|
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 June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hnA8X8X.jpg) This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer?
There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively.
First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy.
Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric.
Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction.
Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all.
|
On June 21 2016 16:16 Atreides wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? I own 13 guns. None are handguns or "assault rifles" and I use them every year for a variety of activities. I have a shotgun in my bedroom but I've never pointed a gun at a person in my life and don't expect too. Thing is, posts like this (and most of this thread) are just dumb. I don't give one flying fuck if cities restrict guns if their citizens overwhelmingly want them to go for it. Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.) And most of the people debating efficacy of caliber have clearly not killed much with a firearm. It just sounds stupid when you argue so vehemently based only off stuff you've read on the internet. You can have lots of true points while clearly having no fucking clue what you are talking about. Edit: I mean there is no way I'm getting sucked in to this shithole argument but come on a .223 while barely legal (in alaska anyways) is quite universally considered a substandard caliber to kill a 150lb black tail deer. It's not a "powerful" round by any standard. It's quite literally the smallest of the "common" center fire rifle rounds. (And don't go spouting obscure shit like .22hornet or the .17s at me). At the same time the last thing you want at close ranges is a tiny bullet going very fast from a theoretical standpoint. This is like the most basic caliber selection criterion ever. ITS JUST ALL IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU ARE SHOOTING A SOFT TARGET 10 FEET AWAY FROM YOU FOR CHRISTS SAKE. It's like the stupidity about shotguns. Sure you don't even have to be too careful about firing lines in a hunting party when well spread because at enough distance it won't even break the skin. On the other hand I use a .410 (smallest common shotgun) to dispatch hogs and there is zero difference between anything from #8 to a slug when you are holding it against the head.
A .223 would only be able to take a medium size deer out instantly with a perfectly placed shot to the brain. I've hit one square in the lungs before and it still ran off and I had to track it down out about 30 yards or so. Turns out I only hit one of the lungs and not both.
|
On June 21 2016 16:48 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? There is so much to be disagreed with your post, I wonder if you're just trying to bait people into reacting negatively. First and foremost, Orlando and mass shootings are the tragedy. Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric. Thirdly, your own views are your own; don't assume the entire world agrees with you. Tyranny of the majority is a shitty thing and the norm right now is to step away from that (LBGT rights show this), not go in that direction. Anyway your entire post is full to the brim with rhetoric and slipperly slopes. Not very compelling at all.
Oh dear, I posted rhetoric and opinion, and stated clearly why I think guns should be outlawed.
Of which you don't have responses to.  Personally, I thought it was a good post I made. The 2nd Amendment is archaic bullshit and everyone, including you, knows it.
Except you somehow say that LBGT rights is a display of the "tyranny of the majority". [vomit] This is the only real argument in your post that I can see, and it seems kind of crazy. And, somehow it's supposed to tie favorably into proliferating hundreds of millions of guns across the country? Somehow it vindicates the need for militias? I don't know.
Well, I guess you make the argument that there are other things that kill more Americans. Like, I don't know, heart disease? You don't give an example, but it doesn't matter. "Heart disease kills more Americans than guns, therefore, guns are great and the 2nd Amendment is fine," is a terrible argument. Guns are not fine.
I'll repeat: guns kill more innocent people everyday in America than the amount that died in the Orlando nightclub. The Orlando nightclub is a tragedy, sure. But to say it is the tragedy is wrong. The tragedy is rampant, widespread violence being proliferated across the country, everyday, excused due to an archaic nonsensical sentence that uses "militias" as it's actual subject, written over 200 years ago.
You don't defend the 2nd Amendment. Because you can't. Read as a whole, it is blatantly nonsense.
Just as the logic, which you also refuse to address, that more guns make us safer, is also blatantly nonsense.
Once again, forgive me for daring to have an opinion on this blatant nonsense, displayed in the thread for which such opinions was created. 
Secondly, gun violence in the USA isn't exactly bright but it's hardly as bad as you make it out to be either, there are many other issues which take many more lives in the USA which you ignore, lest it devalue your rhetoric.
How bad am I "making it out to be"? And I'm "ignoring" what?
I'm not supposed to talk about gun-violence without bringing up every other natural cause of death that kills people? "Lest it devalue my rhetoric"? What? What a fucking pathetic attempt to dismiss something.
You obviously have never lost anyone in your life who was young due to gun-violence. "It's tragic that this young person died from violent gunshot wounds, but you know, in 30 years, he would've likely died to heart disease." Nauseating logic. It isn't just bad, it nauseates.
I was hoping for a response that would actually argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment, and the merits of gun-proliferation among the general public. Kind of sad that people REFUSE to give these arguments. They just want to dismiss the discussion altogether.
"Oh, you're trying to politicize this tragedy, how dare you?" "Oh, you're just being argumentative." These are the modern-day arguments favoring the 2nd Amendment.
It's very pathetic. Your attempts at dismissal in lieu of arguing the merits of your beliefs strongly suggests you're insecure about your beliefs.
Not that I blame you, entirely, because, really, no one can read the 2nd Amendment and honestly say that it makes sense in today's world. No one can look at gun-violence in America and honestly say that gun-proliferation has been a good thing. No one can honestly say that we're "freer" than other civilized countries due to gun-proliferating. Not in any real, earnest, reciprocated exchange, will anyone even dare to make these arguments. We're supposed to just live and die with them instead. Well, I'm completely done with that. It's way past time we had more outrage at weapon-manufacturers and the crud-propaganda that supports them.
Whether you like it or not, guns are going to become an even bigger problem. Assault rifles today will pale in comparison to the handguns of the future. We need to draw lines, set rules and precedents, despite the bullshit from the 2nd Amendment "advocates". The best solution would be to simply ban guns, like other good civilized countries figured out a long, long time ago.
|
i'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
1/10 for causing ambiguity.
|
On June 21 2016 16:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 16:16 Atreides wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? I own 13 guns. None are handguns or "assault rifles" and I use them every year for a variety of activities. I have a shotgun in my bedroom but I've never pointed a gun at a person in my life and don't expect too. Thing is, posts like this (and most of this thread) are just dumb. I don't give one flying fuck if cities restrict guns if their citizens overwhelmingly want them to go for it. Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.) And most of the people debating efficacy of caliber have clearly not killed much with a firearm. It just sounds stupid when you argue so vehemently based only off stuff you've read on the internet. You can have lots of true points while clearly having no fucking clue what you are talking about. Edit: I mean there is no way I'm getting sucked in to this shithole argument but come on a .223 while barely legal (in alaska anyways) is quite universally considered a substandard caliber to kill a 150lb black tail deer. It's not a "powerful" round by any standard. It's quite literally the smallest of the "common" center fire rifle rounds. (And don't go spouting obscure shit like .22hornet or the .17s at me). At the same time the last thing you want at close ranges is a tiny bullet going very fast from a theoretical standpoint. This is like the most basic caliber selection criterion ever. ITS JUST ALL IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU ARE SHOOTING A SOFT TARGET 10 FEET AWAY FROM YOU FOR CHRISTS SAKE. It's like the stupidity about shotguns. Sure you don't even have to be too careful about firing lines in a hunting party when well spread because at enough distance it won't even break the skin. On the other hand I use a .410 (smallest common shotgun) to dispatch hogs and there is zero difference between anything from #8 to a slug when you are holding it against the head. "Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.)"This has been my favorite quote from the entire thread. I apologize to not be adding much content in my post, but I think that this is one of the main things this argument comes down to. This is the more or less the only reason I don't support some additional gun regulation, and people massively overestimate how many US citizens like on these forums die from gun violence. It's so far and in between, and because we have these uneducated people having such strong opinions about guns. I believe these are the two main pillars for why this conversation has been moving so slowly.
I dont quite get it. What has this to do with like evryone beeing able to just go out and buy stuff thats intended use is to kill people. Are people outside of big cities really getting mauled by wild animals that frequently and do they need military grade weapons to hunt deer or defend their dog against a boar? I doubt it.
There is a reason why outside of some warzones the US is in the top of the world for gundeaths. accidents,murders,"self defense" that couldve ended nonlethal etc etc. And i dont think that the average american is just more stupid and bloodthirsty then the rest of the world.
I get it, guns are cool n stuff and its fun shooting them. Still they are made to end human lives. And for 95% of the pop there is no reason to have one and the remaining 5% dont need guns that make trained police forces of other countries jealous.
I think this stuff always moves slowly cause people just love their guns and dont give a fuck, strong propaganda and the rest of the world that lives safe and happy without guns just not beeing able to understand why americans are so scared of evrything. But i guess if i knew that evry random idiot out there could have guns enabling him to randomly start killing dozens of people i would be a bit more uneasy as well...
|
On June 22 2016 10:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 16:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 21 2016 16:16 Atreides wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? I own 13 guns. None are handguns or "assault rifles" and I use them every year for a variety of activities. I have a shotgun in my bedroom but I've never pointed a gun at a person in my life and don't expect too. Thing is, posts like this (and most of this thread) are just dumb. I don't give one flying fuck if cities restrict guns if their citizens overwhelmingly want them to go for it. Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.) And most of the people debating efficacy of caliber have clearly not killed much with a firearm. It just sounds stupid when you argue so vehemently based only off stuff you've read on the internet. You can have lots of true points while clearly having no fucking clue what you are talking about. Edit: I mean there is no way I'm getting sucked in to this shithole argument but come on a .223 while barely legal (in alaska anyways) is quite universally considered a substandard caliber to kill a 150lb black tail deer. It's not a "powerful" round by any standard. It's quite literally the smallest of the "common" center fire rifle rounds. (And don't go spouting obscure shit like .22hornet or the .17s at me). At the same time the last thing you want at close ranges is a tiny bullet going very fast from a theoretical standpoint. This is like the most basic caliber selection criterion ever. ITS JUST ALL IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU ARE SHOOTING A SOFT TARGET 10 FEET AWAY FROM YOU FOR CHRISTS SAKE. It's like the stupidity about shotguns. Sure you don't even have to be too careful about firing lines in a hunting party when well spread because at enough distance it won't even break the skin. On the other hand I use a .410 (smallest common shotgun) to dispatch hogs and there is zero difference between anything from #8 to a slug when you are holding it against the head. "Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.)"This has been my favorite quote from the entire thread. I apologize to not be adding much content in my post, but I think that this is one of the main things this argument comes down to. This is the more or less the only reason I don't support some additional gun regulation, and people massively overestimate how many US citizens like on these forums die from gun violence. It's so far and in between, and because we have these uneducated people having such strong opinions about guns. I believe these are the two main pillars for why this conversation has been moving so slowly. I dont quite get it. What has this to do with like evryone beeing able to just go out and buy stuff thats intended use is to kill people. Are people outside of big cities really getting mauled by wild animals that frequently and do they need military grade weapons to hunt deer or defend their dog against a boar? I doubt it. There is a reason why outside of some warzones the US is in the top of the world for gundeaths. accidents,murders,"self defense" that couldve ended nonlethal etc etc. And i dont think that the average american is just more stupid and bloodthirsty then the rest of the world. I get it, guns are cool n stuff and its fun shooting them. Still they are made to end human lives. And for 95% of the pop there is no reason to have one and the remaining 5% dont need guns that make trained police forces of other countries jealous. I think this stuff always moves slowly cause people just love their guns and dont give a fuck, strong propaganda and the rest of the world that lives safe and happy without guns just not beeing able to understand why americans are so scared of evrything. But i guess if i knew that evry random idiot out there could have guns enabling him to randomly start killing dozens of people i would be a bit more uneasy as well...
An AR-15 is not a military grade weapon. Most don't even fire the 5.56 x 45 MM round safely, so this nonsense about how an AR-15 and a M16 or M4 are the same is just silly. Not to mention that the current M855A1 round that is in use by the army reacts far differently when it makes contact with a soft tissue target then most .223 rounds would. Although in principal and dimension they are the same, the way they are designed makes a world's difference. A .223 fired at close range most likely just penetrates the soft target, especially if they are skinnier. The M855A1 reacts far differently, especially after the recent redesign which causes it to tumble within 3 inches of contact rather than 6 or 7. Not to mention it can shred through 3/8 steel at 90 yards, while a .223 round not do the same at all.
Also, trying to cross compare statistics with European, Asian, and other countries is never going to work. The United States is geographically and ethnically a far different country then anything you have ever encountered. It is far more culturally diverse than many of the other 1st world countries. Trying to say "THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH GUNS IN AMERICA BECAUSE HOMICIDE RATES WITH GUNS IN AMERICA IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO OTHER FIRST WOLRD COUNTRIES" and then screaming we should ban all guns is a ludicrous and stupid idea. If that's the case, I can go around saying all black people should be rounded in camps and be classified as potential felons because a disproportionate amount of crimes are committed by blacks. See how stupid that sounds now? Yeah. Why? Because we all know that the reason why so many blacks commit so many crimes is because they are in a poverty cycle where they feel constantly oppressed, and that there is no other alternative but crime. Rather than blaming blacks however, society as a whole is smart enough to realize that there are more factors at play here.
However for whatever fucking dumb reason, people can't seem to fathom that there are far bigger issues at play then just gun control. There are many issues in American society that need to be corrected along with more limitations on firearms, however dumbass liberals always fucking ruin the conversation with the extreme right when the liberals suggest we go to an Australian solution where we just outright ban firearms (like that's going to fucking do anything regarding gun homicides in inner cities which are predominantly gang related), rather than just being reasonable and trying to have an actual conversation with the other side and compromise. And by no means am I acquitting the NRA for their ridiculous lobbying and no compromise stance, however liberals are not helping their side of the argument by trying to slant media portrayal of firearms in such a negative light. The only reasonable person from the left who has actually made any sane arguments recently regarding firearms is mother fucking Obama, and that's saying alot.
|
On June 22 2016 10:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 16:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 21 2016 16:16 Atreides wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2016 15:04 Leporello wrote:This was in my news feed, these stories, back to back. Proliferating more and more deadlier and deadlier weapons is a stupid fucking idea. End of story. We have more guns than people in this country. What is more likely? That a gun will be used to save someone's life, or that it will end up shooting somebody that wasn't a threat to the shooter? The answer is obvious, proven, and always has been. Guns kill people. You want to save yourself from getting shot: try a bulletproof vest, and try to stop guns from being put into the hands of everyone who wants one. Giving everyone a gun is the worst way to prevent yourself from being shot. It is not to say that guns should be eradicated. I want certain police to have guns, for example. But I do not want people to own guns. Everyday, emotional, self-certain, self-righteous people should not own a gun, because it only takes one instance in a lifetime for a good person to commit murder. Like myself, for example. And you. Neither of us should have a gun. No one who isn't actively required to respond to actual threats, should own or possess a gun. No guns, no militias, no "necessary security" from people who are more likely to shoot their neighbor than actually protect the Free State. Revoke the ridiculously archaic, nonsense 2nd Amendment. Everything about it has faded into obscurity. Even the part people DO like about it: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Ummm... where's the lines here? It's "infringement" to ban automatic weapons, but we're all okay with banning high-explosives? Why? Why is an automatic rifle "necessary to the security of a Free State" but high-explosives aren't? Of course, this all hinges on the Amendment's actual subject: militias. Militias, being necessary to the security of a free State. Well, there's a hell of a presumption. I see a lot of "states", i.e. countries, in the world. A lot of them enjoy, arguably, more freedoms than ever America is comfortable with. They don't need guns. They don't have guns. The Netherlands will let you buy drugs and a prostitute before it lets a person buy a gun. But I think they still have their freedom over there. I don't think modern Europe is staving off their past Monarchs by the threat of militiamen. I think they just realized that people can govern themselves and will demand it. That demand is simply all it takes. If anything, guns are a threat to self-governance. How is it that America's self-governance is going to be saved by a person with a gun? We're the country that DOES have militias, and the last time I heard from one of these militias in the news, they were taking over public land, aiming guns at public officials working for public institutions that were created by a government that the people voted for. It is all such nonsense. I am tired of all the weakness on this issue. Set the precedent for the future. Ban guns. Make every gun owner account for every gun they own. Arrest anyone who has a gun that isn't accounted for. No more buying or selling. Tell gun manufacturers to sell to Somalia or find better jobs. The tragedy isn't mass-shootings. It isn't Orlando. It's the fact that more people are shot all over this country everyday than were shot in that Orlando nightclub. It's neighbors settling domestic disputes between angry couples, who end up getting shot by "responsible gun owners" who simply lost their mind for a moment, as happens to everyone. We are distributing more and more deadlier guns, and who in their right mind can continue to say it's making us safer? I own 13 guns. None are handguns or "assault rifles" and I use them every year for a variety of activities. I have a shotgun in my bedroom but I've never pointed a gun at a person in my life and don't expect too. Thing is, posts like this (and most of this thread) are just dumb. I don't give one flying fuck if cities restrict guns if their citizens overwhelmingly want them to go for it. Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.) And most of the people debating efficacy of caliber have clearly not killed much with a firearm. It just sounds stupid when you argue so vehemently based only off stuff you've read on the internet. You can have lots of true points while clearly having no fucking clue what you are talking about. Edit: I mean there is no way I'm getting sucked in to this shithole argument but come on a .223 while barely legal (in alaska anyways) is quite universally considered a substandard caliber to kill a 150lb black tail deer. It's not a "powerful" round by any standard. It's quite literally the smallest of the "common" center fire rifle rounds. (And don't go spouting obscure shit like .22hornet or the .17s at me). At the same time the last thing you want at close ranges is a tiny bullet going very fast from a theoretical standpoint. This is like the most basic caliber selection criterion ever. ITS JUST ALL IRRELEVANT WHEN YOU ARE SHOOTING A SOFT TARGET 10 FEET AWAY FROM YOU FOR CHRISTS SAKE. It's like the stupidity about shotguns. Sure you don't even have to be too careful about firing lines in a hunting party when well spread because at enough distance it won't even break the skin. On the other hand I use a .410 (smallest common shotgun) to dispatch hogs and there is zero difference between anything from #8 to a slug when you are holding it against the head. "Personally, most people I know who carry self defense weapons I think would be safer without them. But guess what this country is very large and not made up solely of urban population centers and the last thing we need is sweeping gun reform from the Feds motivated by people who guns make up zero part of their lives other than seeing them on the news. And yes the only reason lots of people are opposed to some of the more reasonable restrictions proposed is because they don't trust that it will stop there. (Let's be honest neither side thinks it will.)"This has been my favorite quote from the entire thread. I apologize to not be adding much content in my post, but I think that this is one of the main things this argument comes down to. This is the more or less the only reason I don't support some additional gun regulation, and people massively overestimate how many US citizens like on these forums die from gun violence. It's so far and in between, and because we have these uneducated people having such strong opinions about guns. I believe these are the two main pillars for why this conversation has been moving so slowly. I dont quite get it. What has this to do with like evryone beeing able to just go out and buy stuff thats intended use is to kill people. Are people outside of big cities really getting mauled by wild animals that frequently and do they need military grade weapons to hunt deer or defend their dog against a boar? I doubt it. There is a reason why outside of some warzones the US is in the top of the world for gundeaths. accidents,murders,"self defense" that couldve ended nonlethal etc etc. And i dont think that the average american is just more stupid and bloodthirsty then the rest of the world. I get it, guns are cool n stuff and its fun shooting them. Still they are made to end human lives. And for 95% of the pop there is no reason to have one and the remaining 5% dont need guns that make trained police forces of other countries jealous. I think this stuff always moves slowly cause people just love their guns and dont give a fuck, strong propaganda and the rest of the world that lives safe and happy without guns just not beeing able to understand why americans are so scared of evrything. But i guess if i knew that evry random idiot out there could have guns enabling him to randomly start killing dozens of people i would be a bit more uneasy as well...
I've made many posts in the past in this thread, please take a look about how many deaths are attributed to guns, look at citizen no directly related to gang or criminal activity.
My numbers are 1 in 70,000 to 1 in 130,000 people die every year in the USA due to guns, for people who are not related to serious crime. Compare that to the goal here in Alberta Canada, where the employers in the oilsands aim to have the deadly accident rate lower than 1 in 10,000.
Also while yes, I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen.
And hence, I ask the question, is it worth pissing off say 40% of the US population by trying to pass this policy, when people who don't know anything about guns and the scope of the issue try make it bigger than it really is? It's clear that these steps here will lead to more regulation down the road, and I'm very against heavy regulation of firearms, when the issue is so small, and we could continue fighting the pain it causes by continued focus on education to achieve a similar effect in reduction of death rate.
Remember, roughly 9000 people die from firearms every year, a majority of which are criminals (exact numbers are difficult to obtain).
Compare this to:
-Suicide: 43,000
-Car accidents: 42.000
-Poisoning: 39,000
-Falls: 25,000
-Fires: 2,700
-Choking: 2,500
-Drowning: 2,000
93% people in the US already die from natural causes, and the virtually all of the rest die from accidents and suicide. Reducing these numbers further becomes exponentially more expensive and more intrusive to freedoms. I hope I provided you with a different perspective on the situation, one where you can see why it's logical not to start a heavy regulation policy on them. In the current system, I think it should be very clear to everyone that regulation will not stop at the small things mentioned, and hence like the previous poster mentioned, even though some minor regulation is logical and would improve safety without infringing on other peoples' rights, they are against it as it will start a movement they view as undesirable.
|
On June 22 2016 14:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
........ and more intrusive to freedoms.
lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this
how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths.
get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'.
secondly, this argument that there arent enough deaths caused by guns to warrant the effort of regulating guns further is ludicrous.
the primary function of guns is to kill shit. people buy guns for other purposes such as hunting etc but you cant ignore the fact that THE PRIMARY FUNCTION of a gun is to kill, or at the very least heavily injure something.
to leave such an object so easily accessible to an ordinary citizen is ridiculous, and by saying that there arent enough deaths in USA for the government to make their taxpayers' money worth the trouble, you are effectively valuing all the lives of those innocent people who are currently dead due to a shooting less than the enjoyment you get out of 'having more freedom'.
way to spit on the graves of those innocent people
yes, how a government spends its money should take into consideration many more factors than simply morals, but a government should be striving to do the right thing. refusing to even attempt to find a solution for america's gun crisis on the grounds that its not financially viable is exactly why our world is going to shit and people lose faith in humanity.
i mean id understand if people here were in agreement of the absolute necessity of higher regulations but were discussing how the US government should be adjusting their budget/taxes or other laws to make the change something worth pursuing, but outright rejecting the idea of further regulations on the basis that it is an infringement of the 'freedoms' of citizens (only those who are lucky enough to not have been shot though) is just wrong.
|
On June 22 2016 15:08 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 14:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
........ and more intrusive to freedoms. lol. i hate how so many people keep coming back to this how do you guys even define freedom? there is practically nothing in this world that isnt regulated or governed somehow by some entity. there is no such thing as freedom. literally everything given to any single person on the planet aside from some random place in africa is a privilege because our governments allowed it to be. for now your governments have allowed guns to be as easily accessible and loosely regulated as it is, and the abuse of this PRIVILEGE is leading to deaths. get your heads out of your asses; you dont own guns because you are 'free'. secondly, this argument that there arent enough deaths caused by guns to warrant the effort of regulating guns further is ludicrous. the primary function of guns is to kill shit. people buy guns for other purposes such as hunting etc but you cant ignore the fact that THE PRIMARY FUNCTION of a gun is to kill, or at the very least heavily injure something. to leave such an object so easily accessible to an ordinary citizen is ridiculous, and by saying that there arent enough deaths in USA for the government to make their taxpayers' money worth the trouble, you are effectively valuing all the lives of those innocent people who are currently dead due to a shooting less than the enjoyment you get out of 'having more freedom'. way to spit on the graves of those innocent people yes, how a government spends its money should take into consideration many more factors than simply morals, but a government should be striving to do the right thing. refusing to even attempt to find a solution for america's gun crisis on the grounds that its not financially viable is exactly why our world is going to shit and people lose faith in humanity. i mean id understand if people here were in agreement of the absolute necessity of higher regulations but were discussing how the US government should be adjusting their budget/taxes or other laws to make the change something worth pursuing, but outright rejecting the idea of further regulations on the basis that it is an infringement of the 'freedoms' of citizens (only those who are lucky enough to not have been shot though) is just wrong.
I wont argue with you, as you're an unreasonable cynic of the government. You are also putting words in my mouth and making conclusions far contrary to my argument (particularly you saying how the government can't be bothered to protect taxpayers as the death toll is too low)
So I'll just say that the people are the government, and if people enjoy a world with freedoms, then they will be provided by the government in a democracy. Secondly, the primary function of a gun for many people is to have a sense of security (real or perceived), much the same way that any self-defence measure works, from martial arts to pepper spray. There's a lot more I have the urge to attack in your post, but lets refrain from talking to each other in this thread.
|
i never said the government cant be bothered to protect its taxpayers. i was referring to your argument supporting any choice the government makes that doesnt increase regulation in gun laws.
i dont see how i was putting any words in your mouth when your post, and i quote:
" I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen."
is basically saying that the effort to regulate gun laws further doesnt give a good enough return on the lives it saves, therefore not worth pursuing, and would rather devote that time/money/resources into 'education'.
i may have been the only person to interpret your post this way, and correct me if im wrong, but this is how i see it.
you mention democracy and 'people's government' but you provide a rough statistic saying ~40% would probably object to further regulations. 40% doesnt even look like the majority to me, not to mention that although everyone has the right to their opinion, how much of 40% are actually intelligent enough to provide a coherent argument against the further regulation of guns rather than "oh no dont take my freedoms!".
as for 'primary function', i think you need to look up the dictionary what those words mean.
a vehicle's primary function is to transport an object from a to b
a weapon's primary function is to inflict damage.
guns were made to inflict damage and oppress people. the US didnt develop nukes because they thought their normal missiles werent enough for self defense. they developed them because they wanted every other country to shit their pants and surrender.
guns are weapons, not shields.
you can attack me or refrain from responding or whatever, but im struggling to see how your justifications are linear with the direction humanity should be going in.
|
On June 22 2016 18:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i never said the government cant be bothered to protect its taxpayers. i was referring to your argument supporting any choice the government makes that doesnt increase regulation in gun laws.
i dont see how i was putting any words in your mouth when your post, and i quote:
" I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen."
is basically saying that the effort to regulate gun laws further doesnt give a good enough return on the lives it saves, therefore not worth pursuing, and would rather devote that time/money/resources into 'education'.
i may have been the only person to interpret your post this way, and correct me if im wrong, but this is how i see it.
you mention democracy and 'people's government' but you provide a rough statistic saying ~40% would probably object to further regulations. 40% doesnt even look like the majority to me, not to mention that although everyone has the right to their opinion, how much of 40% are actually intelligent enough to provide a coherent argument against the further regulation of guns rather than "oh no dont take my freedoms!".
as for 'primary function', i think you need to look up the dictionary what those words mean.
a vehicle's primary function is to transport an object from a to b
a weapon's primary function is to inflict damage.
guns were made to inflict damage and oppress people. the US didnt develop nukes because they thought their normal missiles werent enough for self defense. they developed them because they wanted every other country to shit their pants and surrender.
guns are weapons, not shields.
you can attack me or refrain from responding or whatever, but im struggling to see how your justifications are linear with the direction humanity should be going in.
And this is the exact black and white rhetoric that most gun owners refuse to deal with. There's not even talk of any kind of compromise here, just that one side is right, the other side is wrong.
And 2nd Amendment rights extends further than just firearms themselves. Losing your 2nd amendment rights would mean you just lost one of the implied rights that are given to you as a citizen by the U.S. constitution, which would result in a whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen. There's a whole lot more at stake here then just 'right to bear arms.'
But do go ahead and educate me about my own country and how it should be ran, when you understand nothing about the society that we have, the culture that is here, nor the history behind the country.
|
There are plenty of people who understand and celebrate US history alongside a push for stronger gun control measures, so I would stop hiding behind that facade if I were you.
|
On June 22 2016 21:13 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 18:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i never said the government cant be bothered to protect its taxpayers. i was referring to your argument supporting any choice the government makes that doesnt increase regulation in gun laws.
i dont see how i was putting any words in your mouth when your post, and i quote:
" I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen."
is basically saying that the effort to regulate gun laws further doesnt give a good enough return on the lives it saves, therefore not worth pursuing, and would rather devote that time/money/resources into 'education'.
i may have been the only person to interpret your post this way, and correct me if im wrong, but this is how i see it.
you mention democracy and 'people's government' but you provide a rough statistic saying ~40% would probably object to further regulations. 40% doesnt even look like the majority to me, not to mention that although everyone has the right to their opinion, how much of 40% are actually intelligent enough to provide a coherent argument against the further regulation of guns rather than "oh no dont take my freedoms!".
as for 'primary function', i think you need to look up the dictionary what those words mean.
a vehicle's primary function is to transport an object from a to b
a weapon's primary function is to inflict damage.
guns were made to inflict damage and oppress people. the US didnt develop nukes because they thought their normal missiles werent enough for self defense. they developed them because they wanted every other country to shit their pants and surrender.
guns are weapons, not shields.
you can attack me or refrain from responding or whatever, but im struggling to see how your justifications are linear with the direction humanity should be going in. And this is the exact black and white rhetoric that most gun owners refuse to deal with. There's not even talk of any kind of compromise here, just that one side is right, the other side is wrong. And 2nd Amendment rights extends further than just firearms themselves. Losing your 2nd amendment rights would mean you just lost one of the implied rights that are given to you as a citizen by the U.S. constitution, which would result in a whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen. There's a whole lot more at stake here then just 'right to bear arms.' But do go ahead and educate me about my own country and how it should be ran, when you understand nothing about the society that we have, the culture that is here, nor the history behind the country.
Care to elaborate on "the whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen"?
|
On June 22 2016 21:29 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 21:13 superstartran wrote:On June 22 2016 18:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i never said the government cant be bothered to protect its taxpayers. i was referring to your argument supporting any choice the government makes that doesnt increase regulation in gun laws.
i dont see how i was putting any words in your mouth when your post, and i quote:
" I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen."
is basically saying that the effort to regulate gun laws further doesnt give a good enough return on the lives it saves, therefore not worth pursuing, and would rather devote that time/money/resources into 'education'.
i may have been the only person to interpret your post this way, and correct me if im wrong, but this is how i see it.
you mention democracy and 'people's government' but you provide a rough statistic saying ~40% would probably object to further regulations. 40% doesnt even look like the majority to me, not to mention that although everyone has the right to their opinion, how much of 40% are actually intelligent enough to provide a coherent argument against the further regulation of guns rather than "oh no dont take my freedoms!".
as for 'primary function', i think you need to look up the dictionary what those words mean.
a vehicle's primary function is to transport an object from a to b
a weapon's primary function is to inflict damage.
guns were made to inflict damage and oppress people. the US didnt develop nukes because they thought their normal missiles werent enough for self defense. they developed them because they wanted every other country to shit their pants and surrender.
guns are weapons, not shields.
you can attack me or refrain from responding or whatever, but im struggling to see how your justifications are linear with the direction humanity should be going in. And this is the exact black and white rhetoric that most gun owners refuse to deal with. There's not even talk of any kind of compromise here, just that one side is right, the other side is wrong. And 2nd Amendment rights extends further than just firearms themselves. Losing your 2nd amendment rights would mean you just lost one of the implied rights that are given to you as a citizen by the U.S. constitution, which would result in a whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen. There's a whole lot more at stake here then just 'right to bear arms.' But do go ahead and educate me about my own country and how it should be ran, when you understand nothing about the society that we have, the culture that is here, nor the history behind the country. Care to elaborate on "the whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen"?
It sets a precedent that the government is able to take away the implied rights granted to you as a U.S. citizen by the U.S. Constitution. That's very bad. Right to reasonable amounts of privacy? That's granted by the U.S. constitution as an implied right. Same things such as the right to send your children to private schools, and marital privacy (all protected by the 14th amendment which stretches its definition very broadly and grants many implied rights). By reversing the 2nd amendment, you would open up a huge can of worms. The whole LGBT movement? The entire thing would get reversed or challenged again as it's legal basis is an implied right based on the broad definition of the equal protection clause. Oh yeah, let's not get into something like Roe vs Wade, which again would be challenged again the second you start challenging implied rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. People need to think before they open their big fat mouths about certain things, because they don't understand the possible repercussions that could happen. By opening a legal basis for challenging or removing implied rights granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, you would open Pandora's fucking box.
But go ahead and tell me I'm some gun fanatical that doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about.
On June 22 2016 21:16 farvacola wrote:
There are plenty of people who understand and celebrate US history alongside a push for stronger gun control measures, so I would stop hiding behind that facade if I were you.
How many are from other countries? Like 0? Because that's pretty evident in this thread.
|
The freedom to get shot is one of the tastier freedoms out there. Nothing like running around all paranoid and vexed.
It's also good to know the police force is a trigger happy mess because any random person they interact with is a potential shooter. Hint: when people don't have guns, the cops don't have to shoot them. It's not the other way around though for some outlandish reason conservative Americans believe in their unusual Skynet defense fantasy.
Free access to firearms just reeks of freedom, in fact, it makes me want to eat strawberry jam! Plus, you get to shoot cans off the fence ... and ... beavers.
I said it before, it's pretty clear to someone looking from the outside. The 2nd amendment, by virtue of being defended by a huge mass of frothing nutjobs, will be an essential catalyst in the downfall of the US.
Just wait until Trump and Hillary supporters start shooting one another.
|
Please note that superstartran is clearly not a lawyer and his "legal" argument is nothing more than a slippery slope draped in threatening language. "Implied Rights" are not a mode of constitutional attack and would not be a basis for overturning or reconsidering other rights should the 2nd amendment be interpreted differently in the future. The entire notion of unenumerated rights is still very controversial in and of itself, and it's worth mentioning that most of the strongest Supreme Court supporters of the 2nd amendment are also the biggest critics of finding rights in the penumbras of the Constitution.
For someone who likes to berate foreigners as to their ignorance of US law, superstartran is pretty good at showcasing his own. I'd stick to talking about guns themselves 
|
It's the same with most gun proponent arguments. They make a premise and then use it as an argument even though the premise makes zero sense in the first place.
Example: carrying guns is a "natural right". Take my guns and your are infringing upon "rights".
Umm... no it's not. It's a ridiculous privilege resting on an antique amendment. There is nothing natural about being armed like a soldier during peacetime, and if there is, I'd like my nuclear weapons, sniper drone and garden Howitzer please, because those are my god given rights.
If you frame gun ownership as a "right" the debate is effectively over, and it's an insidious way of preventing intelligent discussion by providing your own context and vocabulary and pretending the other side has agreed to your terms.
|
At its core, it is the right to not be completely disarmed by the government. The words “well regulated” right there as well. But treating the right to everyone to have unrestricted access to long/assault/clip fed rifles as a sacrosanct aspect of the 2nd amendment is a dubious argument.
|
On June 22 2016 21:35 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 21:29 nojok wrote:On June 22 2016 21:13 superstartran wrote:On June 22 2016 18:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i never said the government cant be bothered to protect its taxpayers. i was referring to your argument supporting any choice the government makes that doesnt increase regulation in gun laws.
i dont see how i was putting any words in your mouth when your post, and i quote:
" I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen."
is basically saying that the effort to regulate gun laws further doesnt give a good enough return on the lives it saves, therefore not worth pursuing, and would rather devote that time/money/resources into 'education'.
i may have been the only person to interpret your post this way, and correct me if im wrong, but this is how i see it.
you mention democracy and 'people's government' but you provide a rough statistic saying ~40% would probably object to further regulations. 40% doesnt even look like the majority to me, not to mention that although everyone has the right to their opinion, how much of 40% are actually intelligent enough to provide a coherent argument against the further regulation of guns rather than "oh no dont take my freedoms!".
as for 'primary function', i think you need to look up the dictionary what those words mean.
a vehicle's primary function is to transport an object from a to b
a weapon's primary function is to inflict damage.
guns were made to inflict damage and oppress people. the US didnt develop nukes because they thought their normal missiles werent enough for self defense. they developed them because they wanted every other country to shit their pants and surrender.
guns are weapons, not shields.
you can attack me or refrain from responding or whatever, but im struggling to see how your justifications are linear with the direction humanity should be going in. And this is the exact black and white rhetoric that most gun owners refuse to deal with. There's not even talk of any kind of compromise here, just that one side is right, the other side is wrong. And 2nd Amendment rights extends further than just firearms themselves. Losing your 2nd amendment rights would mean you just lost one of the implied rights that are given to you as a citizen by the U.S. constitution, which would result in a whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen. There's a whole lot more at stake here then just 'right to bear arms.' But do go ahead and educate me about my own country and how it should be ran, when you understand nothing about the society that we have, the culture that is here, nor the history behind the country. Care to elaborate on "the whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen"? It sets a precedent that the government is able to take away the implied rights granted to you as a U.S. citizen by the U.S. Constitution. That's very bad. Right to reasonable amounts of privacy? That's granted by the U.S. constitution as an implied right. Same things such as the right to send your children to private schools, and marital privacy (all protected by the 14th amendment which stretches its definition very broadly and grants many implied rights). By reversing the 2nd amendment, you would open up a huge can of worms. The whole LGBT movement? The entire thing would get reversed or challenged again as it's legal basis is an implied right based on the broad definition of the equal protection clause. Oh yeah, let's not get into something like Roe vs Wade, which again would be challenged again the second you start challenging implied rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. People need to think before they open their big fat mouths about certain things, because they don't understand the possible repercussions that could happen. By opening a legal basis for challenging or removing implied rights granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, you would open Pandora's fucking box. But go ahead and tell me I'm some gun fanatical that doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 21:16 farvacola wrote:
There are plenty of people who understand and celebrate US history alongside a push for stronger gun control measures, so I would stop hiding behind that facade if I were you. How many are from other countries? Like 0? Because that's pretty evident in this thread.
That's a very one sided perspective, you could also say the government give you the right to not worry about guns. You really never considered the possibility of just forbiding guns and nothing else change? That does not seem that crazy. Your argument is that many rights might be abolished which does not seem to be the will of anyone advocating for the end of the right to bear guns.
So I agree with you that it would set a precedent, then the question would be "is it worth the risk to set that precedent?" I hope I'll see the 6th French consitution during my life, changing the constitution should not be considered like the omega of freedom. Is it risky to change the constitution? Yes, it is, it solves some problems, brings up some others but I genuinely believe it's the right thing to do. Though I would be super scared to see a new consitution done by Le Pen but I think I'm diverging too far at that point even if it's strongly linked to the matter.
|
On June 22 2016 22:14 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2016 21:35 superstartran wrote:On June 22 2016 21:29 nojok wrote:On June 22 2016 21:13 superstartran wrote:On June 22 2016 18:05 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i never said the government cant be bothered to protect its taxpayers. i was referring to your argument supporting any choice the government makes that doesnt increase regulation in gun laws.
i dont see how i was putting any words in your mouth when your post, and i quote:
" I agree that gun regulation would lower deaths, keep in mind that it wouldn't reduce to them to zero, and also there'd be deaths caused by gun regulation as well, so in reality, you'd be saving quite a bit less less than 1 in 70,000-130,000 non-criminal citizen."
is basically saying that the effort to regulate gun laws further doesnt give a good enough return on the lives it saves, therefore not worth pursuing, and would rather devote that time/money/resources into 'education'.
i may have been the only person to interpret your post this way, and correct me if im wrong, but this is how i see it.
you mention democracy and 'people's government' but you provide a rough statistic saying ~40% would probably object to further regulations. 40% doesnt even look like the majority to me, not to mention that although everyone has the right to their opinion, how much of 40% are actually intelligent enough to provide a coherent argument against the further regulation of guns rather than "oh no dont take my freedoms!".
as for 'primary function', i think you need to look up the dictionary what those words mean.
a vehicle's primary function is to transport an object from a to b
a weapon's primary function is to inflict damage.
guns were made to inflict damage and oppress people. the US didnt develop nukes because they thought their normal missiles werent enough for self defense. they developed them because they wanted every other country to shit their pants and surrender.
guns are weapons, not shields.
you can attack me or refrain from responding or whatever, but im struggling to see how your justifications are linear with the direction humanity should be going in. And this is the exact black and white rhetoric that most gun owners refuse to deal with. There's not even talk of any kind of compromise here, just that one side is right, the other side is wrong. And 2nd Amendment rights extends further than just firearms themselves. Losing your 2nd amendment rights would mean you just lost one of the implied rights that are given to you as a citizen by the U.S. constitution, which would result in a whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen. There's a whole lot more at stake here then just 'right to bear arms.' But do go ahead and educate me about my own country and how it should be ran, when you understand nothing about the society that we have, the culture that is here, nor the history behind the country. Care to elaborate on "the whole slew of potentially bad things that could happen"? It sets a precedent that the government is able to take away the implied rights granted to you as a U.S. citizen by the U.S. Constitution. That's very bad. Right to reasonable amounts of privacy? That's granted by the U.S. constitution as an implied right. Same things such as the right to send your children to private schools, and marital privacy (all protected by the 14th amendment which stretches its definition very broadly and grants many implied rights). By reversing the 2nd amendment, you would open up a huge can of worms. The whole LGBT movement? The entire thing would get reversed or challenged again as it's legal basis is an implied right based on the broad definition of the equal protection clause. Oh yeah, let's not get into something like Roe vs Wade, which again would be challenged again the second you start challenging implied rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. People need to think before they open their big fat mouths about certain things, because they don't understand the possible repercussions that could happen. By opening a legal basis for challenging or removing implied rights granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, you would open Pandora's fucking box. But go ahead and tell me I'm some gun fanatical that doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. On June 22 2016 21:16 farvacola wrote:
There are plenty of people who understand and celebrate US history alongside a push for stronger gun control measures, so I would stop hiding behind that facade if I were you. How many are from other countries? Like 0? Because that's pretty evident in this thread. That's a very one sided perspective, you could also say the government give you the right to not worry about guns. You really never considered the possibility of just forbiding guns and nothing else change? That does not seem that crazy. Your argument is that many rights might be abolished which does not seem to be the will of anyone advocating for the end of the right to bear guns. So I agree with you that it would set a precedent, then the question would be "is it worth the risk to set that precedent?" I hope I'll see the 6th French consitution during my life, changing the constitution should not be considered like the omega of freedom. Is it risky to change the constitution? Yes, it is, it solves some problems, brings up some others but I genuinely believe it's the right thing to do. Though I would be super scared to see a new consitution done by Le Pen but I think I'm diverging too far at that point even if it's strongly linked to the matter.
Is the French constitution that easy to amend? Like if a far right party got elected, surely it wouldn't be with a majority strong enough to start dragging the constitution through the mud :X
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
