Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

Chrysia, I think you might need to re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

[Reaperitself]

[QUOTE=Chrysia;20079634]Umm, Subliminal stimuli has at best minor sway over thinking based on every professional study ever done.

Interesting summary. Why were they so heavily used in the past then?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Chrysia, I think you might need to re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

lol I guess I didn't lay it on thick enough. My fault I suppose.

[Grizzly Willy]

Interesting summary. Why were they so heavily used in the past then?

Because people thought they worked?

[Deleted]

Lol. Outdated?

Is the right to peaceably assemble outdated, too? Surely it is, our government tries its best to do what it pleases.

Is the right to free speech outdated? Surely it is, our government tries its best to ignore what we say.

Is the right to peacefully practice religion, and be free from it outdated? Surely it is, most of our elected officials say they are Christians.

What else do you find to be outdated, sir, or ma'am? What about freedom from search and seizure? We have the Patriot Act and probable cause.

What about in times of peace, we are permitted to reject quarter to a soldier? Besides, we're at war in the middle east, and the government can exercise eminent domain anyway, and seize your home if it finds its location to be particularly advantageous.

Exactly what do you intend with the "argument" that the second amendment is outdated? We do not live in a utopia, criminals do attack, and governments inexorably go completely out of control, as history shows. If you want to toss out the fire extinguisher and fire insurance simply because your kitchen has never caught on fire, then you are a fool.

Right to peaceably assemble; There are many restrictions placed on this right. Where, time, how long, what permits are needed, ect. The right still exists, but it has been updated to modern standards. I'm sure you're aware of this?

Right to free speech; Again, this has also been updated to meet modern society. Hate speech ring a bell? Inciting a riot ring a bell? I'm sure you would agree these are reasonable restrictions, yet they exist, and no ones beating on the door of the White House.

Right to practice religion; Thankfully this freedom still exists. I know there are millions of "god fearing" Christians out there that would love nothing more than to kill every Muslim in America. Most of these Christians are gun nuts too.

The right to keep and bear arms; Yes, many laws have been put into place in order to "control" the flow of weapons, who gets them and what kind. However, virtually every law written that regulates guns use and ownership has been circumvented by lobbyists in the NRA through yes men Republican types. It takes only a little bit of research to find this is a 100% true statement.

Believing that every American has the explicit right to own any type of firearm they choose in the quantities they choose is an OUTDATED and archaic ideal that needs to be brought up to snuff.

You site the patriot act, while I'm sure you have no idea what it actually says, but that's a topic for another day.

[Chrysia]

Interesting summary. Why were they so heavily used in the past then?

Same reason shock therapy was used heavily in the past. Because people thought it worked.

[Reaperitself]

You mean the government uses something first without testing it works and continues to do so for years even when the effects are negligible?

[Chrysia]

You mean the government uses something first without testing it works and continues to do so for years even when the effects are negligible?

Umm, absolutely. The government is frequently inefficient and stupid.

---------- Post added 2013-02-02 at 07:03 PM ----------

I'm making fun of people who actually believe Obama wants to ban all guns...

If he wants to ban all firearms, why is he using one...

Chrysia, I think you might need to re-calibrate your sarcasm detector.

Woops, yeah, I've seen too many people seriously saying that. Sarcasm doesn't convey easily over the internet.

[Corky1]

If you actually take time to read any of the bills that Fuckstein wants to push through they do list specific manufacturer and models of weapons. There is also a small section of the bill (thankfully it didn't get passed) that says any semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip, thumb-hole stock, or any weapon with a grip. That pretty much sums up ANY WEAPON! It's not Obama trying to do it. It's Feinstein.

[Deleted]

We already regulate guns quite heavily, I think it would be better for us to enforce our current regulations more effectively. (though I even have a problem with some of the current gun laws)

Again, this is a false statement. The vast majority of gun regulating laws have been circumvented in recent years. The ATF has literally zero control over monitoring weapons sales and coordinating background checks. I would suggest you actually read the current laws before you make such statements.

[Chrysia]

If you actually take time to read any of the bills that Fuckstein wants to push through they do list specific manufacturer and models of weapons. There is also a small section of the bill (thankfully it didn't get passed) that says any semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip, thumb-hole stock, or any weapon with a grip. That pretty much sums up ANY WEAPON! It's not Obama trying to do it. It's Feinstein.

Feinstein's bill has no chance of passing either house of Congress, so I don't take it seriously.

[Reaperitself]

I'd think I'd see more crap like "buy our product" if it were due to inexperience and ineffectiveness, and not phrases in national anthem clip that command the citizen to obey and such.

[Chrysia]

I'd think I'd see more crap like "buy our product" if it were due to inexperience and ineffectiveness, and not phrases in national anthem clip that command the citizen to obey and such.

Shit like that was used in TV commercials, right up until it was proven cost ineffective.

[oblivionx]

Again, this is a false statement. The vast majority of gun regulating laws have been circumvented in recent years. The ATF has literally zero control over monitoring weapons sales and coordinating background checks. I would suggest you actually read the current laws before you make such statements.

shrug

Know what prohibition failed so badly? Because Canada and Mexico didn't ban it too, not to mention plenty of other places.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'd think I'd see more crap like "buy our product" if it were due to inexperience and ineffectiveness, and not phrases in national anthem clip that command the citizen to obey and such.

Could you show us? You know, burden of proof and all that.

[Chrysia]

shrug

Know what prohibition failed so badly? Because Canada and Mexico didn't ban it too, not to mention plenty of other places.

Debatable. Prohibition actually decreased alcohol consumption (it's proven), but provided a huge boost to gangs through the sale of illicit alcohol. It's effectiveness, then, came at a greater cost than expected. That's why it was eventually repealed.

[Deleted]

shrug

Know what prohibition failed so badly? Because Canada and Mexico didn't ban it too, not to mention plenty of other places.

But I don't support prohibition of weapons, only strict regulation. I have never claimed to and I don't see how you draw that from my statement. Many people have said "Guns are regulated, no more laws!!!" I, on a certain level, agree with this statement. If the laws that are currently on the books had any way of being enforced I don't think we would be where we are. The problem lies mainly with the NRA. Things like handcuffing the ATF and stand your ground laws only embolden those who would do harm. If the laws that are on the books now COULD actually be enforced I don't think we would be having this discussion today.

[Reaperitself]

Proof? Am I supposed to show proof? You want a change in hundreds of years of established and working constitution of the United States themselves, and I am to provide evidence? You should defend your idea and convince others it's the right one, not me.

Stilll, because I'm unlike you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HiT5qYb27Y

[Master Jakken]

Even though I very much doubt it has even the slightest chance of passing, I support it. I always thought the original ban should have been renewed. Honestly can't see a legitimate reason for private citizens in general to need assault weapons.

It's for when their oppressive government rises up and tries to take away their babies.

[Chrysia]

Proof? Am I supposed to show proof? You want a change in hundreds of years of established and working constitution of the United States themselves, and I am to provide evidence? You should defend your idea and convince others it's the right one, not me.

Stilll, because I'm unlike you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HiT5qYb27Y

Yes, you are supposed to provide proof of claims.

Compelling, but no proof it works, nor that this is the original, unedited video. I'll find the original and frame by frame it.

EDIT: Also, that video seems to be from 1960. You know, before any studies had been done concerning Subliminal stimuli.