Crime & Punishment -- USA Edition

[Estil | 1,264]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

Again, same way with cars. You cause an accident, your insurance has to pay for damages. You fire a gun negligently that causes injury or death, your insurance pays for damages.

I think depending on the circumstances you'd end up in jail (if indeed the "negligently" part is true)!

[Tulpa | 3,491]

11 minutes ago, Estil said:

I think depending on the circumstances you'd end up in jail (if indeed the "negligently" part is true)!

And the injured party should receive compensation.

I mean, you can go to jail for ramming your car deliberately into something, or if you're driving in a way you shouldn't be doing (drunk, drowsy, poorly maintained car you know shouldn't be on the road, etc.) Most things that apply to cars can be applied to guns. They're both useful for things, and they can be dangerous. So both should carry liability insurance. 

I'm actually not against gun ownership. I question why certain guns are allowed, and think they, like most dangerous things, need regulation.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Tulpa

[JamesRobot | 5,795]

25 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

It's easier to regulate guns, or rather, the gun that's the problem (AR-15.) 

How can you regulate one brand of gun but not any others of the same caliber/functionality?

 

[Tabonga | 2,317]

27 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

And to complete the metaphor, why don't we have liability insurance required for firearms?

Which other enumerated rights should we have to pay to practice?  I am pretty sure the precedent of the exclusion of poll taxes* established that that would be unconstitutional.

*And other associated tactics used by the Democratic controlled post civil war south.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Tabonga

[Estil | 1,264]

8 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

I'm actually not against gun ownership. I question why certain guns are allowed, and think they, like most dangerous things, need regulation.

Hey I am as pro-Second Amendment (though I suppose not as much as the NRA would like) and I'd be among the first to point out "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" part.  You could say I'm very much pro-choice on gun rights...an honest citizen's right to choose.  That being said, I don't think I'd be comfortable with having firearms in my own home...I guess that makes me sound like such a hypocrite.

And I guess the big problem above all else is what exactly constitutes "certain guns" and who/what gets to decide which is which.

[Estil | 1,264]

2 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

How can you regulate one brand of gun but not any others of the same caliber/functionality?

 

Well my 11th grade Geometry teacher loved to say that you can't go by looks!  

[Tabonga | 2,317]

2 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

How can you regulate one brand of gun but not any others of the same caliber/functionality?

 

The top one looks really really scary.

[Tulpa | 3,491]

5 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

Which other enumerated rights should we have to pay to practice?  I am pretty sure the precedent of the exclusion of poll taxes* established that that would be unconstitutional.

*And other associtated tactics used by the Democrats in the post civil war south.

You have the right to travel, but the privilege of automobile operation is regulated. You have the right to bear arms, but the type and use is regulated. Gun permits, hunting licenses, shooter classes. Cost of ownership beyond the cost of the weapon is not new.

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Tulpa

[Tulpa | 3,491]

4 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

How can you regulate one brand of gun but not any others of the same caliber/functionality?

 

Any that can be used in a mass shooter situation should probably be looked at.

[Tulpa | 3,491]

4 minutes ago, Estil said:

And I guess the big problem above all else is what exactly constitutes "certain guns" and who/what gets to decide which is which.

You already can't own a bazooka. You can't own a machine gun (with only a few exceptions.)

Regulating the type of gun isn't new.

[Estil | 1,264]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

You already can't own a bazooka. You can't own a machine gun (with only a few exceptions.)

Regulating the type of gun isn't new.

True but I reckon what constitutes a "bazooka" and what constitutes a "machine gun" was much easier to plainly define, correct?

[Tabonga | 2,317]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

You have the right to travel, but the privilege of automobile operation is regulated. You have the right to bear arms, but the type and use is regulated.

 

The auto ownership is just that - a privilege as opposed to a right.  And you are dodging the question - which other enumerated rights should we have to pay in order to use?  

[Tulpa | 3,491]

1 minute ago, Tabonga said:

The auto ownership is just that - a privilege as opposed to a right.  And you are dodging the question - which other enumerated rights should we have to pay in order to use?  

You're perfectly fine to buy a bow and arrow, which constitutes an "arm."

[Estil | 1,264]

3 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

You're perfectly fine to buy a bow and arrow, which constitutes an "arm."

Just like the Duke boys!

[Tulpa | 3,491]

2 minutes ago, Estil said:

Just like the Duke boys!

Funny thing about the Dukes of Hazzard, I didn't learn until years later that for the first several seasons, they were under probation by Boss Hogg, which is why they couldn't use guns or leave Hazzard county (even though they occasionally did visit neighboring counties.)

[Tabonga | 2,317]

11 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

You're perfectly fine to buy a bow and arrow, which constitutes an "arm."

That wasn't exactly a militia weapon when the constitution was enacted.  Again I ask what other enumerated rights we should have to pay to practice?

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

2 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

That wasn't exactly a militia weapon when the constitution was enacted.  Again I ask what other enumerated rights we should have to pay to practice?

Single shot muskets were. And cannons.  Like a minute in-between loads. And people always forget about the “well regulated” part lol. 
 

The “originalist” view of the constitution is inherently flawed. They had to outlaw slavery and allow women to vote. 

[Tabonga | 2,317]

22 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

You already can't own a bazooka. You can't own a machine gun (with only a few exceptions.)

Regulating the type of gun isn't new.

You can own a bazooka if it is disabled*.  You can own a panzerfaust (or any of its progeny) if it has been fired. While machine guns are mostly barred gatling guns/mitrailleuses/et al are perfectly legal because of their mechanics.   I wouldn't mind having a mitrailleuse** simply as a conversation piece.

*The ammunition (with or without a bazooka) is illegal without paying a tax.

**Oddly enough the mitrailleuse could use a typical rifle bullet for use against Christian enemies and a more rectangular (which would do more damage) ammo for use against non-Christian enemies,

[Tabonga | 2,317]

9 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Single shot muskets were. And cannons.  Like a minute in-between loads. And people always forget about the “well regulated” part lol. 
 

The “originalist” view of the constitution is inherently flawed. They had to outlaw slavery and allow women to vote. 

The key is not what was used but what a contemporary militia used (or would use today).  And well regulated in those times meant more in the lines of trained/effective.  

 

It only took the Allthing 985 years to give women the vote (and even then it was somewhat proscribed).  Some of the Islamic countries (who practiced slavery (which was in many ways more horrendous than the horrendous European slavery) much longer than western society) couldn't be bothered to abolish it until the 1960/70s.  Bad US.

[Tanooki | 4,932]

2 hours ago, MrWunderful said:

Bro you have never defended your argument once on this site. You come in, regurgitate a talking point, then distract when called out on it

 

Easy to take that big old L when all you can do is emoji my post and respond on a tangent.  Dunking on you is like my 4th favorite hobby. 
 

I can see why you got banned from NA hahahahaha

I know you're ignorantly trying to troll for a response and hate I won't give it.  I used to fall for your bait and I did respond, as far as giving actual answers, but when someone like you come along so entrenched in their kool-aid that nothing said works, nothing cited is given even consideration, and you just go on and on like a broken record.... what's the point?! 

You should look inward, you're blaming me for your own shitty tactics you've spat as far as I can recall for at least a decade.  Same lame indefensible talking points, same lashing out bitter rambling backhanded comments, same even more lame distraction antics.  It's utterly pointless to engage someone like you in meaningful conversation when all you care to do is spout off into an echo chamber hoping to find someone who agrees with you and it's really quite pointless.   You're boring, and worse, you're clingy and needy making comments like you do for a sad grab at attention.  Fire off some other lame but but but motorboat like comment, it won't get another reply as it'll just continue the cycle.  Seriously, act your age, and grow up, this is a game site, not some comments section on a political/news site where you'll get a bunch of allies to side up and beat down anyone who won't agree.

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

3 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

I know you're ignorantly trying to troll for a response and hate I won't give it.  I used to fall for your bait and I did respond, as far as giving actual answers, but when someone like you come along so entrenched in their kool-aid that nothing said works, nothing cited is given even consideration, and you just go on and on like a broken record.... what's the point?! 

You should look inward, you're blaming me for your own shitty tactics you've spat as far as I can recall for at least a decade.  Same lame indefensible talking points, same lashing out bitter rambling backhanded comments, same even more lame distraction antics.  It's utterly pointless to engage someone like you in meaningful conversation when all you care to do is spout off into an echo chamber hoping to find someone who agrees with you and it's really quite pointless.   You're boring, and worse, you're clingy and needy making comments like you do for a sad grab at attention.  Fire off some other lame but but but motorboat like comment, it won't get another reply as it'll just continue the cycle.  Seriously, act your age, and grow up, this is a game site, not some comments section on a political/news site where you'll get a bunch of allies to side up and beat down anyone who won't agree.

Take that big old L pal. Just getting dominated like your statesman, Ted Cruz. I would hate to see your twitter mentions. 
 

Also, please complain more about freedom of speech. If you dont want be handed out losses, don’t @ me. Just move on past my posts, or ignore me. 
 

YOU were the one that chirped at me first. 
YOU are the one who is trying to defend old ladies having guns being more effective than armed, trained cops (which you still havent supported your point?)

calling me a troll in a word salad post just aint working dude. I will sleep soundly at night on a huge pile of your destroyed arguments. 
 

NEXT

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

26 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

The key is not what was used but what a contemporary militia used (or would use today).  And well regulated in those times meant more in the lines of trained/effective.  

 

It only took the Allthing 985 years to give women the vote (and even then it was somewhat proscribed).  Some of the Islamic countries (who practiced slavery (which was in many ways more horrendous than the horrendous European slavery) much longer than western society) couldn't be bothered to abolish it until the 1960/70s.  Bad US.

So I dont understand- did militas use something other than single shot l, non rifled bore muskets? Maybe im not up on my revolutionary war armaments. 

[Gloves | 11,774]

5 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

So I dont understand- did militas use something other than single shot l, non rifled bore muskets? Maybe im not up on my revolutionary war armaments. 

He's implying that the words in the amendment weren't intended to mean "the armaments of today", rather comparable arms to those in the field at any given time. 

I dunno what the training requirements are if any in the States for owning a weapon, but my sense is that the intent was that those owning weapons should be well trained in their use (so as to not accidentally hurt their loved ones or bystanders etc.), and with regard to regulation I imagine the intent was permits, licenses, whatever - some manner of tracking (paper at the time, ideally digital today) of whom holds what. 

I believe it was primarily anti-federationalists who wanted to be capable of rebelling against their own government should the government become corrupt, likely based at least in part on the whole England thing. Which is like, a fair enough point. 

I see a need for compromise, and I don't see the States being capable of that. Your country stopped being the Red White and Blue and has become the Red VS Blue. I imagine there are at least a handful of countries wringing their hands waiting for a new American Civil War. They're counting on it and potentially even pushing it from the inside, and when it happens I dread the outcome being your northerly neighbor. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,520]

I own an AR.  I can sell/give it to pretty much anyone who isn't a violent felon.  No paper trail. And even then there's nothing stopping me, and barely a possibility of repercussions.

No laws are perfect.  I don't know why people think the 2nd amendment is infallible or not in need of touch ups.

Oh wait, I do know.  Because our country is so polarized that the top priority is always disagreeing with the other side.

[Tanooki | 4,932]

39 minutes ago, MrWunderful said:

Take that big old L pal. Just getting dominated like your statesman, Ted Cruz. I would hate to see your twitter mentions. 
 

Also, please complain more about freedom of speech. If you dont want be handed out losses, don’t @ me. Just move on past my posts, or ignore me. 
 

YOU were the one that chirped at me first. 
YOU are the one who is trying to defend old ladies having guns being more effective than armed, trained cops (which you still havent supported your point?)

calling me a troll in a word salad post just aint working dude. I will sleep soundly at night on a huge pile of your destroyed arguments. 
 

NEXT

Keep going princess... I could think of a necktie at this rate I would love to see you fitted for.  Now you're on ignore, a list of one, as I don't need you toxifying my notifications any further.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Tanooki