|
It's ironic that California's gun laws are considered some of the toughest in the country in that most people can still get a gun if they want one (MY RIGHTS!!!). Within CA, San Francisco's gun laws are considered even stricter...in that you have to go through a registered dealer/seller and are required to keep guns and ammo in a locked gun safe. Also, it's really hard to get a CC permit here. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with gang activity that's rife in the poorer neighborhoods? Naw. A few years ago, SF voters passed Proposition H, which sought to effectively ban gun ownership in city limits. But the law never went into effect and was predictably struck down in court. Even then, some weird, inexplicable stuff has happened with SF gun buying patterns in recent years. http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2013/01/san-francisco-gun-sales-increase-officials-have-no-means-track-number-firearms SF Examiner posted:More than 1,000 handguns were legally purchased in San Francisco each year from 2007 to 2009, according to statistics provided by the California Department of Justice. Local sales then hit an all-time low in 2010. Two handgun purchases and 12 sales of “long guns,” shotguns or rifles, were recorded, according to state records, an anomaly some experts consider suspicious. Since then, reported sales of firearms have spiked again. Suspicious? Ya think?
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
katlington posted:Relying on untrained and unaccountable people to make judgment calls like this seems like a bad idea. Like forget about people being denied unfairly for a second, what about all the people who could be legally carrying who shouldn't be because the sheriff (their sister's husband's poker buddy) signed a form? Seems to me maybe a nation wide official policy on suitability checks is the best idea? Have trained professionals make the decision and stake their reputation on it like any other health worker. Are you suggesting that maybe we ought to enforce limitations on who is permitted to carry guns, what kinds of guns they are permitted to carry, and the manner of which they are to carry them? Perhaps some method of controlling the ownership of firearms, or "gun control"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:09
|
|
|
This was an editorial posted in the Chattanooga Times Free Press What Obama Really Meant quote:In his second inaugural address, President Barack Obama presented 2,095 words of confounding rhetoric and preachy prose. The president's frequent use of the royal "we" and undercurrent of his belief in the necessity of government — even to perform functions that are best left to individuals and free markets — appear to lay the groundwork for the collectivist assault on liberty and economic sanity that he plans to propose over the next four years. TL:DR The usual Tea Party tripe sprinkled in as an 'interpretation' of what Obama really meant, complete with GOP election campaign buzzwords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
What I don't get is why the people who would cheer for Bush using drones on 'the brown terrists' are horrified that Obama is. Obama is a war terrist!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This was an editorial posted in the Chattanooga Times Free Press While all of this is terrible, one thing really stood out to me. quote:What Obama said: "We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future." quote:Why Obama is wrong: As much as Obama wants to pretend that there are only two choices: taking away Social Security and Medicare from America's seniors or shelling out trillions more in taxes, that simply isn't reality. A responsible leader would stop inventing false choices and scare tactics and make rational, responsible improvements to entitlement programs, while cutting wasteful and unnecessary government spending to help make the programs solvent. quote:A responsible leader would stop inventing false choices and scare tactics and make rational, responsible improvements to entitlement programs, while cutting wasteful and unnecessary government spending to help make the programs solvent. quote:A responsible leader would stop inventing false choices and scare tactics  : "It's freedom versus socialist Nazi atheist Marxist tyranny! Obama's gonna take ARE GUNS and then murder every American thanks to UN population control! He's actually a terrorist Muslim from Kenya! He's going to murder your grandparents with Obamacare! etc etc etc."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
It strikes me that the most sickening part of that is at the very beginning, when it castigates Obama for his use of "the royal 'we'". Obama works, over and over again, to emphasize the idea of America being a cohesive whole, and the editorialist immediately uses it to call him an un-American elitist. Also: quote:...undercurrent of his belief in the necessity of government I wonder if this writer admits to being an anarchist, or if they're just absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I wonder if this writer admits to being an anarchist, or if they're just absurd. Bit of a pet peeve, but that guy is absolutely the farthest thing from an anarchist
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
quote:Why Obama is wrong: Almost all failures we, as Americans, have ever experienced with the free market have been a direct result of poor government policies that created monopolies, cartels and inefficiencies with production or distribution. Thanks to courts, contracts and the innate honesty and goodness of humans, a true free market is extraordinarily self-policing and effective. Yes, the Great Depression and Great Recession were both caused by too much government regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
And let's not forget that government policy was directly responsible for the formation of monopolies and not literally the exact opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
This caused me to look up the Chattanooga Times Free Press, because I had thought they had a sharply liberal editorial angle.quote:The Times Free Press is most unusual among U.S. newspapers in that it runs two editorial pages, one staunchly liberal, the other staunchly conservative, reflecting the editorial leanings of the Times and Free Press. The more you know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
I have a 'friend' on facebook who's advocating rebranding guns as self defense tools so that gun control can call itself anti-self defense instead. ..and by advocating I mean he's declared it a new rule. Its just really pretentious and, frankly, unsurprising. But I'm sure any commentary on such a low effort post would be useless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:This caused me to look up the Chattanooga Times Free Press, because I had thought they had a sharply liberal editorial angle. After living in Chattanooga for a while now, I can tell you the political landscape is really, really weird. And the Times-Free Press shows it off. But at the end of the day, Chattanooga still has Bennett.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:I have a 'friend' on facebook who's advocating rebranding guns as self defense tools so that gun control can call itself anti-self defense instead. I'm not going hunting, I'm exercising self-defense against those grouse. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:I have a 'friend' on facebook who's advocating rebranding guns as self defense tools so that gun control can call itself anti-self defense instead. Post a picture of the Taliban and say they're just using their self-defence tools to resist
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
I just checked my spam, no idea how I got on this dudes radarSandy Hook Shooting Didnt Happen posted:...They used a poster child for this to get everybody's sympathy and to get everybody's emotions up so that they could hopefully bring in a gun ban. They used a little poster child, a little blonde-haired blue-eyed six year old girl. She was the face, the poster child. She was supposedly killed along with the other 19 six year olds and seven year olds at Sandy Hook. Three days later Obama was there doing a photo op and she's sitting on his knee. She's supposed to be dead, used as a poster child, this little girl died - she's sitting on Obama's knee three days later. The same little girl.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:I have a 'friend' on facebook who's advocating rebranding guns as self defense tools so that gun control can call itself anti-self defense instead. It worked with "pro-life" so why not, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:It strikes me that the most sickening part of that is at the very beginning, when it castigates Obama for his use of "the royal 'we'". What I like about this is that this dude has no idea what "the royal we" means. Obama says we and means "we, the American people" but never "we, the imperial majesty barack Hussein obummer". I'm not sure if the author of that column is being disingenuous or if he's just barely literate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
Someone told me Europe's violent crime rate has 'sky rocketed' since they banned guns. Is this talking point coming from anywhere specific?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:Someone told me Europe's violent crime rate has 'sky rocketed' since they banned guns. Is this talking point coming from anywhere specific? That is just women trying to to get away from an ex-Italian Prime Minister/career criminal
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:What I like about this is that this dude has no idea what "the royal we" means. Obama says we and means "we, the American people" but never "we, the imperial majesty barack Hussein obummer". I'm not sure if the author of that column is being disingenuous or if he's just barely literate. Which is funny, because before that speech, they were criticizing him for using "I" too much in his speeches. Nevermind that he didn't use it any more than previous Presidents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:Someone told me Europe's violent crime rate has 'sky rocketed' since they banned guns. Is this talking point coming from anywhere specific? Are they providing citations? If not, ask for them. I have a sneaking suspicion it's going to follow the "assault in UK v. US" trope. If so, explain that classifications of violence is wholly different for each country. When going down the UK v. US route, I've had (in person) the concept that stabbings rose. Since it was in person, it's a bit harder to ask for citations. Instead, I could only really offer the rebuttal that I would prefer to deal with the potential of a stabbing compared to the potential of a shooting. Both on a personal level and done to a scale of what would be seen in a mass public scenario. Edit- VVVVV on a phone, so thanks for doing pretty much all of the legwork for my post  VVVVV
Fucitol fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
ultimateforce posted:Someone told me Europe's violent crime rate has 'sky rocketed' since they banned guns. Is this talking point coming from anywhere specific? Can't say for Europe as a whole, but Britain has extremely strict gun control (even the police don't carry guns, and pretty much all guns are outright banned--though they also have the benefit of being on an island and therefore having much less porous borders than the U.S.) and, rather than violent crime increasing, has seen pretty much across the board decreases over the past decade, including a drop in homicides and attempted homicides to about half of the level they were ten years ago. The notion that Europe, and especially the UK, which has become the focal point thanks to Piers Morgan, is a den of lawlessness where grandmas are being stabbed to death every day because they have no guns, and everyone lives in a fascist police state, is a complete fabrication. Violent crime has decreased, murders have decreased, and it would be a pretty bad police state where the police don't even carry guns. edit: oh, knife crime decreased too, if you want to get really specific. edit2: Haha this is great. Crime in the UK peaked in 1995, the year before strict gun control was instituted, and has since declined significantly in every category, including near or over 50% drops in most major categories. While this surely can't all be attributed to gun control, it sure does contradict the argument that without guns Britain became less safe. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Doesn't the UK have a much higher crime rate than other European countries, though? Not trying to argue per se, but I think I read it in the Gun Control thread that Finland or Denmark or something has even less crime than the UK despite the former having freer access to guns, with the implication that there are more angry poors in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The notion that Europe, and especially the UK, which has become the focal point thanks to Piers Morgan, is a den of lawlessness where grandmas are being stabbed to death every day because they have no guns, To add to this, another thing that has become a focal point because of a focus on Britain is this weird contrast where we can only have all the guns, or no guns.(the same thing happened with health care where the argument kept circling between the free market and a single payer system, something that never had any chance but Britain does it and gently caress, Britain is the only foreign nation we know anything about) We can't possibly have a bunch of guns but also heavily regulate them. People have come to think the US is the only country with guns, and those guns are the last bulwark between purestrain freedom and a complete tyrannical takeover, possibly not of the US but the entire free world. In reality, people might be surprised to learn that noted socialist hellholes like Norway, France and Finland among others all have relatively high numbers of guns in private hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:In reality, people might be surprised to learn that noted socialist hellholes like Norway, France and Finland among others all have relatively high numbers of guns in private hands. Not according to Chuck Asay 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:To add to this, another thing that has become a focal point because of a focus on Britain is this weird contrast where we can only have all the guns, or no guns.(the same thing happened with health care where the argument kept circling between the free market and a single payer system, something that never had any chance but Britain does it and gently caress, Britain is the only foreign nation we know anything about) We can't possibly have a bunch of guns but also heavily regulate them. People have come to think the US is the only country with guns, and those guns are the last bulwark between purestrain freedom and a complete tyrannical takeover, possibly not of the US but the entire free world. In reality, people might be surprised to learn that noted socialist hellholes like Norway, France and Finland among others all have relatively high numbers of guns in private hands. Hell, up here in Canada we have a roughly equivalent number of guns per capita as the US, and also have very strict restrictions on them. If you look at the Wikipedia page for it you can really get a sense of that. Just for a sample, here are the current restrictions on storage and transportation of firearms in Canada: quote:Storage But then again, we're a bunch of crazy socialists up here so who cares what we do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
quote:the innate honesty and goodness of humans If anything shows that "innate honesty and goodness of humans" is bullshit, it's Bitcoin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
So a facebook friend is getting all in on the Sandy Hook conspiracy and posted this: So they finally had to come out and admit it, now that the Coroner has released some info along with police. VIDEO: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 And one of his friends replied with this: I have to speak up. I live in Sandy Hook. I heard the shots. This report is dated December 15, from when information was still confused and conflicting. Where is the support or citation? You do a huge diservice to reasonable people trying to support the 2nd Amendment by promulgating this crap. If you have facts, share them. Stupid, unsupported conspiracy theories just brand you as a nut case and will convince no one but other nut cases. You want facts? Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting I Wish I could high five that guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
Too Poetic posted:I just checked my spam, no idea how I got on this dudes radar I like the idea that somehow the government can't kill armed people, only unarmed people. The military and FBI and all that, for all the money spent on training and tactics and equipment, just fall to pieces when someone trots out a rifle. Literally impossible for the most powerful military in the world to kill someone with a gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I like the idea that somehow the government can't kill armed people, only unarmed people. The military and FBI and all that, for all the money spent on training and tactics and equipment, just fall to pieces when someone trots out a rifle. Literally impossible for the most powerful military in the world to kill someone with a gun. It's been said before, but the military will side with the people, just like they always have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Empire State posted:It's been said before, but the military will side with the people, just like they always have. And I suppose Kent State was the exception that proves the rule?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Why let Kent State happen again when you can turn the situation into Waco? Except the "1776 will commence again!" people all view themselves as the bastions of rationality and logic, so they probably won't make the obvious comparisons to crazies. It's like the Dunning-Kruger effect for mental health. Ror fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 00:27
|
|
Empire State posted:It's been said before, but the military will side with the people, just like they always have. Like they did with the Bonus Army?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Not to pile on, but I am having trouble thinking of a time where the military did side with the people when asked to attack citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Not to pile on, but I am having trouble thinking of a time where the military did side with the people when asked to attack citizens. Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 01:22
|
|
|
Tharizdun posted:Egypt. In the US, I should say.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Not to pile on, but I am having trouble thinking of a time where the military did side with the people when asked to attack citizens. Many of the people we are arguing against would say the
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
If you find you're required to mention Heller, a handy addendum is that of the ways to amend the constitution, only one has been used, and it's immediately followed with this gem: [quote="OpenCongress.org"] "Unlike the process by which a law is passed, the executive branch (the president) plays no official role in the amendment process. Presidents may call upon Congress to consider an amendment, but these requests carry no force of law."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Many of the people we are arguing against would say the And it won for precisely the reasons that people say it would now. Massive advantage in resources and arms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:And it won for precisely the reasons that people say it would now. Massive advantage in resources and arms. In fact, it would be even more lopsided today. Unless people managed to seize control of the technology (and materials) necessary to build fighter jets, bombs, and tanks. And were given a chance to then build those things AND train people to use them. I would hazard a guess that driving and maintaining a tank takes considerably more time and training than what the average Confederate soldier was given to learn how to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:10
|
|