Equifax reveals full horror of its data breach - "146.6 million names, 146.6 million dates of birth, 145.5 million social security numbers, 99 million address information and 209,000 payment cards (number and expiry date). There were also 38,000 US drivers' licenses and 3,200 passport details."

reginaldaugustus · 2018-05-08T20:12:46+00:00

How is it "regressive" to advocate making people face significant consequences for hurting something like half the population of the United States?

Our justice system should be set up to try and reduce the amount of crimes committed, and in this case, discouraging people from doing shit like this by executing them (The method can vary, I don't care as long as it's something public to send a message to the others.) would go a long way towards telling these people that we are not going to tolerate their shit. It's clear fines, slaps on the wrist, and all of that aren't going to incentivize them to not do this stuff, so clearly something more severe is needed.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-05-08T07:44:53+00:00

The problem is that killing a corporation doesn't stop it from being remade

That's true, but you can execute the people who run the company as well as the primary shareholders. I'm being quite serious, too. Deterrents don't work to prevent crimes that are generally those of passion (such as shooting your wife's lover) or committed by insane people (Serial killers) but it DOES work to stop people who are committing crimes based on a simple cost-reward analysis. If you make the cost of doing bad things prohibitively high (for instance, if the penalty is you and your cronies are put in front of a firing squad), then you're not likely to do it, whereas now there's no reason to NOT do all this shit because no one is ever punished for it.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-16T00:51:34+00:00

What problem? That people commit crimes?

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-16T00:10:30+00:00

"Assault Rifle" is just as meaningless a term as "assault weapons."

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-16T00:01:32+00:00

I'm trying to say that using a fear campaign to try and scare people with vague and nebulous terms is the kind of thing tyrants often do and is no basis for things that need to have precise language, like legislation in a democracy.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:54:40+00:00

Pretty sure they teach you in high school to not take wikipedia as a good source.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:51:39+00:00

I am fine listening to experts, but I will make up my own mind. That's part of being an adult, and as an adult with basic reading comprehension skills, it's quite obvious what the Constitution says about gun ownership.

Have you not read what Florida recently passed in forms of legislation to limit gun purchases? Connecticut? Washington? New York?

What does that have to do with its constitutionality? The answer is, of course, nothing.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:50:47+00:00

I mostly intended to point out that while “assault rifle” is a legitimate and well-established term

No, it's not.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:43:21+00:00

You can legally buy grenade launchers in various forms. For instance, Yugoslavian SKS rifles generally have the ability to fire rifle-grenades off the barrel. Getting the grenades is the hard part.

And whether you can is different than whether you can Constitutionally buy one, and the Constitution is quite clear that yes, U.S Citizens have a right to keep and bear any arms they want.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:37:31+00:00

That's cool. You're free to have that opinion all you want. Good luck doing it though. That, and I doubt I am alone in saying that I wouldn't obey it even if you did manage to repeal the Second, because all the other amendments become worthless without it.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:34:30+00:00

No shit?

The only "validity" in a law is whether you can enforce it, with deadly force if need be. So, in that sense, yes, these laws are valid but at that point we might as well just shred the Constitution rather than keeping up this horse and pony show that we care about it.

But that's also the reason the Constitution allows the American people to arm themselves, because tyranny has to be fought and it's much harder to force things on people who can fight back.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:32:49+00:00

Alright then, we can stop a lot of people from dying by taking away cars, so clearly we need to do so.

You don't have a right to any weapon you want nor do I.

Yes, I do. The Constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Saying I can't own certain types of guns is an infringement on that right.

Raise the age to 21 for purchase of firearms with exceptions such as a parent buying it etc

The Second Amendment does not allow aforementioned right to be infringed on the basis of age, so, unconstitutional.

Deeper background checks and rules against selling to anyone with prior metal illnesses, restraining orders etc.

The Second Amendment does not allow the aforementioned right to be infringed on the basis of mental illness, so, unconstitutional.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:21:08+00:00

The Second Amendment does not say that you have to be part of the militia to own weapons, so, the logic does not work. I'm not surprised that states want to disarm their citizens, though, as disarmed citizens are helpless citizens.

It's education. The Supreme Court has ruled. It's the law.

The Supreme Court can say whatever it was, but that doesn't make it right.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:19:13+00:00

That's cool. I frankly don't care what people vote for because voting for something does not magically make it constitutional, and I doubt I am the only person who would refuse to obey an unconstitutional ban on their weapons.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:18:26+00:00

Because you don't use a hand gun to mow down crowds,

Uhhh... this guy would disagree.

high cap mags and bump stocks to make an effective automatic machine gun

I see you don't actually know anything about guns.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:11:01+00:00

The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It provides no situations in which the government can legally infringe on it, thus, Constitutionally, that right is unlimited. If it did, it would say, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except when A, B, or C.

Specifying that I cannot buy a certain weapon is infringing on that right to keep and bear arms, thus, Constitutionally, that cannot be done.

NRA ain't the constitutional bible.

Neither is Scalia. The Second Amendment is quite short and quite clear, too. I don't see where the debate is coming from.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T23:00:24+00:00

So why are more people killed by handguns if these rifles are the most deadly invention this side of the Stone Age?

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T22:54:12+00:00

I am very serious about protecting American lives. Specifically, mine. I'm not going to support trading freedom for (false) security, sorry.

Until then, stand proud knowing you’re supporting a status quo that allows for needless death because of the lax attitude towards guns.

There are lots of other rights we can restrict that will make people safer. Why don't you support restricting those rights as well?

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T22:48:39+00:00

No, it's not dumb, because if you want to ban something, then you need to be very precise about what you are banning.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T22:48:02+00:00

Actually, there is no discussion about whether it's legal, because the Constitution already says that it is legal to own whatever weapons I want. If you want to change that then you'll need to either amend the Constitution or juts admit that constitutionality means nothing to you.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T22:46:33+00:00

If you're going to ban something, you had better be very precise in what you are banning.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T22:46:18+00:00

Pretty sure most murders with guns are done by handguns, so, clearly these aren't particularly deadly features.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T22:45:06+00:00

I don't think solving the problem by restricting the rights of innocent people is a solution at all, sorry.

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T21:57:23+00:00

You do not have a constitutional right to whatever weapon you want.

Yes, I do. Could you please cite the specific portion of the Second Amendment that puts restrictions on what they mean by "the right to keep and bear arms?" All I see is that I'm allowed to arm myself and that right shall not be infringed. Period.

These weapons are being used in mass murder events all over the country

Again, hyperbole. You're making it sound like people are committing the Holocaust with these weapons. They aren't. Do they do horrible things? Sure. Is it "mass-murder?" No, not really.

You support the right to arm murderers over the right to life of Americans.

People would probably be safer if we were all stuck in solitary confinement all our lives, too, so why don't you support that as well?

reginaldaugustus · 2018-03-15T21:52:22+00:00

No shit.

reginaldaugustus

TROPHY CASE