• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

America and Guns,

Unabogie said:
I think owning guns is stupid. I think guns are a blight on society
Click to expand...
Technicality: Whether something is bad for society overall, and whether it's stupid for an individual to do it if society allows it, are two different issues. The only way that "contributing to a blight on society" applies to individuals is not a matter of stupidity but something else, like responsibility, sanity, morality, or sociopathy. These things are different from intelligence or stupidity.

Unabogie said:
Society would be far better off if owning guns was viewed as being as toxic and backwards as...
Click to expand...
"Toxic" and "backward" could go in that list I just made in my last sentence, but that's still different from "stupid".
 
And this is why there will never be a solution to the gun violence. Definitions about "gun nut" and "responsible gun owner" are unclear, discussions quickly turn to name calling and marginalizing, and the whole discussion darts away at amazing speed away from the facts, possible solutions, and reason and logic. Instead, let's call people crazy.

Because that's how to win.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
This might be interesting. There might be a change in politics on this one:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...Could-pushback-against-gun-culture-be-working

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...e-to-think-big-or-shut-up-on-gun-control.html

Warning! Don't read the comments section.
Click to expand...

If America was like a cross between A Serbian Film and Spec Ops: The Line (Somalian edition) with a crime rate like Russia and Honduras where the state has the monopoly on violence then Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Saville would be revered but they are not because if a sex offender goes to prison he will either die in a gurgling rush of blood from his throat or when he gets out of jail he will not get a job because the employers will demand his Facebook passwords and they will start to use facial recognition software just like the clubs do and because lead was taken out of the air violence is down and cannot be caused by Page 3 or lads mags which have gone out of business because of the internet so what's the point of gun control?
 
Quad4_72 said:
I haven't posted on these forums in a while. Seems like the ignorance about guns has increased. So someone likes to have a pistol for competitive target shooting and you want society to make them feel embarrassed about it and label them as nut cases? Someone wants to keep a gun in a locked safe at home for self defense purposes and they are crazy?

You sound like you would be a part of the people seeking out witches in Salem.
Click to expand...

I have no noose or pile of dry tinder for them, only the label of eccentric. Their feeling like an oddity is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
 
Totovader said:
And this is why there will never be a solution to the gun violence. Definitions about "gun nut" and "responsible gun owner" are unclear, discussions quickly turn to name calling and marginalizing, and the whole discussion darts away at amazing speed away from the facts, possible solutions, and reason and logic. Instead, let's call people crazy.

Because that's how to win.
Click to expand...

As long as people insist on finding a moral dimension to inanimate objects, the possession of inanimate objects, or the potential use of inanimate objects, sense is not to be found. Owning guns is neither noble nor savage, commendable or condemnable. It is the use or misuse of guns that matters. In that way guns are exactly like penises.
 
From the CSM article:
Moreover, some gun policy experts argue, those determined to kill will find ways to do so, even if they have to obtain a gun on the black market. Indeed, “background checks do absolutely nothing to deter teenagers and young men from breaking into their parents’ gun locker, stealing legally owned weapons, and taking them to a school or other public places for murderous and suicidal purposes,” writes Mr. Barrett.
Click to expand...
I think it's great for gun opponents when lousy gun control measures fail to produce good results. The more it's proven that the 2nd amendment is the real problem, the better the chance that more people will want to get rid of it. Without the 2nd amendment to feed into the myth that the United States must exist on a foundation of armed citizens, real change might just happen.
 
Babbylonian said:
From the CSM article:

I think it's great for gun opponents when lousy gun control measures fail to produce good results. The more it's proven that the 2nd amendment is the real problem, the better the chance that more people will want to get rid of it. Without the 2nd amendment to feed into the myth that the United States must exist on a foundation of armed citizens, real change might just happen.
Click to expand...

I actually do think the 2nd Amendment is a problem. Mainly because in recent years it's being interpreted as being a near absolute right, and without meaningful regulation and limits, it seems to be turning the Constitution into a suicide pact. I'd like more focus on the "regulated" part of the 2A, and less on the "shall not be infringed" part. But if the second half of the amendment negates the first half, then we have no ability to reasonably control how guns are used in this country, and I find that unacceptable.
 
Babbylonian said:
From the CSM article:

Moreover, some gun policy experts argue, those determined to kill will find ways to do so, even if they have to obtain a gun on the black market. Indeed, “background checks do absolutely nothing to deter teenagers and young men from breaking into their parents’ gun locker, stealing legally owned weapons, and taking them to a school or other public places for murderous and suicidal purposes,” writes Mr. Barrett.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


All laws are useless by that standard.
 
Unabogie said:
I actually do think the 2nd Amendment is a problem. Mainly because in recent years it's being interpreted as being a near absolute right, and without meaningful regulation and limits, it seems to be turning the Constitution into a suicide pact. I'd like more focus on the "regulated" part of the 2A, and less on the "shall not be infringed" part. But if the second half of the amendment negates the first half, then we have no ability to reasonably control how guns are used in this country, and I find that unacceptable.
Click to expand...
It needs to be flushed. Other modern democracies do just fine without enshrining an individual's right to bear arms, and they survive without an absolute ban.
 
Unabogie said:
I actually do think the 2nd Amendment is a problem. Mainly because in recent years it's being interpreted as being a near absolute right, and without meaningful regulation and limits, it seems to be turning the Constitution into a suicide pact. I'd like more focus on the "regulated" part of the 2A, and less on the "shall not be infringed" part. But if the second half of the amendment negates the first half, then we have no ability to reasonably control how guns are used in this country, and I find that unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Regulated, of course, refers to the formation of state militias and not the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms... how did they put it... shall not be infringed.

Shall not. Pretty strong.

ETA: And as a point of fact, "regulated" does not mean regulated by the government in this context. It means well regulated: practiced, strong, ready.
 
Last edited:
Quad4_72 said:
I haven't posted on these forums in a while. Seems like the ignorance about guns has increased. So someone likes to have a pistol for competitive target shooting and you want society to make them feel embarrassed about it and label them as nut cases? Someone wants to keep a gun in a locked safe at home for self defense purposes and they are crazy?

You sound like you would be a part of the people seeking out witches in Salem.
Click to expand...

I'm just quietly thinking how ineffective this is likely to be. And right now I support harder rules on getting/owning guns - in terms of who can and the requirements in terms of psychiatric things. Certain bad choices on the part of anti-gunners could affect that. Hopefully not to the extent of forcing me to join the NRA (as I am not at all a fan). But, as I have noted here multiple times, the police have NO requirement to protect you and they are not that fast responding to calls.
 
Totovader said:
Regulated, of course, refers to the formation of state militias and not the right to keep and bear arms.

The right to keep and bear arms... how did they put it... shall not be infringed.

Shall not. Pretty strong.

ETA: And as a point of fact, "regulated" does not mean regulated by the government in this context. It means well regulated: practiced, strong, ready.
Click to expand...
You just reiterated everything I wrote.
 
Totovader said:
ETA: And as a point of fact, "regulated" does not mean regulated by the government in this context. It means well regulated: practiced, strong, ready.
Click to expand...

Because that is a totally accurate description of gun owners today?


Face it: the Second Amendment allowed citizens to keep guns so their could serve in the militia. Now that the US does not have a militia any more, all reasons for unrestricted gun ownership are invalid.
 
Chaos said:
Because that is a totally accurate description of gun owners today?


Face it: the Second Amendment allowed citizens to keep guns so their could serve in the militia. Now that the US does not have a militia any more, all reasons for unrestricted gun ownership are invalid.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The Second Amendment specifically refers to the peoples militia, not "The Militia." That means we have a right to organize into groups to protect our neighbors and cities. Neighborhood Watch is an example of this.

Plus, the argument that rights expire because we don't use them is just silly. We haven't had a soldier quartered in our homes for a pretty long time, so does that right go away?
 
Babbylonian said:
It needs to be flushed. Other modern democracies do just fine without enshrining an individual's right to bear arms, and they survive without an absolute ban.
Click to expand...

Other modern democracies "do just fine" without a first amendment too. Shall we just flush that while we're at it?

We don't need to be just like everyone else. I don't want to be just like everyone else.
 
Chaos said:
Because that is a totally accurate description of gun owners today?


Face it: the Second Amendment allowed citizens to keep guns so their could serve in the militia. Now that the US does not have a militia any more, all reasons for unrestricted gun ownership are invalid.
Click to expand...

The militia of the Constitution operates under the rules set by Congress, has officers chosen by the states and takes orders from the President when called to national service. We call it the National Guard.
 
Babbylonian said:
From the CSM article:

I think it's great for gun opponents when lousy gun control measures fail to produce good results. The more it's proven that the 2nd amendment is the real problem, the better the chance that more people will want to get rid of it. Without the 2nd amendment to feed into the myth that the United States must exist on a foundation of armed citizens, real change might just happen.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your position, I think, on guns, but I sincerely applaud you for your strategy. I have said multiple times here and elsewhere that attempts at legislation are the cheap way out, indicative of someone more interested in scoring short term social points than in meaningful reform. The 2nd Amendment as written obviously allows interpretations so varied as to make conflict over them inevitable, hence, the real answer is a constitutional amendment, either pro gun ownership or anti gun ownership.

All else is just flapping on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom