|
gently caress you. That's why. We don't NEED guns. We also don't NEED free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to worship how we choose, or any of a number of other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The murder rate is roughly half what it was in the mid-1990's. Violent crime is down across the board. You just hear about these things more because blood gets eyes on screens, and it's white people this time. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Dec 3, 2015 |
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Honestly we've got it somewhat right. It should take a judge and legal proceedings to revoke someone's rights. It's the same argument held against Guantanamo Bay and terror watchlists.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:Question for those who think gun control won't solve anything: War on drugs and systematic racism for 500, Alex.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
There are enough privately owned guns in the US to give every one of Norway's 5 million people 65 of them and have some left over. Those aren't going away without confiscation. P.S. your entire population is smaller than oUR cities.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The no-fly list thing specifically is a bad idea because the no-fly list is a secret government shitlist with no known consistent selection method and a track record of red-flagging everyone from dissident journalists to Senators, and once you're on it unless you're a celebrity you have no recourse to ever get off or find out why. It's bullshit when applied to travel and it's intolerable when used to strip away peoples' actual rights as citizens. Anyone pushing for this is a fascist trying to spook you into unthinking obendience with the T-word, plain and simple. I want to emptyquote this because it is pure and true. Omne posted:I get his point on the Patriot Act and it's definitely a slippery slope. I actually hadn't thought of gun control that way before, but I see where it comes from. My point is that rights aren't always "all or nothing, any infringement is wrong" because certain rights do have those caveats or restrictions. Gun ownership seems to be "any single restriction whatsoever is a massive infringement on my rights." Would, say, waiting three days be an unspeakable infringement? The bit you're missing is that there already are substantial restrictions surrounding the sale, use, and carrying of arms. It's not that any single restriction is a massive infringement, it's that the folks who want total disarmament have come out and said that that's their goal, and they will incrementally push for it until it happens, so the only recourse is to say 'gently caress you, no' because their agenda is open and plain. To give you an idea of why most of us keep saying that poo poo doesn't work, look at the very shooting that spawned this discussion. California has all the laws you're suggesting, from waiting periods to restrictions on types of guns allowed, to standard capacity magazine and scary black rifle bans. None of them did poo poo, because they aren't about stopping gun violence, they're about exerting control over people the gun control advocates don't like. If they had any intellectual honesty, they'd be campaigning to ban handguns (used in ~9000 homicides a year) rather than 'assault weapons' (rifles of all types used in ~400 homicides per year), but they know that'll go over with the public and the SCOTUS like a wet fart in church. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:The First and second amendments kind of compliment each other at this point. Just because they choose not to exercise their rights does not mean they are not valuable. Also, that 'not valuable' line of discussion is exactly why my usual response to freshman polysci arguments like this is 'gently caress off and get it amended, then, if you don't feel it is valuable'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:How does the war on drugs and systemic racism lead to something like the Isla Vista shootings? I dunno, how would the experience of being a Muslim in modern America radicalize someone into terrorism? :v That said, mass shootings get news attention specifically because they are outliers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
One of the big things that both sides of the Argent can probably agree on is that it is a travesty that the BATFE and DoJ refuse to prosecute straw purchasers despite having legal grounds to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Given that Rook is just a Bobcat loader with some steel plate welded to it? Yeah, sure, go nuts. If you've got the money, you can buy Cold War era Russian tanks or MiGs now as a private citizen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Xequecal posted:Effective gun control restricts who can own guns or why people can own guns. Effective idiot control also starts with needing to provide a reason and proof that you need to own an internet connection. Which will be very effective once that pesky First Amendment is inevitably repealed. Gun control theory based around removing the Second Amendment is purely in the realm of magical thinking. It isn't going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Miranda posted:Okay I appreciate everyone's replies I really do. And the mostly civil tone we've been able to maintain. No, we can't, because your 'something' that needs to be changed is limiting the constitutionally-protected rights of your neighbors to make yourself feel good because you've done 'something'. You might as profitably suggest that gays not be allowed to marry because it would cut down on people being upset about the sanctity of marriage. Panzeh posted:I don't think you'll get a lot of people with this but focusing on poo poo like hi-points and these .32 pocket pistols that actually end up being used for most gun crime as opposed to things like AR-15s which are almost never used for this would be a start. That's gotta be apocryphal. The receiver alone on a Mosin is.... 7 inches long, now that I put a measuring tape on it. Even cut down as far as possible (which is a felony, by the by, if you don't have the proper forms filed with the BATFE), it's still going to be a massive, heavy, lovely single shot pistol that cost more than a used Hi-Point or Lorcin and shoots worse than something cobbled together out of pipe.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Subyng posted:Again, loving LOL at this guy comparing the "right" to gun ownership to the rights to free speech and religion and such. Just stop. It's not a slippery slope. I'm sorry you don't understand the American legal system, where the right to gun ownership is, in fact, quite literally as important as the right to free speech, free religion, and free association. Don't like that? Get organizing and make repealing the Second a political cause. I'll wait, although I'll probably have to pass my guns on to my next of kin when I die of old age before it ever comes to even a half-assed vote in Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Jeza posted:What the rest of the world sees, and too many Americans don't, is that making the possession of machines that can kill other human beings in an instant is dangerous and asking for trouble. It is irrelevant that even 99% of gun owners never do anything bad with them, even enjoy them, if 1% are negligent (leaving them lying around) or malicious, or emotionally unstable. Killing just becomes too easy. And personally, I don't see almost any good reason for owning a firearm beyond hunting. Seems mostly like a dick-waving thing to me. One point that I will continually credit the founders of America for accidentally putting into place is making it drastically hard for manufactured moral panic and disdain to let the few restrict the rights of the many. We failed to heed that once, and as has been noted, we're still fighting the results of Prohibition on the nature of criminal enterprise in the US. Nice touch on the 'but it's not important to -me- so clearly those it is important to are dickless cuckolds' smugness, though. You'll fit right in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Why are guns important to you, personally, Liquid Communism? As a dickless cuckold you'll have to do me the favour, as I'm too dickless to understand these things without help. They're not, really. I mean, I like my target shooting and hunting, but I'd do fine without them. The right to own them, on the other hand, is very important to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Jeza posted:OK, so you can take or leave guns, but the right is important? There are lots of things proscribed in society, but I guess you don't lobby on behalf of most of them. So you think the right to bear arms is in some way special and deserves protecting despite the consequences. Is it so you could theoretically rise up against an unjust government? Or something else? I think the right to bear arms is in no way more or less special than the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is simply the one most often attacked by those frightened of the actions of evil men, and with flimsy logic and emotional appeals. I'm just as grumpy about the post-9/11 inroads against the 4th through 9th amendments in the name of 'Homeland Security' that has amounted to security theatre and widespread violation of the rights of the public; it's just that there's little need to argue that here because it seems to be a generally held opinion. There are a lot of rights protected under the Constitution that I do not personally make use of often. I rarely have need to demand a jury trial, risk having my home taken to quarter soldiers, nor do I practice a religion that would be otherwise persecuted. But as an American, I value those rights nonetheless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I don't really get this argument. Why would we exclude that? Do gangbangers killing each other not count, and we don't think it's a bad thing that society should work to alleviate? They count, but they also aren't going to be stopped by gun control alone; any more than London, Tokyo, or Sydney are free of street crime now. The factors behind street crime and gang warfare are well understood, we simply aren't doing anything about them sufficient to curb them because that would be expensive, and primarily serve to help impoverished black and hispanic people. Jeza posted:So if I understand you, you really don't care too much about guns or gun control, but care instead about the sanctity of the constitution? Don't you think that the original intention behind the amendment has been completely lost? The "right to bear arms" is just an addendum to the importance of having a Militia, back when something like that could feasibly have overthrown a corrupt government. Not to mention the sheer technological constraints of single shot, muzzle loaded weapons means that they were legislating effectively for a completely different thing. I think the original intention of the amendment has been upheld quite well, actually. The intent, as I read it, is that the populace have ready access to arms with which to defend themselves, their families, and their nation at need. I am fully in agreement with constitutional scholars and the SCOTUS that the militia clause does not refer to the national armed forces, nor to the National Guard as is often claimed; given that organization did not exist on a national scale until 1903, and is effectively a reserve for the active Army since being put under state and federal dual control in the 1930's, it bears little to nothing in common to the local ad-hoc 'militias' of the Revolutionary War, which were simply the local able-bodied citizens, mostly armed with their own personal weapons. To put your other question in context : The feasibility of overthrowing any government is not a factor that matters, beyond the chilling effect of any governing body understanding that the populace is well armed, and any tyranny or outside invasion will be met with violent protest. As we have had ample demonstration in the last few decades, a opposition force does not need to win military victories. It simply needs to be difficult enough to root out that an area cannot return to business as usual, and must be maintained on a wartime front, requiring investments of manpower and materiel be tied up defending it. In the case of the US, the military is very small relative to the land mass and total population. It cannot hold the country at gunpoint and expect to not be beset at every turn by sabotage and both civil and armed disobedience. It would win any open battle, but it could not govern. This is the reality that needs to be, and is intended to be, in the back of the mind of every elected official. They work for the populace at the end of the day, and trying to set themselves up as a new English aristocracy by feudal might must never cross their minds. As far as what good the 2nd Amendment does in the US, even setting aside how much of the country's conservation budget comes from hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts, you can look no farther than the Black Panthers, or the armed shopkeepers scaring off looters in the LA Riots, or any of the thousands of defensive firearms usages a year that happen today. So that's the long version, but bongwizzard's got it in the simplest and most easily applicable form.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Shoren posted:Yeah, no poo poo, having a weapon around makes injury by that weapon more likely, thanks for that brilliant insight. Removing the tool isn't the solution. Instead of mass shootings you'd hear of mass bombings instead. The only way to prevent these tragedies from happening is addressing the mental state of these individuals. Anyone in a bad enough mental state that feels they have to harm other people at random will find a way to do it even if guns didn't exist anymore. poo poo, imagine if the Aurora theater attacker had just locked the doors and set the place on fire.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
wiffle ball bat posted:i dont understand how anyone has the stamina to have this same slapfight again Just a note, there aren't 29k firearm homicides in the US a year. There are about 12k. Most of the rest of that 30k number is suicides, which are tragic, but aren't going to be stopped by making it harder for criminals to get guns unless we criminalize mental illness.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Honestly, the sanctity of the constitution argument is the dumbest thing ever. If people really support the right to keep and bear arms on the basis of the sanctity of the constitution, then why don't the major proponents of this argument ever follow it to it's logical conclusion and support the ownership of Surface-to-Air missiles? Or ICBM's? They asked conservative "genius" Justice Scalia this exact question and he said that when the founders wrote "keep and bare arms" they really meant that you had to be able to pick up and carry the weapon in order for it to qualify for the 2nd amendment, which anyone with a brain and who is being intellectually honest knows is complete bullshit. They meant that you were not only allowed to own weapons but that you were also allowed to carry them on your person if you wanted to as well. So of course then Scalia was asked, provided that his childishly intellectually dishonest reading of the 2nd amendment was accepted, how he explains the rather obvious giant gaping loophole in his logic that allows people to own bazookas, hand grenades, shoulder mounted rocket launchers, and suitcase nukes, things which he obviously didn't support but were logically consistent with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment. His response was basically a shrug and a hand-wave that he would legislate it "very carefully". In other words he gave a total non-answer when his obvious hypocrisy and logical inconsistency was pointed out. And this is the guy who's supposed to be one of the smartest conservative gun advocates and best arguers on the planet. Funny thing about that. You can theoretically own surface to air missiles. They're classed as Destructive Devices, registered under the NFA, and require a $200 per tax stamp to transfer. Hell, everything on your list up to the nukes can be had if you can find someone selling one that's got the right papertrail. Most of it you can set off as well, so long as you've got a piece of property outside city limits big enough that you're not risking anyone else's. That includes not interfering in flight paths, so firing your SAM is right out. You can also buy surplus tanks and warplanes, although the FAA won't certify anything armed for flight. ICBMs, like nuclear weapons, are weapons of mass destruction, and are regulated under different laws than individual arms. I really wish both sides of this argument would actually read the relevant laws before spouting off.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
I'd agree, the closed NFA registry is effectively a backdoor ban, and it should be reopened for just that reason, as that is the least change that can be made to give relief to those whose rights are being infringed. Nukes (as well as biological weapons, chemical weapons, and things like landmines) are classed differently because they are weapons of massive collateral damage. Your desire for intellectual honesty in discussion should extend to not attempting to handwave the difference between a personal weapon that is designed to strike a single target, and a weapn that is by its nature a weapon meant to destroy masses of people indiscriminately. This is, idly, why they are referred to as WMDs as outlined specifically under US Code, and why the surviving Tsarnaev brother was charged with Use Of A Weapon Of Mass Destruction for his actions in the Boston Marathon bombing. Edit : Going to drop this here. It's a piece from Ken White over at Popehat on discussing gun control, and how to do so in a useful way. https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/ Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Yeah, the real "ban" on surface to air missiles, RPGs, giant cannons, or other ridiculous poo poo, is the extreme cost of actually buying one. Hell, flamethrowers actually aren't under any federal regulation and to my knowledge are completely unregulated aside from some state laws. Flamethrowers actually have pretty useful civilian roles, too. I've used something similar for burning out ditches full of brambles and ditchweed at my grandparents' farm. Also, don't forget that manufacturing things classed as Destructive Devices runs to about $4500 for three years in taxes alone, so you're not going to get many hobby builders unless they can sell in bulk. No profit in it. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
What, gyrojet rounds? They never caught on, I don't think anyone's manufactured any in 50 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 00:07
|
|