Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deus Mortis]

"Maybe we should do something about this problem."

"WHY HAVEN'T YOU PROPOSED A SOLUTION YET!"

I don't think that's how discussions really go, but maybe that is here so I'll take my leave.

Plenty of people in here that are very pro 2nd amendment have stated on numerous occasions things that can be done and tried that do not actually infringe on the Constitution. It is annoying to see people come in and offer no solutions in methods on how we can actually fix the issues plaguing America while jumping on the ban guns/fuck with the 2nd amendment train. I have seen you call out others on the politics boards when they post like you did.

[Edge-]

Plenty of people in here that are very pro 2nd amendment have stated on numerous occasions things that can be done and tried that do not actually infringe on the Constitution.

To which I said I'm absolutely 100% open to suggestions for solutions that don't involve aspects of "gun control". Y'all are tilting at windmills.

It is annoying to see people come in and offer no solutions in methods on how we can actually fix the issues plaguing America while jumping on the ban guns/fuck with the 2nd amendment train.

Please quote where I proposed banning guns. I suggested a critical look at the utility of the Second Amendment, which I think is like...fair? Not removing it, just a critical look.

Still tilting at windmills.

[Deus Mortis]

That's not at all what happened. Edge- said "Eventually folks will get tired of kids at school getting shot with disturbing regularity. Eventually." and PhaelixWW just went off on one, expecting Edge- to have some sort of perfect answer with regards to policy. Dude clearly flipped his shit over gun issues, such as Edge- suggesting a close look at the 2A and where things stand. Who knew random forum posters needed perfect laws ready to go, as if one single law was ever going to be the solution..

Honestly, I may be misremembering what he was like before, but I've noticed quite the change in him on certain things the last few months. At least in this thread, specifically. Maybe he's just more of a gun nut than I ever realised /shrug

The 2A does need to be looked at. Hell, as a non-American, I'd get rid of it, and guns, altogether. 99% of you don't need a single firearm. I'd also do some rewrites to your outdated constitution, too.

You don't need perfect solutions, but what edge posted really did not add much to the conversation, and PhaelixWW called him on it. Also PhaelixWW from my browsing has always been strong 2nd amendment. I take the position of do not fuck with the constitution when there are plenty of other methods out there that can be tried to help with the epidemic of gun violence. I also want to keep a strong 2nd amendment so that it helps protect the 1st. You have shitheads like Donald Trump wanting to arrest journalists because they said mean words about him. That type of shit can never be allowed to come to fruition, because I can almost guarantee there will be another trump type some day in the future and heaven help us if he is actually intelligent about enacting his agenda unlike Trump.

[Edge-]

I also want to keep a strong 2nd amendment so that it helps protect the 1st.

Man, is this actually a...thing? Does this happen? When has the First Amendment been under threat and saved by the Second Amendment? Anything historically? Anything in our lifetimes? Anything in the past century?

You have shitheads like Donald Trump wanting to arrest journalists because they said mean words about him.

Strawman nonsense.

[Deus Mortis]

To which I said I'm absolutely 100% open to suggestions for solutions that don't involve aspects of "gun control". Y'all are tilting at windmills.



Please quote where I proposed banning guns. I suggested a critical look at the utility of the Second Amendment, which I think is like...fair? Not removing it, just a critical look.

Still tilting at windmills.

I will apologize, I imagine I came across as hostile and it really was not my intention. Onto why I took the stance I did, your comment "Can't we look at like, every other developed nation to see how they manage to not have regular school shootings?" all those countries that have done that do not a strong 2nd amendment and a lot of those countries have also banned guns.

I am of the viewpoint like I have posted in the past that there are numerous things we can do without the need for banning the object. I would love for us to invest in mental health in this country. Something is seriously wrong that so many kids are killing themselves and also shooting up schools. This can be improved without banning weapons. I would be more than willing to pay more taxes, but I imagine the republicans would not like that.... I want bullying to be taken more seriously in schools, I am sick of schools doing jack shit about it. Again I will apologize for coming across as hostile and if I misinterpreted what you said/meant.

- - - Updated - - -

Man, is this actually a...thing? Does this happen? When has the First Amendment been under threat and saved by the Second Amendment? Anything historically? Anything in our lifetimes? Anything in the past century?

It has not and it is something I never want to see happen, and it is my opinion that having a strong 2nd will always help protect our 1st, in the event there is ever a very bad actor out there in the future.

[Edge-]

I will apologize, I imagine I came across as hostile and it really was not my intention. Onto why I took the stance I did, your comment "Can't we look at like, every other developed nation to see how they manage to not have regular school shootings?" all those countries that have done that do not a strong 2nd amendment and a lot of those countries have also banned guns.

Sure, and maybe there are other lessons we can learn there beyond just, "Hey, ending mass ownership of guns is a great way to massively reduce gun violence and end things like regular school/mass shootings." I think that's the most obvious lesson, but maybe there's more. I haven't delved super deeply on the topic, which is why I continue to say leave it to smarter folks with far more knowledge on public policy in this realm than I.

Again I will apologize for coming across as hostile and if I misinterpreted what you said/meant.

Cheers m8, this is a touchy topic and I'm not looking to be a dick about it.

It has not and it is something I never want to see happen, and it is my opinion that having a strong 2nd will always help protect our 1st, in the event there is ever a very bad actor out there in the future.

I just genuinely don't see how this is a realistic belief. Like, what part of the First Amendment would be under threat? The whole thing? If so, that would require the federal government to be behind it, meaning the military and federal law enforcement. Who would easily outmatch any private militia group who would, at best, have to wage some kind of insurgency.

I just don't buy this argument at all, especially given that it's predicated on nothing more than feels rather than any practical historical context or really common sense, IMO.

Folks always talk about things like this like the government is some detached, nebulous force when it's absolutely not. And even when one party controls two of the branches, we've seen nothing that would indicate that either would strongly go after the First Amendment wholesale. Much less that the military would carry out orders that are expressly contradictory to the Constitution they swear to defend from enemies foreign and domestic.

[Deus Mortis]

I just genuinely don't see how this is a realistic belief. Like, what part of the First Amendment would be under threat? The whole thing? If so, that would require the federal government to be behind it, meaning the military and federal law enforcement. Who would easily outmatch any private militia group who would, at best, have to wage some kind of insurgency.

I just don't buy this argument at all, especially given that it's predicated on nothing more than feels rather than any practical historical context or really common sense, IMO.

Folks always talk about things like this like the government is some detached, nebulous force when it's absolutely not. And even when one party controls two of the branches, we've seen nothing that would indicate that either would strongly go after the First Amendment wholesale. Much less that the military would carry out orders that are expressly contradictory to the Constitution they swear to defend from enemies foreign and domestic.

It very well might not be a realistic belief, but it is a safeguard so that it hopefully does not happen, no matter how small and unrealistic of becoming a reality it is. It is something I would rather have, than not have. As you stated it is more of a feels thing and why I understand why people feel differently about it.

[Edge-]

It very well might not be a realistic belief, but it is a safeguard so that it hopefully does not happen, no matter how small and unrealistic of becoming a reality it is.

I just don't buy the argument at all, especially considering other developed countries without something like a Second Amendment still have what are largely equivalent of First Amendment rights that aren't under threat because the citizenry isn't armed.

Like, if we can't point to any instance of it actually being a safeguard then it likely isn't. It's just a vague notion and, as you say, "feels".

[Mayhem]

You don't need perfect solutions, but what edge posted really did not add much to the conversation, and PhaelixWW called him on it. Also PhaelixWW from my browsing has always been strong 2nd amendment. I take the position of do not fuck with the constitution when there are plenty of other methods out there that can be tried to help with the epidemic of gun violence. I also want to keep a strong 2nd amendment so that it helps protect the 1st. You have shitheads like Donald Trump wanting to arrest journalists because they said mean words about him. That type of shit can never be allowed to come to fruition, because I can almost guarantee there will be another trump type some day in the future and heaven help us if he is actually intelligent about enacting his agenda unlike Trump.

Ok, how does this work out in your mind? How does the 2nd protect the 1st?

I mean, we have evidence of police shooting people for being armed despite having a license and no warrant on them.

[Noxx79]

I will apologize, I imagine I came across as hostile and it really was not my intention. Onto why I took the stance I did, your comment "Can't we look at like, every other developed nation to see how they manage to not have regular school shootings?" all those countries that have done that do not a strong 2nd amendment and a lot of those countries have also banned guns.

I am of the viewpoint like I have posted in the past that there are numerous things we can do without the need for banning the object. I would love for us to invest in mental health in this country. Something is seriously wrong that so many kids are killing themselves and also shooting up schools. This can be improved without banning weapons. I would be more than willing to pay more taxes, but I imagine the republicans would not like that.... I want bullying to be taken more seriously in schools, I am sick of schools doing jack shit about it. Again I will apologize for coming across as hostile and if I misinterpreted what you said/meant.

- - - Updated - - -

It has not and it is something I never want to see happen, and it is my opinion that having a strong 2nd will always help protect our 1st, in the event there is ever a very bad actor out there in the future.

Like when trump gassed the protestors at Lafayette square? Or when the national guard killed students at Kent State?

[Theodarzna]

I now understand why there is such a big push to get a bill passed for "Well if they are on a no-fly list they shouldn't be able to own guns"; its completely unaccountable how that list is formed, who puts who on there is completely unaccountable; and the appealing of it is purely arbitrary. Ah, yes, makes sense now why that would be so appealing.

[Edge-]

I now understand why there is such a big push to get a bill passed for "Well if they are on a no-fly list they shouldn't be able to own guns"; its completely unaccountable how that list is formed, who puts who on there is completely unaccountable; and the appealing of it is purely arbitrary. Ah, yes, makes sense now why that would be so appealing.

Has this even been discussed in the past like...3 years? I know House Democrats passed a few bills earlier this year but I'm not seeing anything about mentions of no-fly lists?

[Mayhem]

Has this even been discussed in the past like...3 years? I know House Democrats passed a few bills earlier this year but I'm not seeing anything about mentions of no-fly lists?

Who knows what resembles a "big push" in theos world.

[Theodarzna]

Has this even been discussed in the past like...3 years? I know House Democrats passed a few bills earlier this year but I'm not seeing anything about mentions of no-fly lists?

I am recalling it from previous talks about how some can nix the 2nd Amendment without actually stating they are doing it.

[Mayhem]

With all the data that is around and all the knowledge about how bad the US does on the lists comparing things like freedom of speech, free press, and so on between countries it boggles my mind that people are able to claim the 2nd amendment is something that protects anything in the US.

There are 3, that's three, countries on this planet that have a constitutional right to bear arms, those three countries are not topping any lists, well except for lists no one wants their country to top.

The argument that the 2nd is needed just makes no sense. The other two countries with a constitutional right to bear arms are Mexico and Guatemala. Now Mexico is far from a wonderful place where the civil population is protected from harm thanks to their right to bear arms and Guatemala is worse with literal death squads on the streets.

Just for reference and funsies:

press freedom ranking 21:

US - 44
Guatemala - 116
Mexico - 143

human freedom index 17/18:

US dropped 9 places to 17 being saved as always only thanks to economic freedom (capitalism huha) because measured by personal freedom the US would be way, way lower.

[Edge-]

I am recalling it from previous talks about how some can nix the 2nd Amendment without actually stating they are doing it.

But what's the "big push" you implied is going on right now?

[Theodarzna]

But what's the "big push" you implied is going on right now?

Not sure, I'm guessing this is one of those things you will disavow like its not an idea in the ether, since whatever your stance on guns is, its definitely not for banning guns.

[Edge-]

Not sure, I'm guessing this is one of those things you will disavow like its not an idea in the ether, since whatever your stance on guns is, its definitely not for banning guns.

I don't even know what this means, since you're the only person to bring up the subject and I had literally forgotten it even existed until you brought it back up.

[Theodarzna]

I don't even know what this means, since you're the only person to bring up the subject and I had literally forgotten it even existed until you brought it back up.

I don't know why you are talking to me as if I said anything to you really. But here we are. I didn't tag you so its not personal. I said you are against ever banning guns, what else do you want?

[Edge-]

I don't know why you are talking to me as if I said anything to you really. But here we are. I didn't tag you so its not personal. I said you are against ever banning guns, what else do you want?

I don't think it's personal. I'm just wondering where tilting at this no-fly list ban windmill came from. Because it kinda came outta nowhere.