge than police in other first world countries without America's gun problems and they tend to be trigger happy and gun down citizens much more frequently. So arming the populace isn't disincentivizing police violence, but actually is one of the root causes of it.
|
On October 03 2017 04:26 RealityIsKing wrote:
Here is something to ponder.
Isn't there a law to restrict military grade weapons from being purchased?
How did this shooter get his hand on automatic riffles?
I think you can buy full-automatic weapons in Texas, if you have Class III weapons permit. The tricky part is to get the permit.
|
On October 03 2017 04:33 Jockmcplop wrote:
Its important to remember that if it turns out this was a mental health issue, that isn't some giant unsolvable problem that should lead us to think that doing nothing is the answer.
Mental health is something that could be improved by having a mental health system which emphasizes talking about problems and not just dosing your life away.
That could save lives.
The funny thing is, I don't see many people ever disagreeing with this, but you rarely see it debated in terms of the government taking action to do something about it.
The benefits are not immediate enough to spend the political capital.
Say it was a mental health issue. Should the government be putting the weapons of people who have 'mental health issues' on hold until the issues resolve? As part of a broader comprehensive gun control system, I would say yes, state police forces should be putting weapons caches on ice if someone has a serious problem.
I would also like to note that Conservatives use this dodge all the time. "We don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem". But if we do have a mental health problem, why not seize the guns of the mentally ill?
|
United States42008 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:34 RenSC2 wrote:The Second amendment: Show nested quote + A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun.
That's not what well-regulated meant in the 18th Century. The meaning of the word has evolved. Regulated simply meant organized, regular, disciplined etc. A good clock was well regulated. A good mail coach was well regulated.
|
Policy suggestion: require guns to be made in such a way that it's harder to mod them? Dunno how doable that is.
Unrelated policy suggestions on gun control: make any effort at all to enforce laws against straw purchases, require the AR 15 upper to have serial number, manufacturer name, etc. just like the lower has, limit magazine sizes so even if you mod a gun to be automatic, your clip still runs out pretty quick.
|
On October 03 2017 04:40 ChristianS wrote:
Policy suggestion: require guns to be made in such a way that it's harder to mod them? Dunno how doable that is.
Unrelated policy suggestions on gun control: make any effort at all to enforce laws against straw purchases, require the AR 15 upper to have serial number, manufacturer name, etc. just like the lower has, limit magazine sizes so even if you mod a gun to be automatic, your clip still runs out pretty quick.
Some of the mods that supposedly simulate automatic fire (like bump firing) aren't illegal though so why do they need to be restricted?
|
On October 03 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:34 RenSC2 wrote:The Second amendment: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun. That's not what well-regulated meant in the 18th Century. The meaning of the word has evolved. Regulated simply meant organized, regular, disciplined etc. A good clock was well regulated. A good mail coach was well regulated.
surely our amendments are unassailable on the grounds of evolving times. that’s why we hold these laws so dear. if our Founding Fathers could be so elegant as to withstand the test of time for evolving societies, they could cater to something as simple as an evolving language.
i won’t stand to hear your twisting of their words and definitions. everyone knows what a we’ll regulated militia is and as such we should demand one.
|
On October 03 2017 04:31 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 03 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 02:42 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 03 2017 02:39 Danglars wrote:When faced with senseless, horrific shootings, people in Washington and on cable news often end up politicizing them in order to argue over gun laws, especially if the location where the incident took place has relatively relaxed regulations. With this morning’s awful mass shooting in Las Vegas, we may not hear such talk, since the suspect, Stephen Paddock, allegedly used a fully automatic weapon, which is illegal no matter what, unless legally purchased and registered prior to May 19, 1986, when they were basically banned under federal law. Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon.
While it’s true that Nevada does allow people to legally carry firearms in public, only legal weapons are covered by this. Paddock would have broken the law before even pulling the trigger, since—assuming he hadn’t been holding onto this weapon for more than 30 years—the law forbids having the gun in the first place. Not only that, but the shooting took place at the Mandalay Bay, which has a strict no-weapons policy. Such policies technically don’t have the weight of law, meaning they can’t remove your weapon, but they can tell you to leave and have you arrested for trespass if you don’t.
As far as legal firearms in Nevada go, it is legal to carry them openly in public, with exceptions for places like government buildings, airports, schools, and child care facilities. Permits are required to carry a concealed firearm, and they can be denied for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has an open warrant for their arrest, or if they have a criminal history including violence or stalking. In Clark County, where Las Vegas is located, all handguns must be registered. Convicted felons in the state are banned from possessing firearms altogether, as are people who are found to have unlawfully used controlled substances, and people who have been committed to mental health facilities or have been adjudicated mentally ill.
Other horrible attacks sparked debates over what types of guns should or should not be legal, or under what circumstances, but this situation is different. It does not appear that this terrible assault would have been prevented by stronger gun control regulations. Law Newz This is illogical, and not backed up by evidence. You just need to compare the rate of this happening in the USA to countries where guns are banned to see the effect of stricter gun control. Fewer guns = smaller chance of a modded gun showing up. I'm generally not in favor of punishing the lawful gun owners so the guilty ones are less likely to do that much of damage. It's better to see civil rights respected everywhere than to indiscriminately punish owners for the actions of a few. If you want to look to other countries, include crime incidents against an unarmed population. Victims of terrorist violence, of rape, that had to be victimized to get justice after the fact. Any simple google search will show you gun owners in America stopping crime and ensuring peace and security in their life. You have the right to self defense with a gun. Our founders knew that, and thank God. If you want to open the can of worms at migrant violence or terrorist violence in the countries of Europe, by all means go ahead. The police violence response to the Catalonian referendum seems to be a very current example of state tyranny against a disarmed populace. They might be a little more hesitant to beat pollgoers with batons and shoot rubber bullets into crowds, and instead only call it an illegal vote instead of deploying four thousand. How many hundreds are injured because Spain's government knew they could get out the billy clubs and drag & kick people with impunity? Google searches will also show you hundreds of accidental suicides of children across the United States because their parents owned a firearm, but we probably shouldn't be using google searches to judge differential international public health impact. Good thing the NRA lobbied and made it functionally impossible to actually do those public health studies, then, huh? If only the tobacco lobby had managed that. Clearly the solution is to ban guns, because bad parenting of children means you should be unarmed in case of needing to defend yourself. I'm generally against nanny state government, but particularly in the case where you need to punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals. On October 03 2017 04:00 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:44 hootsushi wrote:On October 03 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 03:02 Artisreal wrote:On October 03 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 01:12 Broetchenholer wrote:On October 03 2017 00:46 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
As a strong moral check check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, of course. Are you supposed to shake off the yokes of a future tyrannical government with just pistols? Allright, so all western countries are just morons for trusting the democratic process then? I remember the reunification of Germany, when all those guys with AKMs murdered the tyrannical government, mowed down the NVA. And when those tanks roled out afterwards, thank god my father had an antitank missile he bought before or i would not be here today. How exactly are AR-15s in the hands of your population a moral check? Either your government is willing to use force against you, then AR-15s won't solve the problem, because you are going to get airstriked. Or they are not, in which case your AR-15 is either useless or you are a murderer for killing your government with it. I cannot see a single scenario in which the population being armed to the teath with handguns and semi-automatic rifles will prevent or stop an illegal activity by the state. Please tell me how you think such a scenario would look like. Other western nations are forgetting the lessons of history. You should remember you own history, where gun registries were used by the National Socialists to disarm the population. The Weimar republic had strict gun control laws even before that. My great country was aided in its rebellion by an armed populace against the dictatorial English regime. Despite your trollish hystericals, it's sound doctrine. Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. They know giving actions the appearance of routine police work/enforcement is key to their success. Airstriking will prompt more armed rebellions, because the population is already armed. Frankly, if you want to defend your home against armed robbers or robbers with a badge, I don't care if you think your AR-15 is your weapon of choice rather than a glock. I'll draw the line at fully automatic weapons and rocket launchers, but pick your semi-auto handgun or rifle at your leisure. I've seen enough threats of state violence against current weapon holders to make the threat legitimate. You appear to draw a false conclusion from whatever you pick from German history. Even an armed poulace would not have resisted the NSDAP's lead in any way. While it is not undisputed by scholars, it's rather safe to assume that most everyone not affected by their early actions had their favourite topic that the Nazis catered. Be it eradicating unemployment, empowerment against the winners of WW1, finding a common scapegoat, ceating a German Superstate. Just look at Göbbels... + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7fw3XlK1aE And think again, whether the supposed disarmament of civilians, which, if you had read the wikipedia article carefully you might have known, or you willingly left it out, targeted Jews as well as Sinti an Roma and not the broad populace, actually happened. Or reconsider your assumption that an armed populace would actually have resisted Hitler and not waved their arms in approval. It's a faulty understanding to propose an ineffective resistance is proof that no armed resistance from an armed populace is ever possible when tyrants come to power. I wouldn't want to be the one telling Jews that it's better for them to die in concentration camps than resisting with violence violence on their persons. What I also find incredibly funny is the following sentence: Yes, this is actually Danglars posting!
Tyranny creeps. It won't start with tanks on your boulevard, it's the policeman enforcing an unjust law. Lmfao that's exactly what GreenHorizon is complaing about - among other things. Finally we know you agree on a theoretical level, just not when it comes to PoCs. He's posted that he's a gun owner. I'll assert his right of self-defense. Just make sure to respect everyone's civil rights, yourself, including their second amendment rights. Regardless of color of skin. How about you tell all the families of those who died today that you need that right to carry an AR15, M4A1 or w/e just IN CASE someone would seize power in the future. Are we really talking about that? I did link an article related to why gun control is a poor argument in this case. If you want to tell grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss, go right ahead. You mean the article that clearly stated that it's only speculated if it's an illegal automatic rifle or just a modified semi-auto rifle, which can be obtained legally? If the person broke existing gun control laws in one way or another? Yeah, that article. Yes, but who cares. You don't seem to (want to) understand the argument. Due to your gun laws, it is easy to get a gun which you can turn into an automatic rifle at home, and then start murdering people with it. No one knows that you broke the gun laws until you start murdering people, at which point you are already murdering people, so it doesn't really matter if you also broke the gun laws. Show nested quote +Of course, it’s possible that he reconfigured a legal semi-automatic weapon to make it fire automatically but that would then make it an illegal weapon. Others before me already pointed out how to easy it is to find a guide on youtube how to modify it. Its about saving lives, because the next mass shooting is bound to happen and it will most definitely happen. It's not about finding someone to blame. You really want to tell the ppl these "human sacrifices" are necessary because we have to be prepared to fight the oppression and tyranny, which we don't even know if it ever happens in america? I haven't heard a policy suggestion from you yet about saving lives. I can only speculate you want to amend the constitution to take away the second amendment, or ban only semi-auto rifles so the greater deaths by pistols is magnified further, or would rather innocent victims die from not having access to a self-defense victim. But I'm gathering from the "human sacrifices" that you're engaging in political grandstanding rather than real debate. Also no word yet if you're telling grieving families you blame the second amendment for their loss. Because you certainly started with a bang alleging that was my intent. This discussion is always the same. I am totally fine with blaming your second amendment, because i don't think that constitutions are holy texts which are perfect in their current form, and may never be changed. Your second amendment is anachronistic and gets people killed. I know exactly how this discussion plays out: Some dude in the US kills a bunch of people with a gun. A: Maybe if people in the US didn't have so many guns, there would be less people killed with guns. B: But if people didn't have guns, only criminals have guns! We have to protect ourselves! Also government tyranny! A: Other country which have sensible gun laws don't have this problem with people killing random people with guns in this amount B: American exceptionalism!!! And there is no data from the US that supports that easier access to guns means that people can more easily get a gun to kill people with A: Because it is illegal to gather that data in the US due to laws pushed through by the gun lobby. But look at all these other countries. B: Only american data works! America is so exceptional it can never be compared to another country! Also tyranny! Also, there will be a bunch of weird ideas like that people who are for gun control want to ban all people from having guns. And the weird inability to understand that the availability of legal guns also influences the availability of illegal guns. It never works. So you will have to live with a random dude snapping and grabbing a gun to kill a bunch of people every few days forever. Because there is nothing that can be done. Except in all of the other countries which don't have this problem to this extent.
Exactly this, thank you for explaining it more in detail.
|
On October 03 2017 04:46 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2017 04:34 RenSC2 wrote:The Second amendment: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun. That's not what well-regulated meant in the 18th Century. The meaning of the word has evolved. Regulated simply meant organized, regular, disciplined etc. A good clock was well regulated. A good mail coach was well regulated. surely our amendments are unassailable on the grounds of evolving times. that’s why we hold these laws so dear. if our Founding Fathers could be so elegant as to withstand the test of time for evolving societies, they could cater to something as simple as an evolving language. i won’t stand to hear your twisting of their words and definitions. everyone knows what a we’ll regulated militia is and as such we should demand one.
I thought that was the point of having a "National Guard" on states level? If the federal government were to send in their armies into states, then the national guard from the state would meet said army?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
|
United States42008 Posts
On October 03 2017 04:46 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 04:38 KwarK wrote:On October 03 2017 04:34 RenSC2 wrote:The Second amendment: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's not well defined, but there is that whole part about a well-regulated militia. I would think well-regulated would at least include keeping track of who is in that militia to possibly own a gun. That's not what well-regulated meant in the 18th Century. The meaning of the word has evolved. Regulated simply meant organized, regular, disciplined etc. A good clock was well regulated. A good mail coach was well regulated. surely our amendments are unassailable on the grounds of evolving times. that’s why we hold these laws so dear. if our Founding Fathers could be so elegant as to withstand the test of time for evolving societies, they could cater to something as simple as an evolving language. i won’t stand to hear your twisting of their words and definitions. everyone knows what a we’ll regulated militia is and as such we should demand one.
?
I'm not sure I'm arguing against what you think I'm arguing against. All I'm doing is saying what the second amendment means. Treat 18th century regulated as a homograph of 21st century regulated in the same way you treat bear as a homograph of actual bears.
|
Wasn't the 2nd amendment also written in a time where standing armies were not a thing at all?
So, rather than average citizens overthrowing a corrupt government, wouldn't the intent of protecting a free state be more along the lines of "when the British come back to claim their territory, it's a good thing the population can quickly militarize and defend ourselves from invaders"?
Of course, I'm sure constitutional historians are a thing, who would have a proper answer as opposed to whatever I'm pulling out of my ass.
|
Your mistake comes not from guessing as to the history, rather that "constitutional historians" are any less likely to pull stuff out of their ass than you or I 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
