-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 608)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/civ/ - Civics
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 329 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 18/04/09(Mon)01:54 No. 608 ID: 79b576
608

File 152323166831.jpg - (92.72KB , 600x343 , P1370539-900x601_1.jpg )

I support the second amendment rights of all US citizens, and this is somehow unpopular.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/09(Mon)12:45 No. 609 ID: 09f698

>>608
No reasonable person wants to take it away from you or expects you to give it up without going down in a blaze of redundancy.

We should be following the word of the amendment more strictly. All gun owners should be members of their state militia, appropriately trained, and able to serve as the heroes the NRA seems to think they can be. The problem is that we have a lot of lazy gun ownership--incompetent owners having accidents, letting guns slip into the black market, letting children get their hands on weapons, people with a history of violence and mental illness legally purchasing them at undocumented roadshow sales.

Have your right to bear arms, and do it better.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/10(Tue)10:18 No. 611 ID: de56af

If you support arming the mentally unfit and criminal elements then, yes, indeed, you are very unpopular.

If you are like the majority of gun owners and the overwhelming majority of US citizens, you would support reasonable background checks before all forms of gun purchases. If you do not, you are guaranteed to be unpopular, as you are part of the lunatic fringe.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/11(Wed)05:22 No. 615 ID: 242a70

>>609
>We should be following the word of the amendment more strictly. All gun owners should be members of their state militia, appropriately trained, and able to serve as the heroes the NRA seems to think they can be.
Well, it has gone before the Supreme Court several times and been ruled that it covers individuals as it specifically states that the right of the people will not be infringed upon.
>The problem is that we have a lot of lazy gun ownership
You'd have to define a lot. If statistics are any reflection of reality than those problems occur with a very small percentage of gun owners. Also, that's not taking into account the lives saved by gun owners.
>>611
>If you support arming the mentally unfit and criminal elements
That's illegal already.
>background checks
If the amendment's original intent was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, it seems a bit backwards to have to submit to being investigated beforehand by that same government.
Also, it doesn't prevent mentally ill with no prior record from owning a firearm.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/12(Thu)08:10 No. 616 ID: de56af

>>615
>Well, it has gone before the Supreme Court several times and been ruled that it covers individuals as it specifically states that the right of the people will not be infringed upon.
Actually if you follow the case law you'll see that until Scalia came on board and warped its intent it was viewed quite differently. Much like with the first amendment there used to be limits.

>If statistics are any reflection of reality than those problems occur with a very small percentage of gun owners.
Well, considering that less than 10% of the population owns guns and less than 10% of those owners own more than a couple weapons, just how small of a population are we talking about? If its such an infinitesimally small number why does not a week pass without someone shooting themselves, a family member, a neighbor, or an innocent bystander by accident?

>That's illegal already.
Then why are they able to buy firearms from private citizens, gun shows, and other locations without undergoing a background check? If it's illegal, why not make reasonable common sense regulations that won't stop anyone who's actually entitled to purchasing a firearm? If you're going to crap your pants and piss yourself after a couple days wait then why shouldn't the seller be responsible for selling a weapon to someone who shouldn't own one? If they're not going to perform a background check then they should be responsible for vetting the seller themselves.

>If the amendment's original intent was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government
Except that's only been the definition since extreme right wing elements took over the NRA and started pushing their extremist agenda.

Previously citizens could simply sign up for a militia, who would perform the necessary background checks and decide who gets to join the militia. The states organize their own militias and put a check on the federal government.

Sorry buddy, but you bought into their revisionist lies hook, line, and sinker. All because your grandfather wanted to own slaves like his grandfather did.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/12(Thu)20:05 No. 617 ID: 4bc1e9

>>616
>Actually if you follow the case law you'll see that until Scalia came on board and warped its intent it was viewed quite differently.

I do follow the case law and that's untrue.
The precedent was set as the right of the individual since Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

>Well, considering that less than 10% of the population owns guns

Where are you getting that percentage?
Gallup polls shows 42% of American households contain at least one gun.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

>If its such an infinitesimally small number why does not a week pass without someone shooting themselves, a family member, a neighbor, or an innocent bystander by accident?

Accidents happen and firearms are no exception. Accidental death is the 4th most common cause of death in the US.

>Then why are they able to buy firearms from private citizens, gun shows, and other locations without undergoing a background check?

That's not illegal.

>why not make reasonable common sense regulations that won't stop anyone who's actually entitled to purchasing a firearm?

That depends on your definition of reasonable and common sense. Also, the federal government cannot oversee those regulations as that is in direct violation of the amendment. Also, there's no national database of criminals/lunatics.

>why shouldn't the seller be responsible for selling a weapon to someone who shouldn't own one?
Though I agree with you, that's also illegal.

>Except that's only been the definition since extreme right wing elements took over the NRA and started pushing their extremist agenda.

>Previously citizens could simply sign up for a militia, who would perform the necessary background checks and decide who gets to join the militia. The states organize their own militias and put a check on the federal government.

None of that's true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois
and again there's no federal database of criminals and no shared state felon database either.

>Sorry buddy, but you bought into their revisionist lies hook, line, and sinker.

By what you're saying, it sounds as though you're the one who has been believing lies.

>All because your grandfather wanted to own slaves like his grandfather did.

I'm only third generation American and and a northerner.
You don't have to insinuate my family or I are somehow bad just because we disagree.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/13(Fri)06:10 No. 619 ID: 07bbae

>>617
>I do follow the case law and that's untrue.
No, you don't, you simply read what others wrote and it resonated with what you had already decided was the truth and you continue to parrot what you read as the truth.

In reality it wasn't decided until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller.

>Gallup polls shows 42% of American households contain at least one gun.
Seeing as there are federal laws against funding studies about gun ownership and gun use, we may just never know a real number. Not that it'd matter, you'd just scream "fake news" and ignore it because your preconceived decision is challenged.

However your number seems abnormally large and was likely cherrypicked by the ammosexual site you're copying & pasting your responses from.

Just last year Pew found that less than 1 in 3 owned a single firearm:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

Even your cherrypicked finds that 67% of gun owners believe additional regulations should be made. You are clearly one of the frightened children in the body of adults minority.

Here's something interesting, less than 25% of the citizens own nearly 100% of the firearms. If true that would mean 1 in 4 are pissing their pants at the thought of not having their special boom boom to masturbate with each night.


>That's not illegal.
Only because the NRA and like minded stooges like yourself fought tooth and nail for it to be legal so that criminals and maniacs, like yourself, can continue to purchase firearms. The NRA wants to do it because the only people they care about provide kickbacks and "donations" - gun manufacturers.

>Accidental death is the 4th most common cause of death in the US.
Yeah, you're a ultraconservative gun owner alright. Unless an action results in death then it's not a problem. The people who are maimed, disabled, permanently injured, or just plain wounded by careless gun owners don't count.

Perhaps its because you know you're a careless gun owner.

>Also, the federal government cannot oversee those regulations as that is in direct violation of the amendment.
The problem is that the definition of the amendment was changed in 2008 by Scalia. For over 200 years personal ownership of firearms was a heavily regulated and controlled industry and despite countless challenges they remained a heavily regulated and controlled industry.

>You don't have to insinuate my family or I are somehow bad just because we disagree.
But you are. You are arguing for an amendment which was written to allow states to organize militias to capture escaped slaves. It has nothing to do with personal ownership of firearms and very little to do with the thing that keeps you up at night because you've spent years feeding yourself a steady diet of lies and bullshit about tyranny and similar nonsense.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/13(Fri)09:17 No. 620 ID: a8b914

>>619
>No, you don't, you simply read what others wrote and it resonated with what you had already decided was the truth and you continue to parrot what you read as the truth.

That's quite an assumption to make about someone based on absolutely no information.
You wouldn't be trying to delegitimize my argument by defaming my character, would you?

>In reality it wasn't decided until 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller.

Well, I was responding to a prior comment debating the second amendment was in reference to an individual's right or the right of a militia.

If this is still the same topic, then you're arguing with Wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearm_court_cases_in_the_United_States

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) - This second post-Civil War era case related to the meaning of the Second Amendment rights relating to militias and individuals. The court ruled the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States, who could serve as members of a militia upon being called up by the Government in time of collective need."

District of Columbia v. Heller guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

For instance, the decision negated the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and a law ordering that firearms must be locked up or remain disassembled at home.

>Seeing as there are federal laws against funding studies about gun ownership and gun use, we may just never know a real number.

There are tons of studies on gun ownership and gun use. Why do you need the Center for Disease Control to do the study in order to believe the results?

>Not that it'd matter, you'd just scream "fake news" and ignore it because your preconceived decision is challenged.

That's the second time you've made an assumption about me with no information to back it up, and it's beginning to sound a lot like you're purposefully characterizing me as illogical.
I certainly hope this is not an attempt to avoid logically debating me.

>However your number seems abnormally large and was likely cherrypicked by the ammosexual site you're copying & pasting your responses from.
>Just last year Pew found that less than 1 in 3 owned a single firearm:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

I guess, Pew has been cherry picking the same "ammosexual" site.
"About four-in-ten adults (42%) report that there is a gun in their household, with three-in-ten saying they personally own a gun and 11% saying they don’t own a gun but someone else in their household does"

I'm not sure if it's relevant if someone owns the gun or lives in the house and uses it.

If someone broke into your house with the intention of murdering you, would you not use a gun owned by your spouse or roommate to defend yourself because you didn't buy it yourself?

>Even your cherrypicked finds that 67% of gun owners believe additional regulations should be made.

Are you saying because a majority of people believe in additional regulations, I should automatically agree with them?

>You are clearly one of the frightened children in the body of adults minority.

A third assumption?

>less than 25% of the citizens own nearly 100% of the firearms. If true that would mean 1 in 4 are pissing their pants

Are you saying because a minority of people have an affinity for guns, I should disagree with their right to do so?

>stooges like yourself
>maniacs, like yourself

I'm starting to think that you're intolerant of the opinions of others.

>you're a ultraconservative gun owner alright.
>you're a careless gun owner.

I have never owned a gun. There were no guns present in my home growing up. Not a single member of my family has ever owned a gun or expressed any desire to own a gun.

>For over 200 years personal ownership of firearms was a heavily regulated and controlled industry and despite countless challenges they remained a heavily regulated and controlled industry.

Not at all. This was only the case in certain states and municipalities with laws prohibiting the manufacture, sales, and/or possession of firearms.

>You are arguing for an amendment which was written to allow states to organize militias to capture escaped slaves.

Do you have any proof of that?
I believe the general narrative.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
"James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government."

>steady diet of lies and bullshit about tyranny

Here's where we truly disagree.

It's not bullshit. You are a tyrant.

You have no tolerance for civil discourse and no respect for the thoughts of others.
You present your opinions as facts and make up lies to back them up. If anybody questions you or disagrees with you, you berate them and defame them with more lies.

If you or any group of people like you ever made it into positions of power, you would force your will on all and terrorize anyone didn't go along with your agenda.

You and people like you are what the founding fathers always feared the federal government they created would become.

Congratulations. You've convinced me to buy a gun. I hope I never have to defend myself and family from the likes of you.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)07:25 No. 621 ID: 07bbae

>>620
You wouldn't happen to be someone who claims the 2nd amendment is absolute and can't be questioned or modified in any way, would you?

Because last time I checked 1 came before 2 and the 1st has limits.

Maybe you should go masturbate to your firearm collection and meet up with the other 20% of the nation who masturbate to their firearm collection and have yourselves a good old fashioned circle jerk.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)07:37 No. 622 ID: dbad57

>>615
>the lives saved by gun owners
This is a myth purpoted by the NRA. Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed. You're already typing some sort of refutation--stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths about the glory of gun ownership that only serve to increase profits for the gun manufacturers who pay the gun lobbyists who take them golfing, throw galas for them in vegas, and get their kids into exclusive schools.

And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void. Go ahead, keep on thinking that more armed people means more safe people. At least you're doing something about our overpopulation problem.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)08:10 No. 623 ID: 093f34

>>621
>Because last time I checked 1 came before 2 and the 1st has limits.

So because the first amendment has limits, the second should too?
The second amendment does have limits, but not because of that dumb reasoning.

>Maybe you should go masturbate to your firearm collection

I guess you couldn't be bothered to read my whole post, so I'll say it again.
I DO NOT OWN ANY FIREARMS

>>622
>stop; stop being an idiot; stop getting people killed because politicians who don't care about you told you lies and myths

"Stop arguing with me because I'm right about everything! No, I don't have any proof or logic or ability to make a point! Just know that I know what's best for everyone!"
Mhm

>And then I read the rest of the thread and realized I was talking into a void.

I don't doubt that you have the best intentions, but you have no right to tell people how to live their lives just because you don't agree.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)12:30 No. 624 ID: 07bbae

>>623
>I don't know how IDs work
That was someone else fed up with your bullshit, genius.

If more weapons makes everyone safer, why is there still war? If more firearms make everyone safer why do armies, the most well-armed group, still go to war?

>So because the first amendment has limits, the second should too?
You've got it genius. No single constitutional right is absolute to the detriment of all other constitutional rights.

That's what the 2nd was up until the late 70s when the wingnuts took over the NRA and started pushing an absolutist agenda that got them little more than scorn from supreme court justices in the 70s. Who the fuck knew they'd actually get one of their very own wingnuts appointed.

>I DO NOT OWN ANY FIREARMS
I don't believe you. There's no way someone can spew your kind of psychotic paranoid delusions without having a death woobie to hold onto each night while you drift off to sleep to thoughts of all the children he can massacre with it.

Eat a bullet.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)13:27 No. 625 ID: 71faa7

>>624
>That was someone else fed up with your bullshit, genius.

If you're referring to my comments about whoever was saying "just stop it" I figured that was the collective thought of the anti gun side of this debate as I don't see any rational thought coming from anyone opposing my viewpoint in this thread.

>If more weapons makes everyone safer, why is there still war? If more firearms make everyone safer why do armies, the most well-armed group, still go to war?

I never at any point said more guns makes people safer. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Wars happened before the invention of guns.

>You've got it genius. No single constitutional right is absolute to the detriment of all other constitutional rights.

It's not absolute. Seeing as automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are banned, I'd say it's pretty restricted.

>I don't believe you. There's no way someone can spew your kind of psychotic paranoid delusions without having a death woobie to hold onto each night while you drift off to sleep to thoughts of all the children he can massacre with it.

Believe it or not. I don't really care. Sounds like you're the one suffering paranoid delusions that everyone who opposes your views is some crazy conservative gun nut on a first name basis with NRA leaders.

>Eat a bullet.
Yeah, you sound like a real pacifist.
Glad you care so much about the safety of others.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)16:09 No. 626 ID: c62b88

>>623
Actually I specified the very logic you can look up proof to confirm if you really need to, but you will never do anything other than parrot the propoganda your casually genocidal overlords decree.

Simple version: you think like gun profiteers; their only motivation profit; outcome more death only.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/15(Sun)18:52 No. 627 ID: 9fbf2d

>>626
>Actually I specified the very logic you can look up proof to confirm if you really need to,

I'll look it up. Let's have it.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)10:48 No. 628 ID: 07bbae

>>625
>Yeah, you sound like a real pacifist.
Who said I was a pacifist?

You're the one hyperventilating at the thought of not having your death sticks.

Maybe its time you get some scrotal implants, what you've got down there obviously isn't enough to get you through the day.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)13:13 No. 629 ID: ece0bf

>>628
>Who said I was a pacifist?

So, why do you care if people own guns again?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)17:27 No. 630 ID: 265579

>>627
You're asking about this? >>622
There it is. Right there. Can you even read?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/16(Mon)23:05 No. 631 ID: 2cf414

>>630
Oh, right. So much logic, how could I have missed it?

>This is a myth purpoted by the NRA.
Any proof of that statement?

>Compared to the number of people murdered by firearms, not nearly enough lives have been saved by an armed bystander to say that bystanders being armed directly results in greater preservation of life than if only muderers and authorities were armed.

How could you possibly have any stats for that?

For instance, the mass shooter in Sutherland Springs, Texas was mortally wounded by an armed bystander.
How could you possibly calculate how many more people he would have killed if he hadn't been shot?


>>
Anonymous 18/04/18(Wed)05:35 No. 632 ID: 49549c

>>631
You said you'd look it up, so look it up.

You'd never believe anything I told you anyway.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)03:28 No. 633 ID: 5a1576

>>632
I'd believe what you told me, if you could back it up with evidence.

The only semi credible article I'm seeing for either side of the debate is in Scientific American and it reads like an oped piece for a high school newspaper.

So, do us all a favor and provide a source for your statements.


>>
Anonymous 18/04/22(Sun)06:26 No. 634 ID: c38524

>>633
I'm not your high-school social studies teacher. If you want an education you're going to have to go and get one.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason