|
If incrementalism is a thing then everything but popguns will be banned long after you're dead so why bother? General consensus seems to be putting your access to guns at a greater value than the well being of other people you don't know anyway.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
various cheeses posted:Yeah whatever man as long as some completely toothless version of the second amendment is still kicking around you're crazy for thinking there will be a next step! They grandfathered in the guns in the old version of the assault weapons ban which are now illegal and must be forfeited under the new one, so you're crazy for thinking this is incrementalism! I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears while you point to real world examples! I get that Feinstein exists, but by that same tack, so do Freepers and Wayne Lapierre. Should we be on constant paranoid guard fighting tooth and nail making sure you can't arm schoolchildren to the teeth? That you're not going to push for machine guns and crew served weapons? I would certainly hope not. It doesn't seem to represent what the average gun owner wants. Just as confiscation and total bans are not what the average gun control advocate wants. Due to the NRA's constant screaming of "Coming to take your guns! OBAMA!" you're taking too much of a fringe faction's intent to heart, and fighting any meaningful change at all. Even if the fringe doesn't go away when you pass something, it doesn't mean not to pass something in the first place. Lapierre certainly isn't going anywhere if something gets passed. So take a breath. Let it out. Ignore the morons and for heaven's sake don't support Republicans for anything, least of all guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I get that Feinstein exists, but by that same tack, so do Freepers and Wayne Lapierre. Should we be on constant paranoid guard fighting tooth and nail making sure you can't arm schoolchildren to the teeth? That you're not going to push for machine guns and crew served weapons? I would certainly hope not. It doesn't seem to represent what the average gun owner wants. Just as confiscation and total bans are not what the average gun control advocate wants. Due to the NRA's constant screaming of "Coming to take your guns! OBAMA!" you're taking too much of a fringe faction's intent to heart, and fighting any meaningful change at all. Even if the fringe doesn't go away when you pass something, it doesn't mean not to pass something in the first place. Lapierre certainly isn't going anywhere if something gets passed. So take a breath. Let it out. Ignore the morons and for heaven's sake don't support Republicans for anything, least of all guns. I'm starting to get the feeling he'd be right at home with the Oathkeepers and their wacked out tinfoil hat ideas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
You can if you want to avoid justifying your closet racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I get that Feinstein exists, but by that same tack, so do Freepers and Wayne Lapierre. Should we be on constant paranoid guard fighting tooth and nail making sure you can't arm schoolchildren to the teeth? That you're not going to push for machine guns and crew served weapons? I would certainly hope not. It doesn't seem to represent what the average gun owner wants. Just as confiscation and total bans are not what the average gun control advocate wants. Due to the NRA's constant screaming of "Coming to take your guns! OBAMA!" you're taking too much of a fringe faction's intent to heart, and fighting any meaningful change at all. Even if the fringe doesn't go away when you pass something, it doesn't mean not to pass something in the first place. Lapierre certainly isn't going anywhere if something gets passed. So take a breath. Let it out. Ignore the morons and for heaven's sake don't support Republicans for anything, least of all guns. Honestly I'd prefer gridlock to a Republican or Democrat supermajority. How do you respond to what is happening in NY and CA? They already had assault weapons bans (which are stupid as poo poo), and they still keep going for more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, let's see, the single shot exemption went away on the first of the year, the number of handguns on the "approved" roster continues to go down despite no rational basis for this policy, LA banned possession of 10+ round normal capacity magazines that had been grandfathered in under a previous ban, (said previous ban being pitched as a sensible compromise, no one was coming for your magazines, we're just banning the sale of new ones,) and San Francisco banned hollow point ammunition, required guns in the home to be locked at all times, and finally legislated the last gun store in the city out of existence. That's just in the last year in California. CommieGIR posted:The previous assault weapons ban did grandfather in weapons already owned. So did Massachusetts version. quote:Get an FFL and stop bitching. Change sucks, but the fact that half of this thread is about guys hugging their firearms and screaming about the fascists coming to take them away is a good indicator that your wariness is not driven by rational thought but by fear-mongering and appeals to tradition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Honestly I'd prefer gridlock to a Republican or Democrat supermajority. How do you respond to what is happening in NY and CA? They already had assault weapons bans (which are stupid as poo poo), and they still keep going for more. They're heavily liberal in NY and CA. The people overwhelmingly elect them and they expect them to reflect their values. But that doesn't mean that they're unopposed. The gun owners in those states still push back, and always will. The more extreme they get, the harder it will be to pass new regulations and bans. That's the way it's supposed to work. Again, look at a place like Arizona. Should liberal folks just give up and see their kids be forced to go to school with armed teachers? No, they're going to keep fighting that, and a lot of reasonable folks with guns are going to get real wary of how far the NRA types want to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
So I mean is there any gun control legislation you wouldn't see as the first step on the road to total confiscation what is a reasonable level of firepower, in your opinion, for a citizen to possess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:They're heavily liberal in NY and CA. The people overwhelmingly elect them and they expect them to reflect their values. But that doesn't mean that they're unopposed. The gun owners in those states still push back, and always will. The more extreme they get, the harder it will be to pass new regulations and bans. That's the way it's supposed to work. Again, look at a place like Arizona. Should liberal folks just give up and see their kids be forced to go to school with armed teachers? No, they're going to keep fighting that, and a lot of reasonable folks with guns are going to get real wary of how far the NRA types want to go. Today's extremes are tomorrow's norms. Once everyone gets used to it in NY or CA, they will try to keep shifting it further toward restriction, just like they're doing right now. It sounds like I need to prevent my state from overwhelmingly electing a single party then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Honestly I'd prefer gridlock to a Republican or Democrat supermajority. How do you respond to what is happening in NY and CA? They already had assault weapons bans (which are stupid as poo poo), and they still keep going for more. But amazingly, they are not so broke that their Governor is sobbing publicly to try to find out where the budget is coming from. JohnGalt posted:You can if you want to avoid justifying your closet racism. Go back to the Gulch, John. Dead Reckoning posted:That's just in the last year in California. So go join the Oath Keepers. Pretend there is some massive conspiracy. But guess what? It works: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-californias-gun-laws-have-worked-2013-8 So we can either lower guns deaths and violence, or you can keep your high capacity clip. What a choice. various cheeses posted:Today's extremes are tomorrow's norms. Once everyone gets used to it in NY or CA, they will try to keep shifting it further toward restriction, just like they're doing right now. It sounds like I need to prevent my state from overwhelmingly electing a single party then. The Overton Window is still just a slippery slope argument, and hilariously this indicated you might be listening to Glenn Beck. Overton was a zealous Libertarian, and the think tank he was a member of was a Free Market bullshit club that loves pushing Right to Work laws and eliminating any and all taxes, while reducing the regulatory effectiveness of the EPA, IRS, and others. gently caress. Overton. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:what is a reasonable level of firepower, in your opinion, for a citizen to possess? All of it. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:So I mean is there any gun control legislation you wouldn't see as the first step on the road to total confiscation suitcase nuke
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Today's extremes are tomorrow's norms. Once everyone gets used to it in NY or CA, they will try to keep shifting it further toward restriction, just like they're doing right now. It sounds like I need to prevent my state from overwhelmingly electing a single party then. And what's wrong with that? If it's normal to the next generation, who the gently caress are you to tell them they're wrong to go with how they want to live? Once everyone in the south gets used to morons wandering around with loaded guns, they'll keep trying to shift it to bigger and heavier weaponry. Demanding to be able to stomp around preschools with AR-15's. After all, who knows what little Ahmed might be up to with that plastic hammer... Extremism is bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
a nuclear armed society is a society that will wipe itself out the minute somebody gets cut off in traffic
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:high capacity clip. I thought you said you knew how this stuff works?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:I thought you said you knew how this stuff works? gently caress you. I call it a clip, you call it a magazine. I don't give a flying gently caress, TactiLOL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:What do you all do with your guns check check check
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
I'm sorry that your self-esteem is so thin skinned thatbit bursts when you are called on one mistatement rather than just edit to the correct terminology. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:I'm sorry that your self-esteem is so thin skinned thatbit bursts when you are called on one mistatement rather than just edit to the correct terminology. I'm sorry that some people using terms interchangeable offends you somehow, TactiLOL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
gohmak posted:check What got you into guns first of those three things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
I like how the gun nuts here mostly say they're for reasonable gun control measures and how 92% of gun owners think universal background checks should be a thing (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2057), and then someone comes in talking about how they sell and give away guns to randos and their response is "im cumming"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:I'm glad we can continue the status quo of white people telling minorities what racism really is. Reminder once again that actual minorities of every kind support gun control far more than the rural/suburban white dude demographic that tough guy cosplayers seem to near-universally hail from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's just in the last year in California. Oh no what a tragedy. Help guys some cities are banning useless toys for idiots! Next step...banning other useless toys for idiots, which would also be tragic for some reason? Just using context clues here
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Honestly I'd prefer gridlock to a Republican or Democrat supermajority. How do you respond to what is happening in NY and CA? They already had assault weapons bans (which are stupid as poo poo), and they still keep going for more. Gun fanboys always say assault weapons bans don't do anything, but they mean that they don't seem to significantly reduce crime committed with assault weapons. But this is not the only consideration. There's also the consideration, aside from their purely subjective value in pissing off gun fanboys who the evidence clearly shows to be whining self-absorbed crybaby scum, that they also slightly reduce gun sales by slightly reducing the impetus to purchase superfluous guns because They Look Bad rear end. Also, as a statistically insignificant but optically significant factor, most mass shooters fall into the class of people who do that thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:What got you into guns first of those three things? self defense
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Reminder once again that actual minorities of every kind support gun control far more than the rural/suburban white dude demographic that tough guy cosplayers seem to near-universally hail from. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize one had to be the 'right' mind of minority. I guess it's okay to disproportionately limit the rights of minorities as long as you can convince them that it's for their own good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize one had to be the 'right' mind of minority. I guess it's okay to disproportionately limit the rights of minorities as long as you can convince them that it's for their own good. Well, first of all the right to bear arms is a destructive anachronism that has no value, so in principle I have no problem with limiting the right of anyone to it. More to the point, however, there is no issue with restricting someone's right to something if they cannot safely express that right. If this is because they lack the money that's unfortunate but also irrelevant. Compliance with all regulations costs more to the individual actor being regulated than they would if they did not exist, by definition, because they attempt to move some of the cost of externalities from society to the individual - in this case, the cost of unsecured guns and untrained gun owners on society is attempted to be mitigated somewhat by licensing and mandatory storage laws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Well, first of all the right to bear arms is a destructive anachronism that has no value, so in principle I have no problem with limiting the right of anyone to it. More to the point, however, there is no issue with restricting someone's right to something if they cannot safely express that right. If this is because they lack the money that's unfortunate but also irrelevant. Compliance with all regulations costs more to the individual actor being regulated than they would if they did not exist, by definition, because they attempt to move some of the cost of externalities from society to the individual - in this case, the cost of unsecured guns and untrained gun owners on society is attempted to be mitigated somewhat by licensing and mandatory storage laws. The bolded is about as wrong as you can get. Voting, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize one had to be the 'right' mind of minority. I guess it's okay to disproportionately limit the rights of minorities as long as you can convince them that it's for their own good. Even accepting your premise that liberals are trying and failing to curb the rights of minorities to own guns, why is that more important than how Republicans are literally today succeeding at curbing the rights of minorities to vote? Like, if both are bad, one has to be worse, and not being able to vote is objectively worse than not being able to own a gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Like, if both are bad, one has to be worse, and not being able to vote is objectively worse than not being able to own a gun. Kinda depends on who you ask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The bolded is about as wrong as you can get. Voting, for instance. No it isn't you idiot. Restricting voting based on money has nothing to do with inability to express that right safely. I have the right to open a business but I do not have the right to avoid safety regulations for that business because I lack the capital to implement them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Well thank goodness they are only taking minorities voting rights, benefits, protections, and etc. But not their guns! Thank god!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Even accepting your premise that liberals are trying and failing to curb the rights of minorities to own guns, why is that more important than how Republicans are literally today succeeding at curbing the rights of minorities to vote? Good thing the right to vote and the right to bear armalites are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Reminder once again that actual minorities of every kind support gun control far more than the rural/suburban white dude demographic that tough guy cosplayers seem to near-universally hail from. Thanks for telling us how the inscrutable minority thinks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Good thing the right to vote and the right to bear armalites are not mutually exclusive. Alabama disagrees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Thanks for telling us how the inscrutable minority thinks. They actually tell me how they think, via polling data.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Good thing the right to vote and the right to bear armalites are not mutually exclusive. Right, but in your fantasy scenario, voting for Democrats will take away the right of minorities to bear arms, compared to real life, where Republicans are taking away the right of minorities to vote. So even taking your lovely argument at face value, voting for Democrats is still the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Speaking of which: http://jalopnik.com/mustang-driver-shoots-corvette-driver-for-driving-too-s-1736520124?rev=1444847713354
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Right, but in your fantasy scenario, voting for Democrats will take away the right of minorities to bear arms, compared to real life, where Republicans are taking away the right of minorities to vote. Well voting isn't a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, so guns are actually more important!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
But anyway. Reminder for Wednesday, October 14th 2015 that some 80 people perished or will perish in the United States of America beause of guns today. There have been a couple shootings on street corners, a bunch of suicides with guns, a few gun-related accidents resulting in death today, and some cops shooting people. A good fraction got killed by people they knew and who had no criminal record. All this to say that the 2nd Amendment in now way precludes intelligent regulation of guns, selective bans, and the registration of gun owners, all of which would contribute to a pacified society and the gradual elimination of this ghastly gun culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2015 20:33
|
|