GTX0 Announcements | RoadmapFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller




If the last few seconds of this video don't have you laughing then you have no sense of humor. And who could forget former Vice President Joe Biden advising that the American people defend themselves by blinding firing a shotgun out of their front door?

The Washington Post recently embarrassed itself by publishing an article titled: The NRA and its allies use jargon to bully gun-control supporters. From the article:

"The phenomenon isn’t new, but in the weeks since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a lot of gun-skeptical liberals are getting a taste of it for the first time: While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between a “clip” and a “magazine.”

Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control."

...

"Gunsplaining, though, is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it’s less about adding to the discourse than smothering it — with self-appointed authority, and often the thinnest of connection to any real fact. (If gunsplaining had a motto, it might be Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher’s macabre old saw: “Your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”)"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/06/the-nra-and-its-allies-use-jargon-to-bully-gun-control-supporters/?utm_term=.6f885a25afce
If Mr. Weinsteinn was interested in good faith argumentation and "adding to the discourse", he wouldn't disregard the importance of factual accuracy by drawing upon the silencing tactics of radical feminists. How more transparent can one be in trying to censor a voice that happens to be male than by accusing them of "mansplaining" and therefore inherently not in possession of a valid perspective? Likewise, to accuse someone of "gunsplaining" is to admonish them for making the very valid point that the proponents of gun control almost never know anything about guns. The AR-15 is not high powered, it's not a machine gun, and neither it nor anything else is an "assault weapon". It is a semi automatic rifle, and the most popular one in the United States. It is almost never used in crime but it is used for sport by the millions. And it isn't going anywhere.

Naturally, if I'm going to advocate that people exhibit basic firearms literacy I should be careful not to make any mistakes of my own. The Post article makes that crystal clear, and at least on that point they're right to do so. For my part I consider myself only reasonably knowledgeable. I know the difference between semi and fully automatic, single and double action, centerfire and rimfire, and what it's actually like to fire one of these weapons. I am a competent shooter, but probably less so than a few others here. Firing a gun is in fact far less traumatic than that youtube clip would suggest. I also know, and can prove, that the 1994 ban on an arbitrary selection of firearms and firearm features was totally indefensible.



But first let's consider this gallery of bullets. There's not much rhyme or reason to the selection except to give some perspective as to what the ammunition of the AR-15 (.223 Remington) looks like next to various rifle, pistol and revolver cartridges. They are, in order: 7.62x39, .223, 5.7x28, .45, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, .357 Magnum, and .38 Special. Some of you may recognize the .357 as the bullet that mariomguy misidentified as the ".375" and wanted to be banned because of the noise it made. He might perhaps be satisfied to learn that shooting ranges tend to require the use of ear protection. The .44 Magnum was made famous by the movie Dirty Harry, which is an incredible film and not only because the villain was a depraved hippy, but I repeat myself. The main objective of this picture however is to show how much smaller the AR-15 cartridge is than that of the AK-47 (the 7.62x39)



Okay, okay, so maybe I should have led with this image. I just thought the Pink Knight would be a far more endearing reference item than a quarter and I've had that Dirty Harry joke in my head for weeks. Regardless, we can see here how small the .223 really is. The venerable 30-06 is so old that John Paul Stevens would have had the opportunity to be afraid of it before Jimmy Carter was even conceived, and yet no one ever calls to ban the "high powered" guns that fire these. That is probably because this particular bullet is most commonly associated with bolt action guns and wood grain finishes, though we could only imagine the horror of gun control advocates if they learned there were semi automatic rifles - some even with black polymer stocks instead of wood grain! - that fire an ancient cartridge like the 30-06. In fact, the .223 is restricted for larger game in many states because it's simply not powerful enough to be considered humane. True, it has no difficulty killing actual humans, but neither does the ubiquitous 9 mm, and indeed handgun rounds claim far more American lives than the .223 ever will.

So what about an Assault Weapon ban? Well, let's use the 1994 definition for reference.


Criteria of an assault weapon

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:

An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an assault weapon under federal law.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Detachable magazine.

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:

• Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)
• Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil
• Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)
• Colt AR-15
• Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC
• SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12
• Steyr AUG
• INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22
• Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
As legalese goes, this is a fairly simple definition. This simplicity helps us understand how "assault weapon" is a meaningless term and why shooters don't recognize it, as it is useless except as an underhanded way of obfuscating the issue for an ignorant voting public. Seriously, look at what this does. They created a definition for "assault weapon" that is reliant mostly on a series of optional features. Bayonet mounts, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and other thing that have little to nothing to do with whether or not the firearm can be used to murder innocent people. In addition to this the government included various firearms that may have models that don't necessarily fit the given definition. That way, for instance, you wouldn't be able to own an AK-47 that fell short of the minimum "assault weapon" feature requirements. The point of this was to ban scary black guns, as there were plenty of equivalents still on the market that, by virtue of appearance and lack of notoriety, were spared the ban. Not to mention that every pre-ban gun was also spared. The ban on "high capacity magazines" likewise spared pre-ban paraphernalia. This led to price gouging on the secondary market, and not much else.

So that's the definition of "assault weapon" laid bare, but what other deceptive terminology do gun control advocates in our media and government use? As most of you have probably noticed over the years I tend to focus on the way language is abused in the service of various political arguments, and despite what Adam Weinsteinn might think that's not pedantry. Here's an example most of us are probably sympathetic with: When we hear the words "hack the election" what we can see going on are people trying to conflate the DNC email hack with the notion that the Russians somehow "hacked" the mechanisms by which Donald Trump was elected. If you have any doubt of this, ask the people on this very forum that have used these words if they are willing to state unequivocally that they accept the legitimacy of Donald Trump's victory. Bonus points for noticing the hypocrisy of their hand wringing over Trump's supposed unwillingness to accept a hypothetical Clinton victory.

Case in point, a "high capacity magazine" is any magazine that can hold over ten rounds, according to the mercifully defunct 1994 law. Here's a startling revelation: Many (if not most) modern guns that aren't pocket pistols or revolvers have standard magazine sizes that large or larger. The Browning Hi-Power that your grandfather might have carried in WWII had a capacity of 13. That may have been big for the time, but hopefully this helps put in perspective how dishonest the term ultimately is. Then there's the notion of "military style" weapons, which refers only to the cosmetics of a gun. It is nothing less than a lie to suggest that semi automatic weapons "styled" after military versions are equivalent in any way that matters. As a point of contrast, there is no distinction between an AR-15 and the vague umbrella of a "hunting rifle" because it is a hunting rifle.




This is the Five-Seven, a semiautomatic pistol which appropriately enough shoots the 5.7 rifle cartridge and has a standard capacity of 20 rounds. Due to its visibility in popular culture and its infamy as the weapon of choice of the (first) Fort Hood shooter it ended up on a variety of Congressional chopping blocks. Going over why this was an eminently meaningless endeavor is, I hope, not really necessary at this point. No, the reason I offer pictures of this gun is because I went and bought it in 2013 in protest of Obama's own attempt at an "assault weapon" ban. This is the state of affairs right now: The more noise the proponents of bans make, the more guns we buy. The laws never materialize, but our horde of weapons grows ever larger. What is the reason for banning guns with bayonet mounts anyway? Surely it's not about bayonets, and no one wants to ban threaded barrels in order to prevent the nonexistent epidemic of crimes committed with sound suppressors. Does anyone opposed to collapsible stocks even know why they oppose it, if it isn't part of some ulterior motive? If going after rifle features is instead meant to make rifles essentially restricted, and if going after standard magazine sizes is likewise meant to limit the types of guns available for purchase, as I have argued, then the true objective of gun control becomes undeniable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html
This pressure continues to build until the left can no longer maintain the façade. The New York Times recently exhumed former Supreme Court Justice Stevens for the sole purpose of lending as much weight as they could to this argument. In advocating for the repeal of the Second Amendment it seems to me almost as if Stevens tacitly admits that this is the one true safeguard against gun control. It's almost as if the entire Bill of Rights was written so as to limit government power rather than to grant power to government militias! If you're wondering what New York Times readers think of such a proposal, just read the comments section. This is what they want. This is all they have ever wanted.

The disconnect between advocates of gun rights and and advocates of gun control is the difference between high and low investment in the hobby and the difference in understanding of what firearms are, how they operate, and how they relate to the great American story. That is, we have everything going in our favor. That is why advocacy for gun control requires they shield their intellectual bankruptcy behind children, living or dead, why ignorance is handwaved and why they are so insistent on deceptive euphemisms like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine". How else are they supposed to get what they want, considering what they want is to get our right to bear arms stricken from the Constitution?

Despite all that, I encourage The New York Times and the Washington Post on their race to the bottom. Feel free to run articles calling for a constitutional amendment. Turn up the volume on David Hogg. Continue to put the camera on celebrities as they attend rallies and are beside themselves (or is that their armed security detail?) with incredulity at the notion that the rubes should ever want responsibility for their own lives. Get every British pundit you can find on the air in order to tell Americans how terrible their country is and how much better it would be if we were more like them, and everyone else besides. Make this your crusade. We have the opportunity to pit these two increasingly alien cultures against each other in the middle of an election year to see which one is more compatible with the modern American project. My bet is that if the left in our government and our media can keep up with the hostility they have exhibited for the foundation of this great country and their fellow gun owning citizens that they will only further marginalize themselves politically. Do you think they have the courage to attempt to prove me wrong? Now's the time to try. I'll see you in November.



“There cannot be greater rudeness than to interrupt another in the current of his discourse.” - John Locke
settingsOptions
There are 36 Replies

en banc 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Second Amendment does not apply to assault weapons: en banc 4th Circuit

Alison Frankel
February 22, 2017
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-guns/second-amendment-does-not-apply-to-assault-weapons-en-banc-4th-circuit-idUSKBN1612PU
(Reuters) - The en banc 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took a bold and potentially controversial stand Tuesday in its decision on the constitutionality of Maryland’s ban on military-style semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.

Like two other federal appellate courts that have reviewed similar bans in other states, the 4th Circuit found in Kolbe v. Hogan that such laws are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which means governments must only show that their gun prohibitions advance an important state interest. Under intermediate scrutiny, the 4th Circuit majority said in an opinion by Judge Robert King, Maryland “has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the (law) and Maryland’s interest in protecting public safety.”

That holding resolves what had been a split in the federal circuits on the correct level of scrutiny for laws that impinge on Second Amendment rights. The District of Columbia and 2nd Circuits have both evaluated gun control laws using intermediate scrutiny but the three-judge panel that previously heard the Kolbe case applied the tougher standard of heightened scrutiny to strike down the Maryland ban in 2016. (Two additional circuits, the 9th and the 7th, have also upheld gun bans, but did not specifically opine on the appropriate level of scrutiny.) Tuesday’s en banc decision from the 4th Circuit replaces the 2016 panel ruling and aligns all of the appellate courts that have considered the standard for reviewing gun prohibitions.

But that is not the big news from Judge King’s opinion, which was joined in full by nine of the 14 judges who heard the en banc appeal. The 4th Circuit held that Maryland’s ban on military-style assault rifles is constitutional regardless of the standard of scrutiny because the Second Amendment does not give civilians a right to own such weapons.

That’s right: According to the 4th Circuit, the military-style guns used in a disproportionate share of the mass killings in the U.S. are outside the aegis of the Second Amendment because they are most suited for military use.

Gun rights advocates are not going to like this decision at all, not least because it turns the words of their favorite U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, against them. In the Heller opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia struck down the District’s ban on handguns, holding that the Second Amendment gives citizens a right to own weapons “in common use at the time.” Justice Scalia said, however, that not every gun meets that definition. “The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” he wrote in Heller. Specifically, the Heller opinion cited “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’” such as “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.”

Justice Scalia’s terminology doesn’t offer much instruction on how to determine if a weapon is “in common use at the time” or “dangerous and unusual,” as the 4th Circuit en banc majority pointed out. In fact, one of the big arguments by plaintiffs who challenged Maryland’s ban – and by the four 4th Circuit judges who dissented from the en banc opinion – was that semi-automatic weapons, otherwise known as “modern sporting rifles,” are among the most popular guns on the market, with 8 million of them circulating in the U.S. as of 2013. The weapons are clearly in common use, according to this theory, so they’re within the ambit of the Second Amendment.

The majority focused instead on Justice Scalia’s concession that governments may prohibit “weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like.” The semi-automatic weapons banned under Maryland’s law were adapted from M-16s and other automatic rifles developed for military use, according to the 4th Circuit. That fact, the court said, put them within the category of weapons the Heller opinion excepted from Second Amendment protection.

“We are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are ‘like’ ‘M-16 rifles’ — ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’ — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach,” the 4th Circuit said. “Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

The dissent, in an opinion by Judge William Traxler, complained that the majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” (The majority responded that although its holding on the scope of the Second Amendment “may seem novel in some quarters, it is solidly predicated on the plain language of Heller and was raised and argued by the state in both the district court proceedings and this appeal.”) Judge Traxler said that millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic weapons for lawful purposes, including the defense of their homes, so the guns are squarely within the Second Amendment. The judge – who had written the Kolbe panel opinion now replaced by the en banc decision – also reiterated his conclusion that Maryland’s law is subject to strict scrutiny.

It’s worth reading the 4th Circuit’s entire 116-page en banc opus on Maryland’s gun law, opinions and dissent. The majority opinion, written by the judge who had dissented from the Kolbe panel’s ruling in 2016, is a thorough review of litigation over state and local gun control measures, including a discussion of recent mass shootings perpetrated with weapons subject to the Maryland ban and analysis of the evidence both sides presented on the efficacy of gun control laws. (Spoiler alert: The federal ban on semi-automatic assault weapons didn’t reduce gun violence as much as proponents had hoped but gun control backers blame grandfather provisions inserted by gun rights advocates.)

In a passionate concurrence, Judge Harvey Wilkinson wrote about empowering voters, not courts, to decide whether to adopt gun restrictions. “To say in the wake of so many mass shootings in so many localities across this country that the people themselves are now to be rendered newly powerless, that all they can do is stand by and watch as federal courts design their destiny – this would deliver a body blow to democracy as we have known it since the very founding of this nation,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court, as I wrote last June and as the 4th Circuit majority pointed out in the Kolbe en banc decision, has so far chosen not to review appellate opinions upholding gun control laws in the wake of Heller. I won’t be surprised if gun rights advocates ask the justices to overturn the 4th Circuit, but the majority opinion gives Maryland a good argument that even if the appeals court was wrong about the scope of the Second Amendment, there is no need for the Supreme Court to get involved because the 4th Circuit would have reached the same conclusion examining the Maryland law under intermediate scrutiny – the consensus standard among federal appellate courts.

Edited March 31st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

*yawn*

SCOTUS has already held that handguns are protected. AR-15s should probably have an explicitly stated section in the 2nd Amendment so we can stop this nonsense. I'm tired of people bitching and moaning about how their rights are being infringed on weapons that have *never* been explicitly protected. If their politicians actually took some responsibility for what should've been done before, we probably might not be in this situation as deep as we are.

With that said, gun lobbyists are being incredibly irresponsible. That has been indicative of the fact that they are in bed with the gun manufacturers. This debate isn't really about gun owners needing to feel "safe" from the federal government or dangerous terroristic threats. It's not about protecting our schools and communities. It's not even about how responsible gun ownership is impacted by mental health issues. It's all about profitability.

Simply put, gun manufacturers see huge gains in our modern society. We have depraved individuals who are unhinged enough to commit these horrific attacks against innocent civilians. The general public has this understanding which instills fear. So people are arming themselves in great numbers, including many of which probably never wouldve thought they needed firearms. This translates to huge profits for the gun industry. Every time we have a mass/school shooting, we see an uptick in gun and ammunition sales. I think it's safe to say that correlation can be considered causation in this case. Don't forget that we pretty much average one school shooting a week now.

Even still, gun lobbyists keep up their rhetoric which is advocated by the politicians that they're financially backing. If we're being honest here, neither Congress nor the NRA actually wants to stop the violence. There wouldn't be as much financial incentive in that. Therefore, any push for (sensible) laws doesn't gain the traction necessary so we can at least have a better vetting process for who can purchase firearms.

But Parkland changes some of this in a way. Florida changed their laws. It hasn't been very long since the Pulse nightclub shooting. I think the heat has been on for so long and with there being so much inaction, people finally just got sick of it. The issue here is that, by and large, a lot of these measures have been reactive, not proactive.




Edited March 31st by Blazer72
Blazer72
 

Turn up the volume on David Hogg.

Shoot the messenger!!!!

Posted March 31st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

SCOTUS has already held that handguns are protected.

What ruling are you referring to that specifically singles out "handguns"?

AR-15s should probably have an explicitly stated section in the 2nd Amendment so we can stop this nonsense.

You think our Bill of Rights, a document painstakingly crafted to limit the powers of government, should be altered to specifically single out the AR-15? In what galaxy is this the sort of thing that you consider a good idea? Would the text read like this?


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed except for the AR-15 lel.


I don't think it has quite the same ring to it.

Posted March 31st by Famov
Famov

Did you hear the quote one of the March for our Guns speaker said ?

"When you give us an inch, that bump stocks ban, we will take a mile,” said student Delaney Tarr.

I'm glad people see right through this for the most part.




Posted April 1st by #85
#85

Children are so precocious, sometimes it's easy to forget that they're often among the first to line up in favor of tyranny.

We should thank them for their honesty, but I worry that Democrats will be smart enough to shut up about gun control before the elections really get under way. The longer they go on about this, the fewer seats they'll take.

Posted April 1st by Famov
Famov

I've seen conservatives fold on issue after issue but I don't see them folding on guns.

It's a weird situation, people protesting to have their own rights removed. The appeal to emotion argument they have been using isnt going to get them far outside of their echo chamber.

Posted April 1st by #85
#85

It's seriously despicable how the NRA and conservatives will cast any discussion about guns in all or nothing terms; in the short term, we'll just have more attacks and accidents and the government unable to do anything about it.

But I'm convinced that in the long term, as millenials grow up, things are going to change a lot.

Parkland is showing that it's becoming harder and harder to pledge oft-mocked as meaningless "thoughts and prayers" and letting national attention and media cycle shift on to other topics and events.

Polls are showing that more Americans than ever support gun control measures (67%), and more Americans more than ever see guns as the top problem in America today (13%). This is particular to Parkland, whereas in the past public opinion polls haven't shown such a shift.

In fact, gun massacres have caused states to counterintuitively liberalize gun laws, but we've even seen in Florida and Vermont beginning to pass laws where they raise the age of people who can purchase rifles.

Another big indication that the Parkland teens are winning this Culture War: the personal attacks that Rightist pundits and others have lodged against these survivors is not only despicable, but shows they definitely don't have any good rebuttal to the completely reasonable arguments the Parkland teens have been making on the airwaves the last couple weeks. And, by expressing the primary characteristics of their nature, fear and anger, you know they realize it too: this is a generational movement taking place.

I don't doubt there will be more and more people actually pushing for full repeal of the 2nd Amendment, within the greater movement for reasonable gun control. Why wouldn't there be? The 2nd Amendment is invoked constantly to make it impossible to take any measures to save childrens' lives. If the rest of the country turns against the 2nd Amendment, it will be the fault of the conservatives.

Posted April 1st by Agis
Agis
 

Another big indication that the Parkland teens are winning this Culture War:

Pure delusion. You can repeat cable news talking points well enough, couched in euphemisms like "reasonable gun control", but you can't deal with the most basic questions, i.e. what is it about these weapons that justifies a ban. I assume this is why you don't try and instead cast aspersions on the "right wing" for not respecting the media manufactured "children's" movement. Our opponents are adults. The children are mouthpieces, a couple of whom think they have a future in politics, though we'll have to see on that.

reasonable arguments the Parkland teens

Oh yeah, arguments like:



Get real Agis. David Hogg is a demagogue and we're right to call him out on it. And it's clear that you're the one appealing to emotion and fear. The facts are on my side, or can you actually justify, for instance, a ban on the AR-15 in spite of all of the misconceptions gun control people have bandied around about it?

Posted April 1st by Famov
Famov

C'mon Famov, the NRA and pro-gun crowd like yourself comes off as nothing more than rhetoric and hate spewing alt-right hate group attacking school children who are victims of mass murder.





Posted April 1st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

You can repeat cable news talking points well enough, couched in euphemisms like "reasonable gun control", but you can't deal with the most basic questions, i.e. what is it about these weapons that justifies a ban

First of all, right there, you immediately jump to "reasonable gun control" = ban. Now, I would say that's reasonable for assault weapons, and since you ask me to justify it, I'll point out that no one would use it other than to inflict mass casualties.

But that's my perspective -- how about you? If you were to say "reasonable gun control", what would that be to you? A waiting time, background checks (hey, those could be illegal immigrants), age limit? Obviously you have to draw the line at some point that has to align with reality and living in a society.

Posted April 1st by Agis
Agis
 

People tend to get more conservative as they get older, so your millennial blue wave may not be the case.

These reactionaries never have the facts with them. Majority if gun murders are commited with handguns but they choose to single out the AR-15 "because it looks scary" while at the same time not even being able to define what an assault weapon is.

The Fake News media was silent on the recent Maryland shooting, where the shooter was immediately stopped by a good guy with a gun, and we know why. It doesn't fit the narrative.





Posted April 1st by #85
#85

"Reasonal gun control" gotta love that Orwellian euphemism for the removal of inalienable civil rights.

Posted April 1st by #85
#85

People tend to get more conservative as they get older, so your millennial blue wave may not be the case.

People tend to choose parties at a young age, more often than not choose the party that their families are a part of, and then identify with that party through their lives.

There may be something to becoming more conservative with age, but let's not forget, the youth are majority leftist, and majority non-white. They'll never have any reason to join the Republican party because they'll never be accepted.

Edited April 1st by Agis
Agis
 

The Fake News media was silent on the recent Maryland shooting, where the shooter was immediately stopped by a good guy with a gun, and we know why. It doesn't fit the narrative.

Reactionary right wingers always jumping to propaganda talking points and fake news instead of waiting for or presenting facts.

Sheriff: Maryland high school shooter died by shooting himself in the head
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-great-mills-shooting-update-20180326-story.html

Posted April 1st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Now, I would say that's reasonable for assault weapons, and since you ask me to justify it, I'll point out that no one would use it other than to inflict mass casualties.

Your insistent, debunked terminology notwithstanding, "assault weapons" are used primarily for sport and hunting. So clearly semi automatic rifles are used for something other than "inflicting mass casualties", and to claim otherwise is simply and demonstrably untrue. There are millions of AR-15s in the wild. A few have been used in mass shootings, which speaks more to their overwhelming popularity in general than anything else. The same story is true for all semi automatic rifles, except they're used even less often in crime.

A waiting time, background checks (hey, those could be illegal immigrants), age limit? Obviously you have to draw the line at some point that has to align with reality and living in a society.

That's a fair enough question. A waiting time? No. It's not as if we can point to a single mass shooting that a waiting period would have prevented. Background checks? Sure, that's how it is in Michigan (for the most part, at least). And the age should be 18, if 18 is the mark of adulthood.

Edited April 1st by Famov
Famov

Reactionary right wingers always jumping to propaganda talking points and fake news instead of waiting for or presenting facts. 

Your attempted "gotcha" doesnt alter my statement in any way.

Posted April 1st by #85
#85

Your attempted "gotcha" doesnt alter my statement in any way.

Another rhetorical empty bs claim.

Posted April 1st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Psy, read your own article. The shooter was stopped by a deputy, or a "good guy with a gun".


Posted April 1st by Famov
Famov

That's a fair enough question. A waiting time? No. It's not as if we can point to a single mass shooting that a waiting period would have prevented.

Maybe not a mass shooting but we had an incident in town where a guy bought a rifle and ammo at a sporting goods store. He then walked in to the cocktail lounge down the street where he shot and killed his girlfriend and her alleged date. A waiting period most likely would have saved their lives.

Edited April 1st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Psy, read your own article. The shooter was stopped by a deputy, or a "good guy with a gun".

The shooter shot his intend target. There is no evidence he would have continued with a shooting spree.

Posted April 1st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I’m not super passionate about guns either way, but it’s obvious the NRA and right wing ideologues in general are terrified of the Parkland students making their authentic (not fake corporate) voices heard, and it’s glorious. I say bring on the hate, slander and conspiracy theories. I have a feeling that bullshit won’t work on these kids.

Posted April 1st by pacman
pacman
 

The establishment (which you claim to be against) propping them up (and feeding them lines) should tell you all you need to know.

Posted April 1st by #85
#85

The establishment (which you claim to be against) propping them up (and feeding them lines) should tell you all you need to know.

Even if your parroted establishment scripted rhetorical talking point propaganda I see repeated over and over on every forum I visit was true, its a nonissue.

Do any of you on the alt-right have anything that isn't irrelevant or parroted?

Posted April 1st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I’m not super passionate about guns either way, but it’s obvious the NRA and right wing ideologues in general are terrified of the Parkland students making their authentic (not fake corporate) voices heard, and it’s glorious. I say bring on the hate, slander and conspiracy theories. I have a feeling that bullshit won’t work on these kids.

You know, it's remarkable. Even the left leaning folks that aren't super sympathetic with the gun control movement are buying into the idea that the child demagogues are anything but a liability for their electoral prospects this year. It really is like we've been struck by the curse of Babylon. How can anyone see what the likes of David Hogg are saying (though I confess I focus on him because he's the worst one) and not conclude that both he and his handlers are the one's guilty of hate and dishonesty?

The good news is that this story is going to have a conclusion. Either we're still going to be talking about this in November or we're not. If we are, and Democrats still see the sort of victories they've been expecting, then I will admit I was wrong. If the new age retro Hitler youth fade into obscurity and/or the Blue Wave ends up disappointing then I will be more than happy to point to this and gloat. Remember folks, the Democrats are counting on Republicans not having the enthusiasm to go out and vote this year. Give them one at your own peril.

Posted April 1st by Famov
Famov

If the new age retro Hitler youth

when did the alt right get involved?




Posted April 1st by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

To be honest, Hogg is an awkward kid and he hasn't got an ounce of charisma. I'm really surprised he's somehow become the face of the movement.

Posted April 1st by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear

I actually think David Hogg and co. are on point, Famov. Doing a far better job calling out politicians’ corruption and the way almost all of them are bought off by big money donors than MSM EVER has. It’s great. I support these kids 100 percent even if their pet issue isn’t the same as mine (and I can definitely see why guns have become their pet issue considering they survived a school shooting).

Posted April 1st by pacman
pacman
 

How can anyone see what the likes of David Hogg are saying (though I confess I focus on him because he's the worst one) and not conclude that both he and his handlers are the one's guilty of hate and dishonesty?

Yes the right is attacking people, just like the shooters.
Hogg and these kids aren't the freaking issue, the attacks are and the right is fueling hate and more attacks from crazed right wing shooters.

The good news is that this story is going to have a conclusion. Either we're still going to be talking about this in November or we're not.

The bad new is we have been averaging a school shooting every week and its a long time till November meanwhile the right is defending and encouraging the freaking shooters.

Edited April 1st by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Your insistent, debunked terminology notwithstanding, "assault weapons" are used primarily for sport and hunting.

Can't we all agree that's fucking retarded?

That's a fair enough question. A waiting time? No. It's not as if we can point to a single mass shooting that a waiting period would have prevented.

Just because we can't see a prevented shooting doesn't mean it's not logical to think waiting times are reasonable and effective. Sure, it's a bit inconvenient, but it at least goes well with background checks.

Still want to hear your own original ideas for reasonable gun control, though. You can take your time, of course, as I presume you never thought about this before.

Edited April 1st by Agis
Agis
 

Can't we all agree that's fucking retarded?

Absolutely not, and in saying this you only reveal your own ignorance on firearms. I ask again, what is it about the AR-15 that you think it should be banned, or is otherwise not appropriate as a hunting or sport weapon?

Still want to hear your own original ideas for reasonable gun control, though. You can take your time, of course, as I presume you never thought about this before.

No need, aside from a background check and registration I don't know why we'd want any other laws.

Posted April 2nd by Famov
Famov

Hunt with a rifle or shotgun. We're not going to be overrun by elk because we don't have assault rifles.

Do you actually use one, by the way? You don't strike me as that type of Michigander.

No need, aside from a background check and registration I don't know why we'd want any other laws.

Because students are getting killed by them at a terrifying rate. That's why.

And we should be able to have a discussion about lessening that rate. But no -- it's always "you're lying, you just want to take away all of our guns". Fuck that scaremongering.

Posted April 2nd by Agis
Agis
 

Because students are getting killed by them at a terrifying rate. That's why.

Not just students.

Thousands of Californians are eligible for Las Vegas shooting compensation funds, but they haven't applied
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-compensation-20180401-story.html

Posted April 2nd by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Debating guns with you is like talking about video games with my grandmother. You obviously know nothing. The AR-15 is a rifle. It is semiautomatic like most other guns on the market. I ask again, what do you think is so dangerous about it?

Posted April 2nd by Famov
Famov

Oh look at you being a prick just to be a prick.

"In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use."

You really just want to nitpick this conversation into nothing, huh?

Look at Parkland. That's the danger right there. The capability to inflict mass casualties before anyone can do anything. Keep that out of peoples' hands and I'll be happy.

But that's really only one aspect of gun control I'd want rolled out.

Posted April 2nd by Agis
Agis
 

You'll forgive me if I don't take lessons on decorum from you.

You really just want to nitpick this conversation into nothing, huh?

No, I want to drive the point home that you continue to reinforce misconceptions you have on these weapons as opposed to doing the slightly more arduous thing of bothering to learn something about them. An AR-15 is not a "weapon of war". It was specifically designed as a civilian firearm, and by virtue of lacking select fire it has no military application (as far as I know). It is therefore not appreciably different from many other "hunting rifles" on the market. A 20-something loser that wants to shoot up a school will be able to do so (almost) just as effectively with a semi automatic pistol and a few extra magazines. This isn't my opinion. This isn't right wing propaganda. These are facts. You're the one so far up your own little knowledge-free bubble on the matter that you continue to make an embarrassment out of yourself by saying things that are objectively untrue. And it's obvious that you're at least self aware enough that you know better than to answer my very simple challenge of explaining what it is specifically about the AR-15 that you find objectionable. Obviously, you simply don't know.

Look at Parkland. That's the danger right there. The capability to inflict mass casualties before anyone can do anything. Keep that out of peoples' hands and I'll be happy.

And to think you chastised me for making this about gun bans. Of course this is about bans. It was always about liberty and those that instead want to trade it for emotional comfort and a false sense of security. And false it would be. We have a social problem. No gun law will solve this, short of mass confiscation, and to that end the government would have to take them from a lot of cold, dead hands. That's assuming there'd be much of a government left.

With that in mind, what is your plan for the millions of semi automatic rifles already out there? It is an enforced buyback or confiscation scheme? Or do we simply hope that they eventually go away? Wikipedia tells us there are between 10 to 12 million AR-15s alone in civilian hands. You know, because it's the most popular sporting rifle in the country and is, indeed, designed to do pretty much anything other than "inflict mass casualties".

And since I missed this earlier:

Do you actually use one, by the way? You don't strike me as that type of Michigander.

No, or at least not yet. I don't hunt, and while rifles are fun I prefer to shoot pistols and revolvers at the range.

Posted April 2nd by Famov
Famov
Reply to: "No One is Coming for Your Guns." and Other Lies

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on