Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Solkern]

So, are you in support of a Constitutional amendment that would revoke the 2nd Amendment?

Nope.

Go through the steps with us to make this happen in the US.

Should be fun.

How I “think” a hypothetical situation would be is pointless. All I’m saying is it is possible to stop illegal gun purchases and imports. Many other countries, both larger and smaller have done it. So it could be done in the US.

[Methais]

I’m not saying it’s legal or illegal, morally correct or not. Not stating we should or shouldn’t do it. Just stating, that it can be done. And to say it can’t be done is stupid.

Do you ever take an actual stance on anything though?

[Solkern]

Sure, I’m pro abortion and pro gun.

[Suppressed Poet]

While I concur, it still doesn’t change the fact, that stopping the illegal purchase and import of guns, can be done. To claim that can’t be done, is just nonsense.

No, this is not me supporting the banning of guns in any way. Just disputing a claim another poster made.

As a collector of AK rifles and being familiar with 922R and the various laws concerning the importation of firearms, I know something about that subject. The President actually has executive authority to ban the importation of firearms. We did that to China back in 1989 with executive action from Papa Bush after Tiananmen Square. No more Norincos or cheap Chinese ammo imports. We did it to Russia with Obama when they invaded Crimea. No more Saigas or Molot Veprs. Biden ordered the halt of Russian ammo importation not long after he took office, so one day soon all that Wol / Tula / Brown Bear / Golden Tiger cheap ammo will all be gone. You know what is really fucked up about imported firearms?

They are subject to laws which say we only import guns for sporting purposes so things like AKs coke to us only accepting single stack (low capacity) magazines, fixed thumb hole stocks with no pistol grips, no muzzle devices, etc. Once they arrive on our shores though, it’s perfectly legal to convert them to proper form (semiautomatic only though) with all the proper furniture & mill out the mag well to accept standard capacity magazines as long as you use the right number of US m made parts. All this is to say, our importation laws on firearms are ass-backwards.

Anyways…I’d say even if (and to be clear you know I’m a staunch supporter of 2A and this would never happen) you banned the sale of all guns, what are you going to do about the 465 estimated million firearms already in the hands of US civilians? Door to door confiscation? -Won’t happen because of active resistance and people would get hurt. In Australia where they did ban guns, very few turned them in. The flood gates of guns in this country has already happened. You can’t effectively reduce the supply in our country.

[Solkern]

Anyways…I’d say even if (and to be clear you know I’m a staunch supporter of 2A and this would never happen) you banned the sale of all guns, what are you going to do about the 465 estimated million firearms already in the hands of US civilians? Door to door confiscation? -Won’t happen because of active resistance and people would get hurt. In Australia where they did ban guns, very few turned them in. The flood gates of guns in this country has already happened. You can’t effectively reduce the supply in our country.

I already clarified this. What I was talking about has nothing to do with confiscation, banning all guns, or reducing the supply. I simply stated it’s possible to ban gun imports into the states. That’s it. That’s setting aside the legal ramifications and what not. The original poster said it’s impossible to ban gun imports and went on to reference drugs as his supporting argument. I simply refuted his claim.

[Parkbandit]

How I “think” a hypothetical situation would be is pointless. All I’m saying is it is possible to stop illegal gun purchases and imports. Many other countries, both larger and smaller have done it. So it could be done in the US.

So you don't know the steps that would be required.

I would like to say I'm shocked.. but I'm not.

[Shaps]

I’m not saying it’s legal or illegal, morally correct or not. Not stating we should or shouldn’t do it. Just stating, that it can be done. And to say it can’t be done is stupid.

It can't be done... and I'll give you four examples.

People say stop illegal immigration - can't be done (or the populous is not willing to do what is necessary to stop it).
People say stop drug dealing/distribution - can't be done (or the populous is not willing to do what would actually be required)
People say stop slavery - can't be done (there are currently more "slaves" in the modern world than at any time in our history)
People say stop human trafficking - can't be done (it's a horrific, yet thriving billion dollar business)
You say stop importing guns - See all the above

And you want to claim stopping gun running is viable?

Your argument is a fallacy, because you're ignoring the "human element" involved in making such a process occur. This is why certain ideologies always fail (ie. fascism, socialism, etc.) - because the "concept" is feasible - but the "reality" is not possible, or leads to an even worse outcome if implemented.


Side Note: Thought just made me chuckle, but you know a TV show that perfectly encapsulated the above concept? Star Trek. Even though there was the Prime Directive - a noble idea - it was still subject to human implementation... and we all know how that works out. There are thousands of other examples, especially in literature/philosophy/etc... but the Star Trek example I found amusing for a modern reference point.

[Seran]

It can't be done... and I'll give you four examples.

People say stop illegal immigration - can't be done (or the populous is not willing to do what is necessary to stop it).
People say stop drug dealing/distribution - can't be done (or the populous is not willing to do what would actually be required)
People say stop slavery - can't be done (there are currently more "slaves" in the modern world than at any time in our history)
People say stop human trafficking - can't be done (it's a horrific, yet thriving billion dollar business)
You say stop importing guns - See all the above

And you want to claim stopping gun running is viable?

Your argument is a fallacy, because you're ignoring the "human element" involved in making such a process occur. This is why certain ideologies always fail (ie. fascism, socialism, etc.) - because the "concept" is feasible - but the "reality" is not possible, or leads to an even worse outcome if implemented.


Side Note: Thought just made me chuckle, but you know a TV show that perfectly encapsulated the above concept? Star Trek. Even though there was the Prime Directive - a noble idea - it was still subject to human implementation... and we all know how that works out. There are thousands of other examples, especially in literature/philosophy/etc... but the Star Trek example I found amusing for a modern reference point.

Being unwilling and being unable are two completely separate issues and I'm glad you see that firearms are something we completely can stop the illegal trafficking of, however gun owners and advocates are unwilling to give up the testosterone effect of high caliber/high rate of fire pew pews.

[Methais]

Being unwilling and being unable are two completely separate issues.

This is correct. For example, it's not that you're unable to get a job despite your incredible retardedness, it's just that you're unwilling.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Being unwilling and being unable are two completely separate issues and I'm glad you see that firearms are something we completely can stop the illegal trafficking of, however gun owners and advocates are unwilling to give up the testosterone effect of high caliber/high rate of fire pew pews.

Again, projecting. Stop assuming the worst of people and you might actually have an argument worth reading.