Jump to content
slacker

WTF? (**NSFW**)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

Shall not be infringed.

It's the only justification necessary.

 

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shall not be infringed.
It's the only justification necessary.
 
You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Ratner said:
16 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:
Shall not be infringed.
It's the only justification necessary.
 

You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas.

Automatics are not illegal and neither are grenades. 

Why would using the Second Amendment cause me to lose? Do you support the Constitution or not?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Automatics are not illegal and neither are grenades. 
Why would using the Second Amendment cause me to lose? Do you support the Constitution or not?
Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s.

If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect.

I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill.

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Ratner said:

Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s.

If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect.

I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill.

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

 

So if you're "Very pro-second Amendment" then what is your solution to avoid violating infringement?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already.

I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom."

Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.

Agreed but unfortunately compromise isn't possible with the gun control Left.  We could trade away bump fire stocks and trigger cranks as part of a compromise but that would just whet their appetite for more gun control, leading to their desired end game-total abolition of private firearm ownership.  Like a Terminator, they will not stop until they reach that endstate.  

The sad fact is that elimination of most firearms would be fairly easy to accomplish.  Once they have ownership lists, either by mandatory registration, credit card data mining, having doctors ask kids if their parents have guns, etc. then they can require you to turn them in.  They don't need to send police or military to round them up.  All they need to do is make turning them in a condition of any interaction with the government such as renewing your driver's license or license plates, getting a tax return, applying for unemployment, etc. 

Edited by pbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

The second amendment is not about hunting.

The second amendment is not about a home invasion.

The second amendment is not about “toys”.

The constitution does not grant rights.  Neither does the government.  The constitution enumerates our rights.

The constitution does not empower government.  It limits government.

Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

 

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BFM this said:

The second amendment is not about hunting.
The second amendment is not about a home invasion.
The second amendment is not about “toys”.
The constitution does not grant rights.  Neither does the government.  The constitution enumerates our rights.
The constitution does not empower government.  It limits government.
Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

You're talking theory. We agree on the theory. I'm talking reality. And the reality is that gun owners, including the people in this thread, do a shitty job of persuading people of these theories. If enough people disagree with you, you lose your guns. That's it. Sure, a bunch of us will puff up and say something silly like "pry them from my cold dead hands." But most of us will hand them over when forced to choose between being a martyr and one day walking your daughter down the isle. 

We have three options.

1) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes, guns are confiscated. Freedom suffers.

2) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes. 
2a) Some gun owners refuse and are killed/imprisoned in their righteous stand
2b) Most gun owners refuse and we get a catalyst to a civil war.

3) Gun owners accept that the 2nd amendment never envisioned what is possible with firearms today. They further accept that even if the framers would have loved machine guns, amendments can be amended. They start working to put a real argument together as to why 59 people should be executed at a concert so they can have removable magazines, silencers, hollow points, etc. This is not an impossible task, but it will take more than "freedom isn't free" or "Do you support the Constitution or not."

You know what's great about a civil war? All the early adopters die. I'd rather avoid that. 

51 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

So if you're "Very pro-second Amendment" then what is your solution to avoid violating infringement?  

I think republicans/conservatives need to unilaterally pass legislation (important to not include any anti-gun people, to avoid legislative creep) that makes it harder for someone to go crazy and kill people. Lots of fucking people. 

I think limitations on how quickly one can obtain weapons is a fair trade. Cooling off periods, limitations to how many guns you can buy at once. Expanded background checks. 

I don't know if those are the right answers, but I know "do nothing" isn't. You can disagree, and I'm sure many do, but I know I wouldn't be able to look a widow, or daughter, or father in the eye and say "sucks dude, but this is the cost of freedom." This wasn't a battle. No one took a stand, no one made a choice. There will be no justice; the killer is already gone, just how he wanted it. 

I'm not trying to change your minds. I'm really not. I'm still trying to internalize this disaster and work my way through what I believe it means for the future of gun rights. What I want is for you to think about where your head would be if your wife just had her head canoed while enjoying some music. If we don't argue it from that position, we lose. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/10/03/country_musician_changes_mind_on_gun_control_after_las_vegas_shooting.html

That's the only chance we have at keeping our guns. 

 

/Devil'sAdvocate

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a pro second amendment, multi-pistol, multi-AR rifle gun owner, I have to agree that simply saying “but it’s my right in the constitution” isn’t going to keep working. I don’t want my guns taken, banned or taxed into oblivion. But IMO, there’s an upper limit on what type of “arms” can reasonably be protected by the 2nd Amendment and this massacre may very alter that dynamic. Where that line is drawn is a question that is very difficult to answer. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your position is "No amount of killing today can justify any gun restrictions for fear of a government confiscation tomorrow" we're going to lose.

Like the USAF Superintendent said, "The appropriate response to a horrible idea is a better idea". I'm not hearing any better ideas from fellow gun owners. It's a loose connection, but I have family members with Jason Aldean tickets later this month. It's enough to make me think about this from a different perspective. I'm having a hard time continuing to believe that giving even a little ground on the issue is a bigger threat to our future than the ease with which yet another psycho could mow down another 500 people at a concert.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So guns are uninvented.  There are no guns.  Browning was never born.  Instead of 59 killed and hundreds injured on the strip, a truck drives into the crowd and kills 86 and injures 458.  Instead of gunfire, a pressure cooker bomb is left in the crowd and injures 170.  Now what?  Somehow when a gun is involved, everyone has a quick-fix "solution."  When it's anything other than a gun, nobody has a fucking clue what to do to keep it from happening.  

Edited by nunya
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nunya said:

So guns are uninvented.  There are no guns.  Browning was never born.  Instead of 59 killed and hundreds injured on the strip, a truck drives into the crowd and kills 86 and injures 458.  Instead of gunfire, a pressure cooker bomb is left in the crowd and injures 170.  Now what?  Somehow when a gun is involved, everyone has a quick-fix "solution."  When it's anything other than a gun, nobody has a fucking clue what to do to keep it from happening.  

No one here is trying to solve all violence in an alternate reality. I think it would be better to confine the discourse to solving an obvious and actual gun violence problem in this reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nunya said:

So guns are uninvented.  There are no guns.  Browning was never born.  Instead of 59 killed and hundreds injured on the strip, a truck drives into the crowd and kills 86 and injures 458.  Instead of gunfire, a pressure cooker bomb is left in the crowd and injures 170.  Now what?  Somehow when a gun is involved, everyone has a quick-fix "solution."  When it's anything other than a gun, nobody has a fucking clue what to do to keep it from happening.  

Agreed. But they don't have to. No one is going to outlaw semi-trucks or pressure cookers. This isn't about "how do we stop murder," it's about "how do we keep our gun rights in a changing world." 

Guess what, pressure cookers and semi-trucks weren't specifically designed to end human life. And unlike semi-trucks, we don't need access to high-powered, high-capacity firearms to keep the economy running. The opposition will waltz right past your argument and say "well we can still save 59 of those lives."

Your argument boils down to "if you can't fix everything, fix nothing," and it's a ridiculous argument coming from either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're trying to rationalize the response to an inconceivable evil. The fact that this evil committed the deadliest mass shooting in the US without ANY indicator(s) / motive (that we know of as of today) goes far beyond any political gun debate, and that's why it's driving everyone absolutely fucking crazy.

Edited by tk1313
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not ridiculous, because that's how the argument needs to be framed.  The world does not have a "gun violence" problem, or a "Ryder truck violence" problem.  It has a violence problem.  Madmen commit violence.  That's where we need to focus our efforts and our arguments.  Madmen have used fertilizer, airplanes, fire, gas chambers, trucks, pressure cookers, bombs, guns, knives, hammers, and rope.  The chosen method is irrelevant.  Guns have taken on this bigger than life persona when they are simply tools.  AR-15s are ideally suited for plenty of non-murderous tasks, just like rope is good for a lot more than lynching.  If the locomotive of society decides that guns are bad, there's no stopping the degradation of our rights.  But we'll simply find that when you peel away the "tool" layer, you're still left with a core of violence.  The Brits are learning this now as they move to rearm their police.  

So as to the better idea, let's start with the family.  How can we reinforce the family so it can serve as a training ground for acceptable behavior?

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BFM this said:

The second amendment is not about hunting.

The second amendment is not about a home invasion.

The second amendment is not about “toys”.

The constitution does not grant rights.  Neither does the government.  The constitution enumerates our rights.

The constitution does not empower government.  It limits government.

Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

 

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. 

 

I want a hellfire missile. 

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you are quick to give up rights. 

Here's the problem: once they're gone, you'll never get it back.

The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms just like the First Amendment protects our right to free speech (Congress shall make no law). It's not a negotiable document. 

As stated above, we have a violence problem and a mental health problem in this country. Making law abiding citizens into criminals won't solve that. Punishing the millions of law abiding gun owners because of the acts of a few psychopaths won't solve that either. 

Whether you agree with it or not, the Second Amendment was designed to defend the First Amendment. We are absolutely intended to be as well armed as the military because the founders wanted the government to fear the people and not the other way around. 

We've already given up enough (NFA, etc). Now is not the time to give up because of one horrific incident.  It's a very slippery slope.

 

Edited by Buddy Spike
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. 

Shack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, HossHarris said:

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. 

 

I want a hellfire missile. 

Or a cannon and grapeshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madman kills people with guns. People say ban the guns.

Madman kills people with fertilizer. People say ban the fertilizer.

Madman kills people with a vehicle. People say ban the vehicle.

Madman stabs people with a knife. People say ban the knife.

Madman kills someone with a frying pan. People say ban the frying pan.

Madman kills someone with a pressure cooker. People say ban the pressure cooker.

... So you're stuck sitting on dead grass, cutting a half-spoiled TV dinner with a spork because you had to walk 40 min to buy it. Sounds like paradise if you ask me.

Edited by Kiloalpha
Grammar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddy Spike said:

Whether you agree with it or not, the Second Amendment was designed to defend the First Amendment. We are absolutely intended to be as well armed as the military because the founders wanted the government to fear the people and not the other way around. 

So anyone should have access to the full range of military weapons?  This is where the pro-2A argument goes off the rails.  Musket v musket, it made sense.  With today's military weapons, not so much.  Like I said before, there's a reasonable limit beyond which your average joe doesn't need to be armed.  So if that's the case, where do you draw the line?  Does a semi-automatic AR with a 100 round drum magazine and a bump stock make sense?  Should a full-auto rifle be allowed?  Should we let Hoss have his Hellfire missile?  The other side see's our arguments FOR bearing arms as a slippery slope in that direction.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how so many people on here took an oath to support and defend The Constitiution are also the ones who are not supporting and defending The Constitution...

 

Oh and Ratner and the others who are saying they are "Pro-2A" are clearly not.  That's like saying you're against slavery...but that some amounts of slavery are ok...

Edited by HeloDude
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buddy Spike said:

The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms just like the First Amendment protects our right to free speech (Congress shall make no law). It's not a negotiable document.

While not negotiable, it is changeable.

"For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies — House and Senate — to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate). It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.  The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×