Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Doc »

Typhoon wrote:Well, in that case you'd be better off as a Wikipedia editor, as US history there is obviously in need of a major rewrite.
Wikipedia gets re-written pretty much every day. And I am a sometimes editor. It gets pretty contentious at times.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Typhoon »

Doc wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Well, in that case you'd be better off as a Wikipedia editor, as US history there is obviously in need of a major rewrite.
Wikipedia gets re-written pretty much every day. And I am a sometimes editor. It gets pretty contentious at times.
Wikipedia is use mostly for topics about which people do not hold strong, typically irrational, beliefs.

Given that, here's the US Library of Congress record of the US 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS

United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court

which summarizes the current interpretation and is thus the law of the land.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.


This part of the most recent interpretation agrees with your claim.

However,
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
So the US States have the right to prohibit you from owning anything from a sawed off shotgun to a small tactical nuclear weapon, should they choose to do so. Also requirements such as no criminal record, no history of mental illness, no weapons in schools, and constraints how and too whom firearms can be sold can be decided by the US States.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Doc »

Typhoon wrote:
Doc wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Well, in that case you'd be better off as a Wikipedia editor, as US history there is obviously in need of a major rewrite.
Wikipedia gets re-written pretty much every day. And I am a sometimes editor. It gets pretty contentious at times.
Wikipedia is use mostly for topics about which people do not hold strong, typically irrational, beliefs.

Given that, here's the US Library of Congress record of the US 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS

United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court

which summarizes the current interpretation and is thus the law of the land.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.


This part of the most recent interpretation agrees with your claim.

However,
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.
So the US States have the right to prohibit you from owning anything from a sawed off shotgun to a small tactical nuclear weapon, should they choose to do so. Also requirements such as no criminal record, no history of mental illness, no weapons in schools, and constraints how and too whom firearms can be sold can be decided by the US States.
As i said until the 1930's there were no prohibitions. And the courts are reducing, and have been correcting wrong past rulings. The excuse for the prohibitions of the 1930s were mostly an answer to recent immigrant violence BTW. Italian Mobsters using tommy guns to kill each other with lots of co-lateral damage IE innocent bystanders.

If Rights are not defended they inevitably go away. People are allowed to defend their rights cause if they don't they lose them.

The first Amendment is also under attack by the left. The real issue is that the progressive left wants to destroy all opposition much like it did in the early part of the 0th century. TO do that they have to get rid of these "offensive" rights.

Though personally I think Obama is taking money from the arms manufatures
Thousands Stand In Rain to Enter SF Gun Show


by AWR Hawkins11 Jan 20165
On January 9, determined gun show attendees outside San Francisco’s Cow Palace stood in a rain-soaked line that stretched across the parking lot to buy tickets to get inside.

The show was held just four days after President Barack Obama announced executive gun controls. The attendance was reportedly predicted to be 7,000–“double the usual 3,500” that attend.

According to the Contra Costa Times, “The sprawling exhibit hall was packed with vendors selling everything from ear plugs and T-shirts to kits that allow you to make your own AR-15 semi-automatics.”

The gun show’s owner, Bob Templeton, is a Utah resident. He explained to the Times that the huge crowd in attendance was there “for two reasons — the safety of their family and President Obama’s call for more gun control.”

President Obama has proven to be the gun industry’s most effective, if inadvertent, pitchman–even in the Golden State of California, where many of the restrictions he would like to see implemented nationwide already exist.
:lol:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by manolo »

The gun show’s owner, Bob Templeton, is a Utah resident. He explained to the Times that the huge crowd in attendance was there “for two reasons — the safety of their family and President Obama’s call for more gun control.”
Folks,

I won't try to understand the first reason. I understand the words, but the sentence eludes.

Alex.
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by kmich »

Image
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

manolo wrote:
The gun show’s owner, Bob Templeton, is a Utah resident. He explained to the Times that the huge crowd in attendance was there “for two reasons — the safety of their family and President Obama’s call for more gun control.”
Folks,

I won't try to understand the first reason. I understand the words, but the sentence eludes.

Alex.
More than a few have noted that Obama is one of the greatest gun salesmen of all time.

It would be interesting to know if he, or his friends or family have been investing in gun company stocks or options.

I think it would be legal, it's not like insider trading. Mr. Perfect would know for sure.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11571
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Doc wrote:.
.

Thousands Stand In Rain to Enter SF Gun Show
:lol:

.

Agree, really funny .. or .. soooo sad

What kind of people go to "gun-show" ? ?

What is there intellectually to see or enjoy ? ?

Really sad

.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Image

;)
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Doc »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Image

;)
Not a bearable arm.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Doc »

Heracleum Persicum wrote:
Doc wrote:.
.

Thousands Stand In Rain to Enter SF Gun Show
:lol:

.

Agree, really funny .. or .. soooo sad

What kind of people go to "gun-show" ? ?

What is there intellectually to see or enjoy ? ?

Really sad

.
Why don't you go to one and ask them?
CYcppZwVAAA3swB.jpg
CYcppZwVAAA3swB.jpg (72.58 KiB) Viewed 1541 times
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Typhoon »

manolo wrote:
The gun show’s owner, Bob Templeton, is a Utah resident. He explained to the Times that the huge crowd in attendance was there “for two reasons — the safety of their family and President Obama’s call for more gun control.”
Folks,

I won't try to understand the first reason. I understand the words, but the sentence eludes.

Alex.
Every nation has it's irrational fears, myths, and beliefs.

I would simply find it odd, unsettling, and unappealing to live in a society wherein carrying a firearm in an urban setting,
for supposed personal protection, would be the norm.
Also the trouble to going through commando level training in the use of firearms to learn properly how to kill other firearm carrying people.
I would consider this obligatory for myself, if the purpose of the firearm was indeed so-called self-defense,
as there is no greater fool than an untrained fool with a firearm.
And the hassle of keeping of keeping one's skills up, as unlike with a driving license, one presumably does not get into firearm fights on a daily basis.

In the end, too much effort and trouble over low probability events. I think my time is better spent in other pursuits.

Note that, to me, this is completely different than the rural setting with the farmer or rancher with a multi-generation old rifle or shotgun in the pickup.
To be used to, say, defend livestock from predators or supplement the family meal with some fresh game.
That's just a way of life.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Typhoon »

Doc wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Image

;)
Not a bearable arm.
No, but this is

5M4E_PbZ7_U

One way to clear that traffic jam, I suppose.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Doc »

Typhoon wrote:
Doc wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Image

;)
Not a bearable arm.
No, but this is

5M4E_PbZ7_U

One way to clear that traffic jam, I suppose.
Hey it worked fr Hilary in Benghazi

4CJBuUwd0Os
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by manolo »

Typhoon wrote:
manolo wrote:
The gun show’s owner, Bob Templeton, is a Utah resident. He explained to the Times that the huge crowd in attendance was there “for two reasons — the safety of their family and President Obama’s call for more gun control.”
Folks,

I won't try to understand the first reason. I understand the words, but the sentence eludes.

Alex.
Every nation has it's irrational fears, myths, and beliefs.

I would simply find it odd, unsettling, and unappealing to live in a society wherein carrying a firearm in an urban setting,
for supposed personal protection, would be the norm.
Also the trouble to going through commando level training in the use of firearms to learn properly how to kill other firearm carrying people.
I would consider this obligatory for myself, if the purpose of the firearm was indeed so-called self-defense,
as there is no greater fool than an untrained fool with a firearm.
And the hassle of keeping of keeping one's skills up, as unlike with a driving license, one presumably does not get into firearm fights on a daily basis.

In the end, too much effort and trouble over low probability events. I think my time is better spent in other pursuits.

Note that, to me, this is completely different than the rural setting with the farmer or rancher with a multi-generation old rifle or shotgun in the pickup.
To be used to, say, defend livestock from predators or supplement the family meal with some fresh game.
That's just a way of life.
Typhoon,

The odd thing is, that I can understand someone wanting a gun because they like them. My guess is that 'I like them' is the real reason under the skin of most gun enthusiasts. The stuff about home defence is weird to me.

I can certainly understand the Obama thing. It was like that here with smoking; lots of people complained about losing their right to smoke in bars. Same issue with booze too. I know a girl who visited the US at aged 19 and was miffed when she couldn't buy a glass of wine! Too many government rules and regulations is a turn off for many people, including me.

Alex.
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

Doc wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:Image

;)
Not a bearable arm.
Lawn art is in the eye of the beholder.
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

manolo wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
manolo wrote:
The gun show’s owner, Bob Templeton, is a Utah resident. He explained to the Times that the huge crowd in attendance was there “for two reasons — the safety of their family and President Obama’s call for more gun control.”
Folks,

I won't try to understand the first reason. I understand the words, but the sentence eludes.

Alex.
Every nation has it's irrational fears, myths, and beliefs.

I would simply find it odd, unsettling, and unappealing to live in a society wherein carrying a firearm in an urban setting,
for supposed personal protection, would be the norm.
Also the trouble to going through commando level training in the use of firearms to learn properly how to kill other firearm carrying people.
I would consider this obligatory for myself, if the purpose of the firearm was indeed so-called self-defense,
as there is no greater fool than an untrained fool with a firearm.
And the hassle of keeping of keeping one's skills up, as unlike with a driving license, one presumably does not get into firearm fights on a daily basis.

In the end, too much effort and trouble over low probability events. I think my time is better spent in other pursuits.

Note that, to me, this is completely different than the rural setting with the farmer or rancher with a multi-generation old rifle or shotgun in the pickup.
To be used to, say, defend livestock from predators or supplement the family meal with some fresh game.
That's just a way of life.
Typhoon,

The odd thing is, that I can understand someone wanting a gun because they like them. My guess is that 'I like them' is the real reason under the skin of most gun enthusiasts. The stuff about home defence is weird to me.

I can certainly understand the Obama thing. It was like that here with smoking; lots of people complained about losing their right to smoke in bars. Same issue with booze too. I know a girl who visited the US at aged 19 and was miffed when she couldn't buy a glass of wine! Too many government rules and regulations is a turn off for many people, including me.

Alex.
Alex & Typhoon,

Both of you have reasonable opinions. To better understand, Watch the you tube video "Number One with a Bullet." I think it will help minimize your projections and confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

The US is not 3 people living on a half acre.

Once one gets past the megalomaniacal stage of imposing national law in an attempt to solve local problems, all the friction goes away. And if one refuses to call terrorism, "terrorism," because it hurts their record/legacy, and instead calls it "gun violence" or "work place violence" in an attempt to push an agenda, even less trust results.

Add to that the discussions of "Nation Gun Culture," rather than local murder culture, local drug culture, or local self-destructive culture, and it gets very difficult to believe the power elites are interested in solving problems, rather than promoting and catering to the irrational fears of their base. Don't forget, these are the geniuses who invented sub-prime, ethanol in gasoline, and AGW!

People buy stuff, cause they like to have stuff, or for the social aspect or aspect of status. Some people like wine, some like beer, some like art, some like football, some like poetry, some like guns, some like archery, etc. Local culture, social events, tinkering, self-discipline.

I know more than a few single women and elderly people who own guns for home defense. Bad stuff happens in less time than it takes a cop to climb a flight of stairs or get out of a car. To them it is an additional insurance policy that adds peace of mind. I guess if you don't consider yourself nuts or a mass murderer, it makes sense.

The more interesting aspect to me is why do people feel the need to rationalize or project more than that? The article Typhoon posted on stereotyping is another excellent reference.

I have friends who can't appreciate guns, or motorcycles, or welding, or the satisfaction of solving problems. They think I am nuts when I refuse to eat the expensive wine or cheese they serve when we get together. I tell them "I have no palate for that stuff, someone who will appreciate it should enjoy it rather than wasting it on me." Pearls before swine! ;) I guess it is cause I was raised in a culture where knowing how to weld was of higher value than being able to discern between cheap wine and expensive wine?

A lot of the hype is simply political fundraising. A democrat incumbent can raise money instantly by announcing either "We should ban guns!" or "They want to ban abortions!" A republican incumbent can raise money instantly by announcing either "We should ban abortions!" or "They want to ban guns!"

As the article YMix posted shows, both sides have lost a lot of credibility and need to be careful not to work the horse/milk the cow to death.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by YMix »

Simple Minded wrote:Once one gets past the megalomaniacal stage of imposing national law in an attempt to solve local problems, all the friction goes away.
Actually, this is the heart of the problem, not guns. Two interested parties take opposite sides on an issue and an inelastic piece of legislation prevents a reasonable compromise.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Simple Minded

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Simple Minded »

YMix wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Once one gets past the megalomaniacal stage of imposing national law in an attempt to solve local problems, all the friction goes away.
Actually, this is the heart of the problem, not guns. Two interested parties take opposite sides on an issue and an inelastic piece of legislation prevents a reasonable compromise.
I must not be reading this properly. Please explain. Gun laws vary all over the US in response to the will of the locals. What is the inelastic piece of legislation? And what is a reasonable compromise?

One size fits all is generally known as tyranny. Two sizes fits all is not much better. But if the two 800 pound gorillas in DC find a reasonable compromise and impose it upon the entire nation, that is better?

How so?
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Typhoon »

manolo wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
manolo wrote:
The gun show’s owner, Bob Templeton, is a Utah resident. He explained to the Times that the huge crowd in attendance was there “for two reasons — the safety of their family and President Obama’s call for more gun control.”
Folks,

I won't try to understand the first reason. I understand the words, but the sentence eludes.

Alex.
Every nation has it's irrational fears, myths, and beliefs.

I would simply find it odd, unsettling, and unappealing to live in a society wherein carrying a firearm in an urban setting,
for supposed personal protection, would be the norm.
Also the trouble to going through commando level training in the use of firearms to learn properly how to kill other firearm carrying people.
I would consider this obligatory for myself, if the purpose of the firearm was indeed so-called self-defense,
as there is no greater fool than an untrained fool with a firearm.
And the hassle of keeping of keeping one's skills up, as unlike with a driving license, one presumably does not get into firearm fights on a daily basis.

In the end, too much effort and trouble over low probability events. I think my time is better spent in other pursuits.

Note that, to me, this is completely different than the rural setting with the farmer or rancher with a multi-generation old rifle or shotgun in the pickup.
To be used to, say, defend livestock from predators or supplement the family meal with some fresh game.
That's just a way of life.
Typhoon,

The odd thing is, that I can understand someone wanting a gun because they like them. My guess is that 'I like them' is the real reason under the skin of most gun enthusiasts.
That's the purpose of firearm clubs and ranges.
No issue with such activities either.

[ Years ago having fired pistol, rifle, sawed off shotgun, submachine gun and machine gun I found the experiences interesting,
although not interesting enough to continue either as a hobby or as a career. ]
manolo wrote:The stuff about home defence is weird to me.
It is irrational.
I simply would not want to be sitting in a MacDonald's in downtown Chicago surrounded by a bunch of incompetent make-believe militia types openly carrying firearms. Same with concealed carry, for that matter.
manolo wrote:I can certainly understand the Obama thing. It was like that here with smoking; lots of people complained about losing their right to smoke in bars. Same issue with booze too. I know a girl who visited the US at aged 19 and was miffed when she couldn't buy a glass of wine! Too many government rules and regulations is a turn off for many people, including me.

Alex.
An infantilized population is a docile population.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Doc »

YMix wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:Once one gets past the megalomaniacal stage of imposing national law in an attempt to solve local problems, all the friction goes away.
Actually, this is the heart of the problem, not guns. Two interested parties take opposite sides on an issue and an inelastic piece of legislation prevents a reasonable compromise.

There is no compromise on constitutional rights either we have them or we don't have any. The issue at this point is simply the democrats having nothing to run on.

The election this year is going to be a massive route.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by YMix »

Simple Minded wrote:I must not be reading this properly. Please explain. Gun laws vary all over the US in response to the will of the locals. What is the inelastic piece of legislation? And what is a reasonable compromise?
The piece of legislation is the Second Amendment. A reasonable compromise would allow the rurals to keep their weapons and the cities to ban them.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by Typhoon »

OC in Texas

The new from Texas ain't quite so good.
Things didn't turn out like they thought they would.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by noddy »

the only thing that i dont get about merkin gun culture is the vehement linkage to freedom.

everything else is just local flavour but that particular item doesnt even stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

YMix wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:I must not be reading this properly. Please explain. Gun laws vary all over the US in response to the will of the locals. What is the inelastic piece of legislation? And what is a reasonable compromise?
The piece of legislation is the Second Amendment. A reasonable compromise would allow the rurals to keep their weapons and the cities to ban them.
So you advocate unequal laws and special privileges for some groups of people over other groups. Interesting.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news

Post by YMix »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:So you advocate unequal laws and special privileges for some groups of people over other groups. Interesting.
I'm not a fan of that, but I'm not a fan of cultural wars either. Your country should have updated that bill of rights many years ago. And its party system. As things stand now, the only options seem to be a decisive conflict that would see one side defeated or a stalemate that just keeps poisoning the atmosphere.

Also, I don't endorse privileges in general. Making adjustments for various groups of people is quite common. It depends on what kind of privileges we're talking about. Allowing the rurals to keep their guns doesn't seem to be hurting the nation, just as letting Sikhs walk around with knives is not a problem. As I've mentioned before, the ethnic minorities of my own country have their own political parties even though the law explicitly bans political association based on ethnic criteria. It's not ideal, but it's not a problem either as long as people don't try to abuse the system.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Post Reply