• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.

Casimir

Unconfirmed Member
Airlines have gone bankrupt because of perception of being unsafe. True, statistically, they're not the problem. Doesn't change the massive image problem they have, something the pro-gun advocates absolutely have to address. The biggest mistake they can make is pretend social structures will never change, or that culture never changes, and attempt to live in a vacuum against any future culture changes. A regular reoccurrence of mass shootings with a specific type of weapon in the long-term will guarantee, in the long-term, a major shift in cultural attitudes that will go against the pro-gun advocates.

The gun market reacts differently to stressors than the airline market, it doesn't behoove you to dig too deep into that analogy.

If your best plan is to smugly sit there and gloat about the potential for a possibility that there is a capacity there might just be a change, you should stop now. Because while you're wasting your time, pro-gun activists are actually advocating for their side everyday. Willingly spending billions of dollars into both an industry that has every interest in lobbying state and local governments and donating directly to special interest groups such as the NRA to further lobby both the government and people at large to maintain the status quo if not expand their rights.
 
BTW, calling an executive order - one aimed at making people safer by universally enforcing laws that are already in place - 'dictatorial' is distasteful partisan rhetoric.

Again, I was referring to a hypothetical a poster said about what would happen if Obama banned guns outright. That would be absolutely dictatorial, and that's honestly the nicest thing you could say about it.
 
I think any further discussion of a full gun ban should go into another thread. It's almost a complete derail from the topic at hand, and stifles discussion of the actual proposal.

So how did the ban on assault weapons help with the Paris attacks?

No ban can stop all random or calculated acts of violence. This is not to say that different attitudes towards weapons don't have different effects.

France's gun deaths/100k people in 2012 = 2.83
US's gun deaths/100k people in 2012 = 10.64

Taking a potshot at the Paris attacks is disingenuous anyway - how would citizen assault rifles have helped in this instance exactly, where people were being attacked in restaurants and concerts, and police were being gunned down in the street?

Again, I was referring to a hypothetical a poster said about what would happen if Obama banned guns outright. That would be absolutely dictatorial, and that's honestly the nicest thing you could say about it.

That is more than fair, my apologies for not parsing that when quoting you.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
The bill of rights is a further codifying of Self Evident rights to defend yourself and to bear arms. You keep talking about safety and security and I'm talking about what freedoms we have self evident in our human nature. So around and around we go but you ultimately have turned the government into a justification and the law as its dispenser. However that's not what the USA is about.

The Bill of Rights is a document codifying protection against infringement from public officials or private citizens. Establishing certain core rights of the citizenry. It is and was flawed from its inception and continues to be. It was not divinely inscribed and set in stone, which is why it can be altered. Within the document itself there is a lot ambiguity and vagueness that has led to differing interpretations.

Furthermore there is real and credible debate about what that entails when it comes to gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.

Furthermore you have failed to explain how the self evident right to self defense extends to the right to guns without limitations. Your right to self defense does not guarantee you a right to access any and all means of self defense.

Also, to address your other post, simply declaring something self evident doesn't automatically make it so. Even if you put it in all caps.
 

HyperionX

Member
Only because mass shootings are more visible. Which is a shame. Limit clip size and make it mandatory for bullet assist clip removal on a federal level. The fact is very few gun related deaths are from AW. The majority of gun violence gets lost in this discussion because a single person dying doesn't make the media.

Yes it is and the statistics back up the claim. You shouting this over and over doesn't make it truer.

If you feel that way, then please inform of this fact every time there is a mass shooting involving a AR-15 or similar weapon. If you are up to this, then it's fine by me. If not, then you've more or less proven my point.

The gun market reacts differently to stressors than the airline market, it doesn't behoove you to dig too deep into that analogy.

If your best plan is to smugly sit there and gloat about the potential for a possibility that there is a capacity there might just be a change, you should stop now. Because while you're wasting your time, pro-gun activists are actually advocating for their side everyday. Willingly spending billions of dollars into both an industry that has every interest in lobbying state and local governments and donating directly to special interest groups such as the NRA to further lobby both the government and people at large to maintain the status quo if not expand their rights.

Like I said, it's deeply naive to pretend this will go on forever. History is full of things that people thought will "never change" only to change surprisingly quickly. Gay marriage is probably the most recent example of this. The steady stream of mass shootings is probably doing more to change the conversation than anything else.
 
To be honest, those suggestion sounds like something the NRA would propose. There is no way for anything meaningful to come from any of that. Just words, like, let's focus on mental health. Ok. What are you proposing exactly? Uh nothing just it's not guns. Unless you are suggesting a socialism approach which isn't going to pass anytime soon anyway. Though maybe in 25 years.
Yeah, you have a point that a large subset of the legislators that oppose gun control also oppose social programs. It's a lose-lose.

However, I will optimistically say that we are a lot closer to electing Bernie Sanders (and no, we're not close) than we are to passing meaningful gun control laws.
 
If you feel that way, then please inform of this fact every time there is a mass shooting involving a AR-15 or similar weapon. If you are up to this, then it's fine by me. If not, then you've more or less proven my point.
.

I have no idea what you're even saying here.
 
The Bill of Rights is a document codifying protection against infringement from public officials or private citizens. Establishing certain core rights of the citizenry. It is and was flawed from its inception and continues to be. It was not divinely inscribed and set in stone, which is why it can be altered. Within the document itself there is a lot ambiguity and vagueness that has led to differing interpretations.

Furthermore there is real and credible debate about what that entails when it comes to gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.

Furthermore you have failed to explain how the self evident right to self defense extends to the right to guns without limitations. Your right to self defense does not guarantee you a right to access any and all means of self defense.

Also, to address your other post, simply declaring something self evident doesn't automatically make it so. Even if you put it in all caps.

the second amendment was put in place as a way to combat tyranny from an oppressive government or regime, and seeing as how every military has unlimited access to firearms it is only natural and rational that citizens be allowed the same means to defend themselves if need be, otherwise you'll get mowed down easily, you know that saying "never bring a knife to a gun fight"? well the same is true about bringing a pistol to a fight with automatic weapons
 
V

Vilix

Unconfirmed Member
So, um....he hasn't issued anything yet right?

And people are already calling something that doesn't exist yet illegal and wrong and stupid...even here?

I'm confused. Any tiny step toward stricter gun regulation (IE: You get to keep your guns you just have to like, actually have laws and shit to obey concerning them) is met like this, yet y'all are reasonable gun owners?

I'm not worried. Another law that won't be enforced. Eggnog?
 

ThisGuy

Member
I'm so glad finals are over. I'm tired of discussing Obama taking our guns and Muslims blowing up america one foot step at a time.

Hearing this and just thinking of the people who would be frothing at the mouth to finally tell me how they were right is such a relief lol.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
the second amendment was put in place as a way to combat tyranny from an oppressive government or regime, and seeing as how every military has unlimited access to firearms it is only natural and rational that citizens be allowed the same means to defend themselves if need be, otherwise you'll get mowed down easily, you know that saying "never bring a knife to a gun fight"? well the same is true about bringing a pistol to a fight with automatic weapons

And it has been an ongoing debate for hundreds of years what exactly the second amendment protects and what it's parameters entail.

You seem to actually be taking an individual Carte Blanche interpretation which frankly isn't really in line with any modern interpretations.

I mean are you really saying that because the government has biological weapons you should have access? Maybe that guys 2nd amendment nuke thread has found its first poster boy?
 

HyperionX

Member
I have no idea what you're even saying here.

It's a huge PR problem with pro-gun groups right now, because these types of mass shootings are highly publicized and occur regularly. You can say that they are rare and therefore don't matter, but realistically they are too heavily publicized to ignore. If you really want to defend against what you call hyperbolic positions, then you're going to have to defend your position in likely thousands of future posts. If that is simply too much for you to handle, then you're proving my point that the PR problem of mass shootings will eventually be too much for gun advocates to defend.
 
Don't worry guys, when the big bad emperor Obama comes for our guns, the brave and noble freedom fighting Ted Cruz will lead the rebels to victory against the evil empire in a Cruzade for freedom as was foreseen in a vision of Cruz as a galactic rebel warrior who would one day lead America back from the progressive abyss. May the force be with you, Ted Cruz!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu_hkbBueOg
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
The Bill of Rights is a document codifying protection against infringement from public officials or private citizens. Establishing certain core rights of the citizenry. It is and was flawed from its inception and continues to be. It was not divinely inscribed and set in stone, which is why it can be altered. Within the document itself there is a lot ambiguity and vagueness that has led to differing interpretations.

Furthermore there is real and credible debate about what that entails when it comes to gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.

Furthermore you have failed to explain how the self evident right to self defense extends to the right to guns without limitations. Your right to self defense does not guarantee you a right to access any and all means of self defense.

Also, to address your other post, simply declaring something self evident doesn't automatically make it so. Even if you put it in all caps.


The Bill of Rights does not establish rights it was added to the law so that the rights listed are never TAKEN. All of the freedoms in the bill of rights are not given by a governing body but are every human beings right regardless. The fact that it is able to be amended doesn't in anyway infringe on the freedoms that come before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

You are not free because of your government, or your laws, or bills of rights or amendments. we are free because it's clear that no one person made "here" or "us" possible. But whatever DID make here and us possible has afforded us the ability to procreate, think, steward the earth, learn, build etc etc . Without infringing on another's rights you can FREELY be a human. How is that hard to understand, that includes self - defense because some do not or will not respect everyone's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

At the end of the day its the people, free people that judge even the law , right to due process, and any jury can even if a defendant is guilty UNDER a law , acquit and JUDGE the law as unjust. The government has NO say on what is just , the people do , that is SELF Evident and that is the USA

*eaglecrying.gif*
 

appaws

Banned
And I'm actually fascinated by the concern over the NF list sorting. On the one hand we have people complaining that we're not doing enough to make sure we're watching the "right people" due to political correctness...and on the other hand saying that having a list of potentially dangerous people is fine and dandy as long as you don't use it to prevent them from buying an arsenal of weapons. In other words, use overreaching surveillance to prevent crime, but not to prevent crime, you know? This f'n country man.



See above.

Nothing "fine and dandy" about it. You won't hear any hypocrisy from me. I don't think having a list of "potentially dangerous" people and using that to deny them rights is OK...no matter who does it or what right we are talking about. I argued against this bullshit when it was Bush, and I still do now.

I'm not worried. Another law that won't be enforced. Eggnog?

Yep. Mine with a shot of Woodford Reserve please.
 
Calling them high profile cases is a major understatement. They are the incidents that are driving the conversation. Saying San Bernardino, Aurora, or Sandy Hook doesn't change things seriously is bordering on denial of reality. Like I said, shooting something like an AR-15 even for target practice is not really about target practice, as it is way too deadly of a weapon to fully justify merely for the sake of fun. Even if you insist that you are personally responsible, that doesn't change the fact that overall this is not happening. We agree that handguns need to be the main focus, but it can't be the only one.

The gun control movement has wasted its energy on the "assault weapon" for twenty years, and you have nothing to show for it. You can not - short of a 2nd amendment repeal - ban the AR-15. Here's why:

831_Sporter.JPG

This is a semiautomatic rifle that is not considered an "assault weapon" by NY or California. It is semiautomatic because every time you pull the trigger, one bullet is fired. The gun fires as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Troy-Industries-M14-Modular-Chassis-Systems-(MCS)-SASS.jpg

These are tacticool add-ons that gun owners who play too much Call of Duty like to buy. In addition to making the weapon look more militaristic, they do have the benefit of making the weapon more ergonomic - more comfortable - to hold. They do not change the rate of fire of the gun.

middlegun-detail1.jpg

This is what you get when you combine the rifle and the add-ons posted above. A gun that is somewhat more comfortable to hold, and exactly as lethal as it was before. It is also now illegal in NY, California, and anywhere else "assault weapons" are banned.

Why? Because "assault weapon" is a misappropriated term. The original assault rifle was invented by the Nazis at the end of WWII. It was a fully automatic weapon - a machine-gun. When you hold down the trigger, the gun would fire and keep firing until you let go or ran out of ammunition. Machine-guns have been illegal for civilian use since 1934. None of the high profile shootings you mentioned involved a machine gun, and machine guns are almost never used in crimes due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining them. The term "assault weapon" came about in the late 20th century as a means to describe semiautomatic rifles that had military style ergonomics. This was done because a ban on assault weapons would appease Bill Clinton's base without infuriating republicans too much. In other words, it was an attempt to look "tough on crime" without making any substantive changes.

The reality is that assault style weapons are exactly as dangerous as any other semiautomatic weapon. In fact, the deadliest mass shooting in America, the Virginia Tech shooting, was perpetrated with handguns. On a mechanical level, all these weapons are functionally the same. If you want to ban semiautomatic guns, you'd be banning such a large percentage of the guns currently in use that it would be a de facto repeal of the 2nd amendment. If you wanted to ban the military ergonomics associated with the AR-15 while leaving the 2nd amendment in place, as New York did, you end up with the reverse of the process displayed above.

ar15-manu-pic-490.png

Gun owners in New York immediately took this AR-15 and stripped it of the newly banned features.

2188834_01_stag_arms_model_1_factory_buil_640.jpg

This was the result. An ugly, uncomfortable, and equally deadly weapon in full compliance with the strictest assault weapons ban in the nation.

If you want to save lives focus on things that actually make a difference; handguns (their concealability results in them being used in 90% of gun deaths), loopholes (like the one in the OP), and an open, voluntary, no criminal liability gun buyback program.
 

iamblades

Member
Calling them high profile cases is a major understatement. They are the incidents that are driving the conversation. Saying San Bernardino, Aurora, or Sandy Hook doesn't change things seriously is bordering on denial of reality. Like I said, shooting something like an AR-15 even for target practice is not really about target practice, as it is way too deadly of a weapon to fully justify merely for the sake of fun. Even if you insist that you are personally responsible, that doesn't change the fact that overall this is not happening. We agree that handguns need to be the main focus, but it can't be the only one.



You can't separate the people from the political movement they spawned. You'll inevitably take heat for the NRA actions even if you do personally support them as long as you're seen supporting the same general position. If you really can't stand defending your hobby you should seriously consider stop trying. After all, you're not being forced to argue in these threads.


And Virginia Tech was worse than any of them, with a pair of handguns(small caliber handguns at that).

IIRC the Aurora shooter did most of his damage with the shotgun cause his shitty drum mag jammed as they are wont to do. ARs are not some super deadly unprecedented level of firepower. They aren't machineguns and they've been on the civilian market for close to 6 decades now and are only <2% of gun crime. They really don't need to be a legislative priority.

Even by the admission of gun control advocates, handguns are more dangerous, but they mistakenly see ARs and such as scary niche guns that they could get away with banning when they are actually the most popular and versatile guns on the market today.

The is a reason why the 1994 AWB led DIRECTLY to the democrats completely losing control of congress, a 54 seat swing in one election(and that wasn't the NRA, that was millions of pissed off voters who felt they were lied to). Gun control advocates don't understand the weapons they are trying to regulate enough to understand just how unpopular such regulation actually is in the rest of the country. Sure you can point to polls that say X% of the population supports an AWB, but that is just based on the language and the scare tactics employed(ie. people thinking they are banning machine guns), and once people saw what the ban actually did they voted everyone involved out.
 

HyperionX

Member
The gun control movement has wasted its energy on the "assault weapon" for twenty years, and you have nothing to show for it. You can not - short of a 2nd amendment repeal - ban the AR-15. Here's why:

831_Sporter.JPG

This is a semiautomatic rifle that is not considered an "assault weapon" by NY or California. It is semiautomatic because every time you pull the trigger, one bullet is fired. The gun fires as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Troy-Industries-M14-Modular-Chassis-Systems-(MCS)-SASS.jpg

These are tacticool add-ons that gun owners who play too much Call of Duty like to buy. In addition to making the weapon look more militaristic, they do have the benefit of making the weapon more ergonomic - more comfortable - to hold. They do not change the rate of fire of the gun.

middlegun-detail1.jpg

This is what you get when you combine the rifle and the add-ons posted above. A gun that is somewhat more comfortable to hold, and exactly as lethal as it was before. It is also now illegal in NY, California, and anywhere else "assault weapons" are banned.

Why? Because "assault weapon" is a misappropriated term. The original assault rifle was invented by the Nazis at the end of WWII. It was a fully automatic weapon - a machine-gun. When you hold down the trigger, the gun would fire and keep firing until you let go or ran out of ammunition. Machine-guns have been illegal for civilian use since 1934. None of the high profile shootings you mentioned involved a machine gun, and machine guns are almost never used in crimes due to the extreme difficulty of obtaining them. The term "assault weapon" came about in the late 20th century as a means to describe semiautomatic rifles that had military style ergonomics. This was done because a ban on assault weapons would appease Bill Clinton's base without infuriating republicans too much. In other words, it was an attempt to look "tough on crime" without making any substantive changes.

The reality is that assault style weapons are exactly as dangerous as any other semiautomatic weapon. In fact, the deadliest mass shooting in America, the Virginia Tech shooting, was perpetrated with handguns. On a mechanical level, all these weapons are functionally the same. If you want to ban semiautomatic guns, you'd be banning such a large percentage of the guns currently in use that it would be a de facto repeal of the 2nd amendment. If you wanted to ban the military ergonomics associated with the AR-15 while leaving the 2nd amendment in place, as New York did, you end up with the reverse of the process displayed above.

ar15-manu-pic-490.png

Gun owners in New York immediately took this AR-15 and stripped it of the newly banned features.

2188834_01_stag_arms_model_1_factory_buil_640.jpg

This was the result. An ugly, uncomfortable, and equally deadly weapon in full compliance with the strictest assault weapons ban in the nation.

If you want to save lives focus on things that actually make a difference; handguns (their concealability results in them being used in 90% of gun deaths), loopholes (like the one in the OP), and an open, voluntary, no criminal liability gun buyback program.

No one is saying we shouldn't target handguns. However, give the high profile nature of "assault" rifles, they will inevitably fall under some kind of strict gun control scheme. The simplest of which might simply ban the detachable magazine altogether, leaving us with only bolt-action rifles or something similar. None of your loophole type guns will survive that type of legal action.
 

HyperionX

Member
And Virginia Tech was worse than any of them, with a pair of handguns(small caliber handguns at that).

IIRC the Aurora shooter did most of his damage with the shotgun cause his shitty drum mag jammed as they are wont to do. ARs are not some super deadly unprecedented level of firepower. They aren't machineguns and they've been on the civilian market for close to 6 decades now and are only <2% of gun crime. They really don't need to be a legislative priority.

Even by the admission of gun control advocates, handguns are more dangerous, but they mistakenly see ARs and such as scary niche guns that they could get away with banning when they are actually the most popular and versatile guns on the market today.

We're not saying handguns aren't causing mass shootings either. Also, you're cherry picking data here. Sandy Hook and San Bernardino were definitely done with AR-15 or similar type weapons.

The is a reason why the 1994 AWB led DIRECTLY to the democrats completely losing control of congress, a 54 seat swing in one election(and that wasn't the NRA, that was millions of pissed off voters who felt they were lied to). Gun control advocates don't understand the weapons they are trying to regulate enough to understand just how unpopular such regulation actually is in the rest of the country. Sure you can point to polls that say X% of the population supports an AWB, but that is just based on the language and the scare tactics employed(ie. people thinking they are banning machine guns), and once people saw what the ban actually did they voted everyone involved out.

It is doubtful how much of that is actually true. A lot of things were happening in 1994 unrelated to the gun control issue. Regardless, 1994 is not 2015. Nor will 2015 be the same as 2020, 2030, etc. We know a lot more about firearm deaths and the issue of self-defense a lot better than we did the past. Groups like the NRA were a lot more respected than now. It's extremely unlikely pro-gun politics will have any kind of meaningful effects on politics going forward, and if anything, gradually lose political influence.
 
The Bill of Rights does not establish rights it was added to the law so that the rights listed are never TAKEN. All of the freedoms in the bill of rights are not given by a governing body but are every human beings right regardless. The fact that it is able to be amended doesn't in anyway infringe on the freedoms that come before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

You are not free because of your government, or your laws, or bills of rights or amendments. we are free because it's clear that no one person made "here" or "us" possible. But whatever DID make here and us possible has afforded us the ability to procreate, think, steward the earth, learn, build etc etc . Without infringing on another's rights you can FREELY be a human. How is that hard to understand, that includes self - defense because some do not or will not respect everyone's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

At the end of the day its the people, free people that judge even the law , right to due process, and any jury can even if a defendant is guilty UNDER a law , acquit and JUDGE the law as unjust. The government has NO say on what is just , the people do , that is SELF Evident and that is the USA

*eaglecrying.gif*

Uh, this isn't legally accurate, unless we interpret government in the most idealistic and unrealistic sense.
 
There's something kind of funny about limiting civilian firearm ownership to non-semiautomatic or automatic weapons.

So only bolt or lever action rifles, single or double load shotguns, powder loading guns, and revolvers. Like the old west.

This is what people seem to think assault weapon ban means in most cases anyway.
 
Yeah, you have a point that a large subset of the legislators that oppose gun control also oppose social programs. It's a lose-lose.

However, I will optimistically say that we are a lot closer to electing Bernie Sanders (and no, we're not close) than we are to passing meaningful gun control laws.

And Sanders is weak on gun control
 

Jonm1010

Banned
The Bill of Rights does not establish rights it was added to the law so that the rights listed are never TAKEN. All of the freedoms in the bill of rights are not given by a governing body but are every human beings right regardless. The fact that it is able to be amended doesn't in anyway infringe on the freedoms that come before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

You are not free because of your government, or your laws, or bills of rights or amendments. we are free because it's clear that no one person made "here" or "us" possible. But whatever DID make here and us possible has afforded us the ability to procreate, think, steward the earth, learn, build etc etc . Without infringing on another's rights you can FREELY be a human. How is that hard to understand, that includes self - defense because some do not or will not respect everyone's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

At the end of the day its the people, free people that judge even the law , right to due process, and any jury can even if a defendant is guilty UNDER a law , acquit and JUDGE the law as unjust. The government has NO say on what is just , the people do , that is SELF Evident and that is the USA

*eaglecrying.gif*
Lots of flaws to unpack here so bear with me.

1.) Right off the bat though, this all caps stuff needs addressing. Knock it off. Seriously. Rarely is all caps ever necessary in writing and it certainly isn't every other sentence.

So lets begin. As i said previously, The Bill of Rights is a document codifying protection against infringement from public officials or private citizens. It is not divine, it is not inherently self-evident, it is not flawless and it certainly isnt a shield to use if you are going to make a philosophical argument. It seems what the actual Bill of Rights is still alludes you.The Bill of Rights is protection but it does in fact also grant rights and spells out how power should be distributed in certain matters. Part of me questions when the last time you actually read the Bill of Rights?

Which brings me to the next problem, your use of the word "self-evident." Self-evident denotes something like "if A is smaller then B, B is taller then A." If I combine two of A with another two of A, I have four of A." Self-evident typically means it requires no outside evidence to justify it. The rights spoken about in the DoI may in fact be obvious but they are in no way self-evident in the academic sense of the word. Furthermore your continual abuse of the word is making it difficult to take your argument seriously. Just declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so.

Even further still, your continual leaps of logic that because you have determined you have a right to self defense that it guarantees you a right to guns is not a defensible argument. A right to self defense does not guarantee you access to any means of self defense. That is before getting into the whole appeal to a creator bullshit you are using. You are a product of biological evolution through natural selection, there is no purpose in that. That entire line of argument begins with a flawed and unqualified assumption.

All in all I think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate the process you have used to draw the conclusions you have. Not to mention get a better grasp of the legal side of the constitution.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Lots of flaws to unpack here so bear with me.

1.) Right off the bat though, this all caps stuff needs addressing. Knock it off. Seriously. Rarely is all caps ever necessary in writing and it certainly isn't every other sentence.

So lets begin. As i said previously, The Bill of Rights is a document codifying protection against infringement from public officials or private citizens. It is not divine, it is not inherently self-evident, it is not flawless and it certainly isnt a shield to use if you are going to make a philosophical argument. It seems what the actual Bill of Rights is still alludes you.The Bill of Rights is protection but it does in fact also grant rights and spells out how power should be distributed in certain matters. Part of me questions when the last time you actually read the Bill of Rights?

Which brings me to the next problem, your use of the word "self-evident." Self-evident denotes something like "if A is smaller then B, B is taller then A." If I combine two of A with another two of A, I have four of A." Self-evident typically means it requires no outside evidence to justify it. The rights spoken about in the DoI may in fact be obvious but they are in no way self-evident in the academic sense of the word. Furthermore your continual abuse of the word is making it difficult to take your argument seriously. Just declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so.

Even further still, your continual leaps of logic that because you have determined you have a right to self defense that it guarantees you a right to guns is not a defensible argument. A right to self defense does not guarantee you access to any means of self defense. That is before getting into the whole appeal to a creator bullshit you are using. You are a product of biological evolution through natural selection, there is no purpose in that. That entire line of argument begins with a flawed and unqualified assumption.

All in all I think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate the process you have used to draw the conclusions you have. Not to mention get a better grasp of the legal side of the constitution.

To be completely honest I am not entirely sure he has ever really studied American history because what the bill of rights is gets spelled out pretty clearly in the debate over ratifying it--the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Hell, one of the arguments against it was that people, I'm using a far kinder word than the founders used here, might think these are the only rights that the constitution enshrines.
 
No one is saying we shouldn't target handguns. However, give the high profile nature of "assault" rifles, they will inevitably fall under some kind of strict gun control scheme. The simplest of which might simply ban the detachable magazine altogether, leaving us with only bolt-action rifles or something similar. None of your loophole type guns will survive that type of legal action.

So, ban semi-auto rifles, but leave semi-auto handguns which have comparable killing ability, can be easily smuggled under clothes, and are responsible for 90% of gun deaths?
 

appaws

Banned
Lots of flaws to unpack here so bear with me.

1.) Right off the bat though, this all caps stuff needs addressing. Knock it off. Seriously. Rarely is all caps ever necessary in writing and it certainly isn't every other sentence.

So lets begin. As i said previously, The Bill of Rights is a document codifying protection against infringement from public officials or private citizens. It is not divine, it is not inherently self-evident, it is not flawless and it certainly isnt a shield to use if you are going to make a philosophical argument. It seems what the actual Bill of Rights is still alludes you.The Bill of Rights is protection but it does in fact also grant rights and spells out how power should be distributed in certain matters. Part of me questions when the last time you actually read the Bill of Rights?

Which brings me to the next problem, your use of the word "self-evident." Self-evident denotes something like "if A is smaller then B, B is taller then A." If I combine two of A with another two of A, I have four of A." Self-evident typically means it requires no outside evidence to justify it. The rights spoken about in the DoI may in fact be obvious but they are in no way self-evident in the academic sense of the word. Furthermore your continual abuse of the word is making it difficult to take your argument seriously. Just declaring something self-evident doesn't make it so.

Even further still, your continual leaps of logic that because you have determined you have a right to self defense that it guarantees you a right to guns is not a defensible argument. A right to self defense does not guarantee you access to any means of self defense. That is before getting into the whole appeal to a creator bullshit you are using. You are a product of biological evolution through natural selection, there is no purpose in that. That entire line of argument begins with a flawed and unqualified assumption.

All in all I think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate the process you have used to draw the conclusions you have. Not to mention get a better grasp of the legal side of the constitution.

First of all, your assumptions are, at best, just as "flawed and unqualified" as his. We can't get into the existence of God here, as that would be way off topic. You don't believe it, he does. The greatest thinkers and philosophers of humanity have battled that battle for millennia and not settled it. GAF certainly won't.

But anyway, the founders certainly believed that the Bill of Rights were codifying and giving legal voice to rights that all humans have even when the state seeks to deny them. A lot of them were Deists, etc. with a fuzzy notion of God or Providence or whatever, but they still believed that rights were inherent in human beings and not a grant of the state.

In theory, you may be right about the right of self-defense not tying directly in to the right to bear arms. Imagining a world, for example, where all metal and polymer ceased to exist and the building of a functional firearm was impossible. In that world, you still would have an individual human right to self-defense, but perhaps you would only have the right to bear a club.

In practice though, in the real world, the right to self-defense in a world as imperfect as this one, populated by humans who are either A) descended from aggressive, carnivorous apes, or B) fallen creatures doomed to sin, necessitates that the right to self-defense be tied to a practical means of self-defense.


To be completely honest I am not entirely sure he has ever really studied American history because what the bill of rights is gets spelled out pretty clearly in the debate over ratifying it--the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Hell, one of the arguments against it was that people, I'm using a far kinder word than the founders used here, might think these are the only rights that the constitution enshrines.

That is the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments, to make it clear that enumerating some rights did not mean that there were not other rights, left unwritten, that were still both extant, and legally and morally binding.

The founders clearly did not believe that rights were just a grant of the state, or the 9th Amendment makes no sense at all.
 
So how did the ban on assault weapons help with the Paris attacks?

How does your lax weapon laws help with the dozens of massacres you have each year?

Failure-proof laws simply don't exist. You should be old enough to understand that. But one casual look at national statistics is enough to prove that strict regulation and difficulty of access to weapons if beneficial to reduce gun violence.
 

Sinoox

Banned
Well, one way to stop these shootouts is to ban gun free zones. Schools should have some mandatory measure of security as well, and I've always felt that.

Why isn't anyone evaluating the brains of the people who committed mass shootings? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A murderer is going to find ways to kill people without guns and who's to say they wouldn't be able to get a gun with any kind of restriction. If you want to stop gun violence examine the shooters in their entirety and try to understand them, don't violate the constitution.

The media tried ridiculously hard to sway the public on gun control, but thankfully the second amendment is recognizable enough for most people not to fall for it. Whatever Obama does it won't go far.
 

HyperionX

Member
So, ban semi-auto rifles, but leave semi-auto handguns which have comparable killing ability, can be easily smuggled under clothes, and are responsible for 90% of gun deaths?

You should implement similar laws for both. Semi-auto handguns and semi-auto rifles should both be banned.
 

Jonm1010

Banned
First of all, your assumptions are, at best, just as "flawed and unqualified" as his. We can't get into the existence of God here, as that would be way off topic. You don't believe it, he does. The greatest thinkers and philosophers of humanity have battled that battle for millennia and not settled it. GAF certainly won't.

But anyway, the founders certainly believed that the Bill of Rights were codifying and giving legal voice to rights that all humans have even when the state seeks to deny them. A lot of them were Deists, etc. with a fuzzy notion of God or Providence or whatever, but they still believed that rights were inherent in human beings and not a grant of the state.

In theory, you may be right about the right of self-defense not tying directly in to the right to bear arms. Imagining a world, for example, where all metal and polymer ceased to exist and the building of a functional firearm was impossible. In that world, you still would have an individual human right to self-defense, but perhaps you would only have the right to bear a club.

In practice though, in the real world, the right to self-defense in a world as imperfect as this one, populated by humans who are either A) descended from aggressive, carnivorous apes, or B) fallen creatures doomed to sin, necessitates that the right to self-defense be tied to a practical means of self-defense.




That is the reason for the 9th and 10th Amendments, to make it clear that enumerating some rights did not mean that there were not other rights, left unwritten, that were still both extant, and legally and morally binding.

The founders clearly did not believe that rights were just a grant of the state, or the 9th Amendment makes no sense at all.
Not sure what assumption you are speaking of. Perhaps qualify yourself??

Im not the one making an argument based upon assumptions about a creator. Merely pointing out that his existence has a biological root and no purpose has been proven to be derived from that. That is the only evidence that exists for our origin.

Even if we accept your premise that a right to self defense further denotes the right to a practical means of self defense, that still doesn't guarantee a right to all means of self defense.
 

Jeels

Member
It's really fucking sad that Obama has to even issue an executive order when you are supposed to have a legislature filled with brave and intelligent leaders to enact laws.

Fuck Congress.
 
You should implement similar laws for both. Semi-auto handguns and semi-auto rifles should both be banned.

As I said, doing so would ban so many firearms that you'd essentially be repealing the second amendment.

It's really fucking sad that Obama has to even issue an executive order when you are supposed to have a legislature filled with brave and intelligent leaders to enact laws.

The United States of America has never had this.
 

May16

Member
Oh thank God.

I wanted to spend my Christmas defending my progressive beliefs against the onslaught of the pro-gun conservative family I'm surrounded by. I did want to cause rifts and fights and possibly end up being ignored by my wife until New Years. I really did, please understand that.

Better bring your gun(s) to the Christmas party....
 

The M

Banned
It's really fucking sad that Obama has to even issue an executive order when you are supposed to have a legislature filled with brave and intelligent leaders to enact laws.

Fuck Congress.

What if the brave and intelligent choice would be to respect 2nd amendment rights?
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Looks like you missed the entire second half of the sentence. It implies something rather important to the meaning of the statement.
There are things that I want in this country but I don't think they should be instated in a wave of the hands, dictatorial manner.

I don't see anyone saying Obama should assume dictatorial powers to ban guns by fiat. I guess I'm not paranoid enough - maybe I should buy a gun to fix that.
 
I see people saying the constitution should be amended or reinterpreted. I don't see them pining for the black helicopter fantasy you are so worried about.

Since you clearly have trouble reading, I'll harryr post the link to the post I was responding to.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?p=189687839#post189687839

Again, next time read the thread, or at least the posts relevant to the people you're quoting. Especially before you make an ass of yourself projecting black helicopter fantasies on other posters.
 

flyover

Member
Why isn't anyone evaluating the brains of the people who committed mass shootings? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A murderer is going to find ways to kill people without guns and who's to say they wouldn't be able to get a gun with any kind of restriction. If you want to stop gun violence examine the shooters in their entirety and try to understand them, don't violate the constitution.

This post managed to pack in nearly every pro-gun cliche, word-for-word, in one paragraph. It's kind of impressive to see the contents of so many forwarded emails from my dad and his friends distilled into such a pure form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom