|
Handguns should be sold in vending machines.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
And pro-gunners are claimed to have wishful thinking on their abilities? That's a retention holster that you have to hit a tab on the inside to release the "hood" to draw. From behind? She's crazy. While she'd be stuck with her hand on the gun he could elbow her in the face and have her rear end on the ground. And come one, if she left without getting shot at there by definition was no problem. Her paranoia is not justification to tell others what they can't do. Go back to the UK if you want "I'm not comfortable" to be legislated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 12:34
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Handguns should be sold in vending machines. I mean, it doesn't seem like a great idea or anything, bit that's what the constitution says, so yeah. In fact, it would be more of a dispenser type of thing where you don't actually have to put any money in, kind of like those early EVE hypo and hack tool dispensers in Bioshock 2. At that rate, I suppose you could also just loot them off the corpses around you too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
quote:With such a law as this, why wouldn't you want to own a gun? Well, the mere fact that laws banning felons, the insane, and so on from owning guns is textbook evidence that, in fact, "shall not be infringed" is not that absolute. Also what constitutes infringement is not as easily defined either. Registration of guns and owners does not infringe on their abilitiy to own a gun. May-issue policies do not either, if the criteria for issuance are transparent enough. Since its inception, and even in Heller, the argument behind the right to bear arms has been self-defense - even though I personally disagree with its truth or relevance today - and therefore banning guns that specifically do not fit this purpose should be able to pass as well. All rights exist within a legal framework and their scope is refined by laws and judicial decisions. Congress has made laws restricting freedom of speech or assembly, that are yet undoubtedly constitutional and moral. Same thing with the 10th amendment. The 6th amendment is largely refined by tons of jurisprudence. What I'm trying to say here is that there are no absolutes in constitutional law, because the definition of terms is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. There is no agreed upon definition for "to bear arms" and no agreement on what infringing such a right would entail, because new practices arise all the time. Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
I mean, look at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It stood for 10 years and was not renewed. Not once was it challenged on its compatibility with the 2nd Amendment. And neither was the Brady Bill. There's nothing to suggest that gun control up to but not including an actual ban on the sale and ownership of firearms is unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Well, the mere fact that laws banning felons, the insane, and so on from owning guns is textbook evidence that, in fact, "shall not be infringed" is not that absolute. No, my point is that the laws as they exist now are going to be changed to be more in line with the current supreme law interpretation, which is a more literal interpretation. And we need to be prepared for that scenario. At this point if you want reasonable gun laws, nothing less than a constitutional convenbwahahah
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
How is this different from taking a photograph of a car, and saying you could use it to drive into a crowd of people?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Extensive Vamping posted:I mean, it doesn't seem like a great idea or anything, bit that's what the constitution says, so yeah. I was joking, but if you hooked the vending machine to the background check database, it's certainly technically possible to do. Of course, it'd have to be one hell of a vending machine to keep someone from just running off with the whole thing, but that's just an engineering problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:I was joking, but if you hooked the vending machine to the background check database, it's certainly technically possible to do. Of course, it'd have to be one hell of a vending machine to keep someone from just running off with the whole thing, but that's just an engineering problem. That's kind of a bad idea. Now a gun claw grabber game is where it's at. For added liberty make the guns pre-loaded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
I think that states doing poo poo to gun owners as part of the militia would be good: mandatory registration (so the state knows who to call up if they need the militia), and oh look, you gotta spend all weekend every weekend doing state-run training because semper paratus sure you can have a gun, but you won't have a life
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:I was joking, but if you hooked the vending machine to the background check database, it's certainly technically possible to do. Of course, it'd have to be one hell of a vending machine to keep someone from just running off with the whole thing, but that's just an engineering problem. Background checks? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
ITT: photographic proof of gun grabbers fantasizing about grabbing guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Handguns should be sold in vending machines. Ha ha ha ha! Kill your cravings at the Circus of Valueeees!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:Ha ha ha ha! Kill your cravings at the Circus of Valueeees! Hey I get that reference! Good game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
I never thought I could find a person looking as unjustifiably smug as Aaron Sorkin (and saying the same things, oddly enough). -Troika- posted:My ccw has prevented muggings on 3 separate occasions since I got it. Checkmate, gun grabbers You should probably stop trolling alleys with money hanging out of your pockets
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
In all seriousness, based on the interpretation of the 2nd I posted above, under what grounds (other than scarcity) would we be able to decline our 14 year old meth addict from obtaining, say, a nuclear submarine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Extensive Vamping posted:A whole lot of really stupid poo poo Extensive Vamping posted:Background checks? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?  Dumbshits swooping in with their oh-so-clever ironic hyper literal takes on the law that have been done a thousand times before are one of the reasons these threads are unreadable. Well, that and Tezzor/PTD/effectronica's non-stop white noise shitposting.Flowers For Algeria posted:Well, the mere fact that laws banning felons, the insane, and so on from owning guns is textbook evidence that, in fact, "shall not be infringed" is not that absolute. Flowers For Algeria posted:I mean, look at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. It stood for 10 years and was not renewed. Not once was it challenged on its compatibility with the 2nd Amendment. And neither was the Brady Bill. There's nothing to suggest that gun control up to but not including an actual ban on the sale and ownership of firearms is unconstitutional. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
I don't think it's in your best rhetorical interests to argue against taking the law literally and how it's ok to ignore that "shall not be infringed" part under certain circumstances
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Sorry genius, I didn't realize this was a peeve of yours. For the enlightenment of the silent audience, would you kindly expound upon how the court's interpretation differs from mine?. Thanks sweetie!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
I'm not one of those gun control fundamentalists who believes "bah, gently caress the second amendment", so much as I think that the second amendment was just really vaguely and unfortunately phrased. I mean, look at it for a second. The version passed by Congress: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The version ratified by the states: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I look at these amendments and I find it hard to believe the intent of the framers was that independent, unregulated private individuals should be allowed to possess unlimited amounts of firearms. Hell, the framers were infamous classists who were afraid of giving power to unlanded individuals. But 240-odd years of legal decisions have changed our interpretation of that amendment from what it originally was to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia part no longer matters. It's another part of why you guys have already won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Paraphrased/copied from a good post: what are the barriers to strengthening nics?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
gohmak posted:what are the barriers to strengthening nics?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The NRA and the Republican Party. States actually reporting things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:States actually reporting things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Gunthread Log, Gundate 1911-45: The fighting has died down from the first 48 hours, but the shitposting continues unabated. Losses mount on both sides as anti-gunners are beaten to death by home intruders while smugly quoting statistics about how guns make you less safe, while pro-gunners are succumbing to the suicidal call of their own weapons. Probations have claimed the lives of many shitposters, and I fear we will not come to an agreement before it is too late for us all. I cling to the hope that we can come to a consensus before the gas takes us all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Why aren't democrats laser focused on NICS before overreaching with restrictions. I mean it should be a red flag when they are attempting to pull the same bullshit republicans are doing to womens access to reproductive healthcare.
gohmak fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think that states doing poo poo to gun owners as part of the militia would be good: mandatory registration (so the state knows who to call up if they need the militia), and oh look, you gotta spend all weekend every weekend doing state-run training because semper paratus Riiiight. Let's keep making it difficult for "people" who don't work 9-5 M-F and pretend were not talking about 'those people'. Racist gun banners strike again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Extensive Vamping posted:Sorry genius, I didn't realize this was a peeve of yours. For the enlightenment of the silent audience, would you kindly expound upon how the court's interpretation differs from mine?. Thanks sweetie! The courts interpretation actually carried due to NRA lobbying with the Judicial Selection committee. JohnGalt posted:Racist gun banners strike again. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:I'm vaguely curious as to the NICS reporting reliability in states with Democratic state Congresses compared to Republican ones. Seems to be kind of mixed based on the graph here: http://www.fixnics.org/staterankings.cfm I don't know why this doesn't come up more often, because it's something both sides have agreed on multiple times in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The courts interpretation actually carried due to NRA lobbying with the Judicial Selection If that's the only substantial difference I'll take that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Seems to be kind of mixed based on the graph here: http://www.fixnics.org/staterankings.cfm Spending political capital on reforming something isn't sexy compared to making something new.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:yo i said in that big post i'm using the general you to refer to people who vote straight ticket R because GUNS despite payin lipservice to things the democrats support so you can drop the snark a little, i wasn't attacking you You keep summoning up the specter of people voting neoncon who would not otherwise support their platform if it wasn't for guns. I do not think these people exist in any real number. Anecdotally, everyone I know who is strongly pro-2nd amendment, but isn't a shitheel neoconservative/lolbertarian tea partier still votes Democrat because the rest of their policies are worth having, and spends their time bitching every time Feinstein sets up for another tilt at the gun control windmill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Anecdotally, everyone I know who is strongly pro-2nd amendment, but isn't a shitheel neoconservative/lolbertarian tea partier still votes Democrat because the rest of their policies are worth having, and spends their time bitching every time Feinstein sets up for another tilt at the gun control windmill. Gun ownership seems to be growing among younger people who are less apt to vote GOP for other things, so this demographic is likely to grow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You keep summoning up the specter of people voting neoncon who would not otherwise support their platform if it wasn't for guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
me in this thread:
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The NRA's entire schtick is to lure people in as your friendly neighborhood gun owner's group and somewhere you can shoot at a range and meet fellow gun owners, and then inform you that Obama's gonna take your guns, would you please donate your money so we can stop this and support good wholesome pro-gun (invariably Republican) candidates I dunno, if you're dumb/gullible enough to get drawn in by it you're probably conservative anyways Most of the gunhavers (here at least) seem to see the NRA as a bunch of nutbars even if they have some appreciation for them arresting any and all gun legislation Though hopefully they recognize the NRA is creating a toxic environment where no intelligent legislation/reform of existing legislation/better enforcement of existing legislation concerning firearms can even be discussed, much less enacted
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Extensive Vamping posted:In all seriousness, based on the interpretation of the 2nd I posted above, under what grounds (other than scarcity) would we be able to decline our 14 year old meth addict from obtaining, say, a nuclear submarine? Because a nuclear submarine is a weapons carrier, not a weapon in and of itself. Also I'd love to see the meth addict that can slap down $2 billion for a sub 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Because a nuclear submarine is a weapons carrier, not a weapon in and of itself. Also I'd love to see the meth addict that can slap down $2 billion for a sub Troika my good man this merely means that his right to have a nuclear submarine has been limited by economic means in a cynical attempt by someone, possibly democrats, to destroy his freedom. Nuclear submarines should be cheap and available to all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Because a nuclear submarine is a weapons carrier, not a weapon in and of itself. Also I'd love to see the meth addict that can slap down $2 billion for a sub
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
stealie72 posted:Yep. I am this guy, and I know a several more like me. Gun ownership is declining and has been for decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:08
|
|