Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
I actually agree with the ACLU; I don't think that the Second Amendment guarantees an absolute right to "arms" to individuals.
This doesn't change the fact, however, that we don't ban anything without a compelling state interest.
You can ban individual ownership of guns but still maintain a militia, thus effectively upholding a collective right to bear arms.
Indeed. However, you still need a compelling state interest to ban individual ownership of guns. It's permissible under the Second Amendment, but still impermissible without due cause.
I dunno about this last part: I'm not qualified to comment on that, so I won't.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
Crossbows do not kill with the same ease. For a single shot, perhaps the lethality of the weapons are comparable. What you seem to be suggesting though is that a weapon with capacity for hitting many targets in seconds is comparable to a weapon capable of hitting one target in between reloading.
Crossbows absolutely do not kill with similar ease. Who could inflict more fatalities? A gunman with an AR15 and 3 detachable 30rd magazines or a crossbowman, in the same time frame? I highly doubt you believe yourself when you claim the two weapons are comparable. Even replacing the AR15 with a .45 handgun 8rd magazine, the point stands.
I completely agree with you that the line is hard to draw, but it does exist. I am not a proponent of outright banning guns in one instance. In fact I am an avid target shooter and I quite enjoy taking an AR15 to the range. That being said I will not let my own idea of fun overcome my understanding of what needs to be done with regard to gun control. I am in favor of stricter background checking and gun registration, among other things -- things that don't outright "take away freedom", but rather bring responsibility.
I won't respond to the "should we ban knives" crap because that's a crap point and I think you are aware of that.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
On May 02 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
I think you are failing to see something. Cars operated on private property have none of those requirements. They do not need seatbelts, headlights, windshields, registration, licensing, or to be in good working order. Nor do you need to follow speed limits or abide by any moving traffic rules. These regulations apply only when you use public resources to operate your vehicle.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
^expectation is referring to the need for this kind of drills, as if gun violence is a natural disaster that needs to be damage minimized, rather than something to be tackled.
hide under your tables for the big bad atomic bomb
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
On May 02 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
I think you are failing to see something. Cars operated on private property have none of those requirements. They do not need seatbelts, headlights, windshields, registration, licensing, or to be in good working order. Nor do you need to follow speed limits or abide by any moving traffic rules. These regulations apply only when you use public resources to operate your vehicle.
Is the highway patrol a government body that keeps track of the misuse of cars? Yes.
Are car registrations still required to drive around in a car? Yes.
Have car registrations and an armed police force lead to the confiscation of cars? No.
Is it bothersome that you need a license, government registration, insurance (and private registration), as well as mandatory training, retraining, testing, retesting, and expected and regulated maintenance laws when it comes to owning a car? Yes.
Could you theoretically take a care and hide a car under your bed and not register it in case the feds invade your home town and you need to take down the american dictator? Yes.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
Wait, so what's your point? ><
Cars have more regulations on them than guns do--car owners don't seem to mind. It has not lead to confiscation or banning despite high motor vehicle death and cars being related to many crimes in the US. I don't see why guns should be treated any differently.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
Wait, so what's your point? ><
Cars have more regulations on them than guns do--car owners don't seem to mind. It has not lead to confiscation or banning despite high motor vehicle death and cars being related to many crimes in the US. I don't see why guns should be treated any differently.
Except none of those regulations apply on private property. Whereas gun laws do.
I can drive a car without a license, tail-lights, license plate, seat-belt, and at whatever speed I like on my property. But I can't buy a handgun to shoot cardboard boxes and empty soda cans on my own property.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
Did you even read what I was responding to?
I wrote that I contributed politically by working for the ACLU (and btw, their opinion DOES matter, just as any other lobbying group-just look at the gun lobby.) and I was mocked. The post I made was in response to that mockery. It had nothing to do with your passive aggressive suggestion that I think the ACLU is superior to the Supreme Court or whatever bullshit you're putting in my mouth.
In a few decades, people are going to be printing their own guns. No licenses, no serial numbers, no barrel markings recorded, hell even melting the gun away when you are done with it.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
Wait, so what's your point? ><
Cars have more regulations on them than guns do--car owners don't seem to mind. It has not lead to confiscation or banning despite high motor vehicle death and cars being related to many crimes in the US. I don't see why guns should be treated any differently.
Except none of those regulations apply on private property. Whereas gun laws do.
I can drive a car without a license, tail-lights, license plate, seat-belt, and at whatever speed I like on my property. But I can't buy a handgun to shoot cardboard boxes and empty soda cans on my own property.
Wait you can't? o_O
I guess the main difference would be you're probably unlikely to be driving a car around your property if you just have a small parking lot and messing things up at 100mph (I'd imagine this would only be applicable if you had a larger property).On the other hand, if you used a firearm and shot through a cardboard box and it went to your neighbor's wall, I guess that'd be pretty inconvenient.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
On May 02 2013 05:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 02 2013 05:18 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 02 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 02 2013 04:36 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 02 2013 02:08 sunprince wrote:
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
Wait, so what's your point? ><
Cars have more regulations on them than guns do--car owners don't seem to mind. It has not lead to confiscation or banning despite high motor vehicle death and cars being related to many crimes in the US. I don't see why guns should be treated any differently.
Except none of those regulations apply on private property. Whereas gun laws do.
I can drive a car without a license, tail-lights, license plate, seat-belt, and at whatever speed I like on my property. But I can't buy a handgun to shoot cardboard boxes and empty soda cans on my own property.
Wait you can't? o_O
I guess the main difference would be you're probably unlikely to be driving a car around your property if you just have a small parking lot and messing things up at 100mph (I'd imagine this would only be applicable if you had a larger property).On the other hand, if you used a firearm and shot through a cardboard box and it went to your neighbor's wall, I guess that'd be pretty inconvenient.
Still, didn't know that.
Depends where you are. People who have big enough land to be able to drive like that usually live in the rural areas where you can spend the day shooting old cars that aint worth fixing anymore. I actually had friends doing that in CA who would talk to the town cops about it at the bars that same night.
On May 02 2013 05:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Is the highway patrol a government body that keeps track of the misuse of cars? Yes.
Are car registrations still required to drive around in a car? Yes.
Have car registrations and an armed police force lead to the confiscation of cars? No.
Is it bothersome that you need a license, government registration, insurance (and private registration), as well as mandatory training, retraining, testing, retesting, and expected and regulated maintenance laws when it comes to owning a car? Yes.
Could you theoretically take a care and hide a car under your bed and not register it in case the feds invade your home town and you need to take down the american dictator? Yes.
Actually, registration is not required to operate a car. To use public resources, yes, but not to operate it on private property (as you would a gun). Nor is registration required to purchase a car. None of this is required to purchase one.
You do not need registration--private or otherwise, insurance, mandatory training, retraining, testing, retesting, or maintenance just to operate a car. So pretty much everything you said is wrong.
All I am doing is discounting this gun vs car argument because it is pointless. One is used for defending yourself, the other for transportation. One has a specific constitutional protection, the other does not.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
Did you even read what I was responding to?
I wrote that I contributed politically by working for the ACLU (and btw, their opinion DOES matter, just as any other lobbying group-just look at the gun lobby.) and I was mocked. The post I made was in response to that mockery. It had nothing to do with your passive aggressive suggestion that I think the ACLU is superior to the Supreme Court or whatever bullshit you're putting in my mouth.
"Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms." These two sentences don't really have anything to do with the mockery. Why bring up the ACLU's official position on the matter?
The ACLU's opinion doesn't matter, and neither does the NRA's, because neither of them interpret the Constitution. If the Supreme Court said tomorrow that the Constitution actually banned guns, nothing the NRA could say or do could change that. Lobbyist opinions only matter in Congress, the Supreme Court is above all that.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
Did you even read what I was responding to?
I wrote that I contributed politically by working for the ACLU (and btw, their opinion DOES matter, just as any other lobbying group-just look at the gun lobby.) and I was mocked. The post I made was in response to that mockery. It had nothing to do with your passive aggressive suggestion that I think the ACLU is superior to the Supreme Court or whatever bullshit you're putting in my mouth.
"Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms." These two sentences don't really have anything to do with the mockery. Why bring up the ACLU's official position on the matter?
The ACLU's opinion doesn't matter, and neither does the NRA's, because neither of them interpret the Constitution. If the Supreme Court said tomorrow that the Constitution actually banned guns, nothing the NRA could say or do could change that. Lobbyist opinions only matter in Congress, the Supreme Court is above all that.
On May 02 2013 02:01 micronesia wrote: How about you try to help instead?
I have tried-I've interned in a U.S. Representative's office and I've worked for a year for the ACLU.
My life interest is not politics. I vote, but that's not enough influence.
I have no particular ties to this country, so I have no qualms with watching it burn while I continue on with my life, as I'd much rather spend my time coding, researching, or playing games in a country that has already come to conclusions about major issues that I agree with than tearing my hair out arguing with conservatives in a country that already seems to be doomed for failure.
There's something hilariously ironic about a former ACLU employee who doesn't understand how freedom as a political philosophy works.
Actually the ACLU doesn't agree with the notion that the Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. The ACLU views the Second Amendment more as being about a collective right to bear arms.
It's definitely one of the more "interesting" positions for the ACLU, though. Plenty of the members that I know personally have widely varying opinions on the issue.
So? I'm responding to his statement about my affiliation with the ACLU.
The Supreme Court at one point also stated that separate but equal was legal. It's only relevant as long as the ruling holds, and that case was incredibly recent (and 5-4 at that).
You insinuated that the ACLU's opinion matters. It doesn't, they have no authority over the Constitution.
And as for the cases being recent, I'm aware of that. But it doesn't matter. If they were older cases you'd just say they're out-of-touch with the modern world.
HALFWAY -- Two masked men wearing hoodies and wielding handguns burst into the Pine Eagle Charter School in this tiny rural community on Friday. Students were at home for an in-service day, so the gunmen headed into a meeting room full of teachers and opened fire. Someone figured out in a few seconds that the bullets were not drawing blood because they were blanks and the exercise was a drill, designed to test Pine Eagle's preparation for an assault by "active shooters" who were, in reality, members of the school staff. But those few seconds left everybody plenty scared.
patently absurd that wild shootouts should be the expectation at schools. this is not fucking afghanistan
They're not the expectation. They're incredibly rare, they just garner a great deal of attention when they do happen.
LOL. Okay. You apparently know better than I do what I said.
If you weren't insinuating that their opinion mattered, you wouldn't have brought it up.
On May 02 2013 05:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 02 2013 05:18 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 02 2013 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 02 2013 04:36 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 02 2013 02:08 sunprince wrote:
On May 02 2013 02:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's probably sort of necessary to consider the ease with which guns kill. I'd like to toss out the comparison of guns to swords on the grounds that although they both may kill, they are nothing alike in terms of how efficiently they may kill. That's a very key thing to consider.
Crossbows kill with a very similar ease, and we allow them. Also, swords kill pretty easily; the only way they lose out compared to firearms is the lack of range.
Regardless, are you saying that there is an arbitrary line where weapons become "too easy"? So if I use a sufficiently old firearm, that's okay? How about extremely sharp knives, should those be banned? And cars are pretty easy to kill multiple people with too, should those be banned as well?
No, we don't ban cars. But we instill safety regulations like seat belts and drinking laws as well as make you go through a driving test to see if you are capable of driving on the road without getting yourself or anyone else hurt or killed. And as far as knives are concerned, the only thing I can really say is that guns have a more specific purpose, and in more cases than not they're supposed to inflict bodily harm on something or someone.
I'm not in favor of banning guns. I think people have a right to property and the state has no right to regulate that for the most part, but I am in favor of expanding background checks to make sure people who have dangerous criminal records are deterred from purchasing weapons.
If guns had their own gun-way patrol checking on the owners of registered guns and making those owners take continual tests as well as forcing those owners regular re-licensing, searches, and gear maintenance like fix-it tickets--then maybe gun owners would realize that cars have more regulations than guns do. And--wait for it--are not being taken from their owners.
Wait, so what's your point? ><
Cars have more regulations on them than guns do--car owners don't seem to mind. It has not lead to confiscation or banning despite high motor vehicle death and cars being related to many crimes in the US. I don't see why guns should be treated any differently.
Except none of those regulations apply on private property. Whereas gun laws do.
I can drive a car without a license, tail-lights, license plate, seat-belt, and at whatever speed I like on my property. But I can't buy a handgun to shoot cardboard boxes and empty soda cans on my own property.
Wait you can't? o_O
I guess the main difference would be you're probably unlikely to be driving a car around your property if you just have a small parking lot and messing things up at 100mph (I'd imagine this would only be applicable if you had a larger property).On the other hand, if you used a firearm and shot through a cardboard box and it went to your neighbor's wall, I guess that'd be pretty inconvenient.
Still, didn't know that.
The issue is buying the gun, not using it. In NY, you have to be registered to get a handgun. If you can get a handgun, you can use it on private property, assuming municipal laws don't ban it. I'm fine with municipal laws banning it, because you really shouldn't be doing target practice in town. But in the woods, why not?
EPT
