Conquer Club

Army of GOD wrote:I regret making this thread

No way! You totes made a phatty!

Night Strike wrote:Can we also mandate training before voting, before speaking, before assembling, etc.? All of these rights are supposed to be equally protected in our Constitution, yet only one right tries to be repeatedly taxed and regulated to no longer be accessible.

I would quite happily support a mandate that required people to complete some relevant "training" before voting. Of course it wouldnt work in the pre-existing pseudo-democratic political environment; but thats because the status quo has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personalities and political bullocks (ie status quo is right royally fucked).

Let's not forget, this shooter in Colorado had a completely legal right to own a gun. He had no history of mental illness (that's known/diagnosed), no criminal record, and is a US citizen. That means his right to own a gun cannot be taken away. We as a society just have to face the fact that this person chose to do evil with his rights. You cannot legislate that away. This person should not be used to indict the rest of society that uses their guns in a legal manner.

Completely and whole-heartedly agree. I've stated this over and over again.

My previous dialog on gun law related stuff was pretty much off topic as far as the recent shooting was concerned.

Lootifer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Can we also mandate training before voting, before speaking, before assembling, etc.? All of these rights are supposed to be equally protected in our Constitution, yet only one right tries to be repeatedly taxed and regulated to no longer be accessible.

I would quite happily support a mandate that required people to complete some relevant "training" before voting. Of course it wouldnt work in the pre-existing pseudo-democratic political environment; but thats because the status quo has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personalities and political bullocks (ie status quo is right royally fucked).

Let's not forget, this shooter in Colorado had a completely legal right to own a gun. He had no history of mental illness (that's known/diagnosed), no criminal record, and is a US citizen. That means his right to own a gun cannot be taken away. We as a society just have to face the fact that this person chose to do evil with his rights. You cannot legislate that away. This person should not be used to indict the rest of society that uses their guns in a legal manner.

Completely and whole-heartedly agree. I've stated this over and over again.

My previous dialog on gun law related stuff was pretty much off topic as far as the recent shooting was concerned.

Wow, we agree. To go a little further, I suppose one would have to show their card that proves they passed their training when they go to vote?

Well in my weird little world I would have a politically agnostic governement who are merely neutral bureaucrats.

Voting (democratic representation) would be done policy by policy, and to vote on any one policy you have to pass a small test to show that you are informed on the issue.

Unfortunately this is less realistic than world peace, as any practical implementation would result in an epic train wreck because of abuse from incumberant power structures. (that is B is a fine ole place, but trying to get from A to B will result in you ending up in C, which is a long way away from B and much worse than A)

Anyone want to explain how and why it is that the largest mass shootings in the world have happened in countries with the strictest gun controls in the world?

Lootifer wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:For defense -- you need training, and most people don't have the time or ability or even someone capable to train them.

So the answer is to ban guns in urban areas and any gun that's not used for hunting or sport?

Thats the law in NZ fyi.

Not suggesting the US adopts that law; as you guys have your constitutional rights to consider.

Maybe a better solution in the US context is to incentivise or legislate proper and complete training for anyone wanting a gun for protection.

We do it for Cars (in NZ at least, not sure about the US driver licencing procedure), I dont see why you shouldnt need to do it for Guns as well. Both have huge potential to cause harm, so it is warranted in my opinion. And mandated training does nothing to infringe on your freedoms.

That's a good idea.

However, even if a bureaucracy was established for this purpose, I'd expect similar results with the US and their driving license program.

It's easy to get a license, so you're not really trained to drive safely and, to a lesser extent, are not knowledgeable about the laws--which probably is the main cause of 40,000 deaths per year on US government roads.

Lootifer wrote:Well in my weird little world I would have a politically agnostic governement who are merely neutral bureaucrats.

Voting (democratic representation) would be done policy by policy, and to vote on any one policy you have to pass a small test to show that you are informed on the issue.

Unfortunately this is less realistic than world peace, as any practical implementation would result in an epic train wreck because of abuse from incumberant power structures. (that is B is a fine ole place, but trying to get from A to B will result in you ending up in C, which is a long way away from B and much worse than A)

Can we call this government "informed, enlightened bureaucracy" (IEB), similarly to IED, but hey!

Phatscotty wrote:Anyone want to explain how and why it is that the largest mass shootings in the world have happened in countries with the strictest gun controls in the world?

If you define "mass shootings" and show me some* empirical data, then I'll give a crack at that question.


*something, anything, just not your word, and not some story you heard from some guy, and not a personal observation twisted through one's cognitive bias (which we all have).

Phatscotty wrote:Even more sad is Americans who are too lazy to hold onto their freedom, and will trade it all away for the false promises and lies of the tiniest bit of security.

Says the guy who condones police brutality and illegal search and seizure. Ha fucking ha.

Stay classy, Scot.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Even more sad is Americans who are too lazy to hold onto their freedom, and will trade it all away for the false promises and lies of the tiniest bit of security.

Says the guy who condones police brutality and illegal search and seizure. Ha fucking ha.

Stay classy, Scot.

-TG

Only on non-white people, because statistically, they cause more crimes, right guys?

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Even more sad is Americans who are too lazy to hold onto their freedom, and will trade it all away for the false promises and lies of the tiniest bit of security.

Says the guy who condones police brutality and illegal search and seizure. Ha fucking ha.

Stay classy, Scot.

-TG

Only on non-white people, because statistically, they cause more crimes, right guys?

It's ok if they're white and poor, though. Those lazy poor bastards have it coming, for being poor. And lazy.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:For defense -- you need training, and most people don't have the time or ability or even someone capable to train them.

So the answer is to ban guns in urban areas and any gun that's not used for hunting or sport?

"ban guns", no. Consider reasonable restrictions instead of "If you try to take my assault rifle, I will wave the second amendment in your face" garbage.

Funny how with all the Obama quotes, the NRA never mentions the one where he says We, as a people ought to be able to allow hunters and sportsmen their guns, while keeping AK 47s out of the hands of criminals.

BUT.. unless folks are willing to sit down and communicate.. that is, to LISTEN, not just shout, then it will go down to the majority. And, sorry, but the majority don't own guns, hunt or target shoot. There are far more moms (and dads) worried about gangs and crime in their neighborhoods, people who understand that having a gun in their dresser is NOT going to help them unless the circumstances are exactly correct, there are far more people like that than folks who hunt.

So, guess who's burden it is to prove THEIR position? It isn't the worried moms!

But hey.. go on touting the condescending claptrap of Ted Nuget and his ilk.... we MIGHT not lose the right to carry arms, but you can be the areas where those guns can be used will be seriously limited... unless the folks using them are willing to take the time to show people, NOT shout about "rights", but show people that they can do so safely.

Becuase, as I said before.. you can shout about "rights to bear arms" all you want, but a mom will put her child's right to live over your right to bear arms any day!

Night Strike wrote:
Let's not forget, this shooter in Colorado had a completely legal right to own a gun. He had no history of mental illness (that's known/diagnosed), no criminal record, and is a US citizen. That means his right to own a gun cannot be taken away. We as a society just have to face the fact that this person chose to do evil with his rights. You cannot legislate that away. This person should not be used to indict the rest of society that uses their guns in a legal manner.

Why not?

As you pointed out this guy was fully within his rights. The system allowed him to get the tools he needed to go out and murder or injure 50+ people. This doesn't sound like a problem to you? Why not just remove all restrictions on explosive devices? surely the actions of a few crazies who might blow up some buildings cannot justify restricting the rights of the rest of society!

Guns are things which can be used reasonably responsibly and safely. However they also allow you to go out and commit a large amount of murder in a short amount of time. If anything random crazies are a very good reason to restrict access to firearms.

Every shooting massacre I can think of has been committed by someone with a legally acquired firearm. columbine, Virginia tech, the Montreal school shootings, Norway.

reduce the ease of acquiring firearms and you will see fewer events like this. They could try and get a firearm on the black market but that requires knowledge of who to contact and is a barrier in of itself.

Lootifer wrote:

Let's not forget, this shooter in Colorado had a completely legal right to own a gun. He had no history of mental illness (that's known/diagnosed), no criminal record, and is a US citizen. That means his right to own a gun cannot be taken away. We as a society just have to face the fact that this person chose to do evil with his rights. You cannot legislate that away. This person should not be used to indict the rest of society that uses their guns in a legal manner.

Completely and whole-heartedly agree. I've stated this over and over again.

My previous dialog on gun law related stuff was pretty much off topic as far as the recent shooting was concerned.

So you know, that section of my post wasn't necessarily directed toward you: it just ended up in the same post as my direct reply to you. I'm glad you agree though.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Funny how with all the Obama quotes, the NRA never mentions the one where he says We, as a people ought to be able to allow hunters and sportsmen their guns, while keeping AK 47s out of the hands of criminals.

It's already illegal for criminals to get AK-47s.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Night Strike wrote:
Let's not forget, this shooter in Colorado had a completely legal right to own a gun. He had no history of mental illness (that's known/diagnosed), no criminal record, and is a US citizen. That means his right to own a gun cannot be taken away. We as a society just have to face the fact that this person chose to do evil with his rights. You cannot legislate that away. This person should not be used to indict the rest of society that uses their guns in a legal manner.

Why not?

As you pointed out this guy was fully within his rights. The system allowed him to get the tools he needed to go out and murder or injure 50+ people. This doesn't sound like a problem to you? Why not just remove all restrictions on explosive devices? surely the actions of a few crazies who might blow up some buildings cannot justify restricting the rights of the rest of society!

Guns are things which can be used reasonably responsibly and safely. However they also allow you to go out and commit a large amount of murder in a short amount of time. If anything random crazies are a very good reason to restrict access to firearms.

Every shooting massacre I can think of has been committed by someone with a legally acquired firearm. columbine, Virginia tech, the Montreal school shootings, Norway.

reduce the ease of acquiring firearms and you will see fewer events like this. They could try and get a firearm on the black market but that requires knowledge of who to contact and is a barrier in of itself.

The fact that you have to tell the government when you buy a gun means there are already plenty of restrictions on getting a gun. We should not be basing our laws on the fact that some people go out and commit evil actions. You punish people who do wrong; you do NOT punish every citizen in an attempt to stop wrong from happening.

Night Strike wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Night Strike wrote:
Let's not forget, this shooter in Colorado had a completely legal right to own a gun. He had no history of mental illness (that's known/diagnosed), no criminal record, and is a US citizen. That means his right to own a gun cannot be taken away. We as a society just have to face the fact that this person chose to do evil with his rights. You cannot legislate that away. This person should not be used to indict the rest of society that uses their guns in a legal manner.

Why not?

As you pointed out this guy was fully within his rights. The system allowed him to get the tools he needed to go out and murder or injure 50+ people. This doesn't sound like a problem to you? Why not just remove all restrictions on explosive devices? surely the actions of a few crazies who might blow up some buildings cannot justify restricting the rights of the rest of society!

Guns are things which can be used reasonably responsibly and safely. However they also allow you to go out and commit a large amount of murder in a short amount of time. If anything random crazies are a very good reason to restrict access to firearms.

Every shooting massacre I can think of has been committed by someone with a legally acquired firearm. columbine, Virginia tech, the Montreal school shootings, Norway.

reduce the ease of acquiring firearms and you will see fewer events like this. They could try and get a firearm on the black market but that requires knowledge of who to contact and is a barrier in of itself.

The fact that you have to tell the government when you buy a gun means there are already plenty of restrictions on getting a gun. We should not be basing our laws on the fact that some people go out and commit evil actions. You punish people who do wrong; you do NOT punish every citizen in an attempt to stop wrong from happening.

Having to register your firearm is not a restriction on getting a firearm. I can buy an AK and go blow some people away, I'm sure the people shot will feel much better knowing it had been registered. Automatic and even semi automatic weapons should not be readily available to the public.

We do and should base laws on the fact that some people might do bad things. It's often very reasonable to restrict access to things that could cause great harm in the wrong hands. We restrict access to explosives because leaving it wide open would likely lead to allot of death. Despite the fact that with some training most people could probably handle them moderately safely.

I should be allowed unrestricted access to plague, Ebola, smallpox, and various recombinant vectors, plasmids, and restriction enzymes. The regulations associated with these are manifestly unfair.

Neoteny wrote:I should be allowed unrestricted access to plague, Ebola, smallpox, and various recombinant vectors, plasmids, and restriction enzymes. The regulations associated with these are manifestly unfair.

Now we're talking.

We just need to come up with a witty catchphrase and we can start the online petition.

Don't be plagued, buy a gun today.

notyou2 wrote:Don't be plagued, buy a gun today.

Don't be gunned, buy a plague today?

Ha! Biological weapons, I laugh at the thought! Ha ha ha.

How about a nuclear bomb? It's my right!

Smallpox doesn't kill people. Secondary infections kill people.

What do you do if you see a man with no skin running around your front yard? The smallpox isn't working fast enough. Hit him with a dose of hemorrhagic fever.

Neoteny wrote:Smallpox doesn't kill people. Secondary infections kill people.

What do you do if you see a man with no skin running around your front yard? The smallpox isn't working fast enough. Hit him with a dose of hemorrhagic fever.

Oh! But only if he did not ask permission to enter your property, or if he refused to leave your property upon being told to leave.


Having no skin is just not a good excuse.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Smallpox doesn't kill people. Secondary infections kill people.

What do you do if you see a man with no skin running around your front yard? The smallpox isn't working fast enough. Hit him with a dose of hemorrhagic fever.

Oh! But only if he did not ask permission to enter your property, or if he refused to leave your property upon being told to leave.


Having no skin is just not a good excuse.

Getcher gummint off me you damn, dirty dinosaur!

Guns don't kill people, homosexuals do