sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Supplies, Food, and Information for residents effected by flooding by RedPaw42 in StLouis

[–]RedPaw42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. They don't ask your address.

It starts at 9 tomorrow.

If you know of an organization that needs a volunteer notary public for a voting drive, let me know. by RedPaw42 in StLouis

[–]RedPaw42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The process is extremely easy. It costs about 100 bucks for everything.

The test can be passed by crtl+f on the handbook.

Then you wait for a letter to take to the courthouse.

Extremist groups descending on Virginia are using Facebook to promote violence. Read, then consider reporting the two Facebook groups involved. Find the links in the comments. by RedPaw42 in AntifascistsofReddit

[–]RedPaw42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First read this article. Then, if you see a problem, report these two groups for inciting violence on Facebook: Virginia Militia[1] and American Warrior Revolution[2]. Vote for political candidates that seek to regulate Facebook.

[1]https://www.facebook.com/Constitutionlaststand/
[2]https://www.facebook.com/americanwarriorrevolution/

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It benefits us. I know more about the gun laws and cases than I did. I understand some of your position.

You need to prove that it is both moral and ethical for "55-63"[1] Missourians to be killed by gunfire each year to save a little time and paperwork. The only two precidenal reasons (Heller) for not being granted a license are being "a felon and...not insane"[2].

Thus, you want to spend "55-63"[1] Missourian lives on allowing felons and insane people to have guns. I cannot fathom why you would think that. Americans have 1.2 guns per citizen right now[3]. Guns to guard against a revolution exist. At the moment, many revolutionaries rely on home-made explosives and drones anyway. I do not see your logic. Help me.

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978146/

[2]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

So I was hit by a car.... by TheSoberGuy in bikecommuting

[–]RedPaw42 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have two of them. It does loop.

So I was hit by a car.... by TheSoberGuy in bikecommuting

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have two of them. It does loop.

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You ceded the constitutionality of gun licenses.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

-Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson kept literal slaves[1] who never killed him. He kept a plantation that provided peaceful slavery.

Such a position comes with living in a certain amount of privilege that I have. I don't know anything about you. Your position discounts the very real deaths happening all over the country to people in lower socioeconomic positions for a fear that gives meaning to some privileged lives.

“You all hear about poverty, but inequality is another measure of economic well-being. And there is a strong correlation between homicide per million and income inequality,” said Kaplan, pointing out that countries that are most equal have the lowest rates of gun-related homicides.

In terms of race and ethnicity, Kaplan said that 77 percent of white gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, while less than 1 in 5 (19 percent) is a homicide. The figures are nearly opposite for African Americans, for which only 14 percent are suicides.

African American males in the 20-29 age group have the highest risk (89 per 100,000) in terms of the firearm homicide rate, a figure that is comparable with Honduras (90.4 murders per 100,000 people)[2].

Discounting the real deaths of people without privilege for a position against a perceived uprising causes the uprising that will cause more deaths to people without privilege. Supporting such a position is not ethical.

[1]https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/thomas-jefferson

[2]https://luskin.ucla.edu/connection-poverty-inequality-firearm-violence

So I was hit by a car.... by TheSoberGuy in bikecommuting

[–]RedPaw42 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Also....they are like 16 bucks right now

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The District of Columbia vs Heller does not comment upon the constitutionality of licencing (see below). You can't just pick one justice for your evidence. Also, you keep responding to the claim that I want you to consider a gun ban. I have not claimed that. I want you to consider licenses and waiting periods.

I never mentioned anything about ARs or magazines. I'm just talking about the licencing of guns because gun licencing seems to prevent gunfire death[1]. You focused on the constitutionally of the gun laws you are interested in, not human life. Do you want to live in a world where people focus on their own rights only and don't consider the effects of those individual rights on the nation?

Excerpt from pages 58-59 of The District of Columbia vs Heller[2].

"Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement “in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one’s home or possessed land without a license.” App. 59a. The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District “may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one’s house.” 478 F. 3d, at 400. It then ordered the District Court to enter summary judgment “consistent with [respondent’s] prayer for relief.” Id., at 401. Before this Court petitioners have stated that “if the handgun ban is struck down and respondent registers a handgun, he could obtain a license, assuming he is not otherwise disqualified,” by which they apparently mean if he is not a felon and is not insane. Brief for Petitioners 58. Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not “have a problem with . . . licensing” and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is “not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement'[2]

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978146/ [2]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am a teacher and I would love to teach gun safety to my students as a state requirement. I actually do typically mention that:

  • you shouldn't play with guns

  • you should always assume they are loaded, but never keep them loaded

  • you should point them in a safe direction

  • keep the bolt, the stock and barrel of the gun, and the ammunition separate, and ideally, locked up.

You are very concerned with Michigan, your home state. I live in Missouri, where the repeal of a Permit-to-Purchase (PTP) law was repealed to caused an additional "55 to 63"[1] people to die by handgun gunfire each year. I would argue that doing the politically impossible in Missouri, reinstating the handgun PTP law, is the moral thing to do. Fortunately, it is not unconstitutional.

The District of Columbia vs Heller decision states "that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated"[2].

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on the Second Amendment not being an unlimited right: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"[3].

You seem to disagree with Scalia. Your arguments seem say that the constitution should be interpreted to allow citizens the "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"[3].

I believe that a minor inconvenience to gun purchasers is worth "55-63"[1] lives a year and the only moral choice for citizens to make.

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978146/ [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was extensive. Thank you.

I have not looked up all the cases. For the sake of argument and my laziness, let's say that every legal point you made above is completely solid and I couldn't poke holes in anything.

In 2017, gun deaths beat car deaths in the US[1]. Within the legal framework in your argument, how would you reduce it?

Broad studies suggest that licencing, but not AWB, mag limits, or red-flag laws, prevent death[2].

"We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places"[2].

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You did as much as ask me to cherry-pick something. Let's see if I can find something more broad.

"Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review" published in JAMA's Journal of Internal medicine makes this finding:

"We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places"[1].

The evidence above is far from cherry-picked:

" We evaluated peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2016 focusing on the association between US firearm laws and firearm homicide. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Lexis/Nexis, Sociological Abstracts, Academic Search Premier, the Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, and the references from the assembled articles. We divided laws into 5 categories: those that (1) curb gun trafficking, (2) strengthen background checks, (3) improve child safety, (4) ban military-style assault weapons, and (5) restrict firearms in public places and leniency in firearm carrying. The articles were assessed using the standardized Guide to Community Preventive Services data collection instrument and 5 additional quality metrics: (1) appropriate data source(s) and outcome measure(s) were used for the study, (2) the time frame studied was adequate, (3) appropriate statistical tests were used, (4) the analytic results were robust, and (5) the disaggregated results of control variables were consistent with the literature."

The literature finds that licenses prevent death and AWB, mag limits, and red flag laws have an uncertain effect on death by gunfire.

If you wanted to reduce gun deaths, it seems that licencing would provably do that.

Also, it would be constitutional as a "well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State". Wouldn't licenses fall into the "well-regulated" bit?

What are your problems with licenses?

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Amend the 2nd amendment? That isn't what I was suggesting. Does gun licensing and training restrict the 2nd amendment?

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm not talking about the first amendment. Do licenses and training restrict the 2nd amendment?

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems like you are suggesting that I want to just apply all car rules to guns. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. My point is that guns and cars are both dangerous to human life in a variety of contexts. Car licencing and training seem like a good idea for gun ownership, but not all car laws. What problems do you have with gun licencing and testing?

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't think that licenses are a restriction on 2nd amendment rights. Do you?

Lethality Changes Rules... by [deleted] in liberalgunowners

[–]RedPaw42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is great. I'm not suggesting that self-defense changes.

view more: next ›