|
Crowsbeak posted:No, I should have the right to defend myself. quote:I should have the right to if hunt. quote:I should have the right to practice a hobby.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
I'm beginning to see similarities between gun owners and people who play video games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
it's about ethics in gun regulation
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:I'm beginning to see similarities between gun owners and people who play video games. Note that everyone can and will play games obsessively. Access and branding were problems overcome by the mobile market. What I'm saying is everyone is at least susceptible
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No, I should have the right to defend myself. I should have the right to if hunt. I should have the right to practice a hobby. NOw whether I am restricted by how many shots I can fire before reloading. Or whether I can modify said equipment say to attempt to turn it into a machine gun. I can talk about that. I can back that, gladly However to attempt to suggest I and millions of others who shoot and whose families have shot for generations is a no go. JUst to let you know. THe wanting to ban's guns thing kind of proves idiots like the NRA right. Self defence with firearms is a fantasy, nobody has the right to do something solely because it's a hobby ("But ephebophilia is my hobby guys  "), yes let's do talk about ways to make things purpose built for killing safer (farmers can have bolts, exterminators can have poison, game managers can have firearms), you don't have the right to own slaves just because your great granddaddy could so your argument about generations of shooters is particularly fantastic bullshit, and if given the above you still want to see the NRA in the moral right, you're a monster who needs to be marginalized, have we missed anything
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's really important that gun violence, which is 14 times more likely to kill black men than white men, continue unabated so I can play at revolution out in the woods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Have you actually thought any of this through, or do you like millions of Americans just parrot talking points that even remotely sound like they have anything to do with your actual rights? Tell me this, are you in a well regulated militia? And just lol if your answer is "Yes, I'm a III Percenter / Oathkeeper, we are very well regulated thank you."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Mulva posted:No I was being quite literal. Who do you get to make the call? The people we have right now aren't very good at it. It's not like, say, the Democrats haven't had power since the AWB. They could have, nominally, done more about guns. They did not. Even the things they proposed were quite stupid. The Republicans frankly can't go anti-gun because their base would eat them alive. So who do you get to do something about guns in a country where it doesn't seem like it's particularly electable to be for very strong gun control? Some experts would be nice. The CDC experienced a well-documented research freeze on gun violence (I'm sure DR will come in and say they didn't but it's a documented fact that they basically couldn't get funding or grants for the last two decades, even under Obama). If you don't trust the CDC, set up a special commission to research gun violence and propose sensible reforms. This may involve a few years of data collection. This is pretty much the way better legislation gets made in almost every field that isn't highly politicized (although that's becoming quite scarce).
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Self defence with firearms is a fantasy Lol what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Wakko posted:I urge you to read the article a little more critically. Is it possible a black woman creating a community organization in Chicago has internalized racism when it comes to reducing violence? I suppose. Regardless, the actual results generated would seem to bear some examination. Having neighborhood moms sit at street corners with "Moms on Patrol" shirts isn't going to end gun violence. Even if it keeps unruly teens from getting into gang fights out of boredom, it's not going to stop things like domestic abuse or spree killings. But what struck me the most, reading articles about MASK, was the similarity between their tactics and abusive police tactics. Their idea of monitoring crime-prone intersections and preventing youths from gathering rather reminds me of Baltimore PD's practice of "clearing corners" by shooing away any gathering of young black males they saw on or near a street corner. And other articles about them describe poo poo like harassing kids for not wearing belts or being outside after dark, which sounds an awful lot like the community adopting "broken windows" policing for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
sd6 posted:Lol what? Self defense with firearms as a net benefit to your personal safety is a fantasy. I'm going to laugh as you roll out one of the well worn exceptions to this rule that republicans keep on hand after
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
gently caress, I don't even teach pure pistol marksmanship anymore after the Nth hick who bought his 45 to assuage his safety concerns swept legs, limbs, and sometimes chests and heads with the muzzle over and over. My spouse finally had it with that, so my like #1 lifelong hobby is out because some dimwits with irrecoverably broken brains driven by fear and paranoia who have no business holding a pistol seem to be the majority of shooters these days. I earnestly pray for their families.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
I own and use guns as a hobby too but if I could snap my fingers and get rid of all privately owned guns, including my own, I'd do it without hesitation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I own and use guns as a hobby too but if I could snap my fingers and get rid of all privately owned guns, including my own, I'd do it without hesitation. The day I have to give up skeet is going to be intensely difficult, because that touches on the hobbies of swinging around a 28ga and reloading
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You or a member of your family is more likely to be injured or killed by a gun you own than to ever have to use it in self-defense. Guns do not decrease the risks to your family (gun control does though!) THat's our right to decide. Not yours. VitalSigns posted:No democracy on earth bans hunting. This fear is fantastical, it is wholly the creation of (ironically) the very capitalists you hate who profit by their practically unrestricted ability to supply criminals and mass shooters with the weapons to commit their murders. Hey plenty of people in this thread have been fantasizing it. VitalSigns posted:Ah there it is. Okay then why did you waste our time faking concern for the imaginary poor and PoC who will be hurt by murderous gungrabbing cops, when you actually don't care about them at all and will continue to insist that shooty fun-time hobbies trump the poor and PoC victims of gun violence. Btw my hobby is exploding large fertilizer bombs on my large private estate, which poses no danger to the public, do I have the unrestricted right to practice my hobby as much as I want without government oversight or regulation on my purchases of my hobby materials? [/quote] Hey if you can pass a background check? Sure. I won't let you suffer just because some sickos who should have been sent to camps in Alaska use fertilizer for violence. Also lol now gun owners equal slave owners. Yeah tell that to the Huey P Newton Gun club. I am sure they'll be really understanding. What this proves to me is that liberals cannot be trusted on guns. They seek to ban all. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I ma just pointing out that trying to take hobbies away that do you no harm are a great way to piss people off. nobody gives a gently caress about your feelings. regular massacres are not something society should have to endure because you have a dumb hobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
You're a lovely human being if you put your hobby above the lives and wellbeing of thousands of your fellow human beings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
botany posted:nobody gives a gently caress about your feelings. regular massacres are not something society should have to endure because you have a dumb hobby. Sad that we can't fix the society instead of banning the things we could be using to start fixing said society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
The Groper posted:Sad that we can't fix the society instead of banning the things we could be using to start fixing said society. Who, specifically, are you advocating that we murder with guns?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Serious question: Why is the 2nd amendment treated like a blank check? It says the right to bare arms. The first amendment allows for free speech but it has some limitations on it - slander, fire in a crowded room, libel, etc. Why couldn't we limit the manufacture of all new handguns and semi autos? Yeah, you can own your hunting rifle or a shotgun - you would still be able to reasonably bare arms. context: I was raised in an extremely pro gun household. I went to the range with my dad every Saturday but guns don't give me any sense of comfort. Our handguns, for example, only were used to bring terror. My dad screaming at my mom with a handgun against her head asking if she was ready to die was a particularly egregious example but the time that we thought someone was breaking into our house - the shotgun was plenty effective as a deterrent. (edit) - legit though, dogs are a way better deterrent against robbing a house. Happy dobermans with big floppy ears scare the poo poo of people. silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Who, specifically, are you advocating that we murder with guns? People that own/use guns. The loop should close itself within a couple weeks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:THat's our right to decide. Not yours. It isn't actually. It decidedly, explicitly isn't your right to decide whether to significantly endanger your living dependents. Crowsbeak posted:Hey plenty of people in this thread have been fantasizing it. You should definitely take a serious policy stance based on what a very few guys on a dead comedy forum have in the overwhelming minority said. This is like forming an entire political hate sect around the fear that the likes of hyperfar left conspiratorial nuts that even the Dems thread would and has poo poo upon are imminently going to become a majority unless stopped. Far and away do americans support the notion that guns should be permitted on at least a provisional hobbyist basis of some sort, whether it's rental at ranges/clubs or whatever dozens of proposals are floating arout The Inter Net, so stop hammering away on this strawman. It's pathetic. Crowsbeak posted:Btw my hobby is exploding large fertilizer bombs on my large private estate, which poses no danger to the public, do I have the unrestricted right to practice my hobby as much as I want without government oversight or regulation on my purchases of my hobby materials? This is an incredibly awful post. Even on private property are there safety standards for devices of certain explosive power. On what you can permit to be spilled into water, into the ground, burned in the air. Private property is not sovereignty. Crowsbeak posted:Btw my hobby is exploding large fertilizer bombs on my large private estate, which poses no danger to the public, do I have the unrestricted right to practice my hobby as much as I want without government oversight or regulation on my purchases of my hobby materials? You don't actually. There are restrictions on what you can do on private estate dependent upon the explosive potential and configuration of what you're handling. And there you go again with the hobby thing, as if that means quite literally anything before the law. Crowsbeak posted:Also lol now gun owners equal slave owners. Yeah tell that to the Huey P Newton Gun club. I am sure they'll be really understanding. You made the argument "this is our birthright, we've done this for generations." Having read ample antebellum literature, this is absolutely precisely the same argument used in the past. It is invalid. Can you explain to me how it is not invalid, or can you only divert to an unrelated "he called us slave owners!" defense? Crowsbeak posted:What this proves to me is that liberals cannot be trusted on guns. They seek to ban all. I don't think we should ban all, but I would not hesitate to at least inquire whether you should be permitted to own them. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:Serious question: Why is the 2nd amendment treated like a blank check? It says the right to bare arms. The first amendment allows for free speech but it has some limitations on it - slander, fire in a crowded room, libel, etc. Why couldn't we limit the manufacture of all new handguns and semi autos? Yeah, you can own your hunting rifle or a shotgun - you would still be able to reasonably bare arms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
I get the sense Crowsbeak is just going to keep arguing, "These are my rights!" despite nearly each one he lists as examples not being blank check--or even limited--rights. I think this is why gun control discussions so rapidly devolve into philosophical discussions. They really can't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny before the law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
botany posted:nobody gives a gently caress about your feelings. regular massacres are not something society should have to endure because you have a dumb hobby. And the majority of Americans would have want nothing to do with some of you peoples initiative to disarm families and ban hunting. Ban expanded magazines? Yeah that would pass? Ban modifications to guns like say turning them into automatic rifles. That would easily get even most gun owners on your side. Firearms registerey probably get alot of support for that even a large minority of gun owners. Banning same say sales via gun shows would also probably get alot of support. But a lot of the stuff being posted here will get you nowhere ever. Really am glad you people will never be near power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Better Things Are Not Possible, the leftist edition You probably shouldn't use "Mah pragmatism!" as the fall back argument after 2016.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:And the majority of Americans would have want nothing to do with some of you peoples initiative to disarm families and ban hunting. Ban expanded magazines? Yeah that would pass? Ban modifications to guns like say turning them into automatic rifles. That would easily get even most gun owners on your side. Firearms registerey probably get alot of support for that even a large minority of gun owners. Banning same say sales via gun shows would also probably get alot of support. But a lot of the stuff being posted here will get you nowhere ever. Really am glad you people will never be near power. Also, its a rhetorical trick. If we go down that route, the gun lobby just says "but the vast majority of firearm deaths are caused by pistols and your laws won't stop those so we can't write those laws because you don't know what you're talking about" and if we say "ok, lets ban pistols" we get told "woah, woah, we can't do that because families depend on them for safety, also, what about all those other things we'd totally be on board for banning because of those scary incidents earlier? Try fixing that instead of taking away mah rights, libtard" and we go cyclically. We started talking about banning everything but limited-ammo bolt action rifles because DR et al kept talking about how we were missing the mark trying to regulate things like extended magazines and telling us that semi-autos are so easy to turn automatic that basically laws are useless. So now, we're talking about banning semi-autos because they're so easy to turn to autos, and you're over there being DR's backup saying "hey now, that's too far". If its not far enough, we're told it won't work so we should do it. If its far enough, we're told you won't agree, but maybe you would for something less comprehensive. It just is goalpost dodging constantly. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Self defense with firearms as a net benefit to your personal safety is a fantasy. Not republican for one, not a fan of the interpretation of 2A that considers gun ownership a right either, but this is not what you originally said. If you want to argue that the problems with guns outweigh the benefits, that's one thing (and given the statistics of suicides and accidents you'd have a fairly compelling argument), but the statement i quoted by itself is pretty hyperbolic, cause it basically implies that no one has ever defended themself from violent criminals with a firearm
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:And the majority of Americans would have want nothing to do with some of you peoples initiative to disarm families and ban hunting. Ban expanded magazines? Yeah that would pass? Ban modifications to guns like say turning them into automatic rifles. That would easily get even most gun owners on your side. Firearms registerey probably get alot of support for that even a large minority of gun owners. Banning same say sales via gun shows would also probably get alot of support. But a lot of the stuff being posted here will get you nowhere ever. Has anyone actually disagreed with you about the specific point "Majority of americans don't want this?" Are you aware that you keep having to come back to this first square? Has anyone argued with you about expanded background checks and wait timers, which are indeed overwhelmingly popular in the US? Is someone in this thread telling you that firearm registry legislation would probably not pass? Why are you stuck in a loop? I'll help you out: you keep starting with moderate arguments, then you branch out to stuff about rights and hobbies that gets slashed almost instantaneously, then throw out the whole bag and try to restart. Maybe engage on the specific points of disagreement with the general consensus of the thread instead of coming back to the basics everyone's agreed on for the umpteenth time as if that will help you advance your case on the law front. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
This just keeps circling back to "nothing would work perfectly so why do anything at all!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak, let's set down some points we can agree on and establish some common ground from which we can build, OK? Try these for me: - Weapons are, like any device, mechanism or substance that extends our ability to accomplish a given task, tools. - Weapons are tools that specifically multiply and extend our ability to destroy objects and people quickly and easily. - Different weapons have different ranges and capabilities. - Some tools are overkill and unnecessary for self defense, and are rightfully banned, to prevent their circulation and use in civil society. RPG's, fully auto rifles, etc. - Mentally unstable people should not have easy access to these overkill tools. Can we agree on these points as a basis? Are you with me so far? r.y.f.s.o. fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Work with me here. I'm a lifelong gun owner and advocate for responsible marksmanship as a hobby and skill starting with poo poo like Ruger 10/22s as early as late childhood. On what points do you think we agree? Background checks, registries? Mental health and wellbeing checks, perhaps? Especially if we improve the delivery of mental health care in the US? Where do you think you and I disagree? Personal ownership with storage in the home, rifles vs pistols? Concealed carry? Personal pistol ownership? Step 3 of this ten step program to have something more than a facebook slapfest: we have a useful, precise discussion on the rights--and even subjective feelings--surrounding our contention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Has anyone actually disagreed with you about the specific point "Majority of americans don't want this?" Are you aware that you keep having to come back to this first square? It's a propaganda strategy. He knows his arguments do not convince, so he attempts to exhaust his audience by repeating himself. https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/808750564284702720
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's a propaganda strategy. He knows his arguments do not convince, so he attempts to exhaust his audience by repeating himself. It is also just the most common way conservatives, my old self included, have seen this argued. I'm not going to hold that against anyone, at least from the outset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Gort posted:It's a propaganda strategy. He knows his arguments do not convince, so he attempts to exhaust his audience by repeating himself. Then again Kasparov believes the pharaohs were Russian kings who lived in the middle ages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:Crowsbeak, let's set down some points we can agree on and establish some common ground from which we can build, OK? Background checks. Yes. Expanded magazine, ban yes. Hell personally don't much like us selling semis that are easily modified. Ban on alot of modifying, yes. Ban on schizophrenics yes. Requirements on probationary period for felons. Yes. Requirements of no same day purchse with no gunshow exception for anything made after 1900 yes. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:And the majority of Americans would have want nothing to do with some of you peoples initiative to disarm families and ban hunting. Ban expanded magazines? Yeah that would pass? Ban modifications to guns like say turning them into automatic rifles. That would easily get even most gun owners on your side. Firearms registerey probably get alot of support for that even a large minority of gun owners. Banning same say sales via gun shows would also probably get alot of support. But a lot of the stuff being posted here will get you nowhere ever. Really am glad you people will never be near power. You know, if you support sane measures like gun registries, banning any form of automatic rifles, building a registry, etc. you can inform your elected representatives. If those representatives disagree with you, you could vote for representatives that support those reasonable measures. Maybe even campaign for them. One thing you can't really do is support political figures who want to reclaim every privately owned gun in america and throw them into a volcanoes. You can't because as rad as that would be those politicians don't exist. Sadly, there are many politicians who support unregulated use of weapons designed for mass murder that feign sympathy when those weapons are used for mass murder. I wouldn't vote for those guys if I were you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:THat's our right to decide. Not yours. Much like retiremen...oh wait no we tried to fix the problem of Americans willfully not saving. Guess peoples' rights are sometimes trumped by their stupidity. i am harry fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Jokes on us, the illuminati are already in control theyre just waiting for the right moment to assert direct control of human history. All the mass shootings are just practicing stage craft for when they unleash their real plan, socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:We're at the part now where JeffersonClay attempts a face turn by feigning empathy but is foiled when his lanyard snags on the turnbuckle and Dead Reckoning hits him with a steel chair while disingenuously arguing for steel chair regulation. I've been making this argument since the early days of the democratic primary, friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 15:57
|
|