🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Handsome Rob]

I was making a joke with your old avatar. Its all in good fun.

The fact is, GOP politicans have been passing laws allowing concealed guns into bars:

Missouri bill would allow guns in churches, bars, daycares and colleges

How is promoting gun safety? It seems you do not want to confront the reckless elements in your own movement. Castile is worthy of death for smoking weed, but your movement is fine with guns in bars and if you do not agree with that, then do something to change it or admit this is a double standard on their part.

Good for the GOP. I generally support the right to conceal carry. Gun safety is an aspect of how a gun is handled, not what location it finds itself in. A gun doesn't suddenly become inherently dangerous simply because it crosses the property line from a street to a church, daycare, etc. If that were the case, why are school resource officers allowed to carry guns? If I'm carrying, and I walk into a bar to get a Sprite (I don't drink alcohol), how are innocent people suddenly in danger? They weren't before I walked into the bar. What changes?

And, given church shootings, why shouldn't a church be allowed to decide for itself whether it wants to allow its members to carry? I mean, the guy who wants to shoot up the church isn't going to give a crap about whether he's banned from carrying. At my church, we have a FBI agent as one of our members. Is he capable of carrying a gun at a church without putting everyone in danger?

Oh, and from the article:

Private businesses would be allowed to opt out of the bill and prohibit guns on their property.

No business owner who wants guns banned from their private property will have it forced upon him or her.

 

[The Overlord]

Good for the GOP. I generally support the right to conceal carry. Gun safety is an aspect of how a gun is handled, not what location it finds itself in. A gun doesn't suddenly become inherently dangerous simply because it crosses the property line from a street to a church, daycare, etc. If that were the case, why are school resource officers allowed to carry guns? If I'm carrying, and I walk into a bar to get a Sprite (I don't drink alcohol), how are innocent people suddenly in danger? They weren't before I walked into the bar. What changes?

And, given church shootings, why shouldn't a church be allowed to decide for itself whether it wants to allow its members to carry? I mean, the guy who wants to shoot up the church isn't going to give a crap about whether he's banned from carrying. At my church, we have a FBI agent as one of our members. Is he capable of carrying a gun at a church without putting everyone in danger?

Oh, and from the article:



No business owner who wants guns banned from their private property will have it forced upon him or her.

You are ignoring my point, why is it okay for people to go to bars with guns where they will most likely be drinking, but Castile smoking weed and having a gun in his posession is used by the NRA as the reason why they do not have care about his second amendment rights? You are giving me a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to my argument.

 

[Holiday]

EVen if he did smoke pot, why is that a crime worthy of death? It seems like all you gun rights guys demand almost zero accountability from the cops and come with any excuse not to defend people they do not like. Militarized cops can shoot people because they might have guns, if the NRA does not like those people.

And if NRA member was drunk while having a gun in his posession, would the NRA not defend him?

I literally wrote that I wasn't arguing it was a justified shooting. You asked why the NRA didn't defend him and I posted a link that explained why. Never said the cop was unaccountable. That officers story is that he shot Castile because he was reaching for his waistband, not because he was high. Nobody said he deserved to be killed for smoking weed.

 

[Lighthouse]

8 Dead, Several Others Shot At Pittsburgh Synagogue

 

[squeekness]

Sick of this crap already.

 

[Sithborg]

Yeah, saw bit of video from reporting on the scene. The mere fact that "Mass Casualty Unit" needs to exist is extremely sad.

 

[The Overlord]

I literally wrote that I wasn't arguing it was a justified shooting. You asked why the NRA didn't defend him and I posted a link that explained why. Never said the cop was unaccountable. That officers story is that he shot Castile because he was reaching for his waistband, not because he was high. Nobody said he deserved to be killed for smoking weed.

Castile's girlfriend said he was not reaching for a gun.

Okay, bigger question, why does the NRA turn a blind eye to police militarization when that can impact second amendment rights of African Americans?

 

[Holiday]

Castile's girlfriend said he was not reaching for a gun.

Okay, bigger question, why does the NRA turn a blind eye to police militarization when that can impact second amendment rights of African Americans?

Which I why I said the officers story, meaning his version of events.

As for your question, I don't know. I'm not a NRA spokesperson. I don't know what specific police policies you're referring to.

 

[The Overlord]

Which I why I said the officers story, meaning his version of events.

As for your question, I don't know. I'm not a NRA spokesperson. I don't know what specific police policies you're referring to.

These policies:

Police militarization fails to protect officers and targets black communities, study finds

The policing of black Americans is racial harassment funded by the state

The second amendment rights of African Americans do not matter if they are over policed and have to deal with militarized police all the time. I think groups like the NRA say nothing about this, because they are allies with people who push these policies.

 

[Lighthouse]

But yeah. I understand guys. You need this to hunt. Your hobby is worth it.

 

[MaceB]

Exactly, Semi Automatic Assault Rifles are not for defense or for hunting. It's to support their shooting hobby. And then, when you question them on it...they claim victimhood status.

 

[Lighthouse]

I get it. You are responsible gun owners who shoot exactly the way responsible people do. Sorry. You're hobby isn't worth it.

 

[MaceB]

Or we can make accommodations. If we were to mandate that Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles are only available for rent at the gun range, I'd be very down for that. Shoot to your heart's desire in a safe, controlled environment.

 

[Herofan]

But aside from that.... again...smart guns, gun buybacks, closing the loophole, the Assault Rifle ban, more rigorous regulations, ammo tracking, and more. There are a million and one ways that we could decrease gun deaths without taking away our second amendment rights...

Buybacks of which guns? I believe the proposal is often for mandatory buybacks, if there were mandatory buybacks of many or most guns that would definitely be diminishing of the rights.

Another common proposal was and is for gun manufacturers to be liable for their non-defective guns, potentially crippling or eliminating the manufacturers.

 

[MaceB]

Buybacks of which guns? I believe the proposal is often for mandatory buybacks, if there were mandatory buybacks of many or most guns that would definitely be diminishing of the rights.

Another common proposal was and is for gun manufacturers to be liable for their non-defective guns, potentially crippling or eliminating the manufacturers.

Well a non mandatory buyback of all guns possibly, or maybe a mandatory buyback of Semi Automatic Assault Rifles. These things would all be hashed out in the legislative process, but again, I don't think the 2nd amendment gives you the right to buy any gun known to man. Semi Automatic Assault Rifles are not a civilian weapon, so I don't think that American civilians have a right to them. It's just one example of the numerous ways that we could sensibly regulate guns if gun rights activists were even remotely willing to come to the table.

 

[Aximili86]

'm glad that you want us to regulate guns as extensively as Canada does... I'm just skeptical of your intentions.

Which is really your problem, isn't it?

Aximili: "We should do background checks to the extent Canada does." - Mace: "But you called a government agent a G-man, like that's somehow offensive and not just a generic slang term for a fed! You NRA guy you!"

Ridiculous.

 

[Mace]

Is it my problem? .. I guess. I felt like your point came across as insincere and not helpful based on how you formulated it. That’s honest and open feedback on my part - take it or leave it. Like I said, I’m glad you’re for stronger regulations... even if it is as begrudgingly as you make it sound. Congrats, we agree. Now let’s let it go okay? I hate when semantic arguments go on for pages.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You know what is amazing? How can one be so concerned with the "danger" of people trying to immigrate to the US, but will defend policies and situations that lead to so many tragic deaths, every single day?

 

[Aximili86]

What more do you want, Mace? "Our background checks should be like Canada's, just as thorough. That's a fair position, unlike a blanket ban on ARs for everyone."

Not that complicated.

 

[MaceB]

We'll just have to disagree about the Semi Automatic Assault Rifle ban, which worked and is a totally fair position IMO..

and agree that we need more thorough background checks.

That's fine. What more do I want? .. I guess what I was getting at was that your post demonstrated IMO how gun activists don't really want to come to the table. It came across, to me, as.... "Sure, we should totally do better background checks like Canada does. Their regulations are highly obtrusive and allow big government... but sure, we should totally do that." To me, that felt like a very tongue in cheek, insincere kind of position. So what would I want? I don't know man.. I just wish that when you're for something, you can be for it. If your position is that we should have more thorough background checks, then I don't think that needs the nuance...even though you are more than free to formulate your argument however you want. Again, it felt like you were begrudgingly accepting that we need more gun regulations, and I don't know why people feel that way.

I think that American patriots should want more gun regulations. It's not a position to be embarrassed of or to cloud in this "oh it comes at a cost" language. There isn't a cost. Having to go through extra checks isn't a bad thing... it's a good thing. As citizens, we get to be proud of our government and each other for keeping ourselves safe. Like, if it were car regulations, would it be appropriate to be like, "Yeah, maybe the government should force auto manufactures to include seat belts... seems a little big brother, but if it'll save lives, then I guess it's worth it." No way! That's a terrible state of mind. I'm proud that our government is making sure every car is as safe as possible. Just like I'd be proud of our government doing due diligence on every gun application.

So I guess that's what I would want. A little more hutzpah in your view, rather than apprehension... but whatever... I'll definitely settle on us agreeing.

 

[Aximili86]

Except there was never any "hesitation" on my part on an interview process by some government appointee as part of background check procedure.

 

[Donner]

At least six victims reported in shooting at Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks

 

[samsnee]

It’s up to 11 now.

 

[jolldan]

From ABC's Marc Brown it wont let me share the tweet

We are hearing that some of the people who were at #Borderline, were also at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, scene of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history. #ThousandOaks #shooting

 

[squeekness]

It's like Final Destination trying to catch up to them.