Likes: 
Faceplams: This country can barely teach Math. Or really, any subjects that actually matter.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
This country can barely teach Math. Or really, any subjects that actually matter.
Active Member
I highly doubt you would even need guns for firearms education. If you did, that would probably be something that gets rented and moved around between schools. But seriously, no live guns are needed for the vast majority of firearms safety education. Get some solid plastic training guns and you are set.Originally Posted by tony.parente
This kind of education would have quite a lot of positives, similar to sex ed, but many on the left refuse to entertain it because "it encourages guns." They'd rather take the social conservative angle of sex ed: don't talk about it and/or only teach abstinence. They want to keep guns a scary and extremely foreign topic. It helps with getting knee-jerk legislation through.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 08-27-2014 at 08:04 PM.
Active Member
Basically, look at the statistics for all the accidental deaths and injuries from guns. Education would put a HUGE dent in that.
Active Member
Funny, you would think I was being sarcastic. That's usually my MO, but no here I personally feel that regardless of all the fuck ups this instructor did, which could have happened with an adult, the only reason why this made the news is because it was a child - A CHILD who should not be shooting a weapon like that full stop.
Active Member
Can you articulate your reasoning? I'm talking tangible justification here, not the emotional/moral appeal that Deepvoid kept going with.
The beginning of this video show a girl (i think 10yo) shooting an even more powerful full auto weapon. Throughout the 1min video, she demonstrates more safety and skill than a shitload of adults I have witnessed. I absolutely agree that the 9yo Uzi girl should NOT have been giving that gun, but I am not going to apply that to ALL kids.
Quiet Member
Firearm safety seems pretty important in this day in age in the US. Assuming you are being sarcastic.....A similar rhetoric to what you're stating would be is "Oh, yeah. Sexual education at school is ALL we need. Hahaha."
Active Member
I could demonstrate how silly that sounds when someone's opinion in sex is that it's not a necessary part of life until after marriage. "And if you simply wait till then, most of the info about STDs and other such this is unnecessary. Only the morally corrupt would ever want to teach that crap to children!"
Drugs could easily fall into the same category too. Do you really think we should avoid teaching kids to be safe with that topic as well?
Active Member
Tangible justification? How about there are plenty of those for a minimum drinking age, voting age, driving age, but a 9 year old is allowed to use an Uzi, really? Yeah, it's emotional now because someone is DEAD, but a child doesn't/shouldn't have to understand the ramifications of the deadly force that a firearm has with live ammo. Shooting well is one thing, like that vid, she's demonstrating a skill no different then the girl who can pitch in the little league or play ice hockey with the boys, but that doesn't mean it's ok to be allowed, by adults, to shoot something that can and will kill another human being. Just wait, just like drinking, driving, working legally, and voting.
Active Member
So we should apply that to everything that can kill?
So that should apply to bow and arrow, sling shots, heavy machinery, etc?
Should we bump the minimum driving age to 18? Many states allow 14 year olds to drive... are you ok letting a 14 year old have a gun?
Stubby Member
STRAW MAN ALERT!
No, you should apply it to everything that is likely to kill. Like a child with a gun.
A child as young as the one that shot that instructor shouldn't have a bow with arrows that are likely to cause serious harm, either, nor should they drive heavy machinery.
This argument is not to be won either way with single anecdotes. The fact that one kid with stupid parents, and a stupid business, resulted in the death of a stupid instructor, isn't evidence on which to base public policy. Nor is the fact that one other young girl has been taught proper firearm handling.
You base public policy - and I've already argued this is a public health issue, not a strictly social, ethical, or legal one - on research and science. And the evidence is that young children just cannot be trusted with these sorts of things. They're not physically or mentally capable of keeping a car under control and thereby deriving its utility. We don't let them vote because they can't make informed decisions.
Kids do stupid shit. If you give them guns that stupid shit will kill people or themselves.
Active Member
The problem with this approach is that it fucks over the individuals who don't fall in the median of the data. That said, at least this is a MUCH better approach than the typical emotionally lead legislation we are used to seeing.
Active Member
I believe we are all talking about the Uzi level of firearm, correct? I shot a .22 rifle when I was a kid, I get it. That's not what were talking about with this story. What is it with gun advocates, They think if you give an inch (regulate), a mile will always be taken?
Active Member
Well, the post you quoted had moved to the point of "shit that is potentially lethal due to accidents in the hands of someone too young" territory. There isn't a whole lot of difference, in terms of accidental deaths, between a fully automatic and a .22 rifle. In that list, I think it would be the car that has the largest potential fallout from irresponsible use.
As for the "give an inch take a mile" thing... taking a mile is very frequently what happens in gun control. I live in California, I can tell you all about that if you'd like.Hell, just today the assembly floor voted on a bill to dramatically limit ammo sales while also requiring annual permits to buy it. In the next few days they will be voting on a bill that mandates the color of all BB and Airsoft guns to fluorescent, for fuck's sake.
Active Member
I see what you did there straw man. I'm not going to argue with you. It's my opinion that a 9 year old should have an Uzi put in his/ her hands.
Bite me
He is way overzealous, he's like a fucking Moonie with this gun shit. I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU for over 15 years and shot at gun ranges and do not give one single shit about a minor at a gun range to the point of getting this worked up about it and wasting time over it. These fucking Uzi-shooting incident people were clearly winners of the Darwin award. Thing is re guns and cars: Farm community kids need cars, and they often need to shoot a rifle. But they sure as fuck don't need a fucking Uzi unless those A-Rabs gon come vadin us soon and we gotta be prepared. And the more you people respond in his upper class blind playground, the longer this thread lives. Hint hint.
Here's another hint re the way the Law and the SCOTUS looks at things: NEED. Maybe you NEED that BB gun, but you probably don't NEED it to be CAMO because law enforcement or the bank teller has an even BIGGER NEED to know THAT'S NOT A REAL FUCKING GUN. Public safety (a need) has always trumped rights, even in the US Supreme Court (can't yell "fire" for no reason in a public building, no absolute free speech). The SCOTUS refuses to accept assault weapons as a "need" weapon. Stockpiled on-demand ammo has never been viewed as a "need" except by the military.
Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2014 at 10:01 AM.
Active Member
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borow...litary-weapons
Also, I love it how gun enthusiasts like to change the subject. We should regulate guns. Hey, but what about knives? What about cars? We are talking about guns.
Last edited by aggroculture; 08-31-2014 at 09:09 AM.
Active Member
It's because you fixate on guns while giving "justifications" that have much more broad implication. Accidents, homicides, mass killings, etc... then you just slap the word GUN in front of it and expect nobody to notice. Because it is the gun that you actually have the issue with, you just can't justify your issue without the added "problem" that they produce. So then when someone points that out that your "problem" exists in many places, you realize how ridiculous your proposal would be when applied elsewhere.
The techniques of handling that in this thread has been 1- ignore it, 2- "this thread is about GUNS and I will only talk about guns", and 3- "straw man!" as @Dra508 tried.
Active Member
You are giving too much credit to the California system to equate them to SCOTUS. Just this year, there were two major laws knocked down by SCOTUS that CA said were completely legal: the ban on concealed and open carry, the 10 day waiting period for gun owners.
The ammo thing wouldn't have prevented stockpiling. It only made it a huge hassle to buy any. It would have meant no more mail order or online orders (the bulk of ammo sales currently) and no more purchases from stores or private parties unless they obtained authorization by the state. SCOTUS has already stuck down bans on ammo. Considering that, along with the fact that they found undo burden under the 10 day waiting period, that would make the proposed CA ammo bill stand on shaky ground. Luckily, that was voted down yesterday so we don't need to figure out what SCOTUS thinks. I was simply reaching into the news bag within the span of mere hours to demonstrate some of the "take a mile" approach you see in California.
Active Member
Oh, and fun fact, that ammo bill was coauthored by Senator Leland Yee.... MY senator who is currently suspended because he was operating a pretty extreme gun running operation (machine guns, rocket launchers, etc) in part to help fund his electoral campaigns. He was working with the local Chinese mafia and some sort of Muslim resistance group. That guy sure did like his gun control legislation though.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 08-31-2014 at 12:50 PM.
Active Member
AKA "guns don't kill people, people do." Yep, you got nothing.
Also, we do regulate the shit out of cars, and for good reason. Why shouldn't the DMV also handle gun licenses in the same way, with a proficiency exam etc? Because "the goverment" shouldn't decide who is responsible enough to own a gun? Why not? Because the government is essentially untrustworthy? This is paranoid thinking.
Basically what people like you want are rights for irresponsible people to own guns: exactly the very people who shouldn't. Imagine if everyone who failed their driving test or never even learned to drive in the first place was allowed to get in a car and drive anyway. We'd see a lot more death on the roads.
Last edited by aggroculture; 08-31-2014 at 12:58 PM.
Active Member
You do realize that is exactly what I proposed right here, right? My issue with with the absolutist "no kid EVER can touch a fully automatic weapon."
And for the record, i'm only playing devils advocate on the full-auto topic. SCOTUS has already made their stance on full-auto via the National Firearms Act. Who gets to use the continually shrinking pool of full-auto weapons is sort of a moot point.
Bite me
I never compared California to SCOTUS. You tend to hit RESPOND button before reading. That's how you have this little playground, here, that mostly lacks in actual legal insight except for your one-sided emotional view that wants this drive-through on-demand McDonalds House-Of-Guns which serves your "omgee I don't wanna actually look at autopsies but I sure like shooting these expensive toys" view but avoids the reality of the guy who can use his stockpiled ammo to circumvent his voided FOID card from his Order of Protection violation after repeatedly beating the shit out of his wife to go shoot his wife and kids. Good plan! For you. Not so much for the dead wife and kids.
The SCOTUS is not your friend. It likely disagreed with the 10-day period because it was unreasonable. 3 days? Totally would've worked. Totally reasonable. Has been deemed reasonable in prior case law. The SCOTUS works on past case law and technicalities and public policy, not solely constitutional law. The SCOTUS held: "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"
Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2014 at 01:55 PM.
Active Member
In that case, I have a question: would the second amendment be incompatible with a gun license/proficiency exam? If so, why?
Bite me
The court has never been against these classes when it comes to concealed carry licenses (outside the home), but the SCOTUS mostly protects your right to a gun without too many restrictions when it comes to a gun in your HOME. So far, though, it has refused to hear additional cases related to guns except for concealed carry. It continues to refuse to hear cases related to assault weapons (SCOTUS refuses to accept them as home protection and refuses to overturn bans, classifying them as "dangerous and unusual").
Here is the HELLER OPINION:
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(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. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2014 at 02:41 PM.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
You know how crazy gun nut people are always like... WELL WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS ON US?!?!?!?@ I NEED MAH GUN... I just wonder how well that worked out for gun folks in Ferguson when the police were rolling around in their tanks. Lolz.
If these paranoid delusions come true, and the government "comes for us", they'll get us. A few guns aren't going to save anyone.
Bite me
Well, yes, and the way the Crazy Government will "get" us will be like this: They will take over our ATM cards and all of our plastic and our computers. MONEY is the way to get us. Guns won't mean shit when they'll have tanks and bombs and fucking drones. And we won't be able to buy any more ammo with no ATM cards. So, yeah, we'll be fucked, anyway. (Didn't you guys read Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale?" Hellooooooo?!??!?!?!?!)
I actually know a few people who cashed out their IRAs and 401Ks and bought gold bouillon. You know, for when Armageddon hits. Except who's gonna take gold bouillon? You gonna go get some milk and toilet paper at the 7-11 with that? If that happens, dude, you'd better have wads of cash in a safe in your basement. And a few guns. Not for the government; for the looters. But you don't need an Uzi. A few 9mms and some regular old magazines will do. No need for overkill. Really. We can kill the zombies with Slurpies! Those things are toxic.
Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2014 at 02:50 PM.
Active Member
It's astonishing, worrying, and very very sad that such a key issue in contemporary US policy and every day life (and 30000 deaths a year) are determined by a paranoid fantasy that the government will turn against you and come get you - and that your guns will save you.
You threw the British out 200 years ago. Get over it.
Active Member
Heh heh, y'all understood that I meant to write should NOT, not should. Drrrrr. Now, I'll go read all the subsequent posts.
Active Member
This is all true but I disagree on a few points when it comes to govt vs citizen. An armed group of citizens absolutely would provide a shitload of resistance against a more heavily armed military. Enough to even "win" in many situations. 10 cops in a BearCat are going to have a tough time against 200 armed citizens.
Secondly, most of the opinions on this theoretical matter are that an armed population is sufficient to simply prevent most situations of armed armed aggression from even happening. It's when the government stops trusting citizens with guns that you get concerned.
But I totally agree about the most likely way a government would ever "get us" and that is why I am an even bigger supporter of the EFF & ACLU. I've never once supported a national 2nd amendment group like the NRA. There just aren't any "anti's" on ETS in that category for me to voice my opinion
And as someone who lives on a fault line, yes... Looters are my primary concern in any situation involving social unrest.
Active Member
200 years is a very short period of time. I'll agree that it's very unlikely that the US government of 2014 would do this. It's very naive to claim you know how things will be in 50 years. ~50 years ago we were worried about invasions from other countries.
Reply With Quote
