Support NeoGAF

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

"Après moi, le déluge" - Barack Hussein Obama

"Loser should speak American"-Trump.

 

[benjipwns]

POLITICO: South Carolina GOP chafes under Graham

How many attempts do you think they made before settling on this headline?

 

[HyperionX]

Let's further note here that the "ideal" is to restrict the freedoms/rights of the law abiding because of the criminal acts of others. Not because of anything the law abiding have done except desire to own an object similar to those a criminal has used in an illegal manner.

Like I said in my previous post, "law abiding" people are implicated as part of the problem because of their unwillingness to police themselves and fellow gun owners. Like in police brutality threads, "not all cops" is not a valid excuse, it's just a deflection of the issue.

 

[benjipwns]

Like I said in my previous post, "law abiding" people are implicated as part of the problem because of their unwillingness to police themselves and fellow gun owners. Like in police brutality threads, "not all cops" is not a valid excuse, it's just a deflection of the issue.

How exactly are we supposed to "police [our]selves" in your scenario?

You realize that the police are specifically empowered to arrest and (with assistance) charge those who violate the law and choose not to when they look the other way with their fellow officers.

I don't see much of a lobby pushing for the state to repeal/ignore murder/manslaughter/battery/etc. laws.

 

[Retromelon]

Now can we get back to posting some dank trump polls ten times a minute and slapfighting eraser whenever he dares shows his face

 

[Sianos]

I've learned to enjoy meta-level (heh) semantics arguments, especially because we get to experiment with framing debates in different terms to identify and adjust for connotations loaded with certain words.

Object-level semantics debates where someone thinks that if they can technically apply a label loaded with negative connotations to something then it proves that the thing in question has all of the negative connotations implicit in the label are obnoxious. Ex: Restricting gun ownership is, by definition, a limitation of freedom. Colloquially, people associate negative thoughts with the idea of limiting freedoms in general. Therefore, restricting gun ownership is bad because restricting freedom is bad. OR Criminals, by definition, break the law. Criminals are also, by definition, nefarious wrong-doing people who hurts others. Martin Luther King broke the law. Therefore Martin Luther King is a criminal. Therefore Martin Luther King is a nefarious wrong-doing person who hurts others, because he is a criminal, and criminals are, by definition, nefarious wrong-doing people who hurt others.

Let's further note here that the "ideal" is to restrict the freedoms/rights of the law abiding because of the criminal acts of others. Not because of anything the law abiding have done except desire to own an object similar to those a criminal has used in an illegal manner.

Yes, technically any form of regulation of guns is a restriction of freedom by definition. For example, requiring a person to use a gun safe when their gun is not on their person is limiting that person's freedom to have their gun lying around in the home. But having the gun lying around in the home carries the risk (potential for another's freedom to be limited) of someone nefarious stealing the gun and using it commit a crime or an unsupervised child playing with it and severely hurting themselves or someone else. The gun owner has had their freedom limited, but in a minor way that prevents a much greater risk. They are still allowed to use their gun, but they are legally required to be responsible with it.

I guess I could distill my argument for gun control down to "legislating responsibility". A responsible gun owner should store their gun in a gun safe so it isn't stolen or played with, by definition a responsible gun owner would pass a psych evaluation (failing the psych evaluation would demonstrate that they are objectively not responsible), and registering your gun and reporting if it is stolen is the responsible thing to do in order to protect your property and others. People should be doing these things and I suspect that most people who self-identify as "responsible gun owners" do these things already. The issue is that the irresponsible gun owners who do not take these precautions threaten everyone, so people should be legally required to take these precautions to protect the general public.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should lift the prohibitions that keep certain particularly dangerous people from owning guns. I'm just saying, as a matter of fact, such people might own a gun for perfectly legitimate reasons, like self-defense. So, we shouldn't infer from their mere ownership of a gun that they had malicious intentions.

Oh, that is very true.

It is illegal for all people who are legally banned from owning guns to have a gun (obviously), but not all people who obtain guns illegally are legally banned from having guns in general.

I think I was trying to say that illegally obtaining guns is not a good thing, but I was trying to conflate those two statements so that a reader would think that someone who would obtain a gun illegally should be banned from owning guns by claiming that only people who would be banned would have a logical reason to illegally acquire guns. But you demonstrated how this reasoning is incorrect and a distortion of logic.

I'm going to go with the "I was really sleepy" line of defense for being unable to see that terrible flaw in my reasoning.

 

[HyperionX]

I mean, I think the answer is straightforward, people just don't like it.

Guns are the tool the state uses to maintain their monopoly on violence. The carrot of cooperating with the state is that everything is better for everybody and overall the world is a better place when you voluntarily participate in society. The stick is that if you don't cooperate with the state, eventually the state will shoot you with a gun.

So the freedom to own guns is also the freedom to resist the state if it is abrogating your rights. That is what makes it distinct from the freedom to own lead paint.

Government also exists to as a social guarantee against many many things (injury or sickness, unemployment, retirement, etc.) while also existing to preserve the safety of society in general. The ideas your pushing is basically classical liberalism, which really hasn't been a thing since the 1930s, and is based on the idea that government is the thing preventing personal happiness and nothing more. Modern liberalism and progressivism has long since moved on from that. Not to mention overthrowing government is quite silly unless you have either overwhelming popular support or the backing of a major portion of the military. Neither of which does personal ownership of firearms provide.

You should know this already! It's the lesson of the Black Panthers.

The Black Panthers are about the worst role-models imaginable. I seriously doubt you even understand what they actually were.

 

[benjipwns]

Yes, technically any form of regulation of guns is a restriction of freedom by definition. For example, requiring a person to use a gun safe when their gun is not on their person is limiting that person's freedom to have their gun lying around in the home. But having the gun lying around in the home carries the risk (potential for another's freedom to be limited) of someone nefarious stealing the gun and using it commit a crime or an unsupervised child playing with it and severely hurting themselves or someone else. The gun owner has had their freedom limited, but in a minor way that prevents a much greater risk. They are still allowed to use their gun, but they are legally required to be responsible with it.

I guess I could distill my argument for gun control down to "legislating responsibility". A responsible gun owner should store their gun in a gun safe so it isn't stolen or played with, by definition a responsible gun owner would pass a psych evaluation (failing the psych evaluation would demonstrate that they are objectively not responsible), and registering your gun and reporting if it is stolen is the responsible thing to do in order to protect your property and others. People should be doing these things and I suspect that most people who self-identify as "responsible gun owners" do these things already. The issue is that the irresponsible gun owners who do not take these precautions threaten everyone, so people should be legally required to take these precautions to product the general public.

If I may distill it differently: You hope that by criminalizing irresponsibility that the mass of irresponsible people will act responsible to avoid the consequences (to themselves, natch) of the now criminal act.

The Black Panthers are about the worst role-models imaginable. I seriously doubt you even understand what they actually were.

:jnc

 

[eBay Huckster]

Now can we get back to posting some dank trump polls ten times a minute and slapfighting eraser whenever he dares shows his face

I mean, we can still do that anyway.

 

[HyperionX]

How exactly are we supposed to "police [our]selves" in your scenario?

You realize that the police are specifically empowered to arrest and (with assistance) charge those who violate the law and choose not to when they look the other way with their fellow officers.

I don't see much of a lobby pushing for the state to repeal/ignore murder/manslaughter/battery/etc. laws.

I do see many gun owners being members of organizations such as the NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups. These groups exist almost exclusive to block or revert gun legislation and have long since abandoned gun safety as a meaningful part of their platform. There's also a huge amount of racism and xenophobia among gun owners, and there's been very little in the way of rejecting such behavior from fellow gun owners.

By not protesting against these groups, or at least advocating against bad behavior, gun owners have put themselves in a very similar situation as police organizations. Not exactly the same, but the point still stands.

 

[Retromelon]

Nobody knows how hype i get whenever i see him in here, i start rifling through my bernie smile jpegs as sweat pools on my brow

 

[benjipwns]

END OF AN ERA
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/08/8575334/msnbc-moves-al-sharpton-sunday-mornings

Al Sharpton is leaving MSNBC's weekday dayside lineup, and moving to Sunday mornings.

Sharpton's last weekday "PoliticsNation" will be Sept. 4. He moves to Sundays a month later on Oct. 4, according to a memo sent to MSNBC staff by the channel's president Phil Griffin Wednesday evening.

"I want to congratulate Al and his team. For four years they have done a terrific job bringing his voice and a big spotlight to issues of justice, civil rights and equality. And as many of you know, The Rev never missed a show," Griffin wrote in the email. "I’m looking forward to seeing what he can do with a Sunday morning newsmaker program."

The 6 pm hour will temporarily be filled by "MSNBC Live," the channel's weekday news program. A permanent replacement will be named "soon after" Sharpton moves, per Griffin.

Sharpton broke the news of his new timeslot to the Daily News.

“I never wanted to be a weeknight pundit. I wanted to be a Sunday morning newsmaker," he told the News. "I wanted to be Dr. Martin Luther King, not Larry King.”

 

[Retromelon]

Reading teleprompters was not his strong suit
But still better than chris hayes

 

[benjipwns]

I do see many voters being members of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and other pro-child murder groups. These groups exist almost exclusive to block or revert child protection legislation and have long since abandoned child safety as a meaningful part of their platform. There's also a huge amount of racism and xenophobia among voters, and there's been very little in the way of rejecting such behavior from fellow voters.

By not protesting against these groups, or at least advocating against bad behavior, voters have put themselves in a very similar situation as police organizations. Not exactly the same, but the point still stands.

Right, you want it to be the Kobayashi Maru. And they refuse to play by your rules.

 

[pigeon]

You think the reason why people want guns to be legal is to defy the state? That seems unlikely because if someone felt the state was going to use violence on them, they wouldn't listen to the law anyways. This accounts for maybe the crazy NRA types but I'm talking about people like fenderputty, who's not crazy or stupid. Neither are the vast majority of gun owners. Who don't share this reasoning

I'm not sure why people IN GENERAL want guns to be legal. I think a lot of people would give you the unhelpful answer "cause it's in the Constitution, duh," or, you know, "because shooting is awesome."

In terms of the specific question of why the freedom to own guns is distinct from the freedom to own lead paint, though, I think the right to resist the state is the "correct" answer. I would argue that that's why it's in the Constitution, even.

Again, I think the evidence of African-Americans in America makes it clear that people can believe the state is reasonably likely to unjustly imprison and murder them and not immediately rebel against the government. But they might well want to demonstrate their willingness to fight back against unjust police action and stand up for their rights.

Government also exists to as a social guarantee against many many things (injury or sickness, unemployment, retirement, etc.) while also existing to preserve the safety of society in general.

Yeah, obviously. Did you even read the post you're quoting? Like I explicitly said, participating in society makes you and everybody else better off.

Not to mention overthrowing government is quite silly unless you have either overwhelming popular support or the backing of a major portion of the military. Neither of which does personal ownership of firearms provide.

Again, it's pretty dumb -- and, I mean, trivially inaccurate -- to imagine that there's no space between accepting government policy regardless of the consequences and immediate violent rebellion.

The Black Panthers are about the worst role-models imaginable. I seriously doubt you even understand what they actually were.

They're the royal family of Wakanda, right?

 

[benjipwns]

Reading teleprompters was not his strong suit
But still better than chris hayes

My favorite recurring SNL sketches: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/cast/kenan-thompson-15086/impersonation/al-sharpton-70486

Top favorite of them: https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/politics-nation/n44022

 

[HyperionX]

Right, you want it to be the Kobayashi Maru. And they refuse to play by your rules.

You're stooping pretty low to make that point dude. That's not even remotely similar.

 

[Sianos]

If I may distill it differently: You hope that by criminalizing irresponsibility that the mass of irresponsible people will act responsible to avoid the consequences (to themselves, natch) of the now criminal act.

Yes, but with the concession that not all actions deemed irresponsible are banned, just ones where there is a relatively minimal loss of freedom to prevent a very real and lethal danger to others. Disproportionate punishment is also unreasonable: casual littering is irresponsible, but jailing someone for casual littering is not only a very distinct difference in severity and a waste or resources, but does all not accomplish anything since you aren't going to rehabilitate someone into not littering. Paying a fine that goes to paying for environmental cleanup services is a reasonable punishment for littering that accomplishes something. Also, irresponsible action that dangers just the self is a matter of freedom: it is when that action endangers others that it is unacceptable. Drinking too much alcohol can be dangerous for someone, but is not illegal because it only affects themselves. Driving while under the influence is illegal because it presents a very real danger of a collision due to the driver's impaired motor skills and reaction time. Smoking in an enclosed public space is illegal because the second-hand smoke can cause lung cancer in those around you. Smoking in your own home is legal because only you are hurt by it and smoking in a designated enclosed smoking area is legal because those around you recognize and consent to the dangers that second-hand smoke causes.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trumpmentum: Sweden's watered down Nazi "the Eastern Europeans and Muslims are doing the raping" party is now the most popular party in Sweden:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...omes-swedens-most-popular-party-10465862.html

This world is in a not good spot politically right now.

 

[Fenderputty]

I do see many gun owners being members of organizations such as the NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups. These groups exist almost exclusive to block or revert gun legislation and have long since abandoned gun safety as a meaningful part of their platform. There's also a huge amount of racism and xenophobia among gun owners, and there's been very little in the way of rejecting such behavior from fellow gun owners.

By not protesting against these groups, or at least advocating against bad behavior, gun owners have put themselves in a very similar situation as police organizations. Not exactly the same, but the point still stands.

If there are roughly 100 million gun owners in the U.S, and only 4.5 million of those owner are NRA members, I think it's safe to say you're reaching. Not one gun owner I know is a member.

 

[benjipwns]

Trumpmentum: Sweden's watered down Nazi "the Eastern Europeans are doing the raping" party is now the most popular party in Sweden:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...omes-swedens-most-popular-party-10465862.html

This world is in a not good spot politically right now.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Their period of sharpest growth has been during the Trump campaign, lol.

 

[HyperionX]

Yeah, obviously. Did you even read the post you're quoting? Like I explicitly said, participating in society makes you and everybody else better off.

Again, it's pretty dumb -- and, I mean, trivially inaccurate -- to imagine that there's no space between accepting government policy regardless of the consequences and immediate violent rebellion.

Excuse me if I misunderstood your post then. My point was that the government is hugely beneficial to just about everyone, that seriously contemplating rebellions is pretty ridiculous at this point in history. Even if you're Black, you're still massively better off working with the government for improvement than actually attempting to overthrow it. The whole idea of overthrowing the government is nonsense at this point, especially considering modern communication technology making protests vastly more effective than they ever had.

They're the royal family of Wakanda, right?

I'm assuming there was some sarcasm I missed there.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The vast majority of gun crime is done with handguns, often in urban areas. Most legal gun owners aren't running around committing crimes. If you want to lower gun crime it makes sense to go after illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases. Banning specific gun models or ammo strikes me as a typical liberal overreaction.

I have no problem with people legally owning guns. Buy as many as you want, I don't care.

 

[benjipwns]

casual littering is irresponsible, but jailing someone for casual littering is not only a very distinct difference in severity and a waste or resources, but does all not accomplish anything since you aren't going to rehabilitate someone into not littering. Paying a fine that goes to paying for environmental cleanup services is a reasonable punishment for littering that accomplishes something.

This is an instance in which property was damaged. The very act of having a gun harms no one or their property.

Drinking too much alcohol can be dangerous for someone, but is not illegal because it only affects themselves.

The Prohibitionists disagree. Strongly. You're stealing from society when you lower your productivity through intoxication.

Smoking in an enclosed public space is illegal because the second-hand smoke can cause lung cancer in those around you.

No, it's illegal because people would rather use the state to anonymously bludgeon others into compliance than to ask someone if they could put it out.

 

[benjipwns]

If you want to lower gun crime it makes sense to go after illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases.

Enough about Fast and Furious already jeez, you're starting to sound like Darrell Issa.

 

[ctothej]

Trump has passed Walker on Predictwise's betting markets:

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination

Why is Rubio second? Cruz is ahead of Rubio in fundraising, is much more popular with the base, and is ahead in the polls, yet he's #6. And who expects Kaisich (currently #5) to get the nomination ? He's running for VP at best.

 

[Chichikov]

The Black Panthers are about the worst role-models imaginable. I seriously doubt you even understand what they actually were.

Terrible opinion. To see this on the 20th anniversary of Chrono Trigger disgusts me completely.

 

[Retromelon]

The vast majority of gun crime is done with handguns, often in urban areas. Most legal gun owners aren't running around committing crimes. If you want to lower gun crime it makes sense to go after illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases. Banning specific gun models or ammo strikes me as a typical liberal overreaction.

I have no problem with people legally owning guns. Buy as many as you want, I don't care.

Better an overreaction than no reaction. I see what you're saying but that doesn't stop the troubled jerkoff from grabbing the gun daddy bought for his 18th birthday and shooting up the public. Liberals have overwhelmingly been the ones proposing changes to ... change that, credit where credit is due, and republicans have not.

 

[benjipwns]

SNES
JP March 11, 1995
NA August 22, 1995[4]

gasp, I missed it

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Why is Rubio second? Cruz is ahead of Rubio in fundraising, is much more popular with the base, and is ahead in the polls, yet he's #6. And who expects Kaisich (currently #5) to get the nomination ? He's running for VP at best.

Rubio is the only establishment candidate who isn't an idiot. Kasich is the only candidate that could be able to not scare Dems into voting.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Black Panthers are indeed a perfect example of actually needing guns, as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see more black people exercise their second amendment rights today.

 

[HyperionX]

If there are roughly 100 million gun owners in the U.S, and only 4.5 million of those owner are NRA members, I think it's safe to say you're reaching. Not one gun owner I know is a member.

There's a few Gaffers that openly admit to being part of the NRA. Maybe you don't associate with them, but they're there and pretty vocal too. Furthermore, I don't see many gun owners protesting the NRA's bad behavior, or the huge amount of racism or bigotry that exists in many gun circles. By accepting this type of behavior, the gun community has more or less accepted those people as part of their community.

 

[RustyNails]

More graphs!

Bernie at Obama levels now:

#feelthebern
https://www.intuitics.com/app/#app/1052/run/public

 

[Chichikov]

The Black Panthers are indeed a perfect example of actually needing guns, as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see more black people exercise their second amendment rights today.

I said it before and I will say it again, you want gun control, get some black and brown people walk around shopping malls with uzis.

 

[speculawyer]

The Black Panthers are indeed a perfect example of actually needing guns, as far as I'm concerned. I'd love to see more black people exercise their second amendment rights today.

Why? So they can get shot in Walmart when someone calls in a Black guy with a gun?

 

[benjipwns]

More graphs!

Bernie at Obama levels now:

http://soccer.chadmurphy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Democrats-0825.png

#feelthebern
https://www.intuitics.com/app/#app/1052/run/public

dat gap in the hillary lines

Furthermore, I don't see many gun owners protesting ... the huge amount of racism or bigotry that exists in many gun circles. By accepting this type of behavior, the gun community has more or less accepted those people as part of their community.

How exactly are they supposed to be "protesting" this?

Why? So they can get shot in Walmart when someone calls in a Black guy with a gun?

They don't need a real gun or any gun for that.

 

[speculawyer]

Why is Rubio second? Cruz is ahead of Rubio in fundraising, is much more popular with the base, and is ahead in the polls, yet he's #6. And who expects Kaisich (currently #5) to get the nomination ? He's running for VP at best.

Because Cruz is a far right loon whose own party hates him because of his stupid grandstanding.

 

[Coriolanus]

More graphs!

Bernie at Obama levels now:

#feelthebern
https://www.intuitics.com/app/#app/1052/run/public

What caused the hilldrop/bamspike between december and january? Kinda peculiar that bams kept dem gainz even after hills managed to recover from her sudden drop.

 

[Fenderputty]

There's a few Gaffers that openly admit to being part of the NRA. Maybe you don't associate with them, but they're there and pretty vocal too. Furthermore, I don't see many gun owners protesting the NRA's bad behavior, or the huge amount of racism or bigotry that exists in many gun circles. By accepting this type of behavior, the gun community has more or less accepted those people as part of their community.

How am I supposed to protest the NRA? The best way is through not giving them money. Which 95% of gun owners do

 

[benjipwns]

What caused the hilldrop/bamspike between december and january? Kinda peculiar that bams kept dem gainz even after hills managed to recover from her sudden drop.

Iowa was Jan 3rd. NH was Jan 8th. South Carolina was Jan 26th.

Edwards dropped out on January 30th. Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama on Jan 31st.

 

[Sianos]

This is an instance in which property was damaged. The very act of having a gun harms no one or their property.

And that is why I'm not for a gun ban! But leaving your gun unattended to in a place where criminals or minors have easy access to it is unsafe and has the potential to (and indeed has) caused grievous harm. The proposed limitation of freedom in required a gun safe be used when the gun is not on your person protects the gun owners property and is a safeguard against easily avoidable tragedy at a minimal cost to freedom.

The Prohibitionists disagree. Strongly. You're stealing from society when you lower your productivity through intoxication.

Then employers could choose to ban alcohol on the job if it's lowering productivity. Judging by the fact that Prohibition has been overturned and in many jobs it is prohibited to drink alcohol while working, it would seem that this line of reasoning has won over the Prohibitionists.

No, it's illegal because people would rather use the state to anonymously bludgeon others into compliance than to ask someone if they could put it out.

I think considering the scientifically proven harmful nature of second-hand smoke it is reasonable that for indoor enclosed public spaces smoking bans should be the norm, not the exception. Certainly allow people to smoke in designated smoking areas, but subjecting the average person to dangerous secondhand smoke unless they stay in few designated no smoking zones seems like a greater infringement on freedom that only being allowed to smoke in certain places.

Kind of similar to how we have designated areas for dumping trash, and dumping your trash in public harms people and the environment. It might inconvenience someone to have to go to a designating dumping area to dump their trash, but the rest of society is far more negatively affected if they had to live on trash-strewn streets with only a few designated clean areas. Disease would spread, vermin would flourish, there would be generally negative consequences that outweigh the inconvenience to the trash dumpers. And trash dumping is something integral to our current society's function where as smoking is a lifestyle choice (one that should NOT (oops) be banned, but legislated in such a way that it minimizes harm to others)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The vast majority of gun crime is done with handguns, often in urban areas. Most legal gun owners aren't running around committing crimes. If you want to lower gun crime it makes sense to go after illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases. Banning specific gun models or ammo strikes me as a typical liberal overreaction.

I have no problem with people legally owning guns. Buy as many as you want, I don't care.

That's not the only problem with gun violence

 

[Plumbob]

Long-time reader here. What happened to this thread?

Went from daily Donald Trump to super-serious gun control debate.

 

[HyperionX]

How am I supposed to protest the NRA? The best way is through not giving them money. Which 95% of gun owners do

Actually, the best way is to join or create a gun owners group that genuinely supports gun regulation. If not that, have public demonstrations, street protests, or even online protests of some kind. Seriously, anything else other than let the NRA completely control the message is better than the currently situation. By not doing any of that, the gun community is creating the public impression that they are totally on-board with the NRA's position, and that makes them part of the problem.

 

[Coriolanus]

Iowa was Jan 3rd. NH was Jan 8th. South Carolina was Jan 26th.

Edwards dropped out on January 30th. Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama on Jan 31st.

Ah, now i see why there's often so much hubbub about those places. Tkz

 

[benjipwns]

required a gun safe be used when the gun is not on your person protects the gun owners property and is a safeguard against easily avoidable tragedy at a minimal cost to freedom.

By threatening criminal punishment at the point of a gun right?

Judging by the fact that Prohibition has been overturned

It wasn't. Read Section 2 of the 21st Amendment. Or drive around Kentucky.

I think considering the scientifically proven harmful nature of second-hand smoke

The what now?

smoking is a lifestyle choice (one that should be banned, but legislated in such a way that it minimizes harm to others)

You can't ban it, the tax revenue is too important.

Actually, the best way is to join or create a gun owners group that genuinely supports gun regulation.

What did I say about no-win scenarios?

Seriously, anything else other than let the NRA completely control the message is better than the currently situation. By not doing any of that, the gun community is creating the public impression that they are totally on-board with the NRA's position, and that makes them part of the problem.

The fact that you think the NRA is such a lone powerful force makes me question the accuracy of your opinion on what "the gun community" is or isn't.

Okay, no, it doesn't. The idea that there's a singular "gun community" does. And the idea that it's massively different than public opinion writ large.

Plus the Pink Pistols or Second Amendment Foundation are way cooler than those stuffed shirts at the NRA.

 

[ivysaur12]

Your post is essentially my point. Limiting gun ownership, possession, or use is a limit on the freedom to own, possess, or use guns. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be limits; it means those limits have to be justified.

Yes, which is why the debate should rest solely on the actual limits to put on gun ownership. We can all agree that we shouldn't allow every single man, woman, and child the ability to purchase a fire arm, no questions asked. Setting up those limits to balance legitimate needs and reasons for owning a firearm as well as public safety concerns is where we should channel all of our discussion on gun policy.

Spoiler

It's nice to agree :S

 

[benjipwns]

We can all agree that we shouldn't allow every single man, woman, and child the ability to purchase a fire arm, no questions asked.

It's like I don't even exist!

*cries while running to the bedroom*

 

[Fenderputty]

Long-time reader here. What happened to this thread?

Went from daily Donald Trump to super-serious gun control debate.

I personally enjoy this thread much more when policy is discussed. Polls and campaign politicking bores me comparatively