Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Endus]

Its amusing when someone ignorant to the nature of something complains on why they don't understand the nature of something and just declares it 'plain stupid and serves no purpose'.

There's been several explanations by multiple people for the purpose of the civilian's natural right to keep and bear arms, disagreeing with that reason doesn't invalidate its application.

Yes, the balancing point on the political spectrum has changed over the years. The founders were basically the antifa of their time and far more left leaning than the rest of the population who were sympathetic to the Crown.

At best, they were the Elon Musks of their time; most of them were landowners and the central issue they spent more time whining about than any other, by far, in the Declaration of Independence, was taxation. They didn't like paying taxes, especially if those taxes would be used back in England rather than in the Colonies.

And again; "natural" rights are a fiction. If you mean inherent to one's humanity, in the eyes of the law, then that's fine, that's how Locke intended it, but if you mean those rights are somehow present regardless of the law, you have no idea what you're even talking about, because rights cannot exist outside a legal framework. A fox does not violate the "natural right to life" of the chipmunk it catches and devours.

Which isn't about whether "rights" are a bad thing. It's just that they are human-created fictions we use to structure our societies, and have no greater existence beyond that. That can make them very good and useful things, but they do not come from anywhere but our own sensibilities. And thus, they absolutely can and should be changed, adjusted, amended, abolished, or created, as our sensibilities change with time.

And before you take issue with my use of "fiction"; literally all codes of laws are fictions, in their origination and creation. They're stories we use to structure our society. They do not have any basis outside the inventiveness of the human mind. Doesn't matter what laws, which country, they're all made-up.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is pure fiction. The right is not "natural" any more than firearms are "natural".

He's right and if your definition is anything, water, food and medicine isn't a natural right unless you can obtain it, and physically get it yourself. If that so, then Natural right isn't a point of contention one way or another.

It's a constitutional right, we have that right by natural choice and those who agreed upon it, that is also nature.

[Edge-]

He's right and if your definition is anything, water, food and medicine isn't a natural right unless you can obtain it, and physically get it yourself. If that so, then Natural right isn't a point of contention one way or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...d_legal_rights

You're welcome to read up on the subject since you appear to be confused.

It's a constitutional right, we have that right by natural choice and those who agreed upon it, that is also nature.

The bolded is the correct framing.

The italicized is meaningless.

[Doctor Amadeus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura...d_legal_rights

You're welcome to read up on the subject since you appear to be confused.

The bolded is the correct framing.

The italicized is meaningless.

Well not according to what you argue, there is no such thing. You need to examine the difference between a right and a privilege. Because the 2nd Amendment is a right natural or otherwise.

As to the legal definition, that isn't natural.

Rights are things you have with no condition, say for example, pissing, YOU NEED to piss, I can't fucking stop you. I


You NEED FOOD AND WATER again, it doesn't matter what I think, you NEED those things, it's a right or it's a private. To Deny you any of those things or try is universally recognized naturally, nothing written down required.

[Endus]

Well not according to what you argue, there is no such thing. You need to examine the difference between a right and a privilege. Because the 2nd Amendment is a right natural or otherwise.

As to the legal definition, that isn't natural.

Then it isn't a natural right.

The 2nd Amendment has no conceptual basis other than, literally, the words that make up the 2nd Amendment. There was no "natural" basis for it in any sense whatsoever; it's entire existence stems only from the signing of the Bill of Rights and is framed entirely in that legal language.

Rights are things you have with no condition, say for example, pissing, YOU NEED to piss, I can't fucking stop you. I

This is absolute fuckin' nonsense. You don't have a "right to piss".

You NEED FOOD AND WATER again, it doesn't matter what I think, you NEED those things, it's a right or it's a private. To Deny you any of those things or try is universally recognized naturally, nothing written down required.

Not unless it's enshrined in law. Rights only exist as constructed in law. There's no such thing as "naturally recognized rights". Which is why the UDHR was made; because it created a legal pronouncement with widely-shared acknowledgement.

[Twdft]

Even the narrative of Cleetus getting another gun, well guess what Cleetus is still going to get a fucking gun legal or not, just as Cleetus can find a way to circumvent any laws to buy or produce their own fire arms.

You know we have Cleetus here too, if you want you can get any kind of illegal gun in Germany as well. Somehow most of our Cleetus' don't. What do you think the difference between our and your Cleetus is?

[Doctor Amadeus]

You know we have Cleetus here too, if you want you can get any kind of illegal gun in Germany as well. Somehow most of our Cleetus' don't. What do you think the difference between our and your Cleetus is?

You take away the rights to defend themselves and fire arms from everyone else who is a law abiding citizen because of what Cleetus does?

[Endus]

Your belief that 'natural rights aren't a thing'

The point is that you all keep misinterpreting what the term means. It doesn't mean the rights exist regardless of the state of the law. It's that the rights derive from respecting the basic dignity of humanity, a concept which only makes sense from a human perspective and with an eye to determining what rights should be enshrined into the law.

The idea that rights exist outside a legal framework to protect them? That's looney tunes fantastical nonsense. May as well be talking about unicorns and leprechauns.

doesn't matter in the context of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were based on the ideas of natural rights. Natural rights exist in the US, maybe not in Canada or your ideological form of government.

If the exist in the US, but don't exist in other countries, then clearly it's because the rights are described within your laws rather than having some external origin, right? Meaning you can just change those laws, and it changes what those "natural rights" are.

Your own arguments contradict themselves.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Your belief that 'natural rights aren't a thing' doesn't matter in the context of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were based on the ideas of natural rights. Natural rights exist in the US, maybe not in Canada or your ideological form of government.

All constitutional laws come from natural laws. Not every natural right needs a constitutional law.

Some things are just good sense. Like every thing you can do is not the same as what you should do.

However if it something anything you can be deprived of it’s not right under the law. It is in fact a privilege.

Deprive a prisoner of food water and medicine and that is an international crime.

Anyone telling you how and why to defend yourself when someone breaks into your home doesn’t know shit about rights.

They’re specifically interested in privileges what you can do because someone else said.

[The Stormbringer]

I think what the last X amount of pages have actually taught me, is that America is very clearly just a inherently dangerous country, so people think they need to have their own armoury at home on the off chance that some dude might invade while they're at home.

I wonder what it is that makes the US such a danger-prone country.

Gun culture. Since before its inception, people in this country were given access to guns to defend themselves and their property, starting with colonists from the UK if I recall. I don't remember all the details, but long story short, it built momentum as we spread out across the country until it was a normal thing. The fact that we've glorified it in our stories and movies and games probably hasn't helped much.

[Twdft]

You take away the rights to defend themselves and fire arms from everyone else who is a law abiding citizen because of what Cleetus does?

No, why would you think that? Germans can get legal guns too, we just have to get a license. Which includes demonstrating the need for a weapon. Which can be hunting, sport or self defense. And criminals can get illegal guns, as anywhere in the world. There's always some shady ass selling illegal guns.

But somehow our criminals don't all have guns. We have tens of thousands of home breakins too each year, Germany is not a fairy sunshine land. We have criminals beating people up in dark back alleys. Humans do human things.

But somehow we don't have a mass shootings every day. Why do you think that is? Are German criminals simply not as bloodthirsty as American criminals?

[Endus]

All constitutional laws come from natural laws.

There is no "come from". All Constitutional laws are whatever was written into the Constitution. Slavery used to be a Constitutional right. Was that a "natural right"? How about Prohibition? That had to be a "natural law" because it was a Constitutional law, so your argument says so, right?

However if it something anything you can be deprived of it’s not right under the law. It is in fact a privilege.

So to repeat an earlier point you ignored, you agree that violent felons who've served their time should be allowed to buy as many guns as they want, right? Even if there's a restraining order against them and they have fully diagnosed mental health issues?

Because if you don't agree they should be entitled to arm themselves, you've defined gun ownership as something that you can be deprived of, and by your own admission, then, it's not a right. You'd be agreeing it's a privilege.

[Doctor Amadeus]

No, why would you think that? Germans can get legal guns too, we just have to get a license. Which includes demonstrating the need for a weapon. Which can be hunting, sport or self defense. And criminals can get illegal guns, as anywhere in the world. There's always some shady ass selling illegal guns.

But somehow our criminals don't all have guns. We have tens of thousands of home breakins too each year, Germany is not a fairy sunshine land. We have criminals beating people up in dark back alleys. Humans do human things.

But somehow we don't have a mass shootings every day. Why do you think that is? Are German criminals simply not as bloodthirsty as American criminals?

Yes Germany has a different history. We don’t allow the rights of free people to be controlled by few with no logic or good reason.

[Endus]

Yes Germany has a different history. We don’t allow the rights of free people to be controlled by few with no logic or good reason.

Slavery (still not actually fully banned, I might add).
Jim Crow.
Segregation.
Anti-suffrage movements.
Tuskegee study on syphilis.
Project MKULTRA.
Trail of Tears.
Lynchings.
Concentration camps.

Etc and so forth.

Give me a fuckin' break with your historical revisionism.

[Twdft]

Yes Germany has a different history. We don’t allow the rights of free people to be controlled by few with no logic or good reason.

I see you have no interest in discussing your own arguments. Well, carry on.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I see you have no interest in discussing your own arguments. Well, carry on.

I just pointed out we have a different history for good or worse.

You talking about what happens in Germany is no trump card.

My only point is while we have similarities. We also have differences.

The biggest right now is people hate one another people who are mentally ill are deciding act out in ways that involves killing unarmed innocent people.

The biggest reason I say for this is the lack of many things including mental help for those constantly exposed to a culture that we keep hearing about and being told about from every where from social media and entertainment to leaders who aren’t very good leaders.

A lot of things aren’t new but the resources getting where they need to has changed. I’m not talking just about money.

But at the end of the day I do not believe it’s guns or their availability.

Because we’ve always had guns and we’ve always had problems NOT to the level we have now per say but the mass shooting as they are is more recent in our several hundred year history in this way.

So no I don’t support repelling the 2nd amendment or any more gun control.

Because it’s a knee jerk response and solution the problem that has nothing to do with guns.

I’m reading all the different perspectives and putting them in context. Some views are interesting and thought provoking some are not.

It’s interesting to get your perspective. I find it valid as any other well thought out thoughts.

But it still a big issue and I’m not convinced it’s guns.

Now would or could there be an argument or simply idea that could convince me. Yes of course.

But for me it would have to be something clear and substantive

And frankly at this point I think we have to sole a lot of other problems first that honestly I feel will have an impact.

Like addressing homelessness, poverty, healthcare, the environment and crime. Many of those things overlap.

And Getting the government back in line with qualified representatives.

Making significant steps in those areas then yes then like now I’m open minded to talk and act on anything provided there is logic and good reason with people worth having that conversation.

But I’m personally not interested in lame comedy insults, egos and shrieking.

I believe all of the issues are serious and deserve at least real honesty conversation.

[Mayhem]

Hoplophobia, (pronounced [ˌhɔpləˈfoʊbiə]), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" or alternatively, a fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia.

Still waiting for reasons why my country needs a 2A equivalent mr narrative destroying high IQ gun owner.

I'd ask your biggest fan mall cop but I'd have to link where my country is and what gun control we have and he can't look at links because facts are opinions he doesn't like.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Still waiting for reasons why my country needs a 2A equivalent mr narrative destroying high IQ gun owner.

I'd ask your biggest fan mall cop but I'd have to link where my country is and what gun control we have and he can't look at links because facts are opinions he doesn't like.

Well I don’t think anyone here in a country you live needs to tell you what your country needs. Maybe offer an opinion or disagree with yours.

But you’re the only authority for your existences where you live.

As far as links. I’m not totally opposed to links at all. Provided they are relevant and not used in place of and argument.

Endus is probably one of the only people that I think uses links correctly in conversation. And if up to me should be one of the only ones to do it.

I don’t agree with his assessments, many times I have but even those optimum situations it doesn’t stop it from being a tactic which it’s become and it’s like posting memes

Be most don’t read their own fucking links and even when they do they offer up opinions or misrepresent others.

I’m not going to do that shit examples anytime that dip shit Ben Shapiro post stupid shit or some White Supremacist post FBI statistics. It’s the same shit.

It has almost nothing to do with discussion or conversation it’s just a tactic.

So I’m not entirely opposed to links. But it has to be someone here I trust track record and it has to be relevant. Meaning explained why it’s needed.

Because now I’m not saying what any else should choose to do. I’m not unless it falls where I said.

You f your posting something to make a claim you don’t need to post a link. I’ll take your word for it or consider it and check in my own.

It may also be beside the point you’re giving your opinion or point of view. I’ll accept it just fine. I just don’t have to agree or be convinced right now.

I personally like to weigh things carefully from different perspective before I lean or decide.

[unfilteredJW]

Well I don’t think anyone here in a country you live needs to tell you what your country needs. Maybe offer an opinion or disagree with yours.

But you’re the only authority for your existences where you live.

As far as links. I’m not totally opposed to links at all. Provided they are relevant and not used in place of and argument.

Endus is probably one of the only people that I think uses links correctly in conversation. And if up to me should be one of the only ones to do it.

I don’t agree with his assessments, many times I have but even those optimum situations it doesn’t stop it from being a tactic which it’s become and it’s like posting memes

Be most don’t read their own fucking links and even when they do they offer up opinions or misrepresent others.

I’m not going to do that shit examples anytime that dip shit Ben Shapiro post stupid shit or some White Supremacist post FBI statistics. It’s the same shit.

It has almost nothing to do with discussion or conversation it’s just a tactic.

So I’m not entirely opposed to links. But it has to be someone here I trust track record and it has to be relevant. Meaning explained why it’s needed.

Because now I’m not saying what any else should choose to do. I’m not unless it falls where I said.

You f your posting something to make a claim you don’t need to post a link. I’ll take your word for it or consider it and check in my own.

It may also be beside the point you’re giving your opinion or point of view. I’ll accept it just fine. I just don’t have to agree or be convinced right now.

I personally like to weigh things carefully from different perspective before I lean or decide.

Well that last bit is a lie. Im just the rest of the words here are too based on literally everything you’ve posted recently.

The mall cop is a liar. Statement of fact. Proof provided in thread.

[Grinning Serpent]

People should be able to use guns for self and home defense, but you shouldn't be able to buy just any weapon for just any purpose. A double barreled shotgun with buckshot you got for hunting purposes will kill the intruder dead just the same as that AR with 30 rounds of 5.56. The only difference being that the person who got the shotgun for hunting wasn't fantasizing about being a high speed low drag larperator, and is therefore less likely to seek out situations where they would get to kill people.

I also get that semi-auto rifles and pistols are fun to shoot, so join a sports shooting club and get a proof of active sports shooting hobby before you can buy one.

The more barriers that a normal functioning human being can easily pass there are to gun ownership -> fewer idiots get a hold of guns -> less gun related violence.

There's no meaningful difference in regards to an AR-15 and a shotgun if we're talking about "some dude shooting into a crowd of people." Things like rate of fire, magazine capacity, and such don't much matter when they are firing at unaware, unarmed people. Those sorts of things only really matter if you're attacking someone that's shooting back or otherwise have to worry about being shot at... and mass shooters pretty much invariably either surrender or commit suicide once they can no longer freely attack random people, so it's even less relevant than it would otherwise be. If you filter out Las Vegas as the obvious outlier, our worst mass shootings have largely all been committed with small caliber handguns, not rifles.

You'd be better off trying to restrict *caliber*, not mechanism. A semi-automatic rifle shooting little .22's or .17's is going to be a lot less capable of fucking up entire rooms of people than a bolt-action rifle firing .308 or .30-06 or a pump shotgun firing #00 buck. Problem with that, of course, is that ammo is fucking everywhere and it's something you absolutely can manufacture at home. I imagine people would just devise ways of creating their own cases if you somehow managed to stop an influx of new/used cases for hand loading.

Now, if your concern is more mundane gun crime, a handgun ban would be *the* silver bullet as far as approaching it from the gun end goes. But you'll never in a hundred years get a handgun ban (or even a meaningful restriction) through Congress and even if you did, there's hundreds of millions of the fucking things out there already. It's unlikely an "average criminal" will ever have trouble obtaining a piece of shit low caliber handgun for their needs in this country, so you'd basically just be disarming people who aren't looking to commit crimes anyway.

I don't think we can "fix" our country's shitty gun culture and moronic worship of "doing stupid shit with guns" from the gun legislation angle. I think we have to approach that from different angles.