The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Arwon]

I'm also not sure that it's the right of all people to bear all arms at all times in all places without any conditions or rules

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Howso? He was claiming women did not use firearms against men. That is statistically untrue. Women use guns extensively.


J

Good job mini-Trump...when called out for presenting something in the most misleading manner possible, double down. Now, shift to bluster like the pompous clown of a president would do.

 

[metalhead]

You quote articles from obviously biased sources while I quote actual Supreme Court rulings. Do you see why I don't take you seriously? Protip: when it comes to which source is more reliable on matters regarding the Constitution, Supreme Court ruling > NY Times.

You do yourself a pretty grave disservice when you dismiss an op-ed from a former Supreme Court justice as "biased," rather than actually respond to any of the substance.

I get that you've been talked into making gun ownership a large part of your identity, but that doesn't mean you can simply assert rights that don't exist and handwave away any opposing viewpoints as biased.

 

[Arakhor]

I would say anyone who talks about repealing or amending any part of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution in case you weren't aware) is not to be trusted and dismiss any further arguments they make out of hand. We are talking about the fundamental rights the Founding Fathers thought every American should have. There also isn't anything in the Bill of Rights that is so unreasonable that it is worthy of repeal so it comes across as highly suspicious when anyone starts talking about doing so.

So, with this in mind, would you care to explain why you felt that the teenagers protesting about gun laws should have their ability to do so curtailed?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Handsguns primary purpose is to threaten to kill people. Is that close enough?

No its not. No more strawmen please. Attack the arguments that I made, not the ones you wish I made.

 

[Lexicus]

You quote articles from obviously biased sources while I quote actual Supreme Court rulings. Do you see why I don't take you seriously? Protip: when it comes to which source is more reliable on matters regarding the Constitution, Supreme Court ruling > NY Times.

You haven't quoted anything from any Supreme Court ruling, only vaguely asserted that an unnamed 1886 Supreme Court case supports your position. Well, here is an excerpt from Justice Stevens' dissent in the Heller case, since apparently the fact that a summary of the same arguments was published in the "biased" New York Times means you can't process it:

The postratification history of the Second Amendment is strikingly similar. The Amendment played little role in any legislative debate about the civilian use of firearms for most of the 19th century, and it made few appearances in the decisions of this Court. Two 19th-century cases, however, bear mentioning.

[...]

Only one other 19th-century case in this Court, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , engaged in any significant discussion of the Second Amendment . The petitioner in Presser was convicted of violating a state statute that prohibited organizations other than the Illinois National Guard from associating together as military companies or parading with arms.

[...]

Presser, therefore, both affirmed Cruikshank’sholding that the Second Amendment posed no obstacle to regulation by state governments, and suggested that in any event nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia “authorized by law” and organized by the State or Federal Government.36

In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating “ ‘the National Guard of the several States,’ ” Perpich, 496 U. S., at 341, and nn. 9–10; meanwhile, the dominant understanding of the Second Amendment ’s inapplicability to private gun ownership continued well into the 20th century. The first two federal laws directly restricting civilian use and possession of firearms—the 1927 Act prohibiting mail delivery of “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person,” Ch. 75, 1059, and the 1934 Act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections dismissed by the vast majority of the legislators who participated in the debates.37 Members of Congress clashed over the wisdom and efficacy of such laws as crime-control measures. But since the statutes did not infringe upon the military use or possession of weapons, for most legislators they did not even raise the specter of possible conflict with the Second Amendment .

Thus, for most of our history, the invalidity of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.38Indeed, the Second Amendment was not even mentioned in either full House of Congress during the legislative proceedings that led to the passage of the 1934 Act. Yet enforcement of that law produced the judicial decision that confirmed the status of the Amendment as limited in reach to military usage. After reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today, the Miller Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” 307 U. S., at 178.

Seriously Lexicus, do your own research. Stop letting other people tell you what to believe.

O irony, thy name is this pair of sentences

 

[Sommerswerd]

You say this as if gun owners are wrong in thinking this way. Don't make me bust out the PMs between us where you admit gun owners are correct when they say this about the anti-gun crowd.

Why bother? @Lexicus posted like what 15 minutes ago his very consistent position that he is coming for your guns... which, since it bears on your threat to "bust out the PMs", is exactly what I referenced in my PM to you as a show of good faith, that I recognize that everyone does not have the same attitude as I do about gun regulation. So bust away my good man, my positions are consistent whether in PM or public.

The whole reason I PM'ed you about these issues was to have a rational, candid discussion where you wouldn't feel like I was being condescending to you, and the other stuff you accused me off. The point was to show a sign of respect and turn the heat down so we could talk one-on-one without any need for grandstanding... not to have you try to throw my PMs up in my face and imply that I'm hiding something... I have nothing to hide... publish all our PMs, if you want, that's your 1st Amendment right. Sheesh... try to show a guy some respect... and what do you get? "I'll publish your PMs to win the debate!!" SMFH.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Commodore

I recommend that you edit the PMs so they say whatever you want them to, then bust them out. Since no one has any expectations that you would argue in good faith you really have nothing to lose.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

lol, k.

Isn't this the sort of one-liner moderators really, really, really frown upon?

 

[rah]

not as much as snitches.

 

[inthesomeday]

There's plenty of space on the proverbial wall for everyone who makes a living by facilitating the murder of children.

The irony of using “the wall”— which refers to leftist firing squads executing rich people during the Spanish Civil War— as a metaphor for the liberal restriction of gun ownership to rich people is lost on you?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The irony of using “the wall”— which refers to leftist firing squads executing rich people during the Spanish Civil War— as a metaphor for the liberal restriction of gun ownership to rich people is lost on you?

I think it was intentional, actually. Though I took "plenty of space on the wall" as a reference to mounting their heads as trophies.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You say this as if gun owners are wrong in thinking this way. Don't make me bust out the PMs between us where you admit gun owners are correct when they say this about the anti-gun crowd.

I think gun owners would be wrong in thinking that way, but only because the word "secretly" was in the statement.

 

[inthesomeday]

I think it was intentional, actually. Though I took "plenty of space on the wall" as a reference to mounting their heads as trophies.

But like... how we gonna give em the wall if we don’t have guns

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Beat them to death with bike locks?

 

[Lexicus]

The irony of using “the wall”— which refers to leftist firing squads executing rich people during the Spanish Civil War— as a metaphor for the liberal restriction of gun ownership to rich people is lost on you?

Actually I deployed the metaphor with malice aforethought, you caught me.

Incidentally, I think something is off when you can read a post that contains a joking reference to executing the leaders of the global arms trade as advocating for "liberal restriction of gun ownership to rich people". I was unaware that US defense contractors were such an important part of the proletarian vanguard, but I'll be sure to bear that in mind going forward.

 

[Hrothbern]

Basically, my point is I shouldn't have to explain or justify why I need my rights. Any of them. And neither should you or any other American.

If rights are not rooted in values, rights become from a moral point of view meaningless rules

values are selfevident of a higher nature than rights
and rights are therefore limited to where they would exceed the values where they were rooted in (and undermine values).

 

[inthesomeday]

Actually I deployed the metaphor with malice aforethought, you caught me.

Incidentally, I think something is off when you can read a post that contains a joking reference to executing the leaders of the global arms trade as advocating for "liberal restriction of gun ownership to rich people". I was unaware that US defense contractors were such an important part of the proletarian vanguard, but I'll be sure to bear that in mind going forward.

I was unaware you thought the courts could be used to meaningfully prosecute the military industrial complex.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Please refrain from public speculation of moderator actions, vis á vis what we will and will not do. It is PDMA and will be dealt with as such. Thank you.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Because you weren't showing me respect.

Yes I was.

Not for real at least.

"For real"? What does that even mean? If I disagree with anything you say I am somehow disrespecting you? C'mon man. It kinda seems like you want to carry your aggrieved status and you refuse to listen to anything that disturbs that...

All you did was go from being condescending in the threads to patronizing in the PMs. Both are equally disrespectful and insulting.

OK. I didn't mean to be condescending or insulting, either in the thread or in the PM. I don't agree that anything I said to you was condescending or patronizing, and I'm sad that you feel it was. I wish that you didn't feel that way, because you know I'm not going to stop speaking up when I disagree with you.