This thread is to celebrate the glory of American Gun Culture. Because, Fuck Yeah, Guns!
What's a great Gun Show without a little accidental discharge?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/19/16603029-three-accidentally-shot-at-north-carolina-gun-show-police-say?lite
In the US, gun deaths will top motor vehicle deaths in 2015. Fuck Yeah Guns!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html)
"The fall in traffic deaths resulted from safer vehicles, restricted privileges for young drivers and seat-belt and other laws, he said."
Wait, hold the phone! Is he saying that policy changes brought down motor vehicle deaths?? HOLY FUCK!!!
87 gun deaths a day in the US. A day!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/87-gun-deaths-a-day-why-the-colorado-shooting-is-tragically-unsurprising.html
[/size]
[/size]Guns...Fuck! ....yeah
I think it's fairly obvious that policy changes could act to reduce gun deaths... my guess is that you're preaching to the choir here, Reverend.
No, my friends, we don't have a problem at all with guns. The NRA is right. The Republican gun nuts are right. The Democrat gun nuts are right. Nope. Everything is fine. We don't need policy change. We don't need gun control. Everything is goddamned fine.
87 deaths a day? Psh! They're all wrong people anyways. We can just breed new ones. Yeah, sure, we've made driving cars safer, but there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to bear Fords. You touch our guns it's like you are exhuming the Founding Fathers and taking a big ole dump on their faces.
You know what, fuck The Constitution, no really. It was written by old men running around with goddamned muskets. You weren't going to mow down 20 kids with a musket unless you sedated them and tied them to fucking trees. The 2nd Amendment wasn't for morons with too much money and too few chromosomes to turn their basement into a goddamned armory. It wasn't for half-cocked 22 year olds to wander around with rapid fire death machines.
We absolutely have every right to limit citizen's access to these contraptions. No one is actually going to, much less propose, taking everyone's guns away. But for Christ's sake, you don't need military grade weapons, you just fucking don't.
And it just becomes too precious when we are here in America on our pedestal looking at the awful savages over in the Middle East, all hungry for violence and terror...when we are killing 87 people a goddamned day with our unquestioning, unyielding, worship of the gun. It's time for shit to change, it's LONG been time for shit to change.
Of course no one will ever get serious about it. Both sides of the aisle are completely morally compromised when it comes to this. The D's will clutch their guns just as tightly as the R's. The D's will offer weaksauce bullshit to appease the dupes in their party. And it will work.
And another 87 people will die tomorrow.
Thing is, none of the guns used in the recent school shootings or other mass shootings were military grade weapons.
Military rifles have a fire selection feature that allows the user to toggle between single shot semi-auto and full-auto, sometimes with an intermediate 3 round burst option. While it is technically legal in some cases to own fully automatic weaponry, it's HIGHLY regulated, extremely rare, and buying the stuff on the black market is VERY expensive (and comes with a fair amount of risk of being the subject of a sting operation). The reality is, a semi-automatic .223 rifle isn't a very powerful or dangerous thing, as guns go, and it isn't made any more dangerous by being painted black or being outfitted with a pistol grip or folding stock. That just makes it a varmint rifle for people with small penis complexes. The reality is, most hunting rifles are MUCH more powerful and even the ones that are bolt or lever-action can still be fired fast enough in familiar hands to do plenty of damage. And strictly in terms of fucking up the inner workings of another human, none of those compare to a shotgun and those don't even have to be aimed to be lethal. And yet nobody is talking about banning hunting rifles or shotguns. Just "assault" rifles, a category which seems to be determined purely on cosmetics.
Now, I'm not a raving gun nut. I am a gun owner. And frankly, I don't really care if the guns I own are legal or not. I'm also in favor of finding a way to reduce crime. I think any reasonable person would say they're in favor of that. I could be persuaded to engage in a constructive dialogue about gun control, and I could see myself being willing to vote for some gun control measures were a persuasive argument made for me to do so. I'm not one of those people who comes from a position of flat-out DON'T TOUCH MUH GUNS! but, and this is a very big "but", only if said dialogue comes from a rational position and that includes people who are anti-gun as well as people who are pro-gun. If you don't know anything ABOUT guns, you're coming from a position of fear and ignorance, and that's no place to be issuing policy from. So much of the gun-control dialogue I hear being bandied about displays a shocking lack of knowledge about the very subject people have firmly made up their minds about.
Also, and this is the real issue, if all the money that was spent on lobbying and bullshit on both sides of the gun-control aisle went instead to fund mental health research and treatment in this country, we might not be feeling such a pressing need to have this debate.
And that point is made fairly frequently, it seems, and everybody says "YEAH THAT'S TOTALLY TRUE ITS MENTAL HEALTH THATS THE REAL ISSUE HERE" and then goes back to screeching about hurr dur dur guns.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 01:16:51 AM
87 gun deaths a day in the US. A day!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/87-gun-deaths-a-day-why-the-colorado-shooting-is-tragically-unsurprising.html
[/size]
[/size]Guns...Fuck! ....yeah
Does that number include suicides? Because it seems like that would be a very relevant distinction in the context of this discussion.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 20, 2013, 02:37:33 AM
And that point is made fairly frequently, it seems, and everybody says "YEAH THAT'S TOTALLY TRUE ITS MENTAL HEALTH THATS THE REAL ISSUE HERE" and then goes back to screeching about hurr dur dur guns.
The problem with mental health in America is actually two-fold. Yes, funding certainly is inadequate. But along with that you have the stigma of mental health. So you can increase funding and access to services, but if the stigma is still there, it won't matter because people won't come forward to seek those services.
Which illustrates why it is not an either/or situation. We should be working to address gun access AND mental health access.
Ok, I don't have the study in front of me, and I'm on my phone so my Google Fu sucks, but:
There is a study that showed, and I suppose this is common sense when you think about it, people who have a gun in their home have a significantly higher probability of shooting their friends and family than an intruder. Which means if you have a gun in your home, you're probably going to shoot an innocent person.
Which, from a strictly statistical rationalist perspective, means that people would be much better off, on average, if they didn't have a gun in the house.
Everything you said above, and not just mental health, but general healthcare and economic health, as well.
Lots of shit is dangerous in a free society. Hell, the idea of the 4th amendment is dangerous. It all boils down to a choice between authoritarianism and the perceived safety if promises, or a free and open society which is by nature dangerous. I support the latter, for two reasons: First, the safety promised by authoritarianism is illusory at best, and second, safety isn't particularly healthy for primate brains. It's not what we're geared for...And in a society in which the safety Nazis pretty much run everything, I like the idea of keeping at least this sort of danger around.
All of you.
I really feel like this is a "yes" situation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:20:49 AM
Lots of shit is dangerous in a free society. Hell, the idea of the 4th amendment is dangerous. It all boils down to a choice between authoritarianism and the perceived safety if promises, or a free and open society which is by nature dangerous. I support the latter, for two reasons: First, the safety promised by authoritarianism is illusory at best, and second, safety isn't particularly healthy for primate brains. It's not what we're geared for...And in a society in which the safety Nazis pretty much run everything, I like the idea of keeping at least this sort of danger around.
I don't, especially when it results 6 year olds gunned down in schools. I draw the line there. Something has to change, if it means less freedom for gun owners, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:31:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:20:49 AM
Lots of shit is dangerous in a free society. Hell, the idea of the 4th amendment is dangerous. It all boils down to a choice between authoritarianism and the perceived safety if promises, or a free and open society which is by nature dangerous. I support the latter, for two reasons: First, the safety promised by authoritarianism is illusory at best, and second, safety isn't particularly healthy for primate brains. It's not what we're geared for...And in a society in which the safety Nazis pretty much run everything, I like the idea of keeping at least this sort of danger around.
I don't, especially when it results 6 year olds gunned down in schools. I draw the line there. Something has to change, if it means less freedom for gun owners, I'm perfectly fine with that.
Well, hell, you may as well get rid of the 4th amendment, too. Make it easier to bust drug dealers and illegal gun owners, right?
And you always seem to be in favor of less freedom for everyone. Just saying.
Well, I don't happen to think it would be less freedom to ban assault weapons. People would still have the right to own guns.
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:36:53 AM
Well, I don't happen to think it would be less freedom to ban assault weapons. People would still have the right to own guns.
In every argument on every subject, you come down on the authoritarian side.
*shrug*
Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. Different strokes and all.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
"Assault weapons" is the new 911. Never mind that few of the people hollering about it seem to know what the hell they are.
No, I come down on the side of that which would make our communities healthier and safer. It is as clear as day that we have a gun culture in this country that is deadly. "Do nothing" is not an option. Well, it IS an option, but one that has us killing dozens of people every day. Not acceptible.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:43:37 AM
No, I come down on the side of that which would make our communities healthier and safer. It is as clear as day that we have a gun culture in this country that is deadly. "Do nothing" is not an option. Well, it IS an option, but one that has us killing dozens of people every day. Not acceptible.
Sure it's acceptable.
I'm a big fan of Patrick Henry.
And what you and I said about which side you come down on are not mutually exclusive.
You want to force people to be safe, I don't.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:39:36 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
"Assault weapons" is the new 911. Never mind that few of the people hollering about it seem to know what the hell they are.
Yeah, it confuses me. Handgun bans I could kind of see the logic of. "Assault weapons" bans seem like the product of ignorance and fear. If you want to ban guns, at least ban understand what it is you're banning, and why. FFS, if you want to ban the most dangerous weapons, ban hunting guns within the city limits.
Some of the legislation I could see making a difference (over time) would be things like no-cost registration, voluntary registration drives (instead of buybacks, because the data shows that buybacks aren't useful), and low-cost mandatory gun safety training. I'm not very optimistic that any of those would make a big dent, but it would probably help to some extent.
See, ECH's post makes a lot of sense, and so does TGRR's, to a point. Guns, by their very nature, are dangerous, and arbitrary distinctions aren't going to do much.
And life is dangerous. But in the same way the gvt should provide an economic safety net in the face of capitalism, they should provide at least SOME sort of protection of the citizenry when it's pretty obvious a lot of people are getting needlessly killed simply due to the presence of a piece of mechanics.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Yes, doesn't change the fact that we need gun control. And of I had my way, we WOULD go farther than just "assault weapons", but I know my opinion is in a pretty small minority.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:45:24 AM
And what you and I said about which side you come down on are not mutually exclusive.
You want to force people to be safe, I don't.
I want to keep kids from being gunned down in their goddamned classrooms. Period.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:47:00 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:39:36 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
"Assault weapons" is the new 911. Never mind that few of the people hollering about it seem to know what the hell they are.
Yeah, it confuses me. Handgun bans I could kind of see the logic of. "Assault weapons" bans seem like the product of ignorance and fear. If you want to ban guns, at least ban understand what it is you're banning, and why. FFS, if you want to ban the most dangerous weapons, ban hunting guns within the city limits.
Some of the legislation I could see making a difference (over time) would be things like no-cost registration, voluntary registration drives (instead of buybacks, because the data shows that buybacks aren't useful), and low-cost mandatory gun safety training. I'm not very optimistic that any of those would make a big dent, but it would probably help to some extent.
In my dad's day, they taught firearms as a school course in 12th grade. In Canada, mind you.
In my day, the boy scouts had firearms classes.
Now you can't get the classes until you're an adult, but everyone and their dawg has a gun.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:48:45 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Yes, doesn't change the fact that we need gun control. And of I had my way, we WOULD go farther than just "assault weapons", but I know my opinion is in a pretty small minority.
I think what you're after is people control.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:45:24 AM
And what you and I said about which side you come down on are not mutually exclusive.
You want to force people to be safe, I don't.
I want to keep kids from being gunned down in their goddamned classrooms. Period.
I want to keep kids from getting their entire lives ruined over a pot bust. Half a dozen of one, six of another.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:51:28 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:48:45 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Yes, doesn't change the fact that we need gun control. And of I had my way, we WOULD go farther than just "assault weapons", but I know my opinion is in a pretty small minority.
I think what you're after is people control.
No it isn't.
The other thing about the mental health thing is not just stigma. Some people really think they are fine when they clearly are not. If you have a really inaccurate perception of the world around you them you probably have an inaccurate perception of your own mental state. The doctors are trying to dope you up so that the forces controlling the world can pull the wool over your eyes dont you know.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:52:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:51:28 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:48:45 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Yes, doesn't change the fact that we need gun control. And of I had my way, we WOULD go farther than just "assault weapons", but I know my opinion is in a pretty small minority.
I think what you're after is people control.
No it isn't.
Of course it is. Your stated positions are always and without exception on the side of controlling people.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:52:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:45:24 AM
And what you and I said about which side you come down on are not mutually exclusive.
You want to force people to be safe, I don't.
I want to keep kids from being gunned down in their goddamned classrooms. Period.
I want to keep kids from getting their entire lives ruined over a pot bust. Half a dozen of one, six of another.
Me too, but we're not talking about that are we?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:54:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:52:12 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:50:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:45:24 AM
And what you and I said about which side you come down on are not mutually exclusive.
You want to force people to be safe, I don't.
I want to keep kids from being gunned down in their goddamned classrooms. Period.
I want to keep kids from getting their entire lives ruined over a pot bust. Half a dozen of one, six of another.
Me too, but we're not talking about that are we?
Naw. But I'm seeing a common thread, here.
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:54:13 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:52:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 03:51:28 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:48:45 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Yes, doesn't change the fact that we need gun control. And of I had my way, we WOULD go farther than just "assault weapons", but I know my opinion is in a pretty small minority.
I think what you're after is people control.
No it isn't.
Of course it is. Your stated positions are always and without exception on the side of controlling people.
Banning certain types of weapons doesn't control anyone.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 03:58:05 AM
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
Yes, but of course, Newton wasn't accidental, and, was at the hands of a guy who very clearly had that familiarity.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 03:58:05 AM
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
If you haven't been trained to drive a car, you probably shouldn't be driving one. If you haven't been trained with a firearm, you probably shouldn't have one.
But here's the thing, LMNO: Everyone and their Goddamn grandmother seems to know better than the framers of the constitution. Everyone, on both sides of the aisle, wants to fuck with the rights as set down in the main body & the bill of rights.
Fuck 'em. If they are really that bothered, they can move to England, where guns are banned and nobody's ever violent.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:00:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 03:58:05 AM
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
Yes, but of course, Newton wasn't accidental, and, was at the hands of a guy who very clearly had that familiarity.
So, it's your position that rights should be repealed based on worst-case scenarios?
Really? Because we could have a little fun with that concept.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:58:25 AM
Banning certain types of weapons doesn't control anyone.
Did you keep a straight face while you typed that?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:01:54 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:00:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 03:58:05 AM
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
Yes, but of course, Newton wasn't accidental, and, was at the hands of a guy who very clearly had that familiarity.
So, it's your position that rights should be repealed based on worst-case scenarios?
Really? Because we could have a little fun with that concept.
Repeal what? Banning certain types of weapons doesn't repeal a damn thing.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:05:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:01:54 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:00:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 03:58:05 AM
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
Yes, but of course, Newton wasn't accidental, and, was at the hands of a guy who very clearly had that familiarity.
So, it's your position that rights should be repealed based on worst-case scenarios?
Really? Because we could have a little fun with that concept.
Repeal what? Banning certain types of weapons doesn't repeal a damn thing.
Well, other than the 2nd amendment, which states that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"
IE, to be touched upon in any way.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:02:23 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:58:25 AM
Banning certain types of weapons doesn't control anyone.
Did you keep a straight face while you typed that?
We ban shit all the time in the name of safety. Lead in paint, pesticides, BPA, etc., etc.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:06:54 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:05:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:01:54 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:00:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 03:58:05 AM
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
Yes, but of course, Newton wasn't accidental, and, was at the hands of a guy who very clearly had that familiarity.
So, it's your position that rights should be repealed based on worst-case scenarios?
Really? Because we could have a little fun with that concept.
Repeal what? Banning certain types of weapons doesn't repeal a damn thing.
Well, other than the 2nd amendment, which states that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"
IE, to be touched upon in any way.
It doesn't, you are still free to bear arms.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:08:34 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:06:54 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:05:02 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:01:54 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:00:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 03:58:05 AM
Ok, TGRR is on to something. FAMILIARITY is key when dealing with machinery. I learned guns when I was 11, with a .22 rifle, shooting at bottles. It was POUNDED into my head that I should only point the gun at things I wanted to shoot and/or kill. There was a CONSTANT message of respect and danger. And this was a .22 for fuck's sake!
Later, around 13 or so, I started up with shotguns. And holy fuck, if you messed up on the range, you were done for the day.
I think if proper gun respect was taught, rather than restriction, there MIGHT be fewer accidental deaths.
I realize I'm vaccilating here, but this is one of those things.
Yes, but of course, Newton wasn't accidental, and, was at the hands of a guy who very clearly had that familiarity.
So, it's your position that rights should be repealed based on worst-case scenarios?
Really? Because we could have a little fun with that concept.
Repeal what? Banning certain types of weapons doesn't repeal a damn thing.
Well, other than the 2nd amendment, which states that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"
IE, to be touched upon in any way.
It doesn't, you are still free to bear arms.
Nope. That right would be violated by the infringement imposed by the qualifiers you propose.
Ok, that gets back to that forgotten post about the text of the 2nd amendment.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 04:10:06 AM
Ok, that gets back to that forgotten post about the text of the 2nd amendment.
What's so hard about that? It's clear as day to anyone who learned how to parse a sentence in 5th grade English.
QuoteA 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.
There's two clauses, the explanitory:
QuoteA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
"Here's WHY we're doing it.", and the declaratory clause:
Quotethe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"WHAT we're doing."
Gun regulation is not infringement, and fuck, even back in the colonial days there were gun regulations. Registries of gunowners, for example. It was never intended to be an open-ended thing.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:13:54 AM
Gun regulation is not infringement, and fuck, even back in the colonial days there were gun regulations. Registries of gunowners, for example. It was never intended to be an open-ended thing.
Sure it's an infringement. You wish to outlaw certain types of weapons, based on a media frenzy. That's certainly an infringement.
And yes, it was sure as hell intended to be open-ended. That's why they put the bit in about "shall not be infringed".
20 dead kids is fucking reality, 87 people dying a day from gun violence is fucking reality, it's not "media frenzy".
And Mr. Jones with his armory in his basement is only a "militia" in his own mind. And I sure as fuck want to make sure he is "well regulated".
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:17:30 AM
20 dead kids is fucking reality, 87 people dying a day from gun violence is fucking reality, it's not "media frenzy".
And Mr. Jones with his armory in his basement is only a "militia" in his own mind. And I sure as fuck want to make sure he is "well regulated".
It's a media frenzy. Assault weapons would not be necessary for that much carnage. Any single action, magazine-loaded weapon could have accomplished the same thing in that situation. A standard 9mm automatic pistol, for example. Hell, given the situation, a revolver would have been sufficient. One gun involved, doesn't matter what kind you use.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:17:30 AM
And Mr. Jones with his armory in his basement is only a "militia" in his own mind. And I sure as fuck want to make sure he is "well regulated".
1. Yes, he is. Mr Jones is who Madison was talking about.
2. "Well-regulated" means "employing a standard load or cartridge". It's a logistics term
1. Mr Jones has accomplished this.
1It's a term that's still in use. The US military allows "well regulated" personal firearms in a combat zone. This is defined as "a weapon that can be resupplied through available stores", to wit, 9MM, 7.62MM, 5.56MM, 12 gauge, .45, and .50 ammunition
Well, that was the point of my post. It says "bear arms," not "bear any type of arms."
It's a fine point, to be sure. I realize, "life is hard, wear a helmet" is a reality, but I think that it's a good idea to be able to say, "life is hard, here's a helmet."
My finer points should wait until a later day, but if you saw a technicality was killing a whole bunch of innocents, wouldn't you want to correct that?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 20, 2013, 04:24:36 AM
Well, that was the point of my post. It says "bear arms," not "bear any type of arms."
It's a fine point, to be sure. I realize, "life is hard, wear a helmet" is a reality, but I think that it's a good idea to be able to say, "life is hard, here's a helmet."
My finer points should wait until a later day, but if you saw a technicality was killing a whole bunch of innocents, wouldn't you want to correct that?
That's covered by the explanatory clause, by the phrase "shall not be infringed". It's pretty clear.
And the rule of law is nothing but "technicalities".
Yes, the right to bear arms is not being infringed because a person is still free to bear arms. And a ban isn't taking anything away anyway, it is simply limiting what is available for purchase. You can't take away what wasn't owned in the first place.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:29:25 AM
Yes, the right to bear arms is not being infringed because a person is still free to bear arms. And a ban isn't taking anything away anyway, it is simply limiting what is available for purchase. You can't take away what wasn't owned in the first place.
I think you're still having problems with the term "infringed".
There's something about the kind of person who not only interprets laws to maximize limitations on the individual, but also does so inaccurately. I've never been able to understand it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:30:08 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:29:25 AM
Yes, the right to bear arms is not being infringed because a person is still free to bear arms. And a ban isn't taking anything away anyway, it is simply limiting what is available for purchase. You can't take away what wasn't owned in the first place.
I think you're still having problems with the term "infringed".
I happen to think the problem lies with you and an overly liberal definition of the word.
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
ETA: You could grandfather those who already own Gun X.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:34:42 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:30:08 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:29:25 AM
Yes, the right to bear arms is not being infringed because a person is still free to bear arms. And a ban isn't taking anything away anyway, it is simply limiting what is available for purchase. You can't take away what wasn't owned in the first place.
I think you're still having problems with the term "infringed".
I happen to think the problem lies with you and an overly liberal definition of the word.
Yeah, that's me. Of course, I am in good company. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Henry...All of these were dangerously liberal about these sorts of things.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:37:34 AM
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you". It says you can have them.
So, yeah, it's infringement.
But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:40:57 AM
But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.
There were? Link?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:39:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:37:34 AM
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you". It says you can have them.
So, yeah, it's infringement.
And you still can. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.
Also, the Alien & Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, and were written before the ink was dry on the constitution.
Do you agree with those laws?
Does my inability to privately own a nuclear bomb infringe my right to bear arms? I realize that i publically own several via the us military. Nunchaku are illegal in massachusetts. While i think it a silly restriction i dont feel my rights are infringed there.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:42:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:39:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:37:34 AM
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you". It says you can have them.
So, yeah, it's infringement.
And you still can. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.
I see. So now you want to ban the sale of legal items? There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:40:57 AM
But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.
There were? Link?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397 (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397)American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY)
Quote from: Queef Erisson on January 20, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
Does my inability to privately own a nuclear bomb infringe my right to bear arms? I realize that i publically own several via the us military. Nunchaku are illegal in massachusetts. While i think it a silly restriction i dont feel my rights are infringed there.
1. By my standards, if you can afford a nuke, go nuts. Better get it before some hippie has a hissy fit. Of course, every nation on Earth, and international law, separates gas, germs, and nukes from "arms". Silly fuckers.
2. Why would nunchaku be illegal? They're just two sticks and string. Jesus H Christ.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:45:06 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:42:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:39:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:37:34 AM
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you". It says you can have them.
So, yeah, it's infringement.
And you still can. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.
I see. So now you want to ban the sale of legal items? There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.
That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT. There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:45:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:40:57 AM
But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.
There were? Link?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397 (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397)
American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY)
That's an op-ed. Also, the cowboy days were a little after the founders. And the colonies predated the constitution. Nothing there talks about the period we're describing, which is the era immediately following the creation of the US constitution.
Also, the bolded part kind of wrecks your argument.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:48:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:45:06 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:42:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:39:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:37:34 AM
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you". It says you can have them.
So, yeah, it's infringement.
And you still can. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.
I see. So now you want to ban the sale of legal items? There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.
That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT. There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety.
That part of the constitution ALLOWED the US to ban DDT. But we aren't talking about pesticides, we're talking about firearms which are legal to own, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I cannot even own DDT, and no amendment says I can (amendment X doesn't applym as banning DDT is a power granted under commerce) in the face of federal law. Ergo, I cannot buy it.
Damned if i know. I expect it resulted from tmnt some kids hopped up on sugar a hospital visit and some concerned parents.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:49:08 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:45:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:40:57 AM
But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.
There were? Link?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397 (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397)
American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY)
That's an op-ed. Also, the cowboy days were a little after the founders. And the colonies predated the constitution. Nothing there talks about the period we're describing, which is the era immediately following the creation of the US constitution.
Also, the bolded part kind of wrecks your argument.
Ah, but it doesn't. The right recognized, but not created....which means that right existed in those earlier days above when there were gun regulations, which seems to suggest that it was never conceived that the right to bear arms and gun regulations were mutually exclusive ideas. It seems like it has been an accepted concept for quite some time, until the 2nd Amendment became twisted into a religion.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:51:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:48:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:45:06 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:42:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:39:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:37:34 AM
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you". It says you can have them.
So, yeah, it's infringement.
And you still can. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.
I see. So now you want to ban the sale of legal items? There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.
That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT. There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety.
That part of the constitution ALLOWED the US to ban DDT. But we aren't talking about pesticides, we're talking about firearms which are legal to own, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I cannot even own DDT, and no amendment says I can (amendment X doesn't applym as banning DDT is a power granted under commerce) in the face of federal law. Ergo, I cannot buy it.
So commerce can somehow allow for the banning of one product and not another? That's kind of dicey logic I think.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:54:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:49:08 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:45:17 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:41:50 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:40:57 AM
But there were gun regulations even back in their days, yet, somehow, didn't "infringe" on anyone, because, perhaps, they understood that the right to bear arms did NOT mean that there would not be regulations.
There were? Link?
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397 (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397)
American history since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock shows that the right to keep and bear arms has been an individual common-law right since the very beginning — the right recognized and protected, not created, by the Second Amendment. The right always came with a civic duty, to use those arms to defend and protect the community when called to serve in the militia.
It has also always come with regulations: The colonies kept registries of gun owners and their weapons. Western towns like Dodge City in the 19th century required visiting cowboys to leave their weapons with the sheriff. Sensible regulation does not constitute the "infringement" the Second Amendment forbids, no matter what the National Rifle Association says.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/assault-weapon-ban-obama-plan-save-lives-article-1.1241397#ixzz2IUJ53nFY)
That's an op-ed. Also, the cowboy days were a little after the founders. And the colonies predated the constitution. Nothing there talks about the period we're describing, which is the era immediately following the creation of the US constitution.
Also, the bolded part kind of wrecks your argument.
Ah, but it doesn't. The right recognized, but not created....which means that right existed in those earlier days above when there were gun regulations, which seems to suggest that it was never conceived that the right to bear arms and gun regulations were mutually exclusive ideas. It seems like it has been an accepted concept for quite some time, until the 2nd Amendment became twisted into a religion.
Doesn't matter. The fact is, the 2nd amendment is worded to allow arms of all types. What preceded it is irrelevant.
And to me, the whole constitution is a religion. You can't pick and choose what parts you like, or it isn't a constitution, it's a hobby.
The simple fact is, the 2nd amendment is as written. You can argue yourself in circles all day, and it's still there, barring an amendment or constitutional convention. The amendment isn't going to happen, not in this world. A constitutional convention? Go ahead, if you can get enough governors on board...But remember that in a constitutional convention, EVERYTHING is up for grabs, and you'd have Rick Warren and Pat Robertson ahead of you in line for the changes THEY'D like to see.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:57:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:51:16 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:48:06 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:45:06 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:42:16 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:39:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:37:34 AM
I mean, if you ban Gun X, all you have done is taken Gun X of the market, so Jones can no longer, legally, buy Gun X. You haven't taken anything away from him. He never had Gun X, he never owned it, he never "bore" it. No infringement.
The amendment doesn't say that guns "won't be taken from you". It says you can have them.
So, yeah, it's infringement.
And you still can. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about what must or mustn't be available for purchase.
I see. So now you want to ban the sale of legal items? There's a whole different part of the constitution that you want to get rid of, as well, then.
That part of the Constitution didn't stop us from banning DDT. There is precedent for banning legal items for public safety.
That part of the constitution ALLOWED the US to ban DDT. But we aren't talking about pesticides, we're talking about firearms which are legal to own, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I cannot even own DDT, and no amendment says I can (amendment X doesn't applym as banning DDT is a power granted under commerce) in the face of federal law. Ergo, I cannot buy it.
So commerce can somehow allow for the banning of one product and not another? That's kind of dicey logic I think.
Items that are not specifically protected can be regulated. Therefore, the US government cannot ban or regulate newspapers, guns, etc. At least not constitutionally. And if you're on board with doing it unconstitutionally, then I suggest you get in contact with Alberto Gonzales. I hear he has experience in those matters.
Eh, it's worded to allow arms, I see nothing that speaks at all to types. There are no words there that state, or even imply, that the MARKET must be unfettered. What is to be unfettered is the ability of citizens to buy and bear arms. And a ban on certain types of weapons does not decrease the ability to buy guns, at all. It is only changing the market place, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to the market place.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:01:39 AM
Eh, it's worded to allow arms, I see nothing that speaks at all to types. There are no words there that state, or even imply, that the MARKET must be unfettered. What is to be unfettered is the ability of citizens to buy and bear arms. And a ban on certain types of weapons does not decrease the ability to buy guns, at all. It is only changing the market place, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to the market place.
See, that's the beauty of how amendment IX supports the other amendments. Amendment II says arms, it doesn't place any limitations on the arms, so amendment IX clarifies it to mean "any arms".
So, we're back to either you want to do things constitutionally, or you don't.
No, we're back to where I think you're wrong about your interpretation as regards to whether or not gun regulations constitutes as "infringement". Given that gun regulations were an accepted concept in those days, I find it very hard to agree with your interpretation.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:08:31 AM
No, we're back to where I think you're wrong about your interpretation as regards to whether or not gun regulations constitutes as "infringement". Given that gun regulations were an accepted concept in those days, I find it very hard to agree with your interpretation.
You failed to prove that either:
1. Gun regulations were an accepted concept immediately after the 2nd amendment was formed ("those days"), and
2. That the 2nd amendment is bound by "accepted concepts".
And your argument about simply not allowing the sale of arms is constitutionally identical to saying that you can say anything you like, but that no form of media that says bad things about the government will be allowed.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-21/opinions/35950233_1_gun-control-gun-laws-suicide-rates
[/size]
4. Gun regulations are incompatible with America's gun heritage.
When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.
In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)
On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western town had stricter gun laws (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020500207.html)than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.
Was any of that infringement?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:23:49 AM
Was any of that infringement?
The 2nd amendment was in place in 1619?
And again, the Wild West was 100 years later.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 05:24:42 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:23:49 AM
Was any of that infringement?
The 2nd amendment was in place in 1619?
And again, the Wild West was 100 years later.
Uh, the 19th century is the 1800s, the Constitution was ratified in the waning years of the 1700s. So, everyone decided to just take a couple decade break from gun regulation? Really?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:29:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 05:24:42 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:23:49 AM
Was any of that infringement?
The 2nd amendment was in place in 1619?
And again, the Wild West was 100 years later.
Uh, the 19th century is the 1800s, the Constitution was ratified in the waning years of the 1700s. So, everyone decided to just take a couple decade break from gun regulation? Really?
Does the 2nd amendment grant the government the power to regulate the arms that are involved?
If not, I refer you to amendment X.
After all, the constitution isn't a list of rights, it's a list of powers the government has...If the power involved isn't on the list, it doesn't exist (as spelled out in amendments IX and X).
Mass is rather interesting and admittedly kneejerk in its weapons laws. A few east asian weapons are banned but yet katana are not. Double edged blades of any sort are unless they are unsharpened. I have an unsharpened double edged sword. However sharpened blades are banned if i believe they are larger than your palm. Shuriken are illegal. Its interesting and kinda ducked up but i dont feel that the ability to restrict certain types of weapons is inherently against the second amendment so long as that there is some sort of rationale that can be simply referenced. I think that part of the problems that i have with the second amendment being invoked by either side is that the framers could not possibly conceive of how weapons in the twenty first century would be like and that the framers intended the constitution to change with the needs of the people. The framers arent gods and they certainly arent absolute authorities on freedom since they were slave owners who didnt let a lot of people vote. That said i dont think that amendments should ever be used to ban things. Amendments are great because they are thou shalt be able to instead of thou shalt nots. Except for one. And that one was repealed by another amendment.
Precedent, both in terms of the history of gun regulation in this country and in terms of products being banned for public safety, says yes. But it isn't that it is granted in the 2nd, it's that gun regulation is not forbidden by the 2nd.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:47:51 AM
Precedent, both in terms of the history of gun regulation in this country and in terms of products being banned for public safety, says yes. But it isn't that it is granted in the 2nd, it's that gun regulation is not forbidden by the 2nd.
You still aren't seeming to grasp the whole "list of granted powers" thing.
Again, I refer you to amendments IX and X.
Quote from: Queef Erisson on January 20, 2013, 05:46:25 AM
I think that part of the problems that i have with the second amendment being invoked by either side is that the framers could not possibly conceive of how weapons in the twenty first century would be like and that the framers intended the constitution to change with the needs of the people.
There's no difference in the relative power being discussed. Back then, it was flintlock vs flintlock. Both the people and government have more advanced firearms now, but the relative amount of technology (with respect to one group or the other) hasn't changed.
Perhaps. But again thats why i mentioned that i would expect arms restriction to have some post of standard. It doesnt matter if i have a single edged three inch blade or a sharpened broad sword. I can still kill you. In fact the knife would be more effective. If i have a sword i can exactly hide it. So i can have a steak knife and an axe but not a functional broadsword. Its illogical.
Quote from: Queef Erisson on January 20, 2013, 06:06:47 AM
Perhaps. But again thats why i mentioned that i would expect arms restriction to have some post of standard. It doesnt matter if i have a single edged three inch blade or a sharpened broad sword. I can still kill you. In fact the knife would be more effective. If i have a sword i can exactly hide it. So i can have a steak knife and an axe but not a functional broadsword. Its illogical.
I'm against arms restrictions under any standard, in small part because of exactly that.
I would also like to relate a humorous story involving a weapon and canada. So villagers brother basically turned a lets hang out into an international kidnapping of my drummer and a mutual friend. Pete did not care so much because its pete. Mutual friend was where it got a bit kidnappy because it wasnt exactly like he could walk back to boston from maine. They ended up in montreal while vs bro was blasting canadian indie rock in honor of his heritage. Well he was kinda a tard for vampires and happene to have sharpened nunchaku in his trunk. Long story short he had to sign over his unusual weapon over to queen elizabeth and give it to french speakers. Also pete had to call work and say he was coming in late. How late? Very late. Where are you?montreal. Silence for about a full minute then just get here as soon as you can. :lulz:
From a rational point of view. People who want assualt rifles should pass military accuracy tests with at least 90%. I'm don't want armed citizens I want armed trained citizens. We don't hand out driver's licenses to any moron with a pulse, and a application fee. Also if you can no longer pass the accuracy test as you get older you should be denied unless you get the proper eye care.
I'm for a well oiled militia of citizens not a bunch fucking drunken retards who love them some freedom.
I've said it elsewhere, but I'm just flabbergasted that anyone thinks any measure taken by the US Government to save lives in a wide scale manner would work. It seems to me the only thing they give a damn about is making sure their friends make as much money as possible. It seems that their friends could give a fuck about those 87 people. It seems a helluva lot of the ACTION taken by the government thus far is going to be as effective at curbing gun violence in America as the TSA has been at curbing terrorism.
But no, let's all fight about pistol grips while The Man continues to fuck us collectively in the ass...
Thus perpetuation a system wherein people are left to fend for themselves physically and emotionally...
And since nobody is actually, you know, actually doing anything to limit the firepower of weapons in the US...
NOTHING WILL FUCKING CHANGE! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Entirely reasonable. You have the right to drive but prove you can do it to begin with. I think that a lot of gun talk gets bogged down with well junk. What exactly is being proposed? I have a blind friend. She has a constitutional right to own a gun. Will she ever get licensed for it? No. Shes blind. She still has a right to it though. So what is being proposed exactly and why is the nra opposing it. More importantly how can you rationally sway my opinion for or against? Because ill be honest. I dont give a shit if i have the right to own a gun. It is irrelevant to contemporary urban living. Unless i get mugged and even then i probably cant draw in time. And the usual arguments of i need it to defend my liberties hold zero water as roger has pointed out. I an not against gun ownership mind you. I an just more of the mind of why do you need one in the first place?
To detail the mugging scenario- some one pulls a gun on me and tells me to empty my pockets. Not only is my walletgone but so is my gun. My gun was useless and now a criminal has two guns. Im in a movie theatre and some guy comes in to shoot up the place. Unlikely. It happens but not enough to be a relevant scenario. Im a teacher. Honestly i probaly dont need that gun. I live in a rural area and need to eat. Theses still a supermarket nearby. I dont need a gun. I have a centuries old right to one but he suddenly i dont anymore my life does not change one iota.
Speaking as an amused spectator (read - someone not from america) this constitution-edit thingy of yours. Does it specifically mention "guns"?
Reason I ask is all i ever hear is "the right to bear arms" which I always took as some idealistic bullshit that actually meant "the right to stand up and fight" ie, "we the people will not take bullshit lying down" implicit would then be "using whatever is available"
Then there's the contradictory impression given from any debate like this that the strikeout-doohickey is actually saying "the god given right to have a gun"
Given that the whole NRA argument is based on the premise that knives are just as much a weapon as an ICBM. And I'm regularly hearing that a scud missile launcher with an anthrax payload is no more dangerous in the hands of a well trained operator than a sharp stick, my question would be - why would anyone need a fucking gun in the first place?
Given that tippexed-section no 2 of your most sacred and holy constitution says you have the right to "bear arms" exactly what is unconstitutional about banning the sale and possession of guns, taking into consideration that you are still left with the right to own equally devastating and effective apparatus of destruction such as kitchen knives and knuckledusters?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:48:45 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Yes, doesn't change the fact that we need gun control. And of I had my way, we WOULD go farther than just "assault weapons", but I know my opinion is in a pretty small minority.
We have gun control. That's what registration, background checks, mandatory wait periods, etc. are.
It sounds like what you want is for civilians to be banned from owning guns.
It's also interesting, as a general observation, that nobody got REALLY hot and bothered about this shit until it happened to a bunch of well-to-do white kids in CT. I definitely didn't see this outrage over black kids in Chicago dying by the hundreds from gang violence every year, or over all the young men dying in Mexico full of bullets shot from guns that largely came from the USA. So again, it seems to be mostly "ain't it awful" and that powerful fear/ignorance combination fed by the incessant hype of the 24 hour news cycle and not a whole lot of rational ideas, facts, or constructive dialogue.
Flamebait thread.
We already had a thread to discuss gun control (or not). Why does RWHN want to start another one? Probably because no-one wants to talk to him about narcotics anymore.
Quote from: Alty on January 20, 2013, 08:18:24 AM
I've said it elsewhere, but I'm just flabbergasted that anyone thinks any measure taken by the US Government to save lives in a wide scale manner would work. It seems to me the only thing they give a damn about is making sure their friends make as much money as possible. It seems that their friends could give a fuck about those 87 people. It seems a helluva lot of the ACTION taken by the government thus far is going to be as effective at curbing gun violence in America as the TSA has been at curbing terrorism.
But no, let's all fight about pistol grips while The Man continues to fuck us collectively in the ass...
Thus perpetuation a system wherein people are left to fend for themselves physically and emotionally...
And since nobody is actually, you know, actually doing anything to limit the firepower of weapons in the US...
NOTHING WILL FUCKING CHANGE! :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Also this.
Also, my right-hand index finger gets sympathy pains when I think about how to massacre a large group of people with anything less than a fully auto rifle. Maybe with burst fire, but that's pushing it.
Cain,
lazy murder planning
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 20, 2013, 10:07:34 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 03:48:45 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 03:38:10 AM
Did you not read ECH's post at all? :?
Yes, doesn't change the fact that we need gun control. And of I had my way, we WOULD go farther than just "assault weapons", but I know my opinion is in a pretty small minority.
We have gun control. That's what registration, background checks, mandatory wait periods, etc. are.
It sounds like what you want is for civilians to be banned from owning guns.
If I could wave a magic wand? Sure.
However, in the real world, no. I just want to limit the types of guns people can purchase. Not because it would eliminate murder by gun, but to make it more difficult thus providing more opportunities for a person to be stopped before it happens.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 20, 2013, 10:36:07 AM
It's also interesting, as a general observation, that nobody got REALLY hot and bothered about this shit until it happened to a bunch of well-to-do white kids in CT. I definitely didn't see this outrage over black kids in Chicago dying by the hundreds from gang violence every year, or over all the young men dying in Mexico full of bullets shot from guns that largely came from the USA. So again, it seems to be mostly "ain't it awful" and that powerful fear/ignorance combination fed by the incessant hype of the 24 hour news cycle and not a whole lot of rational ideas, facts, or constructive dialogue.
20 kids gunned down in their school IS awful. Period. That's not hype, that's truth. 20 kids who will no longer be getting on and off a bus every day. 20 empty chairs at dinner tables. And all they were doing was going to school. That shit is wrong.
Yes, people SHOULD be outraged by the 87 who die a day from gun violence. People SHOULD be mad about the inner city kids being killed. This SHOULD be a constant conversation until meaningful policy change is enacted to measurably reduce gun violence. I completely agree.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:38:21 AM
Flamebait thread.
We already had a thread to discuss gun control (or not). Why does RWHN want to start another one?
Because I fucking wanted to, that's why. No one is forcing anyone to click, read, or post.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 05:51:37 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 05:47:51 AM
Precedent, both in terms of the history of gun regulation in this country and in terms of products being banned for public safety, says yes. But it isn't that it is granted in the 2nd, it's that gun regulation is not forbidden by the 2nd.
You still aren't seeming to grasp the whole "list of granted powers" thing.
Again, I refer you to amendments IX and X.
And I would refer you to all the gun control that has happened that hasn't been struck down as unconstitutional, including an assault weapon ban passed during the Clinton administration, that is only gone now because it wasn't renewed by Congress.
Let's arm all of the teachers, THAT will fix it: http://www.wgme.com/news/top-stories/stories/wgme_vid_15136.shtml
[/size]
[/size]
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 20, 2013, 10:36:07 AM
It's also interesting, as a general observation, that nobody got REALLY hot and bothered about this shit until it happened to a bunch of well-to-do white kids in CT. I definitely didn't see this outrage over black kids in Chicago dying by the hundreds from gang violence every year, or over all the young men dying in Mexico full of bullets shot from guns that largely came from the USA. So again, it seems to be mostly "ain't it awful" and that powerful fear/ignorance combination fed by the incessant hype of the 24 hour news cycle and not a whole lot of rational ideas, facts, or constructive dialogue.
20 kids gunned down in their school IS awful. Period. That's not hype, that's truth. 20 kids who will no longer be getting on and off a bus every day. 20 empty chairs at dinner tables. And all they were doing was going to school. That shit is wrong.
Yes, people SHOULD be outraged by the 87 who die a day from gun violence. People SHOULD be mad about the inner city kids being killed. This SHOULD be a constant conversation until meaningful policy change is enacted to measurably reduce gun violence. I completely agree.
And yet it took a handful of well-to-do white kids dying for you to post this thread.
Also, you haven't defined "assault weapon" nor given any specific ideas as to exactly what kind of additional restrictions on gun sales you think should be enacted.
So basically you don't appear to have any ideas or solutions or even any constructive criticism of the ideas that are at odds with your views on the subject. One is forced to come to the conclusion that you're either using an emotionally loaded subject in an attempt to start another flame thread, or that you actually don't know fuck-all about what you're talking about when it comes to guns.
I suspect it's both.
I started the thread because it is something I wanted to write about and discuss. That's how these message boards work. And yes, it IS an emotional subject. It sure as fuck should be.
Do you typically start emotionally loaded discussions about subjects in which you are sorely lacking in knowledge?
I know that we have a toxic gun culture in this country that is resulting in many deaths daily. Changes need to be made. No, I'm certainly not going to put forth myself as the gun expert to write the law that says which gun is banned and which isn't. I trust that there are plenty of experts for gun control who are also gun experts. But it doesn't take a gun expert to understand the big picture here which is we have a problem that needs to be fixed.
So it doesn't take any specific knowledge of the problem to solve the problem?
I mean, I'm just wondering if you have a point or if you just started a thread to say "DEAD KIDS BAD!" as though it were some sort of revelation.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 12:56:35 AM
This thread is to celebrate the glory of American Gun Culture. Because, Fuck Yeah, Guns!
HEY GUYS GUYS GUYS
I have a solution for homelessness!
We just need to ban tents.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 07:12:18 PM
HEY GUYS GUYS GUYS
I have a solution for homelessness!
We just need to ban tents.
Nononono, we only have to ban
comfortable tents.
I once killed a man with a semiautomatic assault tent.
I SHELTERED THE FUCK OUT OF HIM.
We need to STOP the homeless problem. It's completely unacceptable. We need more laws to prevent public sleeping and resting.
Which would make sense if the homeless problem was actually caused by the homeless and not a shitty economy and "safety net" with gaping holes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 07:28:20 PM
Which would make sense if the gun violence problem was actually caused by guns and not a shitty economy and "safety net" with gaping holes.
Fixed that for you.
Except for all of the gun violence carried out by middle-class white kids.
:um:
Which is a small minority of gun violence, as I'm sure you are aware.
And it, too, seems to be related to social stressors and a sense of insecurity.
"all the gun violence carried out by middle-class white kids"
So what you mean is the gun violence that counts, right?
:lulz:
The point being that, yes, it isn't ONE thing. Which is why, again, gun control is a tool. ONE tool. It isn't THE solution, but it should be part of an over all toolbox aimed at a solution.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 09:26:52 PM
"all the gun violence carried out by middle-class white kids"
So what you mean is the gun violence that counts, right?
:lulz:
No, what I mean is that it is a complex problem where you can't just point at one thing as an excuse to not do something.
A little more on how the economic environment impacts gun violence: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/01/24/a-modest-proposal-for-curbing-homicides-socialism/
It's just a blog, but I didn't want to link the scholarly articles since apparently you can't see those.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2012/07/26/the-jokers-wild/
http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2012/07/24/gun-violence-has-too-many-causes/
Reference, in case you get to a place were you have access:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953698000975
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2012/07/24/gun-violence-has-too-many-causes/ (http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2012/07/24/gun-violence-has-too-many-causes/)
This article is sayng exactly what I said two posts ago. A complex issue where gun regulation should be one piece of the puzzle, but hasn't been, thanks to the influence of the NRA, and other "don't take our guns/arm everyone" types.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 09:27:55 PM
The point being that, yes, it isn't ONE thing. Which is why, again, gun control is a tool. ONE tool. It isn't THE solution, but it should be part of an over all toolbox aimed at a solution.
You sure got one thing right.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 09:44:07 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2012/07/24/gun-violence-has-too-many-causes/ (http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/popular-freakonomics/2012/07/24/gun-violence-has-too-many-causes/)
This article is sayng exactly what I said two posts ago. A complex issue where gun regulation should be one piece of the puzzle, but hasn't been, thanks to the influence of the NRA, and other "don't take our guns/arm everyone" types.
I think you're confusing cause and effect.
So do you agree with that article or not? YOU posted it. Did you actually read the whole thing before you posted it? Because it was made pretty clear in that article that, while yes it is a complex issue, gun control must be ONE element of the overall solution.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 10:06:45 PM
So do you agree with that article or not? YOU posted it. Did you actually read the whole thing before you posted it? Because it was made pretty clear in that article that, while yes it is a complex issue, gun control must be ONE element of the overall solution.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 01:23:12 AM
I think it's fairly obvious that policy changes could act to reduce gun deaths... my guess is that you're preaching to the choir here, Reverend.
Did YOU read it?
You sure do seem to be itching for a fight. :lulz:
But back to resolving the homeless problem. If we took away the tools that allow them to survive without a proper house, we could definitely reduce the number of people sleeping outdoors.
Cold doesn't kill people....throwing people out into the cold does!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 10:06:45 PM
So do you agree with that article or not? YOU posted it. Did you actually read the whole thing before you posted it? Because it was made pretty clear in that article that, while yes it is a complex issue, gun control must be ONE element of the overall solution.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 01:23:12 AM
I think it's fairly obvious that policy changes could act to reduce gun deaths... my guess is that you're preaching to the choir here, Reverend.
Did YOU read it?
You sure do seem to be itching for a fight. :lulz:
Read the whole thing, and again, it echoed what I've already said in this thread. But, some in this thread don't agree with gun control being an element of the solution, which is why it is as many pages as it is. So, no, it's not all choir.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:12:15 PM
Cold doesn't kill people....throwing people out into the cold does!
No, Cain. The obvious solution is to ban winter.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:12:15 PM
Cold doesn't kill people....throwing people out into the cold does!
No, Cain. The obvious solution is to ban winter.
General's Janvier and Fevrier (http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/Russia_has_two_generals_in_whom_she_can_confide_-Generals_Janvier_and_Fevrier/15371/) are
war criminals.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 10:13:10 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 10:06:45 PM
So do you agree with that article or not? YOU posted it. Did you actually read the whole thing before you posted it? Because it was made pretty clear in that article that, while yes it is a complex issue, gun control must be ONE element of the overall solution.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 01:23:12 AM
I think it's fairly obvious that policy changes could act to reduce gun deaths... my guess is that you're preaching to the choir here, Reverend.
Did YOU read it?
You sure do seem to be itching for a fight. :lulz:
Read the whole thing, and again, it echoed what I've already said in this thread. But, some in this thread don't agree with gun control being an element of the solution, which is why it is as many pages as it is. So, no, it's not all choir.
Gun control is a band-aid. I think you only read the parts of the article that support gun control, and completely ignored parts like this:
QuoteEnglish Sociologist Richard Wilkinson has brought this out in books and lectures, especially his TEDx lecture on the roots of violence and crime, in which he charts that countries with the most inequality in wealth are also the most violent countries. And surprise, the U.S. is now one of the most unequal countries—in terms of wealth and opportunities for wealth—in the world, as has been brought out by the CIA World Factbook. It is ranked 94th of the 136 countries ranked by the for income inequality, close to Camaroon, Zimbabwe, some of Africa's poorest countries.
I assume you can't or won't look at the research I posted.
The reason I posted those articles is because while I don't disagree with gun control, the articles support the position that gun violence is most strongly driven by economic factors, which is why I used the tent simile.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:14:44 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:12:15 PM
Cold doesn't kill people....throwing people out into the cold does!
No, Cain. The obvious solution is to ban winter.
General's Janvier and Fevrier (http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/Russia_has_two_generals_in_whom_she_can_confide_-Generals_Janvier_and_Fevrier/15371/) are war criminals.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:46:57 AM
Quote from: Queef Erisson on January 20, 2013, 04:44:23 AM
Does my inability to privately own a nuclear bomb infringe my right to bear arms? I realize that i publically own several via the us military. Nunchaku are illegal in massachusetts. While i think it a silly restriction i dont feel my rights are infringed there.
1. By my standards, if you can afford a nuke, go nuts. Better get it before some hippie has a hissy fit. Of course, every nation on Earth, and international law, separates gas, germs, and nukes from "arms". Silly fuckers.
2. Why would nunchaku be illegal? They're just two sticks and string. Jesus H Christ.
I suspect because "gangs" and they are scary. California is Mass. in that respect with hand weapons.
Nunchucks are awesome.
They let you know the person attacking you should not in any possible way be taken seriously or as a threat to anything except themselves.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:16:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 10:13:10 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 10:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 10:06:45 PM
So do you agree with that article or not? YOU posted it. Did you actually read the whole thing before you posted it? Because it was made pretty clear in that article that, while yes it is a complex issue, gun control must be ONE element of the overall solution.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 20, 2013, 01:23:12 AM
I think it's fairly obvious that policy changes could act to reduce gun deaths... my guess is that you're preaching to the choir here, Reverend.
Did YOU read it?
You sure do seem to be itching for a fight. :lulz:
Read the whole thing, and again, it echoed what I've already said in this thread. But, some in this thread don't agree with gun control being an element of the solution, which is why it is as many pages as it is. So, no, it's not all choir.
Gun control is a band-aid. I think you only read the parts of the article that support gun control, and completely ignored parts like this:
QuoteEnglish Sociologist Richard Wilkinson has brought this out in books and lectures, especially his TEDx lecture on the roots of violence and crime, in which he charts that countries with the most inequality in wealth are also the most violent countries. And surprise, the U.S. is now one of the most unequal countries—in terms of wealth and opportunities for wealth—in the world, as has been brought out by the CIA World Factbook. It is ranked 94th of the 136 countries ranked by the for income inequality, close to Camaroon, Zimbabwe, some of Africa's poorest countries.
I assume you can't or won't look at the research I posted.
The reason I posted those articles is because while I don't disagree with gun control, the articles support the position that gun violence is most strongly driven by economic factors, which is why I used the tent simile.
Yes, and again, gun control is ONE tool. Economics is syndemic and impacts all kinds of shit, including what I do. Economic improvement should ALWAYS be on the forefront. But, while you are working on that, you can also work on other factors, as part of an overall strategic plan. And in any kind of comprehensive strategic plan, you are looking at more than just one root cause, you are looking at several and addressing several. That's how this stuff works.
The interesting thing is that people are so focused on one relatively minor aspect that addresses a symptom rather than a cause.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:28:08 PM
Nunchucks are awesome.
They let you know the person attacking you should not in any possible way be taken seriously or as a threat to anything except themselves.
Totally true. Also, throwing stars.
I actually used to practice with nunchucks.
Not for combat. It was purely coordination and reflexes. Attempting to not hit yourself while pulling off pretty-looking moves is actually really really hard. It's like having an unpredictable and painful sparring partner to train with.
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:56:49 PM
I actually used to practice with nunchucks.
Not for combat. It was purely coordination and reflexes. Attempting to not hit yourself while pulling off pretty-looking moves is actually really really hard. It's like having an unpredictable and painful sparring partner to train with.
Yeah, the one time I messed with nunchucks, I hurt myself.
I wonder what the net effect on gun violence would be if we legalized drugs and treated addiction as a public health problem rather than a criminal issue. I bet that if people weren't barred from a life of economic achievement because of non-violent drug convictions and addicts could get their fix prescribed by a doctor, filled at a pharmacy, and covered by health insurance....well, that would remove alot of the impetus for gun crime, don't you think?
The media would have you believe that guns are the problem but they aren't.
BULLETS are the problem.
If we made bullets out of marshmallows there'd be a lot less gun deaths.
That's my platform. Anti gun control. Pro marshmallow bullets.
Marshamallow bullets would actually cause fatal or crippling blunt force trauma in situations where normal bullets would pass through the flesh, causing bleeding and pain but little in lasting damage.
Eater of Clowns is yet another know-nothing liberal do-gooder, encouraging a policy that will leave us with brain-damaged and broken children. And who benefits. BIG CONFECTIONARY. Slink back to your liberal, candy producing paymasters, shill! We don't need your kind here.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 21, 2013, 12:03:32 AM
I wonder what the net effect on gun violence would be if we legalized drugs and treated addiction as a public health problem rather than a criminal issue. I bet that if people weren't barred from a life of economic achievement because of non-violent drug convictions and addicts could get their fix prescribed by a doctor, filled at a pharmacy, and covered by health insurance....well, that would remove alot of the impetus for gun crime, don't you think?
The evidence certainly seems to indicate as much, yes.
Legalize drugs, reduce gun violence.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on January 21, 2013, 12:32:46 AM
The media would have you believe that guns are the problem but they aren't.
BULLETS are the problem.
If we made bullets out of marshmallows there'd be a lot less gun deaths.
That's my platform. Anti gun control. Pro marshmallow bullets.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 12:36:16 AM
Marshamallow bullets would actually cause fatal or crippling blunt force trauma in situations where normal bullets would pass through the flesh, causing bleeding and pain but little in lasting damage.
Eater of Clowns is yet another know-nothing liberal do-gooder, encouraging a policy that will leave us with brain-damaged and broken children. And who benefits. BIG CONFECTIONARY. Slink back to your liberal, candy producing paymasters, shill! We don't need your kind here.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:38:21 AM
Flamebait thread.
We already had a thread to discuss gun control (or not). Why does RWHN want to start another one?
Because I fucking wanted to, that's why. No one is forcing anyone to click, read, or post.
You know, RWHN, you're a world class prick these days.
Not telling you anything you didn't already know.
His reply did prove my point, though.
That's why I didn't respond. His answer speaks volumes on its own.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 02:59:05 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 20, 2013, 10:38:21 AM
Flamebait thread.
We already had a thread to discuss gun control (or not). Why does RWHN want to start another one?
Because I fucking wanted to, that's why. No one is forcing anyone to click, read, or post.
You know, RWHN, you're a world class prick these days.
Not telling you anything you didn't already know.
Still, fresh out of fucks to give. Maybe a new shipment will come in tomorrow.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 03:04:20 AM
His reply did prove my point, though.
That's why I didn't respond. His answer speaks volumes on its own.
Any goddamned thread around here where everyone isn't in 100% lock-step agreement is going to turn heated, are you new here? The difference is, I have no interest in pussy-footing around when it comes to controversial topics. We're fucking Discordians, right? If WE can't man up and discuss stuff we don't see eye to eye on, then who the fuck can?
But if it really does hurt peoples' precious little feelings, then just do yourself a favor and don't click on threads I start, mkay?
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 12:36:16 AM
Marshamallow bullets would actually cause fatal or crippling blunt force trauma in situations where normal bullets would pass through the flesh, causing bleeding and pain but little in lasting damage.
Eater of Clowns is yet another know-nothing liberal do-gooder, encouraging a policy that will leave us with brain-damaged and broken children. And who benefits. BIG CONFECTIONARY. Slink back to your liberal, candy producing paymasters, shill! We don't need your kind here.
If you had any damn sense at all you'd be asking me how to get into the ground floor of Honey Graham brand body armor.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 20, 2013, 04:24:10 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 04:17:30 AM
And Mr. Jones with his armory in his basement is only a "militia" in his own mind. And I sure as fuck want to make sure he is "well regulated".
1. Yes, he is. Mr Jones is who Madison was talking about.
2. "Well-regulated" means "employing a standard load or cartridge". It's a logistics term1. Mr Jones has accomplished this.
1It's a term that's still in use. The US military allows "well regulated" personal firearms in a combat zone. This is defined as "a weapon that can be resupplied through available stores", to wit, 9MM, 7.62MM, 5.56MM, 12 gauge, .45, and .50 ammunition
Just got this infodump from my roommate (who used to work for RAND out of highschool). Nice to see confirmation of it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 03:13:30 AM
Still, fresh out of fucks to give. Maybe a new shipment will come in tomorrow.
That's all I needed to know.
Enjoy your bile.
:notnice:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 03:13:09 PM
:notnice:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
How ironic that you're using a picture of my best friend, drawn by her kid, that I repurposed for here.
I don't think you actually know what it means.
Well lucky for me my Creative License is still current. ;)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 03:13:09 PM
:notnice:
Never said it was.
What I'm saying is, you're using PD as your punching bag with respect to your personal issues.
That being the case, I think we probably ought to bill you.
Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it. Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light. So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along. Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side. I can go either way.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:09:01 PM
Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it. Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light. So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along. Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side. I can go either way.
Nope. You've been an absolute assbite to everyone.
And I did argue my point. You kept responding with irrelevant op-eds, trying to argue that common custom trumps the consitution (SORRY, GAYS, CAN'T GET MARRIED!). My argument hasn been made and not refuted. The ball is in your court...Not that it matters. This isn't a debate thread, it's a punching bag for you to use to take out your bitterness concerning your wife on everyone else.
That and complaining about threads is also incredibly assinine, which is where that sarcasm came from. There's all kinds of threads started on pd.com that I think are boring, stupid, pointless, but you know what, I just don't read them. It's so incredibly easy to avoid threads you don't like. Bitching about threads you don't like is just fucking lame man.
Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts. Which yeah, that sucks. But that's not my fault. I dunno, either start threads that are more interesting to the current membership or recruit new people who have an interest in that subject matter.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 04:13:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:09:01 PM
Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it. Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light. So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along. Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side. I can go either way.
Nope. You've been an absolute assbite to everyone.
And I did argue my point. You kept responding with irrelevant op-eds, trying to argue that common custom trumps the consitution (SORRY, GAYS, CAN'T GET MARRIED!). My argument hasn been made and not refuted. The ball is in your court...Not that it matters. This isn't a debate thread, it's a punching bag for you to use to take out your bitterness concerning your wife on everyone else.
Well, it has, but you seem to at least have a toe, if not a foot, dipped into the Guns Religion, so I don't think you are particularly open to considering that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect, with respect to gun control. Especially since gun control has already been around, and was quite Constitutional.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:17:14 PM
That and complaining about threads is also incredibly assinine, which is where that sarcasm came from. There's all kinds of threads started on pd.com that I think are boring, stupid, pointless, but you know what, I just don't read them. It's so incredibly easy to avoid threads you don't like. Bitching about threads you don't like is just fucking lame man.
Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts. Which yeah, that sucks. But that's not my fault. I dunno, either start threads that are more interesting to the current membership or recruit new people who have an interest in that subject matter.
Yes, not everyone has the talent to start a thread where they take an inflammatory subject, show they don't know what they are talking about, refuse to listen to others and then make an asshat of themselves.
Fortunately, we have you to pick up the slack for everyone else who does research.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:19:57 PM
Well, it has,
No, it hasn't. I have shown legality; you have shown opinion and op-eds.
Quotebut you seem to at least have a toe, if not a foot, dipped into the Guns Religion,
It would be more accurate to say the "constitution religion". I view all of the constitution as it stands as equally important. That includes amendment II. You can't cherry pick it.
Quoteso I don't think you are particularly open to considering that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect, with respect to gun control. Especially since gun control has already been around, and was quite Constitutional.
Show me where, in the constitution, the government is empowered to control guns. Please. Because the only place they are referenced states that there is to be no infringement. I know you don't like that word, but it's there.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:17:14 PM
Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts.
Example?
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:17:14 PM
That and complaining about threads is also incredibly assinine, which is where that sarcasm came from. There's all kinds of threads started on pd.com that I think are boring, stupid, pointless, but you know what, I just don't read them. It's so incredibly easy to avoid threads you don't like. Bitching about threads you don't like is just fucking lame man.
Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts. Which yeah, that sucks. But that's not my fault. I dunno, either start threads that are more interesting to the current membership or recruit new people who have an interest in that subject matter.
Yes, not everyone has the talent to start a thread where they take an inflammatory subject, show they don't know what they are talking about, refuse to listen to others and then make an asshat of themselves.
Fortunately, we have you to pick up the slack for everyone else who does research.
Sorry, I don't have the time to be a bookworm like yourself. I have two kids. I have a job that doesn't end at 5pm. I've already put out there that I'm not a gun expert. As someone who is supposedly an expert on policy you should know that you have at least two different types of people involved in any policy movement. Someone to look at and talk avout the big picture, the big idea. And someone to work out the details.
In this particular topic, I'm the former. It doesn't take an in depth, by the book, knowledge of guns to understand that we have a problem with guns. There is a dangerous culture here that feeds into the gun violence. And gun control isn't THE answer but it is a sensible part of the overall solution. That is the level I'm discussong tjis topic.
The actual nuts and bolts of a gun control policy I would leave to someone with more gun expertise, to figure out precisely what types of guns should be part of a ban.
Now, when it comes to drug policy, I would play both of those roles because I have the status to talk about and push the big picture (on a state level), and I have the in depth knowledge to actually help craft a policy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 04:36:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:19:57 PM
Well, it has,
No, it hasn't. I have shown legality; you have shown opinion and op-eds.
Yes, CITED op-eds with links to source material. Dude, just because something is called an op-ed, doesn't always mean it's someone at a computer just pulling shit out of the air. Seriously, that's just a weaksauce cop-out.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:09:01 PM
Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it. Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light. So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along. Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side. I can go either way.
problem is, Rev, you aren't any good at that style of debating.
Regardless of which style we're talking about, that is. You're not good at any of them.
An issue that i just thought of that i haven't heard people discuss is the possible unintended consequence of banning commonly held guns (such as the 'assault weapons') whereby people that view their ownership as an unalienable right and are unwilling to hand them over now figure that, since they are now criminals, they might as well take some tin snips and a soda can to make a lightning link for their recently banned AR15.
For anyone that is unaware, this is a super cheap, and simple (with a bit of finagling) way to turn a standard semi-auto AR15 into a fully automatic gun. There are also relatively simple ways to convert numerous other commonly owned semi auto guns into fully automatic versions.
This knowledge is widely known in the horrible gun culture, so you can be sure that there would be some percentage that wouldn't dream of doing it currently, but would do so in a heartbeat if a draconian ban were put in place.
Well, that's why I think, as a compromise, consideration would have to be given to grandfathering people who already own the guns that are to be banned. Which I think is reasonable coupled with a system where they are registered every year.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 21, 2013, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:09:01 PM
Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it. Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light. So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along. Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side. I can go either way.
problem is, Rev, you aren't any good at that style of debating.
Regardless of which style we're talking about, that is. You're not good at any of them.
What's more, by basically his own admission, he started this thread as a honey pot, so that no other threads would get traffic. That being said, I'm out of this thread. I'm not being
paid to listen to a grown man throw a 2 year tantrum.
RWHN: Done that myself (2004/2005). It's not exactly rewarding.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 05:09:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 21, 2013, 04:50:36 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 04:09:01 PM
Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it. Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light. So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along. Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side. I can go either way.
problem is, Rev, you aren't any good at that style of debating.
Regardless of which style we're talking about, that is. You're not good at any of them.
What's more, by basically his own admission, he started this thread as a honey pot, so that no other threads would get traffic.
Where did I say that?
grandfathering will definitely change the market for papered guns. current price for an M16 is 20grand.
hell an Ingram is considered an entry level gun for auto and they go for 3grand when they were initially two for a nickel.
but fully automatic were considered fringe and unpopular in 86 when FOPA banned new manufacture of them. they were considered simply a waste of ammo. they became sexy to the wider gun culture only after they were banned.
I think it would be a much different issue trying to ban items such as the semi auto AR15, which is one of the most widely sold guns today, used for every lawful purpose there is. it just wouldn't go down smoothly, and i think instead of getting them all on the books with the temptation that they would be grandfathered as legal for that individual to own, you would find that there were a tremendous number that were lost in tragic boating accidents all of a sudden.
Fair point and one that would definitely need to be considered and incorporated.
it should be considered, but i don't think incorporated is an option. the point was that a ban on widely used guns is most definitely going to cause some percentage of the population to accept that they are now criminals, and acquire/create 'scarier' weapons than they currently have. my contention is that this portion of the gun owning public is likely much larger than one might think if they weren't aware of the mindset of the gun culture and technical issues involved.
How exactly is being fixated on "ban guns" and refusing to look at or discuss the root causes of gun violence "looking at the big picture"?
:lulz:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 21, 2013, 05:32:50 PM
it should be considered, but i don't think incorporated is an option. the point was that a ban on widely used guns is most definitely going to cause some percentage of the population to accept that they are now criminals, and acquire/create 'scarier' weapons than they currently have. my contention is that this portion of the gun owning public is likely much larger than one might think if they weren't aware of the mindset of the gun culture and technical issues involved.
Well I meant incorporated more in the sense of incorporating it into the discussion as the policy is created/written. I wouldn't pretend that this isn't a very complex issue for policymaking. And it's why I say again that gun control, and specifically any gun ban, would be one piece in a larger initiative. You'd need other policies to compliment and pick up where a gun control policy will fall short simply out of its unavoidable limitations.
ah. gotcha.
why not simply go whole hog with the other measures rather than spending time, money, and political capitol on ineffective gun bans then?
what examples of gun control (in the sense of banned or heavily restricted items) have been successful thus far?
and what items, in your estimation, if successfully enforced would be of further benefit? do you believe that the features in the AWB would be beneficial in reducing gun deaths?
Really going out on a limb, looking at the big picture, talking about edgy topics nobody else will touch, like gun control. :lulz:
RWHN: Using his powers for good.
Well, I would look at it similarly to substance abuse prevention, and NO, I'm not pretending it is a perfect analogy. But with substance abuse prevention, reducing access to substances is ONE strategy. Yes, on its own it is a very ineffective policy, but as part of a comprehensive strategic plan that addresses multiple root causes and local conditions, it is a good tool.
So I think it would be important, if it hasn't been done, to have a rigorous, comprehensive assessment of the problem. And yes, certainly the economy plays into that, but what specifically is it about the economy? Because not all, nor even a majority, of poor people are out getting guns to commit violent crimes. So it is obviously something a little deeper and involved then "it's the economy stupid". Indeed, what we are really looking for is the crossover of root causes. Where does gun access cross with the economy,okay let's develop a strategy for that. Where does mental healthandaccess to guns crossover, let's do something about that. Where do guns and substance abuse intersect? Let's do something about that. And so on. I find it very hard to believe that access to guns is not in some way a part of the problem. But I also know, that alone, is not THE problem.
The solution to this problem is a menu. It isn't an entree.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:04:50 PM
Well, I would look at it similarly to substance abuse prevention, and NO, I'm not pretending it is a perfect analogy. But with substance abuse prevention, reducing access to substances is ONE strategy. Yes, on its own it is a very ineffective policy, but as part of a comprehensive strategic plan that addresses multiple root causes and local conditions, it is a good tool.
So I think it would be important, if it hasn't been done, to have a rigorous, comprehensive assessment of the problem. And yes, certainly the economy plays into that, but what specifically is it about the economy? Because not all, nor even a majority, of poor people are out getting guns to commit violent crimes. So it is obviously something a little deeper and involved then "it's the economy stupid". Indeed, what we are really looking for is the crossover of root causes. Where does gun access cross with the economy,okay let's develop a strategy for that. Where does mental healthandaccess to guns crossover, let's do something about that. Where do guns and substance abuse intersect? Let's do something about that. And so on. I find it very hard to believe that access to guns is not in some way a part of the problem. But I also know, that alone, is not THE problem.
The solution to this problem is a menu. It isn't an entree.
:lulz: You didn't read the research I linked about income inequality and gun violence.
I mean, come on, it's your topic, at least bother to KIND OF SORT OF TRY to have some awareness of the issues around it.
The "big picture" thing is still cracking me up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Okay, so income equality and gun violence.
So what is your SPECIFIC strategy to address that?
You can't just say "fix the economy", because that is too broad and that isn't how strategic planning works.
You have to take your root cause and drill down to the specific local condition that is influencing gun violence. That is what you address with your strategies and your policy.
So what are the specific conditions and what specific strategies do you think would address them?
Maybe you should tell the sociology department at Harvard about your idea to do a rigorous, comprehensive assessment of the problem.
:lulz:
So you have no ideas then?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:18:36 PM
Okay, so income equality and gun violence.
So what is your SPECIFIC strategy to address that?
You can't just say "fix the economy", because that is too broad and that isn't how strategic planning works.
You have to take your root cause and drill down to the specific local condition that is influencing gun violence. That is what you address with your strategies and your policy.
So what are the specific conditions and what specific strategies do you think would address them?
Nothing earthshaking; same thing that sociologists and economists have been saying for decades. It's not about "fixing the economy", it's about reducing the income disparities by instituting a maximum wage, heavier progressive taxation for the rich, and a minimum standard of living safety net.
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
One thing you would find if you actually did a minimum of easily-accessible research instead of being our very own armchair social critic, is that people whose actual job it is to study and try to understand these things, actually do study and try to understand them, and they write papers and stuff about what they find out.
Your "thoughts" aren't exactly groundbreaking. Your delusions of grandeur are amusing, though. :lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
I love how when you ask RWNH what his specific ideas are, he immediately tries to cut you down for not having specific ideas but never quite gets around to articulating his own.
Apparently "big picture" means "I want to yammer on about stuff that's an overly-emotional subject for me without ever actually bothering to know what the fuck I'm talking about."
Uh, I'm sorry. Did I miss the part where we went from having a discussion to fixing a problem? Because if we are talking about that, our goal should probably start with electing people who actually give a fuck and are effective at what they so. Maybe we could elect people who don't blow up kids in their sleep. For a start.
I mean all this talk about how guns are bad is great, but the actual plans being put in place by the people in charge are to reduce the assault STYLE of weapons. Which means THEY are doing Not A Damned Thing.
So...yeah.
"I'm going to focus myopically on the one single most-discussed issue on the internet and claim to be a radical thinker looking at the big picture".
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
I mean, the day that Joe Biden solves any of America's problems, hell even one (1), is the day I will eat my pants and post the pics in this thread.
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:43:14 PM
I mean, the day that Joe Biden solves any of America's problems, hell even one (1), is the day I will eat my pants and post the pics in this thread.
"Dick Cheney."
Please proceed with pics within 24 hours.
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:40:52 PM
Uh, I'm sorry. Did I miss the part where we went from having a discussion to fixing a problem? Because if we are talking about that, our goal should probably start with electing people who actually give a fuck and are effective at what they so.
That is a good short term goal for sure.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:45:44 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:40:52 PM
Uh, I'm sorry. Did I miss the part where we went from having a discussion to fixing a problem? Because if we are talking about that, our goal should probably start with electing people who actually give a fuck and are effective at what they so.
That is a good short term goal for sure.
"Start electing people who care" is a good short term goal, but "heavier taxes on the rich" isn't? :?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 06:43:59 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:43:14 PM
I mean, the day that Joe Biden solves any of America's problems, hell even one (1), is the day I will eat my pants and post the pics in this thread.
"Dick Cheney."
Please proceed with pics within 24 hours.
Fuckfuckfuck. Uh, I'm go with The American People did that?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
Don't answer a question with a question.
If you want to know, read the research. Your laziness is not my responsibility.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.
I'd rather have a local expert summarize it for me. Go ahead.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.
I'd rather have a local expert summarize it for me. Go ahead.
TRANSLATION: RWHN WILL NEVER, EVER READ A SOURCE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIS OPINION.
Doktor's question: Why is anyone giving this bitter fucking asshole what he wants?
Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.
ANYhoo, yeah.
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.
ANYhoo, yeah.
It is now about a picture of you eating your pants.
Come on Alty, the American People
demand pics.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
Don't answer a question with a question.
If you want to know, read the research. Your laziness is not my responsibility.
It's your idea I would expect you to be able to support it and explain to me how it would work.
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.
ANYhoo, yeah.
RWHN started the thread. Ergo it is about sharing his butthurt with everyone else. Spreading the wealth a little, you see.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:53:35 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
Don't answer a question with a question.
If you want to know, read the research. Your laziness is not my responsibility.
It's your idea I would expect you to be able to support it and explain to me how it would work.
And you support an idea by... dun Dun DUN...PROVIDING CITATIONS.
Which RWHN will never read, because this thread isn't about Sandy Hook or gun control or anything like that. This thread is about RWHN standing in the wreckage of his life and throwing poop at anyone who comes near.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:52:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.
I'd rather have a local expert summarize it for me. Go ahead.
TRANSLATION: RWHN WILL NEVER, EVER READ A SOURCE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIS OPINION.
Doktor's question: Why is anyone giving this bitter fucking asshole what he wants?
No, what I'm trying to do is to get people to demonstrate they actually understand and can support what they are proposing and how it specifically would impact gun violence. "LOL read the research" wouldn't cut it in the real world. If you are throwing up a proposal, you have to be able to defend it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:55:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:52:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.
I'd rather have a local expert summarize it for me. Go ahead.
TRANSLATION: RWHN WILL NEVER, EVER READ A SOURCE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIS OPINION.
Doktor's question: Why is anyone giving this bitter fucking asshole what he wants?
No, what I'm trying to do is to get people to demonstrate they actually understand and can support what they are proposing and how it specifically would impact gun violence. "LOL read the research" wouldn't cut it in the real world. If you are throwing up a proposal, you have to be able to defend it.
No, you're fucking not. You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views. Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate,
because that's not why you're here.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
This thread is about RWHN standing in the wreckage of his life and throwing poop at anyone who comes near.
Dude, aside from my kids' absent mom, my life is fucking aces right now. Got promoted, got a fat raise, gonna be wining and dining in DC in style in a couple of weeks. The stars are bright for me my friend!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:59:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
This thread is about RWHN standing in the wreckage of his life and throwing poop at anyone who comes near.
Dude, aside from my kids' absent mom, my life is fucking aces right now. Got promoted, got a fat raise, gonna be wining and dining in DC in style in a couple of weeks. The stars are bright for me my friend!
Yeah, your ex went out for an evening. That makes her the next fucking Eva Braun, we know. Other than your job being described at the article you bragged about, and being nothing as high-powered as you said. Other than the naked hostility shown to everyone around you, and the giggling about this thread killing all the other ones. Other than you never reading any citations, because you can't really argue against the citation.
Other than all that, you're doing just fucking dandy. So you fling poop around here to make sure that everyone's just as dandy as you.
Well done, primate! OOK OOK!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:57:07 PM
No, you're fucking not. You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views. Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.
Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control. So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark.
But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good. I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general. But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.
What specifically does the maximum wage do? Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs. But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs? What do you do about them?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:52:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.
I'd rather have a local expert summarize it for me. Go ahead.
TRANSLATION: RWHN WILL NEVER, EVER READ A SOURCE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIS OPINION.
Doktor's question: Why is anyone giving this bitter fucking asshole what he wants?
Good question.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 06:53:29 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.
ANYhoo, yeah.
It is now about a picture of you eating your pants.
Come on Alty, the American People demand pics.
I try to stick by my word.
http://www.imgur.com/o4vDsOs.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8n7m7Z8.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8y9USiQ.jpeg
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:46:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:43:58 PM
Oh oh oh
I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".
He's like our very own Glenn Beck!
Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me. I'm all ears.
I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.
I'd rather have a local expert summarize it for me. Go ahead.
I'm not an expert, that's why I posted the link to the article, because the people who wrote it ARE.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:55:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:53:35 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:49:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
Don't answer a question with a question.
If you want to know, read the research. Your laziness is not my responsibility.
It's your idea I would expect you to be able to support it and explain to me how it would work.
And you support an idea by... dun Dun DUN...PROVIDING CITATIONS.
Which RWHN will never read, because this thread isn't about Sandy Hook or gun control or anything like that. This thread is about RWHN standing in the wreckage of his life and throwing poop at anyone who comes near.
Yeah, that's definitely the impression I'm getting. He's always extra mean and extra stupid right after he posts anything about his wife.
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 07:08:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 06:53:29 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.
ANYhoo, yeah.
It is now about a picture of you eating your pants.
Come on Alty, the American People demand pics.
I try to stick by my word.
http://www.imgur.com/o4vDsOs.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8n7m7Z8.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8y9USiQ.jpeg
The American People appreciate your noble sacrifice.
I hope you've learnt your lesson.
For TGRR: http://db.tt/2AGw3XOk
I have, Cain. Now, you'll have to excuse me, this thread has done something truly awful to my bowels. Not the pants, mind you, those were really good actually.
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 07:12:42 PM
For TGRR: http://db.tt/2AGw3XOk
I have, Cain. Now, you'll have to excuse me, this thread has done something truly awful to my bowels. Not the pants, mind you, those were really good actually.
Computer's bouncing it. Not the nannywall, the comp. I'll try later.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:57:07 PM
No, you're fucking not. You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views. Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.
Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control. So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark.
But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good. I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general. But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.
What specifically does the maximum wage do? Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs. But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs? What do you do about them?
Wow, you don't understand this at all.
Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.
Basically, the researchers found that it's not
low income that is linked to gun violence, but a
wide income disparity.
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 07:08:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 06:53:29 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 21, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.
ANYhoo, yeah.
It is now about a picture of you eating your pants.
Come on Alty, the American People demand pics.
I try to stick by my word.
http://www.imgur.com/o4vDsOs.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8n7m7Z8.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8y9USiQ.jpeg
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:57:07 PM
No, you're fucking not. You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views. Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.
Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control. So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark.
But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good. I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general. But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.
What specifically does the maximum wage do? Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs. But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs? What do you do about them?
Wow, you don't understand this at all.
Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.
Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.
Then he'll expect you to explain, in detail, the economics of a higher-paid working class.
Then he'll blow it off and revert to the media frenzy bullshit some more, and demand the banning of weapons he can't even be bothered to know anything about. The Potter Stewart argument, basically.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:16:26 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:57:07 PM
No, you're fucking not. You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views. Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.
Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control. So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark.
But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good. I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general. But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.
What specifically does the maximum wage do? Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs. But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs? What do you do about them?
Wow, you don't understand this at all.
Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.
Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.
Then he'll expect you to explain, in detail, the economics of a higher-paid working class.
Then he'll blow it off and revert to the media frenzy bullshit some more, and demand the banning of weapons he can't even be bothered to know anything about. The Potter Stewart argument, basically.
Dude's got a lot of problems with honesty.
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to have my social policy dictated to me by someone who's a little less odious a human being. Listening to RWHN go on about what's wrong with the world and how to fix it is like listening to Dr. Mengele tell me I have to brush my teeth before bed.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 07:10:26 PM
Yeah, that's definitely the impression I'm getting. He's always extra mean and extra stupid right after he posts anything about his wife.
The pattern's been pretty fucking obvious for a very long time now.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 21, 2013, 07:18:21 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to have my social policy dictated to me by someone who's a little less odious a human being. Listening to RWHN go on about what's wrong with the world and how to fix it is like listening to Dr. Mengele tell me I have to brush my teeth before bed.
Well, he IS a doctor, you know. You have to look at the BIG PICTURE. Which is you, brushing your teeth regularly. Not Dr Mengele's clinical practice.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 07:18:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:16:26 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:57:07 PM
No, you're fucking not. You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views. Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.
Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control. So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark.
But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good. I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general. But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.
What specifically does the maximum wage do? Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs. But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs? What do you do about them?
Wow, you don't understand this at all.
Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.
Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.
Then he'll expect you to explain, in detail, the economics of a higher-paid working class.
Then he'll blow it off and revert to the media frenzy bullshit some more, and demand the banning of weapons he can't even be bothered to know anything about. The Potter Stewart argument, basically.
Dude's got a lot of problems with honesty.
Dude knows a good way to kill off any actual content or even conversations that don't involve him telling everyone what to do or where to get off.
And we've been really bad about rewarding him for this shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:18:27 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 07:10:26 PM
Yeah, that's definitely the impression I'm getting. He's always extra mean and extra stupid right after he posts anything about his wife.
The pattern's been pretty fucking obvious for a very long time now.
Yeah, you and I called it what, a year ago? More?
I still have money on that he's boning that co-worker he forgot he posted about.
Also, I do recall him trashing more than a few threads with his puns, then saying that "he's only here for the laughs". HIS laughs, not anyone else's.
The last piece of content he wrote that wasn't some passive-aggressive swipe was "And in the end, he had to be wheeled away"...in 2009.
Which was also the time he moved from talking about his wife and kids to just talking about his kids. I think the timeline of events has been truncated...As a BEST possible scenario. Otherwise, he was just being THAT sort of person for two years and SURPRISE! She left.
I would.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:05:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 06:57:07 PM
No, you're fucking not. You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views. Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.
Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control. So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark.
But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good. I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general. But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.
What specifically does the maximum wage do? Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs. But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs? What do you do about them?
Wow, you don't understand this at all.
Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.
Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.
No, I understand that fine, though it looked like social capital and civic engagement might be even more powerful protective factors. But I question whether a maximum wage would really have any meaningful impact when unemployment is still a tough issue, because certainly, lots of people out of work impacts the income disparity.
And we're back to RWHN being the REASONABLE GUY.
Once anyone stops hollering at him, he'll go back to needling people. Set your fucking watch by it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
And we're back to RWHN being the REASONABLE GUY.
Once anyone stops hollering at him, he'll go back to needling people. Set your fucking watch by it.
You really think I care what you, ECH, and Nigel think about me? Really? Holler away, I can assure you I'll be fine. ;)
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 21, 2013, 07:18:21 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to have my social policy dictated to me by someone who's a little less odious a human being. Listening to RWHN go on about what's wrong with the world and how to fix it is like listening to Dr. Mengele tell me I have to brush my teeth before bed.
OH NOES I'M ODIUS!!! That crushes me ECH, it really does. :lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
And we're back to RWHN being the REASONABLE GUY.
Once anyone stops hollering at him, he'll go back to needling people. Set your fucking watch by it.
You really think I care what you, ECH, and Nigel think about me? Really? Holler away, I can assure you I'll be fine. ;)
I think you care a great deal. Otherwise, you wouldn't have lied about your job.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:20:45 PM
Dude knows a good way to kill off any actual content or even conversations that don't involve him telling everyone what to do or where to get off.
And we've been really bad about rewarding him for this shit.
See, now this is just really sad. Jesus Christ, if people can't multi-task and engage in multiple threads at the same time, then there is no fucking hope for this site anyway. Back in the early days we were having flame fests and putting the BIP together at the same time. I mean God, our most infamous trolls came and left in that era. Don't blame the lack of content on me, that shit has been a problem for a long time now.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
And we're back to RWHN being the REASONABLE GUY.
Once anyone stops hollering at him, he'll go back to needling people. Set your fucking watch by it.
Basic attention-whoring.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
And we're back to RWHN being the REASONABLE GUY.
Once anyone stops hollering at him, he'll go back to needling people. Set your fucking watch by it.
You really think I care what you, ECH, and Nigel think about me? Really? Holler away, I can assure you I'll be fine. ;)
I think you care a great deal. Otherwise, you wouldn't have lied about your job.
What lie is that then?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
And we're back to RWHN being the REASONABLE GUY.
Once anyone stops hollering at him, he'll go back to needling people. Set your fucking watch by it.
You really think I care what you, ECH, and Nigel think about me? Really? Holler away, I can assure you I'll be fine. ;)
I think you care a great deal. Otherwise, you wouldn't have lied about your job.
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
What about an assault weapons ban, specifically, would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
What specifically about RWHN pulling his head out of his arse would make my PD experience more pleasurable? Someone walk me through it.
:lulz:
Roger, you ever get those matched Bisleys rebarreled?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 21, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
Roger, you ever get those matched Bisleys rebarreled?
Sold 'em. The damage wasn't as bad as it appeared, and I a
fairly decent price for them.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 21, 2013, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
What about an assault weapons ban, specifically, would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
Reinstate the ban that expired but expand the list of weapons. I think the law that Clinton signed was far too anemic and had too many loopholes. But you pair this with stricter regulations for yearly gun registration, universal background checks...it's about putting up more barriers to make it more difficult. You'll never eliminate gun violence, but maybe we can at least dial back the 87 deaths a day by a dozen and go from there.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:30:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 07:28:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 07:25:34 PM
And we're back to RWHN being the REASONABLE GUY.
Once anyone stops hollering at him, he'll go back to needling people. Set your fucking watch by it.
You really think I care what you, ECH, and Nigel think about me? Really? Holler away, I can assure you I'll be fine. ;)
I think you care a great deal. Otherwise, you wouldn't have lied about your job.
What did I miss? :lulz:
BRILLIANT!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png)
DATES ARE FUNNY THINGS.
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
So ban handguns. :lulz:
I agree!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
Recession started in 1987. Technical recovery began in 1993, turning into an actual economic recovery in 1994.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 21, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
Roger, you ever get those matched Bisleys rebarreled?
Sold 'em. The damage wasn't as bad as it appeared, and I a fairly decent price for them.
hey, good to hear. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 08:11:39 PM
Reinstate the ban that expired but expand the list of weapons. I think the law that Clinton signed was far too anemic and had too many loopholes. But you pair this with stricter regulations for yearly gun registration, universal background checks...it's about putting up more barriers to make it more difficult. You'll never eliminate gun violence, but maybe we can at least dial back the 87 deaths a day by a dozen and go from there.
and this would reduce bun violence how?
furthermore, you give me some firearms feature and i'll tell you or invent a loophole post haste.
you want registration? there's more firearms already out there than people. how are you going to enforce that? There is also not the political will to do so. universal background checks? you can't have that without the registration, and you are already at a 'political will deficit' without the defacto banning of personal sales.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
Recession started in 1987. Technical recovery began in 1993, turning into an actual economic recovery in 1994.
For the slow readers - this led to national year of the killcraze, why?
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
Recession started in 1987. Technical recovery began in 1993, turning into an actual economic recovery in 1994.
And there we have it.
People seem to get along better when there's a semblance of "enough to go around". Or at least shoot each other less.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
Weapons ban. :lulz:
Rifle shootings down a tad, pistol shootings through the roof.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:22:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
Recession started in 1987. Technical recovery began in 1993, turning into an actual economic recovery in 1994.
For the slow readers - this led to national year of the killcraze, why?
Larger disparities in wealth, greater stress on social services, budget cuts, loss of revenue are all correlated with violent crime increase.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:22:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
Recession started in 1987. Technical recovery began in 1993, turning into an actual economic recovery in 1994.
For the slow readers - this led to national year of the killcraze, why?
Larger disparities in wealth, greater stress on social services, budget cuts, loss of revenue are all correlated with violent crime increase.
Yep, because the drop in "other gun" crimes was smaller than the HUGE INCREASE in pistol related deaths that peaked in 1994.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 21, 2013, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 21, 2013, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 21, 2013, 08:07:28 PM
Roger, you ever get those matched Bisleys rebarreled?
Sold 'em. The damage wasn't as bad as it appeared, and I a fairly decent price for them.
hey, good to hear. :)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 08:11:39 PM
Reinstate the ban that expired but expand the list of weapons. I think the law that Clinton signed was far too anemic and had too many loopholes. But you pair this with stricter regulations for yearly gun registration, universal background checks...it's about putting up more barriers to make it more difficult. You'll never eliminate gun violence, but maybe we can at least dial back the 87 deaths a day by a dozen and go from there.
and this would reduce bun violence how?
furthermore, you give me some firearms feature and i'll tell you or invent a loophole post haste.
you want registration? there's more firearms already out there than people. how are you going to enforce that? There is also not the political will to do so. universal background checks? you can't have that without the registration, and you are already at a 'political will deficit' without the defacto banning of personal sales.
Oh, I fully acknowledge that the political will issue is an onerus one, and in the end, will assure that nothing actually happens, ever.
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:22:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 21, 2013, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 21, 2013, 08:18:10 PM
What happened in the 90's? Free bullets? :eek:
Recession started in 1987. Technical recovery began in 1993, turning into an actual economic recovery in 1994.
For the slow readers - this led to national year of the killcraze, why?
Larger disparities in wealth, greater stress on social services, budget cuts, loss of revenue are all correlated with violent crime increase.
Oh. Yeah, I see that now. Makes perfect sense when you look at it like that.
I wonder - is there a corollary with deaths overseas at american hands? Like, when they get strapped for cash is it not just each other that they take down with their gun-totin escapades :evil:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 08:11:39 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 21, 2013, 07:46:17 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:42:52 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 21, 2013, 06:37:58 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 21, 2013, 06:33:58 PM
Well, those are great long-term goals. But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?
Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
What on EARTH gives you that idea?
Don't answer the question with a question. The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term. So I'll ask again. What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?
You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. :lol:
Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.
How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?
Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
What about an assault weapons ban, specifically, would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.
Reinstate the ban that expired but expand the list of weapons. I think the law that Clinton signed was far too anemic and had too many loopholes. But you pair this with stricter regulations for yearly gun registration, universal background checks...it's about putting up more barriers to make it more difficult. You'll never eliminate gun violence, but maybe we can at least dial back the 87 deaths a day by a dozen and go from there.
That didn't answer my question at all. What, SPECIFICALLY, about an assault weapon ban would reduce gun crime?
Roger, I want to go back for a second. Without addressing the efficacy (or lack there of) regarding regulation, your position seems to be that the 2nd amendment establishes a rule of law that gives Americans a right to own any kind of gun.
Apologies if I missed some nuance, it was a few pages back. Please amend/adjust/correct me where I got it wrong.
But my question is, what about the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)? [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. That seems to mean that the Fed can restrict which types of guns are sold, correct?
Only those sold to non-Americans.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce, but the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed suggests that firearms are not covered by that.
Disagree, I personally think it is a bit of a leap to assume that the right to bear arms = the right to dictate the gun market.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 22, 2013, 01:20:00 PM
Roger, I want to go back for a second. Without addressing the efficacy (or lack there of) regarding regulation, your position seems to be that the 2nd amendment establishes a rule of law that gives Americans a right to own any kind of gun.
Apologies if I missed some nuance, it was a few pages back. Please amend/adjust/correct me where I got it wrong.
But my question is, what about the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)? [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. That seems to mean that the Fed can restrict which types of guns are sold, correct?
1. Yep. The 2nd is pretty clear on that.
2. Nothing wrong with regulating commerce between states. Doesn't seem to me that they can restrict firearms based on that, but it does mean they can tax them and inspect them. To say otherwise would also imply that they could restrict the sales of newspapers (another protected item) between one state and another.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 22, 2013, 01:51:26 PM
Disagree, I personally think it is a bit of a leap to assume that the right to bear arms = the right to dictate the gun market.
The 2nd doesn't try to dictate to the market. You're the one wanting to dictate to the market.
Wow what a discussion.
I think, that the biggest issue is this:
As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.
While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger, two 9 mm handguns with 10 bullets apiece will do the same thing with a minimal amount of effort. Sure it would be more than a single badabadabadabadabadabada... but if you're aiming at 5 year olds in a small room, I'm pretty sure that bang bang bang bang will work just as well (after all the attacker didn't have ANY auto weapon). Alternatively, a couple shotguns with 5 cartridges apiece would probably do pretty well in that situation... though you might only take out 10-15 instead of 20.
In fact, since the attacker at Sandy Hook brought a semi-auto rifle and a Glock, he could have just as easily brought two handguns or two shotguns. The semi-auto Bushmaster wasn't necessary to wreak that level of carnage.
These same problems apply to the attack on Rep. Giffords.
Columbine, also, was executed with shotguns, two 9 mm's and a rifle. No assault or fully automatic weapons were used.
The theater shooting in Aurora was done with a shotgun, a glock and a semi-auto rifle.
So it comes down to this. IF you want to protect 5 year olds from another Sandy Hook, you MUST ban all guns, even hunting rifles and shotguns... well maybe you could leave muzzle loaders on the market.
IF you believe AT ANY LEVEL that "some" guns should be legal based on the second amendment, then you MUST accept that those LEGAL guns could have done exactly what happened at Sandy Hook, Columbine and Aurora.
ADDITIONALLY, we can argue that mental health evaluation and waiting periods will help. However, the owner of the guns used at Sandy Hook were owned by the mother, who from all accounts didn't have mental problems. So unless we demand mental health evaluations for EVERYONE in the household, mental health evaluations would not have stopped the massacre. The guns used in Columbine were acquired by individuals other than the shooters. Further, issues such as income disparity, gang violence etc may very well help with many kinds of gun violence, it doesn't appear that in any of the examples, the shooter(s) was poor and desperate or a member of a gang. Maybe mental health evals could have spared the victims in Aurora, though I am not sure if the shooter was the gun owner.
So it comes down to this. If you want to stop future incidents like Sandy Hook or Columbine, then the ONLY option is to ban ALL guns. If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.
We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.
Personally, based on my interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is clear that, at least handguns, shotguns and rifles are protected. Thus, unless we wish to change the Constitution, we cannot constitutionally pass a law that would 'save the children'.
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.
If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.
We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.
I have to agree with Rat on this one. And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence. Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
Legislating responsible parenting would take care of guns, drugs, teenage pregnancy... of course, I have no idea how one wouldd go about legislating responsible parenting.
I think it really boils down to "The world is a dangerous place, full of crazy people. You will die someday. You may die today because of a crazy person."
That seems to have been the case since we evolved enough brains to have something go very wrong with their wiring. There were probably some crazy people using clubs, stone axes, bronze blades etc to harm people for no reason other than short circuits in their head.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 22, 2013, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.
If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.
We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.
I have to agree with Rat on this one. And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence. Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.
I agree with this considering inner city violence but the larger scale blow ups seem to be from wealthy families. It maybe a case of our family can't have these problems so we ignore them?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 22, 2013, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.
If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.
We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.
I have to agree with Rat on this one. And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence. Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.
It would certainly help with many instances of gun violence, but it doesn't seem to have been a factor in the massacres I mentioned. There is only so much we can do to curb horrific incidents like those, unless we toss out the constitution and implement a police state with armed guards all over the place. :-/
I'm not a gun nut. I learned to use guns when I was quite young and used them for many years. However, I have never owned one as an adult, and I don't see that likely to change in the future. However, passing laws that don't fix the problem seems like an effort in futility to me.
When I was 13, I was brought outside to my grandfather's porch in Alabama. There on the table he had a shotgun, a .22 pistol, and a 9mm pistol. (Do not ask me the makes, I was a kid.)
Him and his cousin sat my brother (who was 10) and myself down, and gave us each a tour of the weapon. What they did, how they worked. How they came apart. How to hold it, how to load it, etc. We sat there, we drank iced tea, and we each had a turn, with our familys' guidance, on taking apart each gun, putting it back together, and loading it safely.
Targets were set up in the backyard near the woodpile, and we were taught to fire each weapon, to gain confidence, and to not be afraid. We also learned that the minute we starting giggling or getting careless, they were going back inside and we were NEVER allowed to touch them again. That safety stayed on and that finger was off the trigger until we were both comfortable enough with the idea we were about to put a bullet into a downed tree. If at any time I went, "I don't like this, this doesn't feel right." Cousin Ed came over and said, "Okay, tell me what you don't think is right." And we would go over hand position, posture, etc, again and again until I felt comfortable.
When the ammo was spent, we brought the weapons back to the table, took them apart and were taught to clean them. Then we were shown where they went in the safe, and a tour of the other guns he had. My parents were right there the whole time. In fact, I believe it was my mom's idea that he did this with us.
My brother inherited most of my grandfather's guns. (I can't have them up here.) He actually just bought a new piece this weekend (Springfield XD .45), and the first thing he did with it was not skip off to the range, it took it home, took it apart, and learned the weapon. The thing stays in his safe. He does not stockpile ammunition. He does not talk about them, and everything is transported safely in the back of the car in a case to and from the range.
A little education and a lot of discretion goes a long way. Most people don't believe me when I said I've done a fair amount of shooting. It has nothing to do with the fact that I was raised in the South (please to note that my grandfather and that entire side of the family were all Long Islanders, and Cousin Ed was NYPD for YEARS.)
If anything, I say, we need to teach more and remove the stigma. Will this help sick people? No, probably not, but it would make people as a whole less afraid of what they may not understand.
Just 2 cents.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger,
See, this is EXACTLY what ECH and I have been talking about. That isn't what happened.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 22, 2013, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.
If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.
We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.
I have to agree with Rat on this one. And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence. Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.
In WWII, only 20% of front line soldiers pulled the trigger, even when fired upon.
In Vietnam, it was 65%.
In the Iraq invasion, it was 95%.
So, in a period of about 60 years, 75% more people were willing to shoot other people. This isn't caused by individual gun ownership, because that hasn't changed over that time period (hell, between the world wars, you could own a fully-automatic Thompson submachine gun).
No, it has to do with the changes in our culture between the end of WWII and today. And what have those changes been?
Television (24 is a great example, as are most "crime dramas").
Movies (Rambo being a prime example).
Video games (The DoD subsidizes some development, and even produced their own ("Real War").
All of the above are used to desensitize people to killing, to a degree that would have made a dark ages knight blush.
The problem here isn't the tool being used.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger,
See, this is EXACTLY what ECH and I have been talking about. That isn't what happened.
Precisely. That isn't what happened in any of the incident I discussed. All of them used pistols, shotguns, rifles etc. The most crazy of all the guns used was the rifle with 100 rounds used at the theater, which wasn't fully automatic and jammed after a third of the rounds had been fired.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 03:54:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger,
See, this is EXACTLY what ECH and I have been talking about. That isn't what happened.
Precisely. That isn't what happened in any of the incident I discussed. All of them used pistols, shotguns, rifles etc. The most crazy of all the guns used was the rifle with 100 rounds used at the theater, which wasn't fully automatic and jammed after a third of the rounds had been fired.
Not the point. An "assault weapon" as available cannot fire fully-automatic. "One pull of the trigger" gets you "one bullet". The media frenzy going on right now describes assault weapons as magickal death devices that fire a stream of bullets like a fire hose. Most people seem to believe that you CAN "mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger. You couldn't do that with a military grade rifle, because you couldn't keep an aiming point. Hell, you'd have problems doing that with a light machine gun.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2013, 03:58:00 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 03:54:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2013, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger,
See, this is EXACTLY what ECH and I have been talking about. That isn't what happened.
Precisely. That isn't what happened in any of the incident I discussed. All of them used pistols, shotguns, rifles etc. The most crazy of all the guns used was the rifle with 100 rounds used at the theater, which wasn't fully automatic and jammed after a third of the rounds had been fired.
Not the point. An "assault weapon" as available cannot fire fully-automatic. "One pull of the trigger" gets you "one bullet". The media frenzy going on right now describes assault weapons as magickal death devices that fire a stream of bullets like a fire hose. Most people seem to believe that you CAN "mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger. You couldn't do that with a military grade rifle, because you couldn't keep an aiming point. Hell, you'd have problems doing that with a light machine gun.
My point was that even if fully auto was available and worked as the media stated, it wasn't necessary. Sorry if it wasn't clear. :/
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 22, 2013, 03:52:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 22, 2013, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.
If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.
We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.
I have to agree with Rat on this one. And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence. Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.
In WWII, only 20% of front line soldiers pulled the trigger, even when fired upon.
In Vietnam, it was 65%.
In the Iraq invasion, it was 95%.
So, in a period of about 60 years, 75% more people were willing to shoot other people. This isn't caused by individual gun ownership, because that hasn't changed over that time period (hell, between the world wars, you could own a fully-automatic Thompson submachine gun).
No, it has to do with the changes in our culture between the end of WWII and today. And what have those changes been?
Television (24 is a great example, as are most "crime dramas").
Movies (Rambo being a prime example).
Video games (The DoD subsidizes some development, and even produced their own ("Real War").
All of the above are used to desensitize people to killing, to a degree that would have made a dark ages knight blush.
The problem here isn't the tool being used.
This! It's the comedy flipside of the anti-censorship argument. Most people agree that a "normal" person knows the difference between things they see in movies and things that happen in real life. What most people don't appreciate is how much of your mental processing apparatus makes no such distinction and how much that can impact the decision making part that thinks it's in control.
Upshot - most people only think they know the difference between movies and real life. Put them in a situation where they don't have time to think about it and all bets are off :lulz:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
Further, issues such as income disparity, gang violence etc may very well help with many kinds of gun violence, it doesn't appear that in any of the examples, the shooter(s) was poor and desperate or a member of a gang.
Why do you people insist on believing that "income disparity" means "poor"?
Poorer nations with less income disparity have less gun violence than the US. It isn't about "poor people kill each other with guns".
Income DISPARITY affects all people who live within the affected nation, regardless of income LEVEL.
That doesn't mean it was the primary influencing factor at Sandy Hook. But we can't really ignore that it has the single most powerful corellation with gun violence.
Unless you're RWHN, in which case you can't let silly little things like facts get in the way.
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
You're talking out your ass.
No one knows why the mother owned the guns, or, in fact, for certain whether they were hers.
She got the kid plenty of mental health help.
There is no evidence that indicates she should have known this was going to happen.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 22, 2013, 02:50:22 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on January 22, 2013, 02:26:39 PM
As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.
If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.
We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.
I have to agree with Rat on this one. And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence. Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.
It's not really my idea
I'm just siding with some people who have done what appears to be good research in this area.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 22, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
You're talking out your ass.
No one knows why the mother owned the guns, or, in fact, for certain whether they were hers.
She got the kid plenty of mental health help.
There is no evidence that indicates she should have known this was going to happen.
The parents are always the first to get blamed.
Income disparity and this (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34049.msg1237191/topicseen.html#new) don't get mentioned much.
ETA: Not saying the guy shouldn't have been medicated. Just that when a kid has issues, the schools tend to fuck them up worse.
Also, remember in another thread where ECH mentioned that the 2nd Amendment was for slaves?
Bingo. Kai just posted this link.
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2013/01/20/militias-and-slaves/
I was thinking about this thread and how much it inspired some of my rather glands, then I let up with some people who started gabbering about how clearly, CLEARLY, this Sandy Hook guy was CIA.
AFTER ALL, WHAT WOULD MAKE LIBRUL BLEEDING HEARTS ENGAGE IN NAZI BEHAVIOR MORE THAN DEAD KIDS. Barely paraphrasing there. Also, racial slurs were bandied. Won't be spending much time there.
So thanks, PD. Despite your general terribleness, you are still better than IRL.
Quote from: Alty on January 22, 2013, 05:00:47 PM
I was thinking about this thread and how much it inspired some of my rather glands, then I let up with some people who started gabbering about how clearly, CLEARLY, this Sandy Hook guy was CIA.
AFTER ALL, WHAT WOULD MAKE LIBRUL BLEEDING HEARTS ENGAGE IN NAZI BEHAVIOR MORE THAN DEAD KIDS. Barely paraphrasing there. Also, racial slurs were bandied. Won't be spending much time there.
So thanks, PD. Despite your general terribleness, you are still better than IRL.
The conspiracy theories circulating are absurd to the Nth degree.
Quote from: Suu on January 22, 2013, 05:07:05 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 22, 2013, 05:00:47 PM
I was thinking about this thread and how much it inspired some of my rather glands, then I let up with some people who started gabbering about how clearly, CLEARLY, this Sandy Hook guy was CIA.
AFTER ALL, WHAT WOULD MAKE LIBRUL BLEEDING HEARTS ENGAGE IN NAZI BEHAVIOR MORE THAN DEAD KIDS. Barely paraphrasing there. Also, racial slurs were bandied. Won't be spending much time there.
So thanks, PD. Despite your general terribleness, you are still better than IRL.
The conspiracy theories circulating are absurd to the Nth degree.
In fairness this is true of most conspiracy theories
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 22, 2013, 05:09:59 PM
Quote from: Suu on January 22, 2013, 05:07:05 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 22, 2013, 05:00:47 PM
I was thinking about this thread and how much it inspired some of my rather glands, then I let up with some people who started gabbering about how clearly, CLEARLY, this Sandy Hook guy was CIA.
AFTER ALL, WHAT WOULD MAKE LIBRUL BLEEDING HEARTS ENGAGE IN NAZI BEHAVIOR MORE THAN DEAD KIDS. Barely paraphrasing there. Also, racial slurs were bandied. Won't be spending much time there.
So thanks, PD. Despite your general terribleness, you are still better than IRL.
The conspiracy theories circulating are absurd to the Nth degree.
In fairness this is true of most conspiracy theories
You are correct, but for some reason, "9-11 was an inside job!" seems less nutty than, "Obama faked killing a bunch of kids to take our guns!
Just add "... because of reptilian shape shifters" to any explanation that's not kooky enough for ya, then punch it into google and despair :evil:
Quote from: Alty on January 22, 2013, 05:00:47 PM
I was thinking about this thread and how much it inspired some of my rather glands, then I let up with some people who started gabbering about how clearly, CLEARLY, this Sandy Hook guy was CIA.
AFTER ALL, WHAT WOULD MAKE LIBRUL BLEEDING HEARTS ENGAGE IN NAZI BEHAVIOR MORE THAN DEAD KIDS. Barely paraphrasing there. Also, racial slurs were bandied. Won't be spending much time there.
So thanks, PD. Despite your general terribleness, you are still better than IRL.
What rubbish.
I mean, any idiot can see it's
the children who were the CIA agents.
Is it just me, or did all the really wacky reptilian/space alien/retarded ones start post-60's (RFK, JFK, MLK...) possibly probably in order to discredit the idea of conspiracies?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 22, 2013, 05:50:18 PM
Just add "... because of reptilian shape shifters" to any explanation that's not kooky enough for ya, then punch it into google and despair :evil:
BOOM!
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2107849/pg1
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
My work is done here 8)
Quote from: Suu on January 22, 2013, 04:50:18 PM
Also, remember in another thread where ECH mentioned that the 2nd Amendment was for slaves?
Bingo. Kai just posted this link.
http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2013/01/20/militias-and-slaves/
Wow, interesting!
Yes, this is an op-ed, but I thought it was an interesting read with some interesting points to consider. I particularily agree with the last paragraph.
Even if you believe the Second Amendment grants each American an individual right to own a gun, which remains a matter of some debate, it does not follow logically, legally or constitutionally that this right is absolute. No right granted by the Constitution is totally exempt from limitations.
The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process. Yet many of the same politicians who champion an absolutist understanding of the Second Amendment tolerate the indefinite military detention of alleged (not proven) terrorists. Just yesterday Charlie Savage reported that lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act dropped a provision (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/politics/congressional-committee-is-said-to-drop-ban-on-indefinite-detention-of-citizens.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0) that would have barred the military from holding American citizens indefinitely, without trial.
Not even the right to speak is absolute. Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 2008 that "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment." By my lights, "offers to provide or requests to obtain" child pornography are to the First Amendment what "offers to provide or requests to obtain" semiautomatic rifles (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/17/nyregion/connecticuts-rules-for-purchasing-this-gun.html?ref=nyregion) with 100-round magazines, without so much as a background check, are to the Second Amendment. If your "freedom" threatens children's safety, it's reasonable to restrict it.[/size]
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/is-the-second-amendment-absolute/
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 22, 2013, 11:13:33 PM
Even if you believe the Second Amendment grants each American an individual right to own a gun, which remains a matter of some debate, it does not follow logically, legally or constitutionally that this right is absolute.
Then they aren't rights.
And kiddie porn isn't free speech, it's an overt act. Thurgood Marshall defined the difference ages ago. The author of the op-ed is a dumbass.
I'm fine with it not being a right. I believe it is a "right" that has done more harm than good in this country.
And honestly, I personally believe it is completely ludicrous that any sensible movement on gun control is being held hostage by some words that were written by some old geezers who died a couple of centuries ago and lived in a world where everyone was running around with fucking muskets. Sadly, the fuckers set the shit up to make sure it was pretty much impossible to change any of their shit, which has to rank up there with one of the master trolls in history.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 12:45:56 AM
I'm fine with it not being a right. I believe it is a "right" that has done more harm than good in this country.
I think you're fine with lots of things not being rights, RWHN.
Such as?
I read today that some psycho blew up a school in the 1920s.
Blew it up. Killing students, teachers, and first responders. No guns, just explosives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
I can make explosives in my kitchen.
Shall we ban common cleaning chemicals next? Will I lose my 'right' to clean my house? What about my 'right' to even walk into a school, because anyone going into one could possibly be considered a threat.
Evil will always find a way. Sometimes it's with guns, sometimes it's with dynamite. Ban fireworks. Everywhere. How's that?
Dear everybody involved in this discussion: What evidence would be required for you to change your position?
Evidence that severe gun regimes are effective in preventing homicides.
Evidence that laissez-faire gun regimes have no impact on the choice of weapon used in the majority of homicides.
Evidence that reasonably strongly regulated regimes, such as France or Switzerland, are worse than either of the above options.
I thought that France and Switzerland weren't really that regulated? It just seems everyone has a gun, and it's normal.
Quote from: Pæs on January 23, 2013, 02:16:33 AM
Dear everybody involved in this discussion: What evidence would be required for you to change your position?
I have to be honest here: My position won't change. I'm flexible in a lot of things, but not when it comes to rights. Not because I HAVE TO OWN A GUN or anything, I've gone years without owning one here and there, and never really cared...But rather because I don't like being told what I can and cannot do.
For example, it would never occur to me to do something as childish as burn a flag. Until someone passes a law saying I can't. Then I get all kinds of pissy about it.
I'm easy to get along with...Just leave me the hell alone and don't tell me what to do. If everyone thought like me, there'd never be another war.
Of course, that last bit is true about everyone, now that I think about it.
Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2013, 02:40:22 AM
Evidence that severe gun regimes are effective in preventing homicides.
Evidence that laissez-faire gun regimes have no impact on the choice of weapon used in the majority of homicides.
Evidence that reasonably strongly regulated regimes, such as France or Switzerland, are worse than either of the above options.
I think Canada has the right idea. You can own a rifle or a shotgun, but it's damn near impossible for a private citizen to own a pistol.
That's not acceptable to me HERE, but it would be THERE. Why? Because it's pretty much always been that way there. The problem I have is that once you start changing the rules, they don't STOP changing, as anyone paying attention since October of 2001 will realize.
In France, you need a licence. 8 different categories of gun, based on whether they are of a military design etc etc, basically, you can have semi-automatics with clip sizes of 10 or less, if you get a licence in the first place.
In Switzerland, everyone doing military service is required to own a gun, but the ammo for these weapons is kept on base. Otherwise, gun ownership is licenced. Only singleshot or semiautomatic long arms do not require a licence, which involves a psychiatric and criminal background check, the vendor must notify the local arms bureau of the sale, however. Fully automatic weapons, certain burst fire weapons and accesories like silencers are banned from sale.
Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2013, 03:26:33 AM
In France, you need a licence. 8 different categories of gun, based on whether they are of a military design etc etc, basically, you can have semi-automatics with clip sizes of 10 or less, if you get a licence in the first place.
In Switzerland, everyone doing military service is required to own a gun, but the ammo for these weapons is kept on base. Otherwise, gun ownership is licenced. Only singleshot or semiautomatic long arms do not require a licence, which involves a psychiatric and criminal background check, the vendor must notify the local arms bureau of the sale, however. Fully automatic weapons, certain burst fire weapons and accesories like silencers are banned from sale.
Unless you're in the battle of Stalingrad, fully-automatic weapons are for fucking bozos, anyway. They're utterly useless.
Yeah, I can't really see a non-combat role for them....maybe for exceptionally lazy, rich hunters. That aside...
Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2013, 03:47:57 AM
Yeah, I can't really see a non-combat role for them....maybe for exceptionally lazy, rich hunters. That aside...
Even in combat, they're shit unless they're bipod or tripod mounted, or unless the very short term goal is to throw as much lead up in the air as you can...Commonly called a "mad minute", and that usually means you're fucked proper, and will shortly be as dead as yesterday's fish sandwich.
http://www.imgur.com/8y9USiQ.jpeg
Alty, this is the best, most amazing picture I have ever seen. :aaa: :lulz:
When PD gives you a pantsing, they do it in the bowels.
My position is largely that this debate (at large, not this thread specifically) is an exceedingly effective distraction from people who do bad things for money, and will ultimately change nothing in America except perhaps the ease with which people get away with theft on a grand scale.
What would change that? Little baby Jesus singing from the rafter?
Should certain guns be banned? Man, I don't know. I just know we are going to eat each other with whatever tools are available. I'm gun agnostic, I guess.
ETA: I guess my main concern is I don't want anyone chipping away at the bill of rights because they think this or that for any reason. That's one hell of a slippery slope. That why that shit exists, so people can't come along and change how Americans should be free. There's enough of that going around.
"Shall not be infringed".
I think you can make an argument about the 2nd Amendment being ill-advised, but arguments about what it actually SAYS are, well, stupid.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 23, 2013, 04:40:18 AM
"Shall not be infringed".
I think you can make an argument about the 2nd Amendment being ill-advised, but arguments about what it actually SAYS are, well, stupid.
US Constitution is like any other ancient religious text - can be interpreted practically any way you need it to. In it's favour it does seem to get edited a lot more than most so at least some bits might be vaguely relevant in a contemporary context.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 22, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
You're talking out your ass.
No one knows why the mother owned the guns, or, in fact, for certain whether they were hers.
She got the kid plenty of mental health help.
There is no evidence that indicates she should have known this was going to happen.
The emphasis on the mother knowing was for the Colorado incident. And from now on if i give a shit I will add the links so you know its from our local media and not my ass. Then you can deconstruct the media from your holy than thou mentality.
And Income Disparity really! Give StarHawk a hug from me as you support another nebulous idea that made exactly how much of a difference with the Occupy Movement?
Oh what we fixed the world and I missed it? :evil:
Quote from: zen_magick on January 23, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 22, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
You're talking out your ass.
No one knows why the mother owned the guns, or, in fact, for certain whether they were hers.
She got the kid plenty of mental health help.
There is no evidence that indicates she should have known this was going to happen.
The emphasis on the mother knowing was for the Colorado incident. And from now on if i give a shit I will add the links so you know its from our local media and not my ass. Then you can deconstruct the media from your holy than thou mentality.
And Income Disparity really! Give StarHawk a hug from me as you support another nebulous idea that made exactly how much of a difference with the Occupy Movement?
Oh what we fixed the world and I missed it? :evil:
wat
Quote from: zen_magick on January 23, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 22, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
You're talking out your ass.
No one knows why the mother owned the guns, or, in fact, for certain whether they were hers.
She got the kid plenty of mental health help.
There is no evidence that indicates she should have known this was going to happen.
The emphasis on the mother knowing was for the Colorado incident. And from now on if i give a shit I will add the links so you know its from our local media and not my ass. Then you can deconstruct the media from your holy than thou mentality.
And Income Disparity really! Give StarHawk a hug from me as you support another nebulous idea that made exactly how much of a difference with the Occupy Movement?
Oh what we fixed the world and I missed it? :evil:
Derp?
Quote from: zen_magick on January 23, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 22, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
You're talking out your ass.
No one knows why the mother owned the guns, or, in fact, for certain whether they were hers.
She got the kid plenty of mental health help.
There is no evidence that indicates she should have known this was going to happen.
The emphasis on the mother knowing was for the Colorado incident. And from now on if i give a shit I will add the links so you know its from our local media and not my ass. Then you can deconstruct the media from your holy than thou mentality.
And Income Disparity really! Give StarHawk a hug from me as you support another nebulous idea that made exactly how much of a difference with the Occupy Movement?
Oh what we fixed the world and I missed it? :evil:
So, because the underlying problem is hard or nearly impossible to fix, we should pretend it's not there?
Indeed.
I mean, it's not like there are any other countries in the world which have less income disparity than the USA. The US is a world leader in equality, which is why, according to the CIA factbook, it's Gini coefficient puts it 77th in the world, behind almost all industralised countries and roughly on a par with former banana republics like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Guyana.
Problem clearly can't be solved.
Paes,
i would change my mind on the topic if:
- i were guaranteed that the police were required (let alone able) to keep me safe, and there was no need to consider protecting myself. (But they are aren't (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0))
- i were guaranteed that the US govt. was somehow immune to falling into tyranny. i'm not one of the nutters that say this has already happened, but i sure think the trajectory is pointed in that direction.
- i were convinced that blowing things up and firing stuff at high energy were not incredibly exhilarating.
Quote from: zen_magick on January 23, 2013, 08:54:34 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 22, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
Quote from: zen_magick on January 22, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
When it comes to Sandy Hook,
The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.
Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?
Just asking
You're talking out your ass.
No one knows why the mother owned the guns, or, in fact, for certain whether they were hers.
She got the kid plenty of mental health help.
There is no evidence that indicates she should have known this was going to happen.
The emphasis on the mother knowing was for the Colorado incident. And from now on if i give a shit I will add the links so you know its from our local media and not my ass. Then you can deconstruct the media from your holy than thou mentality.
And Income Disparity really! Give StarHawk a hug from me as you support another nebulous idea that made exactly how much of a difference with the Occupy Movement?
Oh what we fixed the world and I missed it? :evil:
:lulz: I have nothing to say.
neither did he, but that didn't stop him!
:lol:
:punchballs:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :
I think there are some good points in this piece, which was written by a Texan gun-owner. And I agree with him. If we can give first responders those extra couple of seconds where they can take out a gunman and lower the bodycount then we should pursue that course of action.
http://blurt-online.com/features/view/1309/
[/size]
Alot of what he says makes sense and the last paragraph is spot-on. Still not a good argument for fucking with the Bill of Rights.
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
"IT WAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE, WE FOUND SHELL CASINGS...NO, IT WAS FOUR HANDGUNS..."
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 23, 2013, 08:17:00 PM
Alot of what he says makes sense and the last paragraph is spot-on. Still not a good argument for fucking with the Bill of Rights.
I can't think of a better reason, saving lives. Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.
And besides, the kind of things he proposes in terms of gun regulations, I believe, doesn't "fuck with" the bill of rights.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead..
Marc Thiessen says the exact same thing, when it comes to why we need to strap down random Arabs and torture them.
You know what else would keep people safe? Employing half the country to keep the other half under permament house arrest.
Anyone who suggests any less isn't serious about saving lives.
:lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
I can't think of a better reason, saving lives. Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.
And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap. Starvation cheap.
Give Me What You Think Is As Much Freedom As Will Assure My Safety And/Or Kill Me, Or Whatever!
Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2013, 09:28:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead..
Marc Thiessen says the exact same thing, when it comes to why we need to strap down random Arabs and torture them.
Which is in a completely different context and scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2013, 10:22:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
I can't think of a better reason, saving lives. Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.
And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap. Starvation cheap.
Really? Really? You are going to equate having a few less firearms that someone (with the considerable disposable income necessary to purchase said firearms) can purchase with starvation? C'mon, this is First World Problem territory here.
Messing with the Bill of Rights is most certainly a first-world problem. I for one would prefer it stay that way.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2013, 10:22:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
I can't think of a better reason, saving lives. Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.
And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap. Starvation cheap.
Really? Really? You are going to equate having a few less firearms that someone (with the considerable disposable income necessary to purchase said firearms) can purchase with starvation? C'mon, this is First World Problem territory here.
Yeah, I am. "Starvation cheap" is an old term meaning "worthless". I have always been a fan of Patrick Henry.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 23, 2013, 10:57:44 PM
Messing with the Bill of Rights is most certainly a first-world problem. I for one would prefer it stay that way.
On this, I must agree with ECH. In fact I DEMAND to agree with him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2013, 11:32:52 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2013, 10:22:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
I can't think of a better reason, saving lives. Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.
And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap. Starvation cheap.
Really? Really? You are going to equate having a few less firearms that someone (with the considerable disposable income necessary to purchase said firearms) can purchase with starvation? C'mon, this is First World Problem territory here.
Yeah, I am. "Starvation cheap" is an old term meaning "worthless". I have always been a fan of Patrick Henry.
So a life with a few less gun purchase options is "worthless", really? I'm sorry but I find that to be a rather pathetic concept.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 11:48:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2013, 11:32:52 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 10:40:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 23, 2013, 10:22:40 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
I can't think of a better reason, saving lives. Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead.
And a life without rights and freedoms is cheap. Starvation cheap.
Really? Really? You are going to equate having a few less firearms that someone (with the considerable disposable income necessary to purchase said firearms) can purchase with starvation? C'mon, this is First World Problem territory here.
Yeah, I am. "Starvation cheap" is an old term meaning "worthless". I have always been a fan of Patrick Henry.
So a life with a few less gun purchase options is "worthless", really? I'm sorry but I find that to be a rather pathetic concept.
You're having a little trouble with the principle I'm trying to convey, I think.
Then try again. Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:03:51 AM
Then try again. Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.
I kinda feel sorry for you, RWHN. Seriously.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2013, 09:28:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead..
Marc Thiessen says the exact same thing, when it comes to why we need to strap down random Arabs and torture them.
Which is in a completely different context and scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The point ->
Your head ->
If you can't see how it relates, that's just showing how blind you are concerning what accepting your premise would actually entail. But then again, that's not news, because you actually advanced that argument, like you thought it would be a winning move or something.
Here, I'll spell it out for you: "saving lives" can not be the end all of public policy because....almost anything can be justified by the need to save lives. Torture, murder, war...and many other things besides. You cannot logically accept "saving lives" as your highest premise and then not accept the need to torture terrorists for information concerning plots. You cannot logically accept saving lives as your highest premise and not embrace political assassination as a tool. Or indeed the right to medicate people against their will or without their consent. Your premise leads you into an ethical dead end.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 12:05:58 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:03:51 AM
Then try again. Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.
I kinda feel sorry for you, RWHN. Seriously.
I don't give a fuck.
So tell me where I interpreted it wrong.
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2013, 12:07:42 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 23, 2013, 09:28:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 23, 2013, 09:25:03 PM
Rights and freedoms mean nothing to someone who is dead..
Marc Thiessen says the exact same thing, when it comes to why we need to strap down random Arabs and torture them.
Which is in a completely different context and scenario and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The point ->
Your head ->
If you can't see how it relates, that's just showing how blind you are concerning what accepting your premise would actually entail. But then again, that's not news, because you actually advanced that argument, like you thought it would be a winning move or something.
Here, I'll spell it out for you: "saving lives" can not be the end all of public policy because....almost anything can be justified by the need to save lives. Torture, murder, war...and many other things besides. You cannot logically accept "saving lives" as your highest premise and then not accept the need to torture terrorists for information concerning plots. You cannot logically accept saving lives as your highest premise and not embrace political assassination as a tool. Or indeed the right to medicate people against their will or without their consent. Your premise leads you into an ethical dead end.
That's bullshit when you actually apply it to the reality of the current, stalemate, political climate that exists in America. Policy happens on a case by case basis, and at a snail's pace, which is being generous. I don't buy the "slippery slope" argument because our Congress couldn't do that even if it wanted to the way it is divided. They can't fucking agree on money for hurricane victims for Christ's sake.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:09:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 12:05:58 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:03:51 AM
Then try again. Because that's really sounds like what you are saying.
I kinda feel sorry for you, RWHN. Seriously.
I don't give a fuck.
So tell me where I interpreted it wrong.
I'm talking principle, you don't seem to know what that is. Your entire worldview is based on expedience.
Principle is fine and dandy up until it meets the real world.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:27:11 AM
Principle is fine and dandy up until it meets the real world.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
If your principles can't stand up to the real world, you don't have any.
See, from my observation, the big divide here is that I think there are many here who are arguing from an academic perspective, principle, "slippery slope" arguments, etc. It's broad level talk based on a theoretical long view. But it doesn't actually factor in the reality of what's happening right now.
Christ, an assault weapon ban was enacted in the 90s, and not only have we not fallen into an inescapable, freedomless dystopia, the fucking ban died and wasn't renewed.
Taking some weapons off the market is not going to rob us of all of our freedoms, fuck, it's not going to rob us of ANY of our freedoms. All that will change is that it will take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale in your back yard full of lead. You can still have a shit load of weapons if you really want.
But it might just buy our guys in blue those few extra seconds that maybe results in 15 dead kids instead of 20, which has a huge impact for those five families who have empty chairs at their dinner tables right now.
It's tantamount to religion and it just really bugs the fuck out of me that progress that could save lives is held up because of that shit.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:45:20 AM
It's tantamount to religion and it just really bugs the fuck out of me that progress that could save lives is held up because of that shit.
Yeah, well, tough titties. Your safety < my rights.
Sorry about that.
Over a few fucking guns. Wow.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:48:19 AM
Over a few fucking guns. Wow.
Yep. Or over free speech, or freedom of the press, or the right not to have troops quartered in my home, or the right to a trial.
As I said, it's a matter of principle.
It's a principle, when held to that degree, that, in the end, costs lives. I just can't subscribe to that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:12:34 AM
It's a principle, when held to that degree, that, in the end, costs lives. I just can't subscribe to that.
Everything costs lives.
And that doesn't mean I'm some freedom hating scum bag. Freedom is an important value for any society to have. However, the reality is that we are a society, a community, and I've explained this in the drug threads. By definition, if we are goong to agree to live in communities, in soceities, there is absolutely no way that can happen in a way where we have absolute, unchecked freedom. We have to give ground to coexist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:20:36 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:12:34 AM
It's a principle, when held to that degree, that, in the end, costs lives. I just can't subscribe to that.
Everything costs lives.
Some things cost a lot more. Progress being arrested for academic idealism, in this case, is one of them.
But, in the end, I don't think you have to worry. There is clearly a strong coalition between the conservatives and gun-owning liberals/democrats to ensure that there is no change whatsoever. Obama and Biden will talk some talk but it will be dead on arrival. Hooray!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:20:36 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:12:34 AM
It's a principle, when held to that degree, that, in the end, costs lives. I just can't subscribe to that.
Everything costs lives.
Some things cost a lot more. Progress being arrested for academic idealism, in this case, is one of them.
The very idea that liberty is "academic idealism" is pretty pathetic. Doesn't matter which right you're talking about.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:36:12 AM
But, in the end, I don't think you have to worry. There is clearly a strong coalition between the conservatives and gun-owning liberals/democrats to ensure that there is no change whatsoever. Obama and Biden will talk some talk but it will be dead on arrival. Hooray!
I'm not worried. I'm more worried about the assholes chiseling away at amendment I, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, and X. They're actually making progress (in a very negative way), rather than just screeching whatever the latest CNN/Fox atrocity hype came on last.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:40:15 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:22:54 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:20:36 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:12:34 AM
It's a principle, when held to that degree, that, in the end, costs lives. I just can't subscribe to that.
Everything costs lives.
Some things cost a lot more. Progress being arrested for academic idealism, in this case, is one of them.
The very idea that liberty is "academic idealism" is pretty pathetic. Doesn't matter which right you're talking about.
It is when you divorce it from the reality that is on the ground. In this case, that reality being that a few guns off of the market doesn't keep people from being able to bear arms but can contribute to smaller death tolls, therefore, saving lives. Liberty is still well intact.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:03:46 AM
It is when you divorce it from the reality that is on the ground.
Yeah, that's the voice of expedience, all right.
RWHN should have been born as an ant. Their social structure seems more his speed.
"IF IT SAVES ONE CHILD FROM GETTING HIGH SHOT SOMETHING-OR-OTHER IT'S WORTH EVERYBODY LIVING IN A HORRIBLE DYSTOPIAN FASCIST POLICE STATE"
/
:retard: <-----RWHN
He seems to miss the irony of accusing everybody else of "having religion" over these sorts of subjects as he prattles on about all the rights we shouldn't have in the name of THE CHILDREN.
I mean, sorry bro, but I'm not required to give two shits about children and neither is anybody else.
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 24, 2013, 02:26:05 AM
"IF IT SAVES ONE CHILD FROM GETTING HIGH SHOT SOMETHING-OR-OTHER IT'S WORTH EVERYBODY LIVING IN A HORRIBLE DYSTOPIAN FASCIST POLICE STATE"
/
:retard: <-----RWHN
See? This is precisely what I'm talking about and it makes you sound like a fucking idiot. Having a few less options for purchasing a gun does not make a "fascist police state", that's just an incredibly assinine statement to make.
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 02:29:21 AM
He seems to miss the irony of accusing everybody else of "having religion" over these sorts of subjects as he prattles on about all the rights we shouldn't have in the name of THE CHILDREN.
I mean, sorry bro, but I'm not required to give two shits about children and neither is anybody else.
You aren't required as an individual, no, but communities, by their very nature, are, that is, if they want to be healthy, thriving communities. That isn't religion, that's sociology, public health, and common fucking sense.
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy eroding amendments, incremental.
Fixed, since that made you sound like a fucking idiot. It was just an incredibly asinine statement to make.
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 24, 2013, 03:00:08 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy eroding amendments, incremental.
Fixed, since that made you sound like a fucking idiot. It was just an incredibly asinine statement to make.
Touched a nerve, did I? :lulz:
I mean really, as strong as the gun culture is in this country, the "slippery slope" argument is pure bullshit, when you actually examine it on a practical level.
And it is a culture that is deep across demographics and political parties. I'd say there is an impenetrable firewall there.
I'm pretty sure the same things were said about the right to privacy, a decade or so ago.
And now look where we are.
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 24, 2013, 02:26:05 AM
"IF IT SAVES ONE CHILD FROM GETTING HIGH SHOT SOMETHING-OR-OTHER IT'S WORTH EVERYBODY LIVING IN A HORRIBLE DYSTOPIAN FASCIST POLICE STATE"
/
:retard: <-----RWHN
I LOVE YOU! If you were here with me I would give you all the beer in my fridge.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 03:02:53 AM
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 24, 2013, 03:00:08 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy eroding amendments, incremental.
Fixed, since that made you sound like a fucking idiot. It was just an incredibly asinine statement to make.
Touched a nerve, did I? :lulz:
Nah.
I've known you were a statist since the locker search thing at the &DRUGS&DRUGS&DRUGS thread.
RWHN &GUNS&DERP&DERP&DERP
Such eloquence. Does it make you feel more comfortable and happy to be able to put me in a neat little box?
Labels don't concern me much.
But, honestly, when you make crazy leaps from a few guns off of the market to OMG FASCIST STATE, you sound like the kooks in the NRA. No one wants to make a fascist state, they just want to have less dead people in schools and movie theaters.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 03:50:18 AM
No one wants to make a fascist state, they just want to have less dead people in schools and movie theaters.
Unless they're smudgy people in foreign schools and theaters, in which case indiscriminately killing everyone on site isn't remotely a fascist thing to do.
Quote from: Net on January 24, 2013, 04:20:18 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 03:50:18 AM
No one wants to make a fascist state, they just want to have less dead people in schools and movie theaters.
Unless they're smudgy people in foreign schools and theaters, in which case indiscriminately killing everyone on site isn't remotely a fascist thing to do.
This. Like, 1000 times. Or however many children have been killed in their sleep abroad so we can feel Secure. That many times. I mean, Jesus. What normal assholes are aware of and the actual state of kids being murdered every day are...shit man. I just don't give a fuck about this. It's not like anyone is actually doing any of the things being talked about.
Let's get some god damned perspective here. What is the government actually doing? Are we just jerking off here? Where is the god damned bullet riddled beef?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:34:14 AM
See, from my observation, the big divide here is that I think there are many here who are arguing from an academic perspective, principle, "slippery slope" arguments, etc. It's broad level talk based on a theoretical long view. But it doesn't actually factor in the reality of what's happening right now.
Christ, an assault weapon ban was enacted in the 90s, and not only have we not fallen into an inescapable, freedomless dystopia, the fucking ban died and wasn't renewed.
Taking some weapons off the market is not going to rob us of all of our freedoms, fuck, it's not going to rob us of ANY of our freedoms. All that will change is that it will take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale in your back yard full of lead. You can still have a shit load of weapons if you really want.
But it might just buy our guys in blue those few extra seconds that maybe results in 15 dead kids instead of 20, which has a huge impact for those five families who have empty chairs at their dinner tables right now.
The ban didn't work to reduce gun deaths. Why do you think it would work now? What has changed that makes you think it will work?
http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-schools-high-powered-rifles-184934771.html
Quote from: /b/earman on January 24, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-schools-high-powered-rifles-184934771.html
That is probably the best thing that could happen. Am I naive in thinking people would be less likely to waltz into a school for any reason they shouldn't at the prospect of being mowed down by a disgruntled math major?
Quote from: /b/earman on January 24, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-schools-high-powered-rifles-184934771.html
Oh my god, that is completely insane, and also a matter of time before an unarmed student is shot and killed by one of these "guards".
Armed guards with high powered rifles in schools is not the solution. We are spiraling deeper into an insane society in which we lock children into institutions with armed guards every day.
Nooooooooooooo
Seems like a simple equation to me
More safe = Less free
More free = Less safe
RWHN obviously wants to stand on the completely safe side and most everyone else itt wants to stand on the completely free side
The ironic part is that most of the gun advocates want a gun to "be safe"
This is the reason I find the american gun-fixation so amusing. They take the "liberty" afforded by their holy and most sacred constitution and use it to imprison themselves in armed fortresses.
So the equation becomes
More free = less free
:lulz:
But we can decorate the armed fortresses.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 08:02:14 AM
Seems like a simple equation to me
More safe = Less free
More free = Less safe
RWHN obviously wants to stand on the completely safe side and most everyone else itt wants to stand on the completely free side
The ironic part is that most of the gun advocates want a gun to "be safe"
This is the reason I find the american gun-fixation so amusing. They take the "liberty" afforded by their holy and most sacred constitution and use it to imprison themselves in armed fortresses.
So the equation becomes
More free = less free
:lulz:
Regardless of what anyone says I'm pretty sure that, if you could look inside everyone's head and see what they really thought, you'd find 98% of "gun advocates" just really want to be able to kill the goddamn fuck out of something or someone if they feel the need to.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 08:02:14 AM
Seems like a simple equation to me
More safe = Less free
More free = Less safe
RWHN obviously wants to stand on the completely safe side and most everyone else itt wants to stand on the completely free side
The ironic part is that most of the gun advocates want a gun to "be safe"
This is the reason I find the american gun-fixation so amusing. They take the "liberty" afforded by their holy and most sacred constitution and use it to imprison themselves in armed fortresses.
So the equation becomes
More free = less free
:lulz:
Regardless of what anyone says I'm pretty sure that, if you could look inside everyone's head and see what they really thought, you'd find 98% of "gun advocates" just really want to be able to kill the goddamn fuck out of something or someone if they feel the need to.
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
This is the crux of the matter. And I gotta hand it to your nation, you're pretty fucking good at it. Unfortunately we're fast approaching the point where most of the the rest of the world are starting to feel the need to kill the goddamn fuck out of America, y'know, while there's still a world left to do it in :lulz:
Yeah, I mean, I'm pretty worried about that. Really. A pack of politically aware chavs is more of a threat to me than the 300 million frothing insane were-pigs I'm currently surrounded by. :lulz:
So I don't know about anybody else's motivations for wanting to be well-armed, but I know mine are completely legitimate. I have an entire America to worry about.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 09:33:39 AM
So I don't know about anybody else's motivations for wanting to be well-armed, but I know mine are completely legitimate. I have an entire America to worry about.
Thread over - ECH WINS! :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 08:02:14 AM
Seems like a simple equation to me
More safe = Less free
More free = Less safe
RWHN obviously wants to stand on the completely safe side and most everyone else itt wants to stand on the completely free side
The ironic part is that most of the gun advocates want a gun to "be safe"
This is the reason I find the american gun-fixation so amusing. They take the "liberty" afforded by their holy and most sacred constitution and use it to imprison themselves in armed fortresses.
So the equation becomes
More free = less free
:lulz:
Well, there is no such thing as "comoletely safe", or "completely free" for that matter.
But I do think as communities, and as a society, it is in our best interests to always be advancing policy that improves the lives of the members of our community. Kids AND adults. And let us remember adults are very much victims to gun violence as well. I think what little a gun enthusiast would be asked to give up pales incomparison to the lives that can be spared.
You fix what's wrong with your country and the guns will get rid of themselves. This begins by ensuring an environment where everyone wakes up in the morning and the first thought through their heads isn't "OMG! WTF WAS THAT NOISE? WHERE'S MY BULLETS?"
Unfortunately for anyone living in the real world, this would require way too much time and effort to be even worth considering, so instead you answer the question with "WE'RE COMING TO TAKE THEM AWAY!" thinking "This will make it all better"
This, coincidentally is why America is the butt of so many jokes/jihads amongst non-Americans. :lulz:
Headline "Another dozen kids massacred in 4th kindergarten bloodbath since lunchtime"
America - "Shock, horror, omg!"
Rest of the world "Well, DUH!"
Well, it's more like "WE'RE GOING TO DISCONTINUE THESE MODELS." Nobody is going to take away guns that are already owned.
Yes - that's why it's completely pointless. Taking away the ones which no self respecting 5 year old would dream of using to shoot up his classroom is not exactly going to accomplish anything at all, is it?
Banning all firearms simply means that those damn fools who obey laws, just because they're laws will play ball and the rest (the ones more likely to shoot up schools - cos they don't give a fuck about what's legal and what aint) will merely get better at hiding them, until the time is right to charge into the playground, spraying bullets on all they survey.
You obviously haven't worked it out yet, bud, and I'm fairly certain you never will but, just in case I'm wrong, I'll say it again - prohibition does not work. Period. That goes for prohibition of anything. At all. What prohibition does is makes whatever problem it's employed to deal with 10 times worse.
Now before you get all "but you UKites have gun prohibition and your embryo's don't come flying out the vag, armed to the gums, raining death on the maternity staff" Remember one thing - we don't want guns. Our bible doesn't tell us we have the right to 200 round mags. We have a slight problem with some deprived kids in the inner cities, who have watched too many American movies and listened to too much American poetry but, on the whole we tend not to spend 99% of our waking life wondering if we have enough armour piercing bullets to deal with our next door neighbours in a civilised manner .
I almost agree with you, RWHN; but I agree with Cain's breakdown even more. And this quote is a bit troubling:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.
Because it belies an undercurrent of, believe it or not, slippery slope-ing. Sure, we'll start with banning
this type of gun, because of the children, and because it's an easy target, regardless of it's ultimate threat reduction because there's public support. Then, when that's in place, we can cause a furor over the
next kind of gun, get that banned and so on.
My goodness. I'm sounding like the NRA. And I hate those fuckers.
It's sort of a parallel with something Penn Jillette (fucking hell, I'm pulling out a lot of assholes for referecnce here, aren't I?) said about religion (paraphrased): "People ask me what would prevent people from raping and killing if there was no God, and you know what? There is no god, and I rape as many people as I want to. And I want to rape ZERO people. I kill as many people as I want to, and I want to kill ZERO people."
I don't think we should leave the argument alone, like a lot on the Right do, when they say "People kill people, so leave our guns alone." People do kill people, so we should look to what environmental and social contexts create violent societies, and throw our energies behind that.
Maybe we
could frame this in a "for the children" way. If the focus is on ineffective gun restrictions, you
might save one life, while twenty die. If the focus is on violence reduction, you might save twenty. Focus on what maximizes the result you want.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.
Weren't you just the guy arguing that there was no slippery slope? :lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:11:31 PM
Well, it's more like "WE'RE GOING TO DISCONTINUE THESE MODELS." Nobody is going to take away guns that are already owned.
Who's "we"?
Because I don't think the companies making them want to discontinue them.
In response to LMNO:
Well, first, it should be framed as public safety, period. That entails kids AND adults, because it should be about reducing ALL gun violence deaths. Yes, the kids thing hits home for me for three reasons:
I have kids.
One kid going to school at an elementary school not very different than Newton.
Kids should not be scared of going to school.
I mean, c'mon, whether you have kids or not, how can that be acceptible? 1st graders being afraid of their classroom. How can we accept that?
And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way. The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example. Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died. So I understand what you are saying, in theory, but it just doesn't match up with what is actually happening in terms of policy-making. There is too much gun worship in this country to ever allow it to become an actual slippery slope.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:40:47 PM
And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way. The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example. Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died.
And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.
Weren't you just the guy arguing that there was no slippery slope? :lulz:
Yes. But policy making in America is incremental, and ratcheted. Again, the assault weapon ban from the 90s is an example of that. Policy proposals are going to be weighed individually, and given how slow policy making is, by different Congresses. And again, the gun worship in America would never allow it to become a slippery slope.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:40:47 PM
And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way. The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example. Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died.
And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.
Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.
Weren't you just the guy arguing that there was no slippery slope? :lulz:
Yes. But policy making in America is incremental, and ratcheted. Again, the assault weapon ban from the 90s is an example of that. Policy proposals are going to be weighed individually, and given how slow policy making is, by different Congresses. And again, the gun worship in America would never allow it to become a slippery slope.
I think it's better if we don't allow the policy process to begin at all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:45:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:40:47 PM
And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way. The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example. Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died.
And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.
Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.
Oh, so it failed because it wasn't
pure enough?
Where have I heard THAT before?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:46:10 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:56:04 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 24, 2013, 02:53:04 AM
It rather funny that you are advocating a ban on a class of firearm that apparently is statistically involved in a far smaller number of deaths than that of handguns.
Because you have to start somewhere. Unfortunately that is the nature of public policy, incremental.
Weren't you just the guy arguing that there was no slippery slope? :lulz:
Yes. But policy making in America is incremental, and ratcheted. Again, the assault weapon ban from the 90s is an example of that. Policy proposals are going to be weighed individually, and given how slow policy making is, by different Congresses. And again, the gun worship in America would never allow it to become a slippery slope.
I think it's better if we don't allow the policy process to begin at all.
That ship has sailed. Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence, and gun control is goong to be a part of that. Invariably it may well fail thanks to the deep reach of the NRA and other special interests. But the public will is there to demand that something is done.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
That ship has sailed. Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence,
Good. Violence needs to be reduced.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
and gun control is goong to be a part of that.
Bad, because it will be ineffective.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
But the public will is there to demand that something is done.
Good, so long as they understand what they should be demanding.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
That ship has sailed. Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence, and gun control is goong to be a part of that. Invariably it may well fail thanks to the deep reach of the NRA and other special interests. But the public will is there to demand that something is done.
Fantastic. Now it just has to be made into law then, right?
Good luck with that.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 24, 2013, 01:52:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
That ship has sailed. Whether you like it or not, there is significant public sentiment to do something to curb gun violence,
Good. Violence needs to be reduced.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
and gun control is goong to be a part of that.
Bad, because it will be ineffective.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:49:11 PM
But the public will is there to demand that something is done.
Good, so long as they understand what they should be demanding.
By itself it will be ineffective, yes, but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective, that of course will be up to the crafters of the policy.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective,
I think this might be one of those sticking points. Technology is fucking amazing, and humans can be very clever. If there are rules about a kind of gun that's banned, you can be sure in a year there will be a gun that is perfectly legal, and yet does exactly what the ban was trying to prevent. In fact, that gun probably already exists.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 24, 2013, 02:01:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective,
I think this might be one of those sticking points. Technology is fucking amazing, and humans can be very clever. If there are rules about a kind of gun that's banned, you can be sure in a year there will be a gun that is perfectly legal, and yet does exactly what the ban was trying to prevent. In fact, that gun probably already exists.
Of course, we have that problem with substance abuse. Bath Salts were banned last year federally but crafty chemists have already been able to alter the chemical structure to create new drugs that get around the ban. So there will always be an issue where the policies are going to need to be able to keep up with that changing landscape. Is it a tall order? Yep. Could it fail? Yep. But that doesn't mean we don't try.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 02:08:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 24, 2013, 02:01:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
but as part of a comprehensive approach, it CAN be effective,
I think this might be one of those sticking points. Technology is fucking amazing, and humans can be very clever. If there are rules about a kind of gun that's banned, you can be sure in a year there will be a gun that is perfectly legal, and yet does exactly what the ban was trying to prevent. In fact, that gun probably already exists.
Of course, we have that problem with substance abuse. Bath Salts were banned last year federally but crafty chemists have already been able to alter the chemical structure to create new drugs that get around the ban. So there will always be an issue where the policies are going to need to be able to keep up with that changing landscape. Is it a tall order? Yep. Could it fail? Yep. But that doesn't mean we don't try.
It does for me. Knowingly walking into a situation of shitty legislation is always a bad idea.
Of course, I also disagree with the idea that there's a need for this legislation.
One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"
I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.
I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.
Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 02:50:48 PM
One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"
I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.
I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.
Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?
Reducing economic inequality reduces crime of all kinds. But I'm a filthy librul socialist, so....
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,33865.msg1237569.html#msg1237569
also the link in this thread.
QuoteGuns play an important emotional role in many men's lives, both as a vehicle for their relationships with their fathers and in the way they bolster some men's sense of security and power.
For my money these two psychotic neuroses cause more problems in the world than pretty much everything else combined.
Apart from the 2 posts above, and any discussions thereof, I'm pretty much staying out of this thread, because as a Brit happy with our gun control laws, you Yanks baffle the everliving fuck out of me when it comes to shit like this. I get a feeling that you can't put the genie back in the bottle over there, and guns are fucking scary.
I have never been as scared in my entire fucking LIFE as the time I was in San Francisco and was 2 metres away from a guy with a sawn-off shotgun and my ex yanked me in the opposite direction and told me to run. I prefer my nutters with fists and knives, because running has a much higher odds of survival without injury with those fucks.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 03:05:38 PM
QuoteGuns play an important emotional role in many men's lives, both as a vehicle for their relationships with their fathers and in the way they bolster some men's sense of security and power.
For my money these two psychotic neuroses cause more problems in the world than pretty much everything else combined.
I reckon that probably links in to socieconomic factors such as income disparity between rich and poor as well. Basic social and physical needs not met> feel insecure> need something that feels like a game changer.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:10:27 PM
Apart from the 2 posts above, and any discussions thereof, I'm pretty much staying out of this thread, because as a Brit happy with our gun control laws, you Yanks baffle the everliving fuck out of me when it comes to shit like this. I get a feeling that you can't put the genie back in the bottle over there, and guns are fucking scary.
Well, that's exactly it. Your country and society runs things a certain way, and we run ours in a different way. I find no fault with Britain or Canada's systems, or those of the Swiss, etc.
But our national character IS different. By your standards - or at least by Canadian standards - it IS insane, pretty much by definition.
I think the critical difference in the USA's character from Canada's has to do with how each nation became a nation. Canada separated peaceably from the UK, and Americans didn't. In each case, the origins of the country had an understandable impact on the national character.
Roger, did you read the HuffPo article by Jackson Katz in the CT school shooting thread?
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:26:27 PM
Roger, did you read the HuffPo article by Jackson Katz in the CT school shooting thread?
No, Huffpo gives my home computer fits (the adware does weird things to Windows 8 ), and it's blocked here at work.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
I find both startling, and the correlation that goes with it. Y'all shit is fucked up, America.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:26:27 PM
Roger, did you read the HuffPo article by Jackson Katz in the CT school shooting thread?
No, Huffpo gives my home computer fits (the adware does weird things to Windows 8 ), and it's blocked here at work.
QuoteMany of us whose work touches on the subject of masculinity and violence have long been frustrated by the failure of mainstream media -- and much of progressive media and the blogosphere as well -- to confront the gender issues at the heart of so many violent rampages like the one on December 14 in Connecticut.
My colleagues and I who do this type of work experience an unsettling dichotomy. In one part of our lives, we routinely have intense, in-depth discussions about men's emotional and relational struggles, and how the bravado about "rugged individualism" in American culture masks the deep yearning for connection that so many men feel, and how the absence or loss of that can quickly turn to pain, despair, and anger. In these discussions, we talk about violence as a gendered phenomenon: how, for example, men who batter their wives or girlfriends typically do so not because they have trigger tempers, but rather as a means to gain or maintain power and control over her, in a (misguided) attempt to get their needs met.
We talk amongst ourselves about how so many boys and men in our society are conditioned to see violence as a solution to their problems, a resolution of their anxieties, or a means of exacting revenge against those they perceive as taking something from them. We share with each other news stories, websites and YouTube videos that demonstrate the connection between deeply ingrained cultural ideas about manhood and individual acts of violence that operationalize those ideas.
And then in the wake of repeated tragedies like Newtown, we turn on the TV and watch the same predictable conversations about guns and mental illness, with only an occasional mention that the overwhelming majority of these types of crimes are committed by men -- usually white men. Even when some brave soul dares to mention this crucial fact, it rarely prompts further discussion, as if no one wants to be called a "male-basher" for uttering the simple truth that men commit the vast majority of violence, and thus efforts to "prevent violence" -- if they're going to be more than minimally effective -- need to explore why.
Maybe the Newtown massacre will mark a turning point. Maybe the mass murder of young children will force the ideological gatekeepers in mainstream media to actually pry open the cupboards of conventional thinking for just long enough to have a thoughtful conversation about manhood in the context of our ongoing national tragedy of gun violence.
But initial signs are not particularly promising. In the days since the shooting, some op-eds and blog posts have spoken to the gendered dynamics at the heart of this and other rampage killings. But most mainstream analysis has steered clear of this critical piece of the puzzle.
What follows is a brief list of suggestions for how journalists, cable hosts, bloggers and others who will be writing and talking about this unbelievable tragedy can frame the discussion in the coming days and weeks.
1) Make gender -- specifically the idea that men are gendered beings -- a central part of the national conversation about rampage killings. Typical news accounts and commentaries about school shootings and rampage killings rarely mention gender. If a woman were the shooter, you can bet there would be all sorts of commentary about shifting cultural notions of femininity and how they might have contributed to her act, such as discussions in recent years about girl gang violence. That same conversation about gender should take place when a man is the perpetrator. Men are every bit as gendered as women.
The key difference is that because men represent the dominant gender, their gender is rendered invisible in the discourse about violence. So much of the commentary about school shootings, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary, focuses on "people" who have problems, "individuals" who suffer from depression, and "shooters" whose motives remain obtuse. When opinion leaders start talking about the men who commit these rampages, and ask questions like: "why is it almost always men who do these horrible things?" and then follow that up, we will have a much better chance of finding workable solutions to the outrageous level of violence in our society.
2) Use the "M-word." Talk about masculinity. This does not mean you need to talk about biological maleness or search for answers in new research on brain chemistry. Such inquiries have their place. But the focus needs to be sociological: individual men are products of social systems. How many more school shootings do we need before we start talking about this as a social problem, and not merely a random collection of isolated incidents? Why are nearly all of the perpetrators of these types of crimes men, and most of them white men? (A recent piece by William Hamby is a step in the right direction. )
What are the cultural narratives from which school shooters draw lessons or inspiration? This does not mean simplistic condemnations of video games or violent media -- although all cultural influences are fair game for analysis. It means looking carefully at how our culture defines manhood, how boys are socialized, and how pressure to stay in the "man box" not only constrains boys' and men's emotional and relational development, but also their range of choices when faced with life crises. Psychological factors in men's development and psyches surely need to be examined, but the best analyses see individual men's actions in a social and historical context.
3) Identify the gender subtext of the ongoing political battle over "guns rights" versus "gun control," and bring it to the surface. The current script that plays out in media after these types of horrendous killings is unproductive and full of empty clichés. Advocates of stricter gun laws call on political leaders to take action, while defenders of "gun rights" hunker down and deflect criticism, hoping to ride out yet another public relations nightmare for the firearms industry. But few commentators who opine about the gun debates seem to recognize the deeply gendered aspects of this ongoing controversy. Guns play an important emotional role in many men's lives, both as a vehicle for their relationships with their fathers and in the way they bolster some men's sense of security and power.
It is also time to broaden the gun policy debate to a more in-depth discussion about the declining economic and cultural power of white men, and to deconstruct the gendered rhetoric of "defending liberty" and "fighting tyranny" that animates much right-wing opposition to even moderate gun control measures. If one effect of this tragedy is that journalists and others in media are able to create space for a discussion about guns that focuses on the role of guns in men's psyches and identities, and how this plays out in their political belief systems, we might have a chance to move beyond the current impasse.
4) Consult with, interview and feature in your stories the perspectives of the numerous men (and women) across the country who have worked with abusive men. Many of these people are counselors, therapists, and educators who can provide all sorts of insights about how -- and why -- men use violence. Since men who commit murder outside the home more than occasionally have a history of domestic violence, it is important to hear from the many women and men in the domestic violence field who can speak to these types of connections -- and in many cases have first-hand experience that deepen their understanding.
5) Bring experts on the air, and quote them in your stories, who can speak knowledgeably about the link between masculinity and violence. After the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide, CNN featured the work of the author Kevin Powell, who has written a lot about men's violence and the many intersections between gender and race. That was a good start. In the modern era of school shootings and rampage killings, a number of scholars have produced works that offer ways to think about the gendered subtext of these disturbing phenomena.
Examples include Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel's piece "Suicide by Mass Murder: Masculinity, Aggrieved Entitlement and Rampage School Shootings," Douglas Kellner's "Rage and Rampage: School Shootings and Crises of Masculinity," and a short piece that I co-wrote with Sut Jhally after Columbine, "The national conversation in the wake of Littleton is missing the mark."
There have also been many important books published over the past 15 years or so that provide great insight into issues of late 20th and 21st century American manhood, and thus provide valuable context for discussions about men's violence. They include Real Boys, by William Pollack; Raising Cane, by Michael Thompson and Dan Kindlon; New Black Man, by Mark Anthony Neal; Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft; Dude You're a Fag, by C.J. Pascoe; Guyland, By Michael Kimmel; I Don't Want to Talk About It, by Terrence Real; Violence, by James Gilligan; Guys and Guns Amok, by Douglas Kellner; On Killing, by David Grossman; and two documentary films: Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, by Byron Hurt; and Tough Guise, which I created and Sut Jhally directed.
6) Resist the temptation to blame this shooting or others on "mental illness," as if this answers the why and requires no further explanation. Even if some of these violent men are or were "mentally ill," the specific ways in which mental illness manifests itself are often profoundly gendered. Consult with experts who understand the gendered features of mental illness. For example, conduct interviews with mental health experts who can talk about why men, many of whom are clinically depressed, comprise the vast majority of perpetrators of murder-suicides. Why is depression in women much less likely to contribute to their committing murder than it is for men? (It is important to note that only a very small percentage of men with clinical depression commit murder, although a very high percentage of people with clinical depression who commit murder are men.)
7) Don't buy the manipulative argument that it's somehow "anti-male" to focus on questions about manhood in the wake of these ongoing tragedies. Men commit the vast majority of violence and almost all rampage killings. It's long past time that we summoned the courage as a society to look this fact squarely in the eye and then do something about it. Women in media can initiate this discussion, but men bear the ultimate responsibility for addressing the masculinity crisis at the heart of these tragedies. With little children being murdered en masse at school, for God's sake, it's time for more of them to step up, even in the face of inevitable push back from the defenders of a sick and dysfunctional status quo.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
I find both startling, and the correlation that goes with it. Y'all shit is fucked up, America.
We are what we are. Be surprised at the sun coming up. Our entire history has been a non-stop bloodbath. You can deplore it, and probably should, but it's not going to change merely because it offends sensible people.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:26:27 PM
Roger, did you read the HuffPo article by Jackson Katz in the CT school shooting thread?
No, Huffpo gives my home computer fits (the adware does weird things to Windows 8 ), and it's blocked here at work.
I was going to copypasta the article here for you... but LMNO beat me to it. FANKOO ALPHAPANCE!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 24, 2013, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:26:27 PM
Roger, did you read the HuffPo article by Jackson Katz in the CT school shooting thread?
No, Huffpo gives my home computer fits (the adware does weird things to Windows 8 ), and it's blocked here at work.
QuoteMany of us whose work touches on the subject of masculinity and violence have long been frustrated by the failure of mainstream media -- and much of progressive media and the blogosphere as well -- to confront the gender issues at the heart of so many violent rampages like the one on December 14 in Connecticut.
My colleagues and I who do this type of work experience an unsettling dichotomy. In one part of our lives, we routinely have intense, in-depth discussions about men's emotional and relational struggles, and how the bravado about "rugged individualism" in American culture masks the deep yearning for connection that so many men feel, and how the absence or loss of that can quickly turn to pain, despair, and anger. In these discussions, we talk about violence as a gendered phenomenon: how, for example, men who batter their wives or girlfriends typically do so not because they have trigger tempers, but rather as a means to gain or maintain power and control over her, in a (misguided) attempt to get their needs met.
We talk amongst ourselves about how so many boys and men in our society are conditioned to see violence as a solution to their problems, a resolution of their anxieties, or a means of exacting revenge against those they perceive as taking something from them. We share with each other news stories, websites and YouTube videos that demonstrate the connection between deeply ingrained cultural ideas about manhood and individual acts of violence that operationalize those ideas.
And then in the wake of repeated tragedies like Newtown, we turn on the TV and watch the same predictable conversations about guns and mental illness, with only an occasional mention that the overwhelming majority of these types of crimes are committed by men -- usually white men. Even when some brave soul dares to mention this crucial fact, it rarely prompts further discussion, as if no one wants to be called a "male-basher" for uttering the simple truth that men commit the vast majority of violence, and thus efforts to "prevent violence" -- if they're going to be more than minimally effective -- need to explore why.
Maybe the Newtown massacre will mark a turning point. Maybe the mass murder of young children will force the ideological gatekeepers in mainstream media to actually pry open the cupboards of conventional thinking for just long enough to have a thoughtful conversation about manhood in the context of our ongoing national tragedy of gun violence.
But initial signs are not particularly promising. In the days since the shooting, some op-eds and blog posts have spoken to the gendered dynamics at the heart of this and other rampage killings. But most mainstream analysis has steered clear of this critical piece of the puzzle.
What follows is a brief list of suggestions for how journalists, cable hosts, bloggers and others who will be writing and talking about this unbelievable tragedy can frame the discussion in the coming days and weeks.
1) Make gender -- specifically the idea that men are gendered beings -- a central part of the national conversation about rampage killings. Typical news accounts and commentaries about school shootings and rampage killings rarely mention gender. If a woman were the shooter, you can bet there would be all sorts of commentary about shifting cultural notions of femininity and how they might have contributed to her act, such as discussions in recent years about girl gang violence. That same conversation about gender should take place when a man is the perpetrator. Men are every bit as gendered as women.
The key difference is that because men represent the dominant gender, their gender is rendered invisible in the discourse about violence. So much of the commentary about school shootings, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary, focuses on "people" who have problems, "individuals" who suffer from depression, and "shooters" whose motives remain obtuse. When opinion leaders start talking about the men who commit these rampages, and ask questions like: "why is it almost always men who do these horrible things?" and then follow that up, we will have a much better chance of finding workable solutions to the outrageous level of violence in our society.
2) Use the "M-word." Talk about masculinity. This does not mean you need to talk about biological maleness or search for answers in new research on brain chemistry. Such inquiries have their place. But the focus needs to be sociological: individual men are products of social systems. How many more school shootings do we need before we start talking about this as a social problem, and not merely a random collection of isolated incidents? Why are nearly all of the perpetrators of these types of crimes men, and most of them white men? (A recent piece by William Hamby is a step in the right direction. )
What are the cultural narratives from which school shooters draw lessons or inspiration? This does not mean simplistic condemnations of video games or violent media -- although all cultural influences are fair game for analysis. It means looking carefully at how our culture defines manhood, how boys are socialized, and how pressure to stay in the "man box" not only constrains boys' and men's emotional and relational development, but also their range of choices when faced with life crises. Psychological factors in men's development and psyches surely need to be examined, but the best analyses see individual men's actions in a social and historical context.
3) Identify the gender subtext of the ongoing political battle over "guns rights" versus "gun control," and bring it to the surface. The current script that plays out in media after these types of horrendous killings is unproductive and full of empty clichés. Advocates of stricter gun laws call on political leaders to take action, while defenders of "gun rights" hunker down and deflect criticism, hoping to ride out yet another public relations nightmare for the firearms industry. But few commentators who opine about the gun debates seem to recognize the deeply gendered aspects of this ongoing controversy. Guns play an important emotional role in many men's lives, both as a vehicle for their relationships with their fathers and in the way they bolster some men's sense of security and power.
It is also time to broaden the gun policy debate to a more in-depth discussion about the declining economic and cultural power of white men, and to deconstruct the gendered rhetoric of "defending liberty" and "fighting tyranny" that animates much right-wing opposition to even moderate gun control measures. If one effect of this tragedy is that journalists and others in media are able to create space for a discussion about guns that focuses on the role of guns in men's psyches and identities, and how this plays out in their political belief systems, we might have a chance to move beyond the current impasse.
4) Consult with, interview and feature in your stories the perspectives of the numerous men (and women) across the country who have worked with abusive men. Many of these people are counselors, therapists, and educators who can provide all sorts of insights about how -- and why -- men use violence. Since men who commit murder outside the home more than occasionally have a history of domestic violence, it is important to hear from the many women and men in the domestic violence field who can speak to these types of connections -- and in many cases have first-hand experience that deepen their understanding.
5) Bring experts on the air, and quote them in your stories, who can speak knowledgeably about the link between masculinity and violence. After the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide, CNN featured the work of the author Kevin Powell, who has written a lot about men's violence and the many intersections between gender and race. That was a good start. In the modern era of school shootings and rampage killings, a number of scholars have produced works that offer ways to think about the gendered subtext of these disturbing phenomena.
Examples include Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel's piece "Suicide by Mass Murder: Masculinity, Aggrieved Entitlement and Rampage School Shootings," Douglas Kellner's "Rage and Rampage: School Shootings and Crises of Masculinity," and a short piece that I co-wrote with Sut Jhally after Columbine, "The national conversation in the wake of Littleton is missing the mark."
There have also been many important books published over the past 15 years or so that provide great insight into issues of late 20th and 21st century American manhood, and thus provide valuable context for discussions about men's violence. They include Real Boys, by William Pollack; Raising Cane, by Michael Thompson and Dan Kindlon; New Black Man, by Mark Anthony Neal; Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft; Dude You're a Fag, by C.J. Pascoe; Guyland, By Michael Kimmel; I Don't Want to Talk About It, by Terrence Real; Violence, by James Gilligan; Guys and Guns Amok, by Douglas Kellner; On Killing, by David Grossman; and two documentary films: Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, by Byron Hurt; and Tough Guise, which I created and Sut Jhally directed.
6) Resist the temptation to blame this shooting or others on "mental illness," as if this answers the why and requires no further explanation. Even if some of these violent men are or were "mentally ill," the specific ways in which mental illness manifests itself are often profoundly gendered. Consult with experts who understand the gendered features of mental illness. For example, conduct interviews with mental health experts who can talk about why men, many of whom are clinically depressed, comprise the vast majority of perpetrators of murder-suicides. Why is depression in women much less likely to contribute to their committing murder than it is for men? (It is important to note that only a very small percentage of men with clinical depression commit murder, although a very high percentage of people with clinical depression who commit murder are men.)
7) Don't buy the manipulative argument that it's somehow "anti-male" to focus on questions about manhood in the wake of these ongoing tragedies. Men commit the vast majority of violence and almost all rampage killings. It's long past time that we summoned the courage as a society to look this fact squarely in the eye and then do something about it. Women in media can initiate this discussion, but men bear the ultimate responsibility for addressing the masculinity crisis at the heart of these tragedies. With little children being murdered en masse at school, for God's sake, it's time for more of them to step up, even in the face of inevitable push back from the defenders of a sick and dysfunctional status quo.
Not a bad argument, and I like the fact that the author doesn't discount other causes. There's also no denying that the vast majority of spree killers are male, to an extent that says discounting the gender issue is ridiculous.
Doesn't apply to me, though. My motivations are a hell of a lot less complex, and a hell of a lot more grim, when it comes to firearm issues.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
I find both startling, and the correlation that goes with it. Y'all shit is fucked up, America.
We are what we are. Be surprised at the sun coming up. Our entire history has been a non-stop bloodbath. You can deplore it, and probably should, but it's not going to change merely because it offends sensible people.
Oh, I AM unsurprised. I do find it incredibly alarming still. I can't get into the mindset of wanting to own a firearm, and to be honest, it's probably because I don't
want to.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
I find both startling, and the correlation that goes with it. Y'all shit is fucked up, America.
We are what we are. Be surprised at the sun coming up. Our entire history has been a non-stop bloodbath. You can deplore it, and probably should, but it's not going to change merely because it offends sensible people.
Oh, I AM unsurprised. I do find it incredibly alarming still. I can't get into the mindset of wanting to own a firearm, and to be honest, it's probably because I don't want to.
Well, that's because you're a civilized person living in the 21st century.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 24, 2013, 03:31:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:26:27 PM
Roger, did you read the HuffPo article by Jackson Katz in the CT school shooting thread?
No, Huffpo gives my home computer fits (the adware does weird things to Windows 8 ), and it's blocked here at work.
QuoteMany of us whose work touches on the subject of masculinity and violence have long been frustrated by the failure of mainstream media -- and much of progressive media and the blogosphere as well -- to confront the gender issues at the heart of so many violent rampages like the one on December 14 in Connecticut.
My colleagues and I who do this type of work experience an unsettling dichotomy. In one part of our lives, we routinely have intense, in-depth discussions about men's emotional and relational struggles, and how the bravado about "rugged individualism" in American culture masks the deep yearning for connection that so many men feel, and how the absence or loss of that can quickly turn to pain, despair, and anger. In these discussions, we talk about violence as a gendered phenomenon: how, for example, men who batter their wives or girlfriends typically do so not because they have trigger tempers, but rather as a means to gain or maintain power and control over her, in a (misguided) attempt to get their needs met.
We talk amongst ourselves about how so many boys and men in our society are conditioned to see violence as a solution to their problems, a resolution of their anxieties, or a means of exacting revenge against those they perceive as taking something from them. We share with each other news stories, websites and YouTube videos that demonstrate the connection between deeply ingrained cultural ideas about manhood and individual acts of violence that operationalize those ideas.
And then in the wake of repeated tragedies like Newtown, we turn on the TV and watch the same predictable conversations about guns and mental illness, with only an occasional mention that the overwhelming majority of these types of crimes are committed by men -- usually white men. Even when some brave soul dares to mention this crucial fact, it rarely prompts further discussion, as if no one wants to be called a "male-basher" for uttering the simple truth that men commit the vast majority of violence, and thus efforts to "prevent violence" -- if they're going to be more than minimally effective -- need to explore why.
Maybe the Newtown massacre will mark a turning point. Maybe the mass murder of young children will force the ideological gatekeepers in mainstream media to actually pry open the cupboards of conventional thinking for just long enough to have a thoughtful conversation about manhood in the context of our ongoing national tragedy of gun violence.
But initial signs are not particularly promising. In the days since the shooting, some op-eds and blog posts have spoken to the gendered dynamics at the heart of this and other rampage killings. But most mainstream analysis has steered clear of this critical piece of the puzzle.
What follows is a brief list of suggestions for how journalists, cable hosts, bloggers and others who will be writing and talking about this unbelievable tragedy can frame the discussion in the coming days and weeks.
1) Make gender -- specifically the idea that men are gendered beings -- a central part of the national conversation about rampage killings. Typical news accounts and commentaries about school shootings and rampage killings rarely mention gender. If a woman were the shooter, you can bet there would be all sorts of commentary about shifting cultural notions of femininity and how they might have contributed to her act, such as discussions in recent years about girl gang violence. That same conversation about gender should take place when a man is the perpetrator. Men are every bit as gendered as women.
The key difference is that because men represent the dominant gender, their gender is rendered invisible in the discourse about violence. So much of the commentary about school shootings, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary, focuses on "people" who have problems, "individuals" who suffer from depression, and "shooters" whose motives remain obtuse. When opinion leaders start talking about the men who commit these rampages, and ask questions like: "why is it almost always men who do these horrible things?" and then follow that up, we will have a much better chance of finding workable solutions to the outrageous level of violence in our society.
2) Use the "M-word." Talk about masculinity. This does not mean you need to talk about biological maleness or search for answers in new research on brain chemistry. Such inquiries have their place. But the focus needs to be sociological: individual men are products of social systems. How many more school shootings do we need before we start talking about this as a social problem, and not merely a random collection of isolated incidents? Why are nearly all of the perpetrators of these types of crimes men, and most of them white men? (A recent piece by William Hamby is a step in the right direction. )
What are the cultural narratives from which school shooters draw lessons or inspiration? This does not mean simplistic condemnations of video games or violent media -- although all cultural influences are fair game for analysis. It means looking carefully at how our culture defines manhood, how boys are socialized, and how pressure to stay in the "man box" not only constrains boys' and men's emotional and relational development, but also their range of choices when faced with life crises. Psychological factors in men's development and psyches surely need to be examined, but the best analyses see individual men's actions in a social and historical context.
3) Identify the gender subtext of the ongoing political battle over "guns rights" versus "gun control," and bring it to the surface. The current script that plays out in media after these types of horrendous killings is unproductive and full of empty clichés. Advocates of stricter gun laws call on political leaders to take action, while defenders of "gun rights" hunker down and deflect criticism, hoping to ride out yet another public relations nightmare for the firearms industry. But few commentators who opine about the gun debates seem to recognize the deeply gendered aspects of this ongoing controversy. Guns play an important emotional role in many men's lives, both as a vehicle for their relationships with their fathers and in the way they bolster some men's sense of security and power.
It is also time to broaden the gun policy debate to a more in-depth discussion about the declining economic and cultural power of white men, and to deconstruct the gendered rhetoric of "defending liberty" and "fighting tyranny" that animates much right-wing opposition to even moderate gun control measures. If one effect of this tragedy is that journalists and others in media are able to create space for a discussion about guns that focuses on the role of guns in men's psyches and identities, and how this plays out in their political belief systems, we might have a chance to move beyond the current impasse.
4) Consult with, interview and feature in your stories the perspectives of the numerous men (and women) across the country who have worked with abusive men. Many of these people are counselors, therapists, and educators who can provide all sorts of insights about how -- and why -- men use violence. Since men who commit murder outside the home more than occasionally have a history of domestic violence, it is important to hear from the many women and men in the domestic violence field who can speak to these types of connections -- and in many cases have first-hand experience that deepen their understanding.
5) Bring experts on the air, and quote them in your stories, who can speak knowledgeably about the link between masculinity and violence. After the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide, CNN featured the work of the author Kevin Powell, who has written a lot about men's violence and the many intersections between gender and race. That was a good start. In the modern era of school shootings and rampage killings, a number of scholars have produced works that offer ways to think about the gendered subtext of these disturbing phenomena.
Examples include Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel's piece "Suicide by Mass Murder: Masculinity, Aggrieved Entitlement and Rampage School Shootings," Douglas Kellner's "Rage and Rampage: School Shootings and Crises of Masculinity," and a short piece that I co-wrote with Sut Jhally after Columbine, "The national conversation in the wake of Littleton is missing the mark."
There have also been many important books published over the past 15 years or so that provide great insight into issues of late 20th and 21st century American manhood, and thus provide valuable context for discussions about men's violence. They include Real Boys, by William Pollack; Raising Cane, by Michael Thompson and Dan Kindlon; New Black Man, by Mark Anthony Neal; Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft; Dude You're a Fag, by C.J. Pascoe; Guyland, By Michael Kimmel; I Don't Want to Talk About It, by Terrence Real; Violence, by James Gilligan; Guys and Guns Amok, by Douglas Kellner; On Killing, by David Grossman; and two documentary films: Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, by Byron Hurt; and Tough Guise, which I created and Sut Jhally directed.
6) Resist the temptation to blame this shooting or others on "mental illness," as if this answers the why and requires no further explanation. Even if some of these violent men are or were "mentally ill," the specific ways in which mental illness manifests itself are often profoundly gendered. Consult with experts who understand the gendered features of mental illness. For example, conduct interviews with mental health experts who can talk about why men, many of whom are clinically depressed, comprise the vast majority of perpetrators of murder-suicides. Why is depression in women much less likely to contribute to their committing murder than it is for men? (It is important to note that only a very small percentage of men with clinical depression commit murder, although a very high percentage of people with clinical depression who commit murder are men.)
7) Don't buy the manipulative argument that it's somehow "anti-male" to focus on questions about manhood in the wake of these ongoing tragedies. Men commit the vast majority of violence and almost all rampage killings. It's long past time that we summoned the courage as a society to look this fact squarely in the eye and then do something about it. Women in media can initiate this discussion, but men bear the ultimate responsibility for addressing the masculinity crisis at the heart of these tragedies. With little children being murdered en masse at school, for God's sake, it's time for more of them to step up, even in the face of inevitable push back from the defenders of a sick and dysfunctional status quo.
Not a bad argument, and I like the fact that the author doesn't discount other causes. There's also no denying that the vast majority of spree killers are male, to an extent that says discounting the gender issue is ridiculous.
Doesn't apply to me, though. My motivations are a hell of a lot less complex, and a hell of a lot more grim, when it comes to firearm issues.
Yea, i just wanted to include it as a not-often mentioned part of the debate about mass shootings.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:39:06 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
I find both startling, and the correlation that goes with it. Y'all shit is fucked up, America.
We are what we are. Be surprised at the sun coming up. Our entire history has been a non-stop bloodbath. You can deplore it, and probably should, but it's not going to change merely because it offends sensible people.
Oh, I AM unsurprised. I do find it incredibly alarming still. I can't get into the mindset of wanting to own a firearm, and to be honest, it's probably because I don't want to.
Well, that's because you're a civilized person living in the 21st century.
I'll take that as a compliment. :)
regarding the article:
it seems a given that men are more violent than women (as a generalization, of course). since forever.
the race issue is, perhaps, worth analyzing a good amount, but as far as gender, it confuses me why it would be anything other than expected. :?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 03:51:25 PM
regarding the article:
it seems a given that men are more violent than women (as a generalization, of course). since forever.
the race issue is, perhaps, worth analyzing a good amount, but as far as gender, it confuses me why it would be anything other than expected. :?
Because socialisation is the main factor in gender roles, related behavior and performance of them, not biology. That gender is obviously overlooked as a contributing factor. Socialisation can be changed, and attitudes can change.
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:41:27 PM
I'll take that as a compliment. :)
Good, because it was intended as one.
Thing is, we've lived in an armed camp since 1600 CE or so, and we're not about to change, especially given the other insanities we've heaped on ourselves.
In my case, it goes back to my central philosophy concerning humans.
Humans are big, diseased sacks of meat that fly apart with appalling ease. If they manage to avoid that fate, they instead get to slowly break down over 20-30 years and die anyway. They are also pack-oriented, and tend to let the pack do their thinking - or at least decision making - for them. So, everyone dies, but hardly anyone lives.
Humans only become alive, or
functionally better than animals when they learn to say "FUCK YOU, I'LL DO WHAT *I* WANT". Because of our national history, Americans typically (but not always, of course) require guns - or at least the availability of guns - as a prop to accomplish this.
Here's why: If you live in an armed camp, going against the pack is a negative trait, survival-wise. We've spent 400 years living on "lifeboat rules", against Native Americans, the threat of slave rebellion, the British, the Nazis, communists, and now we've manufactured terrorists because we can no longer function without an external threat. So a prop such as the right to own deadly weapons is REQUIRED for many people, before they can buck the group.
And nobody likes this...In fact, it's where the "rugged individualist" concept comes from. Everyone likes to think that they could survive outside the fort, and do their own thinking. But again, you aren't leaving the "fort" without a firearm. Bad shit is out there.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Now, if you're saying it isn't
desireable or
optimal or even
a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.
You got my point, pretty much.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Well Jesus, if THAT's your measuring stick, there is no sense in tackling any problems ever, we'll always be able to outbreed them until the Earth goes out.
I think that's a fairly pointless level to be examining and measuring problems.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 04:04:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Well Jesus, if THAT's your measuring stick, there is no sense in tackling any problems ever, we'll always be able to outbreed them until the Earth goes out.
I think that's a fairly pointless level to be examining and measuring problems.
Well, cutting off the last half of my statement was fairly dishonest, RWHN.
My measuring stick was included in this post:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34040.msg1237594.html#msg1237594
Not that you give a shit. You're not here to debate, you're here to share your butthurt around.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.
You got my point, pretty much.
It's a perfectly fit environment. You just need a robust sense of humour and a complete inability to donate airborne copulations about practically anything. :evil:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:46:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:45:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:40:47 PM
And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way. The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example. Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died.
And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.
Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.
Oh, so it failed because it wasn't pure enough?
Where have I heard THAT before?
Sounds familiar.
"Didn't work!"
"That means we have to do it HARDER!"
:lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.
You got my point, pretty much.
It's a perfectly fit environment. You just need a robust sense of humour and a complete inability to donate airborne copulations about practically anything. :evil:
That's all fine and dandy if your not getting your sickness and associated benefits slashed by the fucking Tories, and get paid on average more than I will, even if i'm well enough to work. I've got a lot to BE pissed off about and plenty of fucks to give about shit.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 02:50:48 PM
One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"
I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.
I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.
Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?
Reducing economic inequality reduces crime of all kinds. But I'm a filthy librul socialist, so....
In social science circles, that's pretty widely regarded as the one thing that would have a major effect on violence and crime. Not "Fixing the economy", which is something that is well outside the scope of any single country's legislation, but simply reducing income inequality to reduce both poverty, and to reduce stress on those I am starting to refer to as "pre-poor", ie. the middle class.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 04:05:51 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 04:04:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Well Jesus, if THAT's your measuring stick, there is no sense in tackling any problems ever, we'll always be able to outbreed them until the Earth goes out.
I think that's a fairly pointless level to be examining and measuring problems.
Well, cutting off the last half of my statement was fairly dishonest, RWHN.
You do it to me all the time, sucks doesn't it?
Of course it isn't optimal because people are dying, so what is the point in even saying the first thing? Of course the human species will survive, that is not, and has never been up for debate. I mean, shit, you can say that about any tragedy from mushroom clouds in Japan to AIDs to starvation in Africa. But how does that help trying to solve any of those problems?
I mean, if you are okay to say "fuck it, we'll survive" okay, well, great that's your world-view. But you can't do public policy, ANY kind of public policy at that level. Might as well just fold up all of the governments because in the end the human species will continue to exist.
Or, we can actually try to fix shit and maybe make human existence a little more tolerable for more of the humans.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 04:28:33 PM
You do it to me all the time, sucks doesn't it?
We're not really having a conversation. I think you and I should probably just talk to other people in this thread.
The strawman that represented the rest of your post isn't worth responding to.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 24, 2013, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:46:48 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:45:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 01:40:47 PM
And policy is incremental, but in a racheted sort of way. The assault weapon ban from the 90s is a good example. Not only was there no slippery slope-ing, the thing died.
And, as I demonstrated, it did not reduce gun deaths one iota.
Because it was a shitty policy with tons of loopholes.
Oh, so it failed because it wasn't pure enough?
Where have I heard THAT before?
Sounds familiar.
"Didn't work!"
"That means we have to do it HARDER!"
:lulz:
Also: I cannot answer your argument, so I'll generate another one and issue it to you.
Pathetic.
Disregarding my natural inclination to believe in mind-control gimmicks and false flag attacks (and the American government's documented history with both of those things), I still have to wonder what banning a few (relatively) rare types of guns and magazines has to do with decreasing gun violence. Given that none of the recent mass shootings were carried out by anything that would be illegal under the new regulations, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
Anyone who supports these measures also needs to disregard that making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Criminals tend to not give many shits what the lawman says is illegal -- they're peculiar that way.
So, say there is a person who is sane enough to hold public office without completely going crazy. This person has a more or less reasonable comprehension of actual statistics and events. This person looks at all the evidence that's readily available from the tragic shootings America has endured of late, and considers possible solutions to the problem. This person weighs the facts and the pros and the cons of every possible action, and finally arrives at a decision to outlaw guns that were not used to commit these crimes.
In that case, either the person is not as rational as originally supposed, or the person's goal is not the one he claims it is. Either way, what's really going on?
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 04:14:56 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 04:00:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:57:21 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:55:04 PM
the status quo obviously isn't working.
Of course it's working. It's perfectly functional, the only evidence of which I need offer is that the human species still exists.
Now, if you're saying it isn't desireable or optimal or even a fit environment for people as anything other than biots, then you have a point.
You got my point, pretty much.
It's a perfectly fit environment. You just need a robust sense of humour and a complete inability to donate airborne copulations about practically anything. :evil:
That's all fine and dandy if your not getting your sickness and associated benefits slashed by the fucking Tories, and get paid on average more than I will, even if i'm well enough to work. I've got a lot to BE pissed off about and plenty of fucks to give about shit.
I've done the whole homeless, jobless, can't get benefits on account of NFA thing. Getting pissed off about it didn't help. Wishing the world would be more fair didn't help. To be honest, giving a fuck was what kept me there.
Quote from: V3X on January 24, 2013, 05:04:08 PM
Disregarding my natural inclination to believe in mind-control gimmicks and false flag attacks (and the American government's documented history with both of those things), I still have to wonder what banning a few (relatively) rare types of guns and magazines has to do with decreasing gun violence. Given that none of the recent mass shootings were carried out by anything that would be illegal under the new regulations, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
Anyone who supports these measures also needs to disregard that making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Criminals tend to not give many shits what the lawman says is illegal -- they're peculiar that way.
So, say there is a person who is sane enough to hold public office without completely going crazy. This person has a more or less reasonable comprehension of actual statistics and events. This person looks at all the evidence that's readily available from the tragic shootings America has endured of late, and considers possible solutions to the problem. This person weighs the facts and the pros and the cons of every possible action, and finally arrives at a decision to outlaw guns that were not used to commit these crimes.
In that case, either the person is not as rational as originally supposed, or the person's goal is not the one he claims it is. Either way, what's really going on?
In B4 Cain and Roger: The American people are myopic, and outraged. The American people don't want any more (white, New England) schoolkids killed. The American people noticed the use of Guns™ to kill these kids. The American people want "someone to do something about these guns."
The politician sees the stats, understands that outlawing guns won't solve anything. The politican sees the American people and their demand to "do something about these guns." The politician makes the choice that will get him elected next year.
Well, I stated my point, and it got ignored. I think I'm done with this thread.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 24, 2013, 04:19:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 02:50:48 PM
One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"
I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.
I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.
Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?
Reducing economic inequality reduces crime of all kinds. But I'm a filthy librul socialist, so....
In social science circles, that's pretty widely regarded as the one thing that would have a major effect on violence and crime. Not "Fixing the economy", which is something that is well outside the scope of any single country's legislation, but simply reducing income inequality to reduce both poverty, and to reduce stress on those I am starting to refer to as "pre-poor", ie. the middle class.
Yea, during the Xmas break i read a book called The Spirit Level that posited that very strongly, after many years of research
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:39:06 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
I find both startling, and the correlation that goes with it. Y'all shit is fucked up, America.
We are what we are. Be surprised at the sun coming up. Our entire history has been a non-stop bloodbath. You can deplore it, and probably should, but it's not going to change merely because it offends sensible people.
Oh, I AM unsurprised. I do find it incredibly alarming still. I can't get into the mindset of wanting to own a firearm, and to be honest, it's probably because I don't want to.
Well, that's because you're a civilized person living in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, the 21st century is pretty intent on not being very civilized.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 06:07:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:39:06 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:31:44 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 03:27:53 PM
Granted, I hold a fairly extreme position even by American standards, but that also has to do with the past.
Another thing: America spends all its time stomping on every other nation that we feel we can get away with stomping on. How, then, is it startling that we have a national love of - or obsession with, if you will - firearms?
I find both startling, and the correlation that goes with it. Y'all shit is fucked up, America.
We are what we are. Be surprised at the sun coming up. Our entire history has been a non-stop bloodbath. You can deplore it, and probably should, but it's not going to change merely because it offends sensible people.
Oh, I AM unsurprised. I do find it incredibly alarming still. I can't get into the mindset of wanting to own a firearm, and to be honest, it's probably because I don't want to.
Well, that's because you're a civilized person living in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, the 21st century is pretty intent on not being very civilized.
When stacked against the last two centuries, it's doing just fine.
Oh, it's a little early to be making that determination don't you think?
I mean, hell, someone in the 1920s would probably have said the same thing.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 06:12:43 PM
Oh, it's a little early to be making that determination don't you think?
I mean, hell, someone in the 1920s would probably have said the same thing.
Probably not, given that they'd just finished up some fun in the trenches. WWI was arguably the most miserable, pointless war in history.
Also, the Turkish Armenians would probably have preferred this century, and that was before the 20s as well.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 04:06:55 PM
My measuring stick was included in this post:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34040.msg1237594.html#msg1237594
Not that you give a shit. You're not here to debate, you're here to share your butthurt around.
I think it all comes back to the Maine guy and RWHN's tiny, tiny boner.
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
You seem to be awfully concerned about my reproductive health, Stella. :lulz:
That's very sweet of you but I'll be okay. ;)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
1. I am not bound by the definition of "liberty" as espoused by the teabaggers.
2. RWHN isn't here to convince anyone. He's here to be bitter.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
Eh, no, it comes from knowing how policy-making works in America, having first-hand knowledge. It's why I reject the "slippery slope" notion and also the notion that we can't find a way to incorporate gun control into a larger initiative that could reduce gun violence.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
1. I am not bound by the definition of "liberty" as espoused by the teabaggers.
2. RWHN isn't here to convince anyone. He's here to be bitter.
He just wants somewhere safe for his kids to grow up. It's understandable. Unfortunately he hasn't followed it through to it's natural conclusion. We know where safety will end up. I suspect there's no way of convincing someone who thinks
this is too dangerous that it's bordering on being unbearably safe already.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
1. I am not bound by the definition of "liberty" as espoused by the teabaggers.
2. RWHN isn't here to convince anyone. He's here to be bitter.
Well, no, I'm just here speaking my mind, I have no expectations of convincing anyone of anything.
And I keep telling you dude, I'm happy as a clam. Life's very good to me these days!
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
1. I am not bound by the definition of "liberty" as espoused by the teabaggers.
2. RWHN isn't here to convince anyone. He's here to be bitter.
He just wants somewhere safe for his kids to grow up. It's understandable. Unfortunately he hasn't followed it through to it's natural conclusion. We know where safety will end up. I suspect there's no way of convincing someone who thinks this is too dangerous that it's bordering on being unbearably safe already.
I don't think he actually cares about guns, one way or the other. After the last two pages, I am convinced that his sole motive is to fling poop around in a downward spiral of butthurt angry monkeyism.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 06:36:21 PM
And I keep telling you dude, I'm happy as a clam. Life's very good to me these days!
Uh huh.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
1. I am not bound by the definition of "liberty" as espoused by the teabaggers.
2. RWHN isn't here to convince anyone. He's here to be bitter.
He just wants somewhere safe for his kids to grow up. It's understandable. Unfortunately he hasn't followed it through to it's natural conclusion. We know where safety will end up. I suspect there's no way of convincing someone who thinks this is too dangerous that it's bordering on being unbearably safe already.
I don't think he actually cares about guns, one way or the other. After the last two pages, I am convinced that his sole motive is to fling poop around in a downward spiral of butthurt angry monkeyism.
No arguments but I still understand his plight. He's convinced he's right and when confronted with a room full of people who "don't get it" what's a guy supposed to do. The road to hell is paved with people like him.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 06:37:20 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:36:14 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:29:41 PM
To be fair on RWHN, i'm pretty sure it comes from him buying into the security-myth, as opposed to everyone else tending more toward the liberty-myth* end of the scale.
* I believe in actual liberty but the kind the guys in charge are selling is snake-oil
1. I am not bound by the definition of "liberty" as espoused by the teabaggers.
2. RWHN isn't here to convince anyone. He's here to be bitter.
He just wants somewhere safe for his kids to grow up. It's understandable. Unfortunately he hasn't followed it through to it's natural conclusion. We know where safety will end up. I suspect there's no way of convincing someone who thinks this is too dangerous that it's bordering on being unbearably safe already.
I don't think he actually cares about guns, one way or the other. After the last two pages, I am convinced that his sole motive is to fling poop around in a downward spiral of butthurt angry monkeyism.
No arguments but I still understand his plight. He's convinced he's right and when confronted with a room full of people who "don't get it" what's a guy supposed to do. The road to hell is paved with people like him.
Doesn't really matter. I proposed an argument in one post, and a slight correction of something Pixie said in another. He took one sentence out of context in the correction, and presented that as my argument.
He's utterly dishonest. He has nothing to say.
I agree with you. Just saying I understand where he's coming from. Think about what he does for a living, believing that's for the right reasons. He's just another poor, misguided tit who's so intent on saving the world that he doesn't realise him and his ilk are to blame for most of it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:45:58 PM
I agree with you. Just saying I understand where he's coming from. Think about what he does for a living, believing that's for the right reasons. He's just another poor, misguided tit who's so intent on saving the world that he doesn't realise him and his ilk are to blame for most of it.
Yeah, there's that.
Still, he's a shit. I
may understand why he thinks the way he does, but that excuses nothing.
Never said it did. I find it fascinating, tho. You think he isn't making an argument but I think he is but the reason it looks like he isn't is because his argument is the same as the bible bashers - all circular logic and cognitive dissonance. The kind of thing that critical analysis will tear to shreds so quickly you might not even realise there was anything there in the first place. It intrigues me more than bugs me because it's such a flimsy position it doesn't even bear examination but someone who seems smarter than that has fallen, hook line and sinker for a joke-ideology.
A cautionary tale...
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:52:43 PM
Never said it did. I find it fascinating, tho. You think he isn't making an argument but I think he is but the reason it looks like he isn't is because his argument is the same as the bible bashers - all circular logic and cognitive dissonance. The kind of thing that critical analysis will tear to shreds so quickly you might not even realise there was anything there in the first place. It intrigues me more than bugs me because it's such a flimsy position it doesn't even bear examination but someone who seems smarter than that has fallen, hook line and sinker for a joke-ideology.
A cautionary tale...
Any argument he may have is lost in the frenzy of lashing out that he's indulging in.
There's no message to receive.
There never was an argument. What RWHN has is an honest to fuck belief Imagine if he was talking about Thetans as being the solution and i'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from. :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 06:56:33 PM
There never was an argument. What RWHN has is an honest to fuck belief Imagine if he was talking about Thetans as being the solution and i'm sure you'll see where I'm coming from. :lulz:
:lulz:
*click*
:lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:34:14 AM
Christ, an assault weapon ban was enacted in the 90s, and not only have we not fallen into an inescapable, freedomless dystopia, the fucking ban died and wasn't renewed.
Taking some weapons off the market is not going to rob us of all of our freedoms, fuck, it's not going to rob us of ANY of our freedoms. All that will change is that it will take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale in your back yard full of lead. You can still have a shit load of weapons if you really want.
But it might just buy our guys in blue those few extra seconds that maybe results in 15 dead kids instead of 20, which has a huge impact for those five families who have empty chairs at their dinner tables right now.
I'm a bit back at this point, but you still seem to be conflating "assault x" with automatic weapons. You say it doesn't matter if you're not an expert, but it does weaken your argument quite a bit if you can't even show that you understand what you're arguing for or against.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 24, 2013, 07:05:30 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 24, 2013, 12:34:14 AM
Christ, an assault weapon ban was enacted in the 90s, and not only have we not fallen into an inescapable, freedomless dystopia, the fucking ban died and wasn't renewed.
Taking some weapons off the market is not going to rob us of all of our freedoms, fuck, it's not going to rob us of ANY of our freedoms. All that will change is that it will take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale in your back yard full of lead. You can still have a shit load of weapons if you really want.
But it might just buy our guys in blue those few extra seconds that maybe results in 15 dead kids instead of 20, which has a huge impact for those five families who have empty chairs at their dinner tables right now.
I'm a bit back at this point, but you still seem to be conflating "assault x" with automatic weapons. You say it doesn't matter if you're not an expert, but it does weaken your argument quite a bit if you can't even show that you understand what you're arguing for or against.
That was the name of the ban, I didn't make it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban[/size][/size]
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags* (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
ETA:*grandfathered, that is.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
You just don't understand. Assault rifles are magickle death devices that "mow down 20 children with a single pull of the trigger", and if we'd just outlaw them, there'd be no more murders, male-pattern baldness, or heartbreak of psoriasis.
TGRR,
Arguing the RWHN Way™.
17 pages to go, jackasses! RWHN needs a pony!
:hosrie:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags* (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
ETA:*grandfathered, that is.
The capacity of mags is one of the possible gun control strategies being discussed now, which is why I made that comment.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
You just don't understand. Assault rifles are magickle death devices that "mow down 20 children with a single pull of the trigger", and if we'd just outlaw them, there'd be no more murders, male-pattern baldness, or heartbreak of psoriasis.
TGRR,
Arguing the RWHN Way™.
Both of these. Particularly the fact that RWHN kept referring how assault rifles can kill everything in 5 seconds, though IIRC the bolded was a direct quote.
And what does the name of a bill have to do with the fact that you think assault rifles = instant child death? Oh right, nothing. Way to not address the actual issue again!
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 24, 2013, 07:39:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
You just don't understand. Assault rifles are magickle death devices that "mow down 20 children with a single pull of the trigger", and if we'd just outlaw them, there'd be no more murders, male-pattern baldness, or heartbreak of psoriasis.
TGRR,
Arguing the RWHN Way™.
Both of these. Particularly the fact that RWHN kept referring how assault rifles can kill everything in 5 seconds, though IIRC the bolded was a direct quote.
And what does the name of a bill have to do with the fact that you think assault rifles = instant child death? Oh right, nothing. Way to not address the actual issue again!
The quote was from Ratatosk, but it pretty much sums up that entire side of the argument.
that method is quite effective, as i have no desire to respond rationally! :lol:
also,
>17 pages is baked in the cake.
however, i propose that the thread would be more interesting taking it at its' titles face value...
got your eye on any particular firearms these days, Roger?
all this talk about god given right to guns makes me think of Zardoz, and now i want a Webley Fosbery pistol so i can feel more authentic running around in a red loincloth...
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 24, 2013, 07:39:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
You just don't understand. Assault rifles are magickle death devices that "mow down 20 children with a single pull of the trigger", and if we'd just outlaw them, there'd be no more murders, male-pattern baldness, or heartbreak of psoriasis.
TGRR,
Arguing the RWHN Way™.
Both of these. Particularly the fact that RWHN kept referring how assault rifles can kill everything in 5 seconds, though IIRC the bolded was a direct quote.
And what does the name of a bill have to do with the fact that you think assault rifles = instant child death? Oh right, nothing. Way to not address the actual issue again!
It's because they are scary and hence easier to create legislature against which will then further along the road allow for MORE legislature against other firearms, but it is totally not setting up a slippery slope at all.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:41:07 PM
got your eye on any particular firearms these days, Roger?
Looking at that Czech CZ .40 for my daughter.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:41:07 PM
that method is quite effective, as i have no desire to respond rationally! :lol:
also,
>17 pages is baked in the cake.
however, i propose that the thread would be more interesting taking it at its' titles face value...
got your eye on any particular firearms these days, Roger?
all this talk about god given right to guns makes me think of Zardoz, and now i want a Webley Fosbery pistol so i can feel more authentic running around in a red loincloth...
:spittake:
Where is Glittersnatch these days? THIS THREAD NEEDS NIXON-SAN.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:41:07 PM
got your eye on any particular firearms these days, Roger?
Looking at that Czech CZ .40 for my daughter.
i've never had a CZ, but i've always been impressed by them when i've shot my friend's.
they make pistols as well as they make kolaches, and, along with the fact that my best friend was a czechxican, makes me want to visit that country. :)
A bottle of beer is under $2 in most places there.
Including the good beers.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:40:54 PM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 24, 2013, 07:39:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
You just don't understand. Assault rifles are magickle death devices that "mow down 20 children with a single pull of the trigger", and if we'd just outlaw them, there'd be no more murders, male-pattern baldness, or heartbreak of psoriasis.
TGRR,
Arguing the RWHN Way™.
Both of these. Particularly the fact that RWHN kept referring how assault rifles can kill everything in 5 seconds, though IIRC the bolded was a direct quote.
And what does the name of a bill have to do with the fact that you think assault rifles = instant child death? Oh right, nothing. Way to not address the actual issue again!
The quote was from Ratatosk, but it pretty much sums up that entire side of the argument.
Ahh ok, but yea, that's the general idea I was getting from his arguments with how quickly everyone will die because of assault weapons.
Besides, pulling facts out of your ass without actually verifying anything is how we're supposed to argue this right?
Also, given these startling statistics http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm I still vote that we ban motor vehicles, swimming pools, bath tubs, lakes, puddles, food, small objects, shoe laces, ropes, ties, cleaning chemicals, swimming, pillows, stuffed animals, real animals, bicycles, bags, and buckets because wrapping everything in bubble wrap is the only way to save the children! Except that we should probably ban bubble wrap, because they might suffocate if they get all caught up in it
RWHN, how do you feel about mandatory minimum prison sentences for traffic violations, to save lives?
My modest proposal:
3 months in jail with no chance of parole for every 5mph over the speed limit
3 years in jail with no chance of parole for passing in a no passing zone
3 years in jail with no chance of parole for running a red light / stop sign
Also consider that my plan would decrease pollution and increase public health because people would start driving less, and walking more. It's a win-win situation.
Quote from: V3X on January 24, 2013, 05:04:08 PM
Disregarding my natural inclination to believe in mind-control gimmicks and false flag attacks (and the American government's documented history with both of those things), I still have to wonder what banning a few (relatively) rare types of guns and magazines has to do with decreasing gun violence. Given that none of the recent mass shootings were carried out by anything that would be illegal under the new regulations, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?
Anyone who supports these measures also needs to disregard that making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Criminals tend to not give many shits what the lawman says is illegal -- they're peculiar that way.
So, say there is a person who is sane enough to hold public office without completely going crazy. This person has a more or less reasonable comprehension of actual statistics and events. This person looks at all the evidence that's readily available from the tragic shootings America has endured of late, and considers possible solutions to the problem. This person weighs the facts and the pros and the cons of every possible action, and finally arrives at a decision to outlaw guns that were not used to commit these crimes.
In that case, either the person is not as rational as originally supposed, or the person's goal is not the one he claims it is. Either way, what's really going on?
A question well asked.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 24, 2013, 04:19:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 02:50:48 PM
One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"
I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.
I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.
Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?
Reducing economic inequality reduces crime of all kinds. But I'm a filthy librul socialist, so....
In social science circles, that's pretty widely regarded as the one thing that would have a major effect on violence and crime. Not "Fixing the economy", which is something that is well outside the scope of any single country's legislation, but simply reducing income inequality to reduce both poverty, and to reduce stress on those I am starting to refer to as "pre-poor", ie. the middle class.
Yea, during the Xmas break i read a book called The Spirit Level that posited that very strongly, after many years of research
And which will, like the mountains of other research on the subject, continue to be ignored by bureaucrats whose primary interest is not in policies that will better the lives of people, but in policies that will get them funded or re-elected.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 24, 2013, 08:11:43 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 05:44:54 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 24, 2013, 04:19:51 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 24, 2013, 02:50:48 PM
One man's "try" is another man's "complete fucking waste of time"
I'm with LMNO - the key to this is to work on banning (read "eradicate") this national fixation you guys have with blowing the living piss out each other.
I don't agree with the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. Guns do kill people and quite effectively too but they do need human intervention to work their magic.
Given that you can't prevent guns (just trust me on this) maybe there's avenues worth exploring that would reduce the homicidal intent that causes the guns to kill people?
Reducing economic inequality reduces crime of all kinds. But I'm a filthy librul socialist, so....
In social science circles, that's pretty widely regarded as the one thing that would have a major effect on violence and crime. Not "Fixing the economy", which is something that is well outside the scope of any single country's legislation, but simply reducing income inequality to reduce both poverty, and to reduce stress on those I am starting to refer to as "pre-poor", ie. the middle class.
Yea, during the Xmas break i read a book called The Spirit Level that posited that very strongly, after many years of research
And which will, like the mountains of other research on the subject, continue to be ignored by bureaucrats whose primary interest is not in policies that will better the lives of people, but in policies that will get them funded or re-elected.
Maybe, as some of these shootings happen when kids get hold of parents firearms, there should be an assessment of the storage facility of guns and ammo before they are sold. Kind of like animal shelters assess suitability of a property before homing animals...
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 24, 2013, 08:00:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:40:54 PM
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on January 24, 2013, 07:39:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
perhaps tp was referring to your comment that it would "take you a few more minutes to fill that hay bale .. full of lead".
since the AWB still allowed for standard capacity mags (and thus no additional reload time), your statement would seem to imply the increased rate of fire that an automatic would have is what you meant.
incidentally, the numbers indicate that there are *way* less hits with a given amount of ammo when using fully automatic fire.
it's those semi-automatics, with their inherent 'assault-aiming', that is so deadly.
what we need to do is require fully automatic weapons be the standard.
y'know...for the children.
You just don't understand. Assault rifles are magickle death devices that "mow down 20 children with a single pull of the trigger", and if we'd just outlaw them, there'd be no more murders, male-pattern baldness, or heartbreak of psoriasis.
TGRR,
Arguing the RWHN Way™.
Both of these. Particularly the fact that RWHN kept referring how assault rifles can kill everything in 5 seconds, though IIRC the bolded was a direct quote.
And what does the name of a bill have to do with the fact that you think assault rifles = instant child death? Oh right, nothing. Way to not address the actual issue again!
The quote was from Ratatosk, but it pretty much sums up that entire side of the argument.
Ahh ok, but yea, that's the general idea I was getting from his arguments with how quickly everyone will die because of assault weapons.
Besides, pulling facts out of your ass without actually verifying anything is how we're supposed to argue this right?
Also, given these startling statistics http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm I still vote that we ban motor vehicles, swimming pools, bath tubs, lakes, puddles, food, small objects, shoe laces, ropes, ties, cleaning chemicals, swimming, pillows, stuffed animals, real animals, bicycles, bags, and buckets because wrapping everything in bubble wrap is the only way to save the children! Except that we should probably ban bubble wrap, because they might suffocate if they get all caught up in it
Yeah, we'll get around to that, definitely but the people demand the banning of things with "assault" in the title first. This will pave the way to an eventual ban on the other things you, quite rightly, point out are dangerous to our children. Banning the word "assault" is the first step on the road to
newspeak a safer world for our children to die in.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 09:04:53 PM
Maybe, as some of these shootings happen when kids get hold of parents firearms, there should be an assessment of the storage facility of guns and ammo before they are sold. Kind of like animal shelters assess suitability of a property before homing animals...
They do?
Not here, they don't.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 09:04:53 PM
Maybe, as some of these shootings happen when kids get hold of parents firearms, there should be an assessment of the storage facility of guns and ammo before they are sold. Kind of like animal shelters assess suitability of a property before homing animals...
They do?
Not here, they don't.
I think the breed-specific rescues do here. Kind of like a home study before people adopt kids.
Something about the idea of people walking around my living quarters before I can have a cat or a box of shells rubs me the wrong way, though.
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 24, 2013, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 09:04:53 PM
Maybe, as some of these shootings happen when kids get hold of parents firearms, there should be an assessment of the storage facility of guns and ammo before they are sold. Kind of like animal shelters assess suitability of a property before homing animals...
They do?
Not here, they don't.
I think the breed-specific rescues do here. Kind of like a home study before people adopt kids.
Something about the idea of people walking around my living quarters before I can have a cat or a box of shells rubs me the wrong way, though.
HAR! Animal rescue for snobs. I didn't know that, because I've always just gone to the pound and picked out a mutt.
I don't like this topic, it makes me say dumb things. Bad topic! Bad! *whacks with rolled up newspaper*
how 'suitable' do the new home have to be when the animal only has like a week or so before they give them the sleepy shot as it stands?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 09:53:05 PM
how 'suitable' do the new home have to be when the animal only has like a week or so before they give them the sleepy shot as it stands?
I've been doing a bit of googling, and a lot of the breed-specific places are no-kill.
Still, it seems pretty fucking silly.
huh.
interesting.
like you, i've always taken mutts. they get short shrift, and they're generally more fit/smarter from my experience.
(although Corndog had to survive through parvo...)
Anybody else thinking of ads for guns using the format of the animal shelter/rescue commercials?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 09:55:06 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 09:53:05 PM
how 'suitable' do the new home have to be when the animal only has like a week or so before they give them the sleepy shot as it stands?
I've been doing a bit of googling, and a lot of the breed-specific places are no-kill.
Still, it seems pretty fucking silly.
I dunno, pitbulls and shit are probably less likely to be adopted than others. So I can see why they exist.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 09:55:06 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 24, 2013, 09:53:05 PM
how 'suitable' do the new home have to be when the animal only has like a week or so before they give them the sleepy shot as it stands?
I've been doing a bit of googling, and a lot of the breed-specific places are no-kill.
Still, it seems pretty fucking silly.
A lot of them are pretty surreal: http://www.reignhailsheltierescue.com/adoption-contract.html
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 09:04:53 PM
Maybe, as some of these shootings happen when kids get hold of parents firearms, there should be an assessment of the storage facility of guns and ammo before they are sold. Kind of like animal shelters assess suitability of a property before homing animals...
They do?
Not here, they don't.
They did that when my mum adopted her mutt.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 09:04:53 PM
Maybe, as some of these shootings happen when kids get hold of parents firearms, there should be an assessment of the storage facility of guns and ammo before they are sold. Kind of like animal shelters assess suitability of a property before homing animals...
They do?
Not here, they don't.
They did that when my mum adopted her mutt.
Yeah, but this is the USA. Need another 16 dogs? None of my fucking business. Roll the truck up and we'll load 'em.
So...my Korean restaurant business plan seems a solid bet in the USA, then.
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2013, 10:27:49 PM
So...my Korean restaurant business plan seems a solid bet in the USA, then.
Yeah, or your dog fighting ring. One or the other.
Combining the two would seem to be cost effective. It'll be like a Roman gladitorial ring, except the loser gets eaten.
Best. Business. Plan. EVER.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 24, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 09:04:53 PM
Maybe, as some of these shootings happen when kids get hold of parents firearms, there should be an assessment of the storage facility of guns and ammo before they are sold. Kind of like animal shelters assess suitability of a property before homing animals...
They do?
Not here, they don't.
They did that when my mum adopted her mutt.
Yeah, but this is the USA. Need another 16 dogs? None of my fucking business. Roll the truck up and we'll load 'em.
Mostly they do it to make sure that the animal doesn't come back.
Anyway,as apolicy for folks who hve kids with guns in the house, I'd reckon it'd save a few accidental deaths and young men going postal with mommy or daddy's guns in a public place.
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
I am intrigued.
Please, tell me more about the way making things illegal makes them go away. It sounds like a marvelous policy. We should make murder illegal. If we did that, nobody would ever be killed! It's brilliant! I can't believe we haven't thought of this before!
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
"Shall not be infringed"
To me this is probably placing more barriers to firearm ownership. Why should I have to prove that I can safely store a firearm? Furthermore, why do I have to even give a reason to own one in the first place?
If I am a single adult living alone, just being with in my home should be secure enough for anyone who isn't me. It's kind of a "fuck off this is my house" thing.
Even if I have children, why should I allow people who aren't privy to the dynamics of my children have any kind of say, let alone right to investigate my home and children?
Again, this is implying that by merely seeking to own a firearm you are already unhinged or a danger to society. Much like the TSA checkpoints to get on an aircraft.
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
From a legal perspective, yes it is. While you and I can both agree that it's common sense in most contexts, it's still paving the way for the founding ideals of this society to be gutted according to whim.
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
Thing is, the point of Americans being allowed to own guns has nothing to do with hunting or sporting.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2013, 10:31:10 PM
Combining the two would seem to be cost effective. It'll be like a Roman gladitorial ring, except the loser gets eaten.
Best. Business. Plan. EVER.
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.
Quote from: V3X on January 24, 2013, 11:48:39 PM
I am intrigued.
Please, tell me more about the way making things illegal makes them go away. It sounds like a marvelous policy. We should make murder illegal. If we did that, nobody would ever be killed! It's brilliant! I can't believe we haven't thought of this before!
:lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 01:30:56 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.
Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.
1:33&1/3
Quote from: Alty on January 24, 2013, 05:15:51 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on January 24, 2013, 05:12:52 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-schools-high-powered-rifles-184934771.html
That is probably the best thing that could happen. Am I naive in thinking people would be less likely to waltz into a school for any reason they shouldn't at the prospect of being mowed down by a disgruntled math major?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 25, 2013, 09:13:35 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 01:30:56 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.
Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.
think its felons and folks with mental health problems.
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 10:53:35 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 25, 2013, 09:13:35 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 01:30:56 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.
Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.
think its felons and folks with mental health problems.
also if you have a misdemeanor domestic abuse on your record, or a federal restraining order against you.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 25, 2013, 09:13:35 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 01:30:56 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
The whole point of a right is that you don't have to explain it.
Just out of interest, are there any conditions under which someone would not be allowed a gun? I'm assuming yes but then I live in a non kill-crazed society.
If you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, you cannot own a gun unless you have your rights restored by a judge. This is constitutional under amendment V & VI.
If a judge has declared you mentally incompetent, you also cannot buy a firearm.
You are only guaranteed the right to own a firearm if you are a citizen.
That's really about it, constitutionally.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.
Have you ever even read the constitution?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.
Have you ever even read the constitution?
Why would he read that outdated old document? :lol:
Roger, how does the argument go for the constitutionality based on these amendments?
QuoteIf you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, you cannot own a gun unless you have your rights restored by a judge. This is constitutional under amendment V & VI.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.
Have you ever even read the constitution?
It was tongue-in-cheek.
It's funny how certain parts of the constitution (amendments V and VI) can allow regulation of the 2nd but others (commerce clause) can't. How does that work? Is this Constitutional A La Carte?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 25, 2013, 03:00:20 PM
Roger, how does the argument go for the constitutionality based on these amendments?
QuoteIf you've been convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, you cannot own a gun unless you have your rights restored by a judge. This is constitutional under amendment V & VI.
Well, it's like this:
Quote from: amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Given due process of law, meaning a trial and a conviction for an established crime, any or all rights may be removed from a person.
Due process of law is described in amendment VI:
Quote from: Amendment VIIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
It's pretty clear.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:03:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.
Have you ever even read the constitution?
It was tongue-in-cheek.
It's funny how certain parts of the constitution (amendments V and VI) can allow regulation of the 2nd but others (commerce clause) can't. How does that work? Is this Constitutional A La Carte?
Amendments V and VI describe the events under which you can lose ALL of your rights. The commerce clause does not.
Am I typing too fast for you, junior? Shall I use smaller words?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 25, 2013, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.
Have you ever even read the constitution?
Why would he read that outdated old document? :lol:
:lulz:
For someone who "writes policy", RWHN doesn't know jack shit about the system in which he writes said policy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:20:01 PM
For someone who "writes policy", RWHN doesn't know jack shit about the system in which he writes said policy.
Dude, he works for some rinkydink county nonprofit. Of course he doesn't know shit about state or Federal policymaking, regardless of what his degree in pencil-pushing taught him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:08:42 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:03:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 12:14:59 PM
There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about the mental health or conviction status of a person so I would assume this is considered "infringement" as well.
Have you ever even read the constitution?
It was tongue-in-cheek.
It's funny how certain parts of the constitution (amendments V and VI) can allow regulation of the 2nd but others (commerce clause) can't. How does that work? Is this Constitutional A La Carte?
Amendments V and VI describe the events under which you can lose ALL of your rights. The commerce clause does not.
Am I typing too fast for you, junior? Shall I use smaller words?
That wasn't the question I asked. Why can one part of the Constitution interact with and impact the 2nd when another cannot?
Of course, I think it's clear they both can as gun regulation HAS happened in the past and has been perfectly Constitutional, including the prior ban that is only not in existence because it expired and was not renewed. Your reasoning doesn't hold up to precedent and reality.
But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:32:14 PM
That wasn't the question I asked. Why can one part of the Constitution interact with and impact the 2nd when another cannot?
Because the part that can was designed to do so.
You really are fucking dense. Jesus.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:36:13 PM
But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?
Well, you're certainly wrong. You've expressed both your contempt for and your utter inability to read and understand the document.
Quote from: Pixie on January 25, 2013, 12:05:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 25, 2013, 12:03:18 AM
Quote from: Pixie on January 24, 2013, 11:39:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 24, 2013, 10:46:05 PM
The prevailing cultural attitude in the USA (and one of the few I agree with) is that a little safety is not worth messing with the Bill of Rights.
"Shall not be infringed upon".
Like Roger, I have no problem with gun control in the UK, or France, or Nigeria, or Abu Dhabi. But here, in the states, regardless of any sensible arguments anyone may make for why gun control would be a good idea in theory, it is NOT worth setting the precedent of openly gutting one of the original ten amendments because the public was in a mood.
Is proving that you are responsible in order to own a licensed firearm infringing on anyone's rights? you could still reapply once your shit is sorted out if you fail first time.
To my plauge addled brain it does seem to imply that you are unfit (guilty) simply for just wishing to purchase a firearm.
Yea, but if you are into sport or hunting for your food, showing responsibility in storage isn't impeding on rights? or is my Brit-brain just getting the whole thing wrong?
Pretty much. The point of the second amendment has nothing at all to do with sport or hunting. It has to do with deliberately having an armed population for its own sake.
Another thing that it does, though this wasn't intentional at the time it was written, is to drive control freaks like RWHN right up a tree.
TGRR,
I <3 James Madison.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:36:13 PM
But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?
Well, you're certainly wrong. You've expressed both your contempt for and your utter inability to read and understand the document.
I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on. So, I'll try again, is everyone else wrong? All of the people who proposed, and passed gun control policies in the past? The legislators and others who didn't raise Constitutional objections? The judges who didn't strike down gun control? They are ALL wrong and YOU are right, is that it?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on.
It's more that I'm
ignoring them. After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation. Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.
This is what you demanded. Well, now you have it.
This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife. That one makes me giggle. :lulz:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:58:04 PM
This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife. That one makes me giggle. :lulz:
I was frustrated yesterday. Now I just hate you, in the same manner that I hated Dead Kennedy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on.
It's more that I'm ignoring them. After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation. Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.
This is what you demanded. Well, now you have it.
Because I disagree with you. Fuck, the heresy! How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!
And this may not be about your ex-wife, but it gives a certain insight into why she dumped you.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:58:55 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:58:04 PM
This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife. That one makes me giggle. :lulz:
I was frustrated yesterday. Now I just hate you, in the same manner that I hated Dead Kennedy.
Wow, do you hate everyone who has a different opinion than you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:59:42 PM
And this may not be about your ex-wife, but it gives a certain insight into why she dumped you.
:lulz:
Are you kidding, she's a bleeding heart liberal. She'd go further than what I'm talking about.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on.
It's more that I'm ignoring them. After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation. Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.
This is what you demanded. Well, now you have it.
Because I disagree with you. Fuck, the heresy! How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!
Nope. Lots of people disagree with me. This has more to do with you ignoring me stating my case, and then taking half of an unrelated post, and presenting it as my argument. You're basically a dishonest scumbag, and yesterday finally proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.
But you knew that, RWHN, because you did it deliberately. Now you're just continuing to be dishonest, which is really all I expect from you.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 04:01:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:59:42 PM
And this may not be about your ex-wife, but it gives a certain insight into why she dumped you.
:lulz:
Are you kidding, she's a bleeding heart liberal. She'd go further than what I'm talking about.
I wasn't thinking about the position she'd have taken, I was thinking about your utter lack of anything resembling integrity, and the fact that you're a control freak.
I particularly like how you tried to paint your ex has having left the kids alone, but then backtracked and said that the kids weren't alone, it was just that the ex wasn't there. If that's the way you act, then she's well shut of you in the first place.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 04:00:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:58:55 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:58:04 PM
This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife. That one makes me giggle. :lulz:
I was frustrated yesterday. Now I just hate you, in the same manner that I hated Dead Kennedy.
Wow, do you hate everyone who has a different opinion than you?
Nope. Just the dishonest ones. You know, like you.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on.
It's more that I'm ignoring them. After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation. Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.
This is what you demanded. Well, now you have it.
Because I disagree with you. Fuck, the heresy! How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!
Nope. Lots of people disagree with me. This has more to do with you ignoring me stating my case, and then taking half of an unrelated post, and presenting it as my argument. You're basically a dishonest scumbag, and yesterday finally proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.
But you knew that, RWHN, because you did it deliberately. Now you're just continuing to be dishonest, which is really all I expect from you.
Dude, you've done that to me on numerous occassions, but I haven't let it fester like that,
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 04:05:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 04:02:04 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:59:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:57:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on.
It's more that I'm ignoring them. After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation. Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.
This is what you demanded. Well, now you have it.
Because I disagree with you. Fuck, the heresy! How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!
Nope. Lots of people disagree with me. This has more to do with you ignoring me stating my case, and then taking half of an unrelated post, and presenting it as my argument. You're basically a dishonest scumbag, and yesterday finally proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.
But you knew that, RWHN, because you did it deliberately. Now you're just continuing to be dishonest, which is really all I expect from you.
Dude, you've done that to me on numerous occassions, but I haven't let it fester like that,
So you say. Haven't seen an example yet.
Let's see an example of me taking one sentence out of context from a completely unrelated post, and then treating that as your argument, at the expense of your actual argument.
And it's not a question of festering, Sparky. I've written you off entirely. There isn't any festering. If there was, that boil popped yesterday afternoon.
Now you're just another yahoo, fit only for mockery.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 03:36:13 PM
But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?
Well, you're certainly wrong. You've expressed both your contempt for and your utter inability to read and understand the document.
I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on. So, I'll try again, is everyone else wrong? All of the people who proposed, and passed gun control policies in the past? The legislators and others who didn't raise Constitutional objections? The judges who didn't strike down gun control? They are ALL wrong and YOU are right, is that it?
There is a great deal of precedent to indicate that this is possible. That's why we've had some horrible laws on the books in the past that were struck down as unconstitutional.
Also, you make it sound like Roger is all alone in his claim, but that it certainly far from the truth.
A tangentially related observation. Whenever I find myself arguing a position alone, against a multitude of other people* who keep telling me "I don't get it" I take a good, hard look at their position, just on the off-chance that there's something I've missed. More often than not there is.
* I seldom find myself arguing against, christians, new agers, neopagans or other forms of bugfuck-mental but, if and when, this rule doesn't really apply, for reasons that should be obvious.
How about when you are apparently arguing against a religion?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 25, 2013, 04:57:10 PM
How about when you are apparently arguing against a religion?
Yes, well, that's why we've all decided to stop treating you as someone who has a serious argument to make, isn't it? :lulz:
Now run along, grownups are talking.
RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.
The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.
But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.
Quote from: Faust on January 25, 2013, 05:06:24 PM
RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.
The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.
But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.
And that's the thing, this is a COMPLETELY American-centric argument, and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't or hasn't lived in the states to understand the cultural framework of the argument.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 25, 2013, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 25, 2013, 05:06:24 PM
RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.
The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.
But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.
And that's the thing, this is a COMPLETELY American-centric argument, and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't or hasn't lived in the states to understand the cultural framework of the argument.
And that's just it. I don't expect folks from other countries to adopt our insanity, or even agree in principle with it. Their cultures are different, and seem to have their own unique problems.
Nor would I, unlike a couple of GOP legislators, assume that firearm ownership is a human right. It isn't. It's an American right. Nor would I agree with them that an American should be able to carry firearms in another country simply by virtue of being an American. When you are in someone else's country, you have to live by their laws.
wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!
:lulz:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 25, 2013, 05:37:29 PM
wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!
:lulz:
Yep. Good old Newt gave them the idea.
https://www.gingrichproductions.com/2012/04/the-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-human-right/
And then there's THIS guy, who seems a little confused:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/tim-donnelly-god-guns-essential-republican_n_2505537.html
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 05:45:42 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 25, 2013, 05:37:29 PM
wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!
:lulz:
Yep. Good old Newt gave them the idea.
https://www.gingrichproductions.com/2012/04/the-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-human-right/
And then there's THIS guy, who seems a little confused:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/tim-donnelly-god-guns-essential-republican_n_2505537.html
:lulz:
aaaaand, now my mind has newt gingrich in red loincloth receiving guns from the giant stone godhead indelibly etched onto it....
THANKS, IRL! :lulz:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 25, 2013, 06:10:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 05:45:42 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 25, 2013, 05:37:29 PM
wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!
:lulz:
Yep. Good old Newt gave them the idea.
https://www.gingrichproductions.com/2012/04/the-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-human-right/
And then there's THIS guy, who seems a little confused:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/tim-donnelly-god-guns-essential-republican_n_2505537.html
:lulz:
aaaaand, now my mind has newt gingrich in red loincloth receiving guns from the giant stone godhead indelibly etched onto it....
THANKS, IRL! :lulz:
God wanted everyone to have guns. That's why he gave them to us. Jesus talks about it all the time in the New Testament.
Matthew 67:5 -- Blessed are the gunmakers, saviours of all mankind (sorry, dad).
i've got some firearm designs rolling around in my hear for a couple years.
when i manage to make one, i will perhaps name it The Plowshare...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 25, 2013, 06:17:15 PM
Matthew 67:5 -- Blessed are the gunmakers, saviours of all mankind (sorry, dad).
Matthew 5:39 -- If someone strikes you on the right cheek, you have the legal right to bust a cap in his ass.
John 91:6 -- Forgive them father, for they do not have a Tech-9.
of course, there's the obvious passage
John 3:16 -- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten gun, that whosoever should holster it should not perish, but have everlasting Liberty.
You win. That was awesome.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 25, 2013, 06:33:23 PM
of course, there's the obvious passage
John 3:16 -- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten gun, that whosoever should holster it should not perish, but have everlasting Liberty.
Thread over. :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 25, 2013, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 25, 2013, 05:06:24 PM
RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.
The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.
But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.
And that's the thing, this is a COMPLETELY American-centric argument, and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't or hasn't lived in the states to understand the cultural framework of the argument.
That's what I figured. If this was an argument about making guns available to anyone with an unquenchable bloodlust in this country I'd be like "Fuck no" but I don't find myself surrounded by armed to the teeth nutjobs with an unquenchable bloodlust. Prohibition and it's totally meaningless little sister, regulation has been proven, time and time again, by history to be a surefire way to make any problem a million times worse, almost instantaneously.
I can only assume that if gun prohibition was introduced in America tonight, by tomorrow morning the only Americans left alive would be ones who happened to be overseas at the time and the one guy with the biggest ammo collection and the best aim, sat in a crows nest, overlooking the airport, patiently awaiting their return.
It's ridiculous and hilarious and maybe a tad sad that you keep hearing about the most kill-crazed nation on planet earth all acting surprised when the guy next to them gets randomly shot in the face and actually debating whether the problem is caused by not enough guns but it's one of those cultural things.
A lot of people over here act all shocked and outraged when shit like high school massacres go down but not me. I mean lets face it, okay it's always a bit sad to see kids dying but, realistically all that happened was several americans got shot a couple of years earlier than they would normally have. It's not like with kids in other countries where you'd reasonably expect them to grow up and reach old age without getting riddled with bullets at some point, right?
I really need to hang out with non-Americans more often.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 25, 2013, 06:48:43 PM
I really need to hang out with non-Americans more often.
Word of advice - don't choose Scots. Unless you could down a bottle of grouse and still drive home by the time you reached the age of 12, your liver wouldn't make it past the handshake.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
Yer on. Anytime you're in my neck of the woods, gimme a shout and I'll take you on a traditional Caledonian blackout :evil:
As long as I can at least go to a football match and scream "ABERDEEEEEEN!" once, I'm in.
There's also the question of ideal-world American policy versus the dirty world of compromise, fake passion, real fundamentalism and limitless levels of corruption.
To change the laws on guns in a major way, one needs a Constitutional Convention. And that puts the entire Constitution as it currently stands up for grabs. Though to be honest, 1 and 4 are so abused and threadbare by this point, one may not notice much of a difference...anyway, what it means is, having the likes of John Boehner saying "what's in it for me, and how much do you really want this?" Lets assume there was some political capital in doing this, just what do you think Boehner would ask for in return? What rights do you think the Republicans would want to throw under a bus in return for this, assuming they could be convinced to vote for it at all?
You can argue whether or not in theory the US should have gun laws like Switzerland, or France, or even the UK. But that is the cold, hard reality of the situation, and so really, most of this discussion is so much hot air.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 25, 2013, 05:24:42 PM
Quote from: Faust on January 25, 2013, 05:06:24 PM
RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.
The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.
But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.
And that's the thing, this is a COMPLETELY American-centric argument, and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't or hasn't lived in the states to understand the cultural framework of the argument.
And that's just it. I don't expect folks from other countries to adopt our insanity, or even agree in principle with it. Their cultures are different, and seem to have their own unique problems.
Nor would I, unlike a couple of GOP legislators, assume that firearm ownership is a human right. It isn't. It's an American right. Nor would I agree with them that an American should be able to carry firearms in another country simply by virtue of being an American. When you are in someone else's country, you have to live by their laws.
I'm not even against gun control, as a general theory, and I would LOVE to live in a country where we didn't have guns, didn't have an outrageously high incarceration rate, didn't spend more than half our annual budget on the military, and also had privacy, and also didn't live in fear of our own country.
I might even be willing to consider the value of repealing the 2nd amendment if I thought it would WORK.
But we live in the country we live in, and until we address an awful lot of our other problems, there's no evidence whatsoever that gun bans would even work, PLUS there's that pesky Constitution thing.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 25, 2013, 07:32:38 PM
But we live in the country we live in, and until we address an awful lot of our other problems, there's no evidence whatsoever that gun bans would even work, PLUS there's that pesky Constitution thing.
Well, that's just it. Once you start hollering "Safety" or some other expedient to bypass the rule of law, you wind up with something hideous.
And if you DID repeal the 2nd amendment, it would be about as "productive" as prohibition has been.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 25, 2013, 07:35:31 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 25, 2013, 07:32:38 PM
But we live in the country we live in, and until we address an awful lot of our other problems, there's no evidence whatsoever that gun bans would even work, PLUS there's that pesky Constitution thing.
Well, that's just it. Once you start hollering "Safety" or some other expedient to bypass the rule of law, you wind up with something hideous.
And if you DID repeal the 2nd amendment, it would be about as "productive" as prohibition has been.
THIS!!! Imagine the the horrors of gun prohibition.
Imagine the joy of more kids living past the age of six.
No one wants to banguns outright, it isn't even a practical thing to wish for.
My thing, as I've said a few times now, is just giving more of a fighting chance that you can either
a) intervene before someone goes apeshit with a gun or
b) stop someone who is going apeshit with a gun sooner so fewer people die.
I know that makes me, apparently, an awful scumbag worth "mockery" but I can live with that.
I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE THAT MOST AMERICAN CHILDREN DIES BEFORE THE AGE OF SIX
oh wait
Which implies that the number of 6 year olds that do die from gun violence, however small the number, is acceptable.
Yeah, no it doesn't. It implies that your hyperbolic comment was hyperbolic. Do you want to ban cars and swimming pools because of the much larger number of kids under age six die in car and swimming pool incidents?
How about dogs and household chemicals? How about children's vitamins?
Drones, domestic abuse, medical error also spring to mind.
Are any of these acceptable to anyone? Anyone?
Clearly they ARE, as we sit, accepting them.
Unless this thread is going to motivate Joe Biden to actually do anything ever.
I would imagine wed all be better off if we banned lobbying. Youd probably save more lives with that one thing.
Which is yet another thing that will NEVER HAPPEN.
So you answer hyperbole with stupid questions.
Meanwhile in Washington:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682888-biden-downplays-assault-weapons-ban-emphasizes-background-checks-and-magazine-restrictions?lite (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682888-biden-downplays-assault-weapons-ban-emphasizes-background-checks-and-magazine-restrictions?lite)
Passing a ban in this Congress was never very realistic, I'd be happy to see the magazine restrictions along with the background checks as a decent first step.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 04:10:58 AM
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682888-biden-downplays-assault-weapons-ban-emphasizes-background-checks-and-magazine-restrictions?lite (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682888-biden-downplays-assault-weapons-ban-emphasizes-background-checks-and-magazine-restrictions?lite)
Ha haha hahaha hHAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHAHAHAHAHA!
THREAD OVER. JOE BIDEN WINS.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 26, 2013, 04:07:52 AM
How about dogs and household chemicals? How about children's vitamins?
CARS. KIDS ARE RUN OVER ALL THE TIME BY CARS.
WALK, YOU MOTHERFUCKERS.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 04:10:58 AM
So you answer hyperbole with stupid questions.
Meanwhile in Washington:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682888-biden-downplays-assault-weapons-ban-emphasizes-background-checks-and-magazine-restrictions?lite (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682888-biden-downplays-assault-weapons-ban-emphasizes-background-checks-and-magazine-restrictions?lite)
Passing a ban in this Congress was never very realistic, I'd be happy to see the magazine restrictions along with the background checks as a decent first step.
....says another passive moron while massively missing the point.
I like that I have the option (if not the cash) to own a firearm. I feel, with the 2nd amendment in place, that should my not-that-bad-almost situation become any worse, I would have the means to provide for my monkey. We occupy the same place in the world, and it is us against everyone else. I don't want to kill anyone, but I'd rather mug someone and assault them and take their shiny things and their money than starve me and monkey. Especially if it's the monkey who may go hungry. I hardly care if it's me, other than it's uncomfortable to be hungry so long and so often.
I get the sense that the whole gun control "debate" is a red herring that is being purposefully amplified by politicians on all sides of the aisle because real issues like financial corruption, income inequality, the prison-industrial complex, and the revolving door of private interests and positions of power are all a bit too inconvenient, complex, and intractable for the common American idiot to focus on for any period of time.
I don't believe idiocy counts for all of that inattention. Some of it is from the mindset one gets when they just constantly "make do," which is what the prideful, the ignorant, and those who are all too aware that they are too close to poverty for comfort call going without. It saps one's strength and attention, as I'm sure many here know firsthand, and one experiencing the doubtful pleasure of making due might have an inkling of why societies didn't form until there was extra of the things that were needed.
There's a lot of insight to be had on just the other side of the fence fromvl the yard with the bottom layer people. It's no wonder people research this, the effects are so fascinating!
Misunderstand me not; I am maybe far from the very bottom. But I see it there, all the same. The future is all lined up, from an empty fridge (the scariest vision of all) right on down to the Orange Grove/I10 overpass in summer, where you can never escape the stench of things used up, out of luck, and very very DEAD.
Gun control - The brit approach (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21208674) :lulz:
Quote from: Net on January 26, 2013, 08:25:54 AM
I get the sense that the whole gun control "debate" is a red herring that is being purposefully amplified by politicians on all sides of the aisle because real issues like financial corruption, income inequality, the prison-industrial complex, and the revolving door of private interests and positions of power are all a bit too inconvenient, complex, and intractable for the common American idiot to focus on for any period of time.
Focusing on any of those things could result in the public demanding they DO something, and DOING something would impede the ability of the super-rich to continue getting super-richer. Gun control, on the other hand, won't change anything, so all the major corporations remain happy and the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen and our social problems continue to worsen... but that only affects the plebes, so it doesn't really matter.
That's bullshit because it isn't either/or. And a majority of the public right now does want Congress to do something about gun violence and gun regultation, WHILE, they are also working on the economy.
Thank god we designed a system with built in check against being governed by the whims of the populace, huh?
Yes, because public safety is an awful "whim".
So far, you have managed to be completely unable to present so much as a shred of actual evidence that any sort of gun control will result in improved public safety.
But but but it can be rolled in with policies that DO do something! :lulz:
Thereby making it magically do something, too!
The Hosrie is strong in this one
:hosrie:
:lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
So far, you have managed to be completely unable to present so much as a shred of actual evidence that any sort of gun control will result in improved public safety.
It's pretty fundamental really. Increase the opportunities for intervention, whether it is the attempts to purchase guns to be used for gun violemce, or the actual act of gun violence itself. I did post earlier a piece written by a gun owner from Texas who believed that measures such as restricting magazine capacity could create those extra seconds first responders need to incapacitate an assailant and reduce the body count.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
So far, you have managed to be completely unable to present so much as a shred of actual evidence that any sort of gun control will result in improved public safety.
It's pretty fundamental really. Increase the opportunities for intervention, whether it is the attempts to purchase guns to be used for gun violemce, or the actual act of gun violence itself. I did post earlier a piece written by a gun owner from Texas who believed that measures such as restricting magazine capacity could create those extra seconds first responders need to incapacitate an assailant and reduce the body count.
If I had half the mag capacity, I'd walk in with twice as many guns. Next pile of hypothetical bullshit?
Which may be easy for you, but harder for others. We're talking population level here, not individual.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
So far, you have managed to be completely unable to present so much as a shred of actual evidence that any sort of gun control will result in improved public safety.
It's pretty fundamental really. Increase the opportunities for intervention, whether it is the attempts to purchase guns to be used for gun violemce, or the actual act of gun violence itself. I did post earlier a piece written by a gun owner from Texas who believed that measures such as restricting magazine capacity could create those extra seconds first responders need to incapacitate an assailant and reduce the body count.
I'm sorry, did you include any evidence that gun control would improve public safety in that post?
Because either I'm blind or you don't understand what the word "evidence" means.
Oh, wait, a gun owner in Texas believes it. Sorry, that's all the proof I need. :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 08:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
So far, you have managed to be completely unable to present so much as a shred of actual evidence that any sort of gun control will result in improved public safety.
It's pretty fundamental really. Increase the opportunities for intervention, whether it is the attempts to purchase guns to be used for gun violemce, or the actual act of gun violence itself. I did post earlier a piece written by a gun owner from Texas who believed that measures such as restricting magazine capacity could create those extra seconds first responders need to incapacitate an assailant and reduce the body count.
I'm sorry, did you include any evidence that gun control would improve public safety in that post?
Because either I'm blind or you don't understand what the word "evidence" means.
No, you are foolish to think I'd waste time with someone who has made up their mind and is quite closed to other angles on the issue.
RWHN, you are foolish to think I'd waste time with someone who has made up their mind and is quite closed to other angles on the issue.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 08:09:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 08:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
So far, you have managed to be completely unable to present so much as a shred of actual evidence that any sort of gun control will result in improved public safety.
It's pretty fundamental really. Increase the opportunities for intervention, whether it is the attempts to purchase guns to be used for gun violemce, or the actual act of gun violence itself. I did post earlier a piece written by a gun owner from Texas who believed that measures such as restricting magazine capacity could create those extra seconds first responders need to incapacitate an assailant and reduce the body count.
I'm sorry, did you include any evidence that gun control would improve public safety in that post?
Because either I'm blind or you don't understand what the word "evidence" means.
No, you are foolish to think I'd waste time with someone who has made up their mind and is quite closed to other angles on the issue.
IF YOU WON'T JUST BELIEVE WHAT I TELL YOU WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THEN I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE.
:lulz:
If this is the kind of bullshit that RWHN uses to make the flowers grow, it's no wonder his garden is empty except for a diseased-looking cactus.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 26, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
RWHN, you are foolish to think I'd waste time with someone who has made up their mind and is quite closed to other angles on the issue.
Cool with me, there are lots of other interesting threads to read anyway.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 08:28:45 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 08:09:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 08:04:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 26, 2013, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 05:57:09 PM
So far, you have managed to be completely unable to present so much as a shred of actual evidence that any sort of gun control will result in improved public safety.
It's pretty fundamental really. Increase the opportunities for intervention, whether it is the attempts to purchase guns to be used for gun violemce, or the actual act of gun violence itself. I did post earlier a piece written by a gun owner from Texas who believed that measures such as restricting magazine capacity could create those extra seconds first responders need to incapacitate an assailant and reduce the body count.
I'm sorry, did you include any evidence that gun control would improve public safety in that post?
Because either I'm blind or you don't understand what the word "evidence" means.
No, you are foolish to think I'd waste time with someone who has made up their mind and is quite closed to other angles on the issue.
IF YOU WON'T JUST BELIEVE WHAT I TELL YOU WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THEN I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE.
:lulz:
Oh, I'll still talk to you, but I'm also not going to feed the troll. ;)
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 26, 2013, 08:30:29 PM
If this is the kind of bullshit that RWHN uses to make the flowers grow, it's no wonder his garden is empty except for a diseased-looking cactus.
Jesus, why didn't Obama invite you to read poetry at his Inauguration. You've got quite a gift there.
His loss. :lulz:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/26/16712528-newtown-residents-join-gun-control-march-in-washington?lite
[/size]
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 26, 2013, 09:00:42 AM
Gun control - The brit approach (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21208674) :lulz:
My old home town!
Sounds like the typical Plymouthian approach - mob action. You don't get shootings, stabbings or one on one conflict. No, the usual means is for a group of individuals to attack a single person (armed or not). For once, the person on the receiving end wasn't an innocent bystander which is the norm.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 26, 2013, 06:12:09 PM
But but but it can be rolled in with policies that DO do something! :lulz:
As dictated by a random Texan.
I think we have a winner, here.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16771949-walking-angel-girl-who-performed-at-obamas-inauguration-shot-dead-in-chicago?lite
[/size]
[/size]
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 30, 2013, 11:23:04 PM
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16771949-walking-angel-girl-who-performed-at-obamas-inauguration-shot-dead-in-chicago?lite
I'm not seeing your point here. Something sad happens, therefore fuck the constitution? How does A=B?
No, fuck the Constitution on its own merits.
This thread was originally intended to show the consequences of our toxic and deadly gun culture. I haven't abandoned that concept and the link is posted in that spirit.
The thread had sort of spun out of control into a "debate" of gun control, but I'm re-jacking the thread.
My new dog is neurotic. Seriously.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 12:17:40 AM
No, fuck the Constitution on its own merits.
Hellooooooooo, Captain Utopia!
I purposefully overstated because I knew it would make you itchy. :fnord:
The Constitution, honestly, is horribly out-of-date but the framers, in one of the most brilliant mind fucks of all time, made it pretty much impossible to fix.
But it is what it is and it's not going away so we have to make the most of it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 01:05:20 AM
I purposefully overstated because I knew it would make you itchy. :fnord:
The Constitution, honestly, is horribly out-of-date but the framers, in one of the most brilliant mind fucks of all time, made it pretty much impossible to fix.
But it is what it is and it's not going away so we have to make the most of it.
Every Utopian tard thinks the constitution is out of date. You all seem to think you have better answers.
Funny thing is, all of those answers involve telling people what to do.
So, no. I think I'll let you SAVE TEH CHILDREN here at PD, and have a good laugh at your pomposity.
I don't have better answers. But I do know letting a clause written in the 18th century dictate (through bullshit interpretations) how we deal with 21st century guns is just plain ludicrous on its face.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 01:10:56 AM
I don't have better answers. But I do know letting a clause written in the 18th century dictate (through bullshit interpretations) how we deal with 21st century guns is just plain ludicrous on its face.
Well, if you have no better answers, you could just propose some legislation you know won't work, but you can roll it into a larger package of measures, which is sort of like rolling a turd up in an apple turnover.
Clearly, you are a past-master at effective public policy.
Nukes for everybody!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 01:15:00 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 01:10:56 AM
I don't have better answers. But I do know letting a clause written in the 18th century dictate (through bullshit interpretations) how we deal with 21st century guns is just plain ludicrous on its face.
Well, if you have no better answers, you could just propose some legislation you know won't work, but you can roll it into a larger package of measures, which is sort of like rolling a turd up in an apple turnover.
Clearly, you are a past-master at effective public policy.
Clearly you have no idea of how policy-making actually works. The common analogy is that it is like watching sausage be made. It isn't clean and pretty. Very often it does involve packaging strategies. I mean, hello, the fiscal cliff deal? Do you think that was one, single solitary strategy to avert the fiscal apocalypse? Of course the fuck not, it was a package of strategies, because there wasn't one, neat and tidy thing that was going to fix, or in this case band-aid, the problem.
Gun control is such a complex problem that it would have to be the same way. The immigration reform that is being discussed is a series of strategies, it isn't just one thing. It's amnesty, it's border security, MULTIPLE strategies rolled into one initiative. This is how it works in the real world.
Quote from: Mome Papess Trivial on January 31, 2013, 01:19:33 AM
Nukes for everybody!
Get yours TODAY, before some hippy has a hissy fit!
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 01:26:14 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 01:15:00 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 01:10:56 AM
I don't have better answers. But I do know letting a clause written in the 18th century dictate (through bullshit interpretations) how we deal with 21st century guns is just plain ludicrous on its face.
Well, if you have no better answers, you could just propose some legislation you know won't work, but you can roll it into a larger package of measures, which is sort of like rolling a turd up in an apple turnover.
Clearly, you are a past-master at effective public policy.
Clearly you have no idea of how policy-making actually works. The common analogy is that it is like watching sausage be made. It isn't clean and pretty. Very often it does involve packaging strategies. I mean, hello, the fiscal cliff deal? Do you think that was one, single solitary strategy to avert the fiscal apocalypse? Of course the fuck not, it was a package of strategies, because there wasn't one, neat and tidy thing that was going to fix, or in this case band-aid, the problem.
Gun control is such a complex problem that it would have to be the same way. The immigration reform that is being discussed is a series of strategies, it isn't just one thing. It's amnesty, it's border security, MULTIPLE strategies rolled into one initiative. This is how it works in the real world.
Ripping off Bismark doesn't answer the question. Why would you
deliberately introduce bad legislation into a package of legislation?
Oh, yeah, because this isn't about guns, same way your drug threads aren't about drugs. They're about you being a control freak.
I don't agree that it is bad legislation, for starters.
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
It is safer to shoot people. If you have to actually touch someone to kill them, you could catch the flu or some other icky disease. Blood born pathogens are fucking scary.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 02:31:21 AM
I don't agree that it is bad legislation, for starters.
You admitted that it was.
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 02:36:35 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 02:31:21 AM
I don't agree that it is bad legislation, for starters.
You admitted that it was.
You are talking about the specific legislation from the Clinton administration, I'm saying that the concept of gun control isn't bad legislation. There isn't a specific piece of legislation to comment on yet, but I would hope that the lessons of the past are heeded and a new bill would be much stronger than the piece of shit that Clinton signed.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:04:27 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
So what would have more teeth?
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 03:09:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:04:27 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
So what would have more teeth?
For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.
should it include more weapons by specifically naming them? (which i hope i shouldn't have to explain why that's retarded)
or should it include more weapons by feature? if so, what feature? weren't taking away the deadly barrel shrouds enough?!
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 04:00:47 AM
should it include more weapons by specifically naming them? (which i hope i shouldn't have to explain why that's retarded)
or should it include more weapons by feature? if so, what feature? weren't taking away the deadly barrel shrouds enough?!
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 12:39:20 AM
My new dog is neurotic. Seriously.
Ha! I actually caught one of mine
sneaking upstairs to pee on the rug because she doesn't like to go outside when it's raining. Not even shitting you.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5258/5455761347_2d3af0c56b.jpg)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:23:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 03:09:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:04:27 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
So what would have more teeth?
For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.
So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.
First class police state you're designing in your head, there.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 05:45:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 12:17:40 AM
No, fuck the Constitution on its own merits.
Hellooooooooo, Captain Utopia!
At least he finally said it flat-out. :lulz:
Well, it's not exactly a surprise, is it?
80 pages or bust.
Prohibition is definitely the way to go.
Thanks to alcohol prohibition Al Capone was starved of an opportunity to forge a criminal empire trading contraband hooch. I'm sure Chicago was thankful that things like the St Valentines massacre never happened, all because nasty booze was banned.
Thanks to drug prohibition the Sinaloa cartel never had the means to become a powerful, military force that ruins the lives of countless thousands of mexican farmers.
I'm sure gun prohibition will have exactly the same effect. Personally I'm rooting for it :popcorn:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 03:09:07 PM
Prohibition is definitely the way to go.
Thanks to alcohol prohibition Al Capone was starved of an opportunity to forge a criminal empire trading contraband hooch. I'm sure Chicago was thankful that things like the St Valentines massacre never happened, all because nasty booze was banned.
Thanks to drug prohibition the Sinaloa cartel never had the means to become a powerful, military force that ruins the lives of countless thousands of mexican farmers.
I'm sure gun prohibition will have exactly the same effect. Personally I'm rooting for it :popcorn:
It's not about guns. It's about control of people. It's about knowing what's best for everyone.
Surely, P3nt, you want somebody watching out for your best interests, right? Telling you what you can and cannot do, to keep you
safe.
I think we're looking at this all wrong. RWHN isn't here to break anything. He's the Token Liberal™. You know how in the 70s, all the sit-coms had a Token Black Guy whose purpose was to reinforce all the nasty and unfair stereotypes about black people? That's what RWHN is for liberals, on PD. He apparently wandered off the set of a Rush Limbaugh forum at some point, and forgot to drop the act.
I'm certainly not a Liberal.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:23:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 03:09:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:04:27 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
So what would have more teeth?
For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.
So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.
First class police state you're designing in your head, there.
I don't agree that it would be a curtailment of rights, as we have already discussed at length.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 04:29:18 PM
I'm certainly not a Liberal.
Depends. One kind of liberal is your Madison-Franklin-Henry kind of liberal. Then there's the save the whales Berkeley kind of liberal. Then there's the kind of liberal that knows what's best for everyone, and wants everyone to be SAFE. These are the same assholes who decide to outlaw smoking in all taverns, for example (as if people in taverns are concerned about their health).
Guess which one you come off as?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 04:51:42 PMThese are the same assholes who decide to outlaw smoking in all taverns, for example (as if people in taverns are concerned about their health).
Bartenders have lungs too. It's a workplace wellness issue.
I would describe myself as more of a Centrist, if we are going to use a common traditional traditional political categorization.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 04:57:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 04:51:42 PMThese are the same assholes who decide to outlaw smoking in all taverns, for example (as if people in taverns are concerned about their health).
Bartenders have lungs too. It's a workplace wellness issue.
I would describe myself as more of a Centrist, if we are going to use a common traditional traditional political categorization.
Everyone considers them a centrist.
And taverns should have the right to decide if they are smoking or non-smoking, provided they advertize their status.
But I wouldn't expect you to have any give on that issue, either.
So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?
Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.
A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.
Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.
The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.
Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.
Quote from: V3X on January 31, 2013, 05:14:19 PM
So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?
Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.
A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.
Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.
The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.
Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.
I think you're confusing "rights" with "capabilities". True, you aren't granted rights, but you aren't born with them, either. They are first seized, then assumed.
But you are 100% right about the government's role...Which is why the constitution isn't a list of rights, but rather an inclusive list of government powers (Patrick Henry objected to the bill of rights on two grounds...First, that it would confuse the purpose of the constitution, and that it would make rights seem inclusive, rather than exclusive.).
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 04:49:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:23:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 03:09:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:04:27 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
So what would have more teeth?
For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.
So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.
First class police state you're designing in your head, there.
I don't agree that it would be a curtailment of rights, as we have already discussed at length.
How on earth do you rationalize the idea that infringing on someones right to keep and bear arms does not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms?
Quote from: V3X on January 31, 2013, 05:14:19 PM
So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?
Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.
A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.
Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.
The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.
Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.
[Devil's Advocate/Troll]
So, was
Loving v. Virginia an improper action on the part of the government?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 04:49:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:23:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 03:09:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:04:27 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
So what would have more teeth?
For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.
So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.
First class police state you're designing in your head, there.
I don't agree that it would be a curtailment of rights, as we have already discussed at length.
We haven't discussed; you have asserted the above. And you are utterly incorrect, no matter how many thin you slice it.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 31, 2013, 05:19:38 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 04:49:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:23:33 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 03:09:56 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 03:04:27 AM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 02:33:46 AM
Legislation that didn't do jack the first time, and will effect the class of weapons that are involved in a very small amount of total deaths caused by weapons simply so that it will pave the way to further restrict other classes of firearms is good in your eyes?
That legislation was shitty and full of holes and is an inadequate measuring stick. Perhaps something with more teeth and less holes will work better.
So what would have more teeth?
For starters, in my opinion, it probably should include more weapons, what weapons are included should be based on crime data. Also, The sunset clause should be eliminated.
So, innocent peoples' rights should be curtailed based on the preferences of criminals.
First class police state you're designing in your head, there.
I don't agree that it would be a curtailment of rights, as we have already discussed at length.
How on earth do you rationalize the idea that infringing on someones right to keep and bear arms does not infringe on their right to keep and bear arms?
Because rights are, to RWHN, an impediment to Utopia.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 31, 2013, 05:19:53 PM
Quote from: V3X on January 31, 2013, 05:14:19 PM
So, a position in support of outlawing drugs, guns, and smoking is now a "Centrist" position?
Okay... since we're beating around the Constitutional bush here, I'm gonna go all Thomas Paine on you for a minute.
A "Right" is not something you or anyone else, or any government, has any authority to grant or deny. A "right" is something that already is. In a natural state, everything is permitted. There are no rules; no responsibilities; only rights. Every man for himself. Natural law.
Now, since that clearly will not do if we have decided to have a civilization, it is necessary to institute some kind of authority among ourselves in order to provide for some kind of curtailment of some natural rights. Theft and murder, for example, are to things that will quickly burn a society down if they go unchecked. So we have decided that as a group of primates who would rather cooperate with than kill each other, that we can't allow ourselves to indulge in these rights. So, we establish a government and -- this is important so listen up -- give it a monopoly on these rights.
The rights that we regulate with our government do not disappear. They are simply claimed by our government, and our legal system gives that government the moral authority to exercise these rights. So murder and theft don't go away: they become the penal/justice system and the tax system.
Now here is the main part of the entire "governing ourselves" part where you seem to diverge from the established philosophy of democratic self-rule. See, the government is not the source of rights. It is a system for blocking access to natural rights. It is also a system that is defined by the people it governs. So, if the people say "fuck you, I have a right to my guns," then the proper response from the government is, "yes, sir." Not, "yeah but..." And if you disagree with the popular sentiment that people have a right to their guns, then the proper course of action for you to take is to convince enough people to forfeit that right that they tell the government to block it, not work to have the government preemptively block access to that right before the people are ready for it.
[Devil's Advocate/Troll]
So, was Loving v. Virginia an improper action on the part of the government?
The difference between outlawing a prohibition on interracial marriage and outlawing firearms is that "outlawing a prohibition" is effectively a double negative, resulting in a net positive for rights, whereas outlawing firearms is just a negative resulting in a net loss of rights. Not that everything always boils down to math, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 03:36:04 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 03:09:07 PM
Prohibition is definitely the way to go.
Thanks to alcohol prohibition Al Capone was starved of an opportunity to forge a criminal empire trading contraband hooch. I'm sure Chicago was thankful that things like the St Valentines massacre never happened, all because nasty booze was banned.
Thanks to drug prohibition the Sinaloa cartel never had the means to become a powerful, military force that ruins the lives of countless thousands of mexican farmers.
I'm sure gun prohibition will have exactly the same effect. Personally I'm rooting for it :popcorn:
It's not about guns. It's about control of people. It's about knowing what's best for everyone.
Surely, P3nt, you want somebody watching out for your best interests, right? Telling you what you can and cannot do, to keep you safe.
I don't give a fuck, since I'm going to do what the hell I please anyway. If anything I like shit being illegal cos it adds that extra little fun to the activity. That little extra thrill you get when they turn it into a game of cops and robbers. Realistically, tho, I don't like being told what I can and can't do, on principle, rather than because it prevents me in any practical way.
Give you an example. Couple of weeks back me and P3nTGF head into town to see Hobbit at the local cinema. Local cinema is in the middle of a huge retail park in town, with a carpark half a mile square, the cinema at the far end from where we drive in. So we watch the movie and we come out and there's all these fucking gate barriers blocking the way we came in, forcing us to drive out the other end and add half a mile journey onto our route.
They do this because all the boy racers in central scotland like to use this carpark as a drag strip after dark and, rather than either leave them to it or (perish the thought) do their fucking job, the local filth decide that stopping everyone from driving through the carpark is the way forward.
I figure if there was a chance of any scum being nearby there wouldn't be a need for gates in the first place, so I drove up to the far end, where there's only one barrier between us and the exit, then I nipped out the car, kicked the lock open and fucked off into the sunset.
Other people don't seem to think this way. They just spend the extra buck o-five on petrol and bitch and whine about the law. Law doesn't apply to me so I don't really see the point in bitching.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 06:08:59 PM
I don't give a fuck, since I'm going to do what the hell I please anyway. If anything I like shit being illegal cos it adds that extra little fun to the activity. That little extra thrill you get when they turn it into a game of cops and robbers. Realistically, tho, I don't like being told what I can and can't do, on principle, rather than because it prevents me in any practical way.
DING DING DING!
Give that horrible Scotsman a cigar.
that works only for things that you are doing for a thrill in the first place.
in the current context, i could imagine that taking your rifle into the woods that you have illegally modified for automatic fire might give an additional little thrill as opposed to doing it the arduous (and expensive) legal way.
however, using a firearm for home defense, despite being illegal (in a hypothetical anti-gun future), would not bring me any additional jollies. when what you are wanting to do is some act with intrinsic official sanction then changing the law does, in fact, prevent you in a very practical and insurmountable way.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 06:50:37 PM
that works only for things that you are doing for a thrill in the first place.
in the current context, i could imagine that taking your rifle into the woods that you have illegally modified for automatic fire might give an additional little thrill as opposed to doing it the arduous (and expensive) legal way.
however, using a firearm for home defense, despite being illegal (in a hypothetical anti-gun future), would not bring me any additional jollies. when what you are wanting to do is some act with intrinsic official sanction then changing the law does, in fact, prevent you in a very practical and insurmountable way.
A firearm is a stupid home defense weapon. You're more likely to have rounds go through the walls with a "HELLO, NURSE" sticker on them.
If you want to defend your house, buy a crowbar.
The 2nd amendment isn't about home defense.
while i agree with your final statement, the erosion of of it certainly impacts our ability of home defense.
and i would disagree with your first statement, conditionally. frangible safety rounds like Glasser makes, or, my preference, bird shot make the issue of overpenetration manageable. Fundamentally, however, you need to be aware of your target, and what's behind your target. (no small task, given the pressures, i understand)
Regardless, i would say that a firearm beats a stick. even a steel stick. just my opinion, and i'm not looking to press it, though.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 07:00:18 PM
while i agree with your final statement, the erosion of of it certainly impacts our ability of home defense.
and i would disagree with your first statement, conditionally. frangible safety rounds like Glasser makes, or, my preference, bird shot make the issue of overpenetration manageable. Fundamentally, however, you need to be aware of your target, and what's behind your target. (no small task, given the pressures, i understand)
Regardless, i would say that a firearm beats a stick. even a steel stick. just my opinion, and i'm not looking to press it, though.
Good luck being aware of your surroundings adequately when you just woke up stuffed full of adrenaline.
And a crowbar in tight quarters beats ANYTHING except maybe a flamethrower.
And you know what THAT means!
CROWBAR REGULATIONS!
:banana:
i hope not!
i get accused of carrying a concealed crowbar frequently...
*eyebrow wiggle*
I dunno man, ever since the UK did away with firearms, their murder rate has gone down to zero. I think it's a good idea.
Quote from: V3X on January 31, 2013, 07:26:46 PM
I dunno man, ever since the UK did away with firearms, their murder rate has gone down to zero. I think it's a good idea.
South Africa's gun laws are insanely rigorous, which totally keeps the bad guys from having AK47s and RPGs.
But I'm sure they're going to roll the non-functional gun laws in with other legislation.
Also, cocaine is illegal in the USA, which is why nobody ever uses it.
A. Gun Prohibition = no gun crime;
B. Therefore, Murder Prohibition = no murder;
C. Therefore, Sandy Hook Elementary never happened;
D. Therefore what is the fucking problem? Everybody go back to sleep.
so, the counterargument being that we maintain murder laws despite the fact that they don't prevent murders is because the laws are punitive in purpose, rather than preventive.
the reason this can't be applied to gun bans is that they are attempting to address only the misuse of firearms, which is already covered under the murder laws. their legitimate use sets firearm ownership apart from the other things we have banned, which have no accepted legitimate purpose.
so, this argument, which is used on both sides, is DOA, and it should go away, no?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 07:51:26 PM
so, the counterargument being that we maintain murder laws despite the fact that they don't prevent murders is because the laws are punitive in purpose, rather than preventive.
the reason this can't be applied to gun bans is that they are attempting to address only the misuse of firearms, which is already covered under the murder laws. their legitimate use sets firearm ownership apart from the other things we have banned, which have no accepted legitimate purpose.
so, this argument, which is used on both sides, is DOA, and it should go away, no?
If this thread were actually about firearms and/or firearms, you'd have a point.
But it's not.
oh, yeah...
:lol:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 08:02:22 PM
oh, yeah...
:lol:
Any time that you think it is, just read the thread title.
This thread is about RWHN's butthurt, and his desire to share it. Therefore, he titled in such a fashion as to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is some sort of nationalistic, mouth-breathing po'bucker.
So, you know, he can go fuck himself. I'm just here for the lulz.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 02:21:10 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 05:45:49 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 12:39:55 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 12:17:40 AM
No, fuck the Constitution on its own merits.
Hellooooooooo, Captain Utopia!
At least he finally said it flat-out. :lulz:
Well, it's not exactly a surprise, is it?
Not in the slightest.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
And you know what THAT means!
CROWBAR REGULATIONS!
:banana:
Why not. We already have a bunch of dog regulations. :horrormirth:
I started to apply for housing a few months ago and they told me I couldn't have a dog over 20 lbs.
LET'S GO LIVE IN THE PROJECTS AND KEEP A CHIHUAHUA. THAT'LL INTIMIDATE 'EM.
Nobody neeeeeds a dog over 20 lbs.!
also:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0mNctogion0geAoaJcf8r7sCoilu0soGAmrR_mKGvOPxQZXZeKg)
Quote from: Wuli Fufu on January 31, 2013, 08:31:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
And you know what THAT means!
CROWBAR REGULATIONS!
:banana:
Why not. We already have a bunch of dog regulations. :horrormirth:
I started to apply for housing a few months ago and they told me I couldn't have a dog over 20 lbs.
LET'S GO LIVE IN THE PROJECTS AND KEEP A CHIHUAHUA. THAT'LL INTIMIDATE 'EM.
That's just the property owner's policy... but some cities do have laws banning certain breeds. Because, the important thing to look at is which breeds of dog are being used in illegal activities like dogfighting or are being trained by their owners to be vicious, and ban those breeds in order to reduce the problem.
Effective in very much the same way in which banning the sale of pseudoephedrine without a prescription has totally reduced Oregon's methamphetamine problem.
Because all the data shows that criminals, when informed that something profitable is now even more illegal, typically simply throw their hands up and walk away from crime.
After thinking about this for a good long while now, the most succinct way I can think of putting my opinion is this:
Ban = how retards solve problems
eg:
Problem: There's a problem with a few brown people blowing up buildings and planes and such
Solution: Ban brown people
Problem: This one time a gay guy raped someone
Solution: Ban teh gays
Problem: Someone choked on some food
Solution: Ban food
Problem: A bunch of kids got shot
Solution: WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
Burhkas. Because people can't control themselves.
That's why they need people like RWHN, to tell them what to do.
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
Well you are a woman and therefore irrational.
:mullet:
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
We could just amputate everyone's sex organs.
IT'S FOR YOUR SAFETY. IF EVEN ONE CHILD IS SAVED IT'S WORTH IT.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the world was actually as black/white as everyone in this thread is pretending that it is.
Many and more of these problems would be easily solved if we just got rid of all of the humans in one go.
You don't want to address the symptom and ignore the disease.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
Do you police the behaviour of victims OR the most common perpetrators?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 08:02:22 PM
oh, yeah...
:lol:
Any time that you think it is, just read the thread title.
This thread is about RWHN's butthurt, and his desire to share it. Therefore, he titled in such a fashion as to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is some sort of nationalistic, mouth-breathing po'bucker.
So, you know, he can go fuck himself. I'm just here for the lulz.
Yeah, the butthurt of an epidemic of gun violence that is going unaddressed. The butthurt of a toxic gun, unchecked gun culture that is leading to 87 needless deaths every fucking day. Yeah, that shit DOES piss me off.
Quote from: Pixie on February 01, 2013, 12:00:14 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
Do you police the behaviour of victims OR the most common perpetrators?
That is a really interesting point, especially within the context of rape and sexual assault. Either way you slice it, it, to me, seems to be infantilizing one gender or the other.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 31, 2013, 11:54:19 PM
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the world was actually as black/white as everyone in this thread is pretending that it is.
SWEET JESUS, THE IRONY!
:lolchix:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 08:02:22 PM
oh, yeah...
:lol:
Any time that you think it is, just read the thread title.
This thread is about RWHN's butthurt, and his desire to share it. Therefore, he titled in such a fashion as to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is some sort of nationalistic, mouth-breathing po'bucker.
So, you know, he can go fuck himself. I'm just here for the lulz.
Yeah, the butthurt of an epidemic of gun violence that is going unaddressed. The butthurt of a toxic gun, unchecked gun culture that is leading to 87 needless deaths every fucking day. Yeah, that shit DOES piss me off.
Naw. What pisses you off is life. If you'd had any intention of having an honest discussion, you wouldn't have titled the thread in a manner designed to paint everyone who isn't 169% on board with you as some po'bucker yahoo.
So, you know, fuck off.
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on February 01, 2013, 12:58:25 AM
Quote from: Pixie on February 01, 2013, 12:00:14 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
Do you police the behaviour of victims OR the most common perpetrators?
That is a really interesting point, especially within the context of rape and sexual assault. Either way you slice it, it, to me, seems to be infantilizing one gender or the other.
It was kind of my point.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2013, 01:03:31 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 12:03:56 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 31, 2013, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 31, 2013, 08:02:22 PM
oh, yeah...
:lol:
Any time that you think it is, just read the thread title.
This thread is about RWHN's butthurt, and his desire to share it. Therefore, he titled in such a fashion as to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is some sort of nationalistic, mouth-breathing po'bucker.
So, you know, he can go fuck himself. I'm just here for the lulz.
Yeah, the butthurt of an epidemic of gun violence that is going unaddressed. The butthurt of a toxic gun, unchecked gun culture that is leading to 87 needless deaths every fucking day. Yeah, that shit DOES piss me off.
Naw. What pisses you off is life.
You really seem to have a hard on for this idea that I'm miserable. Does it give you a tingle down your leg too? Dude, life is golden for me right now. I just want to see less people snuffed out by guns so they have the same opportunities.
QuoteIf you'd had any intention of having an honest discussion, you wouldn't have titled the thread in a manner designed to paint everyone who isn't 169% on board with you as some po'bucker yahoo.
Then don't discuss the topic. Problem solved.
QuoteSo, you know, fuck off.
The internet tough guy approach is so 2005.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 01:27:14 AM
Then don't discuss the topic. Problem solved.
You may have noticed that I haven't discussed it since page 6.
And "fuck off" isn't internet tough guy. It's just "fuck off".
Uh, okay, but I'm not going to fuck off. So you are wasting your breath. I mean, why would I?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 01:55:56 AM
Uh, okay, but I'm not going to fuck off. So you are wasting your breath. I mean, why would I?
Consider it a suggestion, not an order.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2013, 01:58:05 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 01:55:56 AM
Uh, okay, but I'm not going to fuck off. So you are wasting your breath. I mean, why would I?
Consider it a suggestion, not an order.
Hmm, okay......let me think......I'm going to go with "no".
Sorry about that.
And "fucking off" should totally be banned. I'm going to suggest that to Susan Collins. Do you thing she'd sponsor a "fuck off" ban bill? I bet she would.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 02:01:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 01, 2013, 01:58:05 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 01:55:56 AM
Uh, okay, but I'm not going to fuck off. So you are wasting your breath. I mean, why would I?
Consider it a suggestion, not an order.
Hmm, okay......let me think......I'm going to go with "no".
Sorry about that.
I didn't expect you to. You still may have a shred of dignity left, so you really DO have to keep going.
Oh, well that's a relief. :lol:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on January 25, 2013, 06:33:23 PM
of course, there's the obvious passage
John 3:16 -- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten gun, that whosoever should holster it should not perish, but have everlasting Liberty.
I'm keeping this. Forever. I'll always credit you. If anyone asks to be linked to you, I'll give them your G+, to protect your privacy.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
Wait... are you talking about making rape ILLEGAL and punishable by law? Obviously, that isn't working, so what we need to do is BAN PENISES, or at least make them harder for regular people to use.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 01, 2013, 07:32:57 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
Wait... are you talking about making rape ILLEGAL and punishable by law? Obviously, that isn't working, so what we need to do is BAN PENISES, or at least make them harder for regular people to use.
I THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL SUGGESTION, BABY
\
:kojak:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 01, 2013, 08:43:59 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 01, 2013, 07:32:57 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
Wait... are you talking about making rape ILLEGAL and punishable by law? Obviously, that isn't working, so what we need to do is BAN PENISES, or at least make them harder for regular people to use.
I THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL SUGGESTION, BABY
\
:kojak:
:lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 01, 2013, 04:17:28 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 01, 2013, 08:43:59 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 01, 2013, 07:32:57 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 31, 2013, 10:55:30 PM
Quote from: Pixie on January 31, 2013, 10:47:30 PM
Quote from: Wiley Quixote on January 31, 2013, 09:53:14 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 31, 2013, 09:52:05 PM
You know how we can stop rape? Ban women being unchaperoned!
And only allow them to be seen in public when dressed head to toe in a loose shapeless black sack.
I personally prefer not allowing dudes out unsupervised and without a blindfold as the option. :P
I prefer just not allowing rape but then I've never been into misogyny or feminism
Wait... are you talking about making rape ILLEGAL and punishable by law? Obviously, that isn't working, so what we need to do is BAN PENISES, or at least make them harder for regular people to use.
I THINK THAT'S A WONDERFUL SUGGESTION, BABY
\
:kojak:
:lulz:
They can still MOLEST.
Make sure you get the HANDS, too. And the toes and anything else that can TOUCH ANYTHING.
Fuck it, LETS JUST PUT RAZOR WIRE AROUND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND MAKE EVERYBODY DO SLAVE LABOR AND -
Oh, wait, that's pretty much what's happening.
Allow me to reitterate: "Safe" is not a healthy condition for the primate mind.
Neither is living in constant fear, of course. Like damn near everything else, you have to find a spot somewhere in between.
Great, but no one is seriously proposing something to guarantee absolute safety all the time. The proposal is to increase safety, to decrease violence. No one ever expects to eliminate threats, because that is impossible. But it is possible to work towards fewer threats, or in this case, to make those threats more survivable.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 07:03:28 PM
Great, but no one is seriously proposing something to guarantee absolute safety all the time. The proposal is to increase safety, to decrease violence. No one ever expects to eliminate threats, because that is impossible. But it is possible to work towards fewer threats, or in this case, to make those threats more survivable.
So far, you haven't offered any of the above.
Sure I have, you just don't agree with them.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 01, 2013, 10:53:44 PM
Sure I have, you just don't agree with them.
Yeah, because they've, you know, been proven not to work in America.
"Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently."
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 02, 2013, 02:10:45 AM
"Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently."
"Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity."
Of course you realize the last clause of the quote I posted means that, by definition, you AREN'T doing the same thing over again.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 02, 2013, 02:14:38 AM
Of course you realize the last clause of the quote I posted means that, by definition, you AREN'T doing the same thing over again.
Of course you are. The fundamental problem is still there. Americans won't accept it, and in fact become MORE violent. The statistics are right there, where I posted them, a few dozen pages back.
It's the same old Utopian shit, the big fucking ideas that never work.
ONE MORE PAGE!
WE CAN DO IT!
:winner:
:dream:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
[/size]
i'd prefer to see him at the knob creek shoot, or the big sandy shoot.
all the rich elmer fudds are more than willing to throw the riff raff with their non-skeet guns under the bus as long as their shotguns are protected.
I love this thread.
Almost there! Almost there!
We can do this, you guys!
idk i think RWHN has a point
i mean...
guns, right?
those things are dangerous.
There we go. 50 pages.
Media frenzy validated.
You guys are funny. :lulz:
QuoteA famous American marksman and author was shot dead yesterday on a Texas rifle range.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/most-lethal-sniper-in-us-history-chris-kyle-shot-dead-on-texas-gun-range-8478695.html
Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who claimed to have been the most prolific sniper in American history, had a bounty put on his head by insurgents in Iraq, who dubbed him "The Devil of Ramadi."
He was at Rough Creek Lodge's shooting range near Forth Worth, Texas, with another man.
Both were fatally shot.
Witnesses said a gunman opened fire on the men at around 3:30 yesterday afternoon before fleeing in a pick-up truck belonging to one of the victims, according to a local newspaper.
The newspaper said a 25-year-old man was later taken into custody nearby and that charges were expected. The motive for the shooting is unclear.
So, being good with a gun AND being on a firing range STILL won't protect you from some random asshole who has a grudge . . . just saying
I pointed that out about 20 pages back, with the Foreign Policy study on shootings in America, that found that cases where bystanders with firearms intervened were usually only successful when police officers or soldiers were the bystanders in question.
But I don't think anyone here has ever claimed otherwise.
Quote from: Cain on February 03, 2013, 03:30:10 PM
I pointed that out about 20 pages back, with the Foreign Policy study on shootings in America, that found that cases where bystanders with firearms intervened were usually only successful when police officers or soldiers were the bystanders in question.
But I don't think anyone here has ever claimed otherwise.
Oh, I'm not saying any different, I just couldn't resist the delicious timing of the incident. That and I can't wait to see how people react to it. [That's people in general not people here in particular]
edit for errant hash sign
Quote from: MMIX on February 03, 2013, 03:55:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 03, 2013, 03:30:10 PM
I pointed that out about 20 pages back, with the Foreign Policy study on shootings in America, that found that cases where bystanders with firearms intervened were usually only successful when police officers or soldiers were the bystanders in question.
But I don't think anyone here has ever claimed otherwise.
Oh, I'm not saying any different, I just couldn't resist the delicious timing of the incident. That and I can't wait to see how people react to it. [That's people in general not people here in particular]
edit for errant hash sign
Murder has "delicious timing"?
That's quite an attachment to your agenda you have there.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 03, 2013, 05:30:00 PM
Quote from: MMIX on February 03, 2013, 03:55:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 03, 2013, 03:30:10 PM
I pointed that out about 20 pages back, with the Foreign Policy study on shootings in America, that found that cases where bystanders with firearms intervened were usually only successful when police officers or soldiers were the bystanders in question.
But I don't think anyone here has ever claimed otherwise.
Oh, I'm not saying any different, I just couldn't resist the delicious timing of the incident. That and I can't wait to see how people react to it. [That's people in general not people here in particular]
edit for errant hash sign
Murder has "delicious timing"?
That's quite an attachment to your agenda you have there.
Yes, you are absolutely right, I could have as easily said "unfortunate" timing.
Blizzards can't stop the gun show!
http://www.sunjournal.com/news/lewiston-auburn/2013/02/09/gun-show-enthusiasts-brave-storm-lewiston-event/1318891
Death across America.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50698918
[/size]
Weekend of blizzards unable to impede one man campaign for negative attention. More at 11.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 20, 2013, 12:56:35 AM
This thread is to celebrate the glory of American Gun Culture. Because, Fuck Yeah, Guns!
Quote from: Cain on February 11, 2013, 12:07:30 AM
Weekend of blizzards unable to impede one man campaign for negative attention. More at 11.
:lol:
Quote from: Cain on February 11, 2013, 12:07:30 AM
Weekend of blizzards unable to impede one man campaign for negative attention. More at 11.
CAIN WINS.
FATALITY.
Also,
Everyone posting ITT ---> :love: <--- RWHN
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 11, 2013, 03:07:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on February 11, 2013, 12:07:30 AM
Weekend of blizzards unable to impede one man campaign for negative attention. More at 11.
CAIN WINS.
FATALITY.
Uh, yeah, I'm totally wounded over here.
You guys are so silly. :lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 11, 2013, 03:10:03 AM
Also,
Everyone posting ITT ---> :love: <--- RWHN
What does that even mean? C'mon, can't you converse in anything other than GIF's and thoughtless meme-speak? Let's raise the bar a bit here.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 11, 2013, 03:19:07 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 11, 2013, 03:10:03 AM
Also,
Everyone posting ITT ---> :love: <--- RWHN
What does that even mean? C'mon, can't you converse in anything other than GIF's and thoughtless meme-speak? Let's raise the bar a bit here.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3qi05XNdY1ruoy68o1_500.gif)
Why, my yes that IS very thought provoking. Well done V3X!
I see the attention-whoring continues. :boring:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 11, 2013, 03:19:07 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 11, 2013, 03:10:03 AM
Also,
Everyone posting ITT ---> :love: <--- RWHN
What does that even mean? C'mon, can't you converse in anything other than GIF's and thoughtless meme-speak? Let's raise the bar a bit here.
Why?
We should all strive to live up to our full potential!
That's MY American Dream!
Saw this coming from the word go, once again the Dems cave:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17373761-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate-bill?lite
[/size]
[/size]
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 19, 2013, 07:44:37 PM
Saw this coming from the word go, once again the Dems cave:
Yep. We both called it.
We did, however, manage to reach 50 pages. So, there's that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 19, 2013, 07:44:37 PM
Saw this coming from the word go, once again the Dems cave:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17373761-assault-weapons-ban-dropped-from-senate-bill?lite
[/size]
[/size]
Clearly, they hate the children.
No, clearly they are cowardly sacks of shit.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 20, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
No, clearly they are cowardly sacks of shit.
So run for office. Show them how it's done.
Because we know that politics without shitty compromises has never caused problems. Anywhere.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 20, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
No, clearly they are cowardly sacks of shit.
how are they cowardly for dropping a part of the legislation pack that they know for certain would resign it to the dustbin?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on March 20, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 20, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
No, clearly they are cowardly sacks of shit.
how are they cowardly for dropping a part of the legislation pack that they know for certain would resign it to the dustbin?
Dramatic, Quixotic gestures
save lives.
Nevermind, of course, the fact that assault weapons aren't the problem.
Neither are pistols, shotguns, bazookas, flamethrowers, muskets or even derringers.
Homicidal Americans?
Born and raised in a permissive gun culture?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on March 20, 2013, 01:54:07 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 20, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
No, clearly they are cowardly sacks of shit.
how are they cowardly for dropping a part of the legislation pack that they know for certain would resign it to the dustbin?
I have no reason to believe it was ever a serious consideration and wasn't solely to placate their dimwitted and gullible electorate.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 20, 2013, 03:22:51 PM
Homicidal Americans?
YOU fuckers dumped all of your DAMAGE CASES in ONE PLACE for 400 years, and then you FUCKED OFF and left us UNATTENDED for 220 years.
What the fuck did you THINK was gonna happen?
Australia?
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 20, 2013, 03:33:56 PM
Australia?
That's where you sent thieves.
What did you send HERE? Oh, yeah, Oliver Cromwell's pals, and everyone else who objected to not being able to kill people who didn't follow their sect's religious/social rules.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 20, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 20, 2013, 03:33:56 PM
Australia?
That's where you sent thieves.
What did you send HERE? Oh, yeah, Oliver Cromwell's pals, and everyone else who objected to not being able to kill people who didn't follow their sect's religious/social rules.
But RWHN says we're
"permissive". :lulz:
Wait a minute I think I finally figured this out, lets see if I get rich:
Criminals also having guns gives them an unfair advantage over law abiding citizens.
People have the right to defend themselves, as your senator I will be lobbying to allow all decent, upstanding citizens who love amarica access to nerve gas and weaponised biological pathogens.
Quote from: Faust on March 20, 2013, 04:02:43 PM
Wait a minute I think I finally figured this out, lets see if I get rich:
Criminals also having guns gives them an unfair advantage over law abiding citizens.
People have the right to defend themselves, as your senator I will be lobbying to allow all decent, upstanding citizens who love amarica access to nerve gas and weaponised biological pathogens.
SHIT YEAH.
I like an outside set of eyes on the problem, just as with any problem, but appeal to ridicule arguments are precisely why the teabagger crowd gets so much traction with the "stay out of our fucking business" meme.
Just saying.
Wait a minute I think I finally figured this out, lets see if I get rich:
Criminals also having guns gives them an unfair advantage over law abiding citizens.
People have the right to defend themselves, as your senator I will be lobbying to allow all decent, upstanding citizens who love amarica access to nerve gas and weaponised biological pathogens.
Okay, I tried.
Leaving this thread.
ETA: And any other conversations with RWHN's smarmy puritan ass.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 20, 2013, 04:32:40 PM
Okay, I tried.
Leaving this thread.
ETA: And any other conversations with RWHN's smarmy puritan ass.
Yes, I am an arrogant, smarmy asshole, who has strong opinions. We ARE still on PD.COM aren't we?
And it isn't about being puritanical. The gun culture in America is toxic and atrocious, but is insulated with 2nd Amendment bullshit. It pisses me off.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 20, 2013, 04:27:38 PM
I like an outside set of eyes on the problem, just as with any problem, but appeal to ridicule arguments are precisely why the teabagger crowd gets so much traction with the "stay out of our fucking business" meme.
Just saying.
I wasn't making an appeal to ridicule, I seriously believe that if there was access to more dangerous weapons for everyone the problem would be solved faster.
Quote from: Faust on March 20, 2013, 04:46:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 20, 2013, 04:27:38 PM
I like an outside set of eyes on the problem, just as with any problem, but appeal to ridicule arguments are precisely why the teabagger crowd gets so much traction with the "stay out of our fucking business" meme.
Just saying.
I wasn't making an appeal to ridicule, I seriously believe that if there was access to more dangerous weapons for everyone the problem would be solved faster.
well, the flamethrowers that Roger referenced are, as yet, unregulated...
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 20, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
No, clearly they are cowardly sacks of shit.
Sounds like you need to run for office, since you'd do such a better job. :lulz:
I can see the slogan now:
RWHN: At least he's not LePage!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 20, 2013, 04:27:38 PM
I like an outside set of eyes on the problem, just as with any problem, but appeal to ridicule arguments are precisely why the teabagger crowd gets so much traction with the "stay out of our fucking business" meme.
Just saying.
It's hard not to get ridiculous when you look at the American gun thing. Any outsider who doesn't think it's hilarious that some kid, on their way to school, in an area where the atmosphere is 99.9% flying bullets, gets shot and the reaction is some variation on shocked surprise, is probably an american ex-pat who's still programmed with the holy constitution meme and thus incapable of getting the joke.
Quote from: Balls Wellington on March 20, 2013, 05:32:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 20, 2013, 10:48:03 AM
No, clearly they are cowardly sacks of shit.
Sounds like you need to run for office, since you'd do such a better job. :lulz:
Your math seems to be of the fuzzy variety.
And your idea of how politics actually works seems to be of the fuzzy variety.
How it "works" in America? Oh, I know all too well how it actually "works" in America. And this is a perfect example of how it "works".
Yes, good thing all the other large groups of humans are different than this large group of humans.
Your idealism would almost be cute if it weren't accompanied by such a hard-on for actually imposing your ideals on innocent people.
THIS THREAD FOREVER AND EVER! FUCK THESE THYROID PILLS! 6:30 A.M. still haven't slept.