Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Elegiac]

I don't believe one should need a license to exercise what is in fact a right

I don't believe the piece of paper you're referring to explicitly guarantees personal firearm ownership as a right, actually. Same isn't the case with voting which is pretty explicitly spelled out.

And it's immaterial either way since one has to do with one's representation in government which is actually an organic necessity in a functional democracy, the other has to do with being able to stop the federal government from taking your slaves away -- sorry, I mean... unrestricted public weapons ownership, which is actually not necessary for a functional democracy and can be argued is a sign of a failed state.

[Edge-]

The point you keep ducking and dodging is the refusal to just admit the goal of the fee's and restrictions is to make sure fewer people own guns.

Hell, I think most folks would even be fine with the license and any related training/testing be free itself. It's a protective measure, not a punitive tax.

Wat? Do you read my posts or do you just imagine what they say and respond accordingly?

Given that banning guns outright is hard and unpopular, but for some reason Liberals are obsessed and radicalized on doing so one way or another

I don't think anybody is seriously talking about banning guns as a practical measure, Theo, at least not me. This is your hyperbolic strawmaning, and it's a bad argumentative tactic.

[Theodarzna]

Wat? Do you read my posts or do you just imagine what they say and respond accordingly?

I don't think anybody is seriously talking about banning guns as a practical measure, Theo, at least not me. This is your hyperbolic strawmaning, and it's a bad argumentative tactic.

I'd respect people more if they actually stated that was their goal, rather than tip toe around the obvious.

You are fine with a license and higher cost to own why? Because if you aren't keeping guns out of peoples hands you aren't changing anything. Unless you think a mass shooter only exists because nobody said to them "Hey, don't shoot up a school!", like what, do you think The Columbine Shooters just weren't informed they aren't supposed to do a mass shooting?

[Edge-]

I'd respect people more if they actually stated that was their goal, rather than tip toe around the obvious.

And when people do, and that doesn't line up with what you think their goal is, you post shit like this.

Believe it or not, not everyone has secret, nefarious, ulterior motives behind every post.

You are fine with a license and higher cost to own why?

I see you're still not reading my posts. Please go back and re-read it as this has already been answered. And I re-quoted that answer for you.

Because if you aren't keeping guns out of peoples hands you aren't changing anything.

This is objectively untrue. If you're teaching people proper safety, including storage, we could reduce the number of accidental deaths due to children getting their hands on guns, for example. I'd say that's a pretty universally positive benefit, no? It doesn't even require "taking guns away" or "limiting guns", just making sure that idiots who don't respect guns have a chance to learn how to not be dangerous idiots with it.

Unless you think a mass shooter only exists because nobody said to them "Hey, don't shoot up a school!", like what, do you think The Columbine Shooters just weren't informed they aren't supposed to do a mass shooting?

Nobody is pretending these measures will stop all gun violence, Theo. Literally nobody at all.

[Elegiac]

I'd respect people more if they actually stated that was their goal, rather than tip toe around the obvious.

You are fine with a license and higher cost to own why? Because if you aren't keeping guns out of peoples hands you aren't changing anything. Unless you think a mass shooter only exists because nobody said to them "Hey, don't shoot up a school!", like what, do you think The Columbine Shooters just weren't informed they aren't supposed to do a mass shooting?

"You're trying to take guns away from X people therefore you must be okay with and/or actively supporting taking away guns from ALL people" is a head-in-ass argument, just fyi.

[Mayhem]

I'd respect people more if they actually stated that was their goal, rather than tip toe around the obvious.

You are fine with a license and higher cost to own why? Because if you aren't keeping guns out of peoples hands you aren't changing anything. Unless you think a mass shooter only exists because nobody said to them "Hey, don't shoot up a school!", like what, do you think The Columbine Shooters just weren't informed they aren't supposed to do a mass shooting?

Do you deliberately or by chance not understand that the people you are talking about already aren't allowed to own guns? The measurements we are talking about are to make it harder and almost impossible for criminals to obtain guns. Those are the people that would be constrained. For that, there does not need to be a cost applied to neither the license nor the registry. Considering we are talking about the US though, it probably will be applied because if there isn't something explicitly stated as free in the constitution it will get a price tag.

I can't believe you're a teacher.

[Bakis]

Someone remind me.

What is the supposed purpose for allowing AR-15? A military designed weapon that packs 10 times the energy than a bullet fron a gun (must be fun for the ER)?
There are a plethora of handguns which would be more agile to use for protection anyway, pack enough kenetic energy and if a full magazine from a handgun, shotgun wont do the job odds are the person firing it shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

Then again, AR-15 is classified as a pistol so all is fine.
My bad it is a handgun after all

[Saucexorzski]

Got to love the ACAB crowd coming in here talking about taking guns away from folks again like they think civil servants would be doing that job. Y'all so cute with your hatred of poor folks right to defend themselves. No cops and no guns, well only if you are poor that is.

[Felya]

Someone remind me.

What is the supposed purpose for allowing AR-15? A military designed weapon that packs 10 times the energy than a bullet fron a gun (must be fun for the ER)?
There are a plethora of handguns which would be more agile to use for protection anyway, pack enough kenetic energy and if a full magazine from a handgun, shotgun wont do the job odds are the person firing it shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

Then again, AR-15 is classified as a pistol so all is fine.
My bad it is a handgun after all

I don’t know... when ever I see anyone doing the tough guy routine, saying they need it against government or freedom... I try to always ask, who are they planning to shoot... I don’t remember ever getting an answer that didn’t contradict their demands to shoot against government or for freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

Got to love the ACAB crowd coming in here talking about taking guns away from folks again like they think civil servants would be doing that job. Y'all so cute with your hatred of poor folks right to defend themselves. No cops and no guns, well only if you are poor that is.

What poor folks are buying guns? We are talking about wanting a 15$ minimum wage, which would help poor buy not only guns, but food and shelter. Yet, ya’ll keep saying it’s keeping the poor from defending them selfs? Sorry, you can’t use the poor not buying something that is not a necessity, to protect your gun fetish.

Edit: An AR 15 can cost more than 2000 dollars... it would take 276 hours, before taxes, for someone on minimum wage to buy an AR 15... that’s nearly 2 months of not buying food... not paying rent... not paying taxes... for an AR 15... but, you are going to tell me this is about the poor?

Edit 2: ACAB is an interesting thing to bring up... Why do cops claim they shoot people in instances that lead to people screaming ACAB? Is it:

A: People who scream ACAB.
B: Gun owners.

I’ll spoil it... cops blame gun owners... but, that’s ya’ll blind spot... Trump is on record saying that guns should be taken away, before any investigation. Ya’ll ignored it... where if a democrat said it, you’d lose your shit. Same with cops... they say gun owners are the reason cops need to shoot first... but, ya’ll act like it’s folks screaming ACAB... weird...

[Saucexorzski]

What poor folks are buying guns? We are talking about wanting a 15$ minimum wage, which would help poor buy not only guns, but food and shelter. Yet, ya’ll keep saying it’s keeping the poor from defending them selfs? Sorry, you can’t use the poor not buying something that is not a necessity, to protect your gun fetish.

no you are talking about removing guns with coercion of taxation. yet again penalizing the poor because you hate the poor. Pretty sad really.

[Felya]

no you are talking about removing guns with coercion of taxation. yet again penalizing the poor because you hate the poor. Pretty sad really.

What? Quote me... because lying to defend a gun fetish, after 2 shooting sprees within a week, is creepy... Why do cops claim they are so prone to acting first? You brought up ACAB... so... what do cops blame for being bad?

Edit: If you are going to make shit up again... I’m going make an honest case, showing you want poor people to be killed by cops.

[PhaelixWW]

Edit: An AR 15 can cost more than 2000 dollars... it would take 276 hours, before taxes, for someone on minimum wage to buy an AR 15... that’s nearly 2 months of not buying food... not paying rent... not paying taxes... for an AR 15... but, you are going to tell me this is about the poor?

"can" != "does"

AR-15's start at around $500 and most are under $1k.

But yes, the federal minimum wage should be increased to a point where people are able to spend the occasional $500 on safety without having to choose to not eat.

[Felya]

I have a fun thing to ask? Can anyone guess what the biggest and most effective special interest is in US? Let’s just say if you support the NRA, you have no capacity to claim you want special interest, out of politics. You have no place to say you want money out politics. You have absolutely 0 credibility in demanding a political swamp be drained.



- - - Updated - - -

"can" != "does"

AR-15's start at around $500 and most are under $1k.

I know... I did the same google search you did...

[Daelak]

Jim Crow era of... like, I dunno 3-4 years ago?

- - - Updated - - -



The actual text is discussed with scrupulous and definitive historical accuracy in the Heller majority

- - - Updated - - -



I can't imagine being ridiculous enough a pseudo-intellect to look at the 3/5ths clause and saying "oh the racism!" You probably think the right thing would be that slaved were "worth 5/5ths, the full value of a regular person" and completely ignore the fact (cleverly hidden behind English literacy) that the clause exists to constrain the Congressional power of slave-owning states by not letting them benefit from owning fucking slaves.

Imagine being such a deluded conservative that you actually believe that was the position of CONFEDERATE states. Their baseline position was not ratifying the constitution. They deceived the northern states to gain outsized influence in the federal government, then started a war when western territories were outlawing slavery, like the cornered piece of shit rats they were.

How surprising a conservative doesn't even know the history of the forebears of their ideology.

[Theodarzna]

Nobody is pretending these measures will stop all gun violence, Theo. Literally nobody at all.

These measures already exist in most states, so then you are spinning your wheels about nothing at all. Kids accidentally shooting themselves is somewhat rare.

- - - Updated - - -

The measurements we are talking about are to make it harder and almost impossible for criminals to obtain guns.

(A) That is largely already the case.

(B) How do we stop people before crimes are committed? And if the crime doesn't involve a gun? Or what level of crimes?

(C) I apologize for being a teacher and not a devout Democrat.

- - - Updated - - -

Got to love the ACAB crowd coming in here talking about taking guns away from folks again like they think civil servants would be doing that job. Y'all so cute with your hatred of poor folks right to defend themselves. No cops and no guns, well only if you are poor that is.

We go from ACAB to "Only the police and Army should be armed" really quick.

[Felya]

We go from ACAB to "Only the police and Army should be armed" really quick.

What do police claim makes them shoot first? What is it about US, that they claim causing them to be the B in ACAB?

We didn’t go anywhere... Police already claim that gun owners are the reason they are B...

Run away from the issues, just spit hyperbole...

Edit: This is one of those questions, the cult of gun simply will never answer. The same way they will never answer who they plan to shoot in their uprising. Just like they will clutch a blue lives matters flag, as they beat cops to death.

Make this your new argument... We need more guns, to protect our selfs from cops... and pretend you are not the one screaming ACAB...

Edit 2: ACAB doesn’t hinge their ideology on being able to shoot cops, when they feel their rights are impeded, that would be second amendment warriors. That’s why ya’ll never answer who you plan to shoot... because I bet cops prefer ACAB calls them bastards, than ya’ll expressing your second amendment right.

Ask any cop... ACAB > Shooting cops when your rights are infringed...

[Edge-]

Got to love the ACAB crowd coming in here talking about taking guns away from folks again like they think civil servants would be doing that job. Y'all so cute with your hatred of poor folks right to defend themselves. No cops and no guns, well only if you are poor that is.

How do people in literally every other developed country where they aren't armed to the teeth, survive? I mean, surely the crime rates must be astronomical, no? Since they don't all have guns to protect themselves and whatnot?

[Felya]

How do people in literally every other developed country where they aren't armed to the teeth, survive? I mean, surely the crime rates must be astronomical, no? Since they don't all have guns to protect themselves and whatnot?

Without freedom... obviously...

[cubby]

The gun control debate is over. Period. The United States needs to adopt dramatic gun control measures in order to curtail gun violence. The litany of reasons will continue to be ignored by those that refuse to accept reality, so the conversation is no longer worth having.

[Bakis]

I don’t know... when ever I see anyone doing the tough guy routine, saying they need it against government or freedom... I try to always ask, who are they planning to shoot... I don’t remember ever getting an answer that didn’t contradict their demands to shoot against government or for freedom.

Shoot at the drone with Hellfire missiles a "few" km up in the air of cos!
Clay pigeon shooter for the win

- - - Updated - - -

Fun fact: after US, the country with most guns per 100 people is Yemen (which happens to be a 3rd world country in the middle of a civil war).