|
zapplez posted:
Also now because Heller is a dumb decision and you shouldn't be resting your argument on something that's basically a radical re-interpretation of the 2nd.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Also now because Heller is a dumb decision and you shouldn't be resting your argument on something that's basically a radical re-interpretation of the 2nd. Miller is especially loving laffo in light of everything before and after.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Also now because Heller is a dumb decision and you shouldn't be resting your argument on something that's basically a radical re-interpretation of the 2nd. I'd like to hear why you think Heller is flawed. I don't see whats in the findings that is radical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
zapplez posted:I'd like to hear why you think Heller is flawed. I don't see whats in the findings that is radical. That's because you agree with it. It's a reversal of pretty much all prior SCOTUS jurisprudence on the matter, and the culmination of decades of the NRA shifting the narrative to the 2nd Amendment an unrestricted mandate for everyone to own a gun(because it makes them money). You, I'm guessing, are so young that you've been indoctrinated into this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's because you agree with it. I'm not sure what you mean as the findings being contradictory to the previous judgments. Its never been ok to ban handguns? Or can you be specific on the points you think are wrong in Heller. And I don't think im indoctrinated at all. I guess I am more of a depressed realist because I see good countries with good gun laws still have terrible mass shootings or similar events on a regular basis, so obviously we need to do a lot more than just target regular gun owners to prevent these tragedies. We need to figure out a better way to either help or prevent these hosed up young men. Even if we had a magic spell to disappear all the guns tomorrow, next week we'd have another incel rent a uhaul and drive through a group of people so he can satisfy his perverted mind and end up on CNN. Not to mention in some of the other countries that has started strict gun control that already had serious gang and poverty problems ended up just increasing the issue. vincentpricesboner fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
zapplez posted:I'm not sure what you mean as the findings being contradictory to the previous judgments. Its never been ok to ban handguns? https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/justice-scalia-second-amendment-and-judicial-conservatives Even from the conservative side, it's considered radical quote:Scalia penned the most gun-friendly opinion in the Supreme Court’s 200-plus-year history. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on the possession of operable handguns in the home and held, for the first time, that self-defense is “central” to an individual’s Second Amendment right. Previously, most courts had understood the functioning of a “well-regulated militia” (which appears in the Amendment), not “self-defense” (which does not), to underlie the right to “keep and bear arms.” Though obviously I don't consider Roe radical. quote:And I don't think im indoctrinated at all. I guess I am more of a depressed realist because I see good countries with good gun laws still have terrible mass shootings or similar events on a regular basis, LOL no they don't
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Heller was inevitable after half a century of trying to dodge around the Miller decision without ever actually addressing how dumb it was. The court still can't bring itself to deal with Miller despite it being in direct contradiction to Heller.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's because you agree with it. Prior SCOTUS jurisprudence also ruled that owning people was a human right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Backyard pools aren't designed to hurl a bullet at such speed that it destroys whatever it hits VitalSigns posted:States and counties are allowed to ban alcohol if they want and some counties still do. I don't think free speech and self defense are good because they're enumerated in the bill of rights, I think the bill of rights is good because it secures those rights against government interference. Unoriginal Name posted:How about defining a gun stored outside a gun safe as unsafe use VitalSigns posted:So if a perfect bomb storage solution were invented that completely eliminated all accidental hazards with 100% certainty, you'd be okay with people having arsenals of OKC-attack level of explosives? Jeza posted:Self-defense is not a human right without restrictions, and restrictions are placed on what constitutes reasonable self-defense and the means by which you can apply it. The 'need' to carry a gun for self-defense is completely circular, because the only situation where that could be necessary would be when you're at risk from other citizens with guns. It is literally a self-propagating and artificial arms race. Not only that, but an armed citizenry necessitates an armed and aggressive police force that liberally applies use of force. E: Also, why do you think that increasing the disparity between the force available to the police and that available to other citizens would make the police less aggressive? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, you seem to be unable to understand the difference between whether something is legal, whether a law would be constitutional, and whether it would be a good idea. The fact that some counties still ban alcohol without falling afoul of the constitution is a complete non-sequitur to the question of whether or not it should be legal for adults to consume alcohol. If you think dry laws are a good idea, you should defend that. "Why won't you treat guns like alcohol?" "Okay fine let's do it" "No no! Don't do that!" Anyway the problem with banning alcohol and drugs is that it comes with negative social effects that are not observed in countries that ban guns, so it's not illogical to be okay with policies that save lives and have no negative effects whatsoever, and yet not be okay with policies that save some lives but come with other social and even mortality costs that may exceed the benefit. And I do, for example, support laws that prosecute the seller for irresponsibly serving someone alcohol, they work well, and it would be a great incentive against the kinds of gun stores that sell most of the guns used in crimes in a given city. Dead Reckoning posted:In this fantasy world, I would just build my house out of magical explosive proof material and not worry about it. So is that what you're going with, if there were a foolproof bomb storage system such that the only way anyone could be injured by bombs is if a bad actor deliberately used them to kill people, you wouldn't see any problem with unfettered bomb ownership? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A gun outside a safe is no more inherently dangerous than a knife outside a safe. Are you unfamiliar with what the word inert means? Please feel free to set fire to a pile of knives and then a pile of bullets and report back on your findings. Or dont. Depending how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Haha Guns are already regulated in ways similar or more stringent than alcohol, as pointed out, except in ways that it becomes a 10th amendment issue. If you want it not to be a 10th amendment issue, you'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Please feel free to set fire to a pile of knives and then a pile of bullets and report back on your findings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Please feel free to set fire to a pile of knives and then a pile of bullets and report back on your findings. I will bet you $1000 I can set fire to 100 bullets, as hot as possible, and absolutely nothing will happen. Hell, make it $10,000 or any amount you want. Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I will bet you $1000 I can set fire to 100 bullets, as hot as possible, and absolutely nothing will happen. Hell, make it $10,000 or any amount you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Weren't there a few posts here some weeks ago about multiple instances where guns just went off by themselves? Gun apologists are disingenuous in almost every aspect of the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:LOL we both know what he means. Which is only mildly spicier than nothing happens really. Language is important, including understanding the language of those you disagree with. Zanzibar Ham posted:Weren't there a few posts here some weeks ago about multiple instances where guns just went off by themselves? Do you have an actual link?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Guns are already regulated in ways similar or more stringent than alcohol, as pointed out, except in ways that it becomes a 10th amendment issue. If you want it not to be a 10th amendment issue, you'd have to repeal the 2nd amendment. This is demonstrably false, name one county in the USA where guns are completely banned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is demonstrably false, name one county in the USA where guns are completely banned. Sorry, I meant Article 6. It's a preemption issue. Basically, local and state government cannot completely make guns illegal because it is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms currently. This has been affirmed recently by SCOTUS. If you want to change that, you have to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Haha What exactly do you think will happen in America if you banned guns? How would you confiscate the existing guns? Do you think criminals would keep selling and importing guns en masse or like prohibition of alcohol everyone would follow the law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Sorry, I meant Article 6. It's a preemption issue. Basically, local and state government cannot completely make guns illegal because it is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms currently. This has been affirmed recently by SCOTUS. If you want to change that, you have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I know, someone suggested that we treat guns like alcohol, and my response was "sure that would mean repealing the 2nd amendment and making it explicitly okay for governments to write whatever gun laws they want", although it turns out that that wasn't what they really wanted after all lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
zapplez posted:And I don't think im indoctrinated at all. I guess I am more of a depressed realist because I see good countries with good gun laws still have terrible mass shootings or similar events on a regular basis, so obviously we need to do a lot more than just target regular gun owners to prevent these tragedies. Countries with no "regular gun owners" still have hardened criminals; but as Bugsy Siegel once allegedly said, "don't worry, we only shoot each other." Hardened gangsters are not known to target mass crowds of people, it's a danger to their criminal careers to have deaths of uninvolved people in their record and their desired endgame is not a 1v50 standoff with the police. We all know the vast majority of gun deaths aren't related to mass shootings. But mass shootings kill indiscriminately and you are powerless to be uninvolved. Most handgun victims know their killer, but mass shooting victims were more often than not doing something that everyone does to get by in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
zapplez posted:What exactly do you think will happen in America if you banned guns? How would you confiscate the existing guns? Do you think criminals would keep selling and importing guns en masse or like prohibition of alcohol everyone would follow the law? Australia did it, seemed fine. Turns out addictive substances and toys are different and have different psychological and physiological effects, who knew. Anyway, I'm not the one who suggested it, someone else suggested we treat guns like alcohol, I just explained what that would mean, repealing the 2nd. Turned out he didn't like his own idea after all lol. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Apr 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Australia did it, seemed fine. What do you think good gun control looks like if you don't believe in total disarmament ? A system similar to Canada or Australia?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
zapplez posted:What do you think good gun control looks like if you don't believe in total disarmament ? A system similar to Canada or Australia? Sure sounds good. Or Sweden. Really just about any OECD country has better ideas than America does obv
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Do you have an actual link? There's some posts starting from here
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure sounds good. Or Sweden. Really just about any OECD country has better ideas than America does obv That would be a good first step. We will still need to do a lot more if we want to curb mass shootings specifically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:According to your logic, the right of self defense only belongs to those young and strong and swift enough to overcome their attackers without resorting to tools. Those who would attack others are not entitled to a fair fight, and those would defend themselves are entitled to expeditious means to do so. What you claimed isn't contained in what I stated. Regardless, my overarching point is that the conventional 'right' of self-defense is restricted by proportionality. In most countries, there is a set standard, and in the U.S it somewhat varies state by state. If a baby punches you, you aren't entitled to beat it to death and so on. The application of lethal force by a civilian in self-defense is generally only considered legal when 'a reasonable person' would have cause to fear for their own life. The introduction of firearms creates a situation where that fear is amplified incredibly strongly and probably justifiably. This means that attackers and those being attacked are far more likely to die in any kind of assault, whether one or both parties are armed. The fantasy of the weak protecting the strong through firearms being an equalising force is pretty commonplace, but ultimately just a fantasy. Those who carry guns for self-defense are far more likely to die than those without, and those that aren't killed or even ever attacked passively increase the risk for everybody, because as you would expect, firearms are a weapon of offense far more often than they are one of defense. Put simply, the 'weak' are far safer when nobody has access to firearms rather than when both the 'weak' and the 'young and strong' have equal access, not least because firearms are a gross amplifier of both force but impulse. As to the police question, no doubt this is a deeply unpopular view among Americans, but in the end, any police force is primarily composed of regular people. Their behaviour and training is ultimately formed by the environment in which they exist. As in Mexico or Brazil, the armed police in America are dangerous in response to a dangerous society. When any person can carry a hidden lethal weapon, a trigger happy mentality will flourish as the best way to protect themselves. De-escalation is a luxury of a disarmed society. Power-tripping and racism are part and parcel of any police force, it's only when firearms are in the equation that things spiral out of control. Nearly every police force on the planet is armed while the civilian population is not. Rampant police brutality and extra-judicial killing occur overwhelmingly in those places where the citizens are also armed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Prior SCOTUS jurisprudence also ruled that owning people was a human right. "Not being allowed to have guns is as bad as being enslaved" is what I'm getting here". Please clarify?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Jeza posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Language is important, including understanding the language of those you disagree with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fn6GFSwTEw This is probably what he was thinking of
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Police in AZ's Department of Public Safety had to emergency trade in their sidearms because uh, whoops, FN hosed up https://i.imgur.com/XSnTLaI.mp4 This was yesterday, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
*thinks of former acquantance who kept a sidearm without a safety fully loaded in his pocket while he worked* Guns are so safe and cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Countries with no "regular gun owners" still have hardened criminals; but as Bugsy Siegel once allegedly said, "don't worry, we only shoot each other." Hardened gangsters are not known to target mass crowds of people, it's a danger to their criminal careers to have deaths of uninvolved people in their record and their desired endgame is not a 1v50 standoff with the police. We all know the vast majority of gun deaths aren't related to mass shootings. But mass shootings kill indiscriminately and you are powerless to be uninvolved. Most handgun victims know their killer, but mass shooting victims were more often than not doing something that everyone does to get by in the world. hot take: everyone dying all the time is more democratic than underlings dying at the hand of their betters occasionally
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 00:35
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:hot take: everyone dying all the time is more democratic than underlings dying at the hand of their betters occasionally A real leftist would want to see the means of death returned to the people. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Haha VitalSigns posted:I know, someone suggested that we treat guns like alcohol, and my response was "sure that would mean repealing the 2nd amendment and making it explicitly okay for governments to write whatever gun laws they want", although it turns out that that wasn't what they really wanted after all lol VitalSigns posted:Anyway, I'm not the one who suggested it, someone else suggested we treat guns like alcohol, I just explained what that would mean, repealing the 2nd. Turned out he didn't like his own idea after all lol. It's never the pro-gun side that suggests regulating guns like cars or alcohol, it's always the anti side. All I do is point out that the regulation of guns is significantly more stringent than the regulation of cars or alcohol, based on how we actually regulate those things. Your gotcha isn't even a particularly good one, because you aren't actually suggesting that we regulate guns the way we regulate alcohol, which is a cash-and-carry affair with no paperwork in all 50 states and available from a drive-thru in some. You're suggesting that we regulate guns the way we hypothetically could regulate alcohol. VitalSigns posted:And I do, for example, support laws that prosecute the seller for irresponsibly serving someone alcohol, they work well, and it would be a great incentive against the kinds of gun stores that sell most of the guns used in crimes in a given city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm really curious what measure you think gun store employees could use to determine whether someone has criminal tendencies just by looking at them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your gotcha isn't even a particularly good one, because you aren't actually suggesting that we regulate guns the way we regulate alcohol, which is a cash-and-carry affair with no paperwork in all 50 states and available from a drive-thru in some. You're suggesting that we regulate guns the way we hypothetically could regulate alcohol. Not true, there are counties where alcohol sales aren't allowed at all. FWIW I agree with you that states and counties and cities should have the same latitude to regulate guns that they have to regulate alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
We need to stop reporting on this poo poo, this way. The loving top story, with a killers smiling picture at the top of the page, also detailing his manifesto. Doing exactly what the sick fucks want in terms of them being covered and glorified. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6969039/John-Earnest-allegedly-tried-burn-mosque-month-manifesto-reveals.html CNN on the other hand did a much better job. Their byline was about the victims. Main photo on front page was of survivors. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/28/us/california-synagogue-shooting-victims/index.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
zapplez posted:We need to stop reporting on this poo poo, this way. The loving top story, with a killers smiling picture at the top of the page, also detailing his manifesto. Doing exactly what the sick fucks want in terms of them being covered and glorified. Pretty sure the daily mail is one of those 'newspapers' actively trying to get more white people murdering minorities
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 17:08
|
|