3 ms·

[flagged]

by loceng 4y ago

[flagged]

SigmundA 4y ago
I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  The “well regulated” means “proficient, properly equipped, well trained, functioning as expected” or similar. You have to assess that phrase in the context of 18th century English. It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. > Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form.
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    >It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. So it doesn't mean background checks or proper record keeping? The meaning of the word has not changed since the 18th century and certainly doesn't mean no rules whatsoever. >But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form. So no nuclear arms or chemical / biological arms correct? The right to bear one is infringed. Machine guns only if made before 1986, no new machine guns due to FOPA. So extremely limited supply and high cost along with the 3-12 month wait is due to more extensive background checks along with a high tax. The right to bear one is infringed. Missile launchers are approved and taxed not only for the launcher but each round and you also must get a federal explosives permit for the rounds. The right to bear one is infringed. State are also allowed to regulate them even more so, kind of like state level assault weapons bans and handgun laws? The right to bear one is infringed. If you are ok with that kind of heavy regulation then doing that for semi-auto assault rifles or hand guns should not be an issue correct? That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide. my argument would be that it does mean you can own that things. Bans on nukes, etc should be added as amendment to constitution if they're not allowed. They are arms. Should be easy to pass the amendment if the overwhelming majority agree. The fact you can't buy a nuke isn't some gotcha on legitimacy of restrictions. Clearly nukes should be legal until the constitution is amended to exclude classes of arms and the hughes amendment for post-86 machine guns is blatantly unconstitutional.
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        No right is unlimited and this has been upheld many times. From the decision Columbia v. Heller [1] which was delivered by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all conservative and and actually struct down some restrictions: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
        notch656a 4y ago
        I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Enjoy the hocus pocus hand waving below of your counterparty trying to explain the why the framers' writing of the 2nd amendment implicitly meant to to allow the kind of logic that machine guns from 1985 are ok but not ones from 1987.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      And that the founders had zero foresight to assume weapons technology would advance significantly beyond muskets. I mean really, do people think they were actual idiots?
      - sgjohnson 4y ago
        To be fair, I doubt that they expected that nuclear weapons would be developed, and I'm sure they wouldn't be okay with chemical weapons either. But that's the strawman argument. After all, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when civilian ownership of warships was okay, so I don't see how it shouldn't extend to all arms—past, present, and future.
- loceng 4y ago
  Would it shock you to learn that mass shootings aren't the results of guns, but actually the result of mind-altering medications by pharmaceutical industry that are legal - but 1) in the clinical trials showed an actual increase in suicide [e.g. you're less likely to kill yourself if you didn't take the medication], and 2) that homicide (and homicidal ideation) are also increased due to these medications? But we don't hear about that? Why? Because pharma, at least in the US, is something like 80% of the advertising revenues of all mainstream-mass media channels - so it's one of the big elephants in the room that they prevent from society being alerted to; health and education institutions have also been corrupted by pharma and their profits. Otherwise, your arguments are still only at the shallow level - and don't address or even acknowledge that gun control, or gun rights being enacted, may in fact be an authoritarian effort - and most always implemented through the guise of "doing what's good for society." So is it possible that in Canada, where the Trudeau government is planning to implement a mandatory gun buyback program [for certain guns to begin, but illogically, and that does practically nothing to reduce crime] - using fear mongering and opportunities of US atrocities or Canadian atrocities that the vast majority of weapons used were illegally obtained firearms] is aiming for tyrannical control - or you can't even open your mind to that possibility? If not, it makes me wonder what relatively shallow and skewed information/propaganda/perspective you've been exposed to?
d0mine 4y ago
I'll bite: Turkey — true (Armenian genocide). USSR — false (genocide against who? there were famines (btw in US too). all people suffered). Though I know that the opposite is claimed by propaganda (at least, Obama failed to recognize Armenian genocide, and anything bad is easily believed without questions about USSR).

[flagged]

by loceng 4y ago

[flagged]

I am claiming this guy puts huge amounts of one sided misinformation out there including this video. 1. Mass shootings are committed by those brainwashed by government psy-ops programs to motivate the masses to outlaw guns so they can become tyrannical. 2. Only tyrannical governments enact gun control 3. Gun control leads to extermination of a population. 4. The USA is following this pattern and I guess the left is essentially compared to Hitler or Stalin rising to power to perform genocide after they successfully disarm the right. He never mentions once all the countries with successful strict gun control and free societies such as most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia. As though by enacting more strict gun control will lead to genocide always with complete surety. His whole channel is an exercise in Brandolini's law and he's is most definitely a huge part of the problem. The funny thing I am a gun owner and support the second amendment, but everyone seems to forget the "well regulated" part of that amendment and the fact that currently there are many "arms" we are not allowed to own, the same ones the military uses. Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? What about a nuke? We already draw a line at certain arms moving that line or adjusting the regulations around it would not be without precedent.

sgjohnson 4y ago
The “well regulated” means “proficient, properly equipped, well trained, functioning as expected” or similar. You have to assess that phrase in the context of 18th century English. It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. > Do you think everyone should own a machine gun if they want? How about a rocket launcher? But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  >It has no relation whatsoever to what “regulation” means nowadays. So it doesn't mean background checks or proper record keeping? The meaning of the word has not changed since the 18th century and certainly doesn't mean no rules whatsoever. >But almost everyone can own a machine gun or a rocket launcher, where not forbidden by state law. Just pay a $200 transfer tax and wait 3-12 months for the ATF to process your transfer form. So no nuclear arms or chemical / biological arms correct? The right to bear one is infringed. Machine guns only if made before 1986, no new machine guns due to FOPA. So extremely limited supply and high cost along with the 3-12 month wait is due to more extensive background checks along with a high tax. The right to bear one is infringed. Missile launchers are approved and taxed not only for the launcher but each round and you also must get a federal explosives permit for the rounds. The right to bear one is infringed. State are also allowed to regulate them even more so, kind of like state level assault weapons bans and handgun laws? The right to bear one is infringed. If you are ok with that kind of heavy regulation then doing that for semi-auto assault rifles or hand guns should not be an issue correct? That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >That was my point, the second amendment does not mean you can own any arm you want and the heavy regulation on title 2 weapons, explosives and WMD's seems to work well in preventing their use in crimes without leading to tyranny and genocide. my argument would be that it does mean you can own that things. Bans on nukes, etc should be added as amendment to constitution if they're not allowed. They are arms. Should be easy to pass the amendment if the overwhelming majority agree. The fact you can't buy a nuke isn't some gotcha on legitimacy of restrictions. Clearly nukes should be legal until the constitution is amended to exclude classes of arms and the hughes amendment for post-86 machine guns is blatantly unconstitutional.
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      No right is unlimited and this has been upheld many times. From the decision Columbia v. Heller [1] which was delivered by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all conservative and and actually struct down some restrictions: (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I mean if we're just deferring to whatever the supreme court interpretation is today (which by the way, changes all the time), why even have a debate? Just spend your time reading court proceedings. We're both aware the supreme court has upheld infringements.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Enjoy the hocus pocus hand waving below of your counterparty trying to explain the why the framers' writing of the 2nd amendment implicitly meant to to allow the kind of logic that machine guns from 1985 are ok but not ones from 1987.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    And that the founders had zero foresight to assume weapons technology would advance significantly beyond muskets. I mean really, do people think they were actual idiots?
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      To be fair, I doubt that they expected that nuclear weapons would be developed, and I'm sure they wouldn't be okay with chemical weapons either. But that's the strawman argument. After all, the 2nd amendment was written at a time when civilian ownership of warships was okay, so I don't see how it shouldn't extend to all arms—past, present, and future.
loceng 4y ago
Would it shock you to learn that mass shootings aren't the results of guns, but actually the result of mind-altering medications by pharmaceutical industry that are legal - but 1) in the clinical trials showed an actual increase in suicide [e.g. you're less likely to kill yourself if you didn't take the medication], and 2) that homicide (and homicidal ideation) are also increased due to these medications? But we don't hear about that? Why? Because pharma, at least in the US, is something like 80% of the advertising revenues of all mainstream-mass media channels - so it's one of the big elephants in the room that they prevent from society being alerted to; health and education institutions have also been corrupted by pharma and their profits. Otherwise, your arguments are still only at the shallow level - and don't address or even acknowledge that gun control, or gun rights being enacted, may in fact be an authoritarian effort - and most always implemented through the guise of "doing what's good for society." So is it possible that in Canada, where the Trudeau government is planning to implement a mandatory gun buyback program [for certain guns to begin, but illogically, and that does practically nothing to reduce crime] - using fear mongering and opportunities of US atrocities or Canadian atrocities that the vast majority of weapons used were illegally obtained firearms] is aiming for tyrannical control - or you can't even open your mind to that possibility? If not, it makes me wonder what relatively shallow and skewed information/propaganda/perspective you've been exposed to?

d0mine 4y ago

I'll bite: Turkey — true (Armenian genocide). USSR — false (genocide against who? there were famines (btw in US too). all people suffered). Though I know that the opposite is claimed by propaganda (at least, Obama failed to recognize Armenian genocide, and anything bad is easily believed without questions about USSR).