Guns, Guns, Guns.
POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 40 of 44
Seriously, I don't understand why people persist in believing that there's a political solution to the problem of mass murder.
I guess it's convenient. I guess it simplifies things so they don't have to focus on reality too hard.
"If only we had the right laws in place, America would be a paradise on Earth!"
Same with military internvention overseas.
"If only we kill enough foreigners, they're bound to choose Democracy!"
That's the "or else" kind of thinking our mutual Frem is talking about. Laws are the government's "or else!" And guns are the individual's "Yeah, make me!" They don't guarantee freedom, they're just the individual's last defense against freedom being taken away. They give the individual's defiance just a little "oomph." Sure, when the shit hits the fan the individual will lose that fight, but not before giving the government a bloody nose. And historically, it's amazing how individual bullies and collective bullies (i.e.: governments) will change their tactics to avoid that bloody nose.
You'll notice that it's only true "gunbunnies" like Wulf who bloviate about BEING THE ONE TRUE PATRIOT WHAT PUTS THAT DOG DOWN 'CAUSE I AIN'T AFEARED O' NO GUNS! RAWR! Neither Frem nor Anthony cherish such illusions. They just don't want to be disarmed when and if the government turns on 'em. Is that so hard to understand?
Laws never bring about social change. No, they don't. Laws always come very late to that process. Laws are just what happens at the point in the process of social change when somnambulant, affluent citizens actually take notice.
"Whoa, gay marriage is legal now? I guess gay people get to get married then! How weird! Let's order pizza!"
So they get the idea that the law is what caused the social change.
Laws exist--governments exist--to maintain the status quo. That's what an "ordered society" is: a society that stays the same. How pathetic is that? An institution whose sole purpose is to make people think that without it they wouldn't be doing what they think they oughta do anyway. Nobody ever needed a government to enforce majority rule.
But what all of us here want is social change. Social evolution. You want it, I want it, and Frem and Anthony both want it. And how do we get it? Not through government and not through laws.
Just look at gay marriage for a minute.
For the longest time the government avoided even talking about gay marriage. That's the status quo's first response: ignore it and it'll go away. Sure, the Republicans ranted and raved about it constantly, but that's because doing so was entirely politically safe. It was in support of the status quo. Conservatives only take their "principled stands" like this when they reflect what they perceive to be the status quo. The fact that some of them are still ranting about it now is pure habit and denial. In any period of actual social change (like now), the conservatives always take a beating.
So then what happened? Well, support for gay marriage got to be so strong in poll after poll after poll that Obama & Co. realized that if they didn't fall in line with public opinion they were liable to start losing elections.
(THAT's what get's laws passed, btw.)
And boom, Barack Obama goes on national tv to say, "Y'know, I'm kinda for gay marriage now." And now everybody knows gay marriage is on its way. There's no stopping it now. It's gonna be the new status quo, i.e.: the law of the land. But the process began long, long before any state actually legalized it, long before any laws were passed.
So, what are we gonna do about guns? At what point in the social change that would meaningfully reduce the amount of gun violence in this counrty do y'all think we are? I'd say square one. LOOOOOOONG before any meaningful laws are gonna be passed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That would have to be the most hopeless, defeatest post I have read in a long time.
Laws can and do bring about social change. Sometimes they lead social changes, sometimes they follow it, but for every law passed there are repercussions, sometimes for good and sometimes not. I can think of numerous laws of the top of my head that have had far reaching consequences on marriage, on ownership of property by women, on giving women the vote, on abolishing slavery, have enabled and ended segregation, prevented discrimination on the basis of race and gender, prevented employers from using child labour, porviding the basis of free speech, freedom of dissent and indeed your own constitution.
Your idea that there is no law that can affect any situation in society ludicrously ignores the history of law making.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um, kinda missed the point there, Magons. Not surprising at this juncture. That post is anything but defeatist.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All kinds of hope in your post. I'd like to agree. My inner Picard makes it so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually agree with HK about how much difference laws make, but all of you know I was going to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I did.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I actually agree with HK about how much difference laws make, but all of you know I was going to.
Chrisisall, wearing a frilly Mal thing on his head, and ready to shoot unarmed, full-body armoured potentially disagreeing Bytemites {Joke}
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FREM
Quote:If you're talking to me the answer is... no, I don't want "'em" banned, at least not yet. I truly haven't made up my mind and I have, in the words of our senior politicians, ALL options on the table.
Yanno, y'all could, seriously... stop lying. That might add to things a little. You want em banned, say so, don't dance around and hedge and pretend that isn't your intention when it obviously is, that seriously gets up my back.
OTOH, some of you will only consider ONE solution. But what if that one solution doesn't work??? If CHRIS thinks that only considering ONE solution makes a person a black-and-white thinker, that puts you in that category, does it not?
Quote:Yes, one. One which passes your criteria of acceptability. I heard it. It's under consideration.
I offered a very reasonable, rational proposal
Quote:And blah blah blah... Yanno, I researched to 2A too. That bit about well-regulated militias was not put in there for you, the Supreme Court, and all gun-nuts to ignore, and when the Supreme Court decided that the 2A protected individual right to own a gun, you all got handed a nice, juicy, totally unwarranted kiss on the ass. The right to own guns belongs with the STATES. Because it was the STATES RIGHTS the FF were protecting, not yours.
The folks who wrote these amendments were extremely explicit about their intentions...
So, here's the thing: While I fight to protect the amendments, you will not hear me whining that the government's failure to protect this amendment or that amendment will impede my (so-called) "right" to a revolution.
Because if you and your three best friends are actually counting munitions and talking about taking down the government through violent overthrow, you're already so many ways illegal that your gun ownership will be the least of your worries. Demanding permission for a revolution... my god, how many flavors of childish is that?
Revolution will always be illegal. Deal with it.
Quote:I've already told you where I think that right ends. I thought the FF were pretty damn clear.
But one thing for sure, the absolute hypocrisy flagrantly displayed by those who've argued for deliberate infringement of a Constitutional right
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TONY...
There are at least five pages in this discussion that I haven't read due to time constraints.
If you would be so kind, can you please enumerate for me the gun controls you would be OK with and the ones you wouldn't? For reference, you can look at the list (below)
-----------------------
GERMANY'S GUN LAWS
For those of you who keep pointing to GERMANY as a nation with high gun ownership and low gun death-rates, I will point out that GERMANY'S gun laws are far stricter than ours.
You need a license to sell and transport guns and ammunition.
ALL guns and ammunition sales are recorded.
You can only buy the ammunition that your (registered) gun allows.
In order to OWN a gun, you MUST have a license. There are no unlicensed "gun collectors", there are no unlicensed inheritances.
You get your license from the police.
In order to get a license, you have to show "need". Very few are sold for the purposes of "self protection"... in order to get one of those, you have to be in the security business.
If you want to target practice, you must belong to a recognized club.
The only other recognized use is hunting.
In order to obtain a license, you must pass both a criminal and mental health background check.
In order to get the lowest form of license, you need a THREE DAY course with a practicum at the end.
In order to get a hunting license, you need a ONE YEAR course. You fail it. that's it. No do-overs. (I read about one lady who stood to lose her antique hunting gun which had been passed down through the generations, so she was busy studying for her hunting practicum.)
Fully automatic guns... or even guns which LOOK LIKE full automatics, are banned.
Large capacity magazines are banned.
Teflon-coated and expanding rounds are prohibited.
Each gun must have an engraved registry number.
Guns MUST BE stored under lock and key.
Ammunition MUST BE stored separately, also under lock and key.
There is no "castle" defense and no "stand your ground" laws. You shoot first amd you kill someone, you are likely to be charged with murder.
Yanno, there are SO MANY gun laws in Germany, I prolly forget a few, but I think you get the idea: Germany is not a gun-owners paradise!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You can't keep walking in here and saying, oh, you're obviously one sided and biased, and then a few posts later say oh, I see you're neutral and being civil.
Of course I can, Byte. If you write something which seems biased to me, I can say so; if you later write something that seems neutral, I can say that too. I don't think I ever said you weren't being biased in this thread, however; civil, yes, you usually are, but I see a large bias going on.
The sentence was a bad one, I'll try again:Quote:
Mention of Wulf was just a waste of space, so maybe that makes it clearer.
Anthony insisting the same things he has from the beginning and Byte backing him up versus Sig, Chris or the occasional other poster. As such, it's a complete waste of time.Quote:
Frem, that really pisses me off. I mean seriously! That you lump me in with "y'all" makes smoke come out my ears. I have every fucking right in the WORLD to want to see some reasonable restrictions on guns without it meaning I want to ban them all. That is a stupid, idiotic stance to take, I expect better from you. I have NO desire to see all guns banned, whatsoever, can we get clear about that? And I'm certainly not "lying" about anything. I've been very clear, I believe, in what I'd like to see:
You want em banned, say so, don't dance around and hedge and pretend that isn't your intention when it obviously is, that seriously gets up my back.
A ban of all semi-auto and automatic weapons.
A ban of all high-capacity magazines.
A closing of the "gun-show" loophole and required background checks on all guns purchased anywhere.
That's my stance, there is no lying about it, and I resent the HELL out of you calling me a liar! Your attitude absolutely exemplifies the pro-gun person's stance: "If you want ANY curb on guns, you wanna take all my guns away". Pure stupidity.
You wanna reject any "outdated" concept, fine; then we have to put all African-Americans back in chains, take away women's right to vote, let legislatures decide who the two Senators from their state will be, and other things that have been amended.
As to Cav's rant, I agree with Magons. Laws have and do effect social change. Social changes also have and do effect laws. It's not an "either/or" situation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME