9 ms·

Call me an out of touch west coast liberal, but I personally would prefer that I don't regularly encounter people carrying a weapon capable of killing me. This

Call me an out of touch west coast liberal, but I personally would prefer that I don't regularly encounter people carrying a weapon capable of killing me. This isn't a war zone.

dolni 5y ago
Are you in favor of banning knives?
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Knives of a certain design (switchblades) and lengths? Absolutely.
  - dolni 5y ago
    You don't need a switchblade to kill somebody. A steak knife or a filet knife will do just as well. Should we ban those, too?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      We should (imho) enact reasonable regulation that balances rights with citizen safety in a country where people need to be told not to fill plastic bags with gasoline and there is a widespread belief that there are microchips in vaccines.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    Screwdrivers, tent stakes, bottles of propane, battery powered circular saws... you can kill somebody very easily with just about everything they sell at Home Depot, and many of them are far more effective than a knife.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
originalnate 5y ago
Do you drive?
- door101 5y ago
  No
artificialLimbs 5y ago
Then you should probably move to a country whose founding document doesn't explicity state that citizen rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.
- splitrocket 5y ago
  Let me post the whole second amendment for you: `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.` Your interpretation above, of an individual right to bear arms, derives from DC vs Heller ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) which is relatively new: 2008. It also doesn't comport with the contemporary writings of the framers, nor the fact that the term "militia" in the constitution refers to the National Guard, which was at the time imagined as a body made up of all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years old. Additionally, at the time, only men were considered "the people".
- door101 5y ago
  I live in California, which is part of that country, and bans open carry. Why would I need to move to another country for sensible gun laws? I believe there is a balance which respects the second amendment (which I support!) while also placing reasonable restrictions on purchasing and carrying guns. Guns are extremely serious things, and just because I support the right of gun ownership doesn't mean that I support the totally unrestricted right of anyone to buy any gun at any time and bring it anywhere.
seriousquestion 5y ago
In cities that works because you can get police response in minutes. Not so in the country.
- igetspam 5y ago
  So you support unincorporated areas having conceal and carry without a permit but letting cities regulate it?
  - seriousquestion 5y ago
    Yes, if that's what the residents want. Similar to how some businesses don't allow weapons, that could just begin at the city line.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      Cool. I agree with that.
igetspam 5y ago
You're not wrong. This state is getting worse all the time. A little kid was shot an killed because his mom flipped someone off for cutting her off. The kid's last words were something like. "mommy. my tummy hurts." Last I checked, they still hadn't caught him. This is not a state where more guns us going to make things better. It's a state that very clearly represents the temperature of the country: financially strong liberal strongholds arm wrestling with the government around them. (Abbott and Patrick don't hold back on how much they hate Austin.) We're just going to shoot at each more and scream Castle Doctrine about it.
- dolni 5y ago
  Liberal strongholds tend to be soft on crime. When your response to someone who assaults another person "just because" is a slap on the wrist, it's no surprise they move on to more heinous crimes. "But the guy didn't kill anyone, he deserves a second chance" -- right. And the rest of us deserve some safety from people like him. You can't ban your way to more safety if you can't reasonably control the thing that you're banning. The US government can't reasonably control who has a gun in this country, that's just a fact and it will not change as long as the second amendment is a thing. What you can do is adjust sentencing standards so that the people who are at highest risk of re-offending in a violent way are locked up.
  - door101 5y ago
    I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.
    - dolni 5y ago
      > I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades What is bizarre? Freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. Your freedom is yours to lose, and that happens when you infringe on other peoples' right to freedom. > because they are supposedly a threat to public safety. Strawman. You take away someone's freedom because they committed a crime of some kind and are likely to be a violent re-offender. Most likely that means they committed a violent crime in the first place, and were just lucky to not have killed someone. That sort of determination requires looking at the totality of circumstances, too, not just checking a couple boxes.

Call me an out of touch west coast liberal, but I personally would prefer that I don't regularly encounter people carrying a weapon capable of killing me. This isn't a war zone.

dolni 5y ago

Are you in favor of banning knives?

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Knives of a certain design (switchblades) and lengths? Absolutely.
- dolni 5y ago
  You don't need a switchblade to kill somebody. A steak knife or a filet knife will do just as well. Should we ban those, too?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    We should (imho) enact reasonable regulation that balances rights with citizen safety in a country where people need to be told not to fill plastic bags with gasoline and there is a widespread belief that there are microchips in vaccines.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  Screwdrivers, tent stakes, bottles of propane, battery powered circular saws... you can kill somebody very easily with just about everything they sell at Home Depot, and many of them are far more effective than a knife.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

originalnate 5y ago

Do you drive?

door101 5y ago
No

artificialLimbs 5y ago

Then you should probably move to a country whose founding document doesn't explicity state that citizen rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

splitrocket 5y ago
Let me post the whole second amendment for you: `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.` Your interpretation above, of an individual right to bear arms, derives from DC vs Heller ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) which is relatively new: 2008. It also doesn't comport with the contemporary writings of the framers, nor the fact that the term "militia" in the constitution refers to the National Guard, which was at the time imagined as a body made up of all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years old. Additionally, at the time, only men were considered "the people".
door101 5y ago
I live in California, which is part of that country, and bans open carry. Why would I need to move to another country for sensible gun laws? I believe there is a balance which respects the second amendment (which I support!) while also placing reasonable restrictions on purchasing and carrying guns. Guns are extremely serious things, and just because I support the right of gun ownership doesn't mean that I support the totally unrestricted right of anyone to buy any gun at any time and bring it anywhere.

seriousquestion 5y ago

In cities that works because you can get police response in minutes. Not so in the country.

igetspam 5y ago
So you support unincorporated areas having conceal and carry without a permit but letting cities regulate it?
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  Yes, if that's what the residents want. Similar to how some businesses don't allow weapons, that could just begin at the city line.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    Cool. I agree with that.

igetspam 5y ago

You're not wrong. This state is getting worse all the time. A little kid was shot an killed because his mom flipped someone off for cutting her off. The kid's last words were something like. "mommy. my tummy hurts." Last I checked, they still hadn't caught him. This is not a state where more guns us going to make things better. It's a state that very clearly represents the temperature of the country: financially strong liberal strongholds arm wrestling with the government around them. (Abbott and Patrick don't hold back on how much they hate Austin.) We're just going to shoot at each more and scream Castle Doctrine about it.

dolni 5y ago
Liberal strongholds tend to be soft on crime. When your response to someone who assaults another person "just because" is a slap on the wrist, it's no surprise they move on to more heinous crimes. "But the guy didn't kill anyone, he deserves a second chance" -- right. And the rest of us deserve some safety from people like him. You can't ban your way to more safety if you can't reasonably control the thing that you're banning. The US government can't reasonably control who has a gun in this country, that's just a fact and it will not change as long as the second amendment is a thing. What you can do is adjust sentencing standards so that the people who are at highest risk of re-offending in a violent way are locked up.
- door101 5y ago
  I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.
  - dolni 5y ago
    > I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades What is bizarre? Freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. Your freedom is yours to lose, and that happens when you infringe on other peoples' right to freedom. > because they are supposedly a threat to public safety. Strawman. You take away someone's freedom because they committed a crime of some kind and are likely to be a violent re-offender. Most likely that means they committed a violent crime in the first place, and were just lucky to not have killed someone. That sort of determination requires looking at the totality of circumstances, too, not just checking a couple boxes.