Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.
Just a note: There were about 620,ooo men dead total on both sides of the Civil War.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
article 5 might be a good place to start
in the first drafts, only congress could propose amendments
Mason really hated this power grab by those who would comprise congress and fought it and won.
So now the states can initiate proposals for amendments.
It ain't easy and it ain't likely.
Our words here are just idle b.s.
Fair enough, my stats mistakenly included wounded and captured rednecks.
Well if you get to keep guns so you can disobey the law as you please, then once 2/3 of America urgently wants to get rid of the guns in your home, maybe they ought to follow your example. I have a feeling though you'll start changing your mind when a black person eventually shoots up a white church.
Or correctly included civilian deaths from various causes.
One possible first step would be to quit making bad arguments and threatening onerous authoritarian impositions. Become trustworthy, and your odds of being trusted improve.
The parallel was simple and exact: law control, gun control. A good and immediately relevant example of law control would be the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. It sets limits on the nature and enforcement of the laws in the United States. Some laws are forbidden, others curbed in scope, all limited in the manner of their enforcement etc.
That is almost a polar opposite of tyranny and anarchy both - we appear to have more than one dimension involved.
You appear to have mistaken the Civil War for resistance to government oppression by an armed peasantry. It was an attempt to defend the governmental oppression of a disarmed peasantry by the formation of a new government with a new government's army. The combatants in the Civil War were formal, official, government-commanded armies. Had the peasantry in the South been armed, the Civil War could never have happened.
Yeah... ahh when did I do such a thing?
Yeah still have no clue what your jabbering about, define "law control"
I'm very sure that is a matter of interpretation.
What peasantry? the southern whites, the slaves, be specific. And what arms? A bunch of muskets? The US government could exterminate much of the US population with a bioweapon if they so wanted, what the fuck is small arm suppose to do against that, heck just shutting down mass transport would starve to death much of the population in just a few months. A rebelling against the government these days is a very stupid idea because it insure mass death just from the shutdown of infrastructure let alone the destruction of infrastructure. The whole idea is so god dam stupid. Most people are not going to revolt unless they are already destitute.
Anyways this argument about us needing to be more trustworthy is also retarded, because when the other-side is suspicious of a president being a Muslim communist plant, there is no threshold for trustworthiness: everything is suspicious! run right passed stupid to pure bat shit, Alex Jones, tin hat, crazy. And that is where the leaders of the NRA are, and there is nothing we can do to make them compromise, they A) don't need or care to compromise, and B) are batshit insane and can't compromise!
Asking for national background checks is a no go because it will slippery slope to a registry which will slippery slope to the gubment coming for our precious guns (aaah shoot them then, duh!) and tyrannical rule under Obamer who is somewhere even now plotting a third term of Muslim Kenyan rule. How can we make that position trust us?
You have no clue about the primary function of the US Constitution?
Just what it says, as posted, in direct parallel with gun control. Regulation of the law. Limits and restrictions on the nature and enforcement of the statutes proclaimed by a government.
My description there is exactly accurate, physical fact.
As I keep repeating: you don't. You blow them off, and win elections with the 2/3 - 3/4 majority you have left.
Whose trust and votes you have gained by being reasonable yourself.
- - - -
You asked this:
Consider it answered.
Keep gun regulations untouched, just add a thousand dollar tax on each bullet.
The next day one of the NRA-owned judges would slap an injunction on it and tie it up in court for years.
Chris Rock's solution.
"- - - no innocent bystanders"
Again, there was enough Republican support to pass that bill. It's the Democrats refusing to submit their own bill.
Yes, the Republicans could still have only enough support to require bipartisan help. So Democrats refusing their own bill would still make it meaningless to submit.
So the plain hunting rifle as well. Okay.
It's reality. Look into it.
How do you know who sold the gun unless you already had it on record?
Just take the criminal's word on it?
You already said "Your natural laws are bullshit." So how could it be a straw man that you don't believe in natural law?
Are you changing your tune?
Again, natural laws are negative rights, which are all about restricting action against others. When criminals or mentally ill seek to violate the natural rights of others, their own must be restricted. Their freedom may be limit by prison, and their self-defense by gun restrictions, because they've proven a risk of misuse. It is a penalty meted by due process.
Just like any murderer, liberty does not trump right to life, and science classifies your "womb-turd" as nothing else but human life, and the law defines murder as the intentional ending of human life (not the ending of a "person").
None of the above. Who disputed anthropogenic climate change?
Appeal to incredulity?
Not minutia, just facts that you seem ignorant of.
Yes, person to person sales, ANYWHERE, don't need to be licensed or have background checks. EVERYWHERE (except for federal gun-free zones) is legal for "anyone without ID or background check can purchase as gun in the USA."
No weaseling. Everywhere includes gun shows.
So nationwide gun registry to enforce universal background checks.
Conflating a privilege and a right.
Even the military view fully-auto as ineffective.
In leftist states and cities where the cost of even just a gun purchase permit can not only be prohibitive but can be denied out of hand, due to discriminatory discretionary "may-issue" laws.
You asked about a machine gun for self defense. If you don't want the answer...
A lot of people seem just as afraid of "silencers." Considering handguns account for overwhelmingly more mass shootings, that might be relevant.
But I guess the examples from liberal countries scared you off that topic. Okay.
Aside from muzzle-loaded, solid-ball-firing antique cannons, and their replicas, all those already require registration, tracking, extensive federal and local background and mental health checks. Nothing hypothetical about it.
There actual are laws against trafficking in weapons of mass destruction. Look it up.
Are you really this obtuse, or do you really not see the difference between regulating some things and unduly burdening everyone's cost to defend themselves? I objected to purchase and carry permits that are cost prohibitive. To my knowledge, neither would be issued for NFA-regulated items.
How do you prove who sold alcohol to a minor? Aside from a sting, since "he said, she said" rarely holds up in court, how do you track it back to the seller without at least a receipt or something? Stings and receipts are the deterrent.
And stings are the only real deterrent of straw man alcohol purchases. So how much would you be willing to spend on enforcement? You know, funding the supposedly racist police who failed numerous times with existing laws in Parkland.
Because Dems and Reps don't generally agree. Duh.
So since you didn't like the results, the CDC "botched" it.
As that CDC report says, most deterrent defensive uses of guns aren't reported. If the crime is deterred from happening at all, police would have trouble making a case. Simple reasoning skills.
For all your talk of "rebuttals", I don't see any.
Read the Federalist papers. "being necessary to the security of a free State" means in defense of a free country from invasion or tyranny.
Militias is a prefatory clause, not the operative one, as upheld by the Supreme Court in DC vs Heller. Educate yourself.
The percentage of total convictions indicates how many concealed carry permit holders account for the crime compared to the general population. As an example if we look at Texas in 2015 you will see that just 0.0011 of permit holders accounted for the crime of aggravated assault.
Fact: People with concealed carry licenses are:
5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
That critique shares the same aversion to simple reasoning you display.
Guns being rarely used to "kill criminals" would seem to assume that your average concealed carrier is intent on killing. That is a straw man.
Comparing self-defense to intentional murder is not comparing apples to apples.
But would it help you sleep at night if more vigilantes were out there plugging criminals?
Or would that be damned if you do and damned if you don't, because that would be the "wild west?"
So? The Republicans have done and are doing nothing. They offer thoughts and prayers, but no legislation or measures or money or anything substantial. Your claim that Republicans have done anything of substance is false.
You ask the guy who bought it, in the course of investigating whatever crime brought it to your attention.
You start there, sure. Same as drugs or dynamite or anything else.
Not yet. You also have the crimes abetted by concealed carry in various ways - for example, by making easily concealed guns more available to thieves. (According to Cook et al in "Science" last December, about 1% of carried weapons are stolen at some point - much higher than weapons kept in residences. )
And guns do that?
No. You are re-interpreting words, for example who are the peasants you speak of? Who was the "governmental oppression" you speak of? You have refused to answer my questions for clarification repeatedly now.
Yeah well you are in a fantasy world because those 2/3-3/4 majority you speak of don't come out to vote in numbers to make their presents known. People are not energized to vote by reasonableness.
I'm not "Threatening onerous authoritarian impositions" I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to A) think could happen and B) Think could be fought with small arms. You are the one that is brings up ridiculous arguments for guns, that somehow having guns is for "Law Control", voting is for "law control", you imply things, but do not clarify and than counter argue against interpretation, be specific, what is "law control"?
I'm saying it is a strawman to say you know what I think and then present that argument as my own.
When a women is pregnant but does not want to have the baby, whose natural rights come first, whom is restricting who? When a salesman dictate the price of a product and another can't pay and must die because of lack of that product, whose rights are to be restricted? When a town must decide where to build a road that will open commerce to some but subtract property from others, who is restricting who, who is the criminal?
So we must restrict the natural right of the women then? Or you you think being physically enslaved is righteous?
Lots of people, the president of the USA, the ruling political party, etc.
No, I mean you did not read it, all of it, you read and cite some article that is pointing out specific cherry picked highlights.
Great, back to my point: it should not be legal ANYWHERE to sell guns without a background check. That is what I'm advocating for, do you understand me? Do you disagree or not and why?
Did you not hear my bar argument, do bars have to register every client that enters their premises on to a federal registry? Does a store have to register every person that buy alcohol or tobacco on to a federal registry?
There, more of your word games, post-modernist drivel.
Yeah so? what is your point? I'm asking you if they should be legal to sell without their current restrictions, what restrictions would you allow for machine guns? I guess not much because they would be "ineffective" it is not like someone would need to modify a semi-auto to fire rapidly to kill 50 people and injure 500 others from a hotel window via an ad hoax machine gun or anything right?
How about their healthcare, or their education, how about those rights come first over a gun? Cars are generally prohibitively expensive and far FAR more useful then a gun, oh but that is right the gun is some "right", the other life and liberty parts not some much. What I mean by projecting "natural rights" to mean a right to a gun but not a car or healthcare or education, etc.
Once again how is that an answer? Are you saying we should make them easy for purchase because they are "ineffective"?
So? Are you saying we should not regulate silencers either?
And what is the problem with that?
If so then you prove my first point: why not have laws then to DIRECTLY regulate guns?
How the fuck is a background check so unduly a burden? Cars are far more vital to livelihood and yet we require licenses and taxes and insurance and [gasp!] registries, oh but guns are some fucking natural right?
Is a car license cost prohibitive?
2.8 billion dollars. I'm willing to have a supposedly racist police "sting" bars and alcohol stores so I'm willing to have them do the same for guns.
No, your're missing something: who controls the house? who control the senate? If republicans wanted to they could push what ever law they want, nuclear option the senate, etc, but it turns out that even when it comes to the most mild of gun reform many republicans don't agree with other republicans, there are not enough votes without democrats voting in mass with a handful of sane republicans.
As long as you think we should get rid of the amendments that secure the rights of the people.
Perhaps you would also like to do away with the first, fourth, and eighth ?
I never said we should "get rid", only that the idea these are so unmalleable as to even forgo any form of regulation is wrong. What is and is not a "right" can and has changed, so to say universal background checks would be a unduly infringement on a the "natural right" to own guns is bullshit. The amendments are not natural rights, natural rights are not natural rights, and why for the love of god can't we even talk about universal background checks instead of "rights"?
"Would seem to assume" - you know what they say about assumptions. How about discussing the topic, instead of making your own assumptions and arguing about them?
Since I sleep pretty well as it is, nope, wouldn't really change anything for me.
As everywhere on earth under feudalism, where the word came from: The agricultural field workers and domestic servants and so forth, the "hands", who did not own land but worked for the landlord, and were disarmed as a matter of policy by an oppressive government. In this case, the governments involved were certain States, and then the Confederacy of these States.
The Civil War was fought between two formal, government commanded and organized and uniformed and equipped, official armies - and navies, etc. Not militias.
Had the peasantry of the South been armed, they could not have been oppressed. Had they not been disarmed and oppressed, the Confederate government could not have been formed - and the Civil War could not have been fought.
The US paid a steep price for not granting Constitutional rights to the southern field hands and domestics, especially the right to keep and bear arms. Lesson learned?
Separate names with a comma.