Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 231

Thread: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

  1. #201

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    I am assuming that 1A and 2A are shorthands for the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution of the U.S. (anyone please do correct me if I am wrong).

    I would like to point out that the 2nd Amendment was made at a time when the most powerful personal firearm was the musket:
    the best trained soldier would need about a minute to prepare the weapon for a second round after the first was fired.
    If anyone is to be a 2nd Amendment absolutist, it is only proper that they insist the amendment in question only protects the types of firearms that existed when the amendment was made.
    Or they should courageously admit that they are absolutists à la carte.

    I am in favor of private gun ownership, by the way, yet it is self evident to me that there can be reasonable limitations to what firearms one may own.
    In all honesty people, if you need 20 rounds in the clip your aim sucks crap.
    No, the point was that population should have access to same weapons as government and military to prevent encroachment of tyranny.
    So in modern context that means select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines. What citizen should own should be determined by only one party - citizen himself.

  2. #202

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    No, the point was that population should have access to same weapons as government and military to prevent encroachment of tyranny.
    So in modern context that means select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines.
    "Have access to same weapons as government and military" is not a standard anybody I know has; ep1c_fail isn't for that. It would also include mortars, recoilless rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and mines. All very useful for combat application, but not usually things people say citizens should be able to own without licensing.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  3. #203
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    7,603

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    No, the point was that population should have access to same weapons as government and military to prevent encroachment of tyranny.
    So in modern context that means select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines. What citizen should own should be determined by only one party - citizen himself.
    Because select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines would protect you from a drone strike.

    It's impossible for me to express how I feel about such statements without doing to the ToS the same thing you are doing to logic.

    But since my feelings are nobody else's concern the best I can do is implore anyone to consider for a moment:
    A) the full arsenal of the US government and
    B) the numbers of trained soldiers and officers on it's payroll and
    C) the number of civilians that would side with it,
    before you begin to examine whether your best defense against tyranny is the meager firepower that "select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines" can provide or a well functioning society.

  4. #204
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    12th Plane of Torment
    Posts
    11,630
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    No, the point was that population should have access to same weapons as government and military to prevent encroachment of tyranny.
    So in modern context that means select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines. What citizen should own should be determined by only one party - citizen himself.
    Can it be, something that Heathen Hammer and I finally agree one?

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    "Have access to same weapons as government and military" is not a standard anybody I know has; ep1c_fail isn't for that. It would also include mortars, recoilless rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and mines. All very useful for combat application, but not usually things people say citizens should be able to own without licensing.
    That's my standard and the standard that the supreme court has moved towards with DC v Heller. People who argue for magazine restrictions, banning of bump stocks, pistol grips on rifles, etc are just highlighting their lack of knowledge about guns. Even if you're limiting people to flintlock pistols and muzzle loaders they will still kill people if they want to. The difference between pistol grip and not on a rifle will do absolutely nothing but mildly inconvenience the shooter. You don't solve gun violence by making guns less ergonomic.

    So lets look at the numbers, shall we?

    According to the CDC there are 30,000 gun related deaths each year.

    That's almost statistically meaningless. That's .009% of the population.

    22,938 or 75% of those deaths are a result of suicide, which is a mental health issue rather than a 2nd amendment issue. You don't need a large magazine, a bumpstock or whatever to kill yourself.

    987 or 3% are killed by law enforcement

    489 or 2% are killed by accident

    So that means that only 5,577 people are dying in America from gun violence each year. Which is .0017% of the population. An even more insignificant number than the last one.

    So, by city then we get the following (Note, stats are halved since data covers 2 years rather than 1.)

    298 or 5% of all gun deaths nationally take place in St Louis, MO

    327 or 6% of all gun deaths nationally take place in Detroit, MI

    328 or 6% of all gun deaths nationally take place in Baltimore, MD

    764 or 14% of all gun deaths nationally take place in Chicago, IL

    198 or 4% of all gun deaths nationally take place in Memphis, TN

    That's 35% off all gun violence in America taking place in 5 cities.

    So that leaves 3,658 gun violence deaths for everywhere else in America, the third largest country in the world with the most guns in the world. More people die each year from lack of proper insurance and medical care than die from the result of gun violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Because select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines would protect you from a drone strike.

    It's impossible for me to express how I feel about such statements without doing to the ToS the same thing you are doing to logic.

    But since my feelings are nobody else's concern the best I can do is implore anyone to consider for a moment:
    A) the full arsenal of the US government and
    B) the numbers of trained soldiers and officers on it's payroll and
    C) the number of civilians that would side with it,
    before you begin to examine whether your best defense against tyranny is the meager firepower that "select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines" can provide or a well functioning society.
    If the U.S government is drone striking it's citizens then that's a complete other subject to discuss, because it's completely outside the realm of reason in the continental US outside of a literal civil war. The Posse Comitatus act ensures that the U.S.A.F will never conduct operations on U.S soil, which means that your points are pretty much moot outside of an actual civil war with states succeeding again. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect against false use of government authority, almost all of which will be done by the Police, rather than the Army. The point of 2nd amendment is less to protect against the full brunt of the U.S military, but to prevent us from reaching a situation where the government feels it has the power to even do that.
    Last edited by Akar; February 25, 2020 at 05:34 AM.

    Join us on the Thema Devia Discord Server: https://discord.gg/ASqJf5C
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  5. #205

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    That's my standard and the standard that the supreme court has moved towards with DC v Heller. People who argue for magazine restrictions, banning of bump stocks, pistol grips on rifles, etc are just highlighting their lack of knowledge about guns. Even if you're limiting people to flintlock pistols and muzzle loaders they will still kill people if they want to. The difference between pistol grip and not on a rifle will do absolutely nothing but mildly inconvenience the shooter. You don't solve gun violence by making guns [I]less ergonomic.
    That citizens should have access to any weapons system the military uses? Without licensing? That certainly is not the SCOTUS position now nor close to being. No doubt a lot of restrictions on guns (pistol grips and such) don't do much as a regulation, but don't pretend there isn't a massive difference in firepower between a flintlock musket and a self-loading rifle. As I put earlier, the moral question seems to be around how lethal of a weapon system a private citizen is allowed to own without requiring a license.

    So what do you think the limits of the 2A should be, then? How far can citizens go? Should citizens have access to white phosphorous, cruise missiles, and stingers?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  6. #206
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    12th Plane of Torment
    Posts
    11,630
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Well I didn't say without licensing. I'm not claiming to have a perfect plan or system in check, but I imagine it would work with a tiered licensing system. Just like it does right now with open carry/concealed carry permits, silencer tax stamps, etc. I don't think you should need a license to own your basic weapons, but I think you would need to have a clean record and pass a test to be able to use fully automatic weapons and explosives. You want a stinger? Okay, you need to get your documents in order and expect a lot of hassle while we make sure you're not planning on using it any time soon. I don't know where the cut off should be, but it's sure not where we are right now or where we're heading.

    DC v Heller states the following

    Quote Originally Posted by DC v Heller
    (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
    The SC doesn't say "every weapon without licensing" nor did I mean to imply that they did, rather that they held the opinion that weapons in common use at the time could not be banned. I suppose I should have been more clear. I think an argument could be made under that logic that more types of weapons should be allowed, albeit regulated.

    Join us on the Thema Devia Discord Server: https://discord.gg/ASqJf5C
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  7. #207

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    Because select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines would protect you from a drone strike.

    It's impossible for me to express how I feel about such statements without doing to the ToS the same thing you are doing to logic.

    But since my feelings are nobody else's concern the best I can do is implore anyone to consider for a moment:
    A) the full arsenal of the US government and
    B) the numbers of trained soldiers and officers on it's payroll and
    C) the number of civilians that would side with it,
    before you begin to examine whether your best defense against tyranny is the meager firepower that "select-fire rifles, belt-fed machine-guns and high-capacity magazines" can provide or a well functioning society.
    US lost every counter-insurgency is has ever fought(with one exception of the insurgency it itself led against the English) despite firepower superiority. Given how objectively fighting counter-insurgency against your own population would yield even a bigger disadvantage it is quite clear what citizen firearm ownership entails - it simply makes it not worth it for the state to take it to that point. Gun behind every blade of grass and such. And if government does go full tyrannical - then it gives the people a fighting chance against it. Call it civilian self-defense.
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    "Have access to same weapons as government and military" is not a standard anybody I know has; ep1c_fail isn't for that. It would also include mortars, recoilless rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and mines. All very useful for combat application, but not usually things people say citizens should be able to own without licensing.
    People can injure themselves via more menial equipment that also doesn't require licensing. Just include manual in the box.

  8. #208
    paleologos's Avatar You need burrito love!!
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Variable
    Posts
    7,603

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    @Akar
    @Heathen Hammer

    If insurgents start using belt-fed machine guns against the police then I bet you the police will be endowed with tanks, APCs and predator drones, nor to mention such exotic non-lethal weapons as the PHASR and others.
    And it will be the police doing whatever it can do with tanks, APCs and predator drones.

    It seems to me that none of you have noticed that the various police units across the US are becoming more and more militarized with time.
    In every single case of standoff between gun enthusiasts and government agencies, the civilians lost and in some cases they all died, while in others the few survivors ended up in federal prisons for life.

    The claim that the US have lost "every" counter insurgency operation abroad is quite false actually.
    They did pacify Germany and Japan after WWII, didn't they?
    But you need to open a history book and read just how many occupation troops were stationed there.
    And that's not just the US troops but you also would need to count Canadian, British, French and Soviet occupation forces (in Germany).

    The reason that the US are loosing counter insurgency operations abroad in our time is because it would cost enormous amounts of resources to commit the kind of manpower required and at the same time start conducting the sort of nation building operations that made Germany and Japan the nations that they are today.
    Do I need to educate anyone that such policies were almost a copy-past of FDR's New Deal, tailor-cut for the particularities of Germany and Japan?
    Or that the elites that dominate the commanding height of industry, finance and politics really don't want to go there?
    But the Hamptons -as economist Mark Blythe so has poignantly informed us- are not at all defensible:
    If such people are threatened by anarchy you can be sure they will put their hands as deeply in their pockets as their pockets have depths.

    If there is a counter insurgency in the US and the police, FBI, ATF and Homeland Security prove to be inadequate then the government can deploy the National Guard.
    The various US National Guards are staffed with war veterans, these guys are no pushovers.

    In addition you have to take into account the fact that privately held firearms in the US are not evenly distributed among the population.
    Most Americans don't own firearms and of those who do own them, you can safely bet that the Pareto distribution is very well in effect: 20% of gun owners own 80% of firearms.
    Surely you cannot suggest that people of such low numbers can put a rifle behind every grass blade.
    More like ten rifles behind this grass blade and a few more a thousand grass blades over there.
    Do I need to mention that the Air National Guards of the various states have access to "daisy-cutters"?
    Not a big distance between cutting a daisy and cutting a grass blade (incinerating everything behind it).

    And if the US government ever has to defend it's own sovereignty against US based insurgents, then you need to consider that it's forces will be operating from behind internal lines, not beyond them.
    There is really no comparison between dunking on a bunch of backwater yahoos in your own backyard and having to deal with foreign insurgents in their own country.

  9. #209

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Well I didn't say without licensing. I'm not claiming to have a perfect plan or system in check, but I imagine it would work with a tiered licensing system. Just like it does right now with open carry/concealed carry permits, silencer tax stamps, etc. I don't think you should need a license to own your basic weapons, but I think you would need to have a clean record and pass a test to be able to use fully automatic weapons and explosives. You want a stinger? Okay, you need to get your documents in order and expect a lot of hassle while we make sure you're not planning on using it any time soon. I don't know where the cut off should be, but it's sure not where we are right now or where we're heading.

    The SC doesn't say "every weapon without licensing" nor did I mean to imply that they did, rather that they held the opinion that weapons in common use at the time could not be banned. I suppose I should have been more clear. I think an argument could be made under that logic that more types of weapons should be allowed, albeit regulated.
    But...that's what the 2nd Amendment is about: the access to certain firearms that can't be interfered with by the government (by requiring licensing). If you have to take a test and have a "clean record" to obtain the firearm, meaning the government has the choice to deny you the weapon, then that weapon isn't being protected by the 2nd Amendment. Most Western nations have a system that works this way; you apply for a license to own firearms (regulation varying depending on the type of weapon) that the government then evaluates and then approves or denies. US does this too, you can apply for a machine gun if you want, but the 2nd Amendment makes it so ownership of certain firearms can't be denied to citizens; barring certain circumstances such as being a convicted felon, although that is controversial.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  10. #210
    Cope's Avatar Have you no decency?
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,331

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    So wait, why is your limit as to what is acceptable (fully automatic weapons for instance) the correct place to put the line and not somewhere else? Because you are special and you say so?
    Setting aside your relentless fussing about my God-given super specialness, my line on firearms is drawn at the intersection between weapons which are necessary to arm a militia (as per the Constitution) and weapons which, were they to be openly accessible to crooks and extremists, would threaten the "free state" (also as per the Constitution).

    And apparently not only is that the proper place to put the line, but it is, according to you (but not SCOTUS), where the clear distinction of 2A protections apply. 2A protecting fully automatic weapons is absurd; 2A protecting anything less is tyranny.
    1. I did not say that supporting open access to fully automatic weapons was "absurd"; I said that I was prepared to compromise with the libs on keeping them restricted.

    2. I did not say that removing access the assault weapons would equate to a complete and instantaneous tyranny; I said that it would form the basis for the removal of further rights in future (because the 1A and 2A are the foundational rights).

    It's also interesting to note just how quickly you turned to gun-control rhetoric when challenged on just slightly heavier weapons than ARs. "Terrorist and psychopaths will use them for crime!" Gun-control advocates say the same thing about ARs. "It's military grade equipment!" Same was said about ARs. "It's absurd to let civilians have that much firepower!" Same. Thing. Said. About. ARs.
    The mainstream debate about armament controls concerns where the line should be drawn, not whether there should be a line at all. Acting as if I've ever rejected the premise that some regulations are necessary is disingenuous. As is the pretense that whatever standard you adhere to wouldn't be subject to the same criticisms you've made above. My disagreement with the libs. is not - and never has been - about the need for some controls, it's about what those controls should be and why.

    The 2A itself doesn't exactly help you make this point, and you clearly don't care about what SCOTUS says about the 2A, so I can only assume your reasoning to put the line at ARs because you wanted to for purposes other than making a point. Btw, "military grade explosives" aren't really a thing, they are just called "explosives".
    I'm drawing a distinction between explosives which are designed to destroy lives (grenades, mortars, rockets) and civilian tier explosives like fireworks or party poppers.

    No their not. Without ARs, militia could still have access to Battle Rifles or PDWs and basically have the same amount of efficacy as if they had an AR.
    I'm using AR as shorthand for all assault rifles, not just ArmaLite Rifle models. That's because the Dem. proposals relate to all "assault weapons" (by which they mean semi-automatic weapons).

    I would imagine a militia forming is much more dependent on it's organizational processes than exactly what weapons they have access to. And "adequate for this purpose" is the vaguery you are hinging on here. Adequate by whose standard, you? What if I said I don't think militia could adequately form without heavier machine guns or grenade launchers? I would automatically win, right? And then you would be the anti-gun advocate trying to damage the 2A to limit militias resisting a tyrannical government. It's like you don't even realize that the indignant responses you are giving to certain weaponry belies the same thought process a gun-control advocate has about ARs.
    If you want to make the case for why the open availability of machine guns and mortars are necessary for the formation of militias (and/or personal protection), I'd be willing to hear it. My position has always been that access to semi-automatic firepower (from rifles) is the minimum requirement for the formation of meaningful militias because it's the lowest (and most basic) form of military capability; anything less would be functionally ineffective militarily. The reason that many libs. disagree with me on this is because they falsely believe that the 2A was designed exclusively for personal protection and hunting, not resistance against state tyranny. They also seem to disregard the well-known fact (as sourced by Akar) that the majority of gun crime is committed with handguns (not ARs) in urban areas which already have restrictive firearm codes.

    No, I am complaining about your hackery and tactics, what you personally believe is immaterial to me.
    What you're actually doing is demanding that my personal views be beholden to an impossible, objective standard on firearm limitations. Then no matter where I draw the line, you can hector me about it (hence why you introduced the ad absurdum argument about mortars and grenades).

    If it was damaged, it was apparently not in any lasting way. This seems self-contradictory: there is this dire threat to the 2A (forget even needing an amendment change, apparently any typical bill threatens it) if the Dems manage to ban AR sales, but that exact scenario already occurred and didn't seem to have dire effects. Maybe you are just fear mongering?
    So you accuse me of fearmongering about terrorists if I agree with 2A limits and you accuse me of fearmongering about the erosion of constitutional rights if I don't.

    I must say, even by the standards of your vendetta against my alleged "hackery", these attempts to have your cake and eat it are a tad too transparent for my liking.

    How would the "saltiness of my retorts" reflect a concern specifically on your personal beliefs? I already said it's your rhetoric and tactics.
    Yes, yes, I know you're triggered (geddit? )

    Because that's taking the passive route of "they are coming for your guns...eventually!" You just want us to take your word that Libs are evil.
    I didn't say that the "libs are evil"; I think that the liberals who inadvertently set themselves against certain rights facilitate or enable evil.

    You really like to hype yourself up. You are just a partisan, not that special.
    Cutting me deep.

    HH (or Basil), can you hand the account back to ep1c_fail, please. Thanks.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    And if water is falling from the sky, it is raining.
    I'm glad you agree with me in principle that people who want to ban the sale of assault weapons believe that assault weapons are inappropriate for private ownership (and by extension would prefer it if civilians had no access to them).

    Fortunately for gun-owners, though, banning the sale of something is a completely different scope of policy than coercing people to give up something they already have. This is why, you know, the FAWB didn't have provisions for coercing citizens to give up the ARs they already owned prior to the ban.
    I've never said that the FAWB was as bad as an enforced buyback or recovery programme; that doesn't mean that it wasn't a lamentable encroachment on the 2A or that it wouldn't have had long term consequences had it stuck.

    You aren't trying to protect jack for me.
    Am too!

    And I am apparently more Liberal (proper usage) on gun control than you are. Though, for very different reasons.
    Let's hear this supporting argument in favour of unregulated mortars and grenades then.

    Well, more thanks to the systems of government (checks and balances), but sure. I am glad you agree the 2A and 1A are pretty safe.
    You talking about the "systems of government" set up by the men who used a well regulated militia to secure a free state and then enshrined in law a guarantee that the people had the right to rise again against tyranny if necessary? Yeah, thankfully there are still some people who want to conserve those rights from the machinations of gasping progressives.

    No, it just means it's not really much of a threat itself, because the 2A was just fine despite 10 years of godless tyranny. The only way the 2A would be under actual threat would be if a anti-2A congress got 2/3rds in both houses or SCOTUS was stacked with judges that had restrictive views on the 2A, but both are laughably implausible in the foreseeable future. The FAWB was as easy to get rid of (shiny 2A still intact) as Bush just declining to renew it, a new bill wasn't even needed.
    This attempt to draw a false binary between position (1) "The 2A is in no danger" and position (2) "The 2A is in mortal danger" is a classic example of incrementalist logic. You hope* that by denying the existence of a middle ground between points 1. and 2. (where the FAWB sat) you can convince people to do nothing until point 2 has actually been reached (and it's too late).

    *that is, you would hope it if you were making the argument for any other reason than to try to overcome my purported snake-like partisan hackery.

    Do you go to the local shopping center around Christmas time and approach the man in a Santa outfit to accuse him of being a liar? Because "lying" is as simple as "it's always bad", amirite?!
    I see your point: if I'm going to oppose political deception I should also crush the dreams of children at Christmas time. It's the only way to maintain a consistent standard on lying.

    I don't think I have ever thought about such a bizarre scenario, but sure, there are probably senior Dems (unclear on the "plenty") who would make ARs disappear from the US if they could just snap their fingers and have it happen.
    You've already agreed with me that it is logical to assume that a desire to ban AR sales is usually tied to a belief that ARs are inappropriate for civilians to own. From this we can infer that the Ds. who want to ban the sale of ARs (almost all of the presidential candidates) also believe (in all probability) that America would be a better place without private AR ownership.

    I am not sure exactly what that hypothetical has to do with real world gun-control policy or my "bad faith"
    Disregarding your interest in slaying me (the unspecial, paristan hack) at all costs, your bad faith is rooted in your cakeism: on the one hand you argue that leading libs. don't really want to ban assault-weapons and that they lack the capacity to enact such reforms anyway; on the other you denigrate the very people (gun rights activists and conservatives) preventing them from doing so. As I said before, people should stay vigilante against such serpentine tricks.

    I could list off a series of horrifying things senior GOP members would do if they could snap their fingers and have it done, if you want.
    Feel free. I'm not a Republican.

    But you sure as hell know about US presidential primaries and how they work and who is being pandered to by desperate candidates.
    Sanders isn't a desperate candidate. Biden wasn't a desperate candidate when he concocted his firearm policy. In fact I think all of them have some sort of assault-weapons sale ban (minimally) as a campaign pledge.

    And knowing that you are most likely aware of the process yet go ahead an say something as crass as: "you mean they are promising things in the primary they know they can't keep if elected?! That's lying!!!" like a high schooler who just found out about Ron Paul can really leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
    There is no reason to assume that a resurrection of the FAWB would be implausible after the election. There is also no reason to assume that people like Sanders (now the Ds. most likely nominee) are being disingenuous when they say they want to find a path to making assault weapons unlawful to own in the US. The only reason this issue of lying came up is because calling Sanders a liar is the only defense you could mount after I'd proven his stated views on gun control (even though you keep demanding I recite said evidence).And as I told you right at the start of the exchange (around the time you were pining for the thousand year Trumpreich), I told you that sort of the argument wouldn't cut it with me.

    O'Rourke made a desperate move to be noticed so he could stay afloat in the primaries. You should be emboldened by the fact that it didn't work.
    I am indeed pleased that O'Rourke crashed and burned. It was a small victory for sanity.

    That's a far cry from "I want to disarm the US populace" (I guess ARs are "all armaments" now) and still very vague on what policy would be done. Dems can't just "make ARs unlawful to own the same way as fully automatic weapons", that would make the ATF real sweaty around the collar and have no means of enforcement. There would need to be some kind of policy proposal, and given Sanders's choice of policy to focus on, this really comes off as an empty and vague promise to appease Dem primary voters who want more gun control.
    It could equally be the case that Sanders is refusing to publically present his proposals in order to avoid the negative press and inevitable backlash he'd get (as you noted was the case with O'Rourke) which could damage his presidential bid. Once he's in the Oval Office we could very well see him attempt to act on his claims. So as I said, you're stuck with one of two choices: either Sanders is a liar or he's a constitutional threat.

    I would also like to add, because we have been circling this point like a drain, but "banning ARs" in general is a vague term. I don't know if you have heard, but "bans" are not usually 100% things where legal ownership is impossible. Americans can own fully automatic machine guns and even anti-tank guns with the proper licensing and registration, like how most other nations handle ARs. When Americans are talking about "banning ARs", the likely policy they are speaking to is the degree of restriction being put on purchasing an AR.
    See Akar's post. What we're discussing is open (or largely open) access to certain weapons, not whether weapons should be completely off limits. I don't mind if enthusiasts or specialized businesses have the ability to acquire licenses for heavier weapons.

    Edit: seems like you've defeated your own argument anyway:

    "But...that's what the 2nd Amendment is about: the access to certain firearms that can't be interfered with by the government (by requiring licensing). If you have to take a test and have a "clean record" to obtain the firearm, meaning the government has the choice to deny you the weapon, then that weapon isn't being protected by the 2nd Amendment."

    No, C is the outcome (illegal ownership of ARs), not the prospect of it. Allowing A (FAWB style ban of sales) does not necessarily lead to C; as should be evident by having A before without any policy move to C. A is a plausible goal for Dems (maybe), but C is not.
    I didn't say that A necessarily leads to C. I said A is a necessary first step on the road to C for people (like Sanders) who support it. This "should be evident" on the basis that C requires A and is the stated objective for many libs (again including Sanders).

    You should be careful, make that face too much and it might stick.

    And so vague promises on gun control in the primaries is a serious concern about encroaching tyranny but the POTUS seriously promoting torture and war crimes is not a tyranny concern for you?
    Orange man bad etc.
    Last edited by Cope; February 25, 2020 at 03:30 PM.

  11. #211

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    US does this too, you can apply for a machine gun if you want, but the 2nd Amendment makes it so ownership of certain firearms can't be denied to citizens; barring certain circumstances such as being a convicted felon, although that is controversial.
    It should be noted machine guns, unless they were made and bought before 1986, are flat illegal to own and trade in the US. As for everything else, the government doesn't really stop you from owning them. What they do license you for in most states, is the ability to carry them concealed. And hell, there's never been that much controversial of saying a felon can't have all of his rights. Not since 1788.
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  12. #212
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    12th Plane of Torment
    Posts
    11,630
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Well with the move to re-enfranchise felon voters in states like Florida I think we'll start seeing a shift towards re-evaluating felons rights.

    As far as I know you can actually buy and sell the machine guns that were grandfathered in, they just go for ridiculously high prices.

    Join us on the Thema Devia Discord Server: https://discord.gg/ASqJf5C
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  13. #213

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    You say it doesn't really stop you from owning them, but the process of obtaining and registering (required) a machine gun is extremely long and prohibitive.

  14. #214
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    12th Plane of Torment
    Posts
    11,630
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    I didn't mean to imply that they were easy to get, nor that they necessarily should be. I do think they shouldn't be completely banned though.

    Join us on the Thema Devia Discord Server: https://discord.gg/ASqJf5C
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  15. #215

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Not you Akar, Gaidin. I have no issue with firearms, but I do have a problem with how easy they are to access. Democrats have latched onto incredibly stupid issues like "assault weapons", magazine sizes, and suppressors. The real issue is lack of registration and licensing. When the supply of firearms is so poorly controlled and enforced, is it any wonder that so many criminals can easily acquire firearms?

  16. #216
    Akar's Avatar I am not a clever man
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    12th Plane of Torment
    Posts
    11,630
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    I am firmly against the idea of any sort of registry or list of gun owners. You don't make a list of people who are exercising their constitutional rights. We need to either address the root of the issue, mental health, or stop with all these band-aid methods that don't do anything but get overturned by the Supreme Court, and rightfully so. If you want to change the constitution you need to amend it, otherwise leave it the hell alone.

    Join us on the Thema Devia Discord Server: https://discord.gg/ASqJf5C
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan







  17. #217

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by paleologos View Post
    @Akar
    @Heathen Hammer

    If insurgents start using belt-fed machine guns against the police then I bet you the police will be endowed with tanks, APCs and predator drones, nor to mention such exotic non-lethal weapons as the PHASR and others.
    And it will be the police doing whatever it can do with tanks, APCs and predator drones.
    Not a single insurgency has been won with conventional military (without genocide).
    I mean sure if you get Feds to act like Dierlenwager division and wipe out half the population, that would count as a tactical victory, but I don't think this would be considered even by most deranged statists.
    It seems to me that none of you have noticed that the various police units across the US are becoming more and more militarized with time.
    In every single case of standoff between gun enthusiasts and government agencies, the civilians lost and in some cases they all died, while in others the few survivors ended up in federal prisons for life.
    Yet Virginians won, and anti-gun legislature is now de-facto dead.
    The claim that the US have lost "every" counter insurgency operation abroad is quite false actually.
    They did pacify Germany and Japan after WWII, didn't they?
    But you need to open a history book and read just how many occupation troops were stationed there.
    And that's not just the US troops but you also would need to count Canadian, British, French and Soviet occupation forces (in Germany).
    Because there was no insurgency to begin with.
    The reason that the US are loosing counter insurgency operations abroad in our time is because it would cost enormous amounts of resources to commit the kind of manpower required and at the same time start conducting the sort of nation building operations that made Germany and Japan the nations that they are today.
    Do I need to educate anyone that such policies were almost a copy-past of FDR's New Deal, tailor-cut for the particularities of Germany and Japan?
    Or that the elites that dominate the commanding height of industry, finance and politics really don't want to go there?
    But the Hamptons -as economist Mark Blythe so has poignantly informed us- are not at all defensible:
    If such people are threatened by anarchy you can be sure they will put their hands as deeply in their pockets as their pockets have depths.

    If there is a counter insurgency in the US and the police, FBI, ATF and Homeland Security prove to be inadequate then the government can deploy the National Guard.
    The various US National Guards are staffed with war veterans, these guys are no pushovers.
    And ordering them to kill their own countrymen, possibly relatives, friends and neighbors would be a great way to get coup'd.
    In addition you have to take into account the fact that privately held firearms in the US are not evenly distributed among the population.
    Most Americans don't own firearms and of those who do own them, you can safely bet that the Pareto distribution is very well in effect: 20% of gun owners own 80% of firearms.
    Surely you cannot suggest that people of such low numbers can put a rifle behind every grass blade.
    More like ten rifles behind this grass blade and a few more a thousand grass blades over there.
    Do I need to mention that the Air National Guards of the various states have access to "daisy-cutters"?
    Not a big distance between cutting a daisy and cutting a grass blade (incinerating everything behind it).
    Again, US government could, in theory, glass its own territory and infrastructure. I don't think it can be called a victory. Nor would all the military obey de-facto criminal orders.
    And if the US government ever has to defend it's own sovereignty against US based insurgents, then you need to consider that it's forces will be operating from behind internal lines, not beyond them.
    There is really no comparison between dunking on a bunch of backwater yahoos in your own backyard and having to deal with foreign insurgents in their own country.
    Except that military typically comes from the same yahoos and yahoos on insurgent side typically have military experience in same structures.

  18. #218

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    I am firmly against the idea of any sort of registry or list of gun owners. You don't make a list of people who are exercising their constitutional rights. We need to either address the root of the issue, mental health, or stop with all these band-aid methods that don't do anything but get overturned by the Supreme Court, and rightfully so. If you want to change the constitution you need to amend it, otherwise leave it the hell alone.
    We make lists for a basic and intrinsic right for people to vote. There absolutely should be lists of people who own firearms, for the very basic of controlling the supply of firearms and law enforcement. In addition, such lists would be useful for compliance. Many lost or stolen guns are simply not reported.

  19. #219

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Love Mountain View Post
    We make lists for a basic and intrinsic right for people to vote. There absolutely should be lists of people who own firearms, for the very basic of controlling the supply of firearms and law enforcement. In addition, such lists would be useful for compliance. Many lost or stolen guns are simply not reported.
    With that logic in mind all politician's/government officials addresses and other private info should be available to public. You know, for compliance.

  20. #220

    Default Re: Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    With that logic in mind all politician's/government officials addresses and other private info should be available to public. You know, for compliance.
    I have no idea what you're talking about. It would be helpful if you elaborated your point.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •