|
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 March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we
Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true.
|
On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true.
Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered.
|
On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. His goal was to get guns banned in NZ and stoke the flames in the US. Reactionary "lefty" forces playing into his bait. Why would people stop terrorist acts when it gets shit done. The US reacted to Bin Laden just how he wanted and it continues to this day. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace...
Is this based on something he said or just your take? I don't see how stricter gun laws in NZ with popular support are helping in any way with what this guy wrote he wants to achieve.
Also guns aren't getting banned in NZ, but let's say they were. What would go wrong? Are villains from the 60s waiting for populations to be disarmed for them to take over? They have a long backlog of work to do in that case.
|
On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered.
I would say Australia is a pretty good example of what happens when you change the country to have draconian gun restriction laws. Which is quite fitting, because most people can't tell the difference between a kiwi and an egg
|
On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered.
Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well.
|
On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. His goal was to get guns banned in NZ and stoke the flames in the US. Reactionary "lefty" forces playing into his bait. Why would people stop terrorist acts when it gets shit done. The US reacted to Bin Laden just how he wanted and it continues to this day. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace...
"Why would people stop terrorist acts when it gets shit done."
Are you actually suggesting that liberal people in the US wouldn't bother preventing terrorist attacks because as a result of them "shit gets done"?
|
To be fair the mass shooter also wanted a complete stop to immigration so that the white race could be preserved against white genocide, so under the logic of not giving the shooter what he wants I'm sure Wegandi is now in favor of open borders.
|
On March 23 2019 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
To be fair the mass shooter also wanted a complete stop to immigration so that the white race could be preserved against white genocide, so under the logic of not giving the shooter what he wants I'm sure Wegandi is now in favor of open borders.
Um...lol, I've been an advocate of open borders for a long long time.
|
On March 23 2019 05:04 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:52 Nebuchad wrote:
To be fair the mass shooter also wanted a complete stop to immigration so that the white race could be preserved against white genocide, so under the logic of not giving the shooter what he wants I'm sure Wegandi is now in favor of open borders. Um...lol, I've been an advocate of open borders for a long long time.
Shit I forgot you were the honest libertarian ^.^ Would have worked so beautifully too... Oh well. Sorry about that.
|
The “That is what the terrorists want” argument is like the rorschach test because everyone can pour their views into it. I could easily argue that the terrorist wanted semi automatic rifles to remain easily accessible and for everyone to be so scared they would buy one.
|
On March 23 2019 04:48 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well.
This was the essence of what I was going to say as well, my understanding is that historically, gun restrictions have been effective in reducing gun violence
Which really should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. We have examples of how to reduce gun violence? Great, lets follow that example.
|
On March 23 2019 04:45 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. I would say Australia is a pretty good example of what happens when you change the country to have draconian gun restriction laws. Which is quite fitting, because most people can't tell the difference between a kiwi and an egg
Yeah but I don't see what it did to make Australia a fundamentally better place for everyone.
One of the arguments made in America about the gun control debate is that its relatively small potatoes compared to other things that kill people yearly or effect peoples lives but gets such massive attention due to the victims and the press coverage.
On March 23 2019 05:11 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:48 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well. This was the essence of what I was going to say as well, my understanding is that historically, gun restrictions have been effective in reducing gun violence Which really should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. We have examples of how to reduce gun violence? Great, lets follow that example.
What I said above but yeah the biggest difference in the depate is that in the rest of the world its just another way to reduce gun violence where in ameirca it going up against the framework promises of the nation.
|
On March 23 2019 05:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:45 Neneu wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. I would say Australia is a pretty good example of what happens when you change the country to have draconian gun restriction laws. Which is quite fitting, because most people can't tell the difference between a kiwi and an egg Yeah but I don't see what it did to make Australia a fundamentally better place for everyone. One of the arguments made in America about the gun control debate is that its relatively small potatoes compared to other things that kill people yearly or effect peoples lives but gets such massive attention due to the victims and the press coverage. Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 05:11 Aveng3r wrote:On March 23 2019 04:48 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well. This was the essence of what I was going to say as well, my understanding is that historically, gun restrictions have been effective in reducing gun violence Which really should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. We have examples of how to reduce gun violence? Great, lets follow that example. What I said above but yeah the biggest difference in the depate is that in the rest of the world its just another way to reduce gun violence where in ameirca it going up against the framework promises of the nation.
Having less mass murders does make the country a fundamentally better place to live in tho...
Also the second argument has never held up. Other things that are dangerous are restricted as hell. Have fun with your car without a drivers license. There's also the problem with other things, like cars, actually adding value to society, while guns actively detract (Exceptions, like hunting and sports, apply, but restrictions can be made to accommodate them).
|
On March 23 2019 05:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:45 Neneu wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. I would say Australia is a pretty good example of what happens when you change the country to have draconian gun restriction laws. Which is quite fitting, because most people can't tell the difference between a kiwi and an egg Yeah but I don't see what it did to make Australia a fundamentally better place for everyone. One of the arguments made in America about the gun control debate is that its relatively small potatoes compared to other things that kill people yearly or effect peoples lives but gets such massive attention due to the victims and the press coverage. Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 05:11 Aveng3r wrote:On March 23 2019 04:48 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well. This was the essence of what I was going to say as well, my understanding is that historically, gun restrictions have been effective in reducing gun violence Which really should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. We have examples of how to reduce gun violence? Great, lets follow that example. What I said above but yeah the biggest difference in the depate is that in the rest of the world its just another way to reduce gun violence where in ameirca it going up against the framework promises of the nation.
I'm not familiar with how other nations have worded their constitutions, but - are we really the only one that has this built in protection that is so specific to ownership of arms? Like hasn't ANY other nation gotten started with something similar and then went back to revise it later?
|
On March 23 2019 05:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 04:45 Neneu wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. I would say Australia is a pretty good example of what happens when you change the country to have draconian gun restriction laws. Which is quite fitting, because most people can't tell the difference between a kiwi and an egg Yeah but I don't see what it did to make Australia a fundamentally better place for everyone. One of the arguments made in America about the gun control debate is that its relatively small potatoes compared to other things that kill people yearly or effect peoples lives but gets such massive attention due to the victims and the press coverage. Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 05:11 Aveng3r wrote:On March 23 2019 04:48 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well. This was the essence of what I was going to say as well, my understanding is that historically, gun restrictions have been effective in reducing gun violence Which really should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. We have examples of how to reduce gun violence? Great, lets follow that example. What I said above but yeah the biggest difference in the depate is that in the rest of the world its just another way to reduce gun violence where in ameirca it going up against the framework promises of the nation.
You got a couple ones I hear all over the damn place (and even from my more liberal-minded gun-owning friends). Number one, that the attention and impact on gun owners is not commensurate to the size of the problem, but only the size of media attention and special interest group-fueled attention. Secondly, that the country's promises to its citizens in the constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights, is the right to keep and bear arms, and we should work around the framework without recklessly throwing out that promise.
Sermo, got any thoughts on a couple others I hear often? Following from your list, #3, the biggest objection to the lawful ownership of guns currently in common use is that they look black and scary to non-owning citizens, rather than their actual use in unlawful activity. #4 The debate is hindered by people's conception or misconception that increased gun control advocates will be discontent with any compromise short of mandatory confiscation or buyback, and steps like national registries including private sale are not ends in themselves, but stones on the path to the eventual end. You might connect it with the related one where you said "in the same speech as you introduce said class and permit you say everyone don't worry theres no way we're going to actually give out the permit."
I'm curious if you've heard those as frequently as I have, and have thoughts on their overall legitimacy nationally.
|
On March 23 2019 06:10 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 05:44 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:45 Neneu wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. I would say Australia is a pretty good example of what happens when you change the country to have draconian gun restriction laws. Which is quite fitting, because most people can't tell the difference between a kiwi and an egg Yeah but I don't see what it did to make Australia a fundamentally better place for everyone. One of the arguments made in America about the gun control debate is that its relatively small potatoes compared to other things that kill people yearly or effect peoples lives but gets such massive attention due to the victims and the press coverage. On March 23 2019 05:11 Aveng3r wrote:On March 23 2019 04:48 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well. This was the essence of what I was going to say as well, my understanding is that historically, gun restrictions have been effective in reducing gun violence Which really should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. We have examples of how to reduce gun violence? Great, lets follow that example. What I said above but yeah the biggest difference in the depate is that in the rest of the world its just another way to reduce gun violence where in ameirca it going up against the framework promises of the nation. I'm not familiar with how other nations have worded their constitutions, but - are we really the only one that has this built in protection that is so specific to ownership of arms? Like hasn't ANY other nation gotten started with something similar and then went back to revise it later?
I don't know of any other, but i might be wrong.
|
|
|
On March 23 2019 06:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 05:44 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:45 Neneu wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. I would say Australia is a pretty good example of what happens when you change the country to have draconian gun restriction laws. Which is quite fitting, because most people can't tell the difference between a kiwi and an egg Yeah but I don't see what it did to make Australia a fundamentally better place for everyone. One of the arguments made in America about the gun control debate is that its relatively small potatoes compared to other things that kill people yearly or effect peoples lives but gets such massive attention due to the victims and the press coverage. On March 23 2019 05:11 Aveng3r wrote:On March 23 2019 04:48 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:41 Sermokala wrote:On March 23 2019 04:33 Excludos wrote:On March 23 2019 04:31 Nebuchad wrote:On March 23 2019 04:24 Wegandi wrote:On March 23 2019 03:53 Dan HH wrote:On March 23 2019 03:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
What did the terrorist want? Despite searching for it, I found it hard to find, though others seemed to have no trouble. He said he chose to use guns because he wants a civil war to start in the US over the 2nd amendment. Which is of course bonkers, if Sandy Hook didn't have a serious impact on US gun laws a shooting in another country was sure as shit never gonna result in anything remotely like that. I don't know what Wegandi is on about. I am sure nothing has ever gone wrong with countries who've disarmed their own populace... So are we Most countries who have put gun restrictions in place have absolutely flourished...so if he takes sarcasm out of that sentence it's actually true. Most countries have flourished before gun restrictions were even considered. Never stated it was the only reason, or that it even was a reason. But the sarcasm in his statement is clearly wrong when most countries who have implemented restrictions have done well. This was the essence of what I was going to say as well, my understanding is that historically, gun restrictions have been effective in reducing gun violence Which really should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. We have examples of how to reduce gun violence? Great, lets follow that example. What I said above but yeah the biggest difference in the depate is that in the rest of the world its just another way to reduce gun violence where in ameirca it going up against the framework promises of the nation. You got a couple ones I hear all over the damn place (and even from my more liberal-minded gun-owning friends). Number one, that the attention and impact on gun owners is not commensurate to the size of the problem, but only the size of media attention and special interest group-fueled attention. Secondly, that the country's promises to its citizens in the constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights, is the right to keep and bear arms, and we should work around the framework without recklessly throwing out that promise. Sermo, got any thoughts on a couple others I hear often? Following from your list, #3, the biggest objection to the lawful ownership of guns currently in common use is that they look black and scary to non-owning citizens, rather than their actual use in unlawful activity. #4 The debate is hindered by people's conception or misconception that increased gun control advocates will be discontent with any compromise short of mandatory confiscation or buyback, and steps like national registries including private sale are not ends in themselves, but stones on the path to the eventual end. You might connect it with the related one where you said "in the same speech as you introduce said class and permit you say everyone don't worry theres no way we're going to actually give out the permit." I'm curious if you've heard those as frequently as I have, and have thoughts on their overall legitimacy nationally.
I think theres a huge disconnect between the people who are trying to sell their gun control legislation to the people and the arguments for more gun control. A lot (even the recent NZ laws) are really just about weird vague references to scary guns without going for the full measure in some weird attempt to trap some sense of compromise.
One of the most simple examples is that guns don't kill people. People with pistols kill people. There are legitimately great arguments to tighten the ability for people to purchase and wear pistols in public. Arguments that would defnitly lead to less people dieing. But fuck that because it would actually help people.
Everything involving magazines in the gun control debate just baffles me. So much werid bullshit by everyone that either doesn't understand how they work or is just trying to make laws to hassle legal gun owners. Its a square piece of plastic or metal with a spring on it. Water bottles have more engineering behind them. If you want to cut down people using them in automatic weapons or semi automatic weapons just ban them outright and leave everyone alone. Nobody needs them in the first place really and I've never seen anyone seriously hunt or target shoot with them. But fuck if I see so much god damm attention on such an insignificant part of a gun.
I've never seen a serious gun registry proposal or a universal background check proposal that wasn't just a gun registry in disguise. Not that I haven't seen them but I haven't seen one that someone has thought through for more than thirty seconds. Some people just like making pointless bureaucracy with the intent of confusing or frustrating people.
|
stop stroking each other men, is not ideologically ethical.
ignoring this part:never seen a serious gun registry proposal ... that was just a gun registry in disguise. because yea, it's obvious, how about you make one.
if you think for one minute about it, you'll be twice ahead!.
+ Show Spoiler +Edit:there's a point to that exercise; it's for you to realize how ridiculous you sound when you pretend to care about regulations and/or control
|
Oh I put was instead of wasn't on there. I don't really understand most of your post. Are you saying that agreeing with eachother isn't ideologically ethical? You say that you're ignoring that part and then make the rest of your post about that part. You make a sarcastic argument and then sarcasticaly tell me how pointless it was when it was an exercise to show how I look bad when I pretend to care about regulations or control.
Very little of it makes sense. I'm going to parse out what scrap I can and say that I don't want a gun registry because its bad and would just lead to confiscation. I don't believe I've ever said anything in support of it so I don't know why it would look ridiculous when I'm against coming out against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
