patrick.net

Dan8267 says

We should be honest and simply revoke the Second Amendment, replacing it with an amendment that a popular run-off election chooses. The candidate amendments should range from letting citizens possess any weapon including nukes to not letting citizens possess any weapon including guns, crossbows, and daggers. There should be many choices along this spectrum of possibilities, and the public should have a year to debate the issue before the election. Each voter should rank the choices from first to last, and the replacement for the Second Amendment should be the winner of an instant run-off of the popular vote. No state boundaries should be taken into consideration. And every citizen over 18 should be allowed to vote, no exceptions.

Revoking the 2nd amendment would not prevent citizens from owning arms anymore than banning illegal substances would prevent people from gaining access to drugs.

Dan8267 says

I sincerely doubt that people in rural areas care more about their families than people in urban areas do. If this were the case, people in rural areas would be fighting against pollution at least as much as those in urban areas.

As for race, I'm sure when there are no minorities in your community, it's not an issue. That empirically has changed whenever the first black family moved in.

However, I will grant you that conservative leftists frequently race-bait for political gain. It's disguising. Nonetheless, my point stands. Don't tell me the police in Iowa aren't going to handle the situations of a white man walking down main avenue with an AK-47 exactly the same as when a black man does the same. Not even close.

Furthermore, if the Second Amendment actually applied, or even if the idea that a well-armed society was safer applied, then the cops should never stop a person for merely walking around with an AK-47. But that's not reality in our country, not even close.

I'm not saying people in rural communities "care more" as in they love family more than city dwellers, but they do spend more time with their families and working closely with them than your average city dweller. I'm not saying one is better, or not, it's just the reality of rural vs urban living.

As for "race", it's just something I find city dwellers tend to talk about more. It literally never comes up where I'm at now. I'm a serbian with a Taiwanese wife. If race were an issue, I would have noticed by now. :)

I'm not sure how police in Iowa would handle a white or black guy walking down a main street with a long gun slung across their back. My guess is that both situations would seem out of place as any purpose for carrying a loaded military style long gun down main street seems dubious at best. I will say hunters who are carrying slung rifles do not get hassled in my area, even when they are walking around in stores (buying supplies, etc) regardless of their race. A lot of the hunters here are hispanic, not just white.

Heraclitusstudent says

Ah, so you just fend off hordes of troglodytes that would eat your cattle?

Coyotes.

Goran_K says

Coyotes.

Yeah for coyotes, you need a war weapon.

Goran_K says

Revoking the 2nd amendment would not prevent citizens from owning arms anymore than banning illegal substances would prevent people from gaining access to drugs.

Nor does making murder and rape illegal prevent all such crimes from happening. Does that mean murder and rape should be legally protected rights? There is no sense in that argument.

However, empirically banning guns has resulted in a far lower civilian death rate. Australia proves this beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. You may want to have guns, and you may argue that your desire to have guns should outweigh public safety, but you do not get to argue that the public is safer with guns being easily available to those without criminal history. That argument is factually wrong. It's not an opinion. It's not a value judgement. It is simply incorrect, and empirical evidence proves that.

If empirical evidence proved that a well-armed society was safer than a disarmed one, I would be compelled to believe that. You are being held to the exact same standard. Empirical evidence proves something you don't want to be true. Accept it, or anything you say will be automatically discarded. One cannot accept any statement from a source that disregards reality.

Goran_K says

I'm not saying people in rural communities "care more", but they do spend more time with their families and working closely with them than your average city dweller.

Really? On what do you base that statement?

Goran_K says

As for "race", it's just something I find city dwellers tend to talk about more.

Naturally. City dwellers also talk about skyscrapers more because there are more skyscrapers in cities than in rural towns. The fact is that cities have to deal with race issues simply because there's more than two black people per square mile. That does not make city dwellers more racist. History has shown that small towns deal with race whenever there are minorities around. They just deal with it by burning crosses and lynching people. OK, maybe they can't get away with that anymore, but only because city dwellers put a stop to that nonsense.

The fact is that race will only stop being discussed when people completely stop caring about it. I'm already there. If everyone were like me, race and gender and sexual orientation would not be at all discussed outside of scientific inquiry because they are irrelevant. But clearly, that's not the case for the conservative left or the conservative right.

I don't give a rat's ass if a person is gay, transgender, black, a chimpanzee, an extra-territorial, an A.I., or a A.I.-human hybrid. I'd treat all the same. A sentient being is a sentient being. Physical form is irrelevant to the mind, and in the future, I suspect that minds will be digitized and could readily swap bodies. Yesterday I was a bird, but today I'm going to be a submarine. Yes, that should be possible. A body is just a peripheral, no different from a network printer.

Goran_K says

I'm not sure how police in Iowa would handle a white or black guy walking down a main street with a long gun slung across their back.

They might question both, but they will only surround and shoot one while wearing swat body armor. Clearly, in today's America, the two identical situations would be handled vastly differently. That's just a cold, hard fact, not a value judgement. Being non-racist does not mean ignoring the fact that racism still exists.

And yes, there is also racism against whites, especially white men, and that's absolutely wrong too. Affirmative Action is a prime example. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah for coyotes, you need a war weapon.

War is an action, not an object.

Dan8267 says

However, empirically banning guns has resulted in a far lower civilian death rate. Australia proves this beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

I'm not sure it does. Mexico has effectively banned private firearms ownership (there is only one gun shop in the country), and gun violence has flourished there. Israel and Sweden actually require that their citizens own assault rifles and they both have very low gun violence rates. Vermont (Bernie Sanders land) has some of the loosest gun laws in the country (you can own automatic weapons, supressors, short barreled rifles, etc) and is Top 3 in LEAST gun violence out of all 50 states.

So it's not as cut and dry as you're trying to paint it here IMO.

Dan8267 says

Naturally. City dwellers also talk about skyscrapers more because there are more skyscrapers in cities than in rural towns. The fact is that cities have to deal with race issues simply because there's more than two black people per square mile. That does not make city dwellers more racist. History has shown that small towns deal with race whenever there are minorities around. They just deal with it by burning crosses and lynching people. OK, maybe they can't get away with that anymore, but only because city dwellers put a stop to that nonsense.

The fact is that race will only stop being discussed when people completely stop caring about it. I'm already there. If everyone were like me, race and gender and sexual orientation would not be at all discussed outside of scientific inquiry because they are irrelevant. But clearly, that's not the case for the conservative left or the conservative right.

Like I said, being bi-racial, and having a wife who is not white, I'm sure I should have noticed the racism you think is prevalent in rural communities. So far on that front, it's been non-existent as an issue.

Dan8267 says

They might question both, but they will only surround and shoot one while wearing swat body armor.

Like I said, I think you city guys are super sensitive about race. I just don't see it through statistics that blacks die at the hands of police MORE than whites. In fact the opposite seems true according to the numbers reported by the FBI (more whites die at the hands of police shootings than blacks by a huge margin).

Goran_K says

I'm not sure it does. Mexico has effectively banned private firearms ownership (there is only one gun shop in the country), and gun violence has flourished there.

Is the United States of America more like Australia or Mexico? Be honest.

If we are going to use historical evidence, it should be the evidence most applicable to the U.S. I did not cherry pick Australia. It is highly representative of the United States in exquisite detail including how the conservative and liberal politics works. However, you did cherry pick Mexico, a society so different from the U.S. that half the U.S. population wants to build a wall along the border with it. We don't want to build a wall along the Canadian border, another country with strict gun control and no mass shootings. Nor would we want to build a wall if Australia were the country along our southern border. So, let's stay honest.

Like it or not, gun control has been proven to work. So if you are going to argue that if the U.S. banned guns, it would become like Mexico or Nazi Germany, then you automatically lose. Anyone with common sense knows the Australian example is the accurate test case. So if you want to convince me or the audience that we still should allow guns, you must demonstrated
1. That you grasp reality by acknowledging the fact that public safety is actually harmed by gun rights.
2. You have compelling reason why we should accept that loss of safety for the sake of the liberty of owning guns.

There are many times that a society is better of being free than safe. You have to make that case with guns. Making the case that we're safer with guns is so obviously wrong that you only kill your own credibility by doing so. It's a losing argument.

Goran_K says

Like I said, being bi-racial, and having a wife who is not white, I'm sure I should have noticed the racism you think is prevalent in rural communities. So far on that front, it's been non-existent as an issue.

You do realize that anecdotal evidence means nothing in contrast to statistics and historical evidence? There have been numerous voter ID laws that the courts declared to be intentionally racist and targeting minority voters with "surgical precision". Such laws are proof positive of racism, even if that racism is motivated entirely by greed and self-serving political interests.

Goran_K says

Like I said, I think you city guys are super sensitive about race.

Certainly the conservative left does race bait. Clearly, I do not.

A lot of political correctness is bullshit virtue signally, but that does not mean that racism isn't systematic in policing and the court system. Math doesn't lie, and the math shows. Blacks and whites use pot at close to the same rate, but blacks are 10 times more likely to be arrested for it. There's statistically significant and then there's statistically what the fuck?

I believe in math. When the math says racism is dead, I'll believe racism is dead. And I'll be glad to never have to talk about it again.

ermont (Bernie Sanders land) has some of the loosest gun laws in the country (you can own automatic weapons, supressors, short barreled rifles, etc) and is Top 3 in LEAST gun violence out of all 50 states.

-----------

Have you ever been to Vermont?

Context is always important

Goran_K says

Anyone else here into guns or own firearms

Yup, will be picking up my first handgun shortly - Glock-19

I'm looking to sell a gun, can any of you gun nuts offer advice for fetching top dollar?

Not certain the year off the top of my head, but it's an older Ithaca Gentlemans skeet shotgun

Yes, I've been to Chicago. Had a lot of fun there. Mainly North side, Lincoln Park. Caught the Chisox playing in Wrigley. Had the free zoo pretty much all to ourselves (how neat is that). We felt safe.

Have you been?

errc says

I'm looking to sell a gun, can any of you gun nuts offer advice for fetching top dollar?

Not certain the year off the top of my head, but it's an older Ithaca Gentlemans skeet shotgun

Like this

http://www.armslist.com/posts/1638502/rochester-new-york-shotguns-for-sale--ithaca-nid-16-gauge-double-barrel-shotgun

Ironman says

BayArea says

Yup, will be picking up my first handgun shortly - Glock-19

You haven't picked up that new toy yet??

Almost there! Should have it soon. Pretty excited!

Then I'll be looking for you to recommend a nice 12gauge for me as the follow-up toy.

Goran_K says

It leads me to believe that some racial sensitivity may be the invention of those who profit from selling race as a product.

Yes, absolutely.

Personally, I think the extreme obsession the mainstream media has with race is deliberately funded and pushed by the powers that be, so that we are divided and unable to challenge them about where all the money went:

Of course there are specific groups which literally profit directly from the media's obsession with race, like BLM, but I don't think they are the real power behind it.

Dan8267 says

f we are going to use historical evidence, it should be the evidence most applicable to the U.S. I did not cherry pick Australia. It is highly representative of the United States in exquisite detail including how the conservative and liberal politics works. However, you did cherry pick Mexico, a society so different from the U.S. that half the U.S. population wants to build a wall along the border with it. We don't want to build a wall along the Canadian border, another country with strict gun control and no mass shootings. Nor would we want to build a wall if Australia were the country along our southern border. So, let's stay honest.

I brought up Vermont, Israel, and Sweden as well. But I guess you chose not to mention those because it didn't fit your narrative?Dan8267 says

You do realize that anecdotal evidence means nothing in contrast to statistics and historical evidence? There have been numerous voter ID laws that the courts declared to be intentionally racist and targeting minority voters with "surgical precision". Such laws are proof positive of racism, even if that racism is motivated entirely by greed and self-serving political interests.

Which voter ID laws? How are voter ID laws "racist"?

Dan8267 says

A lot of political correctness is bullshit virtue signally, but that does not mean that racism isn't systematic in policing and the court system. Math doesn't lie, and the math shows. Blacks and whites use pot at close to the same rate, but blacks are 10 times more likely to be arrested for it. There's statistically significant and then there's statistically what the fuck?

I don't usually click WaPO articles but I did this time just to see what you were referencing and I wasn't disappointed. It doesn't say that blacks are arrested while whites let go for crimes involving marijuana, it simply says blacks are arrested more for marijuana crime. Why is this important? It's dishonest wordplay. What if blacks are simply committing more drug crime? Unless you can show that whites are being "let go" for the same crime and blacks are not, that article is simply saying blacks commit more drug related crime, which is of course more likely IMO than whites being let go for the same crime.

errc says

Have you ever been to Vermont?

Context is always important

What's the context? What's your point?

BayArea says

Goran_K says

Anyone else here into guns or own firearms

Yup, will be picking up my first handgun shortly - Glock-19

Good pick. :)

rando says

Yes, absolutely.

Personally, I think the extreme obsession the mainstream media has with race is deliberately funded and pushed by the powers that be, so that we are divided and unable to challenge them about where all the money went:

I used to be much further left leaning in my younger years. I used to assume racism was just inherent, what a lot of people call "institutional racism". Then I started looking around for all the racist white KKK/Nazi members who were out there looking for "colored people" blood. I began to find out through reading crime statistics, and just observing the world, that those people don't exist. They are an invented bogeyman. The KKK is irrelevant in Western society, they have a membership of less than 5,000 members. The Nazi party is in much the same position, too small and irrelevent to be noteworthy.

So why then is MSM flooded with editorialized content about racial victimization? I came to the conclusion that someone is benefiting or profiting from purposefully dividing people on ethnic and racial lines.

Goran_K says

Anyone else here into guns or own firearms?

Nice AK.
Just bought my first handgun a couple of months ago and I'm getting inherited shotgun restored. Next gun will be rifle but need a bigger safe first.

Ironman says

Slacker.... anything under 10K is a lightweight.

I'm just starting out. Though I'm sure I could use more. Better to have and not need than to not have and need.

Goran_K says

errc says

Have you ever been to Vermont?

Context is always important

What's the context? What's your point?

ermont (Bernie Sanders land) has some of the loosest gun laws in the country (you can own automatic weapons, supressors, short barreled rifles, etc) and is Top 3 in LEAST gun violence out of all 50 states.

-----------

You're comparing Vermont to the other 49 states. Having been to many different states, I know first hand that Vermont is unique, and comparing gun violence in Vermont to Chicago, is worthless.

Have you ever been to Vermont?

What is it with a certain type of interwebs poster, that they ask many questions, yet never extend the courtesy of answering them in return when asked? Is it that they lack any social intelligence or communication skills? Or are they just disingenuous as hell when pretending to want to engage in discussion?

errc says

You're comparing Vermont to the other 49 states. Having been to many different states, I know first hand that Vermont is unique, and comparing gun violence in Vermont to Chicago, is worthless.

Have you ever been to Vermont?

What is it with a certain type of interwebs poster, that they ask many questions, yet never extend the courtesy of answering them in return when asked? Is it that they lack any social intelligence or communication skills? Or are they just disingenuous as hell when pretending to want to engage in discussion?

I have a 20+ year career of working for various large financial institutions including Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, among others. I've been to every state in the Union besides Alaska (which I will be visiting for the first time in June/July), Wyoming, and North Dakota. So yes, I do have experience with different states, and the frequent flyer miles to prove it. I also happen to live in low density, rural area where gun laws are relaxed just like Vermont.

So what is the context of your question? What point are you trying to make?

That Using Vermont in an attempt to compare Gun Violence with the other 49 States in the Union, is apples and oranges

How about comparing it to these cities. What do you notice

I notice that you cannot glean anything from comparing Vermont gun crime statistics to any of those Large cities.

The entire state of Vermont probably has less population than a city like Baltimore

That's what I mean by context

errc says

That Using Vermont in an attempt to compare Gun Violence with the other 49 States in the Union, is apples and oranges

There are other states in the United States that also have very low gun violence and loose gun laws such as Iowa (very loose gun laws, ranked Top 10 safest for gun crime per capita), South Dakota, and Nevada where I now live. Do they fall into the apples or oranges category?

errc says

How about comparing it to these cities. What do you notice

I notice that you cannot glean anything from comparing Vermont gun crime statistics to any of those Large cities.

The entire state of Vermont probably has less population than a city like Baltimore

That's what I mean by context

So your point was that places with lower population density experience less crime?

I wouldn't disagree with that, I'm not sure why it took you so many post to actually state that.

Goran_K says

The only prohibited places are what you would expect (post office, federal buildings, etc).

Just read the 2nd Amendment,again. Didn't find this infringement.

HEY YOU says

Just read the 2nd Amendment,again. Didn't find this infringement.

I suppose it could be considered an infringement. There are a lot of laws on the books that could be considered constitutional overreach.

Dan8267 says

Canadian border, another country with strict gun control and no mass shootings.

"Notable mass shootings in Canada include the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, the 1992 Concordia University massacre, the 2014 Edmonton killings and the 2017 Quebec City mosque shooting."

Fail!

Ironman says

Let's get back to a more important topic instead of debating with these anti-2A knuckleheads..

So, what's next on your wish list after the AK?

A nice bolt action custom build probably. I want to get into long distance target shooting.

Goran_K says

I don't usually click WaPO articles but I did this time just to see what you were referencing and I wasn't disappointed. It doesn't say that blacks are arrested while whites let go for crimes involving marijuana, it simply says blacks are arrested more for marijuana crime. Why is this important? It's dishonest wordplay. What if blacks are simply committing more drug crime? Unless you can show that whites are being "let go" for the same crime and blacks are not, that article is simply saying blacks commit more drug related crime, which is of course more likely IMO than whites being let go for the same crime.

If you don't like WaPO, I can reference dozens of other newspapers and reports that say the exact same thing. And no, it's not that cops are "letting go" whites, it's that they aren't even targeting whites while they do blacks. There is no dishonesty here on the part of the article, but let me get another source... actually, I'll let Adam handle this one. He's already done the leg work.

If you think the War on Drugs isn't about racism, then watch this.

www.youtube.com/embed/sXPOw2unxy0

You cannot honestly say that the War on Drugs has nothing to do with racism, even if the racism is just a means to an end, rigging elections by preventing citizens from voting.

The thing about history is that it's well documented. It's not hard to prove historical facts.

Goran_K says

A nice bolt action custom build probably. I want to get into long distance target shooting.

Isn't the AK the wrong platform for that?

Dan8267 says

it's that they aren't even targeting whites while they do blacks.

The article you pasted doesn't present much evidence to prove that claim.

rpanic01 says

Isn't the AK the wrong platform for that?

Yeah that's why I want a nice bolt action rifle. Maybe a Tikka T3.

Wow nice

Goran_K says

The article you pasted doesn't present much evidence to prove that claim.

There were numerous references quoted by Adam. And if you need more, here's what to do. Do I really have to spoon feed you everything?

Dan8267 says

Australia proves this beyond any doubt,

Little known fact- Australia has more guns now than before the "ban". The million guns destroyed after the Port Arthur shooting have all been replaced. Lower capacity firearms but more guns nevertheless.

Robert Sproul says

Little known fact- Australia has more guns now than before the "ban".

Yes, that fact is so little known, it merits evidence.

Dan8267 says

Robert Sproul says

Little known fact- Australia has more guns now than before the "ban".

Yes, that fact is so little known, it merits evidence.

"Australia has more privately owned guns than before the Port Arthur massacre that led to the introduction of strict gun control laws, University of Sydney researchers say."
"Associate Professor Philip Alpers from the University of Sydney said "the million guns destroyed after Port Arthur have been replaced with 1,026,000 new ones".
"By 2015 the arms trade had broken all previous records, and last financial year Australia ported 104,000 firearms,"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360