Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Ardoki]

I'm not attacking him.

He says one thing in his signature, then posts something against his views. I'm not sure if he is trying to trick or joke me, or if he is serious.

Address his post.

Also, Neo-Confederate doesn't necessarily mean they feel any particular way about black people. Some people support the Confederacy because they believe in the right of secession, not because of slavery.

But the reason the Confederacy seceded was primarily due to slavery. That was the main, and by far the greatest reason for their succession. That is a historical fact.

[Scomagia]

Address his post.

Also, Neo-Confederate doesn't necessarily mean they feel any particular way about black people. Some people support the Confederacy because they believe in the right of secession, not because of slavery.

But the reason the Confederacy seceded was primarily due to slavery. That was the main, and by far the greatest reason for their succession. That is a historical fact.

It's also irrelevant to the point of whether or not they had a right to secede.

Anyway, attack the post, not the poster. That's all.

[Ardoki]

But the reason the Confederacy seceded was primarily due to slavery. That was the main, and by far the greatest reason for their succession. That is a historical fact.

It's also irrelevant to the point of whether or not they had a right to secede.

Anyway, attack the post, not the poster. That's all.

I just wanted to know if he was poking fun at me or my position. I couldn't tell as it looked serious, yet was not aligned to what his stated views are.

[Grinning Dragon]

Is he a joke, or a troll. I don't know.

I'm not a troll! How dare you!

I am entitled to my own opinion. My opinion is based on facts, it may be wrong. However once I found out it is not supported by facts I change and revise it so it is correct.
In my belief, all of my current opinions are facts. They may not actually be, however it is my belief they are, that is why I believe them.

Slow down, what the hell are you trying to say here? You are all over the place. Stating your opinion is fact without any evidence to support it as being a fact, does not make it fact, it is still an opinion, and opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

[Grinning Dragon]

And if said perp is jacked up on pcp or isn't hindered by such weapons that you have suggested, then what? Diall 911 and die?
How is a person that is only 95lbs expected to fend off an much larger attacker. Firearms are equalizers, they are just another tool in the line of self defense.
Killing a person intent on killing you or intent to do grave bodily harm is not an unjustified murder.
I'd rather take my chances being tried by 12 than by carried by 6.

I didn't understand the first and last lines of that.

The first line is referring to a bad person messed up on drugs and because of the drugs in the system at the time and moment, it may take them a while to succumb to their injuries. 911 is an emergency number that is dialed and police are dispatched to the call location, given that most response times for police to arrive on scene of an attack, they are usually to late, hence the term "dial 911 and die"

The last line is in reference to taking your chances with your day in court and judged by your peers vs being carried by your friends in a casket to your grave.

[Korouse]

No. Banning guns is idiotic, considering a much better choice would be making sure we actually fucking preformed background checks.

[West Aurelia]

It's also irrelevant to the point of whether or not they had a right to secede.

Anyway, attack the post, not the poster. That's all.

I just wanted to know if he was poking fun at me or my position. I couldn't tell as it looked serious, yet was not aligned to what his stated views are.

He doesn't believe that the CSA seceded due to slavery. He's not racist. Attack the post, not the poster.

[Sevvania]

And the vast majority of those are handguns. But you didn't say "no handguns," you said, "no guns," which encompasses rifles and shotguns. And, as I said, rifles and shotguns account for fewer homicides than your proposed alternatives. In any case, firearm homicide rates (and homicide rates in general) have been on a steady decline, even with the expiration of things like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

When I said no guns, I meant no guns.

It's a lot easier to commit a mas shooting with a shotgun, than a handgun right?

"Easier" is subjective. Statistics show that shotguns are used for criminal activity far less often than handguns, and as another poster mention, handguns are far easier to conceal.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Do you understand sarcasm?

You have a pro-slaver flag as part of your nation's flag. Your signature states "Neo-Confederate".

I'm confused about your attitude toward African-Americans.

And I'm confused on what you are talking about here, the CSA, or gun rights.

[Big Jim P]

Nah, just fully start enforcing the first half. Make gun owners join well regulated militias, like the National Guard. Then have them register their personal fire arms, including registering ballistic markers in a statewide, or nationwide database. Law enforcement would love that.

Plus I have to imagine fewer people would be looking to own fire arms if doing so meant spending 1 weekend and a month and 2 weeks a year doing scut work for the national guard plus running the risk of being called to a desert somewhere halfway across the world the next time we need to tackle an axis of evil.

If they are able bodied adults, they are already part of the militia.

[Big Jim P]

Why do most people here support gun rights?

They are not a right at all in my opinion. If they are a right, they are a right to be justly and rightfully taken away. You never have a right to murder another person, usually (of course hypothetically speaking sometimes things may have to be done for the greater good).

Murders by guns are very rare relative to the number of guns, gun owners and the legitimate uses (Self defense, recreation) the guns are put to.

[Big Jim P]

Murder and self-defense are separate things.

English, learn it.

Self defence is only applicable, if performed by law enforcement officials (or the military or any other state ministry/department). Otherwise it is murder in my opinion.

Then your opinion is wrong, both morally and legally.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Self defence is only applicable, if performed by law enforcement officials (or the military or any other state ministry/department). Otherwise it is murder in my opinion.

Then your opinion is wrong, both morally and legally.

But you forget, in his opinion, his opinion is fact.

[Big Jim P]

Then your opinion is wrong, both morally and legally.

But you forget, in his opinion, his opinion is fact.

Then his facts are wrong morally, legally and have no basis in reality either.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why do most people here support gun rights?

They are not a right at all in my opinion. If they are a right, they are a right to be justly and rightfully taken away. You never have a right to murder another person, usually (of course hypothetically speaking sometimes things may have to be done for the greater good).

The unfathomably vast majority of gun owners never exercise this right you perceive them to have.
They do not have the right to murder. They have the right to defend themselves, their property and the Republic.

One need not commit murder, bodily harm or threat thereof to engage in that right.

And the vast majority of those are handguns. But you didn't say "no handguns," you said, "no guns," which encompasses rifles and shotguns. And, as I said, rifles and shotguns account for fewer homicides than your proposed alternatives. In any case, firearm homicide rates (and homicide rates in general) have been on a steady decline, even with the expiration of things like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

When I said no guns, I meant no guns.

It's a lot easier to commit a mas shooting with a shotgun, than a handgun right?

The deadliest school shooting ever committed in America was committed with two semi-automatic handguns.

[Germanic Imperium]

As much as I agree with the fact that Civilians shouldn't own Firearms but there should be Public Armories so that Civilians can arm themselves only in times of crisis, It's too late to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you wanted it gone you should have done it a LOOONG time ago.

[Big Jim P]

As much as I agree with the fact that Civilians shouldn't own Firearms but there should be Public Armories so that Civilians can arm themselves only in times of crisis, It's too late to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you wanted it gone you should have done it a LOOONG time ago.

I highly doubt that there has ever been enough support for a repeal to pass. I doubt that there ever will be (at least in my lifetime).

[Parti Ouvrier]

No. Banning guns is idiotic, considering a much better choice would be making sure we actually fucking preformed background checks.

Indeed.

[Gun Manufacturers]

No. Banning guns is idiotic, considering a much better choice would be making sure we actually fucking preformed background checks.

Indeed.

A way to make it easier for background checks to be performed on private sales is to give non-FFLs free access to NICS.

[Grave_n_idle]

As much as I agree with the fact that Civilians shouldn't own Firearms but there should be Public Armories so that Civilians can arm themselves only in times of crisis, It's too late to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you wanted it gone you should have done it a LOOONG time ago.

I highly doubt that there has ever been enough support for a repeal to pass. I doubt that there ever will be (at least in my lifetime).

It could happen, and probably through one of two routes.

First - the one most people would think is most likely - would be a response to a horrible massacre, and a massive hysterical reaction to it. That might cause a change - but the American political system is so unweildy, I wouldn't bank on it - it would be hard for anyone to maintain enough anti-gun rage for long enough, in a large enough proportion of the populace.

The other route would be the extremists in a group like the NRA basically getting everything they wanted... and the previously-silent majority rebelling against it. An absolute right to bear arms, a complete lack of personal accountability, etc. The slightly lunatic politics of the NRA only really works now because the status quo is still fairly central (by American standards). Swing far enough, and substantially stronger control might be imposed, all the way up to rewriting, replacing - or even repealing - the second amendment.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I highly doubt that there has ever been enough support for a repeal to pass. I doubt that there ever will be (at least in my lifetime).

It could happen, and probably through one of two routes.

First - the one most people would think is most likely - would be a response to a horrible massacre, and a massive hysterical reaction to it. That might cause a change - but the American political system is so unweildy, I wouldn't bank on it - it would be hard for anyone to maintain enough anti-gun rage for long enough, in a large enough proportion of the populace.

The other route would be the extremists in a group like the NRA basically getting everything they wanted... and the previously-silent majority rebelling against it. An absolute right to bear arms, a complete lack of personal accountability, etc. The slightly lunatic politics of the NRA only really works now because the status quo is still fairly central (by American standards). Swing far enough, and substantially stronger control might be imposed, all the way up to rewriting, replacing - or even repealing - the second amendment.

I don't see either of those bwing the probable routes.

[Grinning Dragon]

I highly doubt that there has ever been enough support for a repeal to pass. I doubt that there ever will be (at least in my lifetime).

It could happen, and probably through one of two routes.

First - the one most people would think is most likely - would be a response to a horrible massacre, and a massive hysterical reaction to it. That might cause a change - but the American political system is so unweildy, I wouldn't bank on it - it would be hard for anyone to maintain enough anti-gun rage for long enough, in a large enough proportion of the populace.

The other route would be the extremists in a group like the NRA basically getting everything they wanted... and the previously-silent majority rebelling against it. An absolute right to bear arms, a complete lack of personal accountability, etc. The slightly lunatic politics of the NRA only really works now because the status quo is still fairly central (by American standards). Swing far enough, and substantially stronger control might be imposed, all the way up to rewriting, replacing - or even repealing - the second amendment.

The thing is, there are already laws on the books that deal with murder, armed robbery, after the fact of a committed crime so there wouldn't be a complete lack of personal responsibility. The other issue I has asked many pages ago was, OK the 2nd Amendment has been repealed from the US Constitution, the right doesn't automatically go away, now it falls to the States, and 44 States have some form of a 2nd Amendment. So will some states will now allow full autos, silencers, armor piercing rounds, incendiary, etc.? Also all of those stupid gun control laws at the federal level will probably be tossed by the way side as they were attached to the 2nd Amendment, like the moronic NFA, GCA of 68, brady bunch bill, Hughes Amendment.

[Grave_n_idle]

It could happen, and probably through one of two routes.

First - the one most people would think is most likely - would be a response to a horrible massacre, and a massive hysterical reaction to it. That might cause a change - but the American political system is so unweildy, I wouldn't bank on it - it would be hard for anyone to maintain enough anti-gun rage for long enough, in a large enough proportion of the populace.

The other route would be the extremists in a group like the NRA basically getting everything they wanted... and the previously-silent majority rebelling against it. An absolute right to bear arms, a complete lack of personal accountability, etc. The slightly lunatic politics of the NRA only really works now because the status quo is still fairly central (by American standards). Swing far enough, and substantially stronger control might be imposed, all the way up to rewriting, replacing - or even repealing - the second amendment.

I don't see either of those bwing the probable routes.

I'm not saying they are probable. I'm saying it could happen - and (it is implied that we're then discussing the scenario where it is accepted that it could) if it did, it would probably be either as a response to a horrendous act, or a reaction to an 'overly-permissive' scenario.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I don't see either of those bwing the probable routes.

I'm not saying they are probable. I'm saying it could happen - and (it is implied that we're then discussing the scenario where it is accepted that it could) if it did, it would probably be either as a response to a horrendous act, or a reaction to an 'overly-permissive' scenario.

What you proposed was more specific than that, which are whag I was saying was bullcrap.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not saying they are probable. I'm saying it could happen - and (it is implied that we're then discussing the scenario where it is accepted that it could) if it did, it would probably be either as a response to a horrendous act, or a reaction to an 'overly-permissive' scenario.

What you proposed was more specific than that, which are whag I was saying was bullcrap.

What you actually said was "I don't see either of those bwing the probable routes." (sic).

Like I say, I don't think they are 'probable' in and of themselves. I think that they are possible, and once we accept a theoretical construct where the end result has become probably, those are the two most likely mechanisms.

By all means, suggest another. Assume that the second amendment is repealed, and suggest a more likely mechanism by which is has happened.