• Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC
    704 replies, posted
No like, I actually just want to know
Considering, again, you've been shitposting about it for ages, it'd definitely help someone see your way of thinking if you did anything besides say "guns are scary and I don't like them, please go away!!!"
...My posts have merit in themselves. If you can't read my posts and think about their merit beyond what my past unrelated posts said, then it's not my responsibility to prove some legislating capacity
If your position is that we need gun control and that we should discount it out of hand, then that has already happened in this very thread.
And that's something that can be addressed, especially if the ban is enacted on a long enough time-span. Even a full assault weapon ban doesn't have to happen overnight.
Your posts are almost always "they should do the thing, that obvious thing!" "What thing?" "That thing, you know, the thing!".
I'm just saying, I love to collect gunpla figures, but if my 1/144 HGUC Sazabi was responsible for the worst mass killings in american history then I wouldn't be surprised that they would end up being banned, and I would give them up no matter how much I want to reenact Char's Counterattack. Yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of people who own guns and wouldn't shoot up a nightclub, but why should we even have to take that risk? I mean fuck, the 'well-regulated' part is even in the goddamn 2nd Amendment.
I feel like your solution would lead to a shitload of people buying a shitload of "assault weapons" and that, depending on the timescales we are talking about, it might not even become law, instead being killed by the Republicans when they inevitably gain control of the Senate again.
Honestly does anyone even get anything out of this shit other than increased blood pressure? I have no idea why I continue to participate in this idiotic merry-go-round. We live in a world of tribalistic feels before reels post-fact shit flinging, where debate and outreach taken in good faith is a relic of a bygone time. I'm not even completely innocent here. Until both sides can accept that the other is composed of real human beings worthy of respect and with feelings, beliefs, and reasons for thinking the way they do, everyone just needs to shut the fuck up about it.
Okay so it's back to mass shootings, I'm just trying to understand here, what guns do you want banned? AR-15s? Assault weapons? Semi-automatics? All firearms? Well-regulated meant something different in the 18th century.
Okay... So respond to these ones then
In my solution, the ban on buying assault weapons would still happen immediately. The ban on owning them would take far longer, so that everyone has a chance to either take compensation or otherwise give them up. As for the Republicans, I grant that may be an obstacle. I also believe that their entire party is about to be on its deathbed if it isn't already, so we'll see how that pans out.
I think like 10 of these threads ago it finally clicked that all of this arguing over gun control is never going to get anywhere and seeing it be the only focus of discussion just kind of depresses me. Its always this. Its always just gun control, thats the only thing anyone talks about, and by talks, i mean screams at. Everyone gets so aggressive and snide and condescending and angry.
Except the one solution that myself and other gun owners do not want is a ban. I myself made other proposals in this thread, and other FP Gunowners have made other proposals in the past. There are parts of gun control that aren't just "ban guns".
Huh?
You're talking about my old posts for some reason, and not the arguments I'm making now
At the very least, it's nice to exercise one's mind and thought with debate. And I have always come out of these gun debates having learned something new about firearms.
I genuinely don't see why you have made the last three posts in this thread. You are contributing zero to the discussion. And what happens if they don't give them up by the deadline? What happens when a few hundred less people die per year while tens of thousands continue to be killed by handguns?
Okay so it's back to mass shootings, I'm just trying to understand here, what guns do you want banned? AR-15s? Assault weapons? Semi-automatics? All firearms? The ones that can be used to kill multiple people in seconds with a few squeezes. Well-regulated meant something different in the 18th century. Yeah, they didn't have automatic weapons in the 18th century either.
What? I mentioned them because its what you do in these threads, this included. What argument are you making besides that vague thing i already replied to?
Bear in mind, when I say "ban", I'm referring solely to assault weapons and in the hands of civilians. Again, this post of mine and the other posts of mine it links to outline my exact stance on the matter.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the level of technology available at the time it was written.
A pistol can kill multiple people with a few squeezes. Like, try and imagine what specifically the law would have to state in this ban. What exactly is the functionality that you are looking to ban. From that terminology it sounds like it'd have to be a ban on all semiautomatic weapons.
Yes, it is. Same as the AR-15 above it. It's also missing lots of elements, but both share the same functionality of having a detachable box magazine, semi-automatic fire, and the same round, .223 Remington, which is only slightly different from the 5.56 (5.56 is a higher pressure and thus higher velocity round, but not by much). Meaning, functionally, they are the same, it's everything else that makes the difference, like customization.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure they didn't take into account the concept that the government would have predator missiles and F-22s. In that instance, it has less to do with the literal technology and more with the relative power. Back in the 18th century, muskets were as powerful as it could get. If when the declaration of independence was signed, and the colonies had muskets, but the British had Bren guns and howitzers, I'm pretty sure they would have worded it a bit differently.
And I do not agree with your stance of banning all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, etc...
All guns can kill multiple people in seconds with a few squeezes. This isn't helpful to understanding your position. So the argument was "The second amendment defends my position of more regulations" until you saw that well-regulated doesn't meant what you think it means, then it became "the second amendment is irrelevant due to the differences of technology" Can you see why the pro-gun side isn't exactly leaping to your side of the aisle?
Sure, but tbh that's not what I'm advocating. All I'm advocating for is making guns harder to get by people who would commit mass shootings. I'm not sure how this could happen, but in my opinion it needs to. I agree on all points about the mental health and class issues that cause mass shootings, but i don't think gun control should be ignored
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.