|
Killer robot posted:The first thing to remember about Sandy Hook is that "Nothing happened after Sandy Hook" is a lie. A bunch of things happened after Sandy Hook, important things. And none of them were good for Democrats, gun control advocates, or people looking to reduce gun crime. I completely agree, there should be a well-thought out law that could be equally easily and firmly interpreted both by gun owners and general public, with no loopholes or illogical constructs. The law, in it's entirety, should be: "If it is designed to shoot out bullets, you can't own it." I'm sure the gun enthusiast community will welcome such a turn towards clarity in gun control, since it's what they always wanted.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
That kind of argument is exactly why any gun ban should be a total ban, no exceptions. If you don't get every single one, gun humpers will cry that it's useless at stopping gun crime so it must just be a spiteful excuse to oppress us  wah wah wah.Go full Malaysia: possession of an unlicensed firearm is the automatic death penalty, ps there are no licenses. That's the logical conclusion of the gunhumper argument "well gun laws aren't effective enough so it's unfair", boom aint nothing more effective than that so you got what you wanted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Why? Is that a better look? VitalSigns posted:I used to think this. I grew up in a Republican family and even after I realized conservatism is a bullshit intellectually bankrupt ideology that doesn't work, but for complex and difficult reasons that are easily papered over by simplistic common-sense-sounding salesmanship and folksy aw shucks "people like us" propaganda, I still thought Republican voters were basically good and decent people who just had some different opinions and some mistaken ideas and on many subjects were just confused by relentless corporate propaganda. No matter how hard it is you have to appeal to either reason or empathy. You can't kill them, and scaring them will only make them more resolute. I don't see the point in engaging in politics if you have the beliefs you do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
If Dems don't run ads with videos of bullets raining down on country music fans in Las Vegas followed by their Republican opponent trying to explain why they won't support any form of gun control, then the Dems aren't even trying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
Scenes of dead school kids and concert-goers show up on your TV. Bill O'Reilly: "This is just the price of freedom." Narrator: "(insert GOP candidate name here) wants this to be the future for your children. Please vote for (Dem candidate) for a safer America."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
The Dems just threw away the last election desperately trying to appeal to suburban Republicans, you really think they're going to touch this with an eleven-foot pole?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
LBJ's Daisy ad (the one with the nuclear explosion) worked. The problem is that most Dems are afraid to be controversial while the GOP goes ahead and equates Democrats with bin Laden and Mexican/black/Muslim rapists. As Michelle said, "When they go low, we go high (and lose elections)."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:No matter how hard it is you have to appeal to either reason or empathy. You can't kill them, and scaring them will only make them more resolute. I don't see the point in engaging in politics if you have the beliefs you do. What? There's plenty of reasons to engage in politics aside from trying to appeal to the nonexistent better nature of affluent fygm suburbanites and inbred white nationalists. You can debate what policies Democrats should pursue, fight against corporate influence, get out the vote, attend party meetings, push for policies and candidates that excite disillusioned voters, donate, etc. Limiting our conception of politics to "slobber on Reagan's decomposing cock and pal around with war criminals in the hopes a republican will like you" is how Hillary lost the most winnable election in US history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
"No guns ever" is a stupid platform when some people still live in places where hunting deer etc. for food is a good and useful thing, also before you do some lovely dance about "hicks" or whatever those people are generally not rolling in money and anything to live off the land helps, I've lived around exactly those kinds of people in the country before and no you don't have to be some right wing isolationist to do that either. If you want to have a big dumb dream legislation, only allow bolt actions or shotguns and you have to specifically own them with proof that they're being used for hunting. Also put Bill O'Reilly in the chair because jesus fuckin christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Most people who support a No Guns ever policy also support an extended welfare system where people don't need to hunt to survive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Most people who support a No Guns ever policy also support an extended welfare system where people don't need to hunt to survive. That'd be great too, I'm not arguing against doing anything with what I said either just to clarify, people don't need a lot of the stupid guns they hoard right now, I just get annoyed by implications that they don't have real purpose for some people who aren't just trying to play tacticool armyman.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Most people who support a No Guns ever policy also support an extended welfare system where people don't need to hunt to survive. I was unaware how many hunter/gatherer societies existed in the US still
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I was unaware how many hunter/gatherer societies existed in the US still Poorer people living in the country where the store can be a good ways away, you don't have the money for all the gas to constantly drive way out for groceries or whatever else and back, so you shoot deer, rabbit, hogs or something like that and you store/cook the things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I was unaware how many hunter/gatherer societies existed in the US still Privilege is pretty blinding. Yardbomb posted:Poorer people living in the country where the store can be a good ways away, you don't have the money for all the gas to constantly drive way out for groceries or whatever else and back, so you shoot deer, rabbit, hogs or something like that and you store/cook the things. Don't forget the times when a coyote tries to eat your only goat/chickens/your sister. A gun is handy there too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Don't forget the times when a coyote tries to eat your only goat/chickens/your sister. A gun is handy there too. Admittedly that too sometimes, coyotes are real pieces of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Privilege is pretty blinding. An argument I won't buy from LeJackal  Yardbomb posted:Poorer people living in the country where the store can be a good ways away, you don't have the money for all the gas to constantly drive way out for groceries or whatever else and back, so you shoot deer, rabbit, hogs or something like that and you store/cook the things. So.....less than 5% of the population? Got it. Its worth noting I'm a firearms owner, and am not anti-gun, but I'm also not LeJackal level of "Gun's Don't Kill People, People Do" NRA talking points, nor do I buy into the idea that firearms legislation won't work because "Criminals will just buy guns illegally" LeJackal posted:More guns does not equal more deaths, but yes; every freedom has a cost. All human rights are one half of the balance between security and autonomy. Everyone would be 'safer' in a highly restrictive police state but that isn't the social system we'd prefer. Holy poo poo, are you a Sean Hannity parachute account? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I was unaware how many hunter/gatherer societies existed in the US still Alaskans depend more on hunting than any other state if I recall correctly. It's just a bitch to get things up there cheaply.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:"No guns ever" is a stupid platform when some people still live in places where hunting deer etc. for food is a good and useful thing, also before you do some lovely dance about "hicks" or whatever those people are generally not rolling in money and anything to live off the land helps, I've lived around exactly those kinds of people in the country before and no you don't have to be some right wing isolationist to do that either. If you want to have a big dumb dream legislation, only allow bolt actions or shotguns and you have to specifically own them with proof that they're being used for hunting. Over here, if you want hunt, you must go through a process to become a registered huntsman - you must take courses on wildlife management as a profession, as well as on basic ecology and you get assigned to a region, and have duties associated with your position. In addition to the privilege of hunting animals that are over their population target, you also need to protect nesting grounds and lairs; guard the region from poachers; help with curtailing disease outbreaks; take samples of found carcasses for the epidemiology office; aid with estimating wildlife populations and their movements and submit plans of the following hunting season according to your findings; prevent wildlife from causing property damage etc. Basically you can hunt, but it is expected that alongside with it you act as a steward of the land from which you take. It makes sense, and works well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Alaskans depend more on hunting than any other state if I recall correctly. It's just a bitch to get things up there cheaply. Not denying that in the least, I was being sarcastic, because LeJackal takes that rationale and applies it to the whole US as if Native Tribes and Frontiersmen in the Alaksan or Wyoming wilderness are proof that firearms should not be regulated. I mean, you are familiar with LeJackal's schtick, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Stretch Marx posted:I don't think you guys have considered ~the optics~. I mean, optics became a joke in tge first place because democrat apologists would come up with blatantly wrong takes on how X bad thing is actually a machivellian ploy to make democrats look good/republicans bad. Gun control is a pretty valid argument wrt optics; few people feel strongly for gun control for it to sway their vote, and many feel strongly against gun control. And I say this as someone in favor of background and mental health checks + voluntary buybacks. But until lobbyists are regulated the NRA will turn any attempt to appeal to reason with gun owners into a black/white (hurr) situation. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Over here, if you want hunt, you must go through a process to become a registered huntsman - you must take courses on wildlife management as a profession, as well as on basic ecology and you get assigned to a region, and have duties associated with your position. In addition to the privilege of hunting animals that are over their population target, you also need to protect nesting grounds and lairs; guard the region from poachers; help with curtailing disease outbreaks; take samples of found carcasses for the epidemiology office; aid with estimating wildlife populations and their movements and submit plans of the following hunting season according to your findings; prevent wildlife from causing property damage etc. Basically you can hunt, but it is expected that alongside with it you act as a steward of the land from which you take. Well good for y'all!!! And until this country implements a program like that (it won't) I have zero problem with people hunting for sustenance. Believe it or not, most of the hunters I know aren't gun nuts & they're actually pretty good conservationists without the credentials. They're also typically underemployed or unemployed & hunting is an activity that keeps food on the table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Over here, if you want hunt, you must go through a process to become a registered huntsman - you must take courses on wildlife management as a profession, as well as on basic ecology and you get assigned to a region, and have duties associated with your position. In addition to the privilege of hunting animals that are over their population target, you also need to protect nesting grounds and lairs; guard the region from poachers; help with curtailing disease outbreaks; take samples of found carcasses for the epidemiology office; aid with estimating wildlife populations and their movements and submit plans of the following hunting season according to your findings; prevent wildlife from causing property damage etc. Basically you can hunt, but it is expected that alongside with it you act as a steward of the land from which you take. Yeah stuff like that'd be great, it unfortunately would likely never happen because  but no joke the kinds of dudes I lived around already did half of that on their own (Helping curb overpopulation, running people off who occasionally would just show up to mow things down and gently caress up the place, the stuff from that kind of realm), so something like that would be a really neat system I'd love to see here too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Well good for y'all!!! And until this country implements a program like that (it won't) I have zero problem with people hunting for sustenance. Believe it or not, most of the hunters I know aren't gun nuts & they're actually pretty good conservationists without the credentials. They're also typically underemployed or unemployed & hunting is an activity that keeps food on the table. Arr you Alaskan or live in a sparsely populated area? Because otherwise, your friends are probably hunting out of season, and no, reverting hunter gatherers is not a long term solution to the growing poverty class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:See yeah, stuff like that'd be great, no joke the kinds of dudes I lived around already did half of that on their own (Helping curb overpopulation, running people off who occasionally would just show up to mow things down and gently caress up the place, the stuff from that kind of realm), so something like that would be a really neat system I'd love to see here too. We already have that system in the form of Park Rangers & DW&F wardens. There's also a fairly robust conservation effort across the country among hunters & poaching is generally frowned upon. But people who hunt for the sole reason to eat shouldn't be put thru a months-long program, especially where there's a cost involved, which there would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Arr you Alaskan or live in a sparsely populated area? Because otherwise, your friends are probably hunting out of season, and no, reverting hunter gatherers is not a long term solution to the growing poverty class. You got it all figured out, don't you? You know what these folks are doing without a single shred of evidence. If only we could all be as omniscient as you. No, in fact, they don't hunt out-of-season. Yes, they do have a fundamental respect for the land & the game that they hunt & fish. No, they don't have the means to constantly travel into the nearest town/city to buy groceries, at least not with any frequency. They also grow vegetables aplenty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:You got it all figured out, don't you? You know what these folks are doing without a single shred of evidence. If only we could all be as omniscient as you. Got it, everything is solved, including poverty, by reverting back to hunter-gatherer societies. Everybody go back, we hosed up. C'mon now. C2C - 2.0 posted:We already have that system in the form of Park Rangers & DW&F wardens. I'd point out that these programs are steadily cut by the same groups pushing the poo poo your selling. Endangered Species? Let's pushing open hunting of hibernating wildlife in their den. Species Recovery? Nah, hunt em to extinction. Cut the park rangers, cut BLM, cut rangers, sell the land to corporations. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
I'm actually ok with that family starving to death if it prevents the next 60+ person massacre. But I still support the State just giving them food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Got it, everything is solved, including poverty, by reverting back to hunter-gatherer societies. Everybody go back, we hosed up. I said nothing about everyone reverting back to hunter-gatherer societies. Nothing even close. I was trying to quell any potential demonization of people in this country who rely on hunting/fishing for food. That's it. As to your second point, I don't know a hunter/fisher here who supports public land being in the hands of anyone but the public. I don't know many folks who make enough to own/lease private land. I also know plenty who are into coastal restoration here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm actually ok with that family starving to death if it prevents the next 60+ person massacre. But I still support the State just giving them food. Which would be fine. Outline the program .
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:Which would be fine. Outline the program . No, thank you. In before "if this guy can't figure out every detail of how to ban guns then obviously there's no point in banning guns"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Most people who support a No Guns ever policy also support an extended welfare system where people don't need to hunt to survive. Um  So no more hunting anymore ever, even for feeding oneself? This just seems real out of touch Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm actually ok with that family starving to death if it prevents the next 60+ person massacre. But I still support the State just giving them food. Yup C2C - 2.0 posted:I said nothing about everyone reverting back to hunter-gatherer societies. Nothing even close. I was trying to quell any potential demonization of people in this country who rely on hunting/fishing for food. That's it. There's a difference between 'demonization' and 'Your gun regulations are just oppressing people! Massacres are a price of freedom!' And there can be a ready balance between 'They need firearms for hunting/survival' and 'They need a 30+ round magazine with an AR-15 or AK with Semi-Auto' Somehow, Hunter-gatherers survived just fine on single fire weapons, including bows and arrows, for thousands of years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No, thank you. I'm not asking you to figure out a gun ban. I don't fish with a gun & I can take deer/turkey with a bow just fine (okay, maybe not turkey. They're loving sneaky bastards). I'm simply asking how does the state provide food? At least in Louisiana, the barrier to entry is hilariously low to get SMAP. I qualified when I was unemployed & received $15 a month. Unless you want exact numbers, I wasn't rolling in money either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Almost all guns fit for use as hunting tools by the poor would not be affected by a ban on the kind of weapons suitable for shooting rampages. You also don't need a 100% gun ban to colossally reduce gun murders, you just need to make any kind of effort at sane gun restrictions. If you banned 100% all centerfire semi-automatic rifles with detachable box magazines for instance, the ability of poor hunters to hunt would be affected pretty much... not at all... because hunting is mainly done with bolt action rifles, and pump action or single/2 shot shotguns. It would make it much harder to kill 50+ people in one sitting though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Almost all guns fit for use as hunting tools by the poor would not be affected by a ban on the kind of weapons suitable for shooting rampages. Right There's ways to do gun control that don't involve "no more hunting ever, the gov sends you a welfare check to spend at the grocery store"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yup But I'm all for gun restrictions. I own a bolt-action & a shotgun, both for the purpose of hunting. I don't need anything else. I also own a bow. Hell, if they called for a mandatory buyback, the only thing I currently hunt that wouldn't be feasible with a bow is ducks. And I can't hit 'em for poo poo with my shotgun anyway. I'm not pro-gun by any stretch of the imagination. As I've said previously, I don't personally see any overlap between the hunters I know & the gnarly 2A crowd. I'm also not saying they don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:But I'm all for gun restrictions. I own a bolt-action & a shotgun, both for the purpose of hunting. I don't need anything else. I also own a bow. Hell, if they called for a mandatory buyback, the only thing I currently hunt that wouldn't be feasible with a bow is ducks. And I can't hit 'em for poo poo with my shotgun anyway. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Worth noting these posts usually read "I know some poor farmer who would surely be ruined by the Democrat ban on semi auto weapons", not "I'm a poor farmer and I would be ruined by the Democrat ban on semi auto weapons"
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Worth noting these posts usually read "I know some poor farmer who would surely be ruined by the Democrat ban on semi auto weapons", not "I'm a poor farmer and I would be ruined by the Democrat ban on semi auto weapons" Anyone who claims the former is instantly going to recite the phrase "slippery slope" & doesn't give the first poo poo about people who hunt for food or, in the case of farmers, probably curb nuisance animals too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Worth noting these posts usually read "I know some poor farmer who would surely be ruined by the Democrat ban on semi auto weapons", not "I'm a poor farmer and I would be ruined by the Democrat ban on semi auto weapons" Nobody here mentioned semi-autos though, it was that "No guns period" would be another kick in the ribs to another class of poor people, who mostly use things like pump actions, over and unders or bolt actions. I could even dispel the "It's only other people" thing because again, living around those people I took part too, venison is tasty and if it saved you long drives then even cooler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:36
|
|