|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:and background check requirements on all transfers of firearms. This part is a little sticky. If you tell me that I can't give my brother or my cousin a rifle, either to keep or borrow for a range trip without calling in a transfer, I'm likely to just ignore it as will many others (see washington's Initiative 594, both wording and gun owning public response). I've been through that system before, and it required me to keep a goddamned certificate with me whenever I took the rifle out to the bush. It was an expensive waste of time and money, and it had no appreciable value. The police were actually overly reliant on the broken thing, trusting the flawed data and dropping their guard because the computer said no guns were in the house.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I know. That was the point. The militia system failed miserably and was basically swept to the dustbin of history. The 2nd amendment was never treated as a general right of the people to bear arms until heller. That is entirely a modern interpretation. So it's the "Shall not be infringed" part you have trouble with, not the preamble. Privateers and other mercs used to be able to have their own cannon. It's not "an entirely modern" interpretation it's the thing working as intended. Banning scary poo poo happened in a response to the romanticized bank robbers going after the people actually stealing land with a BAR or Thompson. Valentines Day massacre and other then ethnic minority criminal agencies were the boogey man back then too. The inherently dishonest narrative doesn't change, just what's slipped in mad lib style. poo poo, in New York I'm pretty sure it goes back to the draft riots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
And militias were worthless in 1812. That's when we nationalized the armies and got rid of them. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 03:17
|
|
|
The whole NFA as a response to the Bonus army march too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:And militias were worthless in 1812. That's when we nationalized the armies and got rid of them. They were almost always worthless. I'm too lazy to find Washington's letter where he basically says as much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
America's gun-stroking 2nd amendment warriors are emboldened by America's enemies: HURP DURP WEEE GON GIVE DA GUBBERMINT HELL, JUSSSSS LIKE AL QAIYEEDAH! Show them how Uncle Sam do: Biometric them, Catalog them, And carpet bomb their reproduction ceremonies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Biometric them, Catalog them, And carpet bomb their reproduction ceremonies. They would somehow hit a Chinese embassy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Just  if you ever believed the cover story that it was an accident. Notice how China didn't throw an utter shitfit? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
1- lol at the people who want to throw out whatever bits of the bill of rights they dont personally agree with. 2- Godholio posted:Just why did we bomb the chinese embassy then? did they have parts of that shot down f117 stored there? were they doing something we didnt want them doing?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Well, we launched something like a dozen strike aircraft that night, and hit a poo poo-ton of targets. All of which were C2/intel nodes. Except one. Which we sent a B-2 from St Louis to strike with five JDAMs. It was a supposed arms distribution facility, but they were using "outdated maps" except they weren't, so that story doesn't really hold up from step 1. I don't know what the gently caress they were doing, but it took all of a week for it to blow over which tells me China wasn't too upset, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
vains posted:1- lol at the people who want to throw out whatever bits of the bill of rights they dont personally agree with. The common theory was that it was retaliation for China swiping a bunch of nuclear secrets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
So as not to poo poo up the CE thread, I’m gonna leave this here. It looks like the Florida shooter trained with a white supremacist group. https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikolas-cruz-trained-with-florida-white-supremacist-group-leader-says
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
I want a blue wave in 2018. I want Democrats to win big and act as a huge loving wall for Trump. I want them to help roll back the damage done on/to environmental regulations, the social safety net, immigrants, etc- all things that have a demonstrable effect on huge swathes of the country. I fear that all of that could be jeopardized if they come out too hard and too fast on federal-level gun legislation. I think any candidate who comes out in favor of another AWB, or who makes that a plank in their platform, is going to be DOA outside of a safe liberal enclave.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
pantslesswithwolves posted:I fear that all of that could be jeopardized if they come out too hard and too fast on federal-level gun legislation. I think any candidate who comes out in favor of another AWB, or who makes that a plank in their platform, is going to be DOA outside of a safe liberal enclave. I fear you are correct and they'll gently caress the whole thing up. Guns are what they keep using to shoot themselves in the foot. If they could backburner it while they fix the rest of the country and set the path in motion to enforce whats on the books, they would be in a much more tenable position to implement useful legislation without instant furor shortly after.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Running on education, health care, and mental welfare would be better and do more overall good for gun violence anyway. Fix the problem without saying bad words that trigger the shrieking horde of nra lobbiests
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
It would almost certainly be more effective than another ban on aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
Here's a post I made in the TFR thread: Even if we were to agree on the mere assumption that passing any new assault weapons ban, or Universal background check, or any other gun control law would actually save lives, many more people (tens of thousands more) will die as a result of horrendous policy decisions made by a lovely government led by Trump, if you campaign and push for gun control. -- How many people would die in a war against North Korea, even a conventional one? I've seen estimates of 50,000 dead American soldiers, 250,000 Korean soldiers, probably 3x those amounts wounded, not counting civilian casualties, and that's not even counting if things go nuclear. -- How many Americans will die as a direct result of North Korea launching a nuke at Guam, Hawaii, or even the mainland US because of something Trump does? -- How many Americans are forced to go hungry because these lunatics want to reduce SNAP / food stamp benefits? -- How many Americans will be forced off of SSDI, or welfare because of a moronic work requirement? -- How many more Americans will lose their healthcare or have to declare bankruptcy due to the cost of healthcare bills because Trump 1) created uncertainty in the healthcare exchanges, 2) threatened to remove subsidies to the insurance industry, causing prices to rise, and 3) got rid of the individual mandate, which will destroy the exchanges/markets. -- How many more people will kill themselves due to financial ruin? Suicides increased drastically due to the 2008 Financial Crisis. -- How much longer will we not prepare for climate change? We are so behind the curve. States and local governments cannot prepare on their own. -- How many millions of people will lose their jobs and go into poverty when the next financial crisis happens, and Trump will simply double down on trickle down and not pass a stimulus package like Obama did (which prevented the recession from turning into a depression)? How do you think inequality will look like after that? -- How many thousands of families will be torn apart due to horrible new immigration policies? There is no better way to rally the right, and rally moderates to the right, than to threaten to take away people's guns, or restrict their rights. Republicans swept the House after the federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994. If Gore hadn't pushed against guns, no one would even know what a "hanging chad" was. He would've almost assuredly won in 2000. If Hillary hadn't been so rabidly anti gun for her entire career, I guarantee you that those 70k votes that cost her the election would've flipped the other way. Hell, if she had simply not made any statements about guns during the primary or the general election, it might have helped. The right have proven time and time again they will get out and vote. Democrats will not gain as many votes as they will lose by pushing for gun control, because the people in favor of gun control, by and large, are in favor of progresive ideas like universal healthcare, free public college tuition, universal basic income, a livable minimum wage, protections for workers, protections for consumers and the environment, strong regulations on Wall Street. Anti gun Republicans are a small minority. There are millions of single issue voters who own guns. If a politician is in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership, they will vote against them. Obama was absolutely right when he said that many people cling to their guns and religion. There are millions of gun owners that simply will not support a Democrat, ever. But there are millions who would. I personally know over a dozen friends who simply didn't vote in the 2016 election because although they hated Trump, Hillary would've signed any anti gun bill that came across her desk. Try to take away people's ability to defend themselves, and what else would you expect? You will not win any votes by advocating for more restrictions on guns. All you are doing is alienating the very people you're trying to convince that Trump and his ilk are screwing them over with the horrendously one-sided tax bill, which benefits the wealthy and corporations rather than the average American. Focus on the tax law. Focus on the gutting of the State Department and the destruction of soft power, the gutting and corruption of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by Mick Mulvaney. Focus on the corruption of the Trump White House. Focus on the economy. That is how the Democrats will win in 2018 and beyond. I am a Democrat. I am a gun owner. I voted for Obama twice. I am for all the things I listed above, like universal healthcare, free public college tuition, etc. But it is getting harder and harder to vote (D) when you push and vote to punish me for the crimes of twisted people who clearly have no compunction for laws anyway. Especially when these bills are written by people so ignorant about guns it would be like having octagenarian luddites writing bills about regulating the Internet. These bills would do nothing to actually impact gun violence or mass shootings. If you want to lose elections and throw away any hopes of having any accountability for Trump and his corrupt administration, then go ahead and continue to push for gun control, and then when you lose, whine and complain and continue to alienate a large portion of highly motivated voters who will continue to vote against you so long as you threaten to take away their hobby, sport, and ability to protect themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
Idk maybe the left wing would be better off amassing their resources into a lobbying machine as impressive as the NRA, which apparently can even convince Democrats that voted for Obama that things like universal background checks and synchronized law enforcement databases are somehow punishing them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
While some of your sentiments ring true, gun deaths in the last 50 years in the USA eclipse all USA casualties from every war we’ve ever participated in going back and counting the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Imagine being so vehement about guns that literally hundreds of thousands of excess deaths compared to other developed nations are a reasonable price to pay for a hobby and (with a handful of exceptions) abstract fantasies about resisting tyranny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Over 1.6 million americans dead in the last 50 years because everyone needs their guns so they can be ready to fill out militia ranks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Imagine being so vehement about guns that literally hundreds of thousands of excess deaths compared to other developed nations are a reasonable price to pay for a hobby and (with a handful of exceptions) abstract fantasies about resisting tyranny. The ones with the fantasies voted for the tyrants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Like literally the only reason I have guns is to protect myself from people with Molon Labe stickers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Imagine being so vehement about guns that literally hundreds of thousands of excess deaths compared to other developed nations are a reasonable price to pay for a hobby and (with a handful of exceptions) abstract fantasies about resisting tyranny. Pursesnatcher posted:Smart people should stop talking about "gun violence" as a thing separate from and worse than "violence".
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
Mexico gets most of their guns from the US, so we should probably lump their homicide rate in with ours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Violence is high in countries that are hotbeds of drug trafficking (namely providing USA supply) and crime? You don't say. Brazil is a special case because everyone has toxoplasmosis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Mexico is also one of three countries in the world that has gun ownership as an enshrined right vs a privilege. I don't want to ban guns, but lets make it at least as hard to own a weapon as it is to get a driver's license.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
also it is entirely unnecessary to have one weapon per person. voluntary buybuck to get excess arms off the streets.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
Also lol at the idea that post is some kind of refutation of the point he's making. But because the term "developed" is a bit open ended, let's go ahead and just use the G7 as a benchmark because arguing about highly diversified market and services economies vs. sheer GDP is kind of silly when we're talking about gun violence. For this sake of this, I will leave territories and protectorates out of the equation since their statistical impact is negligible. The homicide rate overall in the US is 4.88 murders per 100,000 residents (2015 numbers). Canada: 1.68 France: 1.58 UK: .92 Germany: .85 Italy: .78 Japan: .31 This still means that the United States, the richest country in the world, has a murder rate nearly 3 times higher than Canada, its closest neighbor and biggest economic trading partner, with whom it shares a customs union and an open border. If we were to use the G8 (back before Russia was banned), Russia would beat out the US by a long shot. So congratulations, I guess. A place where the murder of journalists and opposition members of officially sanctioned by the government beats out the US. Good job. So lets look at the number of deaths resulting from guns versus overall violence. In this case I'm also going to include suicides and accidents, because it's still people killing themselves or other people with a device that's designed to kill things. The US leads the pack again with 10.54 per 100,000 (2014 numbers). France: 2.83 Canada: 1.97 Italy: 1.31 Germany: 1.01 United Kingdom: .23 Japan: .06 The US still clearly leads with 3.72 times the rate of gun related deaths.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
psydude posted:Also lol at the idea that post is some kind of refutation of the point he's making. But because the term "developed" is a bit open ended, let's go ahead and just use the G7 as a benchmark because arguing about highly diversified market and services economies vs. sheer GDP is kind of silly when we're talking about gun violence. For this sake of this, I will leave territories and protectorates out of the equation since their statistical impact is negligible. It's because we have almost 4x the gun ownership per capita than all of them. France: 0.31 guns per person Canada: 0.308 Italy: 0.119 Germany: 0.303 UK: 0.062 Japan: 0.06 USA: 1.01 Numbers pulled from estimated gun ownership per country from wikipedia like hell if I'm actually digging up stats for this poo poo individually. I trust the autists at the wiki have done it for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Violence is high in countries that are hotbeds of drug trafficking (namely providing USA supply) and crime? You don't say. I would argue that the United States is a part of that hotbed of drug trafficking. And that the circumstances of the United States are unique among the nations of the world. It is an extremely rich country, but that wealth is also very unevenly distributed. It has large pockets of poverty and areas that would be on par with the "developing" world. It also lacks the safety net of the countries it is compared to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:I would argue that the United States is a part of that hotbed of drug trafficking. And that the circumstances of the United States are unique among the nations of the world. It is an extremely rich country, but that wealth is also very unevenly distributed. It has large pockets of poverty and areas that would be on par with the "developing" world. It also lacks the safety net of the countries it is compared to. And yet saying "It's about mental health", the GOP is trying to cut programs that would provide mental health treatment to low income people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
psydude posted:And yet saying "It's about mental health", the GOP is trying to cut programs that would provide mental health treatment to low income people. Which is why Democrats need to stop harping on guns, get moderates and Independents on board and take back the House and Senate, and eventually the presidency, and pass various laws like the following: - Improve NICS so that it's a modern and functional database that can be accessed immediately and is constantly updated. - Force state and federal agencies to provide the necessary data to ensure the database is current. - Prosecute individuals who fail the NICS check and are referred for prosecution and investigate denials. - Create a federal process for those with prior mental health commitments to regain their right to own firearms, so that those who own firearms but need help are not disincentivized to seek treatment. - Federal funding for mandatory saftey training for school age children. Not how to use a gun, or even anything pro-gun, but what to do when you encounter a gun. Same as the 'Stranger Danger' campaigns in the 80's, just get it in kids' heads early that guns aren't toys, and if you find one you don't play with it you go find an adult. Accidental deaths are the ones we can most easily prevent. - Federally fund research into the efficacy of existing policies and laws. Basically fix what we already have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
its an access issue and a cultural issue. i doubt we'll fix either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Which is why Democrats need to stop harping on guns, get moderates and Independents on board and take back the House and Senate, and eventually the presidency, and pass various laws like the following: I like all of this except for “prosecute NICS failures,” if only because of mistaken identity. My uncle got on the no-fly list because of that and had to hire a lawyer to clear it up; several years later, I found out I had a warrant out for my arrest because some clerk at the county courthouse confused my last name with someone else’s. I had to pay for a lawyer out of pocket to clear that up. I wouldn’t want to potentially face another charge because someone fat-fingered inputting my name into the database and confused me with some wife beater. Add “throw straw purchasers in the same cell with the shooter” and I’m really into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Is there a good counter to this mindset: https://gyazo.com/4a3f63340301ff4fa9c33fd72cc16728
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Bored As gently caress posted:Which is why Democrats need to stop harping on guns, get moderates and Independents on board and take back the House and Senate, and eventually the presidency, and pass various laws like the following: Address the issue with prosecuting NICS poo poo like mentioned above, add massive increases in funding for mental health initiatives, create/change policies to go along with the initiatives so maybe we can change the public perception of mental illness as a defect instead of just another thing you get help for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
psydude posted:Idk maybe the left wing would be better off amassing their resources into a lobbying machine as impressive as the NRA, which apparently can even convince Democrats that voted for Obama that things like universal background checks and synchronized law enforcement databases are somehow punishing them. "Give your guns to the government, trust the government, the police will keep you safe" is a stance that's problematic at best. Mr. Nice! posted:also it is entirely unnecessary to have one weapon per person. voluntary buybuck to get excess arms off the streets. I'm fine with voluntary. I'll throw up a wanted ad on CL offering to pay 25% more than the govt. Edit: Some good ideas in this thread. I'm on the fence on prosecuting NICS failures. Not sure that's going to do much beyond add to the prison burden. If they know they'll get busted for it, they'll just buy elsewhere. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:"Give your guns to the government, trust the government, the police will keep you safe" is a stance that's problematic at best. How is having universal background checks the same thing as giving your guns to the government. How is having a national registry of guns any more problematic than tracking vehicles by VIN.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
The auto comparison rings true for some people, I've found. It's pretty easy to get people to agree that weapon ownership should have at least as rigorous requirements as getting a driver's license.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2018 23:20
|
|