General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 111

I don't mean to undermine your nihilism, but that's annoying. Everyone feels it, but progress has been made, if not domestically, then globally. At least in terms of lives lost.

And in what will be known as the early years of the internet, we have a unique opportunity to mobilize in ways that oppressors are ill-equipped to suppress. We have seen it with the shattering Sanders candidacy.

We will move forward. Especially as old guard definitions wither. We'll bring them to heel.

 

As a Canadian who has never really grasped and understood the obsession Americans seem to have with guns ...

Surely yesterday's events will mark the beginning of the end for the over the counter sale of assault rifles or any semi automatic weapon in your country?!

 

Probably not

 

I've had the argument made to me several times ... people should have access to the same type of fire power that the government has (assault rifles) because they need to be able to overthrow a corrupt government if needed ... it's how our country was born ... I guess I can see the point they are trying to make - though it seems like a stretch.

I don't own any guns nor do I have a desire to buy one ... yet I still support the idea of people being able to have them - mostly because I dislike the government trying to overcontrol society.

 

I think its a bit of an oversimplification of the discourse. Although people who believe they are going to need to overthrow the government one day exist, they are probably in the minority and largely exist outside of mainstream society.

Assault rifles make up a very small percentage of gun deaths per year (I believe it hovers around 2%), not sure why the focus is always on those particular weapons when handguns make up the vast majority of gun deaths. So I think the majority of people against assault rifle bans are against them merely because it isn't going to make much of a difference and it doesn't address the real problem.

If people want to talk about banning all guns, then that is at least a more worthy starting point for discussion than talking about banning assault rifles alone.

 

I think we need to gather more details, but it is alarming that this individual was able to purchase a weapon with his history. Multiple FBI investigations and supposed relations with a suicide bomber - how this guy wasn't investigated more thoroughly truly concerns me.

A former co-worker of the shooter was interviewed yesterday and said this man was very troubled, he felt so harassed by the way he acted that he quit the job so he wouldn't have to work with him anymore.

My outlook is if it's not a gun, it's a pipe bomb, airplane, etc. Hopefully we can come together as a nation and stop trying to politicize the situation and pray for the families of the fallen.

 

I was having this discussion with a friend yesterday. On what grounds would we take away this man's rights? Up until Sunday morning, this man had broken no laws. The FBI investigated him, and presumably came up with no actionable evidence. I have major concerns about the idea of putting people on "lists" that remove rights without due process.

I do agree with your last point. It's pretty disgusting how these things get politicized. The United States is a very diverse country, diversity will invite violence and conflict at times. It doesn't help to heap on more hate and distrust in reaction to these incidents. I doubt that's what the dead want.

 

some general thoughts relating to the gun side of things:

* it would / will be an uphill struggle just to get rid of being able to purchase an assault rifle, let alone ALL guns. but... what does an every day citizen use an assault rifle for? hunting deer or other animals? seems a bit much so my immediate reaction is, "why the fuck can someone buy these things? what's the point?"

* aside from committing a crime and then getting your right to own a gun taken away, are there any other avenues that get this right taken away? is there any requirement once someone owns a gun? i know we can't make the system perfect, but it sounds like someone can buy a gun (or any number of guns) and if they snap or get angry or whatever five days, weeks, years later, they already have the weaponry around. obviously i know we can't see the future, but i have the same curiosity about driver's licenses - once you get one, THAT'S IT. there's now follow up test or skills check. once you're in, you're in. is that what it is for gun ownership?

* changes need to be made, but as others have said / pointed out - if nothing significantly changed after Sandy Hook, why will this be any different? i still hold some hope that things will - sadly - finally reach a boiling point, but how many more incidents have to happen to get us there? and then some will forever yell, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and try writing off the items used to end life.

* i don't want to see it happen, but i really think the only way significant changes begin is if a major American family / entity loses someone close to them via gun violence. and maybe not even then. again, i don't want to see this happen, but it's starting to feel like, "until it happens close to you" the real horror of these situations won't be felt or understood.

 

Those people need to try firing a AR-15 at a tank or a drone and see how well they fare.

 

Yes, inferior firepower has kept every insurgency from being successful.

 

The idea that firearm proportionality surmounts to any meaningful step towards fending off what is by far the largest and most advanced military in the history of the world is stupid.

If the American government decides to deploy the military against its citizens, an automatic machine gun is every bit as useful as a musket or a Super Soaker. The defense against tyranny argument is purely rhetorical and lost its significance decades ago.

 

Have you paid attention to American military success in the last 50 years? it hasn't exactly been a walk in the park for the most advanced military of all time. It's not just a game of might. At least with rifles there is a chance of resistance.

 

My chief concern about any kind of comprehensive gun control, especially a full ban, is the racist origins of modern gun control legislation and the forseeable extremely racist enforcement that could happen, given the context of most of the gun crime in the US.

 

This is important. Focusing on watchlist justifications for gun restrictions misses the overall point that (imo) these aren't weapons that any citizen should have

 

Aka as "it's okay when white people get guns"

 

300 million people armed with with automatic weapons is a little but more of a problem than you are giving it credit for - but I don't side with that argument anyway...the better argument I hear is criminals will get there hands on any firearm they desire - illegal or not (kinda like drugs in America - laws do nothing to stop anyone from getting them if they want them) - so why should law abiding citizens have access denied

 

In a game of suppressing an uprising, it's bald might.

A wishful glimmer of hope in a theoretical rebellion against the state is not, to me, worth saturating the population with weapons that can mow down hordes of people in seconds. But that's just me. You have every right to lobby the government to own an attack helicopter and bazooka.

 

But such an argument is reductive and erroneous. Regardless of if criminals could get AR-15s if they were banned (and i find it hard to believe there would be no decrease whatsoever given how other countries have had success), I fail to see how owning such a weapon is a right of an American citizen.

 

law abiding citizens have no need for assault rifles, I don't think anyone is saying they can't have any guns for hunting

 

If it gets to the point where the American government has driven the resistance into fighting an insurgency war where they live their lives 'underground' and without any significant control of territory...well, then they've already failed to "stop tyranny".

 

YUP.

This pertains to my post about FIP laws a page or two back.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The ONLY argument to the wording of the second amendment is the types of "Arms" they're referring to back then. It could also be argued that it was worded in such a way to stay relevant with weapons of any generation.

I don't own any guns at the moment, but have been around them all my life. They're instruments of killing, for sure, but the person handling them should be held responsible. If it isn't a gun, that person will grab a knife, or something blunt if a knife isn't available.

That said, I don't see any need to the general public to have high caliber semi-automatic weapons, even if that means losing out on the ability to "keep the security of a free state".

I've had this argument with someone I worked with in Kansas City, and he's the "come and take it" type of dude, borderline militia in terms of attitude. When I asked him what he would think if we looked out of the window and saw a guy walking the streets with an assault rifle on his back, would you think "man, he's really supporting the second amendment", or would you think he's up to no good? It's obvious what most people will think, but this guy didn't have an answer other than "what race is he".

 

Actually, I'd say the "Well regulated militia" part is pretty open to interpretation. I think it's fair to say most of these people are not in militias, and definitely fair to say they're not well regulated at all.

 

Haha in no way are they well regulated. Most gun toting "come and take it" people are outright racist or just completely ignorant and are taking advantage of the second amendment.

 

I think it would freak people out in society even more if there were large number of people in well regulated militias. There is a "cult" like militia that exists near me where they do military style drills and fire off all sorts of weapons and shit - people in the area def. don't love it for the most part