Aug 10, 2019 5:13:36 GMT RT said:

My analogy about the toy wasn’t perfect but I think it was pretty obvious what I was trying to say. My point was that until America can figure out how they’re going to get past this problem, maybe the toys should be taken away for a time so they can focus on figuring out the deeper issues that are leading to these problems.

Yeah, it sucks for the responsible gun owners. But honestly I don’t care and they can suck it up for a little while until this all gets sorted.

You don’t need the thing. You can go a little while without putting 500 holes in a target in a matter of seconds. Nobody needs that. And hundreds....HUNDREDS of people are dying because of this. You’re saying you care more about guns than your fellow Americans.

Once a government disarms its populace they NEVER give the weapons back.  So fuck that shit.   As I've said before, guns owners are the only one who have compromised on the issue.  No matter what concessions are made, the gun control advocates ALWAYS demand more.

As has been mentioned before, most American gun owners DO want reasonable regulations on firearms.   But you give an inch and the gun grabbers want to take a fucking mile.  That's why there is this huge impasse.

In states with higher gun control measures, there is less gun violence. We should not need studies to prove this, but here we are showing that if people have guns they use guns to commit crimes with them.

Are you sure about that?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate




Of the 10 states with the lowest murder rates only Rhode Island makes the top 10 on the Brady scale.   Maryland ranks 7 on the Brady scale for gun laws yet had the 3rd highest murder rate in the country. 

So the issue is a lot more complicated than just "gun control reduces murder"

Let's say somehow a law passes to take the "toys" away, then what? I think you're only getting guns back from law-abiding citizens who weren't a threat or issue anyway. The populace more likely to commit violent crimes is likely not giving up anything, they probably don't keep up with or care about laws anyway, and largely probably acquired their toys illegally anyhow.

And saying hundreds of people are dying sounds like sensationalizing, which makes sense to be prone to do here because gun violence is such a sensational thing. But I'm guessing we only get to a multiple hundreds worth of body count by aggregating all mass sbootings from the past... 5-10 years? I guess if you include suicide, domestic violence, and street crime, maybe it's easier to hit that number within a single year or maybe even month? Do we have data on that? I dunno...

Maybe it is just because I like guns, but it's also just still hard for me to believe that gun violence poses a bigger issue in terms of daily body count than things like drunk driving, wreckless driving, opioid and prescription pill abuse, smoking, and obesity.

It just feels like guns are something that's easy to point at with a presumably easy fix because they don't seem necessary to everybody? But booze isn't necessary, drugs aren't necessary, tobacco isn't necessary... Hell, even having our own cars wouldn't be necessary if the government wanted to actually invest in real public transportation solutions.

The belief that this grants people the right to own guns is just not factual.

Wrong.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is absolutely an individual right to own firearms. It's not unlimited of course, but this idea that gun ownership is a collective right only associated with service in a militia is pure bullshit.

Aug 10, 2019 22:16:29 GMT thereallt said:

The belief that this grants people the right to own guns is just not factual.

Wrong.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is absolutely an individual right to own firearms. It's not unlimited of course, but this idea that gun ownership is a collective right only associated with service in a militia is pure bullshit.

In 2019, it doesn’t mean it’s right.

Aug 10, 2019 23:28:41 GMT NATH45 said:

Aug 10, 2019 22:16:29 GMT thereallt said:

Wrong.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is absolutely an individual right to own firearms. It's not unlimited of course, but this idea that gun ownership is a collective right only associated with service in a militia is pure bullshit.

In 2019, it doesn’t mean it’s right.

The Constitution is the basis for our entire system of government.   It is not something that can be discarded just because someone finds it inconvenient.

The same Constitution also safeguards our

-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Religion (as well as freedom FROM religion)
-Freedom of the Press
-Freedom of Assembly
-Freedom against Unreasonable search and seizure

and many more. 

Aug 10, 2019 23:48:44 GMT thereallt said:

Aug 10, 2019 23:28:41 GMT NATH45 said:

In 2019, it doesn’t mean it’s right.

The Constitution is the basis for our entire system of government.   It is not something that can be discarded just because someone finds it inconvenient.

The same Constitution also safeguards our

-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Religion (as well as freedom FROM religion)
-Freedom of the Press
-Freedom of Assembly
-Freedom against Unreasonable search and seizure

and many more. 

[
Doesn’t mean it’s right.


amendment
/əˈmɛn(d)m(ə)nt/
noun
a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.

#merica

Attachments:

Aug 11, 2019 21:00:08 GMT NATH45 said:

#merica

I don't see how that helps your point.  That is just Darwin at work.   Even without guns they would have drank bleach or something else equally stupid.

Aug 10, 2019 22:16:29 GMT thereallt said:

The belief that this grants people the right to own guns is just not factual.

Wrong.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is absolutely an individual right to own firearms. It's not unlimited of course, but this idea that gun ownership is a collective right only associated with service in a militia is pure bullshit.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York will determine if this exists outside of the home.  Scalia said in Heller that people do not have "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."  That is where Heller falls apart.  Also with the NRA near bankrupt, there will be a lot less money involved in these suits moving forward.  Another group can bankroll the lawsuits, but it is very unlikely.  Also without NRA money, congressmen are not about to go on record supporting gun rights with reelection coming.  

Also the 14th amendment is the means to undo private ownership of guns, as private ownership of guns deprives people of their right to life.  In case where two groups are equally but oppositely affected by the constitution the resolution is to go with the ruling that puts in place the least restrictions.  Here ownership of a gun is less restrictive than loss of life.  No one pushed this yet, but they will in the near future using the pro-abortion arguments.  

And while homicide rates are not gun violence rates, Wiki clearly shows that states with lax gun control laws, on average, have higher homicide rates than states with tighter gun control laws.  The reverse is also true suggesting a correlation.  When that correlation is done, it confirms this.  

Aug 11, 2019 22:35:26 GMT c said:

Aug 10, 2019 22:16:29 GMT thereallt said:

Wrong.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

There is absolutely an individual right to own firearms. It's not unlimited of course, but this idea that gun ownership is a collective right only associated with service in a militia is pure bullshit.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York will determine if this exists outside of the home.  Scalia said in Heller that people do not have "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."  That is where Heller falls apart.  Also with the NRA near bankrupt, there will be a lot less money involved in these suits moving forward.  Another group can bankroll the lawsuits, but it is very unlikely.  Also without NRA money, congressmen are not about to go on record supporting gun rights with reelection coming.  

Also the 14th amendment is the means to undo private ownership of guns, as private ownership of guns deprives people of their right to life.  In case where two groups are equally but oppositely affected by the constitution the resolution is to go with the ruling that puts in place the least restrictions.  Here ownership of a gun is less restrictive than loss of life.  No one pushed this yet, but they will in the near future using the pro-abortion arguments.  

And while homicide rates are not gun violence rates, Wiki clearly shows that states with lax gun control laws, on average, have higher homicide rates than states with tighter gun control laws.  The reverse is also true suggesting a correlation.  When that correlation is done, it confirms this.  

So, in other words, I better stock up now?

If you feel some need to waste your money sure. But strong control will come with removal policies.

Option 2 being discussed is to tax the fuck out of guns. You can still own them, but if you do, you will have to pay a tax to support the damage they do to society. This is likely to be what is pushed in congress in coming years. Yearly charge per firearm will work nicely and fund school and other security.

Also the 14th amendment is the means to undo private ownership of guns, as private ownership of guns deprives people of their right to life. In case where two groups are equally but oppositely affected by the constitution the resolution is to go with the ruling that puts in place the least restrictions. Here ownership of a gun is less restrictive than loss of life. No one pushed this yet, but they will in the near future using the pro-abortion arguments.

That argument has been tried before and FAILED because it is an absolute load of bullshit.

www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

If anything the 14th amendment states THE OPPOSITE of what you are arguing "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Last I checked firearms count as property. And simply owning a firearm does not deprive ANYONE of their life or liberty.

Only the most absolutely activist justice would even consider the argument you are putting forth. None of the current justices will go for it. Not even Kagan or Sotomayor, the slippery slope is way too steep.

Like I said, the tax argument is the better of the two because it does not deny anything but instead, like smoking taxes, will simply make gun owners clean up their own messes with annual property taxes on them. The fee being passed around at $1000 a year per gun is reasonable with sale taxes on guns moving to 30% and ammunition to 50%. States can reject this but federal government can cut money to the states who refuse this that other states would get to increase school security, fund the police and increase public health as a whole. Fucks over the common people so the rich can have their toys, the GOP will be all over it.

Another option that may become a reality is simply to amend the constitution. With a bankrupt NRA, and GOP possibly facing the largest defeat in history it may not be that hard in coming years to simply remove the second amendment altogether.

Aug 10, 2019 5:13:36 GMT RT said:

My analogy about the toy wasn’t perfect but I think it was pretty obvious what I was trying to say. My point was that until America can figure out how they’re going to get past this problem, maybe the toys should be taken away for a time so they can focus on figuring out the deeper issues that are leading to these problems.

Yeah, it sucks for the responsible gun owners. But honestly I don’t care and they can suck it up for a little while until this all gets sorted.

You don’t need the thing. You can go a little while without putting 500 holes in a target in a matter of seconds. Nobody needs that. And hundreds....HUNDREDS of people are dying because of this. You’re saying you care more about guns than your fellow Americans.

Yeah, but that's not possible. Like 🤯 mentioned, a call for "take away all the guns til we get this figured out" would only take them away from those who volunteer to turn them in.

We don't have a gun registry like we do for cars. I don't think we even have a gun owners registry. We have zero clue how many guns are in this country, no idea who owns them or where the weapons are located or which owners have how many. We don't have any way to find out this information short of a door-to-door sweep and there is zero chance of the Overton window shifting enough to make that acceptable. Take 'em all away is, now and forever, politically a non-starter.

Aug 10, 2019 14:09:42 GMT 🤯 said:

Maybe it is just because I like guns, but it's also just still hard for me to believe that gun violence poses a bigger issue in terms of daily body count than things like drunk driving, wreckless driving, opioid and prescription pill abuse, smoking, and obesity.

Drunk/reckless driving is about the only one you can say "why don't we tackle this problem as aggressively." Don't get me wrong, obesity and opioid abuse is awful but there's definitely a sense that you do it to yourself, while gun violence kills other people who aren't you. An angry, radicalized person who wants to make a statement can't inflict obesity on strangers.

Right now in the US there are 20 percent more guns than people in the US leading to 40,000 preventable deaths a year. That is 400 million guns in the US owned by a third of the population. That 1/3 of the US population owns half of all civilian guns in the WORLD. That is more guns than are owned in the next 25 countries combined. This is the problem. With no control, this just means more and more guns accumulate at the rate of 2 million a month. 2 million also is the number of guns law enforcement agency own combined in the US. In a three month period Americans buy more guns than the US military owns. 1/3rd of the US owns twice as many guns as the world's military. Yet they claim they are unfairly repressed and need more freedom to protect themselves.

But that is why an annual $1000 per gun safety tax makes the most sense. People can own as many guns as they can pay for, while giving the US government 400 billion dollars, enough to offer everyone in the US free healthcare to cover gun related injuries.

Aug 12, 2019 1:23:21 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Aug 10, 2019 5:13:36 GMT RT said:

My analogy about the toy wasn’t perfect but I think it was pretty obvious what I was trying to say. My point was that until America can figure out how they’re going to get past this problem, maybe the toys should be taken away for a time so they can focus on figuring out the deeper issues that are leading to these problems.

Yeah, it sucks for the responsible gun owners. But honestly I don’t care and they can suck it up for a little while until this all gets sorted.

You don’t need the thing. You can go a little while without putting 500 holes in a target in a matter of seconds. Nobody needs that. And hundreds....HUNDREDS of people are dying because of this. You’re saying you care more about guns than your fellow Americans.

Yeah, but that's not possible. Like 🤯 mentioned, a call for "take away all the guns til we get this figured out" would only take them away from those who volunteer to turn them in.

We don't have a gun registry like we do for cars. I don't think we even have a gun owners registry. We have zero clue how many guns are in this country, no idea who owns them or where the weapons are located or which owners have how many. We don't have any way to find out this information short of a door-to-door sweep and there is zero chance of the Overton window shifting enough to make that acceptable. Take 'em all away is, now and forever, politically a non-starter.

Aug 10, 2019 14:09:42 GMT 🤯 said:

Maybe it is just because I like guns, but it's also just still hard for me to believe that gun violence poses a bigger issue in terms of daily body count than things like drunk driving, wreckless driving, opioid and prescription pill abuse, smoking, and obesity.

Drunk/reckless driving is about the only one you can say "why don't we tackle this problem as aggressively." Don't get me wrong, obesity and opioid abuse is awful but there's definitely a sense that you do it to yourself, while gun violence kills other people who aren't you. An angry, radicalized person who wants to make a statement can't inflict obesity on strangers.

The fast food industry for a while there was radically inflicting obesity on Americans.

The fructose industry is to blame for obesity. Every since we moved to that from sucrose we had obesity problems in the US.

The notion the US cannot possibly remove guns from the population is the largest pile of shit that people will ever try to feed you. We can remove weapons from places like Iraq, but it is assumed we cannot from the US?

Aug 11, 2019 1:18:50 GMT NATH45 said:

Aug 10, 2019 23:48:44 GMT thereallt said:

The Constitution is the basis for our entire system of government.   It is not something that can be discarded just because someone finds it inconvenient.

The same Constitution also safeguards our

-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Religion (as well as freedom FROM religion)
-Freedom of the Press
-Freedom of Assembly
-Freedom against Unreasonable search and seizure

and many more. 

[
Doesn’t mean it’s right.


amendment
/əˈmɛn(d)m(ə)nt/
noun
a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.

You have really hit the nail on the head NATH45, that is always my argument.
I have no problem with people like thereallt, arguing "MAH CONSTITUTION!~!" but let's have some consistency.

The second amendment was ratified in 1791, so let anyone who things this makes it unchangeable live all of their life like it was the 1790's.
Got a headache? Let's break out the leaches.

In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a "Typical Revolutionary-era musket" had a one-round magazine capacity, and it could fire around three effective rounds per minute – in the hands of the most skilled wielder."
The idea that the people that made the laws ever fathomed weapons and a society that exist today is crazy.

Aug 12, 2019 2:13:12 GMT iNCY said:

Aug 11, 2019 1:18:50 GMT NATH45 said:

[
Doesn’t mean it’s right.


amendment
/əˈmɛn(d)m(ə)nt/
noun
a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.

You have really hit the nail on the head NATH45 , that is always my argument.
I have no problem with people like thereallt , arguing "MAH CONSTITUTION!~!" but let's have some consistency.

The second amendment was ratified in 1791, so let anyone who things this makes it unchangeable live all of their life like it was the 1790's.
Got a headache? Let's break out the leaches.

In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a "Typical Revolutionary-era musket" had a one-round magazine capacity, and it could fire around three effective rounds per minute – in the hands of the most skilled wielder."
The idea that the people that made the laws ever fathomed weapons and a society that exist today is crazy.

Except that people in that era could own cannons and their own warships as well.   So I don't buy that argument for a second.

Aug 12, 2019 2:10:56 GMT c said:

The fructose industry is to blame for obesity. Every since we moved to that from sucrose we had obesity problems in the US.

The notion the US cannot possibly remove guns from the population is the largest pile of shit that people will ever try to feed you. We can remove weapons from places like Iraq, but it is assumed we cannot from the US?

Eh, probably true on fructose but I can't help but think it's cheap food in general. I haven't gone overseas very much but every time I have I've lost weight based on nothing more than smaller portion sizes -- gotten used to eating less in other countries but then, even coming back and cutting back on meal sizes/immediately putting half of my restaurant dinner in a to-go box, putting the weight back on very quickly.

And I'm not sure we have removed weapons from Iraq. I don't know off the top of my head but don't the insurgents use assault rifles as well as homemade bombs?

Aug 12, 2019 2:17:21 GMT thereallt said:

Aug 12, 2019 2:13:12 GMT iNCY said:

You have really hit the nail on the head NATH45 , that is always my argument.
I have no problem with people like thereallt , arguing "MAH CONSTITUTION!~!" but let's have some consistency.

The second amendment was ratified in 1791, so let anyone who things this makes it unchangeable live all of their life like it was the 1790's.
Got a headache? Let's break out the leaches.

In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols. According to the Washington Post, a "Typical Revolutionary-era musket" had a one-round magazine capacity, and it could fire around three effective rounds per minute – in the hands of the most skilled wielder."
The idea that the people that made the laws ever fathomed weapons and a society that exist today is crazy.

Except that people in that era could own cannons and their own warships as well.   So I don't buy that argument for a second.

Has the world not evolved since then?

They also kept slaves. That changed. Culture can change. You can too, you just need to admit you have a problem first.

Aug 12, 2019 2:54:46 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Aug 12, 2019 2:10:56 GMT c said:

The fructose industry is to blame for obesity. Every since we moved to that from sucrose we had obesity problems in the US.

The notion the US cannot possibly remove guns from the population is the largest pile of shit that people will ever try to feed you. We can remove weapons from places like Iraq, but it is assumed we cannot from the US?

Eh, probably true on fructose but I can't help but think it's cheap food in general. I haven't gone overseas very much but every time I have I've lost weight based on nothing more than smaller portion sizes -- gotten used to eating less in other countries but then, even coming back and cutting back on meal sizes/immediately putting half of my restaurant dinner in a to-go box, putting the weight back on very quickly.

And I'm not sure we have removed weapons from Iraq. I don't know off the top of my head but don't the insurgents use assault rifles as well as homemade bombs?

And didn't it essentially take an invading army to disarm Iraq to the degree it's been disarmed?

I have a feeling it would take the same level of effort at least in America, and if that's what starts happening, then all the gun owners feel probably justified in having their guns and at that point maybe even turning them against their tyrannical government.

As sad as it is for some to stomach, I think a few dozen deaths per year don't warrant domestic deployment of troops against our own people.

Aug 12, 2019 12:00:45 GMT 🤯 said:

Aug 12, 2019 2:54:46 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Eh, probably true on fructose but I can't help but think it's cheap food in general. I haven't gone overseas very much but every time I have I've lost weight based on nothing more than smaller portion sizes -- gotten used to eating less in other countries but then, even coming back and cutting back on meal sizes/immediately putting half of my restaurant dinner in a to-go box, putting the weight back on very quickly.

And I'm not sure we have removed weapons from Iraq. I don't know off the top of my head but don't the insurgents use assault rifles as well as homemade bombs?

And didn't it essentially take an invading army to disarm Iraq to the degree it's been disarmed?

I have a feeling it would take the same level of effort at least in America, and if that's what starts happening, then all the gun owners feel probably justified in having their guns and at that point maybe even turning them against their tyrannical government.

As sad as it is for some to stomach, I think a few dozen deaths per year don't warrant domestic deployment of troops against our own people.

You would think it would take little more than a rational conversation. But we’re not talking about rational people. A rational person could see a correlation between excessive gun ownership, a poor gun culture, some gawd-damn American exceptionalism and unnecessary mass shootings.

Aug 12, 2019 13:14:45 GMT NATH45 said:

Aug 12, 2019 12:00:45 GMT 🤯 said:

And didn't it essentially take an invading army to disarm Iraq to the degree it's been disarmed?

I have a feeling it would take the same level of effort at least in America, and if that's what starts happening, then all the gun owners feel probably justified in having their guns and at that point maybe even turning them against their tyrannical government.

As sad as it is for some to stomach, I think a few dozen deaths per year don't warrant domestic deployment of troops against our own people.

You would think it would take little more than a rational conversation. But we’re not talking about rational people. A rational person could see a correlation between excessive gun ownership, a poor gun culture, some gawd-damn American exceptionalism and unnecessary mass shootings.

What's irrational about wanting to keep something that is yours and not wanting to give it up because of the actions of others that you had ZERO part in?

And a government that would deploy troops against their own people on that scale is EXACTLY  why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

Aug 12, 2019 13:32:27 GMT thereallt said:

Aug 12, 2019 13:14:45 GMT NATH45 said:

You would think it would take little more than a rational conversation. But we’re not talking about rational people. A rational person could see a correlation between excessive gun ownership, a poor gun culture, some gawd-damn American exceptionalism and unnecessary mass shootings.

What's irrational about wanting to keep something that is yours and not wanting to give it up because of the actions of others that you had ZERO part in?

And a government that would deploy troops against their own people on that scale is EXACTLY  why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

See, an irrational response.

Aug 12, 2019 20:51:02 GMT NATH45 said:

Aug 12, 2019 13:32:27 GMT thereallt said:

What's irrational about wanting to keep something that is yours and not wanting to give it up because of the actions of others that you had ZERO part in?

And a government that would deploy troops against their own people on that scale is EXACTLY  why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

See, an irrational response.

Sorry but there is nothing irrational about wanting people held responsible for their own actions and not punishing those that have done nothing but obey the law.

Aug 12, 2019 20:54:17 GMT thereallt said:

Aug 12, 2019 20:51:02 GMT NATH45 said:

See, an irrational response.

Sorry but there is nothing irrational about wanting people held responsible for their own actions and not punishing those that have done nothing but obey the law.

We’re so eager to ban sugars, fats, and restrict sales of different products because a small minority of dumbass fatasses. These same people who eventually become a strain on medical services and healthcare, and continue to perpetuate a culture of an unhealthy, low exercise (barely) living onto their children that eventually borderlines on a physical disability.

Aug 13, 2019 0:16:01 GMT NATH45 said:

Aug 12, 2019 20:54:17 GMT thereallt said:

Sorry but there is nothing irrational about wanting people held responsible for their own actions and not punishing those that have done nothing but obey the law.

We’re so eager to ban sugars, fats, and restrict sales of different products because a small minority of dumbass fatasses. These same people who eventually become a strain on medical services and healthcare, and continue to perpetuate a culture of an unhealthy, low exercise (barely) living onto their children that eventually borderlines on a physical disability.

Not a huge fan of that either.

Oct 20, 2018 14:31:41 GMT KJ said:

I grew up just minutes down the road from where Michael Brown was murdered. It’s always jarring to see these things so close to your home.

I must have missed this earlier....but wow.   You still believe this lie?

Terrorist act foiled by a milk crate. We may be lazy and stupid, but damn we Australians are resourceful.