Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Wiw

Is nobody going to bring up gun control?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Patine said:

They have REASONS, yes. They aren't necessarily all good, admirable, commendable, or defensible reasons. But they're reasons. I'll admit that.

For example, take a national gun registry. That would allow any authoritarian to take people's guns and thus their self-defense abilities in anything but a one-on-one totally fair match. As a commentator said awhile ago (I read about this I couldn't find the article again) "had the segregationist officers [in the south] known where our guns were they would have taken them leaving us defenseless." History has proven repeatedly that scenario is far more likely then people are willing to acknowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

For example, take a national gun registry. That would allow any authoritarian to take people's guns and thus their self-defense abilities in anything but a one-on-one totally fair match. As a commentator said awhile ago (I read about this I couldn't find the article again) "had the segregationist officers [in the south] known where our guns were they would have taken them leaving us defenseless." History has proven repeatedly that scenario is far more likely then people are willing to acknowledge.

Are you condoning a civilian's right to be able to commit acts of aggressive violence, insurgency, terrorism, assassination, etc., with unlimited access to firearms and the authorities being helpless to do anything until after the fact of said crime being committed? And, why does any law-abiding civilian NEED an assault rifle, or have real justification for one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Are you condoning a civilian's right to be able to commit acts of aggressive violence, insurgency, terrorism, assassination, etc., with unlimited access to firearms and the authorities being helpless to do anything until after the fact of said crime being committed? And, why does any law-abiding civilian NEED an assault rifle, or have real justification for one?

1.Yes what you're saying is that guns should be taken without due process and that policing sould be pre-crime based.

2.When did I say anything regarding assault rifles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

1.Yes what you're saying is that guns should be taken without due process and that policing sould be pre-crime based.

2.When did I say anything regarding assault rifles?

I was not speaking of a "Minority Report" scenario. But, fully allowing the purchase of firearms to convicted offenders of violent crimes, verifiably mentally ill individuals, full or strongly associate members of known violent criminal, terrorist, anti-government, or xenophobic groups (even those who, themselves, have not yet been convicted of, or are investigation for, crimes), and those obsessing over violence and specific targets (individuals, minority groups, etc.) in correlating online posts because of long-winded, glacial "due process" is just the height of foolishness and idiocy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

 But, fully allowing the purchase of firearms to convicted offenders of violent crimes, verifiably mentally ill individuals, full or strongly associate members of known violent criminal, terrorist, anti-government, or xenophobic groups (even those who, themselves, have not yet been convicted of, or are investigation for, crimes), and those obsessing over violence and specific targets (individuals, minority groups, etc.) in correlating online posts because of long-winded, glacial "due process" is just the height of foolishness and idiocy.

1. If convicted offenders of violent crimes are still committing those crimes after their sentence it says more about our jail system than guns.

2.Um, hate to break it to you but governments have abused their right to designate "terrorist,anti-government,xenophobic groups".

3.What you're essentially saying is that because of an affliation or a belief people's right should be taken away

4.Only 38% of adults in america qualify as fully mentally healthy should rights not apply to them. Same for the 20% of americans with verifiable mental health issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

1. If convicted offenders of violent crimes are still committing those crimes after their sentence it says more about our jail system than guns.

2.Um, hate to break it to you but governments have abused their right to designate "terrorist,anti-government,xenophobic groups".

3.What you're essentially saying is that because of an affliation or a belief people's right should be taken away

4.Only 38% of adults in america qualify as fully mentally healthy should rights not apply to them. Same for the 20% of americans with verifiable mental health issues?

1. The U.S. prison system has an environment where criminal activity and attitudes flourish within their walls and that tends to leave a newly-released convicted inmate often MORE criminally-inclined and connected than they were going in.

2. and 3. If you think allowing known members, even those not convicted themselves of crimes, of groups like the Hell's Angels, Sicilian Mafia, various urban street gangs, the KKK, the group or groups that produced Timothy McVeigh and others in his mindset, the Republic of Florida (VERY relevant to recent events), and other such groups, free access to firearms by the benefit of the doubt because precautions otherwise would be "abusive" and "taking away rights," then you're showing a greater concern for the groups and mentalities that breed gun criminals than the innocent victims of gun crimes.

4. If mental illness is that prevalent and mental stability that rare in the U.S. today, perhaps that ALONE should lead the nation to question and re-evaluate such a blanket-termed "right to bear arms."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

1. The U.S. prison system has an environment where criminal activity and attitudes flourish within their walls and that tends to leave a newly-convicted inmate often MORE criminally-inclined and connected than they were going in.

2. and 3. If you think allowing known members, even those not convicted themselves of crimes, of groups like the Hell's Angels, Sicilian Mafia, various urban street gangs, the KKK, the group or groups that produced Timothy McVeigh and others in his mindset, the Republic of Florida (VERY relevant to recent events), and other such groups, free access to firearms by the benefit of the doubt because precautions otherwise would be "abusive" and "taking away rights," then you're showing a greater concern for the groups and mentalities that breed gun criminals than the innocent victims of gun crimes.

4. If mental illness is that prevalent and mental stability that rare in the U.S. today, perhaps that ALONE should lead the nation to question and re-evaluate such a blanket-termed "right to bear arms."

1.Your point confirms just what I said.It reflects more on the prison system than guns.

2 and 3. @Patine you can't infringe on people's inalienable rights if they're doing nothing illegal.

4.Most of those illnesses are things like ADHD hardly the disorder to cause shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

1.Your point confirms just what I said.It reflects more on the prison system than guns.

2 and 3. @Patine you can't infringe on people's inalienable rights if they're doing nothing illegal.

4.Most of those illnesses are things like ADHD hardly the disorder to cause shootings.

Inalienable rights have become a huge platform for abuse in their own right. Chaos and societal deterioration are the dividends of a lack of sensible limits and responsibilities around inalienable rights, as one can see daily in the news and on the Internet. I can't foresee American society and civilization remaining intact more than a few decades down the line with the current state of culture and social mentality as it is. Something has to give somewhere, or catastrophe of an unprecedented level awaits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

"A tired old document' right I am sick and fucking tired of brits calling us one on the second amendment YOUR ANCESTORS ARE THE REASON FOR IT EXISTING  it is ment to be a fail safe to prevent 1984 from becoming a reality I like to remind you that in the uk right now the leader of a movement is being arrested for his views you can also be arrested for making jokes about your dogs and nazis so if anything you guys are the one that need a second amendment did i also mention the mps trying to overture a referendum because they don't like the results?

Yes, my ancestors may well be the reason for it existing, but the keyword is that: ancestors. A long time ago. Redundant. Old-fashioned. Outdated. We won't be invading the USA anytime soon.

Also, I'm not sure of what UK you talk of, but nobody has been arrested for making jokes about a dog. Nor have MPs tried to overturn the Brexit referendum. They've merely tried to give it proper parliamentary scrutiny - and rightly so. Not sure how the ownership of guns would solve this?

But we digress. The issue here is that guns are legal in the USA, when they don't need to be. Other countries work just fine not having access to handguns, rifles, and whatever else - even communities with deep hunting heritage like the one where I was raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, electorclark said:

Also, I'm not sure of what UK you talk of, but nobody has been arrested for making jokes about a dog. Nor have MPs tried to overturn the Brexit referendum. They've merely tried to give it proper parliamentary scrutiny - and rightly so. Not sure how the ownership of guns would solve this?

I think he's referring to this:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/paul-golding-jayda-fransen-britain-first-leaders-guilty-religious-muslim-hate-crime-a8244161.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lyly said:

I am absolutely in agreement that greater gun control is a necessary political goal in the US now (I feel I should get that out of the way first), but I think an even bigger issue is the failure in American popular discourse to address deeper problems that are catalyzed through gun violence, but which exist even without guns. It's interesting that you are coming from a British perspective on this, because it's been the British example that I feel I've learned a lot from.

Specifically, it is my understanding that the same antagonisms that characterize violence of all sorts here in the US are present in some way or another in much of the UK - and in this case I'm talking about fatal stabbings that have been rising steadily for years. No guns = no gun deaths is a simple equation, for sure. But it's not removing the violence, the reason or purpose of violence, and it's not resolving the totality of the underlying social issues (which I know we all have divergent views about). In my view, those issues stem from the way society has organized itself since the Industrial Revolution and the advent of capitalist motivations over the prior medieval and other existing ways of life that have since been more and more wiped away.
(quick edit - also to say, I don't want to make these examples equivalent: obviously gun-wielders are capable of producing more deaths than knife-wielders, and that is quite a big part of the argument all to itself, and that's fair)

I don't really want to start a big argument about socialism versus capitalism, but I do want to emphasize that society has changed in ways that we are still working to understand and I think this is an expression of that.

Agree with you very much re knife crime. It is on the rise. There's a vast litany of reasons for this, and I believe that a younger generation - of which most knife crimes can be attributed to - have grown up angry, disenfranchised and raised within violent homes and communities. Not a good thing. 

That said, the volume and number of knife crimes according to population is significantly lower than shootings in the US. What's more, from my own experience, knife crimes are largely centralised within London and surrounding areas. I had never really heard of the issue until moving to the capital, and certainly didn't encounter it much growing up in Yorkshire. 

But agree with your point. I for one am not saying the UK is superior to the US because of crime levels - we need a lot of improvement in terms of social integration, mental health etc - but I know I'm not alone in being deeply shocked by the frequency of shootings in the US, and the lack of legislation surrounding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Fair enough. Britain First are less a movement, more a hate group. In the sense they've published videos purporting to show violence of immigrants when they're actually committed by nationals of whatever country. Nobody takes them seriously here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Presidentinsertname said:

"A tired old document' right I am sick and fucking tired of brits calling us one on the second amendment YOUR ANCESTORS ARE THE REASON FOR IT EXISTING  it is ment to be a fail safe to prevent 1984 from becoming a reality I like to remind you that in the uk right now the leader of a movement is being arrested for his views you can also be arrested for making jokes about your dogs and nazis so if anything you guys are the one that need a second amendment did i also mention the mps trying to overture a referendum because they don't like the results?

Obviously you have no idea whatsoever the reason for the right to bear arms being instituted. I've actually brought up the state of affairs in the U.S. at the time the U.S. Constitution was created that explains the reason several times now, including once in this very thread - all reasons, and states of affairs of the nation, that no longer apply. Also, you are aware that if a U.S. Government wished to impose a totalitarian regime in the modern day and age, gun ownership would not be much of an impediment, as, truth be told, the advantages held by the U.S. Military, militarized police, and secret police (FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, CSP, etc.,) are incredibly immense over the common citizens, and personal firearms are among the LEAST of forces' advantages that they could bring to bear, with almost every other said advantage being almost entirely unmatched and unmatchable by common citizens (unless, I guess, they accept support and aid, and all that comes with it, from nations they've been raised all their lives to view as enemies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody should've brought up Gun Control. Everybody has strong opinions. Nobody will ever change their mind. What we've been doing since Columbine (Holding our hands over our ears and pretending there's no issue) CLEARLY isn't working, and we're the only nation that has this problem. We should start from the start, least intrusive measures first, and see what has an effect on murder rates, mass shootings, and work from there. Clearly banning all firearms like Australia isn't an option with how heavily armed the populace is, and how difficult it would be to enforce. Also, Firearms are an important chunk of the culture here in the states, and people won't appreciate any look at it otherwise. What I hate is how many folks, and the NRA, view any attempt to look at the problem in a levelheaded manner as an attempt at a "Gun Ban", even if it is simply a five day waiting period. I see no reason to not require licensing on firearms, seeing as they are as dangerous at least as cars are. Remember, cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Patine said:

Also, you are aware that if a U.S. Government wished to impose a totalitarian regime in the modern day and age, gun ownership would not be much of an impediment, as, truth be told, the advantages held by the U.S. Military, militarized police, and secret police (FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, CSP, etc.,) are incredibly immense over the common citizens, and personal firearms are among the LEAST of forces' advantages that they could bring to bear, with almost every other said advantage being almost entirely unmatched and unmatchable by common citizens (unless, I guess, they accept support and aid, and all that comes with it, from nations they've been raised all their lives to view as enemies).

If the US military is so overpowered, why did it take decades to push back ISIS, who are literally bearded, religious hillbillies that have rifles and Toyotas? Just saying. Won't be much different if they wanted to do the same thing to their own citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

If the US military is so overpowered, why did it take decades to push back ISIS, who are literally bearded, religious hillbillies that have rifles and Toyotas? Just saying. Won't be much different if they wanted to do the same thing to their own citizens.

U.S. citizens don't have same tendency to self-sacrifice and underground community networks and recruitment that ISIS and similar groups do, and, say, the Viet Cong did. Also, the majority of Americans likely wouldn't be willing to forsake their luxuries and comfortable lifestyles in a prolonged conflict, and would eventually accept fairly draconian terms to return to even a semblance of said creature comforts, even with sharp reductions in actual "rights," - the majority of people in countries like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and, previously, South Vietnam, had never actually had such comforts and were sacrificing very little in that area, but saw great potential to gain. Also, U.S. territory would NOT be unfamiliar, foreign territory with strange customs and a language barrier to U.S. troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wiw said:

I've had enough of this! Just repeal the Second Amendment!

The second amendment is more than just guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Joshen said:

The second amendment is more than just guns

It's the "right to bear arms," but strangely, not a lot of people run around U.S. cities carrying swords, pikes, bows, slings, battleaxes, scythes, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Patine said:

It's the "right to bear arms," but strangely, not a lot of people run around U.S. cities carrying swords, pikes, bows, slings, battleaxes, scythes, etc...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Joshen said:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

Such militias have also proven to be, in both the U.S. and to a greater, but not be ignored, extent, many other nations, ready tools of tyranny, destabilization, warlordism, and atrocities, and thus I am wary of their "necessity," given ready examples of how they go out of control and become abusive societal and military institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Presidentinsertname said:

explain to me how such a law can be enforce with out the government being overthrown.

I posted above how even a fully armed American populace would be powerless if the modern U.S. government REALLY chose to impose outright tyranny. These are the posts in question.

 

On ‎2018‎-‎03‎-‎08 at 12:15 PM, Patine said:

Obviously you have no idea whatsoever the reason for the right to bear arms being instituted. I've actually brought up the state of affairs in the U.S. at the time the U.S. Constitution was created that explains the reason several times now, including once in this very thread - all reasons, and states of affairs of the nation, that no longer apply. Also, you are aware that if a U.S. Government wished to impose a totalitarian regime in the modern day and age, gun ownership would not be much of an impediment, as, truth be told, the advantages held by the U.S. Military, militarized police, and secret police (FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, CSP, etc.,) are incredibly immense over the common citizens, and personal firearms are among the LEAST of forces' advantages that they could bring to bear, with almost every other said advantage being almost entirely unmatched and unmatchable by common citizens (unless, I guess, they accept support and aid, and all that comes with it, from nations they've been raised all their lives to view as enemies).

 

5 hours ago, Patine said:

U.S. citizens don't have same tendency to self-sacrifice and underground community networks and recruitment that ISIS and similar groups do, and, say, the Viet Cong did. Also, the majority of Americans likely wouldn't be willing to forsake their luxuries and comfortable lifestyles in a prolonged conflict, and would eventually accept fairly draconian terms to return to even a semblance of said creature comforts, even with sharp reductions in actual "rights," - the majority of people in countries like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and, previously, South Vietnam, had never actually had such comforts and were sacrificing very little in that area, but saw great potential to gain. Also, U.S. territory would NOT be unfamiliar, foreign territory with strange customs and a language barrier to U.S. troops.

I don't think an overthrow would be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×