• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

undiminished689 said:
"Shall not be infringed" then
Click to expand...

dude seriously, do you own any guns?

I get the feeling you probably do...and your rights aren't infringed. :\

Why so bitter? Do you want all the ex-cons to have guns and shit? What's your end-game?

I think most of the rules and regulations for gun ownership in the US work well; some people end up getting them that shouldn't, which will happen no matter what (i.e. criminals that have guns in UK, Aus, and other parts of the world, etc.)

People like you and me will likely always have access to buying a gun.
 
swilow said:
Constantly repeating something does not make that something more profound.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll admit I'm really getting sick of hearing it. I know my posts that are mostly of the progun persuasion are sometimes too long, but at least say something. Make an argument, even a bad one is better than just parroting the same thing over and over again.
 
Constitution= law until consensus by people and gov to be changed.

It's un American to be against guns.

Why is there not a "we should ban nukes" thread. Ppl gonna kill ppl but one nuke will destroy us all
 
People forget that the constitution is supposed to be interpreted and applied based on those interpretations. There's nothing that says you have to take it literally. The idea that the founders had the foresight to understand the types of ridiculous weapons we'd have today is absurd. Seriously, the way that some people speak of the constitution as if it is some kind of divine text is almost sickening.
 
mal3volent said:
People forget that the constitution is supposed to be interpreted and applied based on those interpretations. There's nothing that says you have to take it literally. The idea that the founders had the foresight to understand the types of ridiculous weapons we'd have today is absurd. Seriously, the way that some people speak of the constitution as if it is some kind of divine text is almost sickening.
Click to expand...

So if you don't agree with the 2nd amendment, advocate for a referendum to change or remove it.

Suggesting it be "reinterpreted" is wrong for several reasons.

First if you're saying it was never meant to allow ordinary people to have access to firearms you're wrong. I'm not sure what else there is to say. And while the courts are allowed to and indeed supposed to interpret laws they are supposed to interpret it according to the authors intent. Not to become a legislative body themselves by making law disguised as an interpretation.

And if you're arguing that the 2nd amendment shouldn't be valid for modern weapons, you have a big problem because that argument can also be made to say that the first amendment doesn't apply to modern telecommunications.

And finally, why must it be a reinterpretation? Why not do it the way the founders intended with a referendum? That's the method to lawfully update the constitution.

But of course we all know why. It's because we both know you'd never be able to pass a referendum, because too many people disagree with you. Which means you're advocating the judicial branch exceed their power by making law disguised as an interpretation because you know too many people disagree with you to do it the legitimate, democratic way. And I think that's totally wrong. That's the only reason to advocate reinterpretation over referendum. Because you know you can't get what you want democratically, so you have to cheat, and you think that's OK. But I don't.

The courts are allowed to interpret laws, according to their intention, within those limits there is room for some gun control laws, but probably not the kind you'd prefer.
 
OWOPPF6.jpg


Murder suicide yesterday near Margaret River Western Australia. 4 kids 3 adults.

All dead. Biggest mass murder via gun since Port Arthur 1996 (?).


Fuck guns. Rural properties have them for their own reasons, not all guns are banned.

They make monumental decisions like blowing away your family a lot easier. Signs point to the grandad but 2 weapons were found with the grandparents foind separately to the mum and kids.

Screw the guns and right to have them. Its not worth it.
 
They are dead. Not all guns are banned. Im not up to date though. Guns are licensed. Regulated. Automatics not allowed. But rural areas different so i dunno.
 
Ya no nukes are being generated by even third world countries.

If there isn't a thread for banning nukes there should be because just look at the devastation of Chernobyl just from a leak and the state was like hey we should still keep making weaponized uranium. banning guns is a reason for a bunch of communists aligning themselves with the most tyrannical terrorist organization aka US Gov to make themselves "feel safe" when really the gov would want no guns so there isn't a possibility of an armed revolution overthrowing them. And before you say it Rice farmers, the Jihad, Koreans, American revolution.

The revolutionary war had like 16 year olds leading armies with guns to form this nation. They were married, had kids, and slaves.

I'm pretty sure most Americans where strapped to the teeth from the 1700-1800-possibly 1900s which is why I can make the claim of un American to really want to take guns because I can imagine most Americans who lived here had guns. It's not just wrong morally, it's wrong historically.

I can't stand anti gun people because r claiming to do it for the greater good when really you're taking away a person's means of defense which is ammoral
 
Chernobyl was a nuclear power plant meltdown due to human error when the technology was new, it had nothing to do with nuclear weaponry. I think it would be fantastic if nuclear weaponry did not exist, but unless we can successfully use solar power to server the world's needs (and they're working on it with giant orbiting solar arrays that would wirelessly beam power down to Earth), but nuclear power I think is the best solution. However we'd need to make a global effort and plan it intelligently. Modern day nuclear power disasters are avoidable. For example, there should be none built in seismically active zones, or anywhere near the ocean (Japan is right out as is the whole west coast of the Americas). We need to put them in geologically insert zones, places where there aren't tornadoes, places safe from hurricanes and earthquakes and tsunamis. We could cluster them all in places like Siberia, inland Canada, etc, and have a global power grid. These days the risk from them placed safety is next to nothing. And nuclear power does not pollute nearly at all... the spent fuel can be isolated and buried and will eventually stop being radioactive, and it's such a tiny impact compared to burning coal and oil.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
dude seriously, do you own any guns?

I get the feeling you probably do...and your rights aren't infringed. :\

Why so bitter? Do you want all the ex-cons to have guns and shit? What's your end-game?

I think most of the rules and regulations for gun ownership in the US work well; some people end up getting them that shouldn't, which will happen no matter what (i.e. criminals that have guns in UK, Aus, and other parts of the world, etc.)

People like you and me will likely always have access to buying a gun.
Click to expand...
so tell me then why people in the EU do not get gunned down on a regular basis, either by criminals, the police or by accident? gun violence simply isn't a problem here, for the most part. certainly not in my country.

ps I think this whole fetish thing many of you americans have regarding guns is pretty sick and obscene. it almost seems like many of you cannot wait to "act in self defense".

pps the whole comparison between gun control and drug legislation also is on pretty thin ice imo. a gun is only produced to wound and maybe kill an individual (save for maybe hunting rifles). drug use is much more nuanced and ultimately up to the individual. and drug distribution needs to be regulated for certain. or do you think distributing potent opioids without any kind of oversight is a good idea? why should it be for guns?
 
I'm not arguing the benefits of nuke power. Personally I think solar power is being suppressed because a country like Germany uses solar power for a lot of its energy and it's barely sunny up there, but that's a new topic.

I'm saying just look at what an "accident" has done to that demographic after so many years. Now imagine a weapons strike?

Guns could take out an entire store maybe. A nuke will take out an entire country. With a possibility of the land not becoming fucked for a while
 
Bagseed said:
so tell me then why people in the EU do not get gunned down on a regular basis, either by criminals, the police or by accident? gun violence simply isn't a problem here, for the most part. certainly not in my country.

ps I think this whole fetish thing many of you americans have regarding guns is pretty sick and obscene. it almost seems like many of you cannot wait to "act in self defense".

pps the whole comparison between gun control and drug legislation also is on pretty thin ice imo. a gun is only produced to wound and maybe kill an individual (save for maybe hunting rifles). drug us is much more nuanced and ultimately up to the individual. and drug distribution needs to be regulated for certain. or do you think distributing potent opioids without any kind of oversight is a good idea? why should it be for guns?
Click to expand...

Murder is more rampant in than ever. And EU has turned into a police state now because of it. They can't go on social media and spew their thoughts at the fear of getting arrested and having no means of defense to stop them from being arrested
 
I would agree that many Americans have a gun fetish. It's because it's been part of the culture for so long. It's built into the constitution. it's the result, I think, of the country gaining its independence through fighting and winning a war against Britain. Then westward expansion happened and later on the movies began to glorify guns with westerns. It's just snowballed. The emotional attachment people have to their guns or the idea of guns has always seemed strange to me. Personally I don't own a gun. One day if shit hits the fan I might regret it. I think guns have their place but I wish my country wasn't so full of them.

The biggest thing I worry about, honestly, is that the left/right divisions get so intense here that we have a Rwanda-style situation where an organized right-wing militia effort tries to slaughter as much of the left as they can. And they'll have most of the guns. I worry about that a lot more than I worry about needing to defend myself from the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top