[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;53005759]I mean, I've been up close and personal with invasive, destructive wild hogs in the Florida State parks in hunts to keep them from damaging the local area more than they have.
I don't know where people get off on saying "lol just don't kill animals"[/QUOTE]
I've got multiple pairs of jeans and shirts with tears in them that can vouch for the "not killing them" method being a bad idea. I've also seen a few dogs wearing kevlar vests need staples after cornering a hog. I'll stick to my actual firearms for that job...
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53005386]The final check on the government? The same government that controls the largest military on Earth, right? I'd love to see that war, a contender for the shortest lived-war in the modern age.
Realistically, civilians would fight back with explosives and sabotage, not guns. That's just a pipe dream, mixed with some sort of savior complex.[/QUOTE]
Would you rather people not have any chance to fight back if it ever came to a situation like Venezuela or the Cuban Revolution? It's not feasible to have one of those things without the other.
I mean when's the last time you've ever seen an insurgency or resistance movement fight without the use of firearms as well as those other two things? Never.
Also implying that the entirety of US military would be a-ok with being ordered to shoot at their own people by a despot, or that people wouldn't defect, or that it wouldn't be a logistical nightmare to operate at full capacity in a territory huge as the USA when the entire country turns on you and media coverage of death squads killing political activists explodes. How well have the last few military occupations we've been involved in gone?
The point isn't to win, it's to dissuade any government (including foreign occupation) from considering such actions and to make it not worth the effort.
Nobody wants to think it would ever happen (save for some nutcases) because our lives would basically already be over at that point, but I shouldn't have to tell you how much everything would suck if it ever came to that.
Overall though I don't think something like that would happen, but the people who framed the laws of our country wanted to be prepared for everything because they knew people in government cannot be trusted to act within the best interest of the governed. It's something I think is better to have and not need, than to need and not have. Better to have a small chance of success than no chance at all.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005589]Have you considered not shooting animals[/QUOTE]
Have you ever considered that some people need to eat, and that regulated hunting is an essential part of wildlife conservation?
[editline]25th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;53005674]Single issue gun rights voters are fucking ridiculous.
You aren't allowed to use the "guns protect our freedom" argument when your voting habits are the single greatest threat to our freedom. You actively vote to fuck over everyone but the wealthy. Your bullshit put a fucking cartoon villain in the oval office.[/QUOTE]
Is that supposed to be directed at me, or are you just making a statement?
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53005799]Is that supposed to be directed at me, or are you just making a statement?[/QUOTE]
Not directed at you
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53005799]Have you ever considered that some people need to eat, and that regulated hunting is an essential part of wildlife conservation?[/QUOTE]
What if we gave national park rangers guns and had them do the wildlife conservation
[QUOTE=GunFox;53005674]Single issue gun rights voters are fucking ridiculous.
You aren't allowed to use the "guns protect our freedom" argument when your voting habits are the single greatest threat to our freedom. You actively vote to fuck over everyone but the wealthy. Your bullshit put a fucking cartoon villain in the oval office.[/QUOTE]
TBH a lot of posts in this thread that are being treated like single issue gun rights voters read to me more like 'I'll support Dems because of X Y and Z, but if they'd stop going after guns that'd be even better'.
Even an opinion like that seems to get dismissed as paranoid gun-obsessed idiocy, as if just caring about gun rights (even if it's well under more immediately important stuff on the priority list) is unacceptable. It seems to me to basically just be another way of saying 'guns are bad and if you care about guns [i]at all[/i] you're dumb', as if we don't get enough of that punditry already.
[editline]26th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53005057]If you refuse to even participate in the democratic process, how do you expect anything to change?[/QUOTE]
On the flip side, if he were to keep voting for one party despite it disagreeing with his beliefs, what incentive would they ever have to change?
AlbertWesker's beliefs are far from uncommon, and the Democrats need to appeal better to disaffected voters. The sooner the Democratic Party realizes that some of their policies are intensely unpopular among otherwise friendly demographics, the stronger they'll be for it.
538 has the dems up 18 points on the generic ballot, they're generally more conservative than individual polls.
God november can't come soon enough.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005854]What if we gave national park rangers guns and had them do the wildlife conservation[/QUOTE]
So instead of hunters paying money to the forest service, balancing the ecosystem, and receiving hundreds of pounds of healthy protein per animal, you would prefer to spend millions more dollars to see those animal carcasses rot? Just because you want to get rid of hunting rifles?
Fuck me for wanting to feed my family healthy venison for cheap I suppose
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005854]What if we gave national park rangers guns and had them do the wildlife conservation[/QUOTE]
Here's a question:
[I]why[/I]
How would that benefit people compared to the current system?
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;53005912]Here's a question:
[I]why[/I]
How would that benefit people compared to the current system?[/QUOTE]
Getting rid of guns should be the ultimate goal
Maybe if the US had better mental health care, better social services and less income inequality, we'd have less people going fuckin Rambo
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005913]Getting rid of guns should be the ultimate goal[/QUOTE]
I just want to jump in for everyone else really quick. Do not attempt to feed or otherwise refute this quote. Just move on and ignore it. It's happened in multiple threads before this, and it's just yelling at the wall. Please don't hassle yourselves by giving it credence.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005913]Getting rid of guns should be the ultimate goal[/QUOTE]
The current system of culling and hunting works perfectly fine, and recreational hunting is not what is contributing to the problem, people buying tons of guns and hoarding them is the problem, an increasingly smaller share of the population are responsible for a larger share of gun sales. The NRA has through scaremongering and conditioning created the gun buying equivalent of a whale.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005854]What if we gave national park rangers guns and had them do the wildlife conservation[/QUOTE]
So obviously you know where I fall on this matter, but hunting is a completely valid use of firearms.
The North American model for conservation is literally the best one in the world. The US and Canada are essentially the model for the rest of the world for conservation in the post modern era. You hear "murrica numba one" bullshit all the time, but seriously, our method is the best by far according to metrics used to measure the efficacy of conservation.
Hunters are largely muppets with guns, but the guys who determine what tags are issued and where, generally do a decent job.
Hunting is an important component of the North American ecosystem.
In related news, actual rangers are federal law enforcement agents with guns. They already do take part in conservation cullings, but generally only in national parks.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53005913]Getting rid of guns should be the ultimate goal[/QUOTE]
That hasn't even happened in the communist hellscape of Canada
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53005980]..we are still talking about how single issue voting is bad, right? That's what I'm trying to argue.[/QUOTE]
you're arguing with a strawman. nobody in this thread has argued for single issue voting in any way despite you and seemingly half the contributors to this thread thinking so.
From a Foreign point of view, the answer to all these posts seems obvious, ban all Guns except. Bolt-Action Rifles? Problem is America is so Gun-Centric that that will never happen, the problem stems back to the issue of being a nation founded by terrorists who won their all loved freedom through force of Arms.
If armed revolution in the United States was feasible without the support of the Military (who are not threatened by gun control) it would've happened already. Any gun can have a place in modern America, but that place isn't going to be tools of revolution unless they belong to the Military.
[QUOTE=Redcoat893;53006163]From a Foreign point of view, the answer to all these posts seems obvious, ban all Guns except. Bolt-Action Rifles? Problem is America is so Gun-Centric that that will never happen, the problem stems back to the issue of being a nation founded by terrorists who won their all loved freedom through force of Arms.[/QUOTE]
The American revolution was no better or worse than any other historical conflict. There were cases where loyalists were tarred and feathered or had their property burned, but the same happened to Patriots in areas dominated by loyalists. At no point were there en masse deliberate civilian massacres by either side. Don't act like a group of people acting to secure their right to self determination is the same thing as a terror attack like 9/11 or OKC. We didn't start the war off by blowing up Big Ben and killing a bunch of Londoners.
Of course freedom was won through force of arms. Asking politely wouldn't do much.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53005870]TBH a lot of posts in this thread that are being treated like single issue gun rights voters read to me more like [B]'I'll support Dems because of X Y and Z, but if they'd stop going after guns that'd be even better'.[/B]
Even an opinion like that seems to get dismissed as paranoid gun-obsessed idiocy, as if just caring about gun rights (even if it's well under more immediately important stuff on the priority list) is unacceptable. It seems to me to basically just be another way of saying 'guns are bad and if you care about guns [i]at all[/i] you're dumb', as if we don't get enough of that punditry already.
[editline]26th December 2017[/editline]
On the flip side, if he were to keep voting for one party despite it disagreeing with his beliefs, what incentive would they ever have to change?
AlbertWesker's beliefs are far from uncommon, and the Democrats need to appeal better to disaffected voters. The sooner the Democratic Party realizes that some of their policies are intensely unpopular among otherwise friendly demographics, the stronger they'll be for it.[/QUOTE]
That's still single-issue voting based on guns, though.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53006390]That's still single-issue voting based on guns, though.[/QUOTE]
No, that's valuing your gun rights as something worth fighting for, but realizing that items X, Y, and Z are of greater importance, and you hope that the same people who bring you X, Y, and Z also realize that your gun rights are nice too.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53005925]I just want to jump in for everyone else really quick. Do not attempt to feed or otherwise refute this quote. Just move on and ignore it. It's happened in multiple threads before this, and it's just yelling at the wall. Please don't hassle yourselves by giving it credence.[/QUOTE]
"I disagree with you so I'm going to pretend you don't exist!!!"
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53005799]Would you rather people not have any chance to fight back if it ever came to a situation like Venezuela or the Cuban Revolution? It's not feasible to have one of those things without the other.
I mean when's the last time you've ever seen an insurgency or resistance movement fight without the use of firearms as well as those other two things? Never.
Also implying that the entirety of US military would be a-ok with being ordered to shoot at their own people by a despot, or that people wouldn't defect, or that it wouldn't be a logistical nightmare to operate at full capacity in a territory huge as the USA when the entire country turns on you and media coverage of death squads killing political activists explodes. How well have the last few military occupations we've been involved in gone?
The point isn't to win, it's to dissuade any government (including foreign occupation) from considering such actions and to make it not worth the effort.
Nobody wants to think it would ever happen (save for some nutcases) because our lives would basically already be over at that point, but I shouldn't have to tell you how much everything would suck if it ever came to that.
Overall though I don't think something like that would happen, but the people who framed the laws of our country wanted to be prepared for everything because they knew people in government cannot be trusted to act within the best interest of the governed. It's something I think is better to have and not need, than to need and not have. Better to have a small chance of success than no chance at all.[/QUOTE]
by the time a despot seizes power in America it wouldn't be "their own people" that Americans would be shooting at, it would be "domestic terrorists". who do you defect to then? Cliven Bundy? it wouldn't be death squads, it would be gangs and radicals and "tragic" outbursts of violence, with the occasional ricin umbrella for flavor. who needs to operate at peak capacity when threats can be isolated and either villainized or used as controlled opposition?
Russia has one of the larger illegal gun markets in the world, yet Putin is going on 17 years now. why is that?
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53006390]That's still single-issue voting based on guns, though.[/QUOTE]
...What? That's very obviously [I]not[/I] single issue voting like at all? That's literally stating "I strongly disagree with their stance on guns but I'm voting for them anyways despite that fact" which is kinda the exact [I]opposite[/I] of a single issue voter.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53006474]"I disagree with you so I'm going to pretend you don't exist!!!"[/QUOTE]
Well that's because you refuse to acknowledge any of the many and varied points that counteract your argument. You're acting just as bad as the typical Trump supporter we get in a lot of threads in the way you're arguing. People don't take you seriously because of that and they are stating to ignore you because you cannot be argued with and clearly can't be convinced. Especially for anyone who has seen you take part in any sort of gun debate in the past and thus will know that you can't be convinced you're wrong no matter if we beat you over the head with the evidence.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53005980]Any modern "evil" government takeover won't be militaristic, it will be through propaganda and social manipulation to get the population to accept it. It would be slow and steady. No doubt there would be mass media control and scapegoats to keep people subservient.
Guns won't save you from stupid taking over the nation.
Again, defending America from itself with guns is a pipe dream. It's a crazy scenario that is fantasized about for whatever reason and I don't see that fear as justification for ignoring the real, broken systems that are already killing Americans, this very moment. [/QUOTE]
Are people still dismissing the idea of America slipping into tyranny and needing open resistance from its citizenry as a fantasy, while Trump is threatening a real honest-to-god Constitutional crisis and Democrats are calling for public resistance, with the possibility of some form of revolution being needed to reinstate Constitutional law being a small, but very real possibility?
The public is gearing up to literally march on Washington and demand the removal of corrupt officials and yet the idea of a revolution is still treated like fantasy, as if a corrupt government will acquiesce to being asked nicely. A handful of Bundy jerkoffs scared off federal agents solely through force of arms while the pipeline demonstrators were subdued by riot police. The idea of guns dissuading government action and giving the people more clout has been conclusively demonstrated time and time again.
I am not a single issue voter by any means but we are [I]way[/I] too far into 2017 for 'revolution could never happen' to still be taken seriously.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53006538]Well that's because you refuse to acknowledge any of the many and varied points that counteract your argument. You're acting just as bad as the typical Trump supporter we get in a lot of threads in the way you're arguing. People don't take you seriously because of that and they are stating to ignore you because you cannot be argued with and clearly can't be convinced. Especially for anyone who has seen you take part in any sort of gun debate in the past and thus will know that you can't be convinced you're wrong no matter if we beat you over the head with the evidence.[/QUOTE]
I only just popped into the thread though.
I think that the gun debate should be more of a debate on values than on evidence. Once we get done with a values debate we can start talking about pragmatics. That's why my post is just a single matter-of-fact style contention: it's meant to get to the heart of the issue rather than getting lost on whether or not an airgun is good for hunting.
I think that pro-gun people and pro-gun control people are separated by a line of values that doesn't get discussed as often as it should. The debate too frequently muddies itself in a mix between pure value and the pragmatics of gun law, and I think it should focus first on the values of pro-gun and pro-gun control people before we can talk about the effectiveness of whatever laws we want to pass
[QUOTE=GunFox;53005674]Single issue gun rights voters are fucking ridiculous.
You aren't allowed to use the "guns protect our freedom" argument when your voting habits are the single greatest threat to our freedom. You actively vote to fuck over everyone but the wealthy. Your bullshit put a fucking cartoon villain in the oval office.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53005799]
Is that supposed to be directed at me, or are you just making a statement?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=GunFox;53005815]Not directed at you[/QUOTE]
Why is it not directed at him?
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53006538]...What? That's very obviously [I]not[/I] single issue voting like at all? That's literally stating "I strongly disagree with their stance on guns but I'm voting for them anyways despite that fact" which is kinda the exact [I]opposite[/I] of a single issue voter.[/QUOTE]
I mis-read it as "I realize X, Y, and Z are very important, but I like my guns so I'm not voting for them", which seems to be the case more often than not.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53006602]I think that pro-gun people and pro-gun control people are separated by a line of values that doesn't get discussed as often as it should. The debate too frequently muddies itself in a mix between pure value and the pragmatics of gun law, and I think it should focus first on the values of pro-gun and pro-gun control people before we can talk about the effectiveness of whatever laws we want to pass[/QUOTE]
Myself and several others have already repeatedly addressed why guns are not the issue in any way, shape or form. Trying to get rid of guns just buries the actual root of the problem (poverty, education, and mental healthcare issue primarily) while introducing other issues. (Population control issues, no cheap source of food for a rural populace which frequently struggles to make ends meet, conservation efforts can't get funding, etc.)
In comparison there's little value in banning guns because there's already millions of guns in the country and passing stricter gun control laws isn't going to solve the underlying issue of illegal and violent uses of those weapons against others. Those who are going to use guns for illegal purposes aren't going to just give up their guns. That would also create a huge black market for guns, both for legitimate uses and illegitimate ones. So the issue would only become worse. So if there's little value in treating the symptom rather than underlying problem to begin with and it is quite likely to exacerbate the problem, why waste your time on it?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53006602]I think that pro-gun people and pro-gun control people are separated by a line of values that doesn't get discussed as often as it should.[/QUOTE]
We're not likely to come to a consensus on values, and we can safely ignore most values as long as we have the same pragmatic priorities (eg people not getting shot).
Pushing values without regard for pragmatism is exactly why gun control as it stands in the US is such an ineffective mess. You may value getting rid of guns as an abstract long-term goal, but using that to justify dismantling the US conservation system- a system which is not only extremely effective, but has virtually zero overlap with gun crime- is completely illogical and serves no useful purpose. 'Guns are bad' is really not the heart of a debate on nature conservation.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;53001485]Jesus Christ the basic right to healthcare, LGBTQ rights, and an impossibly large number of other good things for the American people are more important than the paranoia of the left taking your fucking guns away. [B]Which by the way hasn't happened, it didn't happen under Obama, and it won't ever happen.[/B][/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;ffI-tWh37UY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY[/video]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/30/federal-court-enjoins-california-large-capacity-magazine-confiscation/?utm_term=.c81d7d1e4cad[/url] California passed a law that would have required "high" capacity magazines be turned in. Ones that were grandfathered earlier.
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/11/jerry-brown-vetoes-gun-control-legislation/?utm_term=.5b0809b6afef[/url] Governor of California veto'd a bill that would have banned ALL semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines, although it would have had a grandfather clause.
[url]http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article187082303.html[/url] Hawaii orders medical marijuana users to turn firearms in.
[url]http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html[/url] NJ lawmakers overheard mentioning confiscation through a hot microphone.
Also, "ever" is a long time.
I'm just saying when I hear remarks like "you're paranoid" "It'll never happen." or "it never happened" I have seen plenty of evidence to document otherwise.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.