Sociopath Community

The anti gun argument is an uninformed and reactionary one pushed by the news. Most as in over 95% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Restrictions would do nothing on the number of gun related homicides. You want to lower the gun deaths, come down harder on the drug trade.

Second Amendment: 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.

They added that extra bit at the end for a reason, it's entirely unique and isn't present in any other amendment. There is no changing this. There is no discussion to even be had, if the constitution can have a core amendment negated it opens up the door for an inevitable domino effect that we can not afford.

Anti gun people are ignorantly playing with fire for no reason. There is sound logic on why the founding fathers found this so crucial that only the first amendment of free speech was prioritized over it.

bleary said: 

Chapo said: 

People in the US will always have guns and there are never going to be enough successful gun bans to make a real difference in the amount of shootings that will occur. Maybe make the country better to live in.

 You write well. For everyone else, it’s like wading through the bullshit.

 what's your opinion bleary?

Kestrel said: 

The anti gun argument is an uninformed and reactionary one pushed by the news. Most as in over 95% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Restrictions would do nothing on the number of gun related homicides. You want to lower the gun deaths, come down harder on the drug trade.

Second Amendment: 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.

They added that extra bit at the end for a reason, it's entirely unique and isn't present in any other amendment. There is no changing this. There is no discussion to even be had, if the constitution can have a core amendment negated it opens up the door for an inevitable domino effect that we can not afford.

Anti gun people are ignorantly playing with fire for no reason. There is sound logic on why the founding fathers found this so crucial that only the first amendment of free speech was prioritized over it.

 so you think the anti gun argument is due to ignorance and people being sheeple led by the media?

BTW, this just happened,

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xwy3p/grisly-footage-reveals-what-irans-regime-did-to-protesters-when-the-internet-was-shut-down

Iran’s security forces shot and killed unarmed protesters during a brutal crackdown on demonstrations in the country last week, according to videos posted online after the government finally lifted a five-day blanket internet blackout.

The gruesome videos back up claims made by activists that security forces killed hundreds of protesters who took to the streets of over 100 Iranian cities on Friday, November 15, to protest against a massive 50 percent spike in fuel prices.

Billy said: 

Kestrel said: 

The anti gun argument is an uninformed and reactionary one pushed by the news. Most as in over 95% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Restrictions would do nothing on the number of gun related homicides. You want to lower the gun deaths, come down harder on the drug trade.

Second Amendment: 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.

They added that extra bit at the end for a reason, it's entirely unique and isn't present in any other amendment. There is no changing this. There is no discussion to even be had, if the constitution can have a core amendment negated it opens up the door for an inevitable domino effect that we can not afford.

Anti gun people are ignorantly playing with fire for no reason. There is sound logic on why the founding fathers found this so crucial that only the first amendment of free speech was prioritized over it.

 so you think the anti gun argument is due to ignorance and people being sheeple led by the media?

100%

Shootings have become a massive buzzword that news stations clamor for. Every shooting now is a gross misrepresentation of gun homicides that usually happen in low income areas around criminal activity. Instead, everyone is wondering why all of these schools full of vulnerable children are under attack. These are not even 1% of shootings and they're demanding the core laws of our country to be thrown out for it, while doing nothing for the actual victims.

Gun control thread 2.0? : p

Kestrel said: 

The anti gun argument is an uninformed and reactionary one pushed by the news. Most as in over 95% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Restrictions would do nothing on the number of gun related homicides. You want to lower the gun deaths, come down harder on the drug trade.

Why does it matter how many gun owners are law-abiding? If we gave everyone an arsenal of nukes it hardly matters that only 0.01% of them were 'illegally' used. The focus should be on the trade-off between consequences and benefits instead, in my opinion.

Why wouldn't restrictions and/or buybacks have an effect?

Second Amendment: 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.

They added that extra bit at the end for a reason, it's entirely unique and isn't present in any other amendment. There is no changing this. There is no discussion to even be had, if the constitution can have a core amendment negated it opens up the door for an inevitable domino effect that we can not afford.

Anti gun people are ignorantly playing with fire for no reason. There is sound logic on why the founding fathers found this so crucial that only the first amendment of free speech was prioritized over it.

The founding fathers also, wisely, added the option for amendments precisely because things might change in the future. It's absolutely possible to change the 2nd amendment (if there was support for it) without risking some kind of domino effect. Laws are organic.

I also think the fetishizing of the founding fathers is a bit unsound. They weren't that different from the politicians of today.

Inquirer said: 

Gun control thread 2.0? : p

 my intent was trying to understand the motivations behind wanting more gun control. why?

hopefully a slightly different spin on an old topic

so far we have fear of criminals with guns and bandwagoning media manipulated sheeple as opinions

as climate change continues, the risk to food supply chains increases and in my opinion the need to be able to protect yourself and your family also increases. chaos may soon follow climate change into the future

Inquirer said: 

Gun control thread 2.0? : p

Kestrel said: 

The anti gun argument is an uninformed and reactionary one pushed by the news. Most as in over 95% of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Restrictions would do nothing on the number of gun related homicides. You want to lower the gun deaths, come down harder on the drug trade.

Why does it matter how many gun owners are law-abiding? If we gave everyone an arsenal of nukes it hardly matters that only 0.01% of them were 'illegally' used. The focus should be on the trade-off between consequences and benefits instead, in my opinion.

Comparing guns to nukes, you euro. Let's take your trade off idea, you're looking to overwrite the entire country to fix less than 1% of a problem that wouldn't contribute towards any other part of the issue. 

Why wouldn't restrictions and/or buybacks have an effect?

We discussed this the last time we had this talk. Guns are obtained illegally, imported, smuggled and stolen. For the guns that are stolen from stores, no restrictions would stop that.

Second Amendment: 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.

They added that extra bit at the end for a reason, it's entirely unique and isn't present in any other amendment. There is no changing this. There is no discussion to even be had, if the constitution can have a core amendment negated it opens up the door for an inevitable domino effect that we can not afford.

Anti gun people are ignorantly playing with fire for no reason. There is sound logic on why the founding fathers found this so crucial that only the first amendment of free speech was prioritized over it.

The founding fathers also, wisely, added the option for amendments precisely because things might change in the future. It's absolutely possible to change the 2nd amendment (if there was support for it) without risking some kind of domino effect. Laws are organic.

Shall not be infringed, doesn't allow room for change like the other amendments do and as I mentioned before it'd be an inevitable domino effect of changing core amendments to a drastic degree

I also think the fetishizing of the founding fathers is a bit unsound. They weren't that different from the politicians of today.

 One thanks is fetishizing now, nice. The founding fathers understood a very rational fear of the tryannical government they just toppled rising in place of the one they just created. This law stands as a means for their future counterparts to follow suit.

bleary said: 

Chapo said: 

People in the US will always have guns and there are never going to be enough successful gun bans to make a real difference in the amount of shootings that will occur. Maybe make the country better to live in.

 You write well. For everyone else, it’s like wading through the bullshit.

"Everyone else" huh? 

Kestrel said: 

Comparing guns to nukes, you euro. Let's take your trade off idea, you're looking to overwrite the entire country to fix less than 1% of a problem that wouldn't contribute towards any other part of the issue.

I'm not equalizing guns and nukes. It was just a way to highlight how I think focusing on the law-abiding gun owners is a bit of a fallacy.

What exactly is "fixing less than 1% of a problem" here? Removing guns?

Why wouldn't restrictions and/or buybacks have an effect?

We discussed this the last time we had this talk. Guns are obtained illegally, imported, smuggled and stolen. For the guns that are stolen from stores, no restrictions would stop that.

We did talk about this last time and you guys failed to really answer why taking guns out of circulation (from people, from stores, from manufacturers, from criminals etc.) wouldn't have a positive effect on gun violence. I fully get that it's almost impossible to actually implement it politically at a large enough level but that's not the same thing as it not working.

Shall not be infringed, doesn't allow room for change like the other amendments do and as I mentioned before it'd be an inevitable domino effect of changing core amendments to a drastic degree

Isn't that phrasing just there to make the amendment itself very clear? It shouldn't affect the difficulty in changing or replacing it.

Why would it lead to a domino effect? Amendments have been passed before but only after A LOT of work. I don't see why changing the 2nd amendment would suddenly be any different.

 One thanks is fetishizing now, nice. The founding fathers understood a very rational fear of the tryannical government they just toppled rising in place of the one they just created. This law stands as a means for their future counterparts to follow suit.

Don't take it so personally lol. People in favor of not changing the constitution often make a point of how great the founding fathers were or how great the original constitution was, as some kind of appeal to authority. My comment was directed more towards that general argument than what you said specifically because I often come across it. I could've been more clear though.

I think a lot has changed since the late 18th century in terms of weapon technology, militias, politics and the possibility of the people to militarily hold their own against their own government. An actual tyrannical government wouldn't think twice about subjugating its own people with tanks or whatnot.

Tryptamine said: 

Also the only reason we have these gun laws is because of our history of revolution, but the landscape is 300 years different now. They didn't have Apache helicopters and inter-continental ballistic missiles in 1776. It's a dated mode of thinking that we could revolt now.

So give everyone Apache helicopters and inter-continental ballistic missiles.