|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
If NICS were available to anybody, even for a modest fee of a couple of dollars, I'd be totally fine with that. But enforcement of a mandatory check for private sales is going to be challenging.psydude posted: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. 1-It's not, but which of those is generating headlines? 2-Because nobody in government wants to ban vehicles. Step 1 for seizure is a list. Didn't we just have a scare about ICE using the voluntary DACA list to track people down? I'm not even going into the rights vs privilege issue. Mr. Nice! posted:You are guaranteed the right to travel, but there has been restrictions placed on every method of doing so besides walking, and even then you cannot wantonly travel across another's property. Various other parts of the bill of rights come with explicit requirements or tests to balance them out. You don't get your attorney unless you specifically and unequivocally ask for one. Likewise you don't get your fifth amendment right to remain silent unless you explicitly invoke it. There are tons of restrictions on speech from fighting words to assault to tortious acts. If you had the Constitutional right to shoot, I would agree. Godholio fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:What the gently caress else are you owning a gun for other than to shoot it? You don't buy a hammer unless you're gonna hit some nails. You buy a saw to cut something. You buy a gun to loving shoot it. I've probably put fewer than 100 rds through my Garand in 10 years of ownership. I own my CCW to keep and bear it; I shoot it so I can do so responsibly, not the other way around. If you want to pass an amendment that no firearms registration can be used to identify gun owners for anything other than an alleged crime by an individual (not to include gun ownership itself) I'm listening. But frankly I don't trust standard legislation, and I'm not alone. It boggles my mind that anyone can look at the current president and Congress and think, "Yeah, I trust their word and consistency." psydude posted:This isn't true. State and local municipalities are constantly trying to regulate if not outright prohibit vehicles from operating or parking in their jurisdictions. Fair enough on the car thing...I hadn't heard about that happening in the US. It's still not the same as a national or statewide restriction on a Constitutional right. The idea of a real political party advocating removal of voting rights is absurd. The idea of a real political party advocating the removal of firearms rights is not. And plenty of people ARE worried about voter registration lists...in any other administration the Russians hacking numerous states to gain access to the rolls would be loving groundbreaking news. In 2018 that was Tuesday. Sure, the government can find me. Doesn't mean I like it, or that I think it's necessarily right. Also doesn't mean I need to show up on an official list as being a potential criminal based on which direction the political winds blow. The ammo thing legit worries me. California is doing exactly that kind of poo poo right now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
psydude posted:The government doesn't have the time or money to take your guns. They can't even decide which immigrants who got a parking ticket 20 years ago to deport. They don't have to send loving gestapo squads door to door for this to become a problem. All they have to do is throw down 10-25 year sentences (or anything, really) if you're caught in possession of something that Mike Bloomberg doesn't like. That feels like infringement. Hope your taillight doesn't go out, that little flag when they run your license might make your night considerably worse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Want to address your claim that republicans don’t actively engage in voter disenfranchisement? They're trying to circumvent what I'm talking about, which is passing a law that says "black people and gays can't vote." That's not happening. Nobody in power is openly calling for it. People in power ARE trying to do that with guns. And pointing out that the GOP is pursuing lovely workarounds like gerrymandering and closing DMV offices in predominantly black areas while passing voter ID laws isn't exactly going to convince me to trust the government not to try similar lovely tactics about guns. Like California's new ammo laws. 45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:gun control at the state level is retarded because its easy to bypass. Illegally. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Are you trying to change my mind? If I don't trust the government not to abuse its powers, giving me examples of the government actively trying to do it to other people isn't going to change that. Congrats, I'm even MORE entrenched in my position.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I’m just calling out one of your outlandish claims, but to the other side, these attempts at disenfranchisement are short lived. I was specifically thinking of an overt motion in violation of this: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." You're right that felons have had their rights abridged. quote:No one is changing the second amendment. Your toys are safe. Don't be a dismissive rear end in a top hat, this was a reasonable conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Your fears of getting your arms taken away are not reasonable and are on the edge of phobic paranoia, but you said you don't shoot them so what should I call them? There are senior Democrats that have been rallying for exactly that for years. What's the unreasonable part? Just because they've been incompetent on a national level since the 90s? Also, I do shoot. You were conflating owning guns with shooting them, so I provided a couple of examples of other situations. I prefer shooting full-sized pistols to compacts, but they suck for concealed carry. So I practice with my compact not for fun, but for practice. I shoot other guns for fun. quote:I highly doubt you've ever actually used any of them in self defense of yourself or others. The federal government is not some big boogeyman out to get you. I've almost drawn my pistol once, when I was an armed guard; fortunately I haven't had to go further than that. I've also got a friend who is permanently disfigured from an evening when he answered the door and four dudes kicked it in, cut on him a little bit, and discussed whether or not to murder him in his own living room. quote:I'm really not trying to be super snarky, but seriously what would be a reasonable restriction to you? What good justification is there for half of the entire world's private arms to be in the USA? I'm fine with expanding background checks, provided that the infrastructure is put into place to support it. Or if there's a way to flag people with mental conditions that should preclude firearm possession without violating HIPAA. Hell, if there's a way to codify a registry that could never be employed to identify/track/prosecute/etc gun owners simply for being gun owners, I'd be willing to listen to that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's not going to happen without a constitutional amendment. Until that's actually a real possibility, your fears are entirely unreasonable. If they tried to actually take arms, the SCOTUS is not going to suddenly flip back on Heller. There's no reason to wait until things are at or past the tipping point. quote:I bolded the important part. I understand the need for a guard to be armed, but you've never been in a situation at all where you would need to carry a weapon 24/7. Your friend's story, while tragic, probably would have been worse if he had a gun on him when he answered because he wasn't prepared to draw to fire right away anyways (being that they seem to have caught him off guard). He has a gun on him and he probably gets shot. Also, to this extent, do you carry your weapon ready to be drawn every single time you open the door? If not, then you're not actually protecting yourself with it. Maybe. Maybe not. quote:I think this is a good start, but it's going to be insufficient on it's own. Expanded background checks wouldn't have stopped Cruz or Paddock. Humans are trash. Extreme and brutal violence is not going to go away no matter what gun control efforts are enacted. Whether it's guns or driving into crowds, people who want to do this for whatever reason will find a way. To me, the more important issue is "why is this happening?" It's not happening because of the guns on the street. Gun ownership rates in this country have hovered around the same level since we were colonies, as borne out by numerous historians that decided to fact-check Michael Bellesiles' Arming America. So if we've always had the guns, why haven't we always had the shootings? It's not because of "high capacity" magazines, it's not because of semi-automatic machinery. It's not because of picatinny rails or pistol grips. psydude posted:Yeah? Do you think he would have had time to run to his room, pull his weapon out of his safe, load it, and put rounds on those guys? Or do you walk around your house constantly at the low ready waiting for a threat. How about when you're taking a poo poo? When you're at the gym? What about when you're at the grocery store? If I'm wearing my jeans, I'm typically armed. I bought the pants to fit with a belt and holster, so without them it's a loving disaster. If I'm in my Thanksgiving stretchy pants, I'll never tell 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:Because then you need to admit that your killing tools could be used to kill things and maybe not everyone should be allowed that power (maybe that person could even be you) Hi, welcome to a conversation where we're kind of past the point of strawmen I thought.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So what you're saying is the problem is minorities? Yes, this is the point.  This intentional misinterpretation of pretty simple statements and the other bullshit is getting old. If you can't have a goddamned conversation without resorting to that poo poo, just don't try.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:And godholio I don't want to chase anyone off with being lovely. I want to figure out how to change your mind because changing your mind is the only way we do something about this. People like you are the hurdle to change, so if I can figure out a way to convince you then I can convince others as well. You can start by electing Democrats to the national stage who don't take positions about wanting to ban guns. I do not trust such people with a literal list of gun owners and addresses. This situation is not something I am interested in repeating. It's wrong with DACA, it would be wrong for guns. If anything, the DACA registration should serve as a warning to everyone: your government might be ok right now, but what happens in 4/8/20/40 years? This government was never intended to hold the monopoly on violence, there was intentionally room for the people (through their states, an idea that developed along a very different path) to challenge it. No, I don't expect there to be an armed insurrection, nor is that the point. I look at it almost as a form of MAD; knowing that there are people out there with the means to resist will deter any attempt for the gov't to press the issue at barrel point and wreak havoc on the chain of command in any kind of CONUS event. Depending on who pulls the trigger, this forum bounces between "gently caress cops most of them should probably be dead" and "no guns allowed." It's an emotional rollercoaster in here, and I can't roll my eyes hard enough. Then in the thread for actually discussing those issues, you have Laranzo posting a reasonable (at least discussable) point about how different cultures often clash, something that has literally been true for the entirety of human existence and the actual reason why America as a "melting pot" was so special, you literally twist his statement into "minorities are the problem." That's disingenuous or moronic, take your pick. Mr. Nice! posted:
Except that difference has existed since the first British ship landed in Australia (1788). If a glut of guns had suddenly become available and we saw a corresponding increase, this would be clear. But the guns have always been here. The violence is new.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Unless you mean something awful as whole I don't think this is really representative. I'm not even arguing that no guns should be allowed. Sure D&D may be looney, but that attitude is not the majority here outside of dumb trolling. What are you arguing then? quote:there has never been a cheaper time to buy weapons nor has ammunition ever been so plentiful. There is a constant stream of new cheap weapons flooding into the market. Overall ownership numbers have remained relatively static, but the availability and access today completely dwarfs anything from 50 years ago. And I'm fine with restricting access to very narrow groups of people, where there's a clear case to be made. The constant stream and low prices are irrelevant if they're not increasing ownership numbers. quote:And the violence isn't new. It's just getting reported now. Right, I remember all the school shootings when I was a kid in the 80s. Oh, and my dad talked about all the gun violence at his school as a kid too. Wait no. Back then kids used to show off their new hunting rifles and shotguns AT school.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:look until you admit that the wide availability of firearms to just about everyone with basically zero restrictions short of "actually a convicted felon or involuntarily committed for being mentally ill" just might possibly have something to do with all the massacres you're basically jumping through hoops to explain why the body count associated with our hobby can't actually be blamed on our hobby. I don't have to jump through hoops. The guns were there before. The school shootings weren't. Something changed. When you have to solve for a variable you don't pick one of the numbers, you go for X.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That weapons should be regulated and controlled. That we should use a voluntary buyback to get guns off the street. That we need actual licensing and registration when it comes to firearm ownership and purchases. I'm fine with most of this. quote:The constant stream and low prices allow Stephen Paddock to easily buy 55 rifles and thousands of rounds of magazines in a very short span of time. He was wealthy enough that it wouldn't have been an issue anyway. quote:Your dad grew up in a rural area and there are still people with gun racks in their trucks in rural areas today. Kids have been getting shot in schools in the cities for decades. That's actually been a discussion earlier in this thread. Also the weapons and accessories of today were not just readily available things to anyone let alone kids back then. quote:That's not what is going on. Mass shootings have been happening here for quite a long time. This isn't something new outside of kids having ready and unfettered access to cheap weapons and ammunition. Not like we're seeing today. Something has changed. As far as kids having access, yeah that's obviously a problem. Maybe we need to start holding parents accountable for their children's actions, particularly if the kids have access to dad's guns stacked in the closet without a safe. quote:Also when you're doing actual statistical analysis of a situation there's a lot more to it than a simple algebraic formula. That's why the comparison to contemporary countries is so useful. The only explanation that has a quantifiable statistical significance is the number of weapons per person (we're 3x more armed than Canada who coincidentally has 1/3rd the violent crime and homicide rates for example) or that there is some non-quantifiable american cultural exceptionalism that makes us more likely to go on killing sprees. So...the guns have decided to become used against other people?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
The NRA and GOP seem to have a very similar problem in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Deathy McDeath posted:GUN CONTROL QUESTION AHEAD I would say start thinking a little bit more about what your new opinion would entail. What would actually have to happen to make it legal, how would gun seizures actually work, and how well would that go over. Etc. Also, I'd read a bit more history...it's full of examples of the citizenry being abused by a government that has a full monopoly of force, or the government being unable to defend the unarmed population when necessary. The examples don't show up every decade, but when they do appear, the results are disastrous. The idea that "it could never happen here" is 100% bullshit. We're seeing seeds planted literally now, through this administration and that its horrible ideas (death penalty for drug dealers, overt racism/regressive policies, etc) actually have some support in the population. Edit: Get an air rifle and gift your guns to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Steezo posted:FYI this is why the anti-rights crowd isn't taken seriously. "Oh you don't agree with me, and pointed out a fact, let me attack you as a person". And lovely debaters like you make the pro-gun side look bad.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
Kuroyama posted:I think it's the National Guard that could conceivably be thought of as a militia nowadays. Except the NG isn't really what they thought of as a militia either. The tie is basically heraldry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
From that very page:quote:This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:hmmm so the unorganized militia is by definition not well regulated By your definition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Motherfucker posted:hi long time lurker first time poster, why do you guys shoot dogs all the time? You haven't been lurking for long enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 15:07
|
|