New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why I'm grateful for the discussion on "silencers."

trapdoor

Governor
I don't want an outright ban, so the premise of your question is false right off the bat. As for what would prevent what happened in Vegas, I'm not sure we can say in certain terms.... it's more of a probabilistic question. What's the over/under death toll for an attack like that? That's going to depend on the weapons used. If a future attacker of that sort finds it harder to get his hands on an automatic weapon (or a device for making a semi-automatic have an effective rate of fire similar to an automatic), then the likely death toll goes down. If a future attacker of that sort finds it easier to get his hands on something allowing an even deadlier attack (e.g., a light machine gun, or -- possibly -- a suppressor), then the likely death toll goes up. The regulations we choose won't make future mass killings impossible. But they will alter frequencies and probable death tolls.
You don't, perhaps, but a nearly total ban is certainly the goals of the Violence Policy Center, which would be the NRA's counterpoint if the VPC had anything like the grass roots support of the NRA.
If a future attacker can't get semiautos, he'll modify something else, or use IEDs. Unfortunately, the essential elements of the universe are volatile, and the violently insane are ingenious.
 

Arkady

President
If a future attacker can't get semiautos, he'll modify something else, or use IEDs. Unfortunately, the essential elements of the universe are volatile, and the violently insane are ingenious.
Some are. But most criminals aren't particularly ingenious or motivated. They're low-IQ, low-motivation types. So, it's about playing the odds. Why are murder rates so much lower in other wealthy nations than in the US? Why are mass shootings so much less common? Certainly attacks can and do happen no matter how hard it is to get your hands on guns (or on automatic weapons, or whatever level of massively destructive arms you care to name). But the easier you make it, the more such incidents you'll see. The difficulty acts as a filter. Some stuff will make it through the filter, but some stuff won't.
 
Some are. But most criminals aren't particularly ingenious or motivated. They're low-IQ, low-motivation types. So, it's about playing the odds. Why are murder rates so much lower in other wealthy nations than in the US? Why are mass shootings so much less common? Certainly attacks can and do happen no matter how hard it is to get your hands on guns (or on automatic weapons, or whatever level of massively destructive arms you care to name). But the easier you make it, the more such incidents you'll see. The difficulty acts as a filter. Some stuff will make it through the filter, but some stuff won't.
Thankfully, the Bill of Rights exists to protect us from people like you.

Question: What's the square root of negative one?

Answer: A Trump voter who isn't sub-human scum.
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
I see the problem.



How about banning SOME weapons?


That's OK.


So...you see the word some and read all.
As I said before but you refuse to comprehend:

Guns are tools. Different needs, different tools. Banning SOME (read "some") guns is banning the proper tool for the given situation and therefore an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Example?

Sure. Machine guns kept certain Korean stores safe during the LA riots. Guys paced back and forth on rooftops with Uzis. NOBODY fukked with 'em. Meanwhile, unprotected stores were looted and people were murdered.


Clearly, obviously, plainly an Uzi was the right tool for the given situation.
 

freyasman

Senator
So, would you agree to any infringements on the right to bear arms? For example, it is OK to deny prisoners access to firearms? Is it OK for government to have rules preventing private ownership of nuclear arms?
Once they have finished their sentence, let them do what they want. They do anyway....
Who gave the gov't the right to tell someone they can't own one? Show me where we the people signed over that authority.
 

Arkady

President
Once they have finished their sentence, let them do what they want. They do anyway....
Who gave the gov't the right to tell someone they can't own one? Show me where we the people signed over that authority.
How about while they’re in prison? Is it Ok for the government to infringe on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in prison?
 
C

Capitalist

Guest
How about while they’re in prison? Is it Ok for the government to infringe on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in prison?
How about when a known terrorist enters the country? Is it okay for the government to infringe on the right of a terrorist to keep and bear arms?

We're not on the same planet anymore. Put your thinking cap on and try to figure out what the founders meant. Now, that's not a Prog invitation to consider the constitution a "living document" that can be interpreted any way you like.

It is, in fact, an invitation to consider WHAT the founders meant--an originalist interpretation.

Did the founders mean to arm the enemies of We The People?

Or did they mean to preserve Americans' right to bear arms?
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
How about while they’re in prison? Is it Ok for the government to infringe on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in prison?
Many freedoms are forfeited when one is incarcerated.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
You just have to pay off the guards on shift, but that will be one damned expensive pizza. Now the TV room, they keep the remote in the guard pod.... because guys will shank you over that shit.
I don't know if this is true or not, but a friend who has been inside told me a carton of cigarettes grosses $5,000 inside. One cigarette becomes five, each going for $5. I bet there's a few guards happy with this system. How could the guards not be get getting at least $500 to $1,000 for a carton?
 

Arkady

President
Yes. That's how you keep them there.




Duh....:rolleyes:
Just establishing that we all agree that it's Ok for the government to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms in some ways. The disagreements come with the details -- which particular infringements are OK and which aren't.
 

Arkady

President
Put your thinking cap on and try to figure out what the founders meant
I know what they meant. They meant to prevent the growth of a standing army, by instead ensuring that white men would be able to arm themselves with muskets, so that the states would be able to have well-regulated militias to defend them. They were legislating for a different era. Translating that to the modern era is where things get problematic.
 

freyasman

Senator
Just establishing that we all agree that it's Ok for the government to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms in some ways. The disagreements come with the details -- which particular infringements are OK and which aren't.
Not really, because a loss of freedom is the sentence in the case of a prisoner. What gives gov't or anyone else the authority to restrict the rights of free men?
Nothing, right?:cool:
 
Top