Shooting at Jacksonville Madden tournament

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
You're right on the cars, I'm not aware of the sex thing, but opiods....I wouldn't list that one....legal, but not something you can pickup at your local drug store OTC.

I wanted varied examples. It was stilly to think there were no examples. He must not have thought very hard.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,670
146
I wanted varied examples. It was stilly to think there were no examples. He must not have thought very hard.

Easy brad, there's examples, the opiate one isn't really an accurate one. You could use alcohol, as there's a black market for that....anyone under 21 indulging in ethanol partakes in the "black market"
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Easy brad, there's examples, the opiate one isn't really an accurate one. You could use alcohol, as there's a black market for that....anyone under 21 indulging in ethanol partakes in the "black market"

That is just an example that moves further down the spectrum. There are limits and controls to the access, just as there are with opiate pain killers. Like I said, there are plenty of examples, but, Opiates fits as one here. The point was that just because things are legal does not mean there is not a black market. Even though you have controls, there may still be a black market.

Also, I think my tone here might be being misunderstood. Its a text format so its hard to tell how someone is trying to say something beyond the explicit text. I just thought the person was wrong and that they did not try very hard.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,670
146
That is just an example that moves further down the spectrum. There are limits and controls to the access, just as there are with opiate pain killers. Like I said, there are plenty of examples, but, Opiates fits as one here. The point was that just because things are legal does not mean there is not a black market. Even though you have controls, there may still be a black market.

Also, I think my tone here might be being misunderstood. Its a text format so its hard to tell how someone is trying to say something beyond the explicit text. I just thought the person was wrong and that they did not try very hard.

Yea, I understand why you're saying it. The alcohol one stands out more than most due to the amendments that went along with it. Guess I should have included that in my original reply.

Also, PBS did a good docu-series on prohibition and the 100 years leading up to it. Basically a combination of Evangelicals and racism that fueled it.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Yea, I understand why you're saying it. The alcohol one stands out more than most due to the amendments that went along with it. Guess I should have included that in my original reply.

Also, PBS did a good docu-series on prohibition and the 100 years leading up to it. Basically a combination of Evangelicals and racism that fueled it.

I may have seen it. I love history so I have watched quite a bit. That is where the term bootlegger and baptist came from. Two groups that would at first appear to have nothing in common work together for two very different reasons to get the same outcome.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
What legal thing are you referring to that has a black market? I'm having a hard time coming up with something
Cigarettes
Liquor

There's all kinds of black markets for legal things; it's a way to avoid taxes.

Fern
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Cigarettes
Liquor

There's all kinds of black markets for legal things; it's a way to avoid taxes.

Fern
There's a black market for cigarettes and for liquor? Really? I was not aware of this. Proof?

The opiates thing is not really a fair comparison. There is no black market for appropriate use of opiates. There is a black market for in-appropriate use. Its akin to sex. Black market for hookers. No black market for wives and girlfriends.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,670
146
There's a black market for cigarettes and for liquor? Really? I was not aware of this. Proof?

The opiates thing is not really a fair comparison. There is no black market for appropriate use of opiates. There is a black market for in-appropriate use. Its akin to sex. Black market for hookers. No black market for wives and girlfriends.

New Hampshire has low "sin" taxes, very low compared to neighboring states. People go there to get their smokes and booze. You're supposed to tell your resident state about it, but I dont know anyone who does.

Also, about 20 years ago, there was still no alcohol sales on Sundays around here, so there were people who would buy cases of beer on Saturday, and sell them to people for $1 each on Sunday.

Yea, avoiding taxes is like a national past time for Americans.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I don't support making murder legal at all. I just pointed out that murder being illegal (banning murder) hasn't stopped the killings. Why would a gun law making the weapon of choice illegal do anything to stop gun violence. That last assault weapons ban did nothing. If I'm intent on murder and have no legal access to a gun, it won't be much of a problem to steal one or get one on the black market.

What is with this 'all or nothing' argument? Once again for this argument to make any real sense you would have to expect that legalizing murder would not cause there to be any more murders. We don't have to stop all of something to make it worth having a law against it, if it reduces the number significantly it is a success.

So if you want to stop the gun violence by restricting access to guns, go all the way and abolish the 2A.

That is stupid. I can make the exact same argument in reverse, with the same amount of logic. If you can't stop gun violence why not sell nuclear weapons at Wal-Mart? Herp-d-derp. If we can't do it all, then why do it at all?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
What is with this 'all or nothing' argument? Once again for this argument to make any real sense you would have to expect that legalizing murder would not cause there to be any more murders. We don't have to stop all of something to make it worth having a law against it, if it reduces the number significantly it is a success.



That is stupid. I can make the exact same argument in reverse, with the same amount of logic. If you can't stop gun violence why not sell nuclear weapons at Wal-Mart? Herp-d-derp. If we can't do it all, then why do it at all?

My arguments make no sense and you warp what I said into selling nuclear weapons at Walmart? Fuck off.

Using 2013 numbers from wikipedia, the National Research Council and US CDC data, chosen at random and not cherry picked, 99.97%+ of the guns in civilian hands were not used to hurt anyone in 2013. Not used for murder, suicide, justified shootings, accidental shootings or even BubbaJay accidentally shooting himself in the foot. Those are hard and firm numbers that I've been posting for at least two years and keep repeating over and over again, but NOBODY EVER WANTS TO ADDRESS THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T FIT THE ANTI-GUN NARRATIVE. And, unless 2013 was some kind of an anomaly, I expect every year is pretty darn similar.

I wish cars or cigarettes or roller skates or playground equipment had a similar safety record. I know you think all those items serve a purpose, and believe that a gun does not, and are only an instrument of wicked, evil death, BUT BELIEVING SOMETHING IRRATIONAL DOESN'T MAKE IT FACT. It's actually ignoring the fact that guns are used safely and responsibly the overwhelming majority of the time.

Yes, I'm yelling. Yes, I'm tired of people twisting my argument so they can call it irrational. Yes, I'm tired of being insulted and having it inferred that I am responsible for the slaughter of innocent children. Yes, I love my family and care about the lives of others. BUT, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE WE NEED TO RESTRICT GUNS FURTHER BECAUSE OUR CURRENT LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE ONLY 99.97%+ EFFECTIVE.

What I'd rather see is you join responsible gun owners in advocating for better gun education, even if it's just teaching "if you see a gun, no touch, leave the room, tell an adult." I'm already a member of organizations that advocate for such (not the NRA) and have taught all my children that important lesson.

I also raised my kids to be responsible, empathetic adults who can understand the pain of others, and that violence is only appropriate if you are forced to defend yourself and have zero other options. This is how we are going to further impact the gun violence problem. The dream of being able to pass more laws or restrict more types of guns for a quick fix is only going to effect those of us who aren't the problem. Unless you have the votes to overturn the 2A and deny law-abiding citizens the ownership of guns as currently allowed under the law. Then I guess I'll have to suffer with being disarmed while the criminal/sick/evil laugh at your new laws and bans.

Hell, you're probably not even reading by now (I do tend to ramble.) Nothing I say is going to sway your emotional belief that you are right in this debate and I am an evil person who loves guns more than the lives of the innocent. I'll never be able to convince you there are no quick fixes for man's inhumanity to his fellow man. At least be comforted that most people are good at heart, and have no wish to hurt others.

But, if you continue to demand the law-abiding who aren't the problem be disarmed, well, again, fuck off.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
My arguments make no sense and you warp what I said into selling nuclear weapons at Walmart? Fuck off.

I'm not fucking off. You (the plural you) is going to have to deal with me. My Walmart argument is attempting to point out that you are using an reductio ad absurdum argument. My argument is intentionally absurd, because your argument is equally absurd. You are trying to say that because removing guns will not stop all murder there is no point in doing it at all. By taking your argument an equal distance in the opposite direction we can see how absurd the idea is.

Using 2013 numbers from wikipedia, the National Research Council and US CDC data, chosen at random and not cherry picked, 99.97%+ of the guns in civilian hands were not used to hurt anyone in 2013.

Yes, I agree that most firearms are never used to harm another person. I own several myself. It is that 0.03% that is the problem. I am not denying that. What I am saying is that 0.03% of guns can do so much damage that even that small amount is unacceptable.

I wish cars or cigarettes or roller skates or playground equipment had a similar safety record.

I got curios, so I did some googling. Per the Roller Skating Magazine around 100 million people roller skate per year, and there is only around 24 thousand injuries reported yearly due to roller skating related incidents, meaning 99.976% of roller skates never cause a serious injury. That puts us in the same category as firearms. I'm not really sure that this advances our argument in any way, but I found it interesting.

Yes, I'm yelling. Yes, I'm tired of people twisting my argument so they can call it irrational. Yes, I'm tired of being insulted and having it inferred that I am responsible for the slaughter of innocent children. Yes, I love my family and care about the lives of others.

I try to never attack the person, only the argument. I don't call you stupid. I think the argument you are using is misguided and perhaps not well thought out. I am not emotional about this issue.

BUT, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE WE NEED TO RESTRICT GUNS FURTHER BECAUSE OUR CURRENT LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE ONLY 99.97%+ EFFECTIVE.

It is not the ones that are never used that are the problem. That should be obvious. It does not matter how many are out there not being used. It is the ones being used that are the problem, and the ones being used are too dangerous to just ignore. If you can think of a way to target those with out targeting the rest I would be most interested. So far we have completely failed at that task, so we have to keep trying new things until we succeed. We have examples of how other countries have succeeded at this, but for some reason you are completely against trying what worked everywhere else.

What I'd rather see is you join responsible gun owners in advocating for better gun education, even if it's just teaching "if you see a gun, no touch, leave the room, tell an adult." I'm already a member of organizations that advocate for such (not the NRA) and have taught all my children that important lesson.

Once again it is not the responsible gun owners that are the problem, it is that we have no method of telling the difference between the responsible ones and the irresponsible ones that is the problem. If we could find a sure fire way to make sure that only responsible people had access to guns I would be all for that, but any suggestion we make to do that is met with extreme hostility because apparently the 'responsible' gun owners don't want to be actually required to be responsible with their guns.

The dream of being able to pass more laws or restrict more types of guns for a quick fix is only going to effect those of us who aren't the problem.

Training people to be responsible will only work for those responsible enough to care about the training. I can't think of a single time in the history of mankind where teaching the populace to deal with something dangerous responsibly has worked. In the end we always end up having to make laws to protect the populace.

Unless you have the votes to overturn the 2A and deny law-abiding citizens the ownership of guns as currently allowed under the law.

You are really fixated on the all-or-nothing argument. Why is it appropriate to heavily restrict certain types of firearms and not others? Why is it appropriate to heavily restrict heavy machine guns but not semi-auto pistols? Your argument lacks consistency.

Then I guess I'll have to suffer with being disarmed while the criminal/sick/evil laugh at your new laws and bans.

Yes, you will. Those criminals will be disarmed in time as well. As time passes it will become harder and harder to get a gun. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A QUICK FIX THIS IS A GRADUAL ONE.

I'll never be able to convince you there are no quick fixes for man's inhumanity to his fellow man. At least be comforted that most people are good at heart, and have no wish to hurt others.

People are neither good nor evil. People are reactionary. People are inconsistent. We are all capable of horrific things given the right circumstances. A monster lives in all of us.

But, if you continue to demand the law-abiding who aren't the problem be disarmed, well, again, fuck off.
Every criminal was a law-abiding person until they weren't.
Also, please notice who is the one using profanities.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Yeah so there was a mass random shooting in cincinnati in a downtown bank like 2 days ago and it doesn't even make the headlines. Exactly how the NRA wants it to be.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
My arguments make no sense and you warp what I said into selling nuclear weapons at Walmart? Fuck off.

Using 2013 numbers from wikipedia, the National Research Council and US CDC data, chosen at random and not cherry picked, 99.97%+ of the guns in civilian hands were not used to hurt anyone in 2013. Not used for murder, suicide, justified shootings, accidental shootings or even BubbaJay accidentally shooting himself in the foot. Those are hard and firm numbers that I've been posting for at least two years and keep repeating over and over again, but NOBODY EVER WANTS TO ADDRESS THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T FIT THE ANTI-GUN NARRATIVE. And, unless 2013 was some kind of an anomaly, I expect every year is pretty darn similar.

I wish cars or cigarettes or roller skates or playground equipment had a similar safety record. I know you think all those items serve a purpose, and believe that a gun does not, and are only an instrument of wicked, evil death, BUT BELIEVING SOMETHING IRRATIONAL DOESN'T MAKE IT FACT. It's actually ignoring the fact that guns are used safely and responsibly the overwhelming majority of the time.

Yes, I'm yelling. Yes, I'm tired of people twisting my argument so they can call it irrational. Yes, I'm tired of being insulted and having it inferred that I am responsible for the slaughter of innocent children. Yes, I love my family and care about the lives of others. BUT, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE WE NEED TO RESTRICT GUNS FURTHER BECAUSE OUR CURRENT LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS ARE ONLY 99.97%+ EFFECTIVE.

What I'd rather see is you join responsible gun owners in advocating for better gun education, even if it's just teaching "if you see a gun, no touch, leave the room, tell an adult." I'm already a member of organizations that advocate for such (not the NRA) and have taught all my children that important lesson.

I also raised my kids to be responsible, empathetic adults who can understand the pain of others, and that violence is only appropriate if you are forced to defend yourself and have zero other options. This is how we are going to further impact the gun violence problem. The dream of being able to pass more laws or restrict more types of guns for a quick fix is only going to effect those of us who aren't the problem. Unless you have the votes to overturn the 2A and deny law-abiding citizens the ownership of guns as currently allowed under the law. Then I guess I'll have to suffer with being disarmed while the criminal/sick/evil laugh at your new laws and bans.

Hell, you're probably not even reading by now (I do tend to ramble.) Nothing I say is going to sway your emotional belief that you are right in this debate and I am an evil person who loves guns more than the lives of the innocent. I'll never be able to convince you there are no quick fixes for man's inhumanity to his fellow man. At least be comforted that most people are good at heart, and have no wish to hurt others.

But, if you continue to demand the law-abiding who aren't the problem be disarmed, well, again, fuck off.

You are being unreasonable and in a long winded and convuluted fashion I will explain why.

So 99.97% is on the surface a good number. It’s similar to our accuracy at work, where the right mistake at the wrong time could kill our crew and ruin billions of dollars of hardware.

I will point out our ‘99.97%’ number is for making a mistake. Of those 0.03% mistakes made almost all had no effect and of those that did have an effect none so far have harmed crew or equipment. So in that respect our numbers our 0.0% catastrophic.

For assessing risk we use something similar to this:
5963632726_a486529a82_b.jpg


With our risk controls, risks that can kill or maim are kept to 5X1 or 5X2 (consequence X likelihood).

If the controls can’t keep the risks that low then everyone had to buy in on the risk acceptance before accepting the design or performing the activity or it doesn’t happen.

In the gun control case the 99.97% number is applied across the 393 million guns and 50 million households containing guns. When applied to those numbers statistically there will be 10,000s of deaths and maimings per year.

cdc-deaths-v3-768x0-c-default.png


Applying that to a standard risk matrix gives us a risk of 5X5. Controls are thoroughly inadequate to control the hazard. Yet you are saying those deaths while tragic are simply the cost of doing business. You have to live with restrictions on your gun rights so others will have to live with impacts of gun rights on their lives - namely death.

If that was one of our projects we wouldn’t do it. But if we had to, it would require everyone involved to accept the risk and for efforts to be made to reduce the risk over time

Now you could argue that comparing gun use to professional operational or engineering hazards isn’t a good analogy and if that were the case the next best comparison is probably to driving which on whole also has a 5X5 risk.

Driving kills or maims a similar number each year. Yet there are two significant ways we treat driving differently than guns.

(I’m going to ignore that guns are a right as interpreted under the 2A while driving is a legal privilege and that motor vehicles are a day to day requirement for almost the entire country while gun ownership is not.)

First every driver must have a license and insurance which means they implicitly buy off on the hazards of driving.

Second industry and the government keep working towards reducing the catastrophic hazards of motor vehicles:
800px-US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_and_total_annual_deaths.png


When compared to gun ownership less of the country has accepted the risk than do for driving. More importantly, instead of industry and government working to reduce the risks of the hazards the republicans, the NRA, and gun owners such as yourself work to stop any further controls that would reduce those risks.

So the long and short of it is when you claim that current gun laws make things safe enough while ignoring 30,000+ gun deaths a year then you don’t come across as a sober and responsible gun owner. You come across as Lord Farquuad from Shrek.

b7s6m.gif
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
You are being unreasonable and in a long winded and convuluted fashion I will explain why.

So 99.97% is on the surface a good number. It’s similar to our accuracy at work, where the right mistake at the wrong time could kill our crew and ruin billions of dollars of hardware.

I will point out our ‘99.97%’ number is for making a mistake. Of those 0.03% mistakes made almost all had no effect and of those that did have an effect none so far have harmed crew or equipment. So in that respect our numbers our 0.0% catastrophic.

For assessing risk we use something similar to this:
5963632726_a486529a82_b.jpg


With our risk controls, risks that can kill or maim are kept to 5X1 or 5X2 (consequence X likelihood).

If the controls can’t keep the risks that low then everyone had to buy in on the risk acceptance before accepting the design or performing the activity or it doesn’t happen.

In the gun control case the 99.97% number is applied across the 393 million guns and 50 million households containing guns. When applied to those numbers statistically there will be 10,000s of deaths and maimings per year.

cdc-deaths-v3-768x0-c-default.png


Applying that to a standard risk matrix gives us a risk of 5X5. Controls are thoroughly inadequate to control the hazard. Yet you are saying those deaths while tragic are simply the cost of doing business. You have to live with restrictions on your gun rights so others will have to live with impacts of gun rights on their lives - namely death.

If that was one of our projects we wouldn’t do it. But if we had to, it would require everyone involved to accept the risk and for efforts to be made to reduce the risk over time

Now you could argue that comparing gun use to professional operational or engineering hazards isn’t a good analogy and if that were the case the next best comparison is probably to driving which on whole also has a 5X5 risk.

Driving kills or maims a similar number each year. Yet there are two significant ways we treat driving differently than guns.

(I’m going to ignore that guns are a right as interpreted under the 2A while driving is a legal privilege and that motor vehicles are a day to day requirement for almost the entire country while gun ownership is not.)

First every driver must have a license and insurance which means they implicitly buy off on the hazards of driving.

Second industry and the government keep working towards reducing the catastrophic hazards of motor vehicles:
800px-US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT%2C_VMT%2C_per_capita%2C_and_total_annual_deaths.png


When compared to gun ownership less of the country has accepted the risk than do for driving. More importantly, instead of industry and government working to reduce the risks of the hazards the republicans, the NRA, and gun owners such as yourself work to stop any further controls that would reduce those risks.

So the long and short of it is when you claim that current gun laws make things safe enough while ignoring 30,000+ gun deaths a year then you don’t come across as a sober and responsible gun owner. You come across as Lord Farquuad from Shrek.

b7s6m.gif
Ah, I get it, if I don't agree to sacrifice my 2A rights in a vain attempt to get criminals/sick/evil folks to do the same then I don't care about 30k+ deaths per year. I'm not a sober or responsible gun owner unless I allow you to tell me which tools are too dangerous for me to own.

Now, tell me, what further controls on gun ownership will stop any appreciable amount of gun violence without putting undue burdens on the law-abiding exercising their 2A rights? I will never endorse stripping any constitutional right from any individual without due process under the law. And I'm not going to let you lay the blame for the crimes of sick/evil/criminal individuals at my feet. It's that simple. I hunt, I target shoot, I own guns for self-defense and I've violated no laws and hurt no one.

And something I think you and other anti-gunners don't understand is that all you are doing is solidifying the opposition. I've never been an NRA member in my life, but I'm considering joining as I write this. Supporting a very flawed organization that is at least fighting on my side is the choice you are driving many to make. So keep on trying to blame the law-abiding for the gun violence in this country. Go on.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Ah, I get it, if I don't agree to sacrifice my 2A rights in a vain attempt to get criminals/sick/evil folks to do the same then I don't care about 30k+ deaths per year. I'm not a sober or responsible gun owner unless I allow you to tell me which tools are too dangerous for me to own.

Now, tell me, what further controls on gun ownership will stop any appreciable amount of gun violence without putting undue burdens on the law-abiding exercising their 2A rights? I will never endorse stripping any constitutional right from any individual without due process under the law. And I'm not going to let you lay the blame for the crimes of sick/evil/criminal individuals at my feet. It's that simple. I hunt, I target shoot, I own guns for self-defense and I've violated no laws and hurt no one.

And something I think you and other anti-gunners don't understand is that all you are doing is solidifying the opposition. I've never been an NRA member in my life, but I'm considering joining as I write this. Supporting a very flawed organization that is at least fighting on my side is the choice you are driving many to make. So keep on trying to blame the law-abiding for the gun violence in this country. Go on.

Ok so this is idiotic and pretty much the problem with 2A nutters.

You are in no way an expert on US gun policy nor can safely determine what appropriate safeguards and regulations for gun ownership are. Its like saying just because you can drive, you should get to set US driving and road policy. The government does that and should make those decisions based on research and common sense (two things our government willingly abdicates when it comes to anything involving guns). I'm a fantastic driver; that doesn't mean my rules and safeguards for driving work for everyone or should be the minimum standard. I can definitely maintain a vehicle at 85mph or 95mph without issue but would absolutely say 85mph shouldn't be the standard for everyone either. I don't care that you're a responsible gun owner; that is immaterial. What matters is rules and regulations are set to target the lowest common denominator, the worst of the worst, the people who need safeguards and cutoffs and regulation to avoid trouble. If you are truly a responsible gun owner, why at all would you feel threatened by propositions going after those guys?

In addition, its clear that to you (and people like yourself) any limitation of gun ownership is seen as stripping rights, no matter how reasonable it is. Not only is this markedly different from the supreme courts interpretation of gun rights but it also ir highly unlikely to be consistent with what the original framers of the constitution wanted. I don't think they wanted a nation where 300 million firearms are essentially floating around in unregulated fashion and where mass murders occur every week and get buried in the evening news.

If you treat guns the same way we treat everything else, its clear how absolutely ludicrous US gun laws are. We are so afraid of people like you (nut jobs) that as a country we can't even come together to prevent known threats such as terrorists on FBI watch lists and no-fly lists from acquiring weapons because if we stop the terrorists from doing it, in some deluded logic that means the government wants to come into your house and take away your fairly useless guns.
 
Last edited:

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Ok so this is idiotic and pretty much the problem with 2A nutters.

You are in no way an expert on US gun policy nor can safely determine what appropriate safeguards and regulations for gun ownership are. Its like saying just because you can drive, you should get to set US driving and road policy. The government does that and should make those decisions based on research and common sense (two things our government willingly abdicates when it comes to anything involving guns). I'm a fantastic driver; that doesn't mean my rules and safeguards for driving work for everyone or should be the minimum standard. I can definitely maintain a vehicle at 85mph or 95mph without issue but would absolutely say 85mph shouldn't be the standard for everyone either. I don't care that you're a responsible gun owner; that is immaterial. What matters is rules and regulations are set to target the lowest common denominator, the worst of the worst, the people who need safeguards and cutoffs and regulation to avoid trouble. If you are truly a responsible gun owner, why at all would you feel threatened by propositions going after those guys?

In addition, its clear that to you (and people like yourself) any limitation of gun ownership is seen as stripping rights, no matter how reasonable it is. Not only is this markedly different from the supreme courts interpretation of gun rights but it also ir highly unlikely to be consistent with what the original framers of the constitution wanted. I don't think they wanted a nation where 300 million firearms are essentially floating around in unregulated fashion and where mass murders occur every week and get buried in the evening news.

If you treat guns the same way we treat everything else, its clear how absolutely ludicrous US gun laws are. We are so afraid of people like you (nut jobs) that as a country we can't even come together to prevent known threats such as terrorists on FBI watch lists and no-fly lists from acquiring weapons because if we stop the terrorists from doing it, in some deluded logic that means the government wants to come into your house and take away your fairly useless guns.

It's called DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW, you asshole. It's one of the very most basic of principles to safeguard individual liberty in our country. If you can't prove in a court of law that someone has committed a crime, or is otherwise a threat, then you can't summarily strip them of their constitutional rights. Go ahead and read that twice, I think you need to.

By your reasoning Trump should be able to strip journalists of their 1A rights because he feels it's national security level importance nobody in government works to thwart his lunacy. And idiots like me ain't expurt enuff to understerd what's wrong wit dat.

He would get rid of fundamental government checks and balances to consolidate power if he could, and thinking like yours plays right into his plans. It would all be for the greater good, wouldn't it? Don't answer that question, you're not qualified unless you are an expert.

Either way, good job, and keep walking all over the Constitutional protections of this country to achieve your perceived safety. See where it gets us.

And, stop implying I want zero gun control or to revamp the current multitude of laws we have that already heavily controlling civilian gun ownership, the kind of guns we can own and how we can use them. Not to mention a crap-ton of laws making shooting up schools, assault and murder illegal. I obey and support all those laws. You are the one who thinks they aren't enough.

If you can get a gun ban passed then go ahead. If you've got the votes to overturn the 2A then go ahead and get it overturned. Go ahead and see if the evil/sick/criminal individuals who are the problem suddenly start playing nice because you've sacrificed our constitutional rights for a little perceived safety.

And don't mind that you'll be holding the door open for folks like Trump to overturn the Constitutional protections you do enjoy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

Josephus312

Senior member
Aug 10, 2018
586
172
71
It's called DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW, you asshole. It's one of the very most basic of principles to safeguard individual liberty in our country. If you can't prove in a court of law that someone has committed a crime, or is otherwise a threat, then you can't summarily strip them of their constitutional rights. Go ahead and read that twice, I think you need to.

By your reasoning Trump should be able to strip journalists of their 1A rights because he feels it's national security level importance nobody in government works to thwart his lunacy. And idiots like me ain't expurt enuff to understerd what's wrong wit dat.

He would get rid of fundamental government checks and balances to consolidate power if he could, and thinking like yours plays right into his plans. It would all be for the greater good, wouldn't it? Don't answer that question, you're not qualified unless you are an expert.

Good job. Keep walking all over the Constitutional protections of this country to achieve your perceived safety and see where it gets us.

And, stop implying I want zero gun control or to revamp the current multitude of laws we have that already heavily controlling civilian gun ownership, the kind of guns we can own and how we can use them. Not to mention a crap-ton of laws making shooting up schools, assault and murder illegal. I obey and support all those laws. You are the one who thinks they aren't enough.

If you can get a gun ban passed then go ahead. If you've got the votes to overturn the 2A then go ahead and get it overturned. Go ahead and see if the evil/sick/criminal individuals who are the problem suddenly start playing nice because you've sacrificed our constitutional rights for a little perceived safety.

And don't mind that you'd be holding the door open for folks like Trump to overturn the Constitutional protections you do enjoy.

And the problem that you moronic imbeciles do not get is that EVERYONE is a responsible gun owner until you are not. Until you forget it on the night stand or didn't lock it up in a class three safe and it was stolen and then used to kill someone.

Oh wait... You don't have such a safe and pretty much ALL "illegal" guns are just legal guns stolen from irresponsible gun owners like yourself?

AND YOU would be responsible if that was your gun that would be stolen and used in a crime? Of course not, you have legal guns and legal guns can per the definition of an illegal gun never be used in a crime.

See that is where the stats get weird, any gun that is ever used to commit a crime is an illegal gun per the definition under the law.

So don't worry, as long as your legal guns are not used in a crime, it's not a problem and even when they are, they are not your legal guns that you didn't keep safe, they are illegal guns and not your problem.

Our laws are a fucking mess and it shows in every single statistic if you consider that pretty much every single "illegal" firearm is just as legally purchased as yours were.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
And the problem that you moronic imbeciles do not get is that EVERYONE is a responsible gun owner until you are not. Until you forget it on the night stand or didn't lock it up in a class three safe and it was stolen and then used to kill someone.

Oh wait... You don't have such a safe and pretty much ALL "illegal" guns are just legal guns stolen from irresponsible gun owners like yourself?

AND YOU would be responsible if that was your gun that would be stolen and used in a crime? Of course not, you have legal guns and legal guns can per the definition of an illegal gun never be used in a crime.

See that is where the stats get weird, any gun that is ever used to commit a crime is an illegal gun per the definition under the law.

So don't worry, as long as your legal guns are not used in a crime, it's not a problem and even when they are, they are not your legal guns that you didn't keep safe, they are illegal guns and not your problem.

Our laws are a fucking mess and it shows in every single statistic if you consider that pretty much every single "illegal" firearm is just as legally purchased as yours were.

You are far more dangerous than any gun. If we allow thinking like yours to go unchallenged then we will soon be locking folks up to prevent future crimes. Think of how safe the world would be if we just started locking folks up in individual padded cells for their own good. All we need to do is sacrifice the concepts of due process, individual civil liberties and innocent until proven guilty and we will have eliminated all crime and made the world a better place.

I mean, all gun owners are just killers who haven't killed yet, right? They're all responsible until they're not, right. Everyone is a criminal because free will exists and they could abuse it, right? I'm finally seeing the wisdom of your argument.

(Edited for brevity and clarity.)
 
Last edited: