Death? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Love it! | 49 | 28.00% | |
Leave it! | 59 | 33.71% | |
That is not dead which can eternal lie... | 67 | 38.29% | |
Total: | 175 votes |
|
Rule of law is for those without guns! - says the guy who talks about how gun owners follow the rule of law
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:35 |
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2024 14:39 |
archangelwar posted:Rule of law is for those without guns! - says the guy who talks about how gun owners follow the rule of law
|
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:40 |
|
Maybe you could use all that material you've got to build something constructive, like a space ship so you can start your own colony where you can make all the guns you want.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:43 |
|
Ddraig posted:Maybe you could use all that material you've got to build something constructive, like a space ship so you can start your own colony where you can make all the guns you want. Not a violent fantasy including delusion of masterminding criminal enterprise, why would anyone want to do that?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:44 |
|
SedanChair posted:Would it? I'd be cranking out receivers in my basement. Ok, then what's your issue with gun control? If they're banned just make your owns guns, you big baby.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:46 |
|
What do you all think of my aunt and uncle's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcsLaSBWG9k
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 19:46 |
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, then what's your issue with gun control? If they're banned just make your owns guns, you big baby. I will, but in the meantime I prefer to be as obstreperous as possible. Ddraig posted:Likewise if you're capable of producing enough to make a sufficient dent in the government's attempts to limit weapons you should probably start up shop as a weapons dealer because I hear that's a lucrative market. Oh it wouldn't be just me...it would be everyone who bought jigs, and everyone who downloaded plans from the internet. Is that really what you thought was at issue, that it would be just me? I'd be one of a million.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:19 |
|
LeJackal posted:I quoted from the federal register for you. Whats your source for all of this. On the flip side, if someone willingly seeks better training they are labeled a psycho. LionArcher posted:My thoughts are this. Logically, a lot of people who live in rural areas want multiple firearms for hunting. Three includes a hunting rifle, a shot gun, and a side arm. You completely missed his point. Not at all shocked. CommieGIR posted:Oh, I dunno. A group actively engaging in a stand off against Federal officers? Yeah. That might make them questionable a legitimate and protected militia instead of a paranoid right wing group. Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group. Cartouche fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 24, 2015 |
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:24 |
|
Cartouche posted:Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group. Well um, yeah.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:29 |
|
Cartouche posted:Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group. Like the DND revolutionaries wouldn't immediately agree. So what was your favorite part of the thread so far? Mine was when people were surprised to learn that European gun control was arbitrary too.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:31 |
|
Cartouche posted:On the flip side, if someone willingly seeks better training they are labeled a psycho. They most certainly were. They didn't have a problem with taxes. They had a problem with the money going back over seas. Also gently caress the poor and enslave the black was pretty much A-ok with them. Mass Confiscation is a pipe dream because there isn't enough pearl clutching ninnies to ever get the balls to actually go collect anything other than cap guns at the grocery store.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:35 |
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Like the DND revolutionaries wouldn't immediately agree. Mine is the idea that prohibition results in a net positive. gently caress history. Surely THIS prohibition of something far less lethal will work out splendidly! ~feels~ ~reasons~
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:35 |
|
Cartouche posted:Mine is the idea that prohibition results in a net positive. Are you saying it didn't work in Australia and Britain and can't work here? ! *ignores the fact that all guns were already registered* *ignores stop and frisk in Britain and random home searches in Australia*
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:46 |
|
Cartouche posted:Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group. The sound a wet fart makes. LingcodKilla posted:Mass Confiscation is a pipe dream because there isn't enough pearl clutching ninnies to ever get the balls to actually go collect anything other than cap guns at the grocery store. I don't remember anyone claiming mass confiscation would work, but neither would any sort of armed resistance to it. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Oct 24, 2015 |
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:48 |
|
TomViolence posted:Generally I'd consider a bolt-action rifle a hunting weapon, while I'd consider a self-loading rifle with a removeable box magazine a battle rifle. Many such weapons are indeed just civilian, mass-market models of military firearms after all. I'm glad that you've decided on a consistent, mechanical definition, but I'm afraid it's incredibly over-broad. "Self-loading rifle with a detachable magazine" describes most long guns in civilian hands today. Both technologies are close to a century old at this point. I can't really go along with a prohibition that claims to only be targeting dangerous weapons, but covers the majority of rifles in circulation. The distinction between military and civilian firearms is an arbitrary and false one. I also question why it is necessary, since long guns make up a tiny fraction of weapons used in violent crimes. Actually, the necessity of human intervention is absolutely an argument for the continued legality of guns. You asked why they should be any less regulated than your ridiculous hypothetical nerve gas hobby, and there it is. Guns can be used to hurt other people, which places them in the same category of simple property as cars, knives, gasoline, and a hundred other things besides. Certainly, guns are at the deadlier end of the spectrum when misused, but that is a question of degree, not of kind. Restricting the rights of citizens without individual suspicion, just because they might be hypothetically misused, is not good government policy. I would also note that impulsive murders are a relative rarity. People are not stricken with the sudden urge to kill, snatching up the nearest gun to execute their bloody desires. Again, why should I care about mass shootings? What makes it particularly different from the other rare and novel forms of harm citizens inflict on each other? Ten thousand people die every year from DUI collisions, but I don't see that as a compelling argument to ban cars or alcohol. You even admit that you don't know that widespread firearms ownership is responsible for the problem. Why should I agree to go along with a "solution" that severely impacts me, which you can't demonstrate will actually help, for something that really isn't a significant problem?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 20:57 |
|
I would love to have a Remington Model 8 (a self-loading rifle, albeit with a fixed magazine, designed over a century ago specifically for hunting) but man, I watched a Forgotten Weapons video that showed how to take one apart and it looks like an unbelievable chore. Still, I might get one and shoot it like once a year (and pose with it in front of the mirror wearing a big Stetson hat considerably more often).
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:00 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Again, why should I care about mass shootings? What makes it particularly different from the other rare and novel forms of harm citizens inflict on each other? Ten thousand people die every year from DUI collisions, but I don't see that as a compelling argument to ban cars or alcohol. You even admit that you don't know that widespread firearms ownership is responsible for the problem. Why should I agree to go along with a "solution" that severely impacts me, which you can't demonstrate will actually help, for something that really isn't a significant problem? You are arguing with people who do not understand guns, or gun rights, and do not particularly care to understand guns, or gun rights. They're basically on the same level as antivaxxers and should be treated the same way.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:01 |
|
I mean, just look at it. Look upon it.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:04 |
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:(or for a TL;DR, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand") Flowers For Algeria posted:Well it sounds pretty reasonable to me that people who have shown major lack of discernment while intoxicated - for example by drunk driving, or initiating fights while under the influence - be barred from entering certain bars, and be forced to follow some sort of therapy. And education to alcohol wouldn't be too much of a luxury in general. People who commit crimes or misdemeanors or whatever while inebriated should definitely be held responsible for their actions. As for banning certain types of alcohol, maybe you'll be surprised to know that because of the existence of excise taxes, homebrewing is limited to beer (in limited quantities) and any other homemade alcohol is actually illegal or heavily restricted. And the legality of everclear is actually not a given in many states.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:06 |
|
I want a usgi model 12 trench gun
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:07 |
|
"Yes, look at it."
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:07 |
|
-Troika- posted:You are arguing with people who do not understand guns, or gun rights, and do not particularly care to understand guns, or gun rights. They're basically on the same level as antivaxxers and should be treated the same way. Not sure that's an apt comparison given the anti-vax movements insistence on ignoring things such as data trends and scientific studies in order to enable their paranoid and selfish tendencies. In fact you might have it backwards.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:09 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
Clearly those who want guns are those most likely to abuse them. It solves itself!
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:09 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Not sure that's an apt comparison given the anti-vax movements insistence on ignoring things such as data trends and scientific studies in order to enable their paranoid and selfish tendencies. In fact you might have it backwards.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:13 |
|
Cartouche posted:Clearly those who want guns are those most likely to abuse them. It solves itself! PS: gun ownership is itself abuse.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:16 |
|
Gun control is inherently bad because most of the people who support it are rich white capitalists like Mitt Romney. Same as back when the pope tried to ban crossbows because German noblemen were wining about getting shot off their horses by dishonorable peasants who couldn't afford suits of armor and hadn't trained their entire lives to ride around stabbing peasants.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:26 |
|
War on alcohol: resulted in serious violence and death War on drugs: results are serious violence and death War on gunhavers: certainly a common sense goal
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:27 |
|
Cartouche posted:War on gunhavers: certainly a common sense goal Yeah, that's what it is. Notice how much we berate regulations on alcohol and cigarettes like age limits. Silly liberals.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:30 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Heavily reliant on quoting the same discredited study? Believe that correlation equals causation? Concerned moms who just want to do something about all the problems? Sounds like gun control. Sounds like you've a tenuous grasp on statistics and are just quoting bumper stickers at me, tbh. Cartouche posted:War on alcohol: resulted in serious violence and death Interesting you cite the war on alcohol... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Valentine%27s_Day_Massacre You guys are just god awful with analogies.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:36 |
Cartouche posted:Founding fathers: paranoid right wing group. Go start the war and enforce your vision, if you can.
|
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:39 |
|
Nessus posted:Yeah, we get it, disagreement with y'all means we are disrespecting the sky-father totem idols of the United States of America. Hell, mere non-assent does the same thing. We've heard it from a thousand sources a thousand times, probably in most cases for most of our adult lives. Why aren't you an unquestioning patriot, citizen?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:53 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Interesting you cite the war on alcohol... Nessus posted:Yeah, we get it, disagreement with y'all means we are disrespecting the sky-father totem idols of the United States of America. Hell, mere non-assent does the same thing. We've heard it from a thousand sources a thousand times, probably in most cases for most of our adult lives.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 21:57 |
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if you're going to keep trotting out "the Bill of Rights is meaningless and outdated, except the parts I like" and "Right-wingers and some racists agree with you, therefore you must be wrong" it's probably going to keep coming up. CommieGIR posted:Why aren't you an unquestioning patriot, citizen?
|
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:03 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So prohibitions on alcohol caused criminals to illegally acquire guns and use them to go to war over control of the new and profitable black market. Prohibitions on guns will... Lead to over consumption of alcohol and liver disease I suppose if we take that logic at face value or ignore that people that probably shouldn't access guns are able to anyway. See what I mean with the analogies?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:05 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, that's what it is. Notice how much we berate regulations on alcohol and cigarettes like age limits. And yet guns are less lethal.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:28 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Lead to over consumption of alcohol and liver disease I suppose if we take that logic at face value or ignore that people that probably shouldn't access guns are able to anyway.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:30 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Sounds like you've a tenuous grasp on statistics and are just quoting bumper stickers at me, tbh. Mmmm. Compelling case. If only they would have banned guns when they banned alcohol.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:31 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So prohibitions on alcohol caused criminals to illegally acquire guns and use them to go to war over control of the new and profitable black market. Prohibitions on guns will... Make gun owners blubber and cry about government tyranny on Internet forums and not much else.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:33 |
|
Nessus posted:Yeah, we get it, disagreement with y'all means we are disrespecting the sky-father totem idols of the United States of America. Hell, mere non-assent does the same thing. We've heard it from a thousand sources a thousand times, probably in most cases for most of our adult lives. My vision is supported without the need of war. See, thats what is nice about having citizens owning guns and the right of it not to be infringed.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:33 |
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2024 14:39 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Not really, no. The point is, previous prohibitions led to increased criminality and violence, and failed to substantially curb supply, and there is no reason to believe a prohibition on guns would be any more successful. Pointing out, "yes, but those bootleggers and drug runners used GUNS!" does not in any way dispute that.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2015 22:35 |