Support NeoGAF

[Ekdrm2d1]

wat

Wasn’t the above poster signaling out things that kill people?

 

[labah123]

Fuck the 2nd Amendment.

The fact that we have a "right" to own something, anything, is fucking ridiculous.

I see you're a firm supporter of eminent domain and civil forfeiture.... both enforced with guys with guns.

 

[DS_Joost]

Are these the guys you want to die on the cross for in regards to gun laws. I mean watching that video its clear that all 3 of these assholes should not be anywhere close to a gun.

Thats the problem with the fanaticism with the 2nd ammendment and guns. I can't imagine anyone who is pro guns can honestly watch this and argue that these 3 jerk offs should be able to carry fire arms around. Even the guy who was killed was running his mouth threatening to kill those other guys. If he had a gun on him then maybe the old guy or his son are the dead ones.

I agree with DS_Joost the principal cant be argued with. There can be debate about the execution and its a give and take, but you can't be honest and not agree in principal to the reduction of guns in America.

There we are. The problem for me is thst guns are literally made to kill things. Efficiently. That's why I believe people shouldn't carry them, outside of professionals. You can't trust people with household items, let alone a device that is made to kill fast and efficiently and nothing else.

 

[138]

I see you're a firm supporter of eminent domain and civil forfeiture.... both enforced with guys with guns.

Do you mean licensed professionals?

Look, I have no problem with guns. You want a gun? Go register, take a test, let us know you're not a maniac, and then by all means, have a hunting rifle or pistol.

But don't give me this shit that it's your "right" to own whatever the fuck you think you want to.

 

[DS_Joost]

I see you're a firm supporter of eminent domain and civil forfeiture.... both enforced with guys with guns.

Indeed. This is a bad statement and not thought out at all. How about we give people tanks then too, right?

 

[DS_Joost]

Do you mean licensed professionals?

Look, I have no problem with guns. You want a gun? Go register, take a test, let us know you're not a maniac, and then by all means, have a hunting rifle or pistol.

But don't give me this shit that it's your "right" to own whatever the fuck you think you want to.

So you agree that people have the right to own something that is literally made for one thing, and one thing only?

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Wasn’t the above poster signaling out things that kill people?

Things that one can kill another person with, yes. I have yet to see someone murder someone with a tornado.

 

[GrayFoxRJ]

To those defending these 2 shitheads, let me ask you sth.

Do they look educated enough to have guns in their possession? Like having some kind of certificate or training of such?

It doesn't matter the guy had a bat, he never opened confront to them, they opened fire by answering his "wish" in threats.

How is this feasible? You don't shoot someone just because the guys is challenging your manhood while arguing.

You shoot if the opposite side starts physical aggression, in intention to unable one's actions, not to kill, like shooting leg, or arm. I didn't see any defensive intention. They shot first. Pure animal behavior?

Dont you feel ashamed of covering these lowlifes by using whataboutism and such in the sole reason to justify your political opinion?

 

[138]

Indeed. This is a bad statement and not thought out at all. How about we give people tanks then too, right?

I want a bazooka and/or rocket launcher. It's in the Constimatooshun!

 

[138]

So you agree that people have the right to own something that is literally made for one thing, and one thing only?

No, I don't believe you have a right to own anything.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

There we are. The problem for me is thst guns are literally made to kill things. Efficiently. That's why I believe people shouldn't carry them, outside of professionals. You can't trust people with household items, let alone a device that is made to kill fast and efficiently and nothing else.

I hope it's clear that this attitude is totally incompatible with a belief in either individual freedoms or self-government.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

I want a bazooka and/or rocket launcher. It's in the Constimatooshun!

Actually the Constitution protects the right to own weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. Handguns, rifles and shotguns are; rocket launchers are not. See D.C. v Heller, decided in 2008.

 

[nani17]

Good job!

Wow what a smartass..

Yes you have a gun problem you have more mass shootings then 10 European country's combined. You rather talk about a guy kneeling during a song then how we can stop school shootings or mass shootings. You focus more attention on what your president had for lunch then kids being murdered.

Columbine was 8000 odd days ago and since then you've had well over 100 mass shootings and you continue with the same argument. You can't ban guns/guns must be banned. Then 3 weeks after a shooting you move on and nothing done. So yes you really have a problem most other civilised nations would tell you this but sure what would they know lol

Yes this wasn't a mass shootings but fuck it ones due anyway and again you'll go through the same routine.

 

[138]

Actually the Constitution protects the right to own weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. Handguns, rifles and shotguns are; rocket launchers are not. See D.C. v Heller, decided in 2008.

Gotcha. How about an M-16? They were always cool toys when I was a kid playing "Army". Can I get one of those?

 

[Pompi]

Yea, and in London there is a knife problem.
You think if they had knives instead it would end much different?

 

[labah123]

Do you mean licensed professionals?

Look, I have no problem with guns. You want a gun? Go register, take a test, let us know you're not a maniac, and then by all means, have a hunting rifle or pistol.

But don't give me this shit that it's your "right" to own whatever the fuck you think you want to.

No one has a "right to own whatever the fuck they think they want to" .

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

Gotcha. How about an M-16? They were always cool toys when I was a kid playing "Army". Can I get one of those?

You can, buy the one the manufacturer sells for civilians called the AR15.

 

[Papa]

These are fun. I have some more..

“Ban water! Flooding kills millions!”

“Ban tornados they kill thousands”

“Ban cancer. Cancer kills!!”

I mean, except for water, we would if we could.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

Gotcha. How about an M-16? They were always cool toys when I was a kid playing "Army". Can I get one of those?

No, they were effectively banned in 1986. Those made prior are still in circulation, but sell for around $20,000 and require a great deal of paperwork to transfer.

Machine guns have never been in common use amongst the populace, even when unrestricted (back in the 1930's you could order one through the mail or buy one in a hardware store). So they aren't protected by the logic of the Heller case.

 

[Papa]

Things that one can kill another person with, yes. I have yet to see someone murder someone with a tornado.

Uh, where have you been? Trump murdered 3,000 Puerto Ricans last year.

 

[Papa]

To those defending these 2 shitheads, let me ask you sth.

Do they look educated enough to have guns in their possession? Like having some kind of certificate or training of such?

It doesn't matter the guy had a bat, he never opened confront to them, they opened fire by answering his "wish" in threats.

How is this feasible? You don't shoot someone just because the guys is challenging your manhood while arguing.

You shoot if the opposite side starts physical aggression, in intention to unable one's actions, not to kill, like shooting leg, or arm. I didn't see any defensive intention. They shot first. Pure animal behavior?

Dont you feel ashamed of covering these lowlifes by using whataboutism and such in the sole reason to justify your political opinion?

Who is defending them? We are discussing the various shades of grey in this scenario because, you know, it's a discussion forum...

The guy did attack them. He had a baseball bat and swung at them when the old guy shot him with the pistol. The young guy with the shotgun's actions were far more heinous imo.

 

[138]

No, they were effectively banned in 1986. Those made prior are still in circulation, but sell for around $20,000 and require a great deal of paperwork to transfer.

Banned?!!!! What the fuck are you talking about?! I'm an American! I have rights!

 

[Papa]

Wow what a smartass..

Yes you have a gun problem you have more mass shootings then 10 European country's combined. You rather talk about a guy kneeling during a song then how we can stop school shootings or mass shootings. You focus more attention on what your president had for lunch then kids being murdered.

Columbine was 8000 odd days ago and since then you've had well over 100 mass shootings and you continue with the same argument. You can't ban guns/guns must be banned. Then 3 weeks after a shooting you move on and nothing done. So yes you really have a problem most other civilised nations would tell you this but sure what would they know lol

Yes this wasn't a mass shootings but fuck it ones due anyway and again you'll go through the same routine.

I don't think anyone here is in favour of mass murder. The argument is over whether banning guns would be the solution that many think it would.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

edit

 

[138]

I don't think anyone here is in favour of mass murder. The argument is over whether banning guns would be the solution that many think it would.

This is what cracks me up. Just because there is no 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you can't own a gun!

How in the hell do you own a car? A house? There's no constitutional amendment saying you can. How is this possible?

Oh, right. By demonstrating you're responsible enough to handle the burden.

 

[nani17]

I don't think anyone here is in favour of mass murder. The argument is over whether banning guns would be the solution that many think it would.

The point is you haven't solved the problem in over the 8000 days since columbine because its only in the news for a few weeks then you move on. You can't ban guns outright imo but a solution has to happen far to many dying

 

[Musky_Cheese]

No, I don't believe you have a right to own anything.

Lol

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Gun threads, I mean mass shootings and murder threads, are political right?

I prefer to see gun threads in off topic but it’s actually political.

 

[Papa]

The point is you haven't solved the problem in over the 8000 days since columbine because its only in the news for a few weeks then you move on. You can't ban guns outright imo but a solution has to happen far to many dying

"you"?

FYI running around screaming "but we have to do something!" generally does not lead to a solution.

 

[Papa]

This is what cracks me up. Just because there is no 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you can't own a gun!

How in the hell do you own a car? A house? There's no constitutional amendment saying you can. How is this possible?

Oh, right. By demonstrating you're responsible enough to handle the burden.

What are you on about?

The 2nd amendment doesn't give you a license to own a gun, it gives you the right to not have the government take a legally-gained gun off of you.

What do cars and houses have to do with anything?

 

[cryptoadam]

They shouldn't be able to have knives, baseball bats, drain cleaner or bricks, either. And certainly never drive a car. So where exactly do we stop in curtailing the rights of the people, in hopes of making the assholes less dangerous?

We stop at guns. There is no slippery slope thats just a deflection. I could go the opposite way and say if we give everyone a right to arms why not a right to nukes a right to kill a right to steal a right to murder a right to rape, where do we stop allowing the unchecked rights of people?

And are you honestly saying that these 3 people should have guns? 2 of them had guns and it resulted in a death, and the 3rd was threatening to kill the 2 guys. These are the people you are arguing that should have guns. Like I said there is room to debate the execution but not the principal.

 

[nani17]

"you"?

FYI running around screaming "but we have to do something!" generally does not lead to a solution.

Well I live in Ireland I'm saying the American people need to do something

 

[gunslikewhoa]

We stop at guns. There is no slippery slope thats just a deflection. I could go the opposite way and say if we give everyone a right to arms why not a right to nukes a right to kill a right to steal a right to murder a right to rape, where do we stop allowing the unchecked rights of people?

The right to own something and the right to commit an act of violence aren't really on the same spectrum. Holy apples and oranges.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

The right to own something and the right to commit an act of violence aren't really on the same spectrum. Holy apples and oranges.

You don’t have a right to own weed. Weed is not responsible for mass shootings and daily murder yet it’s outlawed.

 

[138]

What are you on about?

The 2nd amendment doesn't give you a license to own a gun, it gives you the right to not have the government take a legally-gained gun off of you.

What do cars and houses have to do with anything?

Fine, I'll take your argument. But what does "legally-gained" mean?

Can felons "legally gain" a firearm?

What about spousal abusers or kid-touchers? Should they be able to "legally gain" a firearm?

My point about houses and cars is that there's no constitutional guarantee to have them, yet somehow people acquire them.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

As in they're most prone to Darwinism.

I understand Darwinism as meaning "those with the most offspring will have their genes be more widespread." And I'm (superficially) assuming that these guys have more children than the average adult male in the western world. So whether they act in a way that gets them killed or not, I don't believe Darwinism is relevant here.

 

[cryptoadam]

The right to own something and the right to commit an act of violence aren't really on the same spectrum. Holy apples and oranges.

Thats the point, I was responding to this

"They shouldn't be able to have knives, baseball bats, drain cleaner or bricks, either. And certainly never drive a car. So where exactly do we stop in curtailing the rights of the people, in hopes of making the assholes less dangerous? "

Exactly its stupid to compare doing something about gun rights to stoping driving, drain cleaner, bricks etc...

The slippery slope argument is stupid and a deflection.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

We stop at guns. There is no slippery slope thats just a deflection. I could go the opposite way and say if we give everyone a right to arms why not a right to nukes a right to kill a right to steal a right to murder a right to rape, where do we stop allowing the unchecked rights of people?

And are you honestly saying that these 3 people should have guns? 2 of them had guns and it resulted in a death, and the 3rd was threatening to kill the 2 guys. These are the people you are arguing that should have guns. Like I said there is room to debate the execution but not the principal.

Read D.C. V Heller. Individuals have a right to keep arms that are in common use for lawful purposes. They can only lose that right by ajudication. Doesn't matter what you or I think about it, that's what the Constitution says, according to the Supreme Court.

So, you're right, there's no room to debate the principal. You can't stop crime by removing guns, because people have a right to own guns. You might as well suggest stopping drug dealers by warrantless searches, or child predators by banning private internet connections. It can't happen. Find another solution.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

Thats the point, I was responding to this

"They shouldn't be able to have knives, baseball bats, drain cleaner or bricks, either. And certainly never drive a car. So where exactly do we stop in curtailing the rights of the people, in hopes of making the assholes less dangerous? "

Exactly its stupid to compare doing something about gun rights to stoping driving, drain cleaner, bricks etc...

The slippery slope argument is stupid and a deflection.

Really? So why is it that the U.K. is now working on banning pointed knives?

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

So, you're right, there's no room to debate the principal. You can't stop crime by removing guns, because people have a right to own guns.

Should they though? Gay spouses do not have marriage benefits. It is not their rights.

Again.. spousal benefits do not cause mass shootings yet they are effectively outlawed.

 

[Snow_Lizard]

Should they though? Gay spouses do not have marriage benefits. It is not their rights.

Again.. spousal benefits do not cause mass shootings yet they are effectively outlawed.

I'm not sure what you're referring to? The Supreme Court also found that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right of gay couples to marry, with the same rights and privileges as straight marriage.

 

[Papa]

Fine, I'll take your argument. But what does "legally-gained" mean?

Can felons "legally gain" a firearm?

What about spousal abusers or kid-touchers? Should they be able to "legally gain" a firearm?

My point about houses and cars is that there's no constitutional guarantee to have them, yet somehow people acquire them.

As far as I’m aware, no, felons can’t legally acquire firearms.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

I'm not sure what you're referring to? The Supreme Court also found that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right of gay couples to marry, with the same rights and privileges as straight marriage.

States rights.

Same-sex couples can get married in Texas, but they won’t have the same rights that heterosexual couples do.

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling on Monday that allows the state to take away spousal benefits under employee insurance plans from married same-sex couples.

 

[Papa]

I understand Darwinism as meaning "those with the most offspring will have their genes be more widespread." And I'm (superficially) assuming that these guys have more children than the average adult male in the western world. So whether they act in a way that gets them killed or not, I don't believe Darwinism is relevant here.

What are you on about?

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Texas Supreme Court: No inherent right to gay marriage benefits

Finding no established right to spousal benefits in same-sex marriages, a unanimous Texas Supreme Court on Fridayrevived a lawsuit challenging the city of Houston’s insurance plans for married gay employees.

According to the all-Republican Texas court, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the right to same-sex marriage did not decide all marriage-related matters, leaving room for state courts to explore the decision’s “reach and ramifications.”

 

[cryptoadam]

Read D.C. V Heller. Individuals have a right to keep arms that are in common use for lawful purposes. They can only lose that right by ajudication. Doesn't matter what you or I think about it, that's what the Constitution says, according to the Supreme Court.

So, you're right, there's no room to debate the principal. You can't stop crime by removing guns, because people have a right to own guns. You might as well suggest stopping drug dealers by warrantless searches, or child predators by banning private internet connections. It can't happen. Find another solution.

Ok so you have the right to KEEP arms for lawful purposes. So why does that mean these 2 guys had the right to bring their loaded guns to this encounter and then engage in an argument that escalated to the death of a person. Keep arms means to me you can have a gun locked up at home or a shooting range. Thats where we can debate the execution.

Lets say the guy wasn't killed, and you saw a video of him telling those guys he is going to kill them and he walked into your gun shop, you wouldn't have any issues selling him a gun? Knowing that he is going to murder 2 people when you sell him that gun?

 

[Papa]

Ok so you have the right to KEEP arms for lawful purposes. So why does that mean these 2 guys had the right to bring their loaded guns to this encounter and then engage in an argument that escalated to the death of a person. Keep arms means to me you can have a gun locked up at home or a shooting range. Thats where we can debate the execution.

Lets say the guy wasn't killed, and you saw a video of him telling those guys he is going to kill them and he walked into your gun shop, you wouldn't have any issues selling him a gun? Knowing that he is going to murder 2 people when you sell him that gun?

It seems to me that you’re arguing against open carry laws, which I believe are determined by states, rather than the right to bear arms guaranteed by the constitution.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Wow what a smartass..

Yes you have a gun problem you have more mass shootings then 10 European country's combined. You rather talk about a guy kneeling during a song then how we can stop school shootings or mass shootings. You focus more attention on what your president had for lunch then kids being murdered.

Columbine was 8000 odd days ago and since then you've had well over 100 mass shootings and you continue with the same argument. You can't ban guns/guns must be banned. Then 3 weeks after a shooting you move on and nothing done. So yes you really have a problem most other civilised nations would tell you this but sure what would they know lol

Yes this wasn't a mass shootings but fuck it ones due anyway and again you'll go through the same routine.

You make a lot of assumptions for someone who made the first smart-ass snide comment.

If you're going to put a low effort post you're going to get a low-effort response there champ.

I would like to think we can all discuss things here as adults, instead of resorting to typical extremes on either side. There's always room for nuance in discourse, instead of broad strokes. Everybody has shit in their own backyards, in glass houses we all live.

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

I don't understand why the guy kept provoking them and didn't just walk away.

Who messes with somebody holding a gun? The two shirtless guys don't look like the classiest fellows but I don't think they're the ones totally in the wrong here.

 

[YayNJ]

People justifying blowing someone's head off never ceases to amaze me.

 

[cryptoadam]

It seems to me that you’re arguing against open carry laws, which I believe are determined by states, rather than the right to bear arms guaranteed by the constitution.

My main problem isn't so much with gun ownership, its with the lax rules around it. The amount of guns, types, how you get them, where they can be used etc... reduce these things and gun ownership drops on its own.