Quantcast
Delta and United join list of companies to cut ties with the NRA - maybe this truly is the end of gun rights in the US?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Delta and United join list of companies to cut ties with the NRA - maybe this truly is the end of gun rights in the US?

irstupid said:

All well and good in theory, but how easy is it to imagine this scenario.

1. We have a school shooting in florida and dozens die. Shooter was mentally deranged and should have never had a gun. (this is true and what just happened)

2. We increase gun regulation to help further prevent unfit people from owning a gun. (Sounds great. Common sense)

3. School shooting involving a mentally deranged person that the system missed somehow. (Totally plausible. Hell the current situation, the FBI was told TWICE about this shooter and did nothing)

4. Due to the new provisions not working, more strict measure put into place such as banning certain guns. (Not all guns, but just one or two)

5. Go back to #1 and rinse and repeat until finally all guns are banned.

Many people would celebrate this happening. And as Star Wars put it so eloquently. So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause. Say what you want about the prequels, they do tell a somewhat compelling story of how a free republic can unknowingly and voluntarily turn itself into a dictatorship.

That reads like paranoia. The crucial point is that 100% safety cannot be achieved, so doing it rinse and repeat style doesn't make sense. What does make sense is to ask why people have to be 21 years old before they can be trusted to consume alcoholic beverages while they don't have to be 21 years old before they can be trusted with a weapon that can efficiently end another person's life.

Star Wars movies playing out a paranoid pro-NRA fantasy doesn't give the paranoia any more merit.

McDonaldsGuy said:

The "well regulated" part is basically saying that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. It's explaining the reason we need the right to bear arms.

That guy may be an idiot and cannot be trusted, but we can't take away constitutional rights. Know what else we could do if we go down that path? We can chop off people's arms for stealing a loaf of bread, or throw someone in jail without charges indefinitely. But we don't because we need to protect ourselves against Government tyranny - and one of the reasons we are able to do is because of our rights to bear arms.

Now if someone is CONVICTED then sure, there can be restrictions as per 5th amendment.

Your examples in this post aren't reasonable. Then again, the picture of tanks you posted in the preceding post didn't make sense either. "People need to own guns to protect themselves against government tyranny." - Do you really believe your little guns can stop a batallion of tanks that is accompanied by trained soldiers? Sure, you can fire bullets at the tanks, but real life isn't like a video game where a certain amount of bullets make a tank explode.

The second amendment was written at a time when the world worked like that. But 250 years later (forgive me if this estimate is off by a few decades) it's outdated. During those 250 years it was never the government that did anything to the people. All the harm that was done during those 250 years can be traced back to stupid people and outright lunatics.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
McDonaldsGuy said:
Puppyroach said:

1. Where did I blame the NRA or all gun owners for mass shootings? I blame the availability of guns and ease of access for people to get guns. Would the number of gunrelated alcoholinduced homicides go down if there were less guns available? Ofcourse, which is evident in every country that has heavier weapon laws than the US. It always fascinates me how so many people who seem so suspicious of the government that having alot of weaponry somehow would make them feel safer, at the same time live in one of the unsafest country within the OECD. It doesn´t seem to help very much.

2. Exactly, and the text right there opens up for massive regulation of guns. The 2nd amendment doesn´t guarantee availability to all types of weaponry, the government could, if they wished, regulate so that you are only allowed to own up to two hunting rifles for example. They would still follow the 2nd amendment in that case since they don´t infringe on your right to bear arms, just the amount and types of arms. This has also been validated by the supreme court.

1. Yeah you're right, mass murders NEVER happen in Western Europe. Aside from Manchester, Paris, Nice, London, the German airplane dude, Norway, etc. etc.

Oh look - rape in London has increased 20% in just one year: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-london-reports-met-police-rise-crime-sexual-assault-a8225821.html

In the UK, 2 10 year olds raped and beat a 2 year old (named James Burglar) for HOURS if not DAYS. They were both released under new names. Guess what? One of the murderers has been convicted of having child pornography. His sentence? 40 months. He only got 40 months!

Yeah, the UK is "safe" because they don't charge dangerous people with actual crimes. It's what Broward County does to lower it's crime rate - the crime rate is low when you don't charge people with crimes.

2. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Meaning they can't limit us to how much we own - the Supreme Court already ruled on stuff like this in 2008.

1. Try to read what I wrote one more time.

2. If you have the right to own two hunting rifles your right to bear arms is not infringed. However, if you were forbidden to own any weapons, that right would be infringed. Yes, you should read that supreme court decision from 2008, since it clearly states that gun ownership can be regulated (and it is already regulated). 



McDonaldsGuy said:
CosmicSex said:

You are crazy.  There is no way, your  guns are going to protect  us from China.  They have nukes.   Just sit down.  Why do all of your paths lead in our death.  How to people even survive in other countries.  Has Russia taken over all other countries?  When did that happen? You can't do a damn thing to 'protect us from China'... you going over there to attack another countries for your own beliefs?  Just so you know thats why no one wants you to have a gun lol. 

China just made Xi it's Emperor.

Is that what you want the future of the world to be like? Under one Emperor?

During the Cold War it was the USA vs. Soviet Union. We could've let the Soviets take over Western Europe but we didn't. You should thank us every day for your freedom.

What are we going to do about China with OUR GUNS?



irstupid said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Can you structure your argument more clearly? I don't see the point you're trying to make.

I have two points.

1. This school schooting was 100% the fault of the police, FBI, ect for not doing anything. They all seemed to know this kid was messed up and trouble and yet nothing was done. His method of killing is not the problem, the problem was knowing a killing would happen and ignoring it.

2. The slippery slope is what a slippery slope always is. Think of DLC/microtransactions. In the start they were little things and slowly it has become worse and worse. Even when you have huge outcry like EA battlefront, they still sell millions and micros are not going away. Same with laws. Think of gun laws. Lets say their is a shooting and they ban automatic weapons. Then next shooting they ban silencers. Then next shooting they ban semi-auto's. then next shooting they ban shotguns, ect. It's a common thing to do. you know you can't ban something or implement something all at once, so you take baby steps.

It's the classic situation where you don't care until they finally come after you. I'm sure you would laugh, scoff or get angry whenever someone comes out and tries to blame video games for violence. But that is what I'm talking about. They ban guns finally. You don't care cause you don't have any guns.  Violence still persists, so they ban knives. Again you don't care cause you don't have knives. Violence still persists, so they then ban violence on tv, movies and video games. Now you care and are complaining that they are coming after you and that video game and movies don't cause violence.

 

BTW, I do blame video games and movies more than guns for violence. Guns, bombs or weapons of any kind are just tools. It's a mental thing that makes one do violence. is that video games or movies? Sure for some. It could also be NRA meetings, church, parents, friends influence, facebook post, movie, book, ect. All those things and more influence a persons thinking, mentality, character, ect. A gun is just a tool. An effective tool, but a tool non the less. Think of Nuclear energy. It can be used to power a city, or it can be used to reduce it to ashes. It all depends on the person who is using it's motives. The splitting of atoms itself is not the enemy.

That the officer in front of the school was at fault for not doing anything is beyond doubt.

I don't think you can call this a slippery slope kind of argument, you're taking the argument to widely. As far as restricting acces to some kind of guns is just common sense. Civilians don't need acces to assault rifles or mods that can change semi-auto weapons to fully auto. Of course, a gun is just a tool, not an origin of violence in itself. But you don't have to be a genious to realize that kids having acces to fully automatic weapons or pistols is a much more dangerous proposition then let's say a knife.

And blaming video games and movies is something I'm immediatly going to put to the side. The USA has this problem extensively, most other nations don't. So unless there's something in the water that triggers US kids when they see violence on TV to start shooting up their schools, violence in the media is too easy a scapegoat.



spurgeonryan said:

I think the government wants us to lose our gun rights. That way as soon as they can they will have total control of us. Only reason we have any freedom in America is due to guns. There are ways to handle this, sometimes when I see how easy it is to get a gun I laugh. Just fix the laws.

 

This last paragraph from the OP is a bit insane. This is the kind of thinking that makes gun nuts go crazy and dive into paranoia and conspiracy theories. This thinking is how the NRA and the republican party are able to tell people crazy things like the government is coming for their guns, or as soon as the democrats are in charge they're gonna get rid of the second amendment. Makes paranoid gun people even crazier. So please just stop with your crazy talk. Guns are not the reason we have freedom in America. That's insane. Our laws and our institutions are the reason we have freedom.

The less power the NRA has the better. They have no interest in the well being of America or in American lives. They only care about their own power which is solidified by the proliferation of guns throughout society. Hence why the only solution they or republicans (who follow them blindly) ever have to gun violence is more guns! That's like the sugar industry saying to fight the obesity epidemic by feeding people even more sugar, or solving a cities traffic problems by putting even more cars on the road. Just plain stupid and dangerous.



Around the Network
Leadified said:
o_O.Q said:

"Lol so first you believe that the guy who allied with the German capitalists is a socialist"

lmao... ok i'll change my question... do you agree that hitler controlled the economy of germany through his government?

after you've answered that question tell me whether its socialism or capitalism that cedes control of the means of production to government

 

"now you believe that the Soviet Union is an example of tyranny of the majority."

now there's really only two ways that i can interpret this since you have acknowledged that the soviet union was democratic

either you don't think that the soviet union was a tyranny which would be a tragedy

or you're just being dishonest

 

" Oh also nice doublethink, there you agree with me that democracy in the Soviet Union was eroded by authoritarianism"

the only way you could say that is if you didn't read my post... i mean you quoted it... did you not read it?

 

so are you really trying to tell me though that you don't understand that a democracy can be authoritarian?

you don't think that its possible for the majority of people in a society to vote the rights of the people in their society away to government?

"Change your question"? Your question has been answered numerous times in the thread but you refuse to listen. You're kidding if you think I owe you another explanation. If anything you owe me for the question you have yet to answer in our last discussion about race

now there's really only two ways that i can interpret this since you have acknowledged that the soviet union was democratic

I said that democracy eroded away to authoritarianism from the central state, whereas you say "the soviet union was democratic" as a definite statement. If you think those statements are equal, try again. Maybe you should go find some Marxist-Leninists to hang out with and tell them how democratic Stalin was, you'll fit right in with them, lmao.

Oh and before god forbid, you say something like "Stalin was democratic!", the word is totalitarian.

you don't think that its possible for the majority of people in a society to vote the rights of the people in their society away to government?

So you do understand what it means. The real question is if you get what it means, then why did you choose the worst possible example instead of just saying this in the first place?

I know; I highly doubt you believe in half of the stuff you say. It's obvious you have a problem with the left, but all these bizarre arguments you make are just a front to mask your real points which is why you're always moving the goal posts. But I have no interest in discussing your point, I wanted to pick apart your example and I got what I wanted. I see no point continuing this conversation.

Regardless, I know you're going to reply to this post and I eagerly await to read it!

"Your question has been answered numerous times"

you never addressed the question of how hitler could be have privitised the economy of germany and yet still have control of it

the minute i asked that question you ran away because you cannot address it


" Maybe you should go find some Marxist-Leninists to hang out with and tell them how democratic Stalin was, you'll fit right in with them, lmao."

jesus christ i never said that he was democratic

i said that the soviet union was democratic

what you should be asking yourself is how did it turn from democracy to a totalitarian state?

how did they get all of that power?

i mean its so flipping obvious that i can't believe that i have to spell it out for you

 

"I said that democracy eroded away to authoritarianism from the central state"

well jesus christ doesn't it occur to you that the authoritarianism occurred BECAUSE of democracy?

what is authoritarianism?

"the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."

what is democracy

"control of an organization or group by the majority of its members"

 

you mean to tell me that you can't put two and two together? that's really really sad man

 

"I know; I highly doubt you believe in half of the stuff you say."

give me an example of anything i've said that is unbelievable

 

"but all these bizarre arguments you make are just a front to mask your real points which is why you're always moving the goal posts."

bizarre? lol reality is bizarre, that's a new one

 

"I know; I highly doubt you believe in half of the stuff you say. It's obvious you have a problem with the left"

i have a problem with people peddling lies, regardless of what part of the political spectrum they identify with



the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

"Only if the armed oppressor is bigger, or less ethical. "

i think that being an oppressor and being ethical at the same time is kind of an oxymoron don't you think?

In general yes, that's an oxymoron.   

"I didn't realize you were unable to understand the facts beyond the examples that I gave you.  "

i was pointing out that it was fallacious to use the world wars as representations of how things have been throughout human history

I was pointing out that statistically, even the world wars were safer than most of human history.  Those are the facts.

"This is why there is a necessity to have an educated populace."

education does not taken away the limitations that cause people to be selfish, or envious or greedy etc etc etc

in fact it amplifies those traits in many instances

therefore, the idea that we can simply teach people out of wanting to be malevolent is a waste of time

Most people aren't needlessly malevolent.  The vast majority of people tend to be decent.  

The point is that people who are educated can vote for what is actually best for them.

"Most people aren't needlessly malevolent.  The vast majority of people tend to be decent.  "

everyone is malevolent and decent at the same time to varying degrees

no one is decent 100% of the time

you mean to tell me that you've never done an evil act knowing at the time that it as wrong?

you'd be the first human being that has accomplished that i'm sure



Slownenberg said:

 

This last paragraph from the OP is a bit insane. This is the kind of thinking that makes gun nuts go crazy and dive into paranoia and conspiracy theories. This thinking is how the NRA and the republican party are able to tell people crazy things like the government is coming for their guns, or as soon as the democrats are in charge they're gonna get rid of the second amendment. Makes paranoid gun people even crazier. So please just stop with your crazy talk. Guns are not the reason we have freedom in America. That's insane. Our laws and our institutions are the reason we have freedom.

The less power the NRA has the better. They have no interest in the well being of America or in American lives. They only care about their own power which is solidified by the proliferation of guns throughout society. Hence why the only solution they or republicans (who follow them blindly) ever have to gun violence is more guns! That's like the sugar industry saying to fight the obesity epidemic by feeding people even more sugar, or solving a cities traffic problems by putting even more cars on the road. Just plain stupid and dangerous.

The NRA has been around since the 1870s, and gun massacres are only really a recent phenomenon.

The VAST majority of gun crime in the USA is gang vs. gang. For example: Chicago. Chicago tries to blame NRA owners in Indiana for the gun crime but that's bullcrap.



RolStoppable said:

Your examples in this post aren't reasonable. Then again, the picture of tanks you posted in the preceding post didn't make sense either. "People need to own guns to protect themselves against government tyranny." - Do you really believe your little guns can stop a batallion of tanks that is accompanied by trained soldiers? Sure, you can fire bullets at the tanks, but real life isn't like a video game where a certain amount of bullets make a tank explode.

Yeah you're right. This obviously explains why dictatorships are well known for letting their subjects own guns.

The first thing Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Xi, ZeDong, etc. etc. allowed the people to do was own guns because what can their guns do against tanks right?

If you give up one right, you give them all up. The reason you have free speech is because America has the right to own guns.



the-pi-guy said:

o_O.Q said:

.

Here's some questions for you:

-How do countries like Japan, UK (countries with very low rates of gun ownership) maintain their freedoms?  

-How do guns equal the playing field against weapons like bombs and unmanned drones?

" do countries like Japan, UK (countries with very low rates of gun ownership) maintain their freedoms?  "

the citizens of those countries being free at one point in time does not show that they'll remain free in the future

the other thing is that i'm not so sure that they are that free anyway

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4167632/Don-t-call-pregnant-patients-mothers.html

i read this article about how doctors are now being banned from doing something as innocuous as calling a woman a mother, for example

 

"How do guns equal the playing field against weapons like bombs and unmanned drones?"

i've already answered this question twice 

i've said that simply because you would passively accept a tyranny does not mean that others would or should

plenty of people died going up against impossible odds to guarantee that you have the freedom to type that question today

those were the times when men were real men