Gun Control

[Deleted member 93956]

It's more about "individual rights over anything else" than gun rights specifically.

I know. But those individual rights seem to only be the ones that relate to that. Thus. "Today this, what next???" is a paranoid and overall pretty stupid way to strawman progressive agendas.

I don't think it's some sort of nonsense to consider changing any of this, that's all.

- No Background Checks whatsoever
- No Duty to Inform (Citiziens an't be obligated to answer about owned weapons to authorities), unless the Red Flag law enables which can confiscate up for a year if the suspect is "deemed dangerous" (doesn't seem to apply very often if you had the guy saying he felt like shooting somebody...)
- No Assault Weapon or Magazine Capacity laws
- No state permits and no owner license needed
- Literally illegal to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners.
- Castle/"Stand your ground" law is active
- Concealed Carry is the most widely accepted and valid interstate, as well as flexible, excepting places like airports and whatnot
- Agre treshold is 21.

Of course, this is before it is figured out how did the guy exactly manage to get the gun and then further context; sure would be faster with an actual registry, eh?

 

[Hassknecht]

See, the thing with 2nd Amendment hardlining is that any and all restriction on gun ownership is to be condemned as a tool to oppress the populace. Universal background checks? Tool to keep guns away from potential dissidents, i.e. good patriots that fight back against tyranny.
Nationwide standard on gun regulations? Needless exertion of federal control.
Regulations for safe storage? Prevents one primary use of firearms, home defense. It also infringes on your right to do whatever the fuck you want.
This is a fundamental belief and thus not up for argument. The only way to circumnavigate this 2nd Amendment hardlining is to reform the National Guard and reestablish it as the well-regulated militia fully independent from the US Army and the federal government. Then you'd still want firearms for self dense, but for that you can have more regulations and licenses and whatnot.
But that would have its own rat tail of problems, and I suspect that those hardliners would not accept the National Guard to be the militia required by the 2nd Amendment even if it was fully independent of the federal government since it would still be dependent on the local governor. So you'd need to splinter the National Guard into local militias instead, which, I guess, would lead to a metric shit ton of attempted coup d'etats and lynch mobs on a local scale because let's face it, people are fucking idiots.
And having the militias' service rifles to be kept locked up at home without ammunition swiss style also wouldn't fare well.

 

[MutantScalper]

Same people who are in favour of the gun rights in US are usually against abortion and black folks so, yea. It really isn't about 'individual rights', just about the gun industry making a buck off of a stupid population.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

See, the thing with 2nd Amendment hardlining is that any and all restriction on gun ownership is to be condemned as a tool to oppress the populace. Universal background checks? Tool to keep guns away from potential dissidents, i.e. good patriots that fight back against tyranny.

I mean, you say it like it wouldn't happen with a government that has done things like ram the Patriot Act renewal down our throats.

This is a fundamental belief and thus not up for argument. The only way to circumnavigate this 2nd Amendment hardlining is to reform the National Guard and reestablish it as the well-regulated militia fully independent from the US Army and the federal government. Then you'd still want firearms for self dense, but for that you can have more regulations and licenses and whatnot.

The government will NEVER relinquish the National Guard for a bevy of reasons, you know this, I know this.

Furthermore, it's very clear that when you say "necessary evil" you emphasize the first word over the second. I question strongly how necessary ANY such evil is, particularly something as evil as our government. We obviously have a fundamentally different approach to how we view government. I chalk it up to your first-hand experience with the United States government being little to none.

 

[Hassknecht]

I mean, you say it like it wouldn't happen with a government that has done things like ram the Patriot Act renewal down our throats.

Agreed. There would have to be a lot of checks and balances and "who watches the watchers" kinda stuff to make any of that work.

The government will NEVER relinquish the National Guard for a bevy of reasons, you know this, I know this.

Furthermore, it's very clear that when you say "necessary evil" you emphasize the first word over the second. I question strongly how necessary ANY such evil is, particularly something as evil as our government. We obviously have a fundamentally different approach to how we view government. I chalk it up to your first-hand experience with the United States government being little to none.

I see government as a necessary evil simply because of population size and the need for control that comes with it. The entity of the state generally has the purpose of providing services and infrastructure on a non-profit basis and, important, generally a way to provide scientific progress without direct market incentives. The increasing complexity of fundamental research means that it's more and more risky and costly to do, so it's increasingly rare for industry to be willing to invest in such research. I fear that Anarcho-capitalism would likely stagnate quickly once it reaches the "good enough" stage.
And yes, my experience with the US government is little to none, at least direct experience. I probably said it before: Just because the US failed at something doesn't mean it's universally impossible. The US constitution that is quite outdated and cumbersome in many ways. Not that younger nations like Germany are much better, we have our own fair share of bureaucracy and retardation...

 

[SMBComix]

Unfortunately the US was founded on the principles of personal liberty. Once you start taking those liberties away, and following gun rights it WILL be every other right we have (with the right to free speech already being stepped on as it is by the progressive left), we become just like literally everyone else and then there's really no point to living here.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

I see government as a necessary evil simply because of population size and the need for control that comes with it. The entity of the state generally has the purpose of providing services and infrastructure on a non-profit basis and, important, generally a way to provide scientific progress without direct market incentives. The increasing complexity of fundamental research means that it's more and more risky and costly to do, so it's increasingly rare for industry to be willing to invest in such research. I fear that Anarcho-capitalism would likely stagnate quickly once it reaches the "good enough" stage.

Possibly. There are a few issues I still have with AnCap stuff, but the ones who aren't on board with it to be McEdgelords make pretty good points most of the time. I would contend that while there is a ton of overhead and risk involved with more complex research the potential for all sorts of profit (not just financial) would continue to make it an appealing prospect. It would just be a matter of "what's the disincentive for outright unethical branches of research?", for which AnCap has yet to show me many good answers. NAP is a really great concept but it doesn't have any real teeth in and of itself - it's just a general guideline.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Once you start taking those liberties away, and following gun rights it WILL be every other right we have (with the right to free speech already being stepped on as it is by the progressive left), we become just like literally everyone else and then there's really no point to living here.

Unless the opposition is as useless in that role as it is when in government, that shouldn't happen, it's their entire job as an institution of democratic rule. If everyone was okay with it, opposition and their supporters as well, I don't really see a problem if it's their choosing. Simple. As for being disencouraged to go live there, I think that's already covered...

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Unless the opposition is as useless in that role as it is when in government, that shouldn't happen, it's their entire job as an institution of democratic rule.

If everyone was okay with it, opposition and their supporters as well, I don't really see a problem if it's their choosing. Simple. As for being disencouraged to go live there, I think that's already covered...

Oh thank fucking god

 

[TheGM]

Same people who are in favour of the gun rights in US are usually against abortion and black folks so, yea.

And I thought we weren't allowed to shit post in this thread.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

And I thought we weren't allowed to shit post in this thread.

A ban on shitposting would pretty much wipe out Scalper's contributions to it IMO

In any event it seems that the ones beating their drum hardest over the Jax shooting are the "Video games make people violent" chuckleheads, surprisingly. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

Shooter had a history of mental illness hospitalizations, apparently. Wonder how many times they just held him for observation for less than a week and threw him back out without any serious attempts at treatment.

 

[TheGM]

A ban on shitposting would pretty much wipe out Scalper's contributions to it IMO

In any event it seems that the ones beating their drum hardest over the Jax shooting are the "Video games make people violent" chuckleheads, surprisingly. At least, that's what I'm seeing.

Shooter had a history of mental illness hospitalizations, apparently. Wonder how many times they just held him for observation for less than a week and threw him back out without any serious attempts at treatment.

Wasn't the Shooter Jewish? if that is the case this entire thing will be swept under the rug just like that black guy who shot up a church full of white people that nobody ever talks about.

 

[Cliffy McEdgeface]

Wasn't the Shooter Jewish? if that is the case this entire thing will be swept under the rug just like that black guy who shot up a church full of white people that nobody ever talks about.

>Katz
Yes.

Don't worry about it being swept under the rug, pretty sure they'll still try and push the "mentally unhinged white male gamer" angle here as long as they can. Jewish people are basically Schrodinger's Whites.

 

[Aurelius Of Phoenix]

Wasn't the Shooter Jewish? if that is the case this entire thing will be swept under the rug just like that black guy who shot up a church full of white people that nobody ever talks about.

>Katz
Yes.

Don't worry about it being swept under the rug, pretty sure they'll still try and push the "mentally unhinged white male gamer" angle here as long as they can. Jewish people are basically Schrodinger's Whites.

 

[MutantScalper]

I thought you guys are down with Jews and Zionists etc. and wouldn't mind if they go a little gun-nutty in the USA?

Also, if you look at the political views of the NRA members, it's pretty obvious which side of the political spectrum they represent.

 

[SMBComix]

Unless the opposition is as useless in that role as it is when in government, that shouldn't happen, it's their entire job as an institution of democratic rule. If everyone was okay with it, opposition and their supporters as well, I don't really see a problem if it's their choosing.

The problem is that the left are purposefully misinforming their followers. We have a second amendment ENTIRELY so that we can not only defend ourselves from any criminals who break into our homes or try to shoot up innocent passersby in public, but also so we can protect ourselves from the government should it go all Nazi Germany or George's England on us. If more people knew this, less people would be okay with the idea of giving up that right.

As for being disencouraged to go live there, I think that's already covered...

Well, yeah, sure. Even I'm not entirely enthused with my government at present, through no fault of Trump's BTW -- this has been growing for a long time. But until the second amendment is indeed revoked I'm staying here in America because at least here I have a shot at actually protecting myself rather than having to rely on a police force for protection... which they don't actually exist to do. They only exist to clean up the mess after a crime's been committed. Have you ever noticed that when someone's got an intruder in their home the cops take forever to respond to the call? But when a bank's being robbed, they're there faster than you can say "Woo-hoo! Free donuts!"

I'll take true personal liberty over all the available alternatives any day.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

The problem is that the left are purposefully misinforming their followers.

So is the right. Secondly, the right itself isn't gonna protect you if that's going to happen. Simple. And lastly, nobody said of abolishing it, but changing it to be less ambiguous and have less of a mire of loopholes.

They only exist to clean up the mess after a crime's been committed.

I don't think either you or any modern police department have access to Minority Report's Precogs, but sure.

Have you ever noticed that when someone's got an intruder in their home the cops take forever to respond to the call? But when a bank's being robbed, they're there faster than you can say "Woo-hoo! Free donuts!"

I think you've watched too many movies.

May have to do with banks having way better of a security lifeline, with integrated alarms, protocols, especially determined paths for the police to take, the case of usually beng in major streets and not some suburban neighbourhood, and that smaller detail of, in more clinical terms, being a whole damn lot more important than a single person as it can involve the livelihood of hundreds if not thousands, and more often than not involving multiple hostages. If you want a faster response time for yourself, what people usually do is installing an alarm and an alarm ringer, and if you really feel like you'd need it, a security company or, yes, your own gun, that you shouldn't have too much of a problem getting if you're clean and able in almost every country on the globe.

 

[TheGM]

So is the right. Secondly, the right itself isn't gonna protect you if that's going to happen. Simple. And lastly, nobody said of abolishing it, but changing it to be less ambiguous and have less of a mire of loopholes.

But securing the right behind a bureaucracy just makes it so an o-so select few can have access to that right. New York City has concealed carry but the only people who are ever going to get approved are the rich and connected.

 

[SMBComix]

So is the right. Secondly, the right itself isn't gonna protect you if that's going to happen. Simple. And lastly, nobody said of abolishing it, but changing it to be less ambiguous and have less of a mire of loopholes.

No, the right's not going to protect me. I won't even be able to protect me but at least I can go down fighting... assuming I'm properly armed, which I won't be if politicians get their way. You're painfully naive if you honestly believe no one's calling for an abolishing of the Second Amendment.

I don't think either you or any modern police department have access to Minority Report's Precogs, but sure.

It's called "common sense" actually.

I think you've watched too many movies.

That's a really easy rebuttal to make that doesn't take much thought and can be used on pretty much anyone.

May have to do with banks having way better of a security lifeline, with integrated alarms, protocols, especially determined paths for the police to take, the case of usually beng in major streets and not some suburban neighbourhood, and that smaller detail of, in more clinical terms, being a whole damn lot more important than a single person as it can involve the livelihood of hundreds if not thousands

Or, you know, the rich government elites.

and more often than not involving multiple hostages.

Nobody in charge cares if people lose their lives so long as the feds don't lose their money.

If you want a faster response time for yourself, what people usually do is installing an alarm and an alarm ringer

And what exactly is the response time on something like that in the case of a fucking murderer entering your house and offing you and your family?

and if you really feel like you'd need it, a security company or, yes, your own gun, that you shouldn't have too much of a problem getting if you're clean and able in almost every country on the globe.

"Almost every country." Last I heard, the USA was the only country left where it's legal for its citizens to be armed anywhere.

 

[GestapoSantaClaus]

As someone who owns 4 firearms despite living on the west coast I can admit that I have no freaking idea where I stand on firearms. I was against personal ownership after Sandy Hook, but bought a gun after my step-father bought a Glock and my parents took me out to “find a fun”. I saw it as a way to bond with my stepfather, so I bought a brass lever action rifle, followed by a blue steeled single action, cattleman revolver. After owning a 1929 Mosin-Nagant, I can comfortably say it would be very difficult for me to part with them.