|
M_Gargantua posted:But what does that have to do with people needing to own deadly weapons that are particularly good at killing people? Yes maybe we can finally knee jerk into banning them, but why was there a need for civilian ownership in the first place. Naked Bear posted:If you would like to understand the context in which the second amendment was proposed and written, please read David Vandercoy's paper: The History of the Second Amendmend (pdf link). I strongly recommend that everyone take a few minutes out of their day to read this, regardless of whether they are supportive of or critical of the second amendment. Knowledge is power, yo. As an aside, I'd like to remind everyone about how it has always been perfectly lawful for folks to make their own firearms at home. Parts, tools, and plans are already out there for people to lawfully make their own firearms, and in 2017 it's easier than ever. Right now, I would presume that many are doing it for the DIY aspect, because it's certainly not cheaper than just buying a gun over the counter. Banning more things, aside from being a non-solution, will only serve to expand that market, thus making it even less expensive and easier to jump into. We all know how effective bans are at removing various things from the market (hint: they're not).
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
If ownership of semi automatic rifles is necessary for self defense against a destructive government then we should do what I (completely seriously) tell the CSPAM thread all the time, arm and train minority communities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
I completely agree with that! The good news is that the one really good thing Trump has done (unintentionally  ) has been to inspire more folks to learn about firearms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:If ownership of semi automatic rifles is necessary for self defense against a destructive government then we should do what I (completely seriously) tell the CSPAM thread all the time, arm and train minority communities. Gonna be hard pressed to get me to disagree with arming minority communities and training them for proper community defense. That's absolutely something that should be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Naked Bear posted:I completely agree with that! The good news is that the one really good thing Trump has done (unintentionally I bought my first gun after watching Trump give a nice soft kiss to the alt-right after Charlottesville!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
You know all of the anti-ban arguments were identical in Australia yet they haven't had any shooting sprees remotely like before, right? There is no good reason for most people to have any type of weapon and I say this as a gun owner. A proper gun buyback and proper registration of hunting/farm weapons would stop the vast majority of the daily gun violence in America. This isn't like we're reinventing the wheel here. Plenty of places around the world have went from armed populace to not and have been almost entirely free of gun related massacres since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You know all of the anti-ban arguments were identical in Australia yet they haven't had any shooting sprees remotely like before, right? There is no good reason for most people to have any type of weapon and I say this as a gun owner. A proper gun buyback and proper registration of hunting/farm weapons would stop the vast majority of the daily gun violence in America. Did those countries have sections in their government's founding documents inherently protecting the existence of an armed populace? Seriously curious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Australia was actually very federalist and all gun laws were ran by the individual states. The 2A makes it more difficult for sure, but as for the matter of effectiveness we only need to look to the rest of the world. See also healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
[quote="“Mr. Nice!”" post="“477052661”"] You know all of the anti-ban arguments were identical in Australia yet they haven’t had any shooting sprees remotely like before, right? There is no good reason for most people to have any type of weapon and I say this as a gun owner. A proper gun buyback and proper registration of hunting/farm weapons would stop the vast majority of the daily gun violence in America. This isn’t like we’re reinventing the wheel here. Plenty of places around the world have went from armed populace to not and have been almost entirely free of gun related massacres since. [/quote] How do you determine what the criteria would be for a proper gun buy-back would be, or describe a "farm gun?" Why would people who live in rural areas be more privileged to own a firearm than those in urban areas? Further, given that police response times to some predominantly minority urban areas are quite high (or that minority communities are also victims of police violence themselves), why should they be denied lawful forms of self defense while whiter, rural communities can retain that capability? I'm asking this in a good faith attempt to not engage in the kind of pedantry or semantics that end up derailing a lot of these conversations. FWIW, I had to jump through all kinds of hoops to legally purchase a firearm where I live (DC), including being fingerprinted and photographed at the main police station over two visits that required me to take time off of work (I'm a salaried employee), pay nearly $200 in fees between the one FFL in the district and the background check, and that process will repeat if I ever buy another gun here. While I'm generally pretty OK with this arrangement, I'm privileged enough that I can afford both the time and money to stay within the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Like if you legit have livestock, it makes sense to own a shotgun or two and some hunting rifles. You do not need an ar-15 with a bump stock. Basically if the only purpose of the weapon is killing people (handguns, assault rifles, etc) it should be banned from regular civilian use. This is common sense unless you really think that an armed populace is going to overthrow the government. I hazard that even if every gun owner banded together now that it couldn't be done. The original intent of the 2nd is null in a modern context.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Like if you legit have livestock, it makes sense to own a shotgun or two and some hunting rifles. Frankly, I'll agree with you that bump stocks are loving dumb and don't serve a legitimate purpose. I'm really quite okay with them going away. I also think that  chat about THE GUBMINT and mass insurrection is basically Brackenchat.I realize that we're veering close to that semantics chat that I said I wanted to avoid, but "assault rifles" are already tightly regulated by, well, the same legislation that bump stocks attempt to circumvent. If we're talking about a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, then there's no real difference between an AR-15 or a Mini-14 (commonly regarded as a ranch gun) beyond features that don't affect how the weapon functions (ie pistol grip, flash hider, etc.) I'm sure you know that as a gun owner and a vet, and apologies if I'm somehow coming across as condescending because that is not my intent. If I could, I'd make every gun in the world disappear in a flash. Until I rub the right lamp and get that wish, I'll still believe in an individual right to firearms ownership. I don't hold that belief because of some slavish devotion to 2A or rejection of regulations en masse, but from personal experience in talking with survivors of Hurricane Katrina, and being in some seriously hosed up places and meeting people who had been victimized before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
See I can't justify arguing that a semi-automatic handgun is not primarily ideal as a defense weapon since its something you can conceivably carry often should the need arise. But youre not going to be walking around town with a mini-14 for self defense and deer hunting at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You know all of the anti-ban arguments were identical in Australia yet they haven't had any shooting sprees remotely like before, right? There is no good reason for most people to have any type of weapon and I say this as a gun owner. A proper gun buyback and proper registration of hunting/farm weapons would stop the vast majority of the daily gun violence in America. Mr. Nice! posted:Australia was actually very federalist and all gun laws were ran by the individual states. Mass shootings are not statistically significant and they are not the lens through which we should seek to regulate firearms. It sounds cold and uncompassionate, but it's the hard, uncomfortable truth. The "we need to do something" attitude is good and admirable, yes, and we certainly should! Mass shootings are just one problem among many. There are a number of root causes of violent crime, for which we must come up with a similar number of solutions. To suggest that there exists a one-size-fits-all solution is disingenuous at best, disastrous at worst. It's quick and easy to propose one solution; it's difficult to tackle a number of different problems and come up with solutions for all of them. That's hard work, but it needs to be done. I think we can all agree that civilian firearm ownership is an overall net positive, details aside. Mr. Nice! posted:Basically if the only purpose of the weapon is killing people (handguns, assault rifles, etc) it should be banned from regular civilian use. This is common sense unless you really think that an armed populace is going to overthrow the government. I hazard that even if every gun owner banded together now that it couldn't be done. The original intent of the 2nd is null in a modern context. e: M_Gargantua posted:See I can't justify arguing that a semi-automatic handgun is not primarily ideal as a defense weapon since its something you can conceivably carry often should the need arise. But youre not going to be walking around town with a mini-14 for self defense and deer hunting at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
As another aside, I'd just like to thank everybody here for being cool cucumbers even though we don't all agree on some things. This seems like a rarity these days, especially through the semi-anonymity of the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
I've spooned with a 2000lb torpedo for a month (literally). That may have skewed my view on weaponry to be more or less reasonable depending on your point of view.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
We all have different experiences. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Naked Bear posted:Please see again the part where I strongly recommended reading this: David Vandercoy is approaching his evidence in the wrong way. While Madison was fearful of government tyranny the majority of the Senate, who made Madison rewrite the amendment, had in mind a military that would assist the government in putting down insurrections and rebellions, as is evident in the Militia Clause. Shay's Rebellion and the government's inability to effectively control the situation had much more to do with the Second Amendment we have than the American Revolution or all the British history he goes in to does. Phone posting or I'd go into greater detail, maybe tonight!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:If ownership of semi automatic rifles is necessary for self defense against a destructive government then we should do what I (completely seriously) tell the CSPAM thread all the time, arm and train minority communities. The NRA used to be about training and safety. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Grem posted:David Vandercoy is approaching his evidence in the wrong way. While Madison was fearful of government tyranny the majority of the Senate, who made Madison rewrite the amendment, had in mind a military that would assist the government in putting down insurrections and rebellions, as is evident in the Militia Clause. Shay's Rebellion and the government's inability to effectively control the situation had much more to do with the Second Amendment we have than the American Revolution or all the British history he goes in to does. I’d really like to read that. Have you or any of the folks here with an academic background read any of the stuff from Carl Bogus (it’s his real name, seriously) regarding the second also being something that was also to put down possible slave revolts? I’d be interested to see if that interpretation is out to lunch or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
There isn't enough name calling itt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Murder posted:There isn't enough name calling itt. We're trying to be civil, fuckface.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Murder posted:There isn't enough name calling itt. Current events thread is thataway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
McNally posted:We're trying to be civil, fuckface. Chucklefuck
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Grem posted:David Vandercoy is approaching his evidence in the wrong way. While Madison was fearful of government tyranny the majority of the Senate, who made Madison rewrite the amendment, had in mind a military that would assist the government in putting down insurrections and rebellions, as is evident in the Militia Clause. Shay's Rebellion and the government's inability to effectively control the situation had much more to do with the Second Amendment we have than the American Revolution or all the British history he goes in to does. Nostalgia4Murder posted:There isn't enough name calling itt. - Also, I am totally not welching on my earlier promise to cite some things. I was a bit distracted by other... tasks, so I apologize for the cock tease. It's on the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:If ownership of semi automatic rifles is necessary for self defense against a destructive government then we should do what I (completely seriously) tell the CSPAM thread all the time, arm and train minority communities. Its funny you say this since armed minorities demonstrating is the last great boogeyman out there that might budge the GOP on gun control. Even then, I'm not entirely sure. A black dude gunned down a bunch of cops in Dallas and they just kinda shrugged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The NRA used to be about training and safety. No poo poo. I remember doing the NRA course as a part of Boy Scouts, and that's what it was. Gun safety training and even some environmentalism teaching us to be responsible stewards of the land. Now the NRA has gone full loving bore white supremacist whackjob cuckoo pants. I honestly want nothing to do with people I meet at ranges anymore. If I didn't bring them there as friends they're almost guaranteed to be some survivalist rear end in a top hat with fantasies of mowing down hordes of
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Arc Light posted:Current events thread is thataway. That thread was pooped from a butt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
There is some small satisfaction to pulling up to gun ranges (which are mostly in the extremely Republican suburbs here) with my Bernie Sanders magnet on the back. But yeah the whole political gun culture disgusts me, especially the thinly veiled (or overt) racism that pervades it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Its funny you say this since armed minorities demonstrating is the last great boogeyman out there that might budge the GOP on gun control. Even then, I'm not entirely sure. A black dude gunned down a bunch of cops in Dallas and they just kinda shrugged. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Mulford Act on a national level brought back if there were enough of the Wrong People owning firearms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Capn Beeb posted:It wouldn't surprise me to see the Mulford Act on a national level brought back if there were enough of the Wrong People owning firearms. I dont think they could even do that. Open carry is huge for the true believers
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Problematic Soup posted:I’d really like to read that. Have you or any of the folks here with an academic background read any of the stuff from Carl Bogus (it’s his real name, seriously) regarding the second also being something that was also to put down possible slave revolts? I’d be interested to see if that interpretation is out to lunch or not. I've read some of Bogus' stuff and he's pretty right on. So this might be a bit thrown together, trying to watch the Rockies lose. Here's Washington's idea of why everyone should be armed. "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." That describes a militia, independent of the military, and shows a belief that everyone should be armed. Why would he think that? Well, this address given to Congress was in 1790, a year before the Bill of Rights was ratified, and three years after Shay's Rebellion. Shay's Rebellion was fought by a group of rebels trying to siege the American armory in Springfield, Massachusetts. At the time America had little to no army, they didn't have the funds to raise one, and they didn't have state militias. Shay's Rebellion was put down by a private militia, and people like George Washington, who had disappeared from public life, were so aghast that no men would take up arms to defend their country from an insurrection that they reappeared and were propelled in to high seats of the government (people like Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson). People act like the words "well-regulated militia" are a side-note in the second amendment, but it is very deliberate language. Washington uses it again after he crushes the Whiskey Rebellion. "The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia would be a genuine source of legislative honor and a perfect title to public gratitude. I therefore entertain a hope that the present session will not pass without carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and thus providing, in the language of the Constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." Notice he says suppress insurrections. So there's a couple of views from Washington, but let's talk about the ideals that the country itself was founded on. The founding fathers were elitists, don't get it twisted. They thought themselves the smartest men in the world, and that the people, realizing that, would accept their rule. Jeffersonian Republicans were the more liberal faction. Madison belongs to this faction. Did they think that everyone should vote? Nope. Just white dudes. They also believed so strongly in the voting system that it would be the way government is changed, not through insurrection. Their check and balance system did not include the people fighting against their government to overcome oppression. "Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights." -Thomas Jefferson So what was Madison's point? The main arguments he makes is in the Federalist Papers, where he defines in three paragraphs that the national army should always be smaller than the total of all militias (about 1/5 the size). To understand his point it's important to understand that the Federalist Papers were written to encourage Americans to support the constitution. Madison is portraying his militias as the main military force in America, more powerful than the army. He wrote about the militias being able to resist the American army, sure, but he also wrote just as much as the militias repelling an invasion from European powers. That's all I have time for tonight, hopefully that gives a decent enough overview. Grem fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I mean basically, like most things in the Constitution, you have to look at how the Supreme Court has interpreted it throughout the years. Did they say in D.C. v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment guarantees every person the right to bear arms? Then fine, that's what it means now. Trying to retroactively say that it was the founder's intent, though, is worthless and in this case pretty wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:One of these days the domestic terrorist is going to be a chemist and that's a conversation post-mortem that I don't think the country is ready for. I fly aloooooot for buisness and am tsa pre cleared. I am a mid twenties white good looking, in shape american male. The only times I have EVER been stopped by tsa is when I wear a shirt I have with the periodic table of elements on the back I got from a conference lmao. 3/4 w the shirt and being stopped
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Syrian Lannister posted:Chucklefuck I always loved chucklefuck and chucklehead. That and dipshit. Just really great insults.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Grem posted:I mean basically, like most things in the Constitution, you have to look at how the Supreme Court has interpreted it throughout the years. Did they say in D.C. v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment guarantees every person the right to bear arms? Then fine, that's what it means now. Trying to retroactively say that it was the founder's intent, though, is worthless and in this case pretty wrong. That was actually one of the things that I read in Gunfight by Henry Winkler, the assertion that Scalia calling the Heller decision an act of originalism was complete bullshit. And yeah, I like the outcome of the Heller decision, but I am also not really wedded to the idea that it’s any way interpreting the original intent of the second correctly. Thank you for taking the time to put all that down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
I think it's a complicated issue and it is going to require introspection on all sides. The fears of those concerning themselves with federalism and protection are already centuries ago realized: the government already out guns it's citizenry. The fears of those who who oppose unrestricted gun ownership are also sadly realized by recent events, however, if we're willing to restrict one amendment, it would be troubling to imagine they could take other's away. I think the reality is that most Americans would rather live with the terrible tragedy if it required no change on their part. I think that arguing the government who would take one right that enshrines tools of violence would take other rights is a logical fallacy. I think that good guys with guns don't stop as much violence as we would hope; and that the proliferation of guns has led to several troubling effects on our society, like police who are fearful of the communities they serve, and have led to more easily committed murders, suicides, and accidents. Guns are not bad. They are a tool and are used to inflict violence upon a subject. Our society is based on egalitarian ideals of freedom and self determination, and people with guns have used them in service of defending those ideas, but many many more are using them to hurt and kill those around them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Re: The NRA, they just uploaded the John Oliver clip from the Orlando shootings in which they discuss the NRA's tactics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Re: The NRA, they just uploaded the John Oliver clip from the Orlando shootings in which they discuss the NRA's tactics. Wait? Like as a refutation or as an acceptance? Wth
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Waroduce posted:I fly aloooooot for buisness and am tsa pre cleared. I am a mid twenties white good looking, in shape american male. The only times I have EVER been stopped by tsa is when I wear a shirt I have with the periodic table of elements on the back I got from a conference lmao. 3/4 w the shirt and being stopped Guns don't kill people, the chemical reactions propelling the bullet do. Also post a picture, you good-looking in-shape American male, you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Wait? Like as a refutation or as an acceptance? Wth I meant to say John Oliver uploaded a clip from his show about the NRA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:55
|
|