Gun Control

[Contrapasso]

Originally Posted by -JiZ53-

repost of one of my posts from somewhere else, but relevant:


martial law and fascism is just around the corner if we continue to pay attention to what the media and facebook shove in our faces. it is too easy to orchestrate a political event through these channels. it is too easy to manipulate such a large number of people. we can all agree that what happened was horrible and wrong, but we are naive if we think that some gun control law will stop similar thing from happening. it is a cultural problem. those in power would rather disarm the populace than admit that their method of government and the way of life that they support is to blame for all of these dramatic acts of violence. humans will always commit atrocities, and really, what happened is very small in the big picture of things. it only seems large because of the media that you pay attention to; that is the only reason why this seems so important to people. who couldnt disagree with such an unjustifiable act of violence? the only reason this act seems so depraved is because the general public opinion is opposed to it. even people who speak ambiguously about what happened are judged for their lack of passion. had it been another group of people killed similarly for a reason deemed "justified" by the general media, people would cheer and celebrate. we all condone murder under the proper circumstances. we are all hypocrites when we call this a tragedy. are we not the very reason this happened at all? is our culture of destruction not to blame for the ways in which this type of dehumanization becomes possible? why do we blame guns? simply because that is the tool that is most commonly used? if guns are to be taken away, they can only be taken away from everyone. to only allow some to possess guns and others to not is to create a new hierarchy within a society with enough hierarchy as it is. shame on you who have taken advantage of what happened. shame on you who wish to put the general populace under the rule of a government gun. is the gun not what you preach against???? why then is it that you only wish a certain strata of society have access to guns?? is this not similar to the idea of only allowing a certain strata of society to vote? is this not simply an attempt to remove even more power from the voting populace? we fought for voting rights and we should fight similarly for gun rights. it should be noted, felons are not allowed to vote or possess guns. are we all judged as felons all(whether felons are judged justly or injustly is another matter)? all men are created equal, so therefore all men should have access to guns, or no men should have access to guns. will the war on guns be the new war on drugs??? there is too much emotion involved when discussing this topic... stop being so easily swayed. stop paying attention to these poison media voices and read the ideas of the founding fathers. once we start to discredit the founding fathers, we discredit the very basis of our government. revisionism will be one of the first steps towards fascism. we should be able to have faith in the courts. if that fails, then we have faith in protest. but, our judges will not even uphold the constitution. while cases on privacy and warrantless intrusions into the lives and information of innocent citizens go unheard, we rejoice over a decision on marriage and say to ourselves "look our court is just"(i do not disagree with the gay marriage decision, only the fact that the court ever had the ability to preside over the rights of marriage at all). where do we go when the courts will not even hear our cases? where do we go when the federal government has become so massive that even the supreme court dare not oppose it?? was it not states rights that led the way for the supreme court's decision on gay marriage?? is it not the history of states rights that was attacked through the emotionalization of a violent act similar to the one that has happened most recently(i am talking of the trend of removing confederate monuments and discrediting the motives of secessionists after the attack on the black church in charleston)? is there not a trend of the erosion of rights through emotional manipulation whenever a violent attack occurs in our country? look at the obvious, please. please, ignore the media that has tainted our views and played with your emotions. do not forget the history of our country. dont let the emotional aspect of these type of murders drive you to a frenzied decision. remember your history. read your history. PLEASE!!!!!!

reported for plagarism

[-JiZ53-]

Originally Posted by Frank Munoz

the fbi can't deny Omar of his right to bear arms though

they mentioned their reason for discontinuing their investigations too(you can find info on this quite easily, any info regarding the orlando shooting is literally one google search away) which was something along the lines of he had no connections to any terrorist related activities or ISIS after multiple interrogations.

but he had a history of violent verbal outburst, and domestic violence(which is illegal in the US, that makes him a criminal) if a thorough background check were made Mateen would have never been able to purchase any firearm.

law breakers/heavily mentally unstable/violent people shouldn't have access to guns is what i believe gun control should be about.

in much the following post, i am addressing your language and your lack of specification and qualification... i do not condone or support the shooter. it is not hard to agree that what he did was wrong.... that said:


misdemeanors should not be included in the list of crimes that prevent someone from gun ownership. i would argue that non-violent felonies should be excluded as well. And if verbal outbursts are an indication of "instability", every sane human on earth could be thought unstable. if we reach a point where a man who speaks with passion is thought to be insane, we will have lost all hope.

i want to attack your grouping of "law breakers" with the "mentally unstable" and violent. instead of "law breakers", you should say, "those found guilty in a court of law"; there is a distinction between the two. if we were to include "law breakers" we would have to ask ourselves, which code of law are we referring to? there are many aspects of the federal government that are immune to the law for reason of "national security". there are also many instances where our government itself has broken international law. are you suggesting that we disarm the police and the military? i think you probably mean "found guilty of any crime in a court of law within the united states of america" when you say "lawbreakers". maybe i am wrong

i also ask you to define "mentally unstable". that term is so silly in my opinion. i could argue that those who make use of such terms are "mentally unstable" themselves for using such ambiguous terminology and not having proper definitions to back them up. what your definition will ultimately boil down to is that instead of "mentally unstable", you mean "socially unstable", and by "socially unstable", you mean that in some way this person's behavior is not congruent with our society's idea of what constitutes normal behavior. when we start to apply these types of terms to legal decisions such as laws and regulations, we really must take notice of the ambiguity of these terms. if you look at the history of the use of insanity in legal cases, our definition of insanity becomes quite unstable. i am of the opinion that our definition of insanity in the law is not clear enough and that perhaps it should be completely removed from legal terminology

[Soundwave-]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

It's got a bayonet, it's actually arguably deadlier!

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

- Everyone in your family has to be clean. Cousin got jailed 20 years ago? no gun license for you.

This makes absolutely no sense. I hope I don't have to explain why.

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

- You are pressured multiple times by the police answering why do you need that license and what are you going to do with a gun, then go through a mental check.

Ohnoes them blues are getting in our business like its their job or something to do whatever they can to protect the public.

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

You love your guns and fabricate reasons why you need them, but it's quite apparent than even in self defense chances are you're safer without firearms.

Just kinda reminded me, since I feel like this is discredited: people sometimes own guns because when you use and store them responsibly, they can be fun, and an interesting hobby, and the freedom to choose to have that responsibility is kinda important.

[adlp]

Originally Posted by Contrapasso

big ups to chef boyardee for popping into the thread, rly love hearing ur opinions on something u dont know anything about

fkn lol

[MixMasterLar]

Greetings, I bring you a fruitbowl of bump. Mmmm Peaches.


I am personally all for more background checks. I think the guidelines with what Dev was saying would probably make a good blueprint on what we can do. The issue that people have with more regulations like that, though, is that we have a pretty bad trust issue in the states.

We are really use to everyone pulling the "gain the inch, then take the mile" trick to try and swing everything to their preferred liking: Our bosses do it with scheduling us for work, giving us gradually shittier and shittier hours; our schools do it to us in up-charging everything a little year after year after year until the price is absolutely sickening; Bush tells us we won't be in Iraq much longer, then just wait a little bit, a little bit, a little bit.

So whenever you hear people (especially people who have made it clear they rather not have guns at ALL) talk about "Well we'll just do this one common sense thing! C'mon don't be unreasonable" the first thing anyone is going to think is what kind of cascade bullshit is this going to lead to and do I want to set this precedent? Legally, at least in the states, precedents means alot and laws affect future laws more then we like to admit, and why agree to law Y when you feel that it's going to make stopping law X impossible?

So alot of gun owners try to sidestep the whole issue by just shutting down the conversation. I ain't trying to say it's right or that that side of the debate couldn't do better, but that's the logic. And when people throw serious aggression to gunowners it just doesn't make them want to give the benefit of the doubt.


As an aside, can we stop treating the NRA like they are some big scary black government branch that pulls the strings to arm as many rednecks as possible? Because they're not. If anything, the NRA is way more focused on safety and responsibility then any lawmaker I know of, and while I hate saying an absolute statement, I don't recall any mass shootings having been committed by an NRA member. Ever.

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

The thing is guns are part of your culture in a way similar to how corrida is part of spanish culture. You love your guns and fabricate reasons why you need them, but it's quite apparent than even in self defense chances are you're safer without firearms.

No, no it's not even a little bit apparent that we would be safer. Please refer to previous post made by Choof that we have a pretty big illegal importin' biz of weapons coming in here from our lovely southern neighbors. As someone who lives in Florida (aka not terribly far off from that border in the scheme of things: RIP my Texas brethren) I can promise you that the villain always has a weapon and I am not doing anyone any favors but not being as equally armed.

That said, full disclaimer I was never an NRA member and I don't currently own a gun at the moment. Just about everyone in my trailerpark does, though, and both my dad and brother are lifelong NRA members. Take my stance on things as you will.

[adlp]

nightclub shooting stopped by concealed carrier

http://www.wistv.com/story/32308903/...l-at-nightclub

[Kalre]

mm

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by adlp

nightclub shooting stopped by concealed carrier

http://www.wistv.com/story/32308903/...l-at-nightclub

These stories happen more then people like to admit, although in truth they are hardly reported on and mainstream media doesn't like to dwell on them.

[top]

Gotta get dem ratings

[Arch0wl]

stop telling me to put on my shirt, hillary

[lurker]

Originally Posted by kommisar

slavery was an amendment

what the fuck

[Arch0wl]

most neighborhood instances of gun ownership stopping a crime do not get reported. this is because all that's sufficient in most cases is flashing a gun or firing a warning shot.

this is also highly income dependent and a lot of people don't know this

to avoid retyping I'mma just SS the same shit I said to someone else

[devonin]

Nothing about actual rational gun control stops those households from having a gun in them.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by devonin

Nothing about actual rational gun control stops those households from having a gun in them.

"actual gun control"

yet does not define "actual" gun control

"rational gun control"

yet does not define "rational" gun control

"stops"

yet whole discussion is concerned with degree of access, not absolute ability to obtain

did you think you were gonna drop this sentence and nobody would ask you to so much as elaborate or what

[Arch0wl]

I will say though devonin has a curiously good ability to weigh in on issues like sex, drugs, crime and the hood in a way no other person so unlike people familiar with those things does

it's like there's a google alert he has set up for the most alien he could be to a subject matter's norms

[lurker]

it would not surprise me at all if the price of a background check went up tenfold if they were made mandatory

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

did you think you were gonna drop this sentence and nobody would ask you to so much as elaborate or what

Well, if you believe there are rational gun controls (in which I include things like, licensing, registration, training) those things don't meaningfully limit anybody's access to firearms. Most people who own guns have the means to drop 50 bucks on a gun license and find a Saturday to go do a training course at a range. Yes, the extremely poor might still find that burdensome, but they pay to get a driver's license, and if getting a gun license when you turn 18 is considered as much a part of being an American as a driver's license at 16, it would quickly just become a thing that got done.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

I will say though devonin has a curiously good ability to weigh in on issues like sex, drugs, crime and the hood in a way no other person so unlike people familiar with those things does

You don't actually know all that much about me beyond the persona I adopt here, which has pretty much always been coloured by the fact that I was staff most of my lifespan on the site. I've been heavily invested in more than a few internet communities for the better part of 20 years now. I know a lot of kinds of people from a lot of parts of the world. And I spend a lot of time making myself aware of what's going on in the world. My degree is in history and philosophy, and the philosophy end was focused heavily into applied ethics. This is sort of my jam.

it's like there's a google alert he has set up for the most alien he could be to a subject matter's norms

I wouldn't even know what that means let alone how or why to do it.