NationStates

Len Hyet wrote:Previously, on Gun Control.

Part I, Part II, Part III

Original Post & Thread by Conservative Morality:


Been gone from NSG recovering from a little accident (nothing major) so I thought I'd return to the forums with a true classic - gun control.

I speak on this issue as an American, and thus I necessarily refer back to the 2nd Amendment here. The 2nd Amendment is culturally important - practically, less so. In an age of effective nonlethal self-defense weapons, 'self-defense' rings somewhat hollow as a justification; in an age of the MIC, 'combat readiness' for the civilian population doubly so; and anyone who thinks that their militia is going to resist the tyranny of the Feds with small arms is loony enough that they probably shouldn't own any guns. One must remember that even in the American Revolutionary War it was not private firearms which provided the majority of the firepower of American forces; such firearm ownership was primarily the province of skirmishers and some irregulars.

I could care less, to be honest, about long guns. We aren't the Wild West. We aren't some wartorn third-world country. Even fully automatic long guns don't concern me too much. Our problems with firearms are overwhelmingly concerned with the tracking of individuals who misuse them, not so much the disarmament of individuals with firearms. We don't live in a country where militias and gangs can resist the force of the State without using the institutions of the State (judicial process, presumption of innocence, civil rights).

Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals. I'm not sure that there are many circumstances I would support a full ban on a person's right to own firearms, but restricting ownership of certain firearms for certain individuals is probably useful. Acquiring a license to own handguns in particular, I think, is a good idea. Criminal activity is overwhelmingly reliant on concealment of weaponry.

I do think a limitation on different 'classes' of weapons is useful - but the current definitions of 'assault' weapons are asinine and borderline useless. Restrictions on semiautomatic long guns should be based primarily on ease of concealment - 'tactical' attachments, bayonet lugs, that shit doesn't matter. Collapsing stocks and shortened barrels and extended magazine capacity is more important, and even then I don't believe in a complete ban on such things.

Private and government property, naturally, can restrict what comes onto their property. Your rights end where another's begin. If the city doesn't want your glock in the local social services department, leave it at home and quitcher bitchin'.

Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.

Open carry is an issue that I think should mostly be regulated by the individual states, with some exceptions. There is no fucking reason you need to open carry a fully automatic weapon in public, full stop. Keep that shit on private property. I'd prefer it if people didn't carry their AR-15 dick replacements into the local department stores with tactical webbing and camo from head to toe either, but I guess that's more a personal preference.

So? Agree? Disagree? Am I just rambling?

Chan Island wrote:Ah, that fresh thread smell. This one smells somehow like both gunpowder and the paperwork of regulation at the same time.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:There is a complaint lodged in Moderation that this OP is against gun control, and that a pro gun control OP should be next.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:There is a complaint lodged in Moderation that this OP is against gun control, and that a pro gun control OP should be next.

Fartsniffage wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:There is a complaint lodged in Moderation that this OP is against gun control, and that a pro gun control OP should be next.

Seems fair to take turns, no?

Telconi wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Seems fair to take turns, no?

This happens in literally no serial threads.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Telconi wrote:
This happens in literally no serial threads.

Then maybe we can create a new trend. The right wing threads are all created by right wingers, the left wing threads by left wingers. The British thread is always by British people. Maybe the gun control thread should be by people who support gun control? Crazy idea I know.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Telconi wrote:
This happens in literally no serial threads.

Then maybe we can create a new trend. The right wing threads are all created by right wingers, the left wing threads by left wingers. The British thread is always by British people. Maybe the gun control thread should be by people who support gun control? Crazy idea I know.

Telconi wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Then maybe we can create a new trend. The right wing threads are all created by right wingers, the left wing threads by left wingers. The British thread is always by British people. Maybe the gun control thread should be by people who support gun control? Crazy idea I know.

Or, alternatively, you can stop fabricating a problem where there is none.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Or, alternatively, you can stop fabricating a problem where there is none.

Control of the poll buddy. All I'm asking for is that it's split equally between they two sides of this very contentious debate.

Fartsniffage wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:There is a complaint lodged in Moderation that this OP is against gun control, and that a pro gun control OP should be next.

Seems fair to take turns, no?

Crockerland wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Seems fair to take turns, no?

The next OP of the transgender thread should be a transphobe Westboro Baptist Church member then, everyone needs a turn.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Crockerland wrote:The next OP of the transgender thread should be a transphobe Westboro Baptist Church member then, everyone needs a turn.

You got that backwards dude. But good try.

Telconi wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
You got that backwards dude. But good try.

That is how turns work

Hammer Britannia wrote:I mean, Fart, the fact that these threads have pretty much just become a wankfest for pro-gun rights activists (me included) should be telling that the creator of the threads will usually be one of those wankers.

Also, who are you? IM? Why do you care about Polls so much? And why does it matter? These threads haven't had a legitimate poll since the first one.

tl;dr: W h y?

---

Anyways, gun control bad.

Hammer Britannia wrote:I mean, Fart, the fact that these threads have pretty much just become a wankfest for pro-gun rights activists (me included) should be telling that the creator of the threads will usually be one of those wankers.

Also, who are you? IM? Why do you care about Polls so much? And why does it matter? These threads haven't had a legitimate poll since the first one.

tl;dr: W h y?

---

Anyways, gun control bad.

Crockerland wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Seems fair to take turns, no?

The next OP of the transgender thread should be a transphobe Westboro Baptist Church member then, everyone needs a turn.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Or, alternatively, you can stop fabricating a problem where there is none.

Control of the poll buddy. All I'm asking for is that it's split equally between they two sides of this very contentious debate.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Crockerland wrote:The next OP of the transgender thread should be a transphobe Westboro Baptist Church member then, everyone needs a turn.

The Dutch thread has been led by a non-dutch speaker once.

Personally, I have my eyes set on the Christianity thread

The Chuck wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:
A) private dealers at a gun show that are selling firearms are a very, small percentage so small that they don't even bother renting booth space. The other issue is if they sell x amount in a given year, they must apply for an FFL.
B) I've never seen such a thing. I've gone to gun shows since I was young going back to the 70's and its always FFLs, the private sellers that are there sell jewelry, ammo, camping gear, books, crafts.
I find it odd that when it comes to firearms, and no other type of arms, we treat this portion of an enumerated right as a privilege, let alone the insane restrictions, hoops and rigamarole that no other right is subjected to.
To me it is govt overreach, and my ideal system of gun control is using both hands. Other than that, I'm against all gun control laws.

*Cough* FTFY

The Chuck wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:There is a complaint lodged in Moderation that this OP is against gun control, and that a pro gun control OP should be next.

Already saw and replied. If anyone has a suggestion for new material for the gun control thread, just shoot it my way in a DM and I'll give it a once over.

Aclion wrote:

The Chuck wrote:
Already saw and replied. If anyone has a suggestion for new material for the gun control thread, just shoot it my way in a DM and I'll give it a once over.

Lmao at the idea of gun control advocates needing progun people to come up with new material for them. :x