The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

I don't necessarily think your average gun enthusiast will be all that cracked about mowing down a bunch of people with his toys.

I kinda do. I don't share your evaluation of ammosexuals, as far as I'm concerned they're a serious danger because they're a potential fascist vanguard.

 

[Broken_Erika]

A lot of them would probably just take their guns and hole up in cabins in the middle of nowhere until everything blows over

 

[metalhead]

That too. Owning lots of guns doesn't preclude cowardice, or valuing self-preservation over fighting for a particular side. Nor does it suggest a particular ideological belief beyond "I like guns." Which itself isn't much of an ideology.

 

[Farm Boy]

Most of the guns owned by most people have never been shot at a living thing, I don't necessarily think your average gun enthusiast will be all that cracked about mowing down a bunch of people with his toys.

There is a lot of research available on this courtesy of various military. Unless trained to override their baseline impulses, people green to combat will exhibit about a 2% rate of being willing to aim to hit another human with a bullet. More than that will shoot, but they'll aim high.

 

[JollyRoger]

Even Ted Nugent is choosing alcohol over guns at his concerts. Both the people that attended his concert in Roanoke were forbidden from bringing in their guns.

 

[Quintillus]

I think Bootstoots' analysis is fairly good. I have a hard time envisioning a large left-wing insurgency, for the same reasons. But, while still unlikely, a right-wing one seems more likely given how many right-wingers own guns and are paranoid about them being taken away (without reason, IMO). Of course, the one thing that would result in them being taken away is an attempt at an uprising against the government.

That said, I've had discussions with liberal friends who have thought about buying guns in response to Trump's election. Largely in the first half of 2017, and as far as I know none of them wound up buying guns, but I could see another upsurge in that kind of thinking after the 2018 or 2020 elections, depending on how they go. And if that continues into 2022, 2024, 2026, eventually you'll start having enough people on the left wing be sufficiently alarmed, sufficiently convinced that the electoral system is rigged in favor of Trump and Putin's favored candidates, that you could have a significant risk of a left-wing uprising. I very much hope the 2018 elections lead to Democratic control of at least one branch of Congress, as that should help defuse the escalating tensions, but if Trump winds up having the staying power of Erdogan or Maduro - particularly if he also has the economic mismanagement of Maduro - things could get ugly in a few years.

 

[Lexicus]

If the Democrats don't at least take the House this year then America's a basket case. Time for non-whites to get out while they can.

 

[Broken_Erika]

If the Democrats don't at least take the House this year then America's a basket case. Time for non-whites to get out while they can.

Hey! That's insulting to the Basket Cases!

 

[EgonSpengler]

This ballot measure to divide California into three states has got me to thinking about the whole "2nd Civil War" thing again, in the sense that it highlights divisions that at least some people think are intractable. A wealthy guy who's called "eccentric" spent a million of his own money and got 600,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot, but the California Supreme Court decided it wasn't kosher. I'm not sure what this particular guy's motivation is, but a professor of political science cited in the article below notes that Californians have been kicking around the idea of breaking up the state for a long while.

Of course this is a far cry from a civil war - it wasn't about seceding from the country, for instance - but it perhaps demonstrates the degree of our estrangement from one another. You don't need to be Tom Clancy to imagine a scenario that ends with cities burning and self-determined militias labeling themselves law enforcement/local defense of entire towns. We've already seen at least one semi-organized group of vigilantes show up at a demonstration, uninvited, with their own rifles and other gear, to "help keep the peace."

Los Angeles Times, 18 July 2018 - "Measure to split California into three states removed from ballot by state Supreme Court"
The Washington Post, 13 August 2017 - "Militamen came to Charlottesville as neutral First Amendment protectors, commander says"

 

[Commodore]

The Oklahoma legislature actually put a bill on the Governor's desk that would have allowed anyone to carry a gun without need for a license or any training.

What's so outrageous about such a bill? Like it or not, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all Americans just like the right to free speech is and you shouldn't have to ask the government permission to exercise your rights. Because if you have to ask the government permission, then it's not really a right now is it? I mean, would you support a license requirement to practice your religion? Would you support licensing requirements to exercise your right to free speech? No, you wouldn't.

If we are going to allow any idiot to be able to express their opinion freely, then we also have to allow any idiot to carry a gun freely.

 

[EgonSpengler]

What's so outrageous about such a bill? Like it or not, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all Americans just like the right to free speech is and you shouldn't have to ask the government permission to exercise your rights. Because if you have to ask the government permission, then it's not really a right now is it? I mean, would you support a license requirement to practice your religion? Would you support licensing requirements to exercise your right to free speech? No, you wouldn't.

If we are going to allow any idiot to be able to express their opinion freely, then we also have to allow any idiot to carry a gun freely.

Sorry, I think that's dangerous, and absurd. If you can explain why gun ownership should be a right and not just assert that it is, I'd be curious to hear it. But just using the 2nd Amendment as a shield only entrenches my belief that gun advocates simply like guns, and that many of them couldn't explain their position beyond that. If you want to start another thread to challenge and examine the right to free speech, I'll probably participate, but you already know that (a) no rights are unlimited, and (b) rights often come into conflict with other, equally-valid rights. Supreme Court cases exploring the limits and applications of free speech and freedom of religion are myriad. For example, afaik, no one could perform a human sacrifice as part of a religious rite today, even if they could demonstrate that their religious conviction was genuine and not just convenient, and even if the sacrifice was willing and also a genuine believer. I feel just fine about dismissing the idea that a gun license and training requirements are some kind of unusual restriction on a Constitutional right.

 

[Lexicus]

Sorry, I think that's dangerous, and absurd. If you can explain why gun ownership should be a right and not just assert that it is, I'd be curious to hear it. But just using the 2nd Amendment as a shield only entrenches my belief that gun advocates simply like guns, and that many of them couldn't explain their position beyond that. If you want to start another thread to challenge and examine the right to free speech, I'll probably participate, but you already know that (a) no rights are unlimited, and (b) rights often come into conflict with other, equally-valid rights. Supreme Court cases exploring the limits and applications of free speech and freedom of religion are myriad. For example, afaik, no one could perform a human sacrifice as part of a religious rite today, even if they could demonstrate that their religious conviction was genuine and not just convenient, and even if the sacrifice was willing and also a genuine believer. I feel just fine about dismissing the idea that a gun license and training requirements are some kind of unusual restriction on a Constitutional right.

It's counterproductive to pretend that lunatic bloodlust can be addressed by rational argument.

 

[Broken_Erika]

What's so outrageous about such a bill? Like it or not, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right of all Americans just like the right to free speech is and you shouldn't have to ask the government permission to exercise your rights. Because if you have to ask the government permission, then it's not really a right now is it? I mean, would you support a license requirement to practice your religion? Would you support licensing requirements to exercise your right to free speech? No, you wouldn't.

If we are going to allow any idiot to be able to express their opinion freely, then we also have to allow any idiot to carry a gun freely.

The bill has to do with handguns and concealed guns, not rifles or shotguns.

 

[Commodore]

If you can explain why gun ownership should be a right and not just assert that it is, I'd be curious to hear it. But just using the 2nd Amendment as a shield only entrenches my belief that gun advocates simply like guns, and that many of them couldn't explain their position beyond that.

That's the thing about rights though, you aren't supposed to have to justify them or explain why you need them. A common response in the gun community when someone brings up the "why do you need them?" argument is "it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs". What that means is I don't have to have a reason or justification for owning a gun beyond "because I want one" because that's one of my rights as a resident of the US. If you want to fight to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, then fine. But until you succeed in doing so, you are going to have to accept that gun ownership was established as a fundamental right in the US and should be afforded all the same protections against government infringement or abridgment that all other rights are given.

(a) no rights are unlimited,

And there are already plenty of restrictions on the right to gun ownership. As I stated a long time ago, guns are the only product available for sale in which both the buyer and the seller have to ask the government permission for each transaction through the required background check for every sale. It's also the only right that gets permanently stripped away from you if you get convicted of a felony. There are also limits on what type of firearms a person can buy despite the wording of the 2nd Amendment being pretty clear the government isn't supposed to do that. I can't buy a machine gun or grenade launcher without a special license and a pretty steep yearly fee to the ATF to maintain that license.

Also, if you write an article expressing your beliefs and disseminate it to the masses for consumption, there's nothing the government can do to you to stop you from doing that. Yet if I make a gun in my basement and sell it, or even just give it to someone else, the ATF will be kicking down my door and hauling me off to jail. They'll also send the person to which I gave the gun to prison as well. So the right to own a firearm is much more restricted than any other right Americans are guaranteed.

For example, afaik, no one could perform a human sacrifice as part of a religious rite today, even if they could demonstrate that their religious conviction was genuine and not just convenient, and even if the sacrifice was willing and also a genuine believer.

That's because such a practice violates the rights of another person by taking their life. My possession of a firearm does not violate the rights of anyone around me, whether I'm licensed and trained or not.

Also, your human sacrifice example doesn't have the government charging a fee to someone to allow them to commit human sacrifices, essentially forcing them to pay the government to exercise their rights. That's what gun licenses are forcing gun owners to do. They force us to pay to exercise a right we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Again I ask, how would you react if the government did that with any other right? You would be up in arms. But since it's being done with guns, something you despise, you are completely okay with it.

The bill has to do with handguns and concealed guns, not rifles or shotguns.

Doesn't matter. The right we are guaranteed is the right to bear arms, not just the right to bear long guns. Last I checked, a pistol was still a type of "arms" so I should be able to bear it just like I can bear any other long gun. Of course you can't even bear a long gun in public anymore since even though it's technically legal to do so, if you go walking down the street with a rifle strapped to your back, the police will still arrest you for "creating a public disturbance".

 

[EgonSpengler]

That's the thing about rights though, you aren't supposed to have to justify them or explain why you need them. A common response in the gun community when someone brings up the "why do you need them?" argument is "it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs". What that means is I don't have to have a reason or justification for owning a gun beyond "because I want one" because that's one of my rights as a resident of the US. If you want to fight to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, then fine. But until you succeed in doing so, you are going to have to accept that gun ownership was established as a fundamental right in the US and should be afforded all the same protections against government infringement or abridgment that all other rights are given.



And there are already plenty of restrictions on the right to gun ownership. As I stated a long time ago, guns are the only product available for sale in which both the buyer and the seller have to ask the government permission for each transaction through the required background check for every sale. It's also the only right that gets permanently stripped away from you if you get convicted of a felony. There are also limits on what type of firearms a person can buy despite the wording of the 2nd Amendment being pretty clear the government isn't supposed to do that. I can't buy a machine gun or grenade launcher without a special license and a pretty steep yearly fee to the ATF to maintain that license.

Also, if you write an article expressing your beliefs and disseminate it to the masses for consumption, there's nothing the government can do to you to stop you from doing that. Yet if I make a gun in my basement and sell it, or even just give it to someone else, the ATF will be kicking down my door and hauling me off to jail. They'll also send the person to which I gave the gun to prison as well. So the right to own a firearm is much more restricted than any other right Americans are guaranteed.



That's because such a practice violates the rights of another person by taking their life. My possession of a firearm does not violate the rights of anyone around me, whether I'm licensed and trained or not.

Also, your human sacrifice example doesn't have the government charging a fee to someone to allow them to commit human sacrifices, essentially forcing them to pay the government to exercise their rights. That's what gun licenses are forcing gun owners to do. They force us to pay to exercise a right we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Again I ask, how would you react if the government did that with any other right? You would be up in arms. But since it's being done with guns, something you despise, you are completely okay with it.



Doesn't matter. The right we are guaranteed is the right to bear arms, not just the right to bear long guns. Last I checked, a pistol was still a type of "arms" so I should be able to bear it just like I can bear any other long gun. Of course you can't even bear a long gun in public anymore since even though it's technically legal to do so, if you go walking down the street with a rifle strapped to your back, the police will still arrest you for "creating a public disturbance".

I have a lot to say in reply to your post, and not enough time atm. I will say one thing now, though: You like to assign a lot of positions and opinions to me that I haven't claimed for myself. Cut it the f out.

 

[Lexicus]

As I stated a long time ago, guns are the only product available for sale in which both the buyer and the seller have to ask the government permission for each transaction through the required background check for every sale.

False

It's also the only right that gets permanently stripped away from you if you get convicted of a felony

Also false

the wording of the 2nd Amendment being pretty clear the government isn't supposed to do that.

"well-regulated"

They force us to pay to exercise a right we are guaranteed in the Constitution.

IIRC you support voter-ID laws and other laws that functionally make you pay to vote. That's ironic. Also, you have to pay to buy a gun even without any licensing or anything involved - do you think government should subsidize the gun industry so that any American can get a free gun?

 

[Broken_Erika]

A Silenced fully-automatic Mac-10 is a type of "Arms", so is a 84mm Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifle, I want my 40mm bofors autocannon!

 

[Lexicus]

A Silenced fully-automatic Mac-10 is a type of "Arms", so is a 84mm Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifle, I want my 40mm bofors autocannon!

I'm going to use my recreational nukes to end the threat from Commodore's Warlord Polity(™) once and for all, he violated my NAP by making an aggressively stupid CFC post.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If the Democrats don't at least take the House this year then America's a basket case. Time for non-whites to get out while they can.

I'm white and I'm preparing an exit strategy.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I'm going to use my recreational nukes to end the threat from Commodore's Warlord Polity(™) once and for all, he violated my NAP by making an aggressively stupid CFC post.

So you're gonna try a preemptive strike against the Brotherhood of Nod? Good Luck!