Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Nadaka]

Politically... I am a pessimist. Shit is screwed up and I don't know how to fix it in a way that doesn't violate my morality.

I have sympathy for libertarians and democrats. But I see libertarians as pawns of the owning class, seeking to dismantle the government so that no one will be left to defend those pesky freedoms and rights of the lesser classes from exploitation at the hands of the extremely wealthy. And the democrats are just completely ineffective, and I don't agree with their gun control policy.

I am a liberal and a conservative. I am a patriot who hates the government. I am a capitalist and a socialist. These really are not contradictions, they only seem so because of the loaded nature of the terms. But I mostly lean on the liberal/socialist side of the current status quo.

On gun control.
The 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Every person has the right to own and use a weapon for both recreational and defense purposes. I don't have a problem with people owning knives, handguns, rifles, crossbows, fully automatic fire arms, grenade launchers, anti-tank artillery, anti-aircraft missiles and even pointy sticks as long as they are used responsibly. On the other hand, I also like the idea of mandatory waiting periods and licensing that requires safety and operational courses, especially for the big stuff at the end of that list. And on the third hand, I don't think that being a convicted felon can constitutionally prohibit gun ownership.

[mainiac]

And the democrats are just completely ineffective, and I don't agree with their gun control policy.
On gun control.
The 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Every person has the right to own and use a weapon for both recreational and defense purposes. I don't have a problem with people owning knives, handguns, rifles, crossbows, fully automatic fire arms, grenade launchers, anti-tank artillery, anti-aircraft missiles and even pointy sticks as long as they are used responsibly. On the other hand, I also like the idea of mandatory waiting periods and licensing that requires safety and operational courses, especially for the big stuff at the end of that list. And on the third hand, I don't think that being a convicted felon can constitutionally prohibit gun ownership.

So in other words, you don't agree with the democrats gun control policy because you support a policy that is more restrictive then what the democratic party in congress supports.

[Nadaka]

Most democrats don't think you should be allowed to own anything on that list that comes after rifle, and many of them don't like people owning handguns or knives longer than 4 inches either.

[RedKing]

But every time the gun lobby invokes minority rights they use it to accomplish winner take all objectives.  Why does our government need to use antiquated filing systems for parts of the BTF that would be much better be done by computers?  Who's minority rights does that protect?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS. Jesus F'ing Christ, so much THIS. The Congressional mandate that forces BATF to rely solely on paper records for gun licensing is a fucking sick joke. Its only purpose is to hinder the lawful regulation and licensing of firearms as much as conceivably possible. It's not about protecting privacy rights, because with enough time and manpower, BATF can piece together a history of firearms purchases and ownership for a givern individual. And indeed does so on a daily basis in the course of law enforcement investigations. All it does is make it so that it takes weeks and a small army of paper pushers to accomplish, instead of having a computer do the heavy lifting and getting you results in minutes or even seconds. The irony is that it's the same conservatives who are usually bitching about government waste who are forcing this situation. 

Why do we need laws to protect the rights of gun ownership in public parks and bars?  Where's the minority right in that opposed to the plurality want?

While the answer is "I should have the right to carry my metal phallus wherever I want", I have to agree that this really needs to be balanced against public safety concerns. Alcohol and firearms don't mix well (even within the Bureau). IIRC, the new law in Ohio that permits guns in bars also prohibits them from serving you if you're packing heat. Which leads me to wonder if:

A. People are going to have a "designated shooter" as well.
B. Is Ohio that rough of a place that you need to go armed to the bar? So you can't have a drink? Where's the utility in this law?

The problem is that a utilitarian concept of the law has been more or less shredded by ideology in this country, so now we have laws passed just to prove a point or establish a precedent for OTHER laws that are ideologically-driven. As opposed to crafting and passing a law to address a pressing NEED.


And for the record, yes I work as a contractor for BATF. But I'm middle-of-the-road on gun control. I don't support abolition on personal ownership, but I'd be okay with restricting classes of weaponry (no MANPADs, artillery, etc.) and also with variation in restrictions based on location (Guns are a useful tool in rural areas. Not so much in the downtown of a major city.).

[Fenrir]

...artillery...

I do not see why artillery would be more restricted than any other weapon. It is not like we would see petty criminals robbing banks with howitzers; I would think that there is a point where a bigger gun doesn’t necessarily make the crime easier.

Unless you mean something else by the term, which is entirely possible.

[mainiac]

Most democrats don't think you should be allowed to own anything on that list that comes after rifle, and many of them don't like people owning handguns or knives longer than 4 inches either.

Most democratic voters perhaps but the democratic leadership has refused to reintroduce the assault weapons vote for going on 7 years now, including the year where the dems had a supermajority.  At the same time, the current status quo has no waiting time for gun shows, requires no operational competance courses that I am aware of and frequently doesn't require safety training or even licencing for weaponry if you set about acquiring it under an exempt circumstance such as gifts.  I am unaware of any legislation to counteract any of these issues.  So the agenda you laid out is in practice far more restrictive then the democratic agenda.

[Leafsnail]

After all, we're talking about a subject who's legality does not effect you at all.

Unless I or someone I know gets shot.

That might effect me quite a bit.

Sure, you could argue that gun legalisation doesn't increase crime, but don't argue that it doesn't effect me.

[Nadaka]

Maniac: federal law isn't the only law. Plenty of states have more restrictive weapons laws.

[Bauglir]

@Leafsnail

Well, actually, it's not that simple. It affects you in that scenario only if the person wouldn't have been shot with stricter gun control. And if, somehow, laxer control reduces crime, then it affects you by reducing the odds of somebody you know being shot.

[mainiac]

@Leafsnail
Well, actually, it's not that simple. It affects you in that scenario only if the person wouldn't have been shot with stricter gun control. And if, somehow, laxer control reduces crime, then it affects you by reducing the odds of somebody you know being shot.

And that vague generality you made before doesn't apply to the vast majority of them.

[GlyphGryph]

Leafsnail, you or someone you know getting shot is probably still illegal. Imagine that. Someone legally carrying a gun in the park DOESN'T effect you. Heck, I very much doubt it even increases the odds of you getting shot. You getting shot does effect you, yes. Notice which one of those there is no disagreement over the illegality of? Why, yes, it's the one that effects you.

Sure, you could argue that gun legalisation doesn't increase crime, but don't argue that it doesn't effect me.

If it doesn't increase crime, in other words if it doesn't increase the likelihood of people getting shot... exactly what is the basis of your "logic" that if effects you, exactly?

IIRC, the new law in Ohio that permits guns in bars also prohibits them from serving you if you're packing heat. Which leads me to wonder if:

This is just good sense. The law is precise, tailored to what it's actually supposed to prevent. I'd support this sort of logic being extended to those with car keys as well.

The Congressional mandate that forces BATF to rely solely on paper records for gun licensing is a fucking sick joke.

I fully agree. It's obstructionist and counterproductive, I hate the people who put it into place and I hope it gets repealed. It's utter bullshit, and intended to be so, and that infuriates me.

[mainiac]

Leafsnail, you or someone you know getting shot is probably still illegal. Imagine that. Someone legally carrying a gun in the park DOESN'T effect you. Heck, I very much doubt it even increases the odds of you getting shot. You getting shot does effect you, yes. Notice which one of those there is no disagreement over the illegality of? Why, yes, it's the one that effects you.

Gun laws affect crime.  I don't know how this mental connection can possibly escape you.

[Bauglir]

@Leafsnail
Well, actually, it's not that simple. It affects you in that scenario only if the person wouldn't have been shot with stricter gun control. And if, somehow, laxer control reduces crime, then it affects you by reducing the odds of somebody you know being shot.

And that vague generality you made before doesn't apply to the vast majority of them.

Which? I make a lot of those in conversations about vague generalities.

EDIT: Oh, right, and just since it's come up a lot, that no-computerized-records mandate is bullshit. If a law is passed, execute it to the utmost efficiency or don't pass it. None of this, "Well fine, we can't change things properly in the law, so let's just make sabotaging the law in question our condition for compromise elsewhere."

[RedKing]

Leafsnail, you or someone you know getting shot is probably still illegal. Imagine that. Someone legally carrying a gun in the park DOESN'T effect you. Heck, I very much doubt it even increases the odds of you getting shot. You getting shot does effect you, yes. Notice which one of those there is no disagreement over the illegality of? Why, yes, it's the one that effects you.

First off, it's affects, not effects.
Second, legal carry does not dictate legal use. Someone can use a legally purchased, legally owned firearm to commit an illegal act. IIRC, the dude down in Arizona who gunned down Rep. Giffords and her staff legally purchased his weapons.
Third, lest we forget that this has real-world implications, somebody went trigger-happy at a Nevada IHOP just a little while ago. 3 dead, 9 wounded + the shooter (self-inflicted). At least two of the dead were military. Was the gun legally purchased? Were the dead and wounded armed? Would it have made a difference? Is there any way to actually tell?

[mainiac]

@Leafsnail
Well, actually, it's not that simple. It affects you in that scenario only if the person wouldn't have been shot with stricter gun control. And if, somehow, laxer control reduces crime, then it affects you by reducing the odds of somebody you know being shot.

And that vague generality you made before doesn't apply to the vast majority of them.

Which? I make a lot of those in conversations about vague generalities.

Quoted the wrong quote.  I meant to reference the post about state laws.