• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:57
CEST 04:57
KST 11:57
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed18Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Heaven's Balance Suggestions (roast me) Who will win EWC 2025? Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Soulkey Muta Micro Map? BW General Discussion [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
The Games Industry And ATVI Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion Movie Discussion! [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 621 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 497 498 499 500 501 891 Next
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.
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 21:18:08
May 09 2013 21:10 GMT
#9961
On May 10 2013 04:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:
Great, then if you are well aware of the process, that just means you willfully misrepresented the truth by saying "the current law allows you to transfer a gun to a criminal" when you should have said "the current law forbids you to determine if you are transferring guns to a criminal."

These are very different statements, as yours begs the need for increased state control while mine demands the state to be logical without adding additional and redundant laws to the pile.


Did you seriously just chop off half of a sentence to misrepresent what I said? If you're having trouble responding to what I have actually said maybe you should just not reply?

On May 10 2013 04:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:
Edit: No, I didn't make that statement because I feel "superior." I made that statement because people are always blaming private sellers for "giving guns to criminals" and basically starting a witch-hunt against us. Meanwhile, back in reality, private sellers are trying to let everyone know THAT IT'S ILLEGAL FOR US TO DO CHECKS.

I don't understand. You're complaining that you as a non FFL seller cannot run checks. Yet you're against forcing all sales to be run through the process. wtf?
dude bro.
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
May 09 2013 22:00 GMT
#9962
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13913 Posts
May 09 2013 22:16 GMT
#9963
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!

Your really hopeless you know that? You spent the whole time being a hyper partisan dick making gaudy accusations with no examples, borderline whining for the most part, pretend to hold an intellectual high ground from throwing mud at your opponent, then at the end of all this expect people to show any interest in putting work into something that you just showed in exhaustive extent that you wouldn't give any credence to?

You are the thesis of why we can't have responsible gun control in america. The extent that you will ignore, insult, and insolvent any actually responsible gun control. Flailing around making a big huff on a subject you know nothing about, that you know you won't do anything about, that you know you've lost from the very beginning only makes you look dumb.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 09 2013 22:26 GMT
#9964
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!


The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns?

You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe

And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention.

In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!)

Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do?

Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 23:34:15
May 09 2013 23:28 GMT
#9965
On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!


The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns?

You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe


And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention.

In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!)

Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do?

Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.


Holy strawmans batman.

On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!


You can't simply shift the burden of proof like that. You need to bring forth concrete proof that your ideas for more gun control will significantly lower violent crimes (NOT gun violence, that isn't the crux of the issue and you seem to keep forgetting that) otherwise nobody will take you seriously. Stop calling it "responsible" policy that is about as useless terminology as "assault weapon".
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 09 2013 23:30 GMT
#9966
On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!


The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns?

You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe

And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention.

In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!)

Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do?

Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.


Holy strawmans batman.


??

I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 23:36:45
May 09 2013 23:32 GMT
#9967
On May 10 2013 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:
On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway.


I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar.


Actually--no, that was me.

Urban residences don't have speed limit laws within private property since most places only have at most a garage or two of space and so speed limits are not needed since there's no room to drive. Noise and disturbing the peace complaints can be filed if you simply rev up your engine or kick dirt around your backyard.

Rural areas where you have enough space to actually drive around in are also places your allowed to shoot guns in. So... they both are treated equally.

BUT THEY AREN'T. In NY, I can't have a magazine with more than 7 bullets, even if I have miles and miles of private land. I can't have an automatic weapon no matter how much private land I have.

On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!

Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.
Who called in the fleet?
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 23:39:12
May 09 2013 23:36 GMT
#9968
On May 10 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:
On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!


The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns?

You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe

And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention.

In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!)

Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do?

Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.


Holy strawmans batman.


??

I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread.


So you are stating it as if it is fact, that is even more insulting. Name me who is on the side that thinks without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US? That is so fucking absurd I don't even know why I'm responding to it.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 23:44:50
May 09 2013 23:43 GMT
#9969
On May 10 2013 08:36 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:
On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!


The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns?

You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe

And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention.

In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!)

Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do?

Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.


Holy strawmans batman.


??

I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread.


So you are stating it as if it is fact, that is even more insulting. Name me who is on the side that thinks without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US? That is so fucking absurd I don't even know why I'm responding to it.


People say its to defend against tyranny all the time

EDIT:

I don't actually believe a zombie hitler will reinstate the 3rd Reich in america without the 2nd amendment
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-10 00:20:41
May 10 2013 00:20 GMT
#9970
On May 10 2013 08:32 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:
On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway.


I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar.


Actually--no, that was me.

Urban residences don't have speed limit laws within private property since most places only have at most a garage or two of space and so speed limits are not needed since there's no room to drive. Noise and disturbing the peace complaints can be filed if you simply rev up your engine or kick dirt around your backyard.

Rural areas where you have enough space to actually drive around in are also places your allowed to shoot guns in. So... they both are treated equally.

BUT THEY AREN'T. In NY, I can't have a magazine with more than 7 bullets, even if I have miles and miles of private land. I can't have an automatic weapon no matter how much private land I have.


Maybe this is because I'm not a gun enthusiast, but can you fill me in on relevant uses for automatic weapons on your private land? It seems like overkill for hunting and self defense. I guess you can shoot at targets with them? Is there something more than that?
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-10 00:25:17
May 10 2013 00:23 GMT
#9971
On May 10 2013 08:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 08:36 kmillz wrote:
On May 10 2013 08:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:
On May 10 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!


The reason their only stance is that the 2nd amendment says so is because that is the reason guns are allowed in America. There is no philosophical stance of Guns or no Guns and hence no comparison can be made between a place like the US and a place like the UK. The only allowed discourse in America is how much personal freedom should people be given when it comes to the subject of guns?

You have one side that thinks that without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US.
You have another side where any and all government intrusion in personal like is slavery.
You have a third side that wishes the US was Europe

And you have a fourth side that hates it that we need to renew and retest for a drivers license every few years but you don't need a background check if you sell your gun in a convention.

In the end the outcome is predetermined. The 2nd Amendment states that a Well Regulated Militia is allowed to have arms. Because of that, we will forever be fighting about what "regulated" "militia" "arms" and "infringe" means. We will also be arguing about whether the 2nd Amendment means defending against a corrupt king (meaning anarchy is legal), or it means defending the country from a "threat" (wohoo! corporate conscription!), or defending yourself from other american (wohoo! legal murder!)

Some people, like myself, find it problematic, but since its in the constitution what are we to do?

Some like being able to shoot black people and say it was self defense. Either or, until the Supreme Court changes their minds again, we're stuck with the current rulings.


Holy strawmans batman.


??

I wasn't making an argument. That is an observation of what's happening on this thread.


So you are stating it as if it is fact, that is even more insulting. Name me who is on the side that thinks without the 2nd amendment Hitler will come back and take over the US? That is so fucking absurd I don't even know why I'm responding to it.


People say its to defend against tyranny all the time

EDIT:

I don't actually believe a zombie hitler will reinstate the 3rd Reich in america without the 2nd amendment


The tyranny argument is just the reasoning for why the second amendment was put in place, people aren't saying that we would have a tyranny if it weren't for the second amendment, it's just there as a SAFE guard. Just because I probably won't get into an accident doesn't mean I won't put my seatbelt on.

You named 4 "sides" about gun control and you said there is no "philosophical stance" of guns or no guns, which is complete and total bullshit. Your 4 sides were just non-sense hyperbole that just make you look even more condescending.
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
May 10 2013 00:33 GMT
#9972
I personally think a constitutional amendment needs to be made either way because the 2nd Amendment is incredibly poorly written. I mean, look at Madison's original pitched 2nd amendment:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Final version:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They lifted chunks of it, but chunks in such a way that the Supreme Court has had no idea what to do with it historically (this much is clearly in evident from their decisions on things like the definition of arms, the presence of an individual or collective right, and whether or not felons are permitted to own guns). There's even a comma splice! Unfortunately the founding fathers didn't account very well for changing language and include a glossary in the Constitution...
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-10 01:12:21
May 10 2013 00:42 GMT
#9973
On May 10 2013 09:20 Shiori wrote:
Maybe this is because I'm not a gun enthusiast, but can you fill me in on relevant uses for automatic weapons on your private land? It seems like overkill for hunting and self defense. I guess you can shoot at targets with them? Is there something more than that?


Automatic weapons are not *useful* for anything apart from eliminating enemy combatants, and even then the rifles used by actual warfighters rarely see use of full automatic fire unless it is to suppress the opposing force. The thing you're getting at is they're loads of fun to shoot, and nothing more. There is absolutely no reason to have one in a civilian setting apart from the fun.

I've had the pleasure of playing with a select-fire PKM at an outdoor place in the desert where I grew up. Thinking about it, it's sort of hard to describe why it's fun to squeeze a trigger just to send lots of lead down range. Hitting targets is one thing but the fun of just shooting an automatic weapon is another. There's no clear good reason for it being fun -- just sorta is, if it appeals to you. You try it, and it either feels entirely like it's scary, nothing at all, or lots of fun.

The reason to own one in a civilian setting is just "fun". That being said, I understand fully that just because something is fun does not mean other considerations should not be taken, such as safety concerns, which is why I have no problem setting aside what I think is fun in order to focus on what I think needs to be done toward greater responsibility and safety.

On May 10 2013 08:32 Millitron wrote:

Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.

That Pew poll does not conclude that gun-control is not needed, unless I missed that part of the paper. The observation featured in the Pew poll that violence -- including gun violence -- is at a relative low point compared to violence in the 80s and 90s does not concern the fact that gun deaths have been at a steady ~30,000 per year in the US for over a decade, without any further progress going down. In fact, it is estimated that gun death numbers in the US will surpass vehicle deaths by 2015!

Gun deaths and injuries are of great concern to many physicians and healthcare professionals in the US, who support the idea of more responsible gun policy and culture.

So while you may be of the personal opinion that "nothing is broken" and that everything is "better than ever", many professionals who can argue authoritatively on this subject disagree.

On May 10 2013 09:46 heliusx wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?

That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.

Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive.

If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive.


You missed his point entirely. His point is that small arms -- AR15 rifles, .45 handguns, shotguns, and the like -- have no place in deciding the outcomes of combat involving modernized military forces at large. Even in your example it is still the power of the US military that is dictating the pace despite being fragmented and turned against itself -- not the small arms-bearing civilians.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights

On May 10 2013 08:28 kmillz wrote:

You can't simply shift the burden of proof like that. You need to bring forth concrete proof that your ideas for more gun control will significantly lower violent crimes (NOT gun violence, that isn't the crux of the issue and you seem to keep forgetting that) otherwise nobody will take you seriously. Stop calling it "responsible" policy that is about as useless terminology as "assault weapon".


Actually I can given that there is no burden of proof already resting on me. I have provided on many counts evidence for approaching gun control through the lens of public health, which despite your misgivings is actually a perfectly valid approach -- one that is actually authoritative given that it has passed through the process of peer review by other scientists who are thinking about problems from scientific rather than political perspectives, which is incredibly valuable for forming reasonable policy. At this point I'm just very interested to see if there exists even just one persuasive argument in favor of doing nothing toward more responsible gun policy and culture, and I'm completely free to request such a thing. Who are you to tell me I'm not allowed to ask for a good argument rather than crappy presumptive/misinformed responses such as the ones that have littered many pages of this thread?

Furthermore, although you personally think it's only an issue of violent crime, and that guns themselves or the environment in which guns are used are irrelevant, public health professionals and physicians disagree. Crime plays a role, but so does the way we deal with gun prevalence and use. Addressing both affects gun death/injury numbers. Asking for "proof" that a public health approach works is essentially asking for proof that something works before allowing it to be tested. Other models show it works. What is left now is to apply it here, and see how it fares.
zdfgucker
Profile Joined August 2011
China594 Posts
May 10 2013 00:42 GMT
#9974
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?

That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.

Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive.
fLDm
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
May 10 2013 00:46 GMT
#9975
On May 10 2013 08:32 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:
On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway.


I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar.


Actually--no, that was me.

Urban residences don't have speed limit laws within private property since most places only have at most a garage or two of space and so speed limits are not needed since there's no room to drive. Noise and disturbing the peace complaints can be filed if you simply rev up your engine or kick dirt around your backyard.

Rural areas where you have enough space to actually drive around in are also places your allowed to shoot guns in. So... they both are treated equally.

BUT THEY AREN'T. In NY, I can't have a magazine with more than 7 bullets, even if I have miles and miles of private land. I can't have an automatic weapon no matter how much private land I have.

Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 07:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I'm kind of wondering if we'll ever see a strong stand-alone argument in favor of no changes to current gun policy/culture. So far for the most part what we've seen are weak to nonexistent 'attacks' against arguments in favor of more responsible regulation, which are supported by authoritative nonpartisan sources of information. Some of the moderately better defenses against more responsible gun policy do attempt to make arguments for upholding the second amendment, respecting American freedom, etc. Unfortunately it seems a significant number of the defenses, however, point at arguments and call them invalid by baldly alleging they are faulty comparisons or lack authority, are political propaganda, etc. -- relying entirely on wrong and sometimes downright clueless assumptions all along the way.

Would it be too much to see what happens if the burden is placed on gun proponents to explain why they cannot yield to more responsible gun policy?

Maybe someone could provide a nice writeup explaining why no changes should be made to how we live with guns in the US in honor of reaching page 500!

Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-10 00:50:29
May 10 2013 00:46 GMT
#9976
On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?

That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.

Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive.

If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive.
dude bro.
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
May 10 2013 00:56 GMT
#9977
On May 10 2013 09:46 heliusx wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?

That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.

Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive.

If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive.

It's also pretty naive to suppose this kind of fantasy has any real chance of occurring.
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-10 01:09:02
May 10 2013 00:58 GMT
#9978


You can't simply shift the burden of proof like that. You need to bring forth concrete proof that your ideas for more gun control will significantly lower violent crimes (NOT gun violence, that isn't the crux of the issue and you seem to keep forgetting that) otherwise nobody will take you seriously. Stop calling it "responsible" policy that is about as useless terminology as "assault weapon".


1) Every other developed country in the world with strict firearm laws has homicide and gun-related crime rates than we do.

2) Australia effectively banned firearms in 1996. A quick Google search of "Australia homicide rates by year" shows that, since then, many sources show that there hasn't been a single mass shooting and the homicide rate has a pattern of steady decline.

Here's an argument, don't fix what isn't broken. As that pew poll has pointed out, gun violence is at a record low since 93. No change is needed, at least not stricter gun-control, because things are better than ever.


"Things aren't complete and utter shit, therefore we don't need to fix them!"

Ridiculous. We have higher crime rates than the rest of the developed world, higher gun-related crime than the rest of the world, and we have has well over 1 mass shooting/year for the past however long now. There is a problem, and just because you're too heartless to see a problem affecting large portions of this country doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be fixed.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
May 10 2013 01:04 GMT
#9979
On May 10 2013 09:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:
1) Every other developed country in the world with strict firearm laws has lower crime rates (including homicide and violent crime) than we do.

Not to imply that I think any other countries are comparable to the US but that statement is simply false.
dude bro.
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
May 10 2013 01:04 GMT
#9980
On May 10 2013 09:56 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 09:46 heliusx wrote:
On May 10 2013 09:42 zdfgucker wrote:
I don't understand how you need a militia - if the US government wanted to oppress its people, what are you going to do against tanks, stuff like B52 bombers destroying a few cities here and there (to scare people everywhere) and then forcing you to surrender/give them your weapons/whatever they want to? Fire your cute little rifles at them?

That was a neat idea 300 years ago, nowadays it's a laughable idea.

Overall I am not against weapons per se, just make ammunition more expensive.

If the government chose to go full on dictator mode there would be a civil war. There would be huge rifts in the military. Entire portions of the military would fight alongside the rebels. Pretending it would be small arm equipped civilians vs the entire might of the US military is naive.

It's also pretty naive to suppose this kind of fantasy has any real chance of occurring.

Thanks for another one of your useless posts.
dude bro.
Prev 1 497 498 499 500 501 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 7h 3m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 253
RuFF_SC2 180
Livibee 109
ProTech69
Ketroc 39
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 21204
Icarus 12
Zeus 0
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1090
NeuroSwarm116
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K162
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe186
Other Games
tarik_tv23846
summit1g15441
JimRising 514
WinterStarcraft369
ViBE220
Trikslyr88
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1958
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta43
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki9
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1373
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
7h 3m
Online Event
13h 3m
BSL 2v2 ProLeague S3
15h 3m
Esports World Cup
2 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
3 days
Esports World Cup
4 days
Esports World Cup
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Underdog Cup #2
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.