Current Events > Who else is apathetic to the 2nd Amendment?

Topic List	Page List: 1
KarmaMuffin 02/27/18 1:35:09 PM #1:	I don't want a gun and don't see the point in having one. At the same time I don't think they're a big menace to society. If they were banned I wouldn't care. If they allowed fully automatic rifles with armor piercing bullets I wouldn't care either. Anyone else with me? <cite>KarmaMuffin posted [p:896868632] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>I don't want a gun and don't see the point in having one. At the same time I don't think they're a big menace to society. If they were banned I wouldn't care. If they allowed fully automatic rifles with armor piercing bullets I wouldn't care either. Anyone else with me?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HydroCannabinol 02/27/18 1:37:51 PM #2:	The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve --- Steam ID: Mind_Explosion I thought I chose very easy, not brand new to the game. - CheesyPhil on SC2 <cite>HydroCannabinol posted [p:896868785] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OpheliaAdenade 02/27/18 1:39:39 PM #3:	I think we need more gun control than we have now, but I don't think we should go around taking people's guns away or anything. I don't think we should be selling assault weapons to anyone who wants them either. There is no reason for a civilian to possess a weapon like that. You don't need it for hunting or self defense. :v It isn't going to happen anytime soon since the NRA literally owns our politicians. I can dream though. Concealed carry weapons are perfectly fine though. I support those. --- http://imgur.com/Q6Qj55q <cite>OpheliaAdenade posted [p:896868877] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>I think we need more gun control than we have now, but I don't think we should go around taking people's guns away or anything. I don't think we should be selling assault weapons to anyone who wants them either. There is no reason for a civilian to possess a weapon like that. You don't need it for hunting or self defense. :v It isn't going to happen anytime soon since the NRA literally owns our politicians. I can dream though. Concealed carry weapons are perfectly fine though. I support those.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Muffinz0rz 02/27/18 1:42:48 PM #4:	me --- Not removing this until Pat Benatar is in Super Smash Bros. (Started 8/31/2010) 2018 NFLB Summersim team: https://i.imgur.com/7cjNtgQ.png <cite>Muffinz0rz posted [p:896869069] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>me</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 1:45:13 PM #5:	Nah I look at it in a more abstract way. It's not just the deaths that worries me, it's the direction the country can go if we stop this fear mongering. Also, if guns cease to be an issue after a ban, then we could solve other problems instead of continuing this chatter over a no-brains-necessary issue. This should have been solved a long time ago. The only real problem is that gun nuts lack discipline, talent, and time. They all are narrow-minded stereotypical family men and women who let society tell them how to live. Now as a result they're not expanded and must resort to one of the easiest hobbies to adopt: shooting a gun. That's all they got lol. Anyway, it would be nice to cut down on murder too. I guess we have like 300x more murder (by gun?) than Japan. We have to cut down on insanity before we can really make an impact and I think the only way to do that is to transition people over to a new format of what I would call post-education, that is, the news. More people need to listen to longer, drawn out conversation as in podcasts like Joe Rogan Experience, or YouTube shows like the Ruben Report. It doesn't really serve the people to have a format where there's an expert on climate change debating a corporate shill for 5 minutes, in which the conversation goes nowhere of substance because the expert must reiterate basic middle school points over and over. Commercial break. Ok now let's review what we just said for a minute and continue for the next 4 minutes elaborating on a question before the break because I didn't get the last word. That formula is ***ed. It's just a waiting game. Once the old people are gone this country will be in better shape. I work at a dollar store and, man, is that eye opening. I've come across old people who don't know to press the 'Done' button on the pin pad after paying with their card. I've checked out several customers who don't even know how to use a debit card. I've had to listen to this woman who must have dementia passionately talk about her grandkids to me and everyone else she gets rung up by over and over, because she doesn't remember. All these people get to vote lol. So we have a little while to wait to make up for these people. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896869215] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>Nah I look at it in a more abstract way. It's not just the deaths that worries me, it's the direction the country can go if we stop this fear mongering. Also, if guns cease to be an issue after a ban, then we could solve other problems instead of continuing this chatter over a no-brains-necessary issue. This should have been solved a long time ago. The only real problem is that gun nuts lack discipline, talent, and time. They all are narrow-minded stereotypical family men and women who let society tell them how to live. Now as a result they're not expanded and must resort to one of the easiest hobbies to adopt: shooting a gun. That's all they got lol. Anyway, it would be nice to cut down on murder too. I guess we have like 300x more murder (by gun?) than Japan. We have to cut down on insanity before we can really make an impact and I think the only way to do that is to transition people over to a new format of what I would call post-education, that is, the news. More people need to listen to longer, drawn out conversation as in podcasts like Joe Rogan Experience, or YouTube shows like the Ruben Report. It doesn't really serve the people to have a format where there's an expert on climate change debating a corporate shill for 5 minutes, in which the conversation goes nowhere of substance because the expert must reiterate basic middle school points over and over. Commercial break. Ok now let's review what we just said for a minute and continue for the next 4 minutes elaborating on a question before the break because I didn't get the last word. That formula is ***ed. It's just a waiting game. Once the old people are gone this country will be in better shape. I work at a dollar store and, man, is that eye opening. I've come across old people who don't know to press the 'Done' button on the pin pad after paying with their card. I've checked out several customers who don't even know how to use a debit card. I've had to listen to this woman who must have dementia passionately talk about her grandkids to me and everyone else she gets rung up by over and over, because she doesn't remember. All these people get to vote lol. So we have a little while to wait to make up for these people.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 02/27/18 1:47:31 PM #6:	8-bit_Biceps posted... Nah I look at it in a more abstract way. It's not just the deaths that worries me, it's the direction the country can go if we stop this fear mongering. Also, if guns cease to be an issue after a ban, then we could solve other problems instead of continuing this chatter over a no-brains-necessary issue. This should have been solved a long time ago. The only real problem is that gun nuts lack discipline, talent, and time. They all are narrow-minded stereotypical family men and women who let society tell them how to live. Meanwhile, gun grabbers still don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip. See, you really shouldn't insult your opponents when the side you're advocating for is actually less informed. It makes your side look even dumber than the people you're insulting. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:896869357] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>Nah I look at it in a more abstract way. It's not just the deaths that worries me, it's the direction the country can go if we stop this fear mongering. Also, if guns cease to be an issue after a ban, then we could solve other problems instead of continuing this chatter over a no-brains-necessary issue. This should have been solved a long time ago. The only real problem is that gun nuts lack discipline, talent, and time. They all are narrow-minded stereotypical family men and women who let society tell them how to live. </quote> Meanwhile, gun grabbers still don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip. See, you really shouldn't insult your opponents when the side you're advocating for is actually less informed. It makes your side look even dumber than the people you're insulting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
eston 02/27/18 1:50:58 PM #7:	I personally don't give half a shit about my second amendment rights. It's not something that has much of a purpose to me and my life. --- http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i215/estonc/grizzly_bear_chairs_2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8kjZU.jpg <cite>eston posted [p:896869569] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>I personally don't give half a shit about my second amendment rights. It's not something that has much of a purpose to me and my life.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 1:55:09 PM #8:	Sephiroth1288 posted... 8-bit_Biceps posted... Nah I look at it in a more abstract way. It's not just the deaths that worries me, it's the direction the country can go if we stop this fear mongering. Also, if guns cease to be an issue after a ban, then we could solve other problems instead of continuing this chatter over a no-brains-necessary issue. This should have been solved a long time ago. The only real problem is that gun nuts lack discipline, talent, and time. They all are narrow-minded stereotypical family men and women who let society tell them how to live. Meanwhile, gun grabbers still don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip. See, you really shouldn't insult your opponents when the side you're advocating for is actually less informed. It makes your side look even dumber than the people you're insulting. I'm still waiting for gun nuts, or people on the right in general to realize that political issues generally comprise multiple facets of knowledge and that knowing what a magazine vs a clip is is probably of very little use compared to, say, knowing basic psychology and some moral philosophy. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896869853] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>Nah I look at it in a more abstract way. It's not just the deaths that worries me, it's the direction the country can go if we stop this fear mongering. Also, if guns cease to be an issue after a ban, then we could solve other problems instead of continuing this chatter over a no-brains-necessary issue. This should have been solved a long time ago. The only real problem is that gun nuts lack discipline, talent, and time. They all are narrow-minded stereotypical family men and women who let society tell them how to live. </quote> Meanwhile, gun grabbers still don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip. See, you really shouldn't insult your opponents when the side you're advocating for is actually less informed. It makes your side look even dumber than the people you're insulting.</quote> I'm still waiting for gun nuts, or people on the right in general to realize that political issues generally comprise multiple facets of knowledge and that knowing what a magazine vs a clip is is probably of very little use compared to, say, knowing basic psychology and some moral philosophy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 02/27/18 2:05:16 PM #9:	8-bit_Biceps posted... I'm still waiting for gun nuts, or people on the right in general to realize that political issues generally comprise multiple facets of knowledge and that knowing what a magazine vs a clip is is probably of very little use compared to, say, knowing basic psychology and some moral philosophy. Let me put it like this: Would you trust someone to make changes to environmental policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was? Yes or no? --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:896870457] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>I'm still waiting for gun nuts, or people on the right in general to realize that political issues generally comprise multiple facets of knowledge and that knowing what a magazine vs a clip is is probably of very little use compared to, say, knowing basic psychology and some moral philosophy.</quote> Let me put it like this: Would you trust someone to make changes to environmental policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was? Yes or no?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 2:16:07 PM #10:	Sephiroth1288 posted... 8-bit_Biceps posted... I'm still waiting for gun nuts, or people on the right in general to realize that political issues generally comprise multiple facets of knowledge and that knowing what a magazine vs a clip is is probably of very little use compared to, say, knowing basic psychology and some moral philosophy. Let me put it like this: Would you trust someone to make changes to environmental policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was? Yes or no? But a gun is not the greenhouse gas. A gun is like...a car...or bred cows that exhale CO2. A gun is a tool used to kill people just like a car is a tool to put more CO2 into the air. So the core thing to understand here is like human intent. Human intent to kill can be due to mental disorders and it can also be due to exposure to guns, NRA fear mongering, and for instance the order we prioritize censorship on TV. For instance, I think it makes little sense to put more weight on censoring nudity over violence. That makes no sense whatsoever. The other day some accounting grad student tried to explain to me that redistributing wealth will lower financial incentive. I showed him a video of a guy explaining that money should be redistributed and that basically the wealthy class need to be taxed a lot more. And I was like, dude...you can lower incentive a lot, or moderately, mildly, marginally, or infinitesimally. You don't just tax some guy who makes $5 mil a year at 40% and expect he will have the same incentive as when he's taxed at 50% lol. Then I explained that incentive is a psychology issue because money is a behavioral reinforcer. People need to stop claiming a monopoly on issues and realize concepts are intertwined with multiple fields of knowledge. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896871049] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>I'm still waiting for gun nuts, or people on the right in general to realize that political issues generally comprise multiple facets of knowledge and that knowing what a magazine vs a clip is is probably of very little use compared to, say, knowing basic psychology and some moral philosophy.</quote> Let me put it like this: Would you trust someone to make changes to environmental policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was? Yes or no?</quote> But a gun is not the greenhouse gas. A gun is like...a car...or bred cows that exhale CO2. A gun is a tool used to kill people just like a car is a tool to put more CO2 into the air. So the core thing to understand here is like human intent. Human intent to kill can be due to mental disorders and it can also be due to exposure to guns, NRA fear mongering, and for instance the order we prioritize censorship on TV. For instance, I think it makes little sense to put more weight on censoring nudity over violence. That makes no sense whatsoever. The other day some accounting grad student tried to explain to me that redistributing wealth will lower financial incentive. I showed him a video of a guy explaining that money should be redistributed and that basically the wealthy class need to be taxed a lot more. And I was like, dude...you can lower incentive a lot, or moderately, mildly, marginally, or infinitesimally. You don't just tax some guy who makes $5 mil a year at 40% and expect he will have the same incentive as when he's taxed at 50% lol. Then I explained that incentive is a psychology issue because money is a behavioral reinforcer. People need to stop claiming a monopoly on issues and realize concepts are intertwined with multiple fields of knowledge.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
I_Stay_Noided 02/27/18 2:16:58 PM #11:	Sephiroth1288 posted... See, you really shouldn't insult your opponents when the side you're advocating for is actually less informed. It makes your side look even dumber than the people you're insulting. he says as he routinely falls for photoshopped buzzfeed screenshots <cite>I_Stay_Noided posted [p:896871100] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>See, you really shouldn't insult your opponents when the side you're advocating for is actually less informed. It makes your side look even dumber than the people you're insulting. </quote> he says as he routinely falls for photoshopped buzzfeed screenshots</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 02/27/18 2:31:04 PM #12:	HydroCannabinol posted... The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve But what's to start them from taking over? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:896871936] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>HydroCannabinol posted...</cite> <quote>The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve</quote> But what's to start them from taking over?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CyricZ 02/27/18 2:36:04 PM #13:	I mean, I would be but I don't want to hurt its feelings. --- CyricZ <cite>CyricZ posted [p:896872251] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>I mean, I would be but I don't want to hurt its feelings.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 02/27/18 3:05:42 PM #14:	8-bit_Biceps posted... But a gun is not the greenhouse gas. Thanks for the meaningless truism. 8-bit_Biceps posted... A gun is like...a car...or bred cows that exhale CO2. A gun is a tool used to kill people just like a car is a tool to put more CO2 into the air. So the core thing to understand here is like human intent. Human intent to kill can be due to mental disorders and it can also be due to exposure to guns, NRA fear mongering, and for instance the order we prioritize censorship on TV. For instance, I think it makes little sense to put more weight on censoring nudity over violence. That makes no sense whatsoever. The other day some accounting grad student tried to explain to me that redistributing wealth will lower financial incentive. I showed him a video of a guy explaining that money should be redistributed and that basically the wealthy class need to be taxed a lot more. And I was like, dude...you can lower incentive a lot, or moderately, mildly, marginally, or infinitesimally. You don't just tax some guy who makes $5 mil a year at 40% and expect he will have the same incentive as when he's taxed at 50% lol. Then I explained that incentive is a psychology issue because money is a behavioral reinforcer. People need to stop claiming a monopoly on issues and realize concepts are intertwined with multiple fields of knowledge. But would you trust someone to change out economic policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was It's a very simple question. I am of the opinion that you should at least know something about the things you want to restrict. Otherwise you get ridiculous policy proposals like "ban AR-15s" when there are a plethora of other, functionally similar rifles that are no less deadly. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:896874073] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>But a gun is not the greenhouse gas.</quote> Thanks for the meaningless truism. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>A gun is like...a car...or bred cows that exhale CO2. A gun is a tool used to kill people just like a car is a tool to put more CO2 into the air. So the core thing to understand here is like human intent. Human intent to kill can be due to mental disorders and it can also be due to exposure to guns, NRA fear mongering, and for instance the order we prioritize censorship on TV. For instance, I think it makes little sense to put more weight on censoring nudity over violence. That makes no sense whatsoever. The other day some accounting grad student tried to explain to me that redistributing wealth will lower financial incentive. I showed him a video of a guy explaining that money should be redistributed and that basically the wealthy class need to be taxed a lot more. And I was like, dude...you can lower incentive a lot, or moderately, mildly, marginally, or infinitesimally. You don't just tax some guy who makes $5 mil a year at 40% and expect he will have the same incentive as when he's taxed at 50% lol. Then I explained that incentive is a psychology issue because money is a behavioral reinforcer. People need to stop claiming a monopoly on issues and realize concepts are intertwined with multiple fields of knowledge.</quote> But would you trust someone to change out economic policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was It's a very simple question. I am of the opinion that you should at least know something about the things you want to restrict. Otherwise you get ridiculous policy proposals like "ban AR-15s" when there are a plethora of other, functionally similar rifles that are no less deadly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Fam_Fam 02/27/18 3:07:07 PM #15:	ImTheMacheteGuy posted... HydroCannabinol posted... The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve But what's to start them from taking over? do you think you having a gun would stop the US military from imposing its might on the citizenry? <cite>Fam_Fam posted [p:896874149] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>HydroCannabinol posted...</cite> <quote>The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve</quote> But what's to start them from taking over?</quote> do you think you having a gun would stop the US military from imposing its might on the citizenry?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 02/27/18 3:24:42 PM #16:	Fam_Fam posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... HydroCannabinol posted... The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve But what's to start them from taking over? do you think you having a gun would stop the US military from imposing its might on the citizenry? Hahahahhhahhahaha what? No of course not. That's dumb as fuck. I'm just genuinely curious about why all the guncrazies think the government/military/police would just "take over" in the event guns were banned. "Without us having guns to defend ourselves, what's to stop them from taking over?" Why is "they will take over if we don't have guns" the default setting? Is the government/military/police just sitting there thinking "rats! We wanted to just taken over and control all our citizens... and we would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling 2nd amendment!" or something? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:896875178] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>Fam_Fam posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>HydroCannabinol posted...</cite> <quote>The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve</quote> But what's to start them from taking over?</quote> do you think you having a gun would stop the US military from imposing its might on the citizenry?</quote> Hahahahhhahhahaha what? No of course not. That's dumb as fuck. I'm just genuinely curious about why all the guncrazies think the government/military/police would just "take over" in the event guns were banned. "Without us having guns to defend ourselves, what's to stop them from taking over?" Why is "they will take over if we don't have guns" the default setting? Is the government/military/police just sitting there thinking "rats! We wanted to just taken over and control all our citizens... and we would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling 2nd amendment!" or something?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkProto05 02/27/18 3:30:49 PM #17:	LOL at magazine knowledge being the basis for making gun safety judgments. --- Alpha Sapphire FC: 2552 5569 3267 <cite>DarkProto05 posted [p:896875535] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>LOL at magazine knowledge being the basis for making gun safety judgments.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pepys Monster 02/27/18 3:33:59 PM #18:	I'm a vegan. I don't support hunting. The second amendment wasn't made to protect hunting. It was made to protect us from tyranny. I support the second amendment. And there's NO valid reason a civilian SHOULDN'T be able to own a semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47. Come at me, bros. --- I <3 my bae. <cite>Pepys Monster posted [p:896875718] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>I'm a vegan. I don't support hunting. The second amendment wasn't made to protect hunting. It was made to protect us from tyranny. I support the second amendment. And there's NO valid reason a civilian SHOULDN'T be able to own a semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47. Come at me, bros.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dark_Spiret 02/27/18 3:36:46 PM #19:	ImTheMacheteGuy posted... Hahahahhhahhahaha what? No of course not. That's dumb as fuck. I'm just genuinely curious about why all the guncrazies think the government/military/police would just "take over" in the event guns were banned. in this day and age you wont see a large scale glorified war. however over time you will see more and more small laws get enacted which usually starts with giving the public less means to oppose the system so the system is more free to try and get away with tiny authoritarian laws. you are seeing this in the UK. it always starts with a whimper and ends with a bang. only its going to be across decades to get there which makes a new law here or there seem insignificant until its too late. most probably wont even know those laws were things until they run into them and are punished. <cite>Dark_Spiret posted [p:896875885] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote>Hahahahhhahhahaha what? No of course not. That's dumb as fuck. I'm just genuinely curious about why all the guncrazies think the government/military/police would just "take over" in the event guns were banned. </quote>in this day and age you wont see a large scale glorified war. however over time you will see more and more small laws get enacted which usually starts with giving the public less means to oppose the system so the system is more free to try and get away with tiny authoritarian laws. you are seeing this in the UK. it always starts with a whimper and ends with a bang. only its going to be across decades to get there which makes a new law here or there seem insignificant until its too late. most probably wont even know those laws were things until they run into them and are punished.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MachoManSavage 02/27/18 3:40:12 PM #20:	HydroCannabinol posted... The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve Is this a common American fear? Ive never heard a Canadian fear such a thing before. --- A proud wrestling Smark, because we know better than you. <cite>MachoManSavage posted [p:896876079] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>HydroCannabinol posted...</cite> <quote>The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve</quote> Is this a common American fear? Ive never heard a Canadian fear such a thing before.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 02/27/18 3:40:23 PM #21:	If it doesn't happen within my lifetime, I don't care. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:896876089] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>If it doesn't happen within my lifetime, I don't care.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 4:07:17 PM #22:	I was saying that a gun is not a greenhouse gas, in the metaphorical sense...they're not analogous. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896877646] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>I was saying that a gun is not a greenhouse gas, in the metaphorical sense...they're not analogous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 4:07:45 PM #23:	I was saying a gun isn't a greenhouse gas even analogously. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896877665] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>I was saying a gun isn't a greenhouse gas even analogously.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 4:14:02 PM #24:	Sephiroth1288 posted... 8-bit_Biceps posted... But a gun is not the greenhouse gas. Thanks for the meaningless truism. 8-bit_Biceps posted... A gun is like...a car...or bred cows that exhale CO2. A gun is a tool used to kill people just like a car is a tool to put more CO2 into the air. So the core thing to understand here is like human intent. Human intent to kill can be due to mental disorders and it can also be due to exposure to guns, NRA fear mongering, and for instance the order we prioritize censorship on TV. For instance, I think it makes little sense to put more weight on censoring nudity over violence. That makes no sense whatsoever. The other day some accounting grad student tried to explain to me that redistributing wealth will lower financial incentive. I showed him a video of a guy explaining that money should be redistributed and that basically the wealthy class need to be taxed a lot more. And I was like, dude...you can lower incentive a lot, or moderately, mildly, marginally, or infinitesimally. You don't just tax some guy who makes $5 mil a year at 40% and expect he will have the same incentive as when he's taxed at 50% lol. Then I explained that incentive is a psychology issue because money is a behavioral reinforcer. People need to stop claiming a monopoly on issues and realize concepts are intertwined with multiple fields of knowledge. But would you trust someone to change out economic policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was It's a very simple question. I am of the opinion that you should at least know something about the things you want to restrict. Otherwise you get ridiculous policy proposals like "ban AR-15s" when there are a plethora of other, functionally similar rifles that are no less deadly. 'Ban AR-15s' doesn't exclude banning guns that are similar. In fact, you don't even have to know what a magazine or a clip is. All you have to know is what's the most amount of hits someone can get on a target in a set amount of time...basically, what's the rate of fire and how damaging is one shot. Knowing the parts is necessary to an extent. I'm sure there is someone out there more knowledgeable about guns than you who could tell you that you don't know enough. A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is? Would you deny that these foundational descriptions are of the majority of what it means to know what a gun is? So if you knew what a clip, a magazine, a trigger, a barrel, gunpowder and all that shit, but you didn't know that the gun fired and could be aimed and killed people, well then what would you have? Your knowledge wouldn't matter. You have to weigh the relevancy of the information. Each piece of information has a different value. You can derive different amounts of understanding and implication from different facts. Yes I would want someone to know what a greenhouse gas is before they make changes, but I don't need them to know how many valence electrons are in the shell of a carbon atom. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896878016] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>But a gun is not the greenhouse gas.</quote> Thanks for the meaningless truism. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>A gun is like...a car...or bred cows that exhale CO2. A gun is a tool used to kill people just like a car is a tool to put more CO2 into the air. So the core thing to understand here is like human intent. Human intent to kill can be due to mental disorders and it can also be due to exposure to guns, NRA fear mongering, and for instance the order we prioritize censorship on TV. For instance, I think it makes little sense to put more weight on censoring nudity over violence. That makes no sense whatsoever. The other day some accounting grad student tried to explain to me that redistributing wealth will lower financial incentive. I showed him a video of a guy explaining that money should be redistributed and that basically the wealthy class need to be taxed a lot more. And I was like, dude...you can lower incentive a lot, or moderately, mildly, marginally, or infinitesimally. You don't just tax some guy who makes $5 mil a year at 40% and expect he will have the same incentive as when he's taxed at 50% lol. Then I explained that incentive is a psychology issue because money is a behavioral reinforcer. People need to stop claiming a monopoly on issues and realize concepts are intertwined with multiple fields of knowledge.</quote> But would you trust someone to change out economic policy if they didn't know what a greenhouse gas was It's a very simple question. I am of the opinion that you should at least know something about the things you want to restrict. Otherwise you get ridiculous policy proposals like "ban AR-15s" when there are a plethora of other, functionally similar rifles that are no less deadly.</quote> 'Ban AR-15s' doesn't exclude banning guns that are similar. In fact, you don't even have to know what a magazine or a clip is. All you have to know is what's the most amount of hits someone can get on a target in a set amount of time...basically, what's the rate of fire and how damaging is one shot. Knowing the parts is necessary to an extent. I'm sure there is someone out there more knowledgeable about guns than you who could tell you that you don't know enough. A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is? Would you deny that these foundational descriptions are of the majority of what it means to know what a gun is? So if you knew what a clip, a magazine, a trigger, a barrel, gunpowder and all that shit, but you didn't know that the gun fired and could be aimed and killed people, well then what would you have? Your knowledge wouldn't matter. You have to weigh the relevancy of the information. Each piece of information has a different value. You can derive different amounts of understanding and implication from different facts. Yes I would want someone to know what a greenhouse gas is before they make changes, but I don't need them to know how many valence electrons are in the shell of a carbon atom.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Pepys Monster 02/27/18 4:17:07 PM #25:	8-bit_Biceps posted... A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is? Your understanding of firearms is simplistic and biased. Did you know that guns are also used for target shooting? None of my guns have ever killed anything. --- I <3 my bae. <cite>Pepys Monster posted [p:896878204] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is?</quote> Your understanding of firearms is simplistic and biased. Did you know that guns are also used for target shooting? None of my guns have ever killed anything.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 4:18:57 PM #26:	Yeah and I can buy a styrofoam cup, never drink from it, and put a rubber band on it and call it a party hat. idgaf. You're dodging the point here. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896878314] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>Yeah and I can buy a styrofoam cup, never drink from it, and put a rubber band on it and call it a party hat. idgaf. You're dodging the point here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 02/27/18 4:33:41 PM #27:	Pepys Monster posted... 8-bit_Biceps posted... A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is? Your understanding of firearms is simplistic and biased. Did you know that guns are also used for target shooting? None of my guns have ever killed anything. There are less dangerous, non-lethal guns that shoot non-bullet projectiles which can be fired at targets as well. Why is an actual firearm necessary for target shooting? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:896879199] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>Pepys Monster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is?</quote> Your understanding of firearms is simplistic and biased. Did you know that guns are also used for target shooting? None of my guns have ever killed anything.</quote> There are less dangerous, non-lethal guns that shoot non-bullet projectiles which can be fired at targets as well. Why is an actual firearm necessary for target shooting?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 02/27/18 4:39:48 PM #28:	8-bit_Biceps posted... 'Ban AR-15s' doesn't exclude banning guns that are similar. In fact, you don't even have to know what a magazine or a clip is. All you have to know is what's the most amount of hits someone can get on a target in a set amount of time...basically, what's the rate of fire and how damaging is one shot. Knowing the parts is necessary to an extent. I'm sure there is someone out there more knowledgeable about guns than you who could tell you that you don't know enough. A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is? Please don't repeat that to anyone in a gun store. You'll give them a brain aneurysm from sheer laughter. Are you aware that the deadliest school shooting in US history was committed with handguns? --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:896879547] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>'Ban AR-15s' doesn't exclude banning guns that are similar. In fact, you don't even have to know what a magazine or a clip is. All you have to know is what's the most amount of hits someone can get on a target in a set amount of time...basically, what's the rate of fire and how damaging is one shot. Knowing the parts is necessary to an extent. I'm sure there is someone out there more knowledgeable about guns than you who could tell you that you don't know enough. A gun aims, it fires, and it's meant to kill. Do you realize that these three factoids are like the meat of what it means to know what a gun is?</quote> Please don't repeat that to anyone in a gun store. You'll give them a brain aneurysm from sheer laughter. Are you aware that the deadliest school shooting in US history was committed with handguns?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 5:27:44 PM #29:	^I don't believe you. Which school shooting? Even so, hardly any school shootings are done with handguns. You're not looking at this the right way because you don't want to, or because you think you can convince me with crap like that. No, I'm not an idiot. You're looking at things in a materialistic manner, while I am looking at them abstractly. Of course, a gun has a bunch of parts and you can know the ins and outs of the chain of events that transpire to project a bullet, but my point is that these things aren't necessary to know to understand what a gun does, much less to understand the issue, because of course the issue is about how guns are integrated into our world. So if the issue is then about guns and the events going on in our world and everything else involved, then the issue is more about everything else than it even is about the guns in a certain sense. Going back to the climate change issue. You could understand a few facts about climate change like CO2 is emitted into the air, and know what things are doing this, and understand that the ocean is rising and getting warmer, etc. But you could go into these things more in-depth. You could learn more facts about climate change, more signs, more about basic chemistry even. The issue can be broken down in so many ways, yet those things aren't necessary to know to come to a conclusion. They're just details...reminds me of these quiz brains on gameshows. They know all these non-related facts about the English translation of a pepper with a Spanish name or how many cities are on a river...like wtf...why are you learning all that shit? Lol, well I guess they're getting paid, but in the long run most of the stuff they're learning contributes zilch to their overall understanding of how the world functions, and the wisdom to know how to participate in it. I could go on with more analogies. If I want to make the decision to eat the burger, I need only know that it was cooked at a certain temperature, and perhaps eyeball what it looks like. I might want to know that it was sold at an institution regularly inspected for health standards. I don't need to know the model of the grill it was cooked on, or how long it was actually cooked and at what temperature (because of course you can cook something for a shorter amount of time, but hotter to get the same result). I am not thinking of things so discretely. You're thinking about the gun and its parts merely. I am thinking of a gun, its main functions, and how they interact with the world, especially with the person behind the trigger. To understand this macroscopic point of view, yes, the factoids I mentioned earlier are pretty much the gist of what one needs to know. The other facts are supplemental at best. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896882405] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>^I don't believe you. Which school shooting? Even so, hardly any school shootings are done with handguns. You're not looking at this the right way because you don't want to, or because you think you can convince me with crap like that. No, I'm not an idiot. You're looking at things in a materialistic manner, while I am looking at them abstractly. Of course, a gun has a bunch of parts and you can know the ins and outs of the chain of events that transpire to project a bullet, but my point is that these things aren't necessary to know to understand what a gun does, much less to understand the issue, because of course the issue is about how guns are integrated into our world. So if the issue is then about guns and the events going on in our world and everything else involved, then the issue is more about everything else than it even is about the guns in a certain sense. Going back to the climate change issue. You could understand a few facts about climate change like CO2 is emitted into the air, and know what things are doing this, and understand that the ocean is rising and getting warmer, etc. But you could go into these things more in-depth. You could learn more facts about climate change, more signs, more about basic chemistry even. The issue can be broken down in so many ways, yet those things aren't necessary to know to come to a conclusion. They're just details...reminds me of these quiz brains on gameshows. They know all these non-related facts about the English translation of a pepper with a Spanish name or how many cities are on a river...like wtf...why are you learning all that shit? Lol, well I guess they're getting paid, but in the long run most of the stuff they're learning contributes zilch to their overall understanding of how the world functions, and the wisdom to know how to participate in it. I could go on with more analogies. If I want to make the decision to eat the burger, I need only know that it was cooked at a certain temperature, and perhaps eyeball what it looks like. I might want to know that it was sold at an institution regularly inspected for health standards. I don't need to know the model of the grill it was cooked on, or how long it was actually cooked and at what temperature (because of course you can cook something for a shorter amount of time, but hotter to get the same result). I am not thinking of things so discretely. You're thinking about the gun and its parts merely. I am thinking of a gun, its main functions, and how they interact with the world, especially with the person behind the trigger. To understand this macroscopic point of view, yes, the factoids I mentioned earlier are pretty much the gist of what one needs to know. The other facts are supplemental at best.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
graceofallah 02/27/18 5:28:31 PM #30:	We don't have gun violence in my country because women are kept in proper place. This is beneficial to them, and to the men. --- "On the day of victory, no one is tired." <cite>graceofallah posted [p:896882459] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>We don't have gun violence in my country because women are kept in proper place. This is beneficial to them, and to the men.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 02/27/18 5:33:40 PM #31:	OpheliaAdenade posted... I think we need more gun control than we have now, but I don't think we should go around taking people's guns away or anything. I don't think we should be selling assault weapons to anyone who wants them either. There is no reason for a civilian to possess a weapon like that. You don't need it for hunting or self defense. :v It isn't going to happen anytime soon since the NRA literally owns our politicians. I can dream though. Concealed carry weapons are perfectly fine though. I support those. Define assault weapon. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:896882740] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>OpheliaAdenade posted...</cite> <quote>I think we need more gun control than we have now, but I don't think we should go around taking people's guns away or anything. I don't think we should be selling assault weapons to anyone who wants them either. There is no reason for a civilian to possess a weapon like that. You don't need it for hunting or self defense. :v It isn't going to happen anytime soon since the NRA literally owns our politicians. I can dream though. Concealed carry weapons are perfectly fine though. I support those.</quote> Define assault weapon.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 02/27/18 5:35:56 PM #32:	MachoManSavage posted... HydroCannabinol posted... The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve Is this a common American fear? Ive never heard a Canadian fear such a thing before. Because Canada wasn't built with the idea that the people should mistrust government power. America was, and that's why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:896882885] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>MachoManSavage posted...</cite> <quote><cite>HydroCannabinol posted...</cite> <quote>The issue is if you ban them, whats to stop the government or police from taking over?? Dont be so naieve</quote> Is this a common American fear? Ive never heard a Canadian fear such a thing before.</quote> Because Canada wasn't built with the idea that the people should mistrust government power. America was, and that's why the Second Amendment exists in the first place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 02/27/18 7:05:32 PM #33:	graceofallah posted... We don't have gun violence in my country because women are kept in proper place. This is beneficial to them, and to the men. Which country? --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:896888270] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>graceofallah posted...</cite> <quote>We don't have gun violence in my country because women are kept in proper place. This is beneficial to them, and to the men.</quote> Which country?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 8:50:51 PM #34:	The forefathers were smart. And there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the forefathers were well aware of the capacity for laws to change and put faith in our leaders to change laws with the time. Yes, there were gatling guns back then and the forefathers could probably assume that guns would become faster, but they couldn't foresee drive-bys or smartphones that could broadcast police brutality to the world. It's not only about the guns. It's about the world they're functioning in! <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896894399] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>The forefathers were smart. And there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the forefathers were well aware of the capacity for laws to change and put faith in our leaders to change laws with the time. Yes, there were gatling guns back then and the forefathers could probably assume that guns would become faster, but they couldn't foresee drive-bys or smartphones that could broadcast police brutality to the world. It's not only about the guns. It's about the world they're functioning in!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ryo_the_Inferno 02/27/18 9:16:02 PM #35:	8-bit_Biceps posted... The forefathers were smart. And there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the forefathers were well aware of the capacity for laws to change and put faith in our leaders to change laws with the time. Yes, there were gatling guns back then and the forefathers could probably assume that guns would become faster, but they couldn't foresee drive-bys or smartphones that could broadcast police brutality to the world. It's not only about the guns. It's about the world they're functioning in! The right to bear arms is pretty much proof that the forefathers didn't have total faith in future leaders. --- 3DS FC: 3222-6077-2683 <cite>Ryo_the_Inferno posted [p:896895984] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>The forefathers were smart. And there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the forefathers were well aware of the capacity for laws to change and put faith in our leaders to change laws with the time. Yes, there were gatling guns back then and the forefathers could probably assume that guns would become faster, but they couldn't foresee drive-bys or smartphones that could broadcast police brutality to the world. It's not only about the guns. It's about the world they're functioning in!</quote> The right to bear arms is pretty much proof that the forefathers didn't have total faith in future leaders.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 9:19:18 PM #36:	Well, I'm sure it's not black and white. They had faith in some issues and lacked faith in other issues. All in all, I'm sure what was a given was that they knew that if future leaders could not change laws with time then the system would collapse. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896896183] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>Well, I'm sure it's not black and white. They had faith in some issues and lacked faith in other issues. All in all, I'm sure what was a given was that they knew that if future leaders could not change laws with time then the system would collapse.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 02/27/18 9:27:15 PM #37:	8-bit_Biceps posted... Well, I'm sure it's not black and white. They had faith in some issues and lacked faith in other issues. All in all, I'm sure what was a given was that they knew that if future leaders could not change laws with time then the system would collapse. True, but it's not like political leaders can change the Constitution at a whim. It requires an Amendment, which requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, then requires 34 states to ratify it, also with a 2/3 majority. Good luck with that. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:896896653] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote><cite>8-bit_Biceps posted...</cite> <quote>Well, I'm sure it's not black and white. They had faith in some issues and lacked faith in other issues. All in all, I'm sure what was a given was that they knew that if future leaders could not change laws with time then the system would collapse.</quote> True, but it's not like political leaders can change the Constitution at a whim. It requires an Amendment, which requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, then requires 34 states to ratify it, also with a 2/3 majority. Good luck with that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
8-bit_Biceps 02/27/18 10:11:00 PM #38:	We don't need luck. Donald Trump turned the tide of the political atmosphere. Come 2018, things will start looking grim for the republican party. They will have little influence on the media and politics in about a decade if you ask me....either that or they will have to revolutionize what they stand for. I mean look at what's going on...16 year old kids are giving speeches and kids are throwing rocks at cars. Now kids want a voice. The internet is waking people up. <cite>8-bit_Biceps posted [p:896899049] in Who else i... [t:76363518]...</cite> <quote>We don't need luck. Donald Trump turned the tide of the political atmosphere. Come 2018, things will start looking grim for the republican party. They will have little influence on the media and politics in about a decade if you ask me....either that or they will have to revolutionize what they stand for. I mean look at what's going on...16 year old kids are giving speeches and kids are throwing rocks at cars. Now kids want a voice. The internet is waking people up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > Who else is apathetic to the 2nd Amendment? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Who else is apathetic to the 2nd Amendment?