Jump to content

USA Gun Rights/Gun Control Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

She's using the common fallacious reasoning in opposition to a armed population being that unless the people collectively together rise up and roflstomp pro government forces in a immediate open battle then the entire effort is pointless. It's a False Dilemma fallacy.

They say the same thing about Germany disarming the Jews in preparation for the holocaust. The implication being unless they literally defeated the entire Wehrmacht then all would be pointless. Never mind the fact it's harder to shove people into trucks/trains to death camps when they're armed and no they otherwise have nothing to lose.   

Not to mention the Syrian civil war is alot more complicated than she likely believes. It hasn't been a complete and total roflstomp of the rebels either...

I see you're putting words in my mouth.

And given your recent post history (or lack thereof), I'm beginning to think that you're here solely to tout your point.

So, uh, remember what happened to the last guy that did that?  Don't make the same mistake.  Because you're making the same mistake.  And I'd hate to get the order to ban you for that sort of behavior.

@Jotari there's something very specific I'm looking for. . .because if we really are the most powerful military in the world, we should have no issues subjugating other places, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

I see you're putting words in my mouth.

And given your recent post history (or lack thereof), I'm beginning to think that you're here solely to tout your point.

So, uh, remember what happened to the last guy that did that?  Don't make the same mistake.  Because you're making the same mistake.  And I'd hate to get the order to ban you for that sort of behavior.

@Jotari there's something very specific I'm looking for. . .because if we really are the most powerful military in the world, we should have no issues subjugating other places, right?

Well I think if the United States was fully invested in doing so they could glass the entire middle east and make it utterly impossible for anyone to live there. The issues aren't the practical military limitations, but the social backlash of doing so. But really the question is, are you of the opinion that an armed civilian populace could overthrow the federal army without massive (Pyrrhic) consequences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Well I think if the United States was fully invested in doing so they could glass the entire middle east and make it utterly impossible for anyone to live there. The issues aren't the practical military limitations, but the social backlash of doing so. But really the question is, are you of the opinion that an armed civilian populace could overthrow the federal army without massive (Pyrrhic) consequences?

Not the what. . .but the why and how (focus on the latter).  It's not like the US military casualties in the Middle East are dying out of boredom.  Regardless, any theoretical revolution is illegal, so gun control is a moot point if things go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Not the what. . .but the why and how (focus on the latter).  It's not like the US military casualties in the Middle East are dying out of boredom.  Regardless, any theoretical revolution is illegal, so gun control is a moot point if things go there.

Which is why the spirit of the second amendment created for that purpose has long since lost meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Which is why the spirit of the second amendment created for that purpose has long since lost meaning.

The intent was good, but the methodology needs work, because there's no way the founding fathers could've predicted what technology could do.  IMO stuff like land mines would be far more beneficial in some sort of theoretical government overthrow, as well as a blatant disregard of several other decency laws (so put your missile silos in schools and all that).

Never mind the fact that if this somehow happened, the anti-government side would most likely be getting weapons from outside of the US anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I see you're putting words in my mouth.

And given your recent post history (or lack thereof), I'm beginning to think that you're here solely to tout your point.

So, uh, remember what happened to the last guy that did that?  Don't make the same mistake.  Because you're making the same mistake.  And I'd hate to get the order to ban you for that sort of behavior.

@Jotari there's something very specific I'm looking for. . .because if we really are the most powerful military in the world, we should have no issues subjugating other places, right?

I think your implication was rather simple 

Why is my posting history relevant? I have vested interest in this subject because I watched and studied it personally for years (since like 2013 IIRC). Not to mention most FIre Emblem are about tier list and PME 0% stuff I couldn't care less about. 

No I don't remember or know about "the last guy" are to fill me in? I don't see how I'm doing anything wrong besides disagreeing with you considering I just re-read the code of conduct again. Unless dissenting opinions against moderators is a rule now?

You still didn't reply to my previous statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Why is my posting history relevant? I have vested interest in this subject because I watched and studied it personally for years (since like 2013 IIRC). Not to mention most FIre Emblem are about tier list and PME 0% stuff I couldn't care less about. 

Well that's nowhere near accurate. Drafts, speedruns and 0% growths etc are a very niche part of this community (mostly it's people complaining about the plots XD). But it does belie your purpose. If you have no interest in talking about Fire Emblem, why are you here, on a Fire Emblem forum, talking about guns? If gun law is your soul area of interest here, then why not talk about it on an actual site dedicated to it?

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jotari said:

 

Well that's nowhere near accurate. Drafts, speedruns and 0% growths etc are a very niche part of this community (mostly it's people complaining about the plots XD). But it does belie your purpose. If you have no interest in talking about Fire Emblem, why are you here, on a Fire Emblem forum, talking about guns? If gun law is your soul area of interest here, then why not talk about it on an actual site dedicated to it?

Most of the current threads pertaining to fire emblem I find to be of little interest. 

Why can't I argue in a thread made for arguing then post in other threads when something gets my interest?

Not to mention I took up a pro gun stance and have been fighting off 3v1 until recently when you showed up. Arguing 3 separate within the same thread is rather consuming to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Most of the current threads pertaining to fire emblem I find to be of little interest. 

Why can't I argue in a thread made for arguing then post in other threads when something gets my interest?

Not to mention I took up a pro gun stance and have been fighting off 3v1 until recently when you showed up. Arguing 3 separate within the same thread is rather consuming to say the least.

It's not that you can't, it's just that if you're not interested in this community as an actual community then it's going to seem like you're harboring ulterior motives. If you're interest isn't in Fire Emblem but is in gun discussion, then there are more appropriate sites focused on just that. It's not my place to say what you can and can't do though, I'm not a mod. I'm just saying, well, that this place is for Fire Emblem first and other stuff second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PyroPlazma said:

No I don't remember or know about "the last guy" are to fill me in? I don't see how I'm doing anything wrong besides disagreeing with you considering I just re-read the code of conduct again. Unless dissenting opinions against moderators is a rule now?

You still didn't reply to my previous statement.

 

39 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Not to mention I took up a pro gun stance and have been fighting off 3v1 until recently when you showed up. Arguing 3 separate within the same thread is rather consuming to say the least.

Here lies the problem. Your perception of the expectations in this thread within this section on this site. 

This is for serious discussion. Discourse of topics like this aren't intended for us to reach a conclusion. They are op-ed. We aren't leaders or politicians so we won't be passing any laws here. On the other hand, we will come here to learn, share ideas, disagree, go back and forth with each other and so on. Ultimately why we come here is to be challenged academically. We come to be put to the test and think critically.

Most of us that have been browsing this site know who the regulars are and whose new. With that being said, you probably just are misunderstanding eclipse's intentions in her words. ( @eclipse correct me if I'm wrong here on this part) but she isn't dismissing you. I've seen her posting in various sections of this site and I can vouch that in this section, she isn't abusing her authority. (not that my word is particularly  weighted). All she is doing is challenging your train of thought or information. She is trying to help you grow. All of us in this section (serious discussion) are doing that. At least most of us are. So keep in mind that when you think you are arguing "against" others, you are already in the wrong. You're here to help others grow. If your intent is to come claim victory in a discussion, you are here for the wrong reason. And ultimately, you will fail in reaching your goal. This section is for scholars as well as a place to share info and ideas. 

I myself have had to bow out numerous times in various sub threads because I realized I had a flawed perception or understanding of whatever it was I was talking about. I stepped down to spend time thinking and making sure I grew from each of my interactions. The latest responses (within the last 3 hours) even demonstrate how we are being provoked into looking at it from another angle or that we are missing something.

When discussing philosophy or sociology, there really isn't a clear cut right/wrong. So, I've digressed long enough. Just keep the spirit in mind of how you are debating. I'd hate to see you get banned. You present some interesting ideas

Edited by Tediz64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tediz64 said:

 

Here lies the problem. Your perception of the expectations in this thread within this section on this site. 

This is for serious discussion. Discourse of topics like this aren't intended for us to reach a conclusion. They are op-ed. We aren't leaders or politicians so we won't be passing any laws here. On the other hand, we will come here to learn, share ideas, disagree, go back and forth with each other and so on. Ultimately why we come here is to be challenged academically. We come to be put to the test and think critically.

Most of us that have been browsing this site know who the regulars are and whose new. With that being said, you probably just are misunderstanding eclipse's intentions in her words. ( @eclipse correct me if I'm wrong here on this part) but she isn't dismissing you. I've seen her posting in various sections of this site and I can vouch that in this section, she isn't abusing her authority. (not that my word is particularly  weighted). All she is doing is challenging your train of thought or information. She is trying to help you grow. All of us in this section (serious discussion) are doing that. At least most of us are. So keep in mind that when you think you are arguing "against" others, you are already in the wrong. You're here to help others grow. If your intent is to come claim victory in a discussion, you are here for the wrong reason. And ultimately, you will fail in reaching your goal. This section is for scholars as well as a place to share info and ideas. 

I myself have had to bow out numerous times in various sub threads because I realized I had a flawed perception or understanding of whatever it was I was talking about. I stepped down to spend time thinking and making sure I grew from each of my interactions. The latest responses (within the last 3 hours) even demonstrate how we are being provoked into looking at it from another angle or that we are missing something.

When discussing philosophy or sociology, there really isn't a clear cut right/wrong. So, I've digressed long enough. Just keep the spirit in mind of how you are debating. I'd hate to see you get banned. You present some interesting stuff. 

I'm unfortunately unable to confirm or deny it.  But if you take a look at what I said to Jotari a bit above you, it should shed some light into my actual stance on guns. . .since I don't think I've truly stated it.  And I'm not sure if I should be disappointed or amused that I've managed to stay in such a discussion without anyone figuring it out.

Thing is, I also need to figure out why people are here.  Part of maintaining a healthy discourse is pruning those elements that can't contribute to it.  Discussions will get heated (I mean, just look at the story discussions in 3H, and that's a video game plot), but when it gets to the point where emotions completely take over for logic, that's when I have to come down, hard.  And when we start getting people completely unrelated to this fandom that join/come back JUST to talk about a hot-button topic, that's super-suspicious.  As in, I need to dust off my mafia skills to figure out what the hell is going on, and I'd rather deal with my sewing machine at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I'm unfortunately unable to confirm or deny it.  But if you take a look at what I said to Jotari a bit above you, it should shed some light into my actual stance on guns. . .since I don't think I've truly stated it.  And I'm not sure if I should be disappointed or amused that I've managed to stay in such a discussion without anyone figuring it out.

Thing is, I also need to figure out why people are here.  Part of maintaining a healthy discourse is pruning those elements that can't contribute to it.  Discussions will get heated (I mean, just look at the story discussions in 3H, and that's a video game plot), but when it gets to the point where emotions completely take over for logic, that's when I have to come down, hard.  And when we start getting people completely unrelated to this fandom that join/come back JUST to talk about a hot-button topic, that's super-suspicious.  As in, I need to dust off my mafia skills to figure out what the hell is going on, and I'd rather deal with my sewing machine at this point.

I could have sworn earlier when someone came in this thread and mentioned how they used firearms to fight off critters and protect their livestock, you and another had mentioned that was a good example of proper firearm ownership. Maybe it was just one other? Hmmm....well anyways, you should be both disappointed and amused. I would be.

I thank you and commend you for the effort you exert. I was also eye balling those topics about Edelgard and the morally grey story and reasoning behind actions. It did indeed get heated. I was going to weigh in but decided it was more entertaining to keep reading. That one thread of an appreciation to her by some who had fire in their name and another major contributor named omegaxis was pretty intense. I don't blame you as far as in wanting to deal with something else more simple. 

Edit: it was Darkmoon something not fire

Edited by Tediz64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tediz64 said:

I could have sworn earlier when someone came in this thread and mentioned how they used firearms to fight off critters and protect their livestock, you and another had mentioned that was a good example of proper firearm ownership. Maybe it was just one other? Hmmm....well anyways, you should be both disappointed and amused. I would be.

I thank you and commend you for the effort you exert. I was also eye balling those topics about Edelgard and the morally grey story and reasoning behind actions. It did indeed get heated. I was going to weigh in but decided it was more entertaining to keep reading. That one thread of an appreciation to her by some who had fire in their name and another major contributor named omegaxis was pretty intense. I don't blame you as far as in wanting to deal with something else more simple. 

Thanks.

I think. . .the entire debate on gun control is an utter waste of time, because both sides are simultaneously right and wrong.  One side has it right in the form of "the Constitution was made so that the people can overthrow the government, and they specifically named guns as the tool, so outright banning it is out.  There's also other situations where guns are necessary, whether it be for sustenance or survival.  Plus, some people think it's a cool hobby or something."  The other side is right because "gun violence in America is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the first-world, and having people die to such things in this day and age is a tragedy.  Especially the school shootings, our kids shouldn't be exposed to such danger."

But if you take into the account the Constitution side (for a militia), it's clear that your average handgun isn't going to do squat against modern military technology.  Which means that people would need to stock up on much more heavy-duty guns, but then we have the side that seriously doesn't want their kids to be turned into practice dummies by some nutcase, which is also a valid concern.  Yet America hasn't conquered the known world, because those that don't die, adapt.  Instead of having a direct shoot-out, any sort of successful revolution would need to rely on guerilla tactics, homemade weapons (I hear fertilizer's good for explosives), and fighting extraordinarily dirty (using children as shields and such).  But by that time, a whole lot of other laws would've been broken, so the word of gun control would be useless.  'sides, I'm sure Russia/China would love to supply weapons to a potentially destabilizing force in the US.

Then there's the issue of those that actually need a gun, and lumping them in with someone who's paranoid of the government does them no favors.

And for those that want guns out?  That's an argument against an amendment, and it's pretty clear that the writers intended for the citizens to have some form of defense against the government.  So those that truly wanted to ban guns would be pushing for a convention, instead of throwing out arguments that aren't going to help until the giant elephant in the form of the Second Amendment is addressed.

I think the best remedy would be to push for better social conditions for the pro side (that means universal healthcare, stronger worker's rights, better working conditions, and much better support for the poor at absolute minimum), and a constitutional amendment for the con side.  Each of these addresses something closer to the root of the issue (crazy/desperate people for the pro, the Constitution for the con).  Plus some controls, since I don't think someone who spent time in prison for first-degree murder should be allowed to own a gun.

Gun control is great for emotional discussion that ultimately distracts from the bigger issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eclipse said:

But by that time, a whole lot of other laws would've been broken, so the word of gun control would be useless.  'sides, I'm sure Russia/China would love to supply weapons to a potentially destabilizing force in the US.

You meant the guerilla fighters here if I'm reading it right, but I think there is another point this wording, without the prior context, could be taken to mean.

A government that brings "you"- a 100% rational person who wanted to be loyal to their government, but couldn't any more- to the point of armed resistance against it, is not a government that will respect a puny sentence on a scrap of paper, or any other law. The Second Amendment might let you make some kind of stockpile in case tyranny later arises, but you don't need it to magically start a rebellion, I don't recall the Roman Republic having a law allowing slaves to wield Gladiuses, but Spartacus could poke a Legionnaire with one anyhow.

When outright tyranny truly exists, the Constitution- a check on tyranny- has already been voided by the tyrant as anything but a norm/ideal the rebels should aspire a return to and try to fundamentally enact in their territory (because acting like a dictatorship when you're trying to overthrow one is not good for future democracy). The Second Amendment doesn't exist at this time, the ancient universal undocumented right of people to oppose being severely wronged is whats invoked.

 

-I am not advocating armed resistance, not even now despite all that be said of Trump being a demagogue "tyrant". Even if he won the next election I wouldn't. If he hypothetically massacred peacefully protesters, imprisoned political dissidents, and declared himself president for life? Yes, then I could see grounds for armed rebellion- but don't be stupid if there is no chance of any success or real possibility that when the geezer dies democracy could be quickly restored to the country. You have to be in very dire, continuous, and autocratic straits to justify armed rebellion, standards that I hope are high enough to convince you that I, firmly on the gun control and Democrat side, am no trigger-happy lunatic.

 

The main point- Governments aren't going to care about the 2nd Amendment if they become so evil force is the only solution to their removal, and not having the 2nd Amendment does not stop a people from armed rebellion. The US populace would not suddenly become spineless to government wrongs without the 2nd A. Not that it hurts to have the 2A either on this specific point.

 

This is just something I theorycrafted years ago. Sorry if it's deeply problematic or wrong. 

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2020 at 11:03 AM, PyroPlazma said:

 Can you please link me these criticism of Judge Scalia in regards to this case

Here's one from the University of Cincinnati Law Review:  https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=uclr

Here's one from the International Journal of Constitutional Law:  https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/7/2/316/758653

On 4/6/2020 at 11:03 AM, PyroPlazma said:

Mind linking me?

This thread was where we had extensive prior discussions on this topic:  

 

On 4/6/2020 at 11:03 AM, PyroPlazma said:

Can you please link the proper studies that state that gun control=less gun homicide?

2016 Capstone Review of All Academic Literature in the Field: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895

One particular prior study I'd recommend taking a closer look at is Kwon's 2005 "The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2005.00378.x

Because Kwon just approaches this strictly as a statistician. And he gives a really good explanation of how the multivariable math and modeling works.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The main point- Governments aren't going to care about the 2nd Amendment if they become so evil force is the only solution to their removal, and not having the 2nd Amendment does not stop a people from armed rebellion. The US populace would not suddenly become spineless to government wrongs without the 2nd A. Not that it hurts to have the 2A either on this specific point.

 

 

This is just something I theorycrafted years ago. Sorry if it's deeply problematic or wrong. 

That's a good point!  Chances are, if there was some sort of armed rebellion, the laws would get strict to the point where the Constitution would be an afterthought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The main point- Governments aren't going to care about the 2nd Amendment if they become so evil force is the only solution to their removal, and not having the 2nd Amendment does not stop a people from armed rebellion. The US populace would not suddenly become spineless to government wrongs without the 2nd A. Not that it hurts to have the 2A either on this specific point.

I'd figure things like resource control/deprivation and interfering with technologically dependent systems (whether through hacking or infrastructure destruction) would play a bigger role in a rebellion than having individuals armed for direct violence.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...