User Controls
The 2nd amendment
-
2015-07-25 at 2:54 AM UTCI wanted to focus on one particular narrow subject, though I don't care what direction the conversation in this thread goes re: firearm ownership in the U.S.
Just wondering, how are they going to reconcile the left's stated intent to restrict weapon ownership based on mental health, with the insistence on privacy in health care and stuff like HIPAA?
From my limited and cursory knowledge and examination of the subject (i.e. just off the top of my head) it would appear that it is impossible to flag someone for mental health reasons unless the bureaucracy in charge of health care records would have to be the same one that handled the mental health portion of background checks, if they are instituted. I think that HIPAA says something like, unless you sign a waiver, they can't share your health records with other agencies. Right now the FBI handles the background checks, and they have no access to any health records, let alone mental health records. Unless the law is changed, they will have to use something like the registry they use for narcotics, and it will have to be new, because I don't think they have anything in place right now.
I don't see anything good coming of this. And about background checks in general, the 'gun-show loophole' is bullshit. My parents have bought me guns before as gifts, should I have had to undergo a background check on fucking christmas day just to get my present? And what if you travel for work and your girlfriend is home alone, so you leave her a .380 or a 20 gauge to protect herself from nigger rapists? Should she have to undergo an FBI background check?
You all probably already know how I feel about the 2nd amendment. Do I really have to go into my spiel about how the 2nd amendment is literally our 'god given right' because god gave us the ability to fashion weapons? -
2015-07-25 at 7:04 AM UTCSo one way you could approach it is to say that firearm ownership is not a fundamental right, you can opt for privacy or you can own guns. Consider that many research institutes need to surrender their "right to privacy" to obtain controlled materials and that policy is largely uncontroversial.
The real answer is that the left proper (not moderates who get called liberals because of the US's skewed political spectrum) doesn't give a shit about privacy, the significance of Roe v. Wade is not privacy rights, which was simply a popular cover that worked at the time, but the obvious issue of abortion. The supreme court makes efforts to maintain some semblance of continuity with historical courts but the reality is that the legal justifications seem to be largely post-hoc. It would be a deeply disturbing fact about the political balance of power if not for the fact that they've made consistently better decisions than any other branch of government since the new deal era. -
2015-07-25 at 3:36 PM UTCThe constitution? Ain't nobody got time for that in America, especially politicians.
-
2015-07-25 at 3:41 PM UTCRelevant:
That red star bothers me though. Lanny will like this, lol. The relevant lyrics for me are:
For blood is on your hands, life stealing motherfuckers
The constitution burns to ash in front of you, the people know what you are up to
Your sins will come back on you. -
2015-07-25 at 8:21 PM UTC
So one way you could approach it is to say that firearm ownership is not a fundamental right, you can opt for privacy or you can own guns. Consider that many research institutes need to surrender their "right to privacy" to obtain controlled materials and that policy is largely uncontroversial.
The real answer is that the left proper (not moderates who get called liberals because of the US's skewed political spectrum) doesn't give a shit about privacy, the significance of Roe v. Wade is not privacy rights, which was simply a popular cover that worked at the time, but the obvious issue of abortion. The supreme court makes efforts to maintain some semblance of continuity with historical courts but the reality is that the legal justifications seem to be largely post-hoc. It would be a deeply disturbing fact about the political balance of power if not for the fact that they've made consistently better decisions than any other branch of government since the new deal era.
I posit that firearm ownership is more than just a fundamental right, because I can go out in my garage and make a zip gun anytime I want. If I had a lathe and some machine shop tools, I could make rifled barrels. You can't stop that. Ever.
Ban or restrict all guns,and I can go arm myself in a few hours. Then I will be a wolf among sheep. -
2015-07-25 at 11:43 PM UTC
The constitution? Ain't nobody got time for that in America, especially politicians.
You're right, most people don't have time to treat a 200 year old document drafted by some ignorant motherfuckers like some kind of unquestionable source of divine truth, nor should they.I posit that firearm ownership is more than just a fundamental right, because I can go out in my garage and make a zip gun anytime I want. If I had a lathe and some machine shop tools, I could make rifled barrels. You can't stop that. Ever.
Ban or restrict all guns,and I can go arm myself in a few hours. Then I will be a wolf among sheep.
Except this, empirically, is not the case. However easy you feel it is to manufacture firearms, it's clearly hard enough that banning private ownership will cause a significant drop in rates of gun crime. Look, for example, at Japan. -
2015-07-26 at 1:22 AM UTC
You're right, most people don't have time to treat a 200 year old document drafted by some ignorant motherfuckers like some kind of unquestionable source of divine truth, nor should they.
Except this, empirically, is not the case. However easy you feel it is to manufacture firearms, it's clearly hard enough that banning private ownership will cause a significant drop in rates of gun crime. Look, for example, at Japan.
there is no 'for example', japan is a singular case.
I think that the whole 'reduction in crime rates' thing when firearms are restricted, is singularly due to niggers not being smart enough to make ad-hoc firearms, and if they can't readily get ahold of a real one, they just go back to chucking spears or whatever. Niggers are the group that is responsible for 99% of 'gun crime', all over the world. -
2015-07-26 at 1:46 AM UTC
there is no 'for example', japan is a singular case.
What, exactly do you think an example is? If I could provide a few more examples of countries with strict gun control and low incidence of gun crime would you admit you're wrong?I think that the whole 'reduction in crime rates' thing when firearms are restricted, is singularly due to niggers not being smart enough to make ad-hoc firearms, and if they can't readily get ahold of a real one, they just go back to chucking spears or whatever. Niggers are the group that is responsible for 99% of 'gun crime', all over the world.
Even it that was 100% true (and it's obviously not) we would still have a compelling case for banning private ownership of firearms. -
2015-07-26 at 2:04 AM UTC
What, exactly do you think an example is? If I could provide a few more examples of countries with strict gun control and low incidence of gun crime would you admit you're wrong?
Even it that was 100% true (and it's obviously not) we would still have a compelling case for banning private ownership of firearms.
Only if you admit that the issue of weapons ownership isn't as simple as 'Guns are Bad!'
There are many compelling reasons why people need to own weapons:
black bears
niggers
rapists
niggers
wild dogs
cougars
niggers
mexicans
niggers
young niggers
Are you honestly saying that all guns should be banned from private ownership:?
I am not going to insult your intelligence by saying that 'we need guns to protect against a tyrannical government', because I think that is some fantasy land shit
but there are many practical reasons why people can, and should, own firearms, if nothing else, for protection against predatory animals or people.
And of course, you want the cops and military to be armed....like, what is wrong with you? God, I will never understand leftism.
An armed cop with an unarmed populace is an engraved invitation to steal the cops 'real' gun. All it takes is a simple ambush.
-
2015-07-26 at 2:37 AM UTCThe entire Constitution is nothing more than another clever device cooked up by the capitalist terrorists to make the people think they have rights. Most people still actually think that some worthless piece of paper somehow awards them freedoms and liberties. It's nothing more than a front the terrorists can point to while they fuck you over every which way they can think of.
-
2015-07-26 at 3:08 AM UTClanny i have nothing to add to the discussion but can you plz stop typing like a redditor
-
2015-07-26 at 6:25 AM UTC
Only if you admit that the issue of weapons ownership isn't as simple as 'Guns are Bad!'
When did I ever say "it's as simple as guns are bad"? I don't support the idea of private gun ownership, I've never suggested the issue is simple. Further why on earth would your decision to accept or reject evidence about gun ownership policy rest on what I do or don't "admit"?Are you honestly saying that all guns should be banned from private ownership:?
Yes. Privately owned guns represent more societal harm than good, after weighing the value of guns as entertainment and the probable amount and severity of crime stopped by them against the rate of wrongful death and injury by firearm private ownership just doesn't seem to be a net win for us. Note the weight of good against harm here because it addresses most of the common objections by advocates of gun ownership, namely the "why don't you ban cars" argument (because they have a large social benefit) and the "but you can still kill people with lead pipes" (true, but it doesn't change the fact that the world without gun ownership seems to be more peaceful than the one with, even if murder still happens)And of course, you want the cops and military to be armed….like, what is wrong with you? God, I will never understand leftism.
Many countries don't give firearms to their regular police, gun violence is dealt with by a highly trained swat-like team that's only called in when criminals are believed to have guns. I think that's a sane policy. It's ultimately necessary for law enforcement to have superior martial force in order to... enforce the law so yes, police should still have access to guns when they're strictly necessary, but I do think we'd benefit from less police shootings in the US.An armed cop with an unarmed populace is an engraved invitation to steal the cops 'real' gun. All it takes is a simple ambush.
Wut? I mean sure I guess but you can steal a cops gun today if you really want to try. I think it's probably easier to steal guns from the general population than from a trained police officer.lanny i have nothing to add to the discussion but can you plz stop typing like a redditor
Eww, how am I typing like a redditor? -
2015-07-26 at 7:27 AM UTC
When did I ever say "it's as simple as guns are bad"? I don't support the idea of private gun ownership,
Right there, you just did it. Ok, you didn't say 'guns are bad' in those exact words, but if you don't trust the general public with guns, then I am willing to bet that you do not admire or approve of firearms.Yes. Privately owned guns represent more societal harm than good, after weighing the value of guns as entertainment and the probable amount and severity of crime stopped by them against the rate of wrongful death and injury by firearm private ownership just doesn't seem to be a net win for us. Note the weight of good against harm here because it addresses most of the common objections by advocates of gun ownership, namely the "why don't you ban cars" argument (because they have a large social benefit) and the "but you can still kill people with lead pipes" (true, but it doesn't change the fact that the world without gun ownership seems to be more peaceful than the one with, even if murder still happens)
Ahhh, collectivism. I don't give a fuck about 'a net win for us', I care about having the ability and option to arm myself if I see fit.Wut? I mean sure I guess but you can steal a cops gun today if you really want to try. I think it's probably easier to steal guns from the general population than from a trained police officer.
A trained police officer isn't some superhero, it is just a guy, usually quite low on the intellectual scale. Criminals steal cops guns all the time, and even kill the cops with their own guns. It's such a problem, that police holsters are specially made to be resistant to being pulled from the holster by someone other than the officer. Criminals still get the guns even with the special holsters.
-
2015-07-26 at 7:33 AM UTC
Ahhh, collectivism. I don't give a fuck about 'a net win for us', I care about having the ability and option to arm myself if I see fit.
Go ahead and jump all over this one, because you are a leftist and don't know how individualism and personal responsibility can lead to safer communities and stronger families and all sorts of great things. -
2015-07-26 at 8:48 AM UTC
Right there, you just did it. Ok, you didn't say 'guns are bad' in those exact words, but if you don't trust the general public with guns, then I am willing to bet that you do not admire or approve of firearms
It's true I don't "admire" firearms, I think you'd have to be a little off kilter to admire any inanimate object. As I've said, I don't approve of private gun ownership but that's because they do more harm than good, I don't have an opposition to any intrinsic property of firearms. You still haven't told me why my "admission" of that or anything else weighs on whether or not you accept a given piece of evidence.Ahhh, collectivism. I don't give a fuck about 'a net win for us', I care about having the ability and option to arm myself if I see fit.
Alright, you can do that I guess but if you're ideal political system is exclusively aimed as satisfying your personal desires then I don't see why you would expect anyone else to take it seriously. Like I could say "I don't care about collective good, I care about being tremendously wealthy without having to do anything for it" and form my politics around that but I wouldn't expect it to be particularly popular with anyone nor is it easy to conceive of a justification for that system over anyone else's "purely self-interested state".A trained police officer isn't some superhero, it is just a guy, usually quite low on the intellectual scale. Criminals steal cops guns all the time, and even kill the cops with their own guns. It's such a problem, that police holsters are specially made to be resistant to being pulled from the holster by someone other than the officer. Criminals still get the guns even with the special holsters.
I never said police officers were superheros, but they are better equipped to retain their guns than the public at large. And this doesn't change the fact stealing guns from police officers is possible today as well, so I have no idea how this line of thinking is supposed to end at "therefore private gun ownership should be a thing". In a world without private gun ownership gun-thieves have far fewer potential targets, and their targets are typically better equipped to prevent the theft from happening. -
2015-07-26 at 1:33 PM UTCThe left's response to any issue: LETS MAKE A LAW FOR IT!
Like criminals are going to stop being criminals because a piece of paper says so, silly lefties. -
2015-07-26 at 1:37 PM UTCI didn't even participate in the arguments here but i get so tired of arguing with Lanny not because he is right or makes points i agree with or are objectively valid but simply for the fact he types. 10 arguments to every issue you present for him and i feel compelled to adress every single fallacy in them but when i do i end up writing page upon page of whatever the fuck is actually right. And then lanny comes and does number of pages10 and i have to do number of pages100 ad infinitum.
It's exhaustive. -
2015-07-26 at 3:08 PM UTC
It's true I don't "admire" firearms, I think you'd have to be a little off kilter to admire any inanimate object.
If I knew how to post a .gif, I would post a picture of 'how a firearm works'. I admire machinery all the time, and animals, and all kinds of stuff. Maybe I used the wrong word here. The gif I wanted to post is pretty cool, I can sit and watch the round being chambered for hours, Then again, I am one of those types of people who enjoy working in a factory.,Alright, you can do that I guess but if you're ideal political system is exclusively aimed as satisfying your personal desires then I don't see why you would expect anyone else to take it seriously. Like I could say "I don't care about collective good, I care about being tremendously wealthy without having to do anything for it" and form my politics around that but I wouldn't expect it to be particularly popular with anyone nor is it easy to conceive of a justification for that system over anyone else's "purely self-interested state".
This is why I posted what I did, right below my post. I knew you were going to say this, but individualism does not guarantee selfishness. What we choose to do with that individualism is up to us. Most of us will choose to do the right thing and take care of our loved ones. Most people are good and decent, and I believe in people. They don't need some elite know-it-all to 'coerce' them into 'doing the right thing', Most people do the right thing every day, not out of fear of getting in trouble, but because that is what people do.I never said police officers were superheros, but they are better equipped to retain their guns than the public at large. And this doesn't change the fact stealing guns from police officers is possible today as well, so I have no idea how this line of thinking is supposed to end at "therefore private gun ownership should be a thing". In a world without private gun ownership gun-thieves have far fewer potential targets, and their targets are typically better equipped to prevent the theft from happening.
Most cops are idiots. I have cops in my extended family. The one guy has like 50 guns, stashed all over his house, he has a .40 on top of his refrigerator in a breadbox. He is a moron, and it would be easy to steal lots of guns off this guy if one so desired. My ex is married to him, and she is a cop too, She is barely 5' tall and I could easily overpower her and penetrate her....wait I mean disarm her.... -
2015-07-26 at 3:11 PM UTC
I didn't even participate in the arguments here but i get so tired of arguing with Lanny not because he is right or makes points i agree with or are objectively valid but simply for the fact he types. 10 arguments to every issue you present for him and i feel compelled to adress every single fallacy in them but when i do i end up writing page upon page of whatever the fuck is actually right. And then lanny comes and does number of pages10 and i have to do number of pages100 ad infinitum.
It's exhaustive.
I don't mind that at all. I do hate how Lanny sometimes calls me out for phrasing something a certain way, or picks semantic reasons to dismiss my arguments. Other than that, he makes some good points. Lanny is one of the harder 'debate' opponents I have had on the internet.
It's just too damn bad he is such a leftist. I keep hoping that maybe one of our common sense arguments will get through to him. I hate to see anyone suffer through life as a leftist. -
2015-07-26 at 5:18 PM UTCGun crime in the us and suicides by gun are still less than all deaths related to motor vehicle accidents.
There is literally no reason to ban guns other than to become oppressed especially when the stats are miniscule compared to the real dangers of society.
