|
Powercrazy posted:The massive paper work is for the ID part of the Driver's license. The actual driving license requires pretty much nothing in many states. You pass a 10 questions exam that has basic rules of the road etc. No, in most states you have to pass an initial drivers test with an instructor. Only permits allow you to get away with a 10 question test unless you've been licensed before. LeJackal posted:I just think that there are more effective ways to address crime and violence with our limited resources. Please share. Its more guns right?
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Speaking of paranoia.... It's not paranoid to call you authoritarian. And I can't think of an authoritarian who didn't use "you're paranoid" as a rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, in most states you have to pass an initial drivers test with an instructor. Only permits allow you to get away with a 10 question test unless you've been licensed before. The point is you don't need a driver's license to buy a car, so if you want to use that comparison as an argument for insufficient regulation of firearms, it fails. Also why do the legal requirements to buy some other object have any bearing on the requirements to buy a completely different object?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
I find it curious that in order to buy aspirin in 250mg tablets I need a note from my doctor, but I can buy aspirin at 100mg tablets with no documentation at all?! WHERE IS THE REGULATION?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Paranoia =/= uneasiness. But it would be paranoia for me, because I live in a state that has gun laws that aren't meaningfully more restrictive than the federal ones, but has a murder rate equivalent to Sweden, and my odds of being caught in a mass shooting are stupidly low. Which actually isn't that uncommon when you look at areas where racist policies haven't concentrated intergenerational poverty and the drug war has hosed everything up. And lol no mass shootings haven't been solved internationally at all when you look at the U.S. vs Europe as a whole instead of vs any given state sized country. And I'm thinking pretty much exclusively of events in Western European countries. LGD fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I find it curious that in order to buy aspirin in 250mg tablets I need a note from my doctor, but I can buy aspirin at 100mg tablets with no documentation at all?! WHERE IS THE REGULATION? Oh come on now  Powercrazy posted:The point is you don't need a driver's license to buy a car, so if you want to use that comparison as an argument for insufficient regulation of firearms, it fails. Also why do the legal requirements to buy some other object have any bearing on the requirements to buy a completely different object? Uhhhh....the last few dealerships I shopped through needed to see a license.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh come on now And I bought my current car without a license. And if I were to sell my current car to someone, a license wouldn't be required either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Please share. Its more guns right? Well - End the Drug War, destroy for-profit medicine and give health care to all, reduce/eliminate corporate welfare, reform the justice system, work to dismantle the institutional racism in our systems, address income inequality, reform and refund education at all levels, things like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Uhhhh....the last few dealerships I shopped through needed to see a license. For financing or a test drive, sure. That has nothing to do with the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:The point is you don't need a driver's license to buy a car, so if you want to use that comparison as an argument for insufficient regulation of firearms, it fails. Also why do the legal requirements to buy some other object have any bearing on the requirements to buy a completely different object? Ok, you can buy your gun--but you need to register it and acquire a gun safety license and insurance and have yearly inspections from the government in order to buy ammunition or shoot it. Deal, smartass? SedanChair posted:It's not paranoid to call you authoritarian. And I can't think of an authoritarian who didn't use "you're paranoid" as a rebuttal. Well, if you're going to paint me with dog whistle political words you know nothing about, please use ~*~*~SOCIALIST~*~*~ instead. Or Social Democrat if you're interested in accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well - End the Drug War, destroy for-profit medicine and give health care to all, reduce/eliminate corporate welfare, reform the justice system, work to dismantle the institutional racism in our systems, address income inequality, reform and refund education at all levels, things like that. The are all fair goals and WILL have a significant impact, but there is still more we can do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
But gun control will do little to nothing, especially in light of the politics of it. You'll sooner have GMI than gun control.LeeMajors posted:Well, if you're going to paint me with dog whistle political words you know nothing about, please use ~*~*~SOCIALIST~*~*~ instead. Or Social Democrat if you're interested in accuracy. I don't think there's any point in associating you with constructive or focused ideologies. You belong to the tribe of panic-oriented, controlling American liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Ok, you can buy your gun--but you need to register it and acquire a gun safety license and insurance and have yearly inspections from the government in order to buy ammunition or shoot it. Glad to see you've thought long and hard about all aspects of your fantasy world. You also don't need any of those things to use your car. You can buy gasoline without a license, or even a credit card! Gasoline is dangerous! Where's the regulation?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think there's any point in associating you with constructive or focused ideologies. You belong to the tribe of panic-oriented, controlling American liberals. I think you should relax and then come back and read this post you made a half hour from now and you might begin to understand why some gun owners think it would be a good idea to have something similar to military psychological screenings be required before being able to purchase guns and ammo
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Ok, you can buy your gun--but you need to register it and acquire a gun safety license and insurance and have yearly inspections from the government in order to buy ammunition or shoot it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:I think you should relax and then come back and read this post you made a half hour from now and you might begin to understand why some gun owners think it would be a good idea to have something similar to military psychological screenings be required before being able to purchase guns and ammo If we are going to give power to the state to determine who owns a gun (which we've already done to an unacceptable degree in barring felons from ownership), then there is no right at all and we might as well ban guns. That's not my position, so I don't endorse psychological screening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If we are going to give power to the state to determine who owns a gun (which we've already done to an unacceptable degree in barring felons from ownership), then there is no right at all and we might as well ban guns. That's not my position, so I don't endorse psychological screening.  No, this is a major stretch. Reasonable psych evals are not equivalent to a total ban.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:If we are going to give power to the state to determine who owns a gun (which we've already done to an unacceptable degree in barring felons from ownership), then there is no right at all and we might as well ban guns. That's not my position, so I don't endorse psychological screening. everyone likes communism but it's not going to happen for a while and so until then we can do some things to improve our quality of lives anyway, imperfect as so they may be
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
It's interesting, even when talking about things that we are all familiar with, i.e. Cars. The people clamoring for more Government Control, have the least knowledge of the laws that already exist. I wonder why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:I think you should relax and then come back and read this post you made a half hour from now and you might begin to understand why some gun owners think it would be a good idea to have something similar to military psychological screenings be required before being able to purchase guns and ammo CommieGIR posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
And that's not what I said, either. Palace of Hate posted:everyone likes communism but it's not going to happen for a while and so until then we can do some things to improve our quality of lives anyway, imperfect as so they may be These include increased public assistance, housing first for the homeless, diminishing imperialism and advocating for a higher minimum wage. Gun control doesn't even approach a priority, and is an excellent example of identity politics intended to distract from substantial issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
You know for an area of law with as much history of blatant racial and class discrimination and ongoing political animus as gun control has, you'd feel like people might be more cautious about seriously advocating a system where your ability to acquire a firearm is completely beholden to a subjective evaluation where someone determines that you're the "right" kind of person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It's interesting, even when talking about things that we are all familiar with, i.e. Cars. The people clamoring for more Government Control, have the least knowledge of the laws that already exist. But the man asked for my papers! He had a tie. Wasn't he the government?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
I don't mean to imply a direct implementation of only the military suicide question, it was more of a suggestion that there are probably already existing well thought out and well developed criteria for issuance of a firearm based on various factors developed by professionals (which I am not)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And that's not what I said, either. SedanChair posted:If we are going to give power to the state to determine who owns a gun (which we've already done to an unacceptable degree in barring felons from ownership), then there is no right at all and we might as well ban guns. That's not my position, so I don't endorse psychological screening. No, that's pretty much what you said. LGD posted:You know for an area of law with as much history of blatant racial and class discrimination and ongoing political animus as gun control has, you'd feel like people might be more cautious about seriously advocating a system where your ability to acquire a firearm is completely beholden to a subjective evaluation where someone determines that you're the "right" kind of person. Well, obviously, make sure the NRA or Prison Authority is not running the reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, that's pretty much what you said. Incorrect. What I am saying is that if we empower the government to choose who gets a gun, there is no right to gun ownership. It becomes a privilege and a toy of the privileged classes. I have no interest in defending that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Ok, you can buy your gun--but you need to register it and acquire a gun safety license and insurance and have yearly inspections from the government in order to buy ammunition or shoot it. None of those things are even necessary in all states. LGD posted:You know for an area of law with as much history of blatant racial and class discrimination and ongoing political animus as gun control has, you'd feel like people might be more cautious about seriously advocating a system where your ability to acquire a firearm is completely beholden to a subjective evaluation where someone determines that you're the "right" kind of person. That was in the past! It is totally irrelevant now because of statistical outliers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Mutually Assured Destruction is the only reasonable means of safety in this country, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Incorrect. What I am saying is that if we empower the government to choose who gets a gun, there is no right to gun ownership. It becomes a privilege and a toy of the privileged classes. I have no interest in defending that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well, obviously, make sure the NRA or Prison Authority is not running the reviews. I don't think you're actually thinking seriously about what I'm saying or what you're advocating. There were a very good reasons literacy tests were abolished for voting, and very good reasons concealed carry permitting schemes have largely moved over to a "shall issue" basis, and it wasn't because government agencies did a good job keeping racial and class bias out of their decision making process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Incorrect. What I am saying is that if we empower the government to choose who gets a gun, there is no right to gun ownership. It becomes a privilege and a toy of the privileged classes. I have no interest in defending that. The government can revoke your right to vote. I guess no one should vote. Arguing that a mental health check system would turn into a tool to deny rights is just stretching, I'm sorry. It might encourage SOME discrimination, but I sincerely doubt it would turn into a free for all without some MASSIVE SCOTUS case. LGD posted:I don't think you're actually thinking seriously about what I'm saying or what you're advocating. There were a very good reasons literacy tests were abolished for voting, and very good reasons concealed carry permitting schemes have largely moved over to a "shall issue" basis, and it wasn't because government agencies did a good job keeping racial and class bias out of their decision making process. You are talking about obvious cases of discrimination versus tools to verify someones ability to handle a tool designed for killing. Not to mention you are arguing that mental health checks would turn into Jim Crow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:I don't mean to imply a direct implementation of only the military suicide question, it was more of a suggestion that there are probably already existing well thought out and well developed criteria for issuance of a firearm based on various factors developed by professionals (which I am not) -Have you completed basic training? -Will you sign a piece of paper saying you're not a domestic violence offender? -Are you not currently banned from being issued weapons by your commander due to pending criminal action? There's a course of fire as well, but they will do literally whatever it takes to make sure you pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He is referring more to licensing for a drivers license, which in most states requires MASSIVE amounts of paperwork (three proofs of address, proof of insurance, two proofs of ID) versus purchasing a gun (fill out a single form and show an ID, and in many states its a 10-15 minutes call to the FBI for your background check) That's not remotely a lot of paper work. Especially not if you've filled out an SF86.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:please come down from your ideological stallion and immerse yourself in objective reality for at least 30 seconds and use your brain to realize that there are items which are widely available in this world today which it is in the interests of literally every living person who is not suicidal that they should be regulated and controlled due to inherent properties of them I'm not particularly interested in that. I don't approach life from a perspective of controlling individuals. Corporations and governments are what need to be controlled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The government can revoke your right to vote. I guess no one should vote. By disenfranchising felons the government has made a farce of democracy. The same logic applies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
XakEp posted:That's not remotely a lot of paper work. Especially not if you've filled out an SF86. Not the same thing as applying for a drivers license or firearms license. Of COURSE you should be filling out more paperwork if you are applying for National Security Positions. SedanChair posted:By disenfranchising felons the government has made a farce of democracy. The same logic applies. So does removing a felons right to own a firearm do the same?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm not particularly interested in that. I don't approach life from a perspective of controlling individuals. Corporations and governments are what need to be controlled. I propose to you that there are many individuals in this world today who are incapable of thinking outside of the mindset of being part of a group or larger entity, such as a corporation, government, or homologous entities, and this (more specifically it's resultant effect on ethical reasoning and decision making) is precisely the reason that there needs to be these laws which control and regulate various aspects of society or what could be construed as "individuals"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So does removing a felons right to own a firearm do the same? I already said as much. Palace of Hate posted:I propose to you that there are many individuals in this world today who are incapable of thinking outside of the mindset of being part of a group or larger entity, such as a corporation, government, or homologous entities, and this (more specifically it's resultant effect on ethical reasoning and decision making) is precisely the reason that there needs to be these laws which control and regulate various aspects of society or what could be construed as "individuals" I suppose so, but gun control doesn't seem to be an important one to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The government can revoke your right to vote. I guess no one should vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:I already said as much. Wait. No, now you are actually arguing felons deserve the right to own firearms.  Dead Reckoning posted:Well, you can structure it one of two ways: either the applicant needs to prove their fitness to the satisfaction of a government agent who can approve or deny based on their individual judgement, in which case you have a shall-issue system which has been abused in the past, or you can structure it such that the government needs to prove the applicant is unfit based on objective criteria... which is pretty much the system we have right now. Except that most states, especially in the South, purposefully decide not to file the expected paperwork or have eliminated the need for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:12
|
|