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!
R

Renault

N00b
134
1
Frenzied Wombat_sl said:
Even in light of irrefutable statistical facts, such that the US has 10,000+ gun homicides a year, while other modern civilized nations in the range of 50-100, these gunfreaks still can't accept the truth, and when cornered and obviously outgunned both mentally and statistically, will just fall back on the blanket statement that "it's my 2nd amendment right", as if some demi-god last week just descended from the sky and dictated "thou shalt have the right to wield assault rifles", and is not in fact a document written before electricity was invented and the best gun you could buy was a flintlock. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The legitimacy of your arguments is somewhat hampered by your hyperbole and inability to cut back on the vitriol painting every gun owner with the same brush. Quite frankly you come across just like a lot of conservatives arguing abortion; I'm sure you and that jackass Alex Jones could have a great time screaming back and forth at each other.

It may be redundant but I feel like it's necessary to point out that the majority of REASONABLE gun owners out there have no problem, and even support, the idea of restricting access to guns for those who are either mentally handicapped or suffer from metal instabilities etc. Gun owners have just as much, if not more, desire to never see someone commit a crime with a firearm as anyone else because we all know that every time it happens there is a new call for restrictions and bans to be put into place. If gun control wasn't always a knee jerk reaction to events and instead took place in an environment that wasn't already poisoned and biased one way or the other because of recent events I think a lot of the reasonable issues such as improved background checks, the somewhat mislabled gun show loophole etc could be resolved.

You also point out that the issue is not inherently with the guns but with the crazy people that gain access to them and yet you go on to advocate for outright bans and confiscation which is exactly the mentality that causes all the normal gun owners out there to react with alarm when mention of gun control comes up. It becomes very tough for gun owners to engage in debates about the issue of gun control when the anti-gun crowd treats them as if every single one is a mass murderer who just hasn't acted yet. When some idiot drives 140 mph on the freeway and crashes we don't all clamor to ban fast cars or talk about banning alcohol (again) when someone kills another person in a DUI and yet it's become perfectly acceptable to discuss banning firearms rather then dealing with the underlying symptoms of the violence that exists with or without them.

Lastly the idea that the 2nd amendment was written in the 1700's and thus shouldn't apply to modern firearms is silly; do your 1st amendment rights not apply on the internet because it wasn't invented yet? The courts who have looked at that exact issue say that they actually do. The the constitution is a document that has to be interpreted based on the time in which we live, you can't cherry pick some amendments to modernize and others to simply leave as they stood when it was written. This is not to say that perhaps someday the courts will decide a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment but as it stands currently they've made it clear that Americans do have a right to own firearms.
 
S

Sinter1_sl

shitlord
31
0
Good luck getting current Congress to re-shape the Second Amendment... political suicide for any Republican.

Heller wound up being a very politicized case... a 5-4 decision. Court politics change all the time and if one of our stalwart Conservative judges (Scalia) should retire for whatever reason, could easily be overturned. Defining "a militia" today is an incredibly tiring and polarizing exercise.

P.S. Is anyone else tired of historical figures being misquoted, or quoted out of context for the benefit of an argument?
 
N

Numbers_sl

shitlord
4,054
3
Sinter1_sl said:
Good luck getting current Congress to re-shape the Second Amendment... political suicide for any Republican.

Heller wound up being a very politicized case... a 5-4 decision. Court politics change all the time and if one of our stalwart Conservative judges (Scalia) should retire for whatever reason, could easily be overturned. Defining "a militia" today is an incredibly tiring and polarizing exercise.
Click to expand...
You don't really have to reshape the second amendment. All you need are people with a new perspective on how guns affect society at large. Judgments form the courts will change as the science changes which includes studies from the social sciences.
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,738
52,289
Magic Numbers_sl said:
You don't really have to reshape the second amendment. All you need are people with a new perspective on how guns affect society at large. Judgments form the courts will change as the science changes which includes studies from the social sciences.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is we should focus less on guns and more on why minorities are so intent on killing each other?
 
M

Mikhail Bakunin_sl

shitlord
2,199
1
Eomer_sl said:
I wasn't intending that to be an argument for stricter gun control in the US. I realize that Wombat is arguing for that, but I'm not. It's pretty much a lost cause in the US at this point, and culturally it's just not possible nor likely to change any time soon.
Click to expand...
Just as a general matter of principle, it is always up to those who wish to impose on the liberties of others (however small the imposition, up to and including things with "no practical purpose" --not that that's actually true with guns--) to demonstrate the necessity of doing so.
 
N

Numbers_sl

shitlord
4,054
3
Where are the pro gun pussies who don't want anything changed? I want to hear what they think the problem is. Is it just "crazy people"?
 
Zodiac

Zodiac

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,200
14
Simas_sl said:
Are you under the impression that Heller and/or McDonald held that the 2nd amendment could not be amended?

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be, only that your sentence is in no way responsive to that which you quoted.
Click to expand...
Not at all, just a bad quote cut since I didn't want to quote his whole post. I was more referring to the fact that the decisions reaffirmed an individual's right separate from service in a militia, and that it still holds true in modern times.

I know that shit can be changed - just like any of our other rights that we take for granted can be taken away.
 
N

Numbers_sl

shitlord
4,054
3
Be more specific. I don't like to be painted with the same brush as other retards. I would also be grateful if you could inform me with what my brand of nonsense is.
 
Frenzied Wombat

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,803
Ok, first off, nowhere do I state that there aren't responsible gun owners. Secondly, nowhere do I state to ban guns outright. I said assault rifles. Also nowhere do I mention confiscation.

In relation to "good" gun owners or "good assault rifle owners", it comes down to the age old adage "you had to go and ruin it for everybody else". Society will have to decide whether the benefit gleaned from owning an AR-15 outweighs the fact that occasionally some nutjob will enter a school with one and blow a bunch of kids away.

Secondly, the "well cars kill more people" or "lets just ban knives then too" is such an utter bullshit comparison. Society can't function without cars or knives, hence they can't be banned. Society can function just fine without Assault rifles.

lastly, the 1st amendment concerns freedom of speech, which is inherently a non-violent concept that transcends time. The 2nd amendment deals with a technology that has evolved WAY beyond those that drafted the 2nd amendment could possible ever envision. And why the hell can't one cherry pick which amendment to modernize??


Renault_sl said:
The legitimacy of your arguments is somewhat hampered by your hyperbole and inability to cut back on the vitriol painting every gun owner with the same brush. Quite frankly you come across just like a lot of conservatives arguing abortion; I'm sure you and that jackass Alex Jones could have a great time screaming back and forth at each other.

It may be redundant but I feel like it's necessary to point out that the majority of REASONABLE gun owners out there have no problem, and even support, the idea of restricting access to guns for those who are either mentally handicapped or suffer from metal instabilities etc. Gun owners have just as much, if not more, desire to never see someone commit a crime with a firearm as anyone else because we all know that every time it happens there is a new call for restrictions and bans to be put into place. If gun control wasn't always a knee jerk reaction to events and instead took place in an environment that wasn't already poisoned and biased one way or the other because of recent events I think a lot of the reasonable issues such as improved background checks, the somewhat mislabled gun show loophole etc could be resolved.

You also point out that the issue is not inherently with the guns but with the crazy people that gain access to them and yet you go on to advocate for outright bans and confiscation which is exactly the mentality that causes all the normal gun owners out there to react with alarm when mention of gun control comes up. It becomes very tough for gun owners to engage in debates about the issue of gun control when the anti-gun crowd treats them as if every single one is a mass murderer who just hasn't acted yet. When some idiot drives 140 mph on the freeway and crashes we don't all clamor to ban fast cars or talk about banning alcohol (again) when someone kills another person in a DUI and yet it's become perfectly acceptable to discuss banning firearms rather then dealing with the underlying symptoms of the violence that exists with or without them.

Lastly the idea that the 2nd amendment was written in the 1700's and thus shouldn't apply to modern firearms is silly; do your 1st amendment rights not apply on the internet because it wasn't invented yet? The courts who have looked at that exact issue say that they actually do. The the constitution is a document that has to be interpreted based on the time in which we live, you can't cherry pick some amendments to modernize and others to simply leave as they stood when it was written. This is not to say that perhaps someday the courts will decide a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment but as it stands currently they've made it clear that Americans do have a right to own firearms.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.