NationStates

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ah, yes, the mythical good gun owners who totally rose up against every episode of government overreach and tyranny that didn’t involve the actual guns bring taken.

Ah, wait, no.

That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.

Telconi wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Ralph Northam: why do you need a gun?

Also Ralph Northam: *Has a national guard and police on his side with thousands of guns who in theory are not allowed to extrajudicially kill you, but in practice are*

That's really the bare bones point. Any government official who asks why someone needs a particular gun, the answer is always "because of you".

Bromagia wrote:

Telconi wrote:
That's really the bare bones point. Any government official who asks why someone needs a particular gun, the answer is always "because of you".

But politicians are just leaders who want the best for their constituents, right? Especially the Democrat ones. All pure as fresh spring water.

Wait....

Kowani wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
You know the US government only does something when it's about them and their donors. By "ending gun violence," what Biden means is "making sure you can't defend your rights."

Ah, yes, the mythical good gun owners who totally rose up against every episode of government overreach and tyranny that didn’t involve the actual guns bring taken.

Ah, wait, no.

Bromagia wrote:

Telconi wrote:
That's really the bare bones point. Any government official who asks why someone needs a particular gun, the answer is always "because of you".

But politicians are just leaders who want the best for their constituents, right? Especially the Democrat ones. All pure as fresh spring water.

Wait....

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Bromagia wrote:But politicians are just leaders who want the best for their constituents, right? Especially the Democrat ones. All pure as fresh spring water.

Wait....

Democrat politicians: "Only the police should have guns."

Also Democrat politicians: "The police department has been racist and corrupt for decades."

Also Democrat politicians: "Vote us in for a tenth consecutive term if you want police reforms."

Diopolis wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ah, yes, the mythical good gun owners who totally rose up against every episode of government overreach and tyranny that didn’t involve the actual guns bring taken.

Ah, wait, no.

We live in a country where armed militias defend the rights of people living in their territories from state governments that hate them on a semi-regular basis. That they do not happen to discharge their weapons while doing this is irrelevant.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Bromagia wrote:But politicians are just leaders who want the best for their constituents, right? Especially the Democrat ones. All pure as fresh spring water.

Wait....

Democrat politicians: "Only the police should have guns."

Also Democrat politicians: "The police department has been racist and corrupt for decades."

Also Democrat politicians: "Vote us in for a tenth consecutive term if you want police reforms."

Rojava Free State wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Democrat politicians: "Only the police should have guns."

Also Democrat politicians: "The police department has been racist and corrupt for decades."

Also Democrat politicians: "Vote us in for a tenth consecutive term if you want police reforms."

Gotta love how they wanna give the people most likely to use their guns the right to own guns.

Violent Mike wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Gotta love how they wanna give the people most likely to use their guns the right to own guns.

Even worse are people who think only veterans should have guns.

Telconi wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ah, yes, the mythical good gun owners who totally rose up against every episode of government overreach and tyranny that didn’t involve the actual guns bring taken.

Ah, wait, no.

Your disdain for human rights is common knowledge, you don't need to shout at the sky any time people somewhere enjoy some freedom.

Ors Might wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ah, yes, the mythical good gun owners who totally rose up against every episode of government overreach and tyranny that didn’t involve the actual guns bring taken.

Ah, wait, no.

I mean, sure, if you want to argue that firearms won’t ever be used in a revolution, you can go ahead and do that. It’s a really weird argument that relies upon the baseless assumption that the factors that lead to revolution cannot and will not be replicated in modern society but you can make it.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kowani wrote:Ah, yes, the mythical good gun owners who totally rose up against every episode of government overreach and tyranny that didn’t involve the actual guns bring taken.

Ah, wait, no.

That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.

Kowani wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Your disdain for human rights is common knowledge, you don't need to shout at the sky any time people somewhere enjoy some freedom.

Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?

Ors Might wrote:I mean, sure, if you want to argue that firearms won’t ever be used in a revolution, you can go ahead and do that. It’s a really weird argument that relies upon the baseless assumption that the factors that lead to revolution cannot and will not be replicated in modern society but you can make it.

Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.

Rojava Free State wrote:
That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.

No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

Diopolis wrote:

Kowani wrote:Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?


Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.


No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

Again, the militia's ability to put thousands of armed men in the field has changed the outcome of the legislature on multiple occasions. Recently in Oregon.
That you disagree with the direction the changes were made in does not invalidate the existence of the mechanism.

Kowani wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Your disdain for human rights is common knowledge, you don't need to shout at the sky any time people somewhere enjoy some freedom.

Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?

Ors Might wrote:I mean, sure, if you want to argue that firearms won’t ever be used in a revolution, you can go ahead and do that. It’s a really weird argument that relies upon the baseless assumption that the factors that lead to revolution cannot and will not be replicated in modern society but you can make it.

Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.

Rojava Free State wrote:
That just means we have to be more vocal. Not that we should take guns away. People need to know their rights. They need to be ready to fight for them.

No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

Judge Roger Benitez has denied the state of California’s motion for a stay of the injunction he issued yesterday in Rhode v. Becerra. That injunction prevents the state from enforcing its law requiring that purchasers of ammunition undergo a background check.

In his brief, three-page decision, the judge wrote . . .

The Attorney General has conceded that the right to purchase and acquire ammunition is a right protected by the Second Amendment. That is an understanding consistent with Ninth Circuit decisions. Furthermore, as discussed in its preliminary injunction order, this Court found Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits.

Here the Attorney General focuses on the possibility that a prohibited person may acquire ammunition. Buying ammunition is something that prohibited persons have managed to accomplish for 170 years and these new laws show little likelihood of success of preventing prohibited persons from unlawfully possessing future acquisitions. This Court’s focus is on the 101,047 + law-abiding, responsible citizens who have been completely blocked by the operation of these laws. Without an injunction, these law-abiding individuals have no legal way to acquire the ammunition which they enjoy the constitutional right of possession. These law-abiding individuals whose numbers are vast have no way to lawfully acquire ammunition to defend themselves, their families and their homes. The injunction restores that right.

[T]he Court found the background check and anti-importation laws to severely burden Plaintiffs and all law-abiding citizen-residents of California who want to acquire ammunition. The Attorney General does not point to any change in circumstances or new evidence to undermine that conclusion. That the laws have been in effect for 10 months reflects this Court’s patient consideration, not its constitutional approval. Any delay was occasioned by judicial optimism that the high erroneous denial rate of early Standard background checks might significantly improve. It did not. Instead, the constitutional impingements on Second Amendment rights that began immediately, will continue if a stay is granted. Thus, the Court cannot find the remaining two factors tip the scales in favor of a stay. A 16.4% error rate that deprives citizens the enjoyment of any constitutional right is offensive and unacceptable.

On April 13, the Trump Administration published a proposed rule to end a ban on the possession of firearms in water resource development projects administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE).

These areas comprise one of the largest networks of outdoor recreation sites in America, encompassing more than 400 lake and river projects in 43 states. Activities that occur on these sites include hiking, boating, fishing, camping, hunting, and geocaching.

Currently, regulations pertaining to these areas authorize the use and possession of firearms only for specified purposes, including hunting or at designated shooting ranges, or with written permission from the District Commander who has jurisdiction over the area in question.

The otherwise lawful possession of firearms, including for self-defense, is effectively banned.

Not only does this policy infringe the Second Amendment rights of visitors to these areas, as has been recognized by at least one federal court, it is at odds with policies governing firearms that apply on other types of federal recreational lands....

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kowani wrote:Have you considered actually engaging with the points people make?


Not my argument. Rather, that based on the track record of gun owners, they’re not going to raise up and defend any of the other rights. They’ve all been violated.
What do we hear from the firearms crowd? Crickets.


No, it means you need a rationale for your guns that’s based in reality.

And my rationale is to defend myself from everything ranging from the common crook up to a crooked cop. I think that's a perfectly sound rationale to have a pistol.

Kowani wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
And my rationale is to defend myself from everything ranging from the common crook up to a crooked cop. I think that's a perfectly sound rationale to have a pistol.

Yep, I’m sure police departments take well to having people push back against them.

Kowani wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
And my rationale is to defend myself from everything ranging from the common crook up to a crooked cop. I think that's a perfectly sound rationale to have a pistol.

Yep, I’m sure police departments take well to having people push back against them.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Here the Attorney General focuses on the possibility that a prohibited person may acquire ammunition. Buying ammunition is something that prohibited persons have managed to accomplish for 170 years and these new laws show little likelihood of success of preventing prohibited persons from unlawfully possessing future acquisitions.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Violent Mike wrote:Even worse are people who think only veterans should have guns.

Pax Nerdvana wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:

(Image)
(Image)

Yeah, that's a really silly argument.
Also, the term "weapon of war" is quite silly. It is literally meaningless. A bow is a weapon of war, or was five centuries ago. Anything can be a "weapon of war" or an "assault weapon". A chair is an assault weapon. Or a pencil. Even a broom.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Pax Nerdvana wrote:Yeah, that's a really silly argument.
Also, the term "weapon of war" is quite silly. It is literally meaningless. A bow is a weapon of war, or was five centuries ago. Anything can be a "weapon of war" or an "assault weapon". A chair is an assault weapon. Or a pencil. Even a broom.

When they use those terms it always makes me think of that scene from the American version of Life on Mars:

Sam Tyler: "I think we're looking at a hate crime here."
Gene Hunt: "A 'hate' crime? As opposed to what, a 'I really like you a lot' crime?"