House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

[QUOTE=srobins;53163013]What happens when the government rules against you and the state of Alabama (shockingly) sides with.. [I]the state of Alabama[/I], and rules that transgender people aren't fit to own firearms?[/QUOTE] And before someone comes in and says that's a stupid possibility, take a step back and notice that people push for bans on those that are mentally ill from purchasing firearms. That is a very, [I]very[/I] vague definition that can be exploited to hell and back.

I love this weird dichotomy on the left (not to sound like a right winger "you libruuuls" person), where on one hand the government is horribly corrupt, autocratic and nearing actual fascism, where the population has no real recourse because our politicians are totally bought out and serve themselves rather than the people, where the police are just running around executing black people in the streets just for the fun of it, where minority groups like transgender people are in danger from extreme right wing violence and the police aren't protecting them.. But only the state should have weapons, and we can trust them to always be fair and balanced and rule logically, in the interests of justice?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163017] and discrimination, like what are these fucking arguments guys?[/QUOTE] I've explained why. Should I just deal with the "tough shit" because a legislator thinks I'm unfit due to his own perception of morality? These are arguments that make sense because legislators across the board love to jump on people that aren't backing them 100%. Notice that almost the instant Trump and Co. got the chance, a huge number of protections for LGBT people were rolled back.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162995]Mainly its implementation. Trigger locks are cheap as dirt but tend not to be one-size-fits-all, and are actually kinda hard to get off of the weapon in a jiffy (see: dude breaking in). A mandatory safe makes sense on paper, but safes are expensive to buy and install, and it'd lead to some serious eyebrow raising to try and "prove" someone has a safe. However I'd be fine with legislation that charges the owner of the firearm if it leads to a negligent discharge, say in the event of a child pulling the trigger on themselves or another. The risk of legal action alone would get many guns out of stupidly easy to access places.[/QUOTE] Ideally it would be an education/parenting thing where the parents explain to children what a gun is, where it's at, and why they should never, ever touch it because it is very, very dangerous. Enforcing gun safe laws are a non-starter in America and I feel like putting charges on a parent who loses a child to a negligent discharge accomplishes little but piling more grief onto someone who is experiencing one of the worst pains imaginable.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163017]That would be clearly unfair, which should be included in any amendment entitling people to a licensing process. [editline]26th February 2018[/editline] and discrimination, like what are these fucking arguments guys?[/QUOTE] Yeah, and [I]what if it isn't?[/I] I'm not trying to be a dick but you're really not even attempting to see the point I'm making. I'm saying you can't trust the government to do what is right. I feel like anyone above the age of 13 living in America should understand that at a very visceral level. The idea that the government would never discriminate and would always resolve or prevent such conflicts or abuses of power is just naive.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163022]I've explained why. Should I just deal with the "tough shit" because a legislator thinks I'm unfit due to his own perception of morality?[/QUOTE] If your perception of morality gets you continuously barred from owning a license then maybe you should take some personal responsibility? I guess we should just let anyone have a car because they might think you're too day dreamy or dont pay enough attention or some shit? These are literally slippery slope arguments

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53163023]Ideally it would be an education/parenting thing where the parents explain to children what a gun is, where it's at, and why they should never, ever touch it because it is very, very dangerous. Enforcing gun safe laws are a non-starter in America and I feel like putting charges on a parent who loses a child to a negligent discharge accomplishes little but piling more grief onto someone who is experiencing one of the worst pains imaginable.[/QUOTE] This reminds me of that Eddy Eagle video that RLM watched. I didn't like the fact that they made fun of it so much, because the basic message was actually incredibly important. As a society, we strangely treat guns like playthings, and most people don't get it through to kids that guns are not toys.

[QUOTE=srobins;53163024]Yeah, and [I]what if it isn't?[/I] I'm not trying to be a dick but you're really not even attempting to see the point I'm making. I'm saying you can't trust the government to do what is right. I feel like anyone above the age of 13 living in America should understand that at a very visceral level. The idea that the government would never discriminate and would always resolve or prevent such conflicts or abuses of power is just naive.[/QUOTE] So your argument is just that we cant trust the government? What can you not justify ignoring legislatively with that logic?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163028]If your perception of morality gets you continuously barred from owning a license then maybe you should [B][I]take some personal responsibility[/I][/B]?[/QUOTE] Excuse me? Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that me being trans is a "perception of morality" that I need to "take personal responsibility" for?

[QUOTE=srobins;53163020]I love this weird dichotomy on the left (not to sound like a right winger "you libruuuls" person), where on one hand the government is horribly corrupt, autocratic and nearing actual fascism, where the population has no real recourse because our politicians are totally bought out and serve themselves rather than the people, where the police are just running around executing black people in the streets just for the fun of it, where minority groups like transgender people are in danger from extreme right wing violence and the police aren't protecting them.. But only the state should have weapons, and we can trust them to always be fair and balanced and rule logically, in the interests of justice?[/QUOTE] This is kind of why I'm not as stridently arguing for gun control like I might have in the past. Also there was that story about police officers working with white supremacists. If the police are ultimately the ones enforcing gun control I don't know if we can trust them, if we ever could.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162846]Ok and what bars you from that license, pray tell.[/QUOTE] Ideally if there were to be a federally mandated licencing process it would be similar to what we require for automobiles or current CCW licenses. Stuff like safety classes and range exams are the baseline, but mental health history and requiring safe securing would be great as well. The tricky part with licenses is that technically, it *is* putting a (financial) barrier on someone's Constitutionally endowed rights. Stuff like mandatory gun safes is an especially expensive prospect that most gun owners would turn their noses up at, I'd imagine. I think it would probably improve the situation and would be a solid starting point for the sensible gun control people are looking for, though. When it comes to safes, I'd personally say that if you cant afford a gun + the proper means to safely secure it, then you cant afford a gun. Subsidizing those costs though could be an effective way to make it more accessible for less well-off Americans.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163034]Excuse me?[/QUOTE] You're literally theorizing that your personal philosophy might get you barred from gun ownership, and you just assume its not your fault? Like why cant people just have philosophies that make them undesirable to own a firearm?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163040]You're literally theorizing that your personal philosophy might get you barred from gun ownership, and you just assume its not your fault? Like why cant people just have philosophies that make them undesirable to own a firearm?[/QUOTE] reread the post. they're referring to the theoretical legislator's personal morality, not their own.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163040]You're literally theorizing that your personal philosophy might get you barred from gun ownership, and you just assume its not your fault? Like why cant people just have philosophies that make them undesirable to own a firearm?[/QUOTE] My...philosophy that I'm a member of the LGBT community?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163040]You're literally theorizing that your personal philosophy might get you barred from gun ownership, and you just assume its not your fault? Like why cant people just have philosophies that make them undesirable to own a firearm?[/QUOTE] Being transgender is not a philosophy, Jesus Christ.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163045]My...philosophy that I'm a member of the LGBT community?[/QUOTE] No, I didn't know what philosophy you were alluding to, I was thinking something weird like hard solipsism or extreme nationalism or something. We have protected groups for a reason. Ah, I missed the word "his" my bad. Again, protected groups.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163050]We have protected groups for a reason[/QUOTE] And when the federal government seeks to roll back those protections? The, as you say, democratically elected one. And with those protections gone, I should just deal with the "tough shit", right?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163052]And when the federal government seeks to roll back those protections? The, as you say, democratically elected one. And with those protections gone, I should just deal with the "tough shit", right?[/QUOTE] Guns being a license requirement doesnt make that particular thing more or less likely

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163054]Guns being a license requirement doesnt make that particular thing more or less likely[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that your licensing idea can easily be exploited by a government that uses legal loopholes thanks to federal power over states. This current administration is a shining example of why not to put trust in the system 100%. As mentioned by Srobins, the police would be the first to start enforcing these bans. We've seen reports of police working with white supremacists, or trying to cover up discriminatory crimes against minorities. I'd really rather not risk that.

[QUOTE=srobins;53163020]I love this weird dichotomy on the left (not to sound like a right winger "you libruuuls" person), where on one hand the government is horribly corrupt, autocratic and nearing actual fascism, where the population has no real recourse because our politicians are totally bought out and serve themselves rather than the people, where the police are just running around executing black people in the streets just for the fun of it, where minority groups like transgender people are in danger from extreme right wing violence and the police aren't protecting them.. But only the state should have weapons, and we can trust them to always be fair and balanced and rule logically, in the interests of justice?[/QUOTE] I think it's because you're being too broad with your classifications. "The left" is a descriptor that's as vast as it is vague, and encompasses a wide sphere of ideological nuance and diversity. "The Left" includes everything from Clinton voters to Stalinists. Is it any surprise that you see ideological inconsistency when you're starting off with such a uselessly massive variety of people?

Thanks Democrats, you just made sure actual sensible gun laws will never see the light of day. You don't even understand what a gun is.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163057]I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that your licensing idea can easily be exploited by a government that uses legal loopholes thanks to federal power over states. This current administration is a shining example of why not to put trust in the system 100%. As mentioned by Srobins, the police would be the first to start enforcing these bans. We've seen reports of police working with white supremacists, or trying to cover up discriminatory crimes against minorities. I'd really rather not risk that.[/QUOTE] I guess, but it works fine for cars, right? and those arent even constitutionally protected like what im suggesting should be. So we know that we can trust the government with some licensing etc, so there are definitely ways to make it work.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163066]I think it's because you're being too broad with your classifications. "The left" is a descriptor that's as vast as it is vague, and encompasses a wide sphere of ideological nuance and diversity. "The Left" includes everything from Clinton voters to Stalinists. Is it any surprise that you see ideological inconsistency when you're starting off with such a uselessly massive variety of people?[/QUOTE] I'm sure he just used "the left" in this situation as a tossout phrase since, well, "the right" doesn't share that view most of the time, especially in the U.S.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163032]So your argument is just that we cant trust the government? What can you not justify ignoring legislatively with that logic?[/QUOTE] To some extent you can, and I do, apply that logic to all legislation. I think you should always have some level of hesitation or caution at a government restricting your freedom and ability to do what you want. The difference here is that I don't see an incentive for the government to intentionally poison me with lead and make me an unproductive citizen and a burden on the healthcare system, so I can somewhat trust them when they want to legislate against dumping lead in the water supply. On the other hand, they have all the incentive in the world to disarm the population, making them helpless to fight against a tyrannical government, as well as making them dependent on the government for personal protection, so I don't trust them to disarm me; even moreso because even if I did trust them to disarm me, I'm still not convinced it would make any difference. Like I said previously in the thread, let's say we get rid of semi-autos, what happens when someone kills a bunch of people with a shotgun, with a handgun, with a bolt-action? If you want to talk about licensing, what happens when somebody with a license kills a bunch of people? I want some assurance that gun control legislation will both be effective and constrained, i.e. not the start of a slow "feature creep" that leads eventually to a complete ban on firearms.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163036]Ideally if there were to be a federally mandated licencing process it would be similar to what we require for automobiles or current CCW licenses. Stuff like safety classes and range exams are the baseline, but mental health history and requiring safe securing would be great as well. The tricky part with licenses is that technically, it *is* putting a (financial) barrier on someone's Constitutionally endowed rights. Stuff like mandatory gun safes is an especially expensive prospect that most gun owners would turn their noses up at, I'd imagine. I think it would probably improve the situation and would be a solid starting point for the sensible gun control people are looking for, though. When it comes to safes, I'd personally say that if you cant afford a gun + the proper means to safely secure it, then you cant afford a gun. Subsidizing those costs though could be an effective way to make it more accessible for less well-off Americans.[/QUOTE] Frankly I hate Canada's "safe storage" laws since they're deliberately vague and overreaching such that it's nearly impossible to tell if you're abiding by them until you end up in court and have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to prove that you didn't break the law. I'd support punishing a gun owner if their gun was used in an irresponsible manner or stolen due to their own negligence because it was improperly stored perhaps, but living in a country where I'm never quite sure if I'm going to be told I'm breaking the law if the police decide to inspect my house, which they can simply because I own guns, I can't say that I support safe storage laws as a blanket statement. As for gun licensing, either teach it in schools so it's subsidized and universal, raise taxes and subsidize it, or just fuck it and pay for it. It's like $400 to do the course and pay the license fee for a license in Canada, and pretty much every CCW course in the US costs money, despite the SCOTUS ruling that you have a right to CCW. Frankly you could go off the "well-regulated" part of the second amendment to argue that a license is completely in line with the principles of the constitution, since it provides some degree of training to ensure people know how to safely handle their firearms, as well as screening criminal backgrounds and mental health backgrounds, thus ensuring the population of America, which is the militia, is "well-regulated." One key thing though is that the license, constitutionally, can only cover acquisition of firearms. Requiring a license to possess them else you go to jail deprives you of the right to keep and bear them, but needing a license to acquire them does not. Of course, this should be done with concessions, such as allowing guns to be shipped right to your door, as they are in Canada, since you now have a license, and thus basically a background check, which is why the guns has to be shipped to a dealer right now. Ideally you'd also see guns regulated purely at a federal level to ensure uniformity across the country so you don't have to worry about becoming a felon when crossing the Cali/Nevada border, but because of "state's rights" that's never going to happen.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163072]I guess, but it works fine for cars, right? and those arent even constitutionally protected like what im suggesting should be. So we know that we can trust the government with somr licensing etc, so there are definitely ways to make it work.[/QUOTE] Not quite. "Mental illness" doesn't bar you from owning a drivers license as far as I know, and it would be fucked up if it did. For one, because the term "mental illness" is so broad that it encompasses an incredibly vast myriad of conditions in an even greater range of severity, and also due to the fact that keeping mentally ill people from something as essential as the ability to drive because of their condition is reasonably discriminatory.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163072]I guess, but it works fine for cars, right? and those arent even constitutionally protected like what im suggesting should be. So we know that we can trust the government with somr licensing etc, so there are definitely ways to make it work.[/QUOTE] I've seen this argument brought up and it is a bit difficult to break down, but I'll try. When looking to become licensed to drive a car, you must be physically fit and competent for the test. The classes are usually incredibly cheap or subsidized by the state (a lot of them are available at public schools), and take only a short period of time. You then go to the DMV, have your picture taken, and are legally licensed to drive. The main thing is that there is essentially a standard across the board for what these licenses are. Your plan has no standards whatsoever, and leave it entirely up to the state.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163066]I think it's because you're being too broad with your classifications. "The left" is a descriptor that's as vast as it is vague, and encompasses a wide sphere of ideological nuance and diversity. "The Left" includes everything from Clinton voters to Stalinists. Is it any surprise that you see ideological inconsistency when you're starting off with such a uselessly massive variety of people?[/QUOTE] This is a semantic argument that doesn't really matter to me. You and I both understand what subset of "the left" I was referring to so I'm not really bothered about being super specific every time I bring it up.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163080]I've seen this argument brought up and it is a bit difficult to break down, but I'll try. When looking to become licensed to drive a car, you must be physically fit and competent for the test. The classes are usually incredibly cheap or subsidized by the state (a lot of them are available at public schools), and take only a short period of time. You then go to the DMV, have your picture taken, and are legally licensed to drive. The main thing is that there is essentially a standard across the board for what these licenses are. Your plan has no standards whatsoever, and leave it entirely up to the state.[/QUOTE] I get it, I agree maybe they could standardize the licensing process and it could work better than states rights but I don't think that consideration is enough to cast my proposal away, let alone coming close to refuting its probable efficacy.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163072]I guess, but it works fine for cars, right? and those arent even constitutionally protected like what im suggesting should be. So we know that we can trust the government with some licensing etc, so there are definitely ways to make it work.[/QUOTE] The government has no incentive to unfairly prevent citizens from driving, though. It's the exact opposite of the gun situation, the government [I]needs[/I] people to be licensed and capable of driving because our infrastructure fucking sucks so without cars, something like 80% (totally pulling that out of my ass but you get the point) of the country wouldn't be able to participate in the economy, neither as a worker or a consumer. And, like you curiously pointed out, the right to drive a car isn't constitutionally protected like guns are, so.. I mean, I don't really get why you bring that up. Why is the fact that driving isn't a constitutional right somehow justification for restricting something that [I]is[/I] a constitutional right?