• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NRA in turmoil, gun manufacturers going bankrupt, Thanks Trump

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
But you are famous for "fuck guns and the pussies who carry them" statements. You are very open about wanting a complete and total gun ban. You don't care if it's unconstitutional, and you don't care if what you propose will actually get guns out of the hands of those who would use them to murder. You don't care if a gun ban is even possible.

Exactly what about your position are gun owners not supposed to fight? The part where you blame us for the actions of the few who misuse guns? The part where you want to tear down the 2A without the votes to do so? The part where you want us to disarm us even though over 99.92% of guns in America are never used to hurt anyone? The part where your plan does nothing to disarm those who actually use guns criminally?

You didn't come to the debate looking for a reasonable compromise. You really did come with a fascist's attitude on the subject.
You are a pussy. You are so fearful that someone will kill you in fucking idaho or where ever you fucking live that you put everyone else at risk by owning a gun.

"Im a good gun owner" Yeah? You are a fucking human. That means you are volatile and you make mistakes. So yeah you are a pussy.

my position is life you dummy. You will always lose.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
But you are famous for "fuck guns and the pussies who carry them" statements. You are very open about wanting a complete and total gun ban. You don't care if it's unconstitutional, and you don't care if what you propose will actually get guns out of the hands of those who would use them to murder. You don't care if a gun ban is even possible.

Exactly what about your position are gun owners not supposed to fight? The part where you blame us for the actions of the few who misuse guns? The part where you want to tear down the 2A without the votes to do so? The part where you want us to disarm us even though over 99.92% of guns in America are never used to hurt anyone? The part where your plan does nothing to disarm those who actually use guns criminally?

You didn't come to the debate looking for a reasonable compromise. You really did come with a fascist's attitude on the subject.
Your notion of a compromise on this subject fascinates me; how would it work, exactly?

58 people died during the Las Vegas shooting; how many of those people would be willing to save before you stopped wanting to accept restrictions?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Paladin, you need to make your mind up on this.

If you believe that it's acceptable to restrict the arms that a person can posses, it means the right to own guns isn't absolute or guaranteed. Therefore, by your own logic, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to impose further restrictions on gun ownership.
I never said it was absolute, but it is guaranteed. And I've explained many times (which you seem unable to read or simply ignore) that any future gun regulation you want to impose has to have at least some evidence that it will work. And proposed new gun restrictions cannot introduce undue burdens on the law-abiding enjoying their lawful, constitutional rights. Nor can you place undue burdens on the right to self-defense. The California court that found their magazine limit unconstitutional said as much.

You can't willy-nilly ban things just because a small percentage of users (far less than 1%) misuse them criminally, especially if the right to have them is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

My mind is pretty much made up on this. If you have some evidence that you could actually accomplish a total gun ban and actually get the guns out of criminal hands I would listen. I doubt you ever will. And it better be some damn compelling evidence, because you are risking our lives by disarming the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners and leaving them at the mercy of any criminals who you can't disarm.

And I'm sure that would then skew the oft quoted statistic a bit. It would change to something like "You are now 100% likely to be the victim of an armed attacker because you were talked into giving up your gun. But rest in the knowledge that it's now impossible for you to accidentally shoot someone."
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Your notion of a compromise on this subject fascinates me; how would it work, exactly?

58 people died during the Las Vegas shooting; how many of those people would be willing to save before you stopped wanting to accept restrictions?
How will you get guns away from criminals/sick/evil individuals bent on murder? Until you can answer that with something more than a plan to take guns away from the law-abiding in the vain hope that the murders will follow suit, well, there really is nothing left to further debate.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
You are a pussy. You are so fearful that someone will kill you in fucking idaho or where ever you fucking live that you put everyone else at risk by owning a gun.

"Im a good gun owner" Yeah? You are a fucking human. That means you are volatile and you make mistakes. So yeah you are a pussy.

my position is life you dummy. You will always lose.
How will you get guns away from criminals/sick/evil individuals bent on murder? Until you can answer that with something more than a plan to take guns away from the law-abiding in the vain hope that the murders will follow suit, well, there really is nothing left to further debate.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
I never said it was absolute, but it is guaranteed. And I've explained many times (which you seem unable to read or simply ignore) that any future gun regulation you want to impose has to have at least some evidence that it will work. And proposed new gun restrictions cannot introduce undue burdens on the law-abiding enjoying their lawful, constitutional rights. Nor can you place undue burdens on the right to self-defense. The California court that found their magazine limit unconstitutional said as much.
Let's start again:

Do you believe that citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?
If not, how does that fit into the Second Amendment that allows you to bear arms?


If you have some evidence that you could actually accomplish a total gun ban and actually get the guns out of criminal hands I would listen. I doubt you ever will. And it better be some damn compelling evidence, because you are risking our lives by disarming the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners and leaving them at the mercy of any criminals who you can't disarm.
There is plenty of evidence in every other modern, developed nation in the world. You know this already, so I have no idea why you keep asking this question.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
How will you get guns away from criminals/sick/evil individuals bent on murder? Until you can answer that with something more than a plan to take guns away from the law-abiding in the vain hope that the murders will follow suit, well, there really is nothing left to further debate.
The same way that we deal with all criminal activity.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,522
3,909
136
And a 12-gauge slug out of either weapon does exactly the same damn thing. Most anti-gunners have illogical hang-ups over the color, grip and style of a weapon as if that's what makes it dangerous. The finger on the trigger and the mind behind the hand is what makes a weapon dangerous.

The only new gun law that will ever make folks safe is a complete ban, which would be unconstitutional and impossible to even achieve. Even then, what would stop someone bent on committing the crime of murder from using an illegal gun?

I happen to agree with much of what you say from a logical point of view. But to clear things up as far as what I was referring to, I need to ask you if you recognize the fact that certain styles of shotguns are meant for certain jobs that take advantage of the differing features that are designed into them that are intended for the unique circumstances of which they are dressed up for?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
I happen to agree with much of what you say from a logical point of view. But to clear things up as far as what I was referring to, I need to ask you if you recognize the fact that certain styles of shotguns are meant for certain jobs that take advantage of the differing features that are designed into them that are intended for the unique circumstances of which they are dressed up for?
Im pretty sure a magazine fed shotgun will kill more people then a pump shotgun. It confuses no one. Yet they dont care. They want to hold and look at thier poser call of duty gun even if it means many people die.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I happen to agree with much of what you say from a logical point of view. But to clear things up as far as what I was referring to, I need to ask you if you recognize the fact that certain styles of shotguns are meant for certain jobs that take advantage of the differing features that are designed into them that are intended for the unique circumstances of which they are dressed up for?
Yes, barrel length and choke tube mostly. Color, grip and action type have very little to do with it. That "tactical" shotgun I posted a photo of could be very useful in taking deer with a 12-gauge slug with it's (probably) open choke. If you swapped out the barrel for one around 28" with a modified or full choke you can now hunt birds.

But we are debating semantics, mostly. It's the brain and morals of the finger on the trigger that I fear far more than the gun itself. Give a responsible person a bit of training and they are able to safely use just about any small arms, even those scary black ones.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Im pretty sure a magazine fed shotgun will kill more people then a pump shotgun. It confuses no one. Yet they dont care. They want to hold and look at thier poser call of duty gun even if it means many people die.
Again, debating semantics because you can't address the actual constitutionally of what you want to do.

And the only thing you are sure of is that you get a hard-on from thinking you are actually doing something about gun violence by vilifying those who don't commit it.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,538
5,729
136
Again, how do you plan to get all those guns away from the American population? Remember, there are more guns in this country than there are men, women and children combined. This country also has plenty of "...from my cold, dead hands!" bumper stickers, to boot. And "Molon labe" means "come and get them" in Greek. We have a cultural ideal that civilian gun ownership = freedom, and it's not so far-fetch and crazy as the anti-gunners would make you think.

So, keep operating on the idea that "better" gun control will do anything more than disarm the already law-abiding who aren't even the problem. I call that a lie and wishful thinking, at best. At worst, it will make criminals out of 35-40% of American's with a pen-stroke. Good luck dealing with the fallout from that.
You have to start somewhere -- pretending that there's nothing you can do is a surefire way to make the problem worse. Just because someone could theoretically get a second-hand gun doesn't mean you should ignore the chance to stop a would-be mass shooter from acquiring a brand new gun, especially if it's a semi-auto rifle whose uses for hunting and self-defense are questionable at best.

(On this note: I've noticed that the running themes among gun lovers tend to be apathy and feigned helplessness: above all else, we must do nothing.)

I also reject the idea that civilian gun ownership is inherently linked to freedom. It has played a part in American culture, but the role of the gun has evolved from responsible, targeted use to a neurotic obsession fuelled in part by a gun industry that stokes irrational fears and bribes Republicans into inaction. You're convinced you'll be the hero who stops a mass shooting when it's statistically more likely that you'll be the one that's shot, or that your gun will create a tragedy at home.

If we want to reduce gun violence, we have to stop treating gun ownership as if it's some kind of wonderful thing, like you're less of a person without one. The NRA's apparent decline helps with that, but so would more sensible gun control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Paladin, a big part of the problem here is that you lack the intellectual capacity to actually discuss this properly.

You go on and on about what is written in the constitution, before complaining that other people are debating semantics.

You don't seem to realise that finding different ways of interpreting the constitution is essentially a game of semantics.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
You have to start somewhere -- pretending that there's nothing you can do is a surefire way to make the problem worse. Just because someone could theoretically get a second-hand gun doesn't mean you should ignore the chance to stop a would-be mass shooter from acquiring a brand new gun, especially if it's a semi-auto rifle whose uses for hunting and self-defense are questionable at best.

(On this note: I've noticed that the running themes among gun lovers tend to be apathy and feigned helplessness: above all else, we must do nothing.)

I also reject the idea that civilian gun ownership is inherently linked to freedom. It has played a part in American culture, but the role of the gun has evolved from responsible, targeted use to a neurotic obsession fuelled in part by a gun industry that stokes irrational fears and bribes Republicans into inaction. You're convinced you'll be the hero who stops a mass shooting when it's statistically more likely that you'll be the one that's shot, or that your gun will create a tragedy at home.

If we want to reduce gun violence, we have to stop treating gun ownership as if it's some kind of wonderful thing, like you're less of a person without one. The NRA's apparent decline helps with that, but so would more sensible gun control.
I reject the idea that gun control has to start somewhere and it starts with the law-abiding. And that HOPEFULLY we can someday get guns away from the criminal/sick/evil folks by doing so. And that some new law will magically stop those bent on murder. It's a pipe-dream and will work about as well as alcohol and drug prohibition have, and those aren't even protected by The Constitution.

How about we cancel free speech in an effort to curb hate speech? Don't you care about bullied children??? Let's give Trump the right to jail anyone who says something he doesn't like and hope he uses that power well. <---That's how ridiculous your plan sounds to me.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Paladin, a big part of the problem here is that you lack the intellectual capacity to actually discuss this properly.

You go on and on about what is written in the constitution, before complaining that other people are debating semantics.

You don't seem to realise that finding different ways of interpreting the constitution is essentially a game of semantics.
Thanks for the insult. You sure are slowly winning me over to your way of thinking.

Yup, it is a game of interpretation. It's a game of respecting the intent of the law and what it is trying to accomplish rather than finding a way to technically comply with the law and otherwise skirting what it was written to prevent.

And, as of now, the courts and will of the people are against killing the 2A. So, if working within the current system you can propose new laws with some kind of evidence they will be effective then go ahead and do so. But I cannot support what I believe to be unconstitutional.

I mean, holy fuck, because you can't find the word "gun" in the 2A you don't think it give citizens gun rights? And I'm the stupid one? Pot, meet kettle.

If that makes me intellectually substandard in your mind then maybe I should wear that as a badge of honor.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,538
5,729
136
I reject the idea that gun control has to start somewhere and it starts with the law-abiding. And that HOPEFULLY we can someday get guns away from the criminal/sick/evil folks by doing so. And that some new law will magically stop those bent on murder. It's a pipe-dream and will work about as well as alcohol and drug prohibition have, and those aren't even protected by The Constitution.

How about we cancel free speech in an effort to curb hate speech? Don't you care about bullied children??? Let's give Trump the right to jail anyone who says something he doesn't like and hope he uses that power well. <---That's how ridiculous your plan sounds to me.
I love how you claim these laws won't work when there are countries around the world where stricter gun control works. And the simple reality is that laws and regulations seldom have immediate effects; I have not said that this will "magically" stop murder. The point is to gradually reduce the number of guns that fall into the wrong hands, and to rethink the wisdom of allowing guns designed expressly for killing humans en masse. Think of it this way: you don't reject environmental regulations because they don't completely eliminate pollution, so why would you toss out gun legislation because it doesn't completely solve all gun crime?

Also, I have to clarify something: I, and at least some others here, aren't arguing for a total ban on guns. You will stop arguing as if we all are. Is that understood?
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,390
670
126
Yup, it is a game of interpretation. It's a game of respecting the intent of the law and what it is trying to accomplish rather than finding a way to technically comply with the law and otherwise skirting what it was written to prevent.

And, as of now, the courts and will of the people are against killing the 2A. So, if working within the current system you can propose new laws with some kind of evidence they will be effective then go ahead and do so. But I cannot support what I believe to be unconstitutional.

I mean, holy fuck, because you can't find the word "gun" in the 2A you don't think it give citizens gun rights? And I'm the stupid one? Pot, meet kettle.

If that makes me intellectually substandard in your mind then maybe I should wear that as a badge of honor.
You realize that the 2nd Amendment only applied against the federal government? It was only through incorporation via 14th Amendent that this changed. it would be stupid to think that ALL possible regulation is now barred by either the state or federal level. And even Scalia admitted that there was a line. So all the inventions improving the guns since then are all under subjective review.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
21,390
13,697
136
Again, debating semantics because you can't address the actual constitutionally of what you want to do.

And the only thing you are sure of is that you get a hard-on from thinking you are actually doing something about gun violence by vilifying those who don't commit it.
It isn’t semantics. There isn’t a god damn word in the constitution that says specifically what kind of arms one can bear.

Do you agree on this?

Look in my ideal world you would be limited to a capacity of 2 rounds before having to reload by inserting each round manually one at a time without the aid of any device. Hand gun, long gun, shot gun all would be treated the same. After an extensive back ground check and psych evaluation since all gun owners are good until they aren’t.

But guess what you could still defend yourself, hunt, go sport shooting, etc even with those limitations. It would just be much harder to gun down large numbers of your fellow citizens.
 
Last edited:

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
How about we ban alcohol instead of guns. Think of how many lives that would save. Far, far, far more than banning guns could ever hope to. And then there are drugs. The overwhelming majority of crimes in this country involve drugs and/or alcohol in some manner. The negative effects of drugs and alcohol cost society in so many ways, and kills so damn many, but we must not care about those lives.

And, yes, I know we currently do quite a bit to educate people about the dangers, but it's must not be enough considering how many they still kill. Every drink you take or joint you smoke is with hands stained by the blood of the innocent.

(Now I'm trolling, at least, kinda.)
 
Last edited:

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
21,390
13,697
136
How about we ban alcohol instead of guns. Think of how many lives that would save. Far, far, far more than banning guns could ever hope to. And then there are drugs. The overwhelming majority of crimes in this country involve drugs and/or alcohol in some manner. The negative effects of drugs and alcohol cost society in so many ways, and kills so damn many, but we must not care about those lives.

And, yes, I know we currently do quite a bit to educate people about the dangers, but it's must not be enough considering how many they still kill. Every drink you take or joint you smoke is with hands stained by the blood of the innocent.

(Now I'm trolling, at least, kinda.)
So when you can’t honestly discuss the issue you resort to trolling.
 

Stryke1983

Member
Jan 1, 2016
176
268
136
How about we ban alcohol instead of guns. Think of how many lives that would save. Far, far, far more than banning guns could ever hope to. And then there are drugs. The overwhelming majority of crimes in this country involve drugs and/or alcohol in some manner. The negative effects of drugs and alcohol cost society in so many ways, and kills so damn many, but we must not care about those lives.

And, yes, I know we currently do quite a bit to educate people about the dangers, but it's must not be enough considering how many they still kill. Every drink you take or joint you smoke is with hands stained by the blood of the innocent.

(Now I'm trolling, at least, kinda.)
Lets dismiss some false equivalencies commonly used.

Alcohol does not have the sole purpose of killing things. It doesn't pose anywhere near the same direct risk to others as guns. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.

Drugs do not have the sole purpose of killing things. They do not pose the same risk to others as guns. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.

Vehicles do not have the sole purpose of killing things. They pose a much greater risk to others, compared to the previous examples, but still not to the same level as guns. However that risk is countered by the fact that they are vital to modern society. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.

Gun are designed to kill or practice killing. They pose an extremely high risk to others (highlighted by suffering from a problem that is not repeated anywhere else in the first world,while simultaneously, regarding mass civilian ownership, providing zero benefit to society. Regulation is heavily opposed, by default, by a tyranny of the minority. The US does not have any domestic or foreign enemies that would be hindered by mass civilian ownership of firearms. Ironically, the closest thing the US has in that scenario is the extremist right.

The risk to reward scenario is so heavily weighted to one side that there is no logical argument that mass civilian ownership is a benefit to US society. Attempting to argue that we should ban/restrict other things, like alcohol or smoking, is a distraction technique. Partly as they are unrelated issues, partly as the same people advocating gun control also support targeting the other factors involved in crime. Gun control isn't a one stop fix, it's merely an attempt to help alleviate a symptom, while also working on other ways to reduce the causes, such as mental health, education, poverty, etc.

So, as there isn't a logical argument to it, the anti-gun control people resort to the constitution as if it's a sacred document that should be followed regardless of a law's merit. Despite that the fact that they are justifying gun ownership via an amendment, which is a change/addition in itself, and there are multiple examples of them being added or removed as situations change. The Constitution is a set of guidelines to help encourage a healthy, safe and prosperous society. It is not a reason in itself to not do something. If it was then we'd still have slavery, because god forbid you change your mind about something or have a situation change.

People who try to justify mass civilian ownership of firearms need to take a long, hard look at themselves. You are damaging your own society, your own country, and while making excuses to try and pretend that you are doing the right thing. If you aren't willing to give up your toys, at least be honest about the reasons for it.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I love how you claim these laws won't work when there are countries around the world where stricter gun control works. And the simple reality is that laws and regulations seldom have immediate effects; I have not said that this will "magically" stop murder. The point is to gradually reduce the number of guns that fall into the wrong hands, and to rethink the wisdom of allowing guns designed expressly for killing humans en masse. Think of it this way: you don't reject environmental regulations because they don't completely eliminate pollution, so why would you toss out gun legislation because it doesn't completely solve all gun crime?

Also, I have to clarify something: I, and at least some others here, aren't arguing for a total ban on guns. You will stop arguing as if we all are. Is that understood?
Understood, kemosahbee.

Now please understand that for you to make any kind of case that we need a particular new piece of gun legislation, you have to prove several things: That there is a need for it. That it is some evidence it will accomplish it's goal. That it will not violate the constitution. That will not place overly burdensome restrictions on citizens legally enjoying a legal activity or right. And that it will not place overly burdensome restrictions on their right to self-defense.

You've done none of those things. Is that understood?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
It isn’t semantics. There isn’t a god damn word in the constitution that says specifically what kind of arms one can bear.

Do you agree on this?

Look in my ideal world you would be limited to a capacity of 2 rounds before having to reload by inserting each round manually one at a time without the aid of any device. Hand gun, long gun, shot gun all would be treated the same. After an extensive back ground check and psych evaluation since all gun owners are good until they aren’t.

But guess what you could still defend yourself, hunt, go sport shooting, etc even with those limitations. It would just be much harder to gun down large numbers of your fellow citizens.
As soon as you figure out a way to enforce that on the folks who are bent on murder I'm in.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY