cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 13, 2018 6:23:08 GMT
Another stupid law. They're either adults at 18 or they're not and they won't change that because the Democrats need the young voters and they need these kids to sign up for the military. You have to be 21 to drink in this country, and 25 to rent a car. If you want to own a gun which carries more than 12 bullets at a time, you should be permitted at an age where you're really mature. That's why it should be high. I have no problem if a 18 or 20 year old, wants to own a pistol or shotgun. 21-24 range is perfectly fair. Guns don't shoot out gumdrops or rainbows. The more ammo and the lighter the weight, the easier it is to kill people. You can whine all you want about "your guns", but what about the children? What about those Americans who want to go to a movie or concert without fearing to see bullets flying all over the place? Tell this to the parents of children who died at Ariana Grande 's concert last year in Manchester because of an homemade bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 13, 2018 11:08:33 GMT
I don't see how it is illegal. Our courts have already established that government has the right to regulate the gun industry. The second amendment says nothing about training courses or taking a medical health exam or owning a weapon which carries 40 bullets without re-loading. This is just idiotic statements coming from the right-wing gun nuts. If your retorts are "well it's against the 2nd amendment," then you need to establish how they are unconstitutional. This is just like the right talking about how we're a christian nation without any evidence. It would be illegal because since the 2nd Amendment is considered a human right in the States, a psychological evaluation before obtaining a gun would be considered guilty until proven innocent. That's not due process. You still have shown ZERO evidence that the government doesn't have the right to regulate the gun industry. Taking a psych exam doesn't mean, you're guilty or innocent of anything. It simply means we're looking into your background and see if you have a history of mental illness. I am not asking people to take tests per say, as in, you have to answer amount of questions correctly, but to evaluate a person's mental history. That to me, needs to be the MOST important. You must get a background check.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on Mar 13, 2018 11:10:24 GMT
You have to be 21 to drink in this country, and 25 to rent a car. If you want to own a gun which carries more than 12 bullets at a time, you should be permitted at an age where you're really mature. That's why it should be high. I have no problem if a 18 or 20 year old, wants to own a pistol or shotgun. 21-24 range is perfectly fair. Guns don't shoot out gumdrops or rainbows. The more ammo and the lighter the weight, the easier it is to kill people. You can whine all you want about "your guns", but what about the children? What about those Americans who want to go to a movie or concert without fearing to see bullets flying all over the place? Tell this to the parents of children who died at Ariana Grande 's concert last year in Manchester because of an homemade bomb. I am lost on your intention. We're talking about guns, not bombs. You want to talk about bombs, then you need to go to a different discussion thread. Thank you. Have a great day.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 13, 2018 12:09:31 GMT
Tell this to the parents of children who died at Ariana Grande 's concert last year in Manchester because of an homemade bomb. I am lost on your intention. We're talking about guns, not bombs. You want to talk about bombs, then you need to go to a different discussion thread. Thank you. Have a great day. My point is, people don't need guns to kill. We have had hundreds victims in Europe (and not only) due to single killers with homemade bombs or cars/trucks. If you think that banning guns will prevent deaths, I doubt it'll work. I just think that mentally ill people should be taken care of, not simply forbidden to own guns.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous ĂȘtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 13, 2018 12:59:16 GMT
Tell this to the parents of children who died at Ariana Grande 's concert last year in Manchester because of an homemade bomb. "Guns are not the only way to kill people" somehow leads to "It's pointless to make it harder to kill people, so let's not even try and instead just sit on our asses and look for non sequiturs that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand?"
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 13, 2018 13:39:08 GMT
Tell this to the parents of children who died at Ariana Grande 's concert last year in Manchester because of an homemade bomb. "Guns are not the only way to kill people" somehow leads to "It's pointless to make it harder to kill people, so let's not even try and instead just sit on our asses and look for non sequiturs that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand?" Here in Switzerland you can buy most guns without a permission, and some types with a simple license. Swiss guys 18-35 have their army gun at home. We never had school nor University shootings. In my opinion, taking care of people with mental issues is more effective than banning guns.
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous ĂȘtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 13, 2018 14:03:07 GMT
"Guns are not the only way to kill people" somehow leads to "It's pointless to make it harder to kill people, so let's not even try and instead just sit on our asses and look for non sequiturs that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand?" Here in Switzerland you can buy most guns without a permission, and some types with a simple license. Swiss guys 18-35 have their army gun at home. We never had school nor University shootings. In my opinion, taking care of people with mental issues is more effective than banning guns. Lovely, but this thread is not about Switzerland, and the mass shooting that I assume inspired Maria Helena to create it did not happen in Switzerland. You're talking only about your country, your culture and your context, without grasping the bigger picture that's being debated. Other countries are not Switzerland; ctrl C ctrl V-ing Swiss policies won't magically suffice for other countries, especially not the US. Throughout this thread you've brought up arguments that have little to no bearing on the topic at hand, homemade bombs being only the latest one, and it amounts to empty whataboutism. Also, the discussion is not about banning guns. That's not what's being proposed. You can limit mentally ill people's access to guns without banning them or taking them away from their lawful owners. But all of that's been debated to exhaustion here already.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Mar 13, 2018 14:26:16 GMT
Zeb31My point is, with the current USA laws, limiting the access to guns isn't very easy, and if the purpose is avoiding killings, it wouldn't be effective either (bombs,cars,poison, whatever could be used by mentally ill people). My point is, taking medical care of mentally disturbed people will be more effective and, at the end of the day, will result in less financial costs for the community too. Btw, I haven't voted in the poll either, because I cannot find the balance between a theoretical solution and a pragmatic one given the American laws.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 13, 2018 18:58:22 GMT
It would be illegal because since the 2nd Amendment is considered a human right in the States, a psychological evaluation before obtaining a gun would be considered guilty until proven innocent. That's not due process. You still have shown ZERO evidence that the government doesn't have the right to regulate the gun industry. Taking a psych exam doesn't mean, you're guilty or innocent of anything. It simply means we're looking into your background and see if you have a history of mental illness. I am not asking people to take tests per say, as in, you have to answer amount of questions correctly, but to evaluate a person's mental history. That to me, needs to be the MOST important. You must get a background check. I never said the government doesn't have the right to regulate. I said they wouldn't be able to do that. Also background checks are already there and if you have been found to be mentally unfit then you're not allowed to buy a gun. What you said was you should have to have a psych evaluation before you buy one.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 13, 2018 19:43:53 GMT
the constitution is fucking stupid and anyone who defends it on an ideological ground itt is as well
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 13, 2018 20:36:49 GMT
the constitution is fucking stupid and anyone who defends it on an ideological ground itt is as well You mean the document that grants the greatest freedom anyone has ever had in the entire world is stupid? Expect much from a dumb cunt socialist.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Mar 13, 2018 20:42:23 GMT
I'm not sure, honey. I find it really hard to accessorize with them. Maybe if they made them in different colors. I'm also going to need a much larger Birkin bag for the Double-barreled shotgun. It's all a bit Annie Oakley, which isn't really my look. Too much clothing!... And I'd probably forget and leave it in the back of a limo or something... also I'm not a violent person... I will slap anyone who says I am. But I am an actress so I can play someone with a gun if you'd like me to. Pistol whipping will be extra...
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 13, 2018 22:24:04 GMT
the constitution is fucking stupid and anyone who defends it on an ideological ground itt is as well You mean the document that grants the greatest freedom anyone has ever had in the entire world is stupid? Expect much from a dumb cunt socialist. oh yeah i love my free speech where i can get convicted right now for slander, libel, false accusations, disturbing the peace, yelling fire in a crowded theater, teaching kids about religion within a school, saying sexually harassing things to my coworkers, etc. or my right to bear arms by being unable to purchase them under a wide variety of circumstances. of course, most of these things are rightfully against the law, but the fact that people bring up the constitution as a sacred document when there are countless laws in place that violate it is just dumb. nobody actually wants full freedom of speech, or for everyone to be able to buy whatever weapon they want, or for half of the shit in the constitution to be fully enforced.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Mar 13, 2018 23:32:40 GMT
You mean the document that grants the greatest freedom anyone has ever had in the entire world is stupid? Expect much from a dumb cunt socialist. oh yeah i love my free speech where i can get convicted right now for slander, libel, false accusations, disturbing the peace, yelling fire in a crowded theater, teaching kids about religion within a school, saying sexually harassing things to my coworkers, etc. or my right to bear arms by being unable to purchase them under a wide variety of circumstances. of course, most of these things are rightfully against the law, but the fact that people bring up the constitution as a sacred document when there are countless laws in place that violate it is just dumb. nobody actually wants full freedom of speech, or for everyone to be able to buy whatever weapon they want, or for half of the shit in the constitution to be fully enforced. What are you babbling on about? You can't be convicted for slander or libel. You can be sued but it's incredibly hard to prove damage in the States. As for false accusations, that's only under oath. Disturbing the peace usually means some sort of physical action, it's not speech. Yelling in a crowded theater isn't actually unprotected. They can teach about religion in schools. What they can't do is promote a religion in a public school because the government is secular. And you can say sexual harassing things to your coworkers. It's up to the employers on how to deal with it. I want full freedom of speech and be able to buy what I want. Half the shit is fully enforced.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Mar 14, 2018 2:23:25 GMT
oh yeah i love my free speech where i can get convicted right now for slander, libel, false accusations, disturbing the peace, yelling fire in a crowded theater, teaching kids about religion within a school, saying sexually harassing things to my coworkers, etc. or my right to bear arms by being unable to purchase them under a wide variety of circumstances. of course, most of these things are rightfully against the law, but the fact that people bring up the constitution as a sacred document when there are countless laws in place that violate it is just dumb. nobody actually wants full freedom of speech, or for everyone to be able to buy whatever weapon they want, or for half of the shit in the constitution to be fully enforced. What are you babbling on about? You can't be convicted for slander or libel. You can be sued but it's incredibly hard to prove damage in the States. As for false accusations, that's only under oath. Disturbing the peace usually means some sort of physical action, it's not speech. Yelling in a crowded theater isn't actually unprotected. They can teach about religion in schools. What they can't do is promote a religion in a public school because the government is secular. And you can say sexual harassing things to your coworkers. It's up to the employers on how to deal with it. I want full freedom of speech and be able to buy what I want. Half the shit is fully enforced. sure you can be convicted for those. this was a bigger thing in the earlier days but the supreme court straight up refused to use the first amendment when dealing with those cases, and even now it's a pretty murky area. false accusations under oath = being convicted of a crime purely because of your speech. disturbance of the peace can definitely just include being loud lmao, do you think "noise complaints" are some codeword for "underground fight clubs" or something? as for the fire thing, this is a good link: civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.htmlfreedom of speech has always, always come with limitations. constitutional lawyers exist because nobody has any idea how to work with a super restrictive yet vague document that's mostly hundreds of years old when we barely follow the damn thing as is.
|
|