Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 05:39:03 am
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  New normal?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21 Print
Author Topic: New normal?  (Read 59518 times)
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #15 on: February 21, 2018, 11:40:54 am »

I've already said it before:  Sandy Hook proved that the people of this country simply do not care how many people are killed in gun violence.  Anything after that is business as usual.

In the past, I might see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, in what I call the Mulford Act exception: in the 1960s when visibly-armed Black Panthers were patrolling the streets of Oakland and marching outside the state capitol with loaded weapons, Governor Ronald Reagan said there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will."  A law banning the public carrying of loaded firearms was swiftly enacted.

But that time is long gone.  Armed Nazis march hundreds deep in the streets of Trump's America and are praised by the President as "good people," and if some undesirable group (Antifa, BLM, or whomever) were to start seriously exercising their Second Amendment rights, 21st-century America wouldn't even bother with the spectacle of passing a law that affects "everyone."  Law enforcement would just find some reason to harass the undesirables and then use the excuse of weapons to crack down on them with brutal force.

But if you're a (mostly?) white militia group, feel free to walk into a federal building waving your guns around and literally take over the place.  Your sovereign rights are protected.
Logged

MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 14262



« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2018, 12:27:53 pm »

Spider I think you are on to something.  We need more African Americans (preferably male, with neck tatooes and afros exercising any their rights in any open carry states....that might get is meaningful gun reform.
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3395



« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2018, 12:57:02 pm »

1) Ban automatic weapons entirely
Not sure what the point of this would be. When was the last time that a  Class III weapon was involved in a murder? I'll wait.

2) Increase restrictions on who can own a gun (in areas of age, mental health issues, history of violence)
I would agree with a nationwide 21 age limit on all firearm purchases. I would agree with mental health issues. However, many people will still slip through the cracks. Also, history of violence is a very broad category. How are you going to define it more than it's already defined by the laws already on the books?
Logged

pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3395



« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2018, 01:01:33 pm »

I've already said it before:  Sandy Hook proved that the people of this country simply do not care how many people are killed in gun violence.  Anything after that is business as usual.

In the past, I might see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, in what I call the Mulford Act exception: in the 1960s when visibly-armed Black Panthers were patrolling the streets of Oakland and marching outside the state capitol with loaded weapons, Governor Ronald Reagan said there was "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will."  A law banning the public carrying of loaded firearms was swiftly enacted.

But that time is long gone.  Armed Nazis march hundreds deep in the streets of Trump's America and are praised by the President as "good people," and if some undesirable group (Antifa, BLM, or whomever) were to start seriously exercising their Second Amendment rights, 21st-century America wouldn't even bother with the spectacle of passing a law that affects "everyone."  Law enforcement would just find some reason to harass the undesirables and then use the excuse of weapons to crack down on them with brutal force.

But if you're a (mostly?) white militia group, feel free to walk into a federal building waving your guns around and literally take over the place.  Your sovereign rights are protected.
So Trump and his supporters are Nazis. AND you want him to take our guns away. Ummm, OK. That makes sense. Maybe next week you can propose legalizing group gas chambers for our Nazi leaders to use on us, LMFAO....
Logged

Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2018, 01:25:44 pm »

I didn't say that "Trump and his supporters are Nazis."  I said that armed Nazis were marching through the streets, and that Trump praised them as "good people."  Which part do you disagree with?

I think the most curious delusion of the Second Amendment crowd is the idea that whether or not you are personally armed will stop government tyranny.  The Branch Davidians in Waco had plenty of guns, and it didn't make any difference.  And that was back in the '90s, before the feds started shipping surplus military equipment to local police departments.

Whether or not the government fears the people has nothing to do with whether or not those people are armed, and everything to do with whether those people are politically powerful.  A group of Tea Party protesters - armed or unarmed - has no need to fear a violent government crackdown.  A heavily armed group of American Muslim protesters would be taking their own lives in their hands.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 01:29:10 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Sunstroke
YJFF Member
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 22787

Stop your bloodclot cryin'!


Email
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2018, 01:49:55 pm »

Not sure what the point of this would be. When was the last time that a  Class III weapon was involved in a murder? I'll wait.
I would agree with a nationwide 21 age limit on all firearm purchases. I would agree with mental health issues. However, many people will still slip through the cracks. Also, history of violence is a very broad category. How are you going to define it more than it's already defined by the laws already on the books?

As far as automatic weapons go...unless you're planning on overthrowing Madagascar or some other small country this weekend, you really don't need a machine gun.

As far as the "what constitutes a violent past" goes, I would leave that up to experts in psychology with way more knowledge than I have in that area.

Logged

"There's no such thing as objectivity. We're all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them. Dim, shaky, weak, staticky little signals that only hint at the complexity of a universe that we cannot begin to comprehend."
~ Micah Leggat
pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3395



« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2018, 02:09:53 pm »

As far as automatic weapons go...unless you're planning on overthrowing Madagascar or some other small country this weekend, you really don't need a machine gun.
Either you missed my point or purposefully avoided it. Are you saying that Class III weapons are a problem or epidemic in this country? They are already very heavily regulated. As I asked before, when is the last time that a murder was committed with a Class III firearm? Hell, when is the last time that any crime was committed with a Class III firearm?

As far as the "what constitutes a violent past" goes, I would leave that up to experts in psychology with way more knowledge than I have in that area.
There are all sorts of violence. Violence against people, violence against property, violence against animals, etc. And then there are degrees of violence within each type. There has to be a cut off point. But then again, they already have a cut off point. It's called a felony.
Logged

pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3395



« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2018, 02:15:25 pm »

I didn't say that "Trump and his supporters are Nazis."  I said that armed Nazis were marching through the streets, and that Trump praised them as "good people."  Which part do you disagree with?

I think the most curious delusion of the Second Amendment crowd is the idea that whether or not you are personally armed will stop government tyranny.  The Branch Davidians in Waco had plenty of guns, and it didn't make any difference.  And that was back in the '90s, before the feds started shipping surplus military equipment to local police departments.

Whether or not the government fears the people has nothing to do with whether or not those people are armed, and everything to do with whether those people are politically powerful.  A group of Tea Party protesters - armed or unarmed - has no need to fear a violent government crackdown.  A heavily armed group of American Muslim protesters would be taking their own lives in their hands.
So the most heavily armed citizens in the world don't have a chance against the mighty US Government. But yet we can't win in the middle east against a couple thousand Taliban fighters that can't even figure out how to wipe their own ass. And couldn't win in Vietnam. I think you severely underestimate how something like that would actually play out.
Logged

Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2018, 02:31:50 pm »

The difference is that at least half (and that's a wild underestimate) of the remaining citizens will be opposing the Second Amendment crazies that are trying to violently overthrow the government.  So in a situation where a) the U.S. government and b) more than half the population are opposing an armed uprising by the violent few, I think you're the one underestimating how things play out.
Logged

pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3395



« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2018, 02:39:08 pm »

The difference is that at least half (and that's a wild underestimate) of the remaining citizens will be opposing the Second Amendment crazies that are trying to violently overthrow the government.  So in a situation where a) the U.S. government and b) more than half the population are opposing an armed uprising by the violent few, I think you're the one underestimating how things play out.
Now you're changing the goal posts. Who said anything about anyone trying to overthrow the government? What if the government turns "Nazi" and wants to put you in the oven? Whatcha gonna do? Go willingly?
Logged

Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2018, 03:44:11 pm »

Then please clarify what you are proposing.

If, as you put it, "the government turns 'Nazi' and wants to put you in the oven," what are your options short of overthrowing the government?  It seems to me that once a single shot is fired at law enforcement, the only possible resolutions are:

a) you overthrow the government
b) you are taken into custody
c) you are killed

I can't think of many governments that are the business of simply letting citizens pick, at the end of a gun, which laws they want to ignore.   Of course, there are notable exceptions like the Sicilian Mafia, Mexican drug cartels, or any number of Somali warlords.  Perhaps that's the scenario you envision?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 03:46:25 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3395



« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2018, 03:57:22 pm »

Then please clarify what you are proposing.

If, as you put it, "the government turns 'Nazi' and wants to put you in the oven," what are your options short of overthrowing the government?  It seems to me that once a single shot is fired at law enforcement, the only possible resolutions are:

a) you overthrow the government
b) you are taken into custody
c) you are killed

I can't think of many governments that are the business of simply letting citizens pick, at the end of a gun, which laws they want to ignore.   Of course, there are notable exceptions like the Sicilian Mafia, Mexican drug cartels, or any number of Somali warlords.  Perhaps that's the scenario you envision?
So in your opinion it makes no difference how it starts? In your eyes are there no legitimate reasons to fight the government? Does Spider-Dan go willingly to the oven?
Logged

CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16870


cf_dolfan
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2018, 03:57:29 pm »

I've already said it before:  Sandy Hook proved that the people of this country simply do not care how many people are killed in gun violence.  Anything after that is business as usual.



Call me crazy but I would have thought Chicago and Detroit have already proved that. The death numbers there are ridiculous and I swear it bothers me that no one seems to care and yes I believe it is because it is black on black crime. Jesse and Al should have offices there and we see them on tv everyday fighting for justice if you ask me.

I keep seeing great ways to keep guns away from law abiding citizens but nothing that will stop lawbreakers from breaking the law. No law would have stopped this or anyone else. BTW ... shotguns would cause much more damage in close range like he was. Just like drugs ... the people who want to have it will have it. The only difference is it will create a whole new group of criminals because most people won't just give them up.

Blame the NRA when it isn't NRA members doing the mass shootings. We have background checks now because of the NRA. I realize it's cool to have people to "blame" to feel better about yourself when things go wrong but it doesn't make it true. Short of outlawing Democrats from having guns

The other argument I see is that people like saying the 1st amendment didn't mean for citizens to have the same weapons as the military yet that is exactly the case when it was written.

Our world today sucks today. We now have to "protect" bottles so people can't tamper with them, empty our pockets and shoes at the courthouse and get to the airport hours earlier just to get patted down. Unfortunately we can gripe all we want but unless we do away with gun free zones and take away a few more of our children's freedoms we are vulnerable to psychos.










Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
pondwater
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 3395



« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2018, 04:09:03 pm »

Call me crazy but I would have thought Chicago and Detroit have already proved that. The death numbers there are ridiculous and I swear it bothers me that no one seems to care and yes I believe it is because it is black on black crime. Jesse and Al should have offices there and we see them on tv everyday fighting for justice if you ask me.

I keep seeing great ways to keep guns away from law abiding citizens but nothing that will stop lawbreakers from breaking the law. No law would have stopped this or anyone else. BTW ... shotguns would cause much more damage in close range like he was. Just like drugs ... the people who want to have it will have it. The only difference is it will create a whole new group of criminals because most people won't just give them up.

Blame the NRA when it isn't NRA members doing the mass shootings. We have background checks now because of the NRA. I realize it's cool to have people to "blame" to feel better about yourself when things go wrong but it doesn't make it true. Short of outlawing Democrats from having guns

The other argument I see is that people like saying the 1st amendment didn't mean for citizens to have the same weapons as the military yet that is exactly the case when it was written.

Our world today sucks today. We now have to "protect" bottles so people can't tamper with them, empty our pockets and shoes at the courthouse and get to the airport hours earlier just to get patted down. Unfortunately we can gripe all we want but unless we do away with gun free zones and take away a few more of our children's freedoms we are vulnerable to psychos.
I posted something similar to this the other day on Facebook. Amazing that no one says shit until there is a mass shooting. Are those 17 people more important than the 50 every month in Chicago, Baltimore, or other assorted liberal shit holes? Dead people are dead people. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Logged

Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2018, 04:29:36 pm »

In your eyes are there no legitimate reasons to fight the government?
An armed uprising against the government only makes sense if your intention is to overthrow said government.  There is no other condition.

So this idea that the Second Amendment exists for idiots like Cliven Bundy to forcibly annex land he doesn't want to pay taxes to graze his cattle on... it's nonsense.  The Constitution does not have a clause to facilitate its violent expulsion; that question was fully resolved in the 1860s.  Overthrowing the government by force is not your constitutional right.

Call me crazy but I would have thought Chicago and Detroit have already proved that. The death numbers there are ridiculous and I swear it bothers me that no one seems to care and yes I believe it is because it is black on black crime.
In Chicago, laws (including: gun control laws) ARE passed to try to stop said violence, and law enforcement aggressively enforces the law.  However, since the people of Chicago cannot pass laws in the state of Indiana that is a mere 10 minutes away, the people of Indiana are completely against gun control, and there are no border inspections between states, many of the gun control laws in Chicago meet with limited success.

This is why any gun control law must be enforced nationally to be effective.  As pondwater repeatedly pointed out, how often do you see these crimes being committed with Class III (NFA) firearms?  Clearly, some gun control laws are VERY effective.

Quote
The other argument I see is that people like saying the 1st amendment didn't mean for citizens to have the same weapons as the military yet that is exactly the case when it was written.
The logical conclusion of this position is that the Second Amendment says I can put anti-personnel mines in my front lawn, and set up mortars in my backyard.

Surely you do not believe that every private citizen has the right to any armament used by the United States Armed Forces?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 04:33:25 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines