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

2024 US Presidential Election

someguyontheinternet said:
How many mass shootings have been committed with homemade guns? Not modified, but homemade
Click to expand...

None that I know of? Homemade guns tend to suck. Accessing any gun you want is pretty easy in the US (so why use a 3d or a zip gun).

Especially with the legal exception you can get a full Ar-15 with a jig kit legallly; would you consider that a homemade gun? * i wouldn't.
That is a ghost gun I think (?) which is different entirely.

Also indian lady who I know nothing about whatsoever. Lack of context beats negative context haha.
 
alasdairm said:
if you are a woman and you are raped by a family member and impregnated, j.d. vance believes you should have to have the baby.

like trump, he's tried softening his language on abortion more recently because he knows how it plays in an election but it's pretty clear where he stands.

alasdair
Click to expand...

That man is clearly a straight sociopath and may scare me more than trump.

What really scares me is a sociopath psychopath combo is a common powerhouse couple.
 
Did I just read that right or is that fake news, another debate? Why? Fuck it actually I'm just gonna pretend I never saw that.

brokedownpalace10 said:
And, no one is proposing much more control for the guns you can 3d print. Never heard of anyone 3d printing an AR-15. It wouldn't last long.
Click to expand...
Not yet. But it will happen, harder plastics, more advanced printers, more efficiently heating, cooling, temperature control and a greater range of printable metal alloys... and printed guns aren't even the worst of the technologies that could one day be downloaded and put together in complete secrecy, they're just the easiest example to illustrate the more important point about there being right and wrong ways to organise human society. Not quite here yet but not science fiction either.

I made this point debating a Conservative politician about drug legalisation back when I had a life and went outside sometimes, and I could kinda see their eyes glaze over... they were alright though, just like, passively malevolent in everything they most strongly believe rather than actively evil, yknow?

Anyway gun control and drug control arguments overlap a lot but not often usefully because many gun nuts view drug users as dirty lowlife hippies (at least publicly) and drug nuts view gun toting lunatics as the maniacs that they are (haha, sorry, my bias shows). Anyway the point is that assuming the world does indeed continue to get more advanced, better, and MORE FREE, the uncomfortable side effect of that is that with more freedom comes the freedom to engage in dangerous hobbies and endanger others - by accident or design. There are 2 possible routes to dealing with this (yes - there is nuance but despite that nuance there REALLY ARE only 2). Either we decide to trust each other, which incidentally also means being fair to each other, not hoarding resources and knowledge, keeping one foot in your dumb fuckin' libertarian castle, but fully committing to creating a world where - although it might be fraught with dangers - your fellow human is not someone to be feared.

The other route is brutal, dictatorial oppression, limit freedoms, limit thought, keep hold of all the power so no one can hurt you, you selfish cunt. (Edit - sorry, I don't mean you - suddenly hit me that maybe I should clarify that... aim raging at someone imaginary, as usual.) To an extent it's a moral and philosophical decision, but there is a right and wrong answer if the longevity and quality of the future of human civilization matters to you.

It's easy to see how this applies to drugs - drugs are currently being controlled in the wrong way. This is also where people get confused trying to apply the same argument to guns, which are not tightly controlled in the only part of the world where anyone cares if they are or not. Most rational advocates for drug policy reform aren't advocating for zero restrictions, but legally regulated systems of control rather than outright prohibition. Maybe one day we could go further... but human society has shown itself to be a volatile beast. On the other hand - guns are broadly very tightly controlled almost everywhere except the USA where they are barely controlled at all, and unlike drugs, where most people care, independent of their own local laws - they see it as an important issue - gun control is a dirty word in the only part of the world that's supposedly an advanced society but has an absolutely gigantic problem with any hints of trying to regulate them. Not everyone of course... just the aforementioned gun nutters.
 
Vastness said:
Did I just read that right or is that fake news, another debate? Why? Fuck it actually I'm just gonna pretend I never saw that.


Not yet. But it will happen, harder plastics, more advanced printers, more efficiently heating, cooling, temperature control and a greater range of printable metal alloys... and printed guns aren't even the worst of the technologies that could one day be downloaded and put together in complete secrecy, they're just the easiest example to illustrate the more important point about there being right and wrong ways to organise human society. Not quite here yet but not science fiction either.

I made this point debating a Conservative politician about drug legalisation back when I had a life and went outside sometimes, and I could kinda see their eyes glaze over... they were alright though, just like, passively malevolent in everything they most strongly believe rather than actively evil, yknow?

Anyway gun control and drug control arguments overlap a lot but not often usefully because many gun nuts view drug users as dirty lowlife hippies (at least publicly) and drug nuts view gun toting lunatics as the maniacs that they are (haha, sorry, my bias shows). Anyway the point is that assuming the world does indeed continue to get more advanced, better, and MORE FREE, the uncomfortable side effect of that is that with more freedom comes the freedom to engage in dangerous hobbies and endanger others - by accident or design. There are 2 possible routes to dealing with this (yes - there is nuance but despite that nuance there REALLY ARE only 2). Either we decide to trust each other, which incidentally also means being fair to each other, not hoarding resources and knowledge, keeping one foot in your dumb fuckin' libertarian castle, but fully committing to creating a world where - although it might be fraught with dangers - your fellow human is not someone to be feared.

The other route is brutal, dictatorial oppression, limit freedoms, limit thought, keep hold of all the power so no one can hurt you, you selfish cunt. (Edit - sorry, I don't mean you - suddenly hit me that maybe I should clarify that... aim raging at someone imaginary, as usual.) To an extent it's a moral and philosophical decision, but there is a right and wrong answer if the longevity and quality of the future of human civilization matters to you.

It's easy to see how this applies to drugs - drugs are currently being controlled in the wrong way. This is also where people get confused trying to apply the same argument to guns, which are not tightly controlled in the only part of the world where anyone cares if they are or not. Most rational advocates for drug policy reform aren't advocating for zero restrictions, but legally regulated systems of control rather than outright prohibition. Maybe one day we could go further... but human society has shown itself to be a volatile beast. On the other hand - guns are broadly very tightly controlled almost everywhere except the USA where they are barely controlled at all, and unlike drugs, where most people care, independent of their own local laws - they see it as an important issue - gun control is a dirty word in the only part of the world that's supposedly an advanced society but has an absolutely gigantic problem with any hints of trying to regulate them. Not everyone of course... just the aforementioned gun nutters.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I'll only comment to say that 3d metal printers start at $50,000 and run up to a few million. It would be cheaper and easier to just machine a gun. Only commenting 'cause I'm a retired machinist. And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
 
Vastness said:
Did I just read that right or is that fake news, another debate? Why? Fuck it actually I'm just gonna pretend I never saw that.


Not yet. But it will happen, harder plastics, more advanced printers, more efficiently heating, cooling, temperature control and a greater range of printable metal alloys... and printed guns aren't even the worst of the technologies that could one day be downloaded and put together in complete secrecy, they're just the easiest example to illustrate the more important point about there being right and wrong ways to organise human society. Not quite here yet but not science fiction either.

I made this point debating a Conservative politician about drug legalisation back when I had a life and went outside sometimes, and I could kinda see their eyes glaze over... they were alright though, just like, passively malevolent in everything they most strongly believe rather than actively evil, yknow?

Anyway gun control and drug control arguments overlap a lot but not often usefully because many gun nuts view drug users as dirty lowlife hippies (at least publicly) and drug nuts view gun toting lunatics as the maniacs that they are (haha, sorry, my bias shows). Anyway the point is that assuming the world does indeed continue to get more advanced, better, and MORE FREE, the uncomfortable side effect of that is that with more freedom comes the freedom to engage in dangerous hobbies and endanger others - by accident or design. There are 2 possible routes to dealing with this (yes - there is nuance but despite that nuance there REALLY ARE only 2). Either we decide to trust each other, which incidentally also means being fair to each other, not hoarding resources and knowledge, keeping one foot in your dumb fuckin' libertarian castle, but fully committing to creating a world where - although it might be fraught with dangers - your fellow human is not someone to be feared.

The other route is brutal, dictatorial oppression, limit freedoms, limit thought, keep hold of all the power so no one can hurt you, you selfish cunt. (Edit - sorry, I don't mean you - suddenly hit me that maybe I should clarify that... aim raging at someone imaginary, as usual.) To an extent it's a moral and philosophical decision, but there is a right and wrong answer if the longevity and quality of the future of human civilization matters to you.

It's easy to see how this applies to drugs - drugs are currently being controlled in the wrong way. This is also where people get confused trying to apply the same argument to guns, which are not tightly controlled in the only part of the world where anyone cares if they are or not. Most rational advocates for drug policy reform aren't advocating for zero restrictions, but legally regulated systems of control rather than outright prohibition. Maybe one day we could go further... but human society has shown itself to be a volatile beast. On the other hand - guns are broadly very tightly controlled almost everywhere except the USA where they are barely controlled at all, and unlike drugs, where most people care, independent of their own local laws - they see it as an important issue - gun control is a dirty word in the only part of the world that's supposedly an advanced society but has an absolutely gigantic problem with any hints of trying to regulate them. Not everyone of course... just the aforementioned gun nutters.
Click to expand...

Awesome post. Kind of depressing we all know which of those two paths we are factually going down though.

Speaking of drugs while were here; If you aren't at least a little depressed about how the world is looking right now: Perhaps it is you that needs medication? Lol but really I have always argued *most* cases of depression are due to (somewhat) factually depressing things happening to said person; or just somebody seeing the world straight....

Of course there are plenty of times when these medications are appropriate. just food for thought.
 
brokedownpalace10 said:
Interesting. I'll only comment to say that 3d metal printers start at $50,000 and run up to a few million. It would be cheaper and easier to just machine a gun. Only commenting 'cause I'm a retired machinist. And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Click to expand...

Lemme play devils advocate for a second. Say I just want to sell guns and damn the moral and legal reprocussions.

A 50k metal printer (I have no knowledge here so bear with me) if indeed able to print a decent (fires enough times to sell lol) Ar-15 or anything similar, wouldn't I be able to make my money back fairly quickly? *just humor me I realize that would still not be a wise way to invest in such an enterprise.
 
^ incompetent beats evil every time in my book.

"Evil is a big word please define it" (said noone)

*Tough to define but if you check more than one of these boxes check your mirror. r@pist, pedo, r@cist, treasonous (seditious *rolls eyes*), trickle UP economic supporter, etc
 
not everybody can handle drugs responsibly

and not everybody can handle firearms responsibly


so usually a small amount of ppl ruin it for others

and that's really all it is


so what do you do?

apply rules when it gets out of control - like when drug dealers takeover a few blocks in a neighborhood - you take em out - because you see what happens in cities like Portland, LA, San fran, and Seattle when you do let people have that freedom - it's an absolute mess - and that's not ok

nobody's gonna bother you if you're doing things responsibly

so learn how to act
 
Mr. Krinkle said:
not everybody can handle drugs responsibly

and not everybody can handle firearms responsibly


so usually a small amount of ppl ruin it for others

and that's really all it is


so what do you do?

apply rules when it gets out of control - like when drug dealers takeover a few blocks in a neighborhood - you take em out - because you see what happens in cities like Portland, LA, San fran, and Seattle when you do let people have that freedom - it's an absolute mess - and that's not ok

nobody's gonna bother you if you're doing things responsibly

so learn how to act
Click to expand...

Woah logistical fallacy overload. I had to stop reading at 'take em out' and deep breath it. You would condone someone being 'taken out' because you don't want 'portland' to happen.

What about Amsterdam? Take em out?

Want to know the fundamental difference between those two places; Amsterdam treats substance 'problems' as a *breathe* HEALTHCARE ISSUE *exhale*

Portland is in the US and as you realize we have a rich history of treating drugs as crime.

This is something that will take time and you will run into problems. NONE as large or life ruining as prohibition. (darwin cases aside)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top