[LyndsySimon]

> First: giving up on the idea of militias rising against the federal government. If it ever became necessary, and if the military stayed on the government side, well, we're getting really good at taking out resistance from the safety and comfort of a control room hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the action. Some dudes with camo and rifles aren't gonna cut it. And if the military doesn't stay on the government side, well, the arms are gonna be available. So that one's right out, and I'd argue for repealing the Second Amendment entirely to make it crystal-clear. > Then: registered and tracked ownership of firearms, sale and possession heavily taxed along with tax on ammunition, no sales permitted without full strict documented background check, immediate confiscation after any incident indicating unfitness to own, mandatory requirements for secure unloaded storage at all times the gun is not in use, ownership limited to well-defined types of firearms, ownership solely for the purpose of collectibility/historical value or for sport, use restricted to areas explicitly designated for such purposes. No open carry, no concealed carry, and anyone who wants a gun for the purpose of shooting other people (and self-defense is "for the purpose of shooting other people") automatically forbidden to ever have one.

... and you have the unmitigated gall to claim that those of us on the other side of this issue are "all or nothing".

[hga]

> well, we're getting really good at taking out resistance from the safety and comfort of a control room hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the action.

He seems to be unaware that those people have to go home to sleep when they're off their shift.

The US has never fought a war without a secure rear (well, eventually the Confederates found themselves in that situation, and they of course lost). It won't go well if this comes to past, and [censored by dang], but I really don't see the military any time soon, even in the middle of their Fundamental Transformation, lining up on the side of those who hate them with a burning passion. Especially the front line trigger pullers, which, of course, does not exactly include the drone operators.

If that transformation continues and succeeds, they'll be so much less a threat they'll probably only play a minor role, whatever side they take.

[ubernostrum]

... and you have the unmitigated gall to claim that those of us on the other side of this issue are "all or nothing".

What I propose still allows people to own and use guns for the things they enjoy owning/using guns for, while going after the problem usages. It's not a complete ban, and in spirit it's similar to how gun control actually works in some countries. What's "all or nothing" about that?

[schismsubv]

When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do), the magnanimity of your offer must appear blinding. Imagine, gun users would not only be allowed to use guns freely within Your Sovereign Will, they would even be able to use them without active supervision! Granted, "active supervision" doesn't mean there won't be range officers enforcing the law stipulating an automatic 3 years in solitary for shooting more than one round every 18.3 seconds, but we're compromising here. I mean, hell - prisoners get free air and are still alive right? What more could they want, we have to compromise!

Your proposal is a wild fantasy with as much grounding in reality as "Dear Hustler" stories. I'll even be so bold as to assert you likely haven't even read the relevant regulations from the countries you allege you're borrowing your "spirit" from; I have. I must admit you have certainly turned quite an epic troll here.

Still looking forward to reading your exploration of the causative link between gun control and reduced crime rates in free countries.

[ubernostrum]

How is allowing hunting/sports/collecting while imposing incredibly harsh penalties on other uses of guns "zero gun usage"? What important use -- other than killing your fellow human beings -- for your guns is not provided for under what I proposed?

(it really does seem like your objection is "I'd no longer be allowed to own a gun for the purpose of killing other people", and my objection, of course, is that this isn't already illegal)

[schismsubv]

Do try to keep up. I said "When coming from the assumption that zero gun usage is acceptable (as you do)...", not that you espouse zero gun usage. Whether you've explicitly stated so or not, it is quite apparent that your internal center on the matter of firearms is "zero", as in you feel you are being generous by allowing that _any_ use is acceptable. Hence, imposing incredibly harsh terms on legal use apparently feels rational to you.

Here's a thought exercise for you - return to your car analogy and apply all the same rules you insist on for firearms to freedom of movement. The Constitution doesn't even guarantee freedom of movement explicitly, so you can wipe away that mess without even repealing an amendment, just overturn some old cases. Stipulate the same taxation and registration (even for private land use), revocation of use upon even considering moving to another state, and so on. Our founding fathers could have never imagined the network of interstates we have today. Unless you're saying your car analogy doesn't work.

Still looking forward to reading your exploration of the causative link between gun control and reduced crime rates in free countries.

[ubernostrum]

I've handled and fired guns. I'm not opposed to their existence. I am opposed to them being used to kill people.

So, again: why is allowing sports/hunting/collecting but harshly penalizing the violent-crime aspect not a useful compromise?

[LyndsySimon]

You have in this thread defined "violent crime" as "self defense".

[schismsubv]

At this point (indeed, long ago) your behavior has simply become illustrative of how to poorly carry out an argument, much less a constructive conversation. In an amusing irony, your behavior is an extreme parody of the exact inflexibility you claim to be so incensed about. You are lost in a childish authoritarian fantasy, and I regret that for you.

I expect this is casting pearls before swine, but your proposal is not simply harsh on violent crime as you so boldly attempt to claim. What you allege is a compromise does not allow non-criminal uses of firearms without imposing harsh penalties on those uses. Your proposal is as radical as someone on the other end of the firearm use spectrum insisting that individuals found guilty of not having shot a criminal in the past 30 days are guilty of "being soft on crime", which carries a penalty of lifetime (or at least 50 years') imprisonment.

Your proposal remains a wild, masturbatory fantasy with cherry-picked examples from pop culture knowledge of other countries' gun control laws without even understanding them and their actual implementations. Further to that point, you also still have yet to even explain why your proposal is anything but an amusingly dismal attempt at parroting a tired, predictable talking point about how gun control in "other countries" works. Disappointingly, that was abandoned the moment I showed actual working knowledge in that space.

Go ahead, let's see what random single phrase you decide to object to out of this large set. We've already abandoned a large part of the conversation behind us, you're just amusing at this point.

[LyndsySimon]

I own and use guns for self-protection. Your "proposal" is that I not have access to guns. That's the very definition of "all or nothing".

[ubernostrum]

No, you own and use guns for the purpose of killing people. If that's what floats your boat, then I can't change your mind (and it'd probably be wise for me not to -- after all, you're the sort of person who shoots people!).

[LyndsySimon]

I see we've fallen to the level of personal attacks. Pity.