| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Emergerd, paperwerk! :p
I mean, I think it's great. I think it will help keep the rural, white folk mad at gun controllers as elitist, petty-bourgeois yuppie douchebags and it'll make it less likely that Congress will ever pass any gun control legislation. Hopefully long enough for us to use our AR-15s to overthrow capitalism.
Forgive me for finding this ironic, but I think the last thing you're going to want when your radical socialist army begins its righteous work is for the country's poor, rural, white gun nuts to be armed with AR-15s.
Well, his assumption is that they will rise up with him, not against him.
|
How much of the United States' annual meat consumption is derived from animal products shot and killed by hunters, do you think?
I don't know, do you?
A quick google search doesn't reveal much, but I did get this:
Given that the United States' annual meat consumption is upwards of 83 billion pounds, I think the country would somehow manage to weather that particular loss. That donated, hunted meat barely accounts for three one-thousandths of one percent (0.003%) of what we eat each year.
Mind you, donations are wonderful and fighting hunger is a worthy cause. But I'm not going to let Andrew_R pretend that the ability to hunt game is somehow vital to our survival, or that it comes anywhere close to justifying unrestricted ownership of firearms.
No the constitution justifies it. Hunting is not vital to YOUR survival. Some would not get enough to eat without it. but since no harm comes to you by screwing over others so be it eh?
Ya know, I hang around with a LOT of very dedicated hunters; first in Carolina, then in Texas (in a big way), and now in Pennsylvania. Of the thousands of loving tales of stalking and eating animals -- birds, deer, wild hogs, coyotes, bear -- not one of them involved the use of an AR-15, not even the chic little "Sporter carbine" model.
People like AR-15s because they're essentially the old ArmaLite military weapon, albeit resold by Colt (in fact, I seem to recall that's what the "AR" stands for; the M16 is more or less a select-fire AR-15), and it makes a certain class of humans feel more manly and powerful to shoot them off.
|
|
Ya know, I hang around with a LOT of very dedicated hunters; first in Carolina, then in Texas (in a big way), and now in Pennsylvania. Of the thousands of loving tales of stalking and eating animals -- birds, deer, wild hogs, coyotes, bear -- not one of them involved the use of an AR-15, not even the chic little "Sporter carbine" model.
People like AR-15s because they're essentially the old ArmaLite military weapon, albeit resold by Colt (in fact, I seem to recall that's what the "AR" stands for; the M16 is more or less a select-fire AR-15), and it makes a certain class of humans feel more manly and powerful to shoot them off.
True they are unnecessary, there is an identical gun that is not the "scary black gun" the name escapes me right now but they are popular for hunting and farm protection.
High accuracy, ammo count and dependability make them popular, it is far more than some macho image.
|
Ya know, I hang around with a LOT of very dedicated hunters; first in Carolina, then in Texas (in a big way), and now in Pennsylvania. Of the thousands of loving tales of stalking and eating animals -- birds, deer, wild hogs, coyotes, bear -- not one of them involved the use of an AR-15, not even the chic little "Sporter carbine" model.
Anecdotal...
Remington's R-15 VTR is an extremely popular HUNTING rifle. The platform grows in popularity as a legitimate hunting rifle year by year, despite those who look down their long noses in contempt.
People like AR-15s because they're essentially the old ArmaLite military weapon, albeit resold by Colt (in fact, I seem to recall that's what the "AR" stands for; the M16 is more or less a select-fire AR-15), and it makes a certain class of humans feel more manly and powerful to shoot them off.
AR does stand for "Armalite Rifle", and they did sell their design to Colt. But now, Colt is no longer the sole manufacturer of AR platform rifles...
The M-16/M-4 is a different animal altogether than an AR-15 however. While they look similar, this similarity is cosmetic only; the receivers are vastly different from one another; you simply cannot fit an M-16 auto-sear (the part that makes the M-16 full-auto) into an AR-15 for instance...
And while I suppose there are some knuckle-draggers out there that get all moist simply because they own an AR-15, the truth of the matter for most owners, is that the platform is highly accurate, rugged, dependable and extremely adaptable, which makes for a great all-purpose rifle.
|
|
Nah, the idea that guns are about feeling macho is just a liberal lie.
Right, and Old Spice and Axe ads/commercials are not advertising to the lowest common denominator either, are they? No, not at all... Not even a little bit...
I think we all know there is very little truth in advertising. And that advertisers love to, how should I say this... Stretch the truth.
Permits? Stamped books?! What is this, a dictatorship?!?Yet how many of these that demand such to hunt or own a gun make no issue of ID less or non-citizen voters
I don't know? How many?
ID less or non-citizen voters is acceptable somewhere in the world?
If gun deaths were only 10,000 times worse than voter impersonation, I would consider that a victory as it would be a 75% decline from the current ration of 40,000:1
Number of gun deaths since 2000: 399,444
Number of cases of in person voter fraud since 2000: 10
One of those cases, a son used his father's name to vote. Another, the man received duplicate paperwork and thought he had to vote in both locations for it to count.
No one has ever identified an election that was changed by in person voter fraud. There is literally zero effect on our society.
He' repeating a right wing talking point...
Gotcha, tin foil stuff based on supposition, hearsay, and a mate of a mate read on the internet.
Down here in Australia we have a mandatory vote, and you must provide your ID at your local registered polling place - not voting leaves you liable for a fine. If you can't make it to your voting booth then you can post a vote (absentee vote) etc.
We also lack a national id card, so yes it is still required that you produce some kind of identification generated from a government source (drivers licence etc) however our social security agencies provide a lot of id cards, so the poor have no hassle getting some sort of id.
I think its funny how the people who keep screaming about 'Freedom' in the US seem to be in favour of slowly taking it away from others.
|
|
Permits? Stamped books?! What is this, a dictatorship?!?Yet how many of these that demand such to hunt or own a gun make no issue of ID less or non-citizen votersI don't know? How many?
ID less or non-citizen voters is acceptable somewhere in the world?
The US doesn't have any kind of national ID card, like much of the rest of the developed world. Most people use driver's licenses as a substitute, since it's the only common government issued photo id.
Some form of ID is required for voting in most states, but most have not required photo id. My state will accept:Social security card
Any other preprinted form of identification which shows the elector's name and either the elector's address, signature or photographThe last couple of election cycles there has been a big push by Republicans to pass laws requiring photo ids to vote. Bear in mind also that almost all laws on elections or voting are on the state level, even for federal elections.
The argument is that such laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud - people coming to the polls and voting as someone else, including non-citizens. The reality is that there is little evidence of that happening and none on a scale large enough to swing elections.
The problem with such laws is that the people least likely to already have driver's licenses, the default photo id, are poor and minority urban folks, who just by coincidence happen to lean towards voting Democratic. The provisions for providing alternate forms of id for those who don't have and/or can't get driver's licenses have generally been inadequate.It's also worth remembering the Jim Crow voting restrictions when thinking about the effects of this on minorities. They're still within living memory.
Of course, the same groups pushing for voter ids tend to be strongly opposed to any kind of National ID, which would seem to be the simplest solution rather than piggybacking on driver's...
How is it that they can manage to get to the polls but going to the secretary of state is too damn hard for them? At least here in MI a state ID is easy and cheap to get. there is no excuse
|
|
Down here in Australia we have a mandatory vote, and you must provide your ID at your local registered polling place - not voting leaves you liable for a fine. If you can't make it to your voting booth then you can post a vote (absentee vote) etc.
We also lack a national id card, so yes it is still required that you produce some kind of identification generated from a government source (drivers licence etc) however our social security agencies provide a lot of id cards, so the poor have no hassle getting some sort of id.
I think its funny how the people who keep screaming about 'Freedom' in the US seem to be in favour of slowly taking it away from others.
Here in america having to get an ID is a burden we could never force on people. at least not to vote. But for many other things including surprise, the constitutionally protected right to arms, they can force it all they want. If they have to have ID to prove who they are and not a felon the dems will lose some votes so they prefer it as loose and criminal friendly as can be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it that they can manage to get to the polls but going to the secretary of state is too damn hard for them? At least here in MI a state ID is easy and cheap to get. there is no excuse
I hear they have trouble getting to the polls as well when the Republicans try to curtail hours and shut down polling sites in their neighborhoods.
Here in america having to get an ID is a burden we could never force on people.
Mate, this is the 21st century, everyone should have ID. Even some Kenyans I hang out with who couldn't turn on a computer have ID.
America is supposed to be an advanced first world nation, I've been there several times and am convinced the rep is well earned, I am certain that the citizens can manage the concept of ID.
"You can't make us register our guns, you might make a list and confiscate them... but you can register our children."
..and registered children then have the benefits of state funded education, health care, welfare safety nets, vaccination and immunisation, the ability to be employed... the list goes on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
..and registered children then have the benefits of state funded education, health care, welfare safety nets, vaccination and immunisation, the ability to be employed... the list goes on.
Some conservatives in this country (US) would prefer we also do away with all of those things as well.
|
Needing an ID to buy a gun or to vote is fine with me (and in two states it was easy to get one [AZ was harder but that was because I was a non resident soldier and thus didn't have sufficient proof of residence, still got one though])
I agree with needing an ID to vote because you are doing something that severely affects the community at large, as in millions of people, a gun is a personal thing for my personal freetime (or job in some cases) and even mass shootings don't have the grand effect that elections do.
And while I agree with a background check to make sure you haven't done something stupid to have your rights revoked, if you pass it then you should be free to get what gun you like.
Guns are part of the world now, learning to live with them is wise, trying to hide away from them is foolish. The more you hide from them the more effective they become for neferious deeds, which increases your desire to hide, and the circle continues, but it also works in reverse, the better you learn them the less fear you have and the less your desire to hide from them. Actually this self reinforcing loop effect, affects most things people do.
Guns are part of the world now, learning to live with them is wise, trying to hide away from them is foolish.
Sounds like a quote from the bad old days of the frontiers, or some bright spark pointing out to his Daimyo that the samurai culture has ended, or the Aztecs having a chat with conquistadors.
Good to see you are championing such enlightened times.
No the constitution justifies it.
The Constitution doesn't justify anything. Rather, something must be duly justified for it to be enshrined as a right in the Constitution. It isn't justified by virtue of appearing in the Constitution. It appears in the Constitution by virtue of being justified.
This is really basic, really important stuff. The Constitution is not holy writ.
Right, and Old Spice and Axe ads/commercials are not advertising to the lowest common denominator either, are they? No, not at all... Not even a little bit...
Can we not pretend that deodorant and firearms are argumentatively interchangeable? Thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, and Old Spice and Axe ads/commercials are not advertising to the lowest common denominator either, are they? No, not at all... Not even a little bit...Can we not pretend that deodorant and firearms are argumentatively interchangeable? Thanks.
Can we agree that to advertising companies the products don't actually matter? Thanks.
Can we not pretend that deodorant and firearms are argumentatively interchangeable? Thanks.Yeah, because that was so totally my point... Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways sensei.
Your point was that gun companies and deodorant companies are both companies, and therefore market to the "lowest common denominator" (which is a pretentious way of saying "their market"), and that therefore we shouldn't take the thrust of that advertising messages (that guns and machismo are inextricably linked) seriously. Except that it actually is important that gun companies try to link their product to manliness, because that mentality has translated very successfully to adoption by a huge segment of the gun-loving population. Guns really are seen as emblematic of masculinity by a ton of gun owners. And this is problematic, because it means that rather than treating guns with responsibility, guns are treated as extensions of what it means to be a man (to these people) - impulsive, quick to anger, willing to resort to violence, lacking empathy or a willingness to understand.
So what happens when a deodorant company successfully makes people believe that their product will get them laid? A few bros make fools out of themselves.
What happens when a gun company successfully makes people believe that their product makes them more manly? People get shot.
So, again, don't pretend (and that is what you were doing) that a deodorant company pushing an agenda and a gun company pushing an agenda are argumentatively identical.
As far as 3D printers go, we can expect them to drasticly drop in price over the next year or so.
Currently, there is a kickstarter for a $350 printer that claims to fair well against the makerbot used to make one of the guns upthread.