-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 06:10:44 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Gun Thread  (Read 64687 times)
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.
Micha
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3133



View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2015, 05:41:20 AM »

Here's what I think. Those who commit these mass shootings are individuals whose minds have become twisted by unfortunate circumstances. They experience a lot of emotional pain and vilification before deciding to take a completely inept way to retain some kind of dignity and respect. These people exist. Shouldn't it be made as hard as possible for them to obtain guns? Restricting/banning guns would limit those mass shootings to those people who are extreamely zealous to make their revenge fantasy a reality and those who are members of gun clubs. The restriction of guns is the reason why in Germany these mass killings occur at most twice a decade and not every couple of months like in the US. It would also prevent kids inadvertently shooting their siblings or even their parents when they get hold of their parents' firearms which never happens over here. As guns appear pretty useless for self-defense anyway as some here have stated, banning guns is the only responsible thing to do, even at the expense of the gun producers' profits.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 05:42:28 AM by Micha » Logged

Ceterum censeo SMiLEBrianum OSDumque esse excludendos banno.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: October 06, 2015, 06:38:30 AM »

as the shitweasels and fuckwits of the NRA invariably do when their entirely imaginary "right to bear arms" is even vaguely threatened, bleating "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment" like a flock of lobotomised sheep

Oh, I get it -- you've been under the impression that 2nd Amendment is "imaginary."  Somehow I don't think correcting you is going to fix your opinion!   Cheesy
Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: October 06, 2015, 07:05:06 AM »


Done!  If we want to "better protect people" -- the solution is easy.  Protect them.  Put a tank at every school.  Or whatever.  Done.  I'd sleep better, wouldn't you?


This idea is something we do hear proposed from time to time (ok, not usually with tanks  Grin ). But let's think about the cost--tax dollars, mind you--of that scenario. I very hasty Internet search--https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84--shows that a few years ago, there were about 135,000+ total schools in the USA (including public, private, and post-secondary institutions). I know of small towns that have no police force whatsoever because they haven't got the money, and I'm sure this is replicated in rural areas around the nation. So even hiring one full-time security guard--forget about any robust security program or force--would be prohibitively expensive. Of course, larger districts would require far bigger security forces. The poorest (urban) schools have the least ability to pay for such forces, and a big chunk of public school funding as I understand it usually comes from local property taxes. So the resulting funding would be inverse of the most likely need, with wealthy suburban districts well prepared for the very occasional school shooter, while the urban schools would be underfunded for the rampant gang violence (not to mention the very occasional school shooter). Rural districts would be similarly underfunded, if statistically less likely to have the problem (there being less kids and fewer gangs).

That's one challenge I have on that: who pays? It seems that the conservatives most typically behind a lack of gun controlling legislation are also low-tax types, and this would be expensive.

There's also the question of further arming the state to act against its citizens. Libertarian types would typically be wary of giving yet another opportunity for the state to use deadly force on the population. Of course, after successful acts of terrorism, nobody would question the actions the state would have taken. But here, we'd be talking about a wholly different situation, a situation where almost by definition the state's violence happens before the citizen's violence is carried out. The questions we see around the nation already about police violence would be worse.

Both of these points are made for purposes of discussion, not ideology.

Sure -- there's a cost associated with protecting the schools.  This is the ONE job the government should be doing at all costs:  "protect the nation from enemies foreign and domestic."  A good President would set his personal beliefs (ideology) aside and do his job.  Get'er done.

Imagine his approval if he did that.  

Secondly, as a truly wise man said (me  Smiley) -- "the illusion of security is 96.8% of security."  Begs the question -- what illusion does this sign create:  "GUN FREE ZONE."  Maybe Andrew can answer that -- being he's the expert on what is "imaginary."

Lastly -- why are we even debating this?!!  Wall  Please -- can anyone answer that?  After Sandy Hook... It's not a fkcing debate, is it?  Basic responsibility.  It makes me want to PUKE MY BRAINS out, to think we have a US President willing to use little kids as pawns in his war against the US Constitution.



Now, now... that's not true.  My ideology is better than yours... I'm smarter than you Bean Bag.  People's kids may have to get shot, so I can get this 2nd Amendment reversed... it's too important, my beliefs are.  Protecting the schools is not an option. (yeah it is) It's not.  Costs money.  I spent a trillion on nothing, with the stimulus... I can't spend money on this too.  I want to use these incidents to move my agenda... it's effective.  I'm gonna use this.  I. I. I. I.  Me. me. me. me!

It's not You. You. You. You.  I can't be you. you. you you. all the time Beenie baby.  I mean those days are over.  We tried it your way... (no we didn't) it didn't work.  It's me time.  Me. me. me.  I. I. I. I.  Besides, I have to act swiftly without Congress, before people get numb and I can't use this.  People are starting to get numb to this (no they're not!)  And if they get numb to this, how can I use it, understand?  That's my fear, that people get numb to this.  Gotta move.  The time is now.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 07:06:03 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: October 06, 2015, 07:12:33 AM »

as the shitweasels and fuckwits of the NRA invariably do when their entirely imaginary "right to bear arms" is even vaguely threatened, bleating "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment" like a flock of lobotomised sheep

Oh, I get it -- you've been under the impression that 2nd Amendment is "imaginary."  Somehow I don't think correcting you is going to fix your opinion!   Cheesy

The concept of self-defense includes the defense of others and property.  The response has to be proportional to the attack. It isn't reasonable to respond to someone coming at you with a broom, with a firearm. You get a broom or a hockey stick to repel the attacker.  And if someone comes at you with gun, you don't grab a fly swatter.

Every state is different as regards what kind of force you can respond with, and ties tort law to constitutional and criminal law.  The origins come from Roman law of "dominium" where any attack on family members was repelled "in kind."  It is the principe of "vim vi repellere licet." Or, it is permitted to repel force by force and that is found in the 6th century Digest of Justinian.  This argument is an over simplification of what is going on in the argument against the 2nd amendment.

Institutions have duties to defend others.  Property owners have a right to defend one's home, the persons in it and their property.  It is not a neat package.  It is messy and almost unweldly.  Make no mistake.  The U.S. Citizens and its first responders are under attack from foreign groups, who feel we should no longer conform to a standard that separates religion from government.  I'm not interested in a religion-based government telling me what to do any more that I want canon law from Rome to tell me my civil rights.  The Holy Father has jurisdiction over matters of religion and the Consitution runs the show for legal matters. We don't mix the two.

And while the NRA is extreme "lobbying" group, there is always a position that is moderate and reasonable. They represent a sector in society who have less "metro" high density population issues.

If people don't believe in the second amendment, they might be better off finding somewhere else to live.  Self defense, and the defense others empower the citizens to fight back, in the event of war, where the "militia" requires eyes, ears and bodies to maintain the freedoms of the country.  Our banking systems, aircraft, and computer systems have all been hacked.  Mass injuries have occurred in the name of revolution.  It is a comfort to know if I want to go and take firearms training to defend myself and others in my family and my home, I can.  The options are there.  

This is not a gender-based argument.  It is an individual rights argument.  The police and law enforcement can't be everywhere. JMHO
Logged
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: October 06, 2015, 07:24:53 AM »

I have some problems with that, TRBB.

Specifically, it seems like on one hand you are saying that gender roles should not be challenged because they have "worked for thousands of years." It seems contradictory, then, to celebrate how women are treated in America or elsewhere in Western civilization as opposed to elsewhere in the world, which you also do. I say this seems contradictory because the reason women have better situations in the Western world is precisely because of challenges to those traditional gender roles that have worked for thousands of years. It's in those other places where women are subservient to men, have restricted rights and freedoms, etc., usually all while also being shown token reverence and protection. In the Western world that changed, but it changed mostly in recent centuries.

So it seems to me that the traditional roles either worked for thousands of years and thus women's situations in the West are a deviance, or that the relatively newly established rules are a superior evolution out of the traditional roles that, by definition, weren't acceptable.

I'm probably not expressing myself clearly: I just got up. But I hope you get my point: the reason women have it "so good" in the West is because the roles that existed for thousands of years weren't acceptable.

The obvious extension from that line of thinking (or actually even a standalone thought) is, if there are other flaws on how things are here and now, the fact that there are others who have it worse somewhere isn't really an adequate reason not to address those flaws here. If everyone on the block beats and cheats on his wife except one guy, but that one guy just cheats on her, doesn't she have the right to do something about the cheating (regardless of the beating and cheating elsewhere)?

OK, off to work. Hopefully I'll be more coherent upon my return.

I don't deny that there have been evolving feelings and attitudes towards women in the last two thousand years of Western civilization. Say what one will about other civilizations but you can infer quite a lot about a civilization based upon how the women are treated. Yes, gender roles have worked for thousands of years in Western civilization - women's suffrage and classical feminism were just the icing on the cake; both were positive things at that time. I don't want to see Western civilization go back to the pre-civilized era.

The other reason women in Western civilization have it so good is because men just plain treat them better and can separate their religion from their behaviors for the most part. If living in a part of the world where most men would do anything to protect women equals patriarchy, then I'd say those fuckwits and shitweasels (to borrow AGD's terminology) should f*** off to the Third World since they're CLEARLY more progressive than we backwards denizens of Western civilization. Specifically, I'm referring to the minority of women who are little more than spiteful, hateful little children who make a mockery of the term "feminism" these days. They're in the same category as racial nationalists and radical religious groups. Feminism needs more Camille Paglias and fewer Anita Sarkeesians.

Here's what I think. Those who commit these mass shootings are individuals whose minds have become twisted by unfortunate circumstances. They experience a lot of emotional pain and vilification before deciding to take a completely inept way to retain some kind of dignity and respect. These people exist. Shouldn't it be made as hard as possible for them to obtain guns? Restricting/banning guns would limit those mass shootings to those people who are extreamely zealous to make their revenge fantasy a reality and those who are members of gun clubs. The restriction of guns is the reason why in Germany these mass killings occur at most twice a decade and not every couple of months like in the US. It would also prevent kids inadvertently shooting their siblings or even their parents when they get hold of their parents' firearms which never happens over here. As guns appear pretty useless for self-defense anyway as some here have stated, banning guns is the only responsible thing to do, even at the expense of the gun producers' profits.

The only way to make it "as hard as possible" would be to ban them, and banning them won't solve the problem. No one has figured out a way to get rid of over three hundred million firearms. I know the more redcoat-minded among us think the U.S. can just pull an about face and become another UK or Australia or Germany and just magically solve the problem, except it's NOT that cut and dried. For people who claim to be so in touch with "reality" they're really holding onto a utopian notion when it comes to guns.

There's also the small notion that none of the redcoats have touched on and that is the simple fact that gun control is, in fact, racist. It has been used at various points in American history to disarm, pacify, and subjugate minority populations, specifically black Americans and Native Americans. I know much of the rest of the world looks at America as a bunch of racist hicks (ironic coming from people who predominantly live in countries that consist of almost totally racially homogeneous populations who probably haven't set eyes on a non-white person outside of television or the movies) yet opposition to gun control for specifically anti-racist reasons is a noble cause. The progressives will probably have more bile and outrage at this notion because I've just pointed out that they're not really "allies," but hey. Can't win 'em all, I guess.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: October 06, 2015, 08:36:38 AM »

as the shitweasels and fuckwits of the NRA invariably do when their entirely imaginary "right to bear arms" is even vaguely threatened, bleating "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment" like a flock of lobotomised sheep

Oh, I get it -- you've been under the impression that 2nd Amendment is "imaginary."  Somehow I don't think correcting you is going to fix your opinion!   Cheesy

If people don't believe in the second amendment, they might be better off finding somewhere else to live.  Self defense, and the defense others empower the citizens to fight back, in the event of war, where the "militia" requires eyes, ears and bodies to maintain the freedoms of the country.  Our banking systems, aircraft, and computer systems have all been hacked.  Mass injuries have occurred in the name of revolution.  It is a comfort to know if I want to go and take firearms training to defend myself and others in my family and my home, I can.  The options are there.  

This is not a gender-based argument.  It is an individual rights argument.  The police and law enforcement can't be everywhere. JMHO

Well said.  There's the ultimate respect given to the People -- or With the People -- behind this Amendment.  Understanding our life is our own responsibility.  That's such a fundamental concept behind the notion of this Nation.  (hee-hee, notion of this nation...)  Eh-hmm, I digress...

And while we've be led to give up so many of our rights and responsibilities (usually) at the courtesy of the Democrat Party happy to relieve us of them -- this one is pretty clear.  Written down.  Black n' white.

And, what is so offensive about those bashing us over its existence, is that -- those who realize this concept are somehow the "lobotomized" ones, as Andrew succinctly put it.  The reality is exactly the opposite.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 08:37:51 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: October 06, 2015, 08:48:43 AM »

TRBB: thanks for clarifying your point.

Filledeplage: you're right that we're not really talking gender here, that's just a side convo that emerged.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: October 06, 2015, 09:47:38 AM »

TRBB: thanks for clarifying your point.

Filledeplage: you're right that we're not really talking gender here, that's just a side convo that emerged.

To be fair, I was expanding on the morality problem I referenced in an earlier post. It's tangential to this conversation but it IS an avenue worth exploring.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: October 06, 2015, 10:01:39 AM »

TRBB: thanks for clarifying your point.

Filledeplage: you're right that we're not really talking gender here, that's just a side convo that emerged.

To be fair, I was expanding on the morality problem I referenced in an earlier post. It's tangential to this conversation but it IS an avenue worth exploring.

No arguments from me on that.

More narrowly specific to this topic, I would be interested in your (or others') responses to a few questions I posed yesterday, around midday, regarding the definition of the violence issue and more specifically on what, if any, regulation you think is acceptable. Obviously I know your general position but if you would check out and answer those specific bullet (ooooh bad pun) points, I'd be interested.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: October 06, 2015, 10:02:00 AM »

I'll throw a monkey in the wrench and come out with this...I loathe the NRA. I think their pro-gun position is just a reason to get people to donate to them; also add to that the fact that the organization commonly supported gun control through most of its history (and would today if it was economically sound for them). Seriously...f*** the NRA. Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership actually know what they're talking about when they speak out against gun control. Those of you on the pro-gun side should consider them over the NRA.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: October 06, 2015, 10:04:02 AM »

You're dead-on re the NRA, in my opinion.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: October 06, 2015, 10:13:00 AM »

And my questions are:
- do you think the status quo is unacceptable?
- do you agree that inconsistencies in regulation (e.g gun show loophole) should be addressed (without respect to the actual resolution for our purposes)?
- do you think any regulation is required / helpful?
- if yes to the last point, can you outline examples?

I had actually intended to address these in an earlier post, Luth. Thanks for the reminder.

I see the status quo as rather UNacceptable, to be honest. There are enough provisions in place that protect criminals at the expense of the law-abiding. Yeah, "good intentions," but good intentions never lead to good results when government is involved. I do think there should be a liberalization of gun regulations at the state levels; there is nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to regulate guns (no, not even your precious Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause), so all federal regulations need to cease. The Second Amendment is cut and dried - "shall not be infringed" means the federal government away from it and lets the states and/or the people handle it as per the Tenth Amendment. Inconsistencies in regulation should be handled at the state level. It's not the federal government's duty.

I think the regulations in place with regard to murder and crimes committed with guns are quite helpful. Owning a gun does not create a victim. How someone behaves when using said gun may or may not create a victim. If a victim results, then the perpetrator should absolutely be tried and convicted by a jury of his peers. The regulations that are helpful are already there. Adding more won't make it better. Removing the unhelpful and unconstitutional federal regulations may or may not make it better, but then the Constitution would have to be amended to allow the federal government the power to regulate guns and I do not see that happening.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
Micha
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3133



View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: October 06, 2015, 11:02:12 AM »

banning them won't solve the problem.

In the case of the US, it would only be a first step. No, it's not a magical solution, but a step to a safer society - like those societies with gun control. (Of course there can't be 100% safety ever.)

No one has figured out a way to get rid of over three hundred million firearms.

Congratulations, you've successfully identified the next problem.

the simple fact that gun control is, in fact, racist.

That's so nonsensical that there's no use arguing with someone who seriously belives THAT.
Logged

Ceterum censeo SMiLEBrianum OSDumque esse excludendos banno.
Micha
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3133



View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 06, 2015, 11:08:25 AM »

My ideology is better than yours... I'm smarter than you Bean Bag.

In this case, he's right, this president Obama. Because his "ideology" is based on reason, while yours is based on "Baw, dad, I can have guns, Ma's constitution says so!"
Logged

Ceterum censeo SMiLEBrianum OSDumque esse excludendos banno.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: October 06, 2015, 12:08:29 PM »

the simple fact that gun control is, in fact, racist.
That's so nonsensical that there's no use arguing with someone who seriously belives THAT.

Ah, quoting me out of context and not considering the evidence provided to back it up, eh? You've proven yourself no longer worth my time. Shine on.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: October 06, 2015, 12:33:51 PM »

Ephebiphobia: the inaccurate, exaggerated and sensational characterization of young people.

Is it so inaccurate? I'm a millennial. I've seen it firsthand. I'm criticizing my own generation.

Yes, I think the definition fits.

This is some of the craziest sh*t I've ever read. When did gender ever matter? Do you honestly think there's a fine, diving line between what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman? There isn't. Gender identity is a construct of society. It's the thing that says it's not okay for men to wear pink, but women should wear pink. It doesn't mean anything, it's just some arbitrary rules that people made up because people have to be separate, I guess.

Yes, there is absolutely a fine, dividing line between what being a man and being a woman means. Gender roles worked for thousands of years; it is only recently that this has been turned on its head. Whether we like it or not we have certain expectations based upon our genders. Turning that on its head has not worked; people who think they'll get ahead by only impressing themselves are kidding themselves.
Why is it bad that women should desire something beyond what patriarchal norms tell them? Jesus, it's like you think they should be happy with their roles as soil waiting to be fertilized.

I don't know what country you call home, but here in America and throughout Western civilization women have it better than just about anywhere else in the world. Women CAN be whatever they want to be in Western civilization. That's not oppression. Those who think women are oppressed in Western civilization should spend a year in Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia and tell me what they find. I bet they won't think the same way about "the evil patriarchy" afterwards.

I believe we've basically already had this conversation, so I won't go through it again in this thread about guns.

People that actually have to change genders despite having to face judgement and ridicule from people for their decisions have immense courage. These people are not accepted, yet they try to lead a life that will make them happy. F*** everyone who makes their life harder just because they don't think it's normal. You should be happy you don't have to deal with that absolutely terrible situation. "The expense of individual liberty", my ass. You're the one criticizing these people for trying to lead their own life.

People are due acceptance because they decide they want to change their gender? NO ONE is due acceptance for any reason. That's the fairest and most equality-minded deal anyone is ever going to get. It's "so terrible" to decide to "change" one's gender. Maybe I'm a smidge biased in this regard because I spent four years of my life in high school with one of those self-loathing jokers (in this case, a guy who looked 100% like a human male yet in his own twisted mind was packing a vagina) who seemed to have no problem calling me a blueboarder yet was ready to bring the whole world down if people dared jab back. And we *HAD* to be nice to him because something something misogyny (a guy bitching about misogyny is GOING to be laughed at in an all-boys Catholic school, by the way), something something transphobia, something something misgendering...you get the picture. He did end up changing his gender, of course; he also preferred women on top of it...so it's funny how "I" was the blueboarder in that regard. Interesting how that works. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I do not intend on being fooled twice.

I don't recall ever saying that people are due acceptance. What I said was "[t]hese people are not accepted." You seriously call transgender people "jokers"....? Jeez, from the tale you've just told me, no wonder the guy had to build up defenses like that. Apparently everyone in his all-male Catholic school was pestering him and laughing at him. Him preferring women goes back to the gender roles thing: just because he identifies as a woman doesn't mean he's attracted to males. That's just what you think women should be because this idea has been force fed to you. This wasn't some elaborate hoax where someone underwent extreme surgery to prank you. Even then, you shouldn't let one experience with one person decide how you view an entire community. In a different context, I believe they call that "racism".

I've been through private and community college. Safe words, triggers (and just about everything triggers some college students), "rape culture" (one of the damnedest things I've ever had the displeasure of entering into my brain in my life), and, everyone's current favorite, "allies." That was a goodly portion of the discourse. There IS a disturbing trend among some college students where they are unwilling to enlighten themselves, be enlightened, or broaden their horizons. Question their logic? "Triggered." Check out a woman walking past you on campus? "Rape." Tell a politically incorrect joke? "You're not an ally."

If sexual violence against women wasn't such a big problem on college campuses, I'm sure you wouldn't have to be burdened by "rape culture." I'm really sorry that other people being raped was an inconvenience for you, man.
Look at this sh*t, it's disgusting: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/living/feat-rape-freshmen-women-new-study/.

What in the hell have millennials done to make things better for people? Create #hashtag campaigns and call themselves "allies" to the social injustice of the day? Give me a break. So now we're all different? I thought everyone is just like everyone else regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or what have you. Isn't that what all of these attempts to make things better for people have been about? To open doors and foster discussion and friendship? I mean hey, I'm not saying they can't do what they want to do. People will look, people will scoff, and people will judge.

Look, I don't have examples of millennials going and being superheroes or whatever. The fact about social media is: it's a start. Most people aren't even of an age or in a position to really accomplish change. Give it time--we'll see (whether positively or negatively). Also, please don't try to twist my words around. I never said everyone was the same. If everyone was like me, we would all be listening to music and not talking to each other. I also didn't say we're all different. Everyone is a person, but as a person, we're all individuals. I hope that's clear enough. Grin

It's human nature, sadly. You figure out a way to counteract or even better human nature and believe me, I'll be right there with you in support.

I think I'm going to pursue psychology in school, so if I figure anything out, I'll hit you up.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 03:20:41 PM by Bubbly Waves » Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: October 06, 2015, 03:06:21 PM »

My ideology is better than yours... I'm smarter than you Bean Bag.

In this case, he's right, this president Obama. Because his "ideology" is based on reason, while yours is based on "Baw, dad, I can have guns, Ma's constitution says so!"

 Cheesy my reason is not even debatable!  Those pesky rights!
Logged

409.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: October 06, 2015, 03:47:04 PM »

And my questions are:
- do you think the status quo is unacceptable?
- do you agree that inconsistencies in regulation (e.g gun show loophole) should be addressed (without respect to the actual resolution for our purposes)?
- do you think any regulation is required / helpful?
- if yes to the last point, can you outline examples?

I had actually intended to address these in an earlier post, Luth. Thanks for the reminder.

I see the status quo as rather UNacceptable, to be honest. There are enough provisions in place that protect criminals at the expense of the law-abiding. Yeah, "good intentions," but good intentions never lead to good results when government is involved. I do think there should be a liberalization of gun regulations at the state levels; there is nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to regulate guns (no, not even your precious Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause), so all federal regulations need to cease. The Second Amendment is cut and dried - "shall not be infringed" means the federal government away from it and lets the states and/or the people handle it as per the Tenth Amendment. Inconsistencies in regulation should be handled at the state level. It's not the federal government's duty.

I think the regulations in place with regard to murder and crimes committed with guns are quite helpful. Owning a gun does not create a victim. How someone behaves when using said gun may or may not create a victim. If a victim results, then the perpetrator should absolutely be tried and convicted by a jury of his peers. The regulations that are helpful are already there. Adding more won't make it better. Removing the unhelpful and unconstitutional federal regulations may or may not make it better, but then the Constitution would have to be amended to allow the federal government the power to regulate guns and I do not see that happening.

I appreciate the response. I have a few follow-ups.
 - To be clear, then, you do think gun regulation is acceptable at the state level? (Not saying you support it; but you support a state's right to regulate.)
 - What makes you think the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause are my precious? That, if I were to add a comma, was worded by me just now as if I were Gollum. Am I Gollum? Or Smeagel, at least?
 - Do you think the adjective (well, adverb and adjective) "well regulated" in "well regulated militia" implies regulation on those militias (militae?), and, if so, would I be right in thinking you would accept that the authors meant for the states to "well regulate" the right to bear arms with respect to them?
 - What should I have for dinner?
 - Not in the interest of being a dick at all, but just a really serious question: is it really acceptable for a state--let's pick on Mississippi or something because, well, you know...--to choose not to regulate in any respect, and the federal government to let that go? Let's say a 4-year-old wants to buy a gun. Or a recently freed, but previously convicted, murderer. A guy who has a restraining order against him by the wife he abuses. Nothing? We leave that to Mississippi? I ask because the likely and entirely predictable results of that seem like a really steep price to pay for letting admittedly law-abiding citizens also avoid whatever administrative hassle may go along with enforcing those regulations in order to proceed exercising their 2nd amendment rights. You know doubt know I'm not especially ideological; I like to think I'm pragmatic (and I like to think that's a compliment). So I ask it in that spirit, not "you moron, this is obvious and you're dumb." To me, that's a situation with not much downside and a lot of upside.

Here end my questions for the moment.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: October 06, 2015, 04:27:24 PM »

I appreciate the response. I have a few follow-ups.
 - To be clear, then, you do think gun regulation is acceptable at the state level? (Not saying you support it; but you support a state's right to regulate.)

Two-part answer. First and foremost, I see little value in the Constitution as a whole yet I'm clearly outnumbered in that regard, so technically under the Constitution regulation at the state level or even the county or city level is acceptable. The more decentralized the better. I probably wouldn't end up supporting said regulations but I'm willing to be surprised.

- What makes you think the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause are my precious? That, if I were to add a comma, was worded by me just now as if I were Gollum. Am I Gollum? Or Smeagel, at least?

I wasn't referring to you in general with that remark; I was sort of speaking to the entire thread. Sometimes people like to abuse the General Welfare or Commerce Clauses in their prohibition arguments, and it does come up in the gun control debate.

- Do you think the adjective (well, adverb and adjective) "well regulated" in "well regulated militia" implies regulation on those militias (militae?), and, if so, would I be right in thinking you would accept that the authors meant for the states to "well regulate" the right to bear arms with respect to them?

The Second Amendment says nothing with regard to the states or the people being allowed to regulate the militia and/or the right to bear arms. All it does is lay out the federal government's responsibility in that regard; as I mentioned before, "shall not be infringed" leaves little to the imagination. The Tenth Amendment would, however, allow the states or the people to regulate the militia and/or the right to bear arms.

- What should I have for dinner?

Sizzling fajitas.

- Not in the interest of being a dick at all, but just a really serious question: is it really acceptable for a state--let's pick on Mississippi or something because, well, you know...--to choose not to regulate in any respect, and the federal government to let that go? Let's say a 4-year-old wants to buy a gun. Or a recently freed, but previously convicted, murderer. A guy who has a restraining order against him by the wife he abuses. Nothing? We leave that to Mississippi? I ask because the likely and entirely predictable results of that seem like a really steep price to pay for letting admittedly law-abiding citizens also avoid whatever administrative hassle may go along with enforcing those regulations in order to proceed exercising their 2nd amendment rights. You know doubt know I'm not especially ideological; I like to think I'm pragmatic (and I like to think that's a compliment). So I ask it in that spirit, not "you moron, this is obvious and you're dumb." To me, that's a situation with not much downside and a lot of upside.

Innocent until proven guilty must ALWAYS prevail. I'd question the thinking behind selling a four-year-old a gun (and the outcry over it might end up putting that business OUT of business). In the case of a freed, but previously convicted murderer, it's pretty cut and dried - has he not paid his debt to society by serving his time in prison? If you're a free man, you're a free man. You've paid your debt to society. There is no reason they should be stripped of their rights after having paid said debt. In the case of the restraining order, there are already hefty penalties in place for people who violate them. I'd dare argue that they should be more stringent (but ONLY at the state level) in the case of violations in general, with or without a deadly weapon.

Let's keep in mind that this is a job best left to the state, county, city, or, indeed, the people. They have that leeway under the Tenth Amendment.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 04:28:55 PM by The Real Beach Boy » Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: October 06, 2015, 04:44:51 PM »

What should the TRBB have for dinner? Wink
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: October 06, 2015, 04:44:55 PM »

Thanks again. So far dinner was just three beers, but I'm sure I'll move on to food. And the idea of sizzling fajitas is being entertained.


- Do you think the adjective (well, adverb and adjective) "well regulated" in "well regulated militia" implies regulation on those militias (militae?), and, if so, would I be right in thinking you would accept that the authors meant for the states to "well regulate" the right to bear arms with respect to them?

The Second Amendment says nothing with regard to the states or the people being allowed to regulate the militia and/or the right to bear arms. All it does is lay out the federal government's responsibility in that regard; as I mentioned before, "shall not be infringed" leaves little to the imagination. The Tenth Amendment would, however, allow the states or the people to regulate the militia and/or the right to bear arms.


But certainly "well regulated militia" requires a regulator, doesn't it? If not, what does the phrase mean? And if not the federal government, the states, or the people, who will legislate / execute that regulation? It is, per the Bill of Rights, necessary for the security of a free state and seemingly the reason the latter part of the amendment guarantees that right to bear arms not be infringed upon. (It seems to me, badly worded as it is, to guarantee that right not be infringed upon so that a well regulated militia be maintained to protect the state.)

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: October 06, 2015, 04:47:39 PM »

What should the TRBB have for dinner? Wink

That's his decision. He didn't ask, and I don't want to be rude by offering advice not requested. But I'm totally open to offering opinions if asked and provided with location, general tastes, and allergy information (if any).
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: October 30, 2015, 05:37:56 PM »

I've been thinking about this.

- Not in the interest of being a dick at all, but just a really serious question: is it really acceptable for a state--let's pick on Mississippi or something because, well, you know...--to choose not to regulate in any respect, and the federal government to let that go? Let's say a 4-year-old wants to buy a gun. Or a recently freed, but previously convicted, murderer. A guy who has a restraining order against him by the wife he abuses. Nothing? We leave that to Mississippi? I ask because the likely and entirely predictable results of that seem like a really steep price to pay for letting admittedly law-abiding citizens also avoid whatever administrative hassle may go along with enforcing those regulations in order to proceed exercising their 2nd amendment rights. You know doubt know I'm not especially ideological; I like to think I'm pragmatic (and I like to think that's a compliment). So I ask it in that spirit, not "you moron, this is obvious and you're dumb." To me, that's a situation with not much downside and a lot of upside.

Innocent until proven guilty must ALWAYS prevail. I'd question the thinking behind selling a four-year-old a gun (and the outcry over it might end up putting that business OUT of business). In the case of a freed, but previously convicted murderer, it's pretty cut and dried - has he not paid his debt to society by serving his time in prison? If you're a free man, you're a free man. You've paid your debt to society. There is no reason they should be stripped of their rights after having paid said debt. In the case of the restraining order, there are already hefty penalties in place for people who violate them. I'd dare argue that they should be more stringent (but ONLY at the state level) in the case of violations in general, with or without a deadly weapon.

Let's keep in mind that this is a job best left to the state, county, city, or, indeed, the people. They have that leeway under the Tenth Amendment.

(By the way, somewhat related, I still think you haven't answered what the "well regulated" part of "well regulated milita" might mean if not, well, regulated. But that's not what I've been thinking about.)

This is less practical than philosophical. But obviously, there are practical implications.

First, a presupposition: the likelihood of repeat offenses are a demonstrable reality, so failing to restrict legal access to firearms to, say, convicted violent criminals, will most likely result in more future offenses by said convicted criminals who have admittedly paid their debts to society. To clarify: I am not saying that a wannabe criminal can't possibly obtain a firearm illegally. Obviously. But certainly, a hurdle is a hurdle, and any hurdle does reduce the eventual "successes" of that wannabe repeat offender.

So assuming we can agree on that above paragraph (which might not be the case), am I right in thinking that your position is that the underlying rights and freedoms are actually more important than the practical results, if those results infringe on the ideal rights? In other words, it is better to await a likely future harm and then punish it than it is to infringe on rights in order to prevent the likely (but not certain) future harm?

I ask because this is a position I'd take in many of the post 9/11 terror activities, actually: warrantless government surveillance, arrests without charges, and so on. So it isn't a concept I steadfastly refuse, just one I approach cautiously. I don't want to allow government/police/military officials to stand in my home to ensure I don't commit a crime, because, after all, I might otherwise commit the crime. I reject that thinking. But I have generally felt differently with respect to previously convicted violent actors.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: October 30, 2015, 08:48:03 PM »

But where does it end? If a criminal has paid his debt to society then he is a free man again, is he not? We are not concerned with imagined behaviors; we are concerned with real ones.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2015, 04:02:45 AM »

I take by you asking that follow-up question that you don't disagree with my assessment of your position? My penultimate paragraph: "So assuming we ... future harm?" Is that a correct understanding? To put it another way, you might say "our rights are in an absolute sense more important than any potential outcomes of the consequences of those rights--though we [you] do believe that outcomes are better because of that absolute primacy of those rights." True?

(I actually have some follow-ups to your question, but first I want to make sure I understand you on the above.)

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.47 seconds with 22 queries.