The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

I think the idea of the Second Amendment was that the militia would have weaponry that we would associate with the common foot soldier. Cannons were out. Muskets were in. I think that drawing it forward, the AR-15 and modern automatic pistols are well within the theme of the original framing.

It just turns out to have made many things worse. Well after the second amendment was written, where the idea was that militia were necessary, the War of 1812 very much taught the fledgling country that a National Army was necessary.

Meanwhile, the Second Amendment makes things worse. Didn't learn any freedoms faster. Didn't prevent government overreach.

I think the framing of the Second Amendment is pretty clear. Just not a good idea these days

 

[Arwon]

Las Vegas, United States
During the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, one single perpetrator could kill on his own 59 people, injuring 851 others, with a perfectly legally-bought arsenal of AR-15 semi-automatic guns (much less powerful than AK-47), and without any need to be backed by a high-profile international terrorist organization such as ISIS.

Jeez we really did all just kinda memory hole the Las Vegas massacre didn't we

 

[Arwon]

Semi related, the other day in Sydney a very disturbed man with a machete killed a woman and then enacted what can best be described as an attempted "stabbing rampage" in the streets in central Sydney. https://www.theguardian.com/austral...bbing-mert-ney-faces-charge-after-cbd-rampage https://www.theguardian.com/austral...hat-we-know-so-far-about-the-cbd-knife-attack

He was wandering around lunging at people with his knife, yelling "fudging shoot me I wanna die" and at one point threw in an "Allahu akbar" (in a broad Australian accent that suggested he didn't actually know Arabic or how to say it). He was later found with a bunch of stuff relating to white supremacy and mass shootings like Christchurch and ones in the US.

All stuff suggesting a pretty disturbed mind seeking to inflict violence and kill himself via cop shooting, maybe a fringe stochastic sort of thing, maybe the sort of thing that would have happened anyway even without the backdrop of random white supremacist and ISIS style violence as a source of ideation.

As it happens he was subdued by several private citizens who pinned him down with chairs and a milk crate. He murdered a woman in an apartment, then ended up on the street acting like this. In a country where he was unable to easily acquire firearms, this was apparently the most lethal act available to a disturbed person interested in overseas massacres. You'd have to think in a society with easy firearm access he's killing a fair few more people.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think the idea of the Second Amendment was that the militia would have weaponry that we would associate with the common foot soldier. Cannons were out. Muskets were in. I think that drawing it forward, the AR-15 and modern automatic pistols are well within the theme of the original framing.

It just turns out to have made many things worse. Well after the second amendment was written, where the idea was that militia were necessary, the War of 1812 very much taught the fledgling country that a National Army was necessary.

Meanwhile, the Second Amendment makes things worse. Didn't learn any freedoms faster. Didn't prevent government overreach.

I think the framing of the Second Amendment is pretty clear. Just not a good idea these days

There really wasn't any other weapon available. While there were a variety of makes and models, the tech was pretty similar. The next step, percussion caps, didn't arrive until the 1820s. If you had a weapon in 1790, it was a flintlock.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you're arguing what 'the framers meant', I'm not really interested, honestly. I think that the 2nd Amendment is reasonably clear, and has been clarified by Common Law for over a century. I think the framers wanted the regular folk to be able to act as militia. The War of 1812 taught the USA that militia were insufficient. I think that the rest of modern history has shown that the 2A should be changed. Not because I think that I can wiggle about what the framers meant, but because it doesn't do what it was theorized to do. It was an idea, and then it was tested.

 

[rah]

Yes, they originally did this so they wouldn't have to have a standing army.
That really worked. So with a huge standing army the 2nd isn't serving any purpose

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you're arguing what 'the framers meant', I'm not really interested, honestly. I think that the 2nd Amendment is reasonably clear, and has been clarified by Common Law for over a century. I think the framers wanted the regular folk to be able to act as militia. The War of 1812 taught the USA that militia were insufficient. I think that the rest of modern history has shown that the 2A should be changed. Not because I think that I can wiggle about what the framers meant, but because it doesn't do what it was theorized to do. It was an idea, and then it was tested.

I'm arguing that the framers approved status quo weaponry because that was all they could conceive of and that is what we should allow modern citizens to own. Flintlocks for all. Courts can and do make errors.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Yes, they originally did this so they wouldn't have to have a standing army.
That really worked. So with a huge standing army the 2nd isn't serving any purpose

The 2nd amendment was actually heavily pushed by Southern representatives, such as Patrick Henry. They were indeed fearing insurrections, which at the time were mostly slaves insurrections, and they wanted to ensure they could still constitute slave patrols to prevent those, knowing they had no trust in the federal government to do so (precisely because there was no slavery in the North). There were other kinds of militias in the North since the French and Indian war but in the South, militias were indeed mostly slave patrols.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Jeez we really did all just kinda memory hole the Las Vegas massacre didn't we

That never happened. And if it did, it was Democrat false flag operation.

 

[Arwon]

The 2nd amendment was actually heavily pushed by Southern representatives, such as Patrick Henry. They were indeed fearing insurrections, which at the time were mostly slaves insurrections, and they wanted to ensure they could still constitute slave patrols to prevent those, knowing they had no trust in the federal government to do so (precisely because there was no slavery in the North). There were other kinds of militias in the North since the French and Indian war but in the South, militias were indeed mostly slave patrols.

Wow that makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of free people in a slave-holding state, the right of white guys to arm themselves and terrorise people of other races shall not be infringed.

Bit of a cultural throughline from slave patrols to lynch mobs to stuff like armed white supremacist compounds to contemporary border nutjobs and stuff like El Paso too.

 

[cardgame]

I'm arguing that the framers approved status quo weaponry because that was all they could conceive of and that is what we should allow modern citizens to own. Flintlocks for all. Courts can and do make errors.

If they meant status quo weaponry, they would have said so. You're being silly. We can certainly try to amend the second, but this is just silliness.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Bah! No limitations on weaponry what-so-ever. Every Citizen has a Constitutional Right to their own personal nuclear arsenal! Privatize The American Nuclear Deterrent!

 

[Commodore]

I'll look for it.

I've posted it before. Can't remember if it was in this thread or in another, but I have linked to that study. It went largely ignored (not saying you are one of the people that ignored it though).

 

[Yeekim]

I'm arguing that the framers approved status quo weaponry because that was all they could conceive of and that is what we should allow modern citizens to own. Flintlocks for all. Courts can and do make errors.

So, to reiterate - it was a poor idea then and developing technology has made it to be even worse one today.

 

[Old Hippy]

Yes, they originally did this so they wouldn't have to have a standing army.
That really worked. So with a huge standing army the 2nd isn't serving any purpose

are you arguing that the army should be replaced by more american grass perhaps...
The Yamamoto quote is 'said' to be
"to invade the United States would prove most difficult because behind every blade of grass is an American with a rifle."

 

[Kaitzilla]

We need good guys with video game to stop bad guys with video games /s
Also Trump is against internet bigotry /s

Stupid Trump, video games are not causing mass shootings!
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/5/20755092/gun-shooting-video-game-chart

There is plenty of research debunking video games as the cause.
But since McCarthy and other Republicans continue to blame video games, here’s a simple chart showing the top video game–consuming countries and the number of violent gun deaths in each of them...

 

[abradley]

Condi is right.

 

[Zardnaar]

Note even in America they have defined legally what counts as an arm. Anything fully automatic, explosive or over .50 is a destructive device.

It's technically legal but a mini gun is half a million dollars and something like a crap Mac 10 is 10k.

That stuff ironically isn't a significant factor in US gun violence.

Here you used to require a collectors licence for that type of stuff but it was made illegal 1992. You can still own things like full autos and tank cannons but they have to be disabled.

If you want to invest/collect from a financial pov antique blackpowder weapons are better.

 

[Commodore]

Yes, they originally did this so they wouldn't have to have a standing army.
That really worked. So with a huge standing army the 2nd isn't serving any purpose

It would serve a purpose of people would listen to me and get rid of police and transfer law enforcement duties to local citizen militias.

 

[Estebonrober]

It would serve a purpose of people would listen to me and get rid of police and transfer law enforcement duties to local citizen militias.

Hell this police is bad enough now you are giving over justice to "Uncle Zed"? No training. No education in the job (police do not get near enough of this). No ethics requirements. Stupid idea.

When you have ideas like this you really need to think about the lower quartile of people mentally and morally and think if this policy works with that. The abuse would be a nightmare.