The Pitters' Place

Blame Andy Warhol.

I blame Canada

And srsly, just make guns illegal already.

Seriously, no. When one of my guns gets out of the gun cabinet, loads itself, and then goes on a shooting spree then we can talk. Until then, every one of my 108 guns will remain one of my 108 guns until it becomes one of my 109 guns.

Cassius Clay wrote:http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/mass-sh ... l-illness/

So, this article says everything I wanted to say but better. The most useful outcome of keeping guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental illness is that we would potentially see a drop in suicide rates, not violent crime rates, because most mentally ill people pose a danger only to themselves. I loathe the jump to label perpetrators of violence as 'crazy' because it generally does nothing but stigmatise mentally ill people who a) already suffer stigmatisation and oppression, b) are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, and c) provides a 'devil made me do it' excuse for perpetrators of violent crime even though most people who commit violent crime have no diagnosable mental health problems whatsoever. It's easier to write people off as random individual lunatics than consider that something in a society is shaping these kinds of incidents. It's like saying that police brutality is the work of a few bad apples, so you don't have to consider that maybe there's an institutionalised problem.

I pretty much agree with Jim Jefferies stand-up on the matter. Society progresses at the speed of its slowest individuals. If your country still has hundreds of idiots running around with guns, killing thousands of people a year, you probably shouldn't have guns.

While we're at it, I'm not sure it helps to have a very vocal contingent of right wing politicians who trade on hate and aggression. Muslims stole your culture. Black people stole your taxes. Women stole your rights. Immigrants stole your jobs. *You're* being done down and cheated out of the life *you* deserve and it's unfair and *you* need to fight for what *you* deserve.

Almost all mass shootings are committed by men and a sizeable chunk of them are committed by white men. Why do we usually only see mass violence committed by people who typically experience enormous social privilege? Why aren't POC and women and trans people and disabled people, who arguably have a lot more reason to be angry at the world, committing acts of mass violence? I wonder if it isn't, in part, because we teach underprivileged groups that they aren't worth shit and they don't deserve shit and you should be grateful for what you *are* given. We teach white men that they are inherently superior and deserve the things they want. Every advance in rights for everyone else gets a huge backlash from white dudes complaining that they are having to cede power and influence to other people and now white men (you get a bonus if you are a Christian) are THE MOST OPPRESSED GROUP IN AMERICA because America has been RUINED BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (and also Muslims).

And yah, I'm going to get back on my feminist soapbox (I really only climb off for snacks) and wonder if maybe we would have less expressions of violent rage if we taught dudes (especially young dudes because I think I read that men aged between 16-24 are considered at the highest risk for violence) to talk about their feelings, to learn healthy coping mechanisms for disappointment, and that there are other ways to express your masculinity than shooting everyone who makes you feel insecure about yourself.

Aels, I think you're forgetting, when a Muslim shoots up a place they're a terrorist. When a black person does it they're a racist. When a white person does it, they're a lone gunman, a social pariah

Blade Azaezel wrote:I pretty much agree with Jim Jefferies stand-up on the matter. Society progresses at the speed of its slowest individuals. If your country still has hundreds of idiots running around with guns, killing thousands of people a year, you probably shouldn't have guns.

I know it's hardly the same thing, but when we do risk assessments at work, pretty much everything has to be predicated on the expectation that people will do the absolute stupidest thing possible at any given time. I don't like to talk about gun legislation bc I really don't want to accidentally get into a fight with Brandon but I will say that I agree with Jefferies in that the people who do X (where X stands for pretty much anything) responsibly and maturely and safely are always kind of at the mercy of idiots who fuck things up for everyone.

Blade Azaezel wrote:Aels, I think you're forgetting, when a Muslim shoots up a place they're a terrorist. When a black person does it they're a racist. When a white person does it, they're a lone gunman, a social pariah

I mean, a white dude can put an entire manifesto essentially titled 'WHY I DID A MASS MURDER' online and people will still be going 'Oh, how can we ever understand the mind of such a mysterious lunatic?'

America was a grand experiment, but it's time to shut it down

CashRules wrote:

And srsly, just make guns illegal already.

Seriously, no. When one of my guns gets out of the gun cabinet, loads itself, and then goes on a shooting spree then we can talk. Until then, every one of my 108 guns will remain one of my 108 guns until it becomes one of my 109 guns.

What if your next purchase is 2 guns at once?

I'll give one of them to my pet lesbian. She only has seven guns. There ought to be a law against that.

The temptation with this (as with many things) is to seek a quick and simple solution. Whether that be a call to make "make guns illegal" or just to blame each of the mass shootings on a "mentally disturbed" person and there was nothing that anyone could do about it.

Given the huge number of guns in America and the rampant gun culture I think it's extremely unlikely that a ban on guns will be passed and even if it were it would never be successfully enforced. What they could do is much more significantly legislate the sale and ownership of guns, and limit more tightly what kind of guns can be sold/owned.

For example, if everyone that wanted to own a gun had to get a license (or call it a certificate or whatever you want to call it) confirming that they didn't have any disqualifying criminal convictions, that they'd been seen by a suitably qualified medical professional who had certified that they had no mental problems and that license had to be renewed every couple of years (or whatever), they were legally required to store all their guns in locked cabinets separately to the ammunition (which would also be locked away) and all their guns had to be registered it would be a good start.

This would make it much easier for law enforcement to crack down on illegal owned firearms.

It wouldn't change things overnight. It wouldn't even change things in a year. But it would slowly make a difference. And it would also mean that responsible gun enthusiasts could continue to engage in their hobby.

My two cents.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:The temptation with this (as with many things) is to seek a quick and simple solution. Whether that be a call to make "make guns illegal" or just to blame each of the mass shootings on a "mentally disturbed" person and there was nothing that anyone could do about it.

Given the huge number of guns in America and the rampant gun culture I think it's extremely unlikely that a ban on guns will be passed and even if it were it would never be successfully enforced. What they could do is much more significantly legislate the sale and ownership of guns, and limit more tightly what kind of guns can be sold/owned.

For example, if everyone that wanted to own a gun had to get a license (or call it a certificate or whatever you want to call it) confirming that they didn't have any disqualifying criminal convictions, that they'd been seen by a suitably qualified medical professional who had certified that they had no mental problems and that license had to be renewed every couple of years (or whatever), they were legally required to store all their guns in locked cabinets separately to the ammunition (which would also be locked away) and all their guns had to be registered it would be a good start.

This would make it much easier for law enforcement to crack down on illegal owned firearms.

It wouldn't change things overnight. It wouldn't even change things in a year. But it would slowly make a difference. And it would also mean that responsible gun enthusiasts could continue to engage in their hobby.

My two cents.

In theory I wouldn't have a problem with this except there is no need for any specific gun to be banned. No type of gun is inherently more dangerous than any other and the guns most likely to be considered inherently dangerous are often simply not. The best example of this is the often vilified AR-15, which gun-control advocates consistently and ignorantly refer to as a "High-powered assault weapon". In truth, the AR-15 fires a .223 Remington cartridge, one of the least powerful cartridges ever developed. The simple fact is gun-control advocates rarely know what they are talking about and this is just one example. Out of the literally hundreds of centerfire rounds commercially available, only about a half dozen are less powerful than the .223 and all but one of these, the .17 Remington, are only nominally less powerful. Compared to rounds such as the .222 Remington, .220 Swift, .218 bee, .224 Winchester...; the average round fired from a .223 will be more powerful than the average round from any of those nominally less powerful rifles, but any individual round fired from a .222, .218... can and often will be more powerful than an individual round fired from a .223. Now this may sound like technical jargon but the fact that gun-control advocates lie about the technical aspects shows their lack of credibility and the technical aspects are far from the only aspect of this topic where they are incredibly dishonest. Add to the fact that the .223 was actually developed as a long distance target shooting and varmint hunting round to be fired from a bolt-action rifle and the AR-15 is a semi-automatic and the ballistics of this round are reduced even further from the optimum. Semi-autos are simply not as powerful, nor as accurate, nor have the range of a bolt-action rifle. There has never been an AR-15 made that can even come close to matching the performance of my Remington 700 chambered for the .223 in anything other than the number of rounds fired per minute. My 700 will outperform an AR-15 every time in range, accuracy and power without fail. Yet nobody calls for it to be banned (at least not yet) because it looks like a hunting rifle whereas the AR-15 looks "militaristic". Aesthetics is a poor rationale for legislation. When they call an AR-15 a "high-powered" rifle the term is meaningless since that would mean that every rifle ever made is a high-powered rifle except for maybe the .17 Remington and the five rimfire calibers. I don't expect the layman who is not versed in ballistics to actually understand the whole of anything I've said, but I expect the people making such claims and actively campaigning for changes to have a clue and to stop lying.

I mean, a white dude can put an entire manifesto essentially titled 'WHY I DID A MASS MURDER' online and people will still be going 'Oh, how can we ever understand the mind of such a mysterious lunatic?'

Yeah, I never understand that. And I think that that complete obliviousness from society is another factor in all this - it requires a level of shelteredness/privilege to be confused at why anybody would ever want to violently kill a bunch of strangers.

@aels - I personally know two other trans people who have spoken passionately about wanting to go on mass murdering rampages, but one of them grew out of it and another had too much crap going on in his life (poverty, autism, not being in America) that he couldn't carry it out despite really wanting to. So I don't think it's necessarily that marginalised people don't want to kill people, just that they have less access to the means to do so. Guns cost money, etc.

Also, the aftermath. If a black lesbian goes on a shooting rampage in the US, I can guarantee that she's going to be held up as justification for racism and homophobia, and not be treated with the same pseudo-glorification that currently happens. If she was motivated by anger against social injustices, it seems natural she would also know and care about how her actions would cause greater harm to the very people she cares about, and thus decide against it because it would be extremely counterproductive.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:The temptation with this (as with many things) is to seek a quick and simple solution. Whether that be a call to make "make guns illegal" or just to blame each of the mass shootings on a "mentally disturbed" person and there was nothing that anyone could do about it.

Given the huge number of guns in America and the rampant gun culture I think it's extremely unlikely that a ban on guns will be passed and even if it were it would never be successfully enforced. What they could do is much more significantly legislate the sale and ownership of guns, and limit more tightly what kind of guns can be sold/owned.

For example, if everyone that wanted to own a gun had to get a license (or call it a certificate or whatever you want to call it) confirming that they didn't have any disqualifying criminal convictions, that they'd been seen by a suitably qualified medical professional who had certified that they had no mental problems and that license had to be renewed every couple of years (or whatever), they were legally required to store all their guns in locked cabinets separately to the ammunition (which would also be locked away) and all their guns had to be registered it would be a good start.

This would make it much easier for law enforcement to crack down on illegal owned firearms.

It wouldn't change things overnight. It wouldn't even change things in a year. But it would slowly make a difference. And it would also mean that responsible gun enthusiasts could continue to engage in their hobby.

My two cents.

I'd agree with that. A blanket ban on guns will never work in the US, so a middle ground needs to be found.

Those sort of limitations are the ones I'd like to see. Only someone with no history of violent crime(if you shoplifted a can of coke as a 19 year old, that shouldn't stop you), no history of mental illness, and someone who has the capability to store them safely, should be allowed to buy a gun.

And in regards to storing them safely I'd ideally want someone to be allowed to make 2-3 checks a year at your property if you own a gun, to ensure it's being kept safely. They would have no power to confiscate weapons or enter your property without permission. But if you deny them access you aren't allowed to buy another gun till you've passed two more checks. And if you fail 1 check, no more gun purchases for 6 months. 2 checks you get them confiscated for 6 months. 3 checks, no more gun ownership.

I appreciate the idea of having some government person come onto your land to inspect your stuff probably won't sit well with a lot of people and likely wouldn't be passed though. But I don't see how else you can be sure someone is storing their weapons safely.

And in regards to storing them safely I'd ideally want someone to be allowed to make 2-3 checks a year at your property if you own a gun, to ensure it's being kept safely.

That's a good way for somebody to get shot in the head. This is what I sometimes don't get about other countries. How can a false sense of security ever be more important to a person's individual rights? That's just so wrong I can't even fathom that way of thinking. Luckily what you are suggesting violates at least three provisions of our Constitution so there is no chance of it ever happening (not unlikely, it will never happen) so I won't need to worry about being put in the position of killing somebody for failing to comprehend that I am the law on my property.

CashRules wrote:

And in regards to storing them safely I'd ideally want someone to be allowed to make 2-3 checks a year at your property if you own a gun, to ensure it's being kept safely.

That's a good way for somebody to get shot in the head. This is what I sometimes don't get about other countries. How can a false sense of security ever be more important to a person's individual rights? That's just so wrong I can't even fathom that way of thinking. Luckily what you are suggesting violates at least three provisions of our Constitution so there is no chance of it ever happening (not unlikely, it will never happen) so I won't need to worry about being put in the position of killing somebody for failing to comprehend that I am the law on my property.

I wasn't saying they should be allowed unfettered access. You'd have to allow them access for them to be able to enter. But refusal to allow them to enter would simply mean you wouldn't be allowed to purchase anymore guns.

How else would you suggest that we make sure people are storing guns safely?

You wouldn't necessarily have to check everyone's storage facilities. A random check could be done when licenses are first issued, and follow up checks could be done if law enforcement had any concerns. But given the number of people involved, I think doing regular checks on everyone would be overkill - both in terms of the manpower required and the intrusion on people's lives. Even if the initial checks were only done for (say) every tenth application, but the penalty was the refusal of a license for two years, a fine and the knowledge that when they do reapply they will definitely be checked the risk of the downside might be severe enough to keep people honest.

The "check rates" might vary from state to state or even county to county - in Hillbilly Kentucky it might be higher, in the Hamptons it might be lower.

Registering all guns and ensuring that all owners were licensed would be the significant first step.

As to limiting the sale of certain types of guns - I was initially thinking more about any gun that could be modified to fire in automatic mode. The calibre is probably less important, because even if it's only spraying out .22's it's still indiscriminate and impossible to justify for hunting, target practise or home defence.

There was a thing going around on Twitter (can't find the link) suggesting that the US treat gun purchasing like getting an abortion, i.e. would-be gun owners would first have to go through counseling to be sure this was definitely what they wanted, they'd have to watch a video on the evils of guns, they'd have to listen to interviews with tearful people who had lost loved ones to gun murder, etc; the logic being that a single gun can potentially kill far more people than a single abortion, and it's illogical to have stricter controls over the latter.

Whitey wrote:

CashRules wrote:

And in regards to storing them safely I'd ideally want someone to be allowed to make 2-3 checks a year at your property if you own a gun, to ensure it's being kept safely.

That's a good way for somebody to get shot in the head. This is what I sometimes don't get about other countries. How can a false sense of security ever be more important to a person's individual rights? That's just so wrong I can't even fathom that way of thinking. Luckily what you are suggesting violates at least three provisions of our Constitution so there is no chance of it ever happening (not unlikely, it will never happen) so I won't need to worry about being put in the position of killing somebody for failing to comprehend that I am the law on my property.

I wasn't saying they should be allowed unfettered access. You'd have to allow them access for them to be able to enter. But refusal to allow them to enter would simply mean you wouldn't be allowed to purchase anymore guns.

How else would you suggest that we make sure people are storing guns safely?

I suggest it's none of their business.

Anakin McFly wrote: they'd have to watch a video on the evils of guns

What does mythology have to do with anything? Since there is no link between the number of guns and the crime rate why is any of this even being discussed as though there is?

CashRules wrote:

Whitey wrote:

CashRules wrote:

And in regards to storing them safely I'd ideally want someone to be allowed to make 2-3 checks a year at your property if you own a gun, to ensure it's being kept safely.

That's a good way for somebody to get shot in the head. This is what I sometimes don't get about other countries. How can a false sense of security ever be more important to a person's individual rights? That's just so wrong I can't even fathom that way of thinking. Luckily what you are suggesting violates at least three provisions of our Constitution so there is no chance of it ever happening (not unlikely, it will never happen) so I won't need to worry about being put in the position of killing somebody for failing to comprehend that I am the law on my property.

I wasn't saying they should be allowed unfettered access. You'd have to allow them access for them to be able to enter. But refusal to allow them to enter would simply mean you wouldn't be allowed to purchase anymore guns.

How else would you suggest that we make sure people are storing guns safely?

I suggest it's none of their business.

Concession noted.

Yeah, we should give law enforcement even more authority when they are already violating people's civil rights thousands of times a day all the way up to killing innocent people. Luckily we have the 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to stop any breaches of authority to this ridiculous magnitude as well as the enshrined concepts of private property, due process, and innocent until proven guilty. They find ways around one or two legal principles and constitutional provisions, but even the most authoritarian bastards in the country couldn't work their way around seven while also dealing with the fact that I have the legal and civil right to kill them if they trespass to such a unbelievable degree. You might as well voluntarily bend over for your annual ass fucking.

I'm pretty sure I said that you'd have to allow them access for them to come onto your property. When you let someone come onto your property it's not trespassing....

Regardless I'd be willing to concede that having regular checkups/confiscating guns would be a step too far(but only in the US), however I would say the compromise is that if you want to purchase a gun you must pass a visit. Any new gun = One checkup, arranged at a time to suit the buyer. So there's plenty of time to make sure any other weapons you own are safely stored, or that you have the means to do so. That way no rights are infringed, as if you don't want someone on your land, don't buy a gun. I'd say it shouldn't even be hard to pass a visit, if you've no criminal record or mental health issues, it'd be more of a 'making sure you're not an idiot who leaves loaded guns on the counter' visit.

I would admittedly have concerns about a government body overseeing this, but I think the principle is fair. You could possibly put pro gun advocates in whatever body you create, their aim would just be to make sure guns are safely stored, they wouldn't want to take them away.

Wait, you think that making a right contingent on allowing some law enforcement officer access to your property with zero evidence any crime has been committed is somehow not a violation of a person's rights? Are you serious? How I store my guns is not and will not ever be any of anyone else's business. How is this even a serious conversation?

If I want to leave a loaded gun on the counter it's my gun and my counter.

CashRules wrote:Wait, you think that making a right contingent on allowing some law enforcement officer access to your property with zero evidence any crime has been committed is somehow not a violation of a person's rights? Are you serious? How I store my guns is not and will not ever be any of anyone else's business. How is this even a serious conversation?

If I want to leave a loaded gun on the counter it's my gun and my counter.

You don't have the right to buy a gun. You have the right to own a gun. Nowhere 'has' to sell you a gun. If you don't want someone on your land, then you don't have to buy any more guns. Nobody would stop you owning the guns you have, nobody would take them away. You don't have to buy a gun. That's not a thing you have to do.

Also I didn't say law enforcement. You're saying law enforcement so you can carry on with your anti police argument. I'm not saying police, FBI, any law enforcement group. They wouldn't be there to check for criminality, there would be no arrest if your guns were safely kept, no record made. It's a checking that you're responsible enough to own a potentially lethal weapon check, with no ramifications beyond not allowing you to purchase another one if you fuck up. And as I said, you can avoid EVER having them on your land. It's like adopting a kid. You'll get a home visit to make sure you're suitable able to deal with a significant responsibility.

There is zero breaching of your rights in what I'm saying in this post.

Yeah, we just entered Vegas Devil territory. I'm not interested.

Oh fuck off you condescending twat.

Nothing in what I suggested in that post breaches your rights. And you know it so you don't want to play. You're nearly 50, grow up.

Whitey wrote:Only someone with no history of violent crime(if you shoplifted a can of coke as a 19 year old, that shouldn't stop you), no history of mental illness, and someone who has the capability to store them safely, should be allowed to buy a gun.

But there is no reason to believe that people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness are any more likely to commit an act of violence than anyone else. Unless you're thinking of reducing the risk of suicide, in which case we need to also prevent people with a history of mental illness from buying pills, knifes, razors, anything that can be fashioned into a noose, cars, and ban them from high buildings and bridges.

Anakin McFly wrote:

I mean, a white dude can put an entire manifesto essentially titled 'WHY I DID A MASS MURDER' online and people will still be going 'Oh, how can we ever understand the mind of such a mysterious lunatic?'

Yeah, I never understand that. And I think that that complete obliviousness from society is another factor in all this - it requires a level of shelteredness/privilege to be confused at why anybody would ever want to violently kill a bunch of strangers.

@aels - I personally know two other trans people who have spoken passionately about wanting to go on mass murdering rampages, but one of them grew out of it and another had too much crap going on in his life (poverty, autism, not being in America) that he couldn't carry it out despite really wanting to. So I don't think it's necessarily that marginalised people don't want to kill people, just that they have less access to the means to do so. Guns cost money, etc.

Also, the aftermath. If a black lesbian goes on a shooting rampage in the US, I can guarantee that she's going to be held up as justification for racism and homophobia, and not be treated with the same pseudo-glorification that currently happens. If she was motivated by anger against social injustices, it seems natural she would also know and care about how her actions would cause greater harm to the very people she cares about, and thus decide against it because it would be extremely counterproductive.

aels wrote:

Whitey wrote:Only someone with no history of violent crime(if you shoplifted a can of coke as a 19 year old, that shouldn't stop you), no history of mental illness, and someone who has the capability to store them safely, should be allowed to buy a gun.

But there is no reason to believe that people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness are any more likely to commit an act of violence than anyone else. Unless you're thinking of reducing the risk of suicide, in which case we need to also prevent people with a history of mental illness from buying pills, knifes, razors, anything that can be fashioned into a noose, cars, and ban them from high buildings and bridges.

I guess it would depend on the particular mental illness, but I think it's still valid. Most of the other things you mention have other significant functions than to cause harm to someone/something. Guns pretty much are only fit to cause harm. Granted most of the time that won't be to unlawfully kill someone or wound them, but the primary use of those objects is relevant.

I disagree incredibly strongly, I think it's a further stigmatisation against an already stigmatised group with no supporting evidence. There is no reason to believe that someone with a mental health problem is inherently more likely to commit an act of violence than someone who does not have a mental health problem (and reasonable evidence to suggest that a mentally ill person is more likely to be a *victim* of violence than a perpetrator).

I mean, I have no interest in owning a gun and am very happy to live in a country where guns are not generally available but there is no reason to believe that you, a person with no history of mental illness, is more fit to own or have access to a gun than me, a person with a history of reasonably severe mental illness*. Why should a person with schizophrenia who likes shooting for sport be banned from owning a gun if his non-schizophrenic peers are not? Now, if the person with schizophrenia has a particular history of committing, attempting, or threatening serious violence then that's one thing but I disagree wholeheartedly with essentially punishing someone for something they haven't done yet based on their inclusion in a particular group.

*EDIT: Actually, given that young men between the ages of 18-30 are the group considered most likely to commit violence, I am more trustworthy with a gun than you are

Whitey wrote:Oh fuck off you condescending twat.

Nothing in what I suggested in that post breaches your rights. And you know it so you don't want to play. You're nearly 50, grow up.

No, what I know is you decided to devolve into punk-ass little bitch mode because you somehow think that "they won't be cops' somehow excuses the fact that you're calling for laws that allow someone on my property and if I refuse my permission then I am the one who faces sanctions when there was never a valid reason for them to be there in the first place. Everything you suggested is ridiculous bullshit and so indefensible it would be laughable if it weren't for the fact you were actually serious. Nobody (do you need that word defined, Vegas?) has any right to step foot on my property for any reason unless they have my permission or have a valid search warrant and if my rights are restricted (and yes, telling me I have to do something in order to do a second something that is totally legal is a restriction) then it is, by definition, a violation of my civil rights. Hell, your entire "idea' is fucking comical. So if you want to start acting like a little bitch for having that pointed out then please go right ahead.

CashRules wrote:

Whitey wrote:Oh fuck off you condescending twat.

Nothing in what I suggested in that post breaches your rights. And you know it so you don't want to play. You're nearly 50, grow up.

No, what I know is you decided to devolve into punk-ass little bitch mode because you somehow think that "they won't be cops' somehow excuses the fact that you're calling for laws that allow someone on my property and if I refuse my permission then I am the one who faces sanctions when there was never a valid reason for them to be there in the first place. Everything you suggested is ridiculous bullshit and so indefensible it would be laughable if it weren't for the fact you were actually serious. Nobody (do you need that word defined, Vegas?) has any right to step foot on my property for any reason unless they have my permission or have a valid search warrant and if my rights are restricted (and yes, telling me I have to do something in order to do a second something that is totally legal is a restriction) then it is, by definition, a violation of my civil rights. Hell, your entire "idea' is fucking comical. So if you want to start acting like a little bitch for having that pointed out then please go right ahead.

I love the Brandon school of debating. Be hostile, if they don't back down in a few posts, call them Vegas. Thanks for comparing me to that rapist fuck. Spend most of your time just insulting them and stating 'Muh Rights' and failing to explain how this violates ANY of them.

It was just an idea. One which breaches NO rights. It could have been discussed. But no, you get defensive and act like I've just insulted your family. I was actually looking to discuss what you thought might be a reasonable restriction seeing as you even replied to Opiates suggestions saying they'd be okay in theory for the most part. But no, you went manchild pretty damn quick.

Laws would NOT allow someone on your property. YOU would still hold ALL the rights to allow someone on your property or not.

There's restrictions on a lot of things in life. Restrictions are not inherently bad or wrong. There's restrictions on who can prescribe drugs, on who can buy alcohol, all sorts of things. They aren't sanctions against you.

I got your arguement when you were pointing out it would be against your rights to force occasionally checkups, I accept that. But what I suggest literally violates your rights in no way because you don't HAVE to buy a gun. You don't need to own one. So nobody would be allowed on your property at all without your say so. And your rights would stay exactly the same. You still have the right to buy a gun. You still have the right to own and maintain your land and who is allowed access to it. You still have the right to shoot anyone who trespasses. Tell me exactly what right is being violated? You even accept that there are legitimate reasons for the government/police to be able to enter your land(a warrant). Or your permission. Which you would have to give in the idea I suggested! They couldn't do it without your permission!

I love it when people claim I haven't explained something in direct reply to a post where I explained that very thing and which they even quoted. Would you like to guess who that reminds me of? Also, check back and see who first got hostile.

Also:

But refusal to allow them to enter would simply mean you wouldn't be allowed to purchase anymore guns.

If you don't understand how this is a violation of a person's rights then I'm not sure how to help you.

I was initially thinking more about any gun that could be modified to fire in automatic mode.

Okay, but none of the guns that have been used in any of the publicized mass shootings I've read about were automatics.

Is anyone else as concerned about Anakin's posts as I am?

You got hostile first. Your entire fucking tone was hostile. I then made a joke comment parodying you. The next hostile point was you comparing me to Vegas. Then I got hostile.

That's not a violation. For example, you can drink. You can drive. You can't do both at the same time. Is that a restriction? Yes. Is it a violation? No. So you can own all the guns you want. You can keep your 100+guns and never have someone enter your land on any matter relating to them. Neither of those rights is being violated.

If there was a right to be able to buy a gun whenever you wanted, yes, this would be a violation. But that's not the right you have. You have the right to own a gun. You have the right to not have the government take your current guns away from you. You don't have the enshrined right to purchase a gun. You have the right to keep and bear arms. Nobody has to sell them to you. This would be no different from you being refused service at a gun store. You don't like what they're asking you to do in order to buy a gun? No gun for you.

You can't own a gun without first buying it. You are desperately trying to make a distinction that simply does not exist.

Well in theory if this law would be brought into action, everyone who currently still legally owns guns, would still legally be able to own guns. And their current guns would be untouched by this law. That right to own a gun would stay intact.

It's really not difficult to make that distinction as it's pretty fucking plain. Look in a dictionary, buy and own are different words.

Yeah, okay then.

@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.

CashRules wrote:

I was initially thinking more about any gun that could be modified to fire in automatic mode.

Okay, but none of the guns that have been used in any of the publicized mass shootings I've read about were automatics.

I know. I'm not claiming that any of what I'm suggesting will sort any of America's many, many gun related problems out overnight. But if you were going to introduce some legislation to try to rationalise the situation, that would seem like a reasonable proviso to add in whilst you're at it.



What I don't understand is probably linked to a wider mentality prevalent with many Americans that their personal Rights are immutable and the government can only ever be a source of "bad things". So they cling to things like Guns because they want to and aren't willing to even consider any potential limitations or restrictions being placed on them because it might inconvenience them personally in some tiny way. Ultimately it comes across (at times) like they're essentially saying "I want this for my own personal enjoyment and I don't give a shit about what's happening anywhere else in this country or to anyone else, so I'm going to scream and yell to make sure I get it".

It all just comes across as being incredibly selfish and immature - both personally and as a nation.

I'm sure this will earn me some hateful outpourings from the gun enthusiasts (and possibly some non-gun toting Americans too) here, but that's just my opinion. Hell - everyone is selfish to one degree or another, it's just that when these sorts of debates flare up and the lunatic fringe elements crawl out of the woodwork to argue their corners, that's what they are in most European countries - "lunatic fringes" - but in America, they're mainstream political movements...

(sigh)

I really did empathise with Obama after the latest shooting - his frustration at the routine nature of these now and the inability to ever make anything happen to change it was palpable. I disagree with a fair bit of his politics, but he's obviously an intelligent man trying to do what he thinks is best but he's being hamstrung by having to work with the ridiculously partisan political framework of America - both on and off Capitol Hill.

(I'll get off my soap box now)

CashRules wrote:Is anyone else as concerned about Anakin's posts as I am?

Cassius Clay wrote:@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.

You don't have the right to acquire arms. You have the right to own/bear arms. The words buy/purchase/acquire don't appear.

Whitey wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.

You don't have the right to acquire arms. You have the right to own/bear arms. The words buy/purchase/acquire don't appear.

Strictly speaking it's "the right to bear arms and form militia". You could argue that the whole "arms" things is linked to the "militia" thing and they were never intending for private citizens to be armed to teeth on an individual basis.

I'm not sure if encouraging militias is a good thing or not, but they rarely get mentioned, so I thought I'd bring them up.

Again, that's a meaningless distinction. If you can't buy guns then you can't own them. Saying it doesn't have an effect on the guns you already own is also meaningless. Nobody, by your own admission, is talking about the guns already owned. The entire conversation is about guns that a person will potentially own in the future and that is what you are suggesting should be infringed upon. I'm not even sure how this is not being understood.

Whitey wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.

You don't have the right to acquire arms. You have the right to own/bear arms. The words buy/purchase/acquire don't appear.

That's a pedantic distinction. If someone is trying to acquire arms for the first time, and the government is unjustly stopping them, the government has shit on their right to bear arms.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:

Whitey wrote:

Cassius Clay wrote:@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.

You don't have the right to acquire arms. You have the right to own/bear arms. The words buy/purchase/acquire don't appear.

Strictly speaking it's "the right to bear arms and form militia". You could argue that the whole "arms" things is linked to the "militia" thing and they were never intending for private citizens to be armed to teeth on an individual basis.

I'm not sure if encouraging militias is a good thing or not, but they rarely get mentioned, so I thought I'd bring them up.

Luckily the U.S. Supreme Court already settled this argument and declared it false. The part of the second amendment that refers to a militia is a subordinate clause that describes "a" reason for the right, not "the" reason. the right stands, as a complete sentence, with or without that subordinate clause. Also, since the two men who wrote the Bill of Rights, James Madison and George Mason, are on record specifically stating that the "militia" they refer to is "every man capable of bearing arms" it wasn't a difficult decision for any honest judiciary to make.