26 Dead including children at San Antonio Church massacre

[Irona]

Not at gun shows

Yup, they still need a NICS check.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't check for out of state buyers though

[Telconi]

With a foe like you? I'd have no problem pulling that off.

Alright then, let's get started.

In terms of modern notions of democracy? That would probably be somewhat accurate.

UMN - and you - are arguing that the right to own a firearm is necessary in order to be "free", in terms of modern notions of democracy.

My counterpoint: firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise. You will not find a single definition of "democracy" within the field of political science that includes the ownership of firearms.

And... yeah, we're done here. UMN's argument is shit.

Democracy is not the litmus test of freedom.

[The East Marches II]

UMN - and you - are arguing that the right to own a firearm is necessary in order to be "free", in terms of modern notions of democracy.

My counterpoint: firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise. You will not find a single definition of "democracy" within the field of political science that includes the ownership of firearms.

And... yeah, we're done here. UMN's argument is shit.

Thats easy, the American colloquial definition is the only one that matters and the rest are done by people who have no understanding of what "democracy" as we mean it is :^)

Just like the rest of the world calls hate speech restrictions "freedom". Its unfortunate you're so Orwellian.

[Telconi]

Yup, they still need a NICS check.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't check for out of state buyers though

Yeah, it does, you need state issued ID.

[Ifreann]

Whose safety is threatened by defamation? By copyright infringement?

---

No lies here. The Democratic party doesn't oppose private gun ownership, clear as day.

Care to explain how a platform advocating for the banning of guns isn't opposed to pricate ownership of those guns?

The same way a platform advocating for the banning of drugs isn't opposed to the sale and use of caffeine.

[Camicon]

Alright then, let's get started.

UMN - and you - are arguing that the right to own a firearm is necessary in order to be "free", in terms of modern notions of democracy.

My counterpoint: firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise. You will not find a single definition of "democracy" within the field of political science that includes the ownership of firearms.

And... yeah, we're done here. UMN's argument is shit.

Democracy is not the litmus test of freedom.

I never said it was, UMN did. I simply pointed out why that's stupid.

UMN - and you - are arguing that the right to own a firearm is necessary in order to be "free", in terms of modern notions of democracy.

My counterpoint: firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise. You will not find a single definition of "democracy" within the field of political science that includes the ownership of firearms.

And... yeah, we're done here. UMN's argument is shit.

Thats easy, the American colloquial definition is the only one that matters and the rest are done by people who have no understanding of what "democracy" as we mean it is :^)

Just like the rest of the world calls hate speech restrictions "freedom". Its unfortunate you're so Orwellian.

And what is the American colloquial definition of "freedom"? Keeping in mind that colloquial definitions are collectively made by the whole of society, and aren't whatever you want them to be.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety.

Whose safety is threatened by defamation? By copyright infringement? .

Copyright infringement is theft.

[The East Marches II]

And what is the American colloquial definition of "freedom"? Keeping in mind that colloquial definitions are collectively made by the whole of society, and aren't whatever you want them to be.

The Constitution :^)

Keep in mind, my country is the largest (and only) free nation so thats what counts

[Camicon]

And what is the American colloquial definition of "freedom"? Keeping in mind that colloquial definitions are collectively made by the whole of society, and aren't whatever you want them to be.

The Constitution :^)

Keep in mind, my country is the largest (and only) free nation so thats what counts

You'd be much less annoying if you were intellectually honest.

[Telconi]

Care to explain how a platform advocating for the banning of guns isn't opposed to pricate ownership of those guns?

The same way a platform advocating for the banning of drugs isn't opposed to the sale and use of caffeine.

So hypocracy?

That's your solution, they lie, but it's ok, because fuck honesty?

[Len Hyet]

And what is the American colloquial definition of "freedom"? Keeping in mind that colloquial definitions are collectively made by the whole of society, and aren't whatever you want them to be.

The Constitution :^)

Keep in mind, my country is the largest (and only) free nation so thats what counts

Wait what? America is the only free country?

[Thermodolia]

Um they are. Have you ever purchased a gun in your life? You have to get an FBI background check before you can purchase it

Not at gun shows

Yes at gun shows.

[The East Marches II]

The Constitution :^)

Keep in mind, my country is the largest (and only) free nation so thats what counts

You'd be much less annoying if you were intellectually honest.

You wound me with such a comment

The Constitution :^)

Keep in mind, my country is the largest (and only) free nation so thats what counts

Wait what? America is the only free country?

Yes thats correct.

[Thermodolia]

Yup, they still need a NICS check.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't check for out of state buyers though

Yes it does. You have to give them your address and a picture ID

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The Constitution :^)

Keep in mind, my country is the largest (and only) free nation so thats what counts

Wait what? America is the only free country?

Name another.

[Irona]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't check for out of state buyers though

Yeah, it does, you need state issued ID.

Fair enough, just checked and I was definitely wrong about that.

How would you reduce the number of mass-shootings then? There must be a way to make it harder for nutters to get guns that even the biggest gun lovers can agree to.

[Ifreann]

Whose safety is threatened by defamation? By copyright infringement? .

Copyright infringement is theft.

But whose safety is threatened by it? If the government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety then logically they cannot regulate copyright infringements unless they are immediate threats to safety.

---

The same way a platform advocating for the banning of drugs isn't opposed to the sale and use of caffeine.

So hypocracy?

That's your solution, they lie, but it's ok, because fuck honesty?

If you think that's hypocrisy then I suppose you're just too much of an extremist to understand modern English as spoken by actual people.

[Community Values]

Yeah, it does, you need state issued ID.

Fair enough, just checked and I was definitely wrong about that.

How would you reduce the number of mass-shootings then? There must be a way to make it harder for nutters to get guns that even the biggest gun lovers can agree to.

Public Healthcare and good welfare.

[Telconi]

Yeah, it does, you need state issued ID.

Fair enough, just checked and I was definitely wrong about that.

How would you reduce the number of mass-shootings then? There must be a way to make it harder for nutters to get guns that even the biggest gun lovers can agree to.

Process all transactions through an FFL. Increase funding to the system to close cracks. Modify what does and does not prevent firearms purchases, include BCDs for example, and other crimes that currently don't cause you to be a PP. Allow, create, and fund a more fluid mental health check system.

And INCREASE SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS! Desperate people commit crimes.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Copyright infringement is theft.

But whose safety is threatened by it? If the government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety then logically they cannot regulate copyright infringements unless they are immediate threats to safety.

It's not free speech, it's intellectual property. This, it falls under property laws instead of the first amendment.

[Telconi]

Copyright infringement is theft.

But whose safety is threatened by it? If the government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety then logically they cannot regulate copyright infringements unless they are immediate threats to safety.

---

So hypocracy?

That's your solution, they lie, but it's ok, because fuck honesty?

If you think that's hypocrisy then I suppose you're just too much of an extremist to understand modern English as spoken by actual people.

Well caffeine is a drug... and AR-15s are guns... so you can't say "ban all drugs" without including caffeine, and you can't say "allow all firearms" without including an AR-15...

If "actually spoken by actual people" involves dishonesty and hypocrisy, that's not my fault.

[Petrasylvania]

And how many mass shooters had to kill their mothers as opposed to just buying their guns? It's strange the It Failed To Stop X So Repeal It standard is always applied to firearms regulation but nothing else, like drunk driving laws or any criminal laws for that matter.

Yet gentlemen on your side are more than willing to apply such logic to drugs

All right, legalizing drugs. There's that. But the benefits-
undermining the income sources of violent criminal cartels, imposing a quality control standard to minimize injuries and deaths from substandard or tainted drugs, and generating a new taxable source of income to direct funds to rehabilitation and whatever else seems great tradeoffs. What does eliminating firearms regulations offer besides letting anyone especially someone having One Bad Day purchase any gun they can afford and literally paint the town red?

[Telconi]

Yet gentlemen on your side are more than willing to apply such logic to drugs

All right, legalizing drugs. There's that. But the benefits-
undermining the income sources of violent criminal cartels, imposing a quality control standard to minimize injuries and deaths from substandard or tainted drugs, and generating a new taxable source of income to direct funds to rehabilitation and whatever else seems great tradeoffs. What does eliminating firearms regulations offer besides letting anyone especially someone having One Bad Day purchase any gun they can afford and literally paint the town red?

Undermining the income sources of violent criminal cartels, imposing a quality control standard to minimize injuries and deaths from substandard or unsafe guns, and generating a new taxable source of income to direct funds to rehabilitation and whatever else.

[Sovaal]

The utter inconsitancy. AK's are in the prohibited section, save for Finnish Valmets cause they're less evil I guess. AUGs are banned but Tavors and Type 95's are in-restricted, as in you can go into a store and walk out with one, and ARs are restricted yet as said similar firearms aren't. Makes no sense in the slightest, seems like they literally banned whatever they saw in a gun magazine and only spared the AR due to target shooting.

Care to provide a source detailing those specificities?

All these are non-restrited, like the stereotypical hunting rifle.

[Ifreann]

But whose safety is threatened by it? If the government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety then logically they cannot regulate copyright infringements unless they are immediate threats to safety.

It's not free speech, it's intellectual property. This, it falls under property laws instead of the first amendment.

Passing off something someone else owns the copyright to as something I own the copyright to sounds like speech or expression to me.

---

But whose safety is threatened by it? If the government can only regulate speech that poses an immediate threat to safety then logically they cannot regulate copyright infringements unless they are immediate threats to safety.

---

If you think that's hypocrisy then I suppose you're just too much of an extremist to understand modern English as spoken by actual people.

Well caffeine is a drug... and AR-15s are guns... so you can't say "ban all drugs" without including caffeine, and you can't say "allow all firearms" without including an AR-15...

If "actually spoken by actual people" involves dishonesty and hypocrisy, that's not my fault.

If you read any restriction on guns as a ban on all private gun ownership, that is your fault.