Shodan, you’ll find the answer completely contained in the previous post.
If there’s an effort going on here to say “No, YOU guys are the racists!”, you’ll have to do better. You too, HD.
I guess I didn’t understand what your point was. You took a single phrase out of context, and acted as if it were the entirety of the post. Now that you understand that it was one of many factors, do you get why your pulling out of one factor, and demanding to know if that one factor was solely responsible was an extremely poor form of debate?
I guess the question is, did you actually believe that each of those factor was individually responsible, or did you know, when you demanded to know how that factor was individually responsible, that it was not?
Depends on what you mean. If you mean by owning and carrying, then no one cares what you do out in the country. If you are talking about selling or transferring to others, then it would be useful that you do not sell it to people who would bring it into the city to cause harm. That’s pretty much the only thing that I would ask of anyone outside of a city. I know, hard ask, to not give your gun to a violent criminal, especially if they are offering you money for it.
You guys are even pushing legislation that would require states to accept other state’s CCW’s, even disallowing the states to set laws on how guns are carried in their state.
Also, Heller did not apply to anything at all outside of city limits, San Francisco’s requirement that you have a gun safe does not do anything to anyone outside of SF.
Why does anyone that does not live in SF care what SF does?
Yeah, you keep your guns out of our cities, and we don’t care what you do with them. You insist on bringing your guns into the cities, then we should be allowed to have a say in how you carry them. If you insist on being able to sell them to violent criminals, then yeah, we will need to look into doing what needs to be done to stop you from continuing that practice.
Is that the freedom that you are so very concerned about, not being able to sell your gun to someone who will use it for violence?
Wow, that’s not even an argument, that’s just a ball of stupid and ignorance in post form.
I’ve not met a gun control advocate “proud” of their ignorance of firearms, though I will admit that people who worship guns are probably going to know more about them than those who do not. As the gun advocate will flip his lid if clip/magazine are used “incorrectly”, and claim that all gun control advocates are ignorant because someone used a term in a way they didn’t approve, I think your perception of that ignorance is magnified by orders of magnitude.
And your idea that it is the same gun control advocate repeatedly asking the same questions whos that you simply lump people together, and do not consider them to be individuals, and that they should all have the same knowledge. It is not the same advocate asking the same question, it is multiple advocates, al asking a similar question. The whole, “if one more person asks that question…” thing, where you take out your frustration on someone who asked the question for the first time, but because it wasn’t the first time for you, you react inappropriately.
You should note that “We the People” are very much in favor of gun control measures. Unfortunately, most “we the people” do not know how stymied what they would consider to be reasonable measures are by the fanatics on your side hiding behind and weaponizing 2A.
Ummm, cite that racism has been extinguished, please?
I fear that, but I more fear the irresponsible idiot with a gun.
I’ve been told many times that possession of a gun should not be a thing to be suspicious of.
Can you tell me what the restaurant owners in this story did wrong?
By the accounts of gun advocates in this thread, she should have minded her own business, and let him go shoot up the church, right?
I wish that were true. People in upstate New York and rural California have been restricted on what they can own, largely by politicians representing the urban centers in those states.
To me, those are a subset of assholes, but that’s just definition.
To clarify, possession of a gun necessarily implies the willingness to use it, which in the absence of an otherwise innocent context necessarily implies assholitude, which in its armed state necessarily requires fear by the sane, and containment to the extent possible. The non-sarcastic use of the word “tyranny”, or the claim that a gang of yahoos can be a “constitutional militia”, are mere confirmation of what by then is already known.
So who started blaming black people for it?
Unique? I never said that. But it is far worse in the South, where it is institutionalized. Jim Crow Law, flying the CSA flag, memorials & schools named after the guy who founded the KKK, etc.
Racism occurs pretty much around the globe.
That actually would be a good thing. The whole thing about having a unified nation is that by crossing a state line or a city boundary you arent suddenly a criminal.
SF was banning and confiscating all handguns. Not just requiring gun safes. And there’s a thing called the tyranny of the majority. Why do the minority have to give up their rights? Can a white majority in a city decide that blacks can’t vote? Can a Solid GOP majority in a city decide that the media can’t support Democratic candidates?
I live outside the South, yet I care about their Jim Crow laws, their institutionalized racism, etc.
We all do and commend your decision not to own a gun.
Are you really ignorant enough to conclude that every one who voted for Trump is automatically racist? That’s absurd.
About the worst you could say in that regard is that there are a lot of people out there who don’t consider racism and/or inequality to be their chief concern when voting for a candidate.
That’s not the same thing as being racist.
I think I might say “was institutionalized”. Most of everything you say is from the 1950s at the most recent, and the vast majority is from a century ago, more or less. There has been a lot of effort to eliminate institutional racism since then. It’s probably not all gone, but my guess would be that it’s mostly gone.
What you see more of these days isn’t outright racism, but more the legacy of historical racism- stuff like the fact that a large portion of the black population is afflicted with poverty due to historical racist policies, and as a result, doesn’t do well on things like credit scores. So they can’t get loans, or when they do, they have almost usurious terms. Is this racist? Not unless there’s some sort of redlining or algorithm that would assign a different score to a non-black person with the same financial status. But it does impact the black community disproportionately.
Stuff like that is all over the place- to a certain degree the outcomes are the result of trying to apply the same yardstick to everyone’s issue. It reminds me of the way the military requirements for certain jobs work. Due to the greater required strength for the jobs, it’s almost certainly going to skew your soldiers in that position toward a very male-heavy ratio. Is it sexist? Not directly, but it does tend to weed out women from that position.
No, the GOP is bringing back Jim Crow, all over the South.
Mississippi refused to change it racist state flag in 2001, with 64% of the state voting no, showing that at least 64% of that state are racists.
Georgia had a OK state flag from 2001 to 2003 then racists changed it back to glorify slavery and the CSA.
Institutional racism is alive in the South. Not as much as before , but Trump has revitalized it.
No, that’s just the image we choose to portray in order to deter Yankee immigration.
So everyone who take a martial art, who picks up a knife, hammer, drives a car, etc. Really there are MANY ways to kill someone. As I’ve pointed out the murder rate really doesn’t change before and after a gun ban or restriction. How someone kills another person changes, but they keep killing at about the same rate.
As far as when I expect my “tool” useful, when I think my life or the lives of people around me are in danger. Of course you call the police who will respond to a serious crime in about 4.6 minutes, but as we’ve seen that doesn’t mean they will do anything nor, according to the courts, do they have a duty to do anything.
So the police have no duty to you, they don’t have to answer a call for help, they don’t have stop a crime in progress, and on average they will take about 4.6 minutes to respond to a serious crime if they respond at all.
Now I’m not saying the police won’t respond or help, but they have no duty to you.
You make it sound like we all need to walk around with firearms for “self-defense” or we’re all doomed to be mercilessly mugged or murdered on the streets. Have you seen what’s been happening to the violent crime rate for decades?
Yes, I have. Have you seen that the number of guns is increasing even more? More gun and less crime.
Does this not disprove “less guns= less crime”?
While I wasnt speaking in this context, no it does not necessarily disprove that. Next question, please.
It seems than many posters disagree with our basic founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence.
If indeed we have no rights that are not granted by the benevolence of government, and those are the only source of any rights, then how does any source of any type of social “progress” or any sort of “good” come into play?
Suppose than an SS officer was transported to 2019 and was arguing here on the board that the extermination of the Jews was the law of his land and he believed it to be the correct and scientifically progressive thing to do. Surely nobody here arguing against the natural law/rights from God concept would concede that our modern view is just as equally correct as an abstract matter since rights only come from the government. So what document or what political or moral philosophy would you point at to convince the SS officer that our view is superior to his?
So help me understand. If there is no natural law, what makes things right or wrong? What makes gay marriage better than no gay marriage? What makes legal abortion better than no legal abortion? What makes caring for people as individuals superior to executing the disabled so as not to harm the gene pool?
If the Constitution was amended to outlaw free speech, would you believe that such was the result of a super majority of the electorate and was morally just as valid as having free speech? Would you obey the law and not say anything, content in your belief that you were just following the law of the land?
Not least because they’re contained in the Constitution.
Maybe, however, you can be the first to show where a basic, or natural, or God-given right to gun ownership can be found anywhere but in a strongly-contested and decontextualized interpretation of half of a sentence in it. What great religious and moral thinkers have considered it and pronounced it good? In what great classic works of civilization?
The Declaration of Independence. Didn’t we already cover that?
Regards,
Shodan
Your whole point of view is completely confused.
People want societies with “good” policies. Can we agree on that much? If a society has a bad policy it is desirable to replace it with an improved policy.
Problems arise when different people have different opinions about which policies are “good.” The samurais of ancient Japan may have thought it good that they could behead any peasant on whim without retribution. The peasants may have thought otherwise.
Some may think a society is improved when many citizens have guns. Others may prefer to discourage gun ownership. Which version of society is preferable? That’s up for debate.
Invoking the Name of God or blather about “natural rights” is irrelevant to this debate; it’s just nonsense piled on by people who fear the evidence is against them.