2nd amendment discussion + taking tweets to task (Split from news thread)

[Icelandic]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/eric-swalwell-democratic-lawmaker-warns-gun-owners/

A Democratic representative from California threatening to nuke it's own citizens for the sake of gun control. The fact that Democratic politicians can say this kinda crap and no one cares is insane.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?s=21

^The tweet straight from the source.^

[Beorning]

Well, from I see, it's his interlocutor that threatened war with the government... Still, a stupid thing to say from a politician.

On another hand - when will this American obsession with right to bear arms end? As a non-American, I honestly wonder: how many more mass shootings do US government and the US citizens en masse need to understand that the American laws regarding arms are too lax?

[Shekinah]

Well, from I see, it's his interlocutor that threatened war with the government... Still, a stupid thing to say from a politician.

On another hand - when will this American obsession with right to bear arms end? As a non-American, I honestly wonder: how many more mass shootings do US government and the US citizens en masse need to understand that the American laws regarding arms are too lax?

Agree with that, they threaten to start a war if they even try to touch their guns.
The representatives reaction wasn't smart to it at all.
Though also have to read further on where he says it was sarcasm and person reacts to it with;

Eric, I get that your use of "nukes" was sarcasm, and, yep, twitter doesn't do nuance.

But understand how many of us gun clinging Americans recoil at the word "confiscation" and will do whatever we have to do to defend our guns against a government that would take them. Thanks

The fact that they recoil at the word confiscation and actually threaten to whatever we have to defend our guns, makes me more scared.

Like Beorning says, as a non-American I also don't understand why some Americans need to have a gun. And don't tell me you need it to be safe. because if you need a gun to feel/be safe, then there are bigger issues that need handling.

But yeah that's just my opinion and it probably is completely different compared to someone raised in America itself.

[RedRose]

I understand it being legal in (parts of) America.
I don't understand how it became a right as opposed to just being legal if you are found fit for owning a gun.
I'm familiar with a few other countries where you can own a gun. It's not easy peasy and perhaps because of that the shootings are very rare. People I know there also do not worship their guns. It's a responsibility more than a right. Heck, I've had relatives who legally (or not…) had a gun for various reason from their job, to their personal history. In most cases I didn't even KNOW. My dad who is pro gun enough to teach me to shoot as a kid, never wanted me to know he owned one at home.

[Regina Minx]

As a non-American, I honestly wonder: how many more mass shootings do US government and the US citizens en masse need to understand that the American laws regarding arms are too lax?

After Sandy Hook, I realized something. We saw 20 dead children as the result of a mass shooter, and we did nothing to prevent the next mass shooting after that. It’s not that Americans don’t understand that our gun laws are too lax. It’s that we’ve decided that cost of free and ready access to these things is worth the occaisional school full of dead children.

[Tolvo]

I'm gonna be honest, I think Sandy Hook is actually the worst defense of Gun Control. Because the level of gun control that would have been required to ensure that didn't happen would have been very extreme. Lots of other shootings could have been prevented with even more moderate gun control, but Sandy Hook was nearly unpreventable. The only real better bet would have been better healthcare, because the gun control required to prevent it would be not allowing guns in the house of anyone who has any mental illness or mental disorder. And most shootings are done by people without mental illnesses or disorders. While with better healthcare there would have been more warning signs to pick up on if he was in therapy or seeing a regular doctor and perhaps with better treatment he would not have gone on his shooting spree.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/authorities-find-rocket-launcher-pipe-bomb-massive-florida-white-supremacist-sting/

So there was a sting operation done on some Neo-Nazis due to them dealing drugs but basically they turned out to be armed like a rebel movement featuring a rocket launcher.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/us/navy-seal-edward-gallagher-isis.html?smid=tw-nytnational&smtyp=cur

Also a Navy SEAL is being tried for war crimes. Honestly I'm very critical of the military, but I'm glad to see SEALs actually working against such a terrible person within their ranks to save lives. Those people trying to stop his slaughter are heroes.

[Lustful Bride]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/eric-swalwell-democratic-lawmaker-warns-gun-owners/

A Democratic representative from California threatening to nuke it's own citizens for the sake of gun control. The fact that Democratic politicians can say this kinda crap and no one cares is insane.

https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?s=21

^The tweet straight from the source.^

And this kind of shit Is what makes the NRA and Gun Crazies think they are legitimate in their fears and extreme views on guns. Every little dirty thing or screw up the government does only makes them go further into their crazy holes, and i say this as someone who happilly goes to the range on occasion and is pro gun (to an extent).


I'm not gonna say much else because i'm tired of arguing about guns with Americans and Non Americans. I'm mentally drained by it and emotionally broken that our system is broken and allows many of these attacks to happen and we sit on our hands because the two parties in power only want extreme solutions to it and cant pull their thumbs out of their own asses for five seconds to actualy get anything done and work to better the country.

[legomaster00156]

It's pretty obvious to me that he wasn't actually threatening use of nuclear weapons, but pointing out the stark reality that, yeah, any war with a nuclear power would be a short one. That said, that was very poorly worded.

[Regina Minx]

I'm gonna be honest, I think Sandy Hook is actually the worst defense of Gun Control. Because the level of gun control that would have been required to ensure that didn't happen would have been very extreme.

Banning high capacity magazines is not extreme.

[Icelandic]

It's pretty obvious to me that he wasn't actually threatening use of nuclear weapons, but pointing out the stark reality that, yeah, any war with a nuclear power would be a short one. That said, that was very poorly worded.

In all likelihood, it was probably a bit of both. The representative in question is a bit of an anti-2nd Amendment fanatic, but I hope he was joking. Even then however, representatives joking about killing millions of their constituents is not funny.

Also, he allegedly is running for president in 2020.

[Icelandic]

And this kind of shit Is what makes the NRA and Gun Crazies think they are legitimate in their fears and extreme views on guns. Every little dirty thing or screw up the government does only makes them go further into their crazy holes, and i say this as someone who happilly goes to the range on occasion and is pro gun (to an extent).

This is not a rare occurrence. In the past few years, the American left has largely transitioned to a full on 'repeal the second amendment' policy in regards to guns. If you are 'pro gun' as you claim, this sorta stuff should worry you.

Banning high capacity magazines is not extreme.

What do you consider 'high capacity'?

[Lustful Bride]

This is not a rare occurrence. In the past few years, the American left has largely transitioned to a full on 'repeal the second amendment' policy in regards to guns. If you are 'pro gun' as you claim, this sorta stuff should worry you.

Both sides worry me. I want a weapon to protect myself but at the same time I don't want every random yahoo on the street being handed an AR with a grenade launcher attatched to it because the NRA is bending over backwards for a weapon manufacturer.

[TheVillain]

This is not a rare occurrence. In the past few years, the American left has largely transitioned to a full on 'repeal the second amendment' policy in regards to guns. If you are 'pro gun' as you claim, this sorta stuff should worry you.

I disagree, look into John Brown Gun Clubs. The Left actually has a pretty diverse opinion on Guns. The fact that they don't immediately shut up the ones that do have such an extreme anti-gun position doesn't help, but the vast majority are willing to concede that at the very least guns need to be kept legal because if you let the right-wing extremists have all the guns they'll use them to kill people.

In fairness, one thing the Right is very good at doing is dominating the terminology of political arguments so the whole idea that the left is very anti-gun is a common belief. I'm just pointing out that - for the most part - it's just a lie from right-wingers.

[TheVillain]

There's actually several issues like that now that I think about it - that what the common perception of "the typical left-wing position" is on the issue was actually made up by the right-wing to smear their opponents. But that's the only one relevent to the discussion at present.

[Tolvo]

Depends on the particular group on the left. Keep in mind Gun Control is more popular in the center and liberal sphere. Authoritarian leftists are more of the ones in favor of gun control after establishing an Authoritarian Left Wing government. But otherwise a lot of the left actually aren't too fond of gun control. Especially given how many left wing anarchists there are. We see left wing militant groups as well, usually they are policed more heavily than right wing ones. As well many who are even in support of gun control think that our current government would not apply it justly or fairly, such as targeting mostly marginalized people(Who are not commonly mass shooters) as opposed to people who aren't(Who are more often mass shooters).

The NRA is pretty much just shit, they care more about their capitalist ventures than lives. I wouldn't oppose people who care about the lives of people who fight for the rights of gun owners, but the NRA aren't that. They just care about money.

Also regarding Private Firefighters that's actually a very old concept and is how they actually became widely popular in Rome for instance. It was a racket where you basically would show up and if the person wouldn't agree to your incredible price you wouldn't put out the fire.

[Icelandic]

Depends on the particular group on the left. Keep in mind Gun Control is more popular in the center and liberal sphere. Authoritarian leftists are more of the ones in favor of gun control after establishing an Authoritarian Left Wing government. But otherwise a lot of the left actually aren't too fond of gun control. Especially given how many left wing anarchists there are. We see left wing militant groups as well, usually they are policed more heavily than right wing ones. As well many who are even in support of gun control think that our current government would not apply it justly or fairly, such as targeting mostly marginalized people(Who are not commonly mass shooters) as opposed to people who aren't(Who are more often mass shooters).

I have not too much to say about that, although funny enough, mass shooters by race actually mirror the general population pretty evenly. It's almost always a male, but the myth of it always being white is, well... A myth. (I got links too if you want.)

I disagree, look into John Brown Gun Clubs. The Left actually has a pretty diverse opinion on Guns. The fact that they don't immediately shut up the ones that do have such an extreme anti-gun position doesn't help, but the vast majority are willing to concede that at the very least guns need to be kept legal because if you let the right-wing extremists have all the guns they'll use them to kill people.

In fairness, one thing the Right is very good at doing is dominating the terminology of political arguments so the whole idea that the left is very anti-gun is a common belief. I'm just pointing out that - for the most part - it's just a lie from right-wingers.

I'm not so sure about all of that. It's almost a weekly occurrence where a democrat politician openly advocates for policies that blatantly violate the second amendment. r/NOWTTYG (no one wants to take your guns) documents these kinda things regularly.

Also, the left is the one dominating terminology. They use purposefully vague terms for non-existent things like 'assault weapon' and 'black rifles' to fool the everyday person into thinking that they are dealing with AK47s and what-not. When 'assault weapons', depending on where you go, can even just be a pistol.

Similar is the term 'high capacity'. In some places, that's just five rounds.

[TheGlyphstone]

IF you take the position of the NRA that literally even the slightest attempt to regulate gun ownership is any fashion is a violation of the Second Amendment, claiming it happens every other week would definitely be true. Otherwise, that does seem like fairly extensive hyperbole, so I'm curious what your personal definition of 'violates the Second Amendment' is that you're basing that on.


Similarly, I'm curious - who, and at what time, defines pistols as an 'assault weapon'? I've never even heard of 'black rifles', and have no idea what it's meant to refer to.

[TheVillain]

So, that's the problem with the NRA and the right-wing side in general. A LOT of what they say is based on hyperbole and lies. If the NRA was a genuine gun-rights advocacy group I'd be one of their biggest fans, but if you watch what they actually do in a given situation and you very clearly see that they're only really interested in selling guns, too the point of being willing to cash in on racists to do it.

[Tolvo]

This is also again, confusing Democrats for the Left. Democrats are largely not very left at all, and are closer to the Right. But their position is seen as Center. Typically you're not going to be seen as Left Wing when you are very supportive of Capitalism, since the Left Wing is born out of Anti-Capitalist ideas and views. For as much as people think Bernie Sanders was an extreme leftist, among leftist groups he'd barely register.

There is some very loose use of terms by those who don't know guns. Assault Rifle is pretty well defined but Assault Weapon is not. High Capacity Magazine typically also means for handguns over 10 rounds. Or anything that is a modification to a magazine to allow it to hold more bullets than is standard.

As far as I can see the stats still show the majority of Mass Shooters are white men. It depends on how loosely you define Mass Shooter as well. Because the basic definition is just four or more people were shot. The higher the body count required, the more white the numbers become. But the very broad definition includes a lot of gang related violence while the higher body count includes more of the type of Mass Shooter Killing Sprees.

[TheGlyphstone]

So, that's the problem with the NRA and the right-wing side in general. A LOT of what they say is based on hyperbole and lies. If the NRA was a genuine gun-rights advocacy group I'd be one of their biggest fans, but if you watch what they actually do in a given situation and you very clearly see that they're only really interested in selling guns, too the point of being willing to cash in on racists to do it.

I don't even think it's that - from what I remember the last time I looked this up, a relatively small percentage of the NRA's revenue comes from the firearms industry compared to fundraising and membership dues. What the NRA is exclusively interested in is maintaining their political power; there is no group in the USA on either side of the political line with the ability to singlehandedly destroy a politician (of their side's) political prospects like the NRA can. It's not even about lobbying funds, plenty of special interest groups can out-spend the NRA in absolute terms - but their membership borders on fanatical in terms of making their voices heard politically, so they are an extremely visible and vocal constituency. When the NRA says Jump, every ROP politician in Congress can only answer 'how high?'; if they permit compromise of any sort on gun control, that implicitly weakens them and starts a potential domino effect. One of those dominos is membership fees, which is indeed money indirectly, but they are a non-profit organization and no reliable source I've seen supports the idea they are secretly embezzling funds or something for profit.

[TheGlyphstone]

That's "GOP politician", not "ROP politician". Not sure how I goofed there.

[Icelandic]

This is also again, confusing Democrats for the Left. Democrats are largely not very left at all, and are closer to the Right. But their position is seen as Center. Typically you're not going to be seen as Left Wing when you are very supportive of Capitalism, since the Left Wing is born out of Anti-Capitalist ideas and views. For as much as people think Bernie Sanders was an extreme leftist, among leftist groups he'd barely register.

There is some very loose use of terms by those who don't know guns. Assault Rifle is pretty well defined but Assault Weapon is not. High Capacity Magazine typically also means for handguns over 10 rounds. Or anything that is a modification to a magazine to allow it to hold more bullets than is standard.

As far as I can see the stats still show the majority of Mass Shooters are white men. It depends on how loosely you define Mass Shooter as well. Because the basic definition is just four or more people were shot. The higher the body count required, the more white the numbers become. But the very broad definition includes a lot of gang related violence while the higher body count includes more of the type of Mass Shooter Killing Sprees.

Again, not finding too much I disagree with here. (I'm surprised! ;P)

The point about white men making up the majority of shootings is that white men also make up the majority of men in America. So it's more then any other demographic, but not disproportionately so. I'll link an article about the topic.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/oct/06/newsweek/are-white-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/

IF you take the position of the NRA that literally even the slightest attempt to regulate gun ownership is any fashion is a violation of the Second Amendment, claiming it happens every other week would definitely be true. Otherwise, that does seem like fairly extensive hyperbole, so I'm curious what your personal definition of 'violates the Second Amendment' is that you're basing that on.


Similarly, I'm curious - who, and at what time, defines pistols as an 'assault weapon'? I've never even heard of 'black rifles', and have no idea what it's meant to refer to.

Certainly. I'm not an extremist in my views (I don't think at least), and I understand the need to heavily restrict genuine military-grade weapons. But civilian weapons of any type (including the AR-15) should be untouched from outright bans or restrictions that place an unreasonable burden on the gun owner, including making it unreasonably difficult to defend ones self with their legally owned firearm.

I likely have never seen anyone directly say an assault weapon is a pistol. But when people refer to an assault weapon as any semiautomatic firearm, that means literally anything from an AR-15 to a pistol, as they are all semiautomatic.

'Black Rifles' literally just means a rifle that is big, scary, and black. So like, AR-15s for example. That one just comes from ignorance more then anything else, as some seem to think that the color of the rifle indicates how dangerous it is.

Funny enough, I'm not even a gun-nut or anything like that. I just hate that some politicians are so willing to violate the constitution so blatantly.

[Tolvo]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

[Lustful Bride]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

We have actually done this many times, but it ends up just becoming a circular argument with everyone just getting mad at one another and no progress one way or the other :/

[Icelandic]

Perhaps we should make a thread about Gun Control or move this to my thread on ideologies and philosophies, or ask a mod about splitting this off into its own thread?

Eh, I'm probably just gunna head to bed instead. I'm kinda tired.