MovieChat Forums > Politics > conservatives purposely ignorant about h...

conservatives purposely ignorant about how gun control works?

posted 5 years ago by JlawsANormlHuman (847)
26 replies | jump to latest

I think its hilarious how they say "we have to have stricter laws and mandatory sentences those liberal judges are letting people get away easily and it encourages them to commit more crimes"

then next say "gun control doesn't work! criminals ignore laws!". besides the inconsistency between the two. there's also the"logic" behind it. by their argument we shouldn't have any laws for any crime in the first place. since criminals just ignore them. In conservatives minds (only when it comes to guns) if a law isnt 100% effective then it is 100% ineffective because criminals ignore it

So what it comes down to is actual gun control. It obviously varies country to country but overall most countries have similar laws that separate them form the USA. no single law is the "silver bullet" that lowers gun crimes but combined they create a framework of safeguards that try and ensure as few dangerous people get guns. Again many other countries have had shootings. but its the frequency and intensity of them that separates the USA. so using Canada here are some

-strict transportation laws (storing ammunition and guns separately with a lock on the trigger). everyone thinks they are the best and most responsible. just ask pro second amendment gun advocate Jamie Gilt if it would of helped her https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20160817/jamie-gilt-gun-advocate-shot-by-her-4-year-old-son-remains-infamous-six-months-later

- extremely strict and segmented gun licence classes.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/a-look-at-canada-s-gun-ownership-laws-1.4026397

"To get a firearms licence you have to participate in the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course, Getting a licence also entails personal reference checks and a "variety of background checks (and) in some cases, in-depth investigations," the RCMP says. Applicants must provide information on their mental health"

none of this BS "well we tried to run the check but the rcmp didn't get back to us within 48 hours so here take the gun! https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/background-check-flaw-let-dylann-roof-buy-gun-fbi-says.html

-uniformity-one of the biggest poor attempts by gun crazies is "ya look at gun restricted cities they are more dangerous!" Yes when you can drive 30 minutes and stock up on guns no wonder it doesn't work. its the problem Canada deals with. the gun control laws domestically are so effective that over 90% of the guns found in crimes are from the USA. americas poor gun control and rampant overflow of guns is seeping into both Canada and Mexico. who is to blame? Canadian gun control? or American lack of gun control?

if my yard is safe and my neighbour keeps sending things in that endanger me and my family it is my fault?

-gun and ammunition restriction- in Canada there is a 10 round magazine max size for rifles and 5 for handguns. if you need a 30 round drum

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/ar15-canada-vs-us-1.4564601

https://gtaguns.com/differences-between-canadian-and-us-gun-laws/

yet again there is no single magic bullet. Its a combination of multiple safe guards and laws that ensure guns don't fall into the black market and Canadian gun owners are responsible and safe.

and guess what? all the Canadian conservatives I talk to agree. they laugh in shock and disgust when we talk about American gun culture. they feel safe because they know if they get in a disagreement with someone. there's a 99.9999% chance the other person doesn't have a gun. they don't need to overcompensate here for their tiny guns by carrying around concealed or open carry ones.

I am sorry but you do not have the right to bear arms. the framers rewrote that part multiple times before settling on that version. it could of said "all men have the right to bear arms". but it didn't. and you aren't part of any well regulated militia. and it certainly isnt a state run one either by the actual state or federally.

also saying "I am in the militia because I am a man above 18" is like saying "im a police officer because I meet the requirements of a high school diploma". militia also has a specific definition

[–] BinjinInjun (23) 5 years ago

I live in Toronto. It aint the legal gun people shooting this shithole up every night. It's the blacks smuggling them from the states through Indian reserves.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

you literally proved my point. yet again poor American gun control strikes again

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Ok so how do you address the ILLEGAL handguns Einstein? Find out the source because I'm a law-abiding citizen with a registered hand gun.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

are you illiterate?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Are you Canadian? Yep...so stay there.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

Hahaha in other words. "I got embarassed, I have no rebuttal"

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

In other words you're from another country with a racist leader who likes to wear blackface so shut the fuck up.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

hahaahahahahahahahhaahah fuck you are desperate. try again kid :)

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sorry I was cleaning my guns what were you saying?

[–] chilidoggg (14278) 5 years ago

Easy solution for gun violence:

Give everyone a brand new AK47 (or whatever long barrel weapon they like, maybe 6 shotguns) every damn year, maybe every Fourth of July.)

Outlaw handguns.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

well jokes aside that wouldn't work

[–] chilidoggg (14278) 5 years ago

It's not a joke.

You don't think this would dramatically reduce gun violence?

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

do I think giving untrained people automatic and other guns will increase safety? are you really this stupid?

[–] chilidoggg (14278) 5 years ago

In 2018 murders by rifles and shotguns accounted for 5% of firearm murders.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

do you really want to continue this stupid comment? im being trolled right?

[–] chilidoggg (14278) 5 years ago

I want handguns off the streets. A lot of people disagree with me, so it's going to cost something. So give all the yahoo's (and everyone else who wants it) free big powerful guns. I don't want a gun, probably most people don't want a gun, so it won't cost as much as we might think.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

be quiet. thanks

[–] Whackadoodle (19) 5 years ago

“I am sorry but you do not have the right to bear arms.”

I believe the SCOTUS knows a bit more about the 2nd Amendment than you do.

“It would be nearly 70 years before the court took up the issue again, this time in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The case centered on Dick Heller, a licensed special police office in Washington, D.C., who challenged the nation's capital's handgun ban.

*For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "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."*

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You can’t have a “well regulated Militia” without “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” and it should not be undermined. This country was fighting for freedom against a tyrannical king so Madison wrote the amendment, for the people to defend themselves.

Whenever I travel by road my firearm is on me. We have firearms ready in case of a home invasion. Your solution would be “Just a sec while I call the police, before you rob, rape and murder us. Would that work for you?”

“do I think giving untrained people automatic and other guns will increase safety” Apparently you are unaware the guns you are referring to are most likely NOT “automatic”...they are semi-automatic.

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

"I believe the SCOTUS knows a bit more about the 2nd Amendment than you do."

I agree reinterprets conservative judges have decided to ignore half the second amendment and give up any pretence of being. literalist or originalist in favor or their wild interpretations. its pretty clear the framers chose they words carefully

"t would be nearly 70 years before the court took up the issue again, this time in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. The case centered on Dick Heller, a licensed special police office in Washington, D.C., who challenged the nation's capital's handgun ban.

*For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that despite state laws, individuals who were not part of a state militia did have the right to bear arms. As part of its ruling, the court wrote, "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."*
"

yes again thanks for proving that the judges have no care for the actual working and meaning of the constitution.

"Whenever I travel by road my firearm is on me. We have firearms ready in case of a home invasion. Your solution would be “Just a sec while I call the police, before you rob, rape and murder us. Would that work for you?”
"

Yes I am sorry you live in constant fear. you are sooo scared throughout your life you have imagined these potential hypotheticals.

“do I think giving untrained people automatic and other guns will increase safety” Apparently you are unaware the guns you are referring to are most likely NOT “automatic”...they are semi-automatic."

he said give people an ak-47. that is a full auto or select fire auto. He didn't dispute this so he did not dispute that in his hypothetic that it his would be any sort of semi automatic weapon version. literacy is your friend. maybe don't try and take someone out of context when its so damn easy.

[–] Whackadoodle (19) 5 years ago

You need to read US History to understand why we have a fundamental right to bear arms.
Right to Bear Arms:
The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.

The Original State Constitutions:
With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the colonies declared that they were “Free and Independent States.” This declaration secured all of the “unalienable rights” which every free man possesses, and it cannot be doubted that the right to keep and bear arms was among those rights. The spirit of this document was proclaimed by James Otis, who said in 1764:
And he that would palm the doctrine of unlimited passive obedience and non-resistance upon mankind ... is not only a fool and a knave, but a rebel against common sense, as well as the laws of God, of Nature, and his Country.
This concept was incorporated into the original State Constitutions of New Hampshire (1784), and Maryland (1776); and proclaimed by the State Conventions of Virginia and North Carolina in 1788, as proposals for a Bill of Rights in ratifying the U.S. Constitution. The language used was:
The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
In applying this American principle we are to resist Federal or State officials who, as usurpers, defy the limits of their powers imposed by the law of God and the Constitution.
As these newly formed “independent states” were drafting constitutions, they enumerated the more important rights they possessed as free men. It is significant to note that several of these states specifically singled out the right to keep and bear arms as one of their most cherished rights.

[–] Whackadoodle (19) 5 years ago

The following are some excerpts from America’s first State Constitutions:30
Constitution for Massachusetts —1780
CHAPTER V, ART. XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
Constitution of North Carolina—1776
XVII. The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.
Constitution of Pennsylvania—1776
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Constitution of Vermont—1777
XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.
Some of the other original states implied the existence of the right of the people to bear arms within the context of the militia, such as Virginia had done:
The Constitution of Virginia—1776
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.31
It is quite evident from the circumstances at this period in time that the right of a person to keep and bear arms prevailed throughout the colonies, and the foregoing declarations further substantiated this fact. The declaration of rights in these constitutions merely reaffirmed those natural and common law rights they possessed as Englishmen.

[–] Whackadoodle (19) 5 years ago

We can thus claim that the right to bear arms has an origin stemming from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, as asserted by this New York Court:
The state constitutions drafted in the revolutionary war era therefore included provisions guaranteeing the right to bear arms and prohibiting standing armies in time of peace. The relevant provisions of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided a useful model for the colonial drafters.32

“AN EARLY PRECEDENT: MILITIAS AND THE OWNERSHIP OF WEAPONS
One of the first documents to link the bearing of arms with a militia (an army composed of citizens called to action in time of emergency) was the English Assize of Arms of 1181, which directed every free man to have access to weaponry. Henry II of England (1133–1189) signed this law to enable the rapid creation of a militia when needed, but the law also permitted carrying arms in self-defense and forbade the use of arms only when the intention was to “terrify the King's subjects.” In 1328, under the reign of King Edward III (1312–1377), Parliament enacted the Statute of Northampton, which prohibited the carrying of arms in public places but did not overrule the right to carry arms in self-defense.”

[–] JlawsANormlHuman (847) 5 years ago

amazing. that states have to implement their own that specify. I wonder why? its almost like the second amendment doesn't say what you said it does lol. there's no need for it to be in state constitutions if if was clear in the federal one?

I love how how you can't address anything else. just gishgallop with bunch of quotes.

you know you lost an argument when you have to do that lol.

[–] Whackadoodle (19) 5 years ago

Did you not understand or maybe you didn’t read all that I wrote. The 13 States each had their own Constitutions which guaranteed the right to bear arms. Madison made sure those States would ratify the US Constitution so he added the 2nd Amendment.

Militia: The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time. During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were members of the militia, depending on the respective states rule. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. The year before the US Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' paramount vision of the militia in 1787. The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.

But, he compromised by letting the each State tweak the amendment in order to satisfy the Anti-Federalists who were fearful of a centralized government; any centralized government.

Anti-Federalists, like Thomas Jefferson, wanted the absolute smallest federal / centralized government as absolutely possible to ensure the rights of the people and the states would not be infringed. The way to that was to insure the right of the people, who made up militia, who were necessary to maintain a free State (nation, rather than independent state) — to keep and bear arms and for that right of the people never to be infringed.”

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-founding-fathers-explain-the-second-amendment-this-says-it-all

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824“

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,

[–] Whackadoodle (19) 5 years ago

the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788“

[–] chilidoggg (14278) 5 years ago

“do I think giving untrained people automatic and other guns will increase safety” Apparently you are unaware the guns you are referring to are most likely NOT “automatic”...they are semi-automatic."
.....
he said give people an ak-47. that is a full auto or select fire auto. He didn't dispute this so he did not dispute that in his hypothetic that it his would be any sort of semi automatic weapon version."
.......

I'm not a gun guy. But whatever we agree or disagree about the 2nd Amendment, my personal belief is that its primary purpose is to ensure that the PEOPLE have weaponry equivalent to the weaponry of the STATE. Can Michael Bloomberg purchase his own F-35? I don't see why not. Can Texas purchase an F-35? Absolutely, IMO.

I just used the AK-47 as an example, and it probably isn't the best example, they're not the longest weapon. Something better example is Clint Eastwood's M-1 from "Gran Torino" - no one's walking into a liquor store with that stuffed in his pocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

Give everyone one of these.