• House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee
    299 replies, posted
I'm getting pretty sick of lumping all "mental illness" together with such broad strokes tbh. When you use one term to describe anything and everything that could be considered as "mental illness", you're being incredibly rhetorically lazy and doing the issue a disservice by treating a highly diverse range of conditions as identical. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly contexts that talking about "mental illnesss" in generic terms is totally appropriate. All mental illness deserves the same non-judgmental respect and validation that enables healing and recovery (and the de-stigmatization of mental illness as a concept), and our country and society are just scratching at the surface of addressing and discussing it as a larger issue to begin with, but using it (it being mental illness) as a possible condition for barring access to certain rights and privileges is asinine and simply not good enough.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163090]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] Licensing can be done properly. Illinois has the Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) and getting it is fairly simple. Your personal information including criminal history is recorded, and whilst you are awaiting approval it does a background check to ensure you aren't a liar. In regards to mental health, it mainly checks to see if you have been institutionalized within the past 5(iirc) years, and if you do not have repeat institutionalization on your record. Records as a minor are, of course, sealed. You wait 60 days (and they make you wait all 60, trust me), and then after that you are a licensed individual capable of legally purchasing firearms. When it expires, it is similar to a driver's license where you just apply for a new one and the same checks are made. Again, main issue is ensuring standardization and that people's info doesn't get conveniently lost. Plus its another database to maintain which guarantees people falling through the cracks, innocent or otherwise.
[QUOTE=srobins;53163093]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?[/QUOTE] My logic is: cars are licensed, no one has a problem with the process, people aren't being denied cars for philosophical reasons or whatever. If the assumption is that guns would be unfairly denied then you pretty much have to prove the government is just waiting to subjugate and that guns are the only thing stopping them, but also that a constitutionally protected right (guns) would be less likely to work as a process for people than one (cars) that isn't.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163095]I'm getting pretty sick of lumping all "mental illness" together with such broad strokes tbh. When you use one term to describe anything and everything that could be considered as "mental illness", you're being incredibly rhetorically lazy and doing the issue a disservice by treating a highly diverse range of conditions as identical. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly contexts that talking about "mental illnesss" in generic terms is totally appropriate. All mental illness deserves the same non-judgmental respect and validation that enables healing and recovery (and the de-stigmatization of mental illness as a concept), and our country and society are just scratching at the surface of addressing and discussing it as a larger issue to begin with, but using it (it being mental illness) as a possible condition for barring access to certain rights and privileges is asinine and simply not good enough.[/QUOTE] I'm more getting stick of people talking about mental illness without realizing that the very same Republicans who talk that we need to have a serious discussion about mental illness, have been defunding and removing the very federal and state institutions designed to deal with mental illness. They're leaving it up to the private sector which is incredibly notorious for their very shit handling of mental illness, and that hasn't actually changed because we focused so hard on physical pre-existing conditions. Bringing in mental illness is basically an accidental smokescreen because if you wanted to take mental illness seriously, you'd also be arguing for a single payer system which would have the best methods to help prevent people with mental issues from going through background checks. But you can already see why that won't go anywhere.
[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53163126]I'm more getting stick of people talking about mental illness without realizing that the very same Republicans who talk that we need to have a serious discussion about mental illness, have been defunding and removing the very federal and state institutions designed to deal with mental illness. They're leaving it up to the private sector which is incredibly notorious for their very shit handling of mental illness, and that hasn't actually changed because we focused so hard on physical pre-existing conditions. Bringing in mental illness is basically an accidental smokescreen because if you wanted to take mental illness seriously, you'd also be arguing for a single payer system which would have the best methods to help prevent people with mental issues from going through background checks. But you can already see why that won't go anywhere.[/QUOTE] All of these gun control threads feel like screaming into the void for both sides because everyone knows that the republicans in congress and the white house are total scumbags.
[QUOTE=srobins;53163082]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] It's not a purely semantic argument and I think it's disingenuous to suggest so. Are you describing anarchists? Socialists? Communists? Anti-fascists, which is in of itself a group that encompasses a great amount of ideological diversity? I mean, in the initial clause of your post you mention concerns over police brutality, transgender rights, corrupt politicians, and fascism all in one breath. In a post-Trump world, there are a lot of people that have these concerns and they're not all in any one "subset of the left". My mom has concerns over Trump and police brutality. You've mentioned a fairly large and diverse list of issues that a lot of people identify with and somehow expect me to be on the same page with your broad generalizations. It's also funny that you bring this whole ideological contradiction up in the first place because I've recently seen some discourse in those spheres regarding the very same apparent contradiction you mentioned in your post. So evidently, it's not as simple as you make it out to be, even when you refer to everything further to left than Obama in such a monolithic fashion. Furthermore, "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?" is an absolutely huge strawman. Who is actually and unironically saying this? It's a massive leap in logic to go from any of even the most extreme anti-gun arguments I've seen to "we can trust the state to always be fair and balanced and rule logically in the interests of justice". ESPECIALLY when referring to people further left, some of which are highly skeptical of the state in any form and make claims such as "the state is inherently exploitative" part of their core ideology.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53163131]All of these gun control threads feel like screaming into the void for both sides because everyone knows that the republicans in congress and the white house are total scumbags.[/QUOTE] Not really. Most people who are pro-gun on this forum tend to be pro-healthcare reform
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163134]Not really. Most people who are pro-gun on this forum tend to be pro-healthcare reform[/QUOTE] But republican leadership is not. also I appreciate the title change
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163125]My logic is: cars are licensed, no one has a problem with the process, people aren't being denied cars for philosophical reasons or whatever. If the assumption is that guns would be unfairly denied then you pretty much have to prove the government is just waiting to subjugate and that guns are the only thing stopping them, but also that a constitutionally protected right (guns) would be less likely to work as a process for people than one (cars) that isn't.[/QUOTE] Real quick, it's not that a constitutionally protected right is less likely to work as a process, it's that it is wrong to restrict because it inherently goes against the nature of being constitutionally protected. Cars do not have that same dilemma. Like I said in my original post, there's no reason for the government to discriminate or abuse driver licensing. In fact they have an overwhelming list of reasons why they need to make it as easy as possible for everyone in America to be able to drive, because without that, the economy will tank and they'll be forced to burn money maintaining public transport infrastructure. On the other hand, they have tons of incentives to disarm the population. So no, I don't have to prove the government is "waiting" to subjugate people just because getting a driver's license is easy. The government proves on a daily basis that it is willing and able to subjugate people; America has a long, rich history of legislative discrimination.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163109]Licensing can be done properly. Illinois has the Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) and getting it is fairly simple. Your personal information including criminal history is recorded, and whilst you are awaiting approval it does a background check to ensure you aren't a liar. In regards to mental health, it mainly checks to see if you have been institutionalized within the past 5(iirc) years, and if you do not have repeat institutionalization on your record. Records as a minor are, of course, sealed. You wait 60 days (and they make you wait all 60, trust me), and then after that you are a licensed individual capable of legally purchasing firearms. When it expires, it is similar to a driver's license where you just apply for a new one and the same checks are made. Again, main issue is ensuring standardization and that people's info doesn't get conveniently lost. Plus its another database to maintain which guarantees people falling through the cracks, innocent or otherwise.[/QUOTE] This sounds like a great starting point and I'd be highly supportive of instituting it on a federal level as a baseline. At that point the larger issue at hand would be the black market, informal sales, and the huge number of guns already in circulation. We're a highly gun-saturated nation, and when you combine that with our hotspots of inner-city poverty and gang violence you get a recipe for a lot of deaths that are seemingly hard to prevent. In cases like those, it can feel like the damage is already done, which is frustrating considering that countries like Canada and Norway have reasonably large guns per person rates without the extreme and excessive gun violence/crime/homicide rates. Kinda makes me wonder if there's a critical tipping point where the amount of guns/person becomes a significantly larger problem comparitively, or if it's just a matter of the guns getting to the right hands and having the right regulations in place to ensure that they're safely and responsibly handled and secured.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163132]It's not a purely semantic argument and I think it's disingenuous to suggest so. Are you describing anarchists? Socialists? Communists? Anti-fascists, which is in of itself a group that encompasses a great amount of ideological diversity? I mean, in the initial clause of your post you mention concerns over police brutality, transgender rights, corrupt politicians, and fascism all in one breath. In a post-Trump world, there are a lot of people that have these concerns and they're not all in any one "subset of the left". My mom has concerns over Trump and police brutality. You've mentioned a fairly large and diverse list of issues that a lot of people identify with and somehow expect me to be on the same page with your broad generalizations. It's also funny that you bring this whole ideological contradiction up in the first place because I've recently seen some discourse in those spheres regarding the very same apparent contradiction you mentioned in your post. So evidently, it's not as simple as you make it out to be, even when you refer to everything further left than Obama in such a monolithic fashion. Furthermore, "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?" is a huge strawman. Who is actually and unironically saying this? It's a massive leap in logic to go from any of even the most extreme anti-gun arguments I've seen to "we can trust the state to always be fair and balanced and rule logically in the interests of justice". ESPECIALLY when referring to people further left, some of which are highly skeptical of the state in any form and make claims such as "the state is inherently exploitative" part of their core ideology.[/QUOTE] As far as the specification of left-wing subgroups, just use context clues if you're having trouble. Like I said, I'm aware it's a generalization, I just don't really give a shit because everyone (yourself included) already knows via basic reading comprehension exactly what I mean when I say "left wing". It's the same reason I can talk negatively about "conservatives" or "right wingers" even though some of them are entirely reasonable, and yet somehow people understand intuitively what I'm talking about. And no, I don't think it's a strawman to point out the contradiction between only wanting the state to have weapons, and believing that the state is abusive. Quoting this subgroup as believing they can trust the state is me pointing out that contradiction: you inherently have to trust the state if you believe the state is the only body that should be armed. Unless you intentionally want to make it so that a group you distrust is the only group that is armed, which is fucking stupid
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163151]This sounds like a great starting point and I'd be highly supportive of instituting it on a federal level as a baseline. At that point the larger issue at hand would be the black market, informal sales, and the huge number of guns already in circulation. We're a highly gun-saturated nation, and when you combine that with our hotspots of inner-city poverty and gang violence you get a recipe for a lot of deaths that are seemingly hard to prevent. In cases like those, it can feel like the damage is already done, which is frustrating considering that countries like Canada and Norway have reasonably large guns per person rates and significantly lower gun violence rates. This does make me kinda wonder if there is a critical tipping point where the amount of guns/person becomes a significantly larger problem, or if it's just a matter of the guns getting to the right hands and having the right regulations in place to ensure that they're safely and responsibly handled and secured.[/QUOTE] Before licensing, I think it would be best if the government approached the issues that cause the violence in inner cities. Poverty, poor education, lack of access to healthcare and abysmal mental health facilities have essentially forced the creation of an entirely "new" class of the poor in America. Schools are underfunded, and so students are poorly educated. Many jobs are becoming automated, and paying jobs require skills not taught in schools. Higher education is incredibly expensive. Those that lack proper income are forced to subsist on unhealthy foods, and may turn to things like drugs or alcohol. They may join gangs initially to defend themselves, or to seek riches taken from others. Our prison system gobbles these people up and then spits them out with no help whatsoever and no rehabilitation, and many are forced right back into the lifestyles that got them there in the first place. These individuals are then jaded and feel pushed away by society, and any children they may have are (purposefully or otherwise) raised with that mentality. This cycle mainly affects minorities, who are given chump change and table scraps from the government, and politicians like to dangle further benefits as bait for votes, and proceed to never do good on their promises. This is a brutal oversimplification of the problem, but what I'm trying to get at is that there is an incredible vicious cycle that seems never ending, and guns are only a small aspect of it. The biggest issue that I see with democratic politicians is that they propose mountains of incredibly restrictive gun control up front, stating that they will "tackle the other issues too" and then never proceed to even touch the issues. And I understand that the Republicans won't help with any of that either. I don't think we need to be told that any harder as it's made incredibly obvious every day. It is the political rut that America is stuck in, but I do forsee possible reform in the Democratic party to either drop guns, or leave it to a state-by-state basis, and then actually focus on things like education, infrastructure, healthcare and the environment.
[QUOTE=srobins;53163147]Real quick, it's not that a constitutionally protected right is less likely to work as a process, it's that it is wrong to restrict because it inherently goes against the nature of being constitutionally protected. Cars do not have that same dilemma. Like I said in my original post, there's no reason for the government to discriminate or abuse driver licensing. In fact they have an overwhelming list of reasons why they need to make it as easy as possible for everyone in America to be able to drive, because without that, the economy will tank and they'll be forced to burn money maintaining public transport infrastructure. On the other hand, they have tons of incentives to disarm the population. So no, I don't have to prove the government is "waiting" to subjugate people just because getting a driver's license is easy. The government proves on a daily basis that it is willing and able to subjugate people; America has a long, rich history of legislative discrimination.[/QUOTE] I think it doesnt go against the nature of being constitutionally protected, it's just different. Its a constitutionally protected right to a process, but it really is not much different from a constitutionally protected right to an object. I get that the government is full of dickheads, but this is why we have rights in the first place, so random people cant decide to take away our things just based on their own desires. It can happen, but it could really happen to anything. I really dont think the powers that be really care how armed we are, they are well hidden from responsibility anyway, if anything we are made more complacent and open to economic violence because we believe we are so safe with our guns.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163162]I think it doesnt go against the nature of being constitutionally protected, it's just different. Its a constitutionally protected right to a process, but it really is not much different from a constitutionally protected right to an object.[/quote] Yeah but that's not what the 2nd amendment is. It is the right to bear arms, not the right to a bureaucratic process in which you may or may not be allowed to bear arms. [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163162]I get that the government is full of dickheads, but this is why we have rights in the first place, so random people cant decide to take away our things just based on their own desires. It can happen, but it could really happen to anything.[/quote] But you're talking about restricting those rights.. What is the point of saying "we have rights so they can't be taken away" when you're currently arguing for taking those rights away? [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53163162]I really dont think the powers that be really care how armed we are, they are well hidden from responsibility anyway, if anything we are made more complacent and open to economic violence because we believe we are so safe with our guns.[/QUOTE] We're complacent and non-violent because, at least for now, things aren't [I]that[/I] bad. If the leadership of the country became so corrupt that it was causing serious negative impact on a significant portion of the country (and I think it already is to an extent), revolution becomes an actual possibility. For now, most everyone in America has food and shelter. If it ever got to the point that the majority, or even just a more significant portion of the country, was in a dire condition, the threat of revolution would become real. If anything, the current administration should be a pretty stark reminder that America isn't magically guarded against tyranny.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;53162770]This is why nobody can say "sensible gun reform" without scaring gun owners. It's become shorthand for blanket bans. It's a huge issue because we do need all parties to come to the table and talk about the issue and get some actual reform.[/QUOTE] eh I think the NRA has the scaremongering covered. [video=youtube;PrnIVVWtAag]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag[/video] an AWB is dumb and not going to work, but they know that and thats not the point of this, the bill is going nowhere, just like all the right wing shit coming out of the house these days.
[QUOTE=srobins;53163157]As far as the specification of left-wing subgroups, just use context clues if you're having trouble. Like I said, I'm aware it's a generalization, I just don't really give a shit because everyone (yourself included) already knows via basic reading comprehension exactly what I mean when I say "left wing". It's the same reason I can talk negatively about "conservatives" or "right wingers" even though some of them are entirely reasonable, and yet somehow people understand intuitively what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] If you think this is such an easy thing to take for granted then evidently you don't have nearly enough exposure to leftist ideology and just how many forms it can take. While others might not I certainly do, and can recognize why aforementioned generalizations like this are as dangerous as they are lazy. It's intellectual dishonesty like this that can make "the left" such an effective boogeyman to antagonize. I'm sure liberal Democrats dont appreciate being lumped in with the very same ideological spheres that hate them just as much as the right. [QUOTE]And no, I don't think it's a strawman to point out the contradiction between only wanting the state to have weapons, and believing that the state is abusive. Quoting this subgroup as believing they can trust the state is me pointing out that contradiction: you inherently have to trust the state if you believe the state is the only body that should be armed. Unless you intentionally want to make it so that a group you distrust is the only group that is armed, which is fucking stupid[/QUOTE] The reason this line of thinking is a strawman is because the very same people that believe that the state is inherently abusive will often be in favor of keeping the populace armed. [url="https://twitter.com/OuterSiberia/status/967947046438277120"]Case in point[/url] (read the whole thread). There is a huge amount of nuance even within leftist spheres on attitudes towards the state. Some think that revolutionary tactics are the only way to overthrow our insidiously capitalist society, while some believe that progressive change from within a la the Scandinavian model is ideal, and yet others believe that, as you said, the state is inherently abusive to begin with and should be abolished outright. If you've seen just how much in-fighting there is in the left, believe me, you'd be much more hesitant to group even closely related schools of thought together so readily.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53163171]eh I think the NRA has the scaremongering covered.[/QUOTE] Sidenote, a lot of gun owners are very quickly becoming fed up with the NRA. - They have done little to nothing for gun rights in the past few administrations, and actually allow asinine legislation to hit the floor so they can get a "rally around the flag" moment - They harass people who haven't paid their dues with regular phone calls and letters - They have started calling people who have left their organization (in essence) traitors - They have turned something that should be a bipartisan topic into a total one sided conversation They're a toxic organization and I want them out.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163172]If you think this is such an easy thing to take for granted then evidently you don't have nearly enough exposure to leftist ideology and just how many forms it can take. While others might not I certainly do, and can recognize why aforementioned generalizations like this are as dangerous as they are lazy. It's intellectual dishonesty like this that can make "the left" such an effective boogeyman to antagonize. I'm sure liberal Democrats dont appreciate being lumped in with the very same ideological spheres that hate them just as much as the right. The reason this line of thinking is a strawman is because the very same people that believe that the state is inherently abusive will often be in favor of keeping the populace armed. [url="https://twitter.com/OuterSiberia/status/967947046438277120"]Case in point[/url] (read the whole thread). There is a huge amount of nuance even within leftist spheres on attitudes towards the state. Some think that revolutionary tactics are the only way to overthrow our insidiously capitalist society, while some believe that progressive change from within a la the Scandinavian model is ideal, and yet others believe that, as you said, the state is inherently abusive to begin with and should be abolished outright. If you've seen just how much in-fighting there is in the left, believe me, you'd be much more hesitant to group even closely related schools of thought together so readily.[/QUOTE] I mean, again, you're picking so hard at the semantics of me not spelling it out for you in big neon letters and firework displays that I'm clearly talking about a specific subset of the left that holds the contrary beliefs that A) we should get rid of guns and B) the government is abusive/untrustworthy. Obviously there will always be a variety of differing opinions in any subgroup of people. Even if I specified by saying "anarchists", you could rehash this whole tirade saying "well what about THESE anarchists, who believe THIS? It's generalizations like this that.." So for the third time: You already know exactly who I was talking about when I made that post. You immediately knew the point I was making, who I was referring to, what I meant, etc., as did everybody else in the thread. Maybe if I were giving a speech at the UN instead of casually talking politics on a gaming forum I'd choose my words more carefully, but I'm not, so I didn't. Get over it. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Needs to stop being rude and calm down when debating. Telling people to get over it isn't how you debate." - Kiwi))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53163161]Before licensing, I think it would be best if the government approached the issues that cause the violence in inner cities. Poverty, poor education, lack of access to healthcare and abysmal mental health facilities have essentially forced the creation of an entirely "new" class of the poor in America. Schools are underfunded, and so students are poorly educated. Many jobs are becoming automated, and paying jobs require skills not taught in schools. Higher education is incredibly expensive. Those that lack proper income are forced to subsist on unhealthy foods, and may turn to things like drugs or alcohol. They may join gangs initially to defend themselves, or to seek riches taken from others. Our prison system gobbles these people up and then spits them out with no help whatsoever and no rehabilitation, and many are forced right back into the lifestyles that got them there in the first place. These individuals are then jaded and feel pushed away by society, and any children they may have are (purposefully or otherwise) raised with that mentality. This cycle mainly affects minorities, who are given chump change and table scraps from the government, and politicians like to dangle further benefits as bait for votes, and proceed to never do good on their promises. This is a brutal oversimplification of the problem, but what I'm trying to get at is that there is an incredible vicious cycle that seems never ending, and guns are only a small aspect of it. The biggest issue that I see with democratic politicians is that they propose mountains of incredibly restrictive gun control up front, stating that they will "tackle the other issues too" and then never proceed to even touch the issues. And I understand that the Republicans won't help with any of that either. I don't think we need to be told that any harder as it's made incredibly obvious every day. It is the political rut that America is stuck in, but I do forsee possible reform in the Democratic party to either drop guns, or leave it to a state-by-state basis, and then actually focus on things like education, infrastructure, healthcare and the environment.[/QUOTE] This is a great post and I agree wholeheartedly. How I interpret what you're saying is "there needs to be a lot of work done on everything, not just gun control, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are capable". Which I agree with. One thing I would say, though, is that as always it doesn't have to be one or the other. [url="http://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/"]Gun licenses and safe-storage is also incredibly important for making sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands and that the guns that are kept in homes have their risk of misuse and reckless discharges minimized[/url]. While gang violence is often an understated aspect of the gun violence statistic/problem, so too is suicide and reckless discharge, especially the former, and I think licenses, safe storage laws, and longer waiting periods would go a long way to prevent them from happening.
Well done Democrats, you just severely damaged, if not ruined, the possibility of a blue wave in upcoming elections thanks to this. Nobody's going to accept such a draconian law in a country where the second amendment literally gives people the right to own and bear arms. Once again, all you've done is piss people off, alienate single issue voters even more, and proved you're not doing to do shit about the actual causes of violence, preferring to take the easy route out. This is so fucking spineless on all levels it amazes me.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163186]This is a great post and I agree wholeheartedly. How I interpret what you're saying is "there needs to be a lot of work done on everything, not just gun control, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are capable". Which I agree with. One thing I would say, though, is that as always it doesn't have to be one or the other. [url="http://lawcenter.giffords.org/guns-in-the-homesafe-storage-statistics/"]Gun licenses and safe-storage is also incredibly important for making sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands and that the guns that are kept in homes have their risk of misuse and reckless discharges minimized[/url]. While gang violence is often an understated aspect of the gun violence statistic/problem, so too is suicide and reckless discharge, especially the former, and I think licenses, safe storage laws, and longer waiting periods would go a long way to prevent them from happening.[/QUOTE] I should have reworded that as it came out wrong. Licensing is an okay step forward that doesn’t impede ownership of firearms and could actually loosen some asinine restrictions. It just can’t be tacked on by itself
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53163193]Well done Democrats, you just severely damaged, if not ruined, the possibility of a blue wave in upcoming elections thanks to this. Nobody's going to accept such a draconian law in a country where the second amendment literally gives people the right to own and bear arms. Once again, all you've done is piss people off, alienate single issue voters even more, and proved you're not doing to do shit about the actual causes of violence, preferring to take the easy route out. This is so fucking spineless on all levels it amazes me.[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised. A lot of the average, surface-level liberals in the US really aren't privy to the more nitty-gritty of the gun debate and are antagonistic to the sheer concept of owning guns, especially those outlined in this bill ([I]"why would you ever need a machine gun?"[/I]). I doubt that this will have many significant, if any, negative implications on the Dems' performance in 2018. The demographic of gun-loving liberals that refrain from voting Dem isn't that big and is disproportionately represented on Facepunch. I think it would be a good idea, though, for Dems to not be so blatantly misinformed and ignorant regarding firearms going forward though. It's unbecoming, embarrassing, inspires no confidence in their ability to work with the facts, and likely keeps a non-insignificant demographic from going out and voting for them.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53163202]You'd be surprised. A lot of the average, surface-level liberals in the US really aren't privy to the more nitty-gritty of the gun debate and are antagonistic to the sheer concept of owning guns, especially those outlined in this bill ([I]"why would you ever need a machine gun?"[/I]). I doubt that this will have many significant, if any, negative implications on the Dems' performance in 2018. The demographic of gun-loving liberals that refrain from voting Dem isn't that big and is disproportionately represented on Facepunch. I think it would be a good idea, though, for Dems to not be so blatantly misinformed and ignorant regarding firearms going forward though. It's unbecoming, embarrassing, inspires no confidence in their ability to work with the facts, and likely keeps a non-insignificant demographic from voting for them.[/QUOTE] I still stand by what I said about the Dems not wanting to do anything but take the easy way out, though. Doing anything beyond "ban the guns :hurr:" is simply something they either can't, or are unwilling to, commit on fully. While you could probably be at least partly right about the performance of the Dems in upcoming elections, don't forget that we *did* see get Trump elected, even if it was by a technicality thanks to the electoral college and by -3 million votes. At this point I'm staying on my wall until I actually see the election results.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53162776]It's a real shame that gun control has become code for taking away people's guns. Because most Americans do actually want sensible gun regulation.[/QUOTE] No, they don't, sensible gun regulation is a meme What I mean by that, the people who call for "sensible" gun regulation are the same people who think the barrel shroud is the thing that goes up, AKA they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
Get fucked you reactionary cunts. Banning semi-auto firearms is not going to prevent this from happening and you know it.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;53162998]No it doesn't. It covers any conventional weapons, but not WMDs because they have absolutely no defensive purpose. You don't protect your country by wiping off the face of the earth.[/QUOTE] Well. I mean. Today, yeah. But previously... [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine#Nuclear_mine[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_Genie[/url] (I am of course, kidding.)
I do wish gun owners/advocates would acknowledge that they hold almost all of the agency in effectuating actual change and hold themselves at least somewhat responsible for upholding the current status quo. Yes, mental healthcare (ie healthcare) is busted, but the problem is much broader than that and it's hard to watch way this conversation plays out over and over again and not become cynical when certain people refuse to accept that gun ownership has any role in problem and yet ask to be supplicated to, and compromised with. People keep saying they want this to be a two-way street but I'm not seeing that in practice. What's the opportunity that was thrown away here? What is anyone actually willing to sacrifice for substantive change? What's the compromise?
[QUOTE=Kommodore;53163328]I do wish gun owners/advocates would acknowledge that they hold almost all of the agency in effectuating actual change and hold themselves at least somewhat responsible for upholding the current status quo. Yes, mental healthcare (ie healthcare) is busted, but the problem is much broader than that and it's hard to watch way this conversation plays out over and over again and not become cynical when certain people refuse to accept that gun ownership has any role in problem and yet ask to be supplicated to, and compromised with. People keep saying they want this to be a two-way street but I'm not seeing that in practice. What's the opportunity that was thrown away here? What is anyone actually willing to sacrifice for substantive change? What's the compromise?[/QUOTE] Restricting gun ownership is an abridgment of the rights reserved by the people. It is an abridgment of rights in order to solve a problem that we have mountains of evidence can be solved in a fashion that improves the quality of life for everyone (better schools, better health care) and can solve issues above and beyond gun violence. You are taking away rights on the basis of some fairly shaky evidence instead of pursuing the path that we know would dramatically improve the underlying issue. By pushing for better schooling, you can theoretically manage bipartisan support on an issue. So rather than driving a wedge between the two parts of the country with restrictions, you can unify behind an issue they can potentially agree on with something like superior schooling.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;53163328]I do wish gun owners/advocates would acknowledge that they hold almost all of the agency in effectuating actual change and hold themselves at least somewhat responsible for upholding the current status quo. Yes, mental healthcare (ie healthcare) is busted, but the problem is much broader than that and it's hard to watch way this conversation plays out over and over again and not become cynical when certain people refuse to accept that gun ownership has any role in problem and yet ask to be supplicated to, and compromised with. People keep saying they want this to be a two-way street but I'm not seeing that in practice. What's the opportunity that was thrown away here? What is anyone actually willing to sacrifice for substantive change? What's the compromise?[/QUOTE] What compromise?? The issue with most all gun regulation bills is they take away a metric fuck-ton but do not give any freedoms. If you wanted to increase background checks, require a class, and have a waiting period for each firearm then you got to offer something up in exchange for that increase in security at get cost of your(others) guaranteed right. Most guns rights advocates may feel the terms above are okay if you say, take suppressors and short barrel rifles/shotguns off the NFA list and have them free to own without a tax stamp etcetera etcetera. The issue of no compromise on gun control is strictly because these bills offer no compromise in the first place.
[QUOTE=GunFox;53163353]Restricting gun ownership is an abridgment of the rights reserved by the people. It is an abridgment of rights in order to solve a problem that we have mountains of evidence can be solved in a fashion that improves the quality of life for everyone (better schools, better health care) and can solve issues above and beyond gun violence. You are taking away rights on the basis of some fairly shaky evidence instead of pursuing the path that we know would dramatically improve the underlying issue. By pushing for better schooling, you can theoretically manage bipartisan support on an issue. So rather than driving a wedge between the two parts of the country with restrictions, you can unify behind an issue they can potentially agree on with something like superior schooling.[/QUOTE] That's a great answer and it's one that I can personally live with, but I think it's also one that technically evades having a conversation about where firearms fit into the problem.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.