Oct
5th
2017
Let's start another discussion topic - what do you think about gun control, folks? · 6:29pm Oct 5th, 2017
Do you think Paris would have been safer if everyone carried a gun?
Do you think the mentally ill should carry guns?
Do you think that poodle is going to get off Donald Trump's head anytime soon?
Wait, it's actually his hair? Seriously?
AND ANOTHER ONE OF NEVERCAKE'S BLOODY LEAGUE OF LEGENDS ADS POPPED UP! I SWEAR I WILL FIND HIM AND DROWN HIM IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH ACID! I'LL FORCE FEED HIM A LOAD OF CAKE AND LAUGH AT THE SUDDEN IRONY OF HIS NAME! ENOUGH WITH THE STUPID NEVERCAKE ADS, YOUTUBE!
Report
UniqueSKD · 320 views
·
#uniqueskd
#unique
#mlp
#my
#little
#pony
#friendship
#is
#magic
#2017
#america
#donald trump
#followers
#friends
#gun control
#las vegas
#russel howard
Well, here’s my thought... I support second amendment rights and I support Gun Control... but what I am NOT in favor for is what the NRA is doing to prevent recieving of information on them so we can have an informed discussion. But don’t take it from me...
Take it from this piece that John Oliver did on the NRA
I don't support the mentally ill getting access to guns, and I do support putting as many roadblocks as possible into their path. Unfortunately, I'm also fully aware that given enough incentive (and the right opportunity), they can still get access to a weapon and kill someone.
It's a complex issue. We can all agree to that, right?
I think the second amendment serves a purpose to allow US citizens to defend themselves, either against an oppressive government or THEMSELVES, but what the founding fathers DID NOT foresee was the evolution of guns and how these unfathomably deadly weapons made exclusively for wartime combat would be made readily available to the public.
So my verdict, pistols and hunting rifles have a bit of leniency. But in terms of the shit like automatic firing rifles, the kind of stuff that mentally ill people use to mow down several unarmed civilians in seconds... yeah, that's gotta go.
4687957
I agree it is indeed a complex issue.
Saw this comment today, forget where...
We should treat guns like cars. You have to go through paperwork and classes to be able to drive a car, yet you can go into a store and walk out with a gun with only a single piece of paper.
The most challenging portion of this issue is that it is, at its core, an issue about culture, and nobody wants to address that fact because discussions about culture are complicated.
People like to compare the United States to Europe in order to illustrate how strict gun control leads to low rates of gun violence, while completely ignoring the fact that Europe is a medium-tightly bound confederation of independent countries that were historically ruled by monarchs with very, very strong powers for a thousand some years, while the United States is a medium-tightly bound federation of independent countries that was founded on the idea that monarchs and central governments with strong powers are evil things.
Viewed from this lens, it makes total sense that the countries in which the king or queen would defend the citizens see little need for guns, while the countries in which the citizens had to defend themselves see every need for them.
On the issue of machine guns in the US, even if private citizens could purchase them freely, almost nobody would because of the costs involved. For the price of one fully-automatic Glock 19, I could buy six semi-automatic Glock 17s (or pay almost three months worth of my mortgage), and that's only because both firearms use almost all the same parts: Machine guns that don't have semi-auto variants easily cost $5,000 USD and up, and semi-auto guns that are converted to full auto tend to perform very poorly because they aren't designed to handle that kind of abuse. To say nothing of the cost of ammo: That Glock 19 mentioned earlier will empty its entire 32 round magazine in less than 2 seconds. That's about $10 USD gone in about 2 seconds. Most people would rather spend that money towards a 2-hour movie. It turns out that the most powerful force that keeps people from randomly firing guns into the air is not legislation, but economics.
On the issue of the rate of gun violence, most statistics comparing the rate of gun deaths in the US to Europe include all gun deaths, including homicides, suicides, and negligent discharges; the rate of only homicides is significantly lower than is often reported, and is not appreciably higher than other developed nations.
On the issue of gun control leading to lower rates of gun violence and crime, Chicago, IL has some of the strictest gun controls in the United States, and also some of the highest rates of gun violence and crime in the United States.
Does all of this mean that gun control does not achieve its stated goals? I don't think anyone could look at the (very high-level) information above and reasonably conclude that it doesn't work: As we have all observed, this is a very complex issue with a lot of nuance.
However, I do believe that anyone could look at the (very high-level) information above and reasonably conclude than it has not been proven to work. Where many people - myself included - take issue is when it is spoken of as if it has been proven to work when it is obvious that it has not.
Lastly, we all need to give up the idea of gun control. Humans are obsessed with control - climate control, traffic control, crowd control, etc. - because it makes things predictable, and things that are predictable are perceived as "safe." We can't control guns. We can't control anything, and the sooner we accept this fact, the happier we're all going to be.
What we should give serious thought to, however, is the idea of gun management. Just like we manage resource use and how we interact with coal and oil, we can decide how we're going to interact with firearms.
(We should probably also revisit existing laws and decide which ones are really valid and useful, and which one are bogus, like the ban on silencers which is only a thing because once upon a time John Muir convinced Congress that poor people shouldn't have them. Seriously, he argued in favor of gun control by claiming that blacks, Italians, and the poor couldn't be trusted with such devices)
I was literally watching this last night then saw this post lol
[shrug]
The amendment specifies a well regulated militia. Random people with guns hardly qualifies as a well regulated militia either in terms of WELL REGULATED or MILITIA.
That being said if you believe that it is for people to be armed against their nation if it is tyrannical even automatic weapon ownership is pointless in this day and age. They won't do crap against military aircraft, drones, and heavy armor vehicles that the military can employ. The only thing they are effective against is other citizens and primarily in situations they are in large groups. In short an automatic weapon is only useful to them if they intend to hurt innocent people and try to hurt them in large number.
I have no complaint with typical firearms that can only fire once per pull of the trigger-hunting rifles and small pistols used for defense as long as they are registered gun owners who pass background checks. These can still be used to murder but aren't capable of the wholesale slaughter of the automatic weapons.
4688234
The issue with "well regulated militia" is that at the time it was written, there was no permanently standing Army, and was never intended to be; it was the responsibility of the States to raise and maintain their own militias, while Congress had the power to "raise and support" armies when necessary, most likely by drawing forces from the State militias and drafting additional soldiers as needed. The need for a standing army became rapidly apparent and was established in 1791, but the language of the Second Amendment was not updated; the purpose of a standing army was to avoid having to retrain militiamen whenever a regular army was raised, and it was intended that States continue to maintain their own militias. This tradition continues with the State National Guards.
As for possession of automatic weapons for use against a tyrannical government being pointless in the modern age, this is false. More than 80% of the US population lives in cities, and that's where the majority of fighting would take place. Aircraft do not have the precision needed to be effective in cities, and tanks cannot effectively maneuver in cities: The majority of battles where tanks and aircraft were and are effective either took place in large, open spaces or loosely-packed villages and town where the streets were wide and there was room to maneuver. Most of the fighting would be conducted on foot, and automatic weapons would still be useful, both as force multipliers and for their psychological effects.
If you want to make an argument against ownership of fully automatic weapons, a more effective argument would be that, because of the prohibitive cost of owning and training with such weapons, the people most likely to possess them would be the same people most likely to use them to oppress others.
And lastly, if you do end up in a discussion or argument with someone who is adamant that they need to own a machine gun to protect themselves from the federal government (assuming they are a US citizen living in the US), point out to them that the best defense against the federal government becoming tyrannical is to support and fund their State National Guard and/or State defense force (if active). US heritage is effectively as a federation of sovereign countries, which means that if forced to chose between their State and the federal government, most Americans will side with their State first, other States second, and the federal government third (at best), and a State National Guard can provide not only an arsenal, but also support infrastructure and training. You might not manage to change their mind, but they'll probably be more open to hearing a different viewpoint if approached in this way.
Like I said, a discussion around gun control is not just a discussion around guns; it's a discussion around culture.
4688108
Oh god, you have good taste in comedians.
4688020
Oh my god, that comment is too much to handle. XD
4688488
It started out as just the "well regulated militia" bit and sort of snowballed.
We need to be careful, but not afraid. I live in Texas, I've seen people walk around with an AR-15 loaded and ready; like they want someone to start a shootout. It's not a matter of freedom, or culture or some vague bullshit: it's a matter of why 'well regulated milita' should mean 'every asshole with a temper'. It shouldn't. Guns are weapons, they're meant to kill: If you want a gun, you most likely want to kill something (excluding target shooters).
Birds, hogs, deer, people, they make guns to kill them all. That does not mean everyone should be carrying concealed: it means we should take responsibility for what happens when it happens. Don't bulldoze over someone because they're speaking against what you believe in. Don't run from the topic. Don't claim 'it's too soon' the day after a shooting or someone's only 'saying it for the political points': People died, and it's never too soon to remember that, and them.