Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by bad_teammate

  1. 1 hour ago, PatSolitanojr said:

    >Wants to have an intelligent conversation on common sense gun control

    >Posts things like this

    Weird that you completely ignore the super long substantive post and instead focus on little shit. It's almost like you don't have anything to add. HRMmmm

  2. 4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Which states would ratify a repeal of the Second Amendment?  Can you name 38?  ;)

    All zero people here who advocate the repeal of the 2nd just got WRECKED. Man I hope those non-existent people can recover one day.

  3. A useful thing to talk about is the “If I Were King” model. Go ahead and get your ideal vision out there and it lets others see where your values lie. Most people who talk about this do not articulate any kind of worldview, they just react angrily (and often to things no one has said).

    I am not really interested in amateur-Internet-pundit talk ("that'll never pass!" - "heh way to get Republicans motivated, stupid lib!" - "Trump will win in 2020 if the Dems advocate that!"), but substantive discussion of potential real-world impacts (positive and negative) would be interesting. (And honestly, personal attacks are better than the pseudo-punditry.)

    Ban the sale, manufacture, import, export, gifting, and inheritance of:

    - all automatic/semi-automatic weapons (no NFA exceptions)
    
- all weapons under 36" in length
    
- all magazines with a capacity greater than 5

    - all weapons that do not require a physical interaction with the weapon to chamber the next round
    - all accessories designed to get around any of the above or mimic the action or effect of something that would violate the above

    Guns violating the above that are already owned in the public would remain untouched and grandfathered, but upon the death of the owner they are to be turned in (buyback or replacement-with-compliant-weapon) or permanently disabled by police (in such a way that it is cosmetically identical for keepsake purposes but could not be repurposed with high-level (and felonious) tampering).

    Essentially, nothing but physical-interaction long guns, which citizens would be freely allowed to buy, sell, gift, inherit, and openly carry/transport. Police would also have nothing but physical-interaction long guns.

    Suppressors are good and should be encouraged.

    Some questions to ask:
    Using the type of gun that would be allowed given the restrictions above, what is the balanced struck between utility in a home defense situation and reduced lethality in a mass shooting or criminal activity situation?

    For instance, a variation of the question: Does an AR-15 provide such an advantage to a homeowner in a defense situation over a pump-action shotgun that the increased lethality of an AR-15 in a school shooting is tolerable to the public at large? Hunting AR-15 vs. bolt-action?

    Anticipated Objections:
    “People will break the law! Muh tragic boating accident!”
    - Yes, I know people will break the law. However, knowing that people will break a law is not a compelling reason not to pass a law.

    “But my PawPaw’s pew-pew!”
    - Sucks, but life’s hard sometimes. We’ll hollow out the inside of his Thompson and give it back to you.

    “But my legacy! My kids should have my guns!”
    - They can have a compliant replacement and inherit your compliant weapons. And why are guns your “legacy” anyway? Don’t define yourself by your purchase of consumer products, you Millenial.

    “Handguns! Fuck you”
    - Handguns should go before AR-15s, asshole.

    “Fuck you you fucking piece of shit!”
    - Now we’re talkin’!

    • Fuck You 1
  4. Cops shouldn't be armed above the citizens. At most there should be highly-trained and highly-regulated and HIGHLY-transparent (like triple backup body cams uploaded for public viewing after every action) special intervention teams with ARs, but beat cops shouldn't have anything stronger or more deadly than Law-Abiding Joe Sixpack should have.

    The way to protect oneself from the government is not to up-arm yourself, but to disarm the government.

    • Like 1
  5. Just now, udaydanceparty said:

    Pretty much every single time we have a mass shooting, someone with a gun (usually police) takes the shooter out or they kill themselves.  They normally don't change their minds and turn themselves in. 

    The last school shooting we had was ended within seconds of it starting by a "resource officer" with a gun.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/maryland-school-shooting-resource-officer-response-trnd/index.html

    Like I said before.. when was the last time a shooter was taken out because he was reloading?  Even with 15 mag handguns, that doesn't seem to be a problem.

    Why are you including the shooter killing himself in there? That's dishonest, brother. Deeply, deeply dishonest.

    The Maryland officer did not kill the shooter. The shooter killed himself. 

  6. 6 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

    When has an active shooter ever been taken down because he was busy reloading?

    People run away.

    Active shooters are very rarely "taken down" in any circumstance. The last school shooter "taken down" by anyone with a gun was in the late 1990s, I believe.

    3 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

    The truth is, they dont want sensible gun laws, they want a disarmed population and a police state like they have in many 3rd world countries and Euroop.

    And here's the same paranoid delusion resurfacing through a different mouthpiece. It's almost like it's a talking point from the depths of the echo chamber.

  7. 1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

    The left can't meme, so this thread is going to be inherently unfair in that it makes the right appear to have awesome sense of humors. It's like wpt vs bpt.

    All the greatest comic minds are and have always been conservative.

    Wait lol

  8. 2 minutes ago, deadshank said:

    Do you deny their are some that couch their true desires?  

    If you're willing to presume someone is being dishonest in how they present their ideas without having any evidence then you are, by simple reality, not actually going to listen to them. Of course you will hear and read their words in a literal sense, but you will not actually listen.

    I do not think many people actively hide their motives and beliefs with regard to guns. They may not give you the entire rundown of their every thought. You might have to ask probing questions to find out every detail, but the idea that any significant number of people on ANY side are actively obfuscating their beliefs is paranoid delusion.

  9. You will notice that literally no one you guys have quoted advocate banning all guns. Even the examples you actively search for do not match the bogeymen in your fantasy worlds and online echo chambers.

    There are undoubtedly people out there who advocate banning and confiscating all guns, just as there are people out there who think we should sell M249 SAWs to 8-year-olds. Being able to find outliers demonstrates nothing.

  10. 18 minutes ago, deadshank said:

    I think if a lot of liberals are truly honest about their position on the 2A and firearms then they would admit that they want all firearms sales to private citizens completely stopped and firearms currently in the hands of private citizens confiscated. 

    On what do you base this? Anything from liberals themselves?

    You're literally operating from a position of, "I'm not going to bother listening to people, instead I am going to pretend to know what they really want because they are lying."

    InfoWars logic

  11. 13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I mean, where would we get those kind of nutty ideas?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

    John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

     

      Reveal hidden contents

     

    John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

    By JOHN PAUL STEVENSMARCH 27, 2018

     
    28Stevens-master768.jpg
     
    A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .

    Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

    That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

    [For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]

    For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

    During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

     

    In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

    That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

    That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

    Correction: March 27, 2018 

    An earlier version of a picture caption with this article misidentified the 18th-century firearm depicted. It is a musket, not a rifle.

    John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

     

     

    How does this contradict what he said? You're quoting one person, just like he mentioned.

    There is no real movement to repeal the 2nd. There is no push from within any political power to do so. Even these horrible, lying, deceitful, monstrous shooting victims are calling for "gun control", not a full repeal of the 2nd.

    Perhaps Stevens's op-ed will kick-start such a movement, but right now it's basically one somewhat well-known old retired judge who is not actually active in politics in any way.

    Hank is completely right, sorry.

  12. 3 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

    Good info at the end about how the left was portrayed using facebook analytics vs. how the right is portrayed. "exploited" vs. "used"

    Holy shit what is it with you people and long videos with white guys fucking screaming into webcams? Do you people know how to read? Can you write?

  13. 3 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

    So scared!

    ?

    Telling someone to act wisely is a threat? How fucked up is your brain, exactly?

    • Fuck You 2
  14. Al Jazeera > FOX, CNN, MSNBC

    Those are not high bars to clear, but someone who only consumes news from AJ will get a way fairer and more comprehensive view of world events than any cable news watcher.

    Speaking of media bias, any NYT reader sees an endless parade of left-shaming and paeans to the tiny, tiny slice of Americans known as, "never-Trump Republicans".

    ciyh7086pGkh0Thi_rdmoqmumzD5C6vlB9YW9NdF

  15. 6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

    Ask Brian Stelter, he's the one that admitted to letting him lie on his program.

    So you say that you joined the NRA after hearing David Hogg's statements.

    When asked what he said, you tell me to ask someone who isn't even here.

    Which loops back to...

    7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    You guys are extremely vague, almost as if you don't have real arguments. It's almost as if you don't actually know anything of what they actually say, you just read articles on social media and right-wing websites that tell you exactly what to think and feel.

    Sometimes it bothers me that I can predict the CHUDs so well.

    This constant callback to Brian Stetler letting Hogg "lie" is a perfect example of how people like you do nothing but consume media (both social and crafted) that is designed to make you angry without giving you actual information. I searched "Hogg lie Stelter" and there is NOTHING in any of it that's specific. Stelter never said he let Hogg lie, he said he didn't bother correcting some facts (the ONLY one mentioned is that Hogg said Dana Loesch was the "CEO" of the NRA, and Stelter didn't correct him). Getting facts wrong isn't lying.

    But speaking of lying, HtownHorn, you're lying about something. Either you didn't join the NRA at all, you were already an NRA member or you actually did support the NRA. You said, "For instance, I had no skin in this game, never owned a gun, could care less about the NRA. After hearing Hogg make his ridiculous statements, I joined the NRA." <-- There is a lie in here. Which part is the lie, liar?

    There is no way in hell a calm, sane, rational, non-gun-owning moderate joined the NRA because of a teenager who supposedly said things they can't even quote.

    If you did, which would be fucking hilarious, it's because you're easily manipulated by people who are actively trying to manipulate you.

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 1
  16. 6 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

    What are their arguments, it changes daily, based on what network they are doing interviews on. I'm also not quite sure they are having the desired affect you think they are, as the NRA had record fundraising this past month. For instance, I had no skin in this game, never owned a gun, could care less about the NRA. After hearing Hogg make his ridiculous statements, I joined the NRA. He's literally driving people to join the organization, because contrary to his personal beliefs their members aren't killing people, and his rhetoric is repulsive. Hell, even the last CNN interviewer admitted he allowed Hogg to lie multiple times on his show, because he was afraid of interrupting too much. If all you do his scream lies and say 5M+ people like seeing kids die, you have no argument worth listening to. I've yet to hear an honest interview addressing the systemic collapse of government at both the local and federal level that allowed Cruz to purchase a gun, let alone several. Any competent psychologist would have rendered his ability to purchase a gun using NICS impossible. The SRO that stayed outside, even identified Cruz to his boss almost a year before the shooting and not a damn thing was done. There is a complicit group of people in this tragedy and it's not the NRA.

    So wait... you joined the organization after all these years because a kid said things you didn't like? lol yes everyone this is the emotion-free, cold face of calculating reality

    What lies has Hogg told? Be specific. You guys are extremely vague, almost as if you don't have real arguments. It's almost as if you don't actually know anything of what they actually say, you just read articles on social media and right-wing websites that tell you exactly what to think and feel.

    • Like 1
  17. 11 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

    Absolutely not. Semi auto rifle ban would accomplish nothing accept encroaching on the gun rights of the 2nd amendment. Rights that "shall not be infringed." 

    So a citizen should be able to purchase any weapon that could be manufactured?

  18. 20 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

    We dont have anything to organize against because we are in power. LOL. 

    You make it too easy. 

    1.3T spending bill

    Trump as president.

    Lotta good you guys are doing with that power lol

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...