Another fun fact: That AR-15 everyone is so up in arms about (pun somewhat intended)? Manufactured starting in 1959, with its design dating back to 1956. Another fun fact: it was only a "weapon of war" for one year of the Vietnam War, from 1962-1963. Not exactly the high-tech mass murder machine people make out to be.
Actually there's been quite a few countries that have experimented with the legalization of both drugs and prostitution, Australia for example, where crime related to drugs and prostitution has gone down significantly. Granted, I'm not saying that would work here, because Americans are terrible people, but I like hearing about progressive programs.
I love people who love Spike Cohen. He's being made out to be this Che Guevara like embodiment, followed by millions of rebel sheep to the Republican slaughter.
Stoner’s various designs were rejected by the military, it exists only because ArmaLite wanted to downsize the calibre of the AR-10, and it was only adopted because military trials at the time have failed to find an adequate replacement for the M14 - a watermelon shootout at a party had more to do with it becoming a military weapon than anything else. Good video by Gun Jesus, along with the other ones about the ArmaLite gas system.
Are you saying that the man is wrong here? I do see some blame-shifting going on. “Bad thing happens = Let’s punish everyone” is not a good way to legislate, especially not when constitutional rights are concerned. I agree with most of the other things you’ve said, but I question this part, as well as your statement on Americans being “bad people”. It’s an odd generalisation to make - what makes them “bad”, exactly?
Always enjoyed playing as Stryker - anyone who brings a gun to a fist fight obviously knows how to get the upper hand. If you think that’s dishonourable in a martial arts tournament, consider the fact that you’re fighting against supernatural kombatants (ha!), including sorcerers, the undead, a literal god of lightning and more. I think it’s fair game at that point, evens out the odds.
you also have to be a little stupid as wellAlways enjoyed playing as Stryker - anyone who brings a gun to a fist fight obviously knows how to get the upper hand. If you think that’s dishonourable in a martial arts tournament, consider the fact that you’re fighting against supernatural kombatants (ha!), including sorcerers, the undead, a literal god of lightning and more. I think it’s fair game at that point, evens out the odds.
Yes, that makes it all better. I guess he is a bit of an asshole, the rest seems fair.To be fair, Raiden isn't in MK3, so you can't use the "fighting a god of lightning" excuse until MKT.
Stupid is what stupid does.
I’m not really familiar with who this man is - I’m simply looking at the argument and he’s making a good point. One of the key arguments for restricting civilian access to firearms is safety. We are supposed to believe that the state should have a near-complete monopoly on firearms and that the police will step in and solve all of our problems, so there’s “no need” for civilian ownership, but that’s almost never the case. Earlier in the thread we’ve discussed that they’re not even obligated to act when in harm’s way (nor should they - we should not expect others to lay their lives down for us). Who could possibly be more responsible for protecting me than myself? It’s my life.
If the NRA is advocating for gun rights in order to make money, they’re not doing a very good job - they filed for bankruptcy last year. The case was dismissed and the organisation could face dissolution. The weapons business is certainly lucrative, but the NRA doesn’t appear to be a major beneficiary of those proceeds. They’re not spending *that* much on lobbying either - they’re not even in the top 10. Amazon and Facebook (now Meta) both spent well over $5m each on lobbying in 2022 so far, placing 7th and 8th. Guess how much the NRA spent? $650k.
But they are being attacked and infringed. How can people not think that? The measures being discussed right now are not reasonable preventative steps like red flag laws and such, aimed specifically at perpetrators of these heinous acts. What’s being discussed is potentially restricting access to rifles, again - measures like this primarily punish law abiding citizens. It’s very unlikely to come to fruition, but it does affect public sentiment.
Wait a minute now, you’re shifting the goal posts here. What you said was that the NRA was at at fault for the current state of affairs because they were funnelling money into campaigning by the wheelbarrow, and now that I’ve shown you the receipts, you’re telling me that you’re not surprised and that the people behind the NRA have some kind of undisclosed stash of funds? I’m sure they’re quite wealthy in their private lives, but how does that affect legislation? I don’t really care how much money people have in their accounts, domestic or off-shore - I only care about lobbying, since that was the subject. It doesn’t really matter to me either way - I despise corrupt politicians regardless of whether they’re being bribed to do things I agree or disagree with, but if the numbers don’t align with the conclusion, I have to point it out. In your opinion, is it at all possible that firearms are prevalent in America and gun rights are strongly supported simply because a large part of the population, about half of it, actually believes that they have utility and consider bearing arms to be a right? Now, for the record, this isn’t a question about supporting or not supporting more gun control measures, it’s about the sentiment towards guns in general. I think that’s far more likely to be true compared to it being a result of campaigning by gun rights groups.
My general point was that a government monopoly is not required to implement legal sale of recreational drugs. We don’t have one for medicines, we don’t have one for alcohol or tobacco, I don’t see how drugs would be any different - all that’s required are basic food and drug safety checks (I say food because edibles are rather popular, and those don’t just include the active substance but also food - think gummy bears or brownies). As far as prostitution goes, “f*ck the government” is just a figure of speech - free market prostitutes are perfectly acceptable.
It does state what restrictions the government is allowed to implement - in the part that says “shall not be infringed”. Any gun control measures are a concession the pro-gun side of the argument makes to meet the anti-gun half-way, and each of those measures should be subject to debate. If we take a textualist approach towards the constitution they’re all unconstitutional - we’re just allowing them to exist if they’re common sense.
It is my opinion that American society has always been like this - the gun lobby, including the NRA, is just society organising itself to advocate for their own rights. Of course it’s not exactly selfless by any means, but I think the idea that the “gun lobby” has a huge impact on how society thinks is exaggerated - it’s no different than any other lobby group, and there are far stronger ones out there. In terms of all-time impact, the NRA is ranked 21st overall in terms of lobbying strength, out of 500-odd organisations listed - that’s in the Top 100, and significant for sure, but there are 20 organisations ahead of it.
I don’t think that’s what’s on the minds of most mass shooters when they commit their crimes - they usually have a more specific motivation.
I can shake on that, as long as we don’t forget that punishing law abiding and responsible citizens for some kind of nebulous “greater good” is wrong. A law abiding citizen will happily abide the law and its various requirements in the pursuit of owning the firearm they want - what’s unfair is telling them they *can’t* have one at all, or creating an obstacle specifically designed to be insurmountable for the average citizen, which is effectively a ban.
This is an all-time ranking - the NRA is very, very old.
Murder is illegal.
That was my point all along - the rights of the many outweigh the sins of the few, so there’s no reason to break the system.
Jordan Peterson, among others, has commented on this. In his view, which I think is correct, mass shooters are operating out of a profound sense of nihilism. They believe that not only is life nothing but suffering and therefore not worth living, but that the ultimate gift they can give is to relieve the suffering of others by freeing them from this mortal coil. As such, they try to take out as many people as possible before killing themselves, because they see it as advancing the "greater good" (relieving people of the state of suffering known as "life"). It's a very dark ideology, but there is a twisted logic to it, which suggests that such people can be convinced to take a different path if we can reach them before their sense of despair becomes overwhelming.
Peterson is a smart man whenever he’s not on a metric tonne of benzos. Good lectures regarding personality, but the guy wasn’t ready for becoming suddenly and unexpectedly famous. He’s an internet daddy for many young men who feel disenfranchised, and he’s helped many of them, but the guy has his own problems, so some of his opinions should be taken with a pinch of salt. He should take his own advice and clean his room first. There’s no shortage of nihilist mass shooters, but for every shooter who’s a broken shell of a person there’s two who are highly motivated and have specific reasons for going through with their evil plan. Some suffer from extreme despair, others are very orderly and capable of complex planning. Psychopaths can be surprisingly organised and efficient.
If you’re asking me whether their ownership of weapons is an exercise of 2A rights, the answer is yes - they have a right to own weapons. They just happen to be misusing that right to cause harm - they don’t have the right to do that. We had a conversation about causing damages earlier. The libertarian approach is very simple and based on the non-aggression principle. If you’re the aggressor, your rights are immediately void.
Who’s suggesting that? I didn’t suggest any changes, I only specified my personal beliefs, and even mentioned that they’re unusual.
@
Sicklyboy:
@
hitorikuroi:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
BakerMan:
@
BakerMan:
