Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#1427 Jul 31 2015 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Plus, I can hear people saying "criminals with illegal guns won't go to training!"

That should give you an advantage over the criminals!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1428 Jul 31 2015 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
That's a nice spin!
#1429 Jul 31 2015 at 3:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I wasn't aware these were mutually exclusive.
Which is literally why annual safety courses should be mandatory in order to own.
I don't think that would go over too well. You are more of a "sane" gun supporter. I'm sure others would see this as a step of a government takeover.


Takeover, as in "taking over the world!!!", or takeover as in "taking over control of who can own firearms"? Because the latter is kinda true by definition any time the government places an additional restriction on gun ownership.

The problem with annual safety courses is that inevitably additional requirements and restrictions will be added to the requirement for renewal. It will be used, not just to make sure that those who own firearms know how to use them safely, but to reduce the number of firearms owned, period. I can think of a number of ways to use such a system to effectively make it impossible (or nearly so) to own a firearm, while not actually technically making them illegal.

Quote:
I like your idea, just don't see it being supported.


If it were actually limited to nothing more than a basic safety test, sure. I just have very little faith that the pro gun control folks would ever actually leave it at that though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1430 Jul 31 2015 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It will be used,
Prove it. On second thought, don't. I really don't care what hypothetical you'll fanfiction here to rationalize irresponsible gun ownership.

Edited, Jul 31st 2015 6:22pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1431 Jul 31 2015 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The problem with annual safety courses is that inevitably additional requirements and restrictions will be added to the requirement for renewal. It will be used, not just to make sure that those who own firearms know how to use them safely, but to reduce the number of firearms owned, period. I can think of a number of ways to use such a system to effectively make it impossible (or nearly so) to own a firearm, while not actually technically making them illegal.


Kind of like requiring *specific* forms of ID in order to vote even though statistics don't support any relevant voter fraud and that the people who lack those *specific* voter IDs tend to not vote for you? So you do understand.
#1432 Jul 31 2015 at 7:18 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
The problem with annual safety courses is that inevitably additional requirements and restrictions will be added to the requirement for renewal. It will be used, not just to make sure that those who own firearms know how to use them safely, but to reduce the number of firearms owned, period. I can think of a number of ways to use such a system to effectively make it impossible (or nearly so) to own a firearm, while not actually technically making them illegal.


Kind of like requiring *specific* forms of ID in order to vote even though statistics don't support any relevant voter fraud and that the people who lack those *specific* voter IDs tend to not vote for you? So you do understand.


If by "specific form of ID", you mean "any of a longish list of forms of ID that are already standard and used for a pretty much everything you do all the time (including purchasing a firearm!) and without which you'd have a hard time living as anything other than a transient on the street", then yes. Yes, I do understand. Let's contrast that to requiring a safety test (do we have literacy tests for voting anymore, or did we decide that violated folks rights?), which presumably will have to be regulated (and hey, the guys regulating the voting literacy tests clearly never took advantage of it to prevent people from voting, right?), and which the applicant will have to pay for (poll taxes, if we're to follow the analogy, another great idea for suppressing people). Do you really want to go down the "compare/contrast to voting rights" path on this one?

I have no problem requiring someone who wants to buy/own a firearm to provide ID when doing so. So I'm not sure what your point is here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1433 Jul 31 2015 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If by "specific form of ID", you mean "any of a longish list of forms of ID that are already standard and used for a pretty much everything you do all the time (including purchasing a firearm!)
What's the rationale of not accepting college IDs?


Gbaji wrote:
and without which you'd have a hard time living as anything other than a transient on the street"
Or a person working a minimum wage job within walking distance from home. What about people with revoked driving licenses?


Gbaji wrote:
Yes, I do understand. Let's contrast that to requiring a safety test (do we have literacy tests for voting anymore, or did we decide that violated folks rights?), which presumably will have to be regulated (and hey, the guys regulating the voting literacy tests clearly never took advantage of it to prevent people from voting, right?), and which the applicant will have to pay for (poll taxes, if we're to follow the analogy, another great idea for suppressing people). Do you really want to go down the "compare/contrast to voting rights" path on this one?
Yes, I would love to continue with this compare and contrast. The discussion is over the concept of creating laws and regulations that have a "disperate impact". You're arguing against the impact when it affects gun owners, but not when it affects non-GOP voters. The contrast is that I don't recall "Mass voting" being a bad thing or people being killed for accidentally (or intentionally) voting for a candidate.

So, while you're able to support one and not the other without being hypocritical, your reasoning can't simply be because of "disperate impact" when you shrub it off in other scenarios.

Gbaji wrote:
I have no problem requiring someone who wants to buy/own a firearm to provide ID when doing so. So I'm not sure what your point is here.
"The problem with annual safety courses is that inevitably additional requirements and restrictions will be added to the requirement for renewal. It will be used, not just to make sure that those who own firearms know how to use them safely, but to reduce the number of firearms owned, period"
#1434 Jul 31 2015 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
If by "specific form of ID", you mean "any of a longish list of forms of ID that are already standard and used for a pretty much everything you do all the time (including purchasing a firearm!)
What's the rationale of not accepting college IDs?


Can you purchase a firearm with a college ID?

You'd have to ask each specific state for their rationale. Some allow them. Some don't. My point is that you're not just comparing apples to oranges, but trying to compare your apple to my orange, when I also have apples, pears, tangerines, and half a dozen other fruits in my basket of "things that impede firearm ownership".

Quote:
Or a person working a minimum wage job within walking distance from home. What about people with revoked driving licenses?


Um... Who owns the home? Who pays rent? Property taxes? Does this person have a bank account? You're basically holding up the case of a person utterly dependent on others for housing, transportation, etc, because they don't have any form of ID as the case we should be covering here. Um... Why not just get a cheap (and in states with voter ID laws *free*) state ID? The only people I can think of who would be likely to have no form of state issued (or accepted) ID would be minor dependents (who presumably are not voting), and people on the run from the law (and I'm not really so concerned if they're not voting).

I'll point out again that the person in this case cannot legally purchase a firearm.

Quote:
Yes, I would love to continue with this compare and contrast. The discussion is over the concept of creating laws and regulations that have a "disperate impact". You're arguing against the impact when it affects gun owners, but not when it affects non-GOP voters.


No. I'm saying that the impact you're complaining about with regard to voting already exists with regard to gun ownership. So, if people who don't have sufficient identification to vote also don't have sufficient identification to purchase a firearm, and this unfairly impacts non-GOP voters, then your argument also says that gun control laws unfairly impact non-GOP voters. So why aren't you up in arms (haha!) over this? Any politically oriented unfairness here already exists in one case, but you're only complaining about it in the second? Which suggests that the issue isn't really about disparate impact, but that you care more about one issue than the other.

You want non-GOP people to be able to vote without ID, but don't want non-GOP people to own firearms? That's... strange. I'll also speculate that if, when you say "non-GOP voters", you really mean "black people", then this takes on an even more interesting implication.

Quote:
The contrast is that I don't recall "Mass voting" being a bad thing or people being killed for accidentally (or intentionally) voting for a candidate.


Which is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote:
So, while you're able to support one and not the other without being hypocritical, your reasoning can't simply be because of "disperate impact" when you shrub it off in other scenarios.


I'm not "supporting one and not the other". I'm supporting the idea that both should require proper state issued and verified ID. What I'm not doing is demanding that one require ID, and background checks, and yearly safety tests, while the other requires nothing more than you just saying you are who you claim to be. And I'll again suggest that the disparate impact to communities unable to obtain legal firearms for home defense (like say in DC and other gun control heavy cities) and the very clearly correlated high rates of homicides and other violent crimes should be a much bigger concern to you than that someone who can't be bothered to get an ID can't vote (well, can, but has to go through extra hoops).

I'm just pointing out that you've picked a pretty silly comparison to make. How about we stick to discussing the issue of yearly safety tests for gun ownership and leave voter ID out of it? They're just not remotely equivalent.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
I have no problem requiring someone who wants to buy/own a firearm to provide ID when doing so. So I'm not sure what your point is here.
"The problem with annual safety courses is that inevitably additional requirements and restrictions will be added to the requirement for renewal. It will be used, not just to make sure that those who own firearms know how to use them safely, but to reduce the number of firearms owned, period"
[/quote]

And? Was there a point in there somewhere? You quoted me twice, and added nothing yourself. WTF?

I'm perfectly ok with applying the same restrictions we have for voting to the purchase and ownership of firearms. Are you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1435 Jul 31 2015 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm perfectly ok with applying the same restrictions we have for voting to the purchase and ownership of firearms. Are you?

You can only buy a gun from a single state-sanctioned location from a government representative on select days and you'll leave a public record of each time you purchase a gun and potentially even what style of gun you bought? Of course, you're only allowed a single gun purchase per time period and the GOP will work tirelessly to restrict access to these gun purchasing locations as much as possible?

Well, if this is what you want I guess I can get on board with it.

Edited, Jul 31st 2015 10:31pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1436 Aug 01 2015 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Can you purchase a firearm with a college ID?

You'd have to ask each specific state for their rationale. Some allow them. Some don't. My point is that you're not just comparing apples to oranges, but trying to compare your apple to my orange, when I also have apples, pears, tangerines, and half a dozen other fruits in my basket of "things that impede firearm ownership".


Gbaji wrote:
I'll point out again that the person in this case cannot legally purchase a firearm.


Gbaji wrote:
No. I'm saying that the impact you're complaining about with regard to voting already exists with regard to gun ownership. So, if people who don't have sufficient identification to vote also don't have sufficient identification to purchase a firearm, and this unfairly impacts non-GOP voters, then your argument also says that gun control laws unfairly impact non-GOP voters. So why aren't you up in arms (haha!) over this? Any politically oriented unfairness here already exists in one case, but you're only complaining about it in the second? Which suggests that the issue isn't really about disparate impact, but that you care more about one issue than the other.

You want non-GOP people to be able to vote without ID, but don't want non-GOP people to own firearms? That's... strange. I'll also speculate that if, when you say "non-GOP voters", you really mean "black people", then this takes on an even more interesting implication.

Nice try. I'm comparing the implementation of a rule (the requirement of yearly training) to legally deter an action (posses a firearm ) in the guise of addressing a problem (safety) with the implementation of a rule (specific voter ID) to legally deter an action (voting) in the guise of addressing a problem (voter fraud).

You can be "up in arms" for one and not the other, but not simply because one is a deceitful deterrence, because they both are.


Gbaji wrote:

Um... Who owns the home? Who pays rent? Property taxes? Does this person have a bank account? You're basically holding up the case of a person utterly dependent on others for housing, transportation, etc, because they don't have any form of ID as the case we should be covering here. Um... Why not just get a cheap (and in states with voter ID laws *free*) state ID? The only people I can think of who would be likely to have no form of state issued (or accepted) ID would be minor dependents (who presumably are not voting), and people on the run from the law (and I'm not really so concerned if they're not voting).

I'll point out again that the person in this case cannot legally purchase a firearm.


Gbaji wrote:
Which is irrelevant to this discussion.
There are several people who split rent with others. Just because you *had* a driver's license to get a job (assuming that they even checked in the first place) or a bank account, doesn't mean that you *have* the *specific* ID in question when in time to vote. As you conveniently ignored, what if their license were revoked? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for voter ID. I believe if there is an actual problem with fraud, then the government should provide picture voting IDs along with making the voting days federal holidays to allow individuals to go from start to finish when they show up to the polls.


Gbaji wrote:
And? Was there a point in there somewhere? You quoted me twice, and added nothing yourself. WTF?

I'm perfectly ok with applying the same restrictions we have for voting to the purchase and ownership of firearms. Are you?
You said "I have no problem requiring someone who wants to buy/own a firearm to provide ID when doing so. So I'm not sure what your point is here." and I quoted what I have an issue with, because requiring an ID to purchase a firearm has nothing to do with your concern of requiring mandatory yearly training.
#1437 Aug 03 2015 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Mmm, porn.

Someone made some of the Pulse Rifle from Aliens. A 9mm SA with an under-barrel 12g shotgun, a red dot sight and a digital counter for the 9mm. Basically someone welded half a shotgun under an uzi, which isn't a really new concept when you consider we've had M204 under-barrel grenade launchers attached to M4 rifles for quite some time now, including the same breach loading and separate trigger. Kind of neat to me at least, though if I'm going to face a Xenomorph I'm going to want the flamethrower and grenade launcher as well.

Oh, and something about Grandpa Biden considering maybe possibly throwing in to stay in the White House. I guess the Democrats are jealous of the number of candidates the Republicans have and are upping the count so they can have an interoffice baseball league going or something. I have my doubts, I figure he was just talking in his sleep and someone overheard him.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2015 10:03am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1438 Aug 03 2015 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Someone made some of the Pulse Rifle from Aliens. A 9mm SA with an under-barrel 12g shotgun, a red dot sight and a digital counter for the 9mm.
Apparently I need to check this thread more often. So is it about nothing but guns now, or would a video making the rounds on the net fit here still? Eff it. I'm posting it anyway.


lolArticlesofConfederation.
#1439 Aug 03 2015 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Biden doesn't really *want* to be President; he just likes the way the garage staff details his Trans-Am.

I kinda hope he isn't serious about it, and is playing along to give Clinton someone to debate.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1440 Aug 03 2015 at 8:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Poldaran wrote:
I'm posting it anyway.
If she's claiming she's not a citizen, deport her.

Though it's been my experience that overprivileged first year white college kids are hilarious. We get them in the recruiting office all the time. Lots of "how does it feel to be part of the Gestapo" and yadda yadda yaddas.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2015 10:45am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1441 Aug 03 2015 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Someone made some of the Pulse Rifle from Aliens. A 9mm SA with an under-barrel 12g shotgun, a red dot sight and a digital counter for the 9mm.

Shouldn't it have an under-barrel grenade launcher? OMG LAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMEEEEEE.....

If Biden runs, I'm going to assume that he's serious about running. Now-deceased son on his death-bed, begging him to run, etc. Plus Biden's ran several times before so I can't imagine this time would be just for funsies.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1442 Aug 03 2015 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Though it's been my experience that underprivileged first year white college kids are hilarious. We get them in the recruiting office all the time. Lots of "how does it feel to be part of the Gestapo" and yadda yadda yaddas.

[Beavis & Butthead]Do you... huh huh huh... you know... huh huh... buttstroke them?[/B&B]
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1443 Aug 03 2015 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
First ... why the hell did I write underprivileged instead of over? Second, I wish I could assault them in some manner. Any reaction, especially laughter, just kind of gets them to become more aggressive.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1444 Aug 03 2015 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You should keep a bowl of candy on the counter and, when they come in complaining about Gestapos, say "Want a candy? We keep it here for the kids"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1445 Aug 03 2015 at 8:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Hold a GI Joe in front of your face and make it talk to them.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1446 Aug 03 2015 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Samira wrote:
Hold a GI Joe in front of your face and make it talk to them.
I won't lie, I really want to do this.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1447 Aug 03 2015 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Especially if you can get one of the ones whose voice boxes got switched out with Barbie's, so you could make it say "Math is hard! Let's go shopping!"



Edited, Aug 3rd 2015 9:55am by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1448 Aug 03 2015 at 12:03 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
What, you can't just leave a boot print on their forehead?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1449 Aug 03 2015 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Forever?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#1450 Aug 03 2015 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Debalic wrote:
What, you can't just leave a boot print on their forehead?
In this age of instant celebrity through youtube gotcha videos, I'll pass. Like I can't see the cellphone poking out from their shirt pockets.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1451 Aug 03 2015 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
What, you can't just leave a boot print on their forehead?
In this age of instant celebrity through youtube gotcha videos, I'll pass. Like I can't see the cellphone poking out from their shirt pockets.


Hire some PMCs to follow them around for the rest of the day. They shouldn't do anything but stay two car lengths away at all times.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 325 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (325)