The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

I didn't expect you to admit the purpose of the 2nd was to maintain a a pool of armed men from which to draw slave patrols, but yes.

More of an armed pool of men to defend against foreign invasion, which was still a very real threat considering the British Empire didn't really give up on the idea of reclaiming the American colonies until after the War of 1812.

I find this a poor argument to support the continuation of keeping the 2nd since the government went ahead and raised a large standing national military.

Doesn't mean we'll always have one. We aren't going to be on top forever and the day may yet come when a Red Dawn scenario may occur.
 
You talking about just the US or worldwide? Because worldwide, violence against the government actually has a great track record. Especially if you can turn it into a protracted guerilla war that forces the government to adopt ever more brutal methods to stop you. This turn both public and international opinion against said government and will either force them to change, or will cause the rest of the world to intervene on your behalf.

Armed uprising have had great success at achieving their aims over the course of history. Even when they are defeated on the battlefield, the legacy of the uprising usually includes at least some of the changes its leaders wanted to see. And if it doesn't, it usually inspires further uprisings until the desired changes are brought about.
I was just thinking the US. Globally, you could also include the French and Soviet revolutions and the Chinese Civil War as successful overthrows of the government. The Taliban have achieved a lot in Afghanistan, and the Provisional IRA would probably say that the "Armalite and ballot-box strategy" wouldn't have worked without the Armalites. The Warsaw Uprising didn't go so well. I guess it's too soon to judge the Syrian Civil War, except that it's been going for 8 years now and Assad doesn't appear to be going anywhere yet.
 
"Protecting against the tyranny of government" didn't really work when it comes to some easily determined metrics. Freedom from slavery happened later than many other places with the same Common Law. Women's suffrage didn't happen appreciably earlier.

There's no real principled argument saying "it's better when a government has a monopoly on force", it's an empirical question. You look at test cases and compare who's got the best outcome based on which altered input.
 
"Protecting against the tyranny of government" didn't really work when it comes to some easily determined metrics. Freedom from slavery happened later than many other places with the same Common Law. Women's suffrage didn't happen appreciably earlier.

You are forgetting that the view of what is or is not tyranny changes over time. Why would there be an armed uprising for women's suffrage, for example, if the people of the time didn't see women not being able to vote as a form of tyranny? So while you and I certainly see that as tyranny sitting here in 2019, we might not have seen it as such back in 1819.
 
Why would there be an armed uprising for women's suffrage, for example, if the people of the time didn't see women not being able to vote as a form of tyranny? So while you and I certainly see that as tyranny sitting here in 2019, we might not have seen it as such back in 1819.

That's a fair point. My point is that it didn't appreciably help. When we retrospective the Commonwealth and compare that to the United States, it's hard to figure out where the 2nd Amendment was used to appreciably shift the dial compared to the peers.
 
That's a fair point. My point is that it didn't appreciably help. When we retrospective the Commonwealth and compare that to the United States, it's hard to figure out where the 2nd Amendment was used to appreciably shift the dial compared to the peers.

Well that's because the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a safeguard. Safeguards are supposed to be a "just in case" measure, which means they don't get used that often, if at all. Clearly, we have not seen fit to put that safeguard into action yet.

Plus, the lack of use of a particular right is not really a justification for getting rid of that right. I mean, if everyone all of a sudden turned into an atheist that doesn't mean we should get rid of the right to freedom of worship. A more realistic example would be the 3rd Amendment. Do you think we should get rid of the right to not have soldiers forcibly quartered in our homes just because the government hasn't ever shown a tendency to violate that right?
 
I think it's very fair to try to defend existing rights. But the 'goodness' of a right has to be defended against the harm it causes. That's why the discussion happens.

I'm not suggesting that the 2A be altered because it's not been useful (though it appears to not have been). I'm suggested it be altered because people abusing it are causing unnecessary gun deaths.

I'm not even really 'suggesting' it be altered, it's not really my business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rah
Accuses me of being disingenuous then proceeds to be disingenuous by calling a 30 round magazine (the typical magazine used by mass shooters) "high capacity". 30 round magazines are standard capacity, anything above that is high capacity.

Also, it's not disingenuous to use our government's own definition of mass shootings. What is disingenuous is to narrow things down to a specific type of mass shooting in order to advance a narrative.

Going by our government's definition, rifles are actually used in comparatively few mass shootings.

I also find it very weird for people like you who constantly rant on and on about how corrupt the government is to turn around and advocate for policies that would give that same corrupt government a monopoly on deadly force. Please explain to me how you justify this contradiction in your head?

Things are relative. I’d consider anything over the standard revolver high capacity actually. So while my idea would give handguns a pass their 7-9 round clips would be high capacity in this law as well.

It’s disingenous to use the FBI stat on mass murder because it’s not what I’m trying to fix with this regulation. There are real reasons I’m choosing this as my target on both sides of the compromise. Most of those mass shootings the FBI lists are with people who know each other too. Family murders, gang wars and such. This regulation would try to stop the mass indiscriminate killings that take place tooo frequently almost always with a high capacity rifle. It also allows you to keep said rifle and allows gun ranges and such to keep high capacity magazines for their use. It’s a fudging hobby gun for God’s sake. It shouldn’t be the cause of such murder and mayhem. Not to mention none of this touches handguns for home defense, or hunting rifles or shotguns.

If you actually need for boar hunting or something it is not a big deal to register the clip usage to a gun range so their is a paper trail on who has the clips.
 
Well that's because the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a safeguard. Safeguards are supposed to be a "just in case" measure, which means they don't get used that often, if at all. Clearly, we have not seen fit to put that safeguard into action yet.

Plus, the lack of use of a particular right is not really a justification for getting rid of that right. I mean, if everyone all of a sudden turned into an atheist that doesn't mean we should get rid of the right to freedom of worship. A more realistic example would be the 3rd Amendment. Do you think we should get rid of the right to not have soldiers forcibly quartered in our homes just because the government hasn't ever shown a tendency to violate that right?
Actually, yes, in the event of a new Constitutional Convention, I'd absolutely want to get rid of the 3rd Amendment and replace it with a broader right to privacy. It's not urgent, though. As you say, it just doesn't come up. The religion clause of the 1st Amendment is in dire need of a rewrite, although the problem we have today isn't really that the 1st Amendment is hard to understand, it's that many Americans simply don't believe in the principles of freedom of religion or the separation of church and state, so just making the 1st Amendment clearer might not address the issue - it isn't that they don't understand it, it's that they disagree with it.
 
Actually, yes, in the event of a new Constitutional Convention, I'd absolutely want to get rid of the 3rd Amendment and replace it with a broader right to privacy. It's not urgent, though. As you say, it just doesn't come up. The religion clause of the 1st Amendment is in dire need of a rewrite, although the problem we have today isn't really that the 1st Amendment is hard to understand, it's that many Americans simply don't believe in the principles of freedom of religion or the separation of church and state, so just making the 1st Amendment clearer might not address the issue - it isn't that they don't understand it, it's that they disagree with it.

Given the power wielded by the politichristians now might not be a really good time to clarify "freedom" of religion.
 
Yeah, need to purge more pond scum before doing it.
 
The problem is not the wording of the 1st Amendment, the problem is whichever public relations genius came up with the idea of calling legal discrimination "religious freedom"
 
You talking about just the US or worldwide? Because worldwide, violence against the government actually has a great track record. Especially if you can turn it into a protracted guerilla war that forces the government to adopt ever more brutal methods to stop you. This turn both public and international opinion against said government and will either force them to change, or will cause the rest of the world to intervene on your behalf.

Armed uprising have had great success at achieving their aims over the course of history. Even when they are defeated on the battlefield, the legacy of the uprising usually includes at least some of the changes its leaders wanted to see. And if it doesn't, it usually inspires further uprisings until the desired changes are brought about.

I don't know many who would at all agree with this. Revolutions fail way more often than succeed, and this is something generally held by historians since I dunno, States and Social Revolutions, so the 70s? Robert Dix at Rice University wrote about it back then too. Modern analysis includes the Arab Spring which had a really poor track record, so it hasn't gotten any better.

Even with all that said, a decades long guerrilla war sounds horrible. Does anyone want to live in that kind of state?
 
I don't know many who would at all agree with this. Revolutions fail way more often than succeed, and this is something generally held by historians since I dunno, States and Social Revolutions, so the 70s? Robert Dix at Rice University wrote about it back then too. Modern analysis includes the Arab Spring which had a really poor track record, so it hasn't gotten any better.

Even with all that said, a decades long guerrilla war sounds horrible. Does anyone want to live in that kind of state?

I think the truth of "revolutions fail far more often than succeed" rests in the reality that they do usually result in extended anarchy rather than direct change of government. It isn't that the existing government "succeeds" by surviving the rebellion. Revolution is generally just a "failure for all" prospect that invites exactly what you say sounds horrible; decades of guerrilla warfare.
 
Missouri Moron should have listened to his wife.
BBC said:
Missouri Walmart panic caused by armed man testing gun rights
A man who sparked panic by walking into a Walmart with a rifle and body armour told police he was testing his right to bear arms in public.

Dmitriy Andreychenko entered the shop heavily armed, days after a mass shooting at another of Walmart's stores.

"I wanted to know if that Walmart honoured the second amendment," the 20-year-old told police after his arrest.

Prosecutors have charged him with making a terrorist threat.

If found guilty, the charge could result in a four-year prison sentence and a fine of $10,000 (£8,300), Greene County prosecutor Dan Patterson said in a statement.

On 8 August, Mr Andreychenko entered the store "armed with an AR style rifle slung across his chest", police said, wearing a ballistic vest and recording himself. Both the rifle and a handgun he carried were loaded.

He told police he did not expect the reaction his walk generated.

"This is Missouri, I understand if we were somewhere else like New York or California, people would freak out," he said, according to police filings.

Days before, 20 people had been killed in a Walmart in El Paso by a gunman carrying an automatic rifle.

The police statement also revealed that his wife, Angelice, had told him "it was not a smart idea".

"She told him that people were going to take this seriously due to recent events... she told him he was just an immature boy," it said.

His sister Anastasia also told police he had asked her to record video of what he called his "social experiment".

"She told him that it was a bad idea and that she did not want to do that," it said.

Mr Andreychenko told police he only intended to buy some grocery bags and check if anyone tried to stop him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879
 
Having lived in Missouri, it was somewhat common for ammosexuals to show up at Wal Mart in bullet proof vests with guns strapped to their thighs or backs to show off how cool they were. Granted, the times I saw them wasn't in the immediate aftermath of a shooting at another Wal Mart but I don't understand why this guy thought this was an experiment he had to run.

Also, Wal Mart is removing all advertisements for violent video games and movies from their stores but they are still selling guns.
 
Having lived in Missouri, it was somewhat common for ammosexuals to show up at Wal Mart in bullet proof vests with guns strapped to their thighs or backs to show off how cool they were. Granted, the times I saw them wasn't in the immediate aftermath of a shooting at another Wal Mart but I don't understand why this guy thought this was an experiment he had to run.

Also, Wal Mart is removing all advertisements for violent video games and movies from their stores but they are still selling guns.

Yea taking a rifle in there is one thing. Going with a vest on is indicative of wanting to have a shootout. So I’m not sure how that works in a state as stupid as this one is about guns. What is the line? Why is this guy in trouble? Was it the best that crossed the line? The ammo? The handgun too? I don’t get it. I don’t care either. Stupid like this should spend some time in jail to focus on their stupid for a while.
 
I Already know what his wife's first words to him after this are going to be. "I told you so!"
 
Yea taking a rifle in there is one thing. Going with a vest on is indicative of wanting to have a shootout. So I’m not sure how that works in a state as stupid as this one is about guns. What is the line? Why is this guy in trouble? Was it the best that crossed the line? The ammo? The handgun too? I don’t get it. I don’t care either. Stupid like this should spend some time in jail to focus on their stupid for a while.

Yeah, I agree. This guy was just looking to cause trouble and could have caused a much more serious incident that could have gotten himself and others killed for no good reason.

People like him also don't do the pro-2nd Amendment cause any favors.
 
People like him also don't do the pro-2nd Amendment cause any favors.

No problem. We can be fairly certain that the NRA propaganda wing is already circulating that he is actually a dangerous liberal who conducted a false flag operation in hopes of getting your guns taken away, so you better vote Republican to defend yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom