Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Edge-]

The Constitution said slavery is over, that black were equal under the law.

It makes zero explicit mention of slavery, actually. And it makes no such claim.

For someone who has a lot of strong opinions on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, you seem to have very little understanding of either.

[Endus]

It makes zero explicit mention of slavery, actually.

Well . . .

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3;

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

"Held to service or labour" means "enslaved"; it's just alternate language for the same thing. There's a couple other even less direct clauses, mostly left out today since they were retroactively rendered null by the 13th Amendment.

[Edge-]

Not to get off-topic, but that's implicit vs. explicit. The three-fifths clause is similarly an implicit statement of it (though expands beyond that including counting Native peoples rofl).

Just wild that people who so strongly cling to the Second Amendment seem to have such woefully little understanding of the document that it is Amending.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It makes zero explicit mention of slavery, actually. And it makes no such claim.

For someone who has a lot of strong opinions on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, you seem to have very little understanding of either.

I have a great understanding for both the spirit and the letter.

The constitution doesn’t explicitly right down everything that is a right. It includes what we agree upon as right.

People still had rights before the constitution.

If you understood that you’d know why you’re wrong.

The entire civil rights movement wasn’t about not having rights alone. It was about realizing and recognizing those rights.

The fact that some rights have to be written at all is a failure of us as humans. But that’s not a conversation you’re anywhere close to having.

- - - Updated - - -

Not to get off-topic, but that's implicit vs. explicit. The three-fifths clause is similarly an implicit statement of it (though expands beyond that including counting Native peoples rofl).

Just wild that people who so strongly cling to the Second Amendment seem to have such woefully little understanding of the document that it is Amending.

No it’s you that doesn’t understand because you’re the one taking about taking people’s rights away. By that I mean putting conditions on them at all which can and is looked at as you just trying to find one more layer to your agenda that’s Completely ignoring the rights over all.

No. You’re not taking my guns. I don’t need to give you a reason to exercise my rights. And no I don’t believe you give two shits about me or anyone else.

This is a power move and because I said so. That can kick rocks.

[Edge-]

I have a great understanding for both the spirit and the letter.

All evidence points to the opposite.

The constitution doesn’t explicitly right down everything that is a right. It includes what we agree upon as right.

Like what? List a few that we all agree on that exist as rights without being explicitly written down?

People still had rights before the constitution.

They have in some times and places, yeah. Nobody has claimed the Constitution created rights.

If you understood that you’d know why you’re wrong.

"If you understood you'd agree with me, but I won't explain it to you." isn't a good argument.

The entire civil rights movement wasn’t about not having rights alone. It was about realizing and recognizing those rights.

No, that was literally people protesting and dying to get equally protected rights. In writing. And we still have a ways to go on this front.

The fact that some rights have to be written at all is a failure of us as humans. But that’s not a conversation you’re anywhere close to having.

No, that's how rights work. We're not a hive-mind, we can't telepathically communicate rights.

No it’s you that doesn’t understand because you’re the one taking about taking people’s rights away.

Yes, just like the 13th Amendment took away peoples rights to own slaves. How terrible it was that peoples rights to own people were taken away. Dreadful.

Apparently, according to your posts at least which simply decry the removal of a right in general.

By that I mean putting conditions on them at all which can and is looked at as you just trying to find one more layer to your agenda that’s Completely ignoring the rights over all.

This is a generally correct, but largely imprecise summation of my views. Credit for trying, but this is not a passing grade for an attempt to restate my position.

No. You’re not taking my guns.

Great news: I don't want to as a general rule.

And no I don’t believe you give two shits about me or anyone else.

The irony of this statement is not lost on me.

[Endus]

I have a great understanding for both the spirit and the letter.

The constitution doesn’t explicitly right down everything that is a right. It includes what we agree upon as right.

People still had rights before the constitution.

If you understood that you’d know why you’re wrong.

Because they had rights under the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Those rights weren't magically floating around the natural ether.

No it’s you that doesn’t understand because you’re the one taking about taking people’s rights away. By that I mean putting conditions on them at all which can and is looked at as you just trying to find one more layer to your agenda that’s Completely ignoring the rights over all.

For the fourth time; can an ex-felon with a long history of violence and diagnosed mental health problems legally buy a gun?

Yes or no?

[Doctor Amadeus]

All evidence points to the opposite.

You're say so alone is not evidence.

Like what? List a few that we all agree on that exist as rights without being explicitly written down?

We don't have to agree on a right, that is what makes it a right. It isn't something one has control over or should as it applies to a human life.

They have in some times and places, yeah. Nobody has claimed the Constitution created rights.

You have, because you conflate letter vs spirit and a natural right, with a written righ.

"If you understood you'd agree with me, but I won't explain it to you." isn't a good argument.

I'm not responsible for what you don't know, and I am not charged with explaining it. A discussion doesn't consist of me teaching you something you claim to already be an expert on, especially in the face of you mocking disrespect, and over all saying you don't take what I say seriously or my argument unless I meet YOUR conditions.

No, that was literally people protesting and dying to get equally protected rights. In writing. And we still have a ways to go on this front.

It was in part but it was also about recognizing their natural rights, and rights constitutionally that were denied.

No, that's how rights work. We're not a hive-mind, we can't telepathically communicate rights.

That's how laws work, and we don't need telepathy to know a human being needs to eat, a human being needs shelter, a human being needs love, and warmth etc. We can disagree about the degrees of need and what is a desire vs a need.

But most people do have a sense of right and wrong.

Yes, just like the 13th Amendment took away peoples rights to own slaves. How terrible it was that peoples rights to own people were taken away. Dreadful.

I wouldn't say it was a right, I would say it a was a privilege provided to one group over another based on race religion and a belief system, not rooted in fact.

This is a generally correct, but largely imprecise summation of my views. Credit for trying, but this is not a passing grade for an attempt to restate my position.

I see that, gun owners see that which is why you can talk all day long, listening is done.

Great news: I don't want to as a general rule.

I don't trust you based on your argument and attitude, therefor I don't believe you.

The irony of this statement is not lost on me.

Well Ice is Cold.

- - - Updated - - -

Because they had rights under the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Those rights weren't magically floating around the natural ether.

For the fourth time; can an ex-felon with a long history of violence and diagnosed mental health problems legally buy a gun?

Yes or no?

I see your post, I am not going to be responding to you about anything at any point on anything. I already said this to you but maybe you missed it or don't care which is fine. But until you apologize to me, and if you don't know what for don't worry about it. I am not going to reply to you at all.

I am saying this incase you missed it, if you didn't then I see what you're writing I am just not going to respond. You want to discuss it you can message me privately. Enough derailing entire threads. I don't want to do that.

[Endus]

You have, because you conflate letter vs spirit and a natural right, with a written righ.

Because your use of "natural right" is incorrect.

I don't trust you based on your argument and attitude, therefor I don't believe you.

Literally the definition of an ad hominem fallacy, just stated openly as if it were a valid position.

You're just admitting to your own bad faith.

- - - Updated - - -

I see your post, I am not going to be responding to you about anything at any point. I already said this to you but maybe you missed it or don't care which is fine.

I really don't care about whether you respond to me. I'll keep making my points to everyone else by your silence.

But until you apologize to me, and if you don't know what for don't worry about it. I am not going to reply to you at all.

I have done literally nothing that would, in any way, warrant apologizing to you.

[Edge-]

We don't have to agree on a right, that is what makes it a right. It isn't something one has control over or should as it applies to a human life.

So what are some rights then?

You have, because you conflate letter vs spirit and a natural right, with a written righ.

Please cite my post where I claimed the Constitution created the concept of rights, then. Because it's the source of our current rights, but it did not create the concept.

I'm not responsible for what you don't know, and I am not charged with explaining it.

This is literally how basic discussions work, my dude.

It was in part but it was also about recognizing their natural rights, and rights constitutionally that were denied.

Citation needed on the bolded*

That's how laws work, and we don't need telepathy to know a human being needs to eat, a human being needs shelter, a human being needs love, and warmth etc.

None of those things are actually rights in the United States. As evidenced by -

Millions of unhoused people throughout the country
Millions of people dealing with regular food insecurity

But most people do have a sense of right and wrong.

Sure, but most people also don't agree on this either, depending on where they got their moral compas from.

I wouldn't say it was a right, I would say it a was a privilege provided to one group over another based on race religion and a belief system, not rooted in fact.

It was a privilege? What did they have to do to earn said privilege? Last I recall it was as little as going to a slave auction and buying a slave. There was no formal registration process or regulatory body at this point in US history.

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is literally how basic discussions work, my dude.

No it's how arguments work, I am not arguing we're having a discussion about that based on our positions, but we don't have to agree to disagree. I disagree with you period. No explanation needed, if you want my point of view you keep asking me about, I'll give it.

I am not here to prove to you anything.

Citation needed on the bolded*

No it's not. Nothing in it for me or anyone else.

None of those things are actually rights in the United States. As evidenced by -

Millions of unhoused people throughout the country
Millions of people dealing with regular food insecurity

I don't agree and it's precisely this attitude which you are not alone in that I believe is the problem, It's a big chunk of why we have the issues we have. Pointing to some document with the understanding of history and saying that see, this, this is all that matters fundamentally misses the point.

In a court of law yes, but anyone who's a free thinking individual is not going to comply. What's put on paper has to be as good as the people who put it there and the people responsible for adhering to it.

If you already demonstrated you don't give a shit about those rights by trying to play pick a privilege or regulation with it, regardless to how those you target view that, well then yeah GOOD LUCK!

Sure, but most people also don't agree on this either, depending on where they got their moral compas from.

This is true, you could replace Nature with God or whatever people believe in OR NOT. The point is it's about what we come together and agree to, not what we don't. That is the reason for the constitution.

But as I said before, if the people putting to paper aren't every bit as good as those writing it or agreeing to follow it then you have NOTHING. It's toilet paper, it's not a right and as you apply it in my opinion it's a privilege.

Because you don't know what a right or privilege is. "I don't like it, so you don't get to do it" isn't it doesn't matter how many friends you get to agree.

It was a privilege? What did they have to do to earn said privilege? Last I recall it was as little as going to a slave auction and buying a slave. There was no formal registration process or regulatory body at this point in US history.

What did slave owners do to earn that privilege. Who says you have to earn a privilege, they had guns, they had numbers, they had force. Who stopped them?


Do you think it was words on a document that started a war or ended it? If that's true then I see another reason for your attitude.


Might makes right might be another tactic but in the end every war every conflict it always comes down to what I said, people in the end sitting down and making an agreement based on intentions.


Which as I said words are only as good as those who write them and those responsible to follow them. A piece of paper and the law alone are meaningless. You need people.

[Endus]

No it's how arguments work, I am not arguing we're having a discussion about that based on our positions, but we don't have to agree to disagree. I disagree with you period. No explanation needed, if you want my point of view you keep asking me about, I'll give it.

I am not here to prove to you anything.

Then you're not here to participate in discussion, you're here to threadbomb and irritate people.

Discussion involves you stating an opinion, and if others find that opinion confusing or contestable, they'll question it and how you drew that conclusion. If your response to that is just to say "Neener neener, I don't owe you any explanation at all, you just have to deal with me and my opinion no matter how unfounded", you're not there for good-faith reasons. You're either only interested in affirmation, rather than discussion, or you were intentionally engaging to bother other people as your primary goal.

Imagine hearing colleagues chatting about a movie that just came out, and you walked up and said "The movie sucks ass", and then they asked "Really? I loved it. Why'd you hate it?", and then you responded "I'm not here to prove anything to you, it just sucks ass".

That's you being a jerk, not you engaging in good-faith discussion.

[UnifiedDivide]

I have a great understanding for both the spirit and the letter.

You clearly don't, as subsequent posts have shown. I assume that's why you ignored Endus' post before this one lol And seem to keep ignoring, because you know you can't argue against what he's said with anything close to reality. Even on an incredibly basic level you've just been wrong about the Constitution.

[Grinning Serpent]

Did you think for one second what you just wrote here? Jesus christ...

It's the most deadly because it's the cheapest and most widely available, not because it's the most powerful or effective. The cheaper and more widely available a gun or caliber is, the more likely it will be used in crimes because the majority of guns used in crime are guns stolen from lawful users. If you're going to be a massive prick, you should at least put the bare minimum into actually thinking through your arguments before posting them.

Like I said in that bit you ignored - if .22 was super deadly and effective at stopping bad guys, it would be the caliber of choice for peacekeeping forces the world over because it would save thousands of dollars from individual police force budgets annually.

But it's *not* effective. It's just cheap.

[Gabriel]

It's the most deadly because it's the cheapest and most widely available, not because it's the most powerful or effective. The cheaper and more widely available a gun or caliber is, the more likely it will be used in crimes because the majority of guns used in crime are guns stolen from lawful users. If you're going to be a massive prick, you should at least put the bare minimum into actually thinking through your arguments before posting them.

Like I said in that bit you ignored - if .22 was super deadly and effective at stopping bad guys, it would be the caliber of choice for peacekeeping forces the world over because it would save thousands of dollars from individual police force budgets annually.

But it's *not* effective. It's just cheap.

Are you seriously not seeing what you type out?

You claimed that it would be better to restrict calibers rather than styles of action, and that rimfire calibers would be fine to not regulate as much because they are not as deadly as center fire cartridges, and then you say that rimfire calibers are:
-cheaper
-more widely available
-already the most used caliber for gun violence
-just as deadly as center fire cartridges

How can you contradict yourself so hard and refuse to see it?

[Grinning Serpent]

-just as deadly as center fire cartridges

Remember what I said about you needing to slow your roll and actually read before trying to play keyboard warrior?

I never *once* said that rimfire is just as lethal as center fire. I said the literal, exact opposite. I also explained how a rimfire caliber can be the most deadly caliber, but also simultaneously less deadly (lethal would probably be the more accurate term) than a center fire caliber. Please go back and actually read the posts you're replying to, I *twice* explained to you why that is and how that works.

You're apparently reading a post and then making up your own mind about what was *actually* written and then arguing against that. I didn't suggest .22 was somehow incapable of killing people, just that it's going to be a lot less effective at killing people than larger calibers... which is completely true.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right about .22lr and its lethality, statistically even. Anything that isn't causing substantial hydrostatic shock is just poking holes in people, which obviously can still be lethal, even firing .22lr out of a handgun. Small but fast projectiles like 5.56x45mm out of a sufficiently long barrel at a given distance has a hydrostatic effect when entering fluid which creates a large permanent wound cavity in comparison.

Personally either 5.7x28mm out of a +5" barrel, 5.56x45mm out of my 14.5" build, or my M1014 clone with #4 buckshot (which is practically 27 shots of .22lr at the same time) would do the job. Luckily I don't have to worry about grizzlies where I live otherwise that M1014 would have 1oz slugs.

Plenty of people on both sides don't properly learn the legal and mechanical/chemical parts of firearms, it is genuinely a lot of information to sort through, especially given how complex and nuanced US firearms laws are and the amount of engineering knowledge required for the latter.

Even as someone who owns several .22lr firearms, one of which that can go nearly a whole 500rd box without a malfunction, I still wouldn't rely on it for any reason. Something like 5.7x28mm can do far better at with more energy, reliability, and ballistics. Its still like +$0.50/round in the US but that's better than when I first got into it at $1.50/round.

Lucky Gunner did a video on the fuddlore of "stopping power" and arguments about caliber size a while back, took me a bit to dig through old videos to find it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y

You summarized it pretty well. Below a certain amount of energy, you're just poking holes in things. The flesh of the body expands (like water, because our soft tissues are mostly water) and then snaps back into place. You have to exceed a certain level of speed/energy to overwhelm the body's ability to expand and then snap back into place - instead of snapping back into place, it just tears.

[Gabriel]

Remember what I said about you needing to slow your roll and actually read before trying to play keyboard warrior?

I never *once* said that rimfire is just as lethal as center fire. I said the literal, exact opposite. I also explained how a rimfire caliber can be the most deadly caliber, but also simultaneously less deadly (lethal would probably be the more accurate term) than a center fire caliber. Please go back and actually read the posts you're replying to, I *twice* explained to you why that is and how that works.

So rimfire calibers are more deadly than center fire calibers? Your writing makes zero fucking sense.

You're apparently reading a post and then making up your own mind about what was *actually* written and then arguing against that. I didn't suggest .22 was somehow incapable of killing people, just that it's going to be a lot less effective at killing people than larger calibers... which is completely true.

So if rimfire calibers can be just as deadly as center fire calibers, why should rimfire calibers be less controlled that center fire calibers?

Are you seriously so blind to your own argument that you want to die on this particular hill, instead of just admitting that the type of action of the firearm is the most deciding factor in how much damage a spree shooter can do?

Lucky Gunner did a video on the fuddlore of "stopping power" and arguments about caliber size a while back, took me a bit to dig through old videos to find it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6kUvi72s0Y

You summarized it pretty well. Below a certain amount of energy, you're just poking holes in things. The flesh of the body expands (like water, because our soft tissues are mostly water) and then snaps back into place. You have to exceed a certain level of speed/energy to overwhelm the body's ability to expand and then snap back into place - instead of snapping back into place, it just tears.

You'll die all the same if you get shot in the head with .22 or 9mm and don't get medical attention soon enough.

[BigToast]

Guns for women only. Sorry guys, all the incel male mass shooters ruined it for you all. Time to find another hobby to compensate for what you lack downstairs.

[Gabriel]

Guns for women only. Sorry guys, all the incel male mass shooters ruined it for you all. Time to find another hobby to compensate for what you lack downstairs.

Female please. Just like my penis, the sole function of guns is my own pleasure.

[Elder Millennial]

Guns for women only. Sorry guys, all the incel male mass shooters ruined it for you all. Time to find another hobby to compensate for what you lack downstairs.

I can get behind this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If every woman who can legally own a gun, learns how to use them my guess is that the questions and misunderstandings about informed consent issues is going to drop like a fucking rock.

I also think Trans and LGBTQIA+ who do the same thing along with EVERY Marginalized group, targeted for death threats and stalking are going to be a lot better off too.