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

[Holiday]

A semi-automatic weapon, which shoots highly pierceable rounds, 1 per second, is neither ideal for home defense (which could destroy your home and accidentally hurt bystanders) nor is it ideal for hunting (unless you want your meat riddled with bullets).

"Highly pierceable rounds" isn't a thing. I think I know what you are trying to say but even still, you're wrong.

Should You Consider an AR-15 for Home Defense?

 

[Holiday]

Also here is an interesting question, does the second amendment apply equally to African Americans as it does to others?

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2018/07/20/does-the-second-amendment-apply-to-black-people?media=AMP+HTML

Do African Americans Have a Right to Bear Arms? - The Atlantic

Because it seems like Fox News says everyone who wants a gun should have one, but when the cops shoot a African American guy for dubious reasons, Fox News says "well that guy might have had a guy."

Harith Augustus tried to pulled his gun on the police while resisting arrest. There is clear video of the incident. His FOID card didnt give him permission to open or conceal carry. The thoughtless article you posted had a correction at the end because whoever wrote it didn't bother to know the law.

Correction:

This post has been emended to correctly reflect that carrying a gun without a firearms permit is a crime, whether or not one has a firearm owners' identification card.

 

[Aximili86]

Wait, Mace, what? I was agreeing with the Canadian system. That should happen here. Take a chill pill.

But the point was, people can buy AR-10s in Canada. They just have to satisfy the government they're not wackadoodles. Canada doesn't ban semi-autos.

 

[MaceB]

"Highly pierceable rounds" isn't a thing. I think I know what you are trying to say but even still, you're wrong.

Should You Consider an AR-15 for Home Defense?

Armor piercing rounds is a thing.

 

[Aximili86]

Which is illegal for gun shops to sell. Now.

They won't arrest you solely for possessing them, I think there's some daylight there for sporting purposes, ranges and such - but given it's illegal for anyone to sell them, I don't know how people are getting the things.

 

[MaceB]

Wait, Mace, what? I was agreeing with the Canadian system. That should happen here. Take a chill pill.

But the point was, people can buy AR-10s in Canada. They just have to satisfy the government they're not wackadoodles. Canada doesn't ban semi-autos.

Like I said, it's your language. You say you agree with the Canadian system. (as if "probably should" is wringing endorsement) So, you just wanted to point out that the Canadian system is run by the government to such an excess that it's nothing short of needing to know you aren't a ticking time bomb? Your comment that it was anal was just an aside that I shouldn't pay attention to? The main thrust of your post seemed to be emphasizing the exaggerated check system. If you were for it, I would think that you'd emphasize how Canadians are still able to hunt and defend themselves, and they have a far smaller death toll. It seemed clear from your post that you were trying to paint the Canadian system as overly restrictive. Your only positive comment was that "it should probably happen." If you're going to support something, then support it.

I'm chill dude. I don't get personal with this sorts of stuff.

 

[Aximili86]

Wait, what? Again, I'm for the way Canada does it. We should have background checks to the extent Canada does. Not sure where this "overly restrictive" schtick is coming from, I said nothing of the sort. They're more restrictive than we are, yes, but they don't do blanket bans on AR-10s/15s for everyone due to them being dangerous in the hands of someone who should have been institutionalized for a case of the crazy-brain.

You can buy AR-10s in Canada. So that conflicts with your ostensible position that we should ban them outright. That's ridiculous. Just get to a Canada position instead, where if the government's satisfied you're not going to go all Lanza with one (and they're refreshing that background check every year or so, checking in on you and doing another family/friends interview) you're fine, and if you can't pass that threshold they'll prohibit you.

Canada's not Australia on guns, generally. They allow most of the stuff we do, there's just a higher bar to entry. Canada's got a pretty common sense position on this stuff - that's not far enough for what you're calling for though, clearly you're on the "ban ban ban!" train.

 

[Donner]

AR15s are a restricted gun in Canada. You can't use it for hunting and it's only supposed to be used at a gun range. It's not a popular weapon by any means and the RCMP takes it very seriously when anyone tries to buy one. Background checks, licences, safety courses, etc. And again, it can't be used for hunting, only gun ranges.

 

[MaceB]

Wait, what? Again, I'm for the way Canada does it. We should have background checks to the extent Canada does. Not sure where this "overly restrictive" schtick is coming from, I said nothing of the sort. They're more restrictive than we are, yes, but they don't do blanket bans on AR-10s/15s for everyone due to them being dangerous in the hands of someone who should have been institutionalized for a case of the crazy-brain.

You can buy AR-10s in Canada. So that conflicts with your ostensible position that we should ban them outright. That's ridiculous. Just get to a Canada position instead, where if the government's satisfied you're not going to go all Lanza with one (and they're refreshing that background check every year or so, checking in on you and doing another family/friends interview) you're fine, and if you can't pass that threshold they'll prohibit you.

Canada's not Australia on guns, generally. They allow most of the stuff we do, there's just a higher bar to entry. Canada's got a pretty common sense position on this stuff - that's not far enough for what you're calling for though, clearly you're on the "ban ban ban!" train.

I've explained my objection to your wording. You say you're for more extensive checks, but it doesn't seem like it based on the way your formed your argument. I'm glad that you want us to regulate guns as extensively as Canada does... I'm just skeptical of your intentions. It's like me saying, "Skittles are sour, tart, and they can lead to diabetes... I guess I should buy them, but they are bad for me." To say that I wanted to buy skittles based on that statement is... strange. Why would I phrase it that way if I really wanted to buy the skittles? Anyway, I just wanted to point that out. If you feel like more regulations are needed, then great! Glad to hear it. That's the only rational belief based on our gun situation today.

 

[Holiday]

Armor piercing rounds is a thing.

But that's not what you said. You said "highly pierceable rounds" which is a made up phrase. You also assume a person will use armor piercing rounds for their home defense weapon. I'm not sure you even understand there are other options.

 

[MaceB]

But that's not what you said. You said "highly pierceable rounds" which is a made up phrase. You also assume a person will use armor piercing rounds for their home defense weapon. I'm not sure you even understand there are other options.

Sure, I understand there are different options, but we don't need them for civilian defense. As far as "highly pierce able" versus "armor piercing rounds" is semantics. Sorry I didn't say the term how you like it. It's like calling a bullet proof vest a bullet resistant vest... it's really not a big deal unless you want to do a "gotcha." Very much besides the point at hand.

 

[Holiday]

Sure, I understand there are different options, but we don't need them for civilian defense. As far as "highly pierce able" versus "armor piercing rounds" is semantics. Sorry I didn't say the term how you like it. It's like calling a bullet proof vest a bullet resistant vest... it's really not a big deal unless you want to do a "gotcha." Very much besides the point at hand.

It speaks to my point that you have a lack of knowledge on this gun. You didnt just use a different term, you made one up.

 

[MaceB]

Holy Lord, do I need to have been in the military in order to talk about military policy too? Can I not talk about universal health care cause I don't have a doctorate in medicine? I've given you several concrete ways that we can minimize gun deaths. But you'd rather get into semantics then argue the merits, because - like I said - gun rights advocates don't really want to minimize gun deaths.
If you want to talk about smart guns, or the effectiveness of gun buybacks, or the usefulness of Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles, or the gun show loophole, or the 2nd amendment, I'm down. I'm well enough versed in those topics to discuss the merits and drawbacks with you. But if you want to throw in "gotcha" moments and declare that I'm not suitable for debate because I used a colloquialism instead of what you consider to be the proper term... well do it with someone else. I'm not interested in playing games. I'm interested in talking about the issues.

 

[Holiday]

You, not me, brought up the AR15 (a gun that I have no desire to own by the way) and tried to argue its usefulness without understanding how it works or what type of ammo it can use. Why should I believe you when you say you are well versed in other gun related issues? Now you are deflecting and saying I'm a gun activist who doesnt care about gun related deaths because I don't agree with your ideas. I dont see anything left to discuss.

 

[The Overlord]

Harith Augustus tried to pulled his gun on the police while resisting arrest. There is clear video of the incident. His FOID card didnt give him permission to open or conceal carry. The thoughtless article you posted had a correction at the end because whoever wrote it didn't bother to know the law.

What about Philando Castile? What did he do to deserve death? Why were the gun rights people so indifferent when the cops shot him because he had a legal weapon?

 

[Holiday]

What about Philando Castile? What did he do to deserve death? Why were the gun rights people so indifferent when the cops shot him because he had a legal weapon?

Dana Loesch explains why the NRA didn't defend Philando Castile

Castile was high at the time of the shooting and had weed in his car. This violates his carry permit. Even if he told the cop he had a carry permit, he shouldn't have reached for his waistband.

I'm not arguing it was a justified shooting mind you, just stating the facts of what happened. Im for legalization of weed so if it was in his car that doesnt matter to me.

 

[Sithborg]

Dana Loesch is an soulless ghoul.

If that doesn't matter, then you should call bull**** on the NRA's white supremacy.

 

[Holiday]

Dana Loesch is an soulless ghoul.

If that doesn't matter, then you should call bull**** on the NRA's white supremacy.

I said it didn't matter to me personally because of how i feel about weed, but the law is what it is. The NRA are not a white supremacy group (this forums favorite phrase) for not endorsing someone who broke the law.

Edit: You were crying racism about that Florida shooting a couple months back but then said nothing after the shooter was charged. I shouldnt be surprised you would make that comment.

 

[MaceB]

You, not me, brought up the AR15 (a gun that I have no desire to own by the way) and tried to argue its usefulness without understanding how it works or what type of ammo it can use. Why should I believe you when you say you are well versed in other gun related issues? Now you are deflecting and saying I'm a gun activist who doesnt care about gun related deaths because I don't agree with your ideas. I dont see anything left to discuss.

... cause I know enough about them to know what they were designed for? And I don't like the fact that they can use amour piercing rounds or that civilians can use a military weapon? You're trying to discount my entire opinion because I called a certain kind of ammo something that you don't accept. Absurd.

And I brought up several other forms of gun control. You latched on to the Semi-Automatic Assault weapons, which I maintain, have no place in the civilian sphere. They are an unnecessary convenience for hunters and nothing more. You don't need them in any way shape or form.

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... if gun activists were so inclined. But they aren't.

And you didn't answer my question. Am I not allowed to talk about global climate change because I'm not a climatologist? Am I not allowed to talk about impeachment proceedings because I'm not a lawyer? Am I not allowed t talk about money in politics cause I've never run a campaign? Am I not allowed to talk about prison reform because I'm not a police officer? It's an argument meant to obfuscate, and nothing more.

 

[Sithborg]

I said it didn't matter to me personally because of how i feel about weed, but the law is what it is. The NRA are not a white supremacy group (this forums favorite phrase) for not endorsing someone who broke the law.

Edit: You were crying racism about that Florida shooting a couple months back but then said nothing after the shooter was charged. I shouldnt be surprised you would make that comment.

No, but it's president is literally a traitor. And the organization is likely compromised and is used to funnel foreign money.

And really, its rhetoric it espouses is bordering on infowars territory.

As for the stand your ground absurdity, I assume there was some other craziness going on at the time.

 

[The Overlord]

Dana Loesch explains why the NRA didn't defend Philando Castile

Castile was high at the time of the shooting and had weed in his car. This violates his carry permit. Even if he told the cop he had a carry permit, he shouldn't have reached for his waistband.

I'm not arguing it was a justified shooting mind you, just stating the facts of what happened. Im for legalization of weed so if it was in his car that doesnt matter to me.

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?

 

[Handsome Rob]

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?

Well, considering the NRA listed in its safety rules "Never use alcohol . . . before or while shooting," I think it's safe to say they wouldn't.

Seriously, man . . . it didn't even take me a minute to search online and find that.

 

[The Overlord]

Well, considering the NRA listed in its safety rules "Never use alcohol . . . before or while shooting," I think it's safe to say they wouldn't.

Seriously, man . . . it didn't even take me a minute to search online and find that.

Shouldn't you have a "Leave Trump alone avatar" at this point?

So they will never defend drunk members? Okay, then why does your side argue that people should bring in concealed guns into bars? How is that promoting gun safety?

 

[Handsome Rob]

Shouldn't you have a "Leave Trump alone avatar" at this point?

So they will never defend drunk members? Okay, then why does your side argue that people should bring in concealed guns into bars? How is that promoting gun safety?

Your post I replied to didn't mention Trump. My post didn't mention Trump.

Now, watch me reply to something you actually said: I don't argue that people should bring guns (concealed or otherwise) into bars. I don't think they should, unless they're planning on not drinking.

I do believe that bar owners should have the right to allow or ban guns from their establishment, though. Feel free to get worked up about that.

 

[The Overlord]

Your post I replied to didn't mention Trump. My post didn't mention Trump.

Now, watch me reply to something you actually said: I don't argue that people should bring guns (concealed or otherwise) into bars. I don't think they should, unless they're planning on not drinking.

I do believe that bar owners should have the right to allow or ban guns from their establishment, though. Feel free to get worked up about that.

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.