Dude Abides
Banned
Sorry I made you so angry, my gun nut friends. Please don't shoot me! I swear I'm not a federal thug comIn to take your guns!
5 Dead in Illinois shooting (inc. 2 children)
- Thread starter x-Lundz-x
- Start date
- Status
GenocidalMarshmallow
Member
This is very sad and a terrible tragedy! 
Of course there will be time for mourning but it will turn political first, and understandably so, if we get at the root of the problem, maybe we can fix it.
First of all, if you want someone to blame besides the shooters, the NRA, and congress, try blaming the founding fathers. Now I understand that they weren't perfect and we changed the constitution out of necessity before. We got rid of the 3/5 compromise and slavery. Men who don't own property, women, and non white people can vote now, which is a good thing.
But take something as essential and fundamental as the Bill of Rights, and we're on a slippery slope with a very shaky argument here. Taken as as a whole, most would agree it's good. Freedom of Speech, No unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive bail, fair trial, no incriminating oneself, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc and we are all good on that. No one would argue against that.
Now the Second Amendment comes into question. The right to bear arms, as made obviously clear by our founding fathers, is a right. Now we can repeal the second amendment like we repealed prohibition, but should we?
I'm a liberal and all for more gun control, but total disarmament? No, not really. But that's the scary thing here. A lot of GAF seem to say in this thread and others that we should repeal the second amendment completely and ban all guns for all reasons from everyone permanently.
Now background checks, assault rifles, rounds per magazine, okay I get that. But good luck at convincing the American people to give up that right completely. Not gonna happen. This is a terrible thing to say, but I've talked to many people and can conclude that a lot of these NRA gun loving members will never give up that right, no matter how many shootings occur. Obviously when it comes close to home and someone you know gets hurt that can impact them, but still.
I talk to people that say things like "Do you think I care about those kids at Sandy Hook? Or at Aurora Movie Theater? No, I don't. I think it was a small price to pay for us to keep our rights because there will always be collateral damage". Yes, I have met people who say shit like that.
You can try to chip away at that right slowly over time, but it is unlikely you'll succeed in completely repealing it. And good luck getting the greedy NRA and Congress to do this. Most Republicans and NRA members, Hell, 90% of Americans, supported Universal background checks. Did that pass in congress? No, 90 percent of the American people supported something but we didn't have 90 or even 80 represented in congress.
Wasn't it like 56-44 or something like that? I think a simple majority of 51 should do it, not 60 votes in the senate.
Also, what about the millions of people that own guns and aren't mentally unstable, psychopathic murderers? Is it really fair to take away all the law abiding citizens right to bear arms away when they don't kill people with them just so no one has them? I get keeping them out of the hands of dangerous and crazy people and convicted felons and mentally insane and ill, but why should everyone give up that right when they harm no one?
I don't know how strong this background check legislation would have been, seems pretty weak and flimsy to me. But you'll never convince the American people as a whole to give up that right, and even if you did, if the recent background check legislation shows anything, it's that the NRA and other lobbying groups won't let congress represent the people's demand's anyway.
SO instead of talking about complete disarmament and the repealing of the second amendment, why don't we just focus on controlling the flow with things such as assault weapons bans, limiting rounds per magazine and background checks for starters?
Of course there will be time for mourning but it will turn political first, and understandably so, if we get at the root of the problem, maybe we can fix it.First of all, if you want someone to blame besides the shooters, the NRA, and congress, try blaming the founding fathers. Now I understand that they weren't perfect and we changed the constitution out of necessity before. We got rid of the 3/5 compromise and slavery. Men who don't own property, women, and non white people can vote now, which is a good thing.
But take something as essential and fundamental as the Bill of Rights, and we're on a slippery slope with a very shaky argument here. Taken as as a whole, most would agree it's good. Freedom of Speech, No unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive bail, fair trial, no incriminating oneself, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc and we are all good on that. No one would argue against that.
Now the Second Amendment comes into question. The right to bear arms, as made obviously clear by our founding fathers, is a right. Now we can repeal the second amendment like we repealed prohibition, but should we?
I'm a liberal and all for more gun control, but total disarmament? No, not really. But that's the scary thing here. A lot of GAF seem to say in this thread and others that we should repeal the second amendment completely and ban all guns for all reasons from everyone permanently.
Now background checks, assault rifles, rounds per magazine, okay I get that. But good luck at convincing the American people to give up that right completely. Not gonna happen. This is a terrible thing to say, but I've talked to many people and can conclude that a lot of these NRA gun loving members will never give up that right, no matter how many shootings occur. Obviously when it comes close to home and someone you know gets hurt that can impact them, but still.
I talk to people that say things like "Do you think I care about those kids at Sandy Hook? Or at Aurora Movie Theater? No, I don't. I think it was a small price to pay for us to keep our rights because there will always be collateral damage". Yes, I have met people who say shit like that.
You can try to chip away at that right slowly over time, but it is unlikely you'll succeed in completely repealing it. And good luck getting the greedy NRA and Congress to do this. Most Republicans and NRA members, Hell, 90% of Americans, supported Universal background checks. Did that pass in congress? No, 90 percent of the American people supported something but we didn't have 90 or even 80 represented in congress.
Wasn't it like 56-44 or something like that? I think a simple majority of 51 should do it, not 60 votes in the senate.
Also, what about the millions of people that own guns and aren't mentally unstable, psychopathic murderers? Is it really fair to take away all the law abiding citizens right to bear arms away when they don't kill people with them just so no one has them? I get keeping them out of the hands of dangerous and crazy people and convicted felons and mentally insane and ill, but why should everyone give up that right when they harm no one?
I don't know how strong this background check legislation would have been, seems pretty weak and flimsy to me. But you'll never convince the American people as a whole to give up that right, and even if you did, if the recent background check legislation shows anything, it's that the NRA and other lobbying groups won't let congress represent the people's demand's anyway.
SO instead of talking about complete disarmament and the repealing of the second amendment, why don't we just focus on controlling the flow with things such as assault weapons bans, limiting rounds per magazine and background checks for starters?
equippedwithtowel
Member
This is very sad and a terrible tragedy!
First of all, if you want someone to blame besides the shooters, the NRA, and congress, try blaming the founding fathers. Now I understand that they weren't perfect and we changed the constitution out of necessity before. We got rid of the 3/5 compromise and slavery. Men who don't own property, women, and non white people can vote now, which is a good thing.
But take something as essential and fundamental as the Bill of Rights, and we're on a slippery slope with a very shaky argument here. Taken as as a whole, most would agree it's good. Freedom of Speech, No unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive bail, fair trial, no incriminating oneself, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc and we are all good on that. No one would argue against that.
Now the Second Amendment comes into question. The right to bear arms, as made obviously clear by our founding fathers, is a right. Now we can repeal the second amendment like we repealed prohibition, but should we?
I'm a liberal and all for more gun control, but total disarmament? No, not really. But that's the scary thing here. A lot of GAF seem to say in this thread and others that we should repeal the second amendment completely and ban all guns for all reasons from everyone permanently.
Now background checks, assault rifles, rounds per magazine, okay I get that. But good luck at convincing the American people to give up that right completely. Not gonna happen. This is a terrible thing to say, but I've talked to many people and can conclude that a lot of these NRA gun loving members will never give up that right, no matter how many shootings occur. Obviously when it comes close to home and someone you know gets hurt that can impact them, but still.
I talk to people that say things like "Do you think I care about those kids at Sandy Hook? Or at Aurora Movie Theater? No, I don't. I think it was a small price to pay for us to keep our rights because there will always be collateral damage". Yes, I have met people who say shit like that.
You can try to chip away at that right slowly over time, but it is unlikely you'll succeed in completely repealing it. And good luck getting the greedy NRA and Congress to do this. Most Republicans and NRA members, Hell, 90% of Americans, supported Universal background checks. Did that pass in congress? No, 90 percent of the American people supported something but we didn't have 90 or even 80 represented in congress.
Wasn't it like 56-44 or something like that? I think a simple majority of 51 should do it, not 60 votes in the senate.
Also, what about the millions of people that own guns and aren't mentally unstable, psychopathic murderers? Is it really fair to take away all the law abiding citizens right to bear arms away when they don't kill people with them just so no one has them? I get keeping them out of the hands of dangerous and crazy people and convicted felons and mentally insane and ill, but why should everyone give up that right when they harm no one?
I don't know how strong this background check legislation would have been, seems pretty weak and flimsy to me. But you'll never convince the American people as a whole to give up that right, and even if you did, if the recent background check legislation shows anything, it's that the NRA and other lobbying groups won't let congress represent the people's demand's anyway.
SO instead of talking about complete disarmament and the repealing of the second amendment, why don't we just focus on controlling the flow with things such as assault weapons bans, limiting rounds per magazine and background checks for starters?
No one is saying ban all guns.
No one with any sanity at least.
Your suggestions in the last paragraph are exactly what the NRA are making their stand over. AWBs are a permanent non-starter and background checks seem to be within their protected radius as well.
This is very sad and a terrible tragedy!
First of all, if you want someone to blame besides the shooters, the NRA, and congress, try blaming the founding fathers. Now I understand that they weren't perfect and we changed the constitution out of necessity before. We got rid of the 3/5 compromise and slavery. Men who don't own property, women, and non white people can vote now, which is a good thing.
But take something as essential and fundamental as the Bill of Rights, and we're on a slippery slope with a very shaky argument here. Taken as as a whole, most would agree it's good. Freedom of Speech, No unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive bail, fair trial, no incriminating oneself, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc and we are all good on that. No one would argue against that.
Now the Second Amendment comes into question. The right to bear arms, as made obviously clear by our founding fathers, is a right. Now we can repeal the second amendment like we repealed prohibition, but should we?
I'm a liberal and all for more gun control, but total disarmament? No, not really. But that's the scary thing here. A lot of GAF seem to say in this thread and others that we should repeal the second amendment completely and ban all guns for all reasons from everyone permanently.
Now background checks, assault rifles, rounds per magazine, okay I get that. But good luck at convincing the American people to give up that right completely. Not gonna happen. This is a terrible thing to say, but I've talked to many people and can conclude that a lot of these NRA gun loving members will never give up that right, no matter how many shootings occur. Obviously when it comes close to home and someone you know gets hurt that can impact them, but still.
I talk to people that say things like "Do you think I care about those kids at Sandy Hook? Or at Aurora Movie Theater? No, I don't. I think it was a small price to pay for us to keep our rights because there will always be collateral damage". Yes, I have met people who say shit like that.
You can try to chip away at that right slowly over time, but it is unlikely you'll succeed in completely repealing it. And good luck getting the greedy NRA and Congress to do this. Most Republicans and NRA members, Hell, 90% of Americans, supported Universal background checks. Did that pass in congress? No, 90 percent of the American people supported something but we didn't have 90 or even 80 represented in congress.
Wasn't it like 56-44 or something like that? I think a simple majority of 51 should do it, not 60 votes in the senate.
Also, what about the millions of people that own guns and aren't mentally unstable, psychopathic murderers? Is it really fair to take away all the law abiding citizens right to bear arms away when they don't kill people with them just so no one has them? I get keeping them out of the hands of dangerous and crazy people and convicted felons and mentally insane and ill, but why should everyone give up that right when they harm no one?
I don't know how strong this background check legislation would have been, seems pretty weak and flimsy to me. But you'll never convince the American people as a whole to give up that right, and even if you did, if the recent background check legislation shows anything, it's that the NRA and other lobbying groups won't let congress represent the people's demand's anyway.
SO instead of talking about complete disarmament and the repealing of the second amendment, why don't we just focus on controlling the flow with things such as assault weapons bans, limiting rounds per magazine and background checks for starters?
I'm not going to blame the founding fathers because:
#1: They're dead, and they're not running the country any more. It's our country, not theirs.
#2: The 2nd amendment was never meant to protect firearm ownership as an individual right, rather than a collective right. U.S. V Emerson (2003) represents the first time a federal appelate court used the individual right interpretation (previous court rulings on gun control measures relied on intepreting the impact of the regulations on militias.)
No, I'm going to blame the idiots who currently run the country, and the idiots who currently reside in it, and every idiot who contributes to increasing the gun supply in this country, legally or illegally, and our entire attitude that it's none of our concern if any harm befalls someone other than ourselves and our immediate families. It's why education, health care, and crime are so messed up in this country.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I dunno, Zombie Lincoln has been pretty active lately
Mammoth Jones
Member
Yes, it's completely my fault when some douchebag kills a bunch of people because I have some guns that haven't harmed anyone in my house. No. It's not the murderers. Because, I mean, they're murderers...that's what they do. What else could we expect of them to do? Not murder? That's silly talk.
I respect that you're at least willing to concede you believe the problem is the 2nd Amendment itself. I wish more anti-gun people would go ahead and do that so we can get that out of the way.
If you told me that getting rid of my guns would stop all the bad things from happening, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't live in that magical fairy tale world.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Gunowners are now responsible for crime, low education standards, and healthcare costs.
Keep it coming GG. This shit is hilarious.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
And my aunty, God rest her soul, said I'd never contribute to anything.
GenocidalMarshmallow
Member
This reminds me of that Republican that said "If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted". Like wtf is that even supposed to mean, anyway?
But yeah, can't we come to some kind of medium, a compromise of sorts, where we achieve a balance of safety and well being while insuring that one's rights aren't trampled on? Universal Background checks are a necessary evil, and registering a gun is no different than registering a car.
Also regarding the foundations for and reasoning behind the second amendment. Even if it wasn't originally INTENDED for a civilian's right to own a firearm for whatever reason, if we look at the Supreme Court and the history of the interpretation of the Constitution, whose to say it can't change?
Example: The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Amendment XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now this was originally intended to guarantee the rights of newly freed slaves, they soon got taken away but that's another story. It got encompassed into giving women the right to vote in the twentieth amendment. Also a new generation saw the equal protection clause-"no state shall deny an person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"-in a whole different light. Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education. Precedent of separate but equal was overturned and integration was allowed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 are other examples.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act, the one that Ron Paul takes issue with, is where private business have to serve everyone and can't just discriminate and say "no n-word's allowed" and it was justified under Congresses constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce since supplies traveled across state lines.
Now do you think that the founding fathers could have ever envisioned or even supported the use of interstate commerce as a means for violating property rights for civil rights? Or the equal protection clause on integration or women's suffrage? Or free speech on movies and video games, which didn't exist yet? No, they never could have imagined it.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, "The Earth belongs to the living". So our generation, the living gets to decide how we interpret the constitution and what we add and what we scrap. So constitutionally we could repeal the second amendment, but the American people as a whole will never agree.
I support more gun control like assault weapons bans, magazine limits and background checks, but not complete disarmament like some on GAF in this thread and others have said. The argument that the founding fathers "never intended for this to mean that or be interpreted that way", doesn't hold much water in my book.
But yeah, can't we come to some kind of medium, a compromise of sorts, where we achieve a balance of safety and well being while insuring that one's rights aren't trampled on? Universal Background checks are a necessary evil, and registering a gun is no different than registering a car.
Also regarding the foundations for and reasoning behind the second amendment. Even if it wasn't originally INTENDED for a civilian's right to own a firearm for whatever reason, if we look at the Supreme Court and the history of the interpretation of the Constitution, whose to say it can't change?
Example: The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Amendment XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now this was originally intended to guarantee the rights of newly freed slaves, they soon got taken away but that's another story. It got encompassed into giving women the right to vote in the twentieth amendment. Also a new generation saw the equal protection clause-"no state shall deny an person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"-in a whole different light. Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education. Precedent of separate but equal was overturned and integration was allowed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 are other examples.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act, the one that Ron Paul takes issue with, is where private business have to serve everyone and can't just discriminate and say "no n-word's allowed" and it was justified under Congresses constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce since supplies traveled across state lines.
Now do you think that the founding fathers could have ever envisioned or even supported the use of interstate commerce as a means for violating property rights for civil rights? Or the equal protection clause on integration or women's suffrage? Or free speech on movies and video games, which didn't exist yet? No, they never could have imagined it.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, "The Earth belongs to the living". So our generation, the living gets to decide how we interpret the constitution and what we add and what we scrap. So constitutionally we could repeal the second amendment, but the American people as a whole will never agree.
I support more gun control like assault weapons bans, magazine limits and background checks, but not complete disarmament like some on GAF in this thread and others have said. The argument that the founding fathers "never intended for this to mean that or be interpreted that way", doesn't hold much water in my book.
I'd let you borrow my guns.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
I'd make him get a background check first.
AngmarsKing701
Member
I've probably already been beaten on this, but the first line of the linked article reads "The nephew of a small Illinois town killed five people..."
How about an editor or someone reading over this before they put it online. The nephew of a small Illinois town?
Yo momma so fat?
Guns are not toys to be lent to people for recreation. The Gun should be registered to you or your spouse or adult children for use just like a license for a vehicle. Take the Gun seriously. Treat it with respect. It's a Weapon. Used for Self-Defense to Kill other threatening human beings.
If your friend can't afford a Gun of their own to take to the firing range, then why do they need to practice shooting? They don't own a Gun anyway? If its to try out a different type of Gun to see how it "feels", then you should have to be there at the range with your friend, and your friend should have to have a background check first. After all, what harm would the delay of waiting for a background check to clear do to a person that doesn't own a Gun, and is just trying out your Gun to see what it feels like to fire it?
They'd have to wait a few days before they could play with your Gun. What a horrible thing to have to do to shoot a weapon at paper targets representing human beings.
Should you be able to lend out your car to your unlicensed/unregistered friend too?
Are there good reasons for the laws that have been written into effect?
Should we not strive to move beyond our old animalistic ways, and become better people as a whole? I think we should and that means facing the boogeyman that haunts all of us.... Death. If you're not afraid to die, then you wouldn't need a Gun because you would not fear the Guns' potential lethality. You'd render the Gun Powerless! We should seek to engineer out the fear of death (or certain types of death) in lab animals and then see how their lives improve or worsen. Maybe that will lead us to a higher level of human existence.
The primary use of guns IS recreation. There really is a huge chasm of ignorance as to why and how people own and use guns. Nailing a few bullseyes then knocking the tacks holding the paper up at 100 yards is a very zen like experience.
Training yourself to not blink, to breath, to not anticipate the shot is absolute self mastery
Interpret more
What in fuck's name would that achieve?
Don't put words in my mouth.
What I was saying was that the attitude that as long as you're not doing anything wrong, what happens to others is none of your concern, that is what is messing up our country.
When people end up stuck in poverty and turning to lives of crime, it's their problem, not yours, and not society's. There is no need to reflect on how people are raised in poor areas, or how we provide (or fail to provide) opportunity and safety nets for people to fall back on.
That's the attitude I'm criticizing. It's the attitude behind every argument that invokes the term "law abiding citizens." It's the attitud ethat prevents us from doing anything as a collective to solve our problems.
(And yes, by increasing the supply of guns in the country, you make it easier for people to acquire them. It's not like there's an underground black market for guns that operates completely independently from the legal gun trade. No, guns flow freely to and from the black market from "legitimate" markets)
Weeding out the sarcastic, disingenuous, or satirical in a neogaf gun thread is basically impossible.
Hell 80% of my posts in these threads are disingenuous.
This depends on what you're counting. The primary use for some people, such as yourself, is recreation, sure, but that's not the primary function of guns. People buy them for protection. Police forces buy them to protect and enforce. Military buys them, well.. for the shit that the military does. Some people buy them for hunting. And, unfortunately, some people buy them to do bad shit like robbery, etc.
Sure, by time maybe guns in general are in use (i.e. firing) more for recreation than some other things, but that depends on how you tabulate things. Is a gun that's on someone's person for protection in "use" at that time even if it's not fired? I'd argue yes.
People buying their guns purely and absolutely as toys are in the minority as far as guns' overall uses are concerned. Unless you're putting hunting in that same category, but I view that as far more functional than what you're talking about.
And I say all this as someone who very well might buy my first gun down the road purely for recreational purposes. (though I suppose maybe partially work-related "research," but still mostly recreation)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Seems to indicate that's it's about 1/3rd for non-hunting and just over half if you include hunting as recreational use. It's a pretty interesting read even if the data is old. It also has some commentary on defensive gun use.
Seems to affirm what I was talking about, since I count hunting as more functional, or at least not on the same level as a "toy": "Overall, 46 percent of gun owners possessed fire- arms (usually handguns) primarily for protection against crime. Almost three-quarters of those who owned only handguns kept them primarily for self-protection. " And 17% own just for sport shooting only.
And that's just private ownership of guns. I was speaking of guns in a general sense. The primary use of guns isn't recreation. You could get away with saying a large portion of private users primarily have theirs for recreation, though. The largest portion of private users of guns have theirs for protection, though.
Honestly... That's scary as hell.
It makes me wonder how often that group actually shoots their guns.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked