Assault weapons ban loses steam
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.
After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.
The ban is supported by more than a dozen Senate Democrats and the White House, as well as gun-control groups.
(Also on POLITICO: Cruz: Feinstein exchange 'the problem' with D.C.)
“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”
Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”
“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.
(CARTOONS: Matt Wuerker on gun control)
Reid’s decision highlights the tightrope walked by the majority leader in governing the gun control issue. Trapped between the White House and rank-and-file Democrats who support broad gun control legislation following the shootings last December in Newtown, Conn., Reid must also be mindful of red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 who favor gun rights.
And the decision to drop the assault weapons ban from the package illustrates the fact that any big changes to gun control legislation will still be challenging.
Aside from the ban, three other major pieces of gun legislation have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee: a gun trafficking bill, a Democrats-only background checks measure and a proposal to increase school safety.
(PHOTOS: 'Guns Across America' rallies)
Top Democratic aides said Reid — who is huddling this week with Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — who will manage the gun bill on the floor — may file the Democratic gun bill as early as this week, as he prepares to bring the measure up for a vote in early April after a two-week congressional recess.
The contents of the Democratic gun package — as well as the amendments that will be allowed on the floor — are the subject of intense maneuvering on and off Capitol Hill.
There are two likely paths: Reid could advance a gun trafficking bill with a school safety provision; some form of background checks and the assault weapons ban would then be offered as amendments. In the other scenario, Reid might offer a background checks bill that includes the gun trafficking and school safety provisions, with assault weapons again offered as an amendment.
The Judiciary panel also approved a bipartisan gun trafficking bill backed by Leahy, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), among others, that dramatically boosts penalties for “straw purchases”of weapons, in which a person buys firearms on behalf of an individual barred by law from possessing them. Thanks to its support from Republicans, Reid and Leahy want to see this bill as a foundation for the Democratic gun package on the floor.
While this is excellent news, I don't think anyone really thought it had much of a chance of getting through in the first place. Enough time hasn't passed for everyone to forget that it didn't work the first time.
What I'd really like to see go down now would be proposed mag cap restrictions.
This is wholly expected. President Obama has shown absolutely no interest in expending political capital on firearm legislation at any point so far during his presidency, other then lip service. Nothing has changed in that regard - this is a country that is, on the whole, utterly comfortable with mass shootings, as evinced by unconvincing, designed-to-fail, half-ass legislation such as this proposed as a "solution" when it doesn't even really address the problem.
Yeah mag caps are the big thing to worry about now. I've also heard there are proposals to ban bulk ammo purchases, but I need to look that up.
I guarantee you they'll say "Well we dropped the assault weapons ban, how about we just pass the mag cap limit instead? That's reasonable, right?"
I hope none of these proposed bans and limits make it through, because if they do, it'll be all the encouragement the Dem's need to start writing up more and more bills to try and enact more gun control. As much as I hate to say it, this really is something where we just can't compromise.
Granted, as long as we have guns, people will try and pass gun control laws, but if we can shoot down this one hopefully that'll give us some breathing room for awhile until the next idiot shoots up a school.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I guarantee you they'll say "Well we dropped the assault weapons ban, how about we just pass the mag cap limit instead? That's reasonable, right?"
Huh. It's funny you'd say this, because if the Democrats did do this, it would be a page straight from the GOP playbook of late. To whit:
1.) Say you want 5 apples
2.) The other party offers 3 apples. You say no
3.) The other party holds a vote to give you 5 apples. None of your members vote for it. The measure passes anyway.
4.) You hold a press conference declaring the other party is ruining the country because they didn't give you 7 apples.
5.) Repeat, forever.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Yeah mag caps are the big thing to worry about now. I've also heard there are proposals to ban bulk ammo purchases, but I need to look that up.
I guarantee you they'll say "Well we dropped the assault weapons ban, how about we just pass the mag cap limit instead? That's reasonable, right?"
I hope none of these proposed bans and limits make it through, because if they do, it'll be all the encouragement the Dem's need to start writing up more and more bills to try and enact more gun control. As much as I hate to say it, this really is something where we just can't compromise.
Granted, as long as we have guns, people will try and pass gun control laws, but if we can shoot down this one hopefully that'll give us some breathing room for awhile until the next idiot shoots up a school.
The mag cap ban was with the assault rifle ban.
Limitations on bulk ammo purchases are just stupid and have no relation to anything whatsoever. I don't see that going anywhere.
An excellent start, and Schumer's Universal Background Check bill isn't gaining any friends either, though there's rumors of a bipartisan effort to produce a similar background check bill that is less, shall we say crazy.
Meanwhile here in Colorado the Sheriffs in some areas are considering deputizing any county resident who can pass a background check to help continue thumbing the nose at Denver regarding our pending mag ban.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bulk ammo restrictions would just make life more difficult for high volume shooters like me. Buying my .45 or .30-06 by the case is cheaper and easier on everyone involved.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: An excellent start, and Schumer's Universal Background Check bill isn't gaining any friends either, though there's rumors of a bipartisan effort to produce a similar background check bill that is less, shall we say crazy.
Meanwhile here in Colorado the Sheriffs in some areas are considering deputizing any county resident who can pass a background check to help continue thumbing the nose at Denver regarding our pending mag ban.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bulk ammo restrictions would just make life more difficult for high volume shooters like me. Buying my .45 or .30-06 by the case is cheaper and easier on everyone involved.
Yep. Once Shumer including record keeping on background check there went the bill. He either wanted it dead or wants registration, and then still wanted it dead.
Air
Water
Queso
Disco
Aretha Franklin
Pachabel
A Louisiana saturday night
crush your enemies
see them driven before you
hear the lamentation of the women
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I was looking to know what you meant in relation to that quote of mine.
I don't agree with anything that you said, in fact from my perspective 'common sense' would be the exact opposite of your statements.
Thats ok. You're British. You literally just wouldn't understand. You don't have the same rights we do. Its not your fault. Its your food. Seriously, whats up with that?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I was looking to know what you meant in relation to that quote of mine.
I don't agree with anything that you said, in fact from my perspective 'common sense' would be the exact opposite of your statements.
Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about rights. the people protesting the limitation of those rights, and their elected representatives bowing to the will of their constituents... you know the way democracy is supposed to work.
Thats ok. You're British. You literally just wouldn't understand.
Scottish actually and we do have the same rights that you do, at least the ones that we actually think are useful anyway.
You don't have the right to free speech (see regulation announced of your newspapers), defend yourself (firearms), the right to boogie, the right to party, the right to feign ignorance by speaking spanish, the right to Star Trek, the right to barbeque, pants if your Scottish, or the right to lead a ragtag fleet on lonely quest for a place called earth.
Palindrome wrote: I don't agree with anything that you said, in fact from my perspective 'common sense' would be the exact opposite of your statements.
In relation to the illegal immigration part, the part about respecting legal rights and not sacrificing them for ill thought out legislation for political gain, or the fact that it relates to firearms?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about rights. the people protesting the limitation of those rights, and their elected representatives bowing to the will of their constituents... you know the way democracy is supposed to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Oh, pardon me then, I owe you a pint Dread, I didn't mean yo accidentally call you one of /them/ not sure how I got that mixed up XD
These things happen Heck, if the staff in the Embassy can confuse things then it can happen to anyone
Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about right .
When that right involves keeping semi automatic weapons in order to feel all snuggly safe from the Man/burglars/zombies then I wouldn't classify that that sensible, or even sane.
Actually now that I think about it I'm not sure how you could disagree with Dread's very general statement about right .
When that right involves keeping semi automatic weapons in order to feel all snuggly safe from the Man/burglars/zombies then I wouldn't classify that that sensible, or even sane.
Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside, Dread's statement, again was extremely general about rights period.. That you might not like some of our rights really doesn't matter to the conversation.
Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,
I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.
Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,
I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.
Man... this is starting to sound like another chicken or the egg causality dilemma...
Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,
I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.
So why would you worry about people with guns then? You have nothing to fear and bad things never happen! Don't worry subject! The state will see to all your needs! Now back to work!
So why would you worry about people with guns then? You have nothing to fear and bad things never happen!
Aside from all those shootings you mean?
Guns don't cause shootings, sick sick people cause shootings.
The only remotly useful part of gun regulation is background checks. Banning certain weapons does nothing, and banning a weapon that wasn't even used in the shooting you are reacting to is just silly.
Your irrational fear of everyone around you aside,
I think you have it the other way round, I'm not the one who wants to be armed. Also the rights of the individual are occationally at odds with the rights of the many, we do after all have laws for a reason.
Guns don't cause shootings, sick sick people cause shootings.
its really, really hard to shoot someone without a gun.
Stab proof sweaters? Firstly thats the Daily Mail, the fox news of print journalism, and secondly there are idiots everywhere. We don't have a culture of fear in this country.
Grey Templar wrote: You say that like banning guns magically makes them go away. It doesn't and it won't.
Banning easily concealed and semi automatic guns as well as harsh sentencing for unlawful possession of a firearm combined with amnesties would certainly help.
For all I care though you can happily shoot each other while 'protecting' yourselves, just don't attempt to claim that your position is 'common sense'.
Grey Templar wrote: You say that like banning guns magically makes them go away. It doesn't and it won't.
Banning easily concealed and semi automatic guns as well as harsh sentencing for unlawful possession of a firearm combined with amnesties would certainly help.
For all I care though you can happily shoot each other while 'protecting' yourselves, just don't attempt to claim that your position is 'common sense'.
Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?
Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States
Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.
This whole conversation started because you took issue that the will of the masses is that we remain armed and able to defend ourselves instead of islands of safety like Chicago, Detroit and Southern California
Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?
or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".
Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.
The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.
Frazzled wrote: The mag cap ban was with the assault rifle ban.
It was, but there's nothing saying it has to remain so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: When that right involves keeping semi automatic weapons in order to feel all snuggly safe from the Man/burglars/zombies then I wouldn't classify that that sensible, or even sane.
Tell me, why do you find revolvers acceptable but not semiautomatics?
Why is an eight-round 1911 inherently more dangerous than an eight-round .357 Magnum revolver?
or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".
Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't in my opinion. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.
Fixed that there for you.
Common Sense varies from place to place, its whatever is common in that place and for that individual.
Over here in America, having a gun is a wise decision. The police arn't always there to protect you, most of the time they arn't. They really just show up, clean up the mess, and go after the perp after the fact.
With a gun, you can stop the crime being commited against you and you lose nothing by having it.
Yes, having more guns does lead to more gun violence. But only because there is a lot of violence in the first place. If guns magically disappeared we would still have a ton more violence that you guys, it would just be done with other weapons.'
The Gun Culture isn't causing violence, its a violent sub-culture taking advantage of a freedom. Fortunatly that same freedom thats being abused also allows the victims to fight back.
Palindrome wrote: Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.
The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.
The assault rifle ban was far from sensible and had a number of issues with defining what precisely an assault rifle was, especially as they were basing it on cosmetic features that are easily modified by the manufacturer. In one instance the same model of rifle could be illegal if it had a bayonet lug, but legal without it. The caliber would not be affected, the firing mechanism etc. was not in issue.
Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter the United States is a country that allows for the legal ownership of firearms. But, taking the issue of firearms aside, do you believe that legally granted rights should be sacrificed for short term political gain through badly written law?
Grey Templar wrote: Guns don't cause shootings, sick sick people cause shootings.
The only remotly useful part of gun regulation is background checks. Banning certain weapons does nothing, and banning a weapon that wasn't even used in the shooting you are reacting to is just silly.
Guns cause shootings in the exact same way as pencils cause spelling mistakes
Grey Templar wrote: You say that like banning guns magically makes them go away. It doesn't and it won't.
Like Chicago - Very strict gun laws, and one of the highest rates of murder with firearms (usually illegally held) in the United States.
Palindrome wrote: Thank you for that completely unnecessary and disrespectful edit
As opposed to the person who comes on here to berate a country's lack of common sense because they agree to something you disagree with?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I'm mostly just trying to see if he's one of the legion of people who conflate "semiautomatic" with "automatic."
My current favourite is "military style weapon", that covers everything from 9mm pistols all the way up.
Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?
or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".
Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.
The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.
Quoting this post solely because it's the last one you have typed. We are not trying to be rude, we're not trying to belittle you, we're not saying you're stupid, we're merely stating a fact.
You're not an American, and have not had the same rights we do. When we say you literally cannot understand our arguments, there is a reason. It'd be like you trying to explain to us why Britain still has a Queen. We're entirely different cultures. Of COURSE we don't see eye to eye. Why would you not want gun control when your entire life (maybe not you but most brits) have always had it? I understand why your view is the way it is, now please, think about how we see it.
In the United States, many people live out in the sticks. You could have to wait over an hour in some places for police to show up, and that's if they can show up at all. Even in the city, it's not unheard of for cops to take a while to get there if traffic is real bad or you live in a weird area. Also throw in that our criminals are very likely to have guns, and you can see why we would want equal terms to defend ourselves. And that's not counting places like Alaska or Washington where you may need a weapon of some kind to defend yourself against bears and other dangerous wildlife. We don't live in England, where your average mugger probably only has a switchblade and the scariest animal you'll see is maybe a rabid dog (do you guys even have rabies over there?) Again, we are entirely different cultures.
If you really want to stick around in this topic with us, I'd like to ask you to at least watch this video I've linked. It's very educational and will explain a lot of what we're talking about, at least as far as mag bans go. In particular, watch the part about revolvers and "new york reloads" around 10:40. At the very least, it'll show you why we're so confused over you thinking revolvers are fine, but semi autos aren't. I don't know if this video will really reach you, as your mind appears to be already made up, but hey, at least I tried. One bit of warning about the video is to not focus on the "expert" shooter when they show the differences in mags, since he actually speeds up as the mags get smaller. Pay attention to the less experienced woman shooter, as she's a lot more realistic of what you would see with different sized mags.
I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.
Or perhaps we can agree that common sense, or sense in general varies by culture?
or, in other words, "Common sense is rarely common and seldom sensible, as the above quote proves".
Actually I was taking exception to someone claiming that not limiting firearms is in someway common sense, it really isn't. You may agree with it but it wouldn't be nearly so devisive if it truly was that mythical beastie known as common sense.
The 'will of the masses', as far as I know, hasn't yet been proven either way.
Quoting this post solely because it's the last one you have typed. We are not trying to be rude, we're not trying to belittle you, we're not saying you're stupid, we're merely stating a fact.
You're not an American, and have not had the same rights we do. When we say you literally cannot understand our arguments, there is a reason. It'd be like you trying to explain to us why Britain still has a Queen. We're entirely different cultures. Of COURSE we don't see eye to eye. Why would you not want gun control when your entire life (maybe not you but most brits) have always had it? I understand why your view is the way it is, now please, think about how we see it.
In the United States, many people live out in the sticks. You could have to wait over an hour in some places for police to show up, and that's if they can show up at all. Even in the city, it's not unheard of for cops to take a while to get there if traffic is real bad or you live in a weird area. Also throw in that our criminals are very likely to have guns, and you can see why we would want equal terms to defend ourselves. And that's not counting places like Alaska or Washington where you may need a weapon of some kind to defend yourself against bears and other dangerous wildlife. We don't live in England, where your average mugger probably only has a switchblade and the scariest animal you'll see is maybe a rabid dog (do you guys even have rabies over there?) Again, we are entirely different cultures.
If you really want to stick around in this topic with us, I'd like to ask you to at least watch this video I've linked. It's very educational and will explain a lot of what we're talking about, at least as far as mag bans go. In particular, watch the part about revolvers and "new york reloads" around 10:40. At the very least, it'll show you why we're so confused over you thinking revolvers are fine, but semi autos aren't. I don't know if this video will really reach you, as your mind appears to be already made up, but hey, at least I tried. One bit of warning about the video is to not focus on the "expert" shooter when they show the differences in mags, since he actually speeds up as the mags get smaller. Pay attention to the less experienced woman shooter, as she's a lot more realistic of what you would see with different sized mags.
I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.
Exalted! This should be stickied whenever the gun debates rages on...
The whole "guns don't kill people" argument is always the single dumbest argument that pro-gun people come up with when they pretend that guns don't make it extremely easy to kill people.
Stop making fools of ourselves! Of course guns kill people, that is what they are made for. To kill people! That's why pro-gun folks want guns, so that they can kill people that try to harm or kill us.
Don't even try to come back with the "if somebody wants to kill someone they will just use another tool like a hammer" bs. If hammers would make it just as easy to kill people as a gun then we would be applying for concealed hammer permits as well as concealed gun permits.
Guns make it incredibly easy for a single person to kill a large number of people in a very short amount of time. That is what they were invented for.
I am pro-gun, I shoot and I carry. And I will continue to call anybody an idiot that tries to pretend that guns are not for killing. Because I know the reason I own my guns is to stop whoever is trying to hurt my family.
d-usa wrote: The whole "guns don't kill people" argument is always the single dumbest argument that pro-gun people come up with when they pretend that guns don't make it extremely easy to kill people.
Make it easy to kill yes, but it is still the person wielding it that determines its purpose. A gun is a tool. No more, no less.
And pretending that banning guns would not have an impact is just as silly.
Especially the whole "people would still kill each other, they would just use different things" argument. If these different things would be as effective in killing people then they should be just as effective to defend yourself with.
All banning guns will do is prevent law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals won't give 2 feths, they'll be glad. Now their targets will be unarmed.
Grey Templar wrote: All banning guns will do is prevent law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals won't give 2 feths, they'll be glad. Now their targets will be unarmed.
I came from a country were firearms were for the most part illegal. It didn't stop terrorists getting crates of Ak-47s from Libya.
d-usa wrote: With sensible laws you can actually disarm criminals over time and greatly reduce the flow of new weapons into the hands of criminals.
Chicago has some of the most stringent laws concerning firearms in the United States, yet it has one of the highest murder rates from illegally held weapons.
d-usa wrote: 1) Chicago is not a country so trying to hold up a city as an example of how national laws would not work is stupid.
Irrelevant, your position was that "With sensible laws you can actually disarm criminals over time". You didn't say whether these were national (Federal) or local (State) laws until I pointed out an inconvenient fact to counter your claim.
d-usa wrote: 2) Chicago is a prime example of how NRA sponsored laws screwed law abiding citizens by making it easier for criminals to get weapons.
Biggest ones would be the laws that make it illegal for the ATF to keep track of who sold guns. Keep in mind that most illegal guns are purchased by straw-men from very few stores and then transported along state lines for criminal activities. The guns used for criminal activities in Chicago are not purchased there. Imagine being able to punch in the serial numbers of all the serial numbers of all the guns used in crimes in Chicago, and then finding out that the vast majority of them come from the same dealers across the USA and then shutting down the dealers that make money selling to the straw-men. But the NRA sponsored the bills making sure that nobody is able to track serial numbers in a database.
Just one if the areas where new laws would help cut down on the resupply of weapons for criminals. And an area where the NRA made it easier for criminals to get weapons.
d-usa wrote: 1) Chicago is not a country so trying to hold up a city as an example of how national laws would not work is stupid.
Irrelevant, your position was that "With sensible laws you can actually disarm criminals over time". You didn't say whether these were national (Federal) or local (State) laws until I pointed out an inconvenient fact to counter your claim.
d-usa wrote: 2) Chicago is a prime example of how NRA sponsored laws screwed law abiding citizens by making it easier for criminals to get weapons.
How so?
1) considering that we are posting in a thread about national laws I figured that you could focus on discussion about national laws. Sorry for thinking that you would be on the same page there.
Except that assumes the store knows its selling to a straw-man and is actually responsible for what happens to guns it sells.
Tracking who owns an object is a serious privacy issue.
If I own a gun, I don't want the government to know I have it. If they do end up trying to take guns away from people I don't want them to know I have it. Its my right to be armed and I want the government in the dark as to if I am exercising that right.
Strawmen are just one method of getting guns. If they can't buy from stores anymore they'll find another way. Its not going to reduce their access to guns, only slightly limit it.
Biggest ones would be the laws that make it illegal for the ATF to keep track of who sold guns. Keep in mind that most illegal guns are purchased by straw-men from very few stores and then transported along state lines for criminal activities. The guns used for criminal activities in Chicago are not purchased there. Imagine being able to punch in the serial numbers of all the serial numbers of all the guns used in crimes in Chicago, and then finding out that the vast majority of them come from the same dealers across the USA and then shutting down the dealers that make money selling to the straw-men. But the NRA sponsored the bills making sure that nobody is able to track serial numbers in a database.
Just one if the areas where new laws would help cut down on the resupply of weapons for criminals. And an area where the NRA made it easier for criminals to get weapons.
And this is law? Not just a proposal? I thought that ran counter to Form 4473 (not trolling, genuinely curious)
d-usa wrote: 1) considering that we are posting in a thread about national laws I figured that you could focus on discussion about national laws. Sorry for thinking that you would be on the same page there.
And considering that Chicago disproves your theory it is relevant to the discussion that more stringent laws will impact law abiding citizens more than criminals.
Grey Templar wrote: Except that assumes the store knows its selling to a straw-man and is actually responsible for what happens to guns it sells.
Tracking who owns an object is a serious privacy issue.
If I own a gun, I don't want the government to know I have it. If they do end up trying to take guns away from people I don't want them to know I have it. Its my right to be armed and I want the government in the dark as to if I am exercising that right.
Strawmen are just one method of getting guns. If they can't buy from stores anymore they'll find another way. Its not going to reduce their access to guns, only slightly limit it.
And having a list of "these guns were sold by store x" is very different than havig a list if "person x owns these guns".
Illegally purchased guns are a big source of weapons, and getting rid of these old laws will help together with better background checks. Reducing guns with laws that have zero impact on lawful citizens owning guns seems sensible, unless you already have your mind made up that no laws would ever help anything.
Biggest ones would be the laws that make it illegal for the ATF to keep track of who sold guns. Keep in mind that most illegal guns are purchased by straw-men from very few stores and then transported along state lines for criminal activities. The guns used for criminal activities in Chicago are not purchased there. Imagine being able to punch in the serial numbers of all the serial numbers of all the guns used in crimes in Chicago, and then finding out that the vast majority of them come from the same dealers across the USA and then shutting down the dealers that make money selling to the straw-men. But the NRA sponsored the bills making sure that nobody is able to track serial numbers in a database.
Just one if the areas where new laws would help cut down on the resupply of weapons for criminals. And an area where the NRA made it easier for criminals to get weapons.
And this is law? Not just a proposal? I thought that ran counter to Form 4473 (not trolling, genuinely curious)
It's actually old law. And ATF is not allowed to keep records on any 4473s. After they are confirmed they are destroyed AFAIK.
d-usa wrote: 1) considering that we are posting in a thread about national laws I figured that you could focus on discussion about national laws. Sorry for thinking that you would be on the same page there.
And considering that Chicago disproves your theory it is relevant to the discussion that more stringent laws will impact law abiding citizens more than criminals.
It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.
Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States
Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.
By wanting to ban semiautomatics, which are pretty much everything besides pump shotguns and bolt action rifles, you just did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The whole "guns don't kill people" argument is always the single dumbest argument that pro-gun people come up with when they pretend that guns don't make it extremely easy to kill people.
Stop making fools of ourselves! Of course guns kill people, that is what they are made for. To kill people! That's why pro-gun folks want guns, so that they can kill people that try to harm or kill us.
Don't even try to come back with the "if somebody wants to kill someone they will just use another tool like a hammer" bs. If hammers would make it just as easy to kill people as a gun then we would be applying for concealed hammer permits as well as concealed gun permits.
Guns make it incredibly easy for a single person to kill a large number of people in a very short amount of time. That is what they were invented for.
I am pro-gun, I shoot and I carry. And I will continue to call anybody an idiot that tries to pretend that guns are not for killing. Because I know the reason I own my guns is to stop whoever is trying to hurt my family.
Easy my ass. I burn 1,000 rounds a month to do that. Besides you are conveniently forgettign women and old people. My wife would prefer to not get into MMA action to protect herself thank you very much*
*God help the person that tries that. She'd eat their face....
d-usa wrote: It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.
How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?
d-usa wrote: It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.
How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?
I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.
d-usa wrote: It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.
How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?
I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.
You mean all those damn things taking my money weren't checkpoints?
Which is the process you're currently opposing here in the United States
Am I? Your going to have to explain that one. Afterall I didn't make a single remark about your legislative process.
By wanting to ban semiautomatics, which are pretty much everything besides pump shotguns and bolt action rifles, you just did.
You also need to keep in mind many people have no idea what semi automatic and fully automatic even mean, and what the huge difference between those two terms is.
For the people who think I said the exact same thing twice, imagine if I said I have a car that has a manual shifter vs a car that has an automatic shifter. Saying I have a "Fully semi automatic" firearm is like saying I have a "fully manual automatic transmission".
Semi autos fire once everytime you pull the trigger. Many firearms in the US are semi auto, and there is little in the way of restrictions on them. Many of the "assault" weapons targeted by this bill before it was shot down were semi auto.
Full auto is where you hold down the trigger and the weapon continues to fire until you release the trigger or it runs out of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons are considered Class III weapons are already HEAVILY regulated.
Here''s a helpful vid that describes the difference. As a free bonus, it also shows how scary black rifles aren't very different from hunting rifles, and why banning rifles because of black paint and scary folding stocks is seen as "stupid" as well.
d-usa wrote: It doesn't disprove my theory at all, because what does or doesn't work in a city has zero impact on what might work on a national level. Because a city is something very different than a country.
How so? Both are self governing entities that collect taxes, provide services etc. Its just a matter of scale. Or does the behaviour of criminals change radically?
I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.
You mean all those damn things taking my money weren't checkpoints?
Check points don't have tassels on their boobs, although if you give them enough money they will check your "point".
d-usa wrote: I find it a lot easier to exit and enter the jurisdiction of Chicago than that of the United States. One had a lot less checkpoints to see what I have in my trunk as an example.
The Coyotes smuggling people through the Mexican border may disagree
I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.
I wasn't talking about this specific ban, as I have already said, nor was I trying to undermine US democracy by making a forum post. Just imagine if forums did have that much power, imagine a world ruled by 4chan.
The only reason I posted in this carbon copy of a thousand other threads is that I saw an erroneous post which I then pointed out and which various people then misinterpreted.
I grew up around firearms, my dad taught me to shoot when I was in primary school and I went stalking with him for years before that. I have owned my own in the past (2 hunting rifles and 2 shotguns) and as I am in the military I have recieved a lot of firearms training and I come into weekly contact with military issue small arms. They are a tool, nothing more. The problem is that they are an incredibly dangerous tool both to the users and to the general public, especially when the users are not trained or properly vetted. They have also developed a really unhealthy mystique which I find dangerous and worrisome (such crazy talk as using civilain firearms as a deterrent against a country that spends 40% of the global defence budget is utterly deluded).
I dont advocate a blanket ban on firearms as they do have legitimate uses but I do favour heavy regulation and the banning of all semi automatic weapons (including handguns) from privtae ownership unless they are secured in registered armouries and used in registered ranges, in other words the UK system. I am fully aware that this will never happen in the US but then US citizens will simply have to live with the consequnces in the name of an antiquated 'right' which has lost all meaning in the modern world.
1. Mmm, you can have twin barrel shotguns. What else pray tell?
2. The fact you think that is irrelevant is why you don't understand Brit.
1. A shotgun is described as a smooth-bore gun (not being an air-weapon) which has a barrel not less than 24 inches with a bore diameter not exceeding 2 inches. A firearm usually describes a cartridge-loading, rifled-barrel longarm (rifle) with a barrel not shorter than 300mm. Overall length of the firearm must not be less than 600mm unless it is a muzzle loader. Firearms include: muzzle-loading rifles or pistols; shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than three; airguns with power ratings exceeding 12 ft/lbs for rifles and 6ft/lbs for pistols; and historic pistols kept at home as part of a collection or kept at a designated historic site and used for non-competitive target practice.
http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm
1. Mmm, you can have twin barrel shotguns. What else pray tell? 2. The fact you think that is irrelevant is why you don't understand Brit.
1. A shotgun is described as a smooth-bore gun (not being an air-weapon) which has a barrel not less than 24 inches with a bore diameter not exceeding 2 inches. A firearm usually describes a cartridge-loading, rifled-barrel longarm (rifle) with a barrel not shorter than 300mm. Overall length of the firearm must not be less than 600mm unless it is a muzzle loader. Firearms include: muzzle-loading rifles or pistols; shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than three; airguns with power ratings exceeding 12 ft/lbs for rifles and 6ft/lbs for pistols; and historic pistols kept at home as part of a collection or kept at a designated historic site and used for non-competitive target practice. http://www.gundealer.net/rules.htm
2. ?
1. So, I was right. You're only permitted fowling shotguns, and "historic" pistols whatever the hell that is. Webleys? We don't even count muzzle loaders as guns here (seriously).
2. There is a major difference between being a citizen and being a subject. My ancestors killed your ancestors over that difference, and it is a substantial portion of our culture. DOn't feel bad, we killed each other too, and at a much higher rate. Fortunately the guys in blue won.
1. So, I was right. You're only permitted fowling shotguns, and "historic" pistols whatever the hell that is. Webleys? We don't even count muzzle loaders as guns here (seriously).
2. There is a major difference between being a citizen and being a subject. My ancestors killed your ancestors over that difference, and it is a substantial portion of our culture. DOn't feel bad, we killed each other too, and at a much higher rate. Fortunately the guys in blue won.
1. No, bolt action rifles are legal, cartridges don't just mean shotgun cartridges and what would be the point of a rifled shotgun? Of course muzzle loading weapons are guns, what else would they be?
2, In the real world there is no difference unless you live in somewhere like Bahrain. The British monarchy is nothing more than a figurehead with theoretical powers that have never been used and if they were attempted the monarchy would topple. We no longer live in the 17th century.
One of the biggest problems with a federal firearms ban (besides the whole removal of citizens' constitutional rights and property, assuming some sort of British or Australian-style gun amnesty) is that life in the US varies immensely depending on where you live.
It's a lot easier for someone who's lived in an urban or suburban area all their life to claim that the second amendment is an antiquated "right" that has no meaning in the modern world than it is for someone living in a rural area with wolves, bears, mountain lions, and coyotes running around, with livestock to protect, and police who are 20+ minutes away (or more) on a good day.
1. No, bolt action rifles are legal, cartridges don't just mean shotgun cartridges and what would be the point of a rifled shotgun? Of course muzzle loading weapons are guns, what else would they be?
Your quote only noted muzzleloading rifles.
Muzzleloading firearms are not classed as firearms in the US. They are legal, like toys, because they are.
2, In the real world there is no difference unless you live in somewhere like Bahrain. The British monarchy is nothing more than a figurehead with theoretical powers that have never been used and if they were attempted the monarchy would topple. We no longer live in the 17th century.
Frazzled wrote:We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.
England has had a Bill of Rights for almost a hundred years prior to the USA being a noun.
But is it actually codified in law? (genuine question)
I know it limited the power of the monarch...
EDIT: google-fu'ed it... yeah, it's still appllicable:
The main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today - particularly being cited in legal cases – and was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights 1789.
Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.
Care to specify?
Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of religion - someone screams hate speech then its no way josey.
Our highest court has ruled that restrictions on hate speech do not compromise the freedom of speech; I agree fully. Just about the only people who were in favour of USA-style free speech amendments were white supremacists.
Frazzled wrote:No Second Amendment.
Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.
Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of religion - someone screams hate speech then its no way josey.
Our highest court has ruled that restrictions on hate speech do not compromise the freedom of speech; I agree fully. Just about the only people who were in favour of USA-style free speech amendments were white supremacists.
Unless you live in the USA. Here, driving is a privilege but gun ownership is, in fact, a codified right. Gun usage, however, is quite heavily regulated.
azazel the cat wrote: Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns...
Did you know that in the United States, as well as all possessions and territories, it is illegal to transfer possession of a firearm to someone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent? True fact.
Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of religion - someone screams hate speech then its no way josey.
Our highest court has ruled that restrictions on hate speech do not compromise the freedom of speech; I agree fully. Just about the only people who were in favour of USA-style free speech amendments were white supremacists.
I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.
I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.
I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.
I wasn't talking about this specific ban, as I have already said, nor was I trying to undermine US democracy by making a forum post. Just imagine if forums did have that much power, imagine a world ruled by 4chan. The only reason I posted in this carbon copy of a thousand other threads is that I saw an erroneous post which I then pointed out and which various people then misinterpreted.
I grew up around firearms, my dad taught me to shoot when I was in primary school and I went stalking with him for years before that. I have owned my own in the past (2 hunting rifles and 2 shotguns) and as I am in the military I have recieved a lot of firearms training and I come into weekly contact with military issue small arms. They are a tool, nothing more. The problem is that they are an incredibly dangerous tool both to the users and to the general public, especially when the users are not trained or properly vetted. They have also developed a really unhealthy mystique which I find dangerous and worrisome (such crazy talk as using civilain firearms as a deterrent against a country that spends 40% of the global defence budget is utterly deluded).
I dont advocate a blanket ban on firearms as they do have legitimate uses but I do favour heavy regulation and the banning of all semi automatic weapons (including handguns) from privtae ownership unless they are secured in registered armouries and used in registered ranges, in other words the UK system. I am fully aware that this will never happen in the US but then US citizens will simply have to live with the consequnces in the name of an antiquated 'right' which has lost all meaning in the modern world.
Alright well if you're telling the truth, my bad. Most of the times when a brit enters one of these threads, he knows little to nothing about firearms, and assumes every redneck walks around with a fully automatic AK 74 across his shoulder, so that's what I figured was going on here. Sorry to assume you were uninformed, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point. My country rebelled against yours for a reason after all, so its natural that we would look at the other and go "what the hell are they thinking?"
I still believe the 2nd Amendment is one of the most important rights we have as American citizens, and I will do everything in my power to protect it. The government has slowly been eroding several other amendments (especially the 1st thanks to all the panic over terrorism) so naturally, gun owners in the US have a good reason to hate these bans and fight them. If we don't draw the line here, it doesn't just mean our guns could be taken away. It shows that Americans believe that the Constitution is a "guideline", rather than an inalienable right, something we can pick and choose where it's applied, where it's "appropriate", by our government. And when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were put in place specifically to STOP the government from picking and choosing our freedoms by will, it becomes very alarming to Americans that all of the sudden the government wants to curb those rights.
Lets say we let the AWB pass. Down the line, somebody could say "well, we determined back in 2013 that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to all weapons (several other acts and bans could be referenced here obviously, just keeping it simple), so why should the 1st Amendment allow our news agencies to speak ill of the government? How about we pass a law that let's us pick and choose exactly what the news can say? Not like it hurts anything, and after all, it's what's best for the American people." That may not sound like a big deal where you're from, but here, that's considered a major overstepping of the government's boundaries.
As for the whole "we could never rebel against the government" bit, our "greatest military in the world" has been fought to a stalemate by dirt farmers with beat up AK's and RPG's for 11 years in Afghanistan, and we still show no sign of winning (no disrespect to our vets) If they can't beat a couple hundred thousand insurgents on another soil where they've got more freedom in terms of engagement, how do you think they would do against a million firearm owners, in their own country, many who have been trained by the military, are in reserve with the national guard, or who serve in law enforcement? How well do you think they would do with all the red tape that applies to fighting in their own cities, with US soldiers being ordered to fire on US citizens, perhaps even people they know? How many would refuse their orders, or outright defect? It would be against long odds, but it's not the first time we've rebelled against the most powerful super power on Earth (hint, 1776) Just because the 2nd Amendment is "antiquated", doesn't mean it isn't still relevant. Granted, I highly doubt another rebellion would happen unless things REALLY went tits up, but Americans have this option if it becomes necessary. Your country wouldn't. I realize we're not going to come to an agreement here, just trying to explain why I think this way.
Either way, I think this thread is about tapped out. People for gun control are going to keep wanting gun control, and people against are still against it. This is just one of those topics where people just have to agree to disagree. Everybody is so settled into their viewpoints that by now it's almost impossible to change someone's view. All I'll say is that I'm glad the AWB was shot down here, but to all those who are against it, keep mailing your senators and representatives and remind them that the democrats WILL try to sneak it in with some other, essential bill like the budget or something. This fight is far from over.
I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.
I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.
Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.
I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.
I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.
Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.
I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.
I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.
Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.
hate is a point of view.
It's a point of view that's been determined to infringe on others' right not to live in fear. In other words, be hateful in your own home. In a public forum, it's in the same category as inciting violence.
Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.
Maybe in your country its a privilege. Over here its a fundamental right, and for many citizens a necessity.
Attempting to take it away is just as vile as trying to take away freedom of speech.
Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.
Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?
Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.
Maybe in your country its a privilege. Over here its a fundamental right, and for many citizens a necessity.
Attempting to take it away is just as vile as trying to take away freedom of speech.
I understand your point of view, just as I hope you understand mine when I say an equally vile act would be to allow someone mentally incompetent to have a gun in a populated area.
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.
Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?
Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.
It would illustrate clearly to the entire community what complete scumbags the people who distribute those pamphlets and erect those billboards really are. Although I don't see a lot of those kinds of billboards, to be honest, so I'm not sure going out of our way to make it illegal would do anything than provide those kind of hate groups with an excuse to start claiming that their rights are being infringed upon. I doubt there are many billboard companies who would agree to put up that kind of sign, and if someone wants to erect a sign on their own property, that's their business. It just let's everyone else know how much of a jerk they are.
Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.
Maybe in your country its a privilege. Over here its a fundamental right, and for many citizens a necessity.
Attempting to take it away is just as vile as trying to take away freedom of speech.
I understand your point of view, just as I hope you understand mine when I say an equally vile act would be to allow someone mentally incompetent to have a gun in a populated area.
That's certainly true. That's why it's illegal for a mentally incompetent person to purchase a firearm, and it's also illegal for someone to purchase a firearm for someone who is mentally incompetent. Whether or not the area is populated has nothing to do with it. Either someone is competent enough to handle a firearm, or they aren't.
Bromsy wrote: Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.
Look up Defamation and Assault Our country has something very similar to it. You can be arrested for undermining someones life with false information. You can be sued and you can have your rights taken away for defamation or assault. Assault is not classified as touching of someone, but the defense had the will to act on it. YOu may of not had the will to act, but if the person who accused you said you did. You would be fined.
Our country has a policy of saying you can say ANYTHING YOU WANT. Just know the consequences of what you say will offend someone.
There have been many accounts of this. I'll look them up when i have time.
*Please note you can be sued for assault or defamation, but it doesn't mean that it won't be thrown out of a court immediately when they see something.
I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.
I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.
Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.
hate is a point of view.
It's a point of view that's been determined to infringe on others' right not to live in fear. In other words, be hateful in your own home. In a public forum, it's in the same category as inciting violence.
By banning hatespeech you're just banning speech that is not PC.
By banning hatespeech you're just banning speech that is not PC.
This is one of the most ridiculous statements you have ever made.
Not exactly it is probably poor worded. I can say that anyone who says anything good about communism is hateful because my Family lost at least 10 cousin to Stalins purges. Does that make Marx's works Hateful.... no. They are just misguided because they rely on Humans to be Honest and perfect which is pretty much impossible.
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.
Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?
Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.
Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.
Thats ok. You're British. You literally just wouldn't understand.
Scottish actually and we do have the same rights that you do, at least the ones that we actually think are useful anyway.
You don't have the right to free speech (see regulation announced of your newspapers), defend yourself (firearms), the right to boogie, the right to party, the right to feign ignorance by speaking spanish, the right to Star Trek, the right to barbeque, pants if your Scottish, or the right to lead a ragtag fleet on lonely quest for a place called earth.
PLus we don't have VAT taxes.
or the right to lead a ragtag fleet on lonely quest for a place called earth.
...but we did have a rag tag fleet that brought the boys home in 39. Oh and few toy ships that left this shore set in motion the creation of the US.
the right to feign ignorance by speaking spanish
We don't need to feign ignorance, we just talk slower and louder.
the right to barbeque
BBQ's are a British males born right and kingdom.
the right to boogie, the right to party
Have not ever been to any of the popular Spanish & Greece holiday resorts?
the right to Star Trek
Dr. Who, Thunderbirds, Stingray, Space 1999
You don't have the right to free speech (see regulation announced of your newspapers),
Not been actioned yet
defend yourself (firearms)
Cos, contrary to the images put on TV, most Brits don't usually encounter villains with guns. Plus Dave says it's ok to smack down the burglars now.
" From 1 January 1949, when the British Nationality Act 1948 came into force, every person who was a British subject by virtue of a connection with the United Kingdom or one of her Crown colonies (i.e. not the Dominions) became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). "
.. which has had almost no meaning whatsoever as we had plenty of rights prior to this naming convention, it's kind of why we chopped a persons head off and all that bother back in the day.
Plus we don't have VAT taxes.
And we don't have sales taxes.
Our country has a policy of saying you can say ANYTHING YOU WANT.
Oh really ? hmm... tell you what next time you're privy to some information about a forthcoming merger or information that'll have an impact on a companies stockmarket value , you mouth off and tell people about it.
Frazzled wrote: Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.
My current personal favourite is shouting racist everytime there is a discussion about immigration and ignoring actual arguments put forward.
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.
Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?
Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.
It would illustrate clearly to the entire community what complete scumbags the people who distribute those pamphlets and erect those billboards really are. Although I don't see a lot of those kinds of billboards, to be honest, so I'm not sure going out of our way to make it illegal would do anything than provide those kind of hate groups with an excuse to start claiming that their rights are being infringed upon. I doubt there are many billboard companies who would agree to put up that kind of sign, and if someone wants to erect a sign on their own property, that's their business. It just let's everyone else know how much of a jerk they are.
This statement reeks of being the equivalent to "Well, anyone that beats you to death certainly isn't your friend!"
Hordini wrote:That's why it's illegal for a mentally incompetent person to purchase a firearm, and it's also illegal for someone to purchase a firearm for someone who is mentally incompetent. Whether or not the area is populated has nothing to do with it. Either someone is competent enough to handle a firearm, or they aren't.
So what you're saying is the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a right, then? A person has to be determined to be mentally competent in order to legally purchase firearms?
I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.
I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.
Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.
hate is a point of view.
It's a point of view that's been determined to infringe on others' right not to live in fear. In other words, be hateful in your own home. In a public forum, it's in the same category as inciting violence.
By banning hatespeech you're just banning speech that is not PC.
Only if the legal system was full of people lacking in basic sense, who were only capable of literal readings of black letter law. Fortunately, in Canada we operate under the "reasonable person" standard for most interpretive matters, wherein we consider what a reasonable person would conclude. It really does save us from embarassing outcomes in the legal system that pop up in yours all the time. So no, banning hatespeech is not banning non-PC speech. I can call anyone I want a commie; but I cannot launch a campaign suggesting that we kill all the short people.
captain collius wrote:Not exactly it is probably poor worded. I can say that anyone who says anything good about communism is hateful because my Family lost at least 10 cousin to Stalins purges.
you can say that, but you'd be wrong both logically and legally. You cannot conflate the abstract idea of Communism with the actions of one person that ascribes to it and more than you can say that Jesus is hateful because of the Crusades. And, even if you came up with a logically sound pairing of speech to action like that, it still doesn't necessarily make it hate speech. Hate speech is an actual legal designation, it's not merely a synonym for unpleasant language.
Frazzled wrote:
Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.
But it's not arbitary. There are actual standards to determine what is and is not hate speech. In that orginally-linked article, the pamphlets containing hate speech were found to only contain a few elements that were considered to qualify as such.
Frazzled wrote: Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.
My current personal favourite is shouting racist everytime there is a discussion about immigration and ignoring actual arguments put forward.
So what you're saying is the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a right, then? A person has to be determined to be mentally competent in order to legally purchase firearms?
You have that backwards, its a Right that can be revoked if you are mentally unstable.
If there is no evidence you are unstable, you can purchase firearms. If there is evidence, the right is suspended.
So what you're saying is the 2nd Amendment isn't actually a right, then? A person has to be determined to be mentally competent in order to legally purchase firearms?
You have that backwards, its a Right that can be revoked if you are mentally unstable.
If there is no evidence you are unstable, you can purchase firearms. If there is evidence, the right is suspended.
Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.
Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.
Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?
Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.
It would illustrate clearly to the entire community what complete scumbags the people who distribute those pamphlets and erect those billboards really are. Although I don't see a lot of those kinds of billboards, to be honest, so I'm not sure going out of our way to make it illegal would do anything than provide those kind of hate groups with an excuse to start claiming that their rights are being infringed upon. I doubt there are many billboard companies who would agree to put up that kind of sign, and if someone wants to erect a sign on their own property, that's their business. It just let's everyone else know how much of a jerk they are.
This statement reeks of being the equivalent to "Well, anyone that beats you to death certainly isn't your friend!"
Well, it's true isn't it? And someone distributing flyers or erecting a billboard is not the same thing as beating someone to death.
The best way to discredit a hate group is to let people see what they're really about. If the government censors them, it only allows them to develop an oppression complex which is probably more likely to increase their numbers rather than decrease them. Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?
Freedom of speech isn't needed to protect speech that is polite, pleasant, and popular. The whole point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot just decide that discourse is "damaging" and then do away with it.
You're not an American, and have not had the same rights we do. When we say you literally cannot understand our arguments, there is a reason. It'd be like you trying to explain to us why Britain still has a Queen. We're entirely different cultures.
Although, attitudes towards the Queen might be a little different if she was responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year or whatever the figure is (OK.. she might have been responsible for that at one time.. but not so much these days )
Pacific wrote: Although, attitudes towards the Queen might be a little different if she was responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year or whatever the figure is (OK.. she might have been responsible for that at one time.. but not so much these days )
I doubt it. You guys like cars and alcohol still, after all.
Frazzled wrote:We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.
England has had a Bill of Rights for almost a hundred years prior to the USA being a noun.
Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.
Do you like to pretend that your government has no control over the press? Aww. Cute.
Do you even know literally anything about the new Royal Charter and what involves? Wait, look at who I'm asking. Of course you don't. You're just doing your usual act of putting on your 'USA!! No. 1!!' beer-hat and stomping around bellowing half-understood nationalist slogans like a mouth-breather with crisps all over his face. I mean, you thought that the USA was first country to have a Bill of Rights, ferchristsakes.
Albatross wrote: Of course you don't. You're just doing your usual act of putting on your 'USA!! No. 1!!' beer-hat and stomping around bellowing half-understood nationalist slogans like a mouth-breather with crisps all over his face. I mean, you thought that the USA was first country to have a Bill of Rights, ferchristsakes.
It's still nowhere as weird as the thread in which Fraz, who if I recall correctly has told us he's a lawyer who works in a bank, seemed to have no idea that companies could be criminally prosecuted, with the sentence imposed in a fine rather than jail time.
Hordini wrote:Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.
And you don't find it depressing how ass-backwards that is?
Hordini wrote:Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?
Actually, that's exactly how hate groups propagate. Repeat a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth (and yes I recognize the irony of that quote).
Hordini wrote:Freedom of speech isn't needed to protect speech that is polite, pleasant, and popular. The whole point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot just decide that discourse is "damaging" and then do away with it.
Not the government... the standard is upheld by the courts. They are independent from the government, and all justices are appointed for life, so that there is never a need to campaign and thus compromise the court system.
Hordini wrote:Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.
And you don't find it depressing how ass-backwards that is?
If the government wants to restrict someone's rights, the burden of proof should be in the government. Similar to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. Assuming they haven't been convicted of a crime or been found mentally incompetent, an individual doesn't have to prove something to receive their constitutional rights.
Hordini wrote:Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?
Actually, that's exactly how hate groups propagate. Repeat a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth (and yes I recognize the irony of that quote).
And yet, the KKK and other hate groups are a mere shadow of what they used to be in the US. Somehow allowing them the right to free expression as we do everyone else hasn't caused an explosion of power or numbers for these groups. If anything, it allows us to keep tabs on them even more easily.
Hordini wrote:Freedom of speech isn't needed to protect speech that is polite, pleasant, and popular. The whole point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot just decide that discourse is "damaging" and then do away with it.
Not the government... the standard is upheld by the courts. They are independent from the government, and all justices are appointed for life, so that there is never a need to campaign and thus compromise the court system.
The judicial branch is still part of the government.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Who appoints the justices? and how do you get rid of gak justices? (honestly asking)
They're appointed by the sitting government; so they may have similar political leanings at the time of appointment. However, they could easily give that government the finger if they wanted to, as they are no longer accountable to that government after their appointment. However, it makes little difference, as our entire multi-party political spectrum is far less polarized than yours is.
Hordini wrote:Yeah, exactly. You don't have to be determined mentally competent to legally purchase firearms. You have to be determined mentally incompetent to be kept from purchasing firearms.
And you don't find it depressing how ass-backwards that is?
If the government wants to restrict someone's rights, the burden of proof should be in the government. Similar to the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. Assuming they haven't been convicted of a crime or been found mentally incompetent, an individual doesn't have to prove something to receive their constitutional rights.
Kinda like operating a motor vehicle, right? The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified., and the damage that could be done by firearms was minimal. Unless it was a rell-regulated militia, the muzzle-loading muskets weren't going to do much harm. In my opinion, the 2nd amendment is a ridiculous piece of legistlation that has been immunized from the idea of the Constitution being a "living document" that evolves over time; yet applies directly to a technology that has. A more reasonable way to see it would either make the concession that the 2nd amendment can be updated to accomodate for much more advanced technology than was ever conceived at the time of its drafting, or else to read it as though it is not a living document, and thus interpret the 2nd amendment to only apply to your right to have as many muzzle-loading firearms as you like.
Hordini wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Hordini wrote:Or do you think that people are so gullible and evil and racist at heart that if they are exposed to hate speech they'll turn into racists?
Actually, that's exactly how hate groups propagate. Repeat a lie often enough and it soon becomes the truth (and yes I recognize the irony of that quote).
And yet, the KKK and other hate groups are a mere shadow of what they used to be in the US. Somehow allowing them the right to free expression as we do everyone else hasn't caused an explosion of power or numbers for these groups. If anything, it allows us to keep tabs on them even more easily.
The KKK doesn't have the right to absolute expression in the US, since the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Their speech, which doubled as voter intimidation, was listed as a federal crime.
Hordini wrote:The judicial branch is still part of the government.
Fair enough. But in this case it's an apolitical government branch, and thus does not suffer from the conflict of interest that you are concerned with.
The KKK doesn't have the right to absolute expression in the US, since the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Their speech, which doubled as voter intimidation, was listed as a federal crime.
That act doesn't apply to just the KKK. The KKK and other hate groups are still permitted to exist and to demonstrate, as long as they demonstrate peacefully, just like everyone else.
Hordini wrote:The judicial branch is still part of the government.
Fair enough. But in this case it's an apolitical government branch, and thus does not suffer from the conflict of interest that you are concerned with.
I'm not concerned about a conflict of interest, I'm concerned about any branch of the government deciding that a certain kind of discourse is damaging because it is unpopular or extreme, and then restricting that discourse. It doesn't matter which party the government officials are affiliated with (if any), or if they are elected or appointed.
azazel the cat wrote: Kinda like operating a motor vehicle, right? The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified., and the damage that could be done by firearms was minimal. Unless it was a rell-regulated militia, the muzzle-loading muskets weren't going to do much harm. In my opinion, the 2nd amendment is a ridiculous piece of legistlation that has been immunized from the idea of the Constitution being a "living document" that evolves over time; yet applies directly to a technology that has. A more reasonable way to see it would either make the concession that the 2nd amendment can be updated to accomodate for much more advanced technology than was ever conceived at the time of its drafting, or else to read it as though it is not a living document, and thus interpret the 2nd amendment to only apply to your right to have as many muzzle-loading firearms as you like.
The Second Amendment can be updated or repealed at any time. There's even a process in place for it. Not nearly enough Americans want it to happen, though, no matter how much Canadians do, so I'm afraid you're SOL.
As far as the "living document" BS goes, the notion is that the Constitution can be updated, not that its plain language interpretation should change. For that, we have that handy repeal/addition mechanism.
The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified.
Much like the first amendment does not apply to the internet or radio, seeing as they didn't exist back then, nor is my hard drive, phone line, or vehicle protected under the fourth, seeing as those didn't exist either.
...Except that's wrong. Quickly, I must inform the world!...but only using the spoken word or a hand operated printing press.
The only difference is an arbitrary distinction that cars didn't exist when then 2nd amendment was ratified.
Much like the first amendment does not apply to the internet or radio, seeing as they didn't exist back then, nor is my hard drive, phone line, or vehicle protected under the fourth, seeing as those didn't exist either.
...Except that's wrong. Quickly, I must inform the world!...but only using the spoken word or a hand operated printing press.
So... how is it that we have the Air Force? I seem to miss that in the Constituion....
As part of a well regulated militia, can I get an f-15?
Yes and no. Can you legally obtain the weaponry? Sure, with the right paperwork (Except the autocannon(s). Them's evilbadfun and verboten. The bombs can be OK though.). Can you obtain the airframe and powerplant? Sure, with the right paperwork.Do you have to be rich as heck to do it? Yeap.
But hey, the rich and politically connected can be trusted with weapons! It's just them poor folk you don't want getting ahold of them!
Alfndrate wrote: As part of a well regulated militia, can I get an f-15?
I wanna fly D:
If you can afford it you probably could buy one. I'm not sure about F-15s specifically, but there are older fighter jets owned by civilians at least. Just like you can own a tank, if you can pay for it.
Getting missiles and bombs for them would be a lot more difficult.
Well, I for one am glad Colorado passed those new gun control laws. Imagine how much worse this would have been if that guy had been able to get his hands on a firearm. Oh... wait.
Well, I for one am glad Colorado passed those new gun control laws. Imagine how much worse this would have been if that guy had been able to get his hands on a firearm. Oh... wait.
And that clip/accessory maker is moving out of state too (Magpul?)... hey, at least the CO legislatures is creating jobs... in another state!
It can't be that many jobs. Most of that stuff is automated and they might bring people with them so they don't have to rebuild completely from scratch. The lost tax revenue might be a bit of an issue though.
Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Hordini wrote:I'm not concerned about a conflict of interest, I'm concerned about any branch of the government deciding that a certain kind of discourse is damaging because it is unpopular or extreme, and then restricting that discourse. It doesn't matter which party the government officials are affiliated with (if any), or if they are elected or appointed.
Have you ever held a discourse regarding, say, conspiracy to commit murder? How about merely suggesting that someone kill a political figure? Or perhaps even say the word "bomb" in an airport. How do you reconcile those restrictions with your concern about unpopular or extreme discourses being restricted?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:The Second Amendment can be updated or repealed at any time. There's even a process in place for it. Not nearly enough Americans want it to happen, though, no matter how much Canadians do, so I'm afraid you're SOL.
Yeah, I guess I will be SOL here in a country with only a tiny fraction of the gun crime rate. That joke is certainly on me, yessir.
Frazzled wrote: Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Colt is also now making noises about moving.
The Governor's office released a statement, apparently oblivious to the absolute hypocrisy of it.
Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."
IDK if this has been pointed out but ASSAULT weapons are capable of fully automatic sustained or burst fire. These are far more expensive and difficult to get than SEMI-AUTOMATIC sporting rifles.
Unfortunately the drive-by media likes sensationalism and raising a ruckus with such aggressive sounding words such as "assault-rifle". What would happen if instead of calling a gun with a detachable magazine, black polymer furniture, and a semi-automatic rate of fire, an assault rifle, they called it what it is, which is a semi-automatic sporting weapon.
For the most part, only the military uses assault weapons, civilians have sporting-arms.
Hordini wrote:I'm not concerned about a conflict of interest, I'm concerned about any branch of the government deciding that a certain kind of discourse is damaging because it is unpopular or extreme, and then restricting that discourse. It doesn't matter which party the government officials are affiliated with (if any), or if they are elected or appointed.
Have you ever held a discourse regarding, say, conspiracy to commit murder? How about merely suggesting that someone kill a political figure? Or perhaps even say the word "bomb" in an airport. How do you reconcile those restrictions with your concern about unpopular or extreme discourses being restricted?
As long as it doesn't go beyond speech and become actions, I don't think any of those things should be illegal. In order to be charged with conspiracy, there has to be an overt action in furtherance of the crime. Otherwise, talk is cheap, and shouldn't be restricted.
Frazzled wrote: Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Colt is also now making noises about moving.
The Governor's office released a statement, apparently oblivious to the absolute hypocrisy of it.
Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."
It's also losing my industry not that they really care, I was looking at putting my shingle out in Colorado Springs, but when the big fish leave a state, smart little fish with nothing lose know it's time to check out too, now looking at Flagstaff Arizona. Not that I'd be any revenue compared to magpul, which all told was 85 million? Or something like that. I'm guessing Magpul's headed to Texas, apparently the Texans are offering 5 years tax free, and a break on new land/building permits, etc.
Hordini wrote:I'm not concerned about a conflict of interest, I'm concerned about any branch of the government deciding that a certain kind of discourse is damaging because it is unpopular or extreme, and then restricting that discourse. It doesn't matter which party the government officials are affiliated with (if any), or if they are elected or appointed.
Have you ever held a discourse regarding, say, conspiracy to commit murder? How about merely suggesting that someone kill a political figure? Or perhaps even say the word "bomb" in an airport. How do you reconcile those restrictions with your concern about unpopular or extreme discourses being restricted?
As long as it doesn't go beyond speech and become actions, I don't think any of those things should be illegal. In order to be charged with conspiracy, there has to be an overt action in furtherance of the crime. Otherwise, talk is cheap, and shouldn't be restricted.
Then let's go a step further. How about shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre? Even mere "cheap" talk can cause harm.
See that type of thing is the obvious limit of speech, based on the whole My right to extend my fist ends at your nose, theory. What we're having issues determining as a society *global society. Is how much impact speech has, and how to even begin to judge said speech.
Personally I feel we need to harden the feth up as a society. Crying or letting it impact you because someone said something mean and it hurt your feefees shouldn't be a criminal case, snark back or ignore them like an actual adult and carry on. Where I feel the grey area is, is speech that incites or encourages others to violence, or to commit crimes, that kinda thing.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:See that type of thing is the obvious limit of speech, based on the whole My right to extend my fist ends at your nose, theory. What we're having issues determining as a society *global society. Is how much impact speech has, and how to even begin to judge said speech.
Personally I feel we need to harden the feth up as a society. Crying or letting it impact you because someone said something mean and it hurt your feefees shouldn't be a criminal case, snark back or ignore them like an actual adult and carry on. Where I feel the grey area is, is speech that incites or encourages others to violence, or to commit crimes, that kinda thing.
But that's my point. It's exactly that grey area that I'm arguing for, here. Speech that incites or encourages others to violence, or is made with the express purpose of terrorizing another, I do not feel is protected (which is what the Canadian court has recently determined in this latest ruling).
Hordini's idea of a perfect Libertarian understanding of the absolute right to free speech doesn't and cannot work because it creates a potential conflict with the rights of others (in effect, he is suggesting that your right to extend your fist should not be infringed ever, under any cirucmstances).
xraytango wrote: IDK if this has been pointed out but ASSAULT weapons are capable of fully automatic sustained or burst fire. These are far more expensive and difficult to get than SEMI-AUTOMATIC sporting rifles.
Unfortunately the drive-by media likes sensationalism and raising a ruckus with such aggressive sounding words such as "assault-rifle". What would happen if instead of calling a gun with a detachable magazine, black polymer furniture, and a semi-automatic rate of fire, an assault rifle, they called it what it is, which is a semi-automatic sporting weapon.
For the most part, only the military uses assault weapons, civilians have sporting-arms.
That's one way to look at it. I have to say though, I completely disagree with the designation of "sporting firearms" on the basis that the 2nd Amendment is not, and was NEVER, about "hunting".
The 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to bear arms against tyrannical government to ensure security of a free state. It's not about blowing Bambi's head off in the woods - the founding fathers never realized that people would ever try to infringe on others' natural right, as living creatures, to hunt their own food. The notion that anyone would prohibit hunting would be completely insane to them. Rather, the 2nd is about maintaining arms outside of the government's control to act as a check and balance against tyranny.
People make a big stink about "assault weapons", and the text of the Amendment is very clear: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. But, beyond that, the truth is that a Fudd with his deer rifle, or a high school chemistry teacher with access to gasoline and fertilizer, is going to do a lot more damage if civilians ever needed to fight. Anybody running around with an AR15 is going to end up on Youtube like those poor bastards in Syria, getting smoked left and right.
We just have quite a few people who think that Freedom of Speech means that we could have 10 racists buying all the houses on a street surrounding the house of the only black person, and then burn crosses on their front yards, hang racist posters from their walls, and yell such lovely things as "I think all N**** should die, what about you N***? Someday when you sleep we might just break into your house and burn it down with you inside of it? How about we rape you and your children before we kill you all?" all while standing in their front yard with baseball bats, and a noose in their hand. They might even rent a billboard promoting their racist ideology and promising on that billboard that all blacks on this street will soon be killed.
It doesn't matter that the black person on this street is physically ill from all the stress and in constant fear of his life. Since they never actually touched him it is all perfectly happy and nobody needs to worry about anything. Freedom of Speech is awesome!
Hordini's idea of a perfect Libertarian understanding of the absolute right to free speech doesn't and cannot work because it creates a potential conflict with the rights of others (in effect, he is suggesting that your right to extend your fist should not be infringed ever, under any cirucmstances).
If someone's fist comes in contact with anyone else, then there are plenty of things that person can be charged with. Talking doesn't have anything to do with extending fists meeting faces - that is an action that goes beyond speech and expression. I don't think people should be restricted from just saying something like "This person should be punched." However, if someone actually does punch that person, the person who actually punches the person should be charged.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: We just have quite a few people who think that Freedom of Speech means that we could have 10 racists buying all the houses on a street surrounding the house of the only black person, and then burn crosses on their front yards, hang racist posters from their walls, and yell such lovely things as "I think all N**** should die, what about you N***? Someday when you sleep we might just break into your house and burn it down with you inside of it? How about we rape you and your children before we kill you all?" all while standing in their front yard with baseball bats, and a noose in their hand. They might even rent a billboard promoting their racist ideology and promising on that billboard that all blacks on this street will soon be killed.
It doesn't matter that the black person on this street is physically ill from all the stress and in constant fear of his life. Since they never actually touched him it is all perfectly happy and nobody needs to worry about anything. Freedom of Speech is awesome!
There are multiple crimes going on in this situation that go beyond free speech and include additional illegal actions.
d-usa wrote: So please sum up the crimes. Because there are all things that people in this thread have said are okay.
Some of tihs probably varies by state, but for a start: menacing or brandishing (with the baseball bats and nooses). The cross burning so close to other people's houses could probably be reckless burning and/or criminal mischief. Combined with the baseball bats and nooses and verbal threats, the cross burning itself could also be illegal in some jurisdictions.
But extreme rhetoric and displaying posters should not be illegal on their own. Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Actually, yeah, it does.
No, it absolutely does not. Saying that it's okay to hold extreme opinions and display those opinions and demonstrate those opinions peacefully does not extend to menacing people with baseball bats and nooses.
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Actually, yeah, it does.
No, it absolutely does not. Saying that it's okay to hold extreme opinions and display those opinions and demonstrate those opinions peacefully does not extend to menacing people with baseball bats and nooses.
A billboard of a Klansman menacing a black man is exactly the kind of speech that I was saying is justified in prohibiting, and exactly the kind of speech you are claiming should not be.
Hordini wrote:Saying that I don't think the government should be able to restrict speech because they have decided that it is "damaging discourse" does not in any way mean that I support the scenario that you are describing.
Actually, yeah, it does.
No, it absolutely does not. Saying that it's okay to hold extreme opinions and display those opinions and demonstrate those opinions peacefully does not extend to menacing people with baseball bats and nooses.
A billboard of a Klansman menacing a black man is exactly the kind of speech that I was saying is justified in prohibiting, and exactly the kind of speech you are claiming should not be.
A billboard of a Klansman menacing a black man is not the same thing as a Klansman menacing a black man.
Good luck finding a billboard company who would allow that to be displayed. This kind of display would likely be protested against quite heavily (and rightly so), and the billboard company could be boycotted. There are plenty of good responses to that kind of situation that don't involve the government restricting people's rights.
Hordini wrote:Good luck finding a billboard company who would allow that to be displayed.
That's not the point. (And there are a few, I'm sure. The white power movement even has its own record label.)
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
This is what you're defending.
EDIT: You're also defending depictions of child pornography.
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
The natural consequence of free speech is the freedom of others to speak against. If this, unlikely, scenario occurs then the first response should be to protect yourself, and then to publicize it. I mean, they had to put cops on the streets in Skokie in order to protect the marchers, not the people they were antagonizing.
EDIT: You're also defending depictions of child pornography.
I, personally, would rather those that view children sexually get their jollies from depictions of the act, as opposed to the act itself. At least assuming the depiction itself was either demonstrably simulated, or created absent any subject.
Hordini wrote:Good luck finding a billboard company who would allow that to be displayed.
That's not the point. (And there are a few, I'm sure. The white power movement even has its own record label.)
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
This is what you're defending.
EDIT: You're also defending depictions of child pornography.
No, I'm not defending CP. There is victimization involved in the creation of those images. To be honest, I think it's pretty disgusting that you would suggest such a thing. I can also pick out the most extreme slippery slope examples and claim that you're defending them. Look, now you're defending the government taking away everyone's right to have an opinion! You're defending the government restricting people expressing their cultural values because an outsider might feel uncomfortable. You're defending the government outlawing every language except English, because people might be afraid that they're being threatened or conspired against because they don't understand the language! You're defending the government outlawing the confrontation of racism because racists might feel threatened!
But no, I'm not actually making any of those idiotic claims, because I'm trying to engage you in an actual discussion even though I know our opinions on the subject differ. I'm trying to be respectful of you and your opinions even though I know we probably aren't going to agree. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, as a fellow human, that even though you prefer slightly more restrictive free speech laws that you are not in favor of an abusive totalitarian state. I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me, rather than claiming that because I prefer more permissible free speech laws that I'm defending a horrendous abuse of children.
I think treating each other with a little common decency, dignity, and humanity is a good place to start. Does that sound fair to you?
Back to what we were discussing:
How long do you think it would take for civil rights groups like the NAACP to get involved in the situation you're describing? In defending free speech and expression, I'm also defending responding to that kind of situation.
Fair enough, the CP bit is something of a slippery slope.
Hordini wrote:How long do you think it would take for civil rights groups like the NAACP to get involved in the situation you're describing? In defending free speech and expression, I'm also defending responding to that kind of situation.
Here is my problem with your solution:
It is not a solution. Reliance on a private institution like the NAACP to protect you from living in fear is the same argument as saying there should be no social safety net, and instead everyone should rely on charity.
That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
Hordini wrote:How long do you think it would take for civil rights groups like the NAACP to get involved in the situation you're describing? In defending free speech and expression, I'm also defending responding to that kind of situation.
Here is my problem with your solution:
It is not a solution. Reliance on a private institution like the NAACP to protect you from living in fear is the same argument as saying there should be no social safety net, and instead everyone should rely on charity.
That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
I would rather see extremist groups be out in the open where they are easy to identify, than drive them underground where they will be scheming in secret and more difficult to track. If there are KKK members living in my community, I would much rather know who they are rather than go about my life with a false feeling of safety because they aren't able to identify themselves through their rhetoric.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
Restricting the speech of these kinds of groups does not eliminate these groups or the danger they pose, it just makes them harder to identify. In that way I don't think your solution is really much of a solution either.
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
I don't really see the point of doing one if you're not going to do the other. Everyone knows what those groups are about, whether or not they're allowed to distribute extremist pamphlets doesn't make that big of a difference if they're still able to go around in groups wearing their extremist outfits and shouting their extremist slogans. Some people might feel differently, but I find a piece of paper with nasty words on it a lot less threatening than a group of skinheads in Doc Martens shouting "Sieg heil" and marching around my neighborhood.
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
I don't really see the point of doing one if you're not going to do the other. Everyone knows what those groups are about, whether or not they're allowed to distribute extremist pamphlets doesn't make that big of a difference if they're still able to go around in groups wearing their extremist outfits and shouting their extremist slogans. Some people might feel differently, but I find a piece of paper with nasty words on it a lot less threatening than a group of skinheads in Doc Martens shouting "Sieg heil" and marching around my neighborhood.
The point to doing one thing but not the other, is that one thing is a freedom of speech, distasteful as it may be, whereas the other is an infringement on another's right to safety.
Our courts are capable of making the distinction between the two.
azazel the cat wrote: That's the point to the hate speech laws: that kind of speech has zero positive value, by any reasonable measure. It is designed itself to oppress and terrorize others. By restricting hate speech, society has lost nothing. Only a slippery slope argument of pure rhetoric can attempt to justify permitting it. The same kind of slippery slope argument that you seem to be upset by.
In your scenario, ten KKK members could move into a neighborhood with one black person, but would not be allowed to announce themselves. The black person wouldn't be in any less danger, the danger would simply be unknown until the KKK members decided to ambush the person. If they're allowed to do their demonstrations, any potential victims have the opportunity to be much more proactive in defending themselves.
They're more than welcome to identify themselves. They can shave their heads and wear as many swastikas as they want. That's not much different than wearing the opposing team's jersey at a sporting event (though perhaps not in scope).
However, their speech is restricted in order to prohibit them from targeting others with terror and calls to incite harm.
I think that's where your mindset is unfortunately binary. I'm not endorsing prohibiting someone shouting seig heils or wearing Doc Martens. I'm endorsing restricting their ability to use speech that infringes on others' rights to safety, such as the distribution of pamphlets that suggest a specific ethnic group should be harmed.
I don't really see the point of doing one if you're not going to do the other. Everyone knows what those groups are about, whether or not they're allowed to distribute extremist pamphlets doesn't make that big of a difference if they're still able to go around in groups wearing their extremist outfits and shouting their extremist slogans. Some people might feel differently, but I find a piece of paper with nasty words on it a lot less threatening than a group of skinheads in Doc Martens shouting "Sieg heil" and marching around my neighborhood.
The point to doing one thing but not the other, is that one thing is a freedom of speech, distasteful as it may be, whereas the other is an infringement on another's right to safety.
Our courts are capable of making the distinction between the two.
So a large group of Neo-Nazis demonstrating in a primarily black neighborhood is acceptable free speech, but writing Neo-Nazi rhetoric on a piece of paper makes someone less safe.
I'll be honest, that idea strikes me as a bit strange. A bit out of proportion at least.
Hordini wrote:So a large group of Neo-Nazis demonstrating in a primarily black neighborhood is acceptable free speech, but writing Neo-Nazi rhetoric on a piece of paper makes someone less safe.
I'll be honest, that idea strikes me as a bit strange. A bit out of proportion at least.
Depends on the content of the demonstration, and the content of the paper.
Neo nazis demonstrating their love for Oklahoma the musical is not as much an infringement on the safety of others as would be a pamphlet that suggests the "impure" be exterminated; the same way pamphlets stating that "white people are awesome" is less of a threat than would be a demonstration, using a pinata, of how to properly curbstomp a minority.
I can see that you're really trying to keep this discussion in the realm of rhetoric, and I understand why. The idea of completely unrestricted free speech can only ever exist in that nebulous space; in practical matters it just doesn't work without compromising other rights.
There have been some hilariously ludicrous leaps of 'logic' in this thread, but we might as well close it down, as nothing's going to top that.
In some jurisdictions this is very true.
In this thread we have had a number of people say that free speech should never be restricted unless somebody physically gets hurt.
There have been court cases that upheld that "minor pr*nography" is legal if no actual children were involved and hurt during the making of it. So cartoon and computer generated "minor pr*nography" is legal and considered protected under free speech.
Edit: (changing the spelling up a bit to hopefully prevent DakkaDakka to show up in searches for said topic)
In this thread we have had a number of people say that free speech should never be restricted unless somebody physically gets hurt.
There have been court cases that upheld that "minor pr*nography" is legal if no actual children were involved and hurt during the making of it. So cartoon and computer generated "minor pr*nography" is legal and considered protected under free speech.
Edit: (changing the spelling up a bit to hopefully prevent DakkaDakka to show up in searches for said topic)
So nothing actually involving children, in other words?
I can see that you're really trying to keep this discussion in the realm of rhetoric, and I understand why. The idea of completely unrestricted free speech can only ever exist in that nebulous space; in practical matters it just doesn't work without compromising other rights.
I'm not advocating for completely unrestricted speech. Only less restrictive than what you're describing in Canada. What I'm describing actually already exists in the US, more or less.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think this video is pertinent to the conversation. Let me first say that I do not agree with Christopher Hitchens on many things, including his views on religion that he expresses in this and many other videos. However, I do agree with him on the importance of protecting freedom of speech, including extreme speech.
Hordini wrote:I'm not advocating for completely unrestricted speech. Only less restrictive than what you're describing in Canada. What I'm describing actually already exists in the US, more or less.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure you've said numerous times that you don't believe any branch or any part of any government should prohibit any kind of speech on the basis that words don't equate to physical harm. In fact, that's pretty much what this has all been about.
Hordini wrote:However, I do agree with him on the importance of protecting freedom of speech, including extreme speech.
I also agree with protecting speech, including extreme speech. What I do not agree with it protecting hate speech that has a direct link to harm (again, see my previous examples of klansmen inciting violence against black people). You (infinitive, not you you) can talk about how awesome it is to be a white guy and dance around in your jackboots all you want; but when the "white power" turns to "we should curbstomp all the darkies", that's outside the protections granted for the right to free speech.
azazel the cat wrote: I also agree with protecting speech, including extreme speech. What I do not agree with it protecting hate speech that has a direct link to harm (again, see my previous examples of klansmen inciting violence against black people). You (infinitive, not you you) can talk about how awesome it is to be a white guy and dance around in your jackboots all you want; but when the "white power" turns to "we should curbstomp all the darkies", that's outside the protections granted for the right to free speech.
That's not where you draw the line, though. You draw the line well before incitement to violence comes into it. You draw it much, much further back at, "Is this PC or not?"
What the feth this has to do with the AWB needing to crawl off and die, I don't know.
azazel the cat wrote: I also agree with protecting speech, including extreme speech. What I do not agree with it protecting hate speech that has a direct link to harm (again, see my previous examples of klansmen inciting violence against black people). You (infinitive, not you you) can talk about how awesome it is to be a white guy and dance around in your jackboots all you want; but when the "white power" turns to "we should curbstomp all the darkies", that's outside the protections granted for the right to free speech.
That's not where you draw the line, though. You draw the line well before incitement to violence comes into it. You draw it much, much further back at, "Is this PC or not?"
I most certainly do not. I draw the line where the intention of the hate speech is to cause terror or menace another person.
I have no idea where you got that idea, but it seems like a projection of what you wanted me to say.
Bringing this back to the topic of gun control (awb specifically), a video is circulating that mocks Vice President Biden's advice to "just buy a shotgun".
Frazzled wrote: Yes magpul has said its bailing. The current states being bet on are Arizona and of course the raw awesome that is Texas. They should move to Texas. half their clients are there.
Colt is also now making noises about moving.
The Governor's office released a statement, apparently oblivious to the absolute hypocrisy of it.
Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."
It's also losing my industry not that they really care, I was looking at putting my shingle out in Colorado Springs, but when the big fish leave a state, smart little fish with nothing lose know it's time to check out too, now looking at Flagstaff Arizona. Not that I'd be any revenue compared to magpul, which all told was 85 million? Or something like that. I'm guessing Magpul's headed to Texas, apparently the Texans are offering 5 years tax free, and a break on new land/building permits, etc.
Telling you, put it in Round Rock, right next to STI, or down in Houston adjacent to CompTac. We can call it the NRA Corridor.
Now, I want you to imagine a street with a black family living on it. Every other house on the street is bought by neo nazis, who all put up signs saying "Kill the n*****s" and "I see dead n******s". Every day, the black family gets to walk and drive past those signs. The neo-nazi neighbours hang lynch knots from their own trees, and burn crosses in a controlled manner at night. Then one day, those signs are printed in pamphlet form and distributed near the school that the children attend.
This is what you're defending.
1. Burning crosses is arson. They would be going to jail. 2. Signs are likely an HOA violation. The HOA could seize their houses. 3. They are all potentially liable under federal and state equal rights and fair housing legislation.
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Doesn't Understand High-Capacity Magazines Can Be Reloaded
Denver Post wrote:I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.
Regardless of your position on gun control and gun ownership, shouldn't the lawmakers be required to pass some sort of intelligence test before they are allowed to be elected?
Diana DeGette also told an old guy asking about self defense that he'd die any way. Between her and Eve "You'd be raped any way" Hudak the Democrats in CO are doing an excellent job proving that both major U.S. political parties are staffed entirely by individuals with the IQ of howler monkeys
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Diana DeGette also told an old guy asking about self defense that he'd die any way. Between her and Eve "You'd be raped any way" Hudak the Democrats in CO are doing an excellent job proving that both major U.S. political parties are staffed entirely by individuals with the IQ of howler monkeys
What is wrong with the political parties in CO anyways?
Too much chronic?
CO is going in a weird direction... my folks live there, so I get an earful.
Oi I live in Canada but dont lug me in with Britain ( I know I would fight as hard as any American if the government tried to take my firearms away or impose any form of idiotic laws that would not work)
(CNN) -- A pistol in the hands of a 4-year-old boy went off during a weekend cookout, killing the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy who was showing his guns to a relative, state police said Monday.
No one saw the boy pick up the weapon before the shooting, which occurred Saturday night in Lebanon, east of Nashville, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Kristin Helm said. The single shot killed 47-year-old Josephine Fanning, the wife of Wilson County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Fanning.
The couple were hosting family and friends at their house when Daniel Fanning and a relative went into a bedroom to check out some of Fanning's guns, Helm said. Josephine Fanning and the boy walked into the room later, and at some point the boy picked the loaded pistol up off the bed.
Helm said she wasn't sure of the relationship between the boy and the Fannings. The TBI, which investigates incidents involving law enforcement officers, is still conducting its probe, and no charges have been filed.
The gun involved was Fanning's personal weapon, not his service pistol, she said.
People just need to quit being stupid with guns, that guy was a cop for feths sake and he left a loaded gun laying where his child could reach it?
If we cannot manage responsible ownership then we will see more attempts at regulating ownership in general.
(CNN) -- A pistol in the hands of a 4-year-old boy went off during a weekend cookout, killing the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy who was showing his guns to a relative, state police said Monday.
No one saw the boy pick up the weapon before the shooting, which occurred Saturday night in Lebanon, east of Nashville, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Kristin Helm said. The single shot killed 47-year-old Josephine Fanning, the wife of Wilson County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Fanning.
The couple were hosting family and friends at their house when Daniel Fanning and a relative went into a bedroom to check out some of Fanning's guns, Helm said. Josephine Fanning and the boy walked into the room later, and at some point the boy picked the loaded pistol up off the bed.
Helm said she wasn't sure of the relationship between the boy and the Fannings. The TBI, which investigates incidents involving law enforcement officers, is still conducting its probe, and no charges have been filed.
The gun involved was Fanning's personal weapon, not his service pistol, she said.
People just need to quit being stupid with guns, that guy was a cop for feths sake and he left a loaded gun laying where his child could reach it?
If we cannot manage responsible ownership then we will see more attempts at regulating ownership in general.
Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemies.
The report states that they are not certain yet what the relationship the child had with the deputy & his wife. That implies the kid wasn't there, and could have been anyone's kid.
If only the wife had been armed, she might've been able to defend herself and might still be alive today.
Things like this can't be regulated away. I think we can say that such a horrible event is reminding enough that guns are dangerous and its the responsibility of the owner to make sure there is a safe environment. And more education about guns is needed for the general populace, of all ages. The possibility of an event like this should cause all gun owners to remind themselves about the care that should be taken.
(CNN) -- A pistol in the hands of a 4-year-old boy went off during a weekend cookout, killing the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy who was showing his guns to a relative, state police said Monday.
No one saw the boy pick up the weapon before the shooting, which occurred Saturday night in Lebanon, east of Nashville, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Kristin Helm said. The single shot killed 47-year-old Josephine Fanning, the wife of Wilson County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Fanning.
The couple were hosting family and friends at their house when Daniel Fanning and a relative went into a bedroom to check out some of Fanning's guns, Helm said. Josephine Fanning and the boy walked into the room later, and at some point the boy picked the loaded pistol up off the bed.
Helm said she wasn't sure of the relationship between the boy and the Fannings. The TBI, which investigates incidents involving law enforcement officers, is still conducting its probe, and no charges have been filed.
The gun involved was Fanning's personal weapon, not his service pistol, she said.
People just need to quit being stupid with guns, that guy was a cop for feths sake and he left a loaded gun laying where his child could reach it?
If we cannot manage responsible ownership then we will see more attempts at regulating ownership in general.
Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemies.
The report states that they are not certain yet what the relationship the child had with the deputy & his wife. That implies the kid wasn't there, and could have been anyone's kid. .
They were hosting a party, so he knew other people and their kids were there.
I don't have any kids yet, so I don't always keep my weapons under lock and key, but whenever we have company with kids over all the guns get locked away.
Grey Templar wrote: Things like this can't be regulated away. I think we can say that such a horrible event is reminding enough that guns are dangerous and its the responsibility of the owner to make sure there is a safe environment. And more education about guns is needed for the general populace, of all ages. The possibility of an event like this should cause all gun owners to remind themselves about the care that should be taken.
But people will look at stuff like this and see it as proof that you cannot safely own firearms and that they should all be gotten rid off. But that also means that if we don't want people to think that folks who own guns are stupid, then we need to quit being stupid with our guns (not saying that you are, just speaking in general). Unfortionately somebody had to pay a pretty big price for that lesson.
I might be in favor of some gun legislation, but you cannot legislate responsibility and common sense.
Yeah, this doesn't make gun owners look good at all. Of course thats the nature of most things, you never hear when things go perfectly. Only when they go bad.
Things like this can't be regulated away. I think we can say that such a horrible event is reminding enough that guns are dangerous and its the responsibility of the owner to make sure there is a safe environment. And more education about guns is needed for the general populace, of all ages. The possibility of an event like this should cause all gun owners to remind themselves about the care that should be taken.
Sad it turned out that way.
Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
@D-USA: thank you for ripping the set-up of my terrible joke out of its context like a still-beating heart. If you intention was for the punchline to twitch and fall down in the background dramatically, then you definitely accomplished that.
azazel the cat wrote: Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
Do you think this cop didn't undergo safety training?
azazel the cat wrote: Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
Do you think this cop didn't undergo safety training?
Can't say. He's a sheriff's deputy; I'm unclear what kind of training they require. However, you seem to have started down the path of the nirvana fallacy with rapid speed, even for you. It's not a perfect solution, but it's certainly one that will filter out the vast majority of instances like this.
azazel the cat wrote: Can't say. He's a sheriff's deputy; I'm unclear what kind of training they require. However, you seem to have started down the path of the nirvana fallacy with rapid speed, even for you. It's not a perfect solution, but it's certainly one that will filter out the vast majority of instances like this.
I've seen NSW guys have NDs before. It's something that happens. The more guns you have and the more they're used, the more NDs you see. Cops are pretty notorious for NDs, despite the fact that they get more pistol training than most.
I'm also not sure exactly what kind of safety training you're envisioning beyond the Four Rules, but I'll admit I only have years of professional and personal experience to go on here. People with lots and lots and lots of training still feth up. Frequently, in fact.
azazel the cat wrote: Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
Do you think this cop didn't undergo safety training?
Can't say. He's a sheriff's deputy; I'm unclear what kind of training they require. However, you seem to have started down the path of the nirvana fallacy with rapid speed, even for you. It's not a perfect solution, but it's certainly one that will filter out the vast majority of instances like this.
And drivers training works perfectly too yes? No? And people still drown when a life guards on duty? Yes? And youre ALWAYS safe when the ambulance or police show up? NO?! How weird. Everything I just mentioned was training designed to keep others safe, yet still doesnt work every time. The problem with that Azazel, is youre expecting training to weed out the stupid. There is always stupid, no matter the training. And no, that is something you CANT regulate out.
azazel the cat wrote: Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
Do you think this cop didn't undergo safety training?
Can't say. He's a sheriff's deputy; I'm unclear what kind of training they require. However, you seem to have started down the path of the nirvana fallacy with rapid speed, even for you. It's not a perfect solution, but it's certainly one that will filter out the vast majority of instances like this.
And drivers training works perfectly too yes? No? And people still drown when a life guards on duty? Yes? And youre ALWAYS safe when the ambulance or police show up? NO?! How weird. Everything I just mentioned was training designed to keep others safe, yet still doesnt work every time. The problem with that Azazel, is youre expecting training to weed out the stupid. There is always stupid, no matter the training. And no, that is something you CANT regulate out.
You can suspend stupid just long enough to pass a test, but that's about it.
I remember in HighSchool on some important state testing day, our school actually suspended some of the REALLY dumb kids for some odd reason or another. They say it had nothing to do with the test scores
KingCracker wrote: I remember in HighSchool on some important state testing day, our school actually suspended some of the REALLY dumb kids for some odd reason or another. They say it had nothing to do with the test scores
I remember that. I loved having a day off...oh wait!
d-usa wrote: But people will look at stuff like this and see it as proof that you cannot safely own firearms and that they should all be gotten rid off. But that also means that if we don't want people to think that folks who own guns are stupid, then we need to quit being stupid with our guns (not saying that you are, just speaking in general). Unfortionately somebody had to pay a pretty big price for that lesson.
I might be in favor of some gun legislation, but you cannot legislate responsibility and common sense.
What a waste of a life. The deputy should have been much more careful with his firearm and not allowed a child to get his hands on a loaded pistol. However, saying that guns should be more tightly controlled because of this is like arguing that cars should be more heavily regulated (or just outright replaced with public transport) because someone ran a red light, or drove while intoxicated.
I think its unfair that the majority should suffer because of a tragic incident such as this.
Wasn't there a redneck comedian that said, "Ya can't fix stupid"?
As a new handgun owner, I have that "oooh shiny" sort of feeling towards it. My friends and some DCMs have seen pictures of it, but it's currently in it's case, locked up in my room, just under my bed. It's unloaded, and no one has access to my room. This is just a sad sort of affair that this woman lost her life because her husband was careless enough to leave a loaded gun within reach to anyone that doesn't have enough respect or knowledge for a firearm to know not to point it at someone, or pull the trigger until you're ready to fire at something (preferably a target down range).
azazel the cat wrote: Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
Do you think this cop didn't undergo safety training?
Can't say. He's a sheriff's deputy; I'm unclear what kind of training they require. However, you seem to have started down the path of the nirvana fallacy with rapid speed, even for you. It's not a perfect solution, but it's certainly one that will filter out the vast majority of instances like this.
And drivers training works perfectly too yes? No? And people still drown when a life guards on duty? Yes? And youre ALWAYS safe when the ambulance or police show up? NO?! How weird. Everything I just mentioned was training designed to keep others safe, yet still doesnt work every time. The problem with that Azazel, is youre expecting training to weed out the stupid. There is always stupid, no matter the training. And no, that is something you CANT regulate out.
You can suspend stupid just long enough to pass a test, but that's about it.
Maybe if gun safety courses had the trainer kill something like a dog* at the end just to drive home the point that "yes, these things kill"
*naturally one thats going to be put down anyway and have it done in a quick and humane fashion.
Grey Templar wrote:Maybe if gun safety courses had the trainer kill something like a dog* at the end just to drive home the point that "yes, these things kill"
*naturally one thats going to be put down anyway and have it done in a quick and humane fashion.
That's one of the craziest things I've seen be honestly suggested on Dakka. Just...wow.
Grey Templar wrote:Maybe if gun safety courses had the trainer kill something like a dog* at the end just to drive home the point that "yes, these things kill"
*naturally one thats going to be put down anyway and have it done in a quick and humane fashion.
That's one of the craziest things I've seen be honestly suggested on Dakka. Just...wow.
Just an idea, spit in the wind if you will. People need to realize for themselves that death is real and they need to accept that may things around them can kill, including guns. For many people, death isn't all that present. Sure they may have head knowledge that its real and that it happens but has it truly taken root as a realization? They may not have seen someone or something die, much less die violently.
Its the difference between knowing steak comes from cows and actually seeing a cow get turned into steak.
Just about anyone knows guns are dangerous, but thats way different from seeing the destructive power of a gun first hand. It could be a useful learning tool.
yeah, its a crazy idea. But it just might be useful. Take it with salt as always.
azazel the cat wrote: That's one of the craziest things I've seen be honestly suggested on Dakka. Just...wow.
What about showing the effects of a firearm on one of those ballistic gel dummies, complete with organs and some fake blood. That way they can better see the effects of the weapon.
Grey Templar wrote:Maybe if gun safety courses had the trainer kill something like a dog* at the end just to drive home the point that "yes, these things kill"
*naturally one thats going to be put down anyway and have it done in a quick and humane fashion.
That's one of the craziest things I've seen be honestly suggested on Dakka. Just...wow.
This is one of the crazy ass times we are in agreement. Pull out a gun and shoot a dog for no reason: 1) you're now an immediate threat as you're crazy with a gun and I'm probably going to shoot you to protect my life; or 2) you're going to jail. As you're not a million dollar NFL player hopefully for a very very long time. 3) If you survive either, you're guns will go by by.
azazel the cat wrote: That's one of the craziest things I've seen be honestly suggested on Dakka. Just...wow.
What about showing the effects of a firearm on one of those ballistic gel dummies, complete with organs and some fake blood. That way they can better see the effects of the weapon.
Only if it includes a test- which is better NINJA SAMURAI SWORD OR TURKISH KILLJ, next on ULTIMATE WARRIOR
OT but in the last class I took they had a newsreel of a cops shooting a BG who was trying to kill a kid.
Grey Templar wrote: Hence why I said one that was going to be put down anyway. Like terminally ill or something.
One of our dogs (over whom there had been a long discussion in the shelter about having her put down because of her disability before we adopted her) let out a very audible groan when I was reading your suggestion. I beleive that may have been a "No" vote
I'm still waiting on some of our all-knowing expert Canadian university students to tell us what exactly their ideal firearms safety course looks like.
Seaward wrote: I'm still waiting on some of our all-knowing expert Canadian university students to tell us what exactly their ideal firearms safety course looks like.
Rest assured it would involve The Royal Mounties and hockey.
Seaward wrote:I'm still waiting on some of our all-knowing expert Canadian university students to tell us what exactly their ideal firearms safety course looks like.
University graduates. And that really doesn't have anything to do with this conversation, but it was nice of you to let your personal feelings of inadequacy come out to play.
azazel the cat wrote: University graduates. And that really doesn't have anything to do with this conversation, but it was nice of you to let your personal feelings of inadequacy come out to play.
Sorry, I assumed based on your various statements that you were still in.
Seaward wrote:I'm still waiting on some of our all-knowing expert Canadian university students to tell us what exactly their ideal firearms safety course looks like.
University graduates. And that really doesn't have anything to do with this conversation, but it was nice of you to let your personal feelings of inadequacy come out to play.
Frazzled wrote: Sounds a bit more like a basic NRA course but yea about the same (sans good advice on how to deal with zombies, comancheros, or the boogie man)
Well, keep in mind I'm from Virginia, where your training requirement for concealed carry can literally be met by watching a YouTube video.
Frazzled wrote: Sounds a bit more like a basic NRA course but yea about the same (sans good advice on how to deal with zombies, comancheros, or the boogie man)
Well, keep in mind I'm from Virginia, where your training requirement for concealed carry can literally be met by watching a YouTube video.
Gotcha. Ours are substantially more expensive, and thus, more boring. One the positive every class I've been to has served barbeque for lunch.
azazel the cat wrote: Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
Do you think this cop didn't undergo safety training?
Can't say. He's a sheriff's deputy; I'm unclear what kind of training they require.
Sheriff's deputies are the police at the county level. Around here, sheriff's deputies have the same training as any other police and they have to be police academy graduates.
Yeah police standards here in C.O. at least are set by POST, everyone does the same basic training standards, sometimes a little stricter tolerances, and then they get fill in "flavor" education from their respective forces. Pueblo cops get trained differently then Staties, etc.
azazel the cat wrote: Things like this can most definitely be regulated away: simply make safety training a mandatory requirement for anyone to possess a firearm.
Do you think this cop didn't undergo safety training?
Can't say. He's a sheriff's deputy; I'm unclear what kind of training they require.
Sheriff's deputies are the police at the county level. Around here, sheriff's deputies have the same training as any other police and they have to be police academy graduates.
Around here, they're usually pretty fat and training is...less than it could be.
I do have an issue with many police forces not having a continual fitness requirement. A friend of mine who was a local police chief said that the physical fitness test was only required to get on. Once you were on the force you didn't have to keep passing fitness tests unless you were on the SWAT team. That seems a little messed up.
So basically the standard concealed carry course in the US.
Yeah, nobody gets through that and does something stupid with a gun. Top notch.
I never said it was a perfect solution, but it definitely cuts down the percentages. I did, however, say that you were rushing at record speed into a nirvana fallacy of ignoring an imperfect solution because it was imperfect.
Seaward wrote:I'm still waiting on some of our all-knowing expert Canadian university students to tell us what exactly their ideal firearms safety course looks like.
University graduates. And that really doesn't have anything to do with this conversation, but it was nice of you to let your personal feelings of inadequacy come out to play.
)
