Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-15-2019, 04:01 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,763

Will this election also be decided by the perverse American fetish for GUNS?


Why are guns so wonderful? So we can protect our families? Shoot at targets or clipped-wing quail when we need sexual release and the wife is tired of giving us blow jobs? Be ready to fight the redcoats, terrorists, Muslims, Jews, Irish, Sikhs, Kenyans and centaurs who would otherwise inundate our homeland? Stand our ground in a movie theater when someone is munching their popcorn too loud? NO!! To listen to some, these goals are secondary. It's the Constitution, dammit, the Constitution!

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
... If one wants to replace Trump, is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation. Trump will pass, in one term or two, and nothing he has done can't be undone.
I thought of posting the following where it belonged ó in the thread "Observations of the 3rd Democratic Debate" ó but since it's longish it might be considered a rant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Trillions of dollars in new debt. Income inequality as severe as its been in a century. The first generations in American history who expect to be poorer than their parents, many already struggling with debt loads that will haunt them till old age. A trade war likely to plunge the world into recession, a recession the world's central banks are no longer equipped to remedy.

A healthcare system that is the laughingstock of the developed world. America's longest war, with hundreds of thousands of our soldiers suffering PTSD. Dictators fomenting aggressions and oppressions throughout the world, often with the support of the U.S. Allies like France and Germany now regard the present U.S. as a bigger threat than Putin's Russia.

Children caged at the border. Foreign freshmen bound for Harvard sent back because their Facebook Friend badmouthed Trump. The U.S. diplomatic corps, U.S. science centers like NASA or DoE, the FBI and intelligence services ó all decimated by hateful and 'starve the beast' policies. The urgent fight against climate change put on hold. Polluters free to pollute once more.

Yet these issues all pale into insignificance in American politics. Many swing voters emphasize just one issue, the crucial issue, the issue that separates America from the rest of humanity. GUNS!!

And why are Guns so wonderful? I guess if an Article of the Constitution required that we walk backwards naked on Main Street every Tuesday, than that would be the quintessentially American value whose repeal would cause permanent damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
... If one wants to replace Trump, is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation. Trump will pass, in one term or two, and nothing he has done can't be undone.
Climate change? Not lasting damage! Children under-nourished or under-educated due to policies that promote poverty? Not lasting damage! America's military veterans have a suicide average much higher than the rest of population? Not lasting damage! Rising debts now out of control that will eventually trigger devaluations? Not lasting damage! Firings and exasperated resignations that in less than three years have already decimated the institutional knowledge of U.S. intelligence, diplomatic, and science agencies? Not lasting damage!

No, the thread in Elections turns to contemplation of what would be lasting: Americans no longer compelled to walk backwards naked on Main Street every Tuesday entitled to the assault weapons used by mass murderers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Czarcasm started a thread titled "The inherent problem with 2nd Amendment debates" which makes an important point I've tried to make, though it's an elusive point for some. The Mod first unilaterally changed the thread title to obfuscate Czarcasm's argument; then closed the thread altogether.

I apologize to Czarcasm and all Dopers for not supporting the thesis of that thread before it was closed. This thread is dedicated to Czarcasm's thread.
  #2  
Old 09-15-2019, 06:59 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,710
It baffles me as well. It makes no sense at all, unless “guns” symbolize something deeper for many people — something (with variation among individuals) to do with fear and mistrust of perceived urban/cosmopolitan power — education, government, globalized links (with their stench of racial impurity)... (yet, economic structural power is somehow largely exempt).

How a particular object gets imbued with associations is rather mysterious to me, but I’m sure psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and others have explored this very human process.

There may be a bit of a parallel in the Irish situation, where it’s convenient to label the tension as a “Protestant” vs. “Catholic” thing, but it’s not really that (subtle theological distinctions are never the issue).

Last edited by JKellyMap; 09-15-2019 at 07:01 AM.
  #3  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:11 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
You guys are so off base, clueless, and so full of hyperbole it’s amazing to see. It’s also part of the reason I decided to post here.

Guns are easy to understand. It has nothing to do with race, religion, Nazis or White Supremacy. Nothing about hating others or being paranoid. It’s about above all else having the power and the right to defend yourself and your family with the means you choose and having power over the government.

That’s it. People believe that taking guns is tyranny.

And yes, guns are a major deciding factor in elections. You take hardcore gun grabbing positions, you’re most likely gonna lose. It’s unpopular.
  #4  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:21 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,710
Annoyed — Okay, we get that, and I think that’s a helpful clarification. But I think both our explanations are moving toward the same thing. Fear of something harming me and my family (and, that “something” includes them”government”).

A very human feeling (indeed, many other species feel it, too). Okay.

But the GUN being the physical manifestation of this fear is not inevitable. It could have been something less lethal (locks on doors, say), or something more lethal (bombs, say). Our culture developed to allow locks on doors and guns, but not bombs. Certain other cultures developed to allow locks on doors, but not guns or bombs.
  #5  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:47 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
{...} having power over the government. {...}
And here I thought that was the First Amendment, ya know "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." . . . oh and that whole voting thing, I'm sure that's part of it too!

Do you think an AR platform rifle can stop a tank?

CMC fnord!
  #6  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:50 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,751
If you've reached the point where you're shooting at your own armed forces, you've already lost. Everyone's already lost.
  #7  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:12 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Itís about above all else having the power and the right to defend yourself and your family with the means you choose and having power over the government.
Which is why the pro-gun types have fought for open carry in public places.
Quote:
And yes, guns are a major deciding factor in elections. You take hardcore gun grabbing positions, youíre most likely gonna lose. Itís unpopular.
Well, at least for the first time ever, a major politician (Beto) has called for actual gun-grabbing, as opposed to the things (like background checks or bans on future purchases of particular kinds of guns) that the gun nuts, including those on this very board, have called 'gun-grabbing' for many years now.

You've used it up, you've made the term meaningless. Now that someone's proposed actual, bona fide gun-grabbing, what'cha gonna call it now, huh? 'Tyranny'? Nope, already pounded that one into the ground. "Wolf, wolf, wolf!" Yeah, yeah, you cried that already, nobody's listening anymore. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
  #8  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:13 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
How very true Allesan.

But more to my point when in American history did having power over the government actually require being armed?

CMC fnord!

Last edited by crowmanyclouds; 09-15-2019 at 08:15 AM.
  #9  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:16 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,688
It won't be decided by guns. Gun nuts always vote and they always vote Republican. That isn't going to change. If Beto is nominated and runs on taking away AK47s, the gun nuts will vote for the Orange Rapist. Just like they would no matter who the Democrats nominated.

I feel disgust for gun nuts. The one issue that matters to them most, the one hill they want to die on, is to preserve their ability to possess the means to slaughter other humans. They're pathetic pieces of shit and the blood of those killed in churches and high schools and concerts is on their hands. Fuck every single one of them in the ass with a red hot poker.
  #10  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:27 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,653
To the extent that guns are an issue, the advantage has shifted. For decades, there's been a lot more people who were pro-regulation than people who were anti. But the intensity was all on the pro-gun side.

That's not the case anymore - the majority wants these fucking massacres to stop, they want their kids to not have to do regular 'active shooter' drills in the schools just because we allow everyone to carry weapons of mass slaughter around with them, effectively allowing everyone to hold everyone else hostage all the time.

Well, FUCK THAT SHIT, is what people are saying. And last year, Democrats weren't afraid to campaign in favor of gun regulation, and they won in places where Dems don't usually win anyway.

And now Beto's moved the Overton window a big step in the right direction by calling for not only an end to selling new assault weapons, but mandatory buybacks of those that are already out there as well. In another year or two, when it's sunk in a bit, that's gonna look like common sense to the vast majority of Americans.

Yes, guns are a winning issue - for the left. But I unfortunately have to admit that the right is still winning on this issue in the most fundamental sense: the massacres are still happening.
  #11  
Old 09-15-2019, 08:37 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
{...} Fuck every single one of them in the ass with a red hot poker.
I woulda gone with the overheated barrel of a AR . . . 'cause irony.

CMC fnord!
  #12  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:08 AM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,706
Quick question. I haven't read the Constitution in a while, but the second amendment does say that no less than 30 round magazine, semi-automatic rifles are allowed, right?

I mean it would be a violation of that amendment to say, ban everything but bolt action rifles and revolvers with 6 shots or less, right?

I mean, surely the second amendment doesn't say we can personally have tanks or missile launchers, does it?
  #13  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:19 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
You guys are so off base, clueless, and so full of hyperbole itís amazing to see. Itís also part of the reason I decided to post here.
How's that going for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Guns are easy to understand. It has nothing to do with race, religion, Nazis or White Supremacy. Nothing about hating others or being paranoid.
And yet, there is that pesky correlation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Itís about above all else having the power and the right to defend yourself and your family with the means you choose...
Who is coming for you and your family that you are constantly living in fear of? You and your family is much more likely to be harmed by financial disaster related to catastrophic health issues and environmental impact than some imagined intruder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
...and having power over the government.
What a lying, delusional sack of fucking bullshit. You and your guns against the government and its LOE and military? Quit stroking your AR-15; Wet dream over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Thatís it. People believe that taking guns is tyranny.
They and you are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
And yes, guns are a major deciding factor in elections. You take hardcore gun grabbing positions, youíre most likely gonna lose. Itís unpopular.
You know what's becoming less and less popular?... Fear of social progress and the clinging obsession with religion and guns.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #14  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:22 AM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
You guys are so off base, clueless, and so full of hyperbole itís amazing to see. Itís also part of the reason I decided to post here.

Guns are easy to understand. It has nothing to do with race, religion, Nazis or White Supremacy. Nothing about hating others or being paranoid. Itís about above all else having the power and the right to defend yourself and your family with the means you choose and having power over the government.

Thatís it. People believe that taking guns is tyranny.
I think septimus' point is that there's lots of forms of tyranny that are being conveniently ignored right now. It should be considered tyranny for a government to saddle future generations with insurmountable public debt due to mismanagement. It should be considered tyranny for a government to allow, through gross inaction and negligence, global climate change to threaten the livelihoods and lives of our children. It should be considered tyranny for governments to imprison so much of our population on irresponsible pretexts.

But there's only one thing voters really get up in arms about, pun intended. It's easy to understand a government harming its citizens through direct force, of the kind that guns might help prevent. But anything more complicated, like a government harming its citizens by ignoring an obvious threat, seems to be just peachy.
  #15  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:23 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Quick question. I haven't read the Constitution in a while, but the second amendment does say that no less than 30 round magazine, semi-automatic rifles are allowed, right?

I mean it would be a violation of that amendment to say, ban everything but bolt action rifles and revolvers with 6 shots or less, right?

I mean, surely the second amendment doesn't say we can personally have tanks or missile launchers, does it?
Or the Popeil Pocket Phaser?

Look, I know it's a dangerous world. If someone wants a gun to protect his home, his family, or his business I'm cool with that. But how many of those situations require a freakin' AR-15?

And regardless of the legal aspects which will be, as they always are, sorted out by lawyers and judges, it's more defensible morally to desire limitation on the firepower which can be possessed by the average Joe (or the average Billy Joe Bob) than it is to say: "I don't care how many kids get killed, you're not taking my guns."
  #16  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:31 AM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Annoyed — Okay, we get that, and I think that’s a helpful clarification. But I think both our explanations are moving toward the same thing. Fear of something harming me and my family (and, that “something” includes them”government”).

A very human feeling (indeed, many other species feel it, too). Okay.

But the GUN being the physical manifestation of this fear is not inevitable. It could have been something less lethal (locks on doors, say), or something more lethal (bombs, say). Our culture developed to allow locks on doors and guns, but not bombs. Certain other cultures developed to allow locks on doors, but not guns or bombs.
My guess is that guns strike the right balance for most people. Guns are active (the user feels they are in control) and mete out immediate punishment, whereas locks are passive and defeating them poses little physical risk. On the "more lethal" side, guns do their dirty work with relative precision, whereas bombs are relatively indiscriminate. Plus bombs tend to make more of a mess.

Last edited by El_Kabong; 09-15-2019 at 09:31 AM.
  #17  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:32 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
I think septimus' point is that there's lots of forms of tyranny that are being conveniently ignored right now. It should be considered tyranny for a government to saddle future generations with insurmountable public debt due to mismanagement. It should be considered tyranny for a government to allow, through gross inaction and negligence, global climate change to threaten the livelihoods and lives of our children. It should be considered tyranny for governments to imprison so much of our population on irresponsible pretexts.
Seriously, the very real danger posed to me an my family from a lack of medical insurance is several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by the remote possibility of having to fight of an invader into my home, which is in turn several orders of magnitude larger than the danger posed by possibly needing to (and being able to) fight off a tyrannical government.
  #18  
Old 09-15-2019, 09:36 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
You guys are so off base, clueless, and so full of hyperbole itís amazing to see. Itís also part of the reason I decided to post here
Clarification, please. Does the word ďhereĒ in that sentence refer merely to this thread, or to the SDMB as a whole?

TIA.
  #19  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:10 AM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Itís about above all else having the power and the right to defend yourself and your family with the means you choose and having power over the government.
Do you consider it tyrannical for the government to deny you a rocket propelled grenade launcher, should you choose that means of defense? If not, why not? Itís a choice the government is denying you when you are deciding how to protect yourself and your family. And if the government can deny you that choice without descending into tyranny, why does the denial of a rifle become tyrannical? Neither ďrifleĒ or ďrocket launcherĒ are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, yet both are arguably ďarmsĒ, which is referenced. So, if there is a distinction, what is it?
  #20  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:24 AM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Do you consider it tyrannical for the government to deny you a rocket propelled grenade launcher, should you choose that means of defense? If not, why not? It’s a choice the government is denying you when you are deciding how to protect yourself and your family. And if the government can deny you that choice without descending into tyranny, why does the denial of a rifle become tyrannical?
For that matter, why can't i have a fully loaded cruise missile ready to launch from my backyard? A real defense to tyranny would be if I can threaten to blow up any federal building within 100 miles of my home any time I wish. (and put the missile launch on a dead man's switch)

Bet the government would be really darn respectful if I'm literally holding the lives of a few hundred people hostage every minute of every day.

And if I'm not the only one doing it - if all the local wealthy people around me have similar setups - man, we could do almost anything we wanted. Hold people in slavery, even... Rob the government by forcing it to take on a huge national debt so we don't have to pay the taxes. Set up a healthcare system that benefits us but screws everyone else.

Last edited by SamuelA; 09-15-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #21  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:24 AM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,650
Trying to figure out where I sit on the issue. Number one, we do need stricter gun laws. Oh yes.

I own 10 guns. All off them handed down to me in one way or anther from family. I have not bought one of them.

I used to love shooting clay pigeons. Great fun that. Target shooting with a .22 is great fun.

I live way up in the Colorado mountains. I've had black bear rip off the door to my shed three times now. My first encounter with a black bear 27 years ago was when I found one in the back of my pick up truck. I do like having something to dissuade them, though I would never shoot one. My feeling is that I'm intruding on them.

Banging pots and pans or yelling at them does not always work. A shot from a large caliber rifle or pistol into a tree stump near them seems to do the job if they are staking out the house. I am going to keep at least a rifle and revolver.

I don't have any full time neighbors up at this altitude (11,200). But, there are enough people around hiking and such that I don't target shoot. The pop/noise of even a .22 would make an otherwise relaxed day in the mountains less fun.

What I did do is by a .22 air rifle (so I have bought one gun). It needs a special compressor to get it charged up to 3000psi. It's nearly silent to shoot and can get dime sized groups at 100 feet. That's fun. And after the initial investment, very cheap to shoot.

What should I do? Sell them? To whom? What would they do with them? Don't want to just destroy them either.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #22  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:24 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
If you've reached the point where you're shooting at your own armed forces, you've already lost. Everyone's already lost.
Gun nuts live in an alternate reality where it's inevitable that either they will fight the government, or they will outlive a collapsed government.

Gun nuts understand that, in a standoff with government forces, they are going to die. They are OK with this. Mainly because it's mostly posturing - it's easy to act badass about something that's never going to happen. But when contemplating the risk of death, the Christian death cult believes it will be rewarded in the afterlife for its faithfulness.

Gun nuts don't care about the impact to society or other people because the point is the ability to harm other people, and Jesus is coming to reconquer the world with fire anyway when Revelations comes true.

Gun nuts say their opponents are afraid of their rifles only because they're scary and black, and have no problem with wooden rifle of similar function. They lack the self awareness to reflect on why they have a toddler-like insistence on buying the flashy, menacing black rifle instead of the wooden-stock rifle of similar function.

These people are mentally ill and we need to stop equipping them with toys to furnish their rage fantasies.
  #23  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:38 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
And here I thought that was the First Amendment, ya know "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." . . . oh and that whole voting thing, I'm sure that's part of it too!

Do you think an AR platform rifle can stop a tank?

CMC fnord!
I think if the government or the military were given orders to drive tanks through their home towns and raid their own people, most of those guns would probably end up pointing at the same targets as the citizens.
  #24  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:41 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
Do you consider it tyrannical for the government to deny you a rocket propelled grenade launcher, should you choose that means of defense? If not, why not? Itís a choice the government is denying you when you are deciding how to protect yourself and your family. And if the government can deny you that choice without descending into tyranny, why does the denial of a rifle become tyrannical? Neither ďrifleĒ or ďrocket launcherĒ are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, yet both are arguably ďarmsĒ, which is referenced. So, if there is a distinction, what is it?
The rifle is the last bastion. Theyíve blocked and banned everything else.

I believe there should be some regulation. Iím not unreasonable. But saying I canít have nukes and rockets is the same thing as banning rifles is asinine.
  #25  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:44 AM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
The rifle is the last bastion. They’ve blocked and banned everything else.

I believe there should be some regulation. I’m not unreasonable. But saying I can’t have nukes and rockets is the same thing as banning rifles is asinine.
Ok, well what about semi-automatic rifles with deep magazines? What is it about being able to fire several shots a second until the magazine is empty is a Constitutional Right. One that is necessary for our freedom to be maintained?

We can argue all day about whether or not it's a net good or a net bad, but it looks like to me if a majority of voters decide that this isn't a necessary right, and the legislature passed laws making this type of weapon illegal without a special license, then that's that. The gun-grabbing could commence.

There are so many out there and few records, so sure, some people would keep those rifles hidden away for generations. But most would be found, and no one would openly carry them anywhere or even take them out in public.

Last edited by SamuelA; 09-15-2019 at 10:46 AM.
  #26  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:45 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Gun nuts live in an alternate reality where it's inevitable that either they will fight the government, or they will outlive a collapsed government.

Gun nuts understand that, in a standoff with government forces, they are going to die. They are OK with this. Mainly because it's mostly posturing - it's easy to act badass about something that's never going to happen. But when contemplating the risk of death, the Christian death cult believes it will be rewarded in the afterlife for its faithfulness.

Gun nuts don't care about the impact to society or other people because the point is the ability to harm other people, and Jesus is coming to reconquer the world with fire anyway when Revelations comes true.

Gun nuts say their opponents are afraid of their rifles only because they're scary and black, and have no problem with wooden rifle of similar function. They lack the self awareness to reflect on why they have a toddler-like insistence on buying the flashy, menacing black rifle instead of the wooden-stock rifle of similar function.

These people are mentally ill and we need to stop equipping them with toys to furnish their rage fantasies.
Youíve built yourself a pretty amusing caricature in that little noggin of yours.

I could build the same caricature about your worst kind of people and use that as justification to declare them mentally ill too (which they probably would be in all fairness) but that would be stupid.
  #27  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:49 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
It won't be decided by guns. Gun nuts always vote and they always vote Republican. That isn't going to change. If Beto is nominated and runs on taking away AK47s, the gun nuts will vote for the Orange Rapist. Just like they would no matter who the Democrats nominated.

I feel disgust for gun nuts. The one issue that matters to them most, the one hill they want to die on, is to preserve their ability to possess the means to slaughter other humans. They're pathetic pieces of shit and the blood of those killed in churches and high schools and concerts is on their hands. Fuck every single one of them in the ass with a red hot poker.
It’s the fact that deranged psychopaths such as yourself exist that motivates the prudent to take reasonable precautions.

However, I am sympathetic to the idea that perhaps not everyone needs access to rifles that can kill 60 people a minute.

Last edited by octopus; 09-15-2019 at 10:52 AM.
  #28  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:49 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Ok, well what about semi-automatic rifles with deep magazines? What is it about being able to fire several shots a second until the magazine is empty is a Constitutional Right. One that is necessary for our freedom to be maintained?

We can argue all day about whether or not it's a net good or a net bad, but it looks like to me if a majority of voters decide that this isn't a necessary right, and the legislature passed laws making this type of weapon illegal without a special license, then that's that. The gun-grabbing could commence.
But it wouldnít be. Youíd have Wacoís and Ruby Ridges out the ass and the government turning on its own people, a constitutional crisis, and a very serious problem.

Want to grab guns? Change the amendment the way it was intended. Canít do that? You donít have a suitable majority.

You should look up ďIn common use at the timeĒ
  #29  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:51 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
I think if the government or the military were given orders to drive tanks through their home towns and raid their own people...
I think worrying about far-fetched B-movie scenarios like this instead of the real problems we face every day is a sickness that is ripping this country apart.
  #30  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:51 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Itís the fact that deranged psychopaths such as yourself exist that motivates the prudent to take reasonable precautions.
I found a new best friend. Will you marry me?
  #31  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:52 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think worrying about far-fetched B-movie scenarios like this instead of the real problems we face every day is a sickness that is ripping this country apart.
Well I think youíre just as complicit as me, but your deflection is very well noted.
  #32  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:56 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
How's that going for you?



And yet, there is that pesky correlation.



Who is coming for you and your family that you are constantly living in fear of? You and your family is much more likely to be harmed by financial disaster related to catastrophic health issues and environmental impact than some imagined intruder.


What a lying, delusional sack of fucking bullshit. You and your guns against the government and its LOE and military? Quit stroking your AR-15; Wet dream over.


They and you are wrong.


You know what's becoming less and less popular?... Fear of social progress and the clinging obsession with religion and guns.
I fear no one because I have the means and the right to defend myself.

My only fear is losing that right.

And Iíd argue that your ďsocial progressĒ is losing ground, big time, and youíre views are more fringe than mine.
  #33  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:58 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
But it wouldn’t be. You’d have Waco’s and Ruby Ridges out the ass and the government turning on its own people, a constitutional crisis, and a very serious problem.

Want to grab guns? Change the amendment the way it was intended. Can’t do that? You don’t have a suitable majority.

You should look up “In common use at the time”
Waco.
Ruby Ridge.

And you sitting in your basement clutching your Daisy instead actually doing anything close to the macho fantasies you envision. If the simplistic "revolution" you drool about ever really happened, and you are asked afterward what you did, I doubt very much your answer(if you were capable of answering honestly) would be anything more than "I trolled message boards!".

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-15-2019 at 10:58 AM.
  #34  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:58 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
I think if the government or the military were given orders to drive tanks through their home towns and raid their own people, most of those guns would probably end up pointing at the same targets as the citizens.
And I'll ask again, when has anything like this ever happened in American history?
No, the Civil War was the American government putting down an insurrection,

CotUS, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

a Constitutional power of the government.

CMC fnord!
  #35  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:02 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,688
Oh fuck that shit. Who exactly do you intend to shoot? Who do you fantasize about blowing their brains out? People who don't look like you? People who pray differently? You get this massive arsenal, surely you're fantasizing about shooting somebody. You have a "right" to self defense with a weapon used by the military? No you fucking don't. Do the world a favor and turn in your Dirty Harry fantasy toy collection before you hurt the grownups, or even worse, innocent children. Then grow the fuck up.
  #36  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:08 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Waco.
Ruby Ridge.

And you sitting in your basement clutching your Daisy instead actually doing anything close to the macho fantasies you envision. If the simplistic "revolution" you drool about ever really happened, and you are asked afterward what you did, I doubt very much your answer(if you were capable of answering honestly) would be anything more than "I trolled message boards!".
Take me completely out of the equation, use all the insults and ad-hom you wish, and it would still happen. Itís got nothing to do with me. I could die right now and it would still happen.
  #37  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:11 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
And I'll ask again, when has anything like this ever happened in American history?
No, the Civil War was the American government putting down an insurrection,

CotUS, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

a Constitutional power of the government.

CMC fnord!
Go with that, then. Military swears an oath to defend the constitution, is majority right wing, and trained. Try turning them on their own families and see how that works out.

Get pissy if you want, doesnít change the scope of the point.
  #38  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:14 AM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
How very true Allesan.

But more to my point when in American history did having power over the government actually require being armed?

CMC fnord!
From 1775-1783. The Americans had made many attempts to exert some power over their government prior to open rebellion, but those Brits who were in the governing business were mainly interested in securing their empire and milking their colonies for all they were worth. One thing many Americans don't realize is just how well our revolution went. I'm certainly not going to romanticize it, but when I think over other revolutions, like Mexico, ours wasn't nearly as ugly as it could have been. I think that's shaped how we view revolutions today.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #39  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:15 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Go with that, then. Military swears an oath to defend the constitution, is majority right wing, and trained. Try turning them on their own families and see how that works out.

Get pissy if you want, doesnít change the scope of the point.
More right wing whackadoodle delusion. Oh yes, the military is all on your side. They all interpret the constitution exactly as you do. Exactly the thoughts of the Waco whackos who died spouting the same nonsense.
  #40  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:16 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Oh fuck that shit. Who exactly do you intend to shoot? Who do you fantasize about blowing their brains out? People who don't look like you? People who pray differently? You get this massive arsenal, surely you're fantasizing about shooting somebody. You have a "right" to self defense with a weapon used by the military? No you fucking don't. Do the world a favor and turn in your Dirty Harry fantasy toy collection before you hurt the grownups, or even worse, innocent children. Then grow the fuck up.
Yep, thatíll help. Have a complete, spittle-laden meltdown about a citizen exercising his rights.

When youíre done, wipe off your monitor, catch your breath, and realize that we do, in fact, have these rights, and that these rifles have never been used in the military.
  #41  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:23 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
More right wing whackadoodle delusion. Oh yes, the military is all on your side. They all interpret the constitution exactly as you do. Exactly the thoughts of the Waco whackos who died spouting the same nonsense.
Ok.

But the fact remains that if you think that taking peopleís weapons by bypassing the constitution and going into peoples homes to do so is going to go well... Thatís just far left whackaddodle nonsense.
  #42  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:29 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Youíve built yourself a pretty amusing caricature in that little noggin of yours.

I could build the same caricature about your worst kind of people and use that as justification to declare them mentally ill too (which they probably would be in all fairness) but that would be stupid.
Which part of my caricature do you believe is false?
  #43  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:35 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
I fear no one because I have the means and the right to defend myself.
FROM WHO? You paranoid fucking nitwit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
My only fear is losing that right.
Do you sit at home with your gun in your lap waiting for someone to break in? Do you eat with the gun on the table? Take a shit with the gun in your lap? Jerk off next to your gun? Sleep with it under your pillow?

In your imaginary worst case scenario, do you think you are going to have the drop on the guy coming in to kill you? You seriously think you're fucking Dirty Harry?

If the very scary government decides to come for your gun, do you think they'll politely knock and wait while you lock & load?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
And Iíd argue that your ďsocial progressĒ is losing ground, big time, and youíre views are more fringe than mine.
Like I said -- you're delusional.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #44  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:42 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
But the fact remains that if you think that taking peopleís weapons by bypassing the constitution and going into peoples homes to do so is going to go well... Thatís just far left whackaddodle nonsense.
No. I think that the constitution would require an amendment that would either restrict or entirely revoke the 2nd Amendment. Per the provisions in the constitution that allow for that kind of process and procedure.

It won't be easy or soon enough, but I believe that change is coming.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #45  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:46 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
FROM WHO? You paranoid fucking nitwit.



Do you sit at home with your gun in your lap waiting for someone to break in? Do you eat with the gun on the table? Take a shit with the gun in your lap? Jerk off next to your gun? Sleep with it under your pillow?

In your imaginary worst case scenario, do you think you are going to have the drop on the guy coming in to kill you? You seriously think you're fucking Dirty Harry?

If the very scary government decides to come for your gun, do you think they'll politely knock and wait while you lock & load?



Like I said -- you're delusional.
So I found a new angry friend I see.

If the government comes for MY gun, of course not. Theyíll barge in and take it or kill me. I know this.

If they comes for everyones gun, well, yes, they would be better served to politely knock first.
  #46  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:53 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
No. I think that the constitution would require an amendment that would either restrict or entirely revoke the 2nd Amendment. Per the provisions in the constitution that allow for that kind of process and procedure.

It won't be easy or soon enough, but I believe that change is coming.
I donít think youíll ever get there in my lifetime, probably never honestly, but thatís the only honest way to go about it. Change the amendment. Itís an unarguable mandate.

Too bad you guys wonít do it or even try it, favoring incrementalism until the breaking point.
  #47  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:53 AM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
No. I think that the constitution would require an amendment that would either restrict or entirely revoke the 2nd Amendment. Per the provisions in the constitution that allow for that kind of process and procedure.

It won't be easy or soon enough, but I believe that change is coming.
Quicksilver, why would the Constitution require amending to go from:

a. Virtually Everyone can have semiautomatic rifles and handguns

b. Virtually Everyone can have bolt-action rifles and revolvers

Some special people who pay large fees and pass special checks can have the weapons in (a).

Clearly, a bolt-action rifle is still a far better firearm than anything the framers of the Constitution had in mind. So I am not sure how a theoretical Federal law banning anything better, and authorizing the ATF to buy back the existing weapons and conduct raids to seize weapons not turned in, would be unconstitutional.
  #48  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:58 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Quicksilver, why would the Constitution require amending to go from:

a. Virtually Everyone can have semiautomatic rifles and handguns

b. Virtually Everyone can have bolt-action rifles and revolvers

Some special people who pay large fees and pass special checks can have the weapons in (a).

Clearly, a bolt-action rifle is still a far better firearm than anything the framers of the Constitution had in mind. So I am not sure how a theoretical Federal law banning anything better, and authorizing the ATF to buy back the existing weapons and conduct raids to seize weapons not turned in, would be unconstitutional.
Buyback isnít a thing. Thatís forced confiscation.

And all of that is completely unconstitutional. And wrong.

The framers didnít ďhave in mindĒ to carry muskets for eternity.
  #49  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:18 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Ok.

But the fact remains that if you think that taking peopleís weapons by bypassing the constitution and going into peoples homes to do so is going to go well... Thatís just far left whackaddodle nonsense.
It went well in Australia. It is going well in New Zealand. It will not go well in the USA because too many gun nuts would start killing innocent people who are law abiding. In other words, gun nuts being terrorists.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #50  
Old 09-15-2019, 12:19 PM
SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Buyback isn’t a thing. That’s forced confiscation.

And all of that is completely unconstitutional. And wrong.

The framers didn’t “have in mind” to carry muskets for eternity.
You're just saying that. Do you have a cite?

Because the ATF does exactly this for things like short barreled rifles and submachine guns. Both of which were legal everywhere at one point in time.

And yes, it's forced confiscation, however, not without compensation.

Last edited by SamuelA; 09-15-2019 at 12:19 PM.
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 04:29 PM.

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