LeviF Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I don't understand why gun advocates constantly push the false narrative that proposing restrictions on assault weapons means that Liberals want to take away ALL of the guns. And I don't understand why residents of Canuckistan insist on pontificating about issues that have nothing to do with them, yet here you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: And I don't understand why residents of Canuckistan insist on pontificating about issues that have nothing to do with them, yet here you are. I'm not from Canada. Why are you pushing a false narrative? Dick's still sells guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I don't understand why gun advocates constantly push the false narrative that proposing restrictions on assault weapons means that Liberals want to take away ALL of the guns. The reason they do this is to avoid the actual discussion as long as possible and hope that we'll move on and do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, garybusey said: I'm not from Canada. Why are you pushing a false narrative? Dick's still sells guns. I don't recall saying anything about Dick's, but with your reading comprehension level I'm not surprised you're confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I don't understand why gun advocates constantly push the false narrative that proposing restrictions on assault weapons means that Liberals want to take away ALL of the guns. How many rights should we give up? The 2nd amendment has been ripped to shreds. And all that remains is a tiny little piece of what it once was. It's sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, LA Grant said: The reason they do this is to avoid the actual discussion as long as possible and hope that we'll move on and do nothing. Take a look at the "Assault Weapons Ban" just proposed in the House and get back to me when you can tell me you agree with each individual gun listed in there being banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, LA Grant said: The reason they do this is to avoid the actual discussion as long as possible and hope that we'll move on and do nothing. And you will, you virtue signalling clowns always do. Trump will tweet out "brown people" or "meat locker" and people will go ape ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, LeviF91 said: Take a look at the "Assault Weapons Ban" just proposed in the House and get back to me when you can tell me you agree with each individual gun listed in there being banned. I don't support specific weapon bans as policy. They're a half-measure. If individual retailers like Dick's want to stop selling certain types of weapons, that's great & commendable. For policy, I support what most people support: universal background checks & registration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 45 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Canadians don't have better mental health than Americans, yet mass shootings of random targets never happen in this country. Geez... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 13 minutes ago, Azalin said: If you've read through this thread, then you've seen just about everything imaginable in the way of suggestions on how to stop these incidents of gun violence, as well as all the arguments supporting gun ownership. Your takeaway is that we need to do something, that something needs to change, and that we can't keep doing nothing. In our country, owning firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed right. You can't just make people start having to get a license for something the constitution clearly states is a right that can't be infringed upon. You may as well try requiring a license for free speech. The problem that requires solving is how to keep these weapons out of the hands of disturbed, mentally ill, or otherwise violent people while protecting the rights of the citizenry. I don't think anyone is saying you can't own a gun. I think they're saying you can't own some guns. There are already restrictions on automatic weapons, so calling for a restriction on semi automatic assault rifles doesn't seem like such a crazy idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, LA Grant said: I don't support specific weapon bans as policy. They're a half-measure. If individual retailers like Dick's want to stop selling certain types of weapons, that's great & commendable. For policy, I support what most people support: universal background checks & registration. What if a gay Baker wants to stop selling gay wedding cakes? Is that choice theirs, too? Because I'm pretty sure the 73rd amendment grants cake rights to citizens like the 2nd allows guns to citizens Wherewill Levi and his bae get their cakes if they do ban them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, Boyst62 said: Wherewill Levi and his bae get their cakes if they do ban them? You don't have to be coy about it, everyone knows it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, LeviF91 said: You don't have to be coy about it, everyone knows it's you. We already have a thread talking about the dukes. Coy duke can be discussed there with Vance, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, row_33 said: Geez... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre Uhhh... so this guy going on a feminist killing spree in 1989 is your rebuttal that Canada is equal in gun crime? I could see half of PPP arguing in favor of murdering feminists, actually. But no, sorry. The USA is alone w/r/t gun crime. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/fact-check-mass-shootings-gun-laws.html 18 minutes ago, Azalin said: If you've read through this thread, then you've seen just about everything imaginable in the way of suggestions on how to stop these incidents of gun violence, as well as all the arguments supporting gun ownership. Your takeaway is that we need to do something, that something needs to change, and that we can't keep doing nothing. In our country, owning firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed right. You can't just make people start having to get a license for something the constitution clearly states is a right that can't be infringed upon. You may as well try requiring a license for free speech. The problem that requires solving is how to keep these weapons out of the hands of disturbed, mentally ill, or otherwise violent people while protecting the rights of the citizenry. Again. Whenever you're done pretending this "impossible situation" is sooooo hard to solve, there are solutions available that we all agree on. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html As for your false equivalency argument about a license for free speech, tell you what — when school kids are dying because of mass yellings, then I'm happy to talk about giving you a formal process to apply for an official license to use the "N" word whenever you'd like. Win-win. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Uhhh... so this guy going on a feminist killing spree in 1989 is your rebuttal that Canada is equal in gun crime? I could see half of PPP arguing in favor of murdering feminists, actually. But no, sorry. The USA is alone w/r/t gun crime. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/us/politics/fact-check-mass-shootings-gun-laws.html Again. Whenever you're done pretending this "impossible situation" is sooooo hard to solve, there are solutions available that we all agree on. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html As for your false equivalency argument about a license for free speech, tell you what — when school kids are dying because of mass yellings, then I'm happy to talk about giving you a formal process to apply for an official license to use the "N" word whenever you'd like. Win-win. How will they acquire the guns already out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 30 minutes ago, jrober38 said: There are already restrictions on automatic weapons, so calling for a restriction on semi automatic assault rifles doesn't seem like such a crazy idea. We already some restrictions for automatic weapons, so what's the harm in having some for semi-automatic? And when there are some new restrictions on semi-automatic, and another nut gets a gun and kills people, what will you want to go after next? Oh, wait...here comes LA Grant to tell everyone how the slippery slope argument is just a useless tool for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Boyst62 said: How will they acquire the guns already out there? They won't. We can only change the future, not the past, so the guns you own in your home would be untouched. Illegal guns on the black market will still be there. They don't evaporate overnight. But you need to stop the bleeding. Need to stop making it easy for psychos (not you, of course) to get dangerous weapons. Need to stop feeding the black market. Controlling and restricting access is the obvious corrective measure. Boyst, I know you're not engaging in any kind of honest debate with me, but f*** it, I'll pitch ideas again, because that's what Progressives do, right? They propose solutions, always opposed by their sisyphean counterparts, the Conservative, an ideology defined by "nah, not my problem, don't tread on me, not my responsibility." The Conservative Counterpoint: "Drugs are banned and people still get drugs on the black market!" — True. But you can't buy heroin in a store two blocks from the school, k? You can't buy heroin on craigslist — or at least, not from a post labeled "For Sale: Heroin." "What about opioids? They are drugs, they're legal and restricted, still a problem." — True. Part of what could help is making prescriptions for these drugs, Valium etc., more difficult to get, instead of giving them out so indiscriminately. Same with guns. "But you have all these guns still out there from before UBC/registration laws, what about those?" — There are different ideas on what to do. Let's say those guns are grandfathered in. If you buy additional guns or ammo, though, then you need to go through the hoops. Imagine this scenario: Illegal Drug Dealer in Chicago has black market guns, right? Scary guy. But now that you can't bring them in from gun shows in Indiana, the black market for more guns is drying up — thus, driving the price up, making it more difficult. Perhaps to get cheaper ammunition, one of IDD's 'clean' associates buys legally in Illinois. This person has to register & take tests & let's say he passes, and legally gets weapons intended for illegal use — system is flawed, right? But now it's easier for police to track, right? Here's someone buying only ammo, and a year later, he decided to not re-new any licenses for weapons. This should set off a red flag for police. When you sign up to register/test for weapons, perhaps you check a box to agree to make it easier for police to get a warrant to search your home for illegal weapons & seize them. This allows for police to find the 'bad guys with guns' a helluva lot easier, which is the whole point. Thus: In this scenario with UBC, if you, Boyst, buy no new guns/weapons/ammo, you don't have to deal with anything. If you do, then you agree to registration/testing process. If you let the license expire, then you open yourself up to agreeing to cooperating with law enforcement if they need to make sure you're not possessing illegal weapons, and Blue Lives Matter, right? Win. Win. The only "lose" here is the inconvenience. If you're using guns the way you're using them, it's a mild inconvenience. If you're hoarding guns, it will be a bigger inconvenience, aka, prison. The Progressive v Conservative argument often feels like the societal version of "what should we do for dinner" debate writ large. Progressives are like, we could cook, we could do delivery, we could do postmates, we could hunt a rabbit. Conservatives whine at each one. "But I don't wannnnnt to cook, I don't wannnnnt to spend money on delivery." Okay. Well at some point we need to eat. And if you can't make up your mind, we'll just cooking crow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Slippery slope is only authentic when liberals invoke it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: We already some restrictions for automatic weapons, so what's the harm in having some for semi-automatic? And when there are some new restrictions on semi-automatic, and another nut gets a gun and kills people, what will you want to go after next? Oh, wait...here comes LA Grant to tell everyone how the slippery slope argument is just a useless tool for discussion. Well, it is. I don't mind being predictable, we're both being predictable. The slope can also go upward, you know. If there are no restrictions for semi-automatics, why should there be restrictions for automatics? If we don't restrict automatics, why do we restrict grenade launchers? Why can't my 18-year-old buy napalm if the pimply little psychopath wants to use it for hunting? Why control anything at all? After all, isn't control the opposite of freedom?? <gets scared, buys 10 guns> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) The government should not have a database on where all the guns are, who has the guns, what types of guns they are, and how much ammunition is stored for each gun type. You're describing the beginnings of a dystopian nightmare in which the government rounds up all the guns because you're made it incredibly easy for them to do so. "Shall not be infringed" necessarily includes undertaking all the necessary steps prior to initiating an efficient and maximally effective gun ban. Edited February 28, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts