|
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 06:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:10 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:21 Logo wrote: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.
Responses like this are incredibly disingenuous. You're already abiding by or complicit with restrictions on what you're arguing is a civil right here. There are many existing gun restrictions in an effort to curtail the reckless and criminals. Is your ideological view that existing gun laws (i.e ANY law controlling guns) are unacceptable restrictions of your rights? If not then you agree there's a line dividing acceptable restrictions from unacceptable ones. But you defend your position, and the current line, as if it is ideologically pure and thus unbendable. It's already a bent position, some people think the line should be elsewhere. Even if you disagree it doesn't lead you to the arguments you are making. It's really no different than other topics where people do the same thing ("I only support completely free speech, but support trademarks and copyright laws!") Right back at you for ignoring the disingenuous "what about the children?" calls. You snipped it as a response, but that was tailored to child accidents, not some wide detailed ideological position. You'll have to do better or I'll get the impression you're looking to snip responses to emotional pleas to pretend it represents the full argument. Any real response to childhood safety? I've drawn two acceptable restrictions of my gun rights. If you didn't bother to read my prior interactions on this topic in the last pages, maybe I'm disinclined to fight the wind with your new arguments made in ignorance. I didn't make any "What about the children calls?" I didn't make any sort of actual claim on gun control or children protection, I merely pointed out how you are admitting to accepting some gun control measures but then digging your heels in deep on some ideological measure in any sort of further debate as if you've drawn up some ideologically pure stance where any gun control is abhorrent because that frames the debate where you don't need to defend your views on their merit and can instead just say, "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" as if you *aren't* doing the exact same thing with the bits of gun control you accept and/or are find it too uncomfortable to argue against. You quoted my response to someone using accidental suicides of children against citing cases where a lawful gun owner stopped crime. You're either ignoring that framing out of straight ignorance or disingenuity. If you want to make a similar argument using the children to debate gun control, have at it. I can't see much use in debating ideologically pure stances when you missed my restrictions and take the context of responses out of the picture. Make an actual claim, ask an actual stance-related question, or share your own ideology. I will be incredibly dismissive if you allege disingenuity and skip context and previous posts on the matter.
And in both my initial response, and the secondary response I pointed out the part of the quote that I felt most relevant to how you approach the debate: "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" because it is the most concise way you put your viewpoint (and the rest of your comments supported this as a statement). I included the surrounding context so I wasn't quoting out of context (I only trimmed the quote at all because it included 2 embedded quotes and didn't want to make a rats nest of out how the quoted text appears).
|
On October 03 2017 06:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:11 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 05:06 ChristianS wrote:On October 03 2017 04:44 Logo wrote: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? My understanding is bump firing isn't that practical if you want to hit something in particular, because it's almost impossible to aim while bump firing. It's mostly just for experiencing what it feels like to fire an automatic. except if you're indiscriminantly firing into a crowd of people and from a tripod and at a pre-ranged target.
Do I not understand how bump firing works? It depends on the recoil, so how could you use a tripod to do it? I've never done it, only heard it described.
And yes, bump firing could still be used to fire into a crowd. No one regulation can eliminate every possible bad behavior, but that doesn't mean it can't do some good by ruling out a few. If we could make it harder to modify semi-automatic guns and make them automatic, why wouldn't that be good?
|
On October 03 2017 06:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!! Who says you aren't?
Jesus tap dancing Christ.
The amount of insanity in the US keeps giving me headaches. How do you guys (i exclude Danglars and co) even manage to keep any kind of sanity?
|
On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Maybe the second amendment is dumb as shit, made sense in the XVIIIth century and none today and if you really wanna stick to it despite how dumb it is, then having any civilian at all be able to carry devastating war weapons makes absolutely 0 sense. The fact that it is even discussed wether or not any psycho could just buy huge semi automatic weapons with a zillion ammo shows how batshit crazy conservative are in that country. It's so stupid it's painful. Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!!
People tried. There was a hot minute when people pushed for the right to own grenade launchers and other awesome not hunting weapons. Then they wrote a law separating weapons like flame throwers from regular fire arms. People have argued that the current law about destructive devices does not cover flame throwers.
We are a pretty silly country.
|
On October 03 2017 06:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:27 LegalLord wrote:On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!! Who says you aren't? Jesus tap dancing Christ. The amount of insanity in the US keeps giving me headaches. How do you guys (i exclused Danglars and co) even manage to keep any kind of sanity?
well, living in the better areas makes it a lot easier for me.
|
On October 03 2017 06:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:27 LegalLord wrote:On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!! Who says you aren't? Jesus tap dancing Christ. The amount of insanity in the US keeps giving me headaches. How do you guys (i exclused Danglars and co) even manage to keep any kind of sanity?
We didn’t write laws to govern tanks because we are deeply stupid. Straight up, most of the laws we have don’t cover weapons mounted on vehicles. Or in this case, we didn't really think about it that hard.
|
On October 03 2017 06:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:27 LegalLord wrote:On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!! Who says you aren't? Jesus tap dancing Christ. The amount of insanity in the US keeps giving me headaches. How do you guys (i exclused Danglars and co) even manage to keep any kind of sanity?
But it is illegal to fire the gun. Why would you ban selling tanks, when it is already made illegal to fire them? Can't do anything against people doing things illegally! And punishing all those law abiding tank owners is restricting their freedom.
|
On October 03 2017 06:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:27 LegalLord wrote:On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!! Who says you aren't? Jesus tap dancing Christ. The amount of insanity in the US keeps giving me headaches. How do you guys (i exclused Danglars and co) even manage to keep any kind of sanity?
Yeah the US is really in equal in a lot of these things *and* really big. States with the lowest gun deaths in the US are more like Finland or France than they are the US average while the worst states are more like Colombia or Brazil.
The whole tanks thing... well Tanks are expensive and the US likes to let rich people do whatever they want.
|
On October 03 2017 06:32 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:12 Wulfey_LA wrote:On October 03 2017 06:11 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 05:06 ChristianS wrote:On October 03 2017 04:44 Logo wrote: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? My understanding is bump firing isn't that practical if you want to hit something in particular, because it's almost impossible to aim while bump firing. It's mostly just for experiencing what it feels like to fire an automatic. except if you're indiscriminantly firing into a crowd of people and from a tripod and at a pre-ranged target. Do I not understand how bump firing works? It depends on the recoil, so how could you use a tripod to do it? I've never done it, only heard it described. And yes, bump firing could still be used to fire into a crowd. No one regulation can eliminate every possible bad behavior, but that doesn't mean it can't do some good by ruling out a few. If we could make it harder to modify semi-automatic guns and make them automatic, why wouldn't that be good?
You are preaching to the (Lib) choir here. I am 100% on board for national comprehensive gun control. Registration. Licensing. Insurance. Tests. Federal data on all firearms. Mass collection of all firearm casualty incidents. Regular sweeps by police to find weapons that aren't in compliance. Significant state/national increases in funding to police to enable going out and getting the off the books guns. And yes, full up AWB big magazine big firepower weapons confiscation.
If I have to fill out a few more forms to keep my piece, so be it. Every last hurdle the government can put up is more that a villain can trip over and get caught.
EDIT: I will note that this guy is perhaps the most preposterous incidence of white-suicide-GTA5-rampage we have ever seen. The planning, the financing, the lifetime of not running into the law, the zero accomplices, the lack of ideology to even give a hint he was going to do it, all of that makes this latest incident damnably hard to stop. If this was ISIS, at least the federal government would have a chance of picking up this guy was going to do something since they watch jihadi channels. Good fucking luck finding a 'law abiding' white male who first crime is touching the trigger.
However, Going forwards, I fully expect hotels to be magnet checking bags over a certain size because this kind of attack needs to be hard stopped.
Comprehensive national gun control would really be aimed at off the books street handguns, which are responsible for most gun violence in this country.
EDIT2: omfg stop with the tank argument ad absurdum. You could always buy all kinds of military surplus weapons like that. But how do you get the ammunition? Lots of people have tanks. No one has more than a handful of rounds for them because each round is a dangerous explosive device and subject to overwhelming forms and regulation on a per round basis.
EDIT3: this is why mass killers aren't using explosives (which are superior for mass killing, see Iraq).
https://www.dhs.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-statutes-and-regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
I'm almost certainly sure that you can't have an armed tank. without weapons its just another veichle.
|
Was there any fake news from "leftists" regarding the shooting?
The news sources I frequent only talk about the right appropriating the incident, labelling the shooter either Muslim or trumpet hater.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 03 2017 06:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I'm almost certainly sure that you can't have an armed tank. without weapons its just another veichle.
Apparently about 1000 privately owned tanks exist in the US. Don't know how many are armed though.
|
On October 03 2017 06:25 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 05:48 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:31 Simberto wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Good admission of the inefficacy of gun control laws. 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. And like "these discussions are always the same," no admission of the asymmetric disadvantages the other countries accept. You get weird ideas like opponents are arguing for "American exceptionalism," "only American data works," "I won't address tyranny, so I'm gonna herp derp 'tyranny' ironically!" We have to punish the law abiding because who knows when a criminal will snap! I should say, "a random dude snapping and grabbing his [randomly modified semi-auto or randomly pre-1986 full auto] gun to go kill a bunch... . It's poisonous and always equates criminals to the largely law-abiding, statistically less likely to cimmit crimes, stopping violent criminals from inflicting injury on their person or loved ones. Other countries might not protect their children from rape gangs, or borders from economic migrants, or their tabloid rags from jihadists, or politicians from hiding New Year's Eve sexual assaults. Hey, their citizens accept the results. I hope their representative governance reflects their citizens' choice of compromises. The New-Years Eve story from Germany has been debunked as actual fake news (not the DT kind.) As for the rapes, I guess you refer to India, and there are major protests there, and yes, they have a problem, but you cant argue the population find the consequences acceptable. School shootings, gun accidents, major attacks like the one we just saw, and generally the INSANE gun-death rate in the US compared to any other comparable country should not be an accepted price for the outdated "right to protect yourself." It is not easy to get rid of the massive gun-problem you have in the US, but you have to start somewhere, and banning rifles that can be modified to be automatic is a reasonable place to start. If not, where is the limit to "acceptable" private weapons? Genades? Trucks with mounted guns? If the government itself is a potential enemy, why not get private torpedoes, fighterjets and anti-aircraft missiles, while you are at it? I still see credible sources that the national press failed to report it, and likely suffered some pressure to do so. It's not my national media, so go change it as you wish. Obviously, the big events are impossible to hide forever, but the loss of credibility may endure forever.
I can see why you think it's not an acceptable price, I just think your "should not be" is dangerously ill-informed. The right to defend yourself with a firearm is evergreen. If the editors in Charlie Hebdo want to be unarmed when two terrorists enter, they're free to say the tradeoffs are an acceptable bargain. I'd like to get down to violent crime in the US beyond "Hey, look, they used a gun!!!" Some of that will be on gun safety, police training, and the general problem with crime/criminal street gangs. Not attacking obesity by banning spoons (less people will get fat if they don't have an easy means of conveyance of moving ice cream to mouth.) We have a crime problem in America, zealots want to say we have a gun problem in America. Ditto for mental illness. Take a look at 18 USC 922(g). If you want to talk enforcement of existing laws, I'm all ears.
If you want to debate the ease with which some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to effectively be fully automatic, we can have that debate in time. Hopefully more people will have read Heller and the history of governments using disarmament to enact tyranny. I'll try to ignore the torpedoes and fighterjets, because it's clear you started sane and ended with forgetting what "keep and bear arms" means.
|
On October 03 2017 06:50 Artisreal wrote:
Was there any fake news from "leftists" regarding the shooting?
The news sources I frequent only talk about the right appropriating the incident, labelling the shooter either Muslim or trumpet hater.
The hard anti-war left from 10 years ago was co-opted by the broader Russian disinformation sphere. If you want the lefty fake news take you need to talk to Jill Stein, the Intercept, Michael Tracey, Glenn Greenwald types that always manage to come up with a whataboutism to smear America and defend Russia. The progressive/liberal left hates these guys and feuds with them all the time. This limits the formation and propagation of fake news on the left since those fights tend to reveal when something is completely bullshit.
Whereas the right has a propagation source for things they want to hear (Infowars), and a ready echo chamber (FOX, AMRadio, righty twitter like Crowder) who can repeat variations of the fake story that have just enough of the bullshit removed to keep the audience agitated. Here is a great example. Expect to hear more anti-Antifa stuff throughout the week, but with just some of the facts here removed.
|
On October 03 2017 07:02 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:50 Artisreal wrote:
Was there any fake news from "leftists" regarding the shooting?
The news sources I frequent only talk about the right appropriating the incident, labelling the shooter either Muslim or trumpet hater. The hard anti-war left from 10 years ago was co-opted by the broader Russian disinformation sphere. If you want the lefty fake news take you need to talk to Jill Stein, the Intercept, Michael Tracey, Glenn Greenwald types that always manage to come up with a whataboutism to smear America and defend Russia. The progressive/liberal left hates these guys and feuds with them all the time. This limits the formation and propagation of fake news on the left since those fights tend to reveal when something is completely bullshit. Whereas the right has a propagation source for things they want to hear (Infowars), and a ready echo chamber (FOX, AMRadio, righty twitter like Crowder) who can repeat variations of the fake story that have just enough of the bullshit removed to keep the audience agitated. Here is a great example. Expect to hear more anti-Antifa stuff throughout the week, but with just some of the facts here removed. https://twitter.com/infowars/status/914950624629817345
Can you give me an example of "Fake News" from The Intercept? That sounds like something you made up.
I'd just like to point out that the right has figured out that it doesn't matter what the truth is, if you spread the lie early and often people will go on believing it no matter how many facts you provide to dissuade them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I read Trump's speech after the shooting. Was pretty good, actually, with few to no Trumpism and the nominal amount of "god bless America" bluster we always like. Little to no agenda-pushing as well.
|
On October 03 2017 06:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
I'm almost certainly sure that you can't have an armed tank. without weapons its just another veichle. Apparently about 1000 privately owned tanks exist in the US. Don't know how many are armed though.
It is almost like it matters whether the thing can shoot when it comes to analyzing his constitutionality and legality. The gun would be a DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE under the national firearms act is pretty much impossible to find a working one. Only on the most sponsored and richest and most connected youtubers can find the occasional guy who managed to fill out the forms for a working AA gun. Each round is itself a destructive device and needs its own registration. The process is rightly a nightmare.
The NFA was passed in the 1934, shortly after Prohibition, “because of all the gangster wars… and it regulated the type of weapons gangsters used,” like machine guns, silencers, and explosives, Morrison said. The act was amended in 1968 to include an amnesty period of 30 to 90 days for anyone interested in acquiring an NFA weapon.
But one can’t just walk into a gun shop and buy a tank, grenade launcher, or suppressor. It requires a ton of paperwork and additional taxation. The regulations are almost a different language.
“As far as registering NFA, you’d have to get the sheriff to sign off on it as well,” Morrison said. “There’s going to be some background done. You’ve got to assure they’re not prohibited [from lawfully owning a firearm] in the first place. There’s some type of control that’s involved when somebody wants to purchase something like this.”
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/
EDIT: re intercept, just read some Tracey or Greenwald for a bit. Honestly I am not gonna fight this. You either see what they are doing or you don't.
|
On October 03 2017 06:30 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:27 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 06:10 Logo wrote:On October 03 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On October 03 2017 04:21 Logo wrote: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.
Responses like this are incredibly disingenuous. You're already abiding by or complicit with restrictions on what you're arguing is a civil right here. There are many existing gun restrictions in an effort to curtail the reckless and criminals. Is your ideological view that existing gun laws (i.e ANY law controlling guns) are unacceptable restrictions of your rights? If not then you agree there's a line dividing acceptable restrictions from unacceptable ones. But you defend your position, and the current line, as if it is ideologically pure and thus unbendable. It's already a bent position, some people think the line should be elsewhere. Even if you disagree it doesn't lead you to the arguments you are making. It's really no different than other topics where people do the same thing ("I only support completely free speech, but support trademarks and copyright laws!") Right back at you for ignoring the disingenuous "what about the children?" calls. You snipped it as a response, but that was tailored to child accidents, not some wide detailed ideological position. You'll have to do better or I'll get the impression you're looking to snip responses to emotional pleas to pretend it represents the full argument. Any real response to childhood safety? I've drawn two acceptable restrictions of my gun rights. If you didn't bother to read my prior interactions on this topic in the last pages, maybe I'm disinclined to fight the wind with your new arguments made in ignorance. I didn't make any "What about the children calls?" I didn't make any sort of actual claim on gun control or children protection, I merely pointed out how you are admitting to accepting some gun control measures but then digging your heels in deep on some ideological measure in any sort of further debate as if you've drawn up some ideologically pure stance where any gun control is abhorrent because that frames the debate where you don't need to defend your views on their merit and can instead just say, "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" as if you *aren't* doing the exact same thing with the bits of gun control you accept and/or are find it too uncomfortable to argue against. You quoted my response to someone using accidental suicides of children against citing cases where a lawful gun owner stopped crime. You're either ignoring that framing out of straight ignorance or disingenuity. If you want to make a similar argument using the children to debate gun control, have at it. I can't see much use in debating ideologically pure stances when you missed my restrictions and take the context of responses out of the picture. Make an actual claim, ask an actual stance-related question, or share your own ideology. I will be incredibly dismissive if you allege disingenuity and skip context and previous posts on the matter. And in both my initial response, and the secondary response I pointed out the part of the quote that I felt most relevant to how you approach the debate: "punish the law abiding for the reckless and the criminals" because it is the most concise way you put your viewpoint (and the rest of your comments supported this as a statement). I included the surrounding context so I wasn't quoting out of context (I only trimmed the quote at all because it included 2 embedded quotes and didn't want to make a rats nest of out how the quoted text appears).
And you got my viewpoint that using the children in this case to argue against lawful defense is an absurd justification. If googling accidental suicides of children is your game, you're playing an awful game. I'd say the same if he cited that rationale for banning bathtubs or tug-of-war. You're taking this to be some disingenuous statement of ideology when it is dishing back a pointed and flippant remark at a pathetic response to something I wrote. You fail to prove your "feelings" about how I approach the debate. You fail to prove to me you just aren't seeking to quote out of context to make your job easier. I'm still wondering if you're about to make the case that the accidental suicides of children is a cogent argument against the cases of gun-owners stopping crime and preventing death and injury to loved ones and the surrounding populace. You're really cherry-picking here and I want to know if you're going to arrive at a cogent argument, other than "Let me choose these two sentences to be indicative of my feelings that you're arguing in bad faith in general."
|
On October 03 2017 06:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 06:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 06:27 LegalLord wrote:On October 03 2017 06:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:51 oBlade wrote:On October 03 2017 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 03 2017 01:33 sc-darkness wrote:
Another gun incident. Another wasted chance to reduce weapons in the US. Next I guess? But have you thought about the guys who do so much money selling war weapons to everyone and all those clients who get a hard on by purchasing stuff that can turn 400 people into steak tartare in 15 minutes? Oh and also ideology nuts who really believe that everyone having enough ammo to wipe out a city is what keeps murican freedom going and prevent evil government from taking over. Maveric far west proto fascist fantasies are well worth a few thousand lives, aren't they? Are you sure it's nuts and gun companies and not just regular people and the second amendment? I mean is there a bigger civil rights group than the NRA? Hey, here is a question: why aren't people allowed to buy a fucking Abraham tank? It doesn't make one bit more sense to allow someone to buy a weapon that can only be relevant either in fucking Fallujah or to murder a zillion people in a few minutes, than to allow them to buy a tank. After all it's gonna be great to have people with abraham tanks the day evil government wants to take over. And it's fantastic for home defense!! Who says you aren't? Jesus tap dancing Christ. The amount of insanity in the US keeps giving me headaches. How do you guys (i exclused Danglars and co) even manage to keep any kind of sanity? well, living in the better areas makes it a lot easier for me.
I'm generally happy(or call it ignorant) cause I live in an isolated island away from the kooks
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
