[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51346648]I said my analogy had some flaws but it's terribleness wasn't as bad as I thought.
Also a strawman requires an actual argument. What is the argument with me fucking up an analogy?[/QUOTE]Haha, this entire post is rich. You [I]deliberately misrepresented[/I] what I said and put up some completely fabricated shit in place of it, I think that counts.
[QUOTE]Bigotry will spread easier with a Trump and Pence ticket if they encourage laws that harm minorities.[/QUOTE]I don't see how bad laws makes bigotry spread easier, you could have had a point (HumanAbyss made it for you, tell him thank you) but you just fell off the wagon. Moving on:
[QUOTE]Misunderstanding, then. But that doesn't make things any better.
Buying a gun doesn't remove "victim" status. You're still a victim no matter how many guns you own.[/QUOTE]"Victim" is subjective to interpretation I guess, but mincing words aside the [I]sentiment[/I] you're stepping around remains the same: you're not seriously injured, or worse.
[QUOTE]Then maybe you should format your posts better[/QUOTE]Actually I think you should read better, my collection of "maybes" was using your formatting style and replying with that. Or perhaps you could read just fine and you're being disingenuous again for the sake of "winning" this argument.
I mean this entire thing is just ridiculous:
[QUOTE][B]Alright. Bolding this because this is really important.[/B][/QUOTE][QUOTE][B]Someone was talking about how "lgbt folks are scared because we know what's coming." and your first instinct is to tell them to [/B][/QUOTE]Arm themselves because the conversation was implicitly about your coveted 1st, 2nd, and 3rd solutions would be either non-existent or actively against them. (remember, Trump and Pence are passing bad laws! [U]Your[/U] words this time) So we've finally reached the ugly underbelly of your bitching:
[QUOTE][B]then people called you out and you doubled down on your libertarian solution[/B][/QUOTE]This just bothers you doesn't it? I think this may have been it right here, I told people to take the reins of their own lives because oh clearly LGBT people are going to get fucked over six ways from Sunday right? Right? Remember, those bad laws are going to cause bigotry to fester and spread.
[QUOTE][B]what struck me odd is that you implied if you don't buy a gun, you will die. that has a lot of other implications on the other lines of defense but I don't think you care for implications.[/B][/QUOTE]I implied no such thing, [I]you[/I] took that from my posts despite clarification after clarification. Even among Paramud's retarded interjection you should have somehow absorbed the point but here we are again arguing the finer nuances of the crazy shit going on in your head. I'll chalk that up to you being tired, rather than assuming you've gone full manic on me five posts ago.
[QUOTE][B]you probably care for facts, and the fact of the matter is that you actually did comment on the other lines of defense (government to prevent bigotry, police to deal with bigotry)[/B][/QUOTE]Lines that you [U]insist[/U] will remain there, presumably by magic, under an administration that you have directly asserted will completely destroy their rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, it's either I'm wrong and there is no need to defend against growing bigotry or you're wrong and there is growing bigotry. This is where you've driven this argument, so I want you to cut the shit and pick one. [U]One.[/U]
[QUOTE][B]1. You stated that the police are useless in this case of home invasions by saying that you shouldn't trust them to be there on time.[/B][/QUOTE]They are. Unless you have a police officer [I]inside your house[/I] there will be a felony break in and until somebody does arrive you will be firmly outside the realm of police protection.
[QUOTE][B]2. I honestly don't what this means for certain but if I had a clue you probably meant that the government is useless when it comes to preventing bigotry or you think that there is another government that would be more useful.[/B][/QUOTE]I'm implying that the bigotry that exists [I]exists regardless of what happens in the election.[/I] You've asserted that it will somehow increase or strengthen due to Trump's laws and others have asserted that it will materialize because Trump and Pence are "symbolic." I don't buy either argument, neither passes a common sense check, so I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. What is there, and what I've been saying is there, is repressed feelings and sentiments that bubbled to the surface because, and yes I will admit AngryToad was right on this one, bigots felt emboldened by the election.
Yet people are acting like if only Hillary had been elected we wouldn't have these problems. Well the issue is if those feelings exist then they were merely undiscovered problems that exist regardless of who's in charge.
I'm positive that everything I just said will go in, rattle around in your head, and come out as a clusterfucked abortion of a response. I'll laugh at you, don't worry about that.
[QUOTE]If it isn't obvious by now, you have good intentions but they're just too libertarian for the real world.[/QUOTE]... Aaaand there goes the last ounce of respect. Through all my snarky, snide retorts and sarcastic comments I still extended you the courtesy of listening to what you had to say. Clearly you didn't reciprocate, because you felt the need to bold this entire vomit of angry quotes in case I, too, wasn't paying attention.
[QUOTE]People still have faith in the government and the men in blue to keep law and order, which is why everyone was just surprised that your first instinct is to buy a gun.[/QUOTE]Once more because I [I]know[/I] you're going to fuck it up: either Trump's presence is going to be awful and LGBT people will need to defend themselves because the men in blue will not be on their side, [I]or[/I] Trump won't be awful, everyone is losing their shit over nothing, and there won't be a reason to defend themselves.
I'm done with this inane shit if you can't even answer a simple question like that. Former or latter, no bullshit, pick one.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Ona;51346861]Right?[/QUOTE]I think it's funny that you furiously typed up all of that to somehow prove you know know what "context" is but then you [I]immediately[/I] demonstrate that you don't. So I just barely skimmed it and laughed.
I [I]know[/I] I touched a nerve with you a long time ago, or else you wouldn't be reeeeing at me in a vain and, sadly futile, attempt to prove you're clever.
[editline]10th November 2016[/editline]
Here's my [U]official[/U] reply to the argument you made: [quote=Donald J. "High Energy God-Emperor" Trump]Wrong.[/quote]
[editline]I'll just add it here[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sleeves;51347135]I'm not good at arguing though and I highly respect Jack's post. He pretty clear, concise, and correct. Add on everything he has said to this.[/QUOTE]You're doing just fine but at this point all I'm left with is telling him "nope, you're wrong" because his post is just the [I]dumbest[/I] shit. I feel like I'm being trolled because it lives up to every stereotype, the only thing missing is Ona isn't asking to see my manager and bitching about picking up the kids from soccer practice.
[QUOTE=Ona;51346861]Ouch, strike a nerve, did I?
If you weren't so busy being outraged, and actually read through my post before reflexively slamming your keyboard in defiance, you would probably realize that the [I]point[/I] I was making has nothing to do with keeping your constitution up to date. It's about one thing:
Context.
The U.S constitution was written in the late 18th century. A time when the fastest method of transport was a horse-drawn cart, the American cities were little more than post-colonial port towns, and the majority of United States citizens lived in small communities or on farmsteads. Back then, owning a gun (which, again, were single-shot blackpowder weapons, barely comparable to firearms that came even 100 years later.) was practically a nessesity, because you needed it to hunt for food, fend off wild animals (and occasionally bandits) and put down livestock. Not owning a gun back in the 18th century 'States was not only a rarity, it was downright detrimental to most people.
Contrast with today, where most Americans live either in cities or suburbs, get their food from supermarket shelves, and almost never have to scare off timber wolves at night. And last I checked, we have vets who put down animals, now.
All this, and modern firearms are incomparable to 18th century firearms. Even with the vague, poorly written restrictions on barrel length, automatic fire, and the nebulous bullshit about "assault weapons", guns are very, very easy to obtain in almost every part of the United States. To contrast, over here in my country, in order to own a gun, you need...
- A legitimate reason for ownership (farm ownership, gun clubs, sporting, military and police, ect...)
- A clear police record and police clearance, which you have to actively apply for.
- A permanent gun safe installed in your home.
- A seperate liscence for each individual firearm.
Sound restrictive? Well it is. And I've had plenty of Americans come up to me and tell me how crazy it sounds. One even asked me how I feel safe without easy access to a gun.
But here's the thing... Do you know how many mass shootings Australia has had in the past decade?
Five. Five mass shootings in the past decade. The worst one was in 2014 when a man shot his wife and two children in a horrific murder-suicide. Total casualties: 4.
Compared to the good Ol' USA?
How about 133.
This year.
[I][B]As of June.[/B][/I]
Since then? The number has only risen. I saw one report stating America has had over 1000 mass shootings in just over that many days.
As for total numbers for the past decade? Those numbers are too depressing to talk about.
But hey, gotta protect that 300+ year old bit of paper written in an entirely different historical context. Because free speech clearly has the same importance as owning lethal weapons. And you obviously can't have one without the other.
Right?[/QUOTE]
You can keep arguing against the second amendment but at the end of the day you aren't an American.
That's not an insult. America has a much different culture when it comes to firearms. We, or at least most of us, believe owning a firearm to be a right. To do a sudden 180 on this culture would be catastrophic.
I'm not good at arguing though and I highly respect Jack's post. He pretty clear, concise, and correct. Add on everything he has said to this.
-snip-
[QUOTE=Zyler;51343018]I'm pretty sure most of the people who supported Trump did so because they actually believed the things he said, the people on this forum are not representative of the population of the united states.
Facepunch is one of the most open and multi-opinionated forums out there. Unlike reddit or whatever, people only get banned for shitposting and not for presenting an opinion. People have defended pedophilia and bestiality on this forum and only gotten banned when they started shitposting. When you look at places like /r/thedonald and see how they ban anyone who has dissenting opinions, you begin to realize that they're just as bad as the 'SJWS' they claim to be against.
The difference is that, from what I can tell, the only actual 'SJWs' are small groups of idiot college students while the arseholes on the other end are considered an actual political force.
Nobody who holds these kinds of beliefs wants to engage with people 'on the other side', in fact, there are no 'sides', there's just arseholes everywhere who don't want to listen, it's not a political problem, it's a human problem.[/QUOTE]
The people on this forum definitely arent representative, but neither are people at trump rallys, those are only the most ardent supporters. What matters is the average joe who doesnt really care much about politics. The only proof i have of this is that both trump and clinton have abnormally low approval rates, wheras normally you'd expect a lot more support for a candidate on campaign.
/r/the_donald is certainly a shit hole and no better than their opponents, but the level of censorship i was talking about was admin level. that sub got 'quarantined' and the reddit admins very obviously tweaked the algorithms to remove votes from donald posts and add extra free votes to clinton (r/politics) posts. The entire problem being that they got shunted into their own quarantined echo chamber where they got louder and louder all on their own, rather than everyone being in the same politics subreddit having a discussion. Its a human problem yes, but its not uniform. [URL="http://thehigherlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/polarization-feat3.jpg"]People have been less polarized[/URL] and less willing to censor opponents online in years and decades past. I just dont want it to keep getting worse.
[QUOTE=Ona;51346861]Ouch, strike a nerve, did I?
If you weren't so busy being outraged, and actually read through my post before reflexively slamming your keyboard in defiance, you would probably realize that the [I]point[/I] I was making has nothing to do with keeping your constitution up to date. It's about one thing:
Context.
The U.S constitution was written in the late 18th century. A time when the fastest method of transport was a horse-drawn cart, the American cities were little more than post-colonial port towns, and the majority of United States citizens lived in small communities or on farmsteads. Back then, owning a gun (which, again, were single-shot blackpowder weapons, barely comparable to firearms that came even 100 years later.) was practically a nessesity, because you needed it to hunt for food, fend off wild animals (and occasionally bandits) and put down livestock. Not owning a gun back in the 18th century 'States was not only a rarity, it was downright detrimental to most people.
Contrast with today, where most Americans live either in cities or suburbs, get their food from supermarket shelves, and almost never have to scare off timber wolves at night. And last I checked, we have vets who put down animals, now.
All this, and modern firearms are incomparable to 18th century firearms. Even with the vague, poorly written restrictions on barrel length, automatic fire, and the nebulous bullshit about "assault weapons", guns are very, very easy to obtain in almost every part of the United States. To contrast, over here in my country, in order to own a gun, you need...
- A legitimate reason for ownership (farm ownership, gun clubs, sporting, military and police, ect...)
- A clear police record and police clearance, which you have to actively apply for.
- A permanent gun safe installed in your home.
- A seperate liscence for each individual firearm.
Sound restrictive? Well it is. And I've had plenty of Americans come up to me and tell me how crazy it sounds. One even asked me how I feel safe without easy access to a gun.
But here's the thing... Do you know how many mass shootings Australia has had in the past decade?
Five. Five mass shootings in the past decade. The worst one was in 2014 when a man shot his wife and two children in a horrific murder-suicide. Total casualties: 4.
Compared to the good Ol' USA?
How about 133.
This year.
[I][B]As of June.[/B][/I]
Since then? The number has only risen. I saw one report stating America has had over 1000 mass shootings in just over that many days.
As for total numbers for the past decade? Those numbers are too depressing to talk about.
But hey, gotta protect that 300+ year old bit of paper written in an entirely different historical context. Because free speech clearly has the same importance as owning lethal weapons. And you obviously can't have one without the other.
Right?[/QUOTE]
You completely ignored the content of his simple refutation to the 'the founding fathers only had muskets' idea by responding with essentially an emotional appeal. It's pretty ironic for you to get on his case about being outraged when you basically just typed up a big vacuous wall of outrage with no content besides 'this is bad and I don't like it'.
So, regarding the 'different context' argument- Does the 1st Amendment apply to the Internet, radio, TV, and other media that could not possibly have been envisioned at the time the Bill of Rights was written? Why or why not? If you're going to seriously argue that the fact that the Bill of Rights was written in a different time means that the law is invalid- even after GunFox clearly explained that the context really is not so different from what you're making it out to be- you need to follow it through to its logical conclusion.
I don't even know why I'm bothering because you seem way more interested in soapboxing about mass shootings ([I]completely[/I] irrelevant to the thread) than actually understanding Constitutional law, but if you give a serious answer I'll be pleasantly surprised.
[QUOTE=Redcoat893;51346777]
[url]http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uselection/what-kind-of-first-lady-will-melania-be/ar-AAk77Uw?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=DELLDHP[/url][/QUOTE]
Don't forget the first to work illegally in the US :v:
-snip-
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;51346486]lmao [I]that[/I] is a strawman, good sir. Plus you said your original analogy was A-OK so were you bullshitting me there or are you doing it here?
[I]"A strawman argument"[/I] is not a sarcastic comment. [/QUOTE]
You are not just wrong, you are insufferable atm...
[QUOTE=Ona;51347746]Muskets? Good god, man, people were long past muskets by the 18th century. It was precussion caps and rifles at that point, if my sleep deprived memory is serving me faithfully.
Regardless, the fact remains that the America the founding father's lived in and wrote the constitution for is not the America we have today. I mean, for crying out loud, the Industrial revolution hadn't even happened by that point!
I may have made a minor error in saying "breach loading" guns, as I think breach loaders were pretty uncommon until the advent of cartridge bullets in the 19th century, but the point remains the same: The second amendment was written with regards to single shot, blackpowder weapons that took a long time to load and were crucial to survival for many people.
In today's world, we have high powered, fast loading firearms. Many of which are capable of fully automatic fire, many of which are highly concealable, and many of which are very easy to obtain for Americans. And in this day and age, the majority of Americans do not get their dinner by going out into the local woods to kill a stag, and don't need to fend off wild animals at night.
Simply put, today's guns are more widely available, more deadly, more efficient and are used primarily to kill other people. Feel free to dispute that, if you like, though.[/QUOTE]
Muskets were far more common than rifles up until the 1840s, breechloaders were not used until the widespread adoption of metallic cartridges in the 1870s, modern weapons are better than the old, the founders wrote the Constitution as a living document intended to survive the passage of time, none of this is particularly relevant to the issue at hand.
[QUOTE=Ona;51347746]Here's the difference between free speech and gun ownership:
[I][B]Nobody ever killed crowded room full of people using a strongly worded argument.[/B][/I]
But sure, if you want to maintain the idea that every single constitutional right cannot exist without all the others, go ahead. I'll be over here on planet sensible where we have pretty distinct lines between "the right to speak freely" and "the right to carry around lethal weapons".[/QUOTE]
Literally special pleading, then. You haven't given me a single reason why your argument that 'the founders only had muskets, therefore the 2A is only about muskets' can't be applied to any other amendment. If you want to make an argument that the lethality of modern firearms deserves additional regulation despite still being protected by the 2A, then that's another thing entirely, but you blew into this discussion by criticizing Americans for believing that the 2A still remains valid even though technology has changed. The fact is, pretty much every constitutional lawyer agrees that the underlying principles are meant to evolve with technology and society.
Even if it were true that the 2A was about hunting- which it never was, because the original purpose was to ensure a militia could provide for the common defense- it has been reinterpreted in a modern context to guarantee the right to self-defense, just as the 14th Amendment has been reinterpreted from granting rights to freed slaves to granting equal rights to all. You may note that when the 14th Amendment is invoked to defend LGBT protections it has very little to do with the original context of slavery.
[QUOTE=Ona;51347746]Irrelevant?
I beg your pardon?
In a world where the new president of America is an apologetically racist, sexist, homophobic bigot, and the vice president is a legitimately delusional maniac who thinks the world is only 3000 years old and that you can "cure" homosexuality by praying hard enough, you think mass shootings and gun violence [I]aren't[/I] going to become even more of an issue?
If Trump follows through on his plans for this presidency, he's going to be removing rights and liberties from millions upon millions of people. And the moment you take rights away from people, you open the door for abusive, bloody-minded scumbags to waltz in and take advantage of their newly acquired power over others.
But hey, it's not like we have several centuries of history wherein this exact thing has happened countless times and resulted in innumerable atrocities being committed against people who have literally done nothing to deserve it.
I mean, c'mon, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power"]when has a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot rising to power ever ended badly?[/URL]
Next you'll be telling me that the solution to gun violence isn't adding yet more guns into the equation! I mean, that tactic is clearly working [I]so well[/I], ain't it?[/QUOTE]
Irrelevant in that nobody is discussing Trump's (unclear) policies on gun rights, and your soapboxing about the superiority of Australian gun control and mass shootings is neither here nor there. You won't see me coming into a thread about Australian elections and ranting about your homicide rates and how you need gun ownership like the US.
I would point out the irony of your warnings about taking rights away from people opening the door for abuse, because that's literally the argument used by 2A advocates against your particular viewpoint.
I saw this post from Bernie Sanders..i think it sums up what we all should think about.
[quote]Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.
To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.[/quote]
We'll take the good and use it to change the country for the better. But we need to fight and oppose the bad. If someone like Sanders is willing to work hard the way he has, i think we the people can to.
I dont think itll be possible to oppose the bad since the Republicans control everything.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51347888]I dont think itll be possible to oppose the bad since the Republicans control everything.[/QUOTE]
Democrats had control of a lot of things and did similar measures. Now that the republicans have control it is the end of the world.
[QUOTE=MR-X;51347927]Democrats had control of a lot of things and did similar measures. Now that the republicans have control it is the end of the world.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you're being very fair; from what I remember of the Obama administration he never had both houses at the same time, nor did he have the opportunity to take control of the Supreme Court.
I think people have very legitimate fears, especially in regards to LGBTQ+ rights and the fact the Trump administration is looking very likely to be against doing anything about Climate Change.
-snip-
It's interesting to see the grossly asymmetric viewpoints of pro- and anti-Trump people.
Trump supporters decry how unfair the words used against them (bigot, sexist, racist, etc.) and Trump are.
People against Trump are literally afraid of fucking dying.
Just a personal observation.
Will the FBI now go forward with any prosecution for Clinton and her foundation?
[QUOTE=Unsmart;51348080]Will the FBI now go forward with any prosecution for Clinton and her foundation?[/QUOTE]
Why would they?
[QUOTE=Ona;51347998]The founding fathers did, indeed, write the constitution as a living document meant to survive the passage of time. And much of what is in it is still relevant, like free speech, for instance.
But - and this may come a shock so brace yourselves - the founding fathers [I]could not predict the future.[/I]
To put this in perspective, let's say that in 300 years time - provided we haven't reduced our planet to a lifeless, radiation-cooked husk - we figure out how to upload our minds onto computers, and subsequently, the ability to copy, paste, backup and delete said minds. Imagine, for a moment, if you attempted to apply the laws and policies we have [I]today[/I] into a world where you can literally create an indefinite amount of backups of your own consciousness. [/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand what a living document is. The Constitution is not an immutable attempt to apply laws written in the 1700s to all future technology. It enshrines a set of [I]basic principles[/I] by which the laws themselves are re-interpreted and, if necessary, amended. The founding fathers weren't seers, but they weren't idiots, and they had already seen technology advance and change society during their lifetimes.
You don't even need to make up scenarios about robot-brains- have you followed the whole NSA controversy at all? The 4th Amendment was written long before the Internet was created, and strictly speaking it doesn't provide a legal basis for privacy. But the principle of it against unreasonable search and seizure has been interpreted by the courts to mean that people have a reasonable expectation to privacy in their homes and when consent to monitoring is not given.
Your argument that the 2nd Amendment is inapplicable because modern guns are nothing like those in the 18th century is fundamentally invalid because that's not how the Constitution works. As with the 4th Amendment, as with the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment has been reinterpreted in a modern context. In this case, it applies to weapons owned for self-defense, subject to reasonable restrictions such as background checks. The fact that we have gun regulations- and substantial ones at that, given our federal requirements for background checks and conditions for prohibition- shows that we don't blindly, literally follow the exact words on paper, but interpret the underlying principle.
As soon as you say 'Free speech works across multiple forms of media. The right to carry around lethal weapons, however, doesn't' you've gone right back to special pleading. The 1st Amendment clearly carries attendant risks, especially with the rise of radicalization through the Internet, and you could very easily apply this spurious 'technology has changed and got more dangerous, therefore your rights are no longer valid' argument there. After all, television demagoguery is why we now have Trump, right?
Oh, and for your question about robot-brains? We'd get a judge, probably in the Supreme Court, to evaluate the legal basis for which we define the crime of murder, and he'd apply that underlying principle in an interpretation of the law to extend (or not extend) it to digital backups. Perhaps a specific new law would be passed by Congress to codify the difference, so that the old law can be clarified in scope and context. That is how our legal system works. What the judge would [I]not[/I] do is declare that George Washington never foresaw robots therefore all laws against murder are invalid, because that's incredibly stupid. And that is essentially what you are arguing when you say that George Washington never foresaw AR-15s therefore all laws for bearing arms are invalid. It's not how our legal system works.
[QUOTE=Ona;51347998]I'm not arguing about the reinterpretations, I'm arguing that the entire concept is flawed.
I mean, when you buy a gun in America for "self defence", who, exactly, are you wanting to defend yourself from? Because I am willing to bet that the words "somebody with a gun" will be a pretty common answer.[/QUOTE]
Now you're trying to make some roundabout argument that the right to adequate self-defense is invalid because people with legally-owned weapons have to use them in legal self-defense against frequently illegally-owned weapons used to commit crimes, and that's just a non sequitur.
Obviously the proliferation of firearms among criminals and the mentally ill should be curtailed, but your personal belief that the best way to do that is heavy-handed regulation on everybody is one opinion-based solution among many, and not a refutation of the personal right to self-defense. Personally, I'd strongly favor actual enforcement of the existing laws, more funding allocated to prevent straw purchases, and opening the NICS to private sellers. But none of this has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment or your weak arguments against constitutional law.
[QUOTE=Ona;51347998]And I'm no exception to this. If you met me back when I was in high-school, you'd probably think I was a complete and utter shitwad. And you'd be right! Because I [I]was[/I] a complete and utter shitwad back then. [/QUOTE]
And to cap it all off you project your own irresponsibility onto others. If I made the hypothetical argument that alcohol ought to be banned because I once put someone in the hospital in a drunken rage, I doubt anyone would consider it a legitimate argument. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment either, you've just gone full-on ranting about guns.
Here's the thing- I don't really care how you feel about gun violence and gun control. I mean, I recognize them as legitimate issues, and would like to see the US take a comprehensive and intelligent perspective on curbing gun violence. What I have a problem with is that your thought process seems to go 'guns are bad -> guns should be illegal -> the right to own guns is not a constitutional right because technology changes'. It's that last jump that turns your personal opinion into a grossly flawed legal statement that demonstrates a thorough lack of understanding of constitutional law, and relies on special pleading to claim that the 2nd Amendment is radically different from all the others because reasons. It's a bad argument.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;51345434]You don't need a gun to feel safe.
[B]In fact, you [I]shouldn't[/I] need a gun to feel safe.[/B][/QUOTE]
I want to take a moment to respond specifically to the bold part here. This is very poor logic. Things should be different, but the reality is that they aren't.
Lets go with a car analogy. I shouldn't need comprehensive car insurance with high limits because I am objectively an excellent driver that has never been at fault in any accident in my life, and who has avoided a lot of accidents that many people would not have. Everyone should carry sufficient car insurance to protect me. The reality is that most people are minimally insured, and far too many people are outright uninsured, so I protect myself with extended coverage with high limits. How about a sexual assault analogy? Women shouldn't need to worry about watching their drinks closely in bars so they don't get date raped. They shouldn't need to worry about talking to random strangers who might be creeps. They shouldn't need to worry about walking around alone at night anywhere. The fact of the matter is that these people do exist, and sketchy parts of town have more of them, so you need to protect yourself in some way if you want to avoid being a victim.
Saying that you shouldn't need or need to do something is disingenuous. It implies that nobody is a bad actor in a society. This simply isn't the case. Nobody deserves to experience these things, but it's not victim blaming to say that you should put at least a cursory amount of effort into protecting yourself.
Should you buy a gun? That's really up to you. You have that right in this country, so the option is available. The fact that you shouldn't need it counts for absolutely nothing in the determination of whether or not you do.
guys
Donald is going to be a robot in disney world's hall of presidents.
[QUOTE=meppers;51348499]guys
Donald is going to be a robot in disney world's hall of presidents.[/QUOTE]
It'll be pretty easy to make. They just have to take one of the fatter presidents and melt it a little bit.
[QUOTE=Unsmart;51348080]Will the FBI now go forward with any prosecution for Clinton and her foundation?[/QUOTE]Maybe? Like everything else in this thread it's just wait and see. I think if they don't it's going to be clear that the entire investigation was just political bullshit.
[QUOTE=Redcoat893;51346777]Not only is Trump president, but the US replaced Michelle Obama with Trump's Third Wife. Bets on a divorce while trump is in office?
[IMG]http://lapostexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Melania-Trump.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uselection/what-kind-of-first-lady-will-melania-be/ar-AAk77Uw?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=DELLDHP[/url][/QUOTE]
How terrible, she got nude
[QUOTE=phygon;51349650]How terrible, she got nude[/QUOTE]
Oh no, how horrible.
[QUOTE=Ona;51347399]Trust me, I'm probably the least patriotic Australian you'll ever meet. If I wrote a list of all the things I dislike about my own country, I'd run out of word space.
But for as much as I hate this country's stupid weather, casual racism and homophobia, stupidly machismo culture and grating accents, I can at least walk down my street at night without fear of getting shot at by somebody who thinks I should die for being disabled/bisexual/agnostic/unemployed/young/all of the above.
And you're absolutely right, I'm not an American. I wasn't born in America, I've never visited America, and if I keep things my way, I never will, either.
Because America is [I]fucking terrifying.[/I]
Don't get me wrong, here. I understand where Jack is coming from... Or at least, I was making an effort to right up until I ~dared~ to suggest that America's constitution might just perhaps be contributing to its gun violence problem, perchance, and immediately had him attack me with the fury of a thousand neckbeards.
Is that still an insult? Neckbeards? Those are still topical, right? I don't keep up with the latest mey-meys
Anyway, my point is, I do understand the basic idea of what he's saying.
I just wish he'd understand that his position on guns and the problems inherit thereof basically amounts to "You're afraid of being hurt by people with guns? I know how to fix this problem! [B]More guns!!![/B]"
Also, it's worth noting that I'm a pretty big gun nut myself. The only reason I know all the legal requirements for owning a firearm here in Aus, as well as detail regarding what kind of guns were around when the second amendment was written vs what we have today, is because I'm a huge weapons nerd.
At the end of the day, guns are simply tools. Tools designed to hurt, kill and destroy, yes. But tools nonetheless. I don't believe that guns are evil and that nobody should be allowed to own them ever.
I don't even believe that guns can't be used for recreation. Hell, I'm subscribed to three separate channels on Youtube dedicated first and foremost to guns (Demolitionranch, Taofledermaus and Forgotten Weapons, if you're curious).
But in order to avoid a situation that the 'States currently finds itself in, where mass shootings are so common that they're not even considered "news" anymore (just sit and think of how fucked up that is for a moment, if you will) there needs to be regulation on the ownership of guns.
I may not be American, but I have a brain, an internet connection and access to literally hundreds of sources regarding just how much of a problem gun violence is over there. And when any old yahoo with a grudge can waltze into a Texas Wallmart and buy a shotgun off the wall with little more than an "have a nice day, sir" as they leave, it really isn't shocking that so many Americans are shot by [I]other Americans[/I] every year.
And before anybody accuses me of straying off topic, allow me to divert your attention [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting"]here.[/URL]
So yes, this is a real problem, and I'm capable of seeing that and commenting on it, despite not living in America. You don't have to agree with me, many don't. But that's what opinions are for.[/QUOTE]
I get it. It is super frustrating from an outside perspective to understand.
Going back to the topic of context, you have to realize that we have fundamentally different priorities than Australians. We permitted arms, regardless of the dangers they can pose, as a final safeguard against tyranny.
The underlying cultural value here is that we value freedom from government oppression more than we value safety.
Again, I get it. The default response is to SEEK SAFETY. That is the [I]normal[/I] human thing, and it isn't wrong to do so! We just have something that we value somewhat more than safety. This is part of the frustration that you face. You are assuming common ground, that our primary objective is safety, when it isn't actually common ground. It is an understandable assumption.
[QUOTE=The golden;51348074]And in the case of people like myself who are not in the US: I'm afraid of my friends fucking dying. As well as what little family I do have down there. I am legitimately scared shitless for the health and safety of my friends across the border because they are all minorities.[/QUOTE]
I'd wait until they start the minority death squads
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;51349734]I'd wait until they start the minority death squads[/QUOTE]
[url]https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656[/url]
[QUOTE=GunFox;51349709]The underlying cultural value here is that we value freedom from government oppression more than we value safety.[/QUOTE]I think securing ourselves from tyrannical bullshit is valuing our safety. For me firearms are a safety device, be it a carry pistol or an AR.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.