It’s official, Donald Trump wants to finish off the Republican Party for good in 2024

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,066
8,894
136
(2) Guns can be used very effectively to hunt for food and survive in the wilderness. (also as protection from predators)

(3) Guns are extremely effective at killing people. (lol?) :oops:

About all I've got.


*(yes I understand your question may have been hypothetical!) ;)
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,090
5,283
126
Nope, well established research from tons of sources over decades.

It may be pointless to debate but that’s because the pro gun people are not interested in reality.
There is a constitutional right to bear arms. For whatever reason that means citizens are entitled to them. As a person for whom reason is a mode of operation you favor and by which you live your life, the fact remains that others have other ways of looking at things. I realize that I am logically better off, safety wise statistically without a gun and I don't at the moment keep one that I could defend myself with loaded and ready to go, but I prefer the risk of owning over not owning because the person who is doing the risk assessment is me. I prefer to own guns even if I am less safe because I like having them. I find them intrinsically to be like works of art. I value that pleasure above a theoretical statistic. I don't consider my risk to be very high in comparison to the satisfaction I get from owning them.

Also, one person's logic may not be another's. Here is another person's logic:

PS this was written before the last several posts and I failed, apparently to hit post.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
36,307
16,010
146
Guns are ineffective at the intended purpose of keeping a centralized government from becoming tyrannical. That’s why we need rocket launchers, chemical weapons, and nukes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
28,066
8,894
136
Guns are ineffective at the intended purpose of keeping a centralized government from becoming tyrannical. That’s why we need rocket launchers, chemical weapons, and nukes.

You think Quake rocket-jumping actually works IRL ?!? :D
(without blowing off your legs?)


 

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,925
3,866
136
Why are you surprised neither side was going to change
You don't have to meet in the middle when confronting people who deny reality.

The side that believes reality (Guns are pure harm to society and need limits) shouldn't change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pens1566

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,453
1,785
126
Guns are ineffective at the intended purpose of keeping a centralized government from becoming tyrannical. That’s why we need rocket launchers, chemical weapons, and nukes.
First, we have no history of guns keeping a centralized government from becoming tyrannical. So your point is moot. Second, most people who buy guns do so for the recreational value. So whats your point?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,453
1,785
126
All I would like is for someone to help me fill this out:
Cars:
Person A: cars kill a lot of people every year and that is bad.

Person B: that’s true, but I think it’s worth it because cars also allow people and goods to move around quickly.

Guns:
Person A: guns kill a lot of people every year and that is bad.

Person B: that’s true, but I think it’s worth it because guns also…[YOUR ENTRY HERE]

So far I’ve seen ‘guns are fun’. Anything else?
What else do you need?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,453
1,785
126
It is the most common diversion tactic. People aren’t buying cars for self defense, and cars aren’t marketed as self defense weapons. It’s just feels all the way down with a side order of poor logic.

One is designed to end life, and it’s great at it.

the other is designed for transport, and it’s great at it.
If you think thats the only reason for a gun purchase, you clearly dont understand. Thats your bad, not mine. When I bought my Tec9 it had nothing to do with self defense. It had to do with how fun it was to shoot.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,319
1,707
126
If you think thats the only reason for a gun purchase, you clearly dont understand. Thats your bad, not mine. When I bought my Tec9 it had nothing to do with self defense. It had to do with how fun it was to shoot.
Yeah....I own a bunch of guns and rarely ever get them out. I like shooting pieces of paper and making them go "pew pew pew". I pay taxes so cops better kill the bad guys for me. It's their job.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
7,930
6,536
136
Yeah....I own a bunch of guns and rarely ever get them out. I like shooting pieces of paper and making them go "pew pew pew". I pay taxes so cops better kill the bad guys for me. It's their job.
I own a number of guns, I enjoy going to the range and shooting, including an AR-15 which is fun to shoot, but mostly handguns. Ammo prices have curtailed that a bit, but I stay in practice.

Some are for home defense, some or carry defense (I have a carry permit), and I carry. My wife has her own guns, a carry permit, and she carries, same with my daughter, and oldest grandson. Younger grandson will be applying for his carry permit when he turns 21 next year, but is completing the required training before his birthday. He will have his paperwork ready to hand in on his 21st birthday.

That said, purchasing guns is too easy, and the system for approval is flawed. Dylan Roof is one example, after 3 days of no response on his background check, the store could legally sell him the gun.

My state has a pretty robust system to keep many from buying a handgun. To purchase a handgun in NC, you either need a PPP (pistol purchase permit) which takes 2 - 3 weeks for the background check, or a Concealed Handgun Permit, which takes about 3 - 4 months to get. These are both obtained through the local sheriff.

Long guns, including AR's don't fall under this, and approval is done via a phone call by the store, the same system that failed with Dylan Roof.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
36,307
16,010
146
First, we have no history of guns keeping a centralized government from becoming tyrannical. So your point is moot.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The intent of the 2A was exactly that.

The cool part about the 2A link I provided earlier, other than showing you how your bias plays into interpretation, is that there's some good info in there.

Amdt2.2 Historical Background on Second Amendment

Second, most people who buy guns do so for the recreational value. So whats your point?
Ok, so nothing to do with the 2A?

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.

If you think thats the only reason for a gun purchase, you clearly dont understand. Thats your bad, not mine.
Your personal reason for purchasing a firearm doesn't change the reason they're designed and manufactured.

Let's look back at your popular diversionary topic, cars. People buy cars for differing reasons: Work, travel, recreation. It doesn't change the fact that it's a car, or what it was designed for.

When I bought my Tec9 it had nothing to do with self defense. It had to do with how fun it was to shoot.
Feels, all the way down.

Blackagnst1's 2A would read: "A well recreationed populace, being necessary to facilitate the passions of said populace, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
 

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,738
4,124
106
There is a constitutional right to bear arms.
Bullshit.

There is a constitutional right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which by definition is a group oriented social activity.


There is no constutional right to purchase the tool to murder all your neighbors while living alone in your basement.



The right wing crazies have chosen to make law from the bench, and it is time to end it.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
36,307
16,010
146
Bullshit.

There is a constitutional right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which by definition is a group oriented social activity.


There is no constutional right to purchase the tool to murder all your neighbors while living alone in your basement.



The right wing crazies have chosen to make law from the bench, and it is time to end it.
And as Moonie has stated before, his right to bear arms is bore from fear of his fellow americans, not a centralized government oppressing it's people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,738
4,124
106
I also have a right to rent a nuke from Discount Dans rent-a-nuke.


Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

I DEMAND my right to rent-to-own my own personal nuclear weapon, in line with my 2nd amendment right to bear arms.


Personally, I am wanting to rent the W-9000 dial a mushroom, that lets me select from 1 kiloton to 300 megatons. It makes a little black hole when it goes off! Become sometimes, you just absolutely need to make an impression! DON'T TREAD ON ME ASSHOLE! Just in case, you know. I can assure you I will use it responsibly.

Also, the w-9000 series has the neutron variant, and the extra hard variant that contaminates for a million years. I am getting the extra hard variant. I get hard just thinking about it.


A nuclear society, is a polite society. A nuclear society is a free society. A nuclear society lets me worship God in the manner he intended for me. In the manner he personally revealed to me as his most Holy Prophet. My neighbors know if they even think about poking their nose into my Holy affairs we all going to the final judgement ontop of a mushroom. As Jesus intended. One nation, one family, under God. God bless America.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
7,550
2,788
136
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The intent of the 2A was exactly that.

The cool part about the 2A link I provided earlier, other than showing you how your bias plays into interpretation, is that there's some good info in there.

Amdt2.2 Historical Background on Second Amendment



Ok, so nothing to do with the 2A?

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.
Ah so 2A also just misinterpreted like 1A. Well only accepting the parts they want
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
78,569
37,547
136
Ah so 2A also just misinterpreted like 1A. Well only accepting the parts they want
I think it's more that the constitution was made vague and open to interpretation on purpose. That led to policy outcomes that conservatives didn't like though so they decided that a better solution was for judges to break out a ouija board and play amateur historian to try and figure out what someone in 1791 thought about flamethrowers.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
70,090
5,283
126
Bullshit.

There is a constitutional right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Which by definition is a group oriented social activity.


There is no constutional right to purchase the tool to murder all your neighbors while living alone in your basement.



The right wing crazies have chosen to make law from the bench, and it is time to end it.
That is your opinion. The Supreme Court says otherwise. What I said is a fact. What you said is a wish. When your wish becomes a fact I will agree that the right for me to own firearms as a citizen only no longer exists.

Please, in the meantime don’t go around trying to take peoples guns based on the idea that your opinion rules.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY