Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 09-20-2019, 05:54 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Yes I was talking to you. My apologies for forgetting the reply quote.
No biggie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
I see your point but the difference is that framers suggested that government (Federal, centralized etc.) Was not to be trusted and is to be put in question. It was a defining characteristic of the foundation of the United States
And for two hundred years things went swimmingly.

Admittedly nowadays we let a hostile foreign government install a puppet president, which ain't good, but it ain't like the state-sourced senators and congressfolk and such are working against him with any reliability. Hmm, I wonder if you could make an argument that semi-decentralized government made us more vulnerable? Certainly the state-based electoral college was a factor in his implantation.

Quote:
and the Second Amendment is to reinforce that notion.
Sounds like you're claiming that the explicit intention of the vaunted (and ignored) 'militias' was to aid the states in rising up against Washington. I find that implausible, to put it mildly. (Put frankly, that sounds batshit insane.)
  #302  
Old 09-20-2019, 05:56 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLane View Post
If they were plenty lethal enough then the M-1 Garand (invented in 1930) and other semi or full autos would not have been developed.
They absolutely were lethal. Automatics just increase chances of hitting the target and reducing reload time and sometimes at the expense of firepower. This is why there was such an uproar about the change to 5.56 M16s during the Vietnam era from the M14 7.62 semi automatic. A powerful and reliable weapon, more accurate and easy to maintain. Some had thought the tide of war may have been different if they had been used to counter the sloppy inaccurate AK47 (saving grace was that AK-47 was a reliable weapon).

Personally if I absolutely must be shot, I'd prefer. 5.56mm. more of a chance of survival. 7.62mm, not so much.
  #303  
Old 09-20-2019, 05:58 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
As for World War 2, The Kar98 used by the germans, the Mosin by the Russians and Carcano used elsewhere (Italy, Balkans) were much more dated, yet much more powerful than say the M1 Garand which was almost a hybridized design of a traditional bolt action rifle (mainly in length, rifling and clip usage), but with a semi-automatic firing mechanism.
Some of that is not true. The 8mm used in the Mauser had a slight edge on the 30-06 used in the M-1, but the 30-06 is a bit more powerful than the 7.62x54 used in the Mosin and much more powerful than the 6.5 or 7.6 Carcano. The clip in the Garand was for the most part unique as it stayed in the receiver when loaded and popped out when empty.

Most of the rest of your post is better than 90% of what I see on forums.

The word silencer is a noun and legal term used by the feds to identify a firearm suppressor, The other word they use is muffler.
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #304  
Old 09-20-2019, 06:02 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
No biggie.

And for two hundred years things went swimmingly.

Admittedly nowadays we let a hostile foreign government install a puppet president, which ain't good, but it ain't like the state-sourced senators and congressfolk and such are working against him with any reliability. Hmm, I wonder if you could make an argument that semi-decentralized government made us more vulnerable? Certainly the state-based electoral college was a factor in his implantation.

Sounds like you're claiming that the explicit intention of the vaunted (and ignored) 'militias' was to aid the states in rising up against Washington. I find that implausible, to put it mildly. (Put frankly, that sounds batshit insane.)
That absolutely was the intention. Of course national defense as well.

I am sorry I will not respond to the rest of what you said because it is all vitriolic hyperbole. It is obviously incorrect. This incumbent won because the electoral college which prevents large population centers from dictating their choices for the rest, worked as intended. No conspiracy. Many just do not like the choice....that is fair to say.
  #305  
Old 09-20-2019, 06:06 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
I will only agree with the part about slavery, it's abhorrent and and contradictory to the rest of the Constitution and a person's right to liberty. Alcohol and Firearms do not even belong in the same thought bubble. No comparison whatsoever. I personally do not like alcohol and think it also causes a lot of unnecessary death and destruction just as some may view firearms as having, but in and of themselves neither are immoral, they are property. I cannot rescind or eliminate someone elses rights or property because I do not like some of the effects it has and when the majority are responsible with their property. All that being said, Slavery absolutely has no excuse or reason to exist and never has. People are not property. People should own their government as an entity and not the other way around. People can not own other people.
I think his point about alcohol and slaves is that we amended the rules about owning them, so we could totally amend the rules about owning guns too. Like, any day now. Waaaait for it...

Personally the more interesting thing about the alcohol situation is that we did ban it, constitutionally, and the reason we unbanned it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything like "I cannot rescind or eliminate someone elses rights or property because I do not like some of the effects". Because we can TOTALLY rescind or eliminate someone else's rights or property because of their effects. That is a thing that can happen. And does happen. Constantly. Like, literally all the time. To say otherwise is absurd.

Oh, and people can totally own other people, in places where that's no illegal. It was actually a big thing in the US for quite a while.
  #306  
Old 09-20-2019, 06:17 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
That absolutely was the intention.
Bullshit. Cite? From someplace reputable, preferably. Someplace a non-partisan would consider reputable, that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Of course national defense as well.
National defense mostly, I gather, what with the whole militia thing being their aversion to a standing army due to that tiff with England they'd had.

Seriously, the members of the new government did not make rules with the explicit intent of getting themselves shot. That's patently idiotic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
I am sorry I will not respond to the rest of what you said because it is all vitriolic hyperbole. It is obviously incorrect. This incumbent won because the electoral college which prevents large population centers from dictating their choices for the rest, worked as intended. No conspiracy. Many just do not like the choice....that is fair to say.
You considered that to be vitriolic hyperbole? Stop being such a snowflake and grow some ovaries. Or rather let's all just state that we recognize that that was your quivering dodge away from stuff you couldn't possibly begin to refute.

And your assertion that the electoral college was intended to prevent population centers from dominating just proves how much of a delusional fantasyland you're living in. It's well-documented fact that at the time nobody gave a flying fart about rural/urban, because there barely was "urban" back then. They were all about maintaining state sovereignty, which has completely vanished now but was still fresh in their memories. And of course the electoral college specifically was about keeping the nimrod shitheads who elected Trump from having any say at all; there being a popular vote was not part of the plan at all. The idea was that the common blue-collar dude was a fucking idiot who didn't know what was good for them, so their state leaders would pick their smartest men to decide on the federal leader without consulting the rubes at all.

But you don't know that because truth and facts are hostile to your belief system.
  #307  
Old 09-20-2019, 10:56 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Bullshit. Cite? From someplace reputable, preferably. Someplace a non-partisan would consider reputable, that is.

National defense mostly, I gather, what with the whole militia thing being their aversion to a standing army due to that tiff with England they'd had.

Seriously, the members of the new government did not make rules with the explicit intent of getting themselves shot. That's patently idiotic.

You considered that to be vitriolic hyperbole? Stop being such a snowflake and grow some ovaries. Or rather let's all just state that we recognize that that was your quivering dodge away from stuff you couldn't possibly begin to refute.

And your assertion that the electoral college was intended to prevent population centers from dominating just proves how much of a delusional fantasyland you're living in. It's well-documented fact that at the time nobody gave a flying fart about rural/urban, because there barely was "urban" back then. They were all about maintaining state sovereignty, which has completely vanished now but was still fresh in their memories. And of course the electoral college specifically was about keeping the nimrod shitheads who elected Trump from having any say at all; there being a popular vote was not part of the plan at all. The idea was that the common blue-collar dude was a fucking idiot who didn't know what was good for them, so their state leaders would pick their smartest men to decide on the federal leader without consulting the rubes at all.

But you don't know that because truth and facts are hostile to your belief system.
That last statement really projects your insecurities. I will not apologize that my argument is sound and backed by evidence. I did not Dodge anything except your obnoxious and childish insinuation that a foreign power planted our President. Grow up. As for the Electoral College, it was about population centers steering the vote, arguing urban and rural is only semantics. You can go look at Wikipedia whose slightly left of center slant unless you want to bitch like a high school teacher about Wikipedia not being a reliable source. I am not spoon feeding common knowledge to you, so so your own work. I'll even give you the exact URL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seco...s_Constitution. Please note how often it mentions and alludes to arming civilians, protection from tyranny as well as using armed civilian militias to form state armies as well as using said civilians in national defense. Please note the Federalist and Anti Federalist stances on the subject. Who am I kidding you are a leftard. You won't read the whole article to get the point. You will cherry pick a point and break it down needlessly to justify your position on the matter instead of actually reading it for what it is. Much like you seem to adore doing reading my posts. You are the one dodging points and it is patently pathetic because you are lying to yourself and arguing for the sake of argument with no substance. I tried to be civil, you became obnoxious. Key point to remember. THE BILL OF RIGHTS are those for the individual, so don't even try that shit show argument that the Second Amendment was for a Federal Armed forces. That is outlined elsewhere.
  #308  
Old 09-20-2019, 11:04 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
I think his point about alcohol and slaves is that we amended the rules about owning them, so we could totally amend the rules about owning guns too. Like, any day now. Waaaait for it...

Personally the more interesting thing about the alcohol situation is that we did ban it, constitutionally, and the reason we unbanned it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything like "I cannot rescind or eliminate someone elses rights or property because I do not like some of the effects". Because we can TOTALLY rescind or eliminate someone else's rights or property because of their effects. That is a thing that can happen. And does happen. Constantly. Like, literally all the time. To say otherwise is absurd.

Oh, and people can totally own other people, in places where that's no illegal. It was actually a big thing in the US for quite a while.
Can happen. Yes, Constitutionally legal, No. If you want to shred and destroy this document piece by piece you don't belong in the United States. If you adapt and get better reading comprehension maybe you can see that I was speaking presently about slavery, not past tense. Keep dreaming about your firearm free United States. It will never happen. Ever. To say otherwise is absurd and not based in reality. If you actually think it could happen you are living in a fantasy. You cannot equate the right to essentially protect the document itself and your personal protection and sovereignty with slavery and alcohol, without the Second Amendment you cannot have the others and they will be slowly stripped away. I bet you really like that moron Beto O Rourke don't you? He has the same pipe dream.
  #309  
Old 09-20-2019, 11:24 PM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLane View Post
If they were plenty lethal enough then the M-1 Garand (invented in 1930) and other semi or full autos would not have been developed.
May I suggest you learn some of the history of the adoption of, and the resistance to the adoption of, repeating firearms?
Start here C&Rsenal, 'cause it's got nothing to do with 'lethality'.

CMC fnord!
  #310  
Old 09-21-2019, 01:13 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
Can happen. Yes, Constitutionally legal, No. If you want to shred and destroy this document piece by piece you don't belong in the United States. If you adapt and get better reading comprehension maybe you can see that I was speaking presently about slavery, not past tense. Keep dreaming about your firearm free United States. It will never happen. Ever. To say otherwise is absurd and not based in reality. If you actually think it could happen you are living in a fantasy. You cannot equate the right to essentially protect the document itself and your personal protection and sovereignty with slavery and alcohol, without the Second Amendment you cannot have the others and they will be slowly stripped away. I bet you really like that moron Beto O Rourke don't you? He has the same pipe dream.
Lol, this is some "We must suppoht the Cause, gentlemen!" level reasoning.

Man, this thing is the second amendment and you're acting like it's fundamental to the Western experience. It's not. It's really not.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How about this - since the Constitution repeatedly mentions "militias"... as does the 2nd.... I'm fine with the "people" who make up these militias having guns, but them only. That's how I read this amendment, anyway. Deal?

Last edited by JohnT; 09-21-2019 at 01:15 AM.
  #311  
Old 09-21-2019, 01:30 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
I will only agree with the part about slavery, it's abhorrent and and contradictory to the rest of the Constitution and a person's right to liberty. Alcohol and Firearms do not even belong in the same thought bubble. No comparison whatsoever. I personally do not like alcohol and think it also causes a lot of unnecessary death and destruction just as some may view firearms as having, but in and of themselves neither are immoral, they are property. I cannot rescind or eliminate someone elses rights or property because I do not like some of the effects it has and when the majority are responsible with their property. All that being said, Slavery absolutely has no excuse or reason to exist and never has. People are not property. People should own their government as an entity and not the other way around. People can not own other people.
Sorry, all three items have similarities, the most obvious being they are all of immense social and economic consequence. The 2nd most obvious thing is that these are/were products given to the private market to profit of off... yet, here they are, in the Constitution, with their proponents, to a T, demanding the right of being unregulated (3rd similarity- hell, the Slavers broke away from the country, remember?)

Alcohol and guns also share a similarity in that both were afterthoughts to the main document (which ought to give you pause as to the fundamental nature of Black Slavery to the American system of even these pre-cotton age times... but I digress), their rights given... or taken away... by amendments. As was slavery, so that's another 3-way similarity (the 4th).

I can probably come up with more...

... all issues which vexed this country for decades
... all are issues which have a moral and economic component
... all are products to which the supporters argued they had a "right" to
  #312  
Old 09-21-2019, 03:54 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
“Your ilk”?

That’s pretty bigoted.

Aren't you supposed to be insulting people outside the Pit again so you can whine some more?
  #313  
Old 09-21-2019, 04:35 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
Aren't you supposed to be insulting people outside the Pit again so you can whine some more?
What? When was I insulting people outside the pit?
  #314  
Old 09-21-2019, 03:44 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Man, this thing is the second amendment and you're acting like it's fundamental to the Western experience. It's not. It's really not.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How about this - since the Constitution repeatedly mentions "militias"... as does the 2nd.... I'm fine with the "people" who make up these militias having guns, but them only. That's how I read this amendment, anyway. Deal?
I have to point out that the Latin word "militia" is already a plural noun, as constructed from militus: armed person, soldier. I'm unaware of any document contemporary with the Second Amendment that uses the word "militias", which would have been an incredibly illiterate construction.

I would also point out that repeated court decisions and legal commentaries on the American Bill of Rights have held that the amendments did not grant or bestow their provisions as privileges*; that what formally stating something was a right accomplished was, to borrow a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, "secure" that right against potential efforts by the federal government to ignore or interpret it into impotence.

(And to think that Alexander Hamilton tried to argue that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary or worse because the federal government simply couldn't infringe on peoples' rights, because it would have no authority not explicitly granted it! We've seen how that worked out...)

What the Second Amendment did was to deny that some interpretation of the Constitution's granting the federal government co-authority with the states over organizing and mustering the militia could be used to leverage a disarming of the populace.

*I don't think many people today would try to argue that before the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, African-Americans actually did not possess any inherent human rights, and that therefore antebellum slavery was not morally or ethically wrong.
  #315  
Old 09-21-2019, 11:46 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
You cannot equate the right to essentially protect the document itself and your personal protection and sovereignty with slavery and alcohol, without the Second Amendment you cannot have the others and they will be slowly stripped away.
On the contrary; in the present era the Second Amendment is mainly a tool for the elimination of the rest of the Amendments. It protects nothing; but people are encouraged to cling to their guns like they are actually some use, while everything else is stripped away,

It's not a coincidence that the authoritarian Republicans are the ones so gung-ho for the Second Amendment and guns. They know perfectly well that guns are worthless as a defense, but wonderful for terrorizing and killing the innocent. Guns won't protect anyone from a tyrannical government, but they are great for right wing terrorists and death squads.
  #316  
Old 09-22-2019, 12:27 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
On the contrary; in the present era the Second Amendment is mainly a tool for the elimination of the rest of the Amendments. It protects nothing; but people are encouraged to cling to their guns like they are actually some use, while everything else is stripped away,

It's not a coincidence that the authoritarian Republicans are the ones so gung-ho for the Second Amendment and guns. They know perfectly well that guns are worthless as a defense, but wonderful for terrorizing and killing the innocent. Guns won't protect anyone from a tyrannical government, but they are great for right wing terrorists and death squads.
But the left can buy guns too and protect themselves from those terrorists and death squads. That’s the beauty of it.
  #317  
Old 09-22-2019, 12:32 AM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,711
So I need a semi-automatic magazine firearm per the second amendment.

Why does the amendment not grant me the right to have a newer weapon like the qn-202? (and don't dodge the question with "no one would sell this to civilians". Someone would if it were legal but these missiles contain an explosive warhead*).

They have a reported 2 kilometer range and target-lock on. This gives them substantially more utility against modern threats. At only a few hundred grams of explosives each, they are still a fairly precision and targeted weapon.

It just seems like there is a spectrum. Visualizing it like a number line, it's something like [muskets.....cannon........bolt action rifles.............semi-auto rifles..............machine guns...............dumb missiles...............smart missiles...............armed ground vehicles..................the big stuff]

It seems rather arbitrary for the setting to be "semi-auto rifles" and it's against the amendment to not push it back more to the left.

Obviously, a new law could be passed, in theory, that re-allowed machine guns* as part our of "second amendment" rights.

*they are a destructive device and in some states civilians can never have them.
*all machineguns made after 1986 are straight illegal and in some states, they are always illegal. Note that if a state can make something 100% illegal it's not a Constitutional right.

Last edited by SamuelA; 09-22-2019 at 12:36 AM.
  #318  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:00 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Note that if a state can make something 100% illegal it's not a Constitutional right.
Not until that ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court.

States try that shit on all the time and are constantly being overturned by the Supreme Court.
  #319  
Old 09-22-2019, 01:08 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
But the left can buy guns too and protect themselves from those terrorists and death squads.
No, because guns don't protect anyone. If guns protected people then the right would oppose them.
  #320  
Old 09-22-2019, 02:46 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
No, because guns don't protect anyone. If guns protected people then the right would oppose them.
Do you really think this way?
  #321  
Old 09-22-2019, 07:11 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
No, because guns don't protect anyone. If guns protected people then the right would oppose them.
I think you are petitio principii, begging the question here.
  #322  
Old 09-22-2019, 11:19 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
No, because guns don't protect anyone. If guns protected people then the right would oppose them.
You can't be serious with this post. If you're making a joke or sarcasm that's great, if you actually think this way you may want to talk to someone, perhaps in a certain professional field.
  #323  
Old 09-22-2019, 11:34 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
My intent to posting here was to, in more eloquent terms, to tell the Gun Grabbers to get.... Over themselves. The blathering on about it will not help anything. 2A and Firearms are here to stay. If somehow you actually could get 75% of state legislators to vote that way, you still won't get many turning them in, not to mention what prohibition causes, black markets etc... It will absolutely not happen. The only way forward is to minimize collateral damage and psychotic incels and nutbags killing Innocents.
  #324  
Old 09-23-2019, 12:12 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
You can't be serious with this post. If you're making a joke or sarcasm that's great, if you actually think this way you may want to talk to someone, perhaps in a certain professional field.
Oh, please; the goal of the Right is to turn the nation into a tyranny and prey on everyone else; if they thought guns actually protected against tyranny or defended the innocent they'd by cracking down hard on guns. Predators don't encourage people to do things that help against predators, they encourage them to do things that don't help against predators.

The Second Amendment is worthless, it protects no one. Therefore, the Right holds it up as the only Amendment or right that matters while they strip everything else away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
My intent to posting here was to, in more eloquent terms, to tell the Gun Grabbers to get.... Over themselves. The blathering on about it will not help anything. 2A and Firearms are here to stay. If somehow you actually could get 75% of state legislators to vote that way, you still won't get many turning them in, not to mention what prohibition causes, black markets etc... It will absolutely not happen. The only way forward is to minimize collateral damage and psychotic incels and nutbags killing Innocents.
The only way to do that is gun control.

And, your side of the argument is steadily losing ground, in large part to its blatant disdain for human life and strong association with bigotry. People are getting tired of dying because the gun-worshippers are willing to drink an ocean of blood to propitiate their god.
  #325  
Old 09-23-2019, 03:59 AM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Oh, please; the goal of the Right is to turn the nation into a tyranny and prey on everyone else; if they thought guns actually protected against tyranny or defended the innocent they'd by cracking down hard on guns. Predators don't encourage people to do things that help against predators, they encourage them to do things that don't help against predators.

The Second Amendment is worthless, it protects no one. Therefore, the Right holds it up as the only Amendment or right that matters while they strip everything else away.

The only way to do that is gun control.

And, your side of the argument is steadily losing ground, in large part to its blatant disdain for human life and strong association with bigotry. People are getting tired of dying because the gun-worshippers are willing to drink an ocean of blood to propitiate their god.
You do realize how psychotic and delusional your response comes across, don't you? If you don't, you really need to see a professional.

I cannot believe that such a delusion about The Second Amendment and it's supporters (LEFT, and RIGHT) could exist. It's profound and quite frankly, fascinating. How does one go so deep in the rabbit hole?

*Checks* Oh, California.

Got it. Have a nice evening.
  #326  
Old 09-23-2019, 10:50 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
You do realize how psychotic and delusional your response comes across, don't you? If you don't, you really need to see a professional.

I cannot believe that such a delusion about The Second Amendment and it's supporters (LEFT, and RIGHT) could exist. It's profound and quite frankly, fascinating. How does one go so deep in the rabbit hole?

*Checks* Oh, California.

Got it. Have a nice evening.
I've been to film festivals with less projection than this post.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #327  
Old 09-23-2019, 11:31 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
You can't be serious with this post. If you're making a joke or sarcasm that's great, if you actually think this way you may want to talk to someone, perhaps in a certain professional field.
ElvisL1ves makes Der Trihs sound calm and rational by comparison.
  #328  
Old 09-23-2019, 06:02 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
My intent to posting here was to, in more eloquent terms, to tell the Gun Grabbers to get.... Over themselves. The blathering on about it will not help anything. 2A and Firearms are here to stay. If somehow you actually could get 75% of state legislators to vote that way, you still won't get many turning them in, not to mention what prohibition causes, black markets etc... It will absolutely not happen. The only way forward is to minimize collateral damage and psychotic incels and nutbags killing Innocents.
So your argument is that you and your ilk are criminals that would not comply with a legal turn-in requirement and who would willingly and cheerfully break the law to retain the ability to murder people.
  #329  
Old 09-23-2019, 08:02 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
So your argument is that you and your ilk are criminals that would not comply with a legal turn-in requirement and who would willingly and cheerfully break the law to retain the ability to murder people.
The gun nuts don't care about the law, unless they can use it to hurt people.
  #330  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:12 AM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
So your argument is that you and your ilk are criminals that would not comply with a legal turn-in requirement and who would willingly and cheerfully break the law to retain the ability to murder people.


Loaded reply. Not surprised. But I will answer.
If I actually owned firearms, no. I would not. The only way they would be restricted/confiscated would be unconstitutional in itself. Unless if being a legal owner I get absolute assurance that every criminal will be disarmed as well and that the military is infallible and police would arrive in a matter of seconds.... But none of that is going to happen anyway. At best you'd get a fraction. Of people turning them in, but that won't even happen. 2A is here to stay. Keep dreaming.
  #331  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:19 AM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The gun nuts don't care about the law, unless they can use it to hurt people.
It's all it about guaranteed Defense. Your hyperbole is exhausting. Criminals don't care about the law. All you would do is disarm responsible people.


If you dare to bring up mass shootings and the people dying from it, please look into city and gang violence. UCR Data from the FBI. Prohibition works well there, doesn't it? And it's not white supremacists or 'gun nuts' doing all of that killing. Hypocrisy at its finest.
  #332  
Old 09-24-2019, 03:50 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
It's all it about guaranteed Defense.
No, it's about right wing terrorism. Guns don't defend anyone.
  #333  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:54 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
No, it's about right wing terrorism.
Your crazy-ass hyperbole might hold water if we were trying to ban lefties from accessing weapons, but, nope, your crazy-ass self can buy guns too if you feel this way.
  #334  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,777
So in a thread lamenting the yokels who will vote to make America a shit-hole because their infatuation with a surrogate penis dominates all their other political "thoughts," the Trumpists can only talk about Guns, Guns, Guns. Self-awareness isn't their strong suit.

And at least one of the gun nuts [looks at Annoying] repeatedly indulges in the "Guns are an American constitutional right because guns are an American constitutional right" tautology. Again, this "thinking" — which might get good marks in kindergarten — was denounced in OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
But the left can buy guns too and protect themselves from those terrorists and death squads. That’s the beauty of it.
Almost every post by Annoying reeks of stupidity; I clicked this one almost at random.

In fact humans with a generous spirit and a rational brain are much less likely than Trumpnuts and racists to even want guns. If/when the streets of the U.S.A. are fraught with civil strife, the racists, haters and imbeciles will have the firepower advantage. I think Annoying will be happy to know this. But instead he pretends to assume that rational and good-spirited people have the same flawed values and cognition as his ilk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
This incumbent won because the electoral college which prevents large population centers from dictating their choices for the rest, worked as intended.
This view shows innumeracy and lack of logic; and anyway is NOT what the Founders intended.
  #335  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:09 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
It's all it about guaranteed Defense. Your hyperbole is exhausting. Criminals don't care about the law. All you would do is disarm responsible people.


If you dare to bring up mass shootings and the people dying from it, please look into city and gang violence. UCR Data from the FBI. Prohibition works well there, doesn't it? And it's not white supremacists or 'gun nuts' doing all of that killing. Hypocrisy at its finest.
So I guess you're okay with people getting killed by gang violence in the inner city, as long as they are POC?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #336  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:35 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
So I guess you're okay with people getting killed by gang violence in the inner city, as long as they are POC?
No, the point is that people freak out about body counts, white supremacists, and Republicans, yet ignore leftwing terrorism, their democrat enablers and the fact that both overall murder rates AND mass shootings (as defined by the FBI) are not committed by white people, Republicans, or “the right”.

Yet somehow all of this is “the rights” fault, when it’s not. Not even a little.
  #337  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:32 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
No, the point is that people freak out about body counts, white supremacists, and Republicans, yet ignore leftwing terrorism
I'm interested in freaking out about leftwing terrorism. Got any specific incidents I can freak out about?
  #338  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:21 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
No, the point is that people ... ignore leftwing terrorism ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I'm interested in freaking out about leftwing terrorism. Got any specific incidents I can freak out about?
Are they still upset about the time petite Yvette Felarca shoved a Nazi with her bare hands? Curious to know whether Annoying is one of the dunderheads who agreed with his ideological mentor here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Timothy McVeigh's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
  #339  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:52 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,816
Look, I recognize that it's a dangerous world, at least our corner of it. If you want a gun to protect you home, your family, or your business, I don't have a problem with that. I don't hunt, but if that's the way you choose to spend your time, unless you've demonstrated an inability to do so safely like, say, Dick Cheney, I have no problem with that. But the ability to throw enough lead in thirty seconds to kill nine people and injure twenty-seven others is not something that should be in the hands of any moron with a pulse. And anybody who thinks otherwise flirts with being in that category themselves.
  #340  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:14 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
So I guess you're okay with people getting killed by gang violence in the inner city, as long as they are POC?
*Sigh*

Always the reaching for a racial narrative. I'm actually surprised it took this long for someone to say it.

It's not okay. I was illustrating a point of hypocrisy in regards to firearm restrictions and actual per capita firearm related crimes. Banning only restricts the majority of responsible legal owners whereas criminals are barely affected.

Protip: Suggestions and allusions to bigotry and racism in such a sense is akin and almost synonymous with Godwin's law in principle. You automatically forfeit an argument if you go that route.
  #341  
Old 09-24-2019, 06:16 PM
anomalous1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Look, I recognize that it's a dangerous world, at least our corner of it. If you want a gun to protect you home, your family, or your business, I don't have a problem with that. I don't hunt, but if that's the way you choose to spend your time, unless you've demonstrated an inability to do so safely like, say, Dick Cheney, I have no problem with that. But the ability to throw enough lead in thirty seconds to kill nine people and injure twenty-seven others is not something that should be in the hands of any moron with a pulse. And anybody who thinks otherwise flirts with being in that category themselves.
This is a fair, lucid and excellent argument. I appreciate this.
  #342  
Old 09-24-2019, 07:24 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
*Sigh*

Always the reaching for a racial narrative. I'm actually surprised it took this long for someone to say it.

It's not okay. I was illustrating a point of hypocrisy in regards to firearm restrictions and actual per capita firearm related crimes. Banning only restricts the majority of responsible legal owners whereas criminals are barely affected.

Protip: Suggestions and allusions to bigotry and racism in such a sense is akin and almost synonymous with Godwin's law in principle. You automatically forfeit an argument if you go that route.
Your indignation would be far more interesting to me if it weren't covered in crap. You tried to obfuscate the discussion by dragging in non-sequitors, and then got butt-hurt when you got called out on it.

Don't want to get shot down? Don't take Snoopy's doghouse-Sopwith-camel into the No-Fly Zone.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #343  
Old 09-25-2019, 12:12 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,024
I'm still waiting for those left-wing terrorism incidents. I haven't freaked out about anything today yet.
  #344  
Old 09-25-2019, 01:31 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by anomalous1 View Post
*Sigh*

Always the reaching for a racial narrative. I'm actually surprised it took this long for someone to say it.

It's not okay. I was illustrating a point of hypocrisy in regards to firearm restrictions and actual per capita firearm related crimes. Banning only restricts the majority of responsible legal owners whereas criminals are barely affected.

Protip: Suggestions and allusions to bigotry and racism in such a sense is akin and almost synonymous with Godwin's law in principle. You automatically forfeit an argument if you go that route.
If guns were outlawed, then there would be by definition no responsible legal owners. Everyone who had a gun would be a criminal. But you seem to be working with some definition of "criminal" other than "someone who commits crimes", because you seem to feel it would be reasonable for people to commit that particular crime. So, if it isn't a person's actions that makes them a criminal, what is it? Why is it that some people who own guns illegally are "criminals" and others "responsible legal owners"? I'm finding it hard to imagine a plausible answer that doesn't, in your oh so snowflakey phrase, "reach for a racial narrative".

Last edited by Thing Fish; 09-25-2019 at 01:32 PM.
  #345  
Old 09-25-2019, 03:38 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
If guns were outlawed, then there would be by definition no responsible legal owners. Everyone who had a gun would be a criminal. But you seem to be working with some definition of "criminal" other than "someone who commits crimes", because you seem to feel it would be reasonable for people to commit that particular crime. So, if it isn't a person's actions that makes them a criminal, what is it? Why is it that some people who own guns illegally are "criminals" and others "responsible legal owners"? I'm finding it hard to imagine a plausible answer that doesn't, in your oh so snowflakey phrase, "reach for a racial narrative".
Set aside for the moment the legality of owning a gun in the first place, and ask if someone has ever used a gun as a tool in the furtherance of a crime: murder; attempted murder; assault and battery; armed robbery; terroristic threats; vandalism; poaching. These do somehow seem morally and ethically different from a mere scofflaw, unless one is so hoplophobic as to define the mere possession of a firearm as "depraved indifference" to the well-being of others. "No excuses, The Law is The Law" as an excuse for demanding unquestioning compliance to the dictates of government has long been recognized as a morally bankrupt stance.
  #346  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:22 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
In fact humans with a generous spirit and a rational brain are much less likely than Trumpnuts and racists to even want guns. If/when the streets of the U.S.A. are fraught with civil strife, the racists, haters and imbeciles will have the firepower advantage.
OK, maybe the righties do have more guns, but the left knows how to build bombs that work.
  #347  
Old 09-27-2019, 04:19 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I'm still waiting for those left-wing terrorism incidents. I haven't freaked out about anything today yet.
I guess you've forgotten all the people slaughtered by Antifa and Hillary during the Bowling Green massacre

Forget it. Don't hold your breath. That asshole won't be coming back with any REAL evidence or cites.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017