TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
you remember when during one of your up and down roller coaster moments you were like "dude i think we can totally be cool friends" and i was like "nah, you're a little bitch" ??? 
The Great American Gun Fetish
- Thread starter UltimateApathy
- Start date
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
big-eared Biff Tannen.
LOL!
The best part is you think you're annoying me but i think you're at your best after taking a few shots, big-eared jackie
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
The UK's overall homicide rate is only about 4x lower than the USA's (though Japan's is about 25x lower). Look at only white Americans and the murder rates are nearly identical (though admittedly most European nations lack clean ethnic criminality statistics; I could imagine that if one controls for Pakis and other such things that the white UK murder rate could still be a bit lower). A gun ban won't do much to prevent the most common forms of murder, which are violence committed by non-whites/Asians, and domestic murder (generally husband/bf on wife/gf). Spree shootings in America are basically at record highs right now, and still make up only roughly 0.5% of the overall homicide rate.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
So the fact that it won’t prevent the most common forms of murder means that it’s not, at the very least, worth reducing murder by banning legal purchase of fire arms? 4 to 25x is a pretty noticeable difference.
Also, do you mean that the most common forms of murder are committed without the use of fire arms or with fire arms purchased illegally?
Also, do you mean that the most common forms of murder are committed without the use of fire arms or with fire arms purchased illegally?
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
For the record, I’ve never attempted to purchase a fire arm or get a concealed carry permit so my opinion on the matter doesn’t come from envy. It’s also worth noting that lots of people with mental disorders are either not diagnosed or misdiagnosed so properly screening for mental illness would come with near limitless shades of grey. I’m also not convinced that some deranged fuck hasn’t or couldn’t exploit it.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
I wouldn't call 4x a great difference, particularly when there are many third-world nations with similar living standards of the average American ghetto, that have also banned guns. UK's overall homicide rate has only fluctuated by about 2x, and the gun ban did not change that much.
In America, guns are the most commonly used murder weapon, I believe close to two-thirds of all murders using them. Banning virtually all guns, after an inevitably-tumultuous enforcement phase, would serve to reduce the gun homicide rate severely while concomitantly increasing government calls for knoife bins. It wouldn't stop guys from strangling their wives to death and it won't stop Tyrone from stabbing Tyreese to death for wearing the wrong colors.
I do agree that "mental health" is largely an NRA/Republican meme to the extent that it isn't a practical solution. There would be even more hurdles getting universal mental screening as there are in getting universal gun bans, or universal illicit drug bans. It's a politically-useful meme, however, so I endorse its use.
In America, guns are the most commonly used murder weapon, I believe close to two-thirds of all murders using them. Banning virtually all guns, after an inevitably-tumultuous enforcement phase, would serve to reduce the gun homicide rate severely while concomitantly increasing government calls for knoife bins. It wouldn't stop guys from strangling their wives to death and it won't stop Tyrone from stabbing Tyreese to death for wearing the wrong colors.
I do agree that "mental health" is largely an NRA/Republican meme to the extent that it isn't a practical solution. There would be even more hurdles getting universal mental screening as there are in getting universal gun bans, or universal illicit drug bans. It's a politically-useful meme, however, so I endorse its use.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Let's not forget that London's homicide rate is on par with NYC and we have guns. What does that tell you? Yes, gun violence is down but other forms of violence went up. Criminals gonna criminal, murderers gon murder. The method of crime will change based on the laws on the books. Should we outlaw a method used for crime with that in mind?
Where does your opinion come from, then?
I'll bite but given our past history I don't know if you'll even take me seriously or sincerely think about the scenarios I'm going pose here:
My opinion on the matter is that all gun laws are infringements. Why is the 2A the only amendment to say that it '...shall not be infringed'?
'But muh militia!'
You are a member of the militia as an able bodied US male under United States Code. Get fucked with that argument:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
'But muh 'it was meant for hunting!'
Where does it say that? Are you able to interpret what the 2A means but make the argument that we cannot interpret what the founding fathers meant? Get fucked again.
'But muh 'It was meant for muskets!'
Caetano v Massachusetts says you're wrong. Again, get fucked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
That particular case was about a woman who carried a taser for protection and getting arrested for it.
At this point, as Dak indicated, anyone's argument about banning guns devolves into 'muh think of the children!' and other emotional pleas I don't care about. Your emotions shouldn't dictate how I'm able to defend myself. I can't fathom how someone who is, say, 25 is willing to give up their right to defend themselves using a particular weapon. I mean that person is basically saying they will never change their mind sometime in the next 50 years and say 'You know, I would really like to have a gun to defend myself from these cretins who keep mugging me but I voted to have guns confiscated under the last administration. I guess I'll let myself get raped this week and hope someone is finally caught and goes to jail'. I call bullshit. Most people who want these 'blanket bans' or "improved" background checks don't actually understand how the process works or don't understand the long reaching effects of these types of legislative actions. Look at the UK. You can't even have a butter knife in public without getting charged with a crime. Migrants rape women with impunity but someone speaking out against it on Facebook can get jailed for multiple years.
While I understand that 'all gun laws are infringements' is a very radical viewpoint, I'm realistic about the current environment with this and don't believe current gun legislation is going away. However, I also don't believe a blanket ban will happen either because of logistics. You also have LEOs who will not enforce federal gun confiscation if it happens. Sure, some police officers will because 'I'm just doin' muh jorb, sir' but faced with the prospect of losing their lives over taking guns from people who are probably more heavily armed than they are, they are going to go home to their families instead. There are enough pro-gun LEOs that I don't think doing something like this is possible.
The whole premise of the gun control argument has been about compromise. The compromise has actually been the anti-2A side 'taking' from the pro-2A side and the pro-2A side getting nothing in return. It has never been about a 'give/take' scenario. At this point, gun control is merely a channel to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens piece by piece until all we have to defend ourselves from a totalitarian government are bolt action Mosin Nagants, J-frame revolvers and 28" barrel length waterfowl guns. Not very effective for protecting yourself from individuals who have weapons not available to civilians because 'muh emotions'
'bUt YoU cAn'T tAkE oN tHe GuBmEnT bY yOuRsElVeS'
The Vietnamese would like a word with you AND they did it with inferior weapons in some respects.
If someone who were anti-2A in Congress were to say 'Hey, would you be okay on a ban of AR-15 style rifles if we allowed nationwide constitutional carry?', that would be a way to start the conversation about 'compromise'. Even if the collective gun community says 'No fucking way' to something like that, it would at least get the ball rolling with civil conversation and with finding a way to actually end these mass shootings.
Mass shootings are still extremely rare in the grand scheme of violent acts that take place in the USA. Gang violence is more prevalent but we care more about school age children as a society than random gang bangers in Detroit. That's just the way the world is these days.
"30 round magazines should be banned"
Why? What is someone's reasoning for this? Are you saying that the granny who lives in a farm with 20+ acres should only need 10 round to defend herself from intruders on her land or wild animals trying to kill her livestock? What if she is older and has a tremor? Do you expect her to be able to land at least 50% of the rounds in the animals eating her livestock with this in mind?
Do you expect her to have, say, 80% accuracy under such a stressful situations such as engaging targets with a rifle? Not to mention the fact that you have to get past the mental block in your head of 'Oh fuck, I'm about to potentially take a life'
What if this is your mother or father? Does your viewpoint still change that we shouldn't have 30 round magazines?
"AR-15s should be banned"
See above: If you're on a farm, a shotgun has ZERO effectiveness past, say, 25 yards depending on the round you use. A handgun has minimal effectiveness at 50 yards. Are you going to wait to engage targets until they get within 25 yards or are you going to start engaging them sooner than that especially if you notice that they have weapons, armor and whatever else and refuse to identify themselves after you yell and ask them to do so?
Should I go into the argument about gun control being rooted in racism or is this enough of a 'constructive retort' for you? My assumption is that you have zero knowledge of firearms and probably have never even fired one.
Should I go into the argument that LEOs have a ~20% hit ratio on targets when they shoot at them on the street?
Like Dak also indicated: this probably won't change your mind on the subject, but this gives you what the other side thinks about and what most anti-gunners don't think about when it comes to blanket confiscation or blanket ban on future sales.
I didn't own a firearm until 2016. There was never a gun in the house growing up and I was lucky enough to grow up in safe enough areas where that didn't have to be an option. I've been pro-2A since I was about 16 years old (roughly but I had exposure to firearms before then) and only recently have I become more 'entrenched' in the culture and more rabid about it.
The right to self-preservation precedes any legal definition of what that is. It's a human right. As a result, it is my opinion that if I choose firearms as a method of self preservation against others trying to revoke my right to live, it should not be infringed upon for me to do that. The 2A solidifies this as a right we all should have and I believe they put it in there as a means of 'self preservation' and the right to life dictated in the Declaration of Independence.
Correct. It won't stop illegal firearm purchases which is what you would have to worry about with the blanket ban.
Where does your opinion come from, then?
I'll bite but given our past history I don't know if you'll even take me seriously or sincerely think about the scenarios I'm going pose here:
My opinion on the matter is that all gun laws are infringements. Why is the 2A the only amendment to say that it '...shall not be infringed'?
'But muh militia!'
You are a member of the militia as an able bodied US male under United States Code. Get fucked with that argument:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
'But muh 'it was meant for hunting!'
Where does it say that? Are you able to interpret what the 2A means but make the argument that we cannot interpret what the founding fathers meant? Get fucked again.
'But muh 'It was meant for muskets!'
Caetano v Massachusetts says you're wrong. Again, get fucked:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
That particular case was about a woman who carried a taser for protection and getting arrested for it.
At this point, as Dak indicated, anyone's argument about banning guns devolves into 'muh think of the children!' and other emotional pleas I don't care about. Your emotions shouldn't dictate how I'm able to defend myself. I can't fathom how someone who is, say, 25 is willing to give up their right to defend themselves using a particular weapon. I mean that person is basically saying they will never change their mind sometime in the next 50 years and say 'You know, I would really like to have a gun to defend myself from these cretins who keep mugging me but I voted to have guns confiscated under the last administration. I guess I'll let myself get raped this week and hope someone is finally caught and goes to jail'. I call bullshit. Most people who want these 'blanket bans' or "improved" background checks don't actually understand how the process works or don't understand the long reaching effects of these types of legislative actions. Look at the UK. You can't even have a butter knife in public without getting charged with a crime. Migrants rape women with impunity but someone speaking out against it on Facebook can get jailed for multiple years.
While I understand that 'all gun laws are infringements' is a very radical viewpoint, I'm realistic about the current environment with this and don't believe current gun legislation is going away. However, I also don't believe a blanket ban will happen either because of logistics. You also have LEOs who will not enforce federal gun confiscation if it happens. Sure, some police officers will because 'I'm just doin' muh jorb, sir' but faced with the prospect of losing their lives over taking guns from people who are probably more heavily armed than they are, they are going to go home to their families instead. There are enough pro-gun LEOs that I don't think doing something like this is possible.
The whole premise of the gun control argument has been about compromise. The compromise has actually been the anti-2A side 'taking' from the pro-2A side and the pro-2A side getting nothing in return. It has never been about a 'give/take' scenario. At this point, gun control is merely a channel to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens piece by piece until all we have to defend ourselves from a totalitarian government are bolt action Mosin Nagants, J-frame revolvers and 28" barrel length waterfowl guns. Not very effective for protecting yourself from individuals who have weapons not available to civilians because 'muh emotions'
'bUt YoU cAn'T tAkE oN tHe GuBmEnT bY yOuRsElVeS'
The Vietnamese would like a word with you AND they did it with inferior weapons in some respects.
If someone who were anti-2A in Congress were to say 'Hey, would you be okay on a ban of AR-15 style rifles if we allowed nationwide constitutional carry?', that would be a way to start the conversation about 'compromise'. Even if the collective gun community says 'No fucking way' to something like that, it would at least get the ball rolling with civil conversation and with finding a way to actually end these mass shootings.
Mass shootings are still extremely rare in the grand scheme of violent acts that take place in the USA. Gang violence is more prevalent but we care more about school age children as a society than random gang bangers in Detroit. That's just the way the world is these days.
"30 round magazines should be banned"
Why? What is someone's reasoning for this? Are you saying that the granny who lives in a farm with 20+ acres should only need 10 round to defend herself from intruders on her land or wild animals trying to kill her livestock? What if she is older and has a tremor? Do you expect her to be able to land at least 50% of the rounds in the animals eating her livestock with this in mind?
Do you expect her to have, say, 80% accuracy under such a stressful situations such as engaging targets with a rifle? Not to mention the fact that you have to get past the mental block in your head of 'Oh fuck, I'm about to potentially take a life'
What if this is your mother or father? Does your viewpoint still change that we shouldn't have 30 round magazines?
"AR-15s should be banned"
See above: If you're on a farm, a shotgun has ZERO effectiveness past, say, 25 yards depending on the round you use. A handgun has minimal effectiveness at 50 yards. Are you going to wait to engage targets until they get within 25 yards or are you going to start engaging them sooner than that especially if you notice that they have weapons, armor and whatever else and refuse to identify themselves after you yell and ask them to do so?
Should I go into the argument about gun control being rooted in racism or is this enough of a 'constructive retort' for you? My assumption is that you have zero knowledge of firearms and probably have never even fired one.
Should I go into the argument that LEOs have a ~20% hit ratio on targets when they shoot at them on the street?
Like Dak also indicated: this probably won't change your mind on the subject, but this gives you what the other side thinks about and what most anti-gunners don't think about when it comes to blanket confiscation or blanket ban on future sales.
I didn't own a firearm until 2016. There was never a gun in the house growing up and I was lucky enough to grow up in safe enough areas where that didn't have to be an option. I've been pro-2A since I was about 16 years old (roughly but I had exposure to firearms before then) and only recently have I become more 'entrenched' in the culture and more rabid about it.
The right to self-preservation precedes any legal definition of what that is. It's a human right. As a result, it is my opinion that if I choose firearms as a method of self preservation against others trying to revoke my right to live, it should not be infringed upon for me to do that. The 2A solidifies this as a right we all should have and I believe they put it in there as a means of 'self preservation' and the right to life dictated in the Declaration of Independence.
Correct. It won't stop illegal firearm purchases which is what you would have to worry about with the blanket ban.
Last edited:
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,842
- 674
- 113
I have been shooting guns since I was 8 when my dad got my brother and I BB/pellet guns. We used to shoot and kill birds and squirrels while riding around on a golf cart. My dad had tons of guns in the house and ive been target practicing since ive been about 13/14, been hunting fox/racoons on the farm since 15 with a 22 rifle, and got my first shotgun at 16. I honestly don't LOVE guns, but they certainly are fun to shoot with a group of friends in the back yard - ok, for most people it's a shooting range, but im rural and we can drink beer, fuck yea America. Exploding targets are the best, but I havent shot them since my friend died (brain aneurysm not gun related). Going to shoot clays at the local gun club with their crazy throwers is fun too, but I havent done it in years. I personally want to get more into archery, but I don't have access to a bow any more (friend of my dad had a nice bow, but he died and his family took it).
Yea, I don't really care for all the 2A talk, figured I would just talk about being an American and my life of being a gunslinging redneck. Guns are here to stay, make the best of it.
Yea, I don't really care for all the 2A talk, figured I would just talk about being an American and my life of being a gunslinging redneck. Guns are here to stay, make the best of it.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Einherjar86
Active Member
The second amendment refers specifically to a “well regulated militia,” which is usually taken to mean the first class of militia—i.e. the national guard, not just any old citizen looking for a gun.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
You didn't read that link then because what you've just said is wrong.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/militia/
I know, 'muh snopes'
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dick-act-of-1902/
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
The burden is now on you to prove the interpretation I have of this is incorrect. It says 'well regulated militia', not 'well regulated organized militia'
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,144
- 466
- 83
- 46
@Einherjar86
i always interpreted the "well regulated" part as being
"trained in how to shoot accurately enough to hit the enemy you're aiming at instead of just accidentally hitting your innocent friends"
and "not psychotic" and "not sociopathic" etc etc
and i always assumed "militia" to be separate from actual "military" where random civilians could get guns (like a "neighborhood watch" or something like that)
i always interpreted the "well regulated" part as being
"trained in how to shoot accurately enough to hit the enemy you're aiming at instead of just accidentally hitting your innocent friends"
and "not psychotic" and "not sociopathic" etc etc
and i always assumed "militia" to be separate from actual "military" where random civilians could get guns (like a "neighborhood watch" or something like that)
Einherjar86
Active Member
How is a militia regulated if it isn’t organized?
The government doesn’t regulate citizens who are only virtual members of the militia; it can only regulate the militia once it’s organized as part of a government institution, e.g. the National Guard.
The government doesn’t regulate citizens who are only virtual members of the militia; it can only regulate the militia once it’s organized as part of a government institution, e.g. the National Guard.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Because 'regulated' doesn't have the traditional meaning in this context
https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Einherjar86
Active Member
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,144
- 466
- 83
- 46
@Einherjar86
i agree with @The Ozzman here
i was always under the impression that "militia" and "military" were 2 completely separate things
and that american civilians are specifically allowed to own guns as directly opposed to those specific countries where only military soldiers can have guns
the 2nd amendment would then therefore mean that civilians could be armed and specifically allowed shoot invaders if there was ever enemy ground-troops invading american soil
i agree with @The Ozzman here
i was always under the impression that "militia" and "military" were 2 completely separate things
and that american civilians are specifically allowed to own guns as directly opposed to those specific countries where only military soldiers can have guns
the 2nd amendment would then therefore mean that civilians could be armed and specifically allowed shoot invaders if there was ever enemy ground-troops invading american soil
Similar threads
