Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Penny Arcade - Comic - Everything Old Is New Again

1235

Posts

  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government. Not someone else's :p. Though I understand its a line people don't like thinking about too much as some jump off that bridge of last resort too quickly. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised the existence of that bridge being drilled into our brains wasn't part of the problem because I'm not sure how many countries actually have a lesson in their founding to be prepared to rebel if government goes too far. Its definitely a dangerous idea. Necessary under extreme circumstances maybe but dangerous as all hell. Its honestly in part why I wouldn't mind it changing. I'm not sure if teaching the idea in the manner its being taught is really for the best especially as every time its come up its been for all the wrong reasons (Civil War in example, with South breaking off because they feared slavery being taken away which REALLY needed to be taken the hell away. Its just a good thing that their fear is ultimately what caused it to actually happen)

    Kuari999 on
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    steam_sig.png
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited March 12
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    You can apply the logic you're currently using to quite literally anything from knives to cars however you don't because you use them in your everyday life and rely on them in some form.
    I would not make your go-to example "cars" in this respect, given that we have a comprehensive system for tracking people via car ownership and licensing in place, as well as an insurance infrastructure and legal framework for liability. I would LOVE firearms to be regulated just as much as cars are.

    Wanting research about firearms and wanting firearm regulations is NOT the same thing as wanting to ban all firearms. But most pro-gun advocates don't make that distinction.

    Licensing and registration exists for public use of vehicles. I can have neither and use vehicles on private property or property that is open to the public for the specific use of that vehicle, like a race track. But there is no licensing or registration requirement for the purchase of a vehicle.

    Just as there is licensing and registration for public carry of firearms in the vast majority of states. There was even a very public issue of a registry of citizens with concealed carry licenses being published by a local media outlet in a North East state.

    There's more than one reason why the car analogy is dumb, including that it's an analogy that has not had a whole lot of success in this debate on this forum.

    NSDFRand on
  • RigamarawRigamaraw Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    The idea that guns have to go to significantly reduce violent incidents has not and in fact I'd argue that as far as I can tell, the opposite has been shown so far.

    Gun regulation is, in part, meant to reduce mass casualty incidents, not to reduce the overall total of violent incidents. I mentioned this previously in comparing Port Arthur, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and Parkland to the arson and car incidents in Australia. We can compare mass shootings to mass knife attacks too, if you want, but the statistics always favor guns in terms of number of casualties. The facts and statistics are in and have been for a long time.
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Now overall registration... that I know has the potential to be a problem because I know a few gun nuts who'd see that as a sign that government is preparing to take away their guns and while I'm not against the concept... those are waters to tread carefully.

    Why should we legislate based on what an extreme minority of paranoid individuals think or feel? It's so bizarre to me that seemingly rational people can accept strict regulation of explosives and fully-automatic weapons, but balk at the concept of applying similar regulation to semi-automatic weapons that are only nominally less effective at killing massive amounts of people very quickly.

    You mention that the masses shouldn't be punished for what individuals do, but I fail to see how increased regulation, even stringent regulation, can be seen as punitive.

    DjiemLeon2309H3Knucklesshoeboxjeddy
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    Take England, for example

    Firearms are strictly regulated, but you can get one if you have a good reason

    In the countryside, everybody and their mums is packin'

    McFodder
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited March 12
    Since people have addressed other parts of your post already, I'd just like to pull this tidbit out:
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    The idea that guns have to go to significantly reduce violent incidents has not and in fact I'd argue that as far as I can tell, the opposite has been shown so far.
    Please show me the studies that show that having guns around actually reduce violent incidents. I'm extremely interested in seeing these, as all the meta-analyses of gun research I've seen have shown that the presence of firearms only increases the risk of harm to those around it.

    DarkPrimus on
    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Leon2309Hahnsoo1jlbAndy JoekimeshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • YoungFreyYoungFrey Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Since people have addressed other parts of your post already, I'd just like to pull this tidbit out:
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    The idea that guns have to go to significantly reduce violent incidents has not and in fact I'd argue that as far as I can tell, the opposite has been shown so far.
    Please show me the studies that show that having guns around actually reduce violent incidents. I'm extremely interested in seeing these, as all the meta-analyses of gun research I've seen have shown that the presence of firearms only increases the risk of harm to those around it.

    If it lowered your risk of violent incidents, you'd get a break on your insurance for owning a gun.

    Leon2309DarkPrimusDjiemTofystedethAndy JoedoomybearcB557DonnictonkimeMoridin889H3KnucklesMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • Zoku GojiraZoku Gojira Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    edited March 13
    I’d like to thank this comic for not being about the newly-released, big-budget film adaptation of VH1’s “I Love the ‘80s.” The title had me worried for a moment.

    Zoku Gojira on
    "Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
    PSN: ZokuGojira
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    Take England, for example

    Firearms are strictly regulated, but you can get one if you have a good reason

    In the countryside, everybody and their mums is packin'

    The only "good reason" that should be required is that one is not a felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

  • McFodderMcFodder 'SploringRegistered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    Take England, for example

    Firearms are strictly regulated, but you can get one if you have a good reason

    In the countryside, everybody and their mums is packin'

    The only "good reason" that should be required is that one is not a felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

    Disagree. The more guns out there, the more likely some will fall into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

    Switch Friend Code: SW-3944-9431-0318
    PSN / NNID: Fodder185
    Leon2309cB557QuidNobodykimeMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • flashoverrideflashoverride Registered User regular
    McFodder wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    Take England, for example

    Firearms are strictly regulated, but you can get one if you have a good reason

    In the countryside, everybody and their mums is packin'

    The only "good reason" that should be required is that one is not a felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

    Disagree. The more guns out there, the more likely some will fall into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

    The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, home defense, or sporting purposes. If you want to know what the 2nd amendment is actually supposed to protect, look to the Declaration of Independence. Yes, it has been held to be an individual right. Even if you aren't willing to accept Heller, we can take a look at what the militia is actually defined as in US Federal Code under 10 USC 311: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    Also, we need to get this out of the way: the amendments in the Bill of Rights - in fact the Constitution itself - do not grant rights. Instead they LIMIT what the government may do to restrict the natural rights you are presumed to already have.

    BRASKYthatSOB
  • flashoverrideflashoverride Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    NRA members and NRA lobbying efforts don't exactly match up either. The majority of NRA members support legislation requiring background checks, but the NRA fights tooth and nail against anything that comes close.

    The NRA doesn't serve its membership, it serves the gun manufacturers.

    Sort of. Federal background checks for purchase already exist and are required by law for any purchase from an FFL holder. That is what NICS is.

    However, it depends on how the question is worded.

    If you ask "do you support background checks?" to a gun owner the first thought is likely "yes, I see no problem with NICS, in fact NICS could be better funded", not "yes, I want the FBI to scrape the walls of my anus every time I think about purchasing some ammo".

    The NRA has made sure that the files aren't allowed to be digitized, and that most states have laws saying that if they can't find any reason to deny someone a gun within a few days, they have to give them it, even if the background check isn't actually completed - in other words, deliberately creating a system that works too slow to be effective at doing what it's supposed to do.

    That's because digitizing the files would lead to a registry. Doesn't matter, I can still machine all the lowers I want for personal use and they would never show up on any paperwork anywhere.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Since we're talking gun control, did ya'll know the NRA used to be PRO gun control?

    http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

    "The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”"

    "The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”"

    cB557DjiemDarkPrimusHahnsoo1kimeAndy JoeMagicalGoatsH3KnucklesMan in the Mists
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    I still have yet to figure out why anyone thinks that pointing out that the NRA used to be run by fudds is somehow a mic drop.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Way up inside your butthole, Morty. WAAAAY up inside there.Registered User regular
    Used to be?

    I’ve yet to understand why anyone thinks the NRA cares about individual gun rights beyond their ability to spur gun sales.

    The Bill of Rights protects law-abiding people from the government stepping on their rights, and yet the NRA barely made a peep when government agents murdered a legal gun owner who told them he had a permit. Literally the exact threat they claim is their purpose for existing, and they didn’t give a shit, because they don’t care when individual gun rights are stripped from minorities. See also when their beloved candidate/president says he’ll straight up “take their guns” without due process.

    DjiemTofystedethLeon2309jmcdonaldH3KnucklesMan in the Mistsshoeboxjeddydoompooky
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited March 13
    That I disagree with some things the NRA does now doesn't mean I agree with things they used to do or say.

    As far as Philando Castille: I think cannabis should be legalized, I think it's ludicrous that it's a schedule I narcotic still, but one cannot lawfully purchase a firearm if you use cannabis. It is also likely that there was a state law concerning carrying while intoxicated. I didn't expect the NRA to step forward once it was found that Castille had THC in his system for that reason. Which is an entirely separate issue from systemic policing issues that I've railed against constantly in this forum, that had those issues not existed it is extremely unlikely Castille would have been killed. And the NRA is not a police reform lobby either.

    NSDFRand on
  • PhasenPhasen Registered User regular
    edited March 13
    McFodder wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    Take England, for example

    Firearms are strictly regulated, but you can get one if you have a good reason

    In the countryside, everybody and their mums is packin'

    The only "good reason" that should be required is that one is not a felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

    Disagree. The more guns out there, the more likely some will fall into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

    The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, home defense, or sporting purposes. If you want to know what the 2nd amendment is actually supposed to protect, look to the Declaration of Independence. Yes, it has been held to be an individual right. Even if you aren't willing to accept Heller, we can take a look at what the militia is actually defined as in US Federal Code under 10 USC 311: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    Also, we need to get this out of the way: the amendments in the Bill of Rights - in fact the Constitution itself - do not grant rights. Instead they LIMIT what the government may do to restrict the natural rights you are presumed to already have.

    A description of who can join a militia is not a description of what a militia is.

    What do the articles of confederation say about militias?
    Section 6
    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

    Notice a problem with the idea that individuals own the firearms in that description?

    What do the other areas of the constitution say about militias beyond the "well regulated militia" that for some reason is hard for people to parse besides being explicitly about regulation ergo state ordained.

    Aritcle 1 Section 8 "Legislative powers"
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Aritcle 2 Section 2 "Presidential powers"
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    Seems pretty explicit what a militia is and many states had them at the time. George Washington was a general of the Virginia Militia for instance.

    Phasen on
    psn: PhasenWeeple
    Hahnsoo1cB557H3Knuckles
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    NRA members and NRA lobbying efforts don't exactly match up either. The majority of NRA members support legislation requiring background checks, but the NRA fights tooth and nail against anything that comes close.

    The NRA doesn't serve its membership, it serves the gun manufacturers.

    Sort of. Federal background checks for purchase already exist and are required by law for any purchase from an FFL holder. That is what NICS is.

    However, it depends on how the question is worded.

    If you ask "do you support background checks?" to a gun owner the first thought is likely "yes, I see no problem with NICS, in fact NICS could be better funded", not "yes, I want the FBI to scrape the walls of my anus every time I think about purchasing some ammo".

    The NRA has made sure that the files aren't allowed to be digitized, and that most states have laws saying that if they can't find any reason to deny someone a gun within a few days, they have to give them it, even if the background check isn't actually completed - in other words, deliberately creating a system that works too slow to be effective at doing what it's supposed to do.

    That's because digitizing the files would lead to a registry. Doesn't matter, I can still machine all the lowers I want for personal use and they would never show up on any paperwork anywhere.

    Oh, right, I forgot. Guess we should just get rid of all the laws since people will try to find ways to circumvent them!

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Rhesus PositiveHahnsoo1PreacherLeon2309kimecB557DjiemNobodymilskiTychoCelchuuuBRIAN BLESSEDH3KnucklesJacques L'HommeMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyKetBraMagicalGoats
  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    edited March 13
    Also, we need to get this out of the way: the amendments in the Bill of Rights - in fact the Constitution itself - do not grant rights. Instead they LIMIT what the government may do to restrict the natural rights you are presumed to already have.

    Somewhat watered down by it only recognizing "natural" rights of a subset of the people. Like, not women or black people, when it was written. Or non-citizens. So they're not really "natural", per se. The whole thing is a farce, really. The people at the time may have said they were natural, but they sure acted like they were granted. It's more or less the same way today, just with fewer people in the "you don't get 'natural' rights" camp (non-citizens still for the most part get the shaft).

    The idea that they were "natural" was only to solve the bootstrap problem. If they weren't natural, then they are provided by a government. Their government at the time wasn't granting those rights. So instead, you just call them "natural", so that it's not up to the government to grant them. This means any government that isn't granting them, isn't legitimate and it's okay to break away and form your own. Once the power structure formed their own government, they went back to acting like they were granted rather than natural.

    dennis on
    H3Knuckles
  • flashoverrideflashoverride Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    McFodder wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    Take England, for example

    Firearms are strictly regulated, but you can get one if you have a good reason

    In the countryside, everybody and their mums is packin'

    The only "good reason" that should be required is that one is not a felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

    Disagree. The more guns out there, the more likely some will fall into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

    The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, home defense, or sporting purposes. If you want to know what the 2nd amendment is actually supposed to protect, look to the Declaration of Independence. Yes, it has been held to be an individual right. Even if you aren't willing to accept Heller, we can take a look at what the militia is actually defined as in US Federal Code under 10 USC 311: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    Also, we need to get this out of the way: the amendments in the Bill of Rights - in fact the Constitution itself - do not grant rights. Instead they LIMIT what the government may do to restrict the natural rights you are presumed to already have.

    A description of who can join a militia is not a description of what a militia is.

    What do the articles of confederation say about militias?
    Section 6
    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

    Notice a problem with the idea that individuals own the firearms in that description?

    What do the other areas of the constitution say about militias beyond the "well regulated militia" that for some reason is hard for people to parse besides being explicitly about regulation ergo state ordained.

    Aritcle 1 Section 8 "Legislative powers"
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Aritcle 2 Section 2 "Presidential powers"
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    Seems pretty explicit what a militia is and many states had them at the time. George Washington was a general of the Virginia Militia for instance.

    I'm sorry, what do the Articles of Confederation have to do with anything? They aren't the basis for any statutory law. The Articles of Confederation only lasted until the Constitution was drafted and ratified - roughly from 1781 to 1789 - so that entire point is moot. As for your other charges, you appear to have some misunderstanding of the US Code. 10 USC 311 b states there are two types of militia - the organized militia and the unorganized militia, which is what I specifically referenced earlier.
    §311. Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13.htm

    This is currently the law, right now, on the books.

    As for the Heller Decision:
    The Supreme Court held:[45]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    If you think the individual citizen's right to keep and bear firearms should be eliminated, you are welcome to try and pass a Constitutional amendment or undergo an Article 5 convention. Short of that have a nice day.

  • PhasenPhasen Registered User regular
    Explicit statements of what a militia is. Yes I am aware of the hackneyed way that the law was interpreted to benefit firearm manufacturers but again it is explicit up and down what the founding fathers explained a militia is.

    It isn't what I think. It is what the founding fathers thought at the time.

    psn: PhasenWeeple
    cB557
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    Explicit statements of what a militia is. Yes I am aware of the hackneyed way that the law was interpreted to benefit firearm manufacturers but again it is explicit up and down what the founding fathers explained a militia is.

    It isn't what I think. It is what the founding fathers thought at the time.

    I mean, this is why I mentioned the NRA - it's not even what the NRA believed until the late 1970s. Everyone knew exactly what it meant until the NRA went nuts.

  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Phasen wrote: »
    Explicit statements of what a militia is. Yes I am aware of the hackneyed way that the law was interpreted to benefit firearm manufacturers but again it is explicit up and down what the founding fathers explained a militia is.

    It isn't what I think. It is what the founding fathers thought at the time.

    I mean, this is why I mentioned the NRA - it's not even what the NRA believed until the late 1970s. Everyone knew exactly what it meant until the NRA went nuts.

    Which is why only individuals who were members of the militia were permitted to keep arms.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    Phasen wrote: »
    McFodder wrote: »
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Sorry, i may have been overly specific. I said killing people, when i should have said killing things.
    Hunting, home defense*, "reasons the 2nd amendment exists"* are all subsets of that.
    Sport shooting admittedly is not, though that is a byproduct of guns being fun to shoot, not the original purpose.
    Guns are inherently dangerous, not dangerous as a side effect of their utility. Their utility comes from the fact they are dangerous.

    *even if the intent is only to scare away an intruder or invading British monarch, they're scary because of the threat of death.

    Fair enough. Still can't say that's enough of a reason given our omnivorous nature, especially as some people use them for their livelihoods (some people move to Alaska for example strictly to live in this manner) or to help supplement it. Also I love how some people love using "invading British monarch" when in reality that 2nd amendment purpose I refer to was for OUR government.
    Because it was funnier that way.

    As for sport or subsistence hunting, pest control, etc, carve-outs can be made in any regulatory framework to allow use.

    Take England, for example

    Firearms are strictly regulated, but you can get one if you have a good reason

    In the countryside, everybody and their mums is packin'

    The only "good reason" that should be required is that one is not a felon or adjudicated mentally incompetent.

    Disagree. The more guns out there, the more likely some will fall into the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

    The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, home defense, or sporting purposes. If you want to know what the 2nd amendment is actually supposed to protect, look to the Declaration of Independence. Yes, it has been held to be an individual right. Even if you aren't willing to accept Heller, we can take a look at what the militia is actually defined as in US Federal Code under 10 USC 311: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    Also, we need to get this out of the way: the amendments in the Bill of Rights - in fact the Constitution itself - do not grant rights. Instead they LIMIT what the government may do to restrict the natural rights you are presumed to already have.

    A description of who can join a militia is not a description of what a militia is.

    What do the articles of confederation say about militias?
    Section 6
    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

    Notice a problem with the idea that individuals own the firearms in that description?

    What do the other areas of the constitution say about militias beyond the "well regulated militia" that for some reason is hard for people to parse besides being explicitly about regulation ergo state ordained.

    Aritcle 1 Section 8 "Legislative powers"
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Aritcle 2 Section 2 "Presidential powers"
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    Seems pretty explicit what a militia is and many states had them at the time. George Washington was a general of the Virginia Militia for instance.

    I'm sorry, what do the Articles of Confederation have to do with anything? They aren't the basis for any statutory law. The Articles of Confederation only lasted until the Constitution was drafted and ratified - roughly from 1781 to 1789 - so that entire point is moot. As for your other charges, you appear to have some misunderstanding of the US Code. 10 USC 311 b states there are two types of militia - the organized militia and the unorganized militia, which is what I specifically referenced earlier.
    §311. Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13.htm

    This is currently the law, right now, on the books.

    As for the Heller Decision:
    The Supreme Court held:[45]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    If you think the individual citizen's right to keep and bear firearms should be eliminated, you are welcome to try and pass a Constitutional amendment or undergo an Article 5 convention. Short of that have a nice day.
    I mean, it could also be overturned by the Supreme Court, too. It's not a "one and done forever" deal, and re-interpretation of the Constitution happens all the time (every year, even!). Heller is a relatively new ruling (2008), and it can definitely change in the future. Remember Plessy v. Ferguson?

    I think the Supreme Court also explained in the Heller decision that it wasn't an unrestricted right for an individual to bear arms:
    "In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[48]"

    From the same link. I'm not a constitutional law scholar, so... *shrugs*

    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGen: Hahnsoo, FC: 4141-2384-3379
    Andy JoeMagicalGoats
  • gekkobeargekkobear Registered User regular
    The comic?
    The comic was fine... don't blame random unrelated bullshit for shooting. That makes sense...

    "I think if you’re gonna have a meeting about this kind of shit, and you don’t talk about guns, and you don’t talk about how nobody gives a fuck about these young men until they pull a trigger, I sorta have to wonder what the purpose of your meeting is." - Tycho.

    So we shouldn't blame random unrelated bullshit for the shooting; but we should... blame the people who ignored this guy?
    Okay... we might be on the same page still.
    So the FBI, the School and the local cops are on the hook as I can show where every one of those fuckers ignored this guy; and in some cases actively covered up what a problem this guy was so their numbers looked better for bureaucratic bullshit?
    We should Quit Bitching about the NRA and new laws when the Government officials who enforce laws are ignoring the laws we already have... right?

    If that's right? Fine. We're good.

    If that's not correct and we need to "blame the NRA" and "pass laws restricting guns" while we let Government officials ignore the laws we already have as well?
    Then I'm going to ask how that's any different from what the comic was bitching about.
    Because I don't see the difference there... I really don't.

    BRASKYthatSOB
  • RigamarawRigamaraw Registered User regular
    gekkobear wrote: »
    We should Quit Bitching about the NRA and new laws ...

    If that's not correct and we need to "blame the NRA" and "pass laws restricting guns" while we let Government officials ignore the laws we already have as well?
    Then I'm going to ask how that's any different from what the comic was bitching about.
    Because I don't see the difference there... I really don't.

    Why should anyone stop "bitching" about an organization that actively lobbies congress, seeks to control legislators, fights any form of regulation, and spews insane propaganda? Ascribing blame to them is one thing, but they're not beyond reproach. Seems like a false equivalency to me.

    Hahnsoo1NightslyrcB557Leon2309Andy JoeCambiataDjiemNobodyH3KnucklesJacques L'HommeMan in the MistsshoeboxjeddyJaysonFour
  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    Tube: The "Read the full story here" just links to https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic instead of the actual comic, if it matters to you.

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    Tube: The "Read the full story here" just links to https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic instead of the actual comic, if it matters to you.

    I think it's basically always been that way since the forum change, and we don't mention it lest it draw the ire our glorious robot moderator.

    steam_sig.png
    Moridin889Cambiata
  • dennisdennis Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    Tube: The "Read the full story here" just links to https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic instead of the actual comic, if it matters to you.

    I think it's basically always been that way since the forum change, and we don't mention it lest it draw the ire our glorious robot moderator.

    Yeah, it did seem familiar to me. But then I was just on this other recent thread (https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/217696/penny-arcade-comic-beaks-and-geeks) and it didn't do that. I guess the Dogbot just likes to fuck with us every once in a while.

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    dennis wrote: »
    Tube: The "Read the full story here" just links to https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic instead of the actual comic, if it matters to you.

    I think it's basically always been that way since the forum change, and we don't mention it lest it draw the ire our glorious robot moderator.

    Yeah, it did seem familiar to me. But then I was just on this other recent thread (https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/217696/penny-arcade-comic-beaks-and-geeks) and it didn't do that. I guess the Dogbot just likes to fuck with us every once in a while.

    If I had to guess, I'd say it's because dog doesn't make the forum thread until someone posts a comment to the comic. So depending on whether they're viewing it from the current comic url or the archive url with the date.

    steam_sig.png
    dennis
  • Zoku GojiraZoku Gojira Monster IslandRegistered User regular
    Sweet. Some time ago, I unwisely ditched my Dex Furis to free up a measly slot. Now I have it back in time to begin leveling New Loka for the Lifesteal augment.

    Quite a nice little surprise. Thanks, DE!

    "Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." - Bertolt Brecht
    PSN: ZokuGojira
  • cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    Sweet. Some time ago, I unwisely ditched my Dex Furis to free up a measly slot. Now I have it back in time to begin leveling New Loka for the Lifesteal augment.

    Quite a nice little surprise. Thanks, DE!
    The augment only works with the single base furis. Man, Dex Furis with that mod would be nuts.

    Tits! Tits! Tits! Tits! Tits! Tits!
  • Twenty SidedTwenty Sided Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Since we're talking gun control, did ya'll know the NRA used to be PRO gun control?

    http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

    "The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”"

    "The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”"

    I thought you were going to talk about the Black Panthers, back when they were still relevant.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Since we're talking gun control, did ya'll know the NRA used to be PRO gun control?

    http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/

    "The 1930s crime spree of the Prohibition era, which still summons images of outlaws outfitted with machine guns, prompted President Franklin Roosevelt to make gun control a feature of the New Deal. The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons. Not only was the legislation unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in 1939, but Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”"

    "The summer riots of 1967 and assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 prompted Congress to reenact a version of the FDR-era gun control laws as the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act updated the law to include minimum age and serial number requirements, and extended the gun ban to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. In addition, it restricted the shipping of guns across state lines to collectors and federally licensed dealers and certain types of bullets could only be purchased with a show of ID. The NRA, however, blocked the most stringent part of the legislation, which mandated a national registry of all guns and a license for all gun carriers. In an interview in American Rifleman, Franklin Orth stated that despite portions of the law appearing “unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”"

    I thought you were going to talk about the Black Panthers, back when they were still relevant.

    I mean, the NRA lobbied for passing laws banning open carry because of the Black Panthers.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    Preacher
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited March 15
    I find it ironic that posters on this forum would simultaneously act as if the NRA of the Mulford Act era was the "true patriotic" NRA and acknowledge that the Mulford Act was racist backlash towards black citizens exercising their civil liberty. Especially when Colin Noire is one of the more popular NRA spokespersons.

    NSDFRand on
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User regular
    edited March 15
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    I find it ironic that posters on this forum would simultaneously act as if the NRA of the Mulford Act era was the "true patriotic" NRA and acknowledge that the Mulford Act was racist backlash towards black citizens exercising their civil liberty. Especially when Colin Noire is one of the more popular NRA spokespersons.
    I think you misread the intent of Cambiata's post. I thought it was more of "Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think? IT'S LIKE RAAAAYEEEYAIN" sort of thing.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    Di87pOF.jpg
    PSN: Hahnsoo | MHGen: Hahnsoo, FC: 4141-2384-3379
    Leon2309CambiataAegeriSorceH3KnucklesMoridin889
  • Kuari999Kuari999 Registered User regular
    edited March 28
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Since people have addressed other parts of your post already, I'd just like to pull this tidbit out:
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    The idea that guns have to go to significantly reduce violent incidents has not and in fact I'd argue that as far as I can tell, the opposite has been shown so far.
    Please show me the studies that show that having guns around actually reduce violent incidents. I'm extremely interested in seeing these, as all the meta-analyses of gun research I've seen have shown that the presence of firearms only increases the risk of harm to those around it.

    The opposite was in regards to it NOT reducing them not that they reduced incidents.
    Rigamaraw wrote: »
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    The idea that guns have to go to significantly reduce violent incidents has not and in fact I'd argue that as far as I can tell, the opposite has been shown so far.

    Gun regulation is, in part, meant to reduce mass casualty incidents, not to reduce the overall total of violent incidents. I mentioned this previously in comparing Port Arthur, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and Parkland to the arson and car incidents in Australia. We can compare mass shootings to mass knife attacks too, if you want, but the statistics always favor guns in terms of number of casualties. The facts and statistics are in and have been for a long time.
    Kuari999 wrote: »
    Now overall registration... that I know has the potential to be a problem because I know a few gun nuts who'd see that as a sign that government is preparing to take away their guns and while I'm not against the concept... those are waters to tread carefully.

    Why should we legislate based on what an extreme minority of paranoid individuals think or feel? It's so bizarre to me that seemingly rational people can accept strict regulation of explosives and fully-automatic weapons, but balk at the concept of applying similar regulation to semi-automatic weapons that are only nominally less effective at killing massive amounts of people very quickly.

    You mention that the masses shouldn't be punished for what individuals do, but I fail to see how increased regulation, even stringent regulation, can be seen as punitive.

    Taking away rights is always punitive by definition. You're taking away something that they had before. How could that NOT be seen as punitive? Also the arson attacks in Australia were just as lethal as some of the gun attacks there. So on average? Maybe but I'd argue you can't prove Australia is really better off when there hasn't really been any shift at all in regards to deaths and the like, even in mass attacks. They reacted over one or two incidents. It was pure knee-jerk with no factual basis and continues to have no basis as we don't know how things would have turned out overall or why mass shootings are happening the way they are now.

    As for why we should consider those paranoid individuals? Laws should solve problems, not cause them. If a law makes a problem worse, it is a failure. If your goal is to stop mass shootings your law shouldn't cause a spike in them. So I'd argue not taking that potential into account is irresponsible. If one found that the only way to get positive change in the long run was problems in the short run? That's one thing. But you don't assume that kind of thing. You need to actually prove that it'll work and quite frankly the research that has been done has a tendency to ignore the outliers as meaningless rather than examine why certain areas are outliers which is why I don't really take what research we have on shootings very seriously. Because their strategy is to ignore such outliers because they're difficult to pin down not go "huh... these areas have same amount of guns but one has significantly LOWER crime by a large margin... why is that?" As a result see the guns as a causation when all they've proven is a correlation that demands more insight.

    Kuari999 on
    gekkobear
  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular

    Sometimes I just gotta shake my head. Do you guys really believe there is a massive overlap between kotakuinaction and the_donald? Being a regular of both I can assure you there is not, so there's not a whole lot of fawning gamergaters that will somehow be upset by this move. Just because you disagree with both doesn't make them agree with each other.

    I mean, not exactly a deep-dive but right now 18 of the 25 front page topics on KotakuInAction were posted by users who post at The_Donald.

    Of the remaining seven, 3 post exclusively on KiA. 3 of the remaining 4 post exclusively on gaming subs. The remaining guy's only other sub is 4Chan.

    So uh, yeah. 94% of OPs on the front page with an identifiable political preference support Trump. Make of that what you will.

    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
    Andy JoeDjiemH3KnucklesSorceAngelHedgieshoeboxjeddyTim is on the InternetTwenty SidedCambiataAegeriThawmusMoridin889Commander ZoomJaysonFour
  • SpaffySpaffy Fuck the Zero Registered User regular
    edited March 29
    Posted by mistake

    Spaffy on
    ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
    Steam: adamjnet
  • Twenty SidedTwenty Sided Registered User regular
    edited April 1
    Spaffy wrote: »

    Sometimes I just gotta shake my head. Do you guys really believe there is a massive overlap between kotakuinaction and the_donald? Being a regular of both I can assure you there is not, so there's not a whole lot of fawning gamergaters that will somehow be upset by this move. Just because you disagree with both doesn't make them agree with each other.

    I mean, not exactly a deep-dive but right now 18 of the 25 front page topics on KotakuInAction were posted by users who post at The_Donald.

    Of the remaining seven, 3 post exclusively on KiA. 3 of the remaining 4 post exclusively on gaming subs. The remaining guy's only other sub is 4Chan.

    So uh, yeah. 94% of OPs on the front page with an identifiable political preference support Trump. Make of that what you will.

    There's a stripe of gamer-bro slactivist that constantly talks about the "SJW's" and how political correctness ruins things.
    Fuck those guys. They ruin every gaming community for me. I resent them mightily. From their need to manufacture "memes" and their tendency to spew right-wing propaganda and conspiracy theories that once used to be confined exclusively to all the radio stations you didn't listen to.
    For a crowd that whines about how politics winds up in their precious games, they sure never shut the fuck up about it.

    Twenty Sided on
    CambiataH3KnucklesAndy JoeBloodySlothdoomybearEdith UpwardsdoompookyMoridin889DjiemTofystedethLeon2309NothingAngelHedgieCommander ZoomJaysonFour
Sign In or Register to comment.