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

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53163835] The premise is stupid. I own 12 guns. Would I exchange just one for a life somewhere? Duh. Like 99% of gun owners would. It's really not helpful.[/QUOTE] Its just a bait designed to tie into Obama's mantra of "if it'll save just one life then the law was worth it." When Obama was trying to get gun control passed during his tenure. I voted for Obama, but that was before he did all that. :disappoint: p.s., I'm not replying to those two anymore because I think it pretty clear they're just trying to bait people. They aren't here for a serious conversation on what can be done to reduce murder rates.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53163813] This question is clearly designed to lead to me either being a heartless bastard or a hypocrite. So let me pose to you, would you allow the police to search your home anytime they want if it'd mean sparing/saving the life of a kid somewhere?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SKEEA;53163835]Stuff like this has nothing to do with anything and is not helpful and proves nothing. It's pointless bait. How about actually providing substance to the conversation instead of nebulous "thought experiments?" This piece of legislation is a direct threat to everyone's rights. Take it a bit more seriously.[/QUOTE] I am serious. Thought experiments are important to get a grip of public understanding, and it is widely used in both practical and theoretical philosophy. It isn't designed to do anything, and I am genuinely curious to know the response. I understand the reluctance to not respond. It is a very difficult issue, but I think we need to face very difficult questions to get a better understanding. Especially when it comes to legislation involved with human life. Every angle needs to be analysed. Another, less inflammatory question/thought (although I do really hope that someone responds to my previous one): Let's say that a ruling is passed which states that all personally owned weapons, except hunting rifles, are to be banned within 50 years. What would be the right approach to get to that point. Addendum: Let's assume a benevolent government and police force. We're only talking the approach to national public disarmament.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53163845]I view my 2nd Amendment rights as the right to self-defense. Primarily against criminals and animals. [B]So I view my right to preserve my continued existence a bit importantly than you do apparently[/B]. For a lot of people firearms aren't just toys to be taken to a range. Particularity the elderly otherwise physically inferior to their attackers need a firearm more.[/QUOTE] Well in that case thank fuck I live in a country where I can feel safe without keeping an arsenal of firearms at home and where bears/tigers and crocodiles arent roaming streets of city.

To build on SKEEA's response, would you still do it if you only had one gun?

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163857]I am serious. Thought experiments are important to get a grip of public understanding, and it is widely used in both practical and theoretical philosophy. It isn't designed to do anything, and I am genuinely curious to know the response. I understand the reluctance to not respond. It is a very difficult issue, but I think we need to face very difficult questions to get a better understanding. Especially when it comes to legislation involved with human life. Every angle needs to be analysed. Another, less inflammatory question/thought (although I do really hope that someone responds to my previous one): Let's say that a ruling is passed which states that all personally owned weapons, except hunting rifles, are to be banned within 50 years. What would be the right approach to get to that point. Addendum: Let's assume a benevolent government and police force. We're only talking the approach to national public disarmament.[/QUOTE] There is no right way. You can not guarantee government will be beneovlent forever.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53163862]There is no right way. You can not guarantee government will be beneovlent forever.[/QUOTE] It is a thought experiment. How would you do it? Genuinely curious.

I wouldn’t do it, that’s the whole point of my response. It goes against every grain of my belief system to disarm the citizenry.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53163873]I wouldn’t do it, that’s the whole point of my response. It goes against every grain of my belief system to disarm the citizenry.[/QUOTE] I'm disappointed. Sort of defeats the purpose of a thought experiment.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;53163827]I'd be wary of that, a lot of moderates here might not support a ban this drastic.[/QUOTE] I personally have always felt that American liberals or moderates on Facepunch are further right on gun control than most moderates or left leaning Americans for whatever reasons so I don't think this forum is a good sample of political sentiment among liberals

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53163857]I am serious. Thought experiments are important to get a grip of public understanding, and it is widely used in both practical and theoretical philosophy. It isn't designed to do anything, and I am genuinely curious to know the response. I understand the reluctance to not respond. It is a very difficult issue, but I think we need to face very difficult questions to get a better understanding. Especially when it comes to legislation involved with human life. Every angle needs to be analysed. Another, less inflammatory question/thought (although I do really hope that someone responds to my previous one): Let's say that a ruling is passed which states that all personally owned weapons, except hunting rifles, are to be banned within 50 years. What would be the right approach to get to that point. Addendum: Let's assume a benevolent government and police force. We're only talking the approach to national public disarmament.[/QUOTE] I refuse to entertain the notion of public disarmament.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53162795]A grenade launcher or rocket launcher huh? What the fuck?[/QUOTE] I believe by grenade launcher they were referring to the rings on a barrel used to attach a rifle grenade. [IMG]http://grenadelauncher.com/SKS-M59-66A1-rifle-grenade-launcher.JPG[/IMG]

This "proposal" is just patently unconstitutional and for this to get any traction at all would be incredibly concerning.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53164048]I refuse to entertain the notion of public disarmament.[/QUOTE] Then I truly am sorry for you.

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53164306]Then I truly am sorry for you.[/QUOTE] "if the government banned all guns, how would you make sure they get taken away" "i wouldn't" "okay but how would you do it though" "i said i wouldn't" "it's a thought experiment tho" "you're asking me how I would do something that blatantly violates my moral beliefs" "ugh it's just a thought experiment you're so close-minded" what point are you even trying to make right now

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53164306]Then I truly am sorry for you.[/QUOTE] Do you have a point or are you going to keep making inane pseudo intellectual comments

[QUOTE=Kazumi;53164306]Then I truly am sorry for you.[/QUOTE] I swore an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. You are asking me how I would go against that oath, and trample on the rights of the very citizens that I serve. I will never, EVER, support or give credence to any idea that would violate not only my rights, but the rights of those that I serve. "We're only talking the approach of civilian disarmament." I refuse to discuss that approach, because it is wildly unconstitutional, and is asking for violence against our citizens. Not now, not ever.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53164365]I swore an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States. You are asking me how I would go against that oath, and trample on the rights of the very citizens that I serve.[/QUOTE] It's a thought experiment dude. Calm the hell down. The idea of thought experiments is to try to understand how something [I]could[/I] or [I]couldn't[/I] work in theory based on what you know about it. Not to grandstand about how you're a defender of some arbitrary piece of paper. The constitution really isn't all that special, it's still a set of rules set by men that can be broken by men. There's absolutely nothing about it that makes it special. So why not partake in a simple thought experiment that wont actually do it any harm? Bet you guys are a right hoot at parties. Gosh.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53164535] Bet you guys are a right hoot at parties. Gosh.[/QUOTE] Was this really necessary?

Thought experiments are only as useful as their assumptions are valid and applicable. This is a discussion of real world policy. So a thought experiment based on totally unrealistic assumptions, like one gun being taken equaling one life being saved, isn't meaningful in the slightest. Whether you say yes or not tells you nothing about what policy would work. It would be like saying, "How many pushups would you do if you knew that every 10 saved one person's life." It might make you think about your physical determination to save strangers, but it would add nothing to a discussion about how to realistically save lives.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53164556]This is a discussion of real world policy. So a thought experiment based on totally unrealistic assumptions, like one gun being taken equaling one life being saved, isn't meaningful in the slightest. Whether you say yes or not tells you nothing about what policy would work.[/QUOTE] That's not the thought experiment I was talking about but you do you and try to reshape the argument into your favour I suppose. The one in question was the most recent one proposed. Assume that the US did implement some kind of gun restrictions that did require citizens to hand over firearms. How would that even work? Legally (with the assumption that the constitution has been amended to do so I suppose) and logistically. It's not like these assumptions are super far fetched either, many other countries have for the most part managed it in practice. The main differences would be scale and some cultural pushback.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53164562]That's not the thought experiment I was talking about but you do you and try to reshape the argument into your favour I suppose. The one in question was the most recent one proposed. Assume that the US did implement some kind of gun restrictions that did require citizens to hand over firearms. How would that even work? Legally (with the assumption that the constitution has been amended to do so I suppose) and logistically. It's not like these assumptions are super far fetched either, many other countries have for the most part managed it in practice. The main differences would be scale and some cultural pushback.[/QUOTE] There's a reason I didn't quote anyone specifically. People have thrown around some really stupid thought experiments, like the one I mentioned, and then defended them by saying, "It's just a thought experiment," as if that makes it meaningful. The one you've proposed seems to be about actual relevant policy questions. So my comment wouldn't apply.

In this thread, I am not concerned about some kind of hypothetical thought experiment. I'm far more concerned about this very real bill that was just proposed. That is a direct threat. This bill is poorly written and is a threat to the freedom of American citizens. It is concerning that it was even proposed, seeing as how it maintains the tired old stance that never works, and further entrenches gun owners. These AWB bills just continue to show how out of touch the politicians proposing said legislation are, and how little they care about individual freedom. Gun owning citizens would be more willing to talk if their rights and way of life didn't come under direct assault with bills like these at every turn. All these bills do is let the proposing politicians give themselves a pat on the back, and creates a fire sale in the firearms market. They have no chance of being passed, but they still suggest them anyways like clockwork just for political points. It's abhorrent.

If stopping mass school shootings is the main point we want to stop, what about these two ideas? 1. Increasing the minimum age of firearm ownership to 21? Anyone under that age must be supervised by a legal adult who meets the requirements of owning firearms in their state (so kids/teens can still go to the range and hunt with their family). 2. Requiring parents and legal guardians to safely store firearms in a locked container when not in use? If the firearm was found not in a locked container and some edgy kid decides to shoot someone or has a negligent discharge, the parents/legal guardians are held fully responsible for all damages and charges along with the minor. For added effect, public service announcements should be aired like those drunk driving ads. "Lock it or get locked up" Clarification: by container, I mean either a hard gun case with locks on it or a safe if people can afford one. Not everyone can afford a safe, but getting a locked gun case shouldn't be a problem. Exceptions to rule #2: If it is found that the minor broke into the safe/case while it was locked/secured; If the owner of the firearm does not have legal custody of any children; or if the firearm was on the owner's person (such as concealed carrying, transporting, or cleaning) and was overpowered by the minor.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53164997]If stopping mass school shootings is the main point we want to stop, what about these two ideas? 1. Increasing the minimum age of firearm ownership to 21? Anyone under that age must be supervised by a legal adult who meets the requirements of owning firearms in their state (so kids/teens can still go to the range and hunt with their family). 2. Requiring parents and legal guardians to safely store firearms in a locked container when not in use? If the firearm was found not in a locked container and some edgy kid decides to shoot someone or has a negligent discharge, the parents/legal guardians are held fully responsible for all damages and charges along with the minor. For added effect, public service announcements should be aired like those drunk driving ads. "Lock it or get locked up" Clarification: by container, I mean either a hard gun case with locks on it or a safe if people can afford one. Not everyone can afford a safe, but getting a locked gun case shouldn't be a problem. Exceptions to rule #2: If it is found that the minor broke into the safe/case while it was locked/secured; If the owner of the firearm does not have legal custody of any children; or if the firearm was on the owner's person (such as concealed carrying, transporting, or cleaning) and was overpowered by the minor.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure minimum age to purchase - 21 law was introduced today few hours ago.

Storage laws have some obstacles in the United States. It is essentially an unenforceable law. Law enforcement can't enter a home to check, and you can't pass laws that allow law enforcement to enter to check. A) Law enforcement has better fucking things to do. B) You can't make the exercising of a right linked to the sacrifice of another right. We have defenses against search and seizure enshrined in the bill of rights. You can't pass a law that says you lose your 4th amendment rights by exercising your 2nd. It would be the same as making a law that states you lose your 1st amendment rights for exercising your 2nd. Or, worse, you lose your 2nd for exercising your 1st. That isn't how those rights function. At the end of the day it would only be enforced after the fact. Damage would be done either way.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162970]Lol Im literally arguing for making people entitled to a licensing process, which is better than we have with cars and I guess I just am an anti gun nut? I want to ban guns? Jeez, maybe this is why nothing is getting done.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162920]Up to states to enact their own licensing process. It could be mercilessly hard in some states and some people will fail that personally feel they shouldn't, [b]but honestly tough shit lol, literally move away you dont have the right to endanger society for that which you feel so pathetically entitled. At least, you shouldnt.[/b][/QUOTE] Dude, you're [i]clearly[/i] just trying to get rid of guns here. You're terrible at pretending.

Considering that its more than a possibility that Russia may be pulling the strings in our government, now is not the time for a gun-ban, is it? Its not like this gun ban will do what is needed to stop mass-shootings anyway. There are already so many firearms in so many households across the country, stored properly or not, that this isn't going to solve the problem we're having as a country. We have too many legitimate civil and health-related problems for this to be anything more than a knee-jerk reaction.

Fuck AWBs. We need a licensing and training system established for all gun purchases. You apply for a license and fill out your paperwork, reporting any mental illnesses that could predispose you to violent tendencies (depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, etc). If you lie about the mental illnesses and are discovered, you get charges - like willingly lying on most other government forms. The paperwork is filed and you receive a full criminal background check. You attend mandatory safety and training classes that go over gun storage safety, trigger safety, and other basic knowledge - just like you have to do with a vehicle. Good job, you're clear! You get a firearms license that authorizes you to purchase firearms from licensed dealers. But wait - don't just go and buy a handgun from a guy in front of the Wal-Mart! Because part two is [i]banning and criminalizing all private sales of firearms[/i]. Just ban it. Flat-out, entirely. All private transactions and transfers of title would be required to be overseen by a federally-licensed firearms dealer who reports and authorizes the transfer. All newly-produced firearms would be assigned an identification number. Old firearms would not be required, but maybe a financial incentive to register them would help. Now, all that passes. Grandpa gives you his old hunting rifle once you get your license, you go to the local dealer to register the firearm and transfer the title, and you own a gun. But a while later, and you're short on cash. You decide to break the law and sell the gun to someone privately, off the books. You do - then he uses it to kill someone, and is arrested. Uh-oh. The identification number is still tied to you. It's printed on the gun internally. You're implicated. You broke the law and you're held responsible for doing so. Did the guy actually steal it, instead? If you fail to report it, you commit another crime. A licensing system, complete with background checks and a private transaction ban, would solve so many fucking issues. Are you a well-meaning, non-violent citizen who likes guns? Great, go get one. Get whatever fucking gun you want. Go get a fully-automatic whatever. But if you break the law and put it into the hands of someone else who could use it for violence, you're liable for that fuck-up. This isn't much different from how most other developed countries handle gun ownership - and if a paragraph in the Constitution is holding us back from implementing a system like this, it's time for a 28th to update us to the modern day.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53165379]Fuck AWBs. We need a licensing and training system established for all gun purchases. You apply for a license and fill out your paperwork, reporting any mental illnesses that could predispose you to violent tendencies (depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, etc). If you lie about the mental illnesses and are discovered, you get charges - like willingly lying on most other government forms. The paperwork is filed and you receive a full criminal background check. You attend mandatory safety and training classes that go over gun storage safety, trigger safety, and other basic knowledge - just like you have to do with a vehicle. Good job, you're clear! You get a firearms license that authorizes you to purchase firearms from licensed dealers. But wait - don't just go and buy a handgun from a guy in front of the Wal-Mart! Because part two is [i]banning and criminalizing all private sales of firearms[/i]. Just ban it. Flat-out, entirely. All private transactions and transfers of title would be required to be overseen by a federally-licensed firearms dealer who reports and authorizes the transfer. All newly-produced firearms would be assigned an identification number. Old firearms would not be required, but maybe a financial incentive to register them would help. Now, all that passes. Grandpa gives you his old hunting rifle once you get your license, you go to the local dealer to register the firearm and transfer the title, and you own a gun. But a while later, and you're short on cash. You decide to break the law and sell the gun to someone privately, off the books. You do - then he uses it to kill someone, and is arrested. Uh-oh. The identification number is still tied to you. It's printed on the gun internally. You're implicated. You broke the law and you're held responsible for doing so. Did the guy actually steal it, instead? If you fail to report it, you commit another crime. A licensing system, complete with background checks and a private transaction ban, would solve so many fucking issues. Are you a well-meaning, non-violent citizen who likes guns? Great, go get one. Get whatever fucking gun you want. Go get a fully-automatic whatever. But if you break the law and put it into the hands of someone else who could use it for violence, you're liable for that fuck-up. This isn't much different from how most other developed countries handle gun ownership - and if a paragraph in the Constitution is holding us back from implementing a system like this, it's time for a 28th to update us to the modern day.[/QUOTE] in other words, the poor don't deserve to defend themselves

[QUOTE=butre;53165409]in other words, the poor don't deserve to defend themselves[/QUOTE] Do the poor not get to drive because they have to get licenses, let alone having to buy the car itself? Nah. We haven't even discussed the pricing of the licenses, they could be literally $200 for a handgun license, but you are instead assuming that it's an unaffordable amount. At some point, by the way, you have to pay money for a gun.