• Sheriffs are forming "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" refusing to enforce gun control
    285 replies, posted
It's especially a moot point when it's crystal clear nowadays that an authoritarian government would have the support of a large part of the population as long as said government is on "their side", not to mention that population tends to be more armed than average. If you want to prevent tyranny, fix your lackluster checks and balance system. Guns won't make a difference in that regard.
Equating the right to express your thoughts freely or defending yourself justly in the court of law to the privilege of owning firearms is probably the saddest thing I've seen all week.
Just as sad as comparing hunters, sports shooters, and enthusiasts to murderers, gang members, and over all in general the filth of society? Emotion clouds your judgement, and it's best to remove it from the equation or you'll sound like an emotionally charged, ignorant, assumptive ass.
I think a large part of the issue is that both sides put a lot of thought and reason into their standpoints, but frequently fail to reach similar conclusions because all of the variables surrounding guns in the US are assumed to be different by both sides. The pro-gun, myself included, side generally views guns as an integral part of American society. That they are inseparable at this point. This is a pretty fundamental concept, because it shapes how solutions are viewed. The integral nature means that the issue is going to likely be deeply partisan. Any attempt to pass deep cutting legislation will result in extreme resistance and deepening of what are already awful party divisions. I can say, with absolute certainty, that it will send both parties to the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum and result in actual armed conflict in the future. It would be far from the only contributing factor, but it would absolutely be a major link in the chain of events. It means gun owners look for other methods of solving issues of crime, but they often fail to actually go through with the other methods because the actual methods of solving crime rest with helping people. Something most of the sister-fucking rednecks of the Republican party refuse to do because they are awful human beings. Guns would be a non issue if we did the things that we really should be doing anyways. Things like: -Reform our education system to something actually functional. This really is the base of all solutions as a functional education system would change the entire mindset of a new generation of voters. -Reform our criminal justice system to promote rehabilitation and self improvement while incarcerated rather than punishment. -Provide better funding for probation and parole so that people can see a better life for themselves and actually make it happen. -Unfuck our minimum wage. -Tie the wage of the top salary in an organization to the bottom one. Top earner can only make ten times as much as the guy at the bottom. -Universal healthcare, but don't waste inordinate amounts of time on mental health. Mental health as a solution for crime is bullshit and furthers the stigma that people who suffer from mental health problems already face and most people committing violent crime are unlikely to benefit from it. -Fix our first past the post voting system. Ranked choice or one of the other options would give sufficient voice to third parties and increase the difficulty of buying elections. We should already be doing all this and more, but all these things are inherently liberal policies. THAT SAID, they are also all beneficial basically across the board and none of them directly oppose any "American values". Some of them we had right for a while, but we lost sight of what was important. Rather than perpetually having the gun control argument, we should be focusing on these other solutions. These other solutions that will dramatically reduce crime across the board, not just crime involving guns, while making everyone's lives better in the process. We get so focused on the concept of compromise that we forget that win win solutions really do exist. Things that we can come to an agreement on much easier. These solutions will also bring us culturally more in line with our European, Canadian, and Australian allies, furthering our ability to work together. We do need to reform. We need to reform so much more than just our gun policies. Most of us know it and support it. Or we could all just keep arguing over something that, even if it does change, would likely exacerbate a pre-existing rift between our political parties enough to literally spark a civil war.
I'm not. There can be valid exceptions for people in a professional setting to use specific, single-fire rifles. John Doe who works in the gas station down the street however doesn't need a firearm of any kind. There's no emotion involved here. It's objective fact that nobody needs a firearm. It is not a human, "god-given" right. It's a privilege, just the same as any other kind of ownership, but I sure don't see an amendment for that. The 2nd Amendment is useless. Being on the same list does not make them comparable in the slightest. Me being able to use my naturally given capacity to form thoughts and using my vocal cords & mouth to express said thoughts is not on the same plane as being able to go into a store to pick up a device that would take away that very same capacity from someone else in a nanosecond. You can talk "constitution" all you want - morally it's nonsense.
I respect your right to believe what you want but the contents of this post are literally fantasy and I think you should come back down to Earth if you want to participate in a discussion. I think @153x 's posts were in good faith and I didn't mind talking to him. Let me clarify further. My purpose in these arguments is not to convince anyone that I'm right. I want to break down misinformation and arm people with the tools to reach an informed decision. Whether you think guns should be legal or not is a personal moral judgment at the end of the day, based on whether or not you think the freedom to own firearms is worth the risks involved. Because there are risks, and it's not all sunshine and daisies in freedom-land. But you have to understand what the risks actually are to make that call. "It's not worth the risk" is a perfectly valid opinion when it's informed and you have the facts at hand. What I cannot abide is people attacking strawmen and perpetrating propaganda and misinformation.
The person who is way more likely to robbed at knife or gunpoint because of the job he/she works doesn't deserve a gun for self protection? Right here is an example of emotion clouding judgement.
Oh nah, I think every gun should be registered to an individual owner or company I don't see the two as related necessarily I just think the entire concept of like "BAN BUMP STOCKS" or "BAN THIS DESIGN OF TRIGGERS" or "HIGH CAPACITY MAGS OVER FIVE ROUNDS BOOOO" is stupid, and that pic you posted is a stupid way of going about things, and I genuinely do sympathize with you against completely moronic government systems.
I used to post in gun debate threads a lot but if you've seen one you've seen them all. We all just go through our rehearsed song and dance of culturally subjective statistics that oversimplify an impossibly complex social issue and eventually it just comes back down to pure ideology and opinion and the thread dies off. There just simply isn't a way to have a completely objective discussion on firearms.
I'm a liberal. Why do you think gun arguments are solely split on party lines????
What is the value of coming into a thread intending not to debate, discuss, or find any sort of common ground, but to be a moral arbiter because you say you're a moral arbiter. You know what people, even those who may be on your side, see that as? Self serving moral high horse bullshit that only serves to give yourself a pat on the back and push others, who may be more on your side than not, away from you. EcksDee is literally the reason I'm "Pro gun" more than I was 3 or 4 years ago. I used to be in full support of a ban, but I witnessed poor argumentation, read through the cited sources, and was utterly confused how he was coming to his conclusions, and why he was acting the way he was, which caused me to change my own views. The idea that this discussion should basically be "my way or the highway" as you imply here, is ridiculously childish and no one really is going to entertain it seriously.
Ouch, now too? I mean I try to source stuff as much as possible...
It's no surprise that more liberals are changing their stances on gun control as more liberals have been purchasing guns in recent years... Turns out that when you actually take the time to understand something, and to understand why people feel these are important, you're not as in favor of idiotic laws that would only harm law-abiding citizens.
Subjectivity is implied, as it always is. He believes, (as coincidentally do I) that firearms should be a privilege you earn not a right you axiomatically get. Those three options of yours are somewhat childish and needlessly aggressive, sorry. Estonia has conscription, I've spent plenty of time, both recreationally and as part of my national service, around military grade and so-called civilian-grade weapons, from pistols to artillery. This is somewhat of a moot point. correlation doesn't imply causation etc
Iirc you argued in favour of registries, and cited sources to that effect.(again, iirc) i come one from a country that did a registry, wasted 20 years and billions of dollars and failed to solve one crime let alone PREVENT a crime. Theres numerous elements of this debate and we agree on some but not outcomes. The risk of “disarming” America is a lot different than it is in other countries, and I genuinely think it would result in more deaths than guns cause on a yearly basis.
What you believe has no influence when you're making statements of fact. "The sky is red." "No, it really isn't." "Well I know but you should have known that I wasn't being serious and was simply stating that I think the sky should be red."
They're discussing what the law should be. Saying "it's the law" is pointless
Could be, I could also have been a lot less civil at that time than I am now, and I genuinely apologize for that. I've tempered my attitude since whenever that happened. I'll read up on the program so I know more about it, is this the correct law you're talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
No, he was saying that firearm ownership is a privilege:
... ... ... Subjectivity is implied... He said the "Human right of expressing yourself" which should already hint that he's not talking about the "constitutional right of expressing yourself". The entire point of his comment is that the first amendment and the second amendment are on different pedestals for a reason, and not equal just because they're both amendments. But I'll refrain on commenting on that more, I hope I understood what he was saying correctly, but I won't pretend to speak in his stead.
And then he clarified, shouldn't the discussion progress now?
Because even if he is trolling we can still coincidentally have a proper discussion about what should be a right and what should be a privilege.
No. Read again Sirius. He was saying that what is described in law as a "Right" is actually a "privilege". He's not stating what it should be. He's stating it as a point of fact how he views it. He just so happens to be demonstrably wrong on all counts here.
This seems like a good clarification to me
Yes, that's it.
Just read this post. You're demanding that gun owners fucking murder people in the government or else we're wrong about gun rights being important for protection against tyranny? Unless of course by "response" you mean "arguments against", which is fucking asinine because you don't get to say "well I didn't see anyone speak against it so it didn't happen". We recently had somebody do that, btw. Someone opened fire on a bunch of congressmen. They were rightfully decried.
Very interesting read, if I understood the wiki page right, it didn't have a direct effect on firearm homicides, but through automatic profiling software let responding officers know whether a domestic situation might involve a gun or not, and plan ahead. 14 000 + registry accesses per day, most of them automatically made to support first responders. Uh, fucking no? I'm asking what the standards are for tyranny. The US government is literally keeping children in cages and using them as leverage to force their parents to sign forced deportation documents, in violation of several constitutional amendments and unalienable rights. "What does "tyranny of the state" mean and how does the 2nd A combat it?" is my question to the gun owners that wants a response. If you're trying to imply I want anyone to shoot anyone then you're literally insane, and I'm not sorry to say that.
Sorry, you're not going to weasel around what these words mean. You are calling out gun owners for not "responding" to tyranny, and we both know what you mean by "responding".
He means that the argument for gun ownership being "protection from tyranny" is clearly bs. Don't try to weasel his argument into a corner that's easy for you to argue against
??????????? Why do you think "response" has to mean "get the gun, Simon, we're goin' huntin'" I literally mean, that in every sense of the word, the US government is currently doing things which violate its own constitution, and is doing so in a tyrannical unchecked way. By "response" I literally mean RESPONSE AS IN THE FIRST DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF THE WORD https://i.imgur.com/HsFRiSm.png Would you rather I say "where is the public outcry by the gun community" then sure, I'll say that. Why is the public outcry to children being held in cages in violation of several founding documents of your country only coming from portions of the political LEFT, and not the people that would consider government overreach to be the thing they hate the most. I sincerely suggest you tone down your baseless fucking accusations that I want someone to murder government officials. I'm genuinely losing my cool here in a way that hasn't happened in a long time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.