Gun Control discussion

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Of course, all rights have stipulations on them. Even if it's not the government that is applying those stipulations. Many rights have inherent stipulations that are a necessity of reality. Guns cost money. If you don't have the money to afford a gun your right to bear arms means jack shit. So either you can have a right with stipulations on it, or rights just straight up don't exist. Unless your arguing that everyone should be supplied with a gun or that people shoulnd't have to pay for them.

All rights are subject to regulation.  It just raises the level of scrutiny courts will apply when the regulation is challenged.

[Darth Richard II]

For fucks sake, there isn't a single story about the shooting nay more on cnn's front page, thats how quickly we ignore this shit.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

25 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

For fucks sake, there isn't a single story about the shooting nay more on cnn's front page, thats how quickly we ignore this shit.

I think the shooter is baffling the media. The Sunday Morning Talking Head shows pretty much focused on the Gun Control issue, but there really doesn't seem to be much meat on this bone. The whole potential for bipartisanship over the Bump Stock thing seems to be the only story here. We just shrug our shoulders and go back to work..

[Darth Richard II]

You know, it struck me, the day the shooting happened I went out to shopping, and you would never know any thing had happened at all. I remember when Columbine happened places were either empty or subdued, but were so used to this shit now it doesn't affect a damn thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

The principle of stare decisis is not normally seen as limiting the right of higher courts to overrule lower courts.  Hence, in Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller, the phrase stare decisis appears only once, and only in connection with Miller, a prior Supreme Court case.  Moreover, the phrase in that context is only applied to what Justice Stevens deemed (and arguably misconstrued) as an "alternative" argument by the majority.  This implicitly concedes that the stare decisis principle would not apply to the majority's main argument.  The fundamental issue is not that the majority has over-ruled Miller (which would require special justification for violating stare decisis, which as you note can sometimes be justified), but rather that the majority has a different interpretation of Miller than the minority does.

But again, the principle of stare decisis can be, and has been, disregarded at times.   Nobody claims it is absolute. But this only underscores what I was saying:  That one option for dealing with the pesky Second Amendment is to appoint enough Supreme Court justices who are willing to overrule Heller.  Whether this should be done is another question.

And, once again, Heller does not foreclose the possibility of fairly stringent regulations of the right to keep and bear arms.  It simply says that outright bans on the personal ownership of firearms are unreasonable.  

[Mother Cocanuts]

15 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What is the percentage of fraudulent voting to justify the registration requirement to vote?

As I said, voter registration at the very least serves as a log of eligible voters. But I wouldn't see an issue in removing the requirement. I think most voters would register voluntarily.

 

15 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don't have the figures... largely because the NRA has fought federal funding for such studies.

Do you have a reference for this?

15 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Of course, all rights have stipulations on them. Even if it's not the government that is applying those stipulations. Many rights have inherent stipulations that are a necessity of reality. Guns cost money. If you don't have the money to afford a gun your right to bear arms means jack shit.

There's a difference between "stipulation" and "limitation." You're speaking of the latter.

15 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

So either you can have a right with stipulations on it, or rights just straight up don't exist.

This makes no sense. Rights are concepts that establish conditions in which we should live. The right in and of itself is a stipulation, but it is not stipulated. And that's my point: if the ends sought by the stipulation (right) is stipulated then can we still produce those ends?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

As I said, voter registration at the very least serves as a log of eligible voters. But I wouldn't see an issue in removing the requirement. I think most voters would register voluntarily.

 

Do you have a reference for this?

 

 

Here you go:

http://beta.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

The 2nd Amendment Says What? by Rob Hoffman

 http://blog.timesunion.com/hoffmanfiles/the-2nd-amendment-says-what/36766/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

For reasons I’ll never quite understand, Americans live in fear, which is sad, but they also have decided that gun-ownership is somehow the very definition of freedom.  There’s something really confounding about the idea that people who have never experienced any form of real discrimination in their lives, somehow believe they are oppressed when they are denied the right to purchase military style weapons.  It’s probably safe to assume that most if not all of these individuals have never in their lives known the sting of being paid less simply because of their gender, or being told they were not welcome in a public place, or faced discrimination in housing, or been told that they could not sit in the front of a bus, or use a public toilet, or drink from a water fountain, or be intimidated out of voting, or even denied entry to a school of their choice.  Freedom for these Americans are encapsulated by one right, and one right only, the right to own a very dangerous and unnecessary firearm.

[TrueMetis]

40 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

There's a difference between "stipulation" and "limitation." You're speaking of the latter.

Not unless we're thinking of different meanings of stipulation.

Stipulation: a condition or requirement that is specified or demanded as part of an agreement.

So guns for example, even in the absence of specific government regulation, have the stipulation that they be purchased legally.

Unless your referring to "An agreement between attorneys that concerns business before a court and is designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs." but I can't see how that applies here.

Quote

This makes no sense. Rights are concepts that establish conditions in which we should live. The right in and of itself is a stipulation, but it is not stipulated. And that's my point: if the ends sought by the stipulation (right) is stipulated then can we still produce those ends?

Makes perfect sense to me, because I'm saying that even without it being done by the government that natural stipulations will form around rights. Like what I pointed out for guns where a transaction needs to happen.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

On 10/7/2017 at 7:45 PM, Kalbear said:

I know you don't think gun control has to do with suicides, which is total bullshit. 

No, it might have a place, but one that is exaggerated to fit the gun ban side. Of the three suicides I dealt with (knew them to an extent to call the acquaintances) all had access to guns...all three. So, just because it's easier and quicker means absolutely nothing. When one wants to take their life, they'll do it in the manner of their choosing. Guns changes nothing about people committing suicides, even if they are used in suicides.

If you don't want your opinion challenged, why state it at all? Sounds like you're the one who isn't interested in changing their mind.

 I stated it because it was my opinion on the subject and stated that I have already debated the same people who are debating me now, and quite frankly didn't care to do it again. So, what are you interested in changing my mind about? There shouldn't be tighter regulation? Those with a history of mental illness shouldn't own guns? That all semi automatic weapons should be taking off the market and also out of the hands of owners who have them now? Because these are all things that I am for. Oh, or are you trying to change my mind for me to have guns in my home to protect my family? Please, tell me what your interested in changing my mind about? Please. Because, otherwise it's just another chance for you to jump down my throat about something. 

Yet, you and others jump on the suicide numbers...because you just have to find something wrong with the post. And statistics are bullshit. Yes, you just as well off pulling them out of your ass. Because, they're skewed to fit the agenda of whoever is compiling those statistics. If this wasn't the case there would be one set of statistics, not multiple ones. 

And just because I still am for the right to bear arms, in a safer way that exists now, doesn't mean that the blood of children or anyone else is on my hands. I won't buy into that bullshit. I didn't shoot anyone. If guns were banned, guns would still be involved in murders and mass shootings. Then is it on the hands of the ones who begged and pleaded for the ban? That's just a guilt trip I ain't buying. Sorry.

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

When one wants to take their life, they'll do it in the manner of their choosing.

For some, maybe. But for a huge number of suicides this isn't true at all. Suicide is often an extremely impulsive decision, and in the absence of a quick, painless, foolproof method then the impulse often passes. See for example the reduction of suicides in the UK when ovens switched over from coal to natural gas, or when limiting the total number of painkillers that can be bought in one go.

[lessthanluke]

4 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 Guns changes nothing about people committing suicides, even if they are used in suicides.

 

100% incorrect. Guns increase the likelyhood of the suicide attempt working massively and Liffguard covered the rest above.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, lessthanluke said:

100% incorrect. Guns increase the likely of the suicide attempt working massively and Liffguard covered the rest above.

Try and prove that without facts or statistics. 

[crlovel]

Maybe we should have laws against murder, since, you know, criminals obey laws.

Also consider, several of the most grievous mass murders in this country were perpetrated by the government (Wounded Knee, Waco, and others). Another mass murder (3,000 dead) was committed by airliners. The Oklahoma City bombing used fertilizer. And extremists worldwide are finding mass murder with truck to be quite simple. The Boston marathon was attacked with pressure cookers. France was attacked by extremists wielding AK-47s. Apparently, they'd not heard France has laws against owning AK-47s, or surely they'd have turned them in and begged forgiveness. 

You people are amazing. On one hand, you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast over police violence and white oppression. Then you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast and say only the police and government - you know, the evil oppressors - should have guns. Which is it, kids?

In the meantime, my non-violent self is sitting over here, armed to the teeth, and a threat to no one, except for paper on the 500 yard range, or some shitbag who might dare break into my house and threaten my family. But please, do continue to tell me how awful, how stupid, how barbaric, how unenlightened, how backward, how foolish I am, and know that with every petty insult, you only strengthen my resolve that "shall not be infringed" and "not one more compromise" are the beliefs I stand by.

America does not have a gun problem. America has a cultural problem. Most murders committed with firearms are committed by people who aren't allowed firearms to begin with. They pay others to purchase them in their place (who then go unpunished when caught), or they steal them. Suicides should not count - if a gun wasn't available, there are a myriad of other ways to remove one self. Gun owners have been proven, time and time and time again, statistically, to be among the most law-abiding citizens in this country. We are NOT the problem. 

[Liffguard]

31 minutes ago, crlovel said:

 Suicides should not count - if a gun wasn't available, there are a myriad of other ways to remove one self.

Leaving the other points aside for now, we literally just went over this.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Try and prove that without facts or statistics. 

Which is why the NRA opposes CDC studies of this issue. They don't want people to have the statistics that would show how firearms contribute to suicides.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

42 minutes ago, crlovel said:

Maybe we should have laws against murder, since, you know, criminals obey laws.

Also consider, several of the most grievous mass murders in this country were perpetrated by the government (Wounded Knee, Waco, and others). Another mass murder (3,000 dead) was committed by airliners. The Oklahoma City bombing used fertilizer. And extremists worldwide are finding mass murder with truck to be quite simple. The Boston marathon was attacked with pressure cookers. France was attacked by extremists wielding AK-47s. Apparently, they'd not heard France has laws against owning AK-47s, or surely they'd have turned them in and begged forgiveness. 

You people are amazing. On one hand, you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast over police violence and white oppression. Then you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast and say only the police and government - you know, the evil oppressors - should have guns. Which is it, kids?

In the meantime, my non-violent self is sitting over here, armed to the teeth, and a threat to no one, except for paper on the 500 yard range, or some shitbag who might dare break into my house and threaten my family. But please, do continue to tell me how awful, how stupid, how barbaric, how unenlightened, how backward, how foolish I am, and know that with every petty insult, you only strengthen my resolve that "shall not be infringed" and "not one more compromise" are the beliefs I stand by.

America does not have a gun problem. America has a cultural problem. Most murders committed with firearms are committed by people who aren't allowed firearms to begin with. They pay others to purchase them in their place (who then go unpunished when caught), or they steal them. Suicides should not count - if a gun wasn't available, there are a myriad of other ways to remove one self. Gun owners have been proven, time and time and time again, statistically, to be among the most law-abiding citizens in this country. We are NOT the problem. 

I've wanted to disarm beat cops for years (no firearms).

[MercenaryChef]

30 minutes ago, crlovel said:

 

America does not have a gun problem. America has a cultural problem. Most murders committed with firearms are committed by people who aren't allowed firearms to begin with. They pay others to purchase them in their place (who then go unpunished when caught), or they steal them. Suicides should not count - if a gun wasn't available, there are a myriad of other ways to remove one self. Gun owners have been proven, time and time and time again, statistically, to be among the most law-abiding citizens in this country. We are NOT the problem. 

not the problem? so the legally purchased guns white males have used again and again in mass murders all over the country are not a problem? the legally purchased guns used to kill a wife or partner after an escalation of abuse are not a problem?

but really when you say cultural problem you are meaning gang violence, the drug trade, etc. and naturally we both know the economic and racial backgrounds of most of these victims and offenders. 

speak in code all you like. go ahead and hit all the same talking points the nra would want you to. the real point is you are willing to excuse mass attacks and instead go 'look over there' regarding regular murder. 

criminals are going to get guns. that is granted.  but as shown in vegas and so many other attacks, you don't know who is a criminal until they start shooting a bunch of people.

those were legal guns. perhaps we do need to look a bit into who can buy what, how much, how much ammo, etc. you can still protect your family and be an ace on the 500 yard range with these potential safeguards and warning mechanisms in place.

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, crlovel said:

Maybe we should have laws against murder, since, you know, criminals obey laws.

Also consider, several of the most grievous mass murders in this country were perpetrated by the government (Wounded Knee, Waco, and others). Another mass murder (3,000 dead) was committed by airliners. The Oklahoma City bombing used fertilizer. And extremists worldwide are finding mass murder with truck to be quite simple. The Boston marathon was attacked with pressure cookers. France was attacked by extremists wielding AK-47s. Apparently, they'd not heard France has laws against owning AK-47s, or surely they'd have turned them in and begged forgiveness. 

You people are amazing. On one hand, you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast over police violence and white oppression. Then you whine and cry and moan and beat your breast and say only the police and government - you know, the evil oppressors - should have guns. Which is it, kids?

In the meantime, my non-violent self is sitting over here, armed to the teeth, and a threat to no one, except for paper on the 500 yard range, or some shitbag who might dare break into my house and threaten my family. But please, do continue to tell me how awful, how stupid, how barbaric, how unenlightened, how backward, how foolish I am, and know that with every petty insult, you only strengthen my resolve that "shall not be infringed" and "not one more compromise" are the beliefs I stand by.

America does not have a gun problem. America has a cultural problem. Most murders committed with firearms are committed by people who aren't allowed firearms to begin with. They pay others to purchase them in their place (who then go unpunished when caught), or they steal them. Suicides should not count - if a gun wasn't available, there are a myriad of other ways to remove one self. Gun owners have been proven, time and time and time again, statistically, to be among the most law-abiding citizens in this country. We are NOT the problem. 

Gun owners are also shown to be those most often shot with their own guns.

[lessthanluke]

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Gun owners are also shown to be those most often shot with their own guns.

Facts are not allowed here. Please leave.