Jump to content

Lower Levelled

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    230

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Lower Levelled

    Today...

    in Off-Topic

    Posted

     

    On the right - I've seen a lot of my right-wing friends suggesting that less gun control would have prevented this. I think their point is that this would have allowed the patrons of the club or potentially guards to have stopped the gunman before so many were killed or wounded. However, I've read that the gunman had been reported for extremist views in his workplace, had traveled to Saudi Arabia (a country which executes homosexuals) on multiple occasions, had been interviewed by the FBI for alleged terrorist ties, and was apparently on some sort of watch list (although I've also seen contrary reports). He also purchased the guns he used within the past few days. Surely if there is anyone who shouldn't be able to legally purchase a gun, it's this guy, right? Can we compromise on gun control at least to the point that people like this are blocked from such purchases?

    Having extremist views is not criminal. International travel is not criminal. Having been interviewed by the FBI (which apparently saw no cause for action) is not criminal. Being secretly placed on a watch list with no opportunity for rebuttal or appeal by an agency that either doesn't have sufficient evidence to make an arrest or is otherwise disinclined to do so is not indicative of crime. I am unwilling to "compromise" (poor word choice for a one-sided sacrifice) to the point that citizens can be deprived of rights without due process.

     

    See section 3 of my response to Ring_World for more on "compromise."

     

    On the right -

     

    1.) people on the right are suspicious of the government and believe (wrongly) that an armed population can resist a future tyranical US gov that responds militarily to resistance to bad laws

    2.) On top of that they believe that police intervention takes too long to respond to prevent situations and point to examples of copycat crimes such as after aurora being stopped by an off duty armed cop

    3.) They also (wrongly) believe that any attempt to limit gun rights will be the first step down the slippery slope to the mythical tyranical government

    I'm not sure whether I qualify as "on the right," but you seem to make some assumptions or implications that I want to clarify.

     

    1.) How do you define tyranny? Some people would claim that the US is already there, and I have as much trouble believing that we couldn't have tyranny as that we do.

    2.) I called 911 to report two people smashing a stool against my neighbor's house. By the time the police showed up, they had finished taking what they wanted.

    My sister (with two toddlers in tow) saw a man's head bashed in with a rock while she was on her way home from Independence Day fireworks. I don't know whether he survived, but there were no police around to stop it or to apprehend his attacker.

    I had to sit and watch a dying deer for 45 minutes after a car crash, because laws prohibited my putting it out of its misery; as soon as the deputy arrived, we dragged it off the road and he shot it.

    A neighbor made threats and brandished a weapon at my (other) sister; I came out of the house with a 12-gauge. When police came, they were more interested in harassing us for ending the situation than in taking a report of what we were responding to. They had a good response time there, at about 15 minutes; had the neighbor not backed down, or had I not shown up as I did, that's plenty of time for them to have found a corpse. She started openly carrying my .45, and that neighbor left her alone until he eventually moved out.

    I'm not saying that police aren't ever helpful, but they certainly aren't always the best solution to every problem.

    3.) I think this is a mischaracterization, or possibly just a misunderstanding. See my reply to rocc0 regarding "compromise."

    In the US:

    We gave up certain gun rights in 1934, when the National Firearms Act passed.

    In 1938, we passed the Federal Firearms Act, which imposed licensing requirements on dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms.

    We gave up another chunk of gun rights (mostly to do with interstate trade) when we passed the Gun Control Act in 1968.

    In 1986, we passed the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act), which did loosen some restrictions, but in exchange for other restrictions.

    In 1990, the Gun-Free School Zones Act passed, which restricts possession of firearms within 1000 feet (3-5 city blocks?) of school property. This includes some public land that was designated for hunting, and makes it incredibly impractical for someone like my cousin (who lives across the road from a school) to openly carry a pistol without a license, which would otherwise be legal in his state.

    In 1993, we passed the Brady Handgun Prevention Act, that included a federal 5-day waiting period. (which was replaced in 1998 with a 3-business-day waiting period unless NICS returns an approval/denial)

    In 1994, we passed the Assault Weapons Ban that stood for a decade and, by most accounts, had negligible effect (if any) on crime.

     

    I don't think it's unreasonable to say that gun control in the US has been incrementally stripping rights (that is, making things illegal which had previously been legal) for a long time. Even the 1986 FOPA, which was a supposed "win" for gun owners closed the machine gun registry, making it impossible for an individual to register a new machine gun while not making it legal to possess an unregistered machine gun.

     

    When I was growing up, farmers were constantly complaining about government restrictions/interference.

    Lots of people I know who have tried jumping through hoops to build a house/garage had complaints about government interference.

     

    Where do you draw the line between restrictions that suck and tyranny? Should everyone always use the same standard?

     

     

    I don't understand the why the right thinks keeping their .22 would help against the government when the government would simply use drones

    I don't understand why you think anyone believes that. The only time I've ever heard it suggested is by people who want to point out that it sounds ridiculous.

     

     

    Maybe in the states....I'm somewhat active in the firearm community here (Canada) and I barely ever hear that argument.

    It's not unheard of here, but it's not exactly common unless you find yourself in the company of militiamen.

    Argument happens all the time where I grew up. Perhaps our experiences are ya know, different.

    Today...

    in Off-Topic

    Posted

     

     

    I don't understand the why the right thinks keeping their .22 would help against the government when the government would simply use drones

    drones, tanks, gas. Lots of nasty things rifles cant touch

     

     

    straw man spotted

    the gov argument is the most common anti-gun control argument out there

    Maybe in the states....I'm somewhat active in the firearm community here (Canada) and I barely ever hear that argument.

     

    However, it was a strawman because I doubt that many people actually think "a .22 will stop a drone". The actual argument, although somewhat flawed, is more nuanced than that.

    Not my intention. Living in the midwest I hear this almost every time gun control is brought up. Usually followed by someone invoking the 240 year old document of justice

    "I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

    in Off-Topic

    Posted

    I've started semi dating a girl that's a bigger partier than I am and that's weird. I've usually been a bigger partier than girls I've been with, but she and her friends are machines lol. She's also much more averse to texting than myself, which is interesting because that's been a problem in the past for me but the other way around.

    It's weird being on this side of things, I much prefer the other side

    Today...

    in Off-Topic

    Posted

    Life feels like a very intense game of jenga. Revealed one of my most painful secrets on Facebook but it's too risky to tell everybody so I've made it visible to select people that I feel won't break my trust with this secret and the number of tagged people has reached over 180 and so far nobody has betrayed my trust...

     

    I would know if my trust was betrayed because it would result in a heavy barrage of online attacks from people who really can't know that I've let the cat out of the bag after two years of protecting these individuals.....

    Drama isn't fun fyi

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept