It's time for the USA to balkanize. How can that happen peacefully?

[Ghostmaker]

This is on what restrictions one looks at. In the U.S., abortion has been held in court to be a constitutional right - therefore state laws can't restrict that. However, abortion opponents have tended to attack abortion providers instead - both literally and figuratively.

For example, we discussed France earlier in the recent RPGnet thread. France has a limit of 14 weeks gestation on abortions. However, it is also true that any woman can go into any public health center and get an abortion -- and it is guaranteed 100% covered by their universal health care. There is no spousal consent required. Minors do not require parental consent, though they do require counseling and an accompanying adult. They also have universally available RU-486.

By contrast, in some U.S. states, a person might have to travel hundreds of miles and/or pay major fees in order to have access to an abortion - because there are laws and policies that strictly limit them. So the U.S. laws make it harder to obtain an abortion - though of course it is still easy for the rich to obtain.

LOL. Here, I'll make you a deal.

You want to make baby smoothies, fine. But I bet I can make a MUCH better argument that the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution of the U.S., rather than abortion.

So if you want abortion, you kill off every dogshit gun control law from now all the way back to the GCA.

Those are my terms. Don't like 'em? Tough.

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

Still, I don't see the point of the bargain. The Constitution is what it is. I would agree that the right to privacy is weakly supported in the text, along with many of the uses of the interstate commerce clause - while the right to bear arms is supported. But our system is what it is.  I would be fine striking down many current gun control laws as unconstitutional, but I think there still needs to be judicial discretion in which ones are allowed.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

[jhkim]

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

[Ghostmaker]

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

Once again, you're desperately trying to insert things into the argument that weren't said.

I would like to point out that Mexico has gun control, and the cartels seem to have little trouble arming their soldiers, some of whom are most certainly 'convicted criminals'.

But the point is irrelevant. You want to bind me with laws because someone else might do something bad.

And my response is: No. Your move.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

The 2nd Amendment needs to be jammed into every fucking Liberal with a nailgun.

It's good though that more and more people are finally waking up to the Liberal's tyranny, and thirst for control and obedience. In the Liberal's mushy, baby tyrant mind--there is only three groups of people that have guns--the Police, criminals, and of corse, good, mushy, uber-wealthy Liberals.

Millions of Americans have been buying entire armouries of guns, and buying ammunition as fast as it is stocked on the shelf! More Americans don't want to live in a world where only the people approved by the fucking Liberals have guns.

I believe it is every true American's duty to arm the fuck up. If you go unarmed, well, you are just asking to be made a victim by criminals. And, well, you contribute also to the pussy sheep that the tyrants can easily control, too.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

Once again, you're desperately trying to insert things into the argument that weren't said.

I would like to point out that Mexico has gun control, and the cartels seem to have little trouble arming their soldiers, some of whom are most certainly 'convicted criminals'.

But the point is irrelevant. You want to bind me with laws because someone else might do something bad.

And my response is: No. Your move.

That's why I phrased it as a question, not an assertion. However, I don't understand your answer.

You claimed that you wanted to repeal all gun control acts, including the 1934 and 1938 Firearms acts. Repealing those would mean that gangsters could legally own automatic weapons, as they did in the 1920s with tommyguns. Historically, the use of tommyguns by gangsters was very much the motivation for those acts.

That's why I specifically asked. But then you said that I was trying to insert things not claimed.

(1) The 1934 Firearms Act made it illegal to own tommyguns, grenades, and similar.
(2) You said you wanted to repeal all gun control, specifically including the 1934 act.

I'm not trying to insert anything into your position, I just want to clarify what it is. If you want to keep machineguns illegal, then either say so or not.

[yancy]

I'm not trying to insert anything into your position, I just want to clarify what it is. If you want to keep machineguns illegal, then either say so or not.

Machine guns aren't illegal now. Where are you getting your information?

[moonsweeper]

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

Yep. Once they have served their time, they have served their debt to society. They get to vote, own guns, etc., etc.

If you believe they should still be denied any of their constitutional rights, then you are effectively saying they should still be incarcerated because they cannot be trusted.

Now if you want to make the argument for capital punishment for violent criminals like rapists, killers, etc....hey I'm all for that.  If you are going to make the argument that it is better for a hundred guilty people to go free than one innocent be convicted...I'm all for that too.  Gun control laws violate that second principal by pre-denying someone a right (based on an assumption of guilt) which is why they need to be dumped.

[jhkim]

I'm not trying to insert anything into your position, I just want to clarify what it is. If you want to keep machineguns illegal, then either say so or not.

Machine guns aren't illegal now. Where are you getting your information?

OK, fair enough. I was mistaken in saying in shorthand that they are illegal. Still, they are highly restricted since under the 1934 NFA they must be registered with the government, and cannot be manufactured or imported for private purposes without authorization. Here are some of my sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/national-firearms-act-nfa/

The question still is, what laws do we want concerning them? Should the current restrictions be repealed?

[yancy]

I'm not trying to insert anything into your position, I just want to clarify what it is. If you want to keep machineguns illegal, then either say so or not.

Machine guns aren't illegal now. Where are you getting your information?

OK, fair enough. I was mistaken in saying in shorthand that they are illegal. Still, they are highly restricted since under the 1934 NFA they must be registered with the government, and cannot be manufactured or imported for private purposes without authorization. Here are some of my sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/national-firearms-act-nfa/

The question still is, what laws do we want concerning them? Should the current restrictions be repealed?

I think at the very least many of them should be relaxed. Say I want to buy a GE Minigun. As it stands right now, I'm forced to buy one of a limited number of guns on the market that were manufactured prior to 1986, and I have to pay an outrageous premium to get one because of that.

One way or the other, I'm going to end up with a minigun, and as far as I know, a minigun made in 2002 isn't appreciably different from one made in 1986, so what's the purpose of the legislation other than to impose onerous financial and regulatory burdens on consumers of perfectly lawful products?

[Willmark]

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

If someone isn't using them on someone else, what does it matter to you?

[Ghostmaker]

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

If someone isn't using them on someone else, what does it matter to you?

It's projection, pure and simple.

They imagine a weapon compelling its bearer to USE it. This is borne out by several bizarre columns and interviews I've seen, as well as how they speak of guns somehow being 'responsible' for violence.

This is because their dirty little secret is that they want to use those weapons on people they don't like.

[GeekyBugle]

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

Once again, you're desperately trying to insert things into the argument that weren't said.

I would like to point out that Mexico has gun control, and the cartels seem to have little trouble arming their soldiers, some of whom are most certainly 'convicted criminals'.

But the point is irrelevant. You want to bind me with laws because someone else might do something bad.

And my response is: No. Your move.

Let's sṕeak of México for a bit shall we?

We have 130 million people approx (not counting the fecking illegals your democratic party keeps inviting that have invaded my country) vs USA that has 330 millions approx. That's a little more than 1/3rd of the population of the USA.

The USA had 20,726 "gun deaths" in 2021 (excluding suicide and I think accident.

Just in the first semester of 2021 México had 11,785 murders by firearm, so lets double the number? 23,570 murders by firearm in 2021. That's already 3k more than USA. And we don't have many guns in hands of civilians and we can't carry them.

Now lets turn that into a percapita index shall we?

USA Murders by firearm per capita 2021 0.000062806

México Murders by firearm per capita 2021 0.000181308

Either gun control doesn't reduce the number of deaths by firearm or we Méxicans are genetically more prone to kill each other, you decide jhkim.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

Like Tim Pool said: Including nuclear missiles. Your constitution doesn't specify, so if you want to ban civilians from owning nuclear missiles you need to change the constitution.

[Pat]

Becoming Darth Vader isn't the way to beat the Sith.

No, and my argument wasn't that you need to become Darth Vader. Rather, it was an analogy for "even the wicked might have some lines they won't cross."

Those who have declared themselves woke in the past are already Darth Vaders. But there may come a point when they open their eyes to the depravity and turn against it. When that happens, don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. If they're in a better position to throw the Emperor into the abyss than you are... Let them. The point is to destroy the Emperor/Woke, not the moral purity of the one who does it.

Put another way; I don't care if it's Jesus Christ, Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, Elon Musk or some currently woke but about to awaken person who's not even on our radar yet who stops the Woke and brings back some sanity. I just want the sanity brought back.

I wasn't responding to you, more the general tenor of the thread, mostly prominently Spinachcat, but most recently thomden. Too many people here seem to think this is a war that must be won at any costs, and that anyone who doesn't immediately join their crusade, on their terms, must be treated as an enemy to be destroyed. It's equivalent to the Rebels bombing planets that don't join them. A victory based on those terms wouldn't be a victory, it would just be a new Dark Lord replacing the old.

You're arguing from the other side, a repentant Vader.

[oggsmash]

  Over 20k gun deaths is almost a 2 fold increase (excluding suicides) from the year before it.  I keep hearing how the crime rates are not rising in the USA and how the 90's levels were sooo much higher.  I wonder how much longer I have to hear that bullshit.

[Willmark]

In general, I am supportive of gun rights, I don't have gun control as a cause, and there are plenty of gun control laws I dislike and would repeal. That said, there are some gun control provisions I support - like banning those convicted of violent crime from buying guns, and the irregular network of bans on straw purchases.

Then again, by specifying the 1968 Gun Control Act - that implies to me keeping the 1934 and 1938 Firearms Acts. Is that because you like ​*some* gun control? That seems like saying it isn't actually a Constitutional right - but rather, just going with what laws you like.

I'm okay with gun control. Use both hands.

Really, the GCA was just the first thing I remembered off the top of my head. I'd like to wipe the whole slate clean.

Also, you're a shithead trying to infer something I didn't say, but that's nothing new.

My apologies for misreading you. I did not intend to put words into your mouth.

Still, I have some questions about this, because this is well outside what I'd expect. Do you really think that convicted criminals should be allowed to stock up on anything - including fully automatic, tripod-mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, and more?

If someone isn't using them on someone else, what does it matter to you?

It's projection, pure and simple.

They imagine a weapon compelling its bearer to USE it. This is borne out by several bizarre columns and interviews I've seen, as well as how they speak of guns somehow being 'responsible' for violence.

This is because their dirty little secret is that they want to use those weapons on people they don't like.

Oh I'm aware. It's always interesting to see an argument to absurdity so thinly veiled.

The best is when people trot out "derp, how about nuclear weapons!"

ETA: next he's going to discover USA vs Miller (1939) and tell us all about how it supports his arguement.