|
BUSH 2112 posted:It's going to be hilarious in a few years when all of this pro-gun bullshit and all of these shootings culminate in extremely strict federal gun laws because literally everyone except for gun toting idiots is sick of this poo poo. What color is the sky from your window?
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 20:53
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
quote:What'll really be interesting to see what the drop in gun ownership entails for the future regarding these dynamics. There are much more polarized Republicans regarding the issue versus a few decades ago, and a narrow but energetic (soon to occur) minority of those who prioritize it might hold onto the gains by the likes of the NRA and other gun groups in the political sphere. Or a dropping interest in the issue among the general population might entail it receding as political dynamite, and a push by those who value more gun regulation. OR continued partisanship on the Republican side might serve as polarizing the issue for Democrats and their ilk, who increasingly see it less evident in their lives, but seek to oppose it due to the opposition. Here's an excerpt from an industry study by the NSSF. The full thing is behind a $500 paywall unfortunately. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/16/retail-sales-up-2/ The bit at the end that's interesting to me is that 25% of gun store customers were first time buyers in 2012 and 2011. In 2010 it was 20%. I trust the NSSF's data over a phone survey where an unknown number of people lied about whether they owned guns. My own anecdata says that ranges have been really crowded since Newtown and still are a year and change later. I do notice more women and minorities there, which is great. Fat Ogre posted:The 80% claim and the 90% claim that Obama touted are flawed. At the risk of being one of ~those people~ I'd say that the federal government claiming regulatory jurisdiction over a non-commercial person-to-person gun sale within the same state is some real Gonzales v. Raich bullshit. The background check law was passed in the 90's, before that case, and as such it regulates the only thing the fed has power over: federal license holders (gun stores) and interstate sales. Really though, the idea you have to prove yourself innocent with a background check is crap too. If you've gotten out of jail, you should get your rights back. If we can't trust you with a gun (that you very likely will be able to get no matter what in America), then we can't trust you to be out of jail. DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I guess the GUN TALK alarm has been sent out. Have you even looked at the thread title? beaten like a concealed carrier trying to live out his fantasies 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's such a weird thing to get sidetracked by, as well. I mean concealed carry pretty much came out of business owners transporting money to the bank, period. It was always understood that you would use it to defend yourself, not be a pretend citizen paladin for random poo poo that happens. Now it's a part of the packaged fantasy. This thread is total poo poo but I do want to point out that people literally grabbed their rifles off of truck racks and pinned him down a few minutes in. And like half the people who went into the tower to get him were citizens deputized on the spot. I think it's a denial of rights to not allow people to carry on school grounds (before 1990 you could). Whether it'll stop a mass shooter? The answer is almost certainly not because there'll almost certainly not be a mass shooting at your school! But avoiding denial of rights is a good enough reason to allow it. Letting any random soldier carry on a military base is something we can deny because yeah it'd lead to more accidents just like school carry, except that being a soldier is a job and if you don't like your terms of employment well maybe you should quit. Or you could be Fat Ogre and think that the establishment owner owes you something in the event of bad poo poo even though you're the one who chose to step inside. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:I've been referring to politically active gun owners, too. I'm a gun owner, personally, but it's not much a part of my politics. I don't like using the term "gun nuts" because it isn't fair and it ends the discussion before it starts, but I am referring to people for whom gun rights trump most or all other issues when it comes to voting. Most gunners probably thought Obama was laying low on guns since '08 thus the electoral panic buying. After Newtown the feeling is that was the correct read of the situation. Just letting it lie won't convince anyone until Dems repeal the NFA and blue supermajority states willingly repeal their AWB/CCW laws. So never.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
mugrim posted:The purpose of that right as defined by you was to protect other rights. Now that the assertion is shown to be bullshit, as there are plenty of areas ripe with oppression that are loaded to the teeth with firearms, you are now retreating to "A right is a right!" because you know what you said is false. More disturbing is the implication that if you did not see value in free press you'd be discussing reasonable restrictions in the same way you do about guns or cars. I think restrictions on reporting on mass shooters' wicked sick high scores and life story would reduce copycats. This will never influence my voting even if I don't see value in free press because it's not my call to make for someone else. If that equals more dead white kids then shitsux dawg. In other words a right is a right because the alternative is a victimless crime.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Obviously I'm not taking the position that any individual right should be forfeit if it saves any number of lives. However, if the main justification for a right is "we need that right so people can be safe enough to have other rights" and the right actually makes people less safe then drat right it should be forfeit. Well there goes the right to not incriminate yourself which exists solely so you can keep enjoying rights out of jail. Everyone in prison for a victimless crime is a loss to society. From a pure utility view they outweigh people "helped" and are a net negative in the case of most laws. Even if I agreed with your last sentence I'd still vote against UK-style gun control because of that math. And "assault weapon" bans fail the above utility test so hard it hurts.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 15:30
|
|