The Gun Topic - Move all gun laws/rights discussions here!

[Ed Oscuro]

Keep Calm and Don't Poke The Bear

and also

Keep Calm and Don't Be A Bear

Google Image search didn't provide an easy means to legibly juxtapose these two ideas, so have this instead. Wait, forget that, here:

[ED-057]

You essentially can't have civilized behavior without the threat of violence.

And we've reached a new moral low for you, this being essentially the same as the religious argument that morality couldn't exist without God (i.e. without the threat of divine retribution for sinning).

You see, non-sociopaths can operate in a society

This is somewhat offtopic, but you're not looking at the big picture.

Some people can play nice without coercion. But the douchebag part of the population will continuously exploit this vulnerable group, to the extent that they can get away with it. Those are the people that you have to worry about, and is the reason we have law. If douchebags can act with impunity, then civilized behavior will indeed begin to disappear. Imagine being the one honest person in a highly corrupt organization for instance...

Although I think it's dumb to bring this up in the context of "people saying things I don't like on the internet." That problem is easily dealt with by ignoring those people.

[ED-057]

The main reason that I don't want more gun restrictions or a gun ban, is because the USA is a police state. Anyone who denies this is either not paying attention or is falling for the "our country is less bad than this other country therefore it is not a police state" fallacy. The ACLU recently reported that more African-American men are now either in prison or on probation than were enslaved in 1850. The feds have successfully shit all over the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments. There is documented widespread corruption and lack of accountability in government and law enforcement. Surveillance. Thought crime. etc. (ask me to post examples, I would love to) If this is OK with you then great. Personally I would prefer that my country not be a shithole, and at least try to live up to its stated values.

What does this have to do with guns? Gun control advocates want more laws. We already have too many, and these are just more excuses for cops to detain/harass/assault innocent people just because they *might* have a weapon that *might* violate a law and *might* be used in a crime. When there are so many laws that a person can't realistically obey or even know them then the law both loses legitimacy and becomes ripe for abuse via selective enforcement. It's already long past being a serious problem. More gun control would immediately make the police state that much more oppressive, and would weaken the individual's position while strengthening the state.

Violent crime has been on a downward trend in recent decades, so while gun violence is still a problem, it is not a growing problem. The fascists can potentially do MUCH more damage to society than the sum of all small-time criminals. Hence I consider this the greater and more urgent problem.

[Skykid]

The main reason that I don't want more gun restrictions or a gun ban, is because the USA is a police state.

Of course, and the very picture of corporate fascism. But there's no way the people will ever fall back on their right to bear arms and dislodge the bank of Goldman from the White House because they've been moulded to be too complacent and lazy to embark on such a trifling endeavour.

The constitution and bill of rights has had very little meaning for a very long time, and if defending your country from corrupt government is futile (which it is) then it doesn't matter if you demilitarise the public domain.

[Edmond Dantes]

EDIT: Bleh, never mind. It's not worth risking a ban just because some people can't have a civil debate.

[trap15]

God you're dumb.

[Edmond Dantes]

God you're dumb.

Not sure what God did to deserve that insult (besides inventing the platypus).

[CMoon]

The constitution and bill of rights has had very little meaning for a very long time, and if defending your country from corrupt government is futile (which it is) then it doesn't matter if you demilitarise the public domain.

Basically this, and again, I'm not anti gun...just don't know why the general populace needs more than rifles and shotguns. There's a reason you can't go down to your local walmart and buy land mines, grenades, etc. Those people who sincerely believe in the American dream, that's one thing I guess, but for me were getting closer to another vision where we're all more like ants or mole rats in a larger system. Rugged individualism is just some sort of illusory safety blanket some people cling to, while in fact it is an impossibility in modern society. Perhaps America's gun romanticism is a reflection of that dream, but guns won't resuscitate some old paperwork that doesn't really protect them, nor bring back another age.

[Edmond Dantes]

The constitution and bill of rights has had very little meaning for a very long time, and if defending your country from corrupt government is futile (which it is) then it doesn't matter if you demilitarise the public domain.

Basically this, and again, I'm not anti gun...just don't know why the general populace needs more than rifles and shotguns. There's a reason you can't go down to your local walmart and buy land mines, grenades, etc. Those people who sincerely believe in the American dream, that's one thing I guess, but for me were getting closer to another vision where we're all more like ants or mole rats in a larger system. Rugged individualism is just some sort of illusory safety blanket some people cling to, while in fact it is an impossibility in modern society. Perhaps America's gun romanticism is a reflection of that dream, but guns won't resuscitate some old paperwork that doesn't really protect them, nor bring back another age.

The idea isn't to bring back another age, just to have the ability to mold the current age into something better.

And I'm not seeing where this idea that resistance is futile is coming from. The system is nowhere near as omnipresent and powerful as X-Files makes it out to be. In real life, governments are run by human beings, who have human failings, and no amount of technology can change that

And to be honest, that technology is nowhere near as great as you might've been lead to believe. Any technology that's been made that's supposed to prevent crime, or catch the culprit after the fact? The day it comes out, the underworld has cracked every last bit of it. For example, you know those scanner thingies at the door to every major supermarket, that are meant to catch shoplifters? Those can be defeated with an everyday, dirt-common household object (not gonna say what because I don't want ya'll doing anything silly, but the information can be found online).

But ultimately, the thing is you don't have to overthrow the government to make a positive change. Just make a bit of trouble.

Look at Prohibition. The Chicago gangsters and other bits of criminal underworld that cropped up weren't directly opposing the government. They were simply tapping into a market made possible by an ill-considered law. And yet all the problems they caused forced the government to realize that said law was ultimately causing more problems than it solved, which is why it got repealed. (This is essentially what my friend Wrath of Seven was getting at with his topics on gun control. If America banned guns, it would be Prohibition all over again).

I'm not sure where this modern defeatism comes from. Likely its media-induced. But television is hardly a truthful medium (for example, CSI likes to tell you forensics is magical and can tell you everything about a crime, when in reality most forensic evidence is nowhere near that conclusive--and again, there are ways to fool even the most expensive technology. Why have faith in technology anyway when this high-tech laptop right in front of me sometimes has to think for a minute before playing back a music file?)

Just some food for thought right there.

tl;dr - There is NOTHING in the world that is impossible, except to the uninformed or misinformed.

[Randorama]

Just some food for thought right there.

tl;dr - There is NOTHING in the world that is impossible, except to the uninformed or misinformed.

After this pinnacle of wisdom, I need to ask: do you believe in Intelligent Design and Fox tv?

EDIT: and how many copies of Shikigami II the reptilians stole you?

[Edmond Dantes]

Just some food for thought right there.

tl;dr - There is NOTHING in the world that is impossible, except to the uninformed or misinformed.

After this pinnacle of wisdom, I need to ask: do you believe in Intelligent Design and Fox tv?

*Sigh*

... On the extremely unlikely off chance that you weren't being snarky and those were serious questions (unlikely I know): Intelligent Design - Not entirely. Fox TV - I don't watch news networks, I prefer the interwebs for that.

and how many copies of Shikigami II the reptilians stole you?

Did you mean "How many copies of Shikigami II did the reptilians steal for you?"
Or "How many copies of Shikigami II did the reptilians steal from you?"

Just your original line was so badly-written it made no sense on its own (not meant as a flame, sorry if it comes off like such).

And I've never owned Shikigami no Shiro II, so the answer is zero either way.

[BIL]

That was actually a reference to an esteemed thread of shmupsforum lore. :3

Read, and tremble before the unbridled horror that is... schizophrenia!

[Edmond Dantes]

Oh wow.

I felt sorry for that guy before I got to the post where he accused forum members of using magic to steal from him. Poor fool. Only Taoists can do magic.

[Randorama]

... On the extremely unlikely off chance that you weren't being snarky and those were serious questions (unlikely I know): Intelligent Design - Not entirely. Fox TV - I don't watch news networks, I prefer the interwebs for that.

"not entirely" says a lot. Not that so far you missed any chances to prove how much of a reptilian hater you are, indeed.

Just your original line was so badly-written it made no sense on its own (not meant as a flame, sorry if it comes off like such).

You need to learn some grammar. Wh-questions about the first argument of di-transitive verbs allow the promotion of the second argument as the first argument (x R many y from z--> how many y x R z). Besides, "you" and "him" are both dative and accusative, so " I steal you x" is fine.

You are at least aware of what the question is really about, I hope...?

[Edmond Dantes]

You are at least aware of what the question is really about, I hope...?

My first impression was that it was another snarky suggestion that I had said something "ridiculous," but then I noticed you weren't one of the people I had been arguing with for pages on end.

Don't tell me my faith was misplaced, please.

[Randorama]

Don't tell me my faith was misplaced, please.

If you say "please", I won't. I don't mention eugenics randomly, though.

[Edmond Dantes]

Don't tell me my faith was misplaced, please.

If you say "please", I won't. I don't mention eugenics randomly, though.

... Neither do I.

If someone told you I was talking about eugenics at any point, they're straight-up lying.

[Skykid]

If you say "please", I won't. I don't mention eugenics randomly, though.

... Neither do I.

If someone told you I was talking about eugenics at any point, they're straight-up lying.

He means we need to invoke eugenics to stop people like you from being born.

...in a semi (quasi?) humorous (but not completely unserious) way. If you could stop being you for a few minutes and take a look at the stuff we've been reading over the last few pages from an outside-in perspective, I'm sure you'd cast a vote in the direction of eugenics too.

[Randorama]

He means we need to invoke eugenics to stop people like you from being born.

I also would actually say that I need to invoke eugenics, to motivate the extermination of people like you (plural, not singular), so that we save the world from
endless pages of individuals talking past each other.

Rando: your gay neo-nazi comedian!

*hails himself, like Mel in the famous video*

[Skykid]

He means we need to invoke eugenics to stop people like you from being born.

I also would actually say that I need to invoke eugenics, to motivate the extermination of people like you (plural, not singular), so that we save the world from
endless pages of individuals talking past each other.

Rando: your gay neo-nazi comedian!

*hails himself, like Mel in the famous video*

Sorry for putting words in your mouth.

Your eugenics catchphrase is certainly appropriate for this thread, but I vote we start with Edmond nevertheless.

[CMoon]

I'm not sure where this modern defeatism comes from.

Bizarre statement. First, change is not defeatism. Ultimately human society becoming more like a super-organism might be a positive change.

Where does it come from? Jesus, writers have been speculating on these ideas since the 40's.

[CMoon]

This thread just hit the jackpot!

That was actually a reference to an esteemed thread of shmupsforum lore. :3

(how the hell did I miss that thread the first time 'round!??)

He means we need to invoke eugenics to stop people like you from being born.

I also would actually say that I need to invoke eugenics, to motivate the extermination of people like you (plural, not singular), so that we save the world from
endless pages of individuals talking past each other.

Rando: your gay neo-nazi comedian!

*hails himself, like Mel in the famous video*

Oh Rando!

[Randorama]

Oh Rando!

C'Moon, be a smartie
join the Rando partie!

[CMoon]

Oh Rando!

C'Moon, be a smartie
join the Rando partie!

Springtime for Rando or candygram for Mongo?

[Edmond Dantes]

Your eugenics catchphrase is certainly appropriate for this thread, but I vote we start with Edmond nevertheless.

Hey, Skykid, why don't we take this fight to my blog?

Not so we can discuss it like gentlemen, but so I can have your IP address and give it to a hacker friend of mine to destroy your computer and shut you up. Because clearly that's the only way I'm ever gonna reason with someone who thinks "being asked to provide facts" is a valid reason to tell people to seek therapy.

In fact, I have a woman-friend (we're not dating) who does work in therapy. I showed her this thread. Funny thing--she said that YOU showed signs of autism, citing in particular how you tend to automatically assume anyone who is part of a group you don't like could never contribute anything to a debate (your earlier dismissive attitude towards Bronies) and saying--I quote--"his attitude suggests stunted emotional development and a lack of empathy. It's unlikely he has a strong social circle outside of the internet."

... Then she said you and me are a lot alike and i went home and cried. -__- Okay, I didn't really cry, but hearing something like that from someone I respect really was a blow.

[BulletMagnet]

I'm more eager to see his rendition of "I'm Tired" (or, failing that, "Puttin' on the Ritz").

[system11]

Just wow.

Locked.