Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
I haven't heard anyone talk about disarming the USA. Not one person even after all of our shootings. . .
The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
I haven't heard anyone talk about disarming the USA. Not one person even after all of our shootings. . .
Firearms are a institutional norm in the US. It is ingrained in our culture and has been instrumental in the development and progression of the American way of life. People/politicians/etc throughout this country and others are constantly bringing up full confiscation, this however will never occur.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Who is bringing this up? Please list anyone actually serious in nature. I've got my ear to the ground generally and I'm not hearing this anywhere. Ever.
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns
It may not always be out right said but a majority of democrats do indeed eventually want to ban all guns. Also to be fair, at the current time this will never come to pass but give it fifty years for the demographics to change and we may well see this. The portion of the population who own guns is getting smaller and smaller (legal gun owners that is). In 50 years I suspect that the portion of the population owning firearms for personal use will be somewhere around 30-35%.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns
It may not always be out right said but a majority of democrats do indeed eventually want to ban all guns. Also to be fair, at the current time this will never come to pass but give it fifty years for the demographics to change and we may well see this. The portion of the population who own guns is getting smaller and smaller (legal gun owners that is). In 50 years I suspect that the portion of the population owning firearms for personal use will be somewhere around 30-35%.
But those don't show what you are claiming they show. The Washington Examiner claims its survey shows most Democrats want to ban all guns but even on handguns slightly more Democrats opposed banning them than supported it.
Weak argument when your source also claims that Republicans are within margin of error to a 50-50 split on the issue - and weaker still when the majority of democrats opposed a handgun ban.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Ok so Feinstein almost 30 years ago. Biden without citation. The only two you can find. That's not very bloody threatening. Maybe you are right in fifty years the dial moves on this topic, but that's bloody natural for topics to change over time. You don't get to dictate your morals forever and ever amen.
So realize that the only people talking about banning guns right now are right wing talking point places (talk radio, fox news, right wing social media) and they are doing it to get their base angry. You are being manipulated like a pawn.
There are literally bills being introduced at both the state and city levels all over the the US that seek to ban certain types of firearms. And some of those bills have even passed already. That is disarmament.
Then you don't have your ear as close to the ground as you think you do.
It only weakens his argument if he is trying to claim that only Democrats oppose gun ownership. However, the fact that even Republicans are becoming more and more split on the issue highlights his point of the demographic shift that is turning against gun owners. And this shift is starting to have real results in elections already. In the midterms, something like 15 Republicans that had an A+ rating from the NRA were replaced by 15 Republicans that have an F rating from the NRA. In other words, pro-2nd Amendment Republicans are starting to get replaced by anti-gun Republicans.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Banning certain types of firearms is not banning all guns. . . words matter. This is like talking to a wall your brains are so twisted.
NRA has a radical agenda that's why they are being voted out. The population doesn't support semi automatic high velocity rifles for every person interested in them. Its not popular.
Gun people don't care and the NRA is quite happy to take Russian money.
That's not a fair interpretation of what he said. You're strawmanning.
Bundy? Jeez man you need a new hero/posterboy for the cause. I mean you somewhat admit that he's a flawed example... but you should probably just abandon him and get a better example entirely... And if you can't find one, think about what that means.
The Coal Wars aren't "recent" You're stretching now... see my above point about that.
If that's true, then think about why that is and whose fault that is. I think it would mostly be the fault of 2nd Amendment fanatics, and grievance -warriors who refuse to take personal responsibility for the failings of their own lives and delusional racists/white nationalists who think that America becoming less whatever-the-hell-they-see-themselves-as is some kind of existential threat to them personally.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Bundy is actually a good example for those arguing in favour of gun control.
Some guy is breaking the law, but the government hesitates to turn the situation into a bloodbath when they want to uphold the law, because the guy breaking the law is armed to the teeth. Alternatively: The government should not hesitate and use all the means at their disposal to bring these people to justice. Including tanks and fighter jets. Bundy doesn't want to surrender? Make his little ranch a nice hot crater.
But then people would go: look at the evil gubbermint! They be bombing our own people.
So because a certain right may no longer be "popular" that justifies either taking that right away or severely curtailing that right?
I didn't say they were recent. I said the incident with Bundy was recent, but there are other examples, such as the Coal Wars, scattered throughout US history. Reading comprehension is your friend.
That's actually a good thing though. While the situation with Bundy was a clear case of him violating a just law, having an armed citizenry that makes the government hesitant to enforce their laws can act as a defense against unjust laws. Sure, reducing the government's ability to enforce laws overall can make society more dangerous, but I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's way of thinking on the matter:
Thomas Jefferson said:
So were you in favor of the Chinese using their military to quell the Tienanmen Square protests? After all, those protesters were violating Chinese law and according to you the government "should not hesitate and use all the means at their disposal to bring these people to justice."
Are you starting to see why "law" does not always equal "justice" and why the government absolutely should not have a monopoly on lethal force?
Meh... I'd say that my "reading comprehension" has been checked, tested, certified, etc., by several learned institutions and government entities... so I'm all good, thanks.
The point is that you seem to have no good, recent examples of how your position is relevant/valid/meaningful/useful, etc, which greatly undermines your position, making it appear obsolete. Questioning/insulting my "reading comprehension" does nothing to address the flaws in your argument.
Your argument is poor and weak. Deflecting to my "reading comprehension" doesn't change that. You need a better example than Bundy and something more recent than the Coal Wars. Either you have it or you don't.
Last edited:
Implying that said institutions are actually qualified to make such a judgement...
So rights should only remain intact if there is a recent example of them being needed? Keep in mind here, the right in question and the right the 2nd Amendment seeks to preserve is not the right to own a gun, but rather the inherent right that every human being has from birth to be able to defend themselves and their property in anyway they see fit. Hence why recently the nunchuck ban in New York was struck down as a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Which, by the way, is a significant ruling. More significant than either the anti-gun crowd or the pro-2nd Amendment advocates seem to realize. It sets a legal precedent that bans on specific types of weapons are indeed unconstitutional. So if the right people really wanted to push the issue, they could use that ruling to get the ban on certain types of firearms and firearm accessories declared unconstitutional. Especially since the ruling stated that banning a type of weapon simply "because it's dangerous" is not a good enough reason to justify an abridgement of one's 2nd Amendment rights. And that's big because the "because they are dangerous" is literally the only reasoning the anti-gun crowd has for justifying any type of gun legislation.
Funny that a case involving a non-firearm weapon may be the thing that saves gun ownership in the US.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Yes, because in this case it isn't taking away or severely curtailing the fundamental right. Furthermore if two thirds of the states decided to revoke the second amendment through a constitutional process that is also completely fine. I don;t support that I'm a fan of you crazy bastards out in the woods, I'd just like to see high capacity, high velocity, rounds disappear.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I read at the time that Trump's bump stock ban edict was engineered specifically to make it easy pickings for NRA lawyers to get shot down. I wouldn't put it past this President to collude with the NRA to set up this situation. Now he can claim he acted on gun violence and the NRA can have the ban reversed in short order. Of course it helps that the far right has heavily tilted the entire federal judiciary to the extreme right in the last two years thanks to stolen appointments at all levels. They won't have problems finding sympathetic courts to toss out the executive order and they will decline to appeal it when they lose.
Implying that the Deans of Universities and Boards of Law Examiners aren't qualified but you are.. lols
Commodore, I like you man... you're from Ohio, and that makes you peeps to me... Go Buckeyes!... (I just finished defending the Big 10's honor against a bunch of SEC bootlickers a minute ago)... but this whole line of argument you're making... its just... let it go man... its pointless.
Also... I love nunchucks... I can go behind the back and under the legs and around the belly with them and everything... but if they are banned... no problem I'll learn a new weapon
Last edited:
Just stop. I find it much more insulting when people who attack everything I stand for turn around and pretend to be friendly with me. The country is dividing and you and I are not on the same side of that divide. Best if we both remain honest with each other about that fact.
That's just it, they aren't banned anymore as the ban was declared to be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. The only state that is defiantly keeping their nunchuck ban in place is Maryland, but with the ruling that such a ban is unconstitutional, all it will take is one legal challenge and that ban goes bye-bye. Hopefully this ruling can also be used to start chipping away at gun laws that ban certain types of firearms as well.
Similar threads
