Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:
Lovely troll comment. No surprise considering the source.

There really appears to be a different joke culture here. :(

Oh, and I am for gun control, so I am obviously a troll be default. I meant no ill.

Pass the popcorn please...

They reacted this way to my Nerf gun control video from College Humor too. I mean, it was College humor, goddammit, not some political website!
(I did not see your picture though)

Here it is, this time I hope it is obvious it is not posted with any ill intent, but rather with the intent to explain what happened. (Extra note for Americans - this is not flaming, this is a joke.)

It's a joke really, and SATW jokes with all countries equally. I just found it appropriate given the topic. But it seems to be even more sensitive than I expected.

It's especially surprising since this kind of humour seems to work perfectly well everywhere but in these exact situations.

Just as an example, this would hardly be considered inflammatory.

There is an amazing amount of butthurt if people were offended by that picture.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Just as an example, this would hardly be considered inflammatory.

Spoiler:

Okay, I think you need to give us context or something. Because I have no idea what this could be about.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Just as an example, this would hardly be considered inflammatory.

Spoiler:

Okay, I think you need to give us context or something. Because I have no idea what this could be about.

Much like the gun joke picture, it could theoretically be offensive, I guess, but I would not expect many to be. It's really funny for the people up here but then, things are funny if you can relate to it.

I mean... I hope nobody really thought I'd argue Americans would reach for their guns as a method of driving safely?

That silly gun-picture joke was my profile picture for over a month with "safety officer" as my title. People need to take a step back methinks.

And realise we are actually the best of friends!

But Norway fights against Sweden in the first AND the last panel. How can Swedes still argue that the Norwegians likes them more than the Danes? It does not make sense!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
But Norway fights against Sweden in the first AND the last panel. How can Swedes still argue that the Norwegians likes them more than the Danes? It does not make sense!

´

Exactly.

 Ashiraya wrote:
And realise we are actually the best of friends!

I...don't know what I just saw. At least we had a good run of power and influence I guess.

 motyak wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
And realise we are actually the best of friends!

I...don't know what I just saw. At least we had a good run of power and influence I guess.

It's a joke on Assange. He is Australian, hence Australia filling his role here.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
And realise we are actually the best of friends!

I...don't know what I just saw. At least we had a good run of power and influence I guess.

It's a joke on Assange. He is Australian, hence Australia filling his role here.

I'd forgotten we owned him...damn.

 motyak wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
And realise we are actually the best of friends!

I...don't know what I just saw. At least we had a good run of power and influence I guess.

It's a joke on Assange. He is Australian, hence Australia filling his role here.

I'd forgotten we owned him...damn.

I still have no idea whether to like or dislike Assange because I don't know if all those rape accusations an stuff are true (In which case he's a dick who should be imprisoned) or if they are false (In which case I don't think he is a dick and I don't think he should be imprisoned.)

But it's all stuff I find it difficult to care about either way.

Snowden though, I like him. Not sure why, I just do.

That is an… interesting take on it .

Honestly though, for future reference. When I am really trolling, I always add a ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

(Does that make this post a troll post?)

 Ashiraya wrote:
Honestly though, for future reference. When I am really trolling, I always add a ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

(Does that make this post a troll post?)

No, but it is veering terminally off topic.Get back to it please

Roger roger.

So.

What makes people convinced that liberal gun laws are better than gun control in the long term?

Short term maybe (Which I suspect is mainly due to the rather special circumstances), but in the long term the amount of illegal guns will drop with proper control.

(Extra note! This post is not designed to be inflammatory. I am just looking for opinions as you guys seem really eager to post them.)

 Ashiraya wrote:
Roger roger.

So.

What makes people convinced that liberal gun laws are better than gun control in the long term?

Short term maybe (Which I suspect is mainly due to the rather special circumstances), but in the long term the amount of illegal guns will drop with proper control.

Nope.

Guns don't have a shelf-life, and people will smuggle/steal new guns to replace those that get decommissioned by armed forces or that are rendered inoperable due to other factors such as poor maintenance.

Not to mention there are a lot of guns already in the US. Plus plenty of evidence that stricter gun laws do nothing to reduce gun crime(given that most of it is committed with weapons that are already illegal)

 Ashiraya wrote:
Roger roger.

So.

What makes people convinced that liberal gun laws are better than gun control in the long term?

Short term maybe (Which I suspect is mainly due to the rather special circumstances), but in the long term the amount of illegal guns will drop with proper control.

(Extra note! This post is not designed to be inflammatory. I am just looking for opinions as you guys seem really eager to post them.)

I think it is an irrelevant choice. Until the gun control types have the numbers to amend the Constitution and reword or revoke the 2nd Amendment, liberal (as in less and less restrictive) gun laws are better because they do not violate the Constitution. With freedoms and rights, laws intending to restrict those rights and freedoms,no matter how well intentioned, are not good. It really is that simple.

Gun controll types don't need that many numbers. All they need is a shift of one SCOTUS judge.

 d-usa wrote:
Gun controll types don't need that many numbers. All they need is a shift of one SCOTUS judge.

I don't think so, if they want to do it right, they need to go through the amendment process. Heller and some other recent cases put too much precedent the other way for SCOTUS to reverse in the near term.

Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

 CptJake wrote:


Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

TBF, '''''''''''''''''''''''''''gun control types''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' are not exactly a hive mind.

Maybe a little analogy would help illustrate the point. And why examples for Gun Control "working" in other places don't hold up.


Lets consider your typical laboratory. A sterile environment. Gun control is the measures taken to keep the environment sterile.

The measures work because the lab never had the massive numbers of bacteria to begin with AND its a controllable environment. This is, say, Europe. You never had very many guns in circulation, had a historical trend of keeping the plebs unarmed for the last few hundred years, etc...

Then we have conditions outside the lab. Your house, the local restaurant, public library, outside in general...

Attempting to keep those areas sterile would be an exercise in futility. Too many existing germs, not a controllable environment, etc... This is America. We've got too many existing guns, a Constitutional Right to have guns for protection against others and the government, etc...

Proposing Gun Control is as silly as the germaphobe trying to live in a sterile environment but insists on living like other people.

But over time, surely guns would be possible to remove?

I am not saying it would be easy but it's not like it's impossible. Very few things are. And I am not convinced it will not be best in the end even if it is a very long-term plan.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But over time, surely guns would be possible to remove?

I am not saying it would be easy but it's not like it's impossible.

Sure...

If you are willing to submit to draconian measures and living under a dictatorship. Because that is what it would take.

 Ashiraya wrote:
But over time, surely guns would be possible to remove?

Not even close. Guns are fairly easy to manufacture as long as you aren't looking for competition-level precision. You can build a basic machine gun with nothing but materials and tools you can get at your local hardware store, and if you have access to a decent machine shop you can do even better. The only reason we don't see more criminals building their own guns is that it's so easy to get someone else to do it right now. But if you just cut off the supply of legally-manufactured guns without doing anything about the things that make people want to commit violent crime you're only going to hand a nice profit to every person with a little manufacturing knowledge and a lack of concern for the law. And meanwhile you've just produced a lot of unhappy former gun owners who had to give up their legally-owned toys.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Gun controll types don't need that many numbers. All they need is a shift of one SCOTUS judge.

I don't think so, if they want to do it right, they need to go through the amendment process. Heller and some other recent cases put too much precedent the other way for SCOTUS to reverse in the near term.

Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

There were lots of Supreme Court cases that ruled the same way on an issue until ONE case completely switched it up. Brown vs Board of Education comes to mind.

All it would take would be one swing vote to change the meaning of the word "militia" and render the 2nd useless.

Not that i am pushing for that or that I think that would happen. But it would be a single ruling accomplished by switching a single swing vote.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Of course, my belief the gun control types want to do it the right way is non-existent.

TBF, '''''''''''''''''''''''''''gun control types''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' are not exactly a hive mind.

In my context, they may as well be. It is leftist politicians who vote lock step on the issue and use emotion vice facts to push an agenda of control, taking advantage of every sad case they can to further their agenda, even when the legislation the propose almost never address the actual issues involved in the cases they use. The famed 'assault weapon' ban and the proposed adoption of an even more asinine version are good examples.

Remember, I am talking 2nd Amendment here in the US. Your gun control types may be different.