The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[rah]

I mean, 2nd Amendment advocates have done nothing but compromise on the issue of gun control,

I'm not sure I agree with this.

 

[Bugfatty300]

What effect (quantitatively, but obviously roughly) would you expect a ban on gun sales to the public to have on the availability of guns to gangs?

1,776% not effective.

 

[metalhead]

"Defending my 2nd Amendment right includes intentionally depriving others of their right to life" is most definitely not what the constitution means. Jesus.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd say the antigunners have compromised, if their goal is to have gun violence levels reach those of say (Canada). But they've not tried to do it by repealing the 2nd Amendment, which would clarify the legality. We treat it as a privilege up here. So, from that perspective, young men shooting hundreds of rounds into innocent people looks like a bad system of assessing who should have the privilege

 

[El_Machinae]

Why should I care?

You've lost me. Why should you care about being evil? I'd not expected soneone like you to struggle with that question? Most people seem to intuitively hold the position as self-evident.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Look through the last few pages or so and you'll see I've made every effort to engage with people respectfully on this issue and despite that, I was still met with insults and mockery.

Not by me.

Well it's kinda hard to have an actual discussion when I've tried and get no reciprocation from anyone else. Just look at the ghost gun point I made.

I have acknowledged/mentioned this issue before... with no acknowledgment from you... look:

Last thing I need to mention while we're on this... I saw an informative documentary last night discussing counterfeit gun making, which seems to be a much bigger industry than I'd realized. I readily admit this creates a flaw in the way I imagined manufacturer liability working... I will have to think about how this affects my position a little more.

When I posted this, I was talking about a documentary I saw that discussed "ghost guns", something I had never heard of before then. Since that time I have taken ghost guns into account when formulating my positions on gun regulation.

I know I would. Right now I'm a law abiding citizen, but ban guns and I'll become a criminal real quick. Not for the money though, I'd do it because I would want to do my part to sabotage gun control efforts and increase gun violence to make the gun control crowd look foolish.

Please say that you are joking/engaging in hyperbole about this. I know that this issue is important to you and you are frustrated about people's views on the topic,but... just please take this back, or confirm that this is tongue in cheek . I'll leave it at that.

 

[Farm Boy]

On second thought, don't worry about it El. Got bogged in following like trains earlier and have lost interest. But have a nice Wednesday.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No, there isn't. In fact, that's one of the main criticisms of our law enforcement right now. When people do openly say the things that I'm saying, law enforcement doesn't do anything about it and then scratch their heads in puzzlement wondering "how could we have stopped this?" when some of the people saying these things actually make good on their threats.



I just want to know what the plan is for those who refuse to comply with a gun confiscation order? I mean, the gun control crowd talks about banning them like that's the only thing they need to do, but they forget that it doesn't matter what laws you get passed if you can't realistically enforce those laws. Just look at what happened in Connecticut after Sandy Hook. Connecticut passed a law that said anyone with an AR-15 had to have it registered by a certain date or it would be confiscated and the owner would be charged with a felony. The designated date came and went, and an estimated 20,000 to 100,000 AR-15 owners in the state refused to register their rifles. What did the state do about it? Nothing. No confiscations, no charges, no arrests. Gun owners in Connecticut basically dared the government to "come and take them" and the state government shied away from a potential showdown with their tails between their legs. And because of that, they now have a useless gun control law because the state has shown that they don't have the political will or backbone to enforce it.

And that's just one state we are talking about here. If one state can't even enforce a simple registration law, what makes anyone think a nationwide ban and confiscation would meet with any kind of success? So again I ask the gun control crowd: Assuming you finally get all the laws you want and the Supreme Court upholds them, how exactly do you plan on enforcing your gun control laws? You can't arrest gun owners because our prisons are overcrowded as it is. You can't freeze their assets and wait them out because the impact of cutting millions of people off from the economy would be absolutely disastrous for the entire country, not just gun owners. You can't send the police door-to-door because 1. there simply aren't enough even if you deployed every local, state, and federal law enforcement agent and 2. once a few thousand officers take two to the chest trying to confiscate guns, I guarantee they are going to either refuse to do further confiscations or walk off the job altogether. You can't use the military because using the military for law enforcement is a legal no-no. Even the National Guard can only be used for riot control. You can't hire mercenaries because that's also illegal both in US and international law. You can't shut down the gun manufacturers because there's the chance they will just move their business elsewhere and start refusing to supply our military and police with firearms and ammunition. They have plenty of other customers willing to buy their products elsewhere in the world.

So what's the plan? How do you enforce gun laws in the US in a way that doesn't cause some kind of civil strife/unrest? And if there is no easy or peaceful way to do it, then the gun control crowd has to ask themselves if they really think their peace of mind about gun violence is really worth the path that the government would have to go down in order to enforce the law.



Well, let's have society try to take some of your rights away and we'll see how "bonkers" you get.

I mean, 2nd Amendment advocates have done nothing but compromise on the issue of gun control, but the anti-gun crowd refuses to do the same. And since I know someone is going to try to lie and say 2nd Amendment advocates haven't compromised I'll list just a few compromises for you: The National Firearms Act of 1934, universal background checks for every purchase (something no other consumer good requires), allowing certain accessories to be banned, and countless state-level restrictions on the purchase, trading, storage, etc. of firearms. All those compromises and the anti-gun crowd just keeps taking more and more.



Because I didn't say their 1st Amendment rights should be taken away. I'm still waiting for someone to quote where I said that. I want the exact post with the exact wording. Keep in mind, I know you think this is going to be a softball that I'm tossing you, but it's not going to be the "gotcha!" moment you think it will. And just because I'm a bit paranoid, I even took a screenshot of the post already just in case a certain moderator that I know has a grudge with me tries to edit the post to make it look like I said something I didn't.



Well, you are free to quote the post where I said it. Come on man, I'd think you'd jump at the opportunity to shut me up. But just like the 1st Amendment thing, you keep saying I said something but can't quite seem to produce the post where I said it when I ask you to back up your claim.

Yeah yeah we get it, you didn't actually say the things you said right here.

Throw more rhetorical molotovs; salt the earth and call it peace.

 

[Commodore]

I'm not sure I agree with this

That doesn't stop it from being true. Every piece of gun legislation that imposes any kind of restriction on gun ownership represents a compromise 2nd Amendment advocates have made. Yet despite all those compromises, the anti-gun crowd still claims it's not enough. So yeah, 2nd Amendment advocates are finally starting to draw a line in the sand.

"Defending my 2nd Amendment right includes intentionally depriving others of their right to life" is most definitely not what the constitution means. Jesus.

You sure? Because what's the point in giving people the right to bear arms if they aren't allowed to use those arms?

I have acknowledged/mentioned this issue before... with no acknowledgment from you... look:

I miss posts. It happens. Especially posts that aren't directed towards me since I don't know if it's just me or not, but my alerts seem to be very inconsistent in what they inform me of.

Yeah yeah we get it, you didn't actually say the things you said right here.

Still can't provide that proof eh?

When I posted this, I was talking about a documentary I saw that discussed "ghost guns", something I had never heard of before then. Since that time I have taken ghost guns into account when formulating my positions on gun regulation.

Yeah, the thing is, as of right now, ghost guns aren't technically illegal. That's why it's so hard to track the actual number of firearms anyone truly owns. Companies can sell what they call 80% lowers. Those are lower receivers for AR-15s that are only 80% complete and because they are only 80% complete, the law does not require them to have a serial number or maintain any record of their production because they do not qualify as a "complete firearm". So all someone has to do is purchase one of those 80% lowers and the other components to complete it, and they can build themselves an AR-15 that the government has no idea even exists. And it's perfectly legal.

Sales of 80% lowers are also increasing as gun owners' fears of a ban increases. An 80% lower is going to be my next purchase as I plan on building my own ghost gun. You know, just in case. So if that ban ever does come, the government may get my Ruger AR, but I plan to eventually have at least 3 or 4 AR ghost guns that they'll have no idea I have.

Even if someone manufactured their own complete firearm without the proper licensing or record keeping, that's not illegal either. It only becomes illegal if they try to sell a completed ghost gun. As long as they keep it for personal use though, it's totally legal.

Please say that you are joking/engaging in hyperbole about this. I know that this issue is important to you and you are frustrated about people's views on the topic,but... just please take this back, or confirm that this is tongue in cheek . I'll leave it at that.

Or what? You gonna drop an anonymous tip to the FBI?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Nah, I won't be shooting anyone. I'm just going to help facilitate those who do want to shoot people though. If I don't get to have my rights, you don't get to have your peaceful society.

Please never come to Canada. This is an attitude we don't need here.

So I take it you have never heard of moonshiners or drug cartels then? Make guns illegal and the legit gun makers today become the gun cartels of tomorrow.

Like there aren't already gun cartels...

It was a few decades ago. There's a been a very long term and high visibility government campaign against it that has changed the culture, coupled with fairly universally accepted random roadside breath testing points with no right of refusal. I was shocked how laissez faire Canadians and Americans were about drink driving, given I'm accustomed to carefully counting my beers and mentally calculating BAC on nights out where I've driven.

It seems that the current emphasis is on distracted driving and figuring out how to deal with impaired driving as it relates to cannabis use, when that becomes legal.

 

[rah]

That doesn't stop it from being true. Every piece of gun legislation that imposes any kind of restriction on gun ownership represents a compromise 2nd Amendment advocates have made.

BS, the NRA and people like you have fought every piece of gun legislation at every turn. Losing those fights can't be called compromise.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Posts like Commodore's are why I'm convinced that the violence we see won't ever be meaningfully addressed. Violence is deeply ingrained in our culture as a positive force and behavior, and a sense of innate (that is, not chosen) kinship or community is rejected, dismissed, or even ridiculed. Taken together, this means any number of people could die and it wouldn't budge the debate, because for one side, the people who die by violence aren't connected to their position on or use of violence. To gun enthusiasts, the murders of children is of course horrifying, but drawing a line from that to their individual ownership of a gun is, to them, a non-sequitur. That's why I'm in favor of, among other things, repealing the 2nd Amendment, because it's just a barrier to progress now. (To be clear, I know it won't be repealed, I'm just saying I think it ought to be.) Commodore's post is also a nice illustration of why I don't usually bother describing my own position on guns in much detail (it's more nuanced than "ban all guns"), because any regulation at all is interpreted as an unconscionable oppression of their natural rights on the slippery slope to tyranny.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's pretty easy to draw the parallels when "there is no reason for long pointy kitchen knives" is apparently, according to snopes, a real thing.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why should I care? Anti-gun people already think all gun owners are evil just for merely owning a gun so why not embrace it? Stanford Prison Experiment: people will start to act in accordance with how they are treated. Treat me like I'm evil, then I'm going to start being evil.

Isn't that a bit, for want of a better word, stoopid?

 

[inthesomeday]

@Commodore

Should the Black Panther Party have been legally allowed to shoot and kill police on sight during the 60s under the 2nd Amendment? I certainly think so, they were a well-regulated militia that bore arms to defend their community against a tyrannical government. What do you think?

 

[Synobun]

Your right to take life doesn't supersede someone's right to not have their life taken.

Commodore, the sentiments you're expressing could be reported in some countries and have you put on watch lists. Are you sure you want to go saying these things all the while publicly stating that you're making a secret indoor gun range? You're intentionally portraying yourself as a radicalized element for a laugh, I hope. If you're being honest about these views and plans, that's worth some worry on our part.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I miss posts. It happens.

My point is that the ghost gun issue has been acknowledged/recognized by someone who tends to disagree with you on some of the overall gun regulation issues. Again, how ghost guns will be addressed should be part of the consideration on new gun regulation and enforcement. However, I don't accept the reasoning/implication that because ghost guns are a thing, that any new regulatory measures are pointless or impossible.

Or what? You gonna drop an anonymous tip to the FBI?

No Commodore. No, I'm not. If that's the hill you wanna die on, fine. "I'll leave it at that" was what I said, and what I meant.

 

[Farm Boy]

The word you are looking for is inevitable, Manfred. Though it's probably more fun to apply stupid in some situations than others where the principle applies. Less fun when teen girls learn to act like they're worthless and stupid. Less fun when black teens learn they are frightening. More fun when Jareth is exhausted from living up to your expectations.

 

[Commodore]

It's pretty easy to draw the parallels when "there is no reason for long pointy kitchen knives" is apparently, according to snopes, a real thing.

Read a few days ago the mayor of London is considering "knife control" because of all the stabbings that have taken place recently. So far this year there have been more murders in London than in New York.

Which brings me to an interesting point: When people compare the US to other countries on this matter, they only compare gun violence rates and of course point to less gun violence in other countries as evidence that gun control works. However, I think a better comparison would be to compare overall violent crime rates to determine what impact gun control really has on violent crime. Right now, it's looking like the answer is "not much" since the UK has gun control, yet violent crimes in London are still a problem. Kinda proves the point that if you take guns away, criminals will just move on to some other weapon.

Should the Black Panther Party have been legally allowed to shoot and kill police on sight during the 60s under the 2nd Amendment? I certainly think so, they were a well-regulated militia that bore arms to defend their community against a tyrannical government. What do you think?

Legally? No, but that's because the government is always going to say it is unlawful for citizens to fight back against them. Morally though? Yes. Attempts to disarm black militias during the Civil Rights Movement were clear violations of their 2nd Amendment rights, and as such they had every right to use those arms to defend themselves and their communities.

while publicly stating that you're making a secret indoor gun range?

Well if I'm stating it publicly, then it really isn't secret now is it? And I would have it out in the open in my backyard if I could, but I live too close to other people for a backyard range to be legal. It is, however, legal for me to build one in my basement.

Also, the construction I'm doing down in my basement requires a building permit, which requires me to divulge the purpose of the construction so local authorities can determine if my plans fall within applicable safety regulations and building codes. I also have to let my home insurance company know about it as well.

The point I'm making is that there's nothing secret or illegal about what I'm doing. That didn't stop you from trying to make it seem more sinister than what it really is though, did it?

Your right to take life doesn't supersede someone's right to not have their life taken.

Which is precisely the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Glad we agree.

 

[Farm Boy]

I've been reading it's not legal to carry a knife in public in London, actually, unless you're using it for work or something. Not sure on my sourcing, but nobody chimed in to answer my question. Also, there are panels of chefs and whatnot you can look up that say there are no reasons that anyone should be able to have a long kitchen knife with a point in their house, since they are used in crimes of passion and other tools can do the cooking work.

So you aren't wrong when you say they'll never leave you alone. You know you aren't wrong, they won't. That type of person never does, it's their thing. So we have to try and walk the line between people that actually want .50 caliber belt fed guns in their apartment, which is dumb to allow, and holding the line against those who would eventually come for your teeth if the can. Personally, I don't see a ton of compelling evidence for high capacity high rate of fire rifles. Mass shooting incidents primarily use these, and those are the most politically effective events for they who actively desire to be tyrants. 5 shots on a reload with a rilfe seems good enough for hunting and defense to me. Maybe more if it's a bolt, maybe not. Same with a pump shotgun. Pistols are harder to aim, I'd go a bit higher, but hey. That's me. The regulation has to be its own reward. If we put in my compromises, some of the people who want your guns will still want your knives.