• 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."

YAMST - Santa Clarita, CA High School

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

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,435
2,735
136
Yes, law abiding gun owners that are opposed to stricter gun regulations are to blame, because they are a part of a violent culture of America obsessed with guns. I own two guns myself, but they in no way define me. I don't view them as a part of my masculinity. I don't connect them to freedom or patriotism. In other words, I don't worship them. I recognize that banning guns won't end violence. However, I also recognize American's obsession with guns and gun rights is a symptom of a deeper issue revolving around a society that idolizes and worships violence.
If only all gun owners were this reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: soundforbjt

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,165
3,563
126
You're not talking about mass shooters and you know it. You are trying to blame law abiding gun owners for illegal gun violence because we won't go along with your naive goal of "just ban the guns," for which you have no plausible plan.
My plan is beyond plausible, but you won't like it. Yes, I want to take away your guns. Yup, your bullets too. Market forces? Shut down the factories, make importing guns 100% illegal. In the clink if you're found to be in possession of a firearm unless permitted (my permit plan is hell of stringent... want to hear about it? I'm tired of repeating it, but I can if prompted, perhaps). Ha! :p
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,553
4,554
146
Might makes right is a ridiculous statement anyway. If you are going to define "the majority" as "might" you have basically invalidated all forms of democracy as just another type of dictatorship. Hopefully you see now how insane that would be.
I don't think that's what @Bird222 was referring to, that the majority if the US deciding for the theoretical minority to remove gun rights. I think what they were referring to was the opposite of the aphorism 'God man man, Colt made them equal'. Essentially, without a legal technological equalizer between humans, the physically strongest become the ones that decide what everyone else gets to do. The 2A (among other things) codifies the equalizer as a basic human right, to remove it is to codify (by omission) that might makes right.

You may disagree, but I concur with @Bird222's assessment. If that wasn't what they meant, this remains my interpretation of this particular facet of the 2A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bird222

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,165
3,563
126
2A is a problem. Where in the Bible does it say you have a right to own a gun? :)
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,651
132
106
Might makes right is a ridiculous statement anyway. If you are going to define "the majority" as "might" you have basically invalidated all forms of democracy as just another type of dictatorship. Hopefully you see now how insane that would be.
I'm not invalidating anything but the constitution lays out certain rights that are protected from majority rule which I think is smart in most cases. For example, think about the 1st amendment. Most people in the country are Christians. If the 1st wasn't there and we started jailing people for not going to a Christian church how would that be? Totally screwed up that's how. We are supposed to be free people here.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,165
3,563
126
I don't believe it does. More importantly, what does this have to do with anything at all?
It's just my attempt to declare that the 2A is not sacrosanct. I don't believe people have a right to own guns, I don't give a damn what ink dried from a quill pen 250 years ago in Philadelphia. I think we should ban them for all but the thoroughly vetted (on a continual basis) and licensed.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,651
132
106
It's just my attempt to declare that the 2A is not sacrosanct. I don't believe people have a right to own guns, I don't give a damn what ink dried from a quill pen 250 years ago in Philadelphia. I think we should ban them for all but the thoroughly vetted (on a continual basis) and licensed.
Let's pretend the constitution doesn't exist. Answer these questions. 1. Do you believe people have a right to preserve their own lives (i.e. right to self-defense)? 2. If yes, do you believe people have the right to employ a tool(s) to do so? 3. If yes, define the limit to the type of tool(s) that can be used?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,553
4,554
146
It's just my attempt to declare that the 2A is not sacrosanct. I don't believe people have a right to own guns, I don't give a damn what ink dried from a quill pen 250 years ago in Philadelphia. I think we should ban them for all but the thoroughly vetted (on a continual basis) and licensed.
Indeed, the words aren't. I personally feel that the spirit behind it is, however. At no point should Americans be asked to give up the freedom to defend themselves because of the actions of criminals, any more than we should be asked to give up our freedom to speak because of the actions of liars.

I think Thomas Jefferson had it wrong, every so often the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocence. Tyrants and dictators just sounds better.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,165
3,563
126
Let's pretend the constitution doesn't exist. Answer these questions. 1. Do you believe people have a right to preserve their own lives (i.e. right to self-defense)? 2. If yes, do you believe people have the right to employ a tool(s) to do so? 3. If yes, define the limit to the type of tool(s) that can be used?
My point is if guns are not out there except in the hands of elite law enforcement personnel (the military aside), then they won't be part of the equation. Given that, defining the limit of the tools is kinda reduction absurdum.

I saw a video last night that was kinda pathetic. A black guy tries to rob a store, machete in hand. Then he tries to strong arm a car from someone, then he's running from the cops, tries to charge a cop with that machete. The cops there shoot him dead. Too many times cops shoot people dead in situations where they could have avoided it. America has guns on the brain. We've gotta get over it. America has a lot of terrible problems and things are getting out of hand. Hey, dig, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the pollution.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,553
4,554
146
My point is if guns are not out there except in the hands of elite law enforcement personnel (the military aside), then they won't be part of the equation.
That's an assumption. It's also beside the point, which is that people have an intrinsic right to defend themselves using whatever the available state of the art is. Right now, that's a firearm.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
30,165
3,563
126
That's an assumption. It's also beside the point, which is that people have an intrinsic right to defend themselves using whatever the available state of the art is. Right now, that's a firearm.
Dude, you're wrong. Simple as that.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,553
4,554
146
tries to charge a cop with that machete. The cops there shoot him dead.
That's literally an example of the 2A protecting people from 'might makes right' alternatives. If nobody but cops have firearms, the average citizen is subject to the whims of someone with a machete (the absurdity of that notwithstanding).

I'm pretty confused as to why you thought that it'd be more appropriate to try to negotiate with that person though. If someone was ~30m from me with a machete I'm not about to go fumbling for a taser.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,712
9,730
136
That's an assumption. It's also beside the point, which is that people have an intrinsic right to defend themselves using whatever the available state of the art is. Right now, that's a firearm.
I think state of the art right now would be a drone army but what do I know.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,553
4,554
146
I think state of the art right now would be a drone army but what do I know.
Yeah, I used 'available' to at least delineate that things like nuclear weapons aren't generally available to the average person. Armed drones probably will be in the next 15, I'd wager human-scale directed energy weapons in the next 20-30. The relevance of the former to personal defense is debatable, the latter seems obvious though.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,242
2,862
136
That's an assumption. It's also beside the point, which is that people have an intrinsic right to defend themselves using whatever the available state of the art is. Right now, that's a firearm.
No, right now that is nuclear weapons and drone mounted missiles. Are you claiming a absolute right to own nuclear missile drones?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,712
9,730
136
Yeah, I used 'available' to at least delineate that things like nuclear weapons aren't generally available to the average person. Armed drones probably will be in the next 15, I'd wager human-scale directed energy weapons in the next 20-30. The relevance of the former to personal defense is debatable, the latter seems obvious though.
Yeah but clearly the government has the right to restrict certain types of weapons, therefore it logically follows that we can all discuss and vote for where we want that line to be without violating the Constitution.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,242
2,862
136
Yeah, I used 'available' to at least delineate that things like nuclear weapons aren't generally available to the average person. Armed drones probably will be in the next 15, I'd wager human-scale directed energy weapons in the next 20-30. The relevance of the former to personal defense is debatable, the latter seems obvious though.
Only because we made them illegal to own. Otherwise they would be. This is actually the argument for gun control. As our destructive capability increases we have to put a limit on how much of it we allow people to individually deploy. I, and many others, feel that most modern firearms are well beyond that point already.

Also, human scale energy weapons make almost no sense. It is going to be one of those technologies that while it might be possible, just does not make any real sense to use. Firing a small projectile at high speeds is a lot more simple and effective than a energy weapon is likely to ever be.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,553
4,554
146
No, right now that is nuclear weapons and drone mounted missiles. Are you claiming a absolute right to own nuclear missile drones?
Only because we made them illegal to own. Otherwise they would be. This is actually the argument for gun control. As our destructive capability increases we have to put a limit on how much of it we allow people to individually deploy. I, and many others, feel that most modern firearms are well beyond that point already.

Also, human scale energy weapons make almost no sense. It is going to be one of those technologies that while it might be possible, just does not make any real sense to use. Firing a small projectile at high speeds is a lot more simple and effective than a energy weapon is likely to ever be.
Only because we made them illegal to own. Otherwise they would be. This is actually the argument for gun control. As our destructive capability increases we have to put a limit on how much of it we allow people to individually deploy. I, and many others, feel that most modern firearms are well beyond that point already.

Also, human scale energy weapons make almost no sense. It is going to be one of those technologies that while it might be possible, just does not make any real sense to use. Firing a small projectile at high speeds is a lot more simple and effective than a energy weapon is likely to ever be.
I'm in the vast minority on this, as I've posted about multiple times in this forum (actually, almost every time we have another mass shooting :|) but yes, I'm actually in support of normal citizens having access to whatever the government does, per the spirit of the 2A (defense of oneself from others or an oppressive government). Yes, I know that's an unpopular opinion and most will not support the same, and yes I understand the 'chaos' that would come from such a thing. I also acknowledge that a government is not to be trusted, and should have a healthy fear of its citizens.

To your point regarding energy weapons, at some point I have every confidence that we'll have small scale (read: rifles/pistols) energy weapons that will be capable of greater destructive capacity than a metal slug propelled by an explosive. It may not be simpler, but modern firearms are a lot more complicated than a muzzle loader, but we still use those.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,242
2,862
136
I'm actually in support of normal citizens having access to whatever the government does, per the spirit of the 2A (defense of oneself from others or an oppressive government). Yes, I know that's an unpopular opinion and most will not support the same, and yes I understand the 'chaos' that would come from such a thing.
I don't think you really do understand the 'chaos' that would come from such a thing. This would not just create chaos. This would be suicidal. If this would be allowed I doubt there would be a city left in the world. Just consider if every time there was some mass shooting, some terrorist plot, or just some suicidal person that decides he wants to take others with him, they could go down to Walmart and buy even a small grade nuclear weapon?

I also acknowledge that a government is not to be trusted, and should have a healthy fear of its citizens.
I agree with this, but they should do so not because those citizens can own doomsday devices, but because there are lots of them and only a few leaders, and collective action can accomplish almost anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: purbeast0

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,553
4,554
146
I don't think you really do understand the 'chaos' that would come from such a thing. This would not just create chaos. This would be suicidal. If this would be allowed I doubt there would be a city left in the world. Just consider if every time there was some mass shooting, some terrorist plot, or just some suicidal person that decides he wants to take others with him, they could go down to Walmart and buy even a small grade nuclear weapon?
Given the difficulty with refining nuclear material I find it incredibly unlikely it'd ever be sold in a store. One can technically create a 'dirty bomb' now with relatively common materials, albeit with great risk to their well-being for attempting to do so.

Regardless, my point was that there shouldn't be restrictions on the ownership of such things, not whether or not they could actually be attainable by people. If some rich guy wants to go buy a fully loaded Apache helicopter or M-1 Abrams, with armament, there shouldn't be anything preventing him from doing so.

I recognize that this would put increasingly powerful weapons in the hands of those that simply have the most money, but that should encourage our dear leaders to halt the perpetual arms escalation that mankind has become infatuated with.
I agree with this, but they should do so not because those citizens can own doomsday devices, but because there are lots of them and only a few leaders, and collective action can accomplish almost anything.
Collective action is an annoyance, not a fear. Fear comes from threats to their own well-being if they keep up their shenanigans and we haven't seen a reminder of that in quite a while. Even being ousted by vote isn't fear-worthy when you can still do book deals for the next 30 years and be a bored multi-millionaire.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,651
132
106
I agree with this, but they should do so not because those citizens can own doomsday devices, but because there are lots of them and only a few leaders, and collective action can accomplish almost anything.
I'm not sure how much collective action can accomplish if the 'few leaders' have all the weapons. I think it would take a relatively few people getting killed before the 'collective action' would come to a stop.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,042
847
126
There are some who want socialism, there are some who want our citizens disarmed, there are others who do not believe in free speech, if something said is offensive. Some feel the government should issue and be in control of our healthcare. Some feel the learning institutions should be provided by the government, for free. In the perfect storm, should all of this come to pass, take a step back and think of what this will look like. And yes, there are some who have absolutely no problem turning everything over to the control of the government. Who, then has and controls all the wealth, as well as our lives?

Your politicians you voted for and allowed this control. Stop the nonsense about taking away our right to bear arms!
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,242
2,862
136
Given the difficulty with refining nuclear material I find it incredibly unlikely it'd ever be sold in a store.
The problem with refining nuclear material is in how illegal it is to do and basically every country on the planet will work at stopping you if you try. If America should suddenly decide that it is okay for private citizens to do some company would be willing to do it and sell it. In just a few years they could probably get it down to somewhat reasonable prices.

I recognize that this would put increasingly powerful weapons in the hands of those that simply have the most money, but that should encourage our dear leaders to halt the perpetual arms escalation that mankind has become infatuated with.
It has never worked that way. Always what happens is they just increase the pace. If you are not developing the next big weapon then you can be assured your enemy is.

Open it up to the public and you will create a new corporate arms race. It will become about creating the smallest cheapest weapons that can create the most destruction. We already saw that with firearms. The 'saturday night specials' was just such firearms. I used nuclear weapons as a extreme example but the real thing we would have to worry about would be stuff like surface to air missiles and anti-tank weapons that could be in the affordable range of common people.
You think a school shooting is bad now, just wait until they can load up their pickup with hellfire missiles and level the entire building in 10 seconds.

Collective action is an annoyance, not a fear. Fear comes from threats to their own well-being if they keep up their shenanigans and we haven't seen a reminder of that in quite a while. Even being ousted by vote isn't fear-worthy when you can still do book deals for the next 30 years and be a bored multi-millionaire.
Tell that to Bernard-René de Launay.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY