BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Nah, I was always behind banning them because they're dangerous. My point regarding the administrative hurdle is that the current registration list doesn't work as well as it needs to in order to mitigate the risk sufficiently. It's unfortunate, but we tried it. So knowing they're excessively dangerous, and knowing registration doesn't appear to work well as a solution, I can support the few ruining it for the many in this case.

So the govt has, possibly deliberately, failed to put in  place an efficient registration system - still not an argument for banning things.

But he personally has no use for one, and so it will cause him no personal distress to ban the thing he does not like.

I have no need for owning a gun. Needing to concealed carry is coward shit. Reminds me of my white friends thinking they were seconds away from getting jumped and robbed when picking up weed in the hood once.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2020-05-02 17:28:41)

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

But he personally has no use for one, and so it will cause him no personal distress to ban the thing he does not like.

I have no need for owning a gun. Needing to concealed carry is coward shit. Reminds me of my white friends thinking they were seconds away from getting jumped and robbed when picking up weed in the hood once.

Then why do you dream of being a cop?

Cops make more money, have less adminstrative oversight, and women love the badge.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Uzi, I see that. Nothing's 'ruined' in my world. I phrase it that way because that's the understanding of the pro-gun folks, who I do sympathize with to an extent. I'm not against biathlons or target shooting, but I think those hobbies can't be placed above public safety and you just don't absolutely need an AR15 to still enjoy them. So I see that we're taking away a 'nice to have' for some, but I also think it's justified. It's not 'nice to have' for me because I don't care for those hobbies.

Pick something you don't need but do like, then see how you'd like to have it banned 'for the greater good'.

I don't know, weed, first-person shooter video games for example.

I won't be providing a list of the illegal things I like to engage in if that's what you're after.

Pochsy wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Uzi, I see that. Nothing's 'ruined' in my world. I phrase it that way because that's the understanding of the pro-gun folks, who I do sympathize with to an extent. I'm not against biathlons or target shooting, but I think those hobbies can't be placed above public safety and you just don't absolutely need an AR15 to still enjoy them. So I see that we're taking away a 'nice to have' for some, but I also think it's justified. It's not 'nice to have' for me because I don't care for those hobbies.

Pick something you don't need but do like, then see how you'd like to have it banned 'for the greater good'.

I don't know, weed, first-person shooter video games for example.

I won't be providing a list of the illegal things I like to engage in if that's what you're after.

He's not asking for the illegal things, he's asking for the list of questionable but legal things you do enjoy.

Politics is a two edged sword. Once you go down the path of banning things belonging to one group, don't be surprised when they retaliate and take away your toys.

Jay wrote:

He's not asking for the illegal things, he's asking for the list of questionable but legal things you do enjoy.

Politics is a two edged sword. Once you go down the path of banning things belonging to one group, don't be surprised when they retaliate and take away your toys.

Oh, I see. That seems a good argument. I guess I enjoy juggling, so maybe if I reached the zenith of my hobby we might have to ban chainsaws?

if hundreds or thousands of people a year start ending up dead in juggling atrocities, i'd be up for the discussion.

same with all your above examples, too. aren't you being a little bit obtuse here? things are banned because they are used in ways that are against the public interest.

playing FPS games or juggling do not disrupt society or pose a danger to life.

Violent video games and media normalize violence. Proof? I am normalized to violence.

They banned like 1500 rifle variations.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Oh, I see. That seems a good argument. I guess I enjoy juggling, so maybe if I reached the zenith of my hobby we might have to ban chainsaws?

No, lets nip this thing in the bud now and ban juggling, and chainsaws.

Chainsaw registration is too difficult, its too complicated and the govt can't get things like that right, if police see a chainsaw they should be able to just seize it without having to go through the labour of spending 30 seconds checking a database which wouldn't work anyway.

I mean sure chainsaws are fun but really people can cut down a tree with a handsaw, they don't need a chainsaw.

See how easy it is, no-one needs a power saw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6boMcIsFnuM

I know you mean this to be obtuse, but I'd actually support banning them if people were getting massacred in chainsaw rampages.

EDIT - Just saw Uzi's post above. Similar thought here.

Last edited by Pochsy (2020-05-02 17:49:50)

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere. Hunting isn't banned. You can still get out the bolt action and practice bagging deer all you want. The army trains their own people, and not matter how much home-schooling you do on the art of war, they'll still need to train you. Guns for self defense is a bit of a case where we need guns because we have guns, and one that I really don't fully understand.

Did you ban all semi-automatic rifles or just the AR-15?

We banned a whole list of shit, including TOW missiles, anti-tank guns, and guns produced in such low numbers that the only 3 remaining on the planet are in museums.

Seems effective

Pochsy wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

is something people need to do and need to train to do, whether its for hunting, self-defence or in the army, so guns are more useful [...]

Now we're getting somewhere. Hunting isn't banned. You can still get out the bolt action and practice bagging deer all you want. The army trains their own people, and not matter how much home-schooling you do on the art of war, they'll still need to train you. Guns for self defense is a bit of a case where we need guns because we have guns, and one that I really don't fully understand.

This. Dropping the ball on reasonable gun control directly led to the militarization of police because of the arms race and high profile North Hollywood shootout situations. Very few people are worried about 30 people shot in as many seconds by some dude with a bolt-action rifle or a revolver.

Jay wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Now we're getting somewhere. Hunting isn't banned. You can still get out the bolt action and practice bagging deer all you want. The army trains their own people, and not matter how much home-schooling you do on the art of war, they'll still need to train you. Guns for self defense is a bit of a case where we need guns because we have guns, and one that I really don't fully understand.

This. Dropping the ball on reasonable gun control directly led to the militarization of police because of the arms race and high profile North Hollywood shootout situations. Very few people are worried about 30 people shot in as many seconds by some dude with a bolt-action rifle or a revolver.

It really is amazing how good the media is at whipping up frenzies of fear about extremely rare events.

I'm not worried at all about being witness to a mass shooting. It's very unlikely. However, the incidence of them in general is greatly increased by readily providing the means with which to do them. Less bullets less frequently flying at people in general is a useful goal for our society.

Pochsy wrote:

I know you mean this to be obtuse, but I'd actually support banning them if people were getting massacred in chainsaw rampages

If there were a chainsaw rampage would you be OK with banning all chainsaws? I'm sure plenty of people have been murdered or dismembered with chainsaws.

I'm sure it would be pretty easy to prove the case that weed has pushed many thousands of people into psychosis and murder - so lets ban everyone from using it.

I agree that military weapons should only be accessible through a militia system, letting mentally ill teenagers and obsessed adults possess them isn't sensible.
But the arguments made for banning them in totality are weak and unreasonable. The same people making them wouldn't like them if they were turned on their hobbies - suddenly they would be irrational unfair over-reactions.