shoot trump or give up your gun
*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Putting aside the childish ridiculousness of this obviously flippant remark...
Who has trump put in camps? Who has trump killed? Who has trump genuinely put in mortal danger through oppression? When has trump used force of arms to impose his will upon the american populace?
Or do you just not like the policies he enacts through our system of government, which already has mechanisms in place to supplant or undo what he does later?
Look up ICE
GasBandit
Staff member
Sorry, I'm not doing the grunt work for you. If you have assertions to make, link your own evidence.
Oh, I know this one. Obama wanted to pass a bill to require universal background checks, including from private sellers at gun shows (they aren't required to do so in most states); to require every private seller who sold more than 4 guns per year to have to get an FFL license and become a licensed dealer (thus being required to do background checks); and to require private sellers to keep records of sale (again, in many states they aren't required to).
Fair enough.
Shoot trump or any republican congressmen or senators or give up your gun.
It was a rhetorical thing because I figured you'd be informed enough to know what ICE does and has been doing. In hindsight, you are correct and that was a foolish assumption to make.
GasBandit
Staff member
Again, that's just the chipping away at the 2nd amendment.. when you can't get what you want, you boil the frog by degrees. And this was a LOT of degrees. To require universal background checks for ALL private gun sales is so far beyond the pale of "unreasonable burden" that it becomes close to a de facto ban on private gun sales.
Furthermore, as I said in the post that kicked off this latest debate, it would have done exactly zero to have prevented the Santa Fe shooting.
This is a very convoluted way of saying "I got nothing and don't wanna be called on it."
GasBandit
Staff member
Also, to get back to something @Celt Z said, the data on crime per state varies wildly depending on how you slice it. You google for gun crime by state, naturally google gives you the lists that say "the states with less guns have less gun crime."
But you search for types of crime that don't limit by weapon used, for example, robbery, and you see that California, Illinois, and ESPECIALLY District of Columbia all have higher robbery rates per capita than, say, Texas (or even Alaska, which has the highest "gun crime" rate per capita) and NY is VERY close. CA/NY/IL/DC are (in)famous for their draconian gun laws, and while it may slightly reduce the number of guns used in the commission of crimes, they are still very present, and it doesn't prevent the actual committing of the crime - it just switches its mode, and disarms the victim.
But you search for types of crime that don't limit by weapon used, for example, robbery, and you see that California, Illinois, and ESPECIALLY District of Columbia all have higher robbery rates per capita than, say, Texas (or even Alaska, which has the highest "gun crime" rate per capita) and NY is VERY close. CA/NY/IL/DC are (in)famous for their draconian gun laws, and while it may slightly reduce the number of guns used in the commission of crimes, they are still very present, and it doesn't prevent the actual committing of the crime - it just switches its mode, and disarms the victim.
Last edited:
Well, I mean, if you really want to go crazy, here's the list of every single thing going on with the administration from week to week.
https://theweeklylist.org/
https://theweeklylist.org/
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes, he does things everybody doesn't like.
However, threatening the credentials of journalists and alleging without proof that the FBI spied on his campaign are not exactly the same as putting people in work camps. It's gonna take a lot more than what he's done so far for me to say "I can understand there is valid reason for assassination."
figmentPez
Staff member
I see why you're so terrified of guns, you'd be an irresponsible gun owner. You're like the men who are terrified of trans-women in bathrooms, because they themselves would harass women given the chance.
Oh, I just thought I didn't like guns because people literally die because of them and they serve no purpose beyond that.
I don’t think you can be pro responsible gun ownership and pro gun sales in the parking lot of a McDonalds.
I would disagree and say anyone holding a populous hostage by way of violence could be considered a tyrant. It doesn't have to be political.
For one thing, in a number of states around here, there is legislation restricting travel with a loaded or visable firearm. Vermont recently moved up the age where you can own and gun or have a license. NY has proposals they are trying to pass right now where those who have been convicted of domestic violence can now longer legally own a gun. Enforcing laws like stricter background checks would work, too. There's quite a lot of legislation which does that and according to real numbers, works.
As for the second part, for one thing, the majority of robberies take place when the owner isn't present. Being armed is irrelevant in that case. It's a security blanket at best. No, it won't eliminate all the violence and immoral tendencies, but it's a multi-tiered problem: in addition to this, we also have to be willing to take bigger steps in mental healthcare and work on the toxic masculinity problem that been as issue for as long as history has existed (which unfortunately, has a lot of over-lap in the lack of respect or treatment for mental health). But refusing to make any changes in any areas is absurd, because our current path clearly isn't working.
Let's look at it this way: if you're a doctor, and a patient comes to you with a illness no one can identify, but you recognize some of the symptoms, do you not at least try to treat the symptoms in hopes to cure or lessen the illness, or do you refuse any treatment because you can't cure it all in one shot? Steps have to be taken, and things have to be tried. It wouldn't be the first time we've made rules, and then had to amend them because of societal changes.
GasBandit
Staff member
What's the difference between a McDonald's parking lot and your own living room, as far as sales legislation goes? Or for that matter, a gun show? The "in a parking lot of a McDonald's" is just wordplay to make something seedy. If I sell you confectioner's sugar in a McD's parking lot, it makes it sound illicit, even though there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
The very definition of the term implies authoritative power, not just coercion via threat of violence. Flowery prose is something to be avoid in crafting public policy. I mean, someone's father might be called a tyrant for being too strict, but it's plain that's not the matter at hand. A criminal is a criminal, calling him a tyrant implies he wields actual ruling power.
Well, if you get right down to it, Texas has that too (it only recently started tolerating open carry, and it isn't true open carry because you still have to have a Concealed Carry Permit to do it). It seems kind of backwards to me... if anything, it's better to see who has the guns then to say they all have to be hidden. But "travel" can mean a lot of things... does that mean I can't have something strapped across my back, or do I have to have it in my hands before it is a violation? This came up during the open carry protests, too... there's a difference between carrying and brandishing - the former is arguably constitutionally protected, the latter not so much. But again (and most pertinently), how would this have prevented Santa Fe? It only works on people not already otherwise engaging in the commission of a crime.
Same question. How would this have stopped Santa Fe, given that the guns belonged to his father and were taken without his knowledge or consent?
This is incorrect. Robbery is a legal term for unlawfully taking something using force or the threat of force. Burglary is when the owner isn't there.
I'm with you, here.
You're talking to the son of a lawyer and two doctors (and a logistics contractor but that's not relevant)
Hepatitis can present with cold-like symptoms at first but if you treat Hep B like a cold you're gonna have a really bad time. Also, remember the Hippocratic oath - above all else, do no harm. Smacking an undiagnosed illness around with potentially damaging treatments is what loses doctors their license to practice. And yes, most of the proposed (and a great deal of the already enacted) gun legislation is deleterious to our nation's well being with little to no benefit in terms of preventing mass shootings. Just doing "something" for the sake of "doing something" is dangerous and has often made situations worse, in medicine, in government, and many, many other situations.Well, let me know when you get that magic wand that can get rid of all guns everywhere and prevent any more from coming into existence, otherwise you don't have a point here.
Millions of hunters putting food on their table would dispute you on that.
It's funny, though. The only president who said anything about taking everyone's guns was... Trump.
And @GasBandit, taking them all *is* technically possible, but so far detached from reality, and the aftermath so messy, it's not worth discussing outside the realm of hyperbole.
OTOH, to better put "well-regulated" into better practice, some people who shouldn't have gotten them in the first place are going to lose their guns If I knew how that would end up looking, I certainly wouldn't be an overnight hotel clerk. It's going to take political will the generation currently in charge has never shown they've had.
From what I can tell, the only people who need hunting to survive in the US are some natives up in Alaska. For everyone else it's a hobby with the benefit of meat. "Millions" is a bit much.
It is fundamentally seedy when you sell a device meant for killing to somebody you don’t know. There is no difference in where it takes place.
But where you see a defense I see a fundamental problem in the idea of responsible gun ownership.
GasBandit
Staff member
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then, but that doesn't bother me as much as it once did.
13 millions, last anybody counted a couple years ago. Granted gun owners still outnumber hunters by roughly 9 to 1, but there are, literally, millions of hunters.
That said, I've always asserted that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, or even home defense. Those are just ancillary benefits.
I'm hoping this doesn't lead to another rehash of what the phrase "well-regulated militia" actually means, but regardless, even by the correct definition (mine
) we definitely need work. Guns are still mysterious, scary, misuse- and accident-prone in the hands of most people. They need demystification, familiarization, instruction, education. I don't have a problem with concepts like those with criminal records losing their right to keep and bear arms, we as a society strip rights from felons all the time and it's often a good idea. It wouldn't have helped Santa Fe, but it's still practical policy. But the crux of the matter is, even more herculean a task than entirely stripping America of firearms lies before us - destigmatizing mental illness, getting parents to freakin' parent again, and getting kids to stop being horrifying little shits by ostracizing and tormenting each other constantly. And that DEFINITELY will require a massive and enduring cultural exercise of will that I don't think we've seen in living memory.I said "need hunting to survive." Not "like to go hunting on the weekends a few times a year." Not to mention bow-hunting is a thing.
GasBandit
Staff member
And what bearing does the fact that they dont "need" to do so to survive have at all? The entire premise upon which America was founded is that it's not about what the government will allow you to do, it's about what the government is NOT allowed to interfere with, and that's one of the explicitly outlined things.
It was in response to:
You can tell it was in response to that 'cuz I quoted it in the post. And then said it's just a hobby for most people and bringing up the food is disingenuous.
You actually quoted GB there the second time though, so of course he replied
But bows literally only kill things, how can you justify...
Wait, I'm for gun control. Gah, you've become the new Charlie, turning into such a bad example that even I feel compelled to retort.
I quoted darkaudit in the post gas was responding to that I had quoted.
I admit I haven't looked at statistics, but I don't think murder by bow and arrow is much of a problem in the US. This isn't very complicated.
figmentPez
Staff member
11.5 million hunters... 35% of whom are hunting for the purposes of getting meat = over 4 million people in the US who hunt with the primary purpose of getting meat. Doesn't matter if they need it to survive. (Though many do use it to provide more, and better quality, meat than their budget would otherwise allow.) A large number of people are putting guns to a practical purpose that is not killing other human beings.
figmentPez
Staff member
Bow hunting takes more time, more skill, is less reliable.... If people are hunting because they want to get meat to feed their families, bow hunting is not the way to do it in most cases.
Then there can be a place where guns are locked up and can be checked out when it's hunting time provided they're checked afterwards. Paid for by hunting licenses.
(Or maybe increase the social safety net so people don't have to go out and pray that they can kill an animal in order to eat since apparently that's a big problem.).
(Or maybe increase the social safety net so people don't have to go out and pray that they can kill an animal in order to eat since apparently that's a big problem.).
figmentPez
Staff member
You dont' seem to be aware that most hunting is done in remote locations. and that substinence hunters are more likely to be found in rural areas where having to drive to a central location in order to get the guns in order to hunt would incur a hardship on them.
figmentPez
Staff member
Furthermore, if your argument is "people don't need guns", then it's also true that people don't "need" cars. It's possible to live without cars. Cars kill more people than guns do. Why aren't you proposing that we ban cars? They're not "necessary".
EDIT: Wait, I've got an idea! We can lock up cars in a central location, and then people can check them out when they need to go somewhere! This will completely solve drunk driving!
EDIT: Wait, I've got an idea! We can lock up cars in a central location, and then people can check them out when they need to go somewhere! This will completely solve drunk driving!
Last edited:
It is virtually impossible to live in America without owning a car, barring a few densely populated cities. You know this is true. Stop being intentionally dumb.