Message from @Jack of Trades
Discord ID: 622255513593184309
Yeah, I'm not sure about the AR-15 _in particular,_ but the weapons and ammunition _most effective_ at taking life should _at least_ have _some_ regulation, is my point. I never said I necessarily agreed with Beto's policy to the letter, or even at all, just that it's not a good idea to let any wackadoodle legitimately get weapons that are _solely_ designed for taking human lives en masse. Think of it this way: it is illegal for anyone to drive a car without a license 'cuz it's dangerous if they don't know what they're doing. Well, if you want a dangerous weapon capable of killing hundreds of innocent people in mere minutes, let's make sure you have the sufficient knowledge and understanding to use it safely, as well as the lack of any desire to _deliberately_ start killing people. And if there are so many rocket launchers out there that they're cheaper than oreos for criminals, maybe trying to reduce their availability in order to at least make them more expensive on the black market isn't the worst idea in the world and is at least as worth considering at the debate table as
Also, been typing very slowly for all this time because I am multitasking. If you've been hyping this up, sorry, but you're gonna be disappointed. My point essentially boils down to this:
Your right to arms is not so absolute that debate over the most excessive weapons designed solely for war and how accessible they should be to the general public is equivalent to authoritarianism. I mean, for gods' sake, gay people's right to not be sent against their will to straight camp or trans people's right to exist are defended with less passion than any ol' wackadoodle's right to bullets that explode inside the people they hit. I _get_ that there is a debate to be had here, but my lord, people who argue in favor of restrictions you disagree with are _not_ authoritarians; that's like calling the most moderate conservative a Nazi.
@Goodwood of Dank™ Yeah I saw.
Kek.
@Hylia Why not take the ones that kill the most people overall?
Also @Hylia AR15s weren't designed for war
But good on you for trying.
Again, I don't give a fuck about the AR-15 in particular. Honestly, I agree that it's gotten a bad rap.
@Hylia "designed for war" Technology evolves. At one point, muskets were the forefront of military-grade weaponry and they barely worked half the time
I'll reply in pm since I know others will reply here
and a lot of your comments stem from again not understanding guns at all
Yeah, kind of a shitty standard. @Hylia If someone is trying to bust into my house, I am going to use overwhelming force to protect me and mine. I'm an under no obligation to do anything else and should not be obligated to.
But then again, the exploding bullets that the shooter with the AR-15 used probably aren't regulated enough themselves.
Instead of targeting the object or people en mass, why not profile for high-risk targets and apply injunctions on them instead?
@Jack of Trades Of course, but I never said you couldn't.
@Marushia Dark What, like some kind of insurance?
@Marushia Dark Because there are millions of people in the US and one psycho can kill hundreds of people.
Perhaps we discriminate based on the people most likely to shoot some people up? :3
The point of most legislation I support is to weed out the likely shooters _when they buy the guns._
@Hylia You're arguing the wrong idea. The one regarding "best designed to take human life". You clearly know fuck all about guns my friend.
An injunction is essentially what people are asking for when they propose red flag laws. But you can already do this under existing common law
@Hylia Plenty we can do. Extend the time for background checks.
Why extend the time when you can just improve the speed and quality of the check by making the lists more efficient and use better tech to streamline the data faster
@Jack of Trades No, I'm arguing the _right_ to present that argument without being compared to Stalin. People are equating me with the most strawmanned incarnations of the argument I am defending, and then either calling me an idiot, or saying I support authoritarians (latter was earlier on.) Also, this chat is moving rather fast and it's difficult to keep up.
This is a laxidazical pace, first off. And I meant the one I made @Hylia .
@Marushia Dark Sounds like a novel idea. Let's push push for that.
Well, I would argue that supporting gun control TACITLY and UNWITTINGLY supports authoritarianism as the very least. But I also try to educate people rather than ridicule them
You don't have a right to talk to me about fuck all. You've got the right to do that to the gov't 😉 But the fact that you think one kind of gun is more deadly than the other well.
@Jack of Trades Yeah, but a lot'd being said and I'm a slow typer.
And a perfectionist.
Not my problem.
Be nice, Jack. Win hearts and minds
When it comes to grammar and spelling, that is.
@Marushia Dark FUck you
***nigger***
@Hylia Watch this
I'm probably the only person on this server who can unironically ask this: "Did you just assume my race?"
More Guns = Less Crimes
@Marushia Dark I don't care if you're a blonde aryan. I'd call you a nigger regardless.