Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[BeepBoo]

That means you're against the constitution and the US as a whole. Hu, didn't see that one coming.

Nah, I'm fine with democracy as the best current way we have for government functioning, but something being enshrined in law just because it's popular still isn't "perfect."

Also, voting away freedoms is decidedly not-US. We're usually about expanding individual freedom.

Do you have a fight with the dictionary or are you just a bit dull?

Do YOU?

noun
1.
an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.

and I'll save you the trouble with "but what is an object" that is also coming...

noun
2.
a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.

are people things?

A human is a thing, yes. But not a thing like a stone. To spell that out a little: A human is an organism, and an organism is a physical object.

All that aside, I really don't care what term you choose for "generic <piece of matter> that exists in our universe physically", but whatever term you use, if it makes you feel better, replace my use of "thing" with that in your head as you read it. People are just gobs of matter like anything else in the world. Sentience is not special to me.

[Mayhem]

Nah, I'm fine with democracy as the best current way we have for government functioning, but something being enshrined in law just because it's popular still isn't "perfect."

No, it's not perfect but the best current way.

Also, voting away freedoms is decidedly not-US. We're usually about expanding individual freedom.

Hahahaa that's a good one.

All that aside, I really don't care what term you choose for "generic <piece of matter> that exists in our universe physically", but whatever term you use, if it makes you feel better, replace my use of "thing" with that in your head as you read it. People are just gobs of matter like anything else in the world.

uhu ok

Sentience is not special to me.

Well, that's odd considering your argument relies on it.

[Theodarzna]

Ohio has one of the best Castle laws in the Union. It also extends to one's vehicle.

As much as I disagree with Marxism, he is right on his stance of not disarming the populace.

I have noticed a trend that cannot be at all explained, where a certain type of person who loves to explain that everything The Democratic Party does is good because of pragmatism and winning elections turns around and picks the most unpopular issue they can possibly find to radicalize on. Medicare for All is just too goddamn unpopular to ever attempt, despite being rather popular with the masses across the board. But have it in their full conviction that we should try and repeal the 2nd Amendment despite being unpopular.

[Mayhem]

I have noticed a trend that cannot be at all explained, where a certain type of person who loves to explain that everything The Democratic Party does is good because of pragmatism and winning elections turns around and picks the most unpopular issue they can possibly find to radicalize on. Medicare for All is just too goddamn unpopular to ever attempt, despite being rather popular with the masses across the board. But have it in their full conviction that we should try and repeal the 2nd Amendment despite being unpopular.

Cool story, now do these type of person hold any power, or are they just random people you know?

[Daelak]

I have noticed a trend that cannot be at all explained, where a certain type of person who loves to explain that everything The Democratic Party does is good because of pragmatism and winning elections turns around and picks the most unpopular issue they can possibly find to radicalize on. Medicare for All is just too goddamn unpopular to ever attempt, despite being rather popular with the masses across the board. But have it in their full conviction that we should try and repeal the 2nd Amendment despite being unpopular.

Its not even about repeal, but a literal reading of the amendment makes it as relevant to today as the 3rd amendment. The founding fathers were virulently skeptical of standing armies, with most losing their wealth and kin to southern British loyalists and the Royal British Army. They won the revolution with well-regulated militias, community-based groups of yeomen who were trained by veterans of the French and Indian War, mustered by arms produced from large armories in New England and Virginia. During the war, all fighting age men who could not buy off their conscription of the local militia trained weekly.

That is the only essence of the text of the 2nd amendment. Americans right to the formation and readiness of a community-based militia was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and it has been nullified for over a century due to the militia acts of 1904 and onwards, when the federal government effectively superceded community and state-based command control over them.

[Ghostpanther]

I have noticed a trend that cannot be at all explained, where a certain type of person who loves to explain that everything The Democratic Party does is good because of pragmatism and winning elections turns around and picks the most unpopular issue they can possibly find to radicalize on. Medicare for All is just too goddamn unpopular to ever attempt, despite being rather popular with the masses across the board. But have it in their full conviction that we should try and repeal the 2nd Amendment despite being unpopular.

Good points. While the Supreme Court rulings have given the states the right to legislate gun control to a certain point ( some have gone too far in my opinion ) those who think the Second Amendment has even a fair chance of being repealed or amended, are just dreaming.

So which state you live in, is important as to how much you get to exercise your Constitutional right to keep and carry firearms for self defense.

[Zython]

Not my claim, nothing to prove, so what are you trying to believe?

Actually, you made the point that the police were within their rights to brutalize protesters due to violence on their part. You have not provided proof for this.

You keep harping on this, but you're just making points with yourself. There are conflicting reports of how peaceful the protest/riot was, cops say objects were thrown, folks deny things were thrown, there is no proof either way. Cops gave an order to disperse and then followed with non-lethal force. No government tyranny, no wide spread arrests even, an unpeaceful assembly was dispersed.

You are a child, throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way and calling it tyranny. If you want to advocate lethal force against such a thing, go for it, but it's been discussed before and your attempt to cherry pick and misrepresent doesn't prove anything or lead anywhere. Yet you just keep going with it, thinking you're doing anything to prove a point?

[edit] I should have gone for a Listen & Believe joke, but I just got home from work so I messed it up. Sorry!

See, @Specialka? I engage with this guy in good faith, and he just decides I should be dismissed out of hand for seemingly no reason. What's your hypothesis on this?

- - - Updated - - -

I have noticed a trend that cannot be at all explained, where a certain type of person who loves to explain that everything The Democratic Party does is good because of pragmatism and winning elections turns around and picks the most unpopular issue they can possibly find to radicalize on. Medicare for All is just too goddamn unpopular to ever attempt, despite being rather popular with the masses across the board. But have it in their full conviction that we should try and repeal the 2nd Amendment despite being unpopular.

I'd ask for a citation, but given you said this:

-snip-
[Infraction]
I'm not confident you'll provide one.

[Specialka]

Actually, you made the point that the police were within their rights to brutalize protesters due to violence on their part. You have not provided proof for this.






See, @Specialka? I engage with this guy in good faith, and he just decides I should be dismissed out of hand for seemingly no reason. What's your hypothesis on this?

- - - Updated - - -



I'd ask for a citation, but given you said this:



I'm not confident you'll provide one.

Same as me, i think he finds you insufferable, so he decides to ignore you.

[Zython]

Castle Laws are very much needed now. Especially with most city governments allowing rioting and looting, people have to be ready to protect their stuff.

Also again I re-quote Marx on the Gun issue.


Don't disarm.

So wait, the quote you linked supports the proletariat taking up arms against the state, but you want guns in order to kill said proletariat? What?

- - - Updated - - -

Same as me, i think he finds you insufferable, so he decides to ignore you.

Except I did nothing to be viewed as such. Unless you can point to an example.

Edit: This is why you're losing the plot here. You keep insisting I'm a bad person based on some slight. But you won't go into detail about what that slight is, which would be fine, except you also get angry when I make inferences based on this.

[Theodarzna]

skeptical of standing armies,

Well to honor the constitution we aught to disband said standing army.

[Daelak]

Well to honor the constitution we aught to disband said standing army.

Good luck getting support from conservatives with that.

[Theodarzna]

Good luck getting support from conservatives with that.

Well, I might have greater luck, after all I am not someone who spends a lot of time ascribing them as being the source and birthplace of all human darkness and evil.

[Felya]

Well, I might have greater luck, after all I am not someone who spends a lot of time ascribing them as being the source and birthplace of all human darkness and evil.

Yes, we know you think AOC is exactly that....

[Edge-]

Yes, we know you think AOC is exactly that....

I'm pretty sure Charlton Heston could rise from the grave and advocate for disbanding the standing US army...and would be called a RINO, a communist, a socialist, antifa, a gun-taker, and every other left-leaning pejorative one can think of.

[Theodarzna]

I'm pretty sure Charlton Heston could rise from the grave and advocate for disbanding the standing US army...and would be called a RINO, a communist, a socialist, antifa, a gun-taker, and every other left-leaning pejorative one can think of.

There are for example people out there not obsessed with political brand loyalty. I know it is rarely seen in the digital space, but it is a factor. Plus if you look at Daelek's take on history, its just a mirror copy of Dinesh D'Souza.

[Daelak]

Well, I might have greater luck, after all I am not someone who spends a lot of time ascribing them as being the source and birthplace of all human darkness and evil.

I never said that. I said their ideology is the evolution of monarchism, feudalism. Stop defending them.

- - - Updated - - -

There are for example people out there not obsessed with political brand loyalty. I know it is rarely seen in the digital space, but it is a factor. Plus if you look at Daelek's take on history, its just a mirror copy of Dinesh D'Souza.

Dinesh D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist, and has no problem using conservative revisionist history to gloss over atrocities done to preserve the status quo.

[Theodarzna]

I never said that. I said their ideology is the evolution of monarchism, feudalism. Stop defending them.

Dinesh D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist, and has no problem using conservative revisionist history to gloss over atrocities done to preserve the status quo.

There is no ideology, you draw whatever chains you want. Your entire Historical narration is the exact thing of Dinesh D'Souza. Pure revisionism to legitimate a political party. Except unlike Dinesh who at least got paid for being a Court Poet for the GOP, you do this act for free on MMO-C.

[Daelak]

There is no ideology, you draw whatever chains you want. Your entire Historical narration is the exact thing of Dinesh D'Souza. Pure revisionism to legitimate a political party. Except unlike Dinesh who at least got paid for being a Court Poet for the GOP, you do this act for free on MMO-C.

You're free to dispute anything I have said here.

[Zan15]

I have noticed a trend that cannot be at all explained, where a certain type of person who loves to explain that everything The Democratic Party does is good because of pragmatism and winning elections turns around and picks the most unpopular issue they can possibly find to radicalize on. Medicare for All is just too goddamn unpopular to ever attempt, despite being rather popular with the masses across the board. But have it in their full conviction that we should try and repeal the 2nd Amendment despite being unpopular.

Wait how can you say both its "too goddamn unpopular" and "rather popular with the masses across the board"???


Every poll shows the majority of American's support a public option, so how do you come to the point it so goddamn unpopular??? Or did you? You said both things while going off on some make believe tangent about democratic party.
Its only "goddamn unpopular" by republicans because they have been fed lies by their own party so much so that they would probably vote to abolish Medicare at this point because its too goddamn socialist.

Good points. .

Good points, from the man who benefits from the govt public option already. Or is that two public options (well only special members of the public)

[Theodarzna]

Wait how can you say both its "too goddamn unpopular" and "rather popular with the masses across the board"???

My mistake I should have put that bit in quotes, People often say "Its too unpopular" despite every poll in the world revealing the opposite.