Gun Control

[Hassknecht]

I would be more pissed off about the social contract if I had any desire to run around naked and covered in faeces or to rape my neighbours or something like that. Alas, I'm not GG Allin.
You could go off-grid as much as possible, especially in the US. What you can't do is live your normal, comfortable life in civilisation where you benefit from everyone else contributing to society and refusing to do so yourself. Don't want to pay taxes or be bothered by anyone? Go hobo.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

I would be more pissed off about the social contract if I had any desire to run around naked and covered in faeces or to rape my neighbours or something like that. Alas, I'm not GG Allin.
You could go off-grid as much as possible, especially in the US. What you can't do is live your normal, comfortable life in civilisation where you benefit from everyone else contributing to society and refusing to do so yourself. Don't want to pay taxes or be bothered by anyone? Go hobo.

"Well, yeah, I mean, the only reason someone would want to tell the state to get fucked is if they were some kind of psycho degenerate haha am I right?"

I can hear how hard your brain is backflipping and tumbling right now, holy shit dude. It's like a high-pitched grindy whine.

Lots of people have done BETTER than hobo shit off the grid but gummint is pretty fucking bad at leaving them be. I mean, there are many places in the US where it's actually ILLEGAL to be self-sufficient for electricity and drinkable water - you get back on that grid, pleb, or we'll kick your shit in. So your argument's looking pretty god damn shitty right now, my man. The government is not in the business of leaving people the fuck alone.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

The current climate on Romania is pretty much an argument against the need for civillian violence for significant change against "tyranny", at least in modern western countries, anyway. Not saying that it's the way to overthrow dictatorships (even if kinda), but neither is standard civillian uprising anyway.

 

[valcik]

"
Lots of people have done BETTER than hobo shit off the grid but gummint is pretty fucking bad at leaving them be. I mean, there are many places in the US where it's actually ILLEGAL to be self-sufficient for electricity and drinkable water

This reminded me of Russian homestead act - Putin offered free land in harsh uninhabited east regions to any outlander who can survive at least five years here on his own. Minimal infrastructure, cold weather, mano-a-mano brawls with bears, basically Fallout-grade survival with snow and beautiful landscape.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

This reminded me of Russian homestead act - Putin offered free land in harsh uninhabited east regions to any outlander who can survive at least five years here on his own. Minimal infrastructure, cold weather, mano-a-mano brawls with bears, basically Fallout-grade survival with snow and beautiful landscape.

Yeah, watch him roll in and say "Actually, you know what..." the moment anyone who took up his offer manages to cobble together a nice voluntary self-sufficient community based on cooperation without coercion.

Or god forbid, if they end up being on top of some as-of-yet unexplored natural resource they could possibly tap to enrich themselves directly or through trade with outside entities. We've fucking seen how this sort of thing went down before with the US Government and Native Americans, though maybe Putin's a more honorable man than people like Old Hickory. Who knows.

 

[MutantScalper]

Go live in Siberia, voluntarily, for five years. Nice. Probably meet the local mafia. Sign me up.

They used to have gulags over there, now Putin is trying the 'carrot'-approach.

 

[GonZo_626]

At the very least a gun regulation that's nationwide. Some states would probably even have to allow easier access to fire arms, where as other states would have to tighten some rules. For example, getting rid of the so called gun show loophole - if it's still in effect. Anyone buying a weapon should be also required to do weapon training, and I am not talking about a few hours on the gun range, I mean safety training and maybe a test based on it. Think about it like how you get car permit. Not everything has to be done trough regulations though as I believe that gun communites have to be strenghtened so more people decide to become members of a club or group, if people are socialized it might be easier to spot gun owners with issues. I am just brain storming here though.

So you do know that the NRA and most gun owning Americans would agree with you. Hell the NRA offers the training course even though it is not a requirement for ownership and they also offer many more courses to go past basic training. In fact you have pretty much said the exact things I have been saying, but somehow you are arguing with people who would agree with you.

Good
Nationwide gun laws
Enforcing current laws surrounding record checks (if you think the gun show loophole exists go to a gun show and try to buy one, see what happens)

Mediocre
Licensing (some see this as a gun grab) which would ensure training

Bad and will have no effect on violent crime
Assault weapons ban
high mag cap ban

 

[Crni Vuk]

So you do know that the NRA and most gun owning Americans would agree with you. Hell the NRA offers the training course even though it is not a requirement for ownership and they also offer many more courses to go past basic training. In fact you have pretty much said the exact things I have been saying, but somehow you are arguing with people who would agree with you.

I have no doubt that 90% of the gun owners out there, including the NRA, are reasonable and decent people. But they are not the ones in charge I suppose, nor do they get to decide what laws and policy should be put in to effect, or I am sure a lot of things would be done very differently. I mean just look at some polls, the majority of americans agree on better environmental protection, more money for education and infrastructure, higher wages, higher taxes on very rich people and corpirations, better healthcare and so on. Yet, time and time again very little is done here. The big issue in my opinion is the lobbying that's happening, which has also to do with the gun industry. Of course they have an huge interest to sell as many guns as possible.

I mean let us forget our own personal motivation for a moment and assume for some reason, regardless how unrealistic this seems, the US changed in to a society where guns can be sold to everyone but almost no one sees a reason to own one, because it's not needed anymore, as there is very low crime, a lot of safety and so on. In other words, the US became like Switzerland. Would the gun industry in its current condition welcome such a change? I have my doubts about that. The gun industry is simply put like the pharmaceutical companies with the difference that they spend a hell of a lot less money in congress to push their goals because the gun industry benefits a lot from activism and the networks gun owners created.

So when ever it comes down to making some resonable changes, it's about money. As long as the US society keept in a kind of 'crysis' beacuse people either believe everything is going down due to violence and crime or the government is coming for your weapons particularly after another shooting in a school, the gun sales kinda spike.

In fact you have pretty much said the exact things I have been saying, but somehow you are arguing with people who would agree with you.

THe thing is that we're not always discussing the same topics and you're not speaking for everyone but your self here. I guess we could agree on a lot of things. But we're also often discussing here the reasons and issues behind school shootings for example, or what could be done to prevent those. However, when ever I for example prose licencing, I often hear, yeah! The government will come for our guns then! DO YOU SUPPORT TYRANNY! (I am a bit hyperbolic here). Or the argument, Crminals don't care about licences! So why should I the good guy with a gun be bothered with it!

And this is part of the problem. Right now, the politicans listen to the extremists among gun owners and not the moderate ones, which are the majority I believe.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

I have no doubt that 90% of the gun owners out there, including the NRA, are reasonable and decent people. But they are not the ones in charge I suppose, nor do they get to decide what laws and policy should be put in to effect, or I am sure a lot of things would be done very differently. I mean just look at some polls, the majority of americans agree on better environmental protection, more money for education and infrastructure, higher wages, higher taxes on very rich people and corpirations, better healthcare and so on. Yet, time and time again very little is done here. The big issue in my opinion is the lobbying that's happening, which has also to do with the gun industry. Of course they have an huge interest to sell as many guns as possible.

What makes you think they're not the ones in charge? The fact that they refuse to accept any abridgement or undermining of the 2nd Amendment either in theory or in practice? Once again, the cry of "BE REASONABLE" is used to try and shame people who've done nothing wrong into forfeiting their rights.

I mean let us forget our own personal motivation for a moment and assume for some reason, regardless how unrealistic this seems, the US changed in to a society where guns can be sold to everyone but almost no one sees a reason to own one, because it's not needed anymore, as there is very low crime, a lot of safety and so on. In other words, the US became like Switzerland. Would the gun industry in its current condition welcome such a change? I have my doubts about that. The gun industry is simply put like the pharmaceutical companies with the difference that they spend a hell of a lot less money in congress to push their goals because the gun industry benefits a lot from activism and the networks gun owners created.

You are literally implying that the gun industry would resort to engineering SOCIAL CRISES in order to keep selling guns? My man, you are veering into fucking crazy-land. Guns have use as sporting items in peacetime, for fuck's sake.

So when ever it comes down to making some resonable changes, it's about money. As long as the US society keept in a kind of 'crysis' beacuse people either believe everything is going down due to violence and crime or the government is coming for your weapons particularly after another shooting in a school, the gun sales kinda spike.

Gun sales spike after shit like school shootings because people who want to legally own guns know that people like you are going to be out beating the gun control drum HARD and no one wants to be left out in the cold when gungrabbers finally get everything they want.

THe thing is that we're not always discussing the same topics and you're not speaking for everyone but your self here. I guess we could agree on a lot of things. But we're also often discussing here the reasons and issues behind school shootings for example, or what could be done to prevent those. However, when ever I for example prose licencing, I often hear, yeah! The government will come for our guns then! DO YOU SUPPORT TYRANNY! (I am a bit hyperbolic here). Or the argument, Crminals don't care about licences! So why should I the good guy with a gun be bothered with it!

And this is part of the problem. Right now, the politicans listen to the extremists among gun owners and not the moderate ones, which are the majority I believe.

It's "extreme" to want to head off obvious fucking attempts at curtailing/defanging the 2ndA? Get real. At this point you're just tarring anyone you disagree with as an "extremist" and self-fellating about how "reasonable" you are.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You're arguing against things I never said, this becomes a bit irritating right now. I suggest you read my post again, I
apoligize if there is something confusing.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

You're arguing against things I never said, this becomes a bit irritating right now. I suggest you read my post again, I
apoligize if there is something confusing.

If you're going to say this I suggest you clarify exactly where and how I misinterpreted what you were saying. Otherwise I will assume you are simply trying to save face.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What makes you think they're not the ones in charge?

I was talking about LOBBYSM in politics here. Do you seriously tell me this is a non issue? Pharmaceutical companies or the gun industry sending out cash to legislators writing their own laws which they simply sign and pass. Can we at least agree, that this is a problem? Because this undermines the democratic institutions for ALL of us, gun supporter or not. Which is the point I am trying to make here.

Once again, the cry of "BE REASONABLE" is used to try and shame people who've done nothing wrong into forfeiting their rights.

I never made that claim.

You are literally implying that the gun industry would resort to engineering SOCIAL CRISES in order to keep selling guns? My man, you are veering into fucking crazy-land. Guns have use as sporting items in peacetime, for fuck's sake.

I never said that. Read again what I wrotte. The question was what ever if the gun industry would find a society where people want less guns a good or bad thing. I could as well ask if privately owned hospitals want only healthy people that never get sick. Or if tobacco companies would welcome a society of non-smokers.

It's about interest, not engineering SOCIAL CRISIES. And everone has interests. You, me, industries, political groups.

Gun sales spike after shit like school shootings because people who want to legally own guns know that people like you are going to be out beating the gun control drum HARD and no one wants to be left out in the cold when gungrabbers finally get everything they want.

Peole like me, huh? Where did I say I want to take away alll your guns? Care to quote that part. Do you actually realize that I want to even ease gun regulations in some areas? Right? Pfff. Naw. I just want everyone to loose their weapons.

It's "extreme" to want to head off obvious fucking attempts at curtailing/defanging the 2ndA? Get real. At this point you're just tarring anyone you disagree with as an "extremist" and self-fellating about how "reasonable" you are.

Where did I say that? Quote the part please.


As a small suggestions, stop making so many assumptions and read what I write, not what you think I write you're fighting Strawmen here that you're creating on your own. No one in this topic is coming for your guns. And simply speaking for the 2 amendmend doesn't make you an extremist. No one ever made that argument here.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Here's the thing, Crni - agitating for licensing of firearms and firearm owners is NOT some little step. It is a HUGE step down from "enumerated right" to "privilege granted at government whim and fancy". So when I hear you making a case for a shift to such a system, I INSTANTLY know what side of the fence you're actually on, whether YOU do or not. You would have to be willfully ignorant to not pick up on how drastic a change it is, and despite all your other flaws I don't peg you as being that sort of person.

It is not extreme to be a 2ndA absolutist because it was DESIGNED to be absolute from the outset. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not mean "Well, maybe a LITTLE infringement here or there".

And I can't possibly IMAGINE what the hell else you could be implying with this:

I mean let us forget our own personal motivation for a moment and assume for some reason, regardless how unrealistic this seems, the US changed in to a society where guns can be sold to everyone but almost no one sees a reason to own one, because it's not needed anymore, as there is very low crime, a lot of safety and so on. In other words, the US became like Switzerland. Would the gun industry in its current condition welcome such a change? I have my doubts about that. The gun industry is simply put like the pharmaceutical companies with the difference that they spend a hell of a lot less money in congress to push their goals because the gun industry benefits a lot from activism and the networks gun owners created.

other than "if there are no social crises that demand an armed citizenry to counter, gun companies will figure out a way to MANUFACTURE one to sell more guns". What tips me off is the comparison to the pharma industry, see. Yes, the presence of lobbyists sucks, but given how our government works any industry would be CRAZY not to engage in lobbying to some degree. When In Rome. My biggest issue with it is that there is no such thing as a lobby for Average Joes and small businesses. Lobbying isn't a flaw with industry or even capitalism itself, it's a flaw with our government and with human beings themselves. Honestly, the fact that certain lobbies like those for the gun industry or the video games industry have actually STAVED OFF some really stupid, draconian horseshit coming down the pipe from government busybodies makes me think that lobbying ain't always a bad thing.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The kind of mental gymnastics here where you defend the gun industry, no matter what, is astonishing that's why some are seen as extremists and not because of their interpretation of the second amendment. This kind of hypocrisy. I am certain if it was turned around you would be crying to heavens how everything is corrupt and doomed, if it was something coming from 'the Left' - or what you see as it, but since it's the gun industry, we have to forgive them, naw they're just playing the game. Nothing to see here folks! Just move on.
If an whole industry is manipulating law makers in pushing for for a certain policiy and law, which the majority probably doesn't agree with isn't exactly tyranny but it surely isn't a good display of a democratic process. You have a minority here dictating the course for a lot of states and the whole nation. I am 100% sure, if this was about ANY other topic, you would not react in such a forgiving manner.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

The kind of mental gymnastics here where you defend the gun industry, no matter what, is astonishing that's why some are seen as extremists and not because of their interpretation of the second amendment. This kind of hypocrisy. I am certain if it was turned around you would be crying to heavens how everything is corrupt and doomed, if it was something coming from 'the Left' - or what you see as it, but since it's the gun industry, we have to forgive them, naw they're just playing the game. Nothing to see here folks! Just move on.

This has exactly ZERO to do with Right and Left other than the fact that the Left has decided it hates the gun industry in particular. All you have to offer me as "damning evidence" against the gun industry is conjecture and complaints about lobbying. The first hardly merits a response and I addressed the second. If you're going to accuse me of being a partisan hack do make sure you look in the mirror first. I blame exactly ZERO industries for having a lobby - I blame the GOVERNMENT for making it practically fucking mandatory in order to have concerns addressed in a timely fashion, to keep from getting STEAMROLLED by moral busybodies with too much time on their hands who need to justify their salaries, and for making it so damn easy to ABUSE for pernicious ends. If I had to pick a list of industries who had engaged in abusive lobbying, the gun industry would likely not even make the top 10. The Pharma, Oil, and Telecom lobbies make Guns lobbyists look like positively BENEVOLENT people.

If an whole industry is manipulating law makers in pushing for for a certain policiy and law, which the majority probably doesn't agree with isn't exactly tyranny but it surely isn't a good display of a democratic process. You have a minority here dictating the course for a lot of states and the whole nation. I am 100% sure, if this was about ANY other topic, you would not react in such a forgiving manner.

The industry in question is lobbying for the government to not step on the dicks of gun owners and prospective gun buyers. The gun industry wants a minimum of infringement upon gun rights. The fact that this also necessarily correlates to less restrictions on their business is almost certainly not an accident, but who the fuck fucking cares? This isn't like the telecoms agitating for deregulation so they can screw customers over, which is pernicious as fuck. This isn't like the oil lobby trying to screw over alternative energy or agitating for increased freedom to engage in extremely harmful shit like fracking anywhere they please. This isn't like the pharma industry trying to make life-saving pills more expensive for no goddamn good reason. What the gun industry is doing is recognizing that infringing upon gun rights is fucking them over both as businessmen and as citizens too. I mean, gun makers COULD simply shift to making nothing but firearms that were compliant with extremely restrictive laws, and if they were completely unprincipled about the matter they'd shrug at all these bans and do exactly that. They recognize, however, that their best customers don't fucking cotton to this gungrabber shit and rather than simply say "Lol not our problem, but please keep buying our shit" they actually fucking stand up for their customers (well, unless you're Smith & Wesson or Ruger - I STILL FUCKING REMEMBER, YOU ASSHOLES).

As a side note: Majorities should not be allowed to negate the rights of minorities. EVER. This is one reason why we do not have direct democracy. I SHUDDER to think of what happens when we default to "Majority rules, sorry :^)" when dealing with matters of rights.

 

[GonZo_626]

clip

You do know that due to licensing I have an easier time in Canada buying a gun sometimes then you right? You have waiting periods and such to check for your criminal record which involves a system so archaic that it takes 2 weeks and then they give up because most agencies have not reported what they should. Where as I show up at a gun store and can take my gun home within a day usually (for restricted like handguns/ar 15) and right at that time for anything non-restricted. I don't have to pay tax stamps to get a short barrel shotgun. You are arguing for more gun control then a license provides by keeping your current system, a license in most cases can be looked at like a speed pass. I laugh if you think they don't have any information to say that you own guns in this day and age (especially if you are a NRA member hahaha). I mean I can understand why the NRA has fought it from time to time with some of the stupid laws that gun control advocates have tried to tack on to a license, but in general you could make a licensing system that would work to everyone's benefit and not remove rights. Just make it a pre-approval to skip wait periods with uniform laws across the country.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

The problem with a license is that it is the best possible way for gungrabbers to make an end-run around the 2ndA because on its face it SEEMS reasonable. If I have to choose between all the crap I'm saddled with currently with the 2ndA in place, and a licensing system that has the very distinct possibility of utterly destroying the right to bear arms BUT will function as a convenience in the perhaps years-long period it takes for gungrabbers to tie the noose for gun rights, I'm going to be the person who thinks ahead and say "no thank you" to a licensing system. I mean, I'm glad it works so well for you Canucks, but you never had a 2ndA to begin with anyway IIRC.

The fact that it feels like we're being herded in the direction of accepting the idea of licensing for firearms ALONE makes me VERY FUCKING WORRIED about what will come.

As a footnote: if you think licensing is going to stop illicit possession/use of firearms, try looking up how many car accidents and such are caused by people with a suspended/revoked driver's license. It doesn't look good.

 

[GonZo_626]

The problem with a license is that it is the best possible way for gungrabbers to make an end-run around the 2ndA because on its face it SEEMS reasonable. If I have to choose between all the crap I'm saddled with currently with the 2ndA in place, and a licensing system that has the very distinct possibility of utterly destroying the right to bear arms BUT will function as a convenience in the perhaps years-long period it takes for gungrabbers to tie the noose for gun rights, I'm going to be the person who thinks ahead and say "no thank you" to a licensing system. I mean, I'm glad it works so well for you Canucks, but you never had a 2ndA to begin with anyway IIRC.

The fact that it feels like we're being herded in the direction of accepting the idea of licensing for firearms ALONE makes me VERY FUCKING WORRIED about what will come.

As a footnote: if you think licensing is going to stop illicit possession/use of firearms, try looking up how many car accidents and such are caused by people with a suspended/revoked driver's license. It doesn't look good.

I get what you are saying, its the whole cake argument, but you seem to be mixing up a license with a registry. A license says you have been checked to own a gun, you already lost your full 2nd amendment on this by having it tied to criminal record checks, a license is the exact same thing just streamlined for easier use. This is the argument we have been using on authorization to transports in Canada, when I take my restricted to the range (there is a whole bunch I would have to explain for this) our last government streamlined these and attached to our license digitally, our liberals now think we can carry guns anywhere because they cant figure out they are the exact same thing but I don't have to carry extra paper work.

A registry says that you own guns and what they are and where they are located this is how they will come for your guns and you should fight this whenever you have a chance. This is what gun grabbers wet their pants about and your exact car argument work here as just because you have a car license does not mean you own a car, with the registry they know what car you own, when you got it, and have a whole system to track and trace every car they can.

Like I said there is enough information to already know you own guns readily available online nowadays to the government. But they don't know what you own, or where it is. They come to get your guns with a license and you hand over some POS cooey .22 you has sitting around with everything else hidden. With a registry they show up with a list of everything you own and go give us this.

And no I am under no grand illusion where licensing will stop illicit possession of firearms, but it would help. Pretty easy for a cop to stop some gang banger he notices with a gun and go where is you license, oh you cant provide that well come for a little ride in the back seat then. I mean you already have a concealed carry license.

 

[Recon]

I would like to own a firearm for recreational purposes, for shooting as competition (range targets, clay targets, tournaments etc). Just a little something to do in my spare time, I have a deep interest in learning about certain firearms history too. On the other hand, they're very dangerous items and have the capability to injure/kill so proper handling and usage of such tools should be taken very seriously and responsibly with proper training and background checks on the people they're being handed to.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think there is a missconception or missunderstanding that some measures like say licencing is meant to stop and prevent all crimes. Well, it's not. You can't prevent all school shootings or crime. The point is to improve the situation so that you can prevent some without removing the weapons from everyone. And a lot of things can be done. For example a licence would allow authorities at least to step in when it's required. Think about someone who has severe depression or mental instability, or having a crminial record and so on. Having a licence for your car does not prevent every and all car accidents, but it does prevent some.