Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,752
52,327
Not yet I believe. They had 6 months to come up with a law that would allow conceal carry and that was several months ago. Last I heard the alderman or whatever they are in Chicago was going to fight it again even tho they have already paid out $400,000 on the last loss.
It was like 2 months ago, and it's a state thing, not just Chicago. It's up to State's Attorney Rietz to decide if she wants to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The supporters of concealed carry in IL have also said that they'll fight tooth and nail if they try and pass concealed carry legislation that is so heavily restricted that it might as well still be banned. I don't blame them, IL has shown absolutely no willingness to compromise in the past.
 

Borzak

Bronze Baron of the Realm
25,463
33,217
It was like 2 months ago, and it's a state thing, not just Chicago. It's up to State's Attorney Rietz to decide if she wants to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The supporters of concealed carry in IL have also said that they'll fight tooth and nail if they try and pass concealed carry legislation that is so heavily restricted that it might as well still be banned. I don't blame them, IL has shown absolutely no willingness to compromise in the past.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess the thing I read about the alderman vote in Chicago was just for show to the state or something.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,378
Then why does Ohio have more power in deciding who becomes the most powerful man in the world than Texas. Whole lot more guns in Texas, you know.
They don't Texas has more electoral votes by far 38 to 18, You only perceive Ohio has more power.

Texas only exists in America because it fought and won a war against Mexico. In fact Texas is a great example here, Santa Anna came to Texas and tried to take guns out of peoples hands they rebelled and won a war, without doing that action Texas would have 0 electoral votes and Ohio 18. That war between Texas and Mexico began when Santa Anna dissolved the Constitution, took power and the first battle occurred when they tried to take a weapon this time a cannon from the Texans.

rrr_img_9707.jpg
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,439
81,031
Oh man burned by Fanaskin, that's gotta hurt.

Look on the bright side, Texas may be in play in a few elections. Especially if the President can roll out some real immigration reform.
 

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
It's amazing smoking is still allowed. Half a million deaths per year. Oh... That's right. We are ok with people dying if we can tax the fuck out of them!
 
558
0
They don't Texas has more electoral votes by far 18 to 38, You only perceive Ohio has more power.

Texas only exists in America because it fought and won a war against Mexico.
Here's a hint. Go look at money spent during the last election and see where the majority of it went. Because of the electoral college, if you live in a state like Texas, California, or New York, your vote count far far less than someone who lives in Ohio or Florida. Whether that is fair or not however isn't the point. The point is, none of this has to do with how many guns exist in the state.
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,378
Here's a hint. Go look at money spent during the last election and see where the majority of it went. Because of the electoral college, if you live in a state like Texas, California, or New York, your vote count far far less than someone who lives in Ohio or Florida. Whether that is fair or not however isn't the point. The point is, none of this has to do with how many guns exist in the state.
The only Reason Ohio is a state is because Guns owned by British/Americans murdered more Indians than Hitler killed people. Without that happening it can't exist to be a cog in a political scheme to perpetuate a 2 party system.

Mao clearly covered this aspect, that the tangential benefits,The ability to have elections,The availability of land and resources,The ability for people to exist without fear of tyranny,The ability to create lasting institutions, the civilization that sprouts when these things come together. Those things only exist because of the bubble of protection that force of arms provides.

..."Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun."... Mao


The reason the electoral college exists btw is because James Madison managed to argue that real politics should be kept in the hands of the few and great care should be taken to remove real political power from the majority, The only way he was in that position to influence the formation of a new government is because guns won a revolutionary war.
 

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
The texas rebellion from Mexico had dick all to do with the confiscation of guns. It was about economic freedom and a lack of representation. It was aboutthese. That the conflict began upon the attempt to retrieve a cannon was beside the point. By then the Texans were committed to revolt. Several other provinces of Mexico would revolt in the coming years. Yes, the militias were being disarmed the military was being centralized, but before that had even begun a multitude of peoples in different places were fomenting dissent. They weren't even original about it, another territory started the whole thing and broke the ice.

And they never really "won" their independence either since Mexico never ceased hostilities with Texas until the Mexican-American war trumped the entire conflict.

We did not "murder more indians than Hitler killed people." either. First of all, that phrasing is terribly vague. There were very few targeted attacks at the native populations of the Americas, and most of those occurred when we were engaged in wars. The majority of native deaths was through the spread of disease that europeans were unknowing carriers of. That isn't a murder. And as far as Hitler, are we talking persecution of the jews or are we including all the allied casualties suffered in the european theater as well? He "killed" them didn't he? It's very likely that more jews died than there were natives in all of USA/Canada at the time Jamestown was founded. The big population centers of the americas were Mexico and Peru, and that shit falls on the spanish. Russia probably still lost more people to Hitler than the natives lost to the spanish, but accurate figures of their population are unknowable. Hitler didn't even just target jews. Poles, Russians, Romani (gypsies), cripples, and homosexuals got the same treatment sans wearing the star of david patch. There were over 20 million people the germans violently and systematically murdered apart from open conflict. There wasn't even half that in all of North America before europeans arrived, ever.

I don't know what either the native deaths or the jewish/allied deaths have to do with gun control though. It wasn't just the german government or the military that shit on the jews. It was basically 80%+ of the german and austrian population. Unless the jews all became prescient and magicked themselves away to Sweden overnight, they were fucked whether they had guns or not. Very very few people, including most germans and jews, and the world community understood what happened to the jews until after the war.
 
558
0
The only Reason Ohio is a state is because Guns owned by British/Americans murdered more Indians than Hitler killed people. Without that happening it can't exist to be a cog in a political scheme to perpetuate a 2 party system.

Mao clearly covered this aspect, that the tangential benefits,The ability to have elections,The availability of land and resources,The ability for people to exist without fear of tyranny,The ability to create lasting institutions, the civilization that sprouts when these things come together. Those things only exist because of the bubble of protection that force of arms provides.

..."Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China. We can also create cadres, create schools, create culture, create mass movements. Everything in Yenan has been created by having guns. All things grow out of the barrel of a gun."... Mao


The reason the electoral college exists btw is because James Madison managed to argue that real politics should be kept in the hands of the few and great care should be taken to remove real political power from the majority, The only way he was in that position to influence the formation of a new government is because guns won a revolutionary war.
Trying to follow your thought processes is like watching a blind mouse scurrying in a maze. You say guns = political power, then you give me a history lesson. Keep it simple. I don't care how guns = political power 200 years ago. Explain to me the practical political ramifications of owning a gun now.
 

Sardaan

Trakanon Raider
50
124
I am in favor of two types of gun control. 1) hitting what I shoot & 2) if they want to mandate gun safes of some sort I would listen, not saying I would agree...just listen.
 

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
I am in favor of two types of gun control. 1) hitting what I shoot & 2) if they want to mandate gun safes of some sort I would listen, not saying I would agree...just listen.
FEDERAL SUBSIDIES FOR GUN SAFES!!!! The poor got free cellphones, why can't I get a free gun safe? IT WILL REDUCE MURDER!!
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,378
I don't care how guns = political power 200 years ago. Explain to me the practical political ramifications of owning a gun now.
That's an absurdist possibility, In fact it's the root of ignorance to think in this fashion. everything has a history and the history has a direct influence on current and future affairs, this will never cease to be. Being ignorant of history does not mean it suddenly became irrelevant.

as von clauswitz noted (paraphrased)
"history is a vital check on erudite abstractions that did not accord with experience."
 

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,943
138,378
The texas rebellion from Mexico had dick all to do with the confiscation of guns. It was about economic freedom and a lack of representation.
You are correct, and every war usually has a complex set of motivations for conflict. I wasn't going over the causes of conflict, because the causes of conflict differ from instance to instance. I was going over the reality of what happens when as Carl von Clausewitz pointed out "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means,". The politics and causes of the conflict where irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. the point was when Santa Anna decided to take action, no matter why, He followed a very familiar pattern repeated throughout history. The first thing he tried to do when he decided to take conrol over a group of people was to go after their weapons, this should be plainly obvious why. Those people the Texans correctly sensed the shifting power change and rebelled instead.

The specific politics is irrelevant to the point that Mao was making, he was describing the role guns have when large groups of people do not agree with each other, not why they disagreed.
 

Fyro

Golden Squire
127
0
That's an absurdist possibility, In fact it's the root of ignorance to think in this fashion. everything has a history and the history has a direct influence on current and future affairs, this will never cease to be. Being ignorant of history does not mean it suddenly became irrelevant.

as von clauswitz noted (paraphrased)
"history is a vital check on erudite abstractions that did not accord with experience."
You are dense. We all understand history is important, mmkay? You're arguing with your delusions again.

He asked "Explain to me the practical political ramifications of owning a gun now." As I know Soysauceonrice will say this in his next response, please just answer the question, and not rant about some side issue to deflect.