The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

While the utility of this is debatable, the potential for disaster is increased, especially when idiots are involved.

Which is why we need to exercise that control and management more once achieved. It's beautifully self-contained and driven.

 

[rah]

Bah, that type of control and management can not be achieved with such a large group of youngsters. (as has been proven many tragic times)

 

[Farm Boy]

That's my line, but people still seem to be hell bent on trying.

 

[rah]

Yeah, even an old foggy like me could detect the sarcasm.
Those with money and power figure it's the best way to keep their money and power.

 

[Lexicus]

you can hunt with a bow you literally don't need a gun

 

[rah]

I agree that it would be more sporting but some aren't that sporting. But if it's for food then a more efficient weapon is probably for the best.

 

[danjuno]

I've gone back and forth on the whole gun thing, to be honest. I think Americans in particular have an unhealthy obsessions with guns, but I'm not confident in the stability of US Democracy right now, and in the event of a civil war, I probably will not be friends with either the Far Right gun nuts or a Neocon/Neoliberal government desperately clinging to power.

 

[Ajidica]

you can hunt with a bow you literally don't need a gun

REAL MEN hunt with stone spears they made themselves.

 

[Sommerswerd]

REAL MEN hunt with stone spears they made themselves.

That dude trying to choke the bear out with his bare hands... seems like a poor plan. I'm guessing that works like 3, maybe 5% of the time tops.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm fine with hunting and hunting rifles and shotguns. But you don't need a handgun with extended magazines or rifles with bump stocks. You don't need semi-auto firearms at all for hunting and I am not sure it's even legal in most jurisdictions.

But @Farm Boy continually throws out the red herring that we're coming for his hunting guns because that's what the far right does. And now we have to address it like it's a serious policy proposal when it's nothing but a fever dream of ammosexuals.

 

[rah]

Do gun enthusiasts think that banning guns on airplanes is a violation of their constitutional rights?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Do gun enthusiasts think that banning guns on airplanes is a violation of their constitutional rights?

Yes.

But in all seriousness I have not met any ammosexuals that will concede any ground on gun rights as a matter of principle and NRA propoganda. I've had and still have a lot of ammosexual friends though I do know this is purely anecdotal on my part.

 

[EgonSpengler]

But again, the bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun.

In terms of the gun's rate of fire and its commensurate killing power, it seems to do exactly that. And that's the aspect most people are interested in (including, I presume, the people who want them). As mentioned earlier, we've only seen a bump-stock put to use once, so it's not really a high priority. Still, arguing the definition of a key term just makes it seem like you're unable or unwilling to engage with the person you're talking to. It's not specific to conversations about guns; whenever somebody does that, whatever the topic, I assume they just don't want to talk (about that) anymore.

You're right, I haven't done that. Taking such a position is something that I believe weakens the argument for keeping the 2nd Amendment since the reason the 2nd Amendment exists is to ensure the population has access to the same level of firepower the government has access to in order to either help defend the nation against a foreign power or to throw off the government itself should it go completely off the rails.

Yeah, it's usually a signal to me that the person has nothing left to say. I even had one guy (I assume it was a guy) threaten to kill me with a sword to demonstrate the flaw in my position on guns. There must have been some nuance to his argument that I wasn't grasping.

Not that we absolutely would have those things [gulags & death camps], just that it would make it easier for a hypothetical tyrannical government to do those things. I mean, look at Israel as an example. Do you think they'd be able to do what they do to the Palestinians as easily as they are able to do it if the Palestinians were armed with rifles instead of rocks?

But this preparation for a hypothetical has an actual cost of N deaths every year: That is, the N deaths aren't the cost of defending yourself against a tyrannical government, they're the cost of reserving the ability to do so, even in the event such a tyranny never happens. You're paying the freight for a commodity you aren't using. Furthermore, you're paying the freight for something you don't want to use, and we have the means to avoid it, if we're smart and attentive. Our courts and our free press have done more to prevent a tyrannical government in the last 2 years than all of the civilian-owned guns in the last 100. If we really wanted to prevent tyranny, the Bill of Rights would protect our right to earn law & journalism degrees, not own guns.

You want to see freedom-loving people exercising their right to resist an oppressive government?

CNN, Jan 1, 2019 - One Texas county just swore in 17 black, female judges

Don't mess with Texas.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do gun enthusiasts think that banning guns on airplanes is a violation of their constitutional rights?

Rarely. Same with courthouses. Or schools. But seeing as there are bear spear hunting pictures floating around(excellent ), I've no doubt some fine people, fine fine people are conflating a criticism of a sporting goods store(with explicit recognition it's their prerogative, just that I'd be happy to watch them sink) with the 2nd despite Sommer helpfully and preemptively pulling their manhoods out of their own mouths. Like a baby with a binky, it's going right back in.

 

[rah]

My point being was that if you do believe that it isn't a violation then there is some room for compromise on the issue. There can be a balance between public safety and the ability to own a gun, hunt and such.

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course. I like the bump stock ban, personally. That's a respectable thing out of Assclown.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Of course. I like the bump stock ban, personally. That's a respectable thing out of Assclown.

No it's not. He set up the executive order with significant procedure errors to make it easy pickings for an NRA suit. IIRC they even used language that's been previously shot down by the courts.

He can say he took action on school shootings but accomplished nothing.

 

[Lexicus]

I agree that it would be more sporting but some aren't that sporting. But if it's for food then a more efficient weapon is probably for the best.

There is nothing 'sporting' about hunting with a gun or a bow* under any circumstances, frankly. If you want me to appreciate the 'sportsmanship' go kill an animal with nothing but what you find in the woods; that might impress me a little.

*unless you made the bow with what you found in the woods

 

[rah]

I was speaking in a general comparison . If you want sporting, give the bear a gun

 

[Lexicus]

I was speaking in a general comparison . If you want sporting, give the bear a gun

Shooting a bear = yawn
Strangling a bear with your bare hands = win