(03-05-2018, 04:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Seems like Florida Senate Republicans are in for some interesting elections. Very unpopular and just stupid legislation they're promoting that's at odds with what other GOP leadership in the state has been suggesting, and also just at odds with public opinions.

(03-05-2018, 05:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The "slippery slope" argument only works on people who are clueless about the difference between "correlation" and "causation".

For example, it has also been proven in almost every part of the country that most heroin addicts drank alcohol before they became addicted to heroin. 

Anywhere there were enough voters to try and enact confiscation there would have been just as many, and probably many more, who supported owner licensing and gun registration, but that does not mean licensing and registration caused the attempts at confiscation or that every place that supports licensing and registration will also support confiscation.

And that is why a "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy.  It does not differentiate "correlation" from "causation".

(03-05-2018, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No serious person says that, on its own, is convincing evidence of such.  Both lung cancer and a cold can cause a bad cough.  Having a cough, though, is not sufficient evidence that you have lung cancer.

(03-05-2018, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're asking for a long discussion here.  First off, I will treat your grenade launcher question as serious.  A grenade launcher is designed to fill a blast area with shrapnel.  Within that area its effects are indiscriminate.  Also, a grenade launcher is not as precise as a rifle.  Both qualities make it a poor option for self defense.

(03-05-2018, 05:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Additionally, a grenade launcher has little in common with firearms already in common use, and that have been in common use for decades.

I'll return to the idea of an "assault rifle" in a moment.  Prior to that I would point out that AR's, AK's and other magazine fed semi-automatic weapons have been in public hands for close to fifty years.  There is precedent in the public possessing them, nor were the "mass shootings" of today as big a concern.  Ironically, the homicide rate in the 60's, 70's and 80's was considerably higher than the rate now.  The crime rate has been, until recently, dropping every years since about 1992.  Within those twenty-five years the number of firearms in private possession has exploded.

Now we'll return to this question, what is an "assault rifle?  Is it a particular feature, a mix of features or the ability to accept a detachable magazine?  The traditional definition is a man portable rifle capable of selective fire.  There are very few such weapons in the hands of civilians in this country, and they have almost never been used in a criminal act.  If we allow for the features argument, what features do we use?  What makes an AR15 more deadly than an M14 or an M1 Garand?  When someone can actually answer these questions then you can actually start talking about what should, and should not, be banned.

(03-05-2018, 05:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quit being obtuse, Fred, it's boring.  You can't argue the slippery slope fallacy when you have real world examples of exactly what you're talking about happening actually happening.  If you want to make the argument that CA style gun laws won't fly in Kentucky or Virginia, then make it.  You may be, and probably right now are, right.  But your argument hinges on the idea that what I'm saying can happen is a fallacy when we have examples of it doing exactly that. 

(03-01-2018, 11:34 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I replied to this post because it was the shortest.  

You and others mentioned before that you don’t want people’s rights stripped away on these asylums.   I agree and like Wyche I certainly do not want electro shock therapy asylums doing crazy stuff.

That being said.....   they should be very difficult to get out.   Society needs these people, even the ones with moderate mental health issues,  who could probably make it in society with a cocktail of multiple medications off the streets.    The reliance on prescription medication to treat these issues is way too high.  

Shouldn’t need a pharmacy to make it through life.   People who are in a constant altered state are dangerous.

(03-05-2018, 05:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Moderate mental illness would be taking a low to moderate dose of a medication.   Not high dosage and certainly not several types.  

I know you are all wound up on the mental illness stuff but come on man.  At least have the decency to be accurate on my position.

(03-05-2018, 05:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah... I feel that was my point actually :) but maybe I read it wrong. I believe pointing to totalitarian regimes that took the guns away is not a particularly strong argument against any gun control measures. The whole doomsday-like scenario behind that premise - citizens need to rise against a totalitarian, oppressing government - seems a bit academical. For the US that is.

Quote:It was a serious question. My thinking behind that question was something like: There are restriction to the second amendment, somewhere around grenade launchers. US laws says, ok, these kinds of arms are not protected by the constitution. So that proves there IS a line.
Which to me shifts the whole discussion to where this line should be drawn - not that there can't be a line to begin with.

Quote:And while what you say about grenade launchers sounds true - I guess strictly speaking it is not a second amendment argument. The second amendment doesn't mention self-defense, it mentions a militia, and fighting militias could make pretty good use of grenade launchers. Still they are forbidden (for most guys, although on the old board someone had such a piece anyway) - and it's a bit of an arbitrary line, not a god-given one. And arbitrary lines can be moved. End of my thinking :)

Quote:I have to be honest, you lose me on the technical details, of course not by your own fault.

Quote:So forgive me for not addressing details I know nothing about.
Overall, I guess the same way you say "grenade launchers don't serve the purpose of self defense", one could say "assault rifles (now however you want to define them, or the law, maybe 100 shots a minute or whatever - I don't mind the details here) don't serve the purpose of self-defense".

Quote:And I believe this case can be made, that a person doesn't need those kinds of weapons for self-defense purposes. (Shortly put, I'd say spreading around hundreds of bullets isn't the best way to self-defend and potentially puts people like family in harm's way - so a gun with fewer rounds per minute, a handgun of sorts, could and I'd say should do to defend yourself and loved ones.)

Quote:I feel the line needs to be shifted and that it's possible to do so without breaching the constitution more than it was already breached before, as stated. And the reason why I believe the line should be shifted is mainly that obviously quite a large majority of Americans are for some gun control measures too. (I personally would propose a licence much like a driver's licence, but I'm getting all over my head here.)

(03-05-2018, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You have examples of a "correlation".  You have no proof at all of "causation".

It is just like the example of drinking alcohol and using heroin.  Close to 100% of heroin addicts drank alcohol before they used heroin, but that in no way proves that drinking alcohol causes heroin addiction or that you can predict who will be a heroin addict by looking at who drinks alcohol.

People who favor confiscation favor all types of gun regulations, but that in no way proves that gun registration will cause confiscation or even that all people who suport gun regulation also support confiscation.

Some of us are actually able to think for ourselves instead of letting other people tell us what to believe.

(03-05-2018, 10:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Good :)

I get the jist of the argument, sophisticated as this point was. Thing is though, nobody, at least nobody serious I heard from, even talks about "disarming the populace", no democrat I know of said anything like that (only Trump actually did, but well). One might still accuse them of hidden agendas, but at this point the argument turns really disingenuous to begin with. The awful Nazi analogue aside. [I'm sure the left is waaay worse though :) ]

Also, there's a bunch of distinctly non-totalitarian governments that have gun restrictions too. Gun restrictions do not equal totalitarism in the making.

Since you dared to quote me :), may I ask a serious question. Why is it ok to ban grenade launchers, but a full assault on people's rights to ban assault rifles? What's the difference.

(03-05-2018, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here you are falling into a disproven argument.  It's highly perpetuated on media sources, hence I'm not surprised you're quoting it.  The 2nd amendment states that having a militia is necessary, therefore the right of the private citizenry to own firearms shall not be infringed.  The end part is the right, the first part is the reasoning.  It's the same as if there was a amendment that said the following, "The need for people to bear children and raise a family, being necessary to the growth of a nation, the right for people to marry the souse of their choice shall not be infringed".  Does this mean that people who want to get married and not have kids have lost the right to marry?  Is having children necessary to exercise this right?

(03-05-2018, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Haha, I'm looking and I don't really see any technical details.  The familiarity gap is bigger than I thought.

(03-05-2018, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You couldn't use the same argument against both, not even remotely.  A grenade causes casualties across a wide area, they are also not precise in comparison to a rifle bullet.  Large area of effect, plus low accuracy equals bad self defense weapon.  Semi-automatic weapon plus trained hands equals precise, target specific effect.  This makes for a perfect self defense weapon.  Single target affect and accuracy.

(03-05-2018, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What asshole confronts a home intruder by spraying rounds wildly?

(03-05-2018, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are displaying your lack of knowledge here, because a rifle is exceedingly more accurate than a hand gun, at any distance.  The only time a handgun is preferable to a long gun is for concealment purposes, if you're worried about over penetration or if you're in an environment that makes manipulating a long gun problematic (e.g. my dad crawling through tunnels in Vietnam comes to mind).

(03-05-2018, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, a handgun can fire "100 rounds a minute" as well.  Lastly, the gun only fires as often as you pull the trigger.  You control the rounds per minute, not the fire arm.

(03-05-2018, 09:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, that's clearly the discussion at hand, isn't it?  The line has to be shifted to where, though?  Once a dude kills thirty-two people with a couple of handguns (Virginia Tech shooter) do we need to shift the line again?  Enforce the laws on the books before you talk about adding new ones.  If they'd done that the Florida shooting would never have happened.

(03-05-2018, 08:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I understand that the amount of ignorant shit that you post is high, but maybe just go back and look when claiming you didn't say stupid shit.

(03-05-2018, 09:49 PM)Dill Wrote: I have to step up and defend Hitler on this one.

(03-05-2018, 09:49 PM)Dill Wrote: The LIBERAL Weimar Republic banned ALL guns soon after its constitution in 1919. They disarmed the populace. They relented a bit in 1928 and allowed some permits to purchase and to own weapons.

Hitler relaxed restrictions on gun ownership at at least two points during the 3rd Reich. In 1938, the Nazi Weapon Law gave party members the right to own most any non-automatic long gun without permit. Non-Nazi "Aryans" required permits for some weapons, but Hitler lengthened their validity and lowered the age of purchase to 18.  Non-Aryans had no firearm rights.

(03-05-2018, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Some of us can see what others are actually doing and believe what we see with our own eyes instead of arguing that what we just saw wasn't real.

(03-05-2018, 10:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I honestly came up with the argument all on my own. And I was even proud! :)
As for your question, first off yeah, I heard people claim exactly that when opposing gay marriage. Marriage is for offspring, but gays can't have children, so no marriage to them.
I disagree with that for sure, but I cannot quite get the length of the analogy to the second amendment - except your saying the right shall not be infringed doesn't necessarily correlate with the militia part of the amendment. I wouldn't read it that way, as if the militia part started with an "e.g.". But I'm sure you would know better than me, so I guess I take the overall point.

Quote:Yeah... for me that's all technical, the AK's and whatnot, which really is because I don't know anything about guns. Except that they shoot bullets and some shoot more bullets per minute than others.

Quote:Still, for a well trained militia both weapons... ok I let that one go. I guess my main issue is the "trained hands" part. Because there's no way to assure said trained hands are at work. When 18-year-olds can purchase this weapon, I'd guess it's safe to say not all these hands are trained, far from it, hence the devastating effect could be closer to a grenade launcher as you make it out to be. Not saying it's the same by a long stretch, but the danger comes with both.

Quote:I don't know... what asshole goes inside a school or sits at a window in a hotel room and shoots people. The assholes are the problem.... As ruler, I'd give you every gun you want because I'm quite certain you don't do stupid stuff with it. But you don't set the bar, the assholes do. Kinda like with everything.

Quote:Yeah, I do have said lack of knowledge, sure. And now I learned something I didn't know.
Still, you said a rifle is more accurate, doesn't mean it has to be a semi-automatic rifle, right? Or not?

Quote:That last one I knew :) And I would also ban handguns firing 100 rounds a minute. If it were up to me, which it most certainly isn't.

Quote:Yeah, that one might not have happened. Vegas still would have happened though, and probably many others of these incidents.
I'd say it like this: As long as there are guns out there, people get killed. That doesn't lead me to demanding a ban on all guns. But if there were no semi-automatics out there, there could at least be fewer victims. And I really do feel that no one needs a semi-automatic in his pursuit of happiness. So weighing it like that, I think at least a way more controlled disposal of those kinds of weapons is not unreasonable, nor would it open the door to an overall gun ban.

Quote:That being said, Im not deaf to the argument you make, the line shifts, it shifts again, and suddenly you're stripped of rights you see as fundamental. It's a fair point, but weighing it all out I guess it's just not enough for me to justify just doing nothing on that gun control front.
Again, my suggestion would be a licence, at least when it comes to "assault rifles" (using a fancier word would lead me into those "technical details" again). What compelling reasons are there to be against that. Honest curiosity.

(03-05-2018, 11:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yeah read about one more sentence.   The part about needing a cocktail of medications.  

Your desire to be against every post I make has forced you to just flat out ignore half of the post you are moaning over.   Seriously you have lost the plot.

(03-05-2018, 11:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is your point?  I agree that some people are pushing for total confiscation.  And I agree that there are heroin addicts out there.

All I am saying is that gun registration regulations have as much to do with total confiscation as drinking alcohol has tpo do with becoming a heroin addict.  There is a correlation but zero causation.  Thus the reason a "slippery slope" is considered a logical fallacy.

And the only ones that fall for it are the ones who can not understand the difference between a "correlation" and a "causation".  Despite what the NRA has brainwashed you to believe there are a lot of people who would favor gun registartion but oppose confiscation.

(03-06-2018, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not meant to conjure the gay marriage objection to mind, although I allow that it does.  It's merely to illustrate how the language states that "x" is important to a free state, therefore the people have a right to "y".  This is a subject of intense debate in the US, so you're not being 100% on it is hardly surprising.

(03-06-2018, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The vast majority of weapons in private hands in the US are semi-automatic.  The technology is well over 100 years old.

(03-06-2018, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We're talking about a dude defending their home, not a spree killer or career criminal. Of course, your point that laws must frequently account for the worst among us is true. We could severely curtail car accidents by placing a 70 mph governor on every car, especially as speed is the number one cause of accidents. I don't think many people would go for that though.

(03-06-2018, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Aside from bolt and lever action, they're all going to be semi-auto.  Shotguns and some .22's aside, which can be pump action.  Bolt action is impractical for home defense as you have to be very well trained not to take your aim off target when cycling the bolt.  Lever action is less problematic in this regard, but there is still considerable manipulation of the firearm required to load another round.  For long distance shootings bolt actions are generally preferred as less moving parts during the discharge of a round means the firearm is more likely to stay on target.  Also all of the gas created by detonating the gun powder is used to send the round down range, as opposed to some being siphoned off to cycle the action.

(03-06-2018, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That would be every handgun that wasn't a revolver or a breech loader, typically only seen in derringers.  So, probably 90% of handguns in private hands, if not more.

(03-06-2018, 12:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you'd get a lot less resistance to licenses or registers if deep blue states weren't banning gun types left and right.  As I've said before, they've actually moved to confiscation in CA.  There's way too much mistrust for much compromise.  Now a grand deal made at the federal level, that introduced licensing and a register, but forbid confiscation or banning of types not already covered by the NFA , might have a chance at success.  It would be a concession by both sides though, so it's not going to happen.

(03-06-2018, 01:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK. So I have one question here. Why is there an "x" to begin with. Why does the second amendment not simply say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"?
I'd say this: By adding a reasoning, the constitution is adding a distinct foundation to the right. Which is the militia. Now as soon as you argue the self-defense value of certain arms, you don't argue within that foundation. It's a debate not aligned with the second amendment, except when you say that the "x" part/the militia part doesn't actually influence the right and the amendment could just as well do without it and stands on its own.

Quote:I don't know if my thoughts get clear. I argue that forbidding the launcher happened for reasons that have nothing to do with the amendment - or contradict it. Either way, if there can be that restriction, based on an artificial factor (self-defense value) not mentioned in the constitution, there can be other restrictions, there's already precedence. Is how I'd argue it in court. I'm sure Gorsuch'd be very impressed.

Quote:OK, terminology clearly isn't my friend in that debate. Guess we can't ban them then. I actually agree.

Quote:No, of course not, we do make a compromise there, some kind of middle ground. Restricting car speed would be quite the extreme... but then again, so would be just abolishing all speed limits and shrugging off the increasing deaths resulting from that freedom, ah what can you do. Which from the distance looks like the US approach to guns. It doesn't have that middle ground vibe to me, but sure that's just a feeling.

Quote: know your audience... but hats off, you know stuff about guns. I only take in the first sentence though.

Quote:Yeah, now that's bad news for my stance, isn't it.
I'd better row back on that one then.

Maybe there's a correct way to ban something that isn't that wide-spread and still is a deadly machine gun with firing capacity that far exceeds every reasonable need. But I guess it isn't me who could word that.
- Can we ban bump stocks?

Quote:But a licence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual guns you might own. It merely would allow you to buy one or many if you so please. It would give those blue states no additional leverage to ban or confiscate anything. Per se.

(03-06-2018, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which falls back on the argument about "shall not be infringed" being absolute or is there a grey area.  The argument against semi-automatic rifles that is frequently cited is that they are "weapons of war".  Another argument is that the 2nd was written when muskets were the infantryman's weapon, so everyone can have all the muskets they want.

(03-06-2018, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except the deaths aren't increasing, it's the exact opposite.  As I said earlier, gun ownership has gone up while violent crime has decreased.

(03-06-2018, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Every semi-automatic has a "rate of fire" far in excess of your line in the sand.  Maximum rate of fire is not going to be achieved by anyone actually firing the weapon.  As for bump stocks, they're a stupid range toy.  They crush your accuracy.  You can also achieve the same thing with a shoelace or belt loop.

(03-06-2018, 02:15 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I mention both as they frequently go hand in hand for anti-gun activists.  The problem with a license is that you're requiring an extra step to exercise a constitutional right.  You get the same "against" argument in this regard with voter ID laws.  Proponents state that proving your identity when you vote is common sense.  Opponents state this targets poor people, disproportionately minorities, as it requires an extra step (or barrier based on your position) to exercising a constitutional right.

Quote:Pair arrested after harassing pastor in Sutherland Springs


Two conspiracy theorists who have pushed the idea that the mass shooting at Sutherland Springs on Nov. 5 didn’t happen were arrested Monday at First Baptist Church, the site of the massacre, after the church’s pastor accused them of repeatedly harassing the community.

The Wilson County Sheriff’s Office declined to provide charging information on Robert Ussery, 54, who founded conspiracy website Side Thorn, and his partner Jodi Mann, 56, who is referred to as “Conspiracy Granny” online. The booking process was not complete Monday evening and no information would be made available until Tuesday, a supervisor there said.

Ussery “continually yelled and screamed and hollered and told me he was gonna hang me from a tree, and pee on me while I’m hanging,” said Frank Pomeroy, the pastor.


Pomeroy said he was in his car by the church when the pair approached the building, and he intervened when Mann began to write in large, loopy writing on a poster left for well-wishers to sign, “The truth shall set you free.”

The pair believe the church shooting was staged by accomplices of the government, though Pomeroy, whose 14-year-old daughter was killed there, knows better.

“He said, ‘Your daughter never even existed. Show me her birth certificate. Show me anything to say she was here,’” Pomeroy said. “I just told him there was enough evidence already visible, so if he chooses not to see that, how would I know he would believe anything else?”


Pomeroy said Ussery didn’t recognize him at first, but once he did, he started yelling at him. Meanwhile, Rod Green, a local resident and member of the congregation, called the police.

“He kept trying to bait us to do something dumb,” Pomeroy said.

The nationwide Victim Information Notification Everyday online database showed both Ussery and Mann were in custody Monday night. Wilson County Sherriff Joe Tackitt Jr. did not respond to repeated calls for comment. A sergeant at the Wilson County Jail said Tackitt told him the investigation was ongoing.

The whole time, Ussery had a camera on his chest, Pomeroy said, and Mann was also filming the interaction by his side.

The conspiracy website Side Thorn is full of homemade videos — taken from TV news reports and Ussery’s own camera — supposedly proving that the Sutherland Springs massacre, in which 26 congregants were killed, did not occur. It also claims that the tragedies at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut; the Boston Marathon and the country music concert in Las Vegas are hoaxes devised by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The website’s homepage features a photo of a United States map with the words: “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” It presents videos purporting to show Sutherland Springs residents practicing the shooting as “nothing but a staged drill.” There is audio of a victim’s family calling him and angrily demanding he leave her family alone.

The most recent post is a video of David Hogg, a student activist at the Florida high school, with the words “EXPOSED” superimposed on his forehead. The description: “100% proof of another staged drill.”

“Before talking to him today, I thought he was trying to play some angle,” Pomeroy said. “But I think he’s truly demented. I think he truly believes his own rhetoric. I can’t explain it.”

The conspiracy theorist was arrested during a White Lives Matter rally in Austin two years ago. He has a lengthy arrest history from the 1980s and 1990s for burglary, driving while intoxicated, assault and evading arrest. Online sources describe him as an Austin or Lockhart resident.

On a Sutherland Springs community Facebook page, members have been warning each other about Ussery and Mann. Some have brainstormed what they could do to get the pair to stop.

When Pomeory clambered out of his car at midday Monday, he recognized Ussery immediately and remained cool while Ussery screamed at him. When Ussery refused to leave, Pomeroy began to hope the pair would stay until deputies arrived.

“We’ve already had to deal with one person that lived in an alternate reality,” Pomeroy said, referring to Devin Kelley of New Braunfels, the 26-year-old gunman who, after killing the people in the church, killed himself.

“If it takes something happening before you get rid of these guys, then I’m just glad that this ‘something happening’ happened and nobody got hurt,” Pomeroy said. “Now let’s just pray it’s done.”

(03-07-2018, 08:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: More of the fringe element that suck the air out of the room and make meaningful conversations impossible.



Driven mad because they love their guns?  Or so mad they shouldn't have guns?