So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

[kelly4]

And so you represent to me that should i ask, politely for any of your weapons or the parts thereof you will attempt to harm me - now there is the picture of a well balanced, reasonable human being who can be absolutely trusted with a firearm.

Canndo, why are you asking for his weapons and/or their parts? Has he done something wrong? Stop trying to stomp on our freedoms...

 

[SirGreenThumb]

I'll just put this here.
[video=youtube;OyS3CEIbpJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo[/video]

 

[canndo]

It is a right guaranteed to me by the constitution. Though I honestly would not relinquish the right even if the constitution did not exist. I never called it a right in my statement, however. I have the right to not be fucked with if I am not fucking with someone else. You are using the whole social contract/communism/socialism argument that society is more important than the individual. This is completely incorrect. You are the same sort of person who would immediately go and support abortion(the legalized killing of people) but then look down on people who decide that their faith doesn't let them get a certain medical treatment or look down on those who want to own an inanimate object. The truth is that you, like most of the country, takes the 'I like or don't like' thing way too far.

"Where does it end?" It is a very good question, and I think I know the answer. Look at every civilization that moved all power from the individual to the government. When 50.1% of the population can vote to take from the other 49.9% of the population and does then there is a problem.

The controls you/demos/ect are suggesting are mostly already in place in many states in the country and many places in the world. You can't even claim that those rules are really working. When you look at a list of the states with the highest murder rates the list is all over the place. So the question becomes why are some places like that and others aren't? There are some trends but none of them are gun control.

Once again - please explain how enacting tougher gun laws is going to stop this from happening short of outright banning of almost all guns. The laws in Conn are pretty touch already - what laws would of stopped this from happening?

The children were collateral damage. The term applies. There were 40k or deaths that came from driving cars too. They were collateral damage also. You using such crude terms and trying to attribute them to gun owners is pretty fucked up. Do you really think that we don't mourn for the lives lost?

This is a moment in time. Everyone is excited because of what happened. This is an obvious push by the left to accomplish something that the people of the country do not really want by using a single occurrence. Much like the D-bags of our government used 9/11 to completely rape our freedom.

The laws that you propose will at best stop 20-30 deaths a year if any all. Short of outlawing all semi-automatic weapons , which laws would of saved any of the lives lost? Even banning semi automatics would not have saved them all, and you can't prove it would of saved 1 single life.

As so many "don't take my STUFF" rants, this one loses me early on.


I can't seem to get the gist of what you are trying to say - that gun laws don't save lives? and if they do not, then why have them at all?

Seems to me that laws against murder don't eliminate murder, want them stricken from the books? Laws against theft don't stop theft 100 percent, so lets get rid of them as well.

Now, how many lives saved is a law worth? Or is one or two just not worth the effort?

then again there is the false "tyranny" vs "liberty" argument that gets perpetually trotted out as if it were original and as if it actually pertained to reality. It doesn't. Every civilization that "moved all power from an individual to the government" is not the only distinction of transference of power. When you see a civilization where 99 percent of available wealth is concentrated into the hands of the few, you see a civilization not long destined to exist - but no, you won't address those sorts of social disparities, only the ones that involve government vs individuals - just the way you are expected to percieve the way of things. When 1 percent of the population can vote to take from the other 99 percent and does, then there is a probem and we, my friend are in the midst of that problem. Or are you under the impression that just so long as the holders of 99 percent of everything are benevolent, all will be well. The truth is that this faction of our society WANT's you to keep your guns, they WANT you to labor under the false pretense that just so long as there is a glock in your bedroom drawer you are safe and the only thing you actually have to fear is a rogue government, after all, the company that built that gun for you, and sold it to you (as well as selling it to every gang member on your street as well) only has your best interests at heart and would never ever use you to it's own ends.

Your statements go a long way in explaining the mindset of the average gun owner who knows little of the politics of the weapon he owns, the dynamics of those laws that he so hates and the effects that his attitudes, blunted by forces he knows nothing about, upon society.

He is simply a pawn - ever so much more of one than the airy fairy "I hate guns" ribbon wearing moms who are absolutely certain that the weapon will jump up and shoot them if they come close. No, those folk are driven by Friday night coffee klatch kitchen meetings where "we should do something, we really should" is the common refrain, while cookies are being passed around and plackards being penciled in for the next assault on the local town hall. YOU people are being milked for your NRA money and your political influence so that gun lobbies can continue to be funded in spite of the wholesale deaths of citizens and children. Big business is running you folks and you don't even know it, you actually think that this has something to do with your "rights".

 

[VTMi'kmaq]

If you ban semi-auto's then YOU MUST outlaw religion coming to my door asking me to see things there way! Maybe then ill consider banning semi-auto's. Just thought about that na i wouldnt.

 

[canndo]

Very reasonable. I think we should go even further and jail the parents and grandparents of those who do harm to others. After all, they are responsible for their children's behavior, no matter their age. While we're at it, jail all the teachers that these misfits had in school, they obviously didn't do their job. How about all the friends and acquaintances, they hold some responsibility for not recognizing and reporting the violent nature.
Ultimately, we should line up all the pro second amendment supporting politicians and let them feel the other end of the barrel.

this is the polar, absurdist, intransigent thinking of the right. This sort of "thought" is what keeps those rightists firmly implanted inside the square of wing nuttedness that they have so long inhabited.
Extending reasonable arguments to their absurd and irrational extremes is a wonderful sophomoric plaything but it does nothing in actuality to further a debate or resolve differences. It is second cousin to the slippery slope argument- one I addressed.

I think it tellling that the gun toters take all guns in all configurations as completely organic. As though they have always been there and will always be there, as though no one is manufacturing them at all but they simply descend from heaven and thus that supply is involuable, untouchable and santified. Ever wonder why this is the most common world view among gun owners? Ever think that maybe someone with a lot of money riding on that particular viewpoint might do all they could to perpetuate the belief?


Seems to have worked pretty well, especially on folks such as yourself.

 

[NLXSK1]

• As though they have always been there and will always be there,​
  
  
  
  

They have been around since the founding of the country and are a right...

You are the one that seems to think there might be some way of eliminating them so they wont be there. And you act surprised when people protest your liberal ideals...

 

[Mr Neutron]

this is the polar, absurdist, intransigent thinking of the right. This sort of "thought" is what keeps those rightists firmly implanted inside the square of wing nuttedness that they have so long inhabited.
Extending reasonable arguments to their absurd and irrational extremes is a wonderful sophomoric plaything but it does nothing in actuality to further a debate or resolve differences. It is second cousin to the slippery slope argument- one I addressed.

I think it tellling that the gun toters take all guns in all configurations as completely organic. As though they have always been there and will always be there, as though no one is manufacturing them at all but they simply descend from heaven and thus that supply is involuable, untouchable and santified. Ever wonder why this is the most common world view among gun owners? Ever think that maybe someone with a lot of money riding on that particular viewpoint might do all they could to perpetuate the belief?


Seems to have worked pretty well, especially on folks such as yourself.

First of all, your political view of either right or left is so antiquated. You really should open yourself to other options.

Second, I don't own any guns... m'kay punkin?

Third, absurd and irrational extremes are the meat and potatoes of the left: social security, medicare, medicaid, income tax, welfare, central banking, debt based economy, etc.

"Ever think that maybe someone with a lot of money riding on that particular viewpoint might do all they could to perpetuate the belief?"
I could, very well, ask you the same thing.

 

[cannabineer]

this is the polar, absurdist, intransigent thinking of the right. This sort of "thought" is what keeps those rightists firmly implanted inside the square of wing nuttedness that they have so long inhabited.
Extending reasonable arguments to their absurd and irrational extremes is a wonderful sophomoric plaything but it does nothing in actuality to further a debate or resolve differences. It is second cousin to the slippery slope argument- one I addressed.

I think it tellling that the gun toters take all guns in all configurations as completely organic. As though they have always been there and will always be there, as though no one is manufacturing them at all but they simply descend from heaven and thus that supply is involuable, untouchable and santified. Ever wonder why this is the most common world view among gun owners? Ever think that maybe someone with a lot of money riding on that particular viewpoint might do all they could to perpetuate the belief?


Seems to have worked pretty well, especially on folks such as yourself.

To the bolded: not necessarily. However the relevant bit of the constitution says simply "arms", undifferentiated. Developing any argument from there that there might be categories, a line between permissible/restrictible arms will fail. "Arms" includes not only portable small arms but the big stuff too.

The intransigence of the right is balanced by an equal and opposed intransigence by the holders of power. i refer to the Ratchet that has governed gun regs: they only tighten, as sandy hook is beginning to corroborate. To gun owners, the Ratchet is the Enemy. Show us that it isn't real, that places like our big cities will one day awake from their slumber and restore the civilian right to carry ... and I will shed some of my intransigence on this issue. cn

 

[canndo]

Canndo, why are you asking for his weapons and/or their parts? Has he done something wrong? Stop trying to stomp on our freedoms...

I am stomping on his freedoms specificaly because he is unwilling to take responsibilty for the actions of his group. He cannot self regulate, he does not make the effort to see to it that the damage done in the name of his right is minimized and so he is a part of the problem. When he does something overt in order to at least demonstrate that he has a concern then he will be exempt, otherwise, if he can't do it, others are going to have to interceed and he might not like the consequences.

We are seeing this, this very second. Rather than the NRA coming to the table with talk other than "it wasn't us, we have nothing to do with the culture of unfettered gun ownership and use" and they point in every other direction but their own, they will be labled a part of the problem and dealt with in less than acceptable methods.

 

[cannabineer]

I am stomping on his freedoms specificaly because he is unwilling to take responsibilty for the actions of his group. He cannot self regulate, he does not make the effort to see to it that the damage done in the name of his right is minimized and so he is a part of the problem. When he does something overt in order to at least demonstrate that he has a concern then he will be exempt, otherwise, if he can't do it, others are going to have to interceed and he might not like the consequences.

We are seeing this, this very second. Rather than the NRA coming to the table with talk other than "it wasn't us, we have nothing to do with the culture of unfettered gun ownership and use" and they point in every other direction but their own, they will be labled a part of the problem and dealt with in less than acceptable methods.

The only group for which i will and can properly be asked to take responsibility is a group of one. Your embedded premise, "assume guilt for the deeds of another whom I do not control", is not good imo. cn

 

[canndo]

To the bolded: not necessarily. However the relevant bit of the constitution says simply "arms", undifferentiated. Developing any argument from there that there might be categories, a line between permissible/restrictible arms will fail. "Arms" includes not only portable small arms but the big stuff too.

The intransigence of the right is balanced by an equal and opposed intransigence by the holders of power. i refer to the Ratchet that has governed gun regs: they only tighten, as sandy hook is beginning to corroborate. To gun owners, the Ratchet is the Enemy. Show us that it isn't real, that places like our big cities will one day awake from their slumber and restore the civilian right to carry ... and I will shed some of my intransigence on this issue. cn

But that line has not failed, numberous Supreme Court decisions have institutionalized certain understandings of what civilian arms are permissable and which are not. It seem that only the nuttiest of the libertarians and preppers have a problem with fully autmatic weapons, missile launchers, breach loading cannon, multiple bomblet munitions, area denial weapons, shaped charge devices directional mines and the like are commonly accepted as something other than items descrivbed in the constitution.

 

[kelly4]

I am stomping on his freedoms specificaly because he is unwilling to take responsibilty for the actions of his group. He cannot self regulate, he does not make the effort to see to it that the damage done in the name of his right is minimized and so he is a part of the problem. When he does something overt in order to at least demonstrate that he has a concern then he will be exempt, otherwise, if he can't do it, others are going to have to interceed and he might not like the consequences.

Translation: He won't voluntarily give up his rights, so I'm gonna force them from him.

 

[Mr Neutron]

But that line has not failed, numberous Supreme Court decisions have institutionalized certain understandings of what civilian arms are permissable and which are not. It seem that only the nuttiest of the libertarians and preppers have a problem with fully autmatic weapons, missile launchers, breach loading cannon, multiple bomblet munitions, area denial weapons, shaped charge devices directional mines and the like are commonly accepted as something other than items descrivbed in the constitution.

Described where, exactly?

 

[mr2shim]

Described where, exactly?

Also curious..

 

[canndo]

Translation: He won't voluntarily give up his rights, so I'm gonna force them from him.

A guy has 4 kids in of various ages. He also has a dozen or so weapons. He tends to leave those weapons around where his kids can play with them and he has taught them no firearm safety. No child has been harmed, the parent has been warned over and over that his practices are endangering the lives of others. Finally Child protective services insists that his guns be confiscated. In your opinion, the state wrongfully forces him to relinquish his 2nd amendment rights - is this correct?

 

[canndo]

Described where, exactly?

Arms.


Arms describes all of these weapons.

 

[mr2shim]

Arms.


Arms describes all of these weapons.

So wouldn't it be unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to rule citizens can't own them?

 

[kelly4]

A guy has 4 kids in of various ages. He also has a dozen or so weapons. He tends to leave those weapons around where his kids can play with them and he has taught them no firearm safety. No child has been harmed, the parent has been warned over and over that his practices are endangering the lives of others. Finally Child protective services insists that his guns be confiscated. In your opinion, the state wrongfully forces him to relinquish his 2nd amendment rights - is this correct?

Are we still talking about ASMALLVOICE, or did you just pull a scenario out of your ass?

 

[cannabineer]

But that line has not failed, numberous Supreme Court decisions have institutionalized certain understandings of what civilian arms are permissable and which are not. It seem that only the nuttiest of the libertarians and preppers have a problem with fully autmatic weapons, missile launchers, breach loading cannon, multiple bomblet munitions, area denial weapons, shaped charge devices directional mines and the like are commonly accepted as something other than items descrivbed in the constitution.

Isn't this a bit of a casuist argument? "Since SCOTUS has repeatedly infringed on that which 'shall not be infringed', deal with it"?
All the death-tech items you have enumerated are indeed described under the catch-all term "arms". cn

 

[st0wandgrow]

So wouldn't it be unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to rule citizens can't own them?

Is it unconstitutional to not allow felons to own arms?