• NRA calls for more regulation of bump stock devices used by shooter.
    276 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sableye;52753891]strawman but chicago has the unregulated gary right next to it and is surrounded by unregulated illinois, you don't have to go far to get around their gun laws[/QUOTE] It is 100% illegal to buy a rifle in another state that would be illegal in your home state, and 100% illegal to buy a handgun in another state [i]period[/i]. If someone is acquiring guns that would be illegal where they live by going to another state, they're already breaking the law.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52753734]Ah yes, because those are definitely accurate and not awkward at all:hiddendowns:[/QUOTE] Getting real tired of this shit argument so here is a video with a better technique. [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=RZ-FV_VRlXU[/media] Even then, how accurate you can get has nothing to do with this legislation. Trying to hold a firearm while turning a hand crank isn't intuitive at all, yet this legislation still bans them for the sole purpose "accelerating the rate of fire". If people are able to fire just as fast without any sort of devices, then this legislation is useless at best and harmful at worst.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52754082]It is 100% illegal to buy a rifle in another state that would be illegal in your home state, and 100% illegal to buy a handgun in another state [i]period[/i]. If someone is acquiring guns that would be illegal where they live by going to another state, they're already breaking the law.[/QUOTE] I think it's pretty likely that dudes in Chicago are getting their guns from a bunch of straw buyers in Indiana. All the more reason for the ATF to start enforcing straw buyer laws.
[QUOTE=booster;52752485]Well the gun legislation still has to be approved by a majority of both a committee and the senate. If such an improper and vaguely worded legislation still managed to get through, then you obviously have a corrupt and biased government. If your legislative process is this warped, then you guys have way bigger problems than the ban of some rifle modifications.[/QUOTE] On some level I think the argument is that any attempt at gun control is pointless because criminals will manage to get bump stocks or whatever they want regardless. Which I guess has a certain logic to it, but on the other hand: [img]https://i.imgur.com/FnuW6Q5.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52754369]On some level I think the argument is that any attempt at gun control is pointless because criminals will manage to get bump stocks or whatever they want regardless. Which I guess has a certain logic to it, but on the other hand: -comic-[/QUOTE] That example isn't exactly equivalent though, you have to admit. It's somebody lighting up a cigarette in a public establishment, and the proprietor could easily threaten to call the police and have them removed. Manufacturing an illegal firearm is something that takes place in a garage, workshop or other private space. Unless you restrict industrial equipment such as drill presses, lathes, CNC mills and 3D printers from public access, or install a CCTV camera in every backyard tool shed in the country, there're very few ways to stop a person with the motivation and know-how from manufacturing a submachine gun in their garage, or to detect them in the process.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52754369]On some level I think the argument is that any attempt at gun control is pointless because criminals will manage to get bump stocks or whatever they want regardless. Which I guess has a certain logic to it, but on the other hand: [img]https://i.imgur.com/FnuW6Q5.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Smoking and guns are a 1:1 equivalency. If youre getting your logic from political funnies in the daily newspaper, you need to reevaluate your logic.
I'm not opposed to proper well thought out firearms legislation, but lets face facts here. No amount of legislation was ever going to stop the Vegas shooting from happening and no amount of legislation is going to stop the next shooting. This country is so damn set on coming up with half assed solutions. Every time a shooting happens, we rush to ban something that the shooter used. Maybe it's high capacity magazines, or a special type of stock, but it's always something. The worst part is that it's not going to help solve the issue and anyone believing that it will is fucking delusional. The only thing legislation like this does is hurt responsible gun owners by treating them like they're criminals and allow our politicians to say "Look at how much of a good job we're doing.". You want to stop these shootings from happening, you go after the reasons. That means overhauling healthcare, working to combat social issues, encouraging people to get help and providing that help when they need it. The sad truth though is that with the way we're going now, it's going to take years before we actually get started on solving these problems and it's going to take even longer before we start seeing the benefits. Like pretty much every other important issue, we had our chance and instead of taking the initiative and working hard to solve the problems, we decided to take the easy route and sit on our ass and do nothing. Now we get to reap the rewards of our inaction every other month.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52754841]Smoking and guns are a 1:1 equivalency. If youre getting your logic from political funnies in the daily newspaper, you need to reevaluate your logic.[/QUOTE] Of course they aren't 1:1, smoking kills orders of magnitude more people each year and costs us untold billions in medical costs and lost labor. Smoking can't defend your home, your rights, or put meat on the table. Roughly half a million Americans each year die from complications related to smoking. Guns aren't even in the same sport, much less same league. [url]https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-states.html[/url]
[QUOTE=TraderRager;52751042]If i'm in a nightclub and listening to music or trying to talk to my friends, might not immediately take notice a loud noise 100% of the time. If a deafeningly loud bang happens I will notice right away. Stop acting like I'm fucking implying silencers turn you into Sam Fisher when I have clearly demonstrated that suppressed guns still make noise.[/QUOTE] Well you did call it a silencer for the 99th time even though silencers don't exist You're shouting "I know what I'm talking about!" while showing in the same sentence that you don't know what you're talking about
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52754841]Smoking and guns are a 1:1 equivalency. If youre getting your logic from political funnies in the daily newspaper, you need to reevaluate your logic.[/QUOTE] Smoking and guns are exactly the same wasn't the point I was trying to make.
It seems really idiotic to blame an accessory strapped to a gun on this many deaths and the fact the NRA of all groups is calling for its regulation makes me think it's mostly just diversion tactics.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52755305]Smoking and guns are exactly the same wasn't the point I was trying to make.[/QUOTE] no but you're still using it as a false equivalency to try and subvert the argument that gun regulations only stop the people that would follow them in the first place and that dog don't hunt
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52755529]It seems really idiotic to blame an accessory strapped to a gun on this many deaths and the fact the NRA of all groups is calling for its regulation makes me think it's mostly just diversion tactics.[/QUOTE] If they have to bend a little bit rather than break, that's fine in their mind. Most keyboard warriors on facebook or uneducated politicians will just see "Oh cool this thing is illegal now." and forget about this incident within a week which is what they are betting on. Until the next mass shooting that is.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52755305]Smoking and guns are exactly the same wasn't the point I was trying to make.[/QUOTE] I get the point you were trying to make, but its not at all applicable. A smoking ban in restaurants is easily enforceable and doesn't punish law abiding smokers, most gun laws some people want to implement are impossible to enforce and ultimately only serve to punish law abiding gun owners and make them paper criminals. The reason we don't want further bans is because we know that criminals will continue to break the law and circumvent them, but the absolute vast majority of gun owners will be punished because they follow the law. Its absolutely pants on head retarded to punish the millions of Americans for the actions of just a few thousand Americans, especially when that punishment is only going to be felt by the larger group.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52755231]Look, my default state, thanks to the 2nd amendment, is being able to purchase firearms. Any time you restrict something about it, its not compromise. So lemme say it again: Its not compromise if you say "well we'll let you keep THESE things", because my default state is being able to purchase everything. So when congress says "we'll ban bumpfire stocks", ok, cool, but thats not compromise, thats directly limiting. Compromise would look like: "we're banning bumpfire stocks, but re-opening the machine gun registry" Or "we're banning bumpfire stocks, but we're deregulating suppressors" Or "we're banning bumpfire stocks, but we've implemented federal CCW, states get no say in who gets a CCW anymore" The list goes on and on.[/QUOTE] So how about just get it over with and amend away the second amendment?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52755598]So how about just get it over with and amend away the second amendment?[/QUOTE] Aside from a lot of constitutional points one could bring up; theres between 300 million and 1 billion unregistered firearms in the US, untold amounts of firearm manufacturing equipment in factories and homes, and lord knows how many people who know how to make guns. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would never work because a confiscation would never work. Wven Australia's confiscation only got like 10% of the guns in the nation, and they only had 7 million or so to round up. Not to mention the blood shed a confiscation would incurr.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52750175]Trying to legislate against this is a pointless feel good measure. People can still bumpfire without special stocks. [media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=U-nUA52BS3c[/media] Are we really going to start legislating against shooting techniques now? This does nothing to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns.[/QUOTE] That's quite literally firing from the hip. I'm kinda shaking my head at this. It's clear the NRA isn't doing this out of the kindness of its heart but rather so no additional pressure can be put upon them. Bumpfires do not magically make your gun an automatic - they are a crude way of converting the trigger mechanism to keep hitting due to recoil. They are also much harder to control then an automatic, which are super rare and expensive
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52755598]So how about just get it over with and amend away the second amendment?[/QUOTE] Sure, and let's get rid of the first amendment while we're at it. Stop the goddamn nazis from spreading their hate speech, at least. Or how about the third? You've got nothing illegal hidden in your home, do you? Surely you wouldn't mind if I riffle through your sock drawer? We are at war with drugs after all, surely you're not one of those pot-smoking degenerates? Police need better tools to fight crime, tools like permissive rules of search and seizure. The founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined how serious the scale of crime would be today, we need to do something, anything, about it. For that matter, why do we even have the fifth, sixth and eighth amendments? All those do is protect criminals. You don't want the criminals to get away scot free in court, do you? We need to hit them hard when they're found guilty too, otherwise they'll just do it again. Cruel, humiliating, public punishments will surely serve as a warning to the rest. I don't care what you think about the second amendment, removing it from the bill of rights would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52755785]Sure, and let's get rid of the first amendment while we're at it. Stop the goddamn nazis from spreading their hate speech, at least. Or how about the third? You've got nothing illegal hidden in your home, do you? Surely you wouldn't mind if I riffle through your sock drawer? We are at war with drugs after all, surely you're not one of those pot-smoking degenerates? Police need better tools to fight crime, tools like permissive rules of search and seizure. The founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined how serious the scale of crime would be today, we need to do something, anything, about it. For that matter, why do we even have the fifth, sixth and eighth amendments? All those do is protect criminals. You don't want the criminals to get away scot free in court, do you? We need to hit them hard when they're found guilty too, otherwise they'll just do it again. Cruel, humiliating, public punishments will surely serve as a warning to the rest. I don't care what you think about the second amendment, removing it from the bill of rights would set an extremely dangerous precedent. [/QUOTE] It's nice when people correctly argue against the slippery slope in the case of gay marriage leading to dogs, but use the same argument when arguing for guns being equivalent to free speech.
Except legal precedent is a thing when restricting people with laws. Look at where we are with the 14th amendment being butchered by "civil asset forfeiture " or how the 4th amendment was basically signed away with the Patriot Act in the name of national security, or how Trump's administration is clearly making an effort to remove protections against minorities, etc... There is both legal and historical precedent of governments being capable of taking rights away one by one. Parroting "lol fallacy" isn't the end all argument when this kind of shit has happened several times before and there is a clearly established trend going in one direction. You're being dangerously naive.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52755801]It's nice when people correctly argue against the slippery slope in the case of gay marriage leading to dogs, but use the same argument when arguing for guns being equivalent to free speech.[/QUOTE] Not all slippery slope arguments are created equal. Look at the power struggles and factions at play in the United States right now, and tell me you'd be remotely comfortable easing the path to further accumulation of state power over the people. In an ideal world, yes, we wouldn't have need of the second amendment, and the entire discussion would be ridiculous. We live in anything [I]but[/I] an ideal world.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52755834]Except legal precedent is a thing when restricting people with laws. Look at where we are with the 14th amendment being butchered by "civil asset forfeiture " or how the 4th amendment was basically signed away with the Patriot Act in the name of national security, or how Trump's administration is clearly making an effort to remove protections against minorities, etc... There is both legal and historical precedent of governments being capable of taking rights away one by one. Parroting "lol fallacy" isn't the end all argument when this kind of shit has happened several times before and there is a clearly established trend going in one direction. You're being dangerously naive.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know it's 'fallacy fallacy' territory but legit, this is exactly how people say "letting gays marry could be used as legal precedent to let people marry their dogs legally" [editline]7th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Psychokitten;52755864]Not all slippery slope arguments are created equal. Look at the power struggles and factions at play in the United States right now, and tell me you'd be remotely comfortable easing the path to further accumulation of state power over the people. In an ideal world, yes, we wouldn't have need of the second amendment, and the entire discussion would be ridiculous. We live in anything [I]but[/I] an ideal world.[/QUOTE] Yeah no I get it. Although yes, I am less comfortable with the citizens of the US having guns than not having guns, all things considered. (I don't mean all guns btw)
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52755900]Yeah no I get it. Although yes, I am less comfortable with the citizens of the US having guns than not having guns, all things considered. (I don't mean all guns btw)[/QUOTE] Well, which guns are you comfortable with us having? Hunting rifles and shotguns? Because one of those will still kill you pretty effectively.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52755922]Well, which guns are you comfortable with us having? Hunting rifles and shotguns? Because one of those will still kill you pretty effectively.[/QUOTE] Bog standard handguns. They still kill, but the self defense aspect is A-OK by my books. Not that my books should matter, ofc. Just throwing my anti-gun 2c into the shitheap.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52755900]Yeah I know it's 'fallacy fallacy' territory but legit, this is exactly how people say [B]"letting gays marry could be used as legal precedent to let people marry their dogs legally"[/B][/QUOTE] It's really not the same though. That argument against gay marriage was based on stupid conjecture with no basis on reality. What we are seeing is continued aggressive legislation and policies against our rights over the span of several decades. A clear trend is occurring that government is restricting rights whenever it finds an excuse to. Civil forfeiture, massive surveillance states, suspension of habeas corpus (gitmo), travel bans on Muslims, the existence of corporate pseudo-monopolies, and all that isn't even in the realm of firearms. If we're strictly speaking about the second amendment, a similar trend has been seen. - The 1934 NFA put several limitations and restrictions (mainly the $200 tax and increased scrutiny) on machine guns after prohibition. - Short barreled weapons are added to the NFA. - People are no longer allowed to mail order firearms after JFK's assassination - Firearms owner protection act passes along with the Hughes amendment which flat out bans machine guns made after 1986,[URL="http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html"] despite only 1 or 2 legally registered machine guns ever being used in a crime[/URL]. One being committed by a police officer. Also the manufacture or possession of "armor piercing" ammunition is banned. - Clinton passes the Assault Weapons Ban and manages to piss off every gun owner ever, [URL="https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5763109de4b015db1bc8c123"]while having no discernible effect on gun crime.[/URL] - The ATF reclassified popular surplus ammo for AK's (5.45x39) as armor piercing and ban importations of it. They attempt the same underhanded trick on some ubiquitous 5.56 surplus ammo known as M885, but that shit did not fly. Clearly there is a consistent trend and precedent of things being restricted. [editline]7th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52755983]Bog standard handguns. They still kill, but the self defense aspect is A-OK by my books. Not that my books should matter, ofc. Just throwing my anti-gun 2c into the shitheap.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF"]Handguns by far make up the majority of gun crimes[/URL].
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52755785]Sure, and let's get rid of the first amendment while we're at it. Stop the goddamn nazis from spreading their hate speech, at least. Or how about the third? You've got nothing illegal hidden in your home, do you? Surely you wouldn't mind if I riffle through your sock drawer? We are at war with drugs after all, surely you're not one of those pot-smoking degenerates? Police need better tools to fight crime, tools like permissive rules of search and seizure. The founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined how serious the scale of crime would be today, we need to do something, anything, about it. For that matter, why do we even have the fifth, sixth and eighth amendments? All those do is protect criminals. You don't want the criminals to get away scot free in court, do you? We need to hit them hard when they're found guilty too, otherwise they'll just do it again. Cruel, humiliating, public punishments will surely serve as a warning to the rest. I don't care what you think about the second amendment, removing it from the bill of rights would set an extremely dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE] I find this entire discussion extremely tiring not because the subject matter is not interesting but because of the nigh-systematic use of slippery slope dogshit arguments which do nothing but pollute the stage. Removing your access to a tool does not mean you'll lose your free speech and right to vote. Plenty of nations across the world, some of which known for being bastions of human rights, do not allow people to carry guns as a constitutional right and they haven't devolved into some kind of totalitarian state where people live in constant fear of government suppression. As far as developed nations go, the United States has a fairly sordid history in terms of gun violence and mass shootings. Of all the nations with a very high human development index it is the country with the highest firearm related death rate, which is kind of indicative of the fact that [I]there's a bit of a problem related to firearms[/I]. What that solution is, fuck if I know. Be it limiting purchases, or scrutinizing the owners to a higher extent, or making a federal-level permit/license system, something has to be done because the amount of people who die by gunshot in the US compared to other nations of similar stature in terms of development is disproportional and ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756196]I find this entire discussion extremely tiring not because the subject matter is not interesting but because of the nigh-systematic use of slippery slope dogshit arguments which do nothing but pollute the stage. Removing your access to a tool does not mean you'll lose your free speech and right to vote. Plenty of nations across the world, some of which known for being bastions of human rights, do not allow people to carry guns as a constitutional right and they haven't devolved into some kind of totalitarian state where people live in constant fear of government suppression. [/QUOTE] Its because the 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights second only to our freedom of speech.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756196]I find this entire discussion extremely tiring not because the subject matter is not interesting but because of the nigh-systematic use of slippery slope dogshit arguments which do nothing but pollute the stage. Removing your access to a tool does not mean you'll lose your free speech and right to vote. Plenty of nations across the world, some of which known for being bastions of human rights, do not allow people to carry guns as a constitutional right and they haven't devolved into some kind of totalitarian state where people live in constant fear of government suppression. As far as developed nations go, the United States has a fairly sordid history in terms of gun violence and mass shootings. Of all the nations with a very high human development index it is the country with the highest firearm related death rate, which is kind of indicative of the fact that [I]there's a bit of a problem related to firearms[/I]. What that solution is, fuck if I know. Be it limiting purchases, or scrutinizing the owners to a higher extent, or making a federal-level permit/license system, something has to be done because the amount of people who die by gunshot in the US compared to other nations of similar stature in terms of development is disproportional and ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I literally just explained why this isn't a "slippery slope fallacy". Also you think THIS country is a bastion of human rights?! :v: The country that owned slaves and beat minorities for wanting the right to vote, allows law enforcement to take your stuff without warrants, has mass incarceration problems exacerbated by an agency waging a war on a green leafy plant, imprisons people for years without due process on an island near Cuba, continues to support and and act as an enabler for Saudi Arabia to commit grievous atrocities , etc...?
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52756199]Its because the 2nd Amendment is part of the bill of rights second only to our freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] Which does not mean it is immune to revisions, alterations and reworks. The constitution if any country ever is not a document which is immune to the passage of time, the growing irrelevancy of some of its parts and the outright obsolescence of others. When left untouched for a long period of time these amendments can begin to cause problems as they were not designed to touch with issues that could not be foreseen at the time. In the case of the 2nd amendment this includes: - A drastic increase in the size of the country - A drastic increase in its population [I]and[/I] its population density, through urbanization - A drastic increase in availability of firearms due to the improved manufacturing process [I]and[/I] distribution process - The exponential improvement of firearm designs leading to more efficient models which fire more potent rounds - The exponential improvement of methods of locomotion leading to faster response times and easier travel across the nation The second amendment is an almost childishly simple line of text which makes no mention to any of the issues which these changes have brought forth because these issues simply were not here when the amendment was written. If you want to hold it in such sacred light the least you could do as a nation is actually make it relevant to the current state of the country. [editline]7th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52756243]I literally just explained why this isn't a "slippery slope fallacy". Also you think THIS country is a bastion of human rights?! :v: The country that owned slaves and beat minorities for wanting the right to vote, allows law enforcement to take your stuff without warrants, has mass incarceration problems exacerbated by an agency waging a war on a green leafy plant, imprisons people for years without due process on an island near Cuba, etc...?[/QUOTE] Should probably read a couple times more because these "bastions of human righst" clearly don't refer to the US, since I mentioned these are nations with no constitutional right to bear arms. I was referring to European nations which for the most part do not allow people to carry guns as a constitutional right yet are also not dictatorships.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;52756248] The second amendment is an almost childishly simple line of text which makes no mention to any of the issues which these changes have brought forth because these issues simply were not here when the amendment was written. If you want to hold it in such sacred light the least you could do as a nation is actually make it relevant to the current state of the country. [/QUOTE] From what i understand its supposed to be rather vague but outlines the general right it gives, and in practice the boundaries of it are decided via Supreme Court cases, setting precedents as to how it applies to more modern applications.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.