Alright eleusis,

Quote :

"So are you agreeing that in some cases the right to bear arms absolutely should be infringed? "

That's a very simple question, are you going to avoid it for a couple days or no?

10/3/2017 2:12:29 PM

I have an idea... let's light some candles and shelve this discussion until the next mass shooting.

Quote :

"Back at street level, yellow police tape stretches along the roads nearby. The lights on the world famous Las Vegas strip went dark last night, as hundreds gathered at a vigil. At another vigil at City Hall, 59 candles were lit, one for every person who perished."

Done!

I wonder if there is a threshold of dead from a single mass shooting that would make some people who oppose any gun control to think there should be some, and those who think there should be some to think maybe there should be a blanket ban like in most Western countries.

100?
500?
1,000?

What about people here? If you fall into any of the two categories mentioned above, please give us your figure.

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days: America's gun crisis – in one chart
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence

1,735 days
1,516 mass shootings
1,719 dead
6,510 injured

Click to see stick figures of all the dead and injured mentioned above.

10/3/2017 2:37:36 PM

^538 has a good article up on why mass shootings is not a good metric to base gun reform on.

10/3/2017 2:42:09 PM

^ Of course, mass shootings kill just around 1 person/day, whereas regular ol' murder kills 35/day.

But, it is mass shootings which bring people together as a nation and kick start the gun debate every single time.

Regular ol' murder no one cares about.

10/3/2017 2:54:52 PM

Quote :

"So are you agreeing that in some cases the right to bear arms absolutely should be infringed?"

That right is already "infringed upon" all the time anyway.

Airports, courtrooms, government buildings, schools, stadiums, banks, and even casinos have policies that prohibit them, and 99.9999999 % of the time people comply and don't bring guns to those places, because it's pretty much common sense that the 2nd Amendment doesn't actually mean everyone has the right to unlimited/unfettered access to guns every single place they go, regardless if it's public or private.

It's cute how gun nuts refuse to ever have a conversation about doing something to at least TRY and make mass shootings less likely to happen. They say "now isn't the time to bring up the issue. People are grieving and it's insensitive to politicize the deaths of innocent people." It's a bullshit, diversionary tactic that works pretty well, unfortunately.

A database keeping track of registered firearms and sales is not actually infringing on anyone's rights, unless you have this misguided notion that the 2nd amendment means you can just do whatever the fuck you want with firearms, consequences be damned. It would help if gun nuts would at least try to compromise a little on this issue, but they're petulant, insecure children that don't give a fuck about anyone else but themselves. Whoops, that wasn't very nice of me. Plz don't shoot!

10/3/2017 3:14:08 PM

Quote :

"So are you agreeing that in some cases the right to bear arms absolutely should be infringed?"

you want me to give up an inch on your strawman argument so that you can take a mile with regards to the second amendment?

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM. Reason : databases lead to confiscation. every. single. time.]

10/3/2017 3:20:46 PM

We just want to know if you think mentally ill felons should be allowed to purchase MK-19s.

10/3/2017 3:22:44 PM

and use that to justify why no one should be allowed to own semi-automatic rifles with more than a 5 round capacity, despite handguns accounting for the vast majority of homicides.

10/3/2017 3:24:26 PM

Wow, brought me to tears.

WATCH.

https://www.hannity.com/content/2017-10-03-vicious-jimmy-kimmel-blames-gop-trump-for-vegas-massacre

But I guess he is making too much sense for the 56 murder-enablers in the GOP

Quote :

"“You know, in February [President Trump] also signed a bill that made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns legally.”"

Someone explain this to me. How is this allowed?

10/3/2017 3:26:19 PM

Quote :

"Dont feel like typing it all out but in nutshell Chicago doesnt exist in a vacuum; "

Neither does St. Louis, which actually has one of the highest (if not highest, I forget which ranking they are tbh) murder rates in the country. It's a fairly blue city that would probably be better off in a blue state like Illinois, but since it's in MO and gun laws are super lax, gangbangers have super easy access to LEGAL firearms, as well as illegal ones.

People love to say "gun control doesn't work!!", but that's because the nation is a patchwork of pro-gun/anti-gun places, so it's off to a terrible start from the beginning.

The reality is that states with high gun ownership rates have more gun deaths:



It's not a difficult concept to understand, but for whatever reason, people refuse to accept it.

10/3/2017 3:27:22 PM

admitting there can be some infringement means 2 things:

1) You're not a fucking moron
2) Yes, you are now going to have to define, specifically if you want to participate in the debate, what you believe those infringements are and are not limited to because you can't just say, "NO INFRINGEMENT EVAR" (because you're not a fucking moron)

10/3/2017 3:28:43 PM

easier access to firearms leads to more suicides, great. does it lead to higher murder rates?

10/3/2017 3:30:08 PM

Quote :

"We just want to know if you think mentally ill felons should be allowed to purchase MK-19s."

Pretty basic question dude.

10/3/2017 3:30:42 PM

Quote :

"you want me to give up an inch on your strawman argument so that you can take a mile with regards to the second amendment? "

Your argument was simply 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED', this is a bullshit argument an you know it, that's why you can't answer a simple question.

10/3/2017 3:30:43 PM

the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to create safeguards against a tyrannical government. limiting firearms for the sole purpose of giving military and police a tactical advantage over citizens flies directly in the face of the intent of the 2nd amendment. so lets go back to the original argument being made as to why I opposed a ban on slidefire stocks. we're going to ignore the bullshit you added about felons and mentally deranged needing gun rights restrictions, as you never mentioned those in your original argument that slidefire stocks should be banned. Why do you think automatic weapons should be banned? do you agree with the ban of automatic weapons in 1986, but with grandfathering in the previously sold machine guns? do you think the anti-gun fanatics are going to be happy with simply banning slidefire stocks when it seems apparent that other guns purchased in California of all places had simple but illegal internal modifications that made them fully automatic? There's no way any anti-gunner comes out of this happy with anything short of a nationwide ban on AR15s, so do you agree with a ban on AR15 style weapons similar to the bans in MD, NY, or CA? Would you support a ban going forward while grandfathering the AR15s already in existence, or would you expect a buyback/destruction program to be implemented on existing rifles?

At what point in that slippery slope towards banning modification of AR15s or banning the entire gun platform altogether do you think we violated the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment? If you don't think it could ever get to that, remember that it already happened to some extent in 1994. A handful of presidential votes in Florida in 2000 were the only reason the AWB expired in 2004.

10/3/2017 4:07:37 PM

Quote :

"the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to create safeguards against a tyrannical government. "

It actually wasn't, it was put in place to allow citizens to help put down shit like Shay's Rebellion, but that's not important.

Quote :

"limiting firearms for the sole purpose of giving military and police a tactical advantage over citizens flies directly in the face of the intent of the 2nd amendment"

If a tyrannical government does decide to put down a militia group, they're going to use drones, heavy armor vehicles, and loads of shit that civilians will never have access to. A Good ole boy with an AR-15 ain't going to do shit against the US Military.

Quote :

"we're going to ignore the bullshit you added"

Only because your argument in support of those devices was 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'

Quote :

"Why do you think automatic weapons should be banned?"

For the time being, I think the current process is fine (tax stamp and the extra license). It's prohibitively expensive to get a fully automatic rifle. That doesn't mean I can't change my mind based on future events.

Quote :

"There's no way any anti-gunner comes out of this happy with anything short of a nationwide ban on AR15s"

I'm not anti-gun, so not my circus, not my monkeys. I think you, and a vast majority of people think anyone who mentions gun control is 'COMING TO TAKE AWAY THE GUNS'. I mean, your very first accusation at me was 'oh, do you think guns are loud and scary' or some bullshit. I've fired and handled way guns and munitions than 99% of Americans, I go shooting when I get the chance, that doesn't mean I fall in line with your NRA driven 'omg they want to take our guns'

Quote :

"so do you agree with a ban on AR15 style weapons similar to the bans in MD, NY, or CA"

I honestly don't care one way or another. I don't see an AR as a self defense weapon, so I don't see it as an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights, and clearly the courts don't either.

Quote :

" Would you support a ban going forward while grandfathering the AR15s already in existence, or would you expect a buyback/destruction program to be implemented on existing rifles? "

Haven't thought too hard about it.


Your whole argument is just 'OMG SLIPPERY SLOPE' because anyone who is for gun control is for taking away your guns.

I want a background check system that works, I want gun registration, I want harsher penalties for negligent discharges, and I want devices that exist only to circumvent federal laws to be outlawed.

10/3/2017 4:22:34 PM

Quote :

"we're going to ignore the bullshit you added about felons and mentally deranged needing gun rights restrictions, as you never mentioned those in your original argument that slidefire stocks should be banned. Why do you think automatic weapons should be banned? do you agree with the ban of automatic weapons in 1986, but with grandfathering in the previously sold machine guns? do you think the anti-gun fanatics are going to be happy with simply banning slidefire stocks when it seems apparent that other guns purchased in California of all places had simple but illegal internal modifications that made them fully automatic? There's no way any anti-gunner comes out of this happy with anything short of a nationwide ban on AR15s, so do you agree with a ban on AR15 style weapons similar to the bans in MD, NY, or CA? Would you support a ban going forward while grandfathering the AR15s already in existence, or would you expect a buyback/destruction program to be implemented on existing rifles? "

tl;dr - I'm going to ignore your simple questions and instead as you a shitload of other questions.

We're merely seeing where you draw the line. If automatic weapons are SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED what else falls under that sweeping language? Should I be able to purchase a MK-19? Where do you draw the line?

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 4:41 PM. Reason : bbehe answered every single question you asked. see it ain't hard.]

10/3/2017 4:41:12 PM

democrats are making a mistake trying to appease these people. what ends up happening is they pass some bullshit "gun control", it doesnt work because it was too soff to work, then they come back and say "see, gum control doesnt work"

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 4:42 PM. Reason : background checks mean nothing if they dont have a history]

10/3/2017 4:41:13 PM

And mandatory insurance and training for gun owners. Same as driving a car. If you want to own a gun then you are required to have insurance and pass accuracy and knowledge tests.

10/3/2017 4:48:30 PM

Quote :

"If a tyrannical government does decide to put down a militia group, they're going to use drones, heavy armor vehicles, and loads of shit that civilians will never have access to. A Good ole boy with an AR-15 ain't going to do shit against the US Military. "

I guess that's why we royally fucked up a bunch of rice farmers with rusted out SKS's in Vietnam, right? and why we had so much success in Iraq against insurgents and left that area as a bastion of stability?

Quote :

"And mandatory insurance and training for gun owners. Same as driving a car. If you want to own a gun then you are required to have insurance and pass accuracy and knowledge tests."

so $5 for a voter ID is oppression, but making gun ownership financially impossible for anyone beyond upper middle class is A-OK?

Quote :

" I don't see an AR as a self defense weapon, so I don't see it as an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights"

the 2nd Amendment is not about self-defense, and I do see AR15s as a self-defense weapon. Conversely, I think handguns are poor choices for self defense.

Quote :

" I go shooting when I get the chance, that doesn't mean I fall in line with your NRA driven 'omg they want to take our guns'"

I'm not a member of the NRA, but 1994 proved their stance is correct. there are multiple people on this board openly advocating for banning any and all private gun ownership. To pretend like they don't mean exactly what they say is craziness.

Quote :

"I want a background check system that works, I want gun registration, I want harsher penalties for negligent discharges, and I want devices that exist only to circumvent federal laws to be outlawed."

I would love to see the US government open up the background check system to private citizens, but that keeps getting fought by both sides of the aisle. Gun registration is a no-go because all it will lead to is confiscation once the Democrats gain control. New Yorkers knew better than to register their rifles under the SAFE act; only 25,000 registrations were received for the estimated 1,000,000 firearms believed to be owned in the state that fell under the mandatory registration guidelines.

Regarding devices that exist to circumvent federal laws - the ATF can't ever seem to make up their mind about what is legal and what isn't. our current laws regarding short-barreled rifles and suppressors are completely asinine. I have a suppressed SBR platform that requires 2 tax stamps and an ATF 5320 form to transport across state lines. If I weld the suppressor to the short barrel, then I only need one tax stamp and no 5320 form. Does that qualify as a circumvention of federal law? What about those hideous sig braces that everyone uses as a stock on their SBRs to avoid applying for an SBR tax stamp altogether? The ATF seems to be perfectly fine with them for some reason, much like they were up until this point with the slidefire stocks.

10/3/2017 5:26:48 PM

So still not willing to saw where you draw the line eh?

You're accusing people on this board of wanting to ban all privately guns in this country, honestly without many posts that support that, but are we to assume you desire the opposite, all the guns for all the people? Why are you so unwilling to address that point?

10/3/2017 5:32:34 PM

You think he's going to give you a legitimate answer when all you're doing is trolling about grenade launchers?

10/3/2017 5:44:45 PM

It's not trolling. It's an extension of the original question "are you for absolutely zero limits on the right to own firearms? that he refuses to answer.

I figured by picking such a ridiculous notion of a private citizen owning an MK-19 he would be willing to address where he draws the line, even if just to say those aren't protected by the 2nd.

Posting SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED with respect to automatic rifles is pretty strong language.

10/3/2017 5:58:38 PM

Quote :

"I guess that's why we royally fucked up a bunch of rice farmers with rusted out SKS's in Vietnam, right? and why we had so much success in Iraq against insurgents and left that area as a bastion of stability? "

You do realize a tyrannical government wouldn't give two shits about any kind of RoE? It would literally just roll up and kill everyone. Would not be the same as Iraq. In the end though, I suspect the average gun toting nut just talks a lot of shit but couldn't back it up, take a look at the guys who stormed that Ranger station in Oregon during the winter and then pleaded for snacks on the internet. Oh yeah, those boys are trained killers.

Quote :

"so $5 for a voter ID is oppression, but making gun ownership financially impossible for anyone beyond upper middle class is A-OK? "

Gun ownership already does have a cost barrier. Gun, permits, ammo, safe place to store it (not required, but people have been found negligent when children have found the weapon and it gone of.

Quote :

"the 2nd Amendment is not about self-defense, and I do see AR15s as a self-defense weapon. Conversely, I think handguns are poor choices for self defense. "

Yeah, but an AR with a crank trigger is a great choice for self defense? I forgot the stat of it, but most home invasion self defense shootings are done from within 3-5 yards, a shotgun is the WAY better choice.

Quote :

" there are multiple people on this board openly advocating for banning any and all private gun ownership."

I haven't seen any, got links?

Quote :

" Gun registration is a no-go because all it will lead to is confiscation once the Democrats gain control."

So more paranoia and slippery slope argument, got it.



So I'm responding to all your questions, will you answer mine?

Is the 2nd Amendment a blank check, can the right to arms be infringed? Yes or no.

10/3/2017 5:58:43 PM

this is literally the issue



[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ignire the age statement]

10/3/2017 6:16:29 PM

10/3/2017 6:23:46 PM

this isn't the abortion thread

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 6:24 PM. Reason : mambagrl]

10/3/2017 6:23:57 PM

yeah i said ignore the age statement. 2nd ammendment is a classic trolley problem

10/3/2017 6:33:52 PM

1) kill silencer bill moving through congress
2) Repeal LCAA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
2b) Gun makers sued for making guns too easy to modify to full auto and lose
2c) Gun makers fix problem of full auto conversions on their own
3) 2nd Amendment stays intact, gun nuts are happy

10/3/2017 6:40:28 PM

Quote :

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

arm the homeless

Quote :

"limiting firearms for the sole purpose of giving military and police a tactical advantage over citizens flies directly in the face of the intent of the 2nd amendment."

arm the homeless

Quote :

"And yet we do infringe upon that right all the time. Felons, mentally handicapped, etc. So the precedent is already established that it's not a unilateral right regardless of other factors."

arm the homeless


[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 7:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2017 6:59:44 PM

Quote :

" it doesnt work because it was too soff to work, there's no possible way to adequately enforce it then they come back and say "see, gum control doesnt work""

I'm for gun restrictions, especially for the mentally ill... however, it just feels fucking pointless. It's not "Trying" like Ujustwait wants. It's pissing in the wind, in my humble opinion

10/3/2017 8:25:16 PM

Name one thing the NRA has done recently that remotely (or even ever) resembles compromise or trying to make the it more difficult for crazy people guns.

10/3/2017 8:28:38 PM

is that the royal you ? or you asking me ? cause I couldn't give 3 fucks about the NRA or their platform. so "I don't know"

10/3/2017 8:33:43 PM

You just said it was "pointless" to even bother trying to come up with more effective approaches to gun control, so yeah, I'm asking you to name some incidences where the NRA has tried to do something about mass shootings.

10/3/2017 8:41:15 PM

ohhhh that's what you meant. I'm merely making a supposition that the banning of ANYTHING illegal in the US has had dubious success at best, hence why I ended with "in my opinion."

I suppose when they finally try something and it works I'll be proven wrong. Until then I have a hunch it's fruitless. But I'm also not drafting legislation either so my opinions, thoughts, and hunches amount to exactly that based on nothing but reasonable corollaries (to me) in similar situations.

I have not a fucking clue what the NRA does or does not do, as I dont' give a shit about the NRA

10/3/2017 8:49:59 PM

Fuck gun enthusiasts and fuck their hobby. Confiscate them. Who cares. Fuck 'em. Seriously. None of them give a legit goddamn about tyrannical governments, and it's bloody fucking obvious.

If they did, they would have used those guns to oppose the Iraq war. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect citizens being harrassed at our nations airports, being subjected to pointless security theater and a gross invasion of privacy. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect the thousands of citizens who were forcibly evicted from their homes in 2008 during the financial meltdown. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns as Posse Comitatus was revoked under the NDAA. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns when it was apparent that the US government was eavesdropping on US citizens on US soil without warrants. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns when the US government was using drones to kill US citizens without a trial. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect Occupy Wall Street protesters who were forcibly removed from public spheres by a violent militarized police force. But they didn't

If they did, they would have stood next to the Standing Rock Sioux as they tried to protect their water from oil companies hell bent on destroying land for corporate profit. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect the rights of unarmed American civilians being gunned down by the police with impunity. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect 25% of the world's prison population who are currently caged by the growing US carceral state.

If they did, they would have used those guns to oppose the state that actively tries to discriminate people along religious, ethnic, and gender lines. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect rural farmers who are contractually bound to support corporate agro-businesses that financially cripple entire towns. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect peaceful protesters who are being run over by nationalists and fascists in the streets. But they didn't

If they did, they would have used those guns to protect the 1st Amendment rights of American citizens who chose to peacefully protest the American flag and everything it represents. But they didn't



Fuck these imposters. Fuck their patriotism. Fuck their cosplay. They don't stand for anything and it's beyond time to stop pretending that they are arguing in good faith.

They aren't

10/3/2017 9:03:38 PM

^best thing ive seen on here in a while

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 9:07 PM. Reason : mic drop]

10/3/2017 9:06:41 PM

Quote :

"ohhhh that's what you meant. I'm merely making a supposition that the banning of ANYTHING illegal in the US has had dubious success at best, hence why I ended with "in my opinion.""

who is advocating for an all out ban?

regulation is the cause, and regulation of things that are deadly has a history of success in this country

10/3/2017 9:16:05 PM

Yea, you can’t just throw your hands up in the air and say “I don’t know”.

10/3/2017 9:22:55 PM

^what ? Ujust asked, “what has the NRA done?” My answer is “I don’t know”because I don’t follow what the NRA does with their spare time. I don’t concern myself with the NRA since I don’t share their beliefs. Should I have lied?

He didn’t ask an ideology question, he asked a literal question with a real answer.

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 9:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2017 9:35:15 PM

maybe ^^ is referencing:

Quote :

"I'm for gun restrictions, especially for the mentally ill... however, it just feels fucking pointless. It's not "Trying" like Ujustwait wants. It's pissing in the wind, in my humble opinion"

Quote :

"I suppose when they finally try something and it works I'll be proven wrong. Until then I have a hunch it's fruitless."

10/3/2017 10:02:50 PM

^

10/3/2017 10:22:21 PM

Quote :

"most home invasion self defense shootings are done from within 3-5 yards, a shotgun is the WAY better choice. "

I have arguably the best home-defense shotgun available, and I would still grab my AR in a home invasion scenario in most cases.

10/3/2017 10:32:42 PM

I thought I made my opinion clear ^^ the US has a horrible track record of regulating things or controlling illegal things and I don’t have any faith guns would be different.

I’m referring to the multiple people advocating for the ban on ARs etc. I don’t mean all guns, I mean specific guns. “Making it illegal to buy X gun” to be even clearer

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 10:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2017 10:35:47 PM

nobody who matters is talking about making guns illegal

10/3/2017 10:36:32 PM

I’d wager :

Quote :

"Fuck gun enthusiasts and fuck their hobby. Confiscate them. Who cares. Fuck 'em. Seriously. None of them give a legit goddamn about tyrannical governments, and it's bloody fucking obvious."

Is advocating for that

10/3/2017 10:37:30 PM

Quote :

"so $5 for a voter ID is oppression, but making gun ownership financially impossible for anyone beyond upper middle class is A-OK?"

Wait so a gun, a permit, ammo, shooting ranges, etc. are not already outside the financial realm of anyone other than middle class and higher? Im not a gun expert but prices of these AR-type guns is over a thousand dollars already...is it really something that the average family can afford?

And don't jump to conclusions on what you think the cost of insurance and a license would cost and then hyperbolize with "upper middle class". Even lower middle class can afford a car and insurance and I expect that gun insurance would be much cheaper than a car. If you choose to own a gun for whatever reason then you'll figure out how to pay for it.

Interesting you bring up voting rights...the Constitution clearly states that voting is a right for all citizens yet that right is being infringed on through voter suppression methods. So you are OK with infringing on voter rights but absolute freedom on guns. Hypocritical much?

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 10:51 PM. Reason : a]

10/3/2017 10:48:38 PM

Quote :

"the US has a horrible track record of regulating things"

you familiar with cigarettes?

clean air/water

car safety?

asbestos?

etc....

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2017 11:01:47 PM

Quote :

"Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day. On average, smokers die 10 years earlier than nonsmokers."

Yah dude, doing a great fucking job in the smoking front. And the Flint water crisis as well as lead levels in basically every New England state show how amazing we’ve done there.

Quiet down young man, adults are talking.


We did create a wonderful serious of mesothelioma commercials tho, so.. kudos to that

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 11:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2017 11:10:26 PM

>

[Edited on October 3, 2017 at 11:56 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2017 11:52:17 PM