Sheriffs are forming "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" refusing to enforce gun control
285 replies, posted
I'll let Grenadiac and catbarf substantiate the claims that I was sharing, but you also clearly didn't bother to do a cursory reading of the article if you think that the marijuana registration was the issue.
It was the gun registration, btw. That was what enabled them to confiscate, you know, guns.
there's no compromise also because there's people like you who make assumptions that one side is somehow reasonable and the other isn't even though you have no idea what's going on
This doesn't help anything
This has already been covered but you're essentially an example of the problem here, okay?
Gun owners compromised, historically, for a number of different instances from the 50's all the way to the 90's.
Every time they did, they found that the people they compromised with, had no intention of doing so in good faith.
This created the situation we see today.
Single issue 2nd ammendment voters were literally created by the Democrats doing what they did, and giving propaganda arms like Fox the factual basis to start a "No compromise" stance.
And then we get the modern person who hasn't been made aware of obscure but important history revolving around guns repeating shit like "You should just compromise.". They did.
Yeah the TL;DL is the "No Compromise" stance isn't because pro-2A don't want to compromise, it's because anti-2A doesn't want to compromise. They just use the word "compromise" as a trojan horse to get the ball rolling, get everything they want, and leave us with nothing.
It's not. It's ~4 users.
Please don't lump all liberals together with gun-haters. That's an authoritarian vs libertarian issue.
AFAIK the concept of sanctuary cities hinges on the idea that unless federal law specifically calls for something, states and municipalities aren't constitutionally-required to cooperate with federal authorities. What's happening here is that states are passing actual laws and people are saying they won't enforce them because they feel like they don't have to. It's not really comparable.
Sheriffs don't get to decide what is and isn't Constitutional.
Here's how every gun control argument goes on Facepunch:
An article is posted relating to guns. A bunch of people die, or a country changed its laws regarding guns, or both.
Someone posts snarkily in favor of or against gun control. ("Oh gee it's a shame we literally can't do anything to stop this huh" / "wouldn't have happened if they could own guns...")
Everyone starts arguing based on ideology and platitudes
Someone like Grenadiac or catbarf comes in, provides statistics or rebuts bad science, and generally make extremely compelling arguments based on fact.
Grenadiac and catbarf's substantive posts are ignored by everyone who disagrees with them.
Anti-gun people refuse to acknowledge that the statistics don't line up with the way they feel. As soon as anything disproves what they're saying, they'll hop to some other flimsy defense (that may have already been debunked in the exact same thread).
If I may speculate, I'd say that the reason it goes this way is because anti-gun posters are mainly backing their arguments from how they feel about guns; they're scared of them, they're scared of the things that can be done with them, and they're scared of those who own them.
They latch onto statistics that ostensibly show that guns are bad, but if those sources are shown to be incorrect or misinterpreted, it won't cause them to rethink their fundamental argument because their fundamental argument is that guns are scary.
If one source isn't sufficient, the mindset isn't "hmm, maybe I'm wrong" but rather "well that may not show it, but I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that guns are bad and I just need to find out how to prove it."
Please don't get permabanned in the future. I generally think you are funny and it'd be a shame if we lost ya. I agree with the other guy that you seem inebriated.
We already have government operating outside the rules by passing unconstitutional laws.
Where is the condemnation for the state governments that are breaking the constitution? Just condemnation for those who choose not to enforce unconstitutional laws?
Should everyone always follow orders, or do we have an obligation to not break the laws of the land in our enforcement of other ones?
Whether or not authorities should enforce legislation based on their feelings isn't really a conversation I'm interested in having. I was just pointing out that these proposals aren't comparable at all to immigration-based sanctuary cities.
You already started the conversation:
You don't get to say "MY POSITION ON Y IS X" and then say "look dude I'm just not interested in talking about Y, alright?"
Fair.
SCOTUS is never gonna touch the 2nd Amendment because it's bound to piss off a lot of people no matter which way they rule. At the moment it heavily favors the gun rights side of things, and this is mostly in part thanks to how the Federal government has dug their hole in recent years.
In order to explain: With the Militia Acts and Selective Service Act, the US government effectively verified that you are a member of the unorganized militia so long as you are between the ages of 17 through 45. With the National Firearms Act of 1934, they put a tax on a constitutional right, which has now put them in a nasty situation where if they take up anything relating to that, the entirety of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968, could both be thrown out the damn window for suppressing rights via financial means. United States v. Miller 1934, found that the 2nd Amendment is only supposed to cover military grade weapons, meaning that yes, infact... The 2nd Amendment is not about deer guns, it's about myself and many others being able to own and train with M4A1s or whatever the military is using for that period of time. That would also mean you are fully within your rights to own tanks, ATGMs, and otherwise.
And then you have the last big case relating to the 2nd Amendment, Heller v. District of Columbia... Which put into print that the 2nd Amendment is entirely about ownership of weapons by the people of the United States of America.
Any case that the US Supreme Court takes on at this very moment would effectively mean that they would have to go against 100 years of gun control regulation, or we'd enter a constitutional crisis with them stating that the 2nd Amendment does not infact cover private ownership. It's pretty rough to say the least.
It's not just one side that's seemingly incapable of discussion here when it comes to guns. It's both.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment/index.html
And again I would posit that "well the Supreme Court hasn't held a case over every single state and local law so we can choose not to enforce them" isn't constitutional.
I would posit that "law enforcement should always do whatever is ordered of it, regardless of whether or not it violates the highest law in the land" is authoritarian.
But whether or not it violates the highest law of the land is up to the courts, not law enforcement. I think you have it completely backwards; it's authoritarian to selectively enforce laws because they don't align with your beliefs.
Do you extend this concept to the military?
Do the oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution mean nothing?
Thought some of you may be interested, but there’s an interesting lawsuit being filed against the federal government over enforcement of the NFA. Apparently Kansas passed a state law saying suppressors owner within they state were legal and did not need to be registered. Then the ATF came in and used the most heavily handed response possible (as par for the course) and gave both the firearms dealer and their customer a felony conviction. The two successfully got the ATF to drop the criminal penalties (which could have been up to 10 years in prison) but still have felony records which now prevent them from owning firearms, all because they didn’t want to pay $200 for a tax on a constitutional right and wait up to a year for the bureaucracy to approve a muzzle device made for better hearing protection.
Source here may be a bit biased but pretty much sums up how this lawsuit came about.
GOA Files for Supreme Court Cert in Case Challenging the Nationa..
Individual interpretation of orders can actually be a pretty hot topic with the military, and I'd wager law enforcement has something similar in place.
I don't think anybody would consider it authoritarian if law enforcement completely disregarded some direct orders - imagine some maniac were elected governor in Hyperboleville USA and declared into law that every minority was to be shot on sight. Yeah, crazy extreme example, but everyone would agree that selectively not enforcing this law would be a good thing.
This situation isn't as black and white, but I'm usually glad to have law enforcement err on the side of individual liberty. I'd rather a "strictly enforced" speed limit mean a guaranteed ticket than a bullet through my dome, and if there were any question on the constitutionality of a new law that maybe they pump the brakes and wait for a judicial decision before gathering everyone up and locking them away.
@Geel, if you don't mind, could you post whatever sources you've got on gun seizures in New York, California, etc.? I keep ending up arguing about gun control with people I know, but finding a reliable, unbiased source on these points is difficult with how much crappy gun rights news is floating around on the internet.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/294604797217079298/553011108152082432/Screen-Shot-2013-11-27-at-9.png
Here's the letter from NYPD. This happened after they passed the registry and then started banning "assault weapons". They used the registry as a shopping list.
What a partisan take on how things tends to go down.
Pro-gun posters aren't the only ones to provide proper statistics and facts, however anti-gun posters get showered in dumbs without rebuttal when they do because the pro-gun side is as prone to ideology and platitudes as you claim the anti side to be, and most of them automatically think an argument that doesn't line up with their beliefs is dumb.
FP's pro-gun side assumes by default that gun control does nothing, and so they believe that any display of fact that tangentially confirms that assumption is compelling evidence. However, the statistics and rebuttals you mentions aren't flawless. They're often counter-examples that ignore that multi-factorial nature of gun violence, or they're stats that show a (lack of) correlation at best, both of which are rather weak evidence. On the other hand, the pro-gun side will require a high grade of evidence from the anti side, which is often impossible to reach because there is no data on policies that don't exist yet (for example a hypothetical license system in the US). Those arbitrary differences in requirements lead to debates where the status quo is mechanically favored over any possible proposal. Not exactly what I'd call a neutral environment, you could have a string of correlative statistics, just as strong evidence as theirs, that would logically lead to a proposed policy having a positive effect, and yet most pro-gun posters would consider it insufficient, because it's not stats that directly show the impact of such policies.
A classic example of how double standards are enforced is pro-gun posters' habit of mentioning countries like Switzerland, with high gun ownership rates and low amounts of gun deaths, as evidence that gun proliferation doesn't increase gun deaths. However, anti-gun arguments that are based on the same premise, like mentioning countries with high gun ownership and high gun death rates, are quickly dismissed by pro-gun posters who point out that the latter could also be caused by poverty or poor mental healthcare.
Both examples ignore gun violence being a complex, multi-factorial issue, and are equally weak as a result. But only the latter is held to an appropriate level of scrutiny by the pro-gun side.
And in the rare cases when a proper debate takes shape, despite such unfavorable context, the thread often dies out more quickly than it would if it were a heated argument instead, sometimes due to a lack of response from the pro-gun side. I suppose non-constructive discussions generally tend to attract more posters.
It's too late for the USA to go gun free, even if we all decided to. So since there's no point in bringing a baseball bat out to a gunfight, you may as well own one too. That's the unfortunate fact of the matter
Imagine being so obsessed with your circlejerk á là literal devices made for murder & destruction that when the idea that maybe people shouldn't have such easy access to them starts to surface you do the equivalent of a tantrum-throwing toddler screeching in the corner of a room, holding onto a toy they aren't allowed to have anymore. Jesus Christ, the US is such a shitshow.
You're missing several points here. I've had my substantive posts and statistics and rebuts of obviously biased anti-gun science ignored as much as anyone else has had their pro-gun stuff ignored.
Slightly unfairly making it out to be a one-sided issue, where "more guns is always better than less guns" or something like that.
Every circumstance of me pointing out my anti gun stance ends up more often in dumbs and disagrees than substance, including from Grenadiac and Zombiedude and the others. Zombie's gotten the closest with his compendium, but even that is a FUCKTON of trash science and anecdotal crap.
In this post I posted several scientific sources to trusted peer-review journals stating the strong correlation (inb4 correlation =/= causation, lazy argument which I'll go into if someone wants) between gun ownership and gun crime, and didn't get substantive responses. Albert tried but completely misread my sources, which I pointed out EXHAUSTIVELY.
In this thread I got relatively positive replies for basically saying that US gun ownership laws are WAY too lax and should be more similar to the Serbian model, which are very strict.
In this thread I acted like a child, rightfully got told off and pointed to sources which I then went to look at. Came back later with a preliminary opinion (which later turned out to be true, about the "mountain of sources" being biased anecdotal trash for a huge part) and only get back "correlation is not causation, correlation is not causation"
In this thread people got mad at me because I implied that not every article in the constitution is not permanently set in indestructible stone and was told I compare gun owners to slave owners. Feels good.
I'd be happy to get into why correlation sometimes does equal causation in certain circumstances, I just never thought I'd have to since all these people are so well-read and factual by your admission.
Again, to reiterate a point, it's not like your side is Super Golden Baby Jesuses and I'm some TurboHitler, there's more at play.
My opinion of "common sense gun control" is to have strong background checks and psych evals, expiring licenses, government-funded gun training courses, no more open carry period, categorize weapons into usage (self defense, military, hunting etc) and give licenses based on individual needs (like Serbia does it).
Of course this won't do anything with the whole American "Gun = Penis" culture. And yes, I know about Justin King's other views on guns.
This also won't undo the general educational relapse
Systematic inequality left over from the Jim Crow era
along a BILLION other problems.
But yeah I think we can start with guns, sorta stick a band-aid on the leaking hole before we fix it, if you get me.
Really, because all I saw was multiple well written posts with clean well sourced facts laid out while every single time an anti-gun poster tries to argue it's strawmen, insults, and scare tactics. Enlighten me on the viscous and nasty attacks because I must have missed them.
Also I find it very rich that anti-cop, anti police militarization, and government anti-authoritarianism sentiment is at an all time high, yet people are still staunch anti-gun advocates in the US.
How do you propose you protect yourself against tyranny from police and authoritarianism when, as so many people have said since Trump was elected (me amongst them), Democracy has failed you? I absolutely do not feel comfortable with the trend American politics is swinging in, if only there was something our founding fathers could have thought of to help people in this situation...
A+ job on minimizing the importance of one of the few rights we have as Americans and completely missing the point of why we have it. What is next? You gonna talk about those fuckin wacko free speech people. Or how the 4th and 5th amendments are only there for the benefit of criminals?
This is what I've been asking gun owners for a while now. Trump has in several cases already completely disregarded the constitution and gone against several amendments, yet there's not been any response from the gun owners?
That kinda leads me to believe that the idea of "protecting yourself against tyranny" really is "protecting YOURSELF from tyranny"
Sorry, there's several good arguments for why a civilian should be able to own a handgun, but "protection against a tyrannical government" isn't one. The only thing that you'll do is make yourself look like an insane Sovereign Citizen type and get like 20 more people join up to be a police officer after you shoot another police officer for trying to frisk you or something. You can be damn sure that's the angle the media will be playing off you.
In reality what you mean by "protect yourself" is "pose a useless last-ditch suicide effort which will not have any effect". And again, you can be damn sure that the government doesn't calculate their policy proposals based on how many Americans feel it's tyrannical and will open fire at state officials.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.