tangleofrainbows reblogged
gotitforcheap-deactivated201611
tangleofrainbows reblogged
i really hate the whole “we’re not trying to take YOUR guns away! we just want stricter back ground checks and education!” thing bc like……wrong! i AM trying to take your guns away! me! i want them gone!! take them all!!! bye-bye guns! can’t shoot em if ya don’t have em!!!!!
tangleofrainbows reblogged
Larry has one big issue with the government’s desire to access our phones: http://on.cc.com/1Un32uR
The New York Times ran its first front page editorial in 95 years. It’s about America’s gun problem. A conservative blogger shot at it.
nothing says “responsible gun owner” like shooting at something you disagree with
I Wanted To Prove That Responsible Gun Owners (Like Me) Are Not A Threat, SO I Shooted THe Bad Newspaper,
amusing varieties of responses to that 2nd amendment post
i don’t have time to answer all of them individually b/c honestly there are way better things to fill my day with, but in general responses are falling into:
- “your post containing absolutely nothing but the text ‘repeal the second amendment’ was clearly a detailed policy proposal containing all of the gun-related legislation you would like to see.” yes. definitely. so long, so clearly reasoned. it’s so lengthy that it’s unreasonable to think i might have any further thoughts on “things that might be necessary to address gun violence in america”
- “this means you want zero guns in america.” i didn’t actually say that? like, it might be a position i hold, it might not, but it’s not at all entailed by the original post. “there should be strict gun control legislation in place” =\= “there should be zero legal guns in this country”
- “lol good luck this will never happen in the current political climate.” ah, right, i forgot that it’s impermissible to ever argue for pie-in-the-sky visions of the ideal society the most extreme positions that anyone can ever argue for on any issue are only those that can be immediately enacted without any kind of cultural change whatsoever
- “there are gun owners out there who would rather start a war against their government than give up their machine guns.” you’re . . . not making a great case for responsible gun ownership, tbh
- “even if you succeed at removing all legal guns from circulation, there will still be illegal guns plus other ways for people to commit mass murder.” (special bonus points to the person who brought up the oklahoma city bombing to effectively argue “people can make bombs, therefore we shouldn’t do anything about gun violence.”) right, i keep forgetting. unless we can absolutely 100% completely eliminate a problem there is no point in doing anything do make it even marginally less bad lowering the odds of school children being shot down in class even slightly is a completely worthless goal since we cannot guarantee that all people will be perfectly safe from all forms of violence always
- “australia’s buyback program left guns in the country and did nothing to reduce rates of gun violence.” nowhere did i say that australia had a rate of zero guns per person, so moving on to the second half of that statement: it is true that real-world numbers are hella messy and that there can be any number of factors that affect rates of gun violence, making teasing out the specific effects of any one program/policy frustrating and difficult. (this is true more generally of studies of how firearm legislation relates to firearm deaths — correlation and causation can be deeply entwined and confounded, and since we can’t exactly run multiple trials of any given decade with variations in gun control legislation, separating the two can be difficult to impossible. science is hard.) that said: there is strong evidence that the australian ban+buyback program led to an 80% decrease in the firearm suicide rate, and weaker evidence that it led to a similar decrease in the firearm homicide rate (pdf). (one of the things making it harder to establish a link to the homicide rate is australia’s homicide rate being already relatively low; in certain jurisdictions, to find evidence of such a decrease, many models require there to be negative deaths per year, which is . . . obviously not a thing that can happen.) if you don’t like australia, there’s plenty of research in the united states that supports the idea that more guns = more homicides. japan, canada, and the united kingdom also suggest that low rates of gun ownership are correlated with low rates of gun death. there is also evidence from the contrasting cases of connecticut and missouri that tighter gun control laws are correlated with lower gun deaths. (that source obviously has a gun control agenda, but i trust them to not blatantly lie about the contents of peer-reviewed studies, and i trust researchers to do their jobs with a basic level of integrity.) according to politifact, about 71% of researchers actively publishing work on guns agree that tighter gun control legislation actually causes a decrease in the homicide rate. (12% disagree, but i can’t tell from the article how much of that is reticence to make strong claims of causation from largely correlative data. many of the scientists i know are very careful about that distinction, and very hesitant to cross it.) so like yeah, sure, establishing causation is hard, especially in the social sciences, but given the current state of research, i think it is entirely reasonable to believe that stricter gun control legislation will lead to a reduction in gun-related violence
repeal the second amendment
repeal the second amendment
- repeal the second amendment
- repeal the second amendment
repeal the second amendment
repeal the second amendment
therevenantrising
Let’s say, by some miracle, you get your wish and the 2nd Amendments gets repealed.
Then what?
well, a ban+buyback program similar to australia’s would seem to be a good start
How was the second amendment related to the shooting that happened today? The second amendment doesn't say anything about shooting innocent people.
the second amendment … the one that’s been used to strike down countless pieces of gun control legislation … resulting in an environment where it’s super easy to buy guns … which are then used to shoot innocent people … no yeah, you’re right i definitely don’t see any possible connexion between these two things they are completely unrelated wow
repeal the second amendment
repeal the second amendment
- repeal the second amendment
- repeal the second amendment
repeal the second amendment
repeal the second amendment
tangleofrainbows reblogged
lolzing 5ever at “constitutional originalists” who also try to claim that the 2nd amendment covers modern assault rifles.
thoughtsandreplies
There were multishot and rapid fire guns at the time of the Constitution. And endorsement of private CANNON was made by James Madison, “Father of the Constitution”. The Founders knew about ‘advanced weapons’ which you would idiotically call ‘assault weapons’.
There are machine guns, semi-automatics, and guns you have to cock every time. “Assault weapon” is a made up term which means NOTHING.
George Mason, author of the precursor to the Bill of Rights “The Virginia Declaration of Rights”, specifically described The Militia as being COMPOSED OF THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE. & the “necessary to the security of a free state” part of the 2nd amendment was specifically alluding to the view that an armed populace would be a deterrent for a government to try and seize power using the army, because the people would be just as well armed. Meaning by the original intent, there should have been a constitutional amendment in order to keep private citizens from owning tanks & Nuclear Warheads.
So I guess I’m LoLzZing 6ever at you. XD
Except I actually know wtf I’m talking about. =/
. . . i like how you think my argument was “properly read, the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets” instead of “if an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment can stretch to accommodate the myriad technological advances in weaponry since the 1780s, then there is no reason a similar stretching can be withheld from interpretations of the 14th amendment to cover gender and sexuality (a stretching that many originalists resist vehemently).”
#you tried#also#to be clear:#my objection to the second amendment has nothing to do with technology now vs then#it's b/c we have an epidemic of gun violence#including the needless slaughter of chidlren#and i would like that to stop#so yeah#repeal the 2nd amendment#guns#history#constitutional originalism#inconsistent#cognitive dissonance#weapons#also also#all terms are made up#and there was literally a law called the federal assault weapons ban#so good luck arguing that that phrase is meaningless#among many other issues with your response#7ever
lolzing 5ever at “constitutional originalists” who also try to claim that the 2nd amendment covers modern assault rifles.