Mass Shotting at South Carolina Club Averted By CCW Holder - Polidicks

[QUOTE=geel9;50637263]Do you not believe that happened? [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MK-ULTRA]Because it did.[/url][/QUOTE] there was also the tuskegee syphilis experiments though thaf may have happened earlier than i am thinking atm

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50636992]This still doesn't explain why the USA can't have Swiss firearm laws. From reading the Swiss laws on firearms they make sense and I don't see why they wouldn't work in America.[/QUOTE] Because you would have to rewrite EVERYTHING about the Bill of Rights. Like Grenadiac said, what's to stop the government from removing our right to free speech and due process? Switzerland is a very homogeneous culture that isn't rife with criminals. Some of our most violent cities have the strictest laws, high rates of poverty, and a significant minority population. I don't know why you bother to ask us why we should change our laws when it doesn't affect you. This is my country. The Second Amendment guarantees the first and all other amendments.

[QUOTE=camaroni;50637640]Because you would have to rewrite EVERYTHING about the Bill of Rights. Like Grenadiac said, what's to stop the government from removing our right to free speech and due process? Switzerland is a very homogeneous culture that isn't rife with criminals. Some of our most violent cities have the strictest laws, high rates of poverty, and a significant minority population. I don't know why you bother to ask us why we should change our laws when it doesn't affect you. This is my country. The Second Amendment guarantees the first and all other amendments.[/QUOTE] That sounds like both an assumption and a slippery slope argument all in one.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50638119]That sounds like both an assumption and a slippery slope argument all in one.[/QUOTE] You're implying that all governments are benevolent and have the people's best interest in mind. There is plenty of corruption on capitol hill. I don't want to give away any more rights if I can help it.

[QUOTE=camaroni;50637640]Because you would have to rewrite EVERYTHING about the Bill of Rights. Like Grenadiac said, what's to stop the government from removing our right to free speech and due process? Switzerland is a very homogeneous culture that isn't rife with criminals. Some of our most violent cities have the strictest laws, high rates of poverty, and a significant minority population. I don't know why you bother to ask us why we should change our laws when it doesn't affect you. This is my country. The Second Amendment guarantees the first and all other amendments.[/QUOTE] Well if America was truly a democracy and free, then you wouldn't have to fear the laws being rewritten by tyrants. Democratic participation by the people on a regular basis would ensure this. This above all else is what makes democracies strong - the people are constantly active and vigilant as citizens. If America isn't a democracy and free... then why hasn't the second amendment stopped this? Do people really rely on the second amendment to make them free? Britain has never had a constitution yet we're a free people regardless.

[QUOTE=geel9;50637263]Do you not believe that happened? [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MK-ULTRA"]Because it did.[/URL][/QUOTE] He asked for an example in the past 50 years, and the only one you could come up with doesn't even meet that criteria? Not to mentioned that any actual officials were lied to by the CIA in reports. This wasn't the government oppressing people, this was the CIA going rogue.

[QUOTE=camaroni;50638199]You're implying that all governments are benevolent and have the people's best interest in mind. There is plenty of corruption on capitol hill. I don't want to give away any more rights if I can help it.[/QUOTE] What rights have you given up so far? Let's say that right was taken away though. That doesn't mean you can't own a firearm anymore, it's just no longer a right. Like how most people have cars but no one has a right to one. Why is that so terrible?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638324]Well if America was truly a democracy and free, then you wouldn't have to fear the laws being rewritten by tyrants. Democratic participation by the people on a regular basis would ensure this. This above all else is what makes democracies strong - the people are constantly active and vigilant as citizens.[/QUOTE] This is a stupid argument and you know this. Just because people have the ability to vote does not ensure they will and just because we're a democracy doesn't ensure tyrants don't wiggle their way into power. If anything, democracy gives more potential tyrants access to power than any other government.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50638393]What rights have you given up so far? Let's say that right was taken away though. That doesn't mean you can't own a firearm anymore, it's just no longer a right. Like how most people have cars but no one has a right to one. Why is that so terrible?[/QUOTE] National Firearms Act of 1934 Gun Control Act of 1968 All the Clinton Executive Orders Lautenberg Act Brady Law Firearms are a Constitutionally Protected right. Cars aren't.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50638432]This is a stupid argument and you know this. Just because people have the ability to vote does not ensure they will and just because we're a democracy doesn't ensure tyrants don't wiggle their way into power. If anything, democracy gives more potential tyrants access to power than any other government.[/QUOTE] But this is the operating principle upon which pretty every single democracy existed. Democracies got along fine before the advent of handgonnes, during their usage, and presumably will continue to do so after the ability to manufacture them is lost. There has been only a single democracy in human history which includes the right to bear arms with no explicit restrictive conditions.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638463]But this is the operating principle upon which pretty every single democracy existed. Democracies got along fine before the advent of handgonnes, during their usage, and presumably will continue to do so after the ability to manufacture them is lost. There has been only a single democracy in human history which includes the right to bear arms with no explicit restrictive conditions.[/QUOTE] There were barely any democracies prior to handguns and the ones that were weren't what we consider democracies by today's standards. [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;50637263]Do you not believe that happened? [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MK-ULTRA]Because it did.[/url][/QUOTE] I meant that emote in terms of what you consider an "atrocity". The Holocaust was an atrocity. The Vietnam War was an atrocity. This is a fucked up experiment, but not an atrocity.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50638489]There were barely any democracies prior to handguns and the ones that were weren't what we consider democracies by today's standards.[/QUOTE] this still doesn't address the fact that the united states is the only country in the world to have no explicit restrictions on the ownership of firearms yet somehow every other democracy in the world gets along fine without this. some of them even enjoy more freedoms than the united states does

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638463]But this is the operating principle upon which pretty every single democracy existed. Democracies got along fine before the advent of handgonnes, during their usage, and presumably will continue to do so after the ability to manufacture them is lost. There has been only a single democracy in human history which includes the right to bear arms with no explicit restrictive conditions.[/QUOTE] Right democracy always works, just like how Britain is totally pleased with how Brexit turned out. We can always trust that the government has our best interests in mind... And you're kidding yourself if you think that if freely given the chance, a pass-what-you-want free-of-consequence card was given to the government, rounding up all the guns wouldn't be up on the list. It's not as if our civil liberties haven't been slowly eroding ever since the 9/11 scare fest, and a decade or two before that also. I can count the U.S. politicians I trust on both my hands, but that's it. I mean, this looks like paranoia, but we're about to elect Hillary Clinton for president. A known liar, law breaker, and corporate shill, for fucking president. And it's not even some hush hush, maybe it's slander kind of deal.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50638518]And you're kidding yourself if you think that if freely given the chance, a pass-what-you-want free-of-consequence card was given to the government, rounding up all the guns wouldn't be up on the list. It's not as if our civil liberties haven't been slowly eroding ever since the 9/11 scare fest, and a decade or two before that also. I can count the U.S. politicians I trust on both my hands, but that's it.[/QUOTE] And somehow the right to bear arms prevents this, in which nothing is done to address this steady erosion of freedoms? If the right to bear arms is meant to protect peoples freedoms and liberties, why isn't it working?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638528]And somehow the right to bear arms prevents this, in which nothing is done to address this steady erosion of freedoms? If the right to bear arms is meant to protect peoples freedoms and liberties, why isn't it working?[/QUOTE] Because we're not fucking savages like you must think? We don't go massacring our government officials because they ban 32oz sodas in new york. Your statement is so loaded I really have a hard time understanding where you're coming from. If you really don't understand why the right to bear arms exists, I don't know. Being able to shoot stuff at a target range or in your woods is just a fun side effect, there's kind of a reason the founding fathers thought it was a good idea to put it into the foundation of our country after they just overthrew their previous rulers.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638511]this still doesn't address the fact that the united states is the only country in the world to have no explicit restrictions on the ownership of firearms yet somehow every other democracy in the world gets along fine without this. some of them even enjoy more freedoms than the united states does[/QUOTE] Please present proof that any gun laws or gun bans would reduce homicide. I will argue you based on facts, not feelings. Like I did with someone else [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524519&page=4]here[/url].

[QUOTE=camaroni;50638451]National Firearms Act of 1934 Gun Control Act of 1968 All the Clinton Executive Orders Lautenberg Act Brady Law Firearms are a Constitutionally Protected right. Cars aren't.[/QUOTE] These aren't the loss of rights, just restrictions to one right. And you sound upset about them. Do you think background checks should be eliminated? Or that every citizen should in fact have the unconditional right to bear arms regardless of their criminal history? Gun Control Act of 1968 - "primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers." Lautenberg Act - "The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)". Brady Law - "Mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States" And which executive orders it can't just be all of them. [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50638518]Right democracy always works, just like how Britain is totally pleased with how Brexit turned out. We can always trust that the government has our best interests in mind... And you're kidding yourself if you think that if freely given the chance, a pass-what-you-want free-of-consequence card was given to the government, rounding up all the guns wouldn't be up on the list. It's not as if our civil liberties haven't been slowly eroding ever since the 9/11 scare fest, and a decade or two before that also. I can count the U.S. politicians I trust on both my hands, but that's it. I mean, this looks like paranoia, but we're about to elect Hillary Clinton for president. A known liar, law breaker, and corporate shill, for fucking president. And it's not even some hush hush, maybe it's slander kind of deal.[/QUOTE] The people voted for brexit, not the government. Democracy was working by giving the people the power. [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50638543]Because we're not fucking savages like you must think? We don't go massacring our government officials because they ban 32oz sodas in new york. Your statement is so loaded I really have a hard time understanding where you're coming from. If you really don't understand why the right to bear arms exists, I don't know. Being able to shoot stuff at a target range or in your woods is just a fun side effect, there's kind of a reason the founding fathers thought it was a good idea to put it into the foundation of our country after they just overthrew their previous rulers.[/QUOTE] Then why the hell does everyone treat the second amendment like it's the only thing keeping your rights and freedoms intact when it's clearly not effective?

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;50638549]These aren't the loss of rights, just restrictions to one right. And you sound upset about them. Do you think background checks should be eliminated? Or that every citizen should in fact have the unconditional right to bear arms regardless of their criminal history? Gun Control Act of 1968 - "primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers." Lautenberg Act - "The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)". Brady Law - "Mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States" And which executive orders it can't just be all of them.[/QUOTE] I never said that I wanted to get rid of background checks. You asked how have I lost rights and I merely pointed out a handful of laws which encroach on my rights. And here is an article on Clinton's EOs (in which he bans the importation of certain firearms). Yet another example of eroding of rights. [url]http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Bill-Clinton-Gun-Control-Second-Amendment.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=camaroni;50638590]I never said that I wanted to get rid of background checks. You asked how have I lost rights and I merely pointed out a handful of laws which encroach on my rights. And here is an article on Clinton's EOs (in which he bans the importation of certain firearms). Yet another example of eroding of rights. [url]http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Bill-Clinton-Gun-Control-Second-Amendment.htm[/url][/QUOTE] So would you not agree that some of these are for the better? Like the Brady Act or Lautenberg Act?

Some encroachments are acceptable and understandable. They are still encroachments. At any point these measures should only exist because we as a collective allow them to, not because some Californian got scared after seeing a picture of an M16 on google. Some encroachments go too far - like background checks on ammo - because they are clearly designed to hassle people who follow the law and nothing else.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50638543]Because we're not fucking savages like you must think? We don't go massacring our government officials because they ban 32oz sodas in new york. Your statement is so loaded I really have a hard time understanding where you're coming from.[/QUOTE] except loads of important freedoms have been infringed upon in the past twenty years if nobody is bothering to fight for those freedoms right now (not with guns obviously), then why do some people seem to assume that gunnists are going to rise up and fight for them in the future? Where were the gunnists during the time of Jim Crow? Where were they when thousands of innocent Japanese people were put into concentration camps in WW2? Did they do or say anything as the Amerindian populations were driven to extinction? What about during the time of the civil rights movements as Women, Blacks, and later homosexuals all suffered as they were subject to many numerous miscarriages of justice? The more I look at American gun culture the more disgustingly and unashamedly hypocritical it becomes.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638653]except loads of important freedoms have been infringed upon in the past twenty years if nobody is bothering to fight for those freedoms right now (not with guns obviously), then why do some people seem to assume that gunnists are going to rise up and fight for them in the future? Where were the gunnists during the time of Jim Crow? Where were they when thousands of innocent Japanese people were put into concentration camps in WW2? Did they do or say anything as the Amerindian populations were driven to extinction? What about during the time of the civil rights movements as Women, Blacks, and later homosexuals all suffered as they were subject to many numerous miscarriages of justice? The more I look at American gun culture the more disgustingly and unashamedly hypocritical it becomes.[/QUOTE] I can turn you argument around by asking where the Ordnungspolizei were when the Holocaust was being carried out. Obviously Germans shouldn't trust their police because many years ago they didn't prevent an atrocity.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50638659]I can turn you argument around by asking where the Ordnungspolizei were when the Holocaust was being carried out. Obviously Germans shouldn't trust their police because many years ago they didn't prevent an atrocity.[/QUOTE] I'd be kind of surprised if the Ordnungspolizei interfered with the holocaust. What with them being formed and run by the Nazis.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50638659]I can turn you argument around by asking where the Ordnungspolizei were when the Holocaust was being carried out. Obviously Germans shouldn't trust their police because many years ago they didn't prevent an atrocity.[/QUOTE] Except there's injustices still happening in America and they have been happening ever since the second amendment was written. Virtually none of the gunnists have ever contributed to social progress and if anything have formed as a conservative reaction to the civil rights and counterculture movements of the 50s and 60s. It's why a lot of people take offence at this because the gunnists are claiming that they're more important than they actually are by selecting reinterpreting and rewriting history to suit their own selfish agendas.

I think it's clear by now that the only thing the 2nd amendment protects is the 2nd amendment itself. But even then there's already been so many restrictions passed and people seem to accept it begrudgingly instead of taking up arms and storming the white house or however that's supposed to

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50638670]I'd be kind of surprised if the Ordnungspolizei interfered with the holocaust. What with them being formed and run by the Nazis.[/QUOTE] That's kind of my point. Why would the rather racist settlers of the 1800s prevent the extermination of Indians, etc. and why would that have any bearing on current events anyway?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638674]Except there's injustices still happening in America and they have been happening ever since the second amendment was written. Virtually none of the gunnists have ever contributed to social progress and if anything have formed as a conservative reaction to the civil rights and counterculture movements of the 50s and 60s. It's why a lot of people take offence at this because the gunnists are claiming that they're more important than they actually are by selecting reinterpreting and rewriting history to suit their own selfish agendas.[/QUOTE] "gunnists" [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] "own selfish agendas"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50638674]Except there's injustices still happening in America and they have been happening ever since the second amendment was written. Virtually none of the gunnists have ever contributed to social progress and if anything have formed as a conservative reaction to the civil rights and counterculture movements of the 50s and 60s. It's why a lot of people take offence at this because the gunnists are claiming that they're more important than they actually are by selecting reinterpreting and rewriting history to suit their own selfish agendas.[/QUOTE] There are injustices happening everywhere and guns aren't the answer to 99.99% of them. They are the last line of defense against a government that's turning tyrannical, to be used when we've exhausted every other option. If the government decides to take those away under some pretense of preventing crime, the reason is obvious. I can't really go out and shoot homophobia to death. Gun owners can't band together and shoot wage inequality to death. These are intangible concepts that aren't affected by firearms.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50638489]There were barely any democracies prior to handguns and the ones that were weren't what we consider democracies by today's standards. [editline]3rd July 2016[/editline] I meant that emote in terms of what you consider an "atrocity". The Holocaust was an atrocity. The Vietnam War was an atrocity. This is a fucked up experiment, but not an atrocity.[/QUOTE] I would consider that directly violating the Nuremberg code by force feeding life-ruining drugs to numerous people against their will, in the process creating the Unabomber, all with the goal of gaining the ability to control the minds of its citizens, to be a fucking atrocity.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50638801]There are injustices happening everywhere and guns aren't the answer to 99.99% of them. They are the last line of defense against a government that's turning tyrannical, to be used when we've exhausted every other option. If the government decides to take those away under some pretense of preventing crime, the reason is obvious.[/QUOTE] Exactly. The purpose of the second amendment (at least in my interpretation) isn't that guns should be used to fix everything. It isn't "I don't like this policy so it's time to kill some people and use force to change it." That would be tyranny. The point is that if the shit hits the fan, then arms are available. That's it.