|
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. |
You don't actually have to ban guns. Swizerland, a country that actually fulfills the 2nd Amendment ideals by making sure every man armed and ready to defend the country, is proof of this. You just have to implement common sense laws to make it clear that legal gun ownership is a right and with your rights come significant responsibility.
We do it with cars because everyone knows cars can be unintentionally or intentionally dangerous weapons. Drivers licences might be a means for the government to track you but it also shows borderline proof that the driver understand the road rules and is competent enough to use a car without hurting someone. Its a sign that the driver understands their responsibility on the road.
In just about every country in the world, even Switzerland, private ownership own firearms have a significant amount of vetting and bureaucracy that is intended to weed out people who don't intended to use their firearms for wholesome purposes. If you don't have prerequisite training for using a firearm, you don't get one until you go through classes/pass tests. If you have no good reason for owning one, then you don't get one. If you're a felon or mentally ill, you don't get one. Because its common sense to deter whimsical or dangerous reasons for owning a tool that is intended to kill. If you want to defend yourself and seriously believe that it'll help you do this, a class or test won't deter you. If it does deter you. then you're purchasing a firearm for a spur of the moment reason.
Yes, you can obtain firearms illegally off the black market just like you can drive a car without a plate. But most people aren't criminals and aren't going to do this because its goddamn illegal. Maybe America is so broken that you might as well do fuck all while people shoot each other to death but maybe its time to actually do something so the mentally ill can't obtain a weapon in the same way the legally blind cannot drive a car.
|
On October 03 2017 20:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In some good news for the country.
Although I personally think it's a weak choice. They didn't "prove Einstein right," that happened like 40 years ago and already got the Nobel prize https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse–Taylor_binary.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Shitty way to frame it but demonstrating gravitational waves certainly seems Nobel-worthy.
|
United States42978 Posts
On October 03 2017 07:28 Gahlo wrote:
To quote my pro-gun, cop, former marine, GI:JOE stars in his eyes, Charlottesville was a false flag, and the racial problems are manufactured because "everything was fine when we were kids" friend on just bringing up whether or not bump firing should be illegal or not - "Isn't murder already illegal?"
The fuck is wrong with these people.
Presumably they think the problem we're trying to resolve is "we just can't secure convictions on these mass murderers, we need to get them like we got Capone on tax fraud".
|
|
|
United States42978 Posts
On October 03 2017 11:11 Plansix wrote:
Why would you submit to that audit if you provided security software for the fucking pentagon? Your stock holders really want that Russian buisness for the next quarter?
Pentagon was apparently too cheap to buy an exclusive right to the software.
|
On October 03 2017 09:02 Danglars wrote:
I have no intention of defending my position based on ideological purity. I’ve since elaborated on my broad agreement with Heller on limits. It’s just so few eagerly dismiss the American civil right and constitutional tradition of meaningful self defense against criminals and a tyrannical government and I feel it’s necessary to point out how they’re being brushed aside. You’re picking the victims of mass shootings (and all attendant already criminal violations of law) over helpless victims if all guns are banned (some argue from Europe) or people’s choice in a self defense rifle with higher than 10-round magazine (if you want to ignore the higher deaths by handguns across the US) for their defense/defense of citizens against a ridiculously oppressive government.
So my critique of your argument is wrong because you later made a better argument that avoided the very problems I pointed out? That sounds very much like it was exactly right.
|
|
|
On October 03 2017 23:17 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 09:02 Danglars wrote:
I have no intention of defending my position based on ideological purity. I’ve since elaborated on my broad agreement with Heller on limits. It’s just so few eagerly dismiss the American civil right and constitutional tradition of meaningful self defense against criminals and a tyrannical government and I feel it’s necessary to point out how they’re being brushed aside. You’re picking the victims of mass shootings (and all attendant already criminal violations of law) over helpless victims if all guns are banned (some argue from Europe) or people’s choice in a self defense rifle with higher than 10-round magazine (if you want to ignore the higher deaths by handguns across the US) for their defense/defense of citizens against a ridiculously oppressive government. So my critique of your argument is wrong because you later made a better argument that avoided the very problems I pointed out? That sounds very much like it was exactly right.
Oh, do read the other paragraph. I wrote it precisely to explain the use of partisan talking points right back at partisan angles/reframes. Here’s the post prior to yours drawing lines away from supposed ideological purity.
On October 03 2017 02:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
lol the threat of future tyranny. that’s the cost of the thousands of preventable murders by guns. seems reasonable. i’m sure everyone will sleep well tonight having understood that.
good stuff. i am definitely interested in hearing about these threats of state violence. which ones specifically are worth the lives of these people? oh, you don’t mean in the US do you? never mind, i’m not interested.
your argument about putting these real victims against your fictitious would-be victims is not well taken. frankly it’s a bad argument.
|
United States42978 Posts
It's worth noting that the American Revolution depended very heavily upon the French to fight a literal war against the state. Is this built into future plans to overthrow a tyrannical government? Is the plan to wait for the United States to declare war on France before rising up? Or is the assumption that the French would enter the war on the side of the revolutionaries after the revolt starts?
|
On October 03 2017 23:54 brian wrote:
lol the threat of future tyranny. that’s the cost of the thousands of preventable murders by guns. seems reasonable. i’m sure everyone will sleep well tonight having understood that.
good stuff. i am definitely interested in hearing about these threats of state violence. which ones specifically are worth the lives of these people? oh, you don’t mean in the US do you? never mind, i’m not interested.
It's sad that we can't even do x because people are scared of y. It is really frustrating that people will admit that a certain regulation would be fine but that they still won't vote for it because they are worried it'll lead to more and more regulations.
On October 03 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:
It's worth noting that the American Revolution depended very heavily upon the French to fight a literal war against the state. Is this built into future plans to overthrow a tyrannical government? Is the plan to wait for the United States to declare war on France before rising up? Or is the assumption that the French would enter the war on the side of the revolutionaries after the revolt starts?
lol. I think a lot of people like to just kinda breeze over the detail that the revolutionary war was only possible because an actual country helped us. It's not like this was some "unlikely bunch of heroes" banding together and pushing back a dominant military. The existence of the US is 100% a result of France and we would have lost without them.
|
Historians also agree that Britain could have crushed the US revolution if they wanted to. But they had other global concerns at the time and sent over what they felt would be sufficient. It almost worked too, but Washington was really good at keeping his army from getting locked in. But the war is all about public will and cost, not military power. The French just make it inefficient to continue the conflict.
|
On October 03 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote:
It's worth noting that the American Revolution depended very heavily upon the French to fight a literal war against the state. Is this built into future plans to overthrow a tyrannical government? Is the plan to wait for the United States to declare war on France before rising up? Or is the assumption that the French would enter the war on the side of the revolutionaries after the revolt starts?
I'm not sure that I quite understand under what circumstances in the modern world a significant fraction/majority of the civilian American population would have cause to take up arms against anything but a significant fraction/majority of the much-better-armed American armed forces would not be on the same side.
|
On October 04 2017 00:11 Plansix wrote:
Historians also agree that Britain could have crushed the US revolution if they wanted to. But they had other global concerns at the time and sent over what they felt would be sufficient. It almost worked too, but Washington was really good at keeping his army from getting locked in. But the war is all about public will and cost, not military power. The French just make it inefficient to continue the conflict.
Well the French helped us on the sea, they stopped Britain from ever being able to send reinforcements and supplies in Yorktown. They also had Spain and Netherlands supply the US. This was also one of the main reasons why the French Revolution happened. They were extremely broke from all the wars France was in within the past 20 years. I can't imagine how the US would of turned out if the French never helped.
|
On October 04 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:11 Plansix wrote:
Historians also agree that Britain could have crushed the US revolution if they wanted to. But they had other global concerns at the time and sent over what they felt would be sufficient. It almost worked too, but Washington was really good at keeping his army from getting locked in. But the war is all about public will and cost, not military power. The French just make it inefficient to continue the conflict. Well the French helped us on the sea, they stopped Britain from ever being able to send reinforcements and supplies in Yorktown. They also had Spain and Netherlands supply the US. This was also one of the main reasons why the French Revolution happened. They were extremely broke from all the wars France was in within the past 20 years. I can't imagine how the US would of turned out if the French never helped.
The war might have dragged on for longer and the US’s victory would have been less decisive. But France was always going to dive into the war, because they were eager to stick it to Britain. I joke a lot about how conflict between Britain and France was the pro-wrestling of the masses for a couple centuries.
|
On October 04 2017 00:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On October 04 2017 00:11 Plansix wrote:
Historians also agree that Britain could have crushed the US revolution if they wanted to. But they had other global concerns at the time and sent over what they felt would be sufficient. It almost worked too, but Washington was really good at keeping his army from getting locked in. But the war is all about public will and cost, not military power. The French just make it inefficient to continue the conflict. Well the French helped us on the sea, they stopped Britain from ever being able to send reinforcements and supplies in Yorktown. They also had Spain and Netherlands supply the US. This was also one of the main reasons why the French Revolution happened. They were extremely broke from all the wars France was in within the past 20 years. I can't imagine how the US would of turned out if the French never helped. The war might have dragged on for longer and the US’s victory would have been less decisive. But France was always going to dive into the war, because they were eager to stick it to Britain. I joke a lot about how conflict between Britain and France was the pro-wrestling of the masses for a couple centuries.
You're saying the US would have won without the French? o.0
|
United States42978 Posts
On October 04 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:11 Plansix wrote:
Historians also agree that Britain could have crushed the US revolution if they wanted to. But they had other global concerns at the time and sent over what they felt would be sufficient. It almost worked too, but Washington was really good at keeping his army from getting locked in. But the war is all about public will and cost, not military power. The French just make it inefficient to continue the conflict. Well the French helped us on the sea, they stopped Britain from ever being able to send reinforcements and supplies in Yorktown. They also had Spain and Netherlands supply the US. This was also one of the main reasons why the French Revolution happened. They were extremely broke from all the wars France was in within the past 20 years. I can't imagine how the US would of turned out if the French never helped.
On the French being broke note, the new United States had a colossal war debt to France and raised taxes to pay for it. There was immediately a revolution against the revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion
Then the French revolution happened and the US said that technically they owed the money to the Bourbon regime and therefore technically they didn't have to pay but if the French really needed money they could always sell their entire American holdings.
|
On October 04 2017 00:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2017 00:23 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2017 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On October 04 2017 00:11 Plansix wrote:
Historians also agree that Britain could have crushed the US revolution if they wanted to. But they had other global concerns at the time and sent over what they felt would be sufficient. It almost worked too, but Washington was really good at keeping his army from getting locked in. But the war is all about public will and cost, not military power. The French just make it inefficient to continue the conflict. Well the French helped us on the sea, they stopped Britain from ever being able to send reinforcements and supplies in Yorktown. They also had Spain and Netherlands supply the US. This was also one of the main reasons why the French Revolution happened. They were extremely broke from all the wars France was in within the past 20 years. I can't imagine how the US would of turned out if the French never helped. The war might have dragged on for longer and the US’s victory would have been less decisive. But France was always going to dive into the war, because they were eager to stick it to Britain. I joke a lot about how conflict between Britain and France was the pro-wrestling of the masses for a couple centuries. You're saying the US would have won without the French? o.0
Define winning. The French entered into the war towards the end and only once they thought we had a chance. It is really hard to say what would have happened, but we might have been able to chase the red coats out of the colonies, rather than force them to surrender. And lets be clear, there was a lot of support from France before they fully entered the war. We could not have won without that. Speculative history is hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
