Gun Control 2023 (V) - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[San Lumen]

If someone was to say Im going to shoot the Governor and his or staff at their next public event they should have the right to say it unless they attempt carry out that threat?

All rights are therefore absolute?

Again, saying it and carrying it out are two different functions, IMO. Then again I hear shit like that daily.

Therefore are such laws unconstitutional? should all rights be declared as absolute? if someone sends threatening letters to an elected official there ought to be no legal consequences?

[American Legionaries]

Again, saying it and carrying it out are two different functions, IMO. Then again I hear shit like that daily.

Therefore are such laws unconstitutional? should all rights be declared as absolute? if someone sends threatening letters to an elected official there ought to be no legal consequences?

Why should people be punished because they hurt the poor elected official's feelings?

[Grinning Dragon]

Again, saying it and carrying it out are two different functions, IMO. Then again I hear shit like that daily.

Therefore are such laws unconstitutional? should all rights be declared as absolute? if someone sends threatening letters to an elected official there ought to be no legal consequences?

What is so fucking special about an elected official, what about threatening letters against lil Timmy or Tiffy? Shouldn't these two cats get the same attention then?
I wonder how many threatening letters those fucking cunts up in the hive of villainy get a day and have you heard of a wide swath of degenerates getting arrested and tossed into prison?
I'm sure they are investigated. As I said before, saying it and following through are two different related matters.

[San Lumen]

Therefore are such laws unconstitutional? should all rights be declared as absolute? if someone sends threatening letters to an elected official there ought to be no legal consequences?

Why should people be punished because they hurt the poor elected official's feelings?

Therefore if you send a letter to the governors office saying you hate them and are going to shoot up the Capitol building with one of your riffles the authorities should do nothing?

[San Lumen]

Therefore are such laws unconstitutional? should all rights be declared as absolute? if someone sends threatening letters to an elected official there ought to be no legal consequences?

What is so fucking special about an elected official, what about threatening letters against lil Timmy or Tiffy? Shouldn't these two cats get the same attention then?
I wonder how many threatening letters those fucking cunts up in the hive of villainy get a day and have you heard of a wide swath of degenerates getting arrested and tossed into prison?
I'm sure they are investigated. As I said before, saying it and following through or two related matters.

But should they be? Because by your logic they should not.

[Grinning Dragon]

What is so fucking special about an elected official, what about threatening letters against lil Timmy or Tiffy? Shouldn't these two cats get the same attention then?
I wonder how many threatening letters those fucking cunts up in the hive of villainy get a day and have you heard of a wide swath of degenerates getting arrested and tossed into prison?
I'm sure they are investigated. As I said before, saying it and following through or two related matters.

But should they be? Because by your logic they should not.

Because their fee fees got hurt? Fuck no. Nothing more than fuck nuts spouting off 'cause they got a bit of sand in their vagina.

[American Legionaries]

Why should people be punished because they hurt the poor elected official's feelings?

Therefore if you send a letter to the governors office saying you hate them and are going to shoot up the Capitol building with one of your riffles the authorities should do nothing?

That's right.

[San Lumen]

But should they be? Because by your logic they should not.

Because their fee fees got hurt? Fuck no. Nothing more than fuck nuts spouting off 'cause they got a bit of sand in their vagina.

Ok and what if one of those letters turns out to have been sent by the person that shoots them? You could have prevented it.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Because their fee fees got hurt? Fuck no. Nothing more than fuck nuts spouting off 'cause they got a bit of sand in their vagina.

Ok and what if one of those letters turns out to have been sent by the person that shoots them? You could have prevented it.

Funny, you are showing more outrage here over a fictional story about politicians getting shot up with prior warning then you actually showed when actual children were shot up in Parkland when the Feds had six week prior notice.

Kinda telling when you show more emotion of fake politicians then real children Lumen outside using them as puppets to push an agenda... just saying.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1) Actually no, if you take it that way, about 95% of the cake is gone as I said. In 1792, literal cannons, bombs, nitroglycerin, and even whole warships could be bought and sold by individuals. History shows you DID have to be 15 years old to buy a literal cannon in some of the states though, so there could be age restrictions at a low level.

We're not talking about explosives or warships, though. Civilian firearms still have relatively few restrictions, and the only type of firearms (mostly) banned federally are fully automatic weapons. Even if you want to include artillery or rocket launchers in the definition of "firearm" it's nowhere near 95% gone.

Civilian firearms have a load of restrictions nowadays even at the federal level nowadays. Foreign made guns are exceptionally hard to import in any form, a large number are flatly banned entirely, there's age requirements for purchase which are arbitrary and vary between different types of firearms, the NFA is explicitly used to try and price out the poor from owning any title 2 items (and many Dems want to raise the $200 tax up to a several thousand dollar tax to really stick it to the poors), there's all sorts of nonsensical parts requirements that guns have to meet to be legal, shotguns can at any time be de-facto outlawed and placed on the NFA (see the USAS and Street Sweeper debacle), you can no longer have guns mailed to your house unless they're antiques and you get a license, civilian machine guns were more or less entirely outlawed despite only being in used in 3 crimes in half a century etc etc. Once you start piling state level restrictions onto this, especially in a blue state like California or Washington, the right is absolutely 95% gone and serves as a wonderful example that gun control advocates will simply never stop because they don't agree the right exists in the first place.

[Haganham]

If gun ownership is a privilege, then so are devices that allow a person to freely express their ideas and speech, the computer, the phone, the printing press, the quill, the paper, etc.
The fact of the matter is that the Bill of Rights recognizes the right to keep and bear arms is a natural (read negative right) right, that is all that matters.

If the second amendment is absolute than are all other rights absolute too? For example is a law saying you can't make public threats of violence against elected officials or send death threats unconstitutional?

point me to the point in which someone argues threatening to shoot elected officials should be legal.

[Des-Bal]

But should they be? Because by your logic they should not.

You've repeated the same thing fifteen fucking times and have never attempted to address anyone who pointed out your hypocrisy. Would you allow Delaware's gun laws to apply to free speech?

[Galloism]

But should they be? Because by your logic they should not.

You've repeated the same thing fifteen fucking times and have never attempted to address anyone who pointed out your hypocrisy. Would you allow Delaware's gun laws to apply to free speech?

Excuse me sir, is that an assault keyboard capable of over 1000 keystrokes per minute?

[The Two Jerseys]

You've repeated the same thing fifteen fucking times and have never attempted to address anyone who pointed out your hypocrisy. Would you allow Delaware's gun laws to apply to free speech?

Excuse me sir, is that an assault keyboard capable of over 1000 keystrokes per minute?

Nobody needs fully-automatic speech-to-text.

[Galloism]

Excuse me sir, is that an assault keyboard capable of over 1000 keystrokes per minute?

Nobody needs fully-automatic speech-to-text.

With that you can threaten over 60 politicians a minute. And does that keyboard have a *backlight*? That's one of the items that's used to classify it as an assault keyboard.

[Trans-Mississippi]

How is that a bad thing, and how is that relevant? People have a right to kill themselves, and suicides usually do not harm others.

That's true - but the rate of firearm-related homicide in the US is still inordinately high excluding suicide.

Well when there is guns, turns out that people will use them. People will still try to kill people with or without guns. Just look at Britain. And the overwhelming majority of gun violence is done using illegally obtained firearms regardless.

[Adamede]

We're not talking about explosives or warships, though. Civilian firearms still have relatively few restrictions, and the only type of firearms (mostly) banned federally are fully automatic weapons. Even if you want to include artillery or rocket launchers in the definition of "firearm" it's nowhere near 95% gone.

Civilian firearms have a load of restrictions nowadays even at the federal level nowadays. Foreign made guns are exceptionally hard to import in any form, a large number are flatly banned entirely, there's age requirements for purchase which are arbitrary and vary between different types of firearms, the NFA is explicitly used to try and price out the poor from owning any title 2 items (and many Dems want to raise the $200 tax up to a several thousand dollar tax to really stick it to the poors), there's all sorts of nonsensical parts requirements that guns have to meet to be legal, shotguns can at any time be de-facto outlawed and placed on the NFA (see the USAS and Street Sweeper debacle), you can no longer have guns mailed to your house unless they're antiques and you get a license, civilian machine guns were more or less entirely outlawed despite only being in used in 3 crimes in half a century etc etc. Once you start piling state level restrictions onto this, especially in a blue state like California or Washington, the right is absolutely 95% gone and serves as a wonderful example that gun control advocates will simply never stop because they don't agree the right exists in the first place.

Hell an even better example is that gun control advocacy groups still exist in Canada and Australia and are pushing for even further bans.

Gun banners won’t ever stop until all guns are banned.

[Kernen]

1) Actually no, if you take it that way, about 95% of the cake is gone as I said. In 1792, literal cannons, bombs, nitroglycerin, and even whole warships could be bought and sold by individuals. History shows you DID have to be 15 years old to buy a literal cannon in some of the states though, so there could be age restrictions at a low level.

We're not talking about explosives or warships, though. Civilian firearms still have relatively few restrictions, and the only type of firearms (mostly) banned federally are fully automatic weapons. Even if you want to include artillery or rocket launchers in the definition of "firearm" it's nowhere near 95% gone.

2) No, it's a human right. It's actually the oldest human right. Dating back to at least the Germanic tribes and considered a right (and responsibility) for all free citizens for well over a thousand years. In fact, it was tradition at that time that if a slave bought their freedom the community gave them their first weapon in recognition of their new rights as a free citizen (slavery is bad, but for historical context, this is how seriously these rights were taken). Your take is anti-historical, anti-human rights, and anti-freedom.

All the essential human rights are 1) necessary for human equality; and 2) don't infringe on public safety, excepting the right to free speech, which normally has allowances for those scenarios. Guns do not fit those properties. Either way, our society is nothing like that of the Germanic tribes, and most other ancient civilisations didn't operate like that anyway. Ancient Roman law gave a father the right to kill any of his children - should that be a human right by historical precedent too?

3) I didn't say that. Placing poison in wine is not a human right with over a thousand years of history behind it. I said you've taken most of a recognized human right - arguably the *oldest* human right - you can't take more without giving some back. When you take human rights, you harm people - forever. You have to weigh that against the harm you're allegedly protecting against. And this means - give some back, or give up taking more. It will require negotiation. It will require give and take. You don't get to take, take, take, take, take, take, take until all the rights are gone. You just don't.

The problem is that you can't negotiate away such severe issues of public safety. You cannot litigate with them, and they will only take more lives. These need to be kept on a short leash until the root problem is fixed. If you think your freedoms should be so free as to put others at such a risk, you have infringed on their rights in the most heinous way. It's the same way with the wine. Numerous heavy metals and poisonous substances occur naturally in wine, and their levels are controlled in food and drink. But to give up restrictions on this substance as a "compromise" to resolve some other public health issue is plainly idiotic.

If gun ownership is a privilege, then so are devices that allow a person to freely express their ideas and speech, the computer, the phone, the printing press, the quill, the paper, etc.
The fact of the matter is that the Bill of Rights recognizes the right to keep and bear arms is a natural (read negative right) right, that is all that matters.

To consider gun ownership in any way equivalent to the most essential aspects of a democratic society is absolutely deluded.
Hey, the 2nd amendment again! I'm talking about what would work, not what your wide-brush interpretation of the 2nd amendment demands.

And how did you arrive at this number? Or did you just pull it out of your ass to justify what you already want?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

Do you just make shit up?

[Kernen]

Because their fee fees got hurt? Fuck no. Nothing more than fuck nuts spouting off 'cause they got a bit of sand in their vagina.

Ok and what if one of those letters turns out to have been sent by the person that shoots them? You could have prevented it.

We have no obligation to prevent murder.

[American Legionaries]

We're not talking about explosives or warships, though. Civilian firearms still have relatively few restrictions, and the only type of firearms (mostly) banned federally are fully automatic weapons. Even if you want to include artillery or rocket launchers in the definition of "firearm" it's nowhere near 95% gone.

All the essential human rights are 1) necessary for human equality; and 2) don't infringe on public safety, excepting the right to free speech, which normally has allowances for those scenarios. Guns do not fit those properties. Either way, our society is nothing like that of the Germanic tribes, and most other ancient civilisations didn't operate like that anyway. Ancient Roman law gave a father the right to kill any of his children - should that be a human right by historical precedent too?

The problem is that you can't negotiate away such severe issues of public safety. You cannot litigate with them, and they will only take more lives. These need to be kept on a short leash until the root problem is fixed. If you think your freedoms should be so free as to put others at such a risk, you have infringed on their rights in the most heinous way. It's the same way with the wine. Numerous heavy metals and poisonous substances occur naturally in wine, and their levels are controlled in food and drink. But to give up restrictions on this substance as a "compromise" to resolve some other public health issue is plainly idiotic.

To consider gun ownership in any way equivalent to the most essential aspects of a democratic society is absolutely deluded.
Hey, the 2nd amendment again! I'm talking about what would work, not what your wide-brush interpretation of the 2nd amendment demands.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

Do you just make shit up?

The answer appears to be yes.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

That's true - but the rate of firearm-related homicide in the US is still inordinately high excluding suicide.

Worth note a lot of this has to do with the US oppressing its minorities (which is a severe, severe issue). Saw a handy chart on this one time - among Caucasians, our homicide rate fits neatly into about the European average. But the homicide rate among our minority groups (excluding Asians) is out of control, which drives the huge numbers you see in the aggregate.

Ultimately, this means that even *more* gun control, when we already have a ton, is not really the answer. It means we need to work on that whole oppressing minorities bit.

In a way, gun control is a way of "getting better at it", but not in a good way in regards to those being a minority.

[Caurus]

I saw in the American Politics thread that someone had posted the Fox and YouGov polling saying that "Assault Weapon" bans were more popular among the youth and that gun rights advocates "lost" the "PR war".
Quite the contrary, actually. The trends from major polling organizations consistently show a decline in support.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... us_042423/
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/u ... uazj33.pdf
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... eUnion.pdf

[Hurtful Thoughts]

I saw in the American Politics thread that someone had posted the Fox and YouGov polling saying that "Assault Weapon" bans were more popular among the youth and that gun rights advocates "lost" the "PR war".
Quite the contrary, actually. The trends from major polling organizations consistently show a decline in support.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... us_042423/
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/u ... uazj33.pdf
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... eUnion.pdf

By youth, do they mean five year olds?

*Checks data*

Um, how did they poll 72% of people between the ages of 35 to 90 and also managed to get >65% with no degree or high school diploma?

[Caurus]

I saw in the American Politics thread that someone had posted the Fox and YouGov polling saying that "Assault Weapon" bans were more popular among the youth and that gun rights advocates "lost" the "PR war".
Quite the contrary, actually. The trends from major polling organizations consistently show a decline in support.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... us_042423/
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/u ... uazj33.pdf
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... eUnion.pdf

By youth, do they mean five year olds?

*Checks data*

Um, how did they poll 72% of people between the ages of 35 to 90 and also managed to get >65% with no degree or high school diploma?

Where did you get the stuff about no degree or high school diploma? I couldn't find anything about high school diplomas in the links. With the issue of 4 year degrees though, it's roughly in line with national polling showing that about 40% have a bachelor's degree.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads ... graduates/

[Urkennalaid]

Republicans should be forced to watch the footage of all these mass shootings. Another mass shooting happened in Texas. This is PREVENTABLE.