Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Okay, but seriously... GUNS


54 replies to this topic

#1
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,821 posts
Can anyone here really say there isn't a problem in this country?

#2
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,745 posts
Yeah theres a problem. Needs more guns. What could possibly go wrong?

#3
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,369 posts
Nah you guys need all them firearms to protect yourselves from tyrannical systems of power and potentially overthrow oppressive regimes.

Wait a second...

#4
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 34,745 posts

Nah you guys need all them firearms to protect yourselves from tyrannical systems of power and potentially overthrow oppressive regimes.

Wait a second...


My favorite part about the people who say this is that theyre the biggest military and police bootlickers there are. The cognitive dissonance is astounding
  • Cerina and Odine +1 this

#5
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,773 posts
Here is where I stand and here is my take. I'm not a gun person. We don't own a gun. My wife (Democrat) wants to get one, but I said that we will not even think about it until we take serious training to learn how to properly use one and take all three precautions that it takes to own one. That said, I'm not one for infringing on the rights of others. I know a lot of people who own at least one gun. Not one has ever had to use one in self defense. I know a few who pull their rifles out of moth balls to go hunting. One that I used to work with hasn't hunted since his sons graduated high school and his dad got too old. Stricter him laws would appear to make sense when you realize the ones on the books aren't being upheld. So I wonder if politicians really want "common sense" gun laws or are the taking the first step to full on confiscation.

On a less serious and joking note, you white people want to blame yourselves for everything these days. I'm waiting on the person who talks about how these privileged 18-21 year old white kids feel the need to go postal before they move out if their parents house.

#6
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,821 posts
That's 95% accurate. Most shooters are radicalized suburban incels.

#7
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,258 posts
In my experience reading, pretty much every social media commenter that isnt a NRA-Bootlicker mentions how most of these terrorists are white ****faces... well, in not those exact terms. I dunno about anyone in power broaching that angle however.

As for tighter gun laws and the like, I have often thought people should be made to prove they can handle and maintain a gun just like a vehicle and a drivers license... including mandatory insurance on the weapon, such as liability like a vehicle. This license would also expire like a drivers license, making the owner need to continually prove competence and proof of insurance. Of course the NRA argument there is it seems to infringe on the right to own a gun, however the counter to that should be that we already do infringe on the right to own a gun in regards to felons etc. and so we as a society already acknowledge there are circumstances which are valid that still maintain the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. In addition, the constitution does say a well regulated militia, so that should be a big arguing point in favor of further and tighter regulations. In fact, proving you are continually competent to operate and thus own that weapon should, by simple definition, fit under maintaining a well regulated militia.

#8
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,773 posts
Another problem I have is that no one wants to address the problem at hand. Sure if you take guns out of everyone's hands you make it harder for this to happen. It will still happen because Superman isn't going to go around collect all the guns and fling them into the sun. You have to look at how you prevent these kids from becoming psychos. Not everyone is playing with a full deck let's be honest. But to take it to the point to where you are actually thinking of ending another person's life? From what is out there we know that the Columbine shooters parents weren't bad parents. So we can't throw that broad blanket of bad parenting. It has to be looked at because these events are being committed by children almost.

That said I am not willing to take guns out of the hands of those that are law abiding because some nuts go on a rampage.

#9
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,773 posts
Torch you made a point I don't think you realize.

people should be made to prove they can handle and maintain a gun just like a vehicle and a drivers license...

We could start a thread on making drivers tests stricter.

Also do you realize that less than 10% of gun owners are NRA members? I wrote this wrong. They represent far less than what you would think. Yet they speak for far more than they represent.
  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#10
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,258 posts
Laws aren’t really written to stop ***holes from being ***holes, because like we all know an ***hole will always find a way to do whatever ***hole thing they please. Laws are essentially written to make it easier to control and maintain civilized society. Laws, due process and defined punishments for breaking our laws etc etc are supposed to ensure we maintain a fair and civil society and don’t just resort to mob justice and arbitrary, cruel or unusual punishments. The idea that is used to counter stricter gun laws or any stricter similar laws, that criminals just do whatever, is logically flawed and should be disregarded as the bull**** it is.

#11
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,258 posts
Whether or not it should be more difficult to get a drivers license is not at all pertinent to this topic, a drivers license was used as an example of how in our society we have procedures that already require people to prove competency for operation. That said, I do agree with the assertion that a drivers license should probably be more difficult to obtain. In addition the actual percentage of NRA members that think whatever or are whatever is also not pertinent.

#12
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,773 posts
I was making a joke. Though your point does show why stricter laws aren't the answer. ***holes gonna ***hole.

#13
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,171 posts

 

Nah you guys need all them firearms to protect yourselves from tyrannical systems of power and potentially overthrow oppressive regimes.

Wait a second...


My favorite part about the people who say this is that theyre the biggest military and police bootlickers there are. The cognitive dissonance is astounding

 

Not me. I dislike the police and the military.



#14
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,298 posts

I support a Constitutional amendment to allow gun control, but few, if any, laws are going to be able to do anything and not be overturned by the courts.  Unless the Supreme Court decides that precedent doesn't matter, which is great for the areas that one wants to see changed, but is also dangerous.  I'm also very wary of the government being able to take away rights from innocent people, and I think that the rush is to blame mental illness.  A ton of people suffer from mental illness, and further stigmatizing it isn't going to help matters.  I'm not sure that mental illness is even a huge factor in these type of shootings. We want it to be, because we don't want to accept that someone could just decide to commit evil, but people can do horrible things.

 

I think that a few things that would help:

 

1) Refuse to ever publish any information on the shooter.  Tell us the motive, but that's all.  Otherwise the media should keep it under wraps.

 

2) Work better at figuring out who the powder kegs are and how to stop them before they've killed 20 people.  Take federal law enforcement away from external terrorism and let them focus on this type of stuff.  

 

3) Stop giving the loonies any type of platform.  The worst thing Donald Trump has done is treat InfoWars like they're real journalists and not evil conspiracy theorists who support mass shootings.


  • Cerina +1 this

#15
Guest_El Chalupacabra_*

Guest_El Chalupacabra_*
  • Guests

.


  • Tank, Cerina and Odine +1 this

#16
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,258 posts
The only thing I am hesitant about in that and as others have said also here, is not knowing who the assailant is. I think not knowing could be far more dangerous than knowing, of course, that is an untestable thought as we always know. The basis for why I feel that way is that knowing might help to see what could factor into their motives to kill, causation of the impulse/thought process, so as to hopefully figure out where help and/or preventative measures could be applied towards a person who is exhibiting such factors. Then also weighing not knowing with how difficult it is to combat disinformation from people which already preach conspiracies and false news with these facts known.

I also do think, however, that we could possibly know/be told these things without the focus being on them. There must be a way to keep public awareness and safety, freedom of information, without also focusing so much as to essentially glorify the murderer.

#17
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,821 posts
I think we're at a point that as a culture we have to agree on a little less freedom in some small way to correct the problem.

One yutz ten years ago failed a shoebomb and we're all still taking our shoes off at the airport and agreeing to invasive pat downs from the only federal agency with no educational, physical, or psychological baseline prerequisites.

Insurance companies decided their car accident payouts were too costly a few decades ago and their lobbyists pushed to make seatbelts a law.

As a society we live under a web of laws and rules that we collectively agree upon. Most everyone drives under the same set of traffic laws despite minimal (comparatively) supervision.
  • Cerina +1 this

#18
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,083 posts

 

Can anyone here really say there isn't a problem in this country?

The biggest problem is Congress not taking action.  Both sides don't give an eff. Both sides use guns, like abortion, as a political football to garner votes.  The Las Vegas shooting proved NOTHING will be done.  I mean, seriously, we couldn't even get Congress to outlaw bump stocks and pass a national back ground check right after that shooting.

 

The NRA has too strong a lobby.  The Dems of the AOC crazy crowd persuasion are screaming for unrealistic action, that even they know will never happen.  The GOP NRA gun nuts hide behind the 2nd amendment in the name of freedom, but really do what they do out of greed.  So ANY debate is academic and will be fruitless, I am afraid. 

 

I will rant some meaningless BS because I am outraged and I am sure some here will take issue. Everyone, don't expect me to respond if you want to debate or fight with me, because I won't.

 

But I can say what I think should happen, though most of it won't happen:

 

1.  I have no idea how to accomplish it, but we need to get serious about HIPPA and mental health reform.  We need to put safety before privacy, when it comes to nut bags, and make it easier for law enforcement and doctors alike to identify people who will go off the deep end and arrest them and put them away before they kill innocent people. This may even require a constitutional amendment. 

 

2. There needs to be laws passed to have a national background check the same way AZ has.   It is shocking we still don't have one in 2019.  Such backgrounds should include both criminal and mental health.  Dings on either should ban one from legally owning guns for life.

 

3. As a gun owner myself, who even owns an AR15, I think the Gen X and millennials have effed up gun rights for everyone.  I question the very 2nd amendment right now, and wonder if we really even need more than revolvers and shot guns for personal protection, and think maybe semi-auto rifles and hand guns should be outlawed.   These generations in particular have lost the concept of the value of life, and I therefore think maybe they should lose the right to the second amendment, as a result.  I think we need to seriously re-evaluate what guns can and can't be legal.  I have long felt guns of military level, like 50 cal should not be legal. Recently, I have started to believe even AR15s and AK47s should be illegal.  I would gladly turn my AR15 over if a law was ever passed.  I am actively looking into a way to dispose of mine, actually. In fact, if I were sure it would not be used by a psycho, I would sell mine now, but I have no faith in that, being in AZ.   There is NO REASON for a civilian to have more than a 10 round clip.  

 

4.  Many gun crimes are committed by people who obtain guns and ammo from others who either obtain them for people who are not legally permitted to own them (EG the Las Vegas shooter was provided armor piercing ammo but an unscrupulous dealer), or by friends\family members\acquaintances who fail to secure their weapons.  Such people should be prosecuted just as if they committed the shootings themselves. 

 

5.  The media needs to stop mentioning shooters' names and focusing on them, but rather the victims.  I sincerely believe the press, by continuing to focus on shooters and not victims, continually perpetuate copy cats.  They need to be compelled by new laws to stop this crap.

 

6.  Gun shows and private gun sales should be illegal.  All sales need to be done through a license FFL or gun shop. 

 

7.  Tax the EFF out of guns and ammo. 

 

8.  Any organization (EG militias, KKK, White Nationalists, Crips, Bloods, outlaw bikers, radical Nation of Islam, other street gangs, etc), should be labeled domestic terrorists, and should be hunted down and brought to justice.  This should be priority 1.

 

9.  The NRA and other gun lobbies should be neutered via legislation, and any lawmaker who takes any kind of benefits from them should be prosecuted.

 

That is all for now.  I'm going to have a beer and calm down.

 

1. Mental health is just the latest boogeyman term misused instead of recognizing people for what they are. Both the Left and Right toss this around, which is not the catch-all solution for people who kill for political, social, sexual reasons, or just for kicks, because they like terror. That level of dishonesty--not admitting to the existence of all of those type of killers--is the reason there will never, ever be any form of "sensible" gun control, as admitting it instantly shines a light on a large number of allegedly "sane" and/or "normal" Americans. 

 

2. True.

 

3. Again, true.

 

4. Ditto.

 

5. Working in that field, I have and always will believe the killers need to be identified, with as much of their background (e.g., possible motivating factors) exposed. This does not take away the focus on victims, but in exposing killers and their lives for non-sensationalistic reasons, it gives the innocent a sort of subconscious wake-up call / file they can refer to in case they know or ever run into someone who appears to have the outward signs / interests / behavior of a type of killer. This is not advocating a 1950s "Look out, citizens!! There might be a Commie living next door to you!" type of vigilance, but people do need to be aware of some obvious signs sitting right in front of them, instead of getting their 5 seconds after a tragedy with the common, "Oh, I never knew" / "I would have never thought he would..." responses.

 

Further, contrary to the Greg Gutfelds of the world who push that "copycat" narrative, of the highly publicized killers (who used guns), he would be hard pressed to find anyone saying or being accused of being a confirmed copycat of Robert John Bardo, Andrew Cunanan, John Allen Muhammed, et al. The "copycat" narrative--like mental health--steers analysis away from individual motives (e.g., domestic terror, etc.) that cannot be tossed in the same, easy-to-seal box.

 

6. Yep.

 

7. Unfortunately, I think that--like #6--will simply grow the underground market, and this country is not exactly great about tracking illegal anything.

 

8. Another sociopolitical debate with no end; the second anyone accurately labels a group "domestic terrorist" in comes the "what about___?" arguments, finger pointing and trying to downplay groups that any sane person recognizes as a true national security threat. Another form of dishonesty that could be blamed for a number of murders over the decades.

 

9. Most would have an easier time believing a man could flap his arms and fly to Jupiter than the government ever taking your suggested action against the NRA, but your heart is in the right place.



#19
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,369 posts
I gotta say... as a person from the outside looking in, the whole relationship the US has with firearms is totally insane. That people equate gun ownership with their concept of freedom really strains my brain. Particularly in this day in age when a fire arm certainly wont save you from a tyrannical regime.. That argument people always use to explain the importance of an armed civilian population.

How is your personal freedom increased by ownership of any firearm you like? Other than the fact that right in of itself is one more right than a lot of countries allow their citizens. If I allow my child to play with power tools at the age of 5, he has more freedom than a lot of other children. But does that mean it's a good idea for a 5 year old to have access to a circular saw?

How can the right to own an AR15 trump the right to walk around a mall, or attend school, without getting shot?

It boggles the mind.

That people can't handle the idea that at the very least tighter laws, regulations and control need to be implemented around gun ownership, let alone broach the idea that just maaaaaaybe it's not a good idea every idiot under the sun has a god given right to own a firearm in the first place.

It's like watching children play with bottles of gasoline whilst handling matches.

But whatever, you do you USA.

#20
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,705 posts

I think we should have the right to own weapons but not ones that have the ability to kill more than 5 people in a single load. I mean, I get that owning guns is considered a part of our national fabric and that some people really feel that they should have these guns that shoot multiple rounds because they grew up thinking we'd be invaded by watching Red Dawn. But who wants to invade us now? The ones that the El Paso shooter feared were overrunning the US to get jobs no one wants? 

 

Then there are the side effects of owning a gun such as suicide by gun and accidental killing by gun. Someone I work with has a gun but she can't tell me where it is because she gave it to her 15 year old to keep. I tell her that's an accident waiting to happen. I own a shotgun but the shells are locked up in a closet and the shotgun is in another separate closet close to the front door.

 

Honestly Americans are not mature enough to own guns. And even those that do have them and own then responsibly are a quiet majority would probably be okay with giving up those guns.

 

I want actual action and I think reinstating the ban on assault rifle's is a good start. Not the wimpy bump stock thing. I want accountability too. I no longer want people who can go out and buy a gun from a gun show in a different state with looser laws and no documentation. I want a record of whom is owning these and who's responsible. 



#21
Cerina

Cerina

    Now and forever...

  • Admin
  • 29,889 posts

I'm all for making guns harder to obtain, especially anything that can kill a large number of people in a short period of time. I know it won't stop people from obtaining them illegally anyway, and I don't understand why that's an issue. If they have to work harder to get an assault rifle, then so be it! How is this a bad thing. If Joe Schmo wants one that bad then make his ass jump through all the hoops to get one! 

Screw driver's licences, I'd like to see gun ownership be as restrictive and difficult as gaining citizenship! 



#22
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,298 posts
I don't think that there are necessarily copycats who are focusing on being just like someone, but there is some evidence to suggest that Mass shootings are similar to a health epidemic. It also isn't practical to think that there are going to be any substantial restrictions on gun ownership without changing the Constitution.

I know someone is going to run in and shout "Well regulated militia! See, I'm smarter than you!" but precedent isn't on your side, so pretending that argument will work is either ignorant or intentionally wrong.

Guns are a problem, but so is the internet. It isn't a coincidence that the era of regular mass shootings has coincided with the internet age, where people can idolize acts of violence, connect to other frustrated and dangerous people, and get encouragement in their hatred.

#23
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,258 posts
Saying precedent isnt on the side of arguing Well Regulated is similar to what I said above about not knowing who a shooter is could be more dangerous than knowing. It is thought, a position, that hasnt been tested or given due. There is no pretending or pretentiousness about it... and if there is any merit at all to the premise that it is wrong then it is equally so for anyone that has ever argued for Shall Not Be Infringed. It is a completely rational counter and should open up possible changes to how our society views gun ownership. Your insistence that the Well Regulated argument is ignorant or wrong is a defeatist position, you have abandoned the ammunition (pun intended) provided to you via the very wording of the constitution which allows us to argue in favor of legislation.

...

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.

...

That would appear to be one premise, when you look at the structure of the sentence. It would appear to be all related to the opening, the militia. What follows would then appear to define the term militia.

If the opposite side of the debate can argue one portion, then another side of the debate can also argue one portion... or more accurately that it could be defined in one certain way.

The implications of which, arguing it completely is referencing a militia, should allow for compromise, negotiation, to pass stricter regulation rather than a complete and utter revamp or amendment to the 2nd.

Arguing to change the constitution, amend it, should be a much tougher proposition than arguing within and with the words of the constitution.

#24
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,298 posts
Read DC v Heller and tell me, with a straight face, that it hasn't been determined. The Court expressly determined that individual Americans have the right to firearm ownership. McDonald v Chicago said that States couldn't ban ownership of firearms either.

I don't know what else you want.

#25
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,258 posts
At what point did I say anything about banning firearms?

Youre in an argument here, on a premise, that I have not proposed.

Afterthought: I went and refreshed on DC v Heller. I am not a lawyer, however it would appear even in that case that the Supreme Court said that gun and ownership regulations would continue. So isnt what people, like me, who continue to argue for the creation of new legislation based on the wording of the constitution then a position which is completely in line with even that ruling? And given, as I exampled above, that we as a society already infringe on the right to own guns in certain scenarios also fall within that spirit of arguing for new, further regulation both with the constitution and that recent ruling? Also, are rulings never challenged? Do the concepts of in the spirit /or a living constitution not exist? Just how is it pretentious to argue for further legislation, within the wording of the constitution, when the ruling there did just that?



Reply to this topic