NRA

[Cunt]

It's not just the obesity that is wrong. Everything is wrong. When you get by doing almost nothing useful, when you don't have to walk, when you don't even have to cook. With the "improved" standard of living first the body goes to mush, then the brain. We went wrong when we started eating and planting grass seed for food. Or starchy roots.

We didn't go all wrong when the planting started.

For instance, I've become fond of the increased life-expenctancy, though that may be due to advancing age.

Can we at least agree though, that lost years of life can provide a scale for how important safety concerns are?

I don't think we can just legislate away obesity, because it is at least in part due to our 'plenty'. Similarly, I recognize that we have a 'plenty' going on with guns.

The people have spoken. They want guns. They want to make them for themselves, and they want to mostly not kill their neighbours. It's actually kind of nice, when you think about how it could go.

[Tero]

Politics is about somebody getting something. Or not getting something. The people do not want loonies to have AR-15s so they will go with nobody gets semiautomatic rifles that shoot 30 bullets in a matter of minutes. Even if they are somewhat small bullets.

Poll:
The poll found 63 percent of respondents believe weapons like the AR-15 should be banned. It is not clear from the polling if those surveyed support a full ban of semi-automatic weapons, or a ban of the AR-15 in particular, which was used in the Florida high school shooting and other recent mass shootings.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... apons-poll

[Hermit]

A lot of Americans appear to have 'gun blindness' to those of us who see the second amendment as a ball and chain you can't even loosen let alone free yourselves from.

It's like the other kind of blindness, where people refuse to see the side of the right to bear arms ensuring freedom.

That's the theory, and late in the 18th century it did make sense in so far that the material difference between militias on one side and a standing army on the other was not that great. But even then General Washington - as I previously pointed out, and you studiously ignored - discovered very quickly that militias were of next to no use in the fight against the tyrannous colonists. The militias were absorbed into the newly created standing army.

The other item you were careful to ignore is that well regulated militias, national guards or whatever, have a history of coming out on the side of federal government, against "we, the people". In the case of the US, said people were members of the African-American civil rights movement, where with one or perhaps two exceptions militias were conspicuously absent or covertly supported the racists. In another long-running campaign the people were opponents of the Vietnam war. You may be old enough to recall news reports about those yourself.

Another thing to remember is that a four decades earlier a militia was a vital factor in the overthrow of a democratic government and the installation of a tyrannical one. You may have read that the tyrant wasted little time in abolishing that militia once his aim to become the nation's dictator was accomplished.

This is a good time as any for you to provide examples of the right to bear arms having ensured freedom in the face of a tyrannous government, and weigh those instances up with the ones in which the interventions of militias either simply failed to safeguard freedom, replaced one tyranny with another, or actually brought one into being.

[pErvinalia]

https://www.theonion.com/nra-recommends ... 1819579748

I understand that you hate guns because of all the years of life lost, and the bangy noises, but let me ask you this...

With obesity killing more than double the number of people killed by guns, do you take time to tell your loved ones when they are getting too fat?

Or is this just more LARPing as a Democrat, without real care for life lost?

Nice red herring.

[pErvinalia]

...

[Cunt]

Politics is about somebody getting something. Or not getting something. The people do not want loonies to have AR-15s so they will go with nobody gets semiautomatic rifles that shoot 30 bullets in a matter of minutes. Even if they are somewhat small bullets.

Poll:
The poll found 63 percent of respondents believe weapons like the AR-15 should be banned. It is not clear from the polling if those surveyed support a full ban of semi-automatic weapons, or a ban of the AR-15 in particular, which was used in the Florida high school shooting and other recent mass shootings.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... apons-poll

I understand your poll, but as it clearly points out (if you simply examine it in a cursory way) 37 percent of respondents don't think the gun should be banned.

In todays world, that means there simply won't be an effective ban. There are so many guns out there, and so many more ways to make them every day. It's really distressing to try to think of what an effective ban would even look like...

Also, there is often a problem with folks not understanding guns while creating law. Canada's 'long gun' registry for example...don't know what the definition was (it's defunct now, and there doesn't seem to be any national registry) but it would allow some weapons which had semi-automatic capability and magazines.

Heck, I picked up an SKS from the local police station. They do know guns, and will have known full well that it was a semi-automatic.

I don't know how banning semi-automatic weapons could be implemented practically either. I don't know just what (mechanically) makes the difference between 'semi-auto' and 'repeater', or even bolt action for that matter. I mean, I know in a gross, unintelligible way, but could not describe the differences well enough to create a decent law.

If more anti-gun folks would take the time to learn more about them, maybe the laws could be written better, I don't know.

I do know that Hollywood has a number of very wealthy individuals, who seem to speak out against private gun ownership as if on cue...it's almost as if they are professional at being paid to say things in a convincing way...

I heard a rumour that getting the left to froth up about gun control could easily be a ploy by the Reps to get key voting groups to oppose Dems. It would be funny (and frightening) if true. Especially if it worked. It would mean another term passes by before Hillary can take her rightful place in the White House. She's getting on in years...can't wait too long, or she'll be well and truly into her dotage before her reign begins.

[Cunt]

A lot of Americans appear to have 'gun blindness' to those of us who see the second amendment as a ball and chain you can't even loosen let alone free yourselves from.

It's like the other kind of blindness, where people refuse to see the side of the right to bear arms ensuring freedom.

That's the theory, and late in the 18th century it did make sense in so far that the material difference between militias on one side and a standing army on the other was not that great. But even then General Washington - as I previously pointed out, and you studiously ignored - discovered very quickly that militias were of next to no use in the fight against the tyrannous colonists. The militias were absorbed into the newly created standing army.

I didn't ignore it, I simply don't try to defend 2a that way.

As the comics explained, to many, the amendment means a personal right to bear arms against government tyranny.

The other item you were careful to ignore is that well regulated militias, national guards or whatever, have a history of coming out on the side of federal government, against "we, the people". In the case of the US, said people were members of the African-American civil rights movement, where with one or perhaps two exceptions militias were conspicuously absent or covertly supported the racists. In another long-running campaign the people were opponents of the Vietnam war. You may be old enough to recall news reports about those yourself.

I know enough to know that the Vietnamese were pretty darned good at repelling a big, government army with lightly-armed determined individuals.

Kind of like the example you keep asking about.

Another thing to remember is that a four decades earlier a militia was a vital factor in the overthrow of a democratic government and the installation of a tyrannical one. You may have read that the tyrant wasted little time in abolishing that militia once his aim to become the nation's dictator was accomplished.

Yes, a militia can be as bad as an army. That's why 2a was written to enshrine the right to bear arms for individuals.

But you keep refusing to acknowledge that many people understand the amendment that way, so I don't know what to say.

This is a good time as any for you to provide examples of the right to bear arms having ensured freedom in the face of a tyrannous government, and weigh those instances up with the ones in which the interventions of militias either simply failed to safeguard freedom, replaced one tyranny with another, or actually brought one into being.

Was the right to bear arms at all part of the resistance recently in the US, regarding the Dakota Pipeline?

No matter, those who went to Vietnam (if you have any around) can tell you all about an army getting their asses handed to them by pissed off yokels, poorly armed and under-trained.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Hmm, mortars, rocket propelled grenades, 14.5×114mm anti-aircraft guns as well as SAMs. If 'pissed off yokels' are being supplied by militarily advanced nations they can get their hands on much more than AK-47s and AK knockoffs.

[Cunt]

Hmm, mortars, rocket propelled grenades, 14.5×114mm anti-aircraft guns as well as SAMs. If 'pissed off yokels' are being supplied by militarily advanced nations they can get their hands on much more than AK-47s and AK knockoffs.

Yes, and those 2A fanatics in the US can also make that kind of horror-show happen.

It doesn't change why it is protected under the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't change the fact that it is hard as shit for even an advanced military to 'win', when everyone might be waiting to end your play.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yes, and those 2A fanatics in the US can also make that kind of horror-show happen.

The parallel doesn't work, despite the fantasies of '2A fanatics.' North Vietnam was essentially an entire nation devoted to its cause and supplied by two large military-industrial complexes, not random cliques of swivel-eyed goons with dreams of breaking into armories.

[Tero]

I heard a rumour that getting the left to froth up about gun control could easily be a ploy by the Reps to get key voting groups to oppose Dems. It would be funny (and frightening) if true. Especially if it worked. It would mean another term passes by before Hillary can take her rightful place in the White House. She's getting on in years...can't wait too long, or she'll be well and truly into her dotage before her reign begins.

Yes, must be a conspiracy. Trump sent that kid to the school to guarantee NRA funding for his re-election.

[JimC]

The whole polarisation thing about "anti-gun folk" is a load of crap. I've enjoyed shooting and hunting in the past, guns are interesting and a perfectly reasonable hobby, so I, and many others, are not "anti-gun"

The 3 critical elements in this whole debate are:

1. Thorough background checks to greatly reduce the chances of crazies doing gun massacres.

2. At the very least, mandating a 10 shot limit on magazines (which would have no real effect on being able to enjoy some hunting or target practice), and possibly banning AR-15 rifles and the like (whose resemblance to actual infantry assault rifles is not incidental...).

3. Trashing the fuck-witted argument by red-neck right-wing crazies that their god-given right to any sort of weapons is the only barrier to prevent the arrival of the Soviet USA...

[Cunt]

Yes, and those 2A fanatics in the US can also make that kind of horror-show happen.

The parallel doesn't work, despite the fantasies of '2A fanatics.' North Vietnam was essentially an entire nation devoted to its cause and supplied by two large military-industrial complexes, not random cliques of swivel-eyed goons with dreams of breaking into armories.

So you DO understand the assurance that citizens may have guns, though you think it's quaint, or ineffective.

OK, where from here?

Trump should make some guns illegal? To what end, exactly?

What is the next step from here?

Let the actors guild tut-tut every few years about how the government isn't doing enough about the gun problem, while their armed guards escort their children to private schools? Is that really enough?

I heard a rumour that getting the left to froth up about gun control could easily be a ploy by the Reps to get key voting groups to oppose Dems. It would be funny (and frightening) if true. Especially if it worked. It would mean another term passes by before Hillary can take her rightful place in the White House. She's getting on in years...can't wait too long, or she'll be well and truly into her dotage before her reign begins.

Yes, must be a conspiracy. Trump sent that kid to the school to guarantee NRA funding for his re-election.

If this is a conspiracy, no-one needs to create a school shooting. They happen like clockwork (if the news is to be believed)

No, this kind of conspiracy involves simply taking advantage of current events to get folks riled up about something irrelevant.

Doesn't make it any less terrible though.

[pErvinalia]

No, this kind of conspiracy involves simply taking advantage of current events to get folks riled up about something irrelevant.

Like getting riled up about gender pronouns and the difference between gender and biological sex.

[Cunt]

The whole polarisation thing about "anti-gun folk" is a load of crap. I've enjoyed shooting and hunting in the past, guns are interesting and a perfectly reasonable hobby, so I, and many others, are not "anti-gun"

The 3 critical elements in this whole debate are:

1. Thorough background checks to greatly reduce the chances of crazies doing gun massacres.

Requirements such as these already vary from state to state. If it would 'greatly reduce' the chances of massacres, then it should be true in the statistics. I don't know the stats, but would you agree that the experiment is already underway, and we need only look at the numbers?

Or would you just shift to another argument?

I agree, by the way, that background checks are a good idea.

2. At the very least, mandating a 10 shot limit on magazines (which would have no real effect on being able to enjoy some hunting or target practice), and possibly banning AR-15 rifles and the like (whose resemblance to actual infantry assault rifles is not incidental...).

This seems a bit unworkable.
My Ruger 10/22 has a 10 shot clip, but I understand one can also 3d print a bigger banana clip, or other configurations.

Of course, the law would prevent law abiding folks from doing it, so probably effective, but what about guns which resemble 'actual infantry assault rifles'? My tiny .22lr again as example, could have black plastic, sinisterly military looking stocks, or a pink my little pony stock. Neither would affect the functionality of the carbine.

I think defining what is lawful, and what is not, is very difficult in such a complicated group of devices as guns.

3. Trashing the fuck-witted argument by red-neck right-wing crazies that their god-given right to any sort of weapons is the only barrier to prevent the arrival of the Soviet USA...

That isn't fuck-witted crazies alone arguing that side. You might understand the discussion better if you listened to someone you can respect explaining their interpretation of the 2nd amendment to you. Clearly, you aren't smarter than everyone who disagrees with you on this, so you should be able to find a slightly better argument than the fuck-witted ones you have been limited to so far.

Of course, there is the possibility that you can't respect anyone who disagrees with you on this. If so, I'm sorry for your loss.