Jump to content
Raven

General "mass killings" thread

Recommended Posts

 

9 hours ago, XRay said:

The point of the right to bear arms is to give the people as a whole more willingness to exert their right to self determination and political freedom.

I can't see it. How can guns make people more willing to exert their self determination and political freedom? If anything, it limits it, as guns make make the Society more dangerous, and i am pretty sure i won't talk politics with someone i know might be carrying a gun, or participate in politics for that matter when citizens with guns can practically hold your family hostage.

9 hours ago, XRay said:

Just because the American government right now is of the people, by the people, and for the people, it does not mean that it is guaranteed to remain so.

And if it changes, some guns won't be able to do anything. Unless the right to bear arms is expanded to tanks, rockets and Aircrafs, guns won't be able to do anything against a shitty government.

 

Then again, i am just an ignorant non-american, who never understood the reason why normal citizens need easy access to guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, XRay said:

 Just because the American government right now is of the people, by the people, and for the people, it does not mean that it is guaranteed to remain so.

What if I told you that it wasn't?

The "Senate Majority" represents ~40% of the country against a true majority that opposes almost everything they do, and holds its majority despite getting less votes than the 'minority' party in 2018.

The President represents ~40% of the country against a true majority that opposes almost everything he does, and holds his office despite getting less votes than the 'loser' in 2016. 

The House of Representatives is the sole elected body at the federal level that is actually of the people and for the people. 

1/2 of 1-of-2 elected branches of government. That's it. 
__________

In response to the people need guns as a check against government tyranny argument, I'll go beyond saying its 'flimsy' and say its downright disingenuous.

...and if you actually take it in good faith, I want you to briefly imagine what the reaction of The Rightwing political elements pitching that argument would be if Antifa or Occupy Wallstreet showed up at their next event with thousands of armed 'patriots' exercising their second amendment rights against the riot police sent to contain them...

...or if an American bystander who witnessed an ICE agent attempting to pull a child out of school and send them to 'The Camps' pulled out a 25-gauge, and put a shotgun shell through said agent...  

...or if one of said prison camps and its ICE staff were to suddenly find itself under sustained fire from an organized leftwing militia...

...or if the next time a black man reaching for his driver's license at a traffic stop is murdered by a police officer and his Department declares 'no wrongdoing--lawful use of force.' A squad of Black Lives Matter activists armed with AR-15's storms said department, and delivers a generous helping of check-against-government-tyranny, courtesy of extended magazine clip.
 
You can be damn sure they would be quick to condemn anyone who actually did this as the worst kind of terrorist. 

In fact--The last time Americans actually used their guns in that manner was during the great Civil Rights battles of the 1960s. When militants associated with organizations like the Black Panthers took it upon themselves to protect their communities from the Jim Crow era white police departments that preyed upon them by forming paramilitary organizations, and just straight-up assassinating particularly racist officers who had a reputation for brutalizing black people. 

'Terrorists,' is what the conservative gun-toting  people need guns as a check against government tyranny types called them.

See--when they say people need guns as a check against government tyranny, they don't actually believe that.

What they truly mean is we should have the guns and the government. You should know that to challenge our control will get you a bullet.

The Streets would be running red with 'second amendment remedies' right now if the people making that argument genuinely believed the reason for private gun ownership is to bring tyrannical government to heel.

Tellingly: the people have always told us that are not only refusing to turn their guns against the new American Fascism. They are its biggest supporters.  

  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

14 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I don't get it either. Protection and tyrannical government justifications are extremely flimsy to me. Recreational use I can at least commend for honesty, even if I personally will never see the appeal.

I agree that a large part of this is due to easy access to firearms, but I don't think tackling that should be the only issue. I would suggest that in addition to gun control methods, the United States should also be looking at an emphasis on mental health awareness and acceptance, and funding for anti-extremist groups. Evidently, I reject the notion that the US is just "more violent" than other countries.

Gun control has many avenues including very popular ones from the public that are far removed from the 'grab the guns' narrative that certain types would have you believe. Not having as many guns in circulation through buybacks where possible, actually putting some restrictions on proper training and usage of a firearm including storage for gun owners so that kids don't pick up a gun and shoot them with it, which is another issue that happens all the time in the US. The big problem with gun control laws is that they need to be done federally to have any effect. If your state implements harsh gun control laws, then it still isn't going to help when people drag them in from surrounding states other than maybe making it slightly harder for them to sell them (but probably not much).

Mental health is the pivot that Republicans will usually go to, but they seem unwilling to fund anything that would help in that area either. The US is known for having particularly bad stigmas and views towards those suffering - you just need to look at the conflation of mental illness and ringing of hands for that after these mass shootings. Most mentally ill people are not aggressive, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that a better societal acceptance of such issues would not be a bad thing, including reactions to those being abused (or being abusive or showing cruelty, towards animals or otherwise).

Funding for anti-extremist branches of government have been slashed, particularly in relation to far-right domestic terrorists. Where possible, government enforcement should work with local communities in order to detect possible radical groups, and actually put pressure on them. (instead of, in many cases with shooters, visiting them once and leaving - it's happened several times in the past) This is for all types of terrorism, and if you actually attempt to work with communities instead of making them pariahs, you may see better results (such as happened in Canada where there were multiple cases of Imams and Muslims reporting radicals that were planning bomb attacks). This is one that may be looked at as a crackdown on liberty or something like that, but provided it is done in the right way with community outreach and action after reasonable suspicion, it doesn't need to be.

But of course, apparently defunding one of these branches to combat far-right terrorism was the thing to do.

In addition to preventing mass shootings, you would also be helping matters in terms of accidents with firearms if somewhat trained and responsible individuals are the main owners of firearms, for the mentally ill, the majority of which are far more likely to hurt themselves than others, reduce gun suicides (easy access to firearms makes an easy suicide... while suicidal people may still do so through other methods, they will likely not be as guaranteed - i.e "what if it goes wrong?"), and stopping proliferation of radical or militant groups.

But now I'm expecting the US government to do anything about gun control, mental health awareness or combating extremism, so I suppose I'm just dreaming.

i agree with everything here and didn't mean to imply that: 1. what i'm proposing here is good enough (as you said, it definitely is not) 2. that it should happen at the state level--we need a national change

and for anyone who's reading that going, "that'll never happen": 1. i'm aware it's far-off from right now, but i'm not a legislator that has to compromise with anyone, so i can be as idealistic as i want 2. people have been convinced of dangerous ideals pretty quickly throughout history--i don't think trying to convince the american  public guns are more dangerous than they think is out-of-touch.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

While I agree that access to guns increases the death count of an individual mass shooting, however access to guns does not increase the number mass shooting incidents. Taking away guns is not going to decrease the amount of mass killers out there. In my opinion, the chief problem with mass shootings is not the form of weapon used, it is the fact that there is not a strong enough vetting system to prevent crazy people from owning guns.

this is a moot point because i'm interested in making deadly people less deadly (or removing them from society in a humane way), not trying to decrease the number of deadly people (which, right now, is not a controllable factor). taking away guns makes people less deadly, period. this is not something that can be disagreed with...

Quote

At least in California, not anyone can get a gun. A person needs a reason to own a gun, and protection is a legitimate reason. Some examples include living in a neighborhood with a relatively high crime rate or having a job that can be dangerous (being a liquor store owner, a truck driver assigned on an unpopulated route, etc.).

yes, protection is a legitimate reason, but few actually need it. i used to live in one of the most dangerous areas in the country (certainly california) and we didn't need guns. besides a home invasion in which you catch the perp first, i don't see any scenarios in which owning a gun diffuses the situation.

truck drivers, etc. have legitimate reasons to own guns, yes. but, how much gun violence is prevented by truck drivers, etc owning guns? does it outweigh how much gun crime could be prevented by taking guns away from (most of) the public?
 

Quote

 

For advocates of harsh gun control, the Second Amendment is fine as is and it is not due for an edit. With the way it is worded, the right to own arms is entwined with the state's right to organize a militia. It is not meant for an individual's right to own firearms without the responsibility of joining the police, militia, armed forces, etc. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court have stretched and twisted the wording to include an individual's right to own arms and I do not think that is appropriate.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

For advocates of gun ownership, the wording of the Second Amendment should be revised to exclude the militia requirement and decouple the right to bear arms to the responsibility of joining some kind of government security force.

 

1

2 points of confusion: 1. "State" refers to the country, not an individual state. though, this is ambiguous (another reason for an edit!) 2. courts set precedent--so a "twisting and stretching" of a law is to edit that law to mean something new. so--another reason to edit the law!

Quote

Most laws are reasonable and I can generally do whatever I want as long as it does not hurt people or cause a nuisance. Any right or freedom not enumerated in the Constitution, legal codes, etc. are still assumed to exist and it belongs to the people, and I have faith that our lawmakers word our laws to be as unobtrusive as possible to maximize the benefit to the greater good without significantly reducing personal freedom.

wrong, the 10th amendment grants rights to the states first, then to the people. that's an important distinction because it's another filter of our personal freedoms.

unwarranted advice, but i don't think you should trust lawmakers with a goddamn thing. this is possibly the worst thing you could have admitted to me. lawmakers are elected for a reason--you need to pay attention and hold them accountable! 

Quote

In the United States, there are no stringent laws surrounding the production of alcohol for personal use, at least not any that I know. I can make as much wine, beer, liquor and whatever alcohol I want in my own home to be shared with friends and family. As long as I am not selling it, I do not have any restrictions.

if what you share kills people, even on accident, you'll go to jail (or prison). also, so few people make alcohol personally that it just hasn't needed to be addressed yet. guns are far more prolific (and far more dangerous by themselves).

Quote

Outlawing bullet proof vests is horrible. It is a form of protection, not a weapon. And how are you going to prove that the protection I am wearing is a bullet proof vest when I can argue that it is simply a medieval styled armor, or that my vest is simply weighted with a thick steel plate for exercise purposes? Outlawing bullet proof vests is a slippery slope that can get other things banned for no good reason.

since when do bulletproof vests look like armor from the middle ages? what are you saying here??

it is not a slippery slope. i gave a clear purpose for banning them (or at least the widespread sale of them) and kept it at that. it was specific with specific reasoning behind it. it's so far from a slippery slope that you're strawmanning to the point that i don't even know what you're talking about lol.

Quote

of the I enjoyed weed, and I would love to at least try out cocaine and other hard drugs. I believe those should be legalized too. On the firearms side, I also believe that it should be expanded to include grenades, rocket launchers, mines, etc.

cocaine is not worth it, seriously.

i truly feel for the people of your country that would have to deal with random people owning rpgs and landmines...

Quote

Realistically, an individual or even a group of individuals is not going to do much with firearms against a government's military. But that is not really the point for me. The point of the right to bear arms is to give the people as a whole more willingness to exert their right to self determination and political freedom.

the second amendment obviously fails to do this...

Quote

Just because the American government right now is of the people, by the people, and for the people, it does not mean that it is guaranteed to remain so. My loyalty to my people and land is practically unconditional. My loyalty to my government on the other hand is conditional. I want the individual right to firearms more for its symbolic value than practical value. What topples a government is not guns or weapons, it is the people having enough will to end the government.

something much less dangerous can hold that symbolic value much better...

"thoughts and prayers" do not topple governments. action topples governments. to overthrow the current government of the united states, you either coup or do it legally via impeachment, amendments, etc. so yes, civilians can (and should) absolutely be involved, but guns would never be an effective part of it.

Quote

Rebelling and seceding is technically illegal, but I believe that we do have a duty to replace the government if it no longer represents us as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document so we cannot derive any laws from it, but I believe that the intent and spirit it embodies is just as important as the actual laws that the Constitution lays out. I cannot just rebel every time the Electoral College chooses a president I do not like, but I do believe that I have a duty to replace my government, with violence if need be, if the government no longer represents the people as a whole.

you're rambling a bit here, but i would suggest to not place so much importance on that one document. keep in mind that document was borne of a rebellion on a much smaller scale than you think...(paying a very small share of taxes to the home government)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

In fact--The last time Americans actually used their guns in that manner was during the great Civil Rights battles of the 1960s. When militants associated with organizations like the Black Panthers took it upon themselves to protect their communities from the Jim Crow era white police departments that preyed upon them by forming paramilitary organizations, and just straight-up assassinating particularly racist officers who had a reputation for brutalizing black people. 

And as a result, you have the Mulford Gun Ban Act which was signed by then Governor of California: Ronald Reagan. It's also not the only case where they advocated for Gun control but primarily targeted blacks. This video is meant for comedic purposes but it speaks truth on the matter when you bring minorities into the "Gun Rights" discussion.

Don't have to imagine what the right-wing would do if BLM, Antifa or other such examples used guns to fight back. It's been done in the past.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i agree with everything here and didn't mean to imply that: 1. what i'm proposing here is good enough (as you said, it definitely is not) 2. that it should happen at the state level--we need a national change

and for anyone who's reading that going, "that'll never happen": 1. i'm aware it's far-off from right now, but i'm not a legislator that has to compromise with anyone, so i can be as idealistic as i want 2. people have been convinced of dangerous ideals pretty quickly throughout history--i don't think trying to convince the american  public guns are more dangerous than they think is out-of-touch.

i know i'm a pessimist, but shootings are desensitised for people living in America, nevermind foreigners looking in. America can do what it likes, I don't have the fortitude to care anymore, and I expect very little.

it isn't just politicians, there's a wide swath of the populace that are very vocal and are more enthusiastic about keeping their toys whenever the subject comes up. the second amendment may as well have been the words from God himself (but forget the others when it is convenient).

disheartening indeed.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least the El Paso shooter is sleeping on the floor of a fetid cage where he drinks out of a toilet and can't shower or brush his teeth, because thats what we do to people who 'break the law' in this country.

...

Nah. JK. He has his own cell with a sink and a bed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

I can't see it. How can guns make people more willing to exert their self determination and political freedom? If anything, it limits it, as guns make make the Society more dangerous, and i am pretty sure i won't talk politics with someone i know might be carrying a gun, or participate in politics for that matter when citizens with guns can practically hold your family hostage.

Gun owners are not crazy people. They are regular people and they are not going to shoot you just because you disagree with them politically.

14 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

And if it changes, some guns won't be able to do anything. Unless the right to bear arms is expanded to tanks, rockets and Aircrafs, guns won't be able to do anything against a shitty government.

  

 Then again, i am just an ignorant non-american, who never understood the reason why normal citizens need easy access to guns.

I would like to expand the right to bear arms to include tanks, rockets, etc. but even then, a group of individuals with all that hardware honestly is not going to stand up to the entire military due to sheer numbers. The point is not really to win in straight fight, it is to give people options and hope maybe they can topple the government.

I cannot really explain it in any other way other than guns are ingrained in our culture. The closest comparison I can compare it to is that even though I am Asian, I never understood the appeal of white rice when there are so many carb options to choose from and white rice is bland and textureless.

12 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

What if I told you that it wasn't?

I agree that the government is not truly representative of the people right now, but people should not rebel due to one election cycle. Based on how the government is setup, you win some you lose some.

12 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

In response to the people need guns as a check against government tyranny argument, I'll go beyond saying its 'flimsy' and say its downright disingenuous.

Yeah, some "gun rights" activist on the right are not true gun rights supporters for all, and they really only support white people's gun rights. However, I do not think all Republicans and conservatives are like that.

I am not black, but I am a minority, so I am hesitant calling Antifa or even Black Panthers terrorists. I do not agree with their course of actions sometimes, but I do sympathize with them and they have the right to arm themselves and I think at least some of their violence is justified considering what they were experiencing.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

this is a moot point because i'm interested in making deadly people less deadly (or removing them from society in a humane way), not trying to decrease the number of deadly people (which, right now, is not a controllable factor). taking away guns makes people less deadly, period. this is not something that can be disagreed with...

What I disagree with is the course of action. I think we should prioritize removing deadly people from society. The closest policies to banning guns that I would support are temporary bans and restrictions.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

yes, protection is a legitimate reason, but few actually need it. i used to live in one of the most dangerous areas in the country (certainly california) and we didn't need guns. besides a home invasion in which you catch the perp first, i don't see any scenarios in which owning a gun diffuses the situation.

truck drivers, etc. have legitimate reasons to own guns, yes. but, how much gun violence is prevented by truck drivers, etc owning guns? does it outweigh how much gun crime could be prevented by taking guns away from (most of) the public?

I do not think it is worth it to prevent gun crimes by removing most guns from the public. Mass killings would be less deadly, but it is not a benefit that I am willing to trade the right to own guns for.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

2 points of confusion: 1. "State" refers to the country, not an individual state. though, this is ambiguous (another reason for an edit!) 2. courts set precedent--so a "twisting and stretching" of a law is to edit that law to mean something new. so--another reason to edit the law!

In my opinion, state in that case refers to individual states, since states are the ones with militias. The national government can utilize the armed forces.

Courts can set precedents, but the Supreme Court in this case grossly twisted the wording of the Constitution. While I agree with conservatives that the people should have the right to bear arms, I do not approve of how they handled it. Completely hand waving and ignoring the militia element is not an interpretation or setting precedent, that is making shit up with willful utter disregard of the Constitution.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

wrong, the 10th amendment grants rights to the states first, then to the people. that's an important distinction because it's another filter of our personal freedoms.

 unwarranted advice, but i don't think you should trust lawmakers with a goddamn thing. this is possibly the worst thing you could have admitted to me. lawmakers are elected for a reason--you need to pay attention and hold them accountable! 

The Tenth Amendment grants rights to states and people equally. For example, the right to privacy is for the people, as it does not make sense for a state government to have privacy.

I cannot guarantee I have the same level of influence over all politicians at all levels in the United States government. But for the politicians that I do directly vote for, I trust them to represent me and my country. I voted for Dianne Feinstein, although I did not vote Kamala Harris, but I do trust both of my Senators to represent me and my country to the best of their ability, even though I may disagree with some of their views and actions, particularly Harris. I have also voted for Doris Matsui every time I see her in the ballot too, and I have full confidence in her ability and experience as my Representative.

At the local and state level, I can guarantee that my voice has a strong impact. Californians can vote in the state's referendums to force laws to pass, but there is no such thing as a national referendum for the country as a whole. I can yell at my Representative and Senators all day long to do something in Congress, but if politicians on the other side from conservative states block what I want my politicians to do, there is not much I can do about it to influence them since I did not vote them into office. At the national level, I trust the politicians that I have elected to serve my interest and the interest of the nation as a whole to the best of their ability. I cannot say the same for politicians from elsewhere that conservatives elect.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

if what you share kills people, even on accident, you'll go to jail (or prison). also, so few people make alcohol personally that it just hasn't needed to be addressed yet. guns are far more prolific (and far more dangerous by themselves).

That goes for anything. I drive a car and ran someone over with it. I will go to jail for it, but that does not mean cars should be banned.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

cocaine is not worth it, seriously.

 i truly feel for the people of your country that would have to deal with random people owning rpgs and landmines...

I do whatever the hell I want with my body. I am not going to take anyone's crap about what I can or cannot do with my body. If people want an abortion, they should go for it. If they want to get high off of cocaine, they should go for it. If people want to go into prostitution, they should go for it.

Just because a person owns an RPG, machine gun, grenade launcher, or whatever does not mean that they are going to use it to kill people. Just because some conservatives are whack jobs does not mean all of them are. I have talked to quite a few conservatives when I was fundraising for the Audubon Society and we were able to hold a civil conversation discussing our differences and common grounds. There was only one incident where a group of conservatives were being rude, but that is only one incident and all other interactions I have had with other conservatives were cordial.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

something much less dangerous can hold that symbolic value much better...

"thoughts and prayers" do not topple governments. action topples governments. to overthrow the current government of the united states, you either coup or do it legally via impeachment, amendments, etc. so yes, civilians can (and should) absolutely be involved, but guns would never be an effective part of it.

Guns and violence are a last resort to change the government. Guns are a huge morale booster. It is probably not very effective when you consider what the military has, but guns give people hope that they might stand some chance.

9 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you're rambling a bit here, but i would suggest to not place so much importance on that one document. keep in mind that document was borne of a rebellion on a much smaller scale than you think...(paying a very small share of taxes to the home government)

That document created the United States of America. That document is a big deal to Americans. It would be like me telling the British people to stop adoring the royal family so much since the royal family have little political power anymore and all they do is eat taxpayer money. The Declaration of Independence is a symbol of the United States, just as the royal family is a symbol for the United Kingdom. What the Declaration of Independence says might not carry legal weight, but it still carries some weight, similar to whatever the Queen says carries some weight, even though she might not have much legislative power.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, XRay said:

Gun owners are not crazy people. They are regular people and they are not going to shoot you just because you disagree with them politically.

 

you are responding to logical points of dialogue emotionally and are beginning to respond in ways that make little sense. it's now clear to me you're not here to listen, just argue. i'll try to speak more plainly from now on.

anyway, i don't care who gun owners are; that's irrelevant. when something is dangerous, you try to mitigate the danger that something represents. as a ridiculous example, say i am an alligator trainer and can keep my alligator in check wherever i happen to bring it. should i be allowed to take it for a stroll in the mall? take it to the gym? bring it with me on a date? i hope for this discussion's sake the answer is no because it's not the human i'm necessarily worried about, it's the threat and possibility of violence (accident or no) i'd like to prevent. reminder: this is a ridiculous example, but this is how it works on a fundamental level for all dangerous things. i'm not interested in the people operating the dangerous things--in fact, the whole point is to remove them from the equation (because they're often the most chaotic component).

 

Quote

I would like to expand the right to bear arms to include tanks, rockets, etc. but even then, a group of individuals with all that hardware honestly is not going to stand up to the entire military due to sheer numbers. The point is not really to win in straight fight, it is to give people options and hope maybe they can topple the government.

i don't know how to respond to this, honestly.

 

Quote

I cannot really explain it in any other way other than guns are ingrained in our culture. The closest comparison I can compare it to is that even though I am Asian, I never understood the appeal of white rice when there are so many carb options to choose from and white rice is bland and textureless.

just so you know, culture can change. and does. constantly. it used to be our culture to force black people to go to different schools and drink from different fountains.

Quote

I agree that the government is not truly representative of the people right now, but people should not rebel due to one election cycle. Based on how the government is setup, you win some you lose some.

i don't understand why you're saying this. you brought this up and keep talking about it...

 

Quote

What I disagree with is the course of action. I think we should prioritize removing deadly people from society. The closest policies to banning guns that I would support are temporary bans and restrictions.

you know, the problem with that is there's no way to know if those people are deadly until after they commit the crime. so i'm interested in crime prevention, which is a fundamental reason for law.

Quote

I do not think it is worth it to prevent gun crimes by removing most guns from the public. Mass killings would be less deadly, but it is not a benefit that I am willing to trade the right to own guns for.

https://www.theonion.com/it-s-an-honor-to-continue-being-valued-over-countless-h-1819585030

 

Quote

In my opinion, state in that case refers to individual states, since states are the ones with militias. The national government can utilize the armed forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

militia, today, refers to the military reserves in certain corps (still federally controlled) and all able-bodied citizens...

and militia as the 2nd amendment refers to have not existed for nearly 200 years...and even back then it was never rag-tag soldiers. they were professionally trained and everything. at the time, it was essentially the united states' standing army...

Quote

Courts can set precedents, but the Supreme Court in this case grossly twisted the wording of the Constitution. While I agree with conservatives that the people should have the right to bear arms, I do not approve of how they handled it. Completely hand waving and ignoring the militia element is not an interpretation or setting precedent, that is making shit up with willful utter disregard of the Constitution.

the supreme court is the supreme law lol. if you think the sc is "grossly twisting" the words of the constitution, then you should be arguing the constitution needs an edit lmfao.

Quote

The Tenth Amendment grants rights to states and people equally. For example, the right to privacy is for the people, as it does not make sense for a state government to have privacy.

in us v darby lumber: "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. "

it does not grant rights, it simply says any that are not surrendered are retained. as states have the power to take rights away, the people therefore retain only the rights not surrendered under federal and state laws.

Quote

That goes for anything. I drive a car and ran someone over with it. I will go to jail for it, but that does not mean cars should be banned.

the point is there are restrictions. also, if you sell the alcohol, that is technically illegal--it's just hard to catch someone committing that sort of crime.

Quote

I do whatever the hell I want with my body. I am not going to take anyone's crap about what I can or cannot do with my body. If people want an abortion, they should go for it. If they want to get high off of cocaine, they should go for it. If people want to go into prostitution, they should go for it.

i meant that as someone who does drugs (rarely nowadays but still) and knows enough about cocaine to tell you it's not worth it lol. if you want an upper molly is better, or even adderall or someshit lol. i'm not sure what drugs you've done already, but "hard drugs" extend much farther than cocaine/crack, meth, and heroin. there's a lot of cool shit out there if you can get your hands on it.

Quote

Just because a person owns an RPG, machine gun, grenade launcher, or whatever does not mean that they are going to use it to kill people. Just because some conservatives are whack jobs does not mean all of them are. I have talked to quite a few conservatives when I was fundraising for the Audubon Society and we were able to hold a civil conversation discussing our differences and common grounds. There was only one incident where a group of conservatives were being rude, but that is only one incident and all other interactions I have had with other conservatives were cordial.

in your country, should tanks be allowed in public areas? where would these tanks go?

Quote

Guns and violence are a last resort to change the government. Guns are a huge morale booster. It is probably not very effective when you consider what the military has, but guns give people hope that they might stand some chance.

morale booster for...who? lol

"probably" not what the military has? my friend, you need to read up on the forces maintained by the united states government. citizens have no hope of a violent uprising. this isn't the 1800s.

Quote

That document created the United States of America. That document is a big deal to Americans. It would be like me telling the British people to stop adoring the royal family so much since the royal family have little political power anymore and all they do is eat taxpayer money. The Declaration of Independence is a symbol of the United States, just as the royal family is a symbol for the United Kingdom. What the Declaration of Independence says might not carry legal weight, but it still carries some weight, similar to whatever the Queen says carries some weight, even though she might not have much legislative power.

many brits do say that, just as many americans say what i said (often in much stronger terms). this shouldn't be a surprise, but i'm american so i don't really get why you think this is even worth arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you are responding to logical points of dialogue emotionally and are beginning to respond in ways that make little sense. it's now clear to me you're not here to listen, just argue. i'll try to speak more plainly from now on.

anyway, i don't care who gun owners are; that's irrelevant. when something is dangerous, you try to mitigate the danger that something represents. as a ridiculous example, say i am an alligator trainer and can keep my alligator in check wherever i happen to bring it. should i be allowed to take it for a stroll in the mall? take it to the gym? bring it with me on a date? i hope for this discussion's sake the answer is no because it's not the human i'm necessarily worried about, it's the threat and possibility of violence (accident or no) i'd like to prevent. reminder: this is a ridiculous example, but this is how it works on a fundamental level for all dangerous things. i'm not interested in the people operating the dangerous things--in fact, the whole point is to remove them from the equation (because they're often the most chaotic component).

I am here to present the pro gun side from a moderate's point of view since you asked why on the last page.

The best short way I can put it is that I do not think it is worth it to give up gun ownership to save lives. Banning alcohol and cigarettes would save even more lives than banning guns, but banning any of these products is not worth the lives saved.

44 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you know, the problem with that is there's no way to know if those people are deadly until after they commit the crime. so i'm interested in crime prevention, which is a fundamental reason for law.

I support having more stringent background checks and wait times. It is not going to stop all of them, but it should prevent the more obvious unhinged people from getting guns.

48 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

the supreme court is the supreme law lol. if you think the sc is "grossly twisting" the words of the constitution, then you should be arguing the constitution needs an edit lmfao.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it is the job of the Supreme Court to uphold it. It is not their job to cherry pick the wording to suit their own needs. Setting precedents and interpreting something vague is fine, but the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is clearly linked with being part of a government's security force. You cannot just throw out half the sentence and just say people have the right to bear arms without any responsibility.

It is like if the Constitution says "For the purpose of self defense, people have the right to kill others." and the judges just ignores the first half of the sentence and legalizes all murder. I like that the conservative judges are all for gun rights, but I do not support how they went about it.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

in your country, should tanks be allowed in public areas? where would these tanks go?

I am fine with banning them from being driven on city roads since tank tracks are pretty rough on roads, but I would allow them to be transported in an oversized load truck.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

morale booster for...who? lol

 "probably" not what the military has? my friend, you need to read up on the forces maintained by the united states government. citizens have no hope of a violent uprising. this isn't the 1800s.

Depends on the percentage of the population revolting. I think any revolt with at least half the population actively revolting has a pretty good chance of overthrowing the government.

42 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

many brits do say that, just as many americans say what i said (often in much stronger terms). this shouldn't be a surprise, but i'm american so i don't really get why you think this is even worth arguing.

Sorry, I got you confused with Tryhard since his location says Scotland, and I was not paying enough attention while scrolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XRay said:

Sorry, I got you confused with Tryhard since his location says Scotland, and I was not paying enough attention while scrolling.

in fairness, the declaration of arbroath was a significant document at the time and is considered as possible inspiration for the US declaration of independence.

but outside of a historical context, it is not significant anymore because it was written in the 1300s. kind of like how the third amendment is obsolete.

but you're right regarding the royal family, because I don't care for them.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, XRay said:

The best short way I can put it is that I do not think it is worth it to give up gun ownership to save lives.

I wouldn't call that moderate, at all.

It's quite an extreme view if saving lives is not worth it.

 

Also, Gun control =/= gun ban. There are some valid reason why one should be able to get a gun (hunting, protection of properity outside City, etc), but a normal citizen shouldn't be able to get guns that easily, let alone walk around with them openly in a populated area. And getting a gun should involve quite a strict process. A Very strict one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjlT4BME2aE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYJ5V2HYy4

Switzerland as an example. While it has many guns, those who own it have it because they were in the army (which is a mandatory service), and they are quite strict with their guns.

Edited by Shrimperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XRay said:

The best short way I can put it is that I do not think it is worth it to give up gun ownership to save lives. Banning alcohol and cigarettes would save even more lives than banning guns, but banning any of these products is not worth the lives saved.

I support having more stringent background checks and wait times. It is not going to stop all of them, but it should prevent the more obvious unhinged people from getting guns.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it is the job of the Supreme Court to uphold it. It is not their job to cherry pick the wording to suit their own needs. Setting precedents and interpreting something vague is fine, but the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is clearly linked with being part of a government's security force. You cannot just throw out half the sentence and just say people have the right to bear arms without any responsibility.

It is like if the Constitution says "For the purpose of self defense, people have the right to kill others." and the judges just ignores the first half of the sentence and legalizes all murder. I like that the conservative judges are all for gun rights, but I do not support how they went about it.

I am fine with banning them from being driven on city roads since tank tracks are pretty rough on roads, but I would allow them to be transported in an oversized load truck.

Depends on the percentage of the population revolting. I think any revolt with at least half the population actively revolting has a pretty good chance of overthrowing the government.

Sorry, I got you confused with Tryhard since his location says Scotland, and I was not paying enough attention while scrolling.

2

if you don't think it's worth it to save lives then i think we've drawn an uncrossable line between ourselves. i'm not sure why you believe in the rule of law at all with such a belief.

maybe. the thing is, those are easy enough to fake and the us, as tryhard has pointed out, cares very little at the moment for mental health issues. it wouldn't be enough.

no, it's their job to interpret it. i don't know how many times i need to say this, but if you disagree with the interpretation, then you want a new law written. the executive branch's job is to uphold the law.

it does not depend on the percentage revolting. first of all, good luck getting 50% of a nation-state to revolt (that's a ridiculous percentage). secondly, you are still depressingly unaware of the force behind the us military. again, this is not the 1800s. you've talked about medieval armor, rebellions, and morale like we're living in the times of yore--but we're not, xray. guns do not "boost morale." (please cite why you feel it does.) the united states is a nation with one of the highest guns per capita in the world but our election turnouts are abysmal and the political efficacy of our citizens has remained quite low for decades. guns exist and have always existed to kill. unsurprisingly, that's what we've seen them do more than virtually any other nation...

so you've admitted 2 things: 1. the point you brought up was irrelevant 2. you aren't reading my posts because i've directly stated it...

ps, in a discussion thread if i ask for an opinion the purpose is for discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

I wouldn't call that moderate, at all.

It's quite an extreme view if saving lives is not worth it.

 

Also, Gun control =/= gun ban. There are some valid reason why one should be able to get a gun (hunting, protection of properity outside City, etc), but a normal citizen shouldn't be able to get guns that easily, let alone walk around with them openly in a populated area. And getting a gun should involve quite a strict process. A Very strict one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjlT4BME2aE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgYJ5V2HYy4

Switzerland as an example. While it has many guns, those who own it have it because they were in the army (which is a mandatory service), and they are quite strict with their guns.

Alcohol and smoking cause far more deaths than guns. Banning them would save more lives, but it is not something I would support. There is a balance between safety and freedom and I am not willing to prioritize safety over freedom after a certain point.

I do not think getting guns should be easy, but if a normal citizen wants to own a gun, they should be able to. I support having licensing requirements, background checks, etc. because while they are inconvenient, they do not restrict a person from owning a gun. I do not mind having a strict vetting process and I am fine with gun control as long as it is limited to the process of acquiring a gun and basic safety policies (no shooting while drunk for example). Bans, magazine limits, accessory limits, etc. crosses the line and these are not policies I support.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i'm not sure why you believe in the rule of law at all with such a belief.

Laws are meant to protect people, but if it is too onerous and it severely restricts freedom, then I do not support such a law.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

no, it's their job to interpret it. i don't know how many times i need to say this, but if you disagree with the interpretation, then you want a new law written. the executive branch's job is to uphold the law.

I know it is their job to interpret it, but you cannot have the law say one thing and interpret it as something completely different. If the law says A, the Supreme Court cannot say the law says B. The Supreme Court can interpret A as "Á" or "a," but saying A is B is not what the Supreme Court can do.

There is huge difference between "the right to own guns with responsibility related to the security of the state" and  "the right to own gun without any responsibility related to security of the state." The Constitution clearly states the former. The conservative judges are arguing the latter.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

 it does not depend on the percentage revolting. first of all, good luck getting 50% of a nation-state to revolt (that's a ridiculous percentage). secondly, you are still depressingly unaware of the force behind the us military. again, this is not the 1800s. you've talked about medieval armor, rebellions, and morale like we're living in the times of yore--but we're not, xray. guns do not "boost morale." (please cite why you feel it does.) the united states is a nation with one of the highest guns per capita in the world but our election turnouts are abysmal and the political efficacy of our citizens has remained quite low for decades. guns exist and have always existed to kill. unsurprisingly, that's what we've seen them do more than virtually any other nation...

Roughly half the country is Democratic and half is Republican, so I think 50% is pretty reasonable. Not all of them have to march in protest or fight on the front lines.

I know how deadly our military is. It would be stupid to have a rebellion in open combat. However, open combat is the not the only way to wage a war. Asymmetrical/guerilla warfare would be what the weaker side of the conflict utilizes the most.

My comment about medieval armor is that any material can be made to resemble a medieval styled armor, and that includes bulletproof materials.

Morale is always important in warfare, it does not matter what time period.

Guns boost morale. If you are telling your troops that the enemy has tanks, planes, the best tech in the world, etc. while your troops do not even have guns, morale is going to drop.

Our voter turnout is not great, but it is improving recently. The last few presidential elections hover around 60%, and Trump's election caused midterm turnout to spike to 50%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, XRay said:

Alcohol and smoking cause far more deaths than guns.

Here's the thing: Alcohol & smoking hurt the person who uses them, and not others (there's an arguement to be mafe for passive smoking, but there are enough non-smoking zones today. I avoid places full of smoke for example). It's in the hand of every person if they want to drink/smoke or not.

However i can't stop someone else from shotting someone if they wanted.

Not to mention smoking & Alcohol are for pleasure, while guns are mainly for killing.

37 minutes ago, XRay said:

There is a balance between safety and freedom and I am not willing to prioritize safety over freedom after a certain point.

 Your freedom stops when it infriges upon the freedom of others.

 

37 minutes ago, XRay said:

I do not think getting guns should be easy, but if a normal citizen wants to own a gun, they should be able to. I support having licensing requirements, background checks, etc. because while they are inconvenient, they do not restrict a person from owning a gun. I do not mind having a strict vetting process and I am fine with gun control as long as it is limited to the process of acquiring a gun and basic safety policies (no shooting while drunk for example). Bans, magazine limits, accessory limits, etc. crosses the line and these are not policies I support.

atleast we agree that there should be some kind of control. Alot of people don't even want any controls.

37 minutes ago, XRay said:

Guns boost morale. If you are telling your troops that the enemy has tanks, planes, the best tech in the world, etc. while your troops do not even have guns, morale is going to drop.

 

guns won't boost morale against heavy weaponry. If anything, it's demoralizing, since the military now can shoot you since you are armed, while killing unarmed civilians is usually a war crime

Edited by Shrimperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, XRay said:

Alcohol and smoking cause far more deaths than guns. Banning them would save more lives, but it is not something I would support. There is a balance between safety and freedom and I am not willing to prioritize safety over freedom after a certain point.

 

you can cleverly ban them. what you do is ban smoking in every building, have designated smoking areas, and make a pack of cigarettes so expensive people can't afford them. it works. also, you talk as if alcohol is something that's figured out in a legal sense, but it isn't. there's a lot of strides to make in that area. it doesn't matter what kills more, what matters is how easily can we prevent future deaths.

Quote

Laws are meant to protect people, but if it is too onerous and it severely restricts freedom, then I do not support such a law.

this is vague and therefore useless...

Quote

I know it is their job to interpret it, but you cannot have the law say one thing and interpret it as something completely different. If the law says A, the Supreme Court cannot say the law says B. The Supreme Court can interpret A as "Á" or "a," but saying A is B is not what the Supreme Court can do.

sure they can--they're literally the interpreters of the law! if you've got a problem with it, for the 5th time, you are in support of an edit to the constitution.

Quote

Roughly half the country is Democratic and half is Republican, so I think 50% is pretty reasonable. Not all of them have to march in protest or fight on the front lines.

what on earth...do you actually think this is plausible?

Quote

My comment about medieval armor is that any material can be made to resemble a medieval styled armor, and that includes bulletproof materials.

even if this were true, you don't need bp materials to make the armor. there's no reason for it.

Quote

Morale is always important in warfare, it does not matter what time period.

we're talking about civilians, not militaries.

Quote

Guns boost morale. If you are telling your troops that the enemy has tanks, planes, the best tech in the world, etc. while your troops do not even have guns, morale is going to drop.

if the enemy is loaded and you're not, you're going to be scared regardless.

 

Quote

Our voter turnout is not great, but it is improving recently. The last few presidential elections hover around 60%, and Trump's election caused midterm turnout to spike to 50%.

still bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

guns won't boost morale against heavy weaponry. If anything, it's demoralizing, since the military now can shoot you since you are armed, while killing unarmed civilians is usually a war crime

Killing civilians is a war crime, but that is usually only for the losing side. I do not remember the last time the permanent Security Council members were tried for war crimes.

36 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

this is vague and therefore useless...

A law that bans private cars to prevent traffic deaths is stupid because that law is extremely restrictive and onerous on the individual.

36 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

sure they can--they're literally the interpreters of the law! if you've got a problem with it, for the 5th time, you are in support of an edit to the constitution.

I know they can. That is not the point. The point is that they are not interpreting the law anymore if they are ignoring whatever the law says and replace the law with whatever they say. This is just an exaggeration, but imagine if we got the edit to pass and the Second Amendment now says "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." and then the liberal judges regain control of the Court and interpret the law as the people have the right to hold each others literal body arms but not actual firearms.

36 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

what on earth...do you actually think this is plausible?

I do not see it from the liberal side starting a secession, but I can see it happening in conservative white majority states once more states turn purple or blue due to demographic shifts.

40 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

even if this were true, you don't need bp materials to make the armor. there's no reason for it.

Any material can be made bulletproof if it is thick enough, but there is a big difference in weight between a breastplate made of half inch thick steel and a lighter material like kevlar.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

we're talking about civilians, not militaries.

Civilians need morale too. They need to believe in what they are doing to protest, speak up, etc.

58 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

if the enemy is loaded and you're not, you're going to be scared regardless.

And that is why the weaker side uses guerilla tactics.

34 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

29% Democrat, 27% Republican, 42% Independent.

It's really not that simple or "reasonable".

42% who are independent are not neutral either, as many lean one way or the other. The article states that 47% identify as Democrat or lean that way while 42% identify as Republican or lean that way. It is not exactly 50/50, but I think it is close enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tryhard said:

kind of like how the third amendment is obsolete.

It is still relevant as evidenced by the 1982 Engblom v. Carey case.

 

As for the matter at hand here is a slightly different perspective.

Restrictions on gun purchase or ownership will not deter mass killing. The legal penalties foe mass killings are the highest available, and the penalties associated with illegally acquiring a firearm will not compare, and thus fail as a deterrent. Acquiring a firearm illegally would certainly be less convenient (even if there is an outright ban on their sale, there are too many already floating around that could be stolen, smuggled from Canada, purchased from organized crime or the desperate etc.), but with premeditated crimes like mass killing it would at best result in a delay. Now it would likely reduce gun related suicides, and gun related crimes of passion, but that is not what people are trying to fix with this kind of legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XRay said:

A law that bans private cars to prevent traffic deaths is stupid because that law is extremely restrictive and onerous on the individual.

 

this isn't necessarily true. if cars are banned in the future it'll be because there are better methods of transportation, hence we can afford to ban them. this country will ban things despite personal freedom. if you had bothered to look at any of the links i gave you, you'd be more aware of this.

cars are horrible--they're horrible for the environment, they're horrible for our safety, and they're horrible for our wallets. i fully support banning cars (or heavily limiting their utility such that no one ever feels a need to drive) when it's viable. i also support subsidies that would speed up this process.

Quote

I know they can. That is not the point. The point is that they are not interpreting the law anymore if they are ignoring whatever the law says and replace the law with whatever they say. This is just an exaggeration, but imagine if we got the edit to pass and the Second Amendment now says "The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed." and then the liberal judges regain control of the Court and interpret the law as the people have the right to hold each others literal body arms but not actual firearms.

you're missing my point which i'm trying to make as clear as possible but you aren't following: your opinion is meaningless. the supreme court's interpretation of a law is the law regardless of what their interpretation is and how incorrect you perceive it to be. if you'd like that to change, your only options are to support an edit to the constitution or support new laws that erase the old. or you could leave i suppose.

Quote

I do not see it from the liberal side starting a secession, but I can see it happening in conservative white majority states once more states turn purple or blue due to demographic shifts.

i'd like you to look up the largest rebellions in human history (and modern human history) and then think really hard on how ridiculous your point of view on this is. as a hint, the largest march in american history is (generously) 2 million people. you're talking about mobilizing 150 million.

Quote

Any material can be made bulletproof if it is thick enough, but there is a big difference in weight between a breastplate made of half inch thick steel and a lighter material like kevlar.

yes. your point?

Quote

Civilians need morale too. They need to believe in what they are doing to protest, speak up, etc.

unless you're suggesting to protest violently guns don't help with this.

Quote

And that is why the weaker side uses guerilla tactics.

and pretty much always lose in modern times....

Quote

42% who are independent are not neutral either, as many lean one way or the other. The article states that 47% identify as Democrat or lean that way while 42% identify as Republican or lean that way. It is not exactly 50/50, but I think it is close enough.

...no

Edited by Phoenix Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

this isn't necessarily true. if cars are banned in the future it'll be because there are better methods of transportation, hence we can afford to ban them. this country will ban things despite personal freedom. if you had bothered to look at any of the links i gave you, you'd be more aware of this.

cars are horrible--they're horrible for the environment, they're horrible for our safety, and they're horrible for our wallets. i fully support banning cars (or heavily limiting their utility such that no one ever feels a need to drive) when it's viable. i also support subsidies that would speed up this process.

I have glossed over all the links, but I do not see any that talks about firearms outside of the satire piece from the Onion.

I do not believe in banning things just because we can ban them. Tax, license, basic safety, etc. are all fine, but I will not support any bans or harsh limits.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

you're missing my point which i'm trying to make as clear as possible but you aren't following: your opinion is meaningless. the supreme court's interpretation of a law is the law regardless of what their interpretation is and how incorrect you perceive it to be. if you'd like that to change, your only options are to support an edit to the constitution or support new laws that erase the old. or you could leave i suppose.

The point I am making is that any laws I edit or pass is meaningless if the Supreme Court can interpret the laws however they want. The only change to the Constitution that would be meaningful is to strip the Supreme Court's power to interpret laws however they want and have all interpretations be approved by Congress.

And I will not leave my country. The last thing I will do is give up my citizenship and passport.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i'd like you to look up the largest rebellions in human history (and modern human history) and then think really hard on how ridiculous your point of view on this is. as a hint, the largest march in american history is (generously) 2 million people. you're talking about mobilizing 150 million.

I have already said that not everyone needs to protest or fight on the front lines. You need an economy, infrastructure, logistics, etc. back home to support the troops on the front lines. Civilians can stop paying taxes, set up an opposition government, pay taxes to their new government, etc.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

yes. your point?

Banning bulletproof vests is too vague to implement. If you make it too broad, it is going to affect people who likes to collect medieval or medieval styled armor. It is going to affect people who likes to collect military gear who might not even own a gun.

2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

and pretty much always lose in modern times....

The War on Terror is still ongoing. We are technically winning, but that does not really mean much if we cannot actually win. For example, for the Islamic State, it did not decline from guerilla tactics, it declined from holding onto territory and acting like a nation without the resources or manpower to keep it going; and despite its decline, their leadership is still intact and we are not able to finish them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XRay said:

I do not believe in banning things just because we can ban them. Tax, license, basic safety, etc. are all fine, but I will not support any bans or harsh limits.

This is really as far as the conversation need go, because regardless as to what everyone feels about outright banning (something only a single country actually does under all circumstances, guess which one, it's not surprising), these things need to happen first and they're just not at a satisfactory point in the US yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XRay said:

I have glossed over all the links, but I do not see any that talks about firearms outside of the satire piece from the Onion.

I do not believe in banning things just because we can ban them. Tax, license, basic safety, etc. are all fine, but I will not support any bans or harsh limits.

Why not? As mentioned before in the thread, Switzerland loves guns but they have a lot of rules and you don't see them in the news every week with a new shooting.

If you can't ban them wouldn't some "harsh limits" be preferable to even more deaths?

Edited by Hekselka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hekselka said:

Why not? As mentioned before in the thread, Switserland loves guns but they have a lot of rules and you don't see them in the news every week with a new shooting.

If you can't ban them wouldn't some "harsh limits" be preferable to even more deaths?

Depends on the limit. Magazine limits, accessory bans, etc. I am not in favor of.

Safety procedures such as requiring mandatory training, annual mental health checkups, no drinking and shooting, unload guns when not in use, etc. are fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XRay said:

Safety procedures such as requiring mandatory training, annual mental health checkups, no drinking and shooting, unload guns when not in use, etc. are fine.

I've always thought that a mandatory annual reassessment for the gun liscense would be a good idea, a physical (eyesight, reaction, overactive nerves) and psychiatric review, for each and every gun you own would be a good idea, as well as a general gun safety assessment per annum (guns are secured, guns are in proper working order (won't backfire or spontaneously burst) etc.) would be a good idea. I support the right to arms, but only if it's used responsibly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 8:28 PM, XRay said:

Depends on the limit. Magazine limits, accessory bans, etc. I am not in favor of.

Safety procedures such as requiring mandatory training, annual mental health checkups, no drinking and shooting, unload guns when not in use, etc. are fine.

Well then you're at least willing to have more done to save lives than some other gun nuts. 

I swear I've seen Americans who care as much for their guns as a parent would care for their child. Not referring to you obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...