Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk?

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk? (Page 12)
Thread Tools
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not die? There goes all your Libertarian credibility.
If you were going to pick any words in that phrase to kill my Libertarian credibility, surely they'd be "help each other."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 05:12 PM
 
But you had to double down with the not dying.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Here's a little snapshot:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=d000000082

In the 2016 election cycle they spent nearly 37 million dollars campaigning against Democratic candidates.
Which is nothing compared to what the Soros-led anti-gun agenda, Priorities USA, spent ($133M).

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsides...861&cycle=2016
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Wait...why am I on the left again?
Because you're a Marxist?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I didn't really make any distinction at all as to the nature of the 'sensible' legislation.
I accept that your 2/3rds claim did not apply to the no-fly no-gun list, despite you saying:
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
Two thirds of the populace are in favour of sensible gun control laws like background checks and not selling guns to people on terror lists
Emphasis mine.

My position is there is common sense things that can be done but aren't even properly considered. Yours seems to be that no legislation of any kind that restricts access to guns is sensible or even worth looking at.
This is not true. There are plenty of gun regulations I believe are appropriate and constitutional. Also, strawman.

This is as stupid as it is disingenuous.
It would be if it weren't a strawman argument.

Maybe you think libraries should be banned for infringing your right to free speech?
Uh, what? Is there supposed to be an analogy in there? What do libraries have to do with gun control laws?


Again, the list exists. Using it to stop terrorists buying guns is only sensible as long as it exists.
But it shouldn't exist in the first place. It's an affront to our society and to our values. Increasing it's scope is the exact opposite of what we want to do. I'm really not sure how the list's existence automatically means it's a good idea - you're gonna have to articulate that out a little more.


Common sense dictates that a terrorist would choose to buy illegal guns? You've noticed that many of them don't plan on surviving to repeat their attacks right?
Right, so why in the flying **** would they give a shit about any new gun laws? How is this list going to stop them from carrying out an attack?[/quote]
Apparently common sense is not something you have.
**** off you twat. Make an argument.

You imagine the founding fathers entertained the notion that the land of the free would ban someone from travelling as a coach passenger? On a horse perhaps? Theres that common sense again. Way in the distance, staying out of your reach.
Why wouldn't they consider it? Seriously, do you just think people back then were just dumber than we are today?

Firstly they were all about freedom.
Yes, the American founders who instituted and codified slavery were all about freedom and didn't think about anything else, at all, ever.

Secondly, steering a coach into a building would only hurt the coach. And the horses would likely stop you doing it.
What the hell does this have to do with the argument? Are you saying horse and buggy in the American frontier was safer then modern aircraft? I also don't get what buggy accidents have to do with the constitution not articulating a right to travel.

Hijacking a boat is more likely, but I think even in a port that would have been piracy and punishable by death so need to ban anyone from boat travel there either.
Just what in the **** are you talking about? Piracy laws negated a need to articulate a right to travel?

I'm like, almost not sure if you're serious with this or if you did the head banging before you wrote the post.






Still harping on about a list that isn't mine.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
Two thirds of the populace are in favour of sensible gun control laws like background checks and not selling guns to people on terror lists
For the purposes of this conversation it is your list, as you brought it up to support your argument. If you want to disown it now, stop defending it as a viable solution.

No surprises that the ACLU and others don't like it. I keep hearing about expanded background checks, people must have something in mind when they say this?
You ever think finding out what that something is instead of filling it the gaps yourself?
The point stands. As long as you are using lists to ban travelling, you should ban them from all easily accessible and preventable forms of mass murder.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. It's such a jump in logic I would need to build a 3 forum page bridge just to get from one side to the other. The ends justify the means to the point that literally nothing else matters? I mean, you can't even present a case that the list would have any effectiveness it all, much less that it's effective to the point of ignoring the Constitution, 250 years of precedent, and even the ****ing magna carta .

Common sense.
I just don't think that means what you think it means.



And their plane tickets.


Higher authority? But?
The government's list, obviously. Sorry I'll try to keep them more easily digestible for you in the future.

If you suddenly started having thoughts about wanting to shoot lots of random strangers would you hand in your guns? Or give them to someone else to lock away from you?

Serious question.
Did you just get out of middle school? I mean, do you really expect anyone to read this and be like "OMG HE'S RIGHT!"


If only there was one for you about common sense.
Nani nani boo boo


I'm going to re-iterate my original very general point because apparently any example I give will be seized upon and not let go of.
We'll be damned if we explore issues intellectually!

There are measures that can be taken that most people consider sensible.
Which I will accept as soon as you provide a citation.

They don't get implemented because the gun lobby doesn't want them.
If by the gun lobby, you mean the American people, you're right.

You pick the measures if you like but if you can't think of a single thing, then there is something wrong with you and you need to ask yourself what and why and how you can be so afraid of elected officials without the slightest trace of skepticism for a profit-driven lobbying organisation that you know has incredible influence over those same elected officials and is ultimately one of the reasons you ought to be so paranoid about them in the damned first place.
Again, this is a straw man argument. See above.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
But...like...which ones? I have yet to see someone actually accurately represent my positions. As soon as I revealed that I caucused for Bernie, it was like a switch flipped and everyone has already decided everything that I stand for.
TBH, you made the list when I was thinking about "people who i've argued intensely with who actually can make compelling cases and keep it intellectual" - I actually edited the "and our other friends on the left" in right before posting, without considering the names before it just to be inclusive and illustrate the the universally accepted notion of subego not being shitty.

Besides, we're never going to be able to accurately represent your positions if we don't keep trying and failing. Practice makes perfect
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because you're a Marxist?
whoa, CTP. I definitely don't get marxist from Lam. From my viewpoint he certainly has a great deal of empathy when it comes to policy but certainly wouldn't ascribe his ideals to Marxism.

Now's the time we really need to come together if we're ever going to be anything more than partisan blowhards. It isn't going to happen if we keep slinging poop at each other for differences in political opinion.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2017, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I accept that your 2/3rds claim did not apply to the no-fly no-gun list, despite you saying:

Emphasis mine.
I acknowledge I mentioned it. I still think that if you are going to use a list to ban people from flying because they are too dangerous, then using the same list to ban them from buying deadly weapons is just ****ing sensible. If you don't like the list, take it away and pick a different common sense gun law.
Perhaps there are other lists and perhaps you don't like them either. The security forces are always going to flag dangerous people. It seems perfectly sensible to stop those people buying guns if you can easily do so, otherwise you might as well disband a few agencies while you're at it.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This is not true. There are plenty of gun regulations I believe are appropriate and constitutional. Also, strawman.
I disagree but its good that there are some laws you'd approve of. Your tone and style of debate definitely suggested that you were going to argue against any and all gun control legislation. Just like the gun lobby and the NRA currently do.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
But it shouldn't exist in the first place. It's an affront to our society and to our values. Increasing it's scope is the exact opposite of what we want to do. I'm really not sure how the list's existence automatically means it's a good idea - you're gonna have to articulate that out a little more.
OK, but like I said, thats a whole different discussion in itself.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Right, so why in the flying **** would they give a shit about any new gun laws? How is this list going to stop them from carrying out an attack?]
If its an expanded background check, it doesn't matter if they give a shit or not. You've already mentioned its not easy to learn you are on a list. If I want to commit a terror act, maybe I first try to board a plane and get refused because I've been listed. Next I go to a gun shop to buy lots of guns and because the list is now shared to the background check system, I get declined (And maybe law enforcement gets notified). Only then would I bother to go underground to buy black market weapons at a higher cost and greater risk of being caught before I launch my attack.

Its not complicated.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why wouldn't they consider it? Seriously, do you just think people back then were just dumber than we are today?
Were horses or carriage passengers licensed? Were there enough law enforcement to check someone's status as being not banned from riding? Did they even have the tech to share that data far enough and quickly enough to be worth bothering?

Banning people from riding a horse or travelling in a carriage 200 years ago would have been impractical.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yes, the American founders who instituted and codified slavery were all about freedom and didn't think about anything else, at all, ever.
They didn't foresee the advancement of weaponry too well. No surprise they were equally clueless about transportation and terrorism. Otherwise, good point, I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What the hell does this have to do with the argument? Are you saying horse and buggy in the American frontier was safer then modern aircraft? I also don't get what buggy accidents have to do with the constitution not articulating a right to travel.
The point is that crashing a horse and carriage isn't much of a terror attack compared with flying a plane into a building or just blowing it up and killing 300 people to make a political statement. I really didn't think that was difficult to grasp.

Once you get over the existence of the no fly list, your only half decent argument to support not using it for background checks on gun purchases is that it would be infringing on a constitutional right which owning a gun is, but travelling by plane is not. My point is that if planes had existed, and the authors of the constitution had envisaged any reason that a person might be banned from certain methods of travel, they might have chosen to enshrine a right to travel as being more basic and more useful than a right to own a gun, given that it is a fairly mundane and more everyday activity for the majority of people in the world. I'm not saying they should have foreseen any of that, but I still think its a fair point, don't you? Even slaves were allowed to ride buses.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Just what in the **** are you talking about? Piracy laws negated a need to articulate a right to travel?
As previously described, crashing a wooden cart isn't much of a terrorist act. The most damage you could do 200 years ago with a mode of transport would be to crash a boat into a dock or just sink one. Both of these would have been covered by other crimes and punishments so having a (completely impractical and unenforceable) system for banning individuals from boat travel would have been unnecessary and so therefore would enshrining anyones right to be a passenger.

To spell it out, if there is no foreseeable reason to ever ban people from certain types of transport, then there is no reason to enshrine their rights to use said transport because its not something that needs protecting by law. Same reason you don't have a right to the oxygen in your immediate airspace.





Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
For the purposes of this conversation it is your list, as you brought it up to support your argument. If you want to disown it now, stop defending it as a viable solution.
You can keep bringing up the list and "it shouldn't exist" but I could say the same about 2A and that would solve all my arguments for me. Its a different discussion and not even the crux of my point as I keep having to repeat.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You ever think finding out what that something is instead of filling it the gaps yourself?
I tried filling in the gaps and you have repeatedly fixated on what you think is an easy point to refute.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This makes absolutely no sense at all. It's such a jump in logic I would need to build a 3 forum page bridge just to get from one side to the other. The ends justify the means to the point that literally nothing else matters? I mean, you can't even present a case that the list would have any effectiveness it all, much less that it's effective to the point of ignoring the Constitution, 250 years of precedent, and even the ****ing magna carta .
There is zero jump in logic here. If someone can't be trusted to sit in a seat for a few hours without blowing a plane up, they can't be trusted with a deadly weapon.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I just don't think that means what you think it means.
Clearly you don't. I'm having to explain some really simple ideas.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Did you just get out of middle school? I mean, do you really expect anyone to read this and be like "OMG HE'S RIGHT!"
Then why can't you answer it? Are you so brainwashed into clinging to your guns until your last breath under any circumstances that you can't give an honest answer to a simple hypothetical? Sad.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We'll be damned if we explore issues intellectually!
This seems to nicely summarise your M.O.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Which I will accept as soon as you provide a citation.
Since you've already admitted there is legislation that you consider sensible and constitutional, I don't need to cite any more. Its agreed that such legislation is possible.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If by the gun lobby, you mean the American people, you're right.
Even the politicians who are pressured by the gun lobby sometimes speak out about the fact they are given little choice and still you don't believe whats plainly true? Theres no hope for rational debate when one side can't tell fact from fantasy land.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2017, 09:38 AM
 
Sadly, all your anti-gun nonsense means nothing. All gun laws do is impact lawful owners. You still haven't done anything about criminals. Laws are just words on paper.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2017, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
whoa, CTP. I definitely don't get marxist from Lam. From my viewpoint he certainly has a great deal of empathy when it comes to policy but certainly wouldn't ascribe his ideals to Marxism.

Now's the time we really need to come together if we're ever going to be anything more than partisan blowhards. It isn't going to happen if we keep slinging poop at each other for differences in political opinion.
Unfortunately, people on the right are too concerned with labels.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2017, 02:27 PM
 
Its the lefties that need the labels as they are horrid judges of others character. Its their knee jerk response.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2017, 03:31 PM
 
ironically, says the man using labels...
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2017, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Unfortunately, people on the right are too concerned with labels.
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its the lefties that need the labels as they are horrid judges of others character. Its their knee jerk response.




     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2017, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Sadly, all your anti-gun nonsense means nothing. All gun laws do is impact lawful owners. You still haven't done anything about criminals. Laws are just words on paper.
This is true of all laws so we shouldn't have any at all. Then there would be no criminals. Problems solved.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2017, 10:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Unfortunately, people on the right are too concerned with labels.
It's an established doctrine, not merely a dismissive term or "label". If you'd been complaining about "SJW", you'd have a point, but I'm not dismissing you for having Marxist ideals.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
This is true of all laws so we shouldn't have any at all. Then there would be no criminals. Problems solved.
You never have a logical thought do you?

You still haven't got it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 10:54 AM
 
Badkosh, you need a new sarcasmometer. Yours is broken.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 12:18 PM
 
So we are to joke around and not try to have serious discussions?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 02:37 PM
 
Most people are capable of both.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Unfortunately, people on the right are too concerned with labels.
Whoah now, let's not make sweeping generalizations without providing proper context. I would argue your statement holds more water if you modified it to remove the "on the right". Examples aplenty, but I'd like to avoid going tit for tat if possible.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
*SKIP*
Tell you what, I'll pay attention to how we implement your list (no-fly no-gun) when you pay attention to mine (the bill of rights). I am not interested in discussing anything with you unless you can acknowledge the bill of rights in the context of gun control. Until then, it's utterly pointless. The ends just don't justify the means.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
ironically, says the man using labels...
See my above - people "on the right" is a label too

We could argue past one another, but the blatant obviousness of this is that it's a human condition, and not one attributable to any particular ideology.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Whoah now, let's not make sweeping generalizations without providing proper context. I would argue your statement holds more water if you modified it to remove the "on the right". Examples aplenty, but I'd like to avoid going tit for tat if possible.
Unfortunately, people on the right are incapable of recognising comic irony.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Badkosh, you need a new sarcasmometer. Yours is broken.
You say that, but thats pretty much his argument: Criminals won't follow gun control laws because they're criminals.
Since there has never been a system of laws in human history that has succeeded in quashing all criminal activity, i.e. there has always been criminals, we can infer that there will always be criminals no matter what laws we pass so we may as well not have any laws at all because someone will always break them. Theres no logic there at all. You pass a law because you hope it will disincentives people and if not it will allow you to punish them. Not because you expect 100% of the population to follow it meticulously to the letter at all times.

Its a stupid argument but its been so ingrained into gun shills that they can't see how ridiculous it is. Plus it suits them not to so #alternativelogic I guess?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Tell you what, I'll pay attention to how we implement your list (no-fly no-gun) when you pay attention to mine (the bill of rights). I am not interested in discussing anything with you unless you can acknowledge the bill of rights in the context of gun control. Until then, it's utterly pointless. The ends just don't justify the means.
I'm not American so the bill of rights is not a sacred document to me. Its got some nice ideas in it, but it has some poorly worded ones too.
If you don't like the no-fly list, start a thread about how it shouldn't be there. Stop hiding behind a minor point in a totally different discussion. Pick your own constitutional gun control laws if you don't like mine referencing the list. Until this discussion I genuinely didn't realise there was much opposition to it. Its actually one of the most reasonably things I've seen you or anyone on the right be opposed to.
All I'm saying is if you're going to block someone sitting in a chair for several hours because they might kill 300 people, handing them a firearm is ****ing stupid.

I have to assume that you are against all background checks for gun sales since you seem to think that keeping any data on whether or not someone is a terrorist or a criminal is a violation of their rights? That seems like it would have far reaching implications for all aspects of law enforcement that go beyond LEO's witnessing and/or immediately arresting a criminal as you are essentially jeopardising all forms of investigation against criminals if no data can be kept.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I have to assume that you are against all background checks for gun sales since you seem to think that keeping any data on whether or not someone is a terrorist or a criminal is a violation of their rights?
The courts have adjudicated the grounds upon which this right can be restricted.

IIUC, these two grounds are a felony conviction, or having been involuntarily committed.

Assuming there are proper retention protocols, pretty much no one objects to a background check for these flags.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 07:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not American so the bill of rights is not a sacred document to me. Its got some nice ideas in it, but it has some poorly worded ones too.
Then you don't have a seat at the table of American politics.
If you don't like the no-fly list, start a thread about how it shouldn't be there. Stop hiding behind a minor point in a totally different discussion. Pick your own constitutional gun control laws if you don't like mine referencing the list.
The onus is on you to make your argument, not on me to make it for you.

Until this discussion I genuinely didn't realise there was much opposition to it. Its actually one of the most reasonably things I've seen you or anyone on the right be opposed to.
You would be amazed at what you would discover about the right if you would only engage.

All I'm saying is if you're going to block someone sitting in a chair for several hours because they might kill 300 people, handing them a firearm is ****ing stupid.
And i'm saying in the context of the framework of our society] this is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity. Many on the left agree with me as well. Civil rights are more important, full stop.

I have to assume that you are against all background checks for gun sales since you seem to think that keeping any data on whether or not someone is a terrorist or a criminal is a violation of their rights?
Just remember, any time you "assume" what my position is you're making a strawman argument. Like you are here, now.
That seems like it would have far reaching implications for all aspects of law enforcement that go beyond LEO's witnessing and/or immediately arresting a criminal as you are essentially jeopardising all forms of investigation against criminals if no data can be kept.
*SKIP*
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The courts have adjudicated the grounds upon which this right can be restricted.

IIUC, these two grounds are a felony conviction, or having been involuntarily committed.

Assuming there are proper retention protocols, pretty much no one objects to a background check for these flags.
Interesting. Then what do people have in mind when they talk about "expanded background checks". Are they only talking about expanding the existing checks to gun show sales? I thought they were about adding depth to the checks themselves.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 09:24 PM
 
[QUOTE=Snow-i;4380005]Then you don't have a seat at the table of American politics. [/QUOTE[

Yawn, that old chestnut. I'll have an opinion on whatever I like thanks. You must have known by now that I'm not a yank, surely?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The onus is on you to make your argument, not on me to make it for you.
Again, my argument isn't about any specific legislation, I merely gave examples of what I considered might by acceptable "reasonable gun control laws" in the context of what I have heard about 2/3 of Americans supporting said laws. If your version is different, elaborating is more useful to the conversation than just shooting mine down. Bring solutions, not just problems.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You would be amazed at what you would discover about the right if you would only engage.
If the right wants to engage, they need to ditch all the brain-dead factions they've picked up instead of pandering and indulging them.

Anti-truth, anti-intellectuaism, anti-science, religious fundamentalism and institutionalised discrimination against race, gender and sexuality are not points that can ever be up for debate or compromise by the left. They are plainly wrong and have no place in modern enlightened society. People who happily align with these ideals to make a buck or protect their own privileged status don't deserve to be engaged until they correct this choice.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
And i'm saying in the context of the framework of our society] this is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity. Many on the left agree with me as well. Civil rights are more important, full stop.
OK, then let me ask: Should Americans have the civil right to travel by air? Assuming they can afford to of course.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Just remember, any time you "assume" what my position is you're making a strawman argument. Like you are here, now.
I'm not really assuming that. I'm just trying to get at the limitations you're setting here while you refuse to spell your position out completely.

Remember the original point I made was that the gun lobby thwarts the will of the majority of US citizens who I believe would support some reasonable gun control laws that do not currently exist. The argument is not about what those laws are, its just interesting to know what someone who appears to be a fan of the gun lobby would pass if they were to let him.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2017, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Interesting. Then what do people have in mind when they talk about "expanded background checks". Are they only talking about expanding the existing checks to gun show sales? I thought they were about adding depth to the checks themselves.
Expanded checks mean requiring them for gun shows, and other private sales.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 12:26 AM
 
To add, most people I've discussed it with are fine with checks at gun shows, it's all private sales where things get dicey.

The argument against requiring it for every sale aren't of the overreach variety, they're more practical. Right off the bat it means anyone can de facto perform a background check on anyone, which has privacy implications. Likewise, there's the added expense to consider.

I don't think either of these things are deal-breakers, but they mean I'll approach the idea gingerly.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 12:46 AM
 
My knee jerk solution to that would be to make it a requirement that at least one party involved in any gun transaction be a licensed dealer. I can see a few people objecting to such a restrictive rule but assuming that most gun dealers are all in with the NRA and gun lobby, could be an interesting one as the dealers would likely go for it but the manufacturers might not.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 01:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To add, most people I've discussed it with are fine with checks at gun shows, it's all private sales where things get dicey.
That's the thing, there aren't many who have gone to more gun shows than me, and I've yet to see a gun sale at one that didn't include a BG check. There is no "Gun Show loophole", it simply does not exist, in fact gun shows will ban you if they catch you trying to trade a firearm w/o a dealer license and check, and that ban is serious, because the shows are interconnected, with a ban to one equalling a ban to all.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 01:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Unfortunately, people on the right are incapable of recognising comic irony.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 02:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Then you don't have a seat at the table of American politics.
Yawn, that old chestnut. I'll have an opinion on whatever I like thanks. You must have known by now that I'm not a yank, surely?
Yes of course, but I don't believe that I should hold you to a lower standard because of that, right?


Again, my argument isn't about any specific legislation, I merely gave examples of what I considered might by acceptable "reasonable gun control laws" in the context of what I have heard about 2/3 of Americans supporting said laws. If your version is different, elaborating is more useful to the conversation than just shooting mine down. Bring solutions, not just problems.
Ok, please articulate just what you're arguing for then. You keep asking me to come up with examples, but I'm not really sure of what. Do you have gun controls measures in mind that you believe are within the framework of the law and well supported by the public that are unimplemented? Or are you just generally ranting and citing ideas that have been widely debunked and hoping your opposition will fill in the gaps for you?



If the right wants to engage, they need to ditch all the brain-dead factions they've picked up instead of pandering and indulging them.
You're talking to me, not some abstract boogeyman.

Anti-truth, anti-intellectuaism, anti-science, religious fundamentalism and institutionalised discrimination against race, gender and sexuality are not points that can ever be up for debate or compromise by the left. They are plainly wrong and have no place in modern enlightened society. People who happily align with these ideals to make a buck or protect their own privileged status don't deserve to be engaged until they correct this choice.
Old man yells at cloud.


OK, then let me ask: Should Americans have the civil right to travel by air? Assuming they can afford to of course.
That's a good question. Actually, I think yes! I'd generalize the scope to a "right to travel unimpeded by government law within the country" but I believe it worthy of a constitutional amendment. Immediately the no-fly list is invalidated unless some judicial process is followed to deny a civil right.

Also, the airlines would knock off their bullshit.


More rights = good.


I'm not really assuming that. I'm just trying to get at the limitations you're setting here while you refuse to spell your position out completely.
I mean, I'm happy to spell my position out to you. I've tried to do nothing but that. My position is:

I am willing to consider gun control as long as it falls within the framework of due process and the bill of rights. The no-fly no-buy list violates both those fundamental paradigms for me. If you have other examples I will happy to look at them with you case-by-case. I won't agree with all, but you'd be surprised how willing I am to implement measures that follow logic and preserve our rights.

Remember the original point I made was that the gun lobby thwarts the will of the majority of US citizens who I believe would support some reasonable gun control laws that do not currently exist. The argument is not about what those laws are, its just interesting to know what someone who appears to be a fan of the gun lobby would pass if they were to let him.
I don't know that your statement is entirely accurate. The gun lobby quite frankly doesn't pump as much money out as the opposition. You know bloomberg pumps a ****ton of money into countering the gun lobby, yet the public remains unswayed.

The NRA-ILA (Institute for legislative action) for example, spent about 33 million in 2016, not just on lobbying, as the political wing of the NRA;
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsides...cmte=C90013301


Bloomberg alone spent 50:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr.../#68a54be6330a

Edited to add from the forbes article:
What the N.R.A. doesn't have is Bloomberg's coffers. Forbes estimates Bloomberg is the 17 richest person in the world with a $31.2 billion fortune (rooted in his financial-information business). When Bloomberg spoke with The New York Times about his idea, he threw out the $50 million figure "as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check." The N.R.A. typically spends less than half that figure (around $20 million)...in an entire year.
Who's telling you the NRA is buying the government?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 02:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
My knee jerk solution to that would be to make it a requirement that at least one party involved in any gun transaction be a licensed dealer. I can see a few people objecting to such a restrictive rule but assuming that most gun dealers are all in with the NRA and gun lobby, could be an interesting one as the dealers would likely go for it but the manufacturers might not.
I'd have to see the math on the extent to which private sales where the buyer commits fraud are a vector for guns to be used for ill.

This is opposed to private sales where the seller is intentionally breaking the law, upon which requiring a background check would have no effect.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Yes of course, but I don't believe that I should hold you to a lower standard because of that, right?
Yes, you're quite right but perhaps you'll forgive me for being a bit less familiar with it and a bit more likely to question it/happy to consider changing it?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ok, please articulate just what you're arguing for then. You keep asking me to come up with examples, but I'm not really sure of what. Do you have gun controls measures in mind that you believe are within the framework of the law and well supported by the public that are unimplemented? Or are you just generally ranting and citing ideas that have been widely debunked and hoping your opposition will fill in the gaps for you?

I didn't have specific measures in mind when I quoted that thing about 2/3 being in favour of reasonable laws. I also had no idea the no-fly list was so unpopular. The interesting part to me was that supposedly 2/3 of America are being thwarted by lobbying and bullying from gun makers and the NRA who seem to be against all gun control laws on the basis of them being a slippery slope as they like to say. I took a swing and apparently missed by a lot so I'd be interested to know what measures you would be happy to see made law because as a gun supporter, it is likely that your measures would be the ones supported by 2/3 of the country.
Then of course we could discuss how reasonable the slippery slop argument is in relation to those measures and whether there is any other reason the gun lobby might not want them passed.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
That's a good question. Actually, I think yes! I'd generalize the scope to a "right to travel unimpeded by government law within the country" but I believe it worthy of a constitutional amendment. Immediately the no-fly list is invalidated unless some judicial process is followed to deny a civil right.

Also, the airlines would knock off their bullshit.


More rights = good.
Excellent.
This is what I was getting it with all the stuff about crashing carriages. If the authors of the BoR had envisaged aircraft and terrorism involving them, they might have also envisioned people being banned from flying unfairly and moved to enshrine a right to air travel. Since the only forms of travel they had were feet, horses, carriages and boats and none of those are particularly effective at bringing down buildings after being hijacked by a terrorist.
That being the case, they probably never imagined there would be a reason to ban anyone from a specific form of travel and therefore no need to protect their rights in that matter.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I mean, I'm happy to spell my position out to you. I've tried to do nothing but that. My position is:

I am willing to consider gun control as long as it falls within the framework of due process and the bill of rights. The no-fly no-buy list violates both those fundamental paradigms for me. If you have other examples I will happy to look at them with you case-by-case. I won't agree with all, but you'd be surprised how willing I am to implement measures that follow logic and preserve our rights.
Great, but please by all means surprise me. I promise you aren't making my argument for me by doing so.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't know that your statement is entirely accurate. The gun lobby quite frankly doesn't pump as much money out as the opposition. You know bloomberg pumps a ****ton of money into countering the gun lobby, yet the public remains unswayed.

The NRA-ILA (Institute for legislative action) for example, spent about 33 million in 2016, not just on lobbying, as the political wing of the NRA;
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsides...cmte=C90013301


Bloomberg alone spent 50:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr.../#68a54be6330a

Edited to add from the forbes article:


Who's telling you the NRA is buying the government?
Perhaps this is right. But that would still beg the question that if 2/3 of America would be happy to see some extra laws passed, why aren't they passing. Or maybe thats a load of crap too?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 10:55 AM
 
So BE SPECIFIC. What exactly do you propose?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So BE SPECIFIC. What exactly do you propose?
I don't, thats the thing. I gave an example of what I thought most Americans might go for and I've been shown I was utterly wrong.
We both know that I would be fine with measures that you would not be, so its more efficient if the original notion that 2/3 of Americans support reasonable new gun laws is true, if someone who were more in favour of guns were to propose them. If there are laws that you would approve of, 2/3 of Americans are much more likely to go for those than anything I come up with.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; May 6, 2017 at 03:17 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2017, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes, you're quite right but perhaps you'll forgive me for being a bit less familiar with it and a bit more likely to question it/happy to consider changing it?
Absolutely, but fair warning my ideology is rooted in those fundamental rights above all else.



I didn't have specific measures in mind when I quoted that thing about 2/3 being in favour of reasonable laws. I also had no idea the no-fly list was so unpopular. The interesting part to me was that supposedly 2/3 of America are being thwarted by lobbying and bullying from gun makers and the NRA who seem to be against all gun control laws on the basis of them being a slippery slope as they like to say. I took a swing and apparently missed by a lot so I'd be interested to know what measures you would be happy to see made law because as a gun supporter, it is likely that your measures would be the ones supported by 2/3 of the country.
I'll start with one:

Personally I think the anti-gunners have it backwards. I am all for requiring more background checks and stricter regulations on the sale of handguns, considering they constitute >99% of violent crime in the US, are easily concealable, easy to lose, easy to steal, and easy to mishandle. Shotguns and Rifles (including the erroneously defined "Assault weapons", however, should be easy to get as they make up collectively less than 1% of violent gun crime. They are also very hard to conceal but are ideal for home/business defense, hunting/sport, and the occasional overthrow of a tyrannical government. They look scary though, and for the uninformed this matters more than the facts surrounding their role in our society.



Then of course we could discuss how reasonable the slippery slop argument is in relation to those measures and whether there is any other reason the gun lobby might not want them passed.
I don't see the slippery slope for handguns the same way I do for long guns. I know many gun owners might not agree with me but I'm not advocating an outright ban nor an "effective" ban.




Excellent.
This is what I was getting it with all the stuff about crashing carriages. If the authors of the BoR had envisaged aircraft and terrorism involving them, they might have also envisioned people being banned from flying unfairly and moved to enshrine a right to air travel. Since the only forms of travel they had were feet, horses, carriages and boats and none of those are particularly effective at bringing down buildings after being hijacked by a terrorist.
That being the case, they probably never imagined there would be a reason to ban anyone from a specific form of travel and therefore no need to protect their rights in that matter.
Their failure to articulate is how we ended up with the no-fly in the first place. In my mind, there's no reason to double down on the folly by expanding the encroachment of unwritten rights to include written ones.


Great, but please by all means surprise me. I promise you aren't making my argument for me by doing so.
See my above example.



Perhaps this is right. But that would still beg the question that if 2/3 of America would be happy to see some extra laws passed, why aren't they passing. Or maybe thats a load of crap too?
I don't think they've been presented with the right solutions, and the solutions they have been presented are seriously flawed.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'll start with one:

Personally I think the anti-gunners have it backwards. I am all for requiring more background checks and stricter regulations on the sale of handguns, considering they constitute >99% of violent crime in the US, are easily concealable, easy to lose, easy to steal, and easy to mishandle. Shotguns and Rifles (including the erroneously defined "Assault weapons", however, should be easy to get as they make up collectively less than 1% of violent gun crime. They are also very hard to conceal but are ideal for home/business defense, hunting/sport, and the occasional overthrow of a tyrannical government. They look scary though, and for the uninformed this matters more than the facts surrounding their role in our society.
This all sounds perfectly sensible to me, shotguns and rifles are legal over here too and rarely used in crimes (sawing off your shotgun is a big no-no however). It seems adding any depth to background checks is not an option, how could regulations be made more strict?


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't see the slippery slope for handguns the same way I do for long guns. I know many gun owners might not agree with me but I'm not advocating an outright ban nor an "effective" ban.
I think it suits the makers to let the slippery slope argument apply to all guns and thats how they will continue to wield it. It would be a very positive step forwards IMO to start differentiating more between long guns as tools and handguns as weapons. I think that could lead to some serious progress if everyone began to adopt that distinction. Would it have to be spelled out as a regulation of some kind? An order that required some guns to be labelled or classified as "Ballistic Weapons" and others as "Ballistic Equipment" or something like that?
Thinking about it you might need to further differentiate between 'personal weapons' and 'military weapons'. The reason being that if you split just into two, tools and weapons and then try to essentially apply 2A to one and not the other, its going to be applied to the weapons, not the tools. By distinguishing between personal and military, you could potentially restrict 2A to apply to military weapons since overthrowing a tyrannical government would be a military act and militia is specifically mentioned. Personal weapons could be gently disqualified from 2A applying fully to them and therefore be subjected to greater restrictions.
There is no way in hell this would ever be allowed to pass is there?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
This all sounds perfectly sensible to me, shotguns and rifles are legal over here too and rarely used in crimes (sawing off your shotgun is a big no-no however). It seems adding any depth to background checks is not an option, how could regulations be made more strict?
In theory, I'm far more amenable to the idea of restricting handguns. They're only nominally related to the security of a free state.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017, 06:25 PM
 
I wrote a long post all about what I think, but decided instead of boring everybody to tears, I'll just throw down with the brass tacks.

Here in Illinois, the "sensible" gun legislation is if you want to legally own a gun you have to get a license from the State Police. Ranges won't even rent you a gun without one of these.

Do I need to pull out stats on Chicago's homicide rate? How many of those shooters registered with the State Police and got their license?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017, 06:33 PM
 
For the curious...



Don't own a gun, got it for the aforementioned range rental.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2017, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I wrote a long post all about what I think, but decided instead of boring everybody to tears, I'll just throw down with the brass tacks.

Here in Illinois, the "sensible" gun legislation is if you want to legally own a gun you have to get a license from the State Police. Ranges won't even rent you a gun without one of these.

Do I need to pull out stats on Chicago's homicide rate? How many of those shooters registered with the State Police and got their license?
This has been discussed before. Handgun legislation is extremely weakened when anyone can hop over to a nearby state(s), load up with as many handguns as they like, and drive back to Chicago with zero checkpoints or border stops.

In Canada our firearms-related violence is incredibly minuscule compared to the USA - and we allow long gun ownership, and restricted handgun ownership - but the figure I've seen thrown around is that something like 70% of the handgun and semi/automatic weapons used in shootings are with guns illegally smuggled across the border from the US.

And that's across a controlled, patrolled border crossing with extremely tough smuggling penalties. How do you possibly expect Illinois legislation to have any chance in hell of being effective as a local state law? And how can anyone possibly use Illinois' situation as an example of how gun control is ineffective without appearing completely disingenuous?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
How do you possibly expect Illinois legislation to have any chance in hell of being effective as a local state law? And how can anyone possibly use Illinois' situation as an example of how gun control is ineffective without appearing completely disingenuous?
I don't, and I'm not.

Save the ire for the legislature who either didn't know or didn't care.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017, 10:48 AM
 
Maybe they hoped other states would follow suit?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017, 04:27 PM
 
They should get out more, then.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2017, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't, and I'm not.

Save the ire for the legislature who either didn't know or didn't care.
Sorry wasn't clear - was not accusing you of making the argument, just agreeing with you that the situation makes no sense in the circumstances
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2017, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
In Canada our firearms-related violence is incredibly minuscule compared to the USA
Because you don't have our problems with gangs and cartels.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,