site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   3691 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for September 30, 2022

Be advised; this thread is not for serious in depth discussion of weighty topics, this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I would post this in my town's subreddit but anything to the right of Bernie/AOC is down voted to oblivion.

During the election this fall, Oregonians will be presented with ballot measure 114.

A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to:

  • require permits issued by local law enforcement to buy a firearm;
  • require photo ID, fingerprints, safety training, criminal background check, and fee payment to apply for a permit; and
  • prohibit manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, possessing, using, or transferring ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds and make violations a class A misdemeanor.

Signatures were collected for this immediately after the Uvalde shooting.

I find this measure rather offensively misguided. I don't own a gun, though if I needed one it would probably be because I'm feeling very threatened. The last thing I want to deal with in those circumstances is a hulking and dumb nanny state demanding that I prove competency to their standards and can impress upon local police that I deserve to have one.

This law is misguided because it actually would have failed to stop the Uvalde shooter from getting a gun unless it was so overly broad that the police had discretion to deny anyone for any reason.

I'm not sure how its proponents expect this to work, unless they would deny him simply on the basis of appearing obviously poor, Hispanic and not fitting in at school?

The people advancing this law almost certainly believe, e.g. that the police implement systemized racism but that black people should be allowed to own guns. What makes them think police won't blanket deny guns to all black people, then?

Additionally, I think people who support these laws are genuinely failing to understand that guns are the only thing that reliably prevent the rest of us from being at the mercy of the strongest and most dangerous people.

There has been a noticeable rise in home intrusions in this town lately where women awaken to deranged men in their houses. Usually they're homeless meth addicts who are distracted enough by the woman waking up and screaming at them that they leave. But there was a case recently where a woman had acid thrown on her, then again where she woke up to the same guy setting her on fire. The police treated her like she was crazy and making it up until the media elevated the story.

If my daughter lived alone I would 100% want her to have a loaded handgun by her bedside. It seems outrageous that she'd have to prove to the police that she's worthy of keeping this gun, when the people breaking into houses don't have to meet any such standards.

Again, I don't own a gun, but the last thing I want to do, in the society we live in, where police take 20 minutes to respond (they didn't used to, they stopped responding quickly after 2020 for some reason) is make it more difficult for law abiding people to arm themselves.

Is this too "boo outgroup"? I feel like these are strong racial justice and feminist arguments for not making it difficult to get and keep handguns.

"getting a gun unless it was so overly broad that the police had discretion to deny anyone for any reason."

There's your answer. Selective enforcement.

Post in your town's sub and organize a bunch of your friends to brigade it. They win on- and off-line by enforcing the appearance of consensus and conformity.

I'm just wondering how this proposed law doesn't run afoul of the second amendment. As far as I'm aware, the argument for existing gun control measures (w.r.t the second amendment) is that they aren't really making it so you can't own a firearm, they simply make it harder to obtain certain types or introduce hoops to jump through. I don't really agree with that argument, but that's my understanding. This measure, though, would make it so some people (however small a group) straight up cannot have a firearm, period.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm missing some nuance. But a law which makes it so some people cannot own a firearm legally sure seems like it will get struck down on second amendment grounds.

Edit: I didn't notice what thread I was in at first, I think you want to post this in the culture war thread and not the fun thread.

Felons cant own guns.

Oh whoops I'm dumb. Will move this when I'm not on mobile.

This is an interesting topic but I don't think it belongs in the Friday Fun Thread (but it definitely belongs in the next Culture War Roundup).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats