[worry]

The fact that we've been over this before (many times), with data, with real world examples, suggests it wasn't a good faith argument.

"People here may not quite put it together, but the 2nd simply keeps tyranny at bay. It makes the rest of the world more free." is mealy-mouthed propaganda. All of us, regardless of how we feel about guns, including Nico, know these statements have no truth in them, not even a kernel. I would consider myself a 'moderate' on gun control issues, with lots of people here further down on the spectrum. But there's playing devil's advocate, there's playing up one's persona, and there's trolling -- and then there's just out and out saying something you know is not true and pretending it is true. That's called a lie.

Silencer's question is a good one, and I'll go a step further: it's not just that the 2nd Amendment fetishists support the tyrants, it's that the weapons manufacturers are the tyrants.

[Nicodimas]

@ silencer.. that’s nice, that’s definitely not America. I’ll try this explanation your of course being really rational, statistics are fine things for sure!

Read this about enforcement of law and between these lines:
http://www.dailywire...ped-ben-shapiro

I would like to calmly point out how unrealistic your any sort of gun removal sounds Silencer with a simple fact that you should ponder the difference expressed here, to American reality. After the Vegas shooting .. about a month later slide-fires are still being sold. They aren’t $80 anymore, but did completely sell out at $220 or so, the next shipment from China is probably 10 days out. Anyhow been a month and already business as usual. Just point that out to all reading:

https://www.npr.org/...to-resume-sales

@worry: The govts mainly bankroll these arms dealers.. right? So who’s the tyrant then.. who’s best interest is it really to keep America violent..

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 08 November 2017 - 04:10 AM

[Macros]

The arms dealers.
That lobby and bribe your government officials to never push for gun reform. The NRA, who hype up the resistance to gun control, when practically every poll shows the majority of Americans favour stricter gun laws.

[Gust Hubb]

To paraphrase the ultimate conclusion:

Human life is like a comic book, it is only worth something until you take it out of the package.

This post has been edited by Gust Hubb: 10 November 2017 - 03:14 PM

[Macros]

 23434963_610065574850_361627224150930723_n.jpg (21.95K)
Number of downloads: 2

[Silencer]

Macros, on 12 November 2017 - 07:59 PM, said:

23434963_610065574850_361627224150930723_n.jpg

Yes, but Americans have a constitutional right to guns, they don't have one to families! How insensitive!










.... XD but seriously though, that is gold.

[Nicodimas]

Wow! This one surprised me.. already ghost guns out in the public eye. If I could do it .. anyone can.

https://www.yahoo.co...-185746544.html

[EmperorMagus]

I have a question that may be a little stupid, but bear with me please.

The text of the Second Amendment is as follows:

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So this says nothing about ammo or bullets. Assuming the current text of the 2nd Amendment means everyone has a right to owning guns, what's stopping the anti-gun people from legislating anything remotely resembling ammo into oblivion? Wouldn't it serve the same purpose as making guns illegal?

If no one has ammo, all guns are basically useless, aren't they?

(I know smuggling and contraband would become a problem, but they would be a problem even if you made guns illegal.)

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 17 November 2017 - 04:12 AM

[Nevyn]

EmperorMagus, on 17 November 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

I have a question that may be a little stupid, but bear with me please.

The text of the Second Amendment is as follows:

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So this says nothing about ammo or bullets. Assuming the current text of the 2nd Amendment means everyone has a right to owning guns, what's stopping the anti-gun people from legislating anything remotely resembling ammo into oblivion? Wouldn't it serve the same purpose as making guns illegal?

If no one has ammo, all guns are basically useless, aren't they?

(I know smuggling and contraband would become a problem, but they would be a problem even if you made guns illegal.)

It also says arms not guns. The court could easily find that ammo qualifies.

But arguing the text is useless. It expressly lists a militia as the justification and includes "well regulated" and is still interpreted as "any regulation is bad".

Interpreting the law won't fix a thing. The US has first and foremost a culture problem, secondly a political process one, and the meaning and interpretation of the actual amendment is a distant third.

Again, many countries could have that in their constitution if they were silly enough to want it.

[worry]

As far as I know, there just haven't been that many cases before the Supreme Court that have touched on the 2nd Amendment. The last big one was D.C. vs Heller in 2008, which was a 5 to 4 split coming down on the "militia-not-necessary" reading of the 2nd.

For instance, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban wasn't struck down by SCOTUS, but it was never really challenged on Constitutional grounds either, so no definitive SCOTUS decisions ever occurred -- the law just expired during the 2000s w/ a Republican congress, that's how it died.

Some states have assault weapons bans that have been challenged, and the state supreme courts have considered them Constitutional. SCOTUS has refused to hear appeals on those cases, letting the rulings stand, which isn't necessarily a sign of how they would rule.

There are also standing bans or regulations on other kinds of weapons, like brass knuckles and butterfly knives, but they don't have huge lobbies fighting for them. And of course certain kinds of ammo are regulated all the time.

All that is to say, there's nothing in the way of someone submitting such legislation -- Heller might stop a blanket ban on "all ammo" -- nobody would submit such a thing anyway, because of hunting and self defense -- but bans on specific types of ammo would probably require new legal challenges to be overturned.

I'm not a lawyer, so take all that with a grain of salt, and I'd defer to someone with more knowledge.

[Primateus]

Nevyn, on 17 November 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 17 November 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

I have a question that may be a little stupid, but bear with me please.

The text of the Second Amendment is as follows:

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So this says nothing about ammo or bullets. Assuming the current text of the 2nd Amendment means everyone has a right to owning guns, what's stopping the anti-gun people from legislating anything remotely resembling ammo into oblivion? Wouldn't it serve the same purpose as making guns illegal?

If no one has ammo, all guns are basically useless, aren't they?

(I know smuggling and contraband would become a problem, but they would be a problem even if you made guns illegal.)

It also says arms not guns. The court could easily find that ammo qualifies.

But arguing the text is useless. It expressly lists a militia as the justification and includes "well regulated" and is still interpreted as "any regulation is bad".

Interpreting the law won't fix a thing. The US has first and foremost a culture problem, secondly a political process one, and the meaning and interpretation of the actual amendment is a distant third.

Again, many countries could have that in their constitution if they were silly enough to want it.

It's the "operative" and "prefatory" clause. The part of about the well regulated militia is the prefatory and the part that says "the right bear arms shall not be infringed" is the operative clause. Meaning, that's the part that actually matters, according to the Supreme Court in the D.C. vs Heller case, I think.

[Vengeance]

America....

[Nicodimas]

Looky here! Yet another case of freedom conquering the evil-doer.

https://bearingarms....m_medium=fbpage

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 28 November 2017 - 08:06 PM

[Vengeance]

Nicodimas, on 28 November 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

Looky here! Yet another case of freedom conquering the evil-doer.

https://bearingarms....m_medium=fbpage

How about nobody dead because the gun owner would have to pass extensive back ground checks and go through gun classes including both a written exams and handling and results (pictures of what happens to a body if they are shot with a gun) classes. You know similar to what people have to go through in order to drive a car. But since a fire arm is considered a deadly weapon there should be classes on the consequences of "accidentally" killing someone. How about sensible gun laws that prevent mass shooting rather then being forced to celebrate that only 2 people where shot. How about that.

/s I mean wow congratulations that only 2 people were shot. Man we sure are lucky to live in a country where only 2 people being shot is considered a success. Thank god for Guns.... Lets all go and buy 150 more to support the gun manufacturers. My children don't need healthy food or health care or a quality education. They need fire arms. /Sarcasm.

[Primateus]

Nicodimas, on 28 November 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

Looky here! Yet another case of freedom conquering the evil-doer.

https://bearingarms....m_medium=fbpage

Yeah, I'm sorry, but that has fuck-all to do with freedom conquering the evil doer.

It's interesting that the article starts with this sentence: "The left likes to pretend that good guys with guns never stops mass shootings."

I don't think that's every really been a serious argument. It's been more like this; Does it happen? Sure. Does it happen often? No! Can we count on a "good guy with a gun" during a shooting? Hell no! Ought we take some extra measures? Yes, no reasonable person would reject that.

[worry]

Also, since when have gun control proponents ever sought to tell businesses not to have guns on their premises? It's private property, ain't it? I've never seen any momentum on the left or the right to tell, like, convenience store owners not to have a gun behind the counter or whatever.

[Nicodimas]

worry, on 28 November 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

Also, since when have gun control proponents ever sought to tell businesses not to have guns on their premises? It's private property, ain't it? I've never seen any momentum on the left or the right to tell, like, convenience store owners not to have a gun behind the counter or whatever.

What are you talking about ? Maybe I am not understanding. A private business can place a placard (just like a church and school) , and can do this to remove common gun laws that allow open and concealed carry.

If anything there’s a movement by the freedomholders to remove these signs because this creates victim zones that criminals with guns can target as they know everyone is disarmed. The whole point is not knowing who could potentially be armed that deters thieves, criminals and villains from their acts against citizens.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 28 November 2017 - 11:16 PM

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 28 November 2017 - 11:15 PM, said:

worry, on 28 November 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

Also, since when have gun control proponents ever sought to tell businesses not to have guns on their premises? It's private property, ain't it? I've never seen any momentum on the left or the right to tell, like, convenience store owners not to have a gun behind the counter or whatever.

What are you talking about ? Maybe I am not understanding. A private business can place a placard (just like a church and school) , and can do this to remove common gun laws that allow open and concealed carry.

If anything there’s a movement by the freedomholders to remove these signs because this creates victim zones that criminals with guns can target as they know everyone is disarmed. The whole point is not knowing who could potentially be armed that deters thieves, criminals and villains from their acts against citizens.

The only 'victimzones' is around 'freedomholders'.

You realize the doublespeak and doublethink in 1984 was a warning, not a guide, right?

[worry]

I'm saying that this entire scenario had nothing to do with gun control (aside from Vengeance's point about the assailant). The "good guys" with guns were a manager and employee at the business where the attack took place, not random customers. Their concealed carry permits aren't even relevant, since no mainstream gun control law would have barred the premises from containing defensive guns anyway. Whether business owners can bar customers from carrying guns onto their premises in an entirely different, unrelated issue.

[Vengeance]

Hey look the NRA was a willing back channel to Russian interference in our election.

https://www.reddit.c...mpaign_kremlin/