|
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," being a phrase that manages to be false, contradictory, meaningless, pointless and confusing all at the same time.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Goons, I know that we were all worried about the future of the GOP, but you can relax:quote:Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attended a confidential dinner with more than 20 top conservatives on Tuesday night to plan his comeback as a movement leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Tonsil stone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Goons, I know that we were all worried about the future of the GOP, but you can relax: This made my skin crawl a little.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
It made more sense back in the 1700s, especially in the early US where the states were scared of a centralized federal military. They wanted state militias out of the fear that the federal military might abandon their state in an attempt to defend the US as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Goons, I know that we were all worried about the future of the GOP, but you can relax: I'm reading this as a sign of a GOP split. Is that wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Crain posted:I'm reading this as a sign of a GOP split. I imagine these guys will stay quiet this cycle or do this weird half endorse thing Republicans are doing so they can try and stay clear of Trump's fallout, then Cruz will do his Cruz thing and in 2019-20 he'll get challenged in the Primary by some establishment types and some Trump types and pull away the winner. Then I think they'd rally behind him more than they do with Trump because Cruz is a controlled, slimy sociopath and not a raving lunatic who constantly creates fires. Then hopefully he loses in the GE because he's a slimy sociopath and most people seem to recognize that. Or he becomes Reagan II like he's always dreamed and sun turns red.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Fighting over the militia bit is dumb, all other constitutional rights have been subject to reasonable restrictions when there is a compelling government interest. I don't really see why we need to fight over grammar when "this specific type of gun makes it extremely easy to commit mass murder and provides minimal additional functionality when used for legitimate purposes" sounds like a perfectly fine justification for banning or NFAing semi-autos with detachable box magazines. I'm not so keen on doing the same for handguns because they serve a legit self-defense purpose... but it's hard to make regulations that allow semi-autos without providing a million loopholes with which to slip things like AR-15s through, most likely they would have to be included as well, not revolvers though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:This made my skin crawl a little. Don't worry, if your skin escapes your frame the normal human known as Cruz has many uses for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Ha! I love how the "another way you can read this" is an incompete and completely different sentance. Setting aside your spelling, you are right, and the result is 10,000 unnecessary deaths, approximately three 9/11s, every single year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:An assault weapon is defined as an object which fires small bits of metal at sufficient speed to kill a person, and is specifically designed to commit assault on a human being. youve made me think of my compound bow and the slingshot i had as a kid in a whole different light
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Fighting over the militia bit is dumb, all other constitutional rights have been subject to reasonable restrictions when there is a compelling government interest. I don't really see why we need to fight over grammar when "this specific type of gun makes it extremely easy to commit mass murder and provides minimal additional functionality when used for legitimate purposes" sounds like a perfectly fine justification for banning or NFAing semi-autos with detachable box magazines. And yet, magically replacing every handgun in America with an AR-15 and attached Beta C-mag would prevent far more deaths than outlawing and magically removing semi-automatic rifles entirely. LGD fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:Setting aside your spelling, you are right, and the result is 10,000 unnecessary deaths, approximately three 9/11s, every single year. Lives dont matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
I don't know if this counts as banned primarychat, if it does I apologize, but Bernie's in DC and he's not participating in the filibuster
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Lives dont matter. Thanks for contributing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Similar to the gun restriction loopholes, Illinois had a similar issue with synthetic drugs. When synthetic marijuana popped up, Illinois quickly banned it (after some white kids died) but they wrote the law to specifically mention chemicals used. Well, all it took was changing the chemicals and your substance was suddenly legal. They changed the law to be more vague and it became harder to sell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:Thanks for contributing. Thats the whole reason i post in uspol and rack up my nearly fishmech-level rap sheet, because youve become so insulated and are so used to sorting out the very purest, most helpful progressive that you cant or arent willing to even respond to someone pulling in another political direction. Thats why gun control hasnt happened. So stop bitching and lets come to a point of agreement and save lives. Hint: its background checks and better funding/training existing law enforcement. Pretty much all guns are "semi auto box magazine".
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Arhgh this is why I cannot loving stand gun chat!! I despise all the disingenuous, bad faith loving arguments that crop up! "We need them to prevent US Army stormtroopers..." "The Second Amendment..." "But other countries banned guns and now..." For gently caress's sake 50 people died can we please, please stop this anti-incrementalist hardheadedness and actually try to be think up solutions? OR just loving admit that the innocent blood spilled in these shootings is the price we'll just pay in exchange for keeping the 2nd amendment sacred. I was honestly pro-gun ownership (though with gun registration and regulation), but hearing these pro-gun chestnuts over and over almost makes me advocate for repealing the entire drat 2nd just out of spite. Crain posted:You're not wrong. But welcome to the world of Bureaucracies and Regulations. When you start introducing specifics, you're creating loop holes. Somewhere down the line someone at the ATF or some other agency had to sit down and list what exactly defined a "pistol", "rifle", "shotgun", and "handgun" were. Those definitions produce things like that 5.56 NATO, 20 in long pistol. See? This is good. I like this. This is interesting and informative and highlights legit problems gun regulations face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Goons, I know that we were all worried about the future of the GOP, but you can relax: If I could choose one person to be obliterated by a meteor it would be the Zodiac Killer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:actually try to be think up solutions? I did. Repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all firearms. Maybe compromise on hunting guns since those have a legitimate purpose. Don't like my idea? OK, it's your turn to propose one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Hint: its background checks and better funding/training existing law enforcement. I'm on board with both of these proposals. Why haven't they happened?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
xrunner posted:So that if a war breaks out that is serious enough to require doubling our armed forces, we can start right away without having to figure out who is even eligible to be drafted? It doesn't really do that these days. That's much more something registering was useful for decades back, especially since many people wouldn't have any form of government issued identification. These days, the government could tell the states to pull up the info from state ID databases and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:I did. Repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all firearms. Maybe compromise on hunting guns since those have a legitimate purpose. Don't like my idea? OK, it's your turn to propose one. thats not an idea, its a mealymouthed diaper full reaction
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Sp1r0_Agn3W posted:thats not an idea, its a mealymouthed diaper full reaction OK, it's your turn to propose an idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:I'm on board with both of these proposals. Why haven't they happened? Because you and people like you are openly saying "that's a good first step but we're going to immediately take all of the guns after that" I dont trust that you respect my position at all (but on a national level)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:OK, it's your turn to propose an idea. SSNeoman posted:OR just loving admit that the innocent blood spilled in these shootings is the price we'll just pay in exchange for keeping the 2nd amendment sacred.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
It's absolutely true that the Second Amendment is phrased unequivocally. So is the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" except that we totally do this, because we can charge Christian Scientists with child abuse; "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" except we have libel and slander laws; "Congress shall make no law the right of the people peaceably to assemble" except lol 'Free Speech Zones.' Clearly we are perfectly capable of interpreting unequivocal statements in the Bill of Rights in a more ambiguous manner than is really justified by the actual text.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Actually repealing the 2nd amendment is starting to seem like the most likely long-term solution to the crisis. The wording of it is pretty unambiguous about any meaningful restrictions on firearm ownership, so before that can be addressed having a gun needs to be a privilege not a right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Because you and people like you are openly saying "that's a good first step but we're going to immediately take all of the guns after that" "I want X." "Okay, let's do X." "No, I don't want X anymore." "Uh." * 50 more people get slaughtered
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:OR just loving admit that the innocent blood spilled in these shootings is the price we'll just pay in exchange for keeping the 2nd amendment sacred I did, 13 minutes (and on the same page) before you posted. ColdPie posted:"I want X." We're not talking about X, we're talking about gun control (which i and almost every gun owner is in favor of) and saving lives. If you want to expand background checks i'm onboard, if you want to make someone dance through legal hoops to get a 30 round magazine i'm annoyed but alright with it. If you ban semi automatic guns i'm getting in a gunfight with the police and dying. I feel like i'm being more reasonable than you. (Thats not even getting into the loaded "Gun nuts" "Stormtroopers" "Ya'll Queda" insults. Thats political echo chamber, "Rah Rah My team" poo poo, not someone interested in actually coming to a consensus and saving lives.) Killer robot posted:If you're saying that we should allow gun restrictions but apply strict scrutiny to them like we do to laws restricting first amendment rights, a whole lot of existing gun law is going to go away. Are you sure you want to do that? DING DING DING DING DING MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
The second amendment says people can keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say anything about buying them!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:It's absolutely true that the Second Amendment is phrased unequivocally. So is the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" except that we totally do this, because we can charge Christian Scientists with child abuse; "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press" except we have libel and slander laws; "Congress shall make no law the right of the people peaceably to assemble" except lol 'Free Speech Zones.' Clearly we are perfectly capable of interpreting unequivocal statements in the Bill of Rights in a more ambiguous manner than is really justified by the actual text. If you're saying that we should allow gun restrictions but apply strict scrutiny to them like we do to laws restricting first amendment rights, a whole lot of existing gun law is going to go away. Are you sure you want to do that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
I was raised in a house with guns and am a lot more sympathetic than the average liberal to the historical arguments for the Second Amendment. It was a nice idea: give the people a way to resist potential oppressors and outside threats. But the world is a completely different place than it was when the Bill of Rights was written. The military has flying murder robots and civilization-destroying bombs now, and instead of banding together with our neighbors and fighting off some terrible enemy we're taking shots at each other in Walmarts. It's time to pack it in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
BROCK LESBIAN posted:The second amendment says people can keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say anything about buying them! Proposal: if you want a gun you have to make it yourself from scratch, like a lightsaber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:He removed the non-sequitur that some idiot founding father accidentally scribbled down halfway through the amendment without thinking. That's weird, the bit he removed is at the start
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:That's weird, the bit he removed is at the start I did explain "The first sentence everyone focuses on because "militia" is a funny word we dont use anymore is not the important part because its just justification for the following sentence, the second bit is really what we are meant to focus on where it spells out the law in plain language". showbiz_liz posted:I was raised in a house with guns and am a lot more sympathetic than the average liberal to the historical arguments for the Second Amendment. It was a nice idea: give the people a way to resist potential oppressors and outside threats. But the world is a completely different place than it was when the Bill of Rights was written. The military has flying murder robots and civilization-destroying bombs now, and instead of banding together with our neighbors and fighting off some terrible enemy we're taking shots at each other in Walmarts. It's time to pack it in. Violent crime is at an all time low and you're safer than you have ever been. Cable news, invented in the late 80s, makes this problem seem a lot worse than it is and salt and pork is a lot more likely to kill you than an AR15. Eat a salad, , smile at a stranger. Make society a better place. ColdPie posted:Great. We're both on board, and I think every Democrat in congress would vote in favor of those two measures and in favor of increased training for police. Why do you think they haven't happened? I refer you to my other post, also directed at you. MattD1zzl3 posted:Because you and people like you are openly saying "that's a good first step but we're going to immediately take all of the guns after that" MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:We're not talking about X, we're talking about gun control (which i and almost every gun owner is in favor of) and saving lives. If you want to expand background checks i'm onboard, if you want to make someone dance through legal hoops to get a 30 round magazine i'm annoyed but alright with it. Great. We're both on board, and I think every Democrat in congress would vote in favor of those two measures and in favor of increased training for police. Why do you think they haven't happened? MattD1zzl3 posted:I feel like i'm being more reasonable than you. I am agreeing to the policies that you proposed. It's called compromise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:... I feel like i'm being more reasonable than you. Some people are so disgusted with the state of things and frustrated at obstructionists that they take to the internet to vent and poo poo on people who sound/smell/look like they're sympathetic to the folks they see as murder enablers. I think you just have to ignore the weird, misdirected anger (eg "so what are we going to do about it" posted in a drat forum thread, like the posters here can do jack poo poo). v  v
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Proposal: if you want a gun you have to make it yourself from scratch, like a lightsaber. Not to be that guy again since I know this is a joke, but now you have to define "from scratch". Because as it is now, that 80% lower I showed earlier is not a gun. Then someone guys this, or a similar cnc mill (and the maker community is making these very cheap with the goal of making cnc mills a desktop machine), and can very easily make said gun. Then they buy a parts kit, or even just get the files for milling them out, and pop it together. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRtll3jjU4
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Because you and people like you are openly saying "that's a good first step but we're going to immediately take all of the guns after that" It would be a good thing to take all the guns away from people like you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 02:02
|
|