Why #foodorgasm is banned on Instagram, but #gunforsale is not

Instagram polices its community pretty hard, but not in this case.

Read the whole story

 

[Vindex]

Casey, I gotta ask you: what is "innocuous" about "17bitch"? I have to assume Instagram bans terms for which it logs a lot of complaints based on actual context, not random whims. As well as misogynistic in the extreme, 17bitch would seem at first glance to promote the grooming of underage girls, possibly for sexual abuse. I likewise expect "instagirl" is associated with cam girls, possibly for the advertising/solicitation of online pornography services or even prostitution.

 

[Faramir]

[trollhide]

Killwize[/url]":2kpof1gb]

Jousle[/url]":2kpof1gb]

Raptor[/url]":2kpof1gb]With an article that itself is a troll, what could possibly go wrong in the comments?

I am starting to understand the word troll, at least in artechnica. It means someone who says something that for whatever reason you simply do not like.

Duah! Why do you think that Ars implemented the voting system... they started hating all the people "trolling" their own articles. Read: They can't stand criticism/freethinking and stacked the deck. (When do I get to vote on actual articles?)

Apparently out of this whole clusterfuck of a comment thread the only thing the powers that be take objection to is criticism of the Holy Founding Fathers. I guess it's the whole blasphemy thing. I have it on good authority that zombie Jesus attended to the Constitutional convention. In fact, maybe he was the inspiration behind the second amendment. It seems turn the other cheek is actually a mistranslation; a better translation of the original Koine Greek is:

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, stand your ground and shoot him.

[/trollhide]

 

[carldjennings]

Here's what the Founding Fathers had to say on the 2nd Amendment:

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

 

[duffle]

Henrypinney[/url]":2w9kh4yc]

duffle[/url]":2w9kh4yc]
What's most interesting is how well coordinated gun rights advocates are in communicating their priorities. If they could get motivated to defend the fourth amendment, the NSA might be out of business.

A lot of us are quite motivated and working to defend the fourth amendment (as well as the first, fifth, and any others that may come under attack) to the same extent that we ardently defend the second amendment. I've written my share of letters/emails, made the calls, made my friends and family aware of the threat, and donated to the EFF too.

What I'm getting at is that certain people tend not to list "upholding the constitution" as a hobby or interest to the extent that they say they are interested in "firearms". Yet their personal enjoyment of owning guns is presented as a special sort of political activism which is all primarily about nationhood and rights. The response to any gun related story which could be considered even mildly critical of gun culture is invariably met with swarms of seemingly coordinated protests.

 

[slugabed]

k2000k[/url]":28vqlb72]

Nihilus[/url]":28vqlb72]

kranchammer[/url]":28vqlb72]The legal sale of guns is completely harmless and fairly well-regulated, and viewing the guns people have for sale causes nobody any offense, unlike with the sex-related tags, although I completely disagree with the dumb prudish nannyism behind the banning of those tags.

Fairly well regulated? Did I just read this article correctly?

Some states don't require a background check to buy guns, or any kind of license to sell them?!

I'd hate to see your definition of a poorly regulated system.

That is only on private sales person to person sales and does not account for dealership or sales where the firearm moves across state lines. All sales through gun dealers, who are required by Federal law to be licensed and filed with the ATF, are required, by Federal law, to submit a persons information for background check. They are to do this over the phone during the sale, and cannot issue a reciept for the purchase until they have made the call to the ATF. Moreover, depending on the state, there is a mandatory waiting period, excluding individuals who have certain permits, before they are allowed to take posession of the firearm.

If you are ever able to walk out of a gunstore with a gun the same day, or without ever having them contact the ATF in front of you, then you should contact the authorities post haste.

And what is this entire article about? Is it about licensed dealers? No, it's about person-to-person sales. And the post you're responding to is not about dealers either, it's about person-to-person sales.

I'm not surprised, though. It's the sort of answer I usually get when I ask gunners about regulations. They point at the ATF and bitch about the government and how ineffective the regulations are, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room (private sales).

 

[air805ronin]

slugabed[/url]":26afdlpp]That is only on And what is this entire article about? Is it about licensed dealers? No, it's about person-to-person sales. And the post you're responding to is not about dealers either, it's about person-to-person sales.

I'm not surprised, though. It's the sort of answer I usually get when I ask gunners about regulations. They point at the ATF and bitch about the government and how ineffective the regulations are, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room (private sales).

Actually the article was about a percieved editorial inequality regarding certain types of content vs others on Instagram, not private gun sales. You seemed to forget that while getting incensed reading comments.

Though I agree with you about private sales. I think that private sales should have to be conducted through an FFL dealer with background checks and also a local law enforcement check against a local stolen firearms list. I'm a gun owner but I'm not blind to the fact that certain things need to be fixed. That said, there are also plenty of regulation that DO cover many different kinds of firearms.

If anything it protects the person who does a private sale because if that firearm is used in a crime...I think it would be in the seller's best interest.

 

[RoninX]

Donte[/url]":34w7vppf]Everyone from the extreme right to the extreme left (both being the loudest and vitriolic voices in politics) are offended by or outright hostile towards sex and sexuality, it's one of the issues where (for example) a radical right wing Christian pastor and a radical left wing feminist would be in agreement. It's one of the best examples of horseshoe theory.

Well, yes, but some of the people in the middle of the horseshoe have more sex-positive attitudes, from libertarians to tolerant moderate-liberals to people who don't care about politics at all.

 

[k2000k]

commonperson[/url]":3g4tzp2t]

k2000k[/url]":3g4tzp2t]For the record, it should be noted that sales, including online sales, that result in a firearm being transported across state lines are required to go through a federally licensed and registered arms dealer and those dealers are required to report the sale to the ATF.

I have found that a lot of individuals who aren't into firearms think that fire arm sales are an unregulated wild west, and it isn't the case.

http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-fre ... nlicensed-

Because all those assault rifles and pistols purchased online that end up in Canada go through appropriate channels.

Right.

I'm not saying ALL people selling guns are doing so without following the appropriate channels and laws but enough are that it's a problem. The Toronto Star did an article where they bought a gun off a guy online in Ohio, there were no questions asked, not facts, nothing. Just e-mailed them, arranged the sale and bang done. (Forgive the pun it was unintended.) The reality is, while I'm sure the majority of gun owners are responsible and good owners just like any community it's the minority that are harming society. We have laws against drug use, we have laws against theft, but somehow, when it comes to guns it becomes a no go zone.

Did you ignore my entire post? I posted a link to an ATF website detailing the laws governing the sale of fire arms. There are quite a few laws on fire arms in America and depending on the state some laws are quiet strict.

You can mark the arguement that what laws America has aren't sufficent, fine, I would disagree with you but that is a point of debate. This all to often repeated claim that America has no laws concerning firearm ownership is completely untrue. You can't own a firearm if you are a felon, you can't own a firearm if you have mental illness (exceptions have been made for member of the military dealing with PTSD), you can't purchase a fire arm if you are under 18, you can't bring a firearm into certain locations, in many states it is against the law to carry a firearm while intoxicated or even carry a firearm in an establishment that serves alcohol even if you are sober, you can't own certain firearms without a very stringent license, I could go on and on.

 

[rick*d]

[trollhide]Why should they piss off people who, by their nature, are inclined to come over and shoot them? There's a very good reason why gun nuts usually get their way.[/trollhide]

 

[Donte]

mgh[/url]":11zq5alu]

msm8bball[/url]":11zq5alu]
... and I own several myself.

Isn't it crazy to have the need to own *several* guns? The definition of the word "crazy" lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Always.

I own *several* game consoles, am I crazy? I didn't want to simply stick with my Xbox 360 and got a PS3 for variety and to see what I was missing.

Similarly, I also own 3 (or *several* dun dun dunnn) guns, all for the gun range, one long rifle, one ar15, one glock, not all guns are the same, and people who like marksmanship and shooting as a hobby just might like some variety.

I don't hunt, but people who do would have an understandable need for *several* guns, you can't take a small 22 rifle you'd use on small pest animals, and then use it on big game, it's cruel and often illegal.

I think most of the problems in politics could be solved if people didn't feel the need to comment on and/or fear things they don't understand.

 

[crustytheclown]

carldjennings[/url]":2a2cv0s3]Here's what the Founding Fathers had to say on the 2nd Amendment:
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

Thanks. I don't see what is so hard about People understanding why the Founding Fathers wanted the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment to keep the Government in check. 1st Amendment is to keep religion from taking over government policies like in Europe, allow religion without government interference, and allow the press to tell the People what the Government is doing. The 2nd Amendment allows People to protect themselves and make the politicians think twice before suspending the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

[BadassSailor]

mgh[/url]":10u1omw1]

msm8bball[/url]":10u1omw1]
... and I own several myself.

Isn't it crazy to have the need to own *several* guns? The definition of the word "crazy" lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Always.

No, different tools for different uses. Pistol shooting is usually short range, hunting/long range target shooting would be rifle work, and skeet/birds require a shotgun.

Plus there is a different feel to each gun, and some preference for weight, portability, size of load, recoil, etc.

Then there are people who collect for aesthetic reasons.

 

[BadassSailor]

duffle[/url]":3t8o62ln]

Henrypinney[/url]":3t8o62ln]

duffle[/url]":3t8o62ln]
What's most interesting is how well coordinated gun rights advocates are in communicating their priorities. If they could get motivated to defend the fourth amendment, the NSA might be out of business.

A lot of us are quite motivated and working to defend the fourth amendment (as well as the first, fifth, and any others that may come under attack) to the same extent that we ardently defend the second amendment. I've written my share of letters/emails, made the calls, made my friends and family aware of the threat, and donated to the EFF too.

What I'm getting at is that certain people tend not to list "upholding the constitution" as a hobby or interest to the extent that they say they are interested in "firearms". Yet their personal enjoyment of owning guns is presented as a special sort of political activism which is all primarily about nationhood and rights. The response to any gun related story which could be considered even mildly critical of gun culture is invariably met with swarms of seemingly coordinated protests.

This is why both sides of the political football game call me names, I am equally appalled by the censorship attempts on news outlets, invasions of privacy, attempts to remove gun rights, and all other violations of every one of the bill of rights currently happening except the third amendment.

For some reason quartering troops just hasn't come up in my lifetime.

 

[BadassSailor]

slugabed[/url]":h5xb9f3p]

k2000k[/url]":h5xb9f3p]

Nihilus[/url]":h5xb9f3p]

kranchammer[/url]":h5xb9f3p]The legal sale of guns is completely harmless and fairly well-regulated, and viewing the guns people have for sale causes nobody any offense, unlike with the sex-related tags, although I completely disagree with the dumb prudish nannyism behind the banning of those tags.

Fairly well regulated? Did I just read this article correctly?

Some states don't require a background check to buy guns, or any kind of license to sell them?!

I'd hate to see your definition of a poorly regulated system.

That is only on private sales person to person sales and does not account for dealership or sales where the firearm moves across state lines. All sales through gun dealers, who are required by Federal law to be licensed and filed with the ATF, are required, by Federal law, to submit a persons information for background check. They are to do this over the phone during the sale, and cannot issue a reciept for the purchase until they have made the call to the ATF. Moreover, depending on the state, there is a mandatory waiting period, excluding individuals who have certain permits, before they are allowed to take posession of the firearm.

If you are ever able to walk out of a gunstore with a gun the same day, or without ever having them contact the ATF in front of you, then you should contact the authorities post haste.

And what is this entire article about? Is it about licensed dealers? No, it's about person-to-person sales. And the post you're responding to is not about dealers either, it's about person-to-person sales.

I'm not surprised, though. It's the sort of answer I usually get when I ask gunners about regulations. They point at the ATF and bitch about the government and how ineffective the regulations are, all the while ignoring the elephant in the room (private sales).

I have the perfect solution to private sales.

You sell a gun without doing the transfer paperwork, or don't report a gun stolen, or improperly secure it, you get to be an accessory to any felonies committed with it.

This would allow people to sell/gift to family, friends, etc, but you have to show up in court because you sold to a shady / mentally ill person, people would be a lot more diligent about transferring their weapons.

I personally would NEVER sell a gun without a transfer unless it was a gun I know for fact was never recorded sold (as in pre paperwork days, not black markety stuff)

 

[Mitlov]

BadassSailor[/url]":2cth7qxy]

mgh[/url]":2cth7qxy]

msm8bball[/url]":2cth7qxy]
... and I own several myself.

Isn't it crazy to have the need to own *several* guns? The definition of the word "crazy" lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Always.

No, different tools for different uses. Pistol shooting is usually short range, hunting/long range target shooting would be rifle work, and skeet/birds require a shotgun.

Plus there is a different feel to each gun, and some preference for weight, portability, size of load, recoil, etc.

Then there are people who collect for aesthetic reasons.

Absolutely. And then there's different uses within each category. A home-defense shotgun is going to be useless on the trap range, and vice versa. A subcompact pistol isn't what you want to be carrying while camping due to its unimpressive stopping-power and longer-range accuracy...but on the other hand, for personal defense conceal-carry, a full-size service pistol just doesn't work for most people.

I own two Sony Vaios; a desktop replacement (the Vaio F23) and a convertible tablet (the Duo 11). I don't own multiple Vaio because I have an unhealthy obsession with Sony laptops. I own multiple models because they're different tools designed for different purposes and I like using a tool that was designed for the purpose I'm using it for. This is no different.

 

[BadassSailor]

Mitlov[/url]":18np89pg]

BadassSailor[/url]":18np89pg]

mgh[/url]":18np89pg]

msm8bball[/url]":18np89pg]
... and I own several myself.

Isn't it crazy to have the need to own *several* guns? The definition of the word "crazy" lies entirely in the eye of the beholder. Always.

No, different tools for different uses. Pistol shooting is usually short range, hunting/long range target shooting would be rifle work, and skeet/birds require a shotgun.

Plus there is a different feel to each gun, and some preference for weight, portability, size of load, recoil, etc.

Then there are people who collect for aesthetic reasons.

Absolutely. And then there's different uses within each category. A home-defense shotgun is going to be useless on the trap range, and vice versa. A subcompact pistol isn't what you want to be carrying while camping due to its unimpressive stopping-power and longer-range accuracy...but on the other hand, for personal defense conceal-carry, a full-size service pistol just doesn't work for most people.

I own two Sony Vaios; a desktop replacement (the Vaio F23) and a convertible tablet (the Duo 11). I don't own multiple Vaio because I have an unhealthy obsession with Sony laptops. I own multiple models because they're different tools designed for different purposes and I like using a tool that was designed for the purpose I'm using it for. This is no different.

I honestly would love to discuss the gun issue with people who would at least take the time to understand them before spouting off about regulation.

Usually one of the first things people here will sayis : Why do you NEEED a machine gun.

You can't have a rational discussion with those people, otherwise they'd already know how rare, expensive, and regulated a class 3 weapon is. I relish the thought of a meaningful discussion without bumper sticker quotes.

 

[Donte]

BadassSailor[/url]":koxsdfkk]
Usually one of the first things people here will say is : Why do you NEEED a machine gun.

That annoys me more than anything, it's such a disingenuous thing to do.

It's like asking someone why they "NEEED" to be gay married, or why they "NEEED" video games involving violence. It's the first straw people grasp when they're having a hard time justifying a ban on something, either from having their argument picked apart piece by piece, or from outright ignorance from the start.

 

[daddysmonsters]

This article is some borderline sensationalist garbage. The usage of guns as an comparison is just asinine. And while I'm glad to see that a great deal of Ar's readers have picked up on that, it's sad to see it posted. The anti gun sentiment is pretty clear here and the author should be ashamed to have tried to use this as a pedestal for her beliefs.

 

[Shice]

Noman1000[/url]":1f4lds71]Seems rather silly to ban sexual words on such a large website. Expression shouldn't really be regulated by such measures as picking and choosing. Let the people wanting to sell whatever do that, and let the people who want to see delicious food check that out.

Reminds me of some of the reports of AOL's heavy-handed moderation back in the day, where they would suspend/sanction users for using the word "breast" in breast cancer support chat rooms.

 

[mapito]

Thoroughly dislike the idea of policing the internet and controlling what people can or can't say - how about educating people better so they dont do things like this

 

[mausium]

Henrypinney[/url]":320t9nh2]

duffle[/url]":320t9nh2]
What's most interesting is how well coordinated gun rights advocates are in communicating their priorities. If they could get motivated to defend the fourth amendment, the NSA might be out of business.

A lot of us are quite motivated and working to defend the fourth amendment (as well as the first, fifth, and any others that may come under attack) to the same extent that we ardently defend the second amendment. I've written my share of letters/emails, made the calls, made my friends and family aware of the threat, and donated to the EFF too.

I believe the point wasn't that there's zero crossover (plenty of liberals own guns as well), but that we wish that Americans were as supportive of the ACLU/EFF as they are the NRA.

 

[flargin&dingle]

I'm not going to express any opinion regarding Instagram's censoring of sex-related hashtags versus their lack of censoring firearm-related hashtags.

However, after reading this Ars article last night and the following Vice/Noisey article today, LEAN ON ME: EMOJI DEATH THREATS AND INSTAGRAM'S CODEINE KINGPIN, I have to wonder who it is within Instagram's organization that determines precisely which hashtag it is that they're enforcing a blackout on from day to day in general.

The relative synchronicity of these two articles was certainly enough to cause me to raise an eyebrow (and then finally get around to registering an account here, specifically to post this).

Spoiler

Edited for syntactical redundancy. Gotta love being a newb poster, I guess.

 

[ColdWetDog]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1b24lmvl]Wait, you mean #gunsforsale isn't just to tag photos of yourself flexing in front of a mirror?

Certainly not flexing.....

 

[nibb]

Faramir[/url]":16w89wdf]

nibb[/url]":16w89wdf]Kids do play with toy guns. I hardly think it would affect a child to see a picture of a gun as opposed to some naked adult showing its private parts or having sex. Guns do not impress kids, they see them all the time in films, kid movies, toys, etc. Sexual content will and can damage little children if they are not old enough they can be impressed for life.

How *exactly* is nudity going to damage anyone, young or old? You are aware that there are cultures where adults walk around nude or mostly nude, right?

What a screwed up culture you must live in that views human anatomy as dangerous to even look at, but thinks it is perfectly fine for children to play with simulated implements of death and destruction.

What? Nudity has nothing to do with what I said, but sex.

If you want to go on public exposing your parts to everyone, including kids, be my guest, but don´t come near me. Your rights ends where my rights start and I have the right not to expose my eyes to you or someone that things he is so sexy naked. Do your own stuff in private.

If you want to expose your kids or family to naked strangers thats your business.

 

[mausium]

nibb[/url]":3n2e0cl1]Guns do not impress kids

There's a lot of dead kids who might argue with that statement.

 

[Jousle]

msm8bball[/url]":1c61swj6]

Jousle[/url]":1c61swj6]

jxmzsr[/url]":1c61swj6]

Jousle[/url]":1c61swj6]I think guns is religion in the United States. It shows most traits of a religious cult

As does the upholding and defense of all rights under the Constitution, you know, those things people turn into a religion like thing like the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment. The Second Amendment is a right too.

That's the funny part. The US constitution is read like a bible sometimes. Furthermore, nowhere in the US constitution says that people have the right to own guns.That is, "keep and bear" is not the same to "own", not even close. Yet, some people see things that do not exist and they only see what they want to see.

The US Constitution is legally more binding than the Bible (which has no legal binding).

I've always assumed "keep and bear" is fancy speak for "own". Not sure how to interpret that any other way, unless you're implying that someone else is allowed to own the guns but we can keep them at our houses and bear them whenever we want to. Sounds silly to me.

Well, if your employer gives you a laptop for work, you can to keep it and bear it, even in your own house , but that does not mean that you own it.

A soldier keeps and bear his weapons, but those weapons are owned by the government , the state or military institution .

That is a clear, real and useful difference between "own" and "keep and bear" . Of course, that does not means that these concepts are incompatible , not at all

 

[Engelsstaub]

Jousle[/url]":91iqn6o8]

msm8bball[/url]":91iqn6o8]

Jousle[/url]":91iqn6o8]

jxmzsr[/url]":91iqn6o8]

Jousle[/url]":91iqn6o8]I think guns is religion in the United States. It shows most traits of a religious cult

As does the upholding and defense of all rights under the Constitution, you know, those things people turn into a religion like thing like the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment. The Second Amendment is a right too.

That's the funny part. The US constitution is read like a bible sometimes. Furthermore, nowhere in the US constitution says that people have the right to own guns.That is, "keep and bear" is not the same to "own", not even close. Yet, some people see things that do not exist and they only see what they want to see.

The US Constitution is legally more binding than the Bible (which has no legal binding).

I've always assumed "keep and bear" is fancy speak for "own". Not sure how to interpret that any other way, unless you're implying that someone else is allowed to own the guns but we can keep them at our houses and bear them whenever we want to. Sounds silly to me.

Well, if your employer gives you a laptop for work, you can to keep it and bear it, even in your own house , but that does not mean that you own it.

A soldier keeps and bear his weapons, but those weapons are owned by the government , the state or military institution .

That is a clear, real and useful difference between "own" and "keep and bear" . Of course, that does not means that these concepts are incompatible , not at all

What is this possessive argument about and how is it applicable to American laws and traditions? Read American history and you will find all the way back to the founders that citizens have always had a right to possess their own firearms.

It was the same in England from whence the right was given under kings (but ironically almost entirely taken away now under a "democracy." Ireland still has such rights though.) The 2nd Amendment and everything the founding fathers and State constitutions exhaustingly say to expound upon that right is derived from rights given to the subjects of the kingdom from which the US came from.

Not only does my federal constitution guarantee the right to OWN firearms but so does my state constitution. This same state, by the way as a neat little side-note, abolished the death penalty in 1851...nearly a century before any European nation did. Reading and understanding is better than ignorance, assumption, and silly arguments based on words like "owning" and "keeping."

 

[Jousle]

[trollhide]

Engelsstaub[/url]":nimiyxtf]

Jousle[/url]":nimiyxtf]

msm8bball[/url]":nimiyxtf]

Jousle[/url]":nimiyxtf]

jxmzsr[/url]":nimiyxtf]

Jousle[/url]":nimiyxtf]I think guns is religion in the United States. It shows most traits of a religious cult

As does the upholding and defense of all rights under the Constitution, you know, those things people turn into a religion like thing like the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment. The Second Amendment is a right too.

That's the funny part. The US constitution is read like a bible sometimes. Furthermore, nowhere in the US constitution says that people have the right to own guns.That is, "keep and bear" is not the same to "own", not even close. Yet, some people see things that do not exist and they only see what they want to see.

The US Constitution is legally more binding than the Bible (which has no legal binding).

I've always assumed "keep and bear" is fancy speak for "own". Not sure how to interpret that any other way, unless you're implying that someone else is allowed to own the guns but we can keep them at our houses and bear them whenever we want to. Sounds silly to me.

Well, if your employer gives you a laptop for work, you can to keep it and bear it, even in your own house , but that does not mean that you own it.

A soldier keeps and bear his weapons, but those weapons are owned by the government , the state or military institution .

That is a clear, real and useful difference between "own" and "keep and bear" . Of course, that does not means that these concepts are incompatible , not at all

What is this possessive argument about and how is it applicable to American laws and traditions? Read American history and you will find all the way back to the founders that citizens have always had a right to possess their own firearms.

It was the same in England from whence the right was given under kings (but ironically almost entirely taken away now under a "democracy." Ireland still has such rights though.) The 2nd Amendment and everything the founding fathers and State constitutions exhaustingly say to expound upon that right is derived from rights given to the subjects of the kingdom from which the US came from.

Not only does my federal constitution guarantee the right to OWN firearms but so does my state constitution. This same state, by the way as a neat little side-note, abolished the death penalty in 1851...nearly a century before any European nation did. Reading and understanding is better than ignorance, assumption, and silly arguments based on words like "owning" and "keeping."

Are you talking to me or are you just rationalizing for your inner self? Because is very clear to me what that text says, regardless of Ireland or the death penalty[/trollhide]

 

[Engelsstaub]

"...too many quotes..."

I don't think it is clear to you I think you need quotes and citations from American history. You also seem to require documents to convince you that your argument about your perceived difference between "own" and "keep and bear" is immaterial and a derailing argument based on nothing.

It is clear to me that you're reading into the text something that it "could" mean but obviously, based on all the evidence in the world, does not mean. I don't need to rationalize for myself. Laws, history, and common sense are are all the rationale needed. I'm rather trying to explain to you that your take on this is pointless without being too condescending. "Keep and bear" being opposed to "possess" in this instance has no basis in reality.

 

[jxmzsr]

WIT_IDE[/url]":24zu6fm6]

jxmzsr[/url]":24zu6fm6]

Jousle[/url]":24zu6fm6]

jxmzsr[/url]":24zu6fm6]

Jousle[/url]":24zu6fm6]I think guns is religion in the United States. It shows most traits of a religious cult

As does the upholding and defense of all rights under the Constitution, you know, those things people turn into a religion like thing like the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment. The Second Amendment is a right too.

That's the funny part. The US constitution is read like a bible sometimes. Furthermore, nowhere in the US constitution says that people have the right to own guns.That is, "keep and bear" is not the same to "own", not even close. Yet, some people see things that do not exist and they only see what they want to see.

Correct, the Second Amendment does not use the word "own", it says "keep and bear" in wording. However, the SCOTUS says that the Second Amendment protects and gives an individual right to possess and carry (as in "keep and bear") firearms (guns). More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme court expressly held that the (second) amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions limiting the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that it limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms. Justice Scalia writing for the majority in Heller stated that nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right - which, in context with the Heller decision, means the Second amendment is an individual right and in context with the Heller decision means its an individuals right to possess (ownership is possession) and carry firearms (guns) (equating "keep and bear" to possession and carry). So even though the word "own" doesn't appear in the Second Amendment wording, its there by SCOTUS interpretation and decision and in law.

If people wanted to get fancy pantsy, the argument could be made that the Constitution does not protect the right of a citizen to disseminate firearms. Your ownership and use of a firearm is protected but the sale of the same is not.

You are correct that the Second Amendment does not explicitly give Americans a right to sell a firearm. One can throw what ever semantics or different words at it they wish. Its clear there is no wording in the Second Amendment about sales of firearms. There doesn't need to be such wording in the Second Amendment because a firearm is property.

America’s founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, (collectively) through common law, state law, and the Constitution property rights are protected preserving the rights of people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property. The anti-gun faction always brings this up, firearm sales between private individuals and its a common argument that there is no second amendment right to sale a firearm, they have been bringing it up for many years. Its an argument that has also failed for many years, and the reason it fails is because a firearm is property.

The sale is not protected by the Second Amendment but instead by the rights of the people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property which is protected (collectively) through common law, state law, and the Constitution.

 

[TRANG T JACKSON]

bilbravo[/url]":3ir1pjd6]Wow this article reeks of anti-gun sentiment. Why pick on the guns and the gun sellers? Just focus on the stupid notion of banning the #foodorgasm tag. There is nothing wrong with selling guns or pictures of guns or owning guns.

there's nothing wrong with selling guns to random people on the internet without any kind of regulation?
if the gun lobby wasn't so strong to give such a niche voice so much power I might see your point, but until I can tag a photo with #potforsale or #boozeforsale we've got a double standard on our hands. i have to jump through less hoops (or more specifically no hoops) to get a gun than I do to get a motorcycle, which requires lots of forms, classes, fees, and hours at the dmv. gun owners who don't believe in sensible regulation live like gods they get whatever they want, but if someone thinks that they should have to register their gun (like they would a car) or go though a background check or competency training (like they would for a job, apartment or drivers license) then omg why is everyone picking on me? welcome to the real world that's how it is with everything.

 

[BadassSailor]

TRANG T JACKSON[/url]":v65s8pfn]

bilbravo[/url]":v65s8pfn]Wow this article reeks of anti-gun sentiment. Why pick on the guns and the gun sellers? Just focus on the stupid notion of banning the #foodorgasm tag. There is nothing wrong with selling guns or pictures of guns or owning guns.

there's nothing wrong with selling guns to random people on the internet without any kind of regulation?
if the gun lobby wasn't so strong to give such a niche voice so much power I might see your point, but until I can tag a photo with #potforsale or #boozeforsale we've got a double standard on our hands. i have to jump through less hoops (or more specifically no hoops) to get a gun than I do to get a motorcycle, which requires lots of forms, classes, fees, and hours at the dmv. gun owners who don't believe in sensible regulation live like gods they get whatever they want, but if someone thinks that they should have to register their gun (like they would a car) or go though a background check or competency training (like they would for a job, apartment or drivers license) then omg why is everyone picking on me? welcome to the real world that's how it is with everything.

You can actually buy a motorcycle off your buddy with no paperwork other than a receipt. When you apply to be able to drive it on public funded roads is when the paperwork and licensing would be involved.

Also, driving is a privilege, not a Constitutionally protected right.

Maybe learn something, THEN come back and join the convo.

 

[Mitlov]

Jousle[/url]":1zm0t6e3]Well, if your employer gives you a laptop for work, you can to keep it and bear it, even in your own house , but that does not mean that you own it.

A soldier keeps and bear his weapons, but those weapons are owned by the government , the state or military institution .

That is a clear, real and useful difference between "own" and "keep and bear" . Of course, that does not means that these concepts are incompatible , not at all

There's a part of the Constitution that describes and establishes the armed forces. There's a part of the Constitution that secures the individual rights and liberties of citizens. The Second Amendment is found in the latter, not in the former.

 

[carldjennings]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington

 

[Nihilus]

Donte[/url]":1j4h3d0j]

BadassSailor[/url]":1j4h3d0j]
Usually one of the first things people here will say is : Why do you NEEED a machine gun.

That annoys me more than anything, it's such a disingenuous thing to do.

It's like asking someone why they "NEEED" to be gay married, or why they "NEEED" video games involving violence. It's the first straw people grasp when they're having a hard time justifying a ban on something, either from having their argument picked apart piece by piece, or from outright ignorance from the start.

Or it could just be a personal dislike of intellectually dishonest arguments. Want to own guns for the hell of it? Fine. Don't want heavy regulation and don't really care if they aren't controlled? Fine.

Want to argue that guns are somehow necessary for modern day life, for personal protection or that they somehow make America a safer place to live? Or that they are heavily regulated and it's very difficult to buy a gun illegally? These aren't very solid arguments, they're usually pretty casually thrown around, and they're supposed to be accepted as fact.

At the end of the day I honestly don't think many of the anti-gun "trolls" really care that much, it's just that many people have an compulsive desire to highlight flawed arguments and misinformation.

 

[Nihilus]

DeedlitCryogenic[/url]":3pwxm8hn]

Nihilus[/url]":3pwxm8hn]I've never seen any particularly in-depth study on the statistics behind gun crime in America. Didn't the CDC stop doing them for some reason?

There are lots of good statistics. The best are probably the FBI's yearly Crime In The United States foo. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... -u.s.-2012

I just read them, after quickly chucking them into excel the most I can get out of it realistically is that 60% of homicides involve a firearm. This number is as high as 86% in one state.

There isn't really enough data for that to actually mean anything though, and it doesn't include other offences or any data that would allow us to ascertain whether or not a lack of access to firearms would have made any difference.

It also doesn't include accidental deaths, people killed in self defence or show us the number of people killed after trying to defend themselves with a firearm. (The latter likely being the most interesting)

sd4f[/url]":3pwxm8hn]
The CDC did stop, but when they were compelled under executive order this year, the media ignored the CDC's findings because it didn't push the broader anti-gun agenda. With that said, the scope of the report was limited so the report may not have all that much value.

Do you have a link to the full report? All I seem to be able to find is terribly biased editorials on it.

From them all I can surmise is that guns are used defensively as often as offensively, but I cannot see the definition of defensive use nor the mortality rate of defensive gun use. There's also something about suicides being quite common, which didn't really seem relevant.

Either way apparently Obama's plans were just to control machine guns etc.? Which seems pretty silly anyway, gun control is pretty much an all in or all out thing*. Halfway measures like this are completely pointless as they only effect edge cases.

*I also think it's something of a moot point, since implementing effective gun control in America would be outright impossible.

 

[BadassSailor]

Nihilus[/url]":vgje4wu6]

DeedlitCryogenic[/url]":vgje4wu6]

Nihilus[/url]":vgje4wu6]I've never seen any particularly in-depth study on the statistics behind gun crime in America. Didn't the CDC stop doing them for some reason?

There are lots of good statistics. The best are probably the FBI's yearly Crime In The United States foo. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... -u.s.-2012

I just read them, after quickly chucking them into excel the most I can get out of it realistically is that 60% of homicides involve a firearm. This number is as high as 86% in one state.

There isn't really enough data for that to actually mean anything though, and it doesn't include other offences or any data that would allow us to ascertain whether or not a lack of access to firearms would have made any difference.

It also doesn't include accidental deaths, people killed in self defence or show us the number of people killed after trying to defend themselves with a firearm. (The latter likely being the most interesting)

sd4f[/url]":vgje4wu6]
The CDC did stop, but when they were compelled under executive order this year, the media ignored the CDC's findings because it didn't push the broader anti-gun agenda. With that said, the scope of the report was limited so the report may not have all that much value.

Do you have a link to the full report? All I seem to be able to find is terribly biased editorials on it.

From them all I can surmise is that guns are used defensively as often as offensively, but I cannot see the definition of defensive use nor the mortality rate of defensive gun use. There's also something about suicides being quite common, which didn't really seem relevant.

Either way apparently Obama's plans were just to control machine guns etc.? Which seems pretty silly anyway, gun control is pretty much an all in or all out thing*. Halfway measures like this are completely pointless as they only effect edge cases.

*I also think it's something of a moot point, since implementing effective gun control in America would be outright impossible.

Machine guns are already controlled. Very tightly. Not only do you have to undergo a background investigation beyond criminal and mental health records (They question your references and such) that takes a year or longer sometimes, and is stipulated with the ATF being able to spot check the weapon at any time, a full automatic weapon has a market price of several thousand dollars.

As a result, people buying them, aren't doing so to commit crimes, and usually don't need to commit violent ones if they can spend tens of thousands of dollars on a toy that goes through hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition in a minute.


Obama wanted to to ban guns that LOOK scary, but are functionally the same as any other rifle out there. Even if I was against gun ownership, these symbolism over substance type of responses iritate me.

 

[Nihilus]

BadassSailor[/url]":2ieyk9x0]
As a result, people buying them, aren't doing so to commit crimes, and usually don't need to commit violent ones if they can spend tens of thousands of dollars on a toy that goes through hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition in a minute.

Obama wanted to to ban guns that LOOK scary, but are functionally the same as any other rifle out there. Even if I was against gun ownership, these symbolism over substance type of responses iritate me.

Yeah, IIRC it was the AR-15 type ones he was trying to ban, right? And extended clips or something? Seems somewhat pointless.

Sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting full on automatics weren't difficult to get a hold of, I just meant machine guns in the generic "looks like a machine gun" sense.

 

[BadassSailor]

Nihilus[/url]":38oe0cfj]

BadassSailor[/url]":38oe0cfj]
As a result, people buying them, aren't doing so to commit crimes, and usually don't need to commit violent ones if they can spend tens of thousands of dollars on a toy that goes through hundreds of dollars worth of ammunition in a minute.

Obama wanted to to ban guns that LOOK scary, but are functionally the same as any other rifle out there. Even if I was against gun ownership, these symbolism over substance type of responses iritate me.

Yeah, IIRC it was the AR-15 type ones he was trying to ban, right? And extended clips or something? Seems somewhat pointless.

Sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting full on automatics weren't difficult to get a hold of, I just meant machine guns in the generic "looks like a machine gun" sense.

Oh yeah, no offense taken, I was just trying to answer your question. But yeah, they are weapons that look like machine guns more or less. They are also not very frequently used in crimes, but banning them would basically be a big photo op, and then the manufacturer would just change the design, or somehow make new weapons that skirted the law anyway.

In reality, I would prefer we treat the issue of mental health, make stronger penalties for not properly securing your weapons, be it by making people liable for selling to someone who isn't allowed to own one, or losing their weapon and not reporting it missing, etc. But that must make me a crazy too judging by the downvotes those suggestions receive.

 

[towermac]

I saw the number of gun deaths brought up above. Often it is not mentioned, and just in case it was overlooked; most of the people (I forget the percentage) that die from being shot (not accidents), in the US anyway; were bad guys that had it coming.

Bad guys that would have otherwise raped, robbed, pillaged; whatever bad thing they were doing, that got them shot. Gather enough statistics, and sooner or later one of those would-be victims that wasn't was somebody's mom. Surely not yours or mine, but somebody's.

Just keep that in mind when you're throwing around the number of homicides. Well that, and the fact that the cops can be an hour away in a country of 350 million people.