Senate Gun Control

okay thanks for that. this guy was an adult who bought his own guns

 

its william lane craig, master obfuscator

 

Nah, Craig hates the term absolute morality, even he realizes it's a linguistic dead end.

 

oh is it that doug wilson then? i feel like ive deffo heard this line of reasoning in one of those hitchens debates lol

 

No, I think instead what you end up with is a scenario where they're less likely to leave one lying around with a round racked into the chamber and the safety off. It does not address the cultural preparedness to resort to firearms as a mechanism for dispute resolution nor does it address the ease of access for disturbed individuals.

In short, you propose a bandaid as a way of treating a severed limb.

 

Except E_S, you can't just remove the firearm as a right as long as it is detailed in the Bill of Rights. I don't mean this statement as a dodge, or in a "agree or disagree" kind of way. I mean in the sense as long as it has Constitutional protection, it will remain a symbol as such, but more importantly, it will enjoy the Constitutional level of legal protection. (And for full disclosure, I don't have a problem being it as such either.)

For example, earlier on in this thread, someone suggested that a solution would be to tax ammunition so it's out of reach. The problem with that is that since gun ownership is protected by the 2nd Amendment, then any "de facto/ backdoor" bans will more than likely ruled to be Unconstitutional. Let's say a state had a sales tax rate of 5%. If it enacted a tax rate of 100% on guns or ammo just to make them unavailable to citizens, I would bet that's how the Supreme Court would rule:

SC- "So let us get this straight? Your normal tax is 5%, but the tax on guns is 100%, just to make them unavailable?"
State Attorney- "Yes your honors..."
SC- "practice ruled to be Unconstitutional as an unreasonable tax."

But this is also how the SC would rule in other, similar cases for the same reason. Guns aren't a special case. For example, in Roe v Wade, abortion was considered to be a right under the 14th Amendment. Since states couldn't ban abortion outright, imagine if a state added a $5,000 surcharge to every procedure just to make them unavailable to most people. The SC would probably strike that down under due process as well.

That's why the legal battles with Constitutional issues are always smaller, targeted proposals that want to see how far the issue could be pushed. Even if Australian style laws were debated, it wouldn't include any buy backs or apply to firearms already in existence. It's what I mean when I say that Americans have to learn to co-exist with firearms, and I mean both sides equally. I think it is much, much more effective to focus on issues like why people use a gun because someone cut in front of them in line, or why someone would look at a shooting spree as the only response to them not being able to get a date, because these mindsets are the root of the problem.

 

lol, the Roberts Court would? States are already severely curtailing access to abortions, and commentators aren't optimistic on the Court slapping those states down if a case gets to them. Hell, this cycle they might side with a plaintiff that wants to deny its employees the pill.

 

Absolutely the Roberts Court would.

those are the smaller, targeted proposals that see how far things could go that I mentioned. For example, Colorado's 10 round magazine limit is more of a regulatory issue instead of a Constitutional issue.

(and this is neither here nor there, but you already know that the issue isn't denying anyone birth control pills, it's providing them for free under an employer's health insurance. It might be a small difference, but it's one which has distinct legal differences.)

 

It demonstrates just how socially conservative the Court is that people aren't sure they will rule against Hobby Lobby's cynical ploy.

 

You've had roughly 250 years to learn. The rest of the civilised world would like to advise you that your time is up.

 

Hush. How long did it take the British Empire to learn that imperialism wasn't a positive practice? About 2 centuries?

 

I'm not convinced it's not. And as it formed the basis of US foreign policy from 1945 onwards, it seems... neither are you?

 

Well then, maybe it's high time that Australia takes up the white man's burden like its wayward sister the United States and its mother the British Empire.

I also wonder how the Tasmanians might feel about it.

 

What.

OZK what. Seriously. What.

 

Do you really think that imperialism is a positive practice? I mean, you said at the least that you are not sure. Was that understatement to mean that you support imperalism?

(For my part, I find American imperialism noxious and am grateful that the populist response has prevented our dear President from putting our nose in Syria and Ukraine. Would have been nice to avoid Libya too, though.)

 

Well it's a bit more nuanced that that.

I am not someone who looks upon the history of European imperialism as if it were an act of evil. We have Marxist historians for that endless hand-writing and fretting. I think the net benefit to the globe was overwhelmingly positive, and personally I hold the view the British Empire was by far the best Empire the world has ever seen.

It obviously not a modern ideology, so I don't hold views about how current it should be. And honestly, though the world has connotations that are... suspect, I would actually call the US imperialism more hegemonic than anything else.

 

You're not the only one who thinks that, either.

 

ive always felt like bear-macing your enemies would be more satisfying than shooting them, anyways

 

For white people maybe.

But I imagine most Native Americans and other POC would disagree with this assessment.

 

Didn't Putin ultimately save us from getting into Syria?

 

Canadian pro-gun group issued a statement following the recent search for a man who shot and killed three police officers and wounded two others, stating that this is evidence gun control is not working because violence keeps happening, so we should use the money wasted on gun control for healthcare instead and basically follow the American model.

The major shooting incident in Canada is the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre in 1989. Since then, maybe 20 people have been murdered in violent spree-shooting incidents, depending on how you classify things.

So we should have wider access to firearms because 23 people have died in the past 25 years?

 

Canada and the US aren't all that different when it comes to gun control laws. There are minor differences of course, and the one major difference is the registration requirement in Canada. But as far as access to the types of firearms, the two countries are just about the same. The criticism with the Canadian registration database also falls along the same lines of the US. There simply is not enough resources in Canada to do anything with the information. The Canadian government literally has thousands of names with a yearly cost of 70 million Canadian dollars to maintain, and not enough resources to actually do anything with it. It's why it's not really a deterrent to these type of shootings. In fact, the last time it came up for a vote in the House of Commons, 2 votes separated the call to scrap the entire thing. (153 to keep, 151 to get rid of)

No matter if one is generally pro-gun, anti-gun, or indifferent. The US does has a comprehensive set of regulation in place. If nothing else, I wish this is the misconception that would go away when it comes to the laws in the US.

 

Stupid tools

I paused for a moment, looked at them and asked one simple question, “What if you saw various groups of 100 or so African-Americans, Mexicans or Muslims gathered on the side of roads all over Dallas-Fort Worth with loaded AK-47′s, AR-15′s and a whole host of other semi-automatic weapon they could get their hands on, can you honestly tell me you wouldn’t feel threatened or alarmed?” They stammered for a few seconds into a mumbling, “Uh, um…well, you know. That’s, uh…” followed by, “Well that’s different.” “How?” I asked. What followed was some drivel about how open carry activists aren’t racist and the gatherings you see are composed of people of all races and genders.

Never really answering my question, I pressed it again. “If you saw a group of 100 African-Americans standing on a street corner, all openly carrying some form of semi-automatic weapon, would you not feel threatened? What if 1,000 Muslims gathered in “stereotypical Muslim garb” near a government building that you worked in (they don’t work in a government building, it was just a hypothetical situation) would you feel completely safe?” Still, no real answer. Just more of the same, “Typical liberal, trying to make it about race.” Which is usually what someone says when they’re busted for being racist.

It’s the same pattern you see with conservatives on a lot of issues pertaining to “rights.” They love going on and on about “freedoms” and “Constitutional rights,” but what they really mean is that they’re fighting for these rights for only those who they feel should have them. When they talk about religious rights, they mean Christian. When they talk about protecting equal rights, they mean heterosexuals. When they talk about shrinking government, they only mean laws that are preventing them from getting away with what they want to get away with. So when they talk about “open carry rights” they’re really only talking about those people who they feel safe around.

Because I really can’t imagine a group of rural country folk sitting in their local diner feeling at ease with a group of 30 openly armed African-Americans strolling in. And what about our rights as Americans to feel safe when we’re out in public? I’m sorry, but someone feeling the need to strap an AK-47 to their back to attend a Little League baseball game isn’t someone I think is mentally stable. What the hell kind of society do these people want to create? One where everyone’s armed, guns strapped to their backs or holstered on their hips, strolling around Pop Warner football games or local restaurants ready for a good ol’ fashion shootout if the situation calls for it? Yeah, I don’t see any potential problems there. None at all. I’m sure untrained civilians would act perfectly calm and precise if some armed gunman unexpectedly happens upon whatever establishment they happen to be attending. There’s a reason why the wild west died – society evolved. -

 

You're right. The resources aren't there. My point is less people get shot.

EDIT: And hey, remember that one time that American guy wanted a gun when people asked him if he'd been to a glorified rodeo?

Gonna revise my point here, **** gun culture.