|
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 July 02 2018 22:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2018 22:48 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:46 Nebuchad wrote: The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns". The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually. My position is more in line with "I'd rather not be hassled with thousands of restrictions that were thought up by some idiot who couldn't even operate a firearm." That isn't true. Nothing in that stated position requires you not to consider what anti-gun advocates would say. I think my above post has quite reasonable regulations. For a gun registration to get passed though on a state by state nation wide basis, you'd need to convince the gun owners/lobbyists that you want gun registration in good faith. This would require the left to stop saying things like 'ban assault style weapons.' Why? You know the left doesn’t have universal control over everyone who can speak publicly on the matter. If you want to negotiate in good faith, you should do so without unrealistic pre-conditions you know can’t be met.
How can we negotiate in good faith when the left doesn't a good chunk of people don't even recognize the 2nd Amendment's interpretation in D.C. vs Heller as legitimate? How many people in this very thread have stated their preference is that all firearms are banned in society? Coming to an understanding is fundamentally understanding the opposing side's view. I understand why people want more legislation, they feel that gun violence is at an all time high, which I'd actually agree and the recent statistics actually support.
These are things that I would want
1) Banning of bump fire stocks or anything that 'replicates' fully automatic fire
2) Requirement of gun safety courses across the board, 6 week minimum.
3) Gun registration and better background check systems (tentatively, not sure how to accomplish this in broad scope)
I don't think any of these are unreasonable or fundamentally against your beliefs on gun control, nor many in this thread. The issue I have is that many people come from a standpoint of arguing against the 2nd Amendment in general, believing that firearms have no place in society in general. Lots of people in this very thread believe firearms only meant to be a tool for killing which serves no other purpose. And you're saying that I'm arguing in bad faith? That's a good joke. Come on PlainSix, people send me PMs stating that "I have the blood of children" on my hands, bringing my personal family into a political argument, arguing about the fundamental role of a firearm in society, and I'm supposed to believe that these same people are making concessions in good faith?
|
On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote: Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples?
Please do. Because i don't remember that the same way that you do. I think you might find a few "2nd Amendment stupid", but i doubt you will find a lot of "ban all firearms". If pretty much all of the gun control advocates in this thread have argued that, i would especially like it if you could find some statement like that from, for example, any poster which has also posted on the last page of this thread, and not some random dude with 3 posts which noone has ever heard of before or after.
|
Ok, we agree on gun control laws in the broadest sense.
Surprise.
See what happens when you stop throwing up this fictional “left” as some sort of talisman to ward off discussion. You should just stop doing that. Don’t get bend out of shape every time someone posts that they think no one should own guns.
|
On July 02 2018 22:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:53 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 02 2018 22:48 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:46 Nebuchad wrote: The compromise position between "no guns" and "guns" is "some guns". The compromise position between "some guns" and "guns" is "slightly less guns".
Which is actually why super takes this position, not because he's terrified that people are coming for his guns eventually. My position is more in line with "I'd rather not be hassled with thousands of restrictions that were thought up by some idiot who couldn't even operate a firearm." That isn't true. Nothing in that stated position requires you not to consider what anti-gun advocates would say. I think my above post has quite reasonable regulations. For a gun registration to get passed though on a state by state nation wide basis, you'd need to convince the gun owners/lobbyists that you want gun registration in good faith. This would require the left to stop saying things like 'ban assault style weapons.' Why? You know the left doesn’t have universal control over everyone who can speak publicly on the matter. If you want to negotiate in good faith, you should do so without unrealistic pre-conditions you know can’t be met.
That's not the bug, that's the feature.
|
On July 02 2018 23:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote: Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? Please do. Because i don't remember that the same way that you do. I think you might find a few "2nd Amendment stupid", but i doubt you will find a lot of "ban all firearms". If pretty much all of the gun control advocates in this thread have argued that, i would especially like it if you could find some statement like that from, for example, any poster which has also posted on the last page of this thread, and not some random dude with 3 posts which noone has ever heard of before or after.
I don't think the 2nd amendment is stupid, but the way it is applied is incredibly stupid. And apparently the way its understood today is an invention of the NRA and some activists you took a different interpretation of it in the 50s or something? I read that somewhere, but I'm not that familiar with the 2nd amendment's evolution over its full history.
|
On July 02 2018 23:05 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote: Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? Please do. Because i don't remember that the same way that you do. I think you might find a few "2nd Amendment stupid", but i doubt you will find a lot of "ban all firearms". If pretty much all of the gun control advocates in this thread have argued that, i would especially like it if you could find some statement like that from, for example, any poster which has also posted on the last page of this thread, and not some random dude with 3 posts which noone has ever heard of before or after.
Not necessarily 'ban all firearms' but alot of these are views of firearms as nothing more than tools of destruction rather than tools for entertainment or self-defense (in which the vast majority of cases, the firearm is never discharged). Or people who vehemently disagree with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
On May 28 2018 09:05 KwarK wrote: A gun is to killing as a pen is to writing/drawing. Sure, both calligraphy and target shooting exist, but in neither case are they the purpose of the instrument.
On May 28 2018 04:03 KwarK wrote:
This. I think the US would be a better place if it didn't have guns. I was born and raised in the UK but have lived in the US for almost five years now and while both are pretty good places to live I certainly prefer the UK gun situation.
On May 23 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:
Why is that a bad thing, precisely? What is so fundamentally awesome about guns that they're a requirement for civilisation to function? Also, frankly, what assurances would they believe? The NRA erupts into hysterics at the suggestion of even the gentlest, mildest bit of gun legislation. They pump out propaganda videos even when nobody's talking about limiting gun freedoms. If you have to wait until gun owners feel comfortable, you're setting an unpassable bar to ever doing anything. Which I'm sure is your objective, but it is what it is.
America genuinely does need more guns than a good chunk of the european world because so much of it is rural (and rural folks have access to guns in most european countries for that precise reason), but I simply don't see the argument that a citizen needs access to military-grade firearms for day to day usage.
But your country is currently in a phase of militarising your schools. That statement should stand alone as a sign that you're past the point where something needs looking at, and deep into something must be done now,
On May 19 2018 09:42 KwarK wrote: Guns are a constitutional right, it should not be easy to strip people of them. I don't think they should be a constitutional right but for now they are. I've previously been pretty vocal on state laws infringing upon constitutional rights (such as the South not letting black people vote) being a bad thing. It's probably something that needs to be fixed with a constitutional amendment.
On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. Show nested quote +For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction.
On March 01 2018 01:10 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2018 10:16 Wegandi wrote:On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote:On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them. I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem. I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate. Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk. Let's just talk about a few things. What definition of militia are you using? Contemporary? When the Constitution was written the militia was known as every-able bodied male in the land. At the same time, regulated did not mean what it means today (for the most part). The Heller decision is in line with most of the Framers. As people around here know I'm not too fond of most of them (I'd be a pretty strident Anti-Federalist en.wikipedia.org in that time), but if you look at the laws of the time and extrapolate to our time, we have much more imposition than they did concerning this topic. The Government has usurped the peoples responsibility of defending themselves, and in doing so has become an Empire - a menace to the world and at home. Most of this traces back to 1861, but that's besides the point. During that time the people (aka the militia) held their own community armories - yes, with cannon and ordnance. The best rifle of the day was legal and in common use. Contrast that today where military rifles are banned (select fire) and ordnance is heavily controlled and banned. Couple that with the standing army, and you talking about our gun culture today leading to current circumstance whereas back then, they were....somehow less strident on this issue? That argument to me makes zero sense considering they owned the equivalent of Howitzers, M16's, M240's and were [the people] the primary defense of the country. Think of it like 1790 America as present-day Switzerland (albeit much less restrictive). You don't think "gun free zones" have anything to do with the rise of shootings? If you put a sign outside your house saying that you keep your doors unlocked, you don't think you'll see a higher incidence of burglaries of people with doors unlocked than locked? There is probably some aspect of culture involved as well, but it's not "gun culture". If you take away the Drug War gun homicides are a laughably small %. Like, not even relevant (statistically). I don't understand your point here. You, say yourself that back then the public owned guns and that now the government or the military has taken that roll because the public is not efficient enough and cannot or should not own their tanks and cruisers. Why would this then imply that today the public needs small arms to fend off a tyrannical government? You say it yourself, time changed, a well regulated militia is not needed or efficient anymore to defend against a tyrannical government or an outside enemy. If you did argue that the second amendment in valid today because you still need to defend against the government and back then it meant everybody owned a rifle and cannons, then i want warslaves. in the 10th century free people, so nobles, had th right to enlist their own property, which included unfree peasants, to fight for them against their own govnerment. So why is the tactic to defend against the government from 1790 rightful and from 990 not? Or are you not making the point that defending yourself in the way of 225 years ago is a right to you today?
On February 22 2018 09:07 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 08:40 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 06:36 superstartran wrote: If a young minor misuses a weapon 99.9% of the time it is because of poor education on the adult's part. Standard training home defense training is that you do everything in your power to deescalate the situation by retreating away from the intruder. It is only when you are in an absolutely last stand situation do you discharge your firearm.
Alot of hypothetical situations being proposed here are all avoided by good education.
There's alot of misconceptions on how people view firearms on here, and alot of it comes from a lack of education on the subject/ignorance on the subject. The country would be hundreds of times better off if the most voluminous voices against gun rights spent that time researching guns and taking gun safety/training classes as if they too owned one. They we might get less noobs talking about land mines and full-auto weapons the second a regular guy points out the benefits of the AR-15 in lawful defense. Calling people "noob" as if they don't understand that the AR-15 is a "good gun". Like that's the point here. Not that it's excessively good and can shoot people at distances where they're not a threat. No one specifically needs assault-rifles over smaller-arms to protect themselves. That's high-flying shitty fantasy. "Noob". You're exactly the person whose guns I want to take away, Danglars. These aren't toys.
On February 17 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote: So what is your counterargument to "Guns are inherently bad and serve no social purpose"? I'll rephrase that. Imagine a fantasy world where all of a sudden, all guns would disappear from the US and owning one is not allowed except for hunting. Shooting ranges still exist. No new guns an be bought. Would you still want to live in your country. And if the answer is no, what would you do if suddenly 2/3 of congress and senate would amend the constitution, nullifying the 2nd amendment and initiating a disarming of the population?
On February 16 2018 16:50 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 12:28 thePunGun wrote: @ superstartran: Have you even read the article, I've linked? Because it seems to me you're talking out of you ass right now.... Actual language of the bill "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." It does not say that the CDC cannot study firearm related violence. We've already gone over why this amendment was created in the first place. Do you know what a chilling effect is? This is pretty much a textbook case of it. I got less than two paragraphs into that article, where it called bearing arms a natural right and I realized that I disagreed with the basic premises. Owning guns isn't a natural right. It's a right that got amended into the constitution as part of the negotiations to actually get the constitution ratified. Also, you're arguing against the CDC of 20 years ago, while Plansix is arguing against the NRA that puts out ads like these: + Show Spoiler +Very much an "Us vs Them" fearmongering sort of narrative they've been putting out lately. Edit: Whoops, forgot TL embeds youtube videos. They're in a spoiler now.
On February 16 2018 07:06 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 06:38 Aveng3r wrote:On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote: Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history. Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense. At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government. I feel it's even more ridiculous than that. An oppressive government wouldn't use "force" to control the population anyway. They'd use Tv stations and facebook (or whatever equivalent) instead of weapons, they'd use the humongous intelligence surveillance apparatus and it's agents instead of soldiers. The entire 2nd amendment thing is so blatantly obsolete I'm having a very hard time not seeing it's proponents as "gun nuts" willing to excuse any "sacrifices" for their fetish. edit: forgot to add that afaik the 2nd amendment never explicitly names the purpose of the "well armed militia". So the "oppressive government" reasoning isn't even necessarily what the founders had in mind, particularly when considering the context of the revolutionary war where such a militia actually fought a foreign entity (granted that could be construed as the british being such a government for the colonies at the time too).
Do I really need to keep combing through the entire thread? People have made their preferences entirely clear. In their utopia society firearms wouldn't exist. If they could, they would get rid of the 2nd Amendment or amend it. This is not something I made up. Like I said, making a concession due to circumstances versus making a concession in good faith towards working towards something are two totally different things.
One of the major ways to prevent mass shootings would be gun registration and allowance of a police check up on those who are considered an endangerment to society. It would have to be a two part check system, however in order to ensure that it works, you'd need a gun registration/background check system that works. In order for that to happen, you need to get the moderate republicans to agree to vote on said systems. They are not going to vote for it however, if the opposing side says "We don't see any purpose to firearms/purpose to the 2nd Amendment."
|
More than a few of those folks are from the UK and are voicing opinions on fire arms laws in the US. Saying “I think the US would be better off without fire arms” isn’t a call to ban all fire arms. It is just a statement of opinion. I really feel it is acting in bad faith to use these examples of people posting their opinions as representative of the entire gun control movement.
|
On July 03 2018 00:05 Plansix wrote: More than a few of those folks are from the UK and are voicing opinions on fire arms laws in the US. Saying “I think the US would be better off without fire arms” isn’t a call to ban all fire arms. It is just a statement of opinion. I really feel it is acting in bad faith to use these examples of people posting their opinions as representative of the entire gun control movement.
This thread is a microcosm of U.S. society in general on firearms. Alot of the same people who are arguing for gun control aren't just ignorant about the subject, they also have zero interest in retaining the 2nd Amendment rights, rather they are trying to push their agenda, which is ultimately to rid society of all firearms. Pretending that a sizable portion of the population like that doesn't exist, would be completely putting your head into the sand.
And just because a 'smaller' portion of the population wants something doesn't mean they don't/won't have alot of sway over U.S. policy. The NRA is a perfect example of that. The NRA leadership's message works only because a large section of society is very anti-gun. So anti-gun that it's plausible to believe that they'd want to rid society of all firearms, or at the very least restrict it to the point where it's very difficult to obtain one. Like I said previously, if you want to beat the NRA coalition, you need to start by getting people to stop being so anti-gun in the first place.
Hint : Fear Mongering only works if there's a legitimate fear.
|
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. And fear mongering can work with irrational fears too. In fact, I would argue it is more effective when the fear is irrational. Like the irrational fear that your guns will be taken away.
|
On July 03 2018 00:29 Plansix wrote: Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. And fear mongering can work with irrational fears too. In fact, I would argue it is more effective when the fear is irrational. Like the irrational fear that your guns will be taken away.
How is it confirmation bias? I literally just demonstrated to you multiple posters in this thread who have shown their preference of a society with no guns, or the repeal/removal/amending of the 2nd Amendment. Do you want me to comb the reaches of the internet to show democratic politicians and other left media sites that demonstrate how far wide reaching the anti-gun bias is? What more do I have to do to prove to you there's a real anti-gun bias in America? All anyone asks is a FAIR discussion, which can't happen if you fundamentally disagree with the 2nd Amendment, because it will cloud your judgement in such a debate.
|
On July 03 2018 00:42 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 00:29 Plansix wrote: Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. And fear mongering can work with irrational fears too. In fact, I would argue it is more effective when the fear is irrational. Like the irrational fear that your guns will be taken away. How is it confirmation bias? I literally just demonstrated to you multiple posters in this thread who have shown their preference of a society with no guns, or the repeal/removal/amending of the 2nd Amendment. Do you want me to comb the reaches of the internet to show democratic politicians and other left media sites that demonstrate how far wide reaching the anti-gun bias is? What more do I have to do to prove to you there's a real anti-gun bias in America? All anyone asks is a FAIR discussion, which can't happen if you fundamentally disagree with the 2nd Amendment, because it will cloud your judgement in such a debate. This entire nation was built on people fundamentally disagreeing with things but finding a way to compromise. Sometimes on things they found morally repugnant.
You just don’t want to have the discussion and you have found an excuse to avoid it.
|
On July 02 2018 23:52 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 23:05 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote: Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? Please do. Because i don't remember that the same way that you do. I think you might find a few "2nd Amendment stupid", but i doubt you will find a lot of "ban all firearms". If pretty much all of the gun control advocates in this thread have argued that, i would especially like it if you could find some statement like that from, for example, any poster which has also posted on the last page of this thread, and not some random dude with 3 posts which noone has ever heard of before or after. Not necessarily 'ban all firearms' but alot of these are views of firearms as nothing more than tools of destruction rather than tools for entertainment or self-defense (in which the vast majority of cases, the firearm is never discharged). Or people who vehemently disagree with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 09:05 KwarK wrote: A gun is to killing as a pen is to writing/drawing. Sure, both calligraphy and target shooting exist, but in neither case are they the purpose of the instrument. Show nested quote +On May 28 2018 04:03 KwarK wrote:
This. I think the US would be a better place if it didn't have guns. I was born and raised in the UK but have lived in the US for almost five years now and while both are pretty good places to live I certainly prefer the UK gun situation.
Show nested quote +On May 23 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:
Why is that a bad thing, precisely? What is so fundamentally awesome about guns that they're a requirement for civilisation to function? Also, frankly, what assurances would they believe? The NRA erupts into hysterics at the suggestion of even the gentlest, mildest bit of gun legislation. They pump out propaganda videos even when nobody's talking about limiting gun freedoms. If you have to wait until gun owners feel comfortable, you're setting an unpassable bar to ever doing anything. Which I'm sure is your objective, but it is what it is.
America genuinely does need more guns than a good chunk of the european world because so much of it is rural (and rural folks have access to guns in most european countries for that precise reason), but I simply don't see the argument that a citizen needs access to military-grade firearms for day to day usage.
But your country is currently in a phase of militarising your schools. That statement should stand alone as a sign that you're past the point where something needs looking at, and deep into something must be done now, Show nested quote +On May 19 2018 09:42 KwarK wrote: Guns are a constitutional right, it should not be easy to strip people of them. I don't think they should be a constitutional right but for now they are. I've previously been pretty vocal on state laws infringing upon constitutional rights (such as the South not letting black people vote) being a bad thing. It's probably something that needs to be fixed with a constitutional amendment. Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 01:10 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2018 10:16 Wegandi wrote:On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote:On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them. I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem. I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate. Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk. Let's just talk about a few things. What definition of militia are you using? Contemporary? When the Constitution was written the militia was known as every-able bodied male in the land. At the same time, regulated did not mean what it means today (for the most part). The Heller decision is in line with most of the Framers. As people around here know I'm not too fond of most of them (I'd be a pretty strident Anti-Federalist en.wikipedia.org in that time), but if you look at the laws of the time and extrapolate to our time, we have much more imposition than they did concerning this topic. The Government has usurped the peoples responsibility of defending themselves, and in doing so has become an Empire - a menace to the world and at home. Most of this traces back to 1861, but that's besides the point. During that time the people (aka the militia) held their own community armories - yes, with cannon and ordnance. The best rifle of the day was legal and in common use. Contrast that today where military rifles are banned (select fire) and ordnance is heavily controlled and banned. Couple that with the standing army, and you talking about our gun culture today leading to current circumstance whereas back then, they were....somehow less strident on this issue? That argument to me makes zero sense considering they owned the equivalent of Howitzers, M16's, M240's and were [the people] the primary defense of the country. Think of it like 1790 America as present-day Switzerland (albeit much less restrictive). You don't think "gun free zones" have anything to do with the rise of shootings? If you put a sign outside your house saying that you keep your doors unlocked, you don't think you'll see a higher incidence of burglaries of people with doors unlocked than locked? There is probably some aspect of culture involved as well, but it's not "gun culture". If you take away the Drug War gun homicides are a laughably small %. Like, not even relevant (statistically). I don't understand your point here. You, say yourself that back then the public owned guns and that now the government or the military has taken that roll because the public is not efficient enough and cannot or should not own their tanks and cruisers. Why would this then imply that today the public needs small arms to fend off a tyrannical government? You say it yourself, time changed, a well regulated militia is not needed or efficient anymore to defend against a tyrannical government or an outside enemy. If you did argue that the second amendment in valid today because you still need to defend against the government and back then it meant everybody owned a rifle and cannons, then i want warslaves. in the 10th century free people, so nobles, had th right to enlist their own property, which included unfree peasants, to fight for them against their own govnerment. So why is the tactic to defend against the government from 1790 rightful and from 990 not? Or are you not making the point that defending yourself in the way of 225 years ago is a right to you today? Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:07 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 08:40 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 06:36 superstartran wrote: If a young minor misuses a weapon 99.9% of the time it is because of poor education on the adult's part. Standard training home defense training is that you do everything in your power to deescalate the situation by retreating away from the intruder. It is only when you are in an absolutely last stand situation do you discharge your firearm.
Alot of hypothetical situations being proposed here are all avoided by good education.
There's alot of misconceptions on how people view firearms on here, and alot of it comes from a lack of education on the subject/ignorance on the subject. The country would be hundreds of times better off if the most voluminous voices against gun rights spent that time researching guns and taking gun safety/training classes as if they too owned one. They we might get less noobs talking about land mines and full-auto weapons the second a regular guy points out the benefits of the AR-15 in lawful defense. Calling people "noob" as if they don't understand that the AR-15 is a "good gun". Like that's the point here. Not that it's excessively good and can shoot people at distances where they're not a threat. No one specifically needs assault-rifles over smaller-arms to protect themselves. That's high-flying shitty fantasy. "Noob". You're exactly the person whose guns I want to take away, Danglars. These aren't toys. Show nested quote +On February 17 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote: So what is your counterargument to "Guns are inherently bad and serve no social purpose"? I'll rephrase that. Imagine a fantasy world where all of a sudden, all guns would disappear from the US and owning one is not allowed except for hunting. Shooting ranges still exist. No new guns an be bought. Would you still want to live in your country. And if the answer is no, what would you do if suddenly 2/3 of congress and senate would amend the constitution, nullifying the 2nd amendment and initiating a disarming of the population? Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 16:50 Kyadytim wrote:On February 16 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 12:28 thePunGun wrote: @ superstartran: Have you even read the article, I've linked? Because it seems to me you're talking out of you ass right now.... Actual language of the bill "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." It does not say that the CDC cannot study firearm related violence. We've already gone over why this amendment was created in the first place. Do you know what a chilling effect is? This is pretty much a textbook case of it. I got less than two paragraphs into that article, where it called bearing arms a natural right and I realized that I disagreed with the basic premises. Owning guns isn't a natural right. It's a right that got amended into the constitution as part of the negotiations to actually get the constitution ratified. Also, you're arguing against the CDC of 20 years ago, while Plansix is arguing against the NRA that puts out ads like these: + Show Spoiler +Very much an "Us vs Them" fearmongering sort of narrative they've been putting out lately. Edit: Whoops, forgot TL embeds youtube videos. They're in a spoiler now. Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 07:06 nothingmuch wrote:On February 16 2018 06:38 Aveng3r wrote:On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote: Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history. Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense. At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government. I feel it's even more ridiculous than that. An oppressive government wouldn't use "force" to control the population anyway. They'd use Tv stations and facebook (or whatever equivalent) instead of weapons, they'd use the humongous intelligence surveillance apparatus and it's agents instead of soldiers. The entire 2nd amendment thing is so blatantly obsolete I'm having a very hard time not seeing it's proponents as "gun nuts" willing to excuse any "sacrifices" for their fetish. edit: forgot to add that afaik the 2nd amendment never explicitly names the purpose of the "well armed militia". So the "oppressive government" reasoning isn't even necessarily what the founders had in mind, particularly when considering the context of the revolutionary war where such a militia actually fought a foreign entity (granted that could be construed as the british being such a government for the colonies at the time too). Do I really need to keep combing through the entire thread? People have made their preferences entirely clear. In their utopia society firearms wouldn't exist. If they could, they would get rid of the 2nd Amendment or amend it. This is not something I made up. Like I said, making a concession due to circumstances versus making a concession in good faith towards working towards something are two totally different things. One of the major ways to prevent mass shootings would be gun registration and allowance of a police check up on those who are considered an endangerment to society. It would have to be a two part check system, however in order to ensure that it works, you'd need a gun registration/background check system that works. In order for that to happen, you need to get the moderate republicans to agree to vote on said systems. They are not going to vote for it however, if the opposing side says "We don't see any purpose to firearms/purpose to the 2nd Amendment." Yes all this. If you press the other side, they won’t come up with any arguments for the purpose and necessity of civilian guns and constitutional protection. So it follows quite easily that their temperance in calling for total gun bans are mostly from acknowledgement of their smaller political power. It’s a compromise born from political realities, not that both sides can agree to 2nd amendment/right to carry laws from need and usefulness and debate minor restrictions.
It’s also not at all helped by the general left-supported call for greater conformity to European welfare laws, health laws, regulatory laws, etc. Why would the side incapable of propound good reasons to own and carry guns for citizens stop themselves before adopting European stances on gun laws? I think that mask will slip little by little if more gun control is obtained.
|
On July 03 2018 00:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 00:42 superstartran wrote:On July 03 2018 00:29 Plansix wrote: Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. And fear mongering can work with irrational fears too. In fact, I would argue it is more effective when the fear is irrational. Like the irrational fear that your guns will be taken away. How is it confirmation bias? I literally just demonstrated to you multiple posters in this thread who have shown their preference of a society with no guns, or the repeal/removal/amending of the 2nd Amendment. Do you want me to comb the reaches of the internet to show democratic politicians and other left media sites that demonstrate how far wide reaching the anti-gun bias is? What more do I have to do to prove to you there's a real anti-gun bias in America? All anyone asks is a FAIR discussion, which can't happen if you fundamentally disagree with the 2nd Amendment, because it will cloud your judgement in such a debate. This entire nation was built on people fundamentally disagreeing with things but finding a way to compromise. Sometimes on things they found morally repugnant. You just don’t want to have the discussion and you have found an excuse to avoid it.
LOL, you are the one avoiding it. All anyone asks is that you recognize that the 2nd Amendment is a legitimate constitutional right guaranteed to the public according to D.C. vs Heller. No one is saying that I, or anyone else here, or even the vast majority of gun owners are even against gun control, because we aren't. The polls show it, I've enumerated on numerous times on what I feel should change, and what I think could be done to have a real effect on gun violence.
You are so quick to recognize the 'evil NRA leadership' but refuse to acknowledge that on your own end of the spectrum is a large contingent of people who do not view the 2nd Amendment as legitimate. And then you want to say I'm arguing in bad faith.
|
On July 03 2018 00:54 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 00:47 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 00:42 superstartran wrote:On July 03 2018 00:29 Plansix wrote: Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. And fear mongering can work with irrational fears too. In fact, I would argue it is more effective when the fear is irrational. Like the irrational fear that your guns will be taken away. How is it confirmation bias? I literally just demonstrated to you multiple posters in this thread who have shown their preference of a society with no guns, or the repeal/removal/amending of the 2nd Amendment. Do you want me to comb the reaches of the internet to show democratic politicians and other left media sites that demonstrate how far wide reaching the anti-gun bias is? What more do I have to do to prove to you there's a real anti-gun bias in America? All anyone asks is a FAIR discussion, which can't happen if you fundamentally disagree with the 2nd Amendment, because it will cloud your judgement in such a debate. This entire nation was built on people fundamentally disagreeing with things but finding a way to compromise. Sometimes on things they found morally repugnant. You just don’t want to have the discussion and you have found an excuse to avoid it. LOL, you are the one avoiding it. All anyone asks is that you recognize that the 2nd Amendment is a legitimate constitutional right guaranteed to the public according to D.C. vs Heller. No one is saying that I, or anyone else here, or even the vast majority of gun owners are even against gun control, because we aren't. The polls show it, I've enumerated on numerous times on what I feel should change, and what I think could be done to have a real effect on gun violence. You are so quick to recognize the 'evil NRA leadership' but refuse to acknowledge that on your own end of the spectrum is a large contingent of people who do not view the 2nd Amendment as legitimate. And then you want to say I'm arguing in bad faith. We literally said I agreed with you on gun control. You clearly missed it in your campaign to disregard anyone you label as “anti-gun”.
Remember when I said we should adopt Swiss gun laws and got bent out of shape saying that people could get assault rifles? Claiming I was advocating for allowing people to get them and I was fine with that.
You don’t want the discussion. You just want to end it as quickly as possible because it’s easy.
Edit: And the NRA leadership are a bunch of assholes.
|
On July 03 2018 00:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2018 23:52 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 23:05 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote: Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? Please do. Because i don't remember that the same way that you do. I think you might find a few "2nd Amendment stupid", but i doubt you will find a lot of "ban all firearms". If pretty much all of the gun control advocates in this thread have argued that, i would especially like it if you could find some statement like that from, for example, any poster which has also posted on the last page of this thread, and not some random dude with 3 posts which noone has ever heard of before or after. Not necessarily 'ban all firearms' but alot of these are views of firearms as nothing more than tools of destruction rather than tools for entertainment or self-defense (in which the vast majority of cases, the firearm is never discharged). Or people who vehemently disagree with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. On May 28 2018 09:05 KwarK wrote: A gun is to killing as a pen is to writing/drawing. Sure, both calligraphy and target shooting exist, but in neither case are they the purpose of the instrument. On May 28 2018 04:03 KwarK wrote:
This. I think the US would be a better place if it didn't have guns. I was born and raised in the UK but have lived in the US for almost five years now and while both are pretty good places to live I certainly prefer the UK gun situation.
On May 23 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:
Why is that a bad thing, precisely? What is so fundamentally awesome about guns that they're a requirement for civilisation to function? Also, frankly, what assurances would they believe? The NRA erupts into hysterics at the suggestion of even the gentlest, mildest bit of gun legislation. They pump out propaganda videos even when nobody's talking about limiting gun freedoms. If you have to wait until gun owners feel comfortable, you're setting an unpassable bar to ever doing anything. Which I'm sure is your objective, but it is what it is.
America genuinely does need more guns than a good chunk of the european world because so much of it is rural (and rural folks have access to guns in most european countries for that precise reason), but I simply don't see the argument that a citizen needs access to military-grade firearms for day to day usage.
But your country is currently in a phase of militarising your schools. That statement should stand alone as a sign that you're past the point where something needs looking at, and deep into something must be done now, On May 19 2018 09:42 KwarK wrote: Guns are a constitutional right, it should not be easy to strip people of them. I don't think they should be a constitutional right but for now they are. I've previously been pretty vocal on state laws infringing upon constitutional rights (such as the South not letting black people vote) being a bad thing. It's probably something that needs to be fixed with a constitutional amendment. On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. On March 01 2018 01:10 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2018 10:16 Wegandi wrote:On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote:On February 26 2018 07:28 r.Evo wrote: I like how she opened with "Where was ... when ... happened?" instead of "What about ...?", that was a really refreshing take.
On a less snarky note after scrolling through most of the video, do we know how many cases of for example background checks are done correctly and result in access to a weapon being denied in the US? How many cases of for example threats to shoot up a school happen and how many of those are actually acted on by law enforcement?
Without those pieces of information I can't just dismiss these kinds of checks and the system as a whole in general, it's like dismissing birth control as a valid contraception because I can bring up a few women who got pregnant while on them. I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem. I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate. Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk. Let's just talk about a few things. What definition of militia are you using? Contemporary? When the Constitution was written the militia was known as every-able bodied male in the land. At the same time, regulated did not mean what it means today (for the most part). The Heller decision is in line with most of the Framers. As people around here know I'm not too fond of most of them (I'd be a pretty strident Anti-Federalist en.wikipedia.org in that time), but if you look at the laws of the time and extrapolate to our time, we have much more imposition than they did concerning this topic. The Government has usurped the peoples responsibility of defending themselves, and in doing so has become an Empire - a menace to the world and at home. Most of this traces back to 1861, but that's besides the point. During that time the people (aka the militia) held their own community armories - yes, with cannon and ordnance. The best rifle of the day was legal and in common use. Contrast that today where military rifles are banned (select fire) and ordnance is heavily controlled and banned. Couple that with the standing army, and you talking about our gun culture today leading to current circumstance whereas back then, they were....somehow less strident on this issue? That argument to me makes zero sense considering they owned the equivalent of Howitzers, M16's, M240's and were [the people] the primary defense of the country. Think of it like 1790 America as present-day Switzerland (albeit much less restrictive). You don't think "gun free zones" have anything to do with the rise of shootings? If you put a sign outside your house saying that you keep your doors unlocked, you don't think you'll see a higher incidence of burglaries of people with doors unlocked than locked? There is probably some aspect of culture involved as well, but it's not "gun culture". If you take away the Drug War gun homicides are a laughably small %. Like, not even relevant (statistically). I don't understand your point here. You, say yourself that back then the public owned guns and that now the government or the military has taken that roll because the public is not efficient enough and cannot or should not own their tanks and cruisers. Why would this then imply that today the public needs small arms to fend off a tyrannical government? You say it yourself, time changed, a well regulated militia is not needed or efficient anymore to defend against a tyrannical government or an outside enemy. If you did argue that the second amendment in valid today because you still need to defend against the government and back then it meant everybody owned a rifle and cannons, then i want warslaves. in the 10th century free people, so nobles, had th right to enlist their own property, which included unfree peasants, to fight for them against their own govnerment. So why is the tactic to defend against the government from 1790 rightful and from 990 not? Or are you not making the point that defending yourself in the way of 225 years ago is a right to you today? On February 22 2018 09:07 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 08:40 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 06:36 superstartran wrote: If a young minor misuses a weapon 99.9% of the time it is because of poor education on the adult's part. Standard training home defense training is that you do everything in your power to deescalate the situation by retreating away from the intruder. It is only when you are in an absolutely last stand situation do you discharge your firearm.
Alot of hypothetical situations being proposed here are all avoided by good education.
There's alot of misconceptions on how people view firearms on here, and alot of it comes from a lack of education on the subject/ignorance on the subject. The country would be hundreds of times better off if the most voluminous voices against gun rights spent that time researching guns and taking gun safety/training classes as if they too owned one. They we might get less noobs talking about land mines and full-auto weapons the second a regular guy points out the benefits of the AR-15 in lawful defense. Calling people "noob" as if they don't understand that the AR-15 is a "good gun". Like that's the point here. Not that it's excessively good and can shoot people at distances where they're not a threat. No one specifically needs assault-rifles over smaller-arms to protect themselves. That's high-flying shitty fantasy. "Noob". You're exactly the person whose guns I want to take away, Danglars. These aren't toys. On February 17 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote: So what is your counterargument to "Guns are inherently bad and serve no social purpose"? I'll rephrase that. Imagine a fantasy world where all of a sudden, all guns would disappear from the US and owning one is not allowed except for hunting. Shooting ranges still exist. No new guns an be bought. Would you still want to live in your country. And if the answer is no, what would you do if suddenly 2/3 of congress and senate would amend the constitution, nullifying the 2nd amendment and initiating a disarming of the population? On February 16 2018 16:50 Kyadytim wrote:On February 16 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 12:28 thePunGun wrote: @ superstartran: Have you even read the article, I've linked? Because it seems to me you're talking out of you ass right now.... Actual language of the bill "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." It does not say that the CDC cannot study firearm related violence. We've already gone over why this amendment was created in the first place. Do you know what a chilling effect is? This is pretty much a textbook case of it. I got less than two paragraphs into that article, where it called bearing arms a natural right and I realized that I disagreed with the basic premises. Owning guns isn't a natural right. It's a right that got amended into the constitution as part of the negotiations to actually get the constitution ratified. Also, you're arguing against the CDC of 20 years ago, while Plansix is arguing against the NRA that puts out ads like these: + Show Spoiler +Very much an "Us vs Them" fearmongering sort of narrative they've been putting out lately. Edit: Whoops, forgot TL embeds youtube videos. They're in a spoiler now. On February 16 2018 07:06 nothingmuch wrote:On February 16 2018 06:38 Aveng3r wrote:On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote:On February 15 2018 09:46 Ayaz2810 wrote: Americans treat guns like toys. The fact that devices explicitly made to kill are used for "fun" is fucking stupid. You wanna shoot at a range? Check a gun out and return it when you're done. You wanna hunt? Pass a Japan-level background check to prove your capable. What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion). The 2nd amendment is retarded. Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history. Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense. At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government. I feel it's even more ridiculous than that. An oppressive government wouldn't use "force" to control the population anyway. They'd use Tv stations and facebook (or whatever equivalent) instead of weapons, they'd use the humongous intelligence surveillance apparatus and it's agents instead of soldiers. The entire 2nd amendment thing is so blatantly obsolete I'm having a very hard time not seeing it's proponents as "gun nuts" willing to excuse any "sacrifices" for their fetish. edit: forgot to add that afaik the 2nd amendment never explicitly names the purpose of the "well armed militia". So the "oppressive government" reasoning isn't even necessarily what the founders had in mind, particularly when considering the context of the revolutionary war where such a militia actually fought a foreign entity (granted that could be construed as the british being such a government for the colonies at the time too). Do I really need to keep combing through the entire thread? People have made their preferences entirely clear. In their utopia society firearms wouldn't exist. If they could, they would get rid of the 2nd Amendment or amend it. This is not something I made up. Like I said, making a concession due to circumstances versus making a concession in good faith towards working towards something are two totally different things. One of the major ways to prevent mass shootings would be gun registration and allowance of a police check up on those who are considered an endangerment to society. It would have to be a two part check system, however in order to ensure that it works, you'd need a gun registration/background check system that works. In order for that to happen, you need to get the moderate republicans to agree to vote on said systems. They are not going to vote for it however, if the opposing side says "We don't see any purpose to firearms/purpose to the 2nd Amendment." Yes all this. If you press the other side, they won’t come up with any arguments for the purpose and necessity of civilian guns and constitutional protection. So it follows quite easily that their temperance in calling for total gun bans are mostly from acknowledgement of their smaller political power. It’s a compromise born from political realities, not that both sides can agree to 2nd amendment/right to carry laws from need and usefulness and debate minor restrictions. It’s also not at all helped by the general left-supported call for greater conformity to European welfare laws, health laws, regulatory laws, etc. Why would the side incapable of propound good reasons to own and carry guns for citizens stop themselves before adopting European stances on gun laws? I think that mask will slip little by little if more gun control is obtained.
Weird, i can come up with good reasons for private citizens to own guns. And in most of europe, they can do that if they need the guns for those reasons. So people who call for "european-style gun control" don't want to ban all guns. Because all guns are not banned in europe.
Good reasons to own a gun:
Hunting Protection from wild animals in rural areas Sport shooting
I just think that gun laws should also have the goal of making sure that people own guns for reasons like that, and not just for shits and giggles. I know that it is in your constitution, but that is not really a good argument unless you are in a court of law. We are on a higher level of discussion where we are arguing whether it SHOULD be in the constitution, and for that argument it does not matter whether it currently IS.
|
On July 03 2018 02:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 00:52 Danglars wrote:On July 02 2018 23:52 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 23:05 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2018 22:25 superstartran wrote:On July 02 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote: Most people posting in this thread against guns in general have already stated that they would rather ban all firearms, but because they feel it isn't 'realistic' they'd have to settle for some regulation. That's not really a good way to convince anyone from the opposing side that you actually understand the opposing side's argument.
You know would get a lot farther with our discussions if you stopped making these overly broad generalizations. It seems to be some misguided effort to push everyone into one corner so they can be collectively dismissed. You mean like.......... almost everyone that has argued as a gun control advocate in this thread? Pretty much all of them believe the 2nd Amendment to be stupid and that if possible, their utopia would be to ban all firearms. This isn't a generalization, this is an actual fact, or do you actually want me to comb through this entire thread and give you examples? Please do. Because i don't remember that the same way that you do. I think you might find a few "2nd Amendment stupid", but i doubt you will find a lot of "ban all firearms". If pretty much all of the gun control advocates in this thread have argued that, i would especially like it if you could find some statement like that from, for example, any poster which has also posted on the last page of this thread, and not some random dude with 3 posts which noone has ever heard of before or after. Not necessarily 'ban all firearms' but alot of these are views of firearms as nothing more than tools of destruction rather than tools for entertainment or self-defense (in which the vast majority of cases, the firearm is never discharged). Or people who vehemently disagree with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. On May 28 2018 09:05 KwarK wrote: A gun is to killing as a pen is to writing/drawing. Sure, both calligraphy and target shooting exist, but in neither case are they the purpose of the instrument. On May 28 2018 04:03 KwarK wrote:
This. I think the US would be a better place if it didn't have guns. I was born and raised in the UK but have lived in the US for almost five years now and while both are pretty good places to live I certainly prefer the UK gun situation.
On May 23 2018 22:11 iamthedave wrote:
Why is that a bad thing, precisely? What is so fundamentally awesome about guns that they're a requirement for civilisation to function? Also, frankly, what assurances would they believe? The NRA erupts into hysterics at the suggestion of even the gentlest, mildest bit of gun legislation. They pump out propaganda videos even when nobody's talking about limiting gun freedoms. If you have to wait until gun owners feel comfortable, you're setting an unpassable bar to ever doing anything. Which I'm sure is your objective, but it is what it is.
America genuinely does need more guns than a good chunk of the european world because so much of it is rural (and rural folks have access to guns in most european countries for that precise reason), but I simply don't see the argument that a citizen needs access to military-grade firearms for day to day usage.
But your country is currently in a phase of militarising your schools. That statement should stand alone as a sign that you're past the point where something needs looking at, and deep into something must be done now, On May 19 2018 09:42 KwarK wrote: Guns are a constitutional right, it should not be easy to strip people of them. I don't think they should be a constitutional right but for now they are. I've previously been pretty vocal on state laws infringing upon constitutional rights (such as the South not letting black people vote) being a bad thing. It's probably something that needs to be fixed with a constitutional amendment. On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. On March 01 2018 01:10 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 27 2018 10:16 Wegandi wrote:On February 27 2018 04:56 r.Evo wrote:On February 26 2018 14:48 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 26 2018 11:34 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2018 09:47 ninazerg wrote: [quote]
I feel like our background checks are a facade. You do the dance, you get the guns. In some states and cities, it's more stringent, in others, it's much less. The truth of the matter is that the government in the US does not have the capability to track every gun, and I mean that in the most practical sense possible. Many people who are shooters do not purchase guns themselves, but have a parent with a firearm, or know where they can steal a firearm. Since certain cities have firearm bans, it creates a black-market for illegal sellers, which leads to people owning guns that are unregistered, which further complicates the problem.
I've seen no serious proposal put forward by any politician here in the US to address the problem. President Trump has said he wants to "arm teachers", but I highly doubt that he would want to put that on the floor of Congress in the current sociopolitical climate.
Background checks do what they're supposed to do - check against the NICS to identify if the person is a felon or not. What do you think a background check should check for? Please, tell me. Every FFL has to run one of these. As for the black market - what are laws going to do here? You want a War on Guns just like the War on Drugs? It'll turn out just as successful. All I hear is emotion and zero facts. How about you check statistics on school shootings prior to 1990 and after 1990. Then ask yourself how this change might have occurred. What factors are different now than they were before. Please say you want to deny people their 2A rights based on having a MI as defined by the DSM V. Please go there. I'll shred you to pieces. That's not exactly true. If the FBI determines that the buyer was prohibited, the agency sends out a retrieval order to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF is then responsible for getting the gun back.
Retrieval orders are relatively rare: A NICS operations report from 2000 noted that of more than 45,000 default proceeds issued that year, approximately 5,000 resulted in a retrieval order.
SourceSeems as though a pretty significant number of people that are supposed to be prevented from buying guns by background check aren't. Not because of deceit or manipulation, but simply because the process failed. Or worked like it was supposed to (leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have been able to buy them but for the FBI's failure) depending on your perspective I guess. You say "significant" number, but that's just not true. I suppose you're going to rationalize it and say that more than once is "significant", but statistically, it's not. That wasn't my point though - the point is, that there ARE background checks, so when people say there should be background checks, who's against background checks, etc. it's disingenuous. Then there is the *wink wink* that people with MI should have their 2A rights revoked (you don't think there is a decent amount of people with SPMI that will not seek treatment if in doing so they have their 2A rights revoked?). So much for the loving liberal - stereotyping people with SPMI as violent criminals who can't be trusted to have a gun. Such tolerance. The fact is, people with SPMI are much more likely to be victims of violent crime than commit them, and that goes for the truly stereotyped people with Schizophrenia, depression, bipolar, etc. Now, as someone who is for drug legalization (for the most part, I peg you here, at least for marijuana), do you think people should have their 2A rights revoked because they had some pot on them? Another one of those little "unintended consequences" of the Drug War I suppose. Cut the drug war and drug prohibition you massively cut violence and crimes associated with Drugs (see: Alcohol Prohibition and every other Prohibition known to man for vices). So then, what else should background checks, check for? I presume MI is out (if not tsk tsk). Drugs? That should be out too, no? What else other than checking if they're a felon (which, I'd argue, is getting just as ridiculous since the number of felony-level crimes has dramatically risen on the books...if you're going to argue this, it should be violent felons, not just felons writ large)? Maybe you think it should be 7 days instead of 3. Regardless, folks acting like we don't do "background checks" or more "background checks" is the answer are just .... let me put this as blunt as I can - stupid. I know you have a different perspective on this compared to others that share a lot of your beliefs, but really, all I see is more ban ban ban mania this time with a dose of "for the children". It's funny. Prior to 1986 automatic weapons were legal. Prior to 1968 a great deal of explosive ordnance was legal. Yet, here we are today, with more bans on weapons than those times, and yet, we have a higher rate of "mass" shootings and killings. It's obviously the guns though. What it is is a culture of guns that is celebrated by a substantial amount of Americans and which, at least in my opinion, was massively twisted over the years. Analogue to how the first amendment becomes more and more twisted since the legal reality doesn't align with the perception of the people anymore, but that's a different story for a different thread. The rise in mass shootings (we're at almost the same amount of school shootings in the 21st century than in all of the 20th century combined) is a symptom of this culture, just like you arguing that there should be no (or very few) exceptions to the 2nd amendment is a symptom of it. From the perspective of an outsider, who has also seen what your founders had written on these issues, arguing for total availability of firearms seems like complete insanity that was never intended because it's so incredibly irrational. The American founders were a lot of things, I'd sometimes go as far as the word 'naive' from a modern perspective, but they certainly weren't stupid. Samuel Adams argued that the constitution should never be construed "to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms" - peaceable citizens. Here, have Joseph Story on this: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Well. Regulated. Militia. Those words don't come from nothing, yet in 2006 the US Supremecourt found that this extends to "an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes". Guns are cool, everyone should have one. They make people safer, everyone should have one! People who use guns are cool, everyone should use one! The only person to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, hence I should have a gun since I'm a good person! That kind of culture is a complete perversion of both common sense and what your founders had intended. The basic issue is that it's visible everywhere and people don't even see it anymore. If I look up Columbine on wikipedia this is the first thing I see. For comparison this is the picture I find when looking up one of the worst school shootings Germany had. The trick is also that I had to look it up in the first place. I didn't know the name of who committed it before I looked it up. I don't know the names of the victims and the only people who have a right to know them are family and friends. The victims deserve their privacy. More people died there than at Columbine, yet I'm confident most people haven't heard about it. Meanwhile a lot, lot more people all around the globe know Harris and Klebold. Now, this is where you'll likely go "See, you agree with me! It's the evil media making money off this and spreading the word!" - And that's where bullshit needs to be called: "The media" celebrates the killers by putting their name and picture everywhere and it turns victims into cash cows not because it's evil or because of some agenda, but because of money. Because the American people love hearing about it and because the American state shrugs and says: "What privacy?" - Because a lot of people would have loved to be the hero with a good gun at the scene who stopped the perpetrator. In reality, there are no good guns except those who serve a well defined purpose. Like for hunting. Like in law enforcement. Or, like the American founders intended, for the purpose of giving citizens the means to rise up against a tyrannical government that should be afraid of them. You don't need pistols for that. You don't need every single individual armed for that. You don't need to even discuss that arming teachers is in any way shape or form a reasonable response to random kids deciding to shoot up schools. [...] among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. - Joseph Story, 1833. Weapons shouldn't be cool in the sense of todays America. The right to bear arms should be a burden since it represents a right that comes with a massive degree of responsibility. The responsibility of being able to kill another human being in an instant. Regulations are the tool of the state by which it ensures that something that requires responsibility also is treated responsibly. Samuel Adams knew this, so did Joseph Story, Madison and all the others. Yet at some point this turned into "Everyone should have any kind of gun!" because gun culture as a whole has gone berserk. Let's just talk about a few things. What definition of militia are you using? Contemporary? When the Constitution was written the militia was known as every-able bodied male in the land. At the same time, regulated did not mean what it means today (for the most part). The Heller decision is in line with most of the Framers. As people around here know I'm not too fond of most of them (I'd be a pretty strident Anti-Federalist en.wikipedia.org in that time), but if you look at the laws of the time and extrapolate to our time, we have much more imposition than they did concerning this topic. The Government has usurped the peoples responsibility of defending themselves, and in doing so has become an Empire - a menace to the world and at home. Most of this traces back to 1861, but that's besides the point. During that time the people (aka the militia) held their own community armories - yes, with cannon and ordnance. The best rifle of the day was legal and in common use. Contrast that today where military rifles are banned (select fire) and ordnance is heavily controlled and banned. Couple that with the standing army, and you talking about our gun culture today leading to current circumstance whereas back then, they were....somehow less strident on this issue? That argument to me makes zero sense considering they owned the equivalent of Howitzers, M16's, M240's and were [the people] the primary defense of the country. Think of it like 1790 America as present-day Switzerland (albeit much less restrictive). You don't think "gun free zones" have anything to do with the rise of shootings? If you put a sign outside your house saying that you keep your doors unlocked, you don't think you'll see a higher incidence of burglaries of people with doors unlocked than locked? There is probably some aspect of culture involved as well, but it's not "gun culture". If you take away the Drug War gun homicides are a laughably small %. Like, not even relevant (statistically). I don't understand your point here. You, say yourself that back then the public owned guns and that now the government or the military has taken that roll because the public is not efficient enough and cannot or should not own their tanks and cruisers. Why would this then imply that today the public needs small arms to fend off a tyrannical government? You say it yourself, time changed, a well regulated militia is not needed or efficient anymore to defend against a tyrannical government or an outside enemy. If you did argue that the second amendment in valid today because you still need to defend against the government and back then it meant everybody owned a rifle and cannons, then i want warslaves. in the 10th century free people, so nobles, had th right to enlist their own property, which included unfree peasants, to fight for them against their own govnerment. So why is the tactic to defend against the government from 1790 rightful and from 990 not? Or are you not making the point that defending yourself in the way of 225 years ago is a right to you today? On February 22 2018 09:07 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 08:40 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 06:36 superstartran wrote: If a young minor misuses a weapon 99.9% of the time it is because of poor education on the adult's part. Standard training home defense training is that you do everything in your power to deescalate the situation by retreating away from the intruder. It is only when you are in an absolutely last stand situation do you discharge your firearm.
Alot of hypothetical situations being proposed here are all avoided by good education.
There's alot of misconceptions on how people view firearms on here, and alot of it comes from a lack of education on the subject/ignorance on the subject. The country would be hundreds of times better off if the most voluminous voices against gun rights spent that time researching guns and taking gun safety/training classes as if they too owned one. They we might get less noobs talking about land mines and full-auto weapons the second a regular guy points out the benefits of the AR-15 in lawful defense. Calling people "noob" as if they don't understand that the AR-15 is a "good gun". Like that's the point here. Not that it's excessively good and can shoot people at distances where they're not a threat. No one specifically needs assault-rifles over smaller-arms to protect themselves. That's high-flying shitty fantasy. "Noob". You're exactly the person whose guns I want to take away, Danglars. These aren't toys. On February 17 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote: So what is your counterargument to "Guns are inherently bad and serve no social purpose"? I'll rephrase that. Imagine a fantasy world where all of a sudden, all guns would disappear from the US and owning one is not allowed except for hunting. Shooting ranges still exist. No new guns an be bought. Would you still want to live in your country. And if the answer is no, what would you do if suddenly 2/3 of congress and senate would amend the constitution, nullifying the 2nd amendment and initiating a disarming of the population? On February 16 2018 16:50 Kyadytim wrote:On February 16 2018 12:35 superstartran wrote:On February 16 2018 12:28 thePunGun wrote: @ superstartran: Have you even read the article, I've linked? Because it seems to me you're talking out of you ass right now.... Actual language of the bill "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control." It does not say that the CDC cannot study firearm related violence. We've already gone over why this amendment was created in the first place. Do you know what a chilling effect is? This is pretty much a textbook case of it. I got less than two paragraphs into that article, where it called bearing arms a natural right and I realized that I disagreed with the basic premises. Owning guns isn't a natural right. It's a right that got amended into the constitution as part of the negotiations to actually get the constitution ratified. Also, you're arguing against the CDC of 20 years ago, while Plansix is arguing against the NRA that puts out ads like these: + Show Spoiler +Very much an "Us vs Them" fearmongering sort of narrative they've been putting out lately. Edit: Whoops, forgot TL embeds youtube videos. They're in a spoiler now. On February 16 2018 07:06 nothingmuch wrote:On February 16 2018 06:38 Aveng3r wrote:On February 16 2018 03:30 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 16 2018 01:20 Broetchenholer wrote:On February 15 2018 10:19 Chewbacca. wrote:On February 15 2018 10:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:On February 15 2018 09:50 micronesia wrote: [quote]What is a japan-level background check? I can guess from context but I'm curious what that entails. I take issue with the 'keep your gun at the range' policy, but I would support common sense protections for people who shouldn't be getting their hands on guns from being able to buy them. Right now the system is clearly insufficient even if you generally support private gun ownership (in my opinion).
[quote] Was it always? If not, when did it become 'retarded'? https://kotaku.com/legally-owning-a-gun-in-japan-is-really-really-hard-1479865283It became retarded when muskets were no longer the weapon of choice. Or maybe when tanks were invented. There are plenty of points in American history at which "fighting the tyrannical government" became a laughable option. Maintaining a weapon for self defense is moot if the attacker also has no gun. And you stand no chance against the military should the unthinkable happen. It's just outdated and doesn't need to exist. Being able to fight off the government is only one of many reasons that people want to be able to own a gun. If I wake up in the middle of the night to find someone in my house with a knife robbing me or trying to rape/murder a family member, I want to have the easiest method available to me to kill him before harm is done to myself or my family. Some people want guns to protect themselves from the government, some want them to protect themselves from other people, some want them to hunt, and some want them because they enjoy shooting Okay, you want the easiest way to kill someone to rob you with a knife. Might i suggest a proximity mine? Just put one at every window and door and wait for the knifeholder to make your day. What about orbital guided artillery, missile strikes on anyone stepping on your lawn might be a good solution as well or maybe some deadly gas? Because your right to take someones life shall not be infringed upon by common sense or proportionate responses. If you need weapons to protect yourself from the government, you either are a criminal or it's too late. There is no scenario were you are morally allowed to shoot government agents and have a chance to actually achieve anything by shooting government agents. Either your government is not oppressing you enough to warrant you murdering it's officials or it is oppressing you so much that you need to shoot back and will fail. I would love to know the scenario where a handgun is needed to defend from the government. Sportshooting and hunting. Okay, i allow you that, i am in a good mood, you are just not allowed to buy the weapon for sportshooting, you get it at the range and you give it back when you are done. For SPorts you are allowed hunting rifles. Actual hunting rifles. No Scopes, no semi automatic capabilities. You need a hunting permit, have to go to seminars every x years and pass a test. You can't buy unlimited bullets. So, nobody needs a gun anymore, right? Yeah because planting proximity mines, setting up orbital guided artillery, or booby trapping your house with deadly gas is much easier than having a handgun next to your bed. I 100% believe that shooting someone who is breaking into your house to harm you, even if they're only coming at you with a knife or metal pipe, is perfectly warranted, and is the common sense approach. My safety, let alone my life, is worth more to me than the life of a criminal trying to harm me. If your government is oppressing you enough that it warrants you to shoot back, even if it means you will fail, I think most people would like the option to fight back rather than living under the oppressive governmental rule. Case in point, every revolution in history. Times have changed some. Back when it was musket vs musket, the rules (2nd amendment) made some sense. At this point, you are proposing a gun vs. Drones/Tanks/Bombs/Missles etc etc etc. Your weapon will not help you in a fight against the government. I feel it's even more ridiculous than that. An oppressive government wouldn't use "force" to control the population anyway. They'd use Tv stations and facebook (or whatever equivalent) instead of weapons, they'd use the humongous intelligence surveillance apparatus and it's agents instead of soldiers. The entire 2nd amendment thing is so blatantly obsolete I'm having a very hard time not seeing it's proponents as "gun nuts" willing to excuse any "sacrifices" for their fetish. edit: forgot to add that afaik the 2nd amendment never explicitly names the purpose of the "well armed militia". So the "oppressive government" reasoning isn't even necessarily what the founders had in mind, particularly when considering the context of the revolutionary war where such a militia actually fought a foreign entity (granted that could be construed as the british being such a government for the colonies at the time too). Do I really need to keep combing through the entire thread? People have made their preferences entirely clear. In their utopia society firearms wouldn't exist. If they could, they would get rid of the 2nd Amendment or amend it. This is not something I made up. Like I said, making a concession due to circumstances versus making a concession in good faith towards working towards something are two totally different things. One of the major ways to prevent mass shootings would be gun registration and allowance of a police check up on those who are considered an endangerment to society. It would have to be a two part check system, however in order to ensure that it works, you'd need a gun registration/background check system that works. In order for that to happen, you need to get the moderate republicans to agree to vote on said systems. They are not going to vote for it however, if the opposing side says "We don't see any purpose to firearms/purpose to the 2nd Amendment." Yes all this. If you press the other side, they won’t come up with any arguments for the purpose and necessity of civilian guns and constitutional protection. So it follows quite easily that their temperance in calling for total gun bans are mostly from acknowledgement of their smaller political power. It’s a compromise born from political realities, not that both sides can agree to 2nd amendment/right to carry laws from need and usefulness and debate minor restrictions. It’s also not at all helped by the general left-supported call for greater conformity to European welfare laws, health laws, regulatory laws, etc. Why would the side incapable of propound good reasons to own and carry guns for citizens stop themselves before adopting European stances on gun laws? I think that mask will slip little by little if more gun control is obtained. Weird, i can come up with good reasons for private citizens to own guns. And in most of europe, they can do that if they need the guns for those reasons. So people who call for "european-style gun control" don't want to ban all guns. Because all guns are not banned in europe. Good reasons to own a gun: Hunting Protection from wild animals in rural areas Sport shooting I just think that gun laws should also have the goal of making sure that people own guns for reasons like that, and not just for shits and giggles. I know that it is in your constitution, but that is not really a good argument unless you are in a court of law. We are on a higher level of discussion where we are arguing whether it SHOULD be in the constitution, and for that argument it does not matter whether it currently IS. Self defense against armed, stronger, or more numerous attackers doesn't make your list. Nor does rural areas with very large police areas, or situations like Detroit 2013 with ~50 minute response times.
Yeah, you're basically presenting another reason to distrust gun control proponents. You'd advocate or acquiesce to taking away guns from people merely wanting them for self defense. When you come up with "good reasons for private citizens to own guns" the three presented are "Hunting protection from wild animals in rural areas sport shooting."
And the current argument about "SHOULD" revolves around "People conscious of their gun rights and threats to them SHOULD be watchful of people that claim to not want gun bans, but offer very weak arguments that gun possession and carry is a civil right they will not harm."
Particularly, the constitution's second amendment and the current interpretation under Heller, are a useful guard against people like you, but a citizen of this country, that thinks the reasons you cited are primary, and the rest are "shits and giggles."
It's like saying nothing when Jan Bohmermann is prosecuted by the German government for satirizing Erdogan, and then answering when questioned, "Well, they dropped the case eventually, didn't they?" Well, you're very fond of your understanding shackles, but I'd rather not try them on for size.
|
On July 02 2018 22:05 superstartran wrote:Many other countries also have firearms guaranteed according to their constitution, Mexico, Switzerland, and many others have guarantee firearms as a fundamental right.
Are you sure this is the position you want to take? Switzerland who has mandatory military service for all men, where 25% of all gun owners are police and or military service members, who requires tests and permits (with reason for owning one) before purchase, and who has some of the highest standards of living across the entire population? Or Mexico which actually has a 2x times higher gun homicide rate than the US? (I'm finding varying data on this, depending on year and how it's measured, but they're all higher than the US). That's the comparison you want to make?
And by "Many others" you mean exactly none. Literally only those three countries have firearms as a fundamental right, and one of them, Switzerland, is working towards regulating them further in line with EU, and the other is worse off than the US by a long margin
|
I can get behind superstartran’s post detailing his thoughts on the gun violence situation in the US and his regulations. That was a very informative post and well appreciated, and I admire his ability to try 1 v all-ing the thread (in the past couple pages he’s put probably x10 the effort than anyone else has and indulges everyone’s “prove it”s), but I don’t think he needs to be so defensive.
It shouldn’t matter if “the left” has any particular endgame view of what gun control looks like, because the way the country works is voting for policy on a case-by-case basis. If “the left” puts forth a regulation for mandatory 6 week safety classes, and then follows it up with a regulation of only allowing 1 gun per person, you can simply vote yes on the first one and no on the second (and third and fourth and so on).
As for the lack of acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the 2nd amendment, I don’t see why that’s not worthy of discussion (with a philosophical goal; practically it won’t impact the current problem as the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere any time soon). You should certainly feel comfortable raising good points for why firearm ownership should be an inalienable right and you may sway some readers to your cause. Not arguing the point can come off as being insecure about that belief, which I don’t think you are.
Is there any type of evidence that shows that the 2nd amendment is genuinely in jeapordy? Any public polls showing 3/4ths of states would approve of altering the amendment? I don’t personally know so if you have evidence of that it could certainly justify your fear.
IMO, worthwhile discussions could be about what kind of gun control reforms has the best chance of passing and making a positive impact immediately, and what was going on between 1993-2001 that led to the decreasing trend in gun homicides.
|
Being overly defensive and dismissive is his main fault in the thread. He has valid points, but they get lost in his efforts to paint gun control advocates with a very broad brush. And compare them to the KKK.
|
He's still banging the Swiss gun law drum even though we had several Swiss telling him that his understanding of Swiss gun laws are completely wrong, and basically the opposite of American gun laws. Also the usual blather about "don't take all our guns", and "them Europeans blah blah blah" "the left yadda yadda yadda". He's not trying very hard at all, i would say, he is basically regugiating the same crap on autopilot as several months previously. It's to post a lot when you are just posting the same crap over and over again by responding to the same strawman over and over again. Lets not forget comparing gun control advocacy to the KKK
|
|
|
|