Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Business as usual, then. My reasons to encourage violent revolt and anarchy (whether it fixes anything or not) continue, due to my current disdain for America and the human race. But not with hopefully good reason...
edited 21st Dec '12 10:03:10 PM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacioGood. Frankly, you should not be handed a weapon if you cannot use it responsibly. If you're labeled a criminal, that happens to be your own fault. If you're labeled mentally unfit, that means you can get help and still live a normal life without a weapon used mainly for killing.
I'm sorry, but you cannot really expect sympathy for people unfit to use firearms. And once again, rights can be taken away if abused. This is a current fact right now. Some may not be worth taking away(I don't believe one's right to live is ever expendable outside of them being an immediate danger, but that's another topic). But your right to use a firearm was made under the premise of being a military only-use according to the exact words, and those unfit to already be in the military due to things like insanity are not given a weapon because that's just a bad idea.
Frankly, you are misunderstanding how rights works in this country. They can be taken away and will be taken away if abused. A lethal weapon is really not the best case to make compared to how often they're abused. Regulating them is not breaking any laws. It prevents breaking of laws. Kind of funny like that.
Quest 64 thread![]()
That's why I try not to post here much/ ignore this thread. It's getting depressing reading this stuff day by day and seeing no real action toward it.
Being ninja'd sucks...Sigh..
edited 21st Dec '12 10:04:48 PM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio![]()
There's no good rational reason why you should or shouldn't. It's all about how comfortable you are. After all, I wouldn't have any problems at all carrying a firearm around you, regardless of whether you wear a vest or not. I don't carry for your benefit, but for mine.
The only thing I can say is that you wear one which you're comfortable wearing.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Hydronix: that's exactly why it would never work. You can't force people to put themselves in that position.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!![]()
If you see me walking around on the street with all that, by all means, call the cops. If I hold up the gun for you to see, especially if I point it at you, that's called brandishment, and that's a crime.
edited 21st Dec '12 10:08:28 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Nope. But sometimes in order to stand up for your principles, there's nothing for you to actually do.
What made America great is allowing dissenting views and accepting them all as valid enough to be expressed without the fear of reprisal. It's not an easy process, nor can basic principles be trampled without invalidating others.
Because one idea is not accepted is no grounds to trample it.
We have to deal with hate groups or just plain annoying groups, like the Westboro Baptist Church
.
Nobody likes them, but they have the right to express their beliefs.
Now, you can make laws that make it illegal to keep political activism outside a minimum distance here and there or keep them off private property. But as much as many people want to, you can't stop them from expressing their beliefs and stomping on the heartache of others. It's their right, and we would be untrue to try and stamp that out because it's unpopular.
As far as guns and gun control go, the question is what do you want to do, and what is it that you can do without violating what is important for everyone involved?
edited 21st Dec '12 10:11:49 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I feel compelled to ask what you mean by force.
Because the government can do that, actually. That's what a law is for. To force the basic will of the people/government on you for the general good of everyone. Now, getting the inertia and public support behind such laws like gun control are an obvious obstacle, and certainly significant. But given enough time and work they are not insurmountable. The government, given the will and order of the people, can and will force you to do something. That's why seatbelt laws exist, and no smoking areas, and why the laws allowing gay marriage in three states exist. And also why that marriage amendment in Minnesota doesn't exist; because the will among the people was to quash that law.
Then you would report them to your police (the militia under that previously mentioned 2nd Amendment). Hackers took apart the Westboro Baptist Church websites, but that's an illegal act... I think. That one I'm not clear on.
Ace: That's what the 2nd Amendment is about. It is both give and take. It is not a one-way street. The government has its rights, the states have their rights, and the individual has their rights. That's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights lays out.
edited 21st Dec '12 10:14:41 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Devil, you actually can force them to take tests to gain certain rights. That, and once again, citizens are not militia and do not have a right to a gun anyway.
You don't have a right to drive. Both are earned through go through a process. Outside of obvious Black Market groups, you cannot automatically buy a gun. Albeit, some places you can, but many, you have to present a license(as in your ID), and reasons as is.
And why should any citizen have a semi-automatic? Seriously? What use do they have besides gunning down people? A hunting Rifle and a Handgun are the only things that makes sense for a citizen. Hunting and self-defense. I cannot fathom any reason for an AK-47 that is for real protection. If you need to have that, that means that you're too paranoid, which means you're already mentally unfit(I do not mean you specifically, to clarify, I mean You as in a citizen, to clarify) as is.
Nobody needs a gun either. But I have no issues with Hunting Rifles with appropriate licenses(which does require evaluations and training, or should) or handguns after you have been evaluated and properly trained. Getting a gun without those is way too dangerous and just a plain bad idea by default.
Quest 64 threadYou've reduced yourself to platitudes now, Devil. You didn't really answer anything.
Again, a psychological check does not violate rights. It's a precaution to make sure you don't go around violating other's rights. And it is sadly, something that seems necessary today. The guys in the business of gun selling aren't going to make sure their customers are competent; their business is to sell guns, not keep them from people. So now it becomes the government's job to make sure that some few are kept as far from guns as is possible. Frankly I think this a psychological check is as much as the government can do without watching us all the time, and I wouldn't approve of that. Yes, some people would slip through as you said earlier, but no one gets checked from damage if we don't do it at all. A gun is something that should be restricted. They need to be treated less as rights and more as a responsibility.
Triv, Midget is a liberal in a very conservative area. As long as he hasn't actively provoked people I don't think he can call in police protection, and those folks go things to do anyway and can't protect him twenty four seven.
Hydronix: When a male US citizen turns 18, he is required, by law, to sign up into the Selective Service System. This system is where the government will draw from in case they ever need conscriptions for the military (the militia). The current US military is made up of volunteers, but can easily take on many many more (15 million eligible men at this point in time, 3 times more than the total number of servicemen and women who have volunteered for both active-duty and reserve service).
In exchange, the right for the government to call up the citizenry into the militia as per their own regulations (regulated), the citizens have the right to bear arms, which have been constitutionally found to protect the private possession of handguns and other weapons deemed appropriate for military use.
And I'm sorry, Ace, that you don't know or understand the rights granted by the Constitution. That includes due process, which includes a psychiatric check.
edited 21st Dec '12 10:29:11 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I'd like to note I am not in any service.
In addition, you have one thing wrong about that; Until they are called to arms, they are not allowed those. They are not an official part of the militia until someone calls them in.
A citizen does not have a use for an AK-47 at all. Until they are specifically serving, in which they only should be used in War. Otherwise, it's nothing but a weapon used for gunning down people, included being used for murders.
A Handgun and a Hunting Rifle does not require you to be part of the Military since they have legitimate uses outside of killing people. Some are to defend yourselves, including fake-outs(as in no bullets), and the other is for animal hunting. How those can be compared to an semi or pure automatic makes no sense.
Quest 64 threadDue process has to do with being prosecuted for committing a fucking crime, Devil. I know what it is for. Denying someone a gun isn't about prosecution. It's about doing something to prevent a crime. DO NOT talk down to me like that.
Also, we live in a time when the government has a standing army. It has no need of a militia drawn from the citizenry because it already has all the volunteers it needs, who've taken up the defense of the country as a career. Which provides its soldiers weapons on their own, thank you very much, so they don't need any guns you happen to already have. That part of the amendment no longer applies, particularly as we're unlikely to be invaded any time soon. Anyone who has the power is utterly uninterested. Anyone who's interested has no ability to act on it.
edited 21st Dec '12 10:35:59 PM by AceofSpades
Well there IS the gun thread.
The problem, like all our politics it seems, is we can never find a middle ground and let the extremes rule both sides.
On one hand you got the gun control advocates wanting the...well...pointless assault weapon ban renewed (which is a very badly written ban)
And the other side, we got NRA and GOA who basically scream for more guns as a solution.

Exactly how wouldn't it work Devil? The psychologist would, in preventing them from getting a gun, do exactly what the session is supposed to do. Prevent that guy from getting a gun. That doesn't mean the person is likely to do something otherwise, because the means they wanted is now denied them. And even if they do, it's been pointed out that other methods are generally far less lethal, so the goal of minimizing damage is reached. We're all aware that harm can't be eliminated entirely. The goal is to minimize it. A psychological test achieves that goal.
And it's not like it goes on a public record other than the list of "do not give this guy a gun". Such a list would only be available to gun sellers, which essentially makes them also liable for harm. It's not something that would be blared out the public.
edited 21st Dec '12 10:02:50 PM by AceofSpades