Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 630

yhwx said:

3D printing won’t come into play for a few decades at least.

It’s already happening if you didn’t realize.

EDIT: I don’t think one has ever been used to murder someone, but this video is from 2013:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

Possessed said:

Some how I’m having a hard time equating it being easy to buy pot with being easy to buy a machine gun. I can buy pot any time. Can I buy a gun as easily? Obviously not I’m still posting

Yeah, but you’re not posting from Florida 😉

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Collipso said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

Not only that, but I find it hard to compare a plant to a killing machine.

To Dek: most people in the US are good. I believe in that and so must you, because if not we’re all fucked and we’ll be living in fear. People acquire pot even if it’s illegal because it being illegal is nonsense. It is a plant that will get you high and that’s literally it. It’s not harmful to anyone. You cited other examples of course, such as child porn, which is absolutely sick, but I’m pretty sure that marijuana has a larger underground market than child porn, and that’s because there are more people of good than of bad, at least in America.

I do believe there are more people of good in general. But can’t the harmfulness of marijuana be debated? I mean, if someone tried to operate a vehicle or some sort of machinery while high, they could harm someone, right?

And yes I do think that if child porn was legal it’d have a larger market.

Of course it would have a larger market. It would be more easily accessible.

People are crazy but some just don’t know it. Take Possessed’s anecdote and apply it to several things, because it is applicable.

I’m not sure what you mean.

I’m glad you’re still here with us by the way Possessed, I thought that wouldn’t even need to be said but why not. You’re a good fella and you’d be missed by me and all the others. Thank the maker for Illinois’ guns laws.

+1

Collipso said:

This might be my last post in this thread since I don’t think I contribute to it at all:

While I do understand why some people would want to have a handgun in their drawer just in case, I fail to see any logic whatsoever behind people arguing that we shouldn’t take automatic rifles or any sort of military-grade weapon out of the marked.

As far as I know, automatic and military-grade weapons have not been a problem and they aren’t in the general market.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I’d like to know how the hell someone the FBI thought was suspicious and whom had mental issues was allowed to legally buy guns.

This is how.

But it helps if you completely disregard the whole “well-regulated” clause which implies some sort of… well, regulation. With that part carefully excised, what you’ve got remaining is the current Supreme Court interpretation.

All we know is that the FBI interviewed (before and after the shooting) the guy who posted a youtube video to see if he knew anything about the person who posted the comment, who at least has the same name as the shooter. It doesn’t make sense what the FBI thought they would get from questioning him.

I also don’t understand the FBI’s handling of the Nassar case.

The government take away someone’s rights based on mere suspicion. There is a question whether something could have been done where many people recognized this kid was a danger.

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.

I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.

I think we collectively answered our own question.

Warbler said:

By all means, do legitimate honest non-biased research and see in schools what the percentages are in your scenarios A and B, before we spend 40 billion dollars.

Okay, using data to guide policy is good.

the pro gun people would probably argue that the stats are off.

Whoops, you’re right. The same argument/stalemate would happen with or without data supporting one side. But if the data supported armed guards, I guess the anti-data side wouldn’t mind, so it would still do something.

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place? That’s not strict constructionism, it’s just wishful thinking with the force of law. The militia clause disappears only when inconvenient, and reappears when needed.

I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.

Yep, agreed. Mostly I’m distressed at how incredible ineffective most proposals would be, and they’re still not mild enough to pass. Moderately effective gun control is generations away at best I’m afraid.

I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.

Agreed, people go on knife rampages from time to time in China. The fact that all of the victims usually survive is certainly significant, as is the fact that there are fewer of them, but they are often maimed and scarred in many ways nevertheless. It’s worth stopping such things in advance whenever possible. Still, after the fact, you can’t help someone overcome trauma if they’re dead.

EDIT: I should add that my personal opinion is that I like guns. Guns are a lot of fun. Mechanically, entertainingly neat ingenious creations of mankind. And most of them should be banned as soon as possible.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place?

The line is drawn at weaponry in common use. Given the definition given to “militia” by the Court it does flow logically.

I’m not wholly convinced by the Court’s 2nd Amendment decisions but I do think there are many ways to implement gun control anyhow. Big question how effective proposed gun control laws will be, which is generally what I look at in these debates.

Yep, agreed. Mostly I’m distressed at how incredible ineffective most proposals would be, and they’re still not mild enough to pass. Moderately effective gun control is generations away at best I’m afraid.

Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.

I’d also like to figure out how to do something when there are big warning signs that people don’t seem to do anything about. I don’t think it’s just because there is some right to firearms.

Agreed, people go on knife rampages all the time in China. The fact that all the victims usually survive is certainly significant, as is the fact that there are fewer of them, but they are often maimed and scarred in many ways nevertheless. Still, you can’t help someone overcome trauma if they’re dead.

True!

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place?

The line is drawn at weaponry in common use. Given the definition given to “militia” by the Court it does flow logically.

The ruling creates it own contemporary “common use”. Machine guns (Tommy guns) were once pretty common. Now they’re illegal, and they’re not anymore. Ban breech loaders and eventually they won’t be common anymore either.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The “well-regulated” phrase was interpreted by the Court in the context of being part of a (merely) introductory clause.

Same effect as excising. It means they intend to ignore it. Strict constructionism, just bring scissors.

But the phrase still has operative effect. That is why the Court held dangerous and unusual weapons can be banned because they aren’t the kinds of weapons that belong to a “militia” as conceived when the Constitution was drafted.

Neither were breech-loaders, but see how they draw the line wherever they wanted it to be in the first place?

The line is drawn at weaponry in common use. Given the definition given to “militia” by the Court it does flow logically.

The ruling creates it own contemporary “common use”. Machine guns (Tommy guns) were once pretty common. Now they’re illegal, and they’re not anymore. Ban breech loaders and eventually they won’t be common anymore either.

Machine guns were once pretty common? That doesn’t sound right to me.

When the Court writes of weapons “in common use,” I think that obviously concerns something more than just the method of loading it. But for any gun law, the question isn’t only whether the weapon is in common use. Still, maybe one should take heart that the government may be able to ban certain emerging firearms technology, resulting in dividends down the line.

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

I’d actually be OK with banning all guns.