Jump to content

Active shooter thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27428

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/25/2023 at 3:15 PM, henrygandorf said:

and this is a problem.  if the issue is gun violence (deaths and injuries from guns) then one of those ends solves the entire problem.  the other one doesn't.  they are not the same.

You are never going to end gun violence. An outright ban of guns will not result in zero gun deaths. You are arguing from the extreme, which is fallacious. On top of that, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

Edited by Sawbonz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 13.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

4th&Five
4th&Five

Fuck off. You vote for this shit. Explain that to your kids. 

Pancho
Pancho

3rd leg of my move from Houston to the Bay Area, and I made it to LA.   I’m just now catching up on the news in my hotel.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again—I don’t have kids, but this e

royiv
royiv

WTF world are we living in when people are having a discussion about survival rates of certain rounds? People are being terrorized by gun violence and we're discussing which bullet has worse/better ch

Posted Images

Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11810

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sawbonz said:

You are never going to end gun violence. An outright ban of guns will not result in zero gun deaths. You were arguing from the extreme, which is fallacious. On top of that, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

I don’t disagree with you, but how many gun toters have actually read and comprehended the constitution?  All of it.  One, maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27428

Posted
Posted

There will be an end to gun violence when humans are extinct or there are cataclysmic events that result in loss of capability to produce guns and ammo. 
 

that is not to say we shouldn’t make every reasonable effort to limit gun violence. Reasonable people can disagree about how to get there but the idea that it can be achieved without some limits on access is absurd. The problem is one side has become completely unreasonable. A majority of republicans want stricter gun control laws. They are held hostage by an extreme minority of the party 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29175

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You are never going to end gun violence. 

i'm not, but it will end.  or reduced greatly.

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

An outright ban of guns will not result in zero gun deaths. You are arguing from the extreme, which is fallacious. 

50 people a day die from non-suicide gun violence in america.  the aim should be to get that number down, even if it's not zero.

and i'm not arguing for a gun ban.  if it was up to a vote and i had the only vote in the country, i would vote for it, but that's not how anything works.  i'm not in congress nor the senate.  i'm just trying (with my most recent post) to figure out why a gun ban is absurd and/or hilarious.

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

we have a constitutional right to bear arms.

orly?

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

yeah, when it happens, it's not gonna be up to them.  the majority of the country believes in a woman's right to choose and here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BevoAbyss

BevoAbyss 2057

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

On top of that, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. You are never going to get a majority of Americans to agree to extreme gun restrictions.

All true. And we must realize that the "Second Amendment" ideology is no longer about merely protecting gun rights. The unstated gun-loving ideology is about effecting a culture of “ultraviolence” — as described by Anthony Burgess in A Clockwork Orange (1962). “Ultraviolence” is random, senseless, and excessive violence running amok in society.

Welcome to 21st century America. Schools, grocery stores, night clubs, movie theaters, college campuses, military bases, fast food restaurants, and so on — all subject to random, senseless, mass shootings. It's all ultraviolence, with the aim of gun rights to help terrorize a fearful, hateful society armed to their teeth. 

The Second Amendment will be used to justify and impose violent tyranny (not prevent it). 

Edited by BevoAbyss
missing phrase
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27428

Posted
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm not, but it will end.  or reduced greatly.

50 people a day die from non-suicide gun violence in america.  the aim should be to get that number down, even if it's not zero.

and i'm not arguing for a gun ban.  if it was up to a vote and i had the only vote in the country, i would vote for it, but that's not how anything works.  i'm not in congress nor the senate.  i'm just trying (with my most recent post) to figure out why a gun ban is absurd and/or hilarious.

orly?

yeah, when it happens, it's not gonna be up to them.  the majority of the country believes in a woman's right to choose and here we are.

I don’t think many would argue it won’t be reduced greatly. You said end

 

The constitution literally says a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. People like to impute [as part of] but that is not the language that was ratified. I doubt it was an oversight. And they could have run it by Noah Webster had they wanted to. 

 

Ask a lawyer here if they routinely are successful at adding language that materially changes the terms of a contract after it has been signed

 

An outright gun ban is not going to happen because Democrats will not cede that kind of power to the far left of their party, regardless of what the Fox News etc wants its sheep to believe 

Edited by Sawbonz
Fing autocorrect
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29175

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Ask a lawyer here if they routinely are successful at adding language that materially changes the terms of a contract after it has been signed

you're saying you don't think you could ever change something called...an amendment?

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t think many would argue it won’t be reduced greatly. You said end

it will end.  it might take a few hundred years but it will.  people evolve.  a person doesn't, but people do.

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country.  democracy might end first.  america too.  but gun violence will end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27428

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you're saying you don't think you could ever change something called...an amendment?

it will end.  it might take a few hundred years but it will.  people evolve.  a person doesn't, but people do.

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country.  democracy might end first.  america too.  but gun violence will end.

Humans have killed other humans since there have been humans. That’s not going to change. Guns are the most efficient way to do that currently. The only thing we are likely to evolve to is a more efficient method

 

and no I don’t think you will change something called an “amendment” given the criteria for repealing an amendment. “Could” it happen? Sure, but that’s not the argument you have been making

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fattyflattie

fattyflattie 4636

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

enlighten me. 

Your take:

4 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country. 

Maybe I read your post incorrectly, it's certainly been a long week. But what I am reading is that you believe the US is unique to gun violence? Is that correct?

Edited by fattyflattie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29175

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Your take:

Maybe I read your post incorrectly, it's certainly been a long week. But what I am reading is that you believe the US is unique to gun violence? Is that correct?

yes, my understanding is that the issue is exponentially worse here than in other equally developed countries. 

if i am off base, please enlighten me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29175

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Humans have killed other humans since there have been humans. That’s not going to change. Guns are the most efficient way to do that currently. The only thing we are likely to evolve to is a more efficient method

 

and no I don’t think you will change something called an “amendment” given the criteria for repealing an amendment. “Could” it happen? Sure, but that’s not the argument you have been making

 

 

my argument has been intentionally vague, but you sure love telling me what it isn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Is slavery in the constitution?


Article 1, Section 2 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 

Yes, the word slavery was not used in the constitution. But there were Free Persons and Other Persons. If they weren’t free? What were they? Not free. 

13th Amendment 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The constitution had to be amended to outlaw slavery because it wasn’t prohibited in the original document. In fact, one could argue, as I am, that using “other persons” in juxtaposition to “free persons” for counting people is indeed not only endorsing the institution but codifying it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27428

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:


Article 1, Section 2 

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 

Yes, the word slavery was not used in the constitution. But there were Free Persons and Other Persons. If they weren’t free? What were they? Not free. 

13th Amendment 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The constitution had to be amended to outlaw slavery because it wasn’t prohibited in the original document. In fact, one could argue, as I am, that using “other persons” in juxtaposition to “free persons” for counting people is indeed not only endorsing the institution but codifying it. 

That’s a lot of words to say slavery is not in the constitution.  Look, you can be as pedantic as you want, but the barrier to amending the constitution or repealing an amendment is very high.  The likelihood that the Second Amendment would be repealed or materially altered approaches zero. That is not going to change, as long as the constitution is the document that governs our land. If you can think of a plausible scenario where individual gun ownership in the United States is banned entirely, other than via a bloody civil war, go ahead and lay it out. 
 

also, it is OK to acknowledge reality without being a proponent of that reality. 
 

 

 

 

and of course he was killed. In America. With a gun

Edited by Sawbonz
Redundant
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14251

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

you're saying you don't think you could ever change something called...an amendment?

it will end.  it might take a few hundred years but it will.  people evolve.  a person doesn't, but people do.

this is a relatively new problem and it's isolated in one country.  democracy might end first.  america too.  but gun violence will end.

Well the current Supreme Court managed to change its interpretation of the Constitution to eliminate the right to an abortion.  A subsequent court could overturn Heller to interpret the Second Amendment as Justice Burger has suggested:  "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29175

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Well the current Supreme Court managed to change its interpretation of the Constitution to eliminate the right to an abortion.  A subsequent court could overturn Heller to interpret the Second Amendment as Justice Burger has suggested:  "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

and wasn't there an assault weapons bill that restricted/banned certain types of guns?  didn't we let that shit expire like morons?

seems like the ban itself would've gone against the constitution, if that's how we're pretending to interpret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

also, it is OK to acknowledge reality without being a proponent of that reality.

I acknowledge amending the constitution is near impossible, especially in today’s political climate, but it is OK to be a proponent of change. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...