Except the AR15 isn't the point of this topic. Has anyone here said ban AR15? Or ban all guns?
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
While gun control and party politics are somewhat inextricably linked in my country, and I could talk and listen at some length about them, I don't want to move this thread too far off topic. So I will try to limit myself in this response.
Let's say we somehow took gun control completely out of politics. Then from a pragmatic perspective, I probably could have aligned with the moderate Democratic component of the party from about 10 years ago reasonably well on most issues that did not involve massive expansion of government intrusion into individual lives. And both parties have failed me on expansion of the government and the taxation required to support it. But two-party politics has pushed the Democratic Party farther left in the same way it has pushed the Republican Party further right, and there is not a lot of moderation to be found on either side.
I am married to a socially progressive Democrat, because we both believe that there is more to life then politics, and we consider it our civic duty to cancel the other's vote out. We play a game from time to time that can be best described as "See, you're really a Republican/Democrat." A good example of this would be around incarceration. My wife believes that the justice system is fundamentally flawed towards both race and class. She believes it does not reform people in most circumstances, and is unnecessarily cruel. I believe that prison is the most expensive form of societal isolation and punishment, and that for many low-level offenses, it consumes way too much of my tax dollars in disproportion to the magnitude of the crime. We both come to the same place; we want fewer people in prison. We just come to it from different paths, and want to see it carried through to different degrees.
While I can find compromise with the Democratic party on a great many things, I don't know that I will ever align with them philosophically, because their answer usually involves more regulation and constraint on an individual level, and my bias is towards less. I do think there needs to be some regulation of both the individual and the collective in order for society to function at our scale. Very broadly speaking, I view the Democratic party as favoring regulation of the individual, which leads to tyranny of the majority, and the Republican party as favoring regulation of the collective, which leads to tyranny of the minority, both in extremis. Choosing the lesser of evils can be very challenging sometimes. But as gun-control is inevitably reduced to a binary issue, I end up aligned with the party that serves my interests best.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Is this... actually... a "he probably deserved it anyway"? With some poor dumbass kid?
Maybe you should worry more that you don't live in a democracy rather than just guns, then. The fate of being one of the most advanced countries in the world is too high!
Pretty sure aiming and stance are about the same, just less kickback. Which doesn't really matter in the performance, ain't it.
But the clearly corrupt Spanish law is imposed on the Catalan people, are collected extra taxes to the point of having a negative raw profit, and are being censored in the expression of their language and culture. Or that's what my dear independentist brethren would say, that is. And on the anti-indepenentist side, the others have been funding with tax payer money their secessionist campaign and salaries since they were suspended, they've organized rallies and demonstrations to disrupt the most important highways to the capital, and didn't comply at almost any time they were ordered to cease. The regional police is also clearly biased and does not cooperate.
In both sides there have been radicals, even if absolutely no deaths have been ocurred in cause. But is it not tyranny, in both sides' eyes? And one that *could* be even countered with armed resistance.
Problem is we can't live without screwdivers as most contraptions and furniture use it. Now, I myself haven't seen firearms included with Ikea furniture anytime lately.
Those taxes are used, most of all, for public services and all employment in that bubble. Paying your army do defend your country, paying to keep the companies in check, paying to clean the street, and to maintain the slave pits state prisons. Also healthcare, care for the elderly and maintaining the disfavoured citiziens. And shit. Now, if you have too little, y'know what happens? Extreme lobying, which totally isn't almost the case for the US already
If you like them that little, you can always go live in an island of the Pacific. Not being snarky, that's actually a habit for people in the sailing club I attend to. Wonderful places, those are. Not even tourists go there.
Fake blindness of mine, I meant. It's just that the implication of gun ownership, by rights or not, affecting citizienship status is simply insane.
What an objective analysis of it, innit.
What I see, underlying everything, is that the Pr Gun are very individualistic- but only when it comes to YOUR own rights. You cackle at the liberals, yet favoring pro-gun is endorsing the affected minority. You feel like having a method to kill someone anytime makes you "self-sufficient", yet the aforementioned is its only function. Then, it's only the *feeling* of self-reliance? That's a bit too petty in exchange for a higher potential of deaths, the famous 93 daily gun murders of the US data.
You mock who is against it, yet you acknowledge that only a fraction of the population gets any benefit from it. You behave like if it's some kind of Orwellian nightmare that the majority rules the fate of the nation, when that's how it works. Not wanting to have more firearms around as the innate catalyst they are for violence and strife is some kind of cuck behaviour? Empathy for those that can't or don't want own one yet have to face the society were they are commonplace is dumb? Is that really how it is?
I definetly have to give Sua this one. Shooting a 'laser pointer' isn't really the same as a rifle. It can't be. Besides sport shooting is really not any kind of issue at all. Not in the slightest.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Don't know, the little knack I've got at guns hurt like a kick. Not like I'm interested in any sports other than sailing, anyway.
I'm still pretty sure you can emulate it. People stopped using pistols to mark the Go! order in races, using leather for ball sports and actually going to break bones in wrestiling. Not sure of markspanship reallly counts as a martial exercise like Bows, fencing and the like do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Hey it only took 50 pages of partisan rhetoric, virtue signalling and poo-flinging for someone to hit the core issue of almost all differences between Americans and Euros. Americans do not have the same level of faith in the all mighty state - in competency, restraint, efficiency or magnanimity. Given your position as NMA's resident Chomskyite, and given all the criticism of malfeasance, why then is the solution to expand government's reach and power? That's like trying to stop an alcoholic by giving him more booze.
Not to pile on, but this kind of narrow-minded characterization makes me imagine some dude looking at a map of the US, slapping a hand over one eye and narrowly focusing in on the worst charicature of a red state and willfully ignoring the rest.
No, not the Tea Party, they just make a lot of noise. More so Evangelicals and Neo-cons.
Last edited:
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Maybe you don't have to take an all or nothing view of what the government can or can't control.
You use the giving an alcoholic more booze example, but that's a relatively simplistic analogy. The Government is a complex agency with multiple different parts, not a single person who will be harmed by any and all powers.
I'd say it's far more helpful to judge what the state should and shouldn't control on a case by case basis, rather than using simplistic analogies, or assuming that all types of control are equally harmful.
Because there are things the state can do well and things the state does poorly. Companies are very great when it comes to providing industrial capacities, like manufacturing. The state is very good when it comes to managing a society, infact the state is pretty much he only strucutre that has shown to be capable of doing it sufficiently - to my knowledge no nation was ever run by a 'corporation' with their citizens as 'employees'.
I think you and I are not THAT far away though, I doubt that anyone here would approve of a tyranical regime regardless if pro or anti gun
But as far as a state goes, it has a diffficult position. It's there for ALL its citizens, and not just a few. Yes it has to make sure that the liberties of each one is protected, which does include the rights to bear arms, but it has at the same time to make sure that it's citizens are sufficiently protected, which does not mean some crazy communist/fascist like authoritarian rule. No, I am talking about corruption, extreme lobbying, social stability and so on, providing the necessary frame for settling disputes, people to open up business and making in general a living, the state is there to first and foremost provide a stable society. And this, does often come in the form of laws and regulations. Someone once gave me the defition of laws, that their purpose is always to preserve the status quo. But right now, we can see that certain lobbying organisations have taken over the legislative process, particularly in the United States and one of them is simply put the arms industry.
Banks and financial markets for example saw a lot of regulations after the big crash in the 20s and 30s - of which many have been removed again trough the 80s and 90s. By the way the United States is, contracy to popular belief, still a social democry, if not on the level of most European Nations.
However, the balancing act between personal rights on one side and public interest on the other is always a tight trope walk for any state. You can not have a society that is completely build on individualism and neither can you have a functioning society where the state is ruling all and every decision up to the smallest detail of their citizens - so called surveilance state. The truth however is, that you have most of the time not a black vs white scenario. The rights on one side are often conflicting with the rights of someone else. Otherweise we wouldn't need courts and a jurisdiction.
I mean we're not giving citizens access to nuclear weapons after all or allowing them to form their own police forces acting like judges and handing out sentences.
Without the intention to offend you gun-nuts here but rather as a little joke, sometimes I feel like you actually would feel very comfortable in 16th century america as this is one of the reasons many settlers moved to the 'new continent', to live in societies with people that shared their values, where they could live their lives the way they saw fitt, without anyone or anything interfering with it, no sate, no king and certainly no laws. I definetly could see @SuAside as one of those strong willed pilgrims wrestling bears in the woods on one side while cleaning their trusty musket on the other, with no god damn king telling him what to do!
Don't get me wrong though! I do not believe the state can do everything, however in our time we simply need a strong state as counter balance to the ever growing influence of corporations and interest groups, mainly the super rich. As small number of people consolidate more and more wealth in their hands, while nations or in other words the state becomes less important. Now, I am not sure what you guys think, but I prefer a state that is run democratically a lot more to the influence of just a handfull of people. And the solution definetly can't be 'smaller governement' here.
*Edit
As a little side note, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if at some point the nations might come together and make a law where one person or group of people isn't allowed to accumulate to much wealth and property, as there is simply put no checks and balances here, with enough moeny you can literaly buy your self laws.
Last edited:
TheGM
The voice of reason
The Tea Party isn't even a thing anymore. damn near all Tea Party candidates that won elections later lost re-election or have transitioned into being a typical RINO or Cuckservative and lost that Tea Party firebrand attitude that made them so damn hilarious.
Thing is, bullet ballistics can't really be replicated with a laser. Wind speed, bullet drop, humidity, the mechanics of the gun... With a laser you shine it on target, that's it. What you see is what you get, it reduces shooting to the basic act of aiming.
Sports shooting is quite complicated, actually, although personally I'd rather shoot a bow than a gun anytime for sport, simply because it's more physical exercise.
How do you mean, more outraged? The NRA protests every unlawful shooting of a lawful gun owner.
No, they don't protest in the streets, burning cars and throwing in a shop's windows, but they are not silent on the subject in the least? I don't get your point. Do you want the NRA to start shooting cops for every wrongful shooting or something?
Why does it need to be a crowd? People dying in hospitals and in traffic are not important to you?
Both people dying in a spree shooting and a person dying in a car accident due to a drunk driver both are a result of a conscious and malicious choice of the perpetrator. I don't see how you can act like one is somehow more important while the death toll is far smaller.
I never said you did, I'm trying to understand your mindset and how you arrived to it. To understand it, I need to understand why you think firearms are so worthy of restriction, whereas much larger killers in society are left largely unquestioned. that's all.
I'm sorry to hear about your father, and you have my sympathy.
But it's ironic for you to say that prohibition created more trouble than it was worth, when we're literally discussing how "common sense gun control" eventually leads to blanket bans and repression.
Because you can literally and scientifically show that in 99% of modern history, firearms freedoms have been taken and almost never returned. Which means that the long term end result will be a virtual blanket ban on civilian ownership, though maybe in the form of what Singapore has.
In Singapore, you can join a gun club and shoot guns. It is however extremely expensive and highly regulated. You can never bring guns home and if you ever get caught with a gun at home you risk the death penalty. The state has a monopoly on violence there.
You honestly may not be, but it can be demonstrated that it is almost an inevitability, UNLESS your constitution sees it as an unalienable right, like the US Constitution does. And for it to remain that way, you need to fight the proposed changes which slowly erodes it.
I hope to be proven wrong on this, but I don't think that's realistic.
Of course, what about it?
My point is that if an actual vocal and voting majority would make clear that this is a binary voting issue, the politicians would most certainly vote the laws you're talking about, regardless of the lobbying. Politicians love money sure, but they want to be re-elected.
As long as it remains clear that the people is not united on this matter, they will follow the lobbyists. As soon as they feel the people may turn away from them for it, they will follow the people.
Seems like you have some very talented people in Germany then.
Because there's quite a few collectors.
No doubt, and the same goes for the vast majority of all civilian gun owners?
So I'm not sure what your point is. Up until recently, I could have lost all my firearms by urinating in public by the side of the road. Literally.
Did you watch the damn vid at all? How the hell do you expect the cop to react?
There is a lot we can expect from our cops. Things like integrity, honesty & so on. But we cannot ask him to "take a chance" to see if what the guy was pulling out of his belt was a gun or not. The guy totally deserved what he got.
There is recoil management and follow through. There is bullet drop. There is wind reading and meteorological effects. There is ammo selection. There is bore maintenance. All of which are crucial in real shooting and totally irrelevant when shooting a laser pointer. Please, don't even try to argue about this. It only shows that you clearly have NO idea what the hell you're talking about when it comes to actually shooting a firearm.
Yes. What about it?
And make no mistake, if Spain continues down the path it has chosen now, there will be violence.
I do not advocate it at all, but it seems inevitable unless something changes. Hopefully, the experiences with ETA will prevent the Catalans from making the same bad decisions.
I'm Belgian. That means I am from the country with literally the largest combined tax pressure on private citizens in the entire world.Those taxes are used, most of all, for public services and all employment in that bubble. Paying your army do defend your country, paying to keep the companies in check, paying to clean the street, and to maintain the slave pits state prisons. Also healthcare, care for the elderly and maintaining the disfavoured citiziens. And shit. Now, if you have too little, y'know what happens? Extreme lobying, which totally isn't almost the case for the US already
If you like them that little, you can always go live in an island of the Pacific. Not being snarky, that's actually a habit for people in the sailing club I attend to. Wonderful places, those are. Not even tourists go there.
I have been trying to explain the reasoning to you, and I have NOT advocated taking up arms against the government. Will you please stop acting like I've been calling for a violent uprising?
A lot of historical figures, including a lot of leftists would strongly disagree. But then, that is why we're having this discussion, aren't we?
I like what Orwell said:
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
― George Orwell
You are free to make your own list and argue for it.
That is largely correct, yes. As commented on by Johnny Ego.
Is self-defense its only function?
Sport, recreation, self-sustenance through hunting, pest control, studying history, learning mechanical engineering, dabbling in chemistry and so on are all things that are part of firearms ownership.
Oh yes, it most certainly is for a "feeling". The vast majority of people which advocate concealed carry of firearms will tell you it's highly unlikely that they will need it. However, do you really want to be without a firearm if you really do need it? Be it for self-defense from criminals, making a final stand against a corrupt or tyrannic government, hunting animals for sustenance, etc.
So you tell us, but we clearly disagree. We've done the math.
That is true for many freedoms we enjoy. Not everyone takes full advantage of them, yet their value is never lost as long as the freedom is preserved.
Being the person that I am, I've made the rational choice not to give in to emotional blackmail. I have weighed the cost and found the benefit more worthwhile. That may sound cold hearted, but a lot of things in our society are weighed by the cost in human lives.
I think a lot of people would be fine with a tyrannical government, as long as it embodies their own ideals.
The fact that the government is tyrannical is irrelevant to the vast majority of individuals as long as the state carries out the wishes of those people and respects its morals.
Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not advocating for a tyrannical government, but I'd rather live in a western minded tyranny than under a democratic country under Sharia Law for example.
That view is objectively false in a democracy.
Laws are conceptually a slow translation of a nation's ethics and morals. It lags behind slightly, but given enough time, it will emulate and converge on the ethics and morals of the people it represents.
Now, obviously it is susceptible to tampering and outside influence. Some of this influence attempts to maintain the status quo, but it's far from being the purpose of law...
I don't think I have that much in common with the pilgrims. They were by and large very religious and conservative. I am neither.
I am a European centrist liberal and democrat, but I put high focus on self-reliance and individual responsibility.
Ok let us say guns would be banned entirely in your nation, what kind of opression would that lead to? Just hypothetically. I believe the word opression is really flung around to much these days.
Based on nothing more then your parameters, I'd say it would have three immediate effects:
I will grant you that this is a pretty reductive answer, but so was the question.
I am curious, though. Let's say I made you King of America, and gave you the full weight of governmental authority to assert your will on our people. You have mentioned previously that you don't think all guns would be banned. I am curious what specific actions you would take or restrictions you would impose given the opportunity to do so.
- You would instantly criminalize the previously law-abiding behavior of a significant portion of our population, even if you assume it is only 25% of Americans who own firearms.
- You would have instantly deprived a significant portion of the populace with the most effective means in which to defend themselves when the state cannot, while simultaneously having not addressed the root causes of criminality in society.
- You would effectively seize billions of dollars of previously legal assets from millions of Americans across a wide range of economic, racial, and social classes.
I will grant you that this is a pretty reductive answer, but so was the question.
I am curious, though. Let's say I made you King of America, and gave you the full weight of governmental authority to assert your will on our people. You have mentioned previously that you don't think all guns would be banned. I am curious what specific actions you would take or restrictions you would impose given the opportunity to do so.
Since Belgium actually has a monarchy, they are actually reasonable in their fear that the king comes and hits them with his cane until they pay their taxes.
Seriously though, an unarmed populace is easier to oppress. Not that civilians with a few guns stand much chance against the government's army, of course, but hey, it's something.
People like to point out that if the jews would have been armed they wouldn't have been deported so easily. Maybe, but on the other hand civilians don't always know how oppressed they are. In Nazi Germany the gun laws were actually loosened at least for germans, people could buy rifles without any further procedure. On the other hand, the strict laws and registrations from the Weimar Republic were used to specifically disarm enemies of the state. So it was a rather mixed situation, and the majority of the populace didn't rise against the oppressive regime despite having guns at their disposal, because they didn't feel oppressed themselves.
A sudden and widespread ban of firearms would criminalize quite a lot of people for no real reason.
Btw., the 2nd Amendment talks about forming well-organized militias, isn't that what the National Guard basically is? I vaguely remember something like that, could someone clarify that?
Seriously though, an unarmed populace is easier to oppress. Not that civilians with a few guns stand much chance against the government's army, of course, but hey, it's something.
People like to point out that if the jews would have been armed they wouldn't have been deported so easily. Maybe, but on the other hand civilians don't always know how oppressed they are. In Nazi Germany the gun laws were actually loosened at least for germans, people could buy rifles without any further procedure. On the other hand, the strict laws and registrations from the Weimar Republic were used to specifically disarm enemies of the state. So it was a rather mixed situation, and the majority of the populace didn't rise against the oppressive regime despite having guns at their disposal, because they didn't feel oppressed themselves.
A sudden and widespread ban of firearms would criminalize quite a lot of people for no real reason.
Btw., the 2nd Amendment talks about forming well-organized militias, isn't that what the National Guard basically is? I vaguely remember something like that, could someone clarify that?
The National Guard is sort of like a hybrid between a state-level militia and a reserve unit for our national armed forces. They serve at the behest of our state Governors (the highest state-level executive authority) until they are activated and deployed by the US Military. They are commonly used as a peace-keeping force in civil emergency situations, and have a disaster relief role. They do not generally have law enforcement powers like the state level police force.
Apropos of nothing, I am realizing how confusing it can be when referring to the 'States' in the context of regional authorities within the US as a nation, and 'the State' as in the institution of governmental authority on a variety of levels.
Apropos of nothing, I am realizing how confusing it can be when referring to the 'States' in the context of regional authorities within the US as a nation, and 'the State' as in the institution of governmental authority on a variety of levels.
Yes, Hass but that's not what I meant, of course it would suck for current gun owners, but gun restriction by it self isn't the same like let us say the NSA sniffing around in your Facebook account due to the Patriot Act while you can't do anything about it. I just think 'Opression' is a word that is overused today. Everyones opressed! You, me, everyone! And everyone for a different reason. Which in my opinion makes a mockery out of REAL opression. If you're living in Germany or the US than you're not opressed, but that's my opinion. Yes, you can experience difficulties and injustice, but that is an entirely different thing. And saying gun restrictions would lead to orpression ... well yeah, not really.
I personaly find the idea that weapons could protect you from a tyranical regime a bit ... ridiculous, particularly as it's more evident than ever that the digital age will be the biggest problem in our future. Digital informations will be the new thing and who and what collects those, not opression with weapons or necessarily even force. I am not sure how guns are supposed to help here, when you consider that it's already taking place, at least in the US, which ironically has at least in some states very open gun laws. And we havn't even talked about corporations like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and the like doing all kinds of stuff with your information ...
A gun doesn't do very much against digital oppression, but it does do a lot when someone comes to take your wallet or separate you from your family.
Consider that a lot of social media technology arises from the US, where our people and our press feel it is their fundamental right to express criticism of our government, in ways even less restrictive then your own government allows. It reflects the nature of our distrust for centralized authority, as previously expressed, and is of a piece with our view of the armed citizen as a form of symbolic, if not practical, resistance against such tyranny. See also #967, #745.
Still curious as to what exactly you would enact on my country if you had the power to do so. It isn't some sort of rhetorical trap, I genuinely want to understand where on the continuum of no access to all access you think an American citizen should be.
Consider that a lot of social media technology arises from the US, where our people and our press feel it is their fundamental right to express criticism of our government, in ways even less restrictive then your own government allows. It reflects the nature of our distrust for centralized authority, as previously expressed, and is of a piece with our view of the armed citizen as a form of symbolic, if not practical, resistance against such tyranny. See also #967, #745.
Still curious as to what exactly you would enact on my country if you had the power to do so. It isn't some sort of rhetorical trap, I genuinely want to understand where on the continuum of no access to all access you think an American citizen should be.
Last edited:
YeeCop
Just a Sweet Irradiated Transvestite
And that's exactly what I try to explain to anti-gun arguers. The law-abiding majority gets punished for the actions of the few (i.e. Sutherland Springs, Aurora, Orlando, etcetera).
That is true to an extent. China's issue is not solely that they hold the power over their power and disallow them firearms, but the extreme censorship filters they impose on their media and the Internet, which ensures them their stability of their oligarchy if they micromanage what their citizens see and take in.
Same with North Korea and any other oppressive far-political wing government.
Nonetheless, I can't use Twitter to stop a assailant or thief. I very well cannot use Instagram to deter government tyranny. Just because the problems of the digital age are rising
does not mean the utmost need for citizens to be armed lawfully will ever die.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
- Doesn't seem like by the attitude of most pro-gun, though. The ultimate objective of the police forces is to protect the citiziens. They aren't a strike force. It's not called "peacekeeping" because it sounds cool. Would only make sense to stand down, vault and take cover before shooting him face blank. Or y'know, reduce them if you feel brave enough.
- ...
You... know what symbolism is, right? Also, G. Orwell would also really appreciate things like the NSA. He would probably cackle at his uninteded predictions.
Not like much of last century's thinking applies much to this one when it comes to government power, influence and level of intervention in everyday citizien lives.
Meh, not really. I'm glad that armed citiziens were completely out of the equation for this one, and will for the future.
Yes. Gun sport, gun recreation, gun history, gun engineering, gun chemistry. By that logic, having Ikea plastic bowls on your home makes you a Materials expert, and a smartphone makes you a systems expert. Yet, people keep burning the former and my father's job is solely to assist people who don't know how to use them or have fucked them up. Figures.
Also, as pest control (Good luck with that though lol) and self sustenance in hunting, I think we've largely kept that out of the matter. As long as they follow all the regulations, game hunters can do whatever the fuck they want. Licenses aren't given away like candy by any stretch.
The only way one can disagree with such things is close eyes shut, but let's go with that.
Indeed. Not hobbies, though.
The majority you hold so dear also has to deal with a higher density of firearms for everyone when they might not have one.
It is a sad reality that it takes only a handfull of people to spoil the fun for the rest us.