CDC: 14,415 homicides by fire arms in 2016 alone

[Hammer Britannia]

If I tried packing in every error from extreme gun control advocates, we’d be here so long that technology would evolve past the use of firearms to holographic meme warfare

You are absolutely right, which is why I just condense all of the gun controller talking heads and their talking points to just one simple phrase. "They are all fucking liars"

Pfft, we all know that fully semi-automatic Automatic-Rifle 15s are the most dangerous gun in the world. I mean, they can fire 74783838383838423455433345545799085432457800 heat-seeking missiles per second with a chainsaw bayonet and a built-in death star. Also, the clip has unlimited "MAGA"-zines and every time you shoot a puppy turns into a wolf

(The chainsaw bayonet is actually what USA today suggested, look it up)

[Grinning Dragon]

You are absolutely right, which is why I just condense all of the gun controller talking heads and their talking points to just one simple phrase. "They are all fucking liars"

Pfft, we all know that fully semi-automatic Automatic-Rifle 15s are the most dangerous gun in the world. I mean, they can fire 74783838383838423455433345545799085432457800 heat-seeking missiles per second with a chainsaw bayonet and a built-in death star. Also, the clip has unlimited "MAGA"-zines and every time you shoot a puppy turns into a wolf

(The chainsaw bayonet is actually what USA today suggested, look it up)

Yep, I know about that one. We also have a new one, semi-semi-automatic. Semi-semi-automatic is defined as a rifle that is cycled by use of a thumb lever, this lil gem is being brought you by one vacuous Australian Green Party politician David Shoebridge

[Paddy O Fernature]

Pfft, we all know that fully semi-automatic Automatic-Rifle 15s are the most dangerous gun in the world. I mean, they can fire 74783838383838423455433345545799085432457800 heat-seeking missiles per second with a chainsaw bayonet and a built-in death star. Also, the clip has unlimited "MAGA"-zines and every time you shoot a puppy turns into a wolf

(The chainsaw bayonet is actually what USA today suggested, look it up)

Yep, I know about that one. We also have a new one, semi-semi-automatic. Semi-semi-automatic is defined as a rifle that is cycled by use of a thumb lever, this lil gem is being brought you by one vacuous Australian Green Party politician David Shoebridge

Honestly can't say that I'm shocked at hearing this. Less so that it's coming from Australia.

[The South Falls]

Pfft, we all know that fully semi-automatic Automatic-Rifle 15s are the most dangerous gun in the world. I mean, they can fire 74783838383838423455433345545799085432457800 heat-seeking missiles per second with a chainsaw bayonet and a built-in death star. Also, the clip has unlimited "MAGA"-zines and every time you shoot a puppy turns into a wolf

(The chainsaw bayonet is actually what USA today suggested, look it up)

Yep, I know about that one. We also have a new one, semi-semi-automatic. Semi-semi-automatic is defined as a rifle that is cycled by use of a thumb lever, this lil gem is being brought you by one vacuous Australian Green Party politician David Shoebridge

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

[Kernen]

Yep, I know about that one. We also have a new one, semi-semi-automatic. Semi-semi-automatic is defined as a rifle that is cycled by use of a thumb lever, this lil gem is being brought you by one vacuous Australian Green Party politician David Shoebridge

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

Probably because the gun grabber side cant come up with a legal and tolerable compromise.

[The South Falls]

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

Probably because the gun grabber side cant come up with a legal and tolerable compromise.

Is that because "legal and tolerable" to you means more guns for everyone?

[Kernen]

Probably because the gun grabber side cant come up with a legal and tolerable compromise.

Is that because "legal and tolerable" to you means more guns for everyone?

Legal means within the bounds of Constitutional law. Permissible means legal restrictions that are not overbroad or unreasonably restrictive.

I dont want guns in the hands of everybody. I want them to be accessible by law abiding citizens. If you dont want one, dont get one.

I've similar beliefs on abortions, transgender and gay rights, speech, so on and so forth. Maximize individual liberties.

[Grinning Dragon]

Probably because the gun grabber side cant come up with a legal and tolerable compromise.

Is that because "legal and tolerable" to you means more guns for everyone?

No, it means to craft legislation that doesn't trample on a person's enumerated negative rights.

[Kernen]

Is that because "legal and tolerable" to you means more guns for everyone?

Legal means within the bounds of Constitutional law. Permissible means legal restrictions that are not overbroad or unreasonably restrictive.

I dont want guns in the hands of everybody. I want them to be accessible by law abiding citizens. If you dont want one, dont get one.

I've similar beliefs on abortions, transgender and gay rights, speech, so on and so forth. Maximize individual liberties.

Actually, nix speech. I support a lot of changes to our permissive 1A speech law. Like no protection for hate speech. That seems like a fair compromise. Fuck bigotry.

[Telconi]

Yep, I know about that one. We also have a new one, semi-semi-automatic. Semi-semi-automatic is defined as a rifle that is cycled by use of a thumb lever, this lil gem is being brought you by one vacuous Australian Green Party politician David Shoebridge

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

Nothing wrong with an echo chamber filled with correct people.

[Galloism]

Legal means within the bounds of Constitutional law. Permissible means legal restrictions that are not overbroad or unreasonably restrictive.

I dont want guns in the hands of everybody. I want them to be accessible by law abiding citizens. If you dont want one, dont get one.

I've similar beliefs on abortions, transgender and gay rights, speech, so on and so forth. Maximize individual liberties.

Actually, nix speech. I support a lot of changes to our permissive 1A speech law. Like no protection for hate speech. That seems like a fair compromise. Fuck bigotry.

I wouldn't be so quick to do that. There's a growing trend to classify speaking truth to power and engaging in honest factual debate that goes against the norm as being hate speech in of itself.

The KKK may be distasteful. Throwing people in jail because they try to speak the truth regarding rape or domestic violence or prostitution legalization is more distasteful than that.

[Kernen]

Actually, nix speech. I support a lot of changes to our permissive 1A speech law. Like no protection for hate speech. That seems like a fair compromise. Fuck bigotry.

I wouldn't be so quick to do that. There's a growing trend to classify speaking truth to power and engaging in honest factual debate that goes against the norm as being hate speech in of itself.

The KKK may be distasteful. Throwing people in jail because they try to speak the truth regarding rape or domestic violence or prostitution legalization is more distasteful than that.

There is room for a standard that balances the benefits of a marketplace of ideas and restricts speech designed solely denigrate. And the existing case law is a mess. See Virginia v. Black and the Thomas dissent. The majority opinion still pisses me off.

This isn't the topic, though.

[Galloism]

I wouldn't be so quick to do that. There's a growing trend to classify speaking truth to power and engaging in honest factual debate that goes against the norm as being hate speech in of itself.

The KKK may be distasteful. Throwing people in jail because they try to speak the truth regarding rape or domestic violence or prostitution legalization is more distasteful than that.

There is room for a standard that balances the benefits of a marketplace of ideas and restricts speech designed solely denigrate. And the existing case law is a mess. See Virginia v. Black and the Thomas dissent. The majority opinion still pisses me off.

This isn't the topic, though.

I'll drop it after this post, but I want to let you know that I've been told - on numerous occasions mind you - that my activism for male victims of rape and domestic violence is heat speech and denigrates all women, because I point to the overwhelming majority of female perpetrators against men, just like there's an overwhelming majority of male perpetrators against women.

But it's hate speech to point this out.

You may have the noblest of intentions in being willing to ban hate speech, but it will morph until "hate speech" just means "speech that makes me uncomfortable". And all important speech makes someone uncomfortable. We can't give an inch on this one.

Tying it back to the topic, similarly, when it comes to gun regulations, we've seen the legislative creep over the years, to the point they had effective total gun bans in a couple of cities. It didn't start that way, but more and more legislative creep eventually led to what was effectively a total ban - in both Washington DC and Chicago, until the Supreme Court finally struck it down with prejudice.

[Kernen]

There is room for a standard that balances the benefits of a marketplace of ideas and restricts speech designed solely denigrate. And the existing case law is a mess. See Virginia v. Black and the Thomas dissent. The majority opinion still pisses me off.

This isn't the topic, though.

I'll drop it after this post, but I want to let you know that I've been told - on numerous occasions mind you - that my activism for male victims of rape and domestic violence is heat speech and denigrates all women, because I point to the overwhelming majority of female perpetrators against men, just like there's an overwhelming majority of male perpetrators against women.

But it's hate speech to point this out.

You may have the noblest of intentions in being willing to ban hate speech, but it will morph until "hate speech" just means "speech that makes me uncomfortable". And all important speech makes someone uncomfortable. We can't give an inch on this one.

Tying it back to the topic, similarly, when it comes to gun regulations, we've seen the legislative creep over the years, to the point they had effective total gun bans in a couple of cities. It didn't start that way, but more and more legislative creep eventually led to what was effectively a total ban - in both Washington DC and Chicago, until the Supreme Court finally struck it down with prejudice.

I ascribe to a constitutional theory that treats the 1st and 2nd amendments differently. Specifically, Minimalism as described by Professor Cass Sunstein. He argues that constitutional interpretation should defer to narrow, generally textual interpretations, except for issues involving 1A and 14th A rights. The theory being that we live in a system that operates best with maximum accessibility, and those amendments are integral to that accessibility.

Tying it into gun law, that means taking a view on firearms ownership that defaults to the text of the 2nd Amendment and precludes a great deal of empirically-driven regulation, but takes the opposite view of speech.

So it isn't hypocritical to me to take these very different approaches. That said, I see where you're coming from.

Damn. We need a thread on constitutional theory and interpretation, because it ties into the heart of this issue, and others, so very well.

[The South Falls]

Is that because "legal and tolerable" to you means more guns for everyone?

Legal means within the bounds of Constitutional law. Permissible means legal restrictions that are not overbroad or unreasonably restrictive.

I dont want guns in the hands of everybody. I want them to be accessible by law abiding citizens. If you dont want one, dont get one.

I've similar beliefs on abortions, transgender and gay rights, speech, so on and so forth. Maximize individual liberties.

We can maximize individual liberties, sure. But how about we end the war on drugs, give police the power to take guns from people they think are threats, etc.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

Probably because the gun grabber side cant come up with a legal and tolerable compromise.

Just popping back in here for a sec:

I have never demanded that guns must be taken away, if you go back to the OP not only would you see that I am open for compromise but that it wouldn't affect people who already bought guns.

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

It's a gun debate on NSG, it turns into an echo chamber very very fast.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Probably because the gun grabber side cant come up with a legal and tolerable compromise.

Just popping back in here for a sec:

I have never demanded that guns must be taken away, if you go back to the OP not only would you see that I am open for compromise but that it wouldn't affect people who already bought guns.

We don't get anything from your "compromise" though.

[Galloism]

Just popping back in here for a sec:

I have never demanded that guns must be taken away, if you go back to the OP not only would you see that I am open for compromise but that it wouldn't affect people who already bought guns.

We don't get anything from your "compromise" though.

Let's angle for a national CCW.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Just popping back in here for a sec:

I have never demanded that guns must be taken away, if you go back to the OP not only would you see that I am open for compromise but that it wouldn't affect people who already bought guns.

We don't get anything from your "compromise" though.

Except for less taxes and no limits to mag size.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We don't get anything from your "compromise" though.

Except for less taxes and no limits to mag size.

There's no limit on mag size at the federal level.

[Telconi]

Probably because the gun grabber side cant come up with a legal and tolerable compromise.

Just popping back in here for a sec:

I have never demanded that guns must be taken away, if you go back to the OP not only would you see that I am open for compromise but that it wouldn't affect people who already bought guns.

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

It's a gun debate on NSG, it turns into an echo chamber very very fast.

People have an innate right to a gun, removing their capacity to utilize this right, regardless of how temporary it is, takes from them what is rightfully theirs. Hence 'taking guns'

[Ors Might]

I can believe that us gun controllers are lying morons. Yea. Totally. I can absolutely believe that. /e

Its less that y’all are liars and more so that a lot of gun control advocates just don’t seem to have much interest in learning as much as they can or, in some cases, anything at all about the things they seek to regulate. This isn’t universal but its common enough to be utterly infuriating.

[Xadufell]

Yep, I know about that one. We also have a new one, semi-semi-automatic. Semi-semi-automatic is defined as a rifle that is cycled by use of a thumb lever, this lil gem is being brought you by one vacuous Australian Green Party politician David Shoebridge

I sense an echo chamber enveloping here.

Go say that in the MAGAthread, I dare you.

[The South Falls]

I can believe that us gun controllers are lying morons. Yea. Totally. I can absolutely believe that. /e

Its less that y’all are liars and more so that a lot of gun control advocates just don’t seem to have much interest in learning as much as they can or, in some cases, anything at all about the things they seek to regulate. This isn’t universal but its common enough to be utterly infuriating.

That's almost every side in political debate. But anyway, I understand where you're coming from.

[Ors Might]

Legal means within the bounds of Constitutional law. Permissible means legal restrictions that are not overbroad or unreasonably restrictive.

I dont want guns in the hands of everybody. I want them to be accessible by law abiding citizens. If you dont want one, dont get one.

I've similar beliefs on abortions, transgender and gay rights, speech, so on and so forth. Maximize individual liberties.

We can maximize individual liberties, sure. But how about we end the war on drugs, give police the power to take guns from people they think are threats, etc.

Only if they have a warrant first. Otherwise fuck that. I agree with ending the war on drugs. That was a mistake from the start.