|
CommieGIR posted:Wait. No, now you are actually arguing felons deserve the right to own firearms. The permanent underclass created by the "felon" classification is one of those problems that is more important then gun control.
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Powercrazy posted:The permanent underclass created by the "felon" classification is one of those problems that is more important then gun control. Maybe narrow it down: Violent Crime Felons or Domestic Violence. I mean, let's be honest: We've already brought up that the War on Drugs is part of the issue, so felons with a drug record only should really be exempt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted: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. But the point is that they weren't so obvious that they were instantly invalidated- they persisted for a long time, and in the case of "may issue" still persist. Even if you're approaching this from the position that gun ownership should be a restricted privilege rather than a right, the system you're advocating is ripe for invidious discrimination against minorities, the poor, the politically unconnected, and the unpopular. It doesn't need to be part of a society-wide system of directed discrimination to be an truly unjust policy. And unless your actual goal is firearm abolition through incrementalism, I don't see why the likely discriminatory effects of a policy you're advocating wouldn't be troubling to you. And given the actual history in this area I find the assertion that this time it'll be fine because it's being done with good intentions to be both deeply unserious and unsatisfying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
LGD posted:But the point is that they weren't so obvious that they were instantly invalidated- they persisted for a long time, and in the case of "may issue" still persist. Even if you're approaching this from the position that gun ownership should be a restricted privilege rather than a right, the system you're advocating is ripe for invidious discrimination against minorities, the poor, the politically unconnected, and the unpopular. It doesn't need to be part of a society-wide system of directed discrimination to be an truly unjust policy. And unless your actual goal is firearm abolition through incrementalism, I don't see why the likely discriminatory effects of a policy you're advocating wouldn't be troubling to you. And given the actual history in this area I find the assertion that this time it'll be fine because it's being done with good intentions to be both deeply unserious and unsatisfying. But this is appeals to "That's the way its always been" which assumes things that were obvious attempts to block out certain undesirables and were ALWAYS obvious racist/classist devices. Its a slipper slope argument, and not a very well reasoned one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Maybe narrow it down: Violent Crime Felons or Domestic Violence. I mean, let's be honest: We've already brought up that the War on Drugs is part of the issue, so felons with a drug record only should really be exempt. As a socially conscious leftist that believes in rehabilitation over retribution, I think if a person has served his sentence, then there is no need for further punishment and thus they should be granted the same rights as everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Maybe narrow it down: Violent Crime Felons or Domestic Violence. I mean, let's be honest: We've already brought up that the War on Drugs is part of the issue, so felons with a drug record only should really be exempt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:As a socially conscious leftist that believes in rehabilitation over retribution, I think if a person has served his sentence, then there is no need for further punishment and thus they should be granted the same rights as everyone else. Too bad we don't have a rehabilitation system. We have a retribution system. You'd need to make MASSIVE changes to the Criminal Justice system and the Prison system prior to take this view. Its a Horse before cart or cart before horse situation Dead Reckoning posted:I don't see why anyone who committed a non-violent felony shouldn't have their rights restored if they've done their time and completed probation. That's what I agreed with further up the page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Wait. No, now you are actually arguing felons deserve the right to own firearms. I've never said anything different. If you've done your time, all your rights should be restored. e: b
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I've never said anything different. If you've done your time, all your rights should be restored. Regardless of what your felony was for? You're assumption being that our jails rehabilitate felons, which is not what they do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Regardless of what your felony was for? You're assumption being that our jails rehabilitate felons, which is not what they do. What difference does that make? Let me save you a few steps in this discussion, because we've had it before. Q: What about child molesters? A: Is there something special about child molesters that means they should be permanently deprived of rights? Q: OH MY GOD YOU'RE A CHILD MOLESTER 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What difference does that make? Nice assumption. Not the route I would take, nor would an ad hom serve any purpose. Regardless, you bring up a valid point? Does jail time actually 'treat' child molesters? Does jail time actually 'treat' violent criminals? No. Not in the US. We do not have prisons designed to rehabilitate. This is evidenced by thinks like the 'Three Strikes' rules and excessive punishment for relatively low end crime like drug use or drug abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
I don't see how you can be in favor of proletarian control of the means of production but not the means of destruction unless you're Tezzor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't see how you can be in favor of proletarian control of the means of production but not the means of destruction unless you're Tezzor. It's not a sweat shop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Let's be honest. Tezzor just understands that the act if being Tezzor would incite violence if performed in public, and thus requires that everyone else be disarmed in order to feel safe leaving his shed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Let's be honest. Tezzor just understands that the act if being Tezzor would incite violence if performed in public, and thus requires that everyone else be disarmed in order to feel safe leaving his shed. Middle Management can't shoot guns. They have Building Security for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But this is appeals to "That's the way its always been" which assumes things that were obvious attempts to block out certain undesirables and were ALWAYS obvious racist/classist devices. But it's also that way now (see: ongoing voter ID battles, police violence, etc.) and you're advocating a system that has people using undefined criteria to block out a totally nebulous category of undesirables ("unfit gun owners") based on their subjective judgments. It's potential for deliberate use as a racist/classist device is obvious, and even if this is somehow universally avoided it is blindingly obvious that such a system will be strongly influenced by whatever pre-existing biases the examiners you're entrusting with this power have. Such biases have a long history of leading to discriminatory outcomes in areas like housing and hiring, and there is no reason to suspect it would work differently here. Even if the suggestion for such as system is not motivated by racist/classist sentiments it is roughly akin to someone naively arguing for mandatory literacy and civics tests as a pre-requisite to voting in order to improve the quality of our democratic decision making process. It might work out just fine this time, but there are very good reasons we don't and shouldn't take such suggestions seriously. You may call it a slippery slope, but I think the causal chain at work is pretty obvious to most people here, and this particular slope looks a hell of a lot like a few we've passed with piles of injured people laying at the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
LGD posted:But it's also that way now (see: ongoing voter ID battles, police violence, etc.) and you're advocating a system that has people using undefined criteria to block out a totally nebulous category of undesirables ("unfit gun owners") based on their subjective judgments. It's potential for deliberate use as a racist/classist device is obvious, and even if this is somehow universally avoided it is blindingly obvious that such a system will be strongly influenced by whatever pre-existing biases the examiners you're entrusting with this power have. Such biases have a long history of leading to discriminatory outcomes in areas like housing and hiring, and there is no reason to suspect it would work differently here. Even if the suggestion for such as system is not motivated by racist/classist sentiments it is roughly akin to someone naively arguing for mandatory literacy and civics tests as a pre-requisite to voting in order to improve the quality of our democratic decision making process. It might work out just fine this time, but there are very good reasons we don't and shouldn't take such suggestions seriously. You may call it a slippery slope, but I think the causal chain at work is pretty obvious to most people here, and this particular slope looks a hell of a lot like a few we've passed with piles of injured people laying at the bottom. But that pretty much counts as an argument against ANY system: Whoops, someone might abuse it, guess we can't have it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But that pretty much counts as an argument against ANY system: Whoops, someone might abuse it, guess we can't have it. Its an argument against any system with 'undefined criteria to block out a totally nebulous category of undesirables based on their subjective judgments' which is different from ANY system. You're either not reading or being deliberately obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
I'm just going to throw this out there and I hope this thread hasn't gone to poo poo too much by now. As a gun owner I'm all for new gun laws that replace old ones. Not just tacked on new laws. And just really going out there I would like to propose a 'gun buddy' system. I'm sure its all kinds of flawed but hear me out. In order to get a gun you have to have a buddy sign off on it and you and your buddy need to be in good standing with the law. Your buddy is responsible for notifying the authorities if you develop some mental disorder or become a criminal, etc. The incentive to do so for the buddy is that their gun rights are on the line if you act up and the other way around. This will help loners with mental issues from getting guns. Buddy's can't be immediately circular. You can't be your buddy's buddy. You're free to change buddy's at any time in case you fall out with your buddy or move away from them. Buddies can't be your immediate family. You're free to choose your buddy but if you would like you can be paired up with a buddy in your area. As long as you keep firearm(s) you must meet your buddy every 6 months to perform a handling check at a local gun store or range. Yeah it's a nuisance but I don't think it exposes gun owners in any horribly negative way and it doesn't take away any gun rights or the types of guns they can have and with it I think some of the older laws on the books should be removed. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Its an argument against any system with 'undefined criteria to block out a totally nebulous category of undesirables based on their subjective judgments' which is different from ANY system. That would be about all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But that pretty much counts as an argument against ANY system: Whoops, someone might abuse it, guess we can't have it. Arbitrary and capricious decision making processes ≠ any system bro, sorry your proposal is an affront to the notion of equal treatment under the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But that pretty much counts as an argument against ANY system: Whoops, someone might abuse it, guess we can't have it. Or you could clearly define your criteria and make the permits shall issue. Why not do that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I may not disagree with you, but how do you apply this framework to speech, voting, equal treatment under the law etc.? It seems like guns are the only issue where liberals are just willing to blurt out "gently caress rights" which has got to be like 40% of the reason I love guns. I'd be happy to blurt out "gently caress rights" in regards to most of the Constitution that doesn't apply to anyone but the white landed gentry, like the Sixth Amendment in particular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nice assumption. Not the route I would take, nor would an ad hom serve any purpose. Exactly right, it's not rehabilitation, it's a punishment. I think punishments should not relegate you to a second-class citizenship for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Exactly right, it's not rehabilitation, it's a punishment. I think punishments should not relegate you to a second-class citizenship for the rest of your life. And yet is the leading issue as to why we have repeat offenders, that and poverty issues. No, I don't buy that with the justice system as it currently is do violent offenders deserve a return of their 2nd amendment rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And yet is the leading issue as to why we have repeat offenders, that and poverty issues. But you don't think the 2nd amendment is applicable unless you jump through a bunch of hoops so I don't really see why you are trying to play that angle up so much. It seems you just like regressive policy and have no problem perpetuating the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:But you don't think the 2nd amendment is applicable unless you jump through a bunch of hoops so I don't really see why you are trying to play that angle up so much. It seems you just like regressive policy and have no problem perpetuating the status quo. Please explain how gun control is a regressive policy and how policing violent felons in a non-rehabilitative justice environment is 'regressive'. What I have suggested is that we need progressive criminal reform before we start blanket restoring 2nd Amendment rights to violent criminals, this is not regressive, its progressive. The idea that we should be able to regulate who owns a firearm is not regressive, what's regressive is the ideal that firearms should be an open right and that groups that promote open carry and encourage race/civil violence through violent reprisal are in the right. Promoting the status quo is LITERALLY what you are doing. Arguing that 2nd amendment rights should just be 'The same as it ever was' while appealing to Tradition, THAT's perpetuating the Status Quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Restoring rights to felons is hardly the status quo. Neither is removing gun restrictions in general.CommieGIR posted:No, I don't buy that with the justice system as it currently is do violent offenders deserve a return of their 2nd amendment rights. Do you really think it would be a problem?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Restoring rights to felons is hardly the status quo. Neither is removing gun restrictions in general. You know what I am saying, don't try to misrepresent it. At the same time, you KNOW that we are not rehabilitating violent felons, but you are putting the cart before the horse and honestly suggesting returning a right that was removed for specific reasons. SedanChair posted:Do you really think it would be a problem? Hmmm, Violent felon, surely he's learned his lesson through a long and drawn out retribution based justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hmmm, Violent felon, surely he's learned his lesson through a long and drawn out retribution based justice system. Again, do you really think it would be a problem? And your argument is that we have brutalized felons, so they aren't to be trusted? Well that's logic fit for the War on Terror, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Again, do you really think it would be a problem? And your argument is that we have brutalized felons, so they aren't to be trusted? Well that's logic fit for the War on Terror, at least. I'm saying that we need to rehabilitate both the justice system and the felon before we go throwing around ideas like giving violent felons the right to purchase firearms again. What is so difficult to understand about this concept?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm saying that we need to rehabilitate both the justice system and the felon before we go throwing around ideas like giving violent felons the right to purchase firearms again. I understand what you are saying and I also understand that you haven't answered my question yet. Do you really think it would be a problem? Really?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you really think it would be a problem? Really? Yes. I do. Unless you are suggesting that all violent offenders are simply misunderstood or were acting in self-defense, how else should I interpret it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Promoting the status quo is LITERALLY what you are doing. Arguing that 2nd amendment rights should just be 'The same as it ever was' while appealing to Tradition, THAT's perpetuating the Status Quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Saying that we prefer the status quo to your proposed changes because we think that your proposals would be unnecessarily burdensome and ripe for abuse isn't an appeal to tradition. Your going in position is that we have to do something, which isn't a position everyone is going to agree with. Is it? We already argue that Blacks and Muslims do not have the same right to self-defense through the ways that police interact with them, so why would any system be WORSE than what we have now? You are appealing to tradition and saying 'This is the best it can get, we must do nothing' when its pretty obvious its not and we need to do something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Is it? We already argue that Blacks and Muslims do not have the same right to self-defense through the ways that police interact with them, so why would any system be WORSE than what we have now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You keep saying this like it's self-evident, but it's not. I've never said we can't do better, I made several concrete proposals up thread for things I think would improve our firearms laws. I just think that what we have right now is pretty good, and that your proposed changes are bad and wouldn't help. Then what are your proposed firearms law changes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Is it? We already argue that Blacks and Muslims do not have the same right to self-defense through the ways that police interact with them, so why would any system be WORSE than what we have now? It would be worse because it would further degrade their ability to access a right to self defense more than it already is and make any attempts to equalize access in the future more difficult through the imposition of opaque structural barriers? For someone who likes to go on about invalid slippery slope arguments, the appeal to a blatantly false dichotomy between the authoritarian and discriminatory policies you advocate and a strawmanned-to-hell-and-back declaration that this is the best of all possible worlds is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
LGD posted:It would be worse because it would further degrade their ability to access a right to self defense more than it already is and make any attempts to equalize access in the future more difficult through the imposition of opaque structural barriers? Prove it. You keep arguing that instituting mental health checks and more rigid gun purchase laws would create a Jim Crow era for self-defense, why should it? Because it can? We already live in the era where Open Carry advocates are fearful of blacks who Open Carry and Muslims with guns is practically a nightmare for the NRA, why are we not already there? Is there racism and bigotry in due process? Yes. But it already exists in the current process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:I'm just going to throw this out there and I hope this thread hasn't gone to poo poo too much by now. That's a pretty cool idea, using socialization in a positive way. Powercrazy posted:But you don't think the 2nd amendment is applicable unless you jump through a bunch of hoops so I don't really see why you are trying to play that angle up so much. It seems you just like regressive policy and have no problem perpetuating the status quo. It is extremely likely that Heller will be revisited and overturned, and gun owners and gun rights advocates should prepare for that, which will allow locales to set up 'hoops' for people to jump through, and that will be the application of the 2nd amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 20:27
|
|
