|
The Kingfish posted:I am terribly sorry that a maniac killed those people. I should not have a hobby of shooting a single shot wrecked because a monster with a heavily modified semi shot up Las Vegas.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
The Kingfish posted:A substantial majority of gun-related deaths are self-inflicted. Crowsbeak posted:I should not have a hobby of shooting a single shot wrecked because a monster with a heavily modified semi shot up Las Vegas. The Kingfish posted:I am terribly sorry that a maniac killed those people. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I am terribly sorry that a maniac killed those people. Are you being serious?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I should not have a hobby of shooting a single shot wrecked because a monster with a heavily modified semi shot up Las Vegas. I don't think single shot guns are in any danger, but lol if the "but my toy" responses aren't the most pathetic, selfish thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
I dont think we're talking about bolt action and pump action weapons Crowsbeak.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
The lesson is that nobody should have any rights whatsoever because otherwise emotionally stunted assholes will cling to them to defend their choice to be a drag on society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Honestly I feel a lot of this conversation is uneccessary, considering everyone here agrees on mental health checks, safety checks, gun registration, and full automatic bans. The real dumb stuff seems to come from pissing around over Ban All Guns, accessory banning, and a generally petulant refusal to open up to one side or another. The only real argument IMO is for banning/allowing semi-auto guns. My personal stance would be for a ban, with the caveat that they be allowed in heavily monitored ranges and intentionally broken (i.e closed barrel, no firing mechanism, etc) ones for collections/historical value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The lesson is that nobody should have any rights whatsoever because otherwise emotionally stunted assholes will cling to them to defend their choice to be a drag on society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I'd happily listen to your thoughts on ways to decrease the number of drunk driving deaths, or any other alcohol-related deaths that are inflicted by the drinker on other people. If the vast majority of gun-related deaths were self-inflicted, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. Kokoro Wish posted:Difference between owning a car and owning a gun is that you need to be tested, licensed and insured to own and operate a car. Same should be done for guns, which is what most people agree on when it comes to gun regulation. I think gun ownership should be the same way, that you can more or less do as you please and own what you want on private property (so long as it doesn't endanger your neighbors) and that public activity should be regulated by a series of shall-issue licenses, depending on what you want to do. RuanGacho posted:You seem to forget that from the last time around that this doesn't land with me because I don't think humans should drive nor consume alcohol before operating machines. And I'm not just talking about DUI deaths (although those do outnumber firearm homicides). One hospital in Britain found that 21% of their A&E admits were alcohol related. It's also strongly correlated to domestic violence cases. Potato Salad posted:Even an originalist or strict textualist has to admit the Constitution calls for something to be "well regulated"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/politico/status/915973660191739904
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:It really isn't, they've been getting nearly incoherent in some posts. You are pretending to be incapable of figuring this out through primary school levels of rhetorical analysis. You aren't a kindergartner, stop pretending you don't get this. Ignore for a moment any concern about anyone's position on this subject. 1) When someone angrily shows you a list of dead people, what tone do you think they would like to set? Are there possibly any points that someone could try to substantiate or deepen with photos of dead people? 2) What are possible contexts for showing victims of a shooting in Las Vegas? Could one of those contexts be "the shooting in Las Vegas?" 3) What has the poster posted before? This is a forum after all, not a complaints box that goes unread. Given that you are posting here instead of stuffing handwritten notes up your rear end, are you possibly reading other people's posts, and is that even expected of you? If so, what's the poster's existing thoughts on the subjects and contexts your little reptile brain can conjure up from (1) and (2)? What, as a bottom line, could he want someone to try to justify? Is he even asking a real question at all, or is the combination of anger in his post, the hard context of "this is about dead people" that is intended to be as grave as possible, and the guesses you can make about his intended audience as those who disagree with him on something in a gun control chat, pointing to the following idea: it's a largely rhetorical question intended to be impossible to answer ethically within its existing precept. Of course nobody is going to reply to a catch 22 question. It's designed to have no moral answer. He is trying to get you to b think of why there is no easy answer to "explain to me how these dead people are less important than your 2A interpretation." That's a huge can of worms, and his anger is directed at people who are avoiding taking about the human costs in this issue by fiercely clutching other pearls. Tldr If you earnestly think that 50 lives are worth your 2A interpretation, then fess up and say so. The rhetorical question is intended to get people to stop edging around that aspect of the issue through evasiveness or code.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
It's really too bad the Democrats are going to agree to this and call it a victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I should not have a hobby of shooting a single shot wrecked because a monster with a heavily modified semi shot up Las Vegas. That's correct. You're going to have it wrecked by endless, unchanging mass shootings and the aggravation of pointless death and abuse in homes. I'm glad we could have a conversation about scope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you earnestly think that 50 lives are worth your 2A interpretation, then fess up and say so. No? Really most of the anger and big argument that's gone around the thread keeps stemming from people trying to argue with the same fuckers who keep making it really obvious they're either not arguing in good faith or are super deluded, the dumbass MIGF rereg, Dead Reckoning and them. Trying to get any kind of genuine reaction or self-reflection from them seems pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Actually, you only that stuff to operate a car on public roads. Virtually every law related to the operation of motor vehicles is with respect to operating them on public roads, lands, or waterways. I can build a dragster with no plates, that runs on coal slurry, and has no seat belts, and let a felon with a suspended license drive it, and as long as I do it on private property for non-commercial purposes, the state DMV and Highway Patrol won't say squat. I'm curious if you have this somewhere just to c/p in or you actually typed all of it out again
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Ugato posted:I'm curious if you have this somewhere just to c/p in or you actually typed all of it out again
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The lesson is that nobody should have any rights whatsoever because otherwise emotionally stunted assholes will cling to them to defend their choice to be a drag on society. Neurolimal posted:Honestly I feel a lot of this conversation is uneccessary, considering everyone here agrees on mental health checks, safety checks, gun registration, and full automatic bans. The real dumb stuff seems to come from pissing around over Ban All Guns, accessory banning, and a generally petulant refusal to open up to one side or another. I don't believe in safety checks because, even if we do have safe storage laws, the government should not be allowed to let themselves into your home to make sure you aren't committing a crime. I don't think full auto bans do anything. Registration is a solution looking for a problem. The Canadian long gun registry was scrapped after spiraling costs and marginal utility. After all, how often do the police have a body, and the gun that made it, (that wasn't stolen or trafficked,) but no idea where it came from or how the two got together?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
You did the word substitution thing that is so prevalent among know-nothing right wingers. Everyone needs books, which is why there isn't an amendment specifying that only well regulated scholars should have them. Maybe there's an amendment restricting guns to well regulated militias -- this likely meant a national or local defense entity, not a mainly or wholly political action group like the III Percent -- because not everyone needs guns like they need books. I'm severely disappointed in you for doing this word substitution without context consideration, by the way. You've done significantly better than this in the SCOTUS thread, and I'm hoping you avoid this mistake in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Tldr
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think full auto bans do anything. Said literally days after hundreds of people were wounded with automatic weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't agree that anyone should have to prove their mental health to the satisfaction of the government in order to exercise their rights; the government should have to prove that someone is dangerous or mentally ill in order to restrict their rights. *logic only applies to the second amendment; summarily executing a black child for the crime of holding a toy in a public space remains permissible on a whim from Are Boys In Blue
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Ugato posted:I'm curious if you have this somewhere just to c/p in or you actually typed all of it out again Potato Salad posted:You did the word substitution thing that is so prevalent among know-nothing right wingers. Also, there has never been a case holding that the right is contingent on militia service. Even the dissent in Heller acknowledged this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
We have other merit based privileges like driving permits that haven't faced significant constitutional challenges or even significant public challenge on the basis that driving is a right and not a privilege. Anticipating your possible thoughts here, is the difference here that guns are provided by federal right where cars aren't? If so, where does the well regulated militia bit come into play? Did organized invasion defense militias vet their militiamen for skill and stability before membership was granted?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Said literally days after hundreds of people were wounded with automatic weapons. While I agree regular people (As in not the military) don't need dumb automatic poo poo for anything ever, the guy wasn't using automatics, it was semi-auto with gear to mimic automatic, which is actually worth making the distinction on because it brings up the issue that you can do things like this with more than just some big machinegun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:ITT a guy angryposting in a USPOL thread all morning on a workday calls people drags on society I know this because I'm a helldumping fucker who never forgets a weird Euro-racist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
As a matter of policy I want to whitelist guns for their intended purposes, rather than banning them outright. And potato salad summarized my point well thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:No? Really most of the anger and big argument that's gone around the thread keeps stemming from people trying to argue with the same fuckers who keep making it really obvious they're either not arguing in good faith or are super deluded, the dumbass MIGF rereg, Dead Reckoning and them. Trying to get any kind of genuine reaction or self-reflection from them seems pointless. .... how did you put potato salad's quote into my quoted post without realizing it? not annoyed or anything just kind of befuddled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/915972547631570946
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:.... how did you put potato salad's quote into my quoted post without realizing it? Woah, I didn't notice that, I'm not quite sure how in the hell that happened either. Maybe I was quoting you first because I wanted to agree with what you said there, then somehow frankensteined posts with the reply to them too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:20
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're massively missing the point. The second amendment doesn't reserve the right to the militia, and you're willfully blind to that. It's right there in the grammatical structure. Hence my question: with my word substitution into an identical sentence structure, who is the right reserved to? Oh you loving didn't. Trying to apply any grammar rules to how the founding fathers wrote the constitution is a loving travesty of ignorance you dipshit. You didn't even word substitute the language correctly you disingenuous gently caress: quote: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. If you wanted this to mean what you want it to mean, it'd read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You could also remove the and and add words to the end to make it clear, and there are still a million problems with this sentence structure because it's really just a list with a floating "shall not be infringed" clause at the end and no way to tell what's a list and what's an aside or what actual rights are attached to that clause, but that's kinda the point isn't it? They wanted it to be interpreted by others as time went on. Grammar is used to convey the meaning of the words used, so if there is no grammar there is also no meaning. The writers of the time took a haphazard approach to everything regarding sentence structure and grammar, so gently caress off with you trying to argue it's what it says in a correct grammatical sense. This poo poo does not make sense and it's why 250 years of legal scholars have been fighting about it for its entire existence. If you wanna have an argument about the rulings on it and interpretation, fine, but that's not what you're trying to do with this bullshit and you can shove it back up the rear end you pulled it out of. We've seen how a pedantic gently caress can drive an argument into the ground based on gun minutiae, you really don't want to see grammar nerds gently caress you into oblivion with their pedantry on this. Just go back to arguing about the legality of police checking your gunsafe or something.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:As a matter of policy I want to whitelist guns for their intended purposes, rather than banning them outright. I think the most practical path is probably to start requiring licenses for any public transport of a firearm, with background checks and screenings and training and renewal requirements. There are too many guns out there for anything else to be practical, but the more they're just a drat nuisance, the fewer and fewer people will bother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Ugato posted:Stop using car analogies, they're awful. If you want to add license fees... well, the analogue there would be a carry permit. And they have similar fees to a driver's license. Insurance would be something I suppose, though difficult to pass. Maybe if you use an argument that any carry permit needs to be accompanied by insurance to be valid or something. His car analogy works because the analogy is based specifically "testing and training before handling a dangerous machine". It is a correct analog in that sense. If he was making another point, it might not, but in that specific context it works. Also, you're missing some points about guns. When I got an "assault rifle," I walked into a gun shop, asked "which gun would be best for what I want to do," and was given an AR-15. I then bought said AR-15, and the gun shop said "give me your license to see if you need a waiting period." They said I had to wait, I said "ok," went home, and got a call in a a few hours to come pick it up. I bought a few cases of bullets, and could have then loaded the gun and walked around outside to my heart's content with a loaded gun in my hands. That's how it is in ~35 states. You don't need any training, you don't need to have ever touched a gun, you don't need to register it, and you don't need permits. You can literally buy whatever you can afford and walk around with it. There are some rules, like, "don't go in bars" and "don't have a loaded gun not in the trunk," but the vast majority of purchasing and carrying can be done perfectly legally by someone that does not know an ounce about guns. You can buy a car without a license, yes. However, before you bring the car home, it has to be licensed, insured, and registered with the state. If your car is not licensed and registered, it can legally be impounded. If you aren't licensed to drive, which at LEAST takes a test so you know the BASICS - good luck getting home. As you are now committing a misdemeanor. Again, it's required by law to be licensed to drive on public roads, so unless you live on the dealership lot, you are at least breaking the law in getting it home, which *discourages* unlicensed drivers from buying cars. Also, those licenses carry suspensions and oversight and can be taken away with misuse. So when people are asking for the "bare minimum," and comparing it to autos, they mean that any average non trained person can't walk into a shop, buy a gun, and then carry it around almost wherever and whenever they want because that is not how we should handle dangerous machinery that can "whoops killed a bunch of people by accident" in general. A lot of people who aren't used to guns think you have to get some kind of permit to use them and register them. That's not true in most states, which is why your analogue does not work and why people are making the analogy mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think the most practical path is probably to start requiring licenses for any public transport of a firearm, with background checks and screenings and training and renewal requirements. If people have to send a documented order to get their gun shifted from one range to another it keeps it from ending up in a hotel room. These formal registered armories solve the "but the foreign invaders!" nonsense too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
But textualism
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think the most practical path is probably to start requiring licenses for any public transport of a firearm, with background checks and screenings and training and renewal requirements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/916005625481502720 you wanna do this? Let's loving do this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Dude Boston fans are atrociously horrible but bad enough to go shoot up a red sox game geez. Just put a banana behind Tom Bra.... Oh gently caress it I can't. Just can't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:the more they're just a drat nuisance, the fewer and fewer people will bother. Bear in mind this is one of the tools the GOP keeps in its New Jim Crow toolbox. I'm not complaining, just pointing out the elegance of reusing a weapon of disenfranchisement as a tool to save lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:We have other merit based privileges like driving permits that haven't faced significant constitutional challenges or even significant public challenge on the basis that driving is a right and not a privilege. The "well regulated militia" clause (regulated in this case meaning within acceptable standards of performance and accuracy, as one might regulate a watch or clock) is an explanatory clause that in no way restricts the nature of the individual right articulated in the subsequent clause. This was a common device at the time of the framing of the constitution. It's an explanatory clause that in no way restricts the nature of the individual right articulated in the subsequent clause. This has been subject to extensive legal, historical, and grammatical analysis and is wholly uncontroversial outside of internet smuglords going for idiotic "well you aren't in a regulated militia" one liners, and some of the stupider members of congress. The framers of the constitution expected that private individuals would be able to own warships and cannon, (although they did not guarantee a right to them,) likely on the basis that anyone who could afford such things was the Right Sort of Person. One does not grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal to a government navy, after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:05 |
|
|
I like having a couple guns w/ammo in the house because there are actual nazis in the whitehouse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:45
|
|