Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Endus]

Neither the French nor Canadian methods would allow for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in the US, either.

Canada completely rewrote our foundational document, the Canada Act, in full in 1982. Every element was reconsidered. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was redrafted at the same time, and has been further amended since.

So I have no idea what you're even talking about, but it's clearly wrong.

[PhaelixWW]

Canada completely rewrote our foundational document, the Canada Act, in full in 1982. Every element was reconsidered. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms was redrafted at the same time, and has been further amended since.

And no such attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would succeed under Canada's revised amendment formulae, like I said.

So I have no idea what you're even talking about, but it's clearly wrong.

Such and Endus-ism. You can't grasp a concept, therefore you're sure that it's wrong.

You're like the GoP faithful who, when faced with testimony from Republicans in the Jan. 6th hearings, claim "they were paid off!" or even "that must be a clone!".

[Endus]

And no such attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment would succeed under Canada's revised amendment formulae, like I said.

We've done some 14 amendments to the Constitution Act since '82. Including earlier this year. Mostly not over things that weighty, but it's the same procedure.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

[PhaelixWW]

We've done some 14 amendments to the Constitution Act since '82. Including earlier this year. Mostly not over things that weighty, but it's the same procedure.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

So your amendment process doesn't normally require the legislatures of 2/3 of the "states" to ratify the proposal? That would be 34 of the 50 US states.

Sure, that's lower than the 3/4 required by the US Constitution, but it's still a non-starter.

[Endus]

So your amendment process doesn't normally require the legislatures of 2/3 of the "states" to ratify the proposal? That would be 34 of the 50 US states.

Sure, that's lower than the 3/4 required by the US Constitution, but it's still a non-starter.

This is a factor of how systemically broken the American system is, and is currently mid-collapse. Not the practicality of amendment procedures in general.

[PhaelixWW]

This is a factor of how systemically broken the American system is, and is currently mid-collapse. Not the practicality of amendment procedures in general.

So... you were wrong and I was right. Thanks for admitting it in the only way you seem to know how: a vague insult and deflection. It's as good as I'm likely to get.

Popular support for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is at something like 20-25%. Continuing to argue for it politically will only tend to drive more borderline voters into the hands of the GoP, which is a far worse scenario.

[Endus]

So... you were wrong and I was right. Thanks for admitting it in the only way you seem to know how: a vague insult and deflection. It's as good as I'm likely to get.

Popular support for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is at something like 20-25%. Continuing to argue for it politically will only tend to drive more borderline voters into the hands of the GoP, which is a far worse scenario.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: there is no popular support because Americans, for the most part, prefer the status quo of gun homicides and school shootings. This isn't an error, it's the way they want things to be.

[PhaelixWW]

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

In other words: You've been wrong before, and you'll be wrong again...

Tired strawman is tired.

[Draco-Onis]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: there is no popular support because Americans, for the most part, prefer the status quo of gun homicides and school shootings. This isn't an error, it's the way they want things to be.

There's nothing wrong with the right to bear arms per say it is the laughable restrictions we have as a country that has led to things being out of control. It's not realistic to remove it there are part of the country where you need a weapon for many reasons. The American system doesn't care about popular support it is purely about money. Most gun owners are fine with strict restrictions on guns to keep them falling into the wrong hand but the will of the people do not direct legislation.

For example there is no swell of support for giving oil companies or Israel welfare checks every year but that's the reality. Unless there's more money to be made from restriction guns then letting them loose the status quo will remain.

[BeepBoo]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: there is no popular support because Americans, for the most part, prefer the status quo of gun homicides and school shootings. This isn't an error, it's the way they want things to be.

So let us let it be this way. Accepting some inherent risk for things isn't new. You could just as easily come up with the same argument for cars and all the deaths we get there every year, even despite their incredibly heavy regulations.

"But guns aren't necessary unlike cars!"
No one cares, fun hater.

[Endus]

So let us let it be this way. Accepting some inherent risk for things isn't new. You could just as easily come up with the same argument for cars and all the deaths we get there every year, even despite their incredibly heavy regulations.

"But guns aren't necessary unlike cars!"
No one cares, fun hater.

There you have it.

School shootings are "fun", and that's why we can't have gun control.

[BeepBoo]

There you have it.

School shootings are "fun", and that's why we can't have gun control.

We'd still have school <somethings with murders> even without guns. Stop fear mongering unless you want to do this for everything where deaths happen. You're being ridiculous looking like someone who's willing to give up nearly every ounce of freedom just to chase some additional safety, which I'm not surprised by in the least. Also, fuck off. School shootings are tragic, but just because something is tragic doesn't mean we should be punishing other people who didn't/wouldn't cause this stuff. Guns are fun, powerful, useful, etc. School shootings are none of those things, but you're on a tirade about "we can't have both guns and no school shootings so IF YOU LOVE GUNS YOU LOVE SHOOTINGS!" Nope. Not how that works.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So let us let it be this way. Accepting some inherent risk for things isn't new. You could just as easily come up with the same argument for cars and all the deaths we get there every year, even despite their incredibly heavy regulations.

"But guns aren't necessary unlike cars!"
No one cares, fun hater.

You think maybe that there would be more vehicle related deaths if we decided to get rid of all those pesky regulations?

[BeepBoo]

You think maybe that there would be more vehicle related deaths if we decided to get rid of all those pesky regulations?

Maybe? probably? People's inherent acceptance of bullshit seems to be higher than that of the gov't when it comes to stuff like that, so there'd probably be a bunch of idiots not wearing seatbelts or buying cars without them if they were allowed to and... I'm 100% okay with that.

To be clear, I'm fine with background checks and such. Just not wholesale gun bans or wholesale regs around the types of guns/bullets/whatever.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Maybe? probably? People's inherent acceptance of bullshit seems to be higher than that of the gov't when it comes to stuff like that, so there'd probably be a bunch of idiots not wearing seatbelts or buying cars without them if they were allowed to and... I'm 100% okay with that.

Would a drunk driver killing a bus full of school children just be one of those "inherent risks" we just have to accept? Or did maybe we have a pretty good idea when we decided to outlaw drinking and driving?

[Endus]

We'd still have school <somethings with murders> even without guns. Stop fear mongering unless you want to do this for everything where deaths happen. You're being ridiculous looking like someone who's willing to give up nearly every ounce of freedom just to chase some additional safety, which I'm not surprised by in the least.

You brought up cars.

We have licensing and testing requirements before you're permitted to drive a car.
You don't have any right to a car.
Your car has to be registered with the government.
There's a whole host of conduct laws (traffic laws) that strictly regulate how you use your car, to make driving as safe as possible.

Let's use that standard for guns, for a start;
Repeal the 2nd Amendment, completely.
Can't get a gun without a gun license, which requires dozens of hours of training and the passing of mandated tests, including live-fire practicals.
Have to register all your guns with the government.
There's strict laws on when and how you can carry a weapon, and in most cases, you just can't. The same way you can't drive a car on sidewalks or through a shopping mall.

Also, fuck off. School shootings are tragic, but just because something is tragic doesn't mean we should be punishing other people who didn't/wouldn't cause this stuff. Guns are fun, powerful, useful, etc. School shootings are none of those things, but you're on a tirade about "we can't have both guns and no school shootings so IF YOU LOVE GUNS YOU LOVE SHOOTINGS!" Nope. Not how that works.

Thinking guns are "fun" is exactly the attitude that leads to the overwhelmingly high rates of gun violence in the USA. It's irresponsible and disturbing and shows a lack of respect for the weapon.

[BeepBoo]

Would a drunk driver killing a bus full of school children just be one of those "inherent risks" we just have to accept? Or did maybe we have a pretty good idea when we decided to outlaw drinking and driving?

That sounds more like a restriction on how you're allowed to use your car than the car itself. Maybe like "You're not allowed to shoot other people"? I feel a true equivalence to the type of gun legislation you're discussing would be "we ban alcohol because people drink and drive regardless of if we say it's not allowed"

[PhaelixWW]

Thinking guns are "fun" is exactly the attitude that leads to the overwhelmingly high rates of gun violence in the USA. It's irresponsible and disturbing and shows a lack of respect for the weapon.

What utter bullshit. There are plenty of "fun" activities that are far more dangerous than the law-abiding use of firearms. Thinking something is fun is not somehow automatically "irresponsible", nor "disturbing", nor does it "show a lack of respect" for the thing".

What an absolute joke.

[BeepBoo]

.
There's strict laws on when and how you can carry a weapon, and in most cases, you just can't. The same way you can't drive a car on sidewalks or through a shopping mall.

Sure. That's how it is in my state already. I don't care about open carry. I care about having access to the good guns so I can keep them in my house and go to the range for fun.

Thinking guns are "fun" is exactly the attitude that leads to the overwhelmingly high rates of gun violence in the USA. It's irresponsible and disturbing and shows a lack of respect for the weapon.

Nice opinion you have, but it's stupid. Things that are powerful or dangerous are often times inherently fun for plenty of people. Or do you think the same about base jumping, aggressive driving, etc? I can entirely respect how dangerous guns are and still have fun using them properly and safely. People enjoy beating the shit out of each other in martial arts or MMA fights, boxing, etc. It's entirely common and natural for humans to have fun in such circumstances.

[Endus]

Nice opinion you have, but it's stupid. Things that are powerful or dangerous are often times inherently fun for plenty of people. Or do you think the same about base jumping, aggressive driving, etc? I can entirely respect how dangerous guns are and still have fun using them properly and safely.

Base jumping is often illegal for a reason, and heavily controlled where it isn't.

Aggressive driving is illegal.

Really not helping your argument.