Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Noxx79]

It got shot down because you can't pass legislation accomplishing any police reform if your primary objective is to campaign on the need for police reform. Nothing else.

- - - Updated - - -



Who is having their right peaceably to assemble violated?

The 1st Amendment doesn't cover rioting, doesn't cover arson, doesn't cover vandalism, doesn't cover assault or menacing, so where those things are happening the police have an obligation to intervene... and if rioters shoot at them for trying, the police can and should shoot back.

I’m it taking about the rioters. I’m taking about the protestors. For instance the ones Trump gassed for no reason.

Or do you believe that the government can do no wrong??

Or if the government can violate the first amendment, why can’t they violate the second?


Pretty weird of you to suddenly come in on the side of banning guns.

[Stormdash]

Quick 1A tip sheet -

Chanting your own slogan in the street? Protected 1A activity

"Repeat our political slogan or I'm going to steal the food and drink you've paid this restaurant, or flip the table over" is not protected 1A activity. It's not even "speech", legally, it's a criminal act - extortion.

Building your own statue to deface in public as a political message? Protected 1A activity.

Destroying statues on public or private property that you, mostly in sheer ignorance, disapprove of politically? Not protected 1A activity. Again, it's not symbolic "speech", it's a criminal act, vandalism.

Burning a flag you own in public? Protected 1A activity.

Setting fire to the property, business, or dwelling place of another? Not protected 1A activity; it's arson, and possibly attempted murder depending on the circumstances.

Marching in the street, subject to a basic permitting requirement? Protected 1A speech, subject to a constitutionally valid content-neutral restraint on time, place, and manner.

Seizing control of the street and detaining drivers? Not 1A activity - criminal acts ranging from menacing and assault all the way up to false imprisonment and kidnapping.

[Noxx79]

Quick 1A tip sheet -

Chanting your own slogan in the street? Protected 1A activity

"Repeat our political slogan or I'm going to steal the food and drink you've paid this restaurant, or flip the table over" is not protected 1A activity. It's not even "speech", legally, it's a criminal act - extortion.

Building your own statue to deface in public as a political message? Protected 1A activity.

Destroying statues on public or private property that you, mostly in sheer ignorance, disapprove of politically? Not protected 1A activity. Again, it's not symbolic "speech", it's a criminal act, vandalism.

Burning a flag you own in public? Protected 1A activity.

Setting fire to the property, business, or dwelling place of another? Not protected 1A activity; it's arson, and possibly attempted murder depending on the circumstances.

Marching in the street, subject to a basic permitting requirement? Protected 1A speech, subject to a constitutionally valid content-neutral restraint on time, place, and manner.

Seizing control of the street and detaining drivers? Not 1A activity - criminal acts ranging from menacing and assault all the way up to false imprisonment and kidnapping.

So the protestors who were gassed in Washington DC had every right to shoot back.

Glad you’re consistent.

[Stormdash]

I’m it taking about the rioters. I’m taking about the protestors. For instance the ones Trump gassed for no reason.

Or do you believe that the government can do no wrong??

Or if the government can violate the first amendment, why can’t they violate the second?


Pretty weird of you to suddenly come in on the side of banning guns.

Lafayette Square was not a peaceful protest. I sat up for hours that night hoping and praying that the clearly out of control nutjobs didn't decide that the White House wasn't any different than a MIN or SEA police precinct and try to seize it, because they'd have been (rightfully) gunned down where they stood. I'm glad it was dispersed with non-lethal crowd control before any of them got themselves worked up enough to make the attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

No, if you fire on police using non-lethal crowd control to break up a riot you'll likely get shot, and you'll deserve it.

[Noxx79]

Lafayette Square was not a peaceful protest. I sat up for hours that night hoping and praying that the clearly out of control nutjobs didn't decide that the White House wasn't any different than a MIN or SEA police precinct and try to seize it, because they'd have been (rightfully) gunned down where they stood. I'm glad it was dispersed with non-lethal crowd control before any of them got themselves worked up enough to make the attempt.

- - - Updated - - -

No, if you fire on police using non-lethal crowd control to break up a riot you'll likely get shot, and you'll deserve it.

Police don’t even call them non-lethal anymore. Another lie you tell yourself.
Got it, so the idea that the 2nd amendment protects the other amendments is a lie tell yourself so you can be a coward and hug your guns because you can’t sleep.

Lafayette square was peaceful. Stop lying, lunatic.

[Stormdash]

Police don’t even call them non-lethal anymore. Another lie you tell yourself.
Got it, so the idea that the 2nd amendment protects the other amendments is a lie tell yourself so you can be a coward and hug your guns because you can’t sleep.

Lafayette square was peaceful. Stop lying, lunatic.

The 2nd Amendment protects the others. Your problem is that you are putting things under the 1st Amendment that don't go there.

This same event you are calling a peaceful protest is the same one in which an attempt to burn down St. John's Episcopal Church was made - and with the first lit fire, thrown brick, or broken window, the protest is over and the riot has begun.

So I'm not sure if you're lying about that night or just ignorant, but it comes to the same core point that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[Noxx79]

The 2nd Amendment protects the others. Your problem is that you are putting things under the 1st Amendment that don't go there.

This same event you are calling a peaceful protest is the same one in which an attempt to burn down St. John's Episcopal Church was made - and with the first lit fire, thrown brick, or broken window, the protest is over and the riot has begun.

That was the night before. Can I arrest you because someone committed a crime in your neighborhood last night? Should the priests in the church who were gassed as well shoot back at the government for violating multiple aspects of the first amendment?

Still lying to yourself. Stop it.

[Zython]

The 2nd Amendment protects the others. Your problem is that you are putting things under the 1st Amendment that don't go there.

Again, if that's the case, why do 2nd amendment advocates keep using their guns against minorities instead of the state?

This same event you are calling a peaceful protest is the same one in which an attempt to burn down St. John's Episcopal Church was made - and with the first lit fire, thrown brick, or broken window, the protest is over and the riot has begun.

Can you explain why burning down a cultist building is a bad thing?

- - - Updated - - -

Who is having their right peaceably to assemble violated?

The 1st Amendment doesn't cover rioting, doesn't cover arson, doesn't cover vandalism, doesn't cover assault or menacing, so where those things are happening the police have an obligation to intervene... and if rioters shoot at them for trying, the police can and should shoot back.

The problem is the police are the ones starting the riots. Protesters are engaging in self-defense.

- - - Updated - - -

No, if you fire on police using non-lethal crowd control to break up a riot you'll likely get shot, and you'll deserve it.

Why? It's non-lethal, right?

Right?

- - - Updated - - -

So a win for the 2nd amendment. Charges against kyle Rittenhouse got dropped.

Whelp. You heard it here. The right is celebrating it making it de facto legal to hunt and murder Jews. Wish I can say I was suprised.

We need to arm ourselves and shoot any Christian on sight. None can be trusted.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not answering you because you continue to call me names and talk down to me. You aren't interested in honest conversation. When you've corrected your behavior and show me you are actually interested in honest conversation I will answer you.

Odd. I've been nothing but civil and polite, and you still treat me this way.

Why?

[the game]

Hey, should the protestors shoot back against the government who is violating their first amendment rights, coward?

I mean, you’ve called Democrats every name in the book. Not sure why a whiny child like yourself is suddenly insulted when you’re rightfully called a coward who can’t maintain a consistent viewpoint.


I ask again, should the protestors shoot back against the government for violating their first amendment rights?

see you continue to call me names and talk down to me. Let me know when you correct your behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, if that's the case, why do 2nd amendment advocates keep using their guns against minorities instead of the state?



Can you explain why burning down a cultist building is a bad thing?

- - - Updated - - -



The problem is the police are the ones starting the riots. Protesters are engaging in self-defense.

- - - Updated - - -



Why? It's non-lethal, right?

Right?

- - - Updated - - -



Whelp. You heard it here. The right is celebrating it making it de facto legal to hunt and murder Jews. Wish I can say I was suprised.

We need to arm ourselves and shoot any Christian on sight. None can be trusted.

- - - Updated - - -



Odd. I've been nothing but civil and polite, and you still treat me this way.

Why?

I didn't see you ask me a question. what is your question?

[Spectral]

Again, if that's the case, why do 2nd amendment advocates keep using their guns against minorities instead of the state?

They pretty much don't. The number of 2A people gunning down minorities is a rounding error. More broadly, you're inverting the modal directionality of interracial violence.

[Ghostpanther]

Quick 1A tip sheet -

Chanting your own slogan in the street? Protected 1A activity

"Repeat our political slogan or I'm going to steal the food and drink you've paid this restaurant, or flip the table over" is not protected 1A activity. It's not even "speech", legally, it's a criminal act - extortion.

Building your own statue to deface in public as a political message? Protected 1A activity.

Destroying statues on public or private property that you, mostly in sheer ignorance, disapprove of politically? Not protected 1A activity. Again, it's not symbolic "speech", it's a criminal act, vandalism.

Burning a flag you own in public? Protected 1A activity.

Setting fire to the property, business, or dwelling place of another? Not protected 1A activity; it's arson, and possibly attempted murder depending on the circumstances.

Marching in the street, subject to a basic permitting requirement? Protected 1A speech, subject to a constitutionally valid content-neutral restraint on time, place, and manner.

Seizing control of the street and detaining drivers? Not 1A activity - criminal acts ranging from menacing and assault all the way up to false imprisonment and kidnapping.

As well as anyone could put it.

[Zython]

They pretty much don't. The number of 2A people gunning down minorities is a rounding error. More broadly, you're inverting the modal directionality of interracial violence.

That's an odd claim to make when people in this thread has cheered people doing just that.

[the game]

Good example of defensive use of an ar-15. Pregnant woman protected her family from 2 male intruders with handguns.

[Mayhem]

I'm not answering you because you continue to call me names and talk down to me. You aren't interested in honest conversation. When you've corrected your behavior and show me you are actually interested in honest conversation I will answer you.

Talking about an honest conversation, any chance you giving sources for your claims?

[Svifnymr]

The guy was completely within his rights to open fire upon the intruders in his home. Once the police were fired upon, they were within their right to return fire to protect their own lives. The guilty ones here are not the officers but their superiors and the political forces behind the procedures that were being followed. No knock/late night warrants should have never been created much less kept around for as long as they have been.

I've always felt that no-knock warrants should have a pretty high threshold, but the entire case there is just all sorts of stupid. They had a no-knock, but then knocked & announced, but were totally unprepared for someone to actually shoot at them. Them returning fire makes sense and is justified, but their general incompetence in returning fire was just horrible. Afterwards, I'm pretty sure they were then trying to cover up for their total incompetence which just made the event even worse.

Level of guilt in a criminal sense is not really going to shake out in all this. Even if some of the info for the warrant is investigated and deemed fraudulent, it'd probably not be any major criminal matter. Civilly they already figured out their level of incompetence and negligence on every level and cut the $12mil check to avoid the investigation highlighting even more incompetence in their procedures.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the officer who wrote the warrant on a hunch in spite of evidence by the postal service is not being held accountable nor is the president or the right wing media clamoring to end no knock warrants or changes to the system.

What's your opinion of the Nate the Lawyer youtube channel?
Either way, no-knock warrants are generally a state/local thing. I wouldn't mind seeing some better guidelines for the FBI, but generally they're not doing nightly raids I'd think.

The case of Rittenhouse has gotten far more attention than any cases past and present involving people of color being victims of police violence within the confines of 2A.

It feels like you're stretching things to try to make them fit into some "either or" equation here, and I'm not sure what "the confines of 2a" means to you. I know this forum is a cesspit of extreme opinions, but the two subjects (and others of similar bent) are discussed quite a bit. Unfortunately, the riots have taken a lot of the support out of the protests in many communities. People have criticized Rittenhouse, but still for the most part it comes down to "retreating while being chased" vs "shooting a retreating person" in determining who is the aggressor and who is defending themselves.

On contrary when people of color express their 2A rights non violently the NRA and Ronald Reagan joined forced to introduce gun control legislation.

And Democrats are the party of Slavery. Are we still bringing up past events that have since been repudiated and lead to change in organizations?

[the game]

Talking about an honest conversation, any chance you giving sources for your claims?

You're not capable of honest conversation. Everytime pro gun people try to have a conversation you talk down to them or you mock them. Im not interested in talking to you.

[Zan15]

Good example of defensive use of an ar-15. Pregnant woman protected her family from 2 male intruders with handguns.

good example of having a ar-15 around for home defense. Here are a few more.


https://news4sanantonio.com/news/loc...shooting-death

A local teen and his grandfather are now facing charges in connection with the accidental shooting death of a young boy in Far North Bexar County.

https://www.krtv.com/news/crime-and-...nd-with-ar-15/

Colstrip teen charged in accidental shooting of friend with AR-15

https://www.dailycommercial.com/stor...th/5896649002/

The father of a 12-year-old boy who died in an accidental shooting has been arrested and charged with aggravated manslaughter.

- - - Updated - - -

And Democrats are the party of Slavery. Are we still bringing up past events that have since been repudiated and lead to change in organizations?

sigh no matter how many times this has been debunked its still brought up huh?

[Stormdash]

Repeating the words "southern strategy" like a magic spell =/= debunking, fwiw.

[Felya]

Repeating the words "southern strategy" like a magic spell =/= debunking, fwiw.

No, it’s the literal explanation... it explains the switch in policy... it’s the magic of education.

[Ghostpanther]

Good example of defensive use of an ar-15. Pregnant woman protected her family from 2 male intruders with handguns.

I remember that case on the news. There are several other cases of citizens using the AR-15 to protect themselves in a home invasion. The citizen who confronted the Church shooter in Texas a while back, used his AR-15 and who knows how many lives he saved. A rifle is simply going to be easier to use and be more accurate. You have 4 points of possible contact for control with a rifle. With a handgun, you only have 2. And the longer barrel is generally going to make a rifle more accurate,( esp at longer ranges ) than a handgun is going to be.

Good video. Thanks for sharing.