Man... This sucks... Las Vegas Concert Mass Shooting...

[evil wasabi]

This comes down to a pretty fundamental principle that is at the very, absolute core of the American identity: The supremacy of the individual over the state. This manifests in different ways and gets interpreted in others. This is at the heart of the conservative/liberal, urban/rural, and literalist/non-literist camp of the Constitution.

The obvious ones on which there is general consensus is freedom of expression, of action and of faith so long as it doesn't inhibit another's right to the same. Others are pretty much agreed on now though they took some time to get there: equality regardless of race or gender. All of these so far are easy to reconcile in both sides of the American identity because it fits well in both.

It becomes murkier when you start including tougher concepts like "public good" and individual responsibility. Who is entrusted with ensuring the public good? Is it the collection of individuals or the government they form? Who is responsible for the people's prosperity? Is it the government or the individual? Healthcare, Education and in this instance, security/gun ownership is at the heart of who is responsible for their own welfare. To the left, its easier to give that responsibility to the state, as its supported by a consensus (vote). To the right, this is seen as a dangerous step that can very easily lead to government that simply cannot be overcome.

Keep this principle in mind: The government serves the people, to those on the left: the vote ensures that. To those on the right: the ability to resist ensures that. Gun ownership and its defenders fall back on one principle: the government must always be afraid of its own people in order to prevent it from overstepping its bounds and infringing on the supremacy of the individual. To put it bluntly, many in America hold very close to their beliefs that Americans withhold the right to overthrow the government at any time. This was an argument at the heart of the Civil War.

So why do Americans still accept gun violence? How many more Columbines? How many Sandy Hooks, Virginia Techs, Las Vegas? How many people have to be murdered until we begin to trust our own government with what many view; as absolute power? Never, maybe. I can't in good conscience say that gun laws as they are make sense, or that who is getting them should have any access at all, but this isn't as simple as 'take the guns away'.

Makes sense. Although what will a few men with guns do in the face of an army?

The mentality of having an equalizer in your hand is a joke. Guns are mostly an advantage against the disadvantaged.

 

[Lukejaywalker23]

Yeah, I'd say that's accurate. The only solution I can think of is slowly reducing the amount of assault weapons that enter into the market until there are none left. This would obviously take over 100 years. Obviously, the government would have to deal with gun nuts, manufacturers, retailers, NRA, and lobbyists, so it's probably impossible. I don't think we'll ever get rid of hand guns and I think that's a somewhat reasonable compromise.

I don't really see the point in assault rifles. I believe in owning handguns and even rifles for hunting even tho I don't get down with that shit but assault rifles dont serve a purpose to me.

 

[Montatez]

 

[evil wasabi]

2nd amendment only talks about arms. Not firearms. Limiting the type of arms has never been questioned so long as the arms are not consumer grade. For example, we don’t have the right to bear nuclear arms, or the right to bear missile launchers, or the right to bear death rays (which was something the FBI was afraid of in regards to Nikola Tesla). These are not consumer grade. But handguns and other affordable weapons must be sold, because commerce is the king.

If you want to bear arms, you can carry a knife with a blade less than 3” in most states.

 

[Tw3ek]

Why apply rules written for 18th century weaponry to 21st century weapons? Times do chance you know, it's why the Constitution is supposed to be a living document.....

 

[smokehouse]

I don't really see the point in assault rifles. I believe in owning handguns and even rifles for hunting even tho I don't get down with that shit but assault rifles dont serve a purpose to me.

I can say the same about all kinds of things.

Not to single you out, but you're making a comment towards what I said earlier. Passing laws based on feelings is a very bad idea.

Why apply rules written for 18th century weaponry to 21st century weapons? Times do chance you know, it's why the Constitution is supposed to be a living document.....

Do you know how many ways this could apply to most of the Bill of Rights? Citing the existence of modern technology as reason to circumvent rights is a dangerous proposition.

Careful what you ask for...you may not like where it goes.

 

[Tw3ek]

Do you know how many ways this could apply to most of the Bill of Rights? Citing the existence of modern technology as reason to circumvent rights is a dangerous proposition.

Careful what you ask for...you may not like where it goes.

I don't like where a lot of things are going anyway, but I don't think updating our laws from almost 300 years ago would be a bad thing either. Me personally, I don't care if someone owns guns, but I do struggle to see the purpose having a semi-auto for home defense serves. Are you expecting an invasion localized entirely in your home?

 

[SML]

If you want to bear arms, you can carry a knife with a blade less than 3” in most states.

We can open carry swords in Texas now. Self defense with honor.

 

[evil wasabi]

We can open carry swords in Texas now. Self defense with honor.

But still no license to Carry Concealed Claymores and Two-handed Bastard Swords.

 

[smokehouse]

I don't like where a lot of things are going anyway, but I don't think updating our laws from almost 300 years ago would be a bad thing either. Me personally, I don't care if someone owns guns, but I do struggle to see the purpose having a semi-auto for home defense serves. Are you expecting an invasion localized entirely in your home?

All of this got out of hand once people started demanding reasons for people owning firearms. The answer should have been "Because I want one." Demanding an explanation from someone concerning how they legally spend their $$ is rude. It's none of my business why someone wants a 800 horsepower car, or a fuel guzzling yacht, or a 4000 calorie meal, or 9 children, or a 30 pack of beer, or a carton of smokes. I personally have no need for anything I just listed, and I see no purpose for the either...but it doesn't mean I want the banned.

It doesn't matter why someone wants a semi-auto rifle, and it's none of your/my business, truth be told. This whole "do you really need that for home defense/hunting?" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Look at tit this way, how about people start demanding explanations from those that are getting abortions? "Did you really need to let the guy cum in you? What was the purpose of the sex that night? Do you really need recreational sex?"

It's a silly topic.

But still no license to Carry Concealed Claymores and Two-handed Bastard Swords.

I get where you're going with this...but a claymore is a heavily regulated explosive, not a firearm. With that said, firearms are heavily regulated...far more than many know. Citizens don't have access to military arms, at best they get neutered versions of them, some of them.

 

[Lukejaywalker23]

I can say the same about all kinds of things.

Not to single you out, but you're making a comment towards what I said earlier. Passing laws based on feelings is a very bad idea.



Do you know how many ways this could apply to most of the Bill of Rights? Citing the existence of modern technology as reason to circumvent rights is a dangerous proposition.

Careful what you ask for...you may not like where it goes.

Not understanding your reply.

Passing law based on my feeling towards this shooting? Or passing laws based on my feeling towards guns?

 

[SML]

I get where you're going with this...but a claymore is a heavily regulated explosive, not a firearm. With that said, firearms are heavily regulated...far more than many know. Citizens don't have access to military arms, at best they get neutered versions of them, some of them.

 

[CrazyDean]

When can we start regulating unprotected sex?

http://youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0

 

[Montatez]

View attachment 46718

Lol.

Interesting read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.739f07f452bd

 

[Dr Shroom]

I get where you're going with this...but a claymore is a heavily regulated explosive, not a firearm. With that said, firearms are heavily regulated...far more than many know. Citizens don't have access to military arms, at best they get neutered versions of them, some of them.

lol

 

[Tw3ek]

All of this got out of hand once people started demanding reasons for people owning firearms. The answer should have been "Because I want one." Demanding an explanation from someone concerning how they legally spend their $$ is rude. It's none of my business why someone wants a 800 horsepower car, or a fuel guzzling yacht, or a 4000 calorie meal, or 9 children, or a 30 pack of beer, or a carton of smokes. I personally have no need for anything I just listed, and I see no purpose for the either...but it doesn't mean I want the banned.

It doesn't matter why someone wants a semi-auto rifle, and it's none of your/my business, truth be told. This whole "do you really need that for home defense/hunting?" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Look at tit this way, how about people start demanding explanations from those that are getting abortions? "Did you really need to let the guy cum in you? What was the purpose of the sex that night? Do you really need recreational sex?"

It's a silly topic.

You know that bit about abortions kinda already happens. That whole BS about having to give a fetus a burial in certain states (I dunno if that ended up passing or not honestly, but still, it was something else). I don't really give two shits about how someone spends their money, I just feel it should probably be harder to buy a gun at a gun show than a burger at a restaurant.

 

[evil wasabi]

Lol.

Interesting read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.739f07f452bd

Not really.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LeahLibresco?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Lmao... “used to” is like how she describes the counterstances of everything she promotes.

 

[SML]

I think the article's fine, but it's the start of the discussion, not the last word.

 

[Tripredacus]

An arms deal gone south?
The FBI?
ISIS?
Big if true
https://i.redd.it/z7ma82sfxopz.png

 

[Montatez]

Its an opinion piece and indeed a start to the discussion.

 

[SML]

The real Seth Rich (not the "murdered" body double)?

Big if true.

 

[Lagduf]

I just want us to make it off world, 'duf.

"It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday, is the hope of today, and the reality of tomorrow."

 

[SML]

"It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday, is the hope of today, and the reality of tomorrow."

It *seems* impossible that more than zero people in this thread think /pol/ is a good source, but people are full of surprises.

In some ways, at least. Everyone still has an altar they're ready for people to die on. I can see the window closing. If we can get something going on Mars, maybe that will buy us some time. We just need a little more *time,* Q!

 

[Marek]

Just like you Hillary cuck.

Hahaha

You're gonna learn the hard way what it is that I am. Because your 4chan faggot jargon sure as hell doesn't describe me

 

[Tripredacus]

In some ways, at least. Everyone still has an altar they're ready for people to die on. I can see the window closing. If we can get something going on Mars, maybe that will buy us some time. We just need a little more *time,* Q!

We can't even go to the Moon (NASA says they destroyed the technology and research) so I doubt we can go to Mars.