I think its time we have a REAL Yet Another Gun Thread for P&N

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
What's next? Home bazookas? It's like allowing gay marriage and therefore allowing marriage to an animal! ;-)

But seriously although I don't have it, I get the attraction. Especially to the technically inclined. I'm sure it can be fun.

But they wield an awful lot of power in such a compact, easy to hold and hide machine. I'm not sure as a species we are evolved enough to handle that kind of 'easy power' responsibly enough for general safety (for many-globally, not you guys). That's not to say there's something I believe can be done about it.

Ever wonder why the US in 1776 made guns a big deal for the people to own? Look no further than the Ukraine.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
While, hypothetically that's the case. The reality is most gun nuts are really gun whores. Bought and paid for. For example the government can restrict voting rights but as long as it's to restricted to non-whites (unless poor), and guns are left alone, no problems. Of course we fought the revolutionary war in large part due to no taxation without representation.

People like you are part of the problem. I don't see anybody calling to restrict voting for non-whites. People who can't prove they belong in this country and have the right to vote, sure. But hyperbole is often a substitute for facts from twats like you.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,786
6,188
126
People like you are part of the problem. I don't see anybody calling to restrict voting for non-whites. People who can't prove they belong in this country and have the right to vote, sure. But hyperbole is often a substitute for facts from twats like you.

You already have to prove it when you register to vote, voter ID just adds a layer of process to slow down and discourage minority voting by creating long lines that last long into the night, and gives biased parties an opportunity to deny vote outright by claiming "issues" with identification.
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
You already have to prove it when you register to vote, voter ID just adds a layer of process to slow down and discourage minority voting by creating long lines that last long into the night, and gives biased parties an opportunity to deny vote outright by claiming "issues" with identification.

That is where the fraud happens, the person voting is not the person who registered. This isn't difficult to understand.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,371
14
61
You already have to prove it when you register to vote, voter ID just adds a layer of process to slow down and discourage minority voting by creating long lines that last long into the night, and gives biased parties an opportunity to deny vote outright by claiming "issues" with identification.

Where exactly did Donald Duck register to vote?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,614
13,297
146
People like you are part of the problem. I don't see anybody calling to restrict voting for non-whites. People who can't prove they belong in this country and have the right to vote, sure. But hyperbole is often a substitute for facts from twats like you.

I'm not part of the problem. I have no issue with folks owning weapons. Protection of life and liberty has to start with the person. However this self-aggrandizing claim of being a check on government excess rings hollow when the only check provided is if they come after the guns in the first place. While simultaneously supporting restrictions in fundamental rights.


Not to mention the vocal minority crowing whenever an unarmed teen is shot.


As to voting laws, I know you are not stupid. Laws that fix problems that don't exist are not done to fix those problems. When the author of the bill says it's to carry a state for a particular politician why would you argue about the reasoning behind the bill? Even the GOP says they want less voter turnout.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
You already have to prove it when you register to vote, voter ID just adds a layer of process to slow down and discourage minority voting by creating long lines that last long into the night, and gives biased parties an opportunity to deny vote outright by claiming "issues" with identification.

And you wonder why we are against gun registration.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
As to voting laws, I know you are not stupid. Laws that fix problems that don't exist are not done to fix those problems. When the author of the bill says it's to carry a state for a particular politician why would you argue about the reasoning behind the bill? Even the GOP says they want less voter turnout.

Surely you're talking about laws that restrict cosmetic features on certain firearms? Or banning certain features on "assault rifles" that are used in a miniscule percentage of crime?

When your team stops being lying, conniving pieces of shit, then you'll have room to talk.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
And you wonder why we are against gun registration.

The left has no idea how much they look like the right. They're practically identical, they're just stupid in different ways.

The right wants to toughen laws on voting when it's proven that the problem is nearly nonexistent, and the "fix" won't change anything

The left wants to toughen laws on scary black guns when it's proven that the problem is nearly nonexistent, and the "fix" won't change anything.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
to be honest it doesn't matter, they have ruled that 'everyone' should be able to own guns, and a fed appellate court forced Illinois into allowing Concealed carry, so its judicially proven that we can own guns and carry them on our person in public



maybe we can make a thread about how separate but equal should be put back in because who cares what the SCOTUS said?

c'mon now

I don't think I implied nor should you infer from what I wrote that I'm at odds with the current state of SCOTUS decisions. I simply noted that there does exist two different versions of the 2nd Amendment and it would seem to me that the one ratified is what ought to be used as the basis for the SCOTUS thinking.
Since no other challenge seems to have been brought regarding my bit it must be a non issue. I don't have Nexus/Lexus anymore to research any of this so I will simply hush up and assume the obvious.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,371
14
61
Are you against voters having to register too?

You completely missed the point.

You are fine with making me jump through all kinds of hoops to exercise my right to bear arms but you are 100% against someone having to do anything beyond registering to vote. Don't you see how hypocritical you are being?

How about you at least need ID to register to vote? Would that be ok?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
And people like you wonder why gun owners aren't willing to meet your side halfway with sensible legislation. Here's a hint: it's because you're assholes.

Oh you and the name-calling.

Guns are owned either for entertainment (hobby) or fear (security).

They don't entertain me, and I'm not that afraid (of government, crime, etc.). I'm not the target market for that product.

Hell, it's basically like ALL OTHER PRODUCTS out there. Those are the two primary channels of marketing for just about everything. It either amuses you or makes you feel safe. Guns aren't special.

So I'm quite sure the reason that sensible legislation isn't on the table has nothing to do with me and more to do with the industry that would suffer profits and the fans of their products (for either reason).
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
You completely missed the point.

You are fine with making me jump through all kinds of hoops to exercise my right to bear arms but you are 100% against someone having to do anything beyond registering to vote. Don't you see how hypocritical you are being?

How about you at least need ID to register to vote? Would that be ok?


Hmmmmm Interesting!

Notwithstanding the fact that both issues you mention are Rights that the exercising of which manifest differently and under different criteria, I think I agree in principle with where you are going with this.

Is the threat of prosecution for perjury sufficient to enable a claimant the Right to vote? I think I'd be in favor of or at least not against a national voter registration card or some such. But, a phased in scenario.
It appears to me that only a citizen has the Right to vote who has registered to vote in the district they claim residency in. In some districts a single vote may change an election.
I think a voter ought to have some mental capacity to vote.
I think voting ought to be so easy that it could be done without leaving the home. I'd like to see 100% voter 'turnout'.

I think gun ownership ought to have some vetting process to insure against folks who ought not have weapons having them.
It won't stop nuts from doing nutty things nor overly impede non nuts from owning them but it may save one life as in my above voting thingi which may save one illegitimate vote from being cast.

We have the Right to own weapons and we have the Right to vote... both seem similar in some respects.
 

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,371
14
61
Hmmmmm Interesting!

Notwithstanding the fact that both issues you mention are Rights that the exercising of which manifest differently and under different criteria, I think I agree in principle with where you are going with this.

Is the threat of prosecution for perjury sufficient to enable a claimant the Right to vote? I think I'd be in favor of or at least not against a national voter registration card or some such. But, a phased in scenario.
It appears to me that only a citizen has the Right to vote who has registered to vote in the district they claim residency in. In some districts a single vote may change an election.
I think a voter ought to have some mental capacity to vote.
I think voting ought to be so easy that it could be done without leaving the home. I'd like to see 100% voter 'turnout'.

I think gun ownership ought to have some vetting process to insure against folks who ought not have weapons having them.
It won't stop nuts from doing nutty things nor overly impede non nuts from owning them but it may save one life as in my above voting thingi which may save one illegitimate vote from being cast.

We have the Right to own weapons and we have the Right to vote... both seem similar in some respects.

I don't think anyone wants crazy people or bad people to have guns. We all want to be safe. The question is how to do that without stepping on the rights of the 90% of people that are good.

There are how many millions of responsible gun owners? And these crazies ruin it for us when they kill innocent people. The problem is that there have always been crazy people that killed other people. Making it harder for everyone to get guns won't stop the crazies.

One thing gun owners need to get a handle on is securing their guns. Most of the guns the gangs have come from people not securing their guns. Sandy Hook also came from that. We gun owners need to take responsibility and make sure no gun is ever not secured. Making sure no one in your house can get to your guns without your permission needs to be 100%. These are things that as a group we fail at.

It needs to be a group effort but between the NRA being idiots and politicians being...well politicians, I don't see a group effort happening. Instead each side digs in their heels and prepares for battle.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I don't think anyone wants crazy people or bad people to have guns. We all want to be safe. The question is how to do that without stepping on the rights of the 90% of people that are good.

There are how many millions of responsible gun owners? And these crazies ruin it for us when they kill innocent people. The problem is that there have always been crazy people that killed other people. Making it harder for everyone to get guns won't stop the crazies.

One thing gun owners need to get a handle on is securing their guns. Most of the guns the gangs have come from people not securing their guns. Sandy Hook also came from that. We gun owners need to take responsibility and make sure no gun is ever not secured. Making sure no one in your house can get to your guns without your permission needs to be 100%. These are things that as a group we fail at.

It needs to be a group effort but between the NRA being idiots and politicians being...well politicians, I don't see a group effort happening. Instead each side digs in their heels and prepares for battle.

Sort of quoting someone... I prefer freedom and security and not security at the price of freedom and not freedom at the price of security... IOW, a balance that best meets both desires.

There will always be gun related deaths because we live in a society where we are free and free to own guns... A few thousand years ago folks had sticks and I'll wager there were stick related deaths... They didn't much know about Freedom per se... but they knew to be free they needed sticks... Those who wanted the prize of the hunter used his stick to take it but we've changed... now we use guns to take the prize... maybe in a few hundred years guns will be like sticks and phasers will be the norm... and Gort will circle the globe with his big boomer at the ready.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,614
13,297
146
Surely you're talking about laws that restrict cosmetic features on certain firearms? Or banning certain features on "assault rifles" that are used in a miniscule percentage of crime?

When your team stops being lying, conniving pieces of shit, then you'll have room to talk.

You seem to think I'm arguing something I'm not. A semi automatic rifle that fires .223 is no different from any other semiauto rifle firing .223 even if it has a bayonet lug.

But since you feel guns are check on the government and I'm assuming would like to reduce restrictions on them. Why do you want to increase restrictions on our main check on government power. Voting?
 

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
I don't think anyone wants crazy people or bad people to have guns. We all want to be safe. The question is how to do that without stepping on the rights of the 90% of people that are good.

There are how many millions of responsible gun owners? And these crazies ruin it for us when they kill innocent people. The problem is that there have always been crazy people that killed other people. Making it harder for everyone to get guns won't stop the crazies.
.

It seems that the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill is worth a little paperwork and a short wait time. The NRA will resist this to the end, and convince you that your rights are being horribly trampled. Also if a gun is refused to someone, that means one less sale, and the NRA can't have that.

But I don't see any way to get private psych records safely into a new national database.

And people are clever enough to figure out how to get one no matter what. Look at all the hoops we go through to keep guns from dangerous people. The task is impossible with the ubiquity of guns. Yay guns and the NRA!