The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

So yeah, 2nd Amendment advocates are finally starting to draw a line in the sand.

2A advocates have been drawing the lines in the sand for a long time. It's an ongoing cultural war, fought before your time and after your time. IglooDude thought that we should allow chainguns on rooftops and missile launchers. Some anti-2Aers look at Canada's record on violence and think there some value in the precipitious potential drop in deaths.

You sure? Because what's the point in giving people the right to bear arms if they aren't allowed to use those arms?

It's a good question. What was the point in trying to protect gun ownership? I am pretty sure it wasn't so that you could assist in causing an increased number of civilian deaths. I'm still not sure why you'd be in favour of helping kill innocent people.

It's of value, though, since it explains the murderous behaviour of people who are much more ill-put-upon than you are.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I can't find it now, but I was reading an article the other day about the popularity of AR-15 rifles and, among other things, a gun proponent quoted in the article raised the notion that the people are supposed to be allowed to arm themselves in order to fight the government, if need be. I'm not sure where this idea came from initially, but today it's another misreading of the Second Amendment and of the intent of the founders of our country (it's not common, but it comes up from time to time). The militia wasn't meant to be the people's protection against the government, at least not directly. Rather, the militia was meant to be a tool of the government, both the state and federal governments:

U.S. Constitution
Article I
Section 8
[The Congress shall have Power To...]
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

So we can see from the very same Constitution that (some of) today's self-described militias claim their authority that the Founding Fathers' notion of a militia was not just individuals who arm and organize themselves at their own leisure.

Federalist No. 29, by Alexander Hamilton:

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.

So Hamilton is saying that, not only should the militia be consistent in its organization and training, but such organization and training should be the purview of the federal government.

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.

Here he also says that the decision to deploy the militia for the purpose of national defense would be the federal government's, too. Basically, he's describing what we call the National Guard today.

 

[Commodore]

However, I don't accept the reasoning/implication that because ghost guns are a thing, that any new regulatory measures are pointless or impossible.

The reason I use that reasoning though is because I am a firm believer in what we were told in the Army: Don't bring up a problem unless you already have a solution. Because if you bring up a problem, but don't have a solution for that problem, then you're just a complainer. And no one likes a complainer.

I'm not sure where this idea came from initially,

It came from the Declaration of Independence.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So while not a legal concept per se, it is a philosophical concept from which the legal concepts of our government were derived.

So we can see from the very same Constitution that (some of) today's self-described militias claim their authority that the Founding Fathers' notion of a militia was not just individuals who arm and organize themselves at their own leisure.

And that issue was settled in 1886 in the Presser v. Illinois ruling that struck down the idea that citizens could form their own private armies. That ruling also established that weapon ownership is an individual right, not a militia right. It is from that ruling that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment came from. That interpretation being that the well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms are merely two separate concepts contained within the same amendment.

 

[El_Machinae]

So while not a legal concept per se, it is a philosophical concept from which the legal concepts of our government were derived.

I don't see how actively seeking to increase civilian deaths would assist in this.

 

[inthesomeday]

Legally? No, but that's because the government is always going to say it is unlawful for citizens to fight back against them. Morally though? Yes. Attempts to disarm black militias during the Civil Rights Movement were clear violations of their 2nd Amendment rights, and as such they had every right to use those arms to defend themselves and their communities.

Good answer.

 

[Commodore]

I don't see how actively seeking to increase civilian deaths would assist in this.

Those people vote away one of their own rights, and they need to be "altered" (convinced to reverse their decision) or "abolished" (well...you know what that means).

Also using violence in order to advance a political agenda is very much a part of American philosophy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

That seems like a pretty big endorsement of political violence to me.

Moderator Action: Ok. That will be enough endorsing of violence. Either cool it, or don't post. This is your only warning. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sommerswerd]

The reason I use that reasoning though is because I am a firm believer in what we were told in the Army: Don't bring up a problem unless you already have a solution. Because if you bring up a problem, but don't have a solution for that problem, then you're just a complainer. And no one likes a complainer.

That reminds me of the adage... "When I want your opinion... I'll give it to you" and I can certainly see how a mantra like that would be useful to a drill Sergeant, training officer, or even a sports coach dealing with the guys they are training... but its not a very good way to approach most problems in real life, and you know that as well as I do. Acknowledging that there is a problem and asking for help and/or ideas to solve it is a pretty standard approach to problem solving. Oftentimes, no one person has all the answers, or the full picture, so no one person can come up with the solution. Also the people with the knowledge, expertise etc., to create solutions may not even be aware or focused on the problem. So it takes someone "complaining" to make them aware of it. If your child has a problem with their homework, or injures themselves, should they ask you for help?... or keep quiet about it, because if they "don't have a solution for that problem, then they're just a complainer"?

Referring to the folks (including the High school kids) who want school shootings to stop, but don't have all the answers how to accomplish that goal as "complainers", seems pretty unfair.

Also using violence in order to advance a political agenda is very much a part of American philosophy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

That seems like a pretty big endorsement of political violence to me.

Whenever I hear someone quote this... it always reminds me of this scene in The Rock (Ed Harris as General Hummel and Sean Connery as Agent Mason):

Spoiler NSFW :

 

[El_Machinae]

Those people vote away one of their own rights, and they need to be "altered" (convinced to reverse their decision) or "abolished" (well...you know what that means).

Also using violence in order to advance a political agenda is very much a part of American philosophy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:



That seems like a pretty big endorsement of political violence to me.

I see. Well, I guess you're in favour of evil then. I'll watch your future posts so that I can report you for endorsing violence and criminal activity. I guess if a 34 year old writer from 2 centuries ago can convince you to help kill civilians, there's probably nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

Normally, I'd talk about how Canadian gun laws haven't convinced me to kill civilians out of spite But we have different ethical standards.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That reminds me of the adage... "When I want your opinion... I'll give it to you" and I can certainly see how a mantra like that would be useful to a drill Sergeant, training officer, or even a sports coach dealing with the guys they are training... but its not a very good way to approach most problems in real life, and you know that as well as I do. Acknowledging that there is a problem and asking for help and/or ideas to solve it is a pretty standard approach to problem solving. Oftentimes, no one person has all the answers, or the full picture, so no one person can come up with the solution. Also the people with the knowledge, expertise etc., to create solutions may not even be aware or focused on the problem. So it takes someone "complaining" to make them aware of it. If your child has a problem with their homework, or injures themselves, should they ask you for help?... or keep quiet about it, because if they "don't have a solution for that problem, then they're just a complainer"?

Referring to the folks (including the High school kids) who want school shootings to stop, but don't have all the answers how to accomplish that goal as "complainers", seems pretty unfair. Whenever I hear someone quote this... it always reminds me of this scene in The Rock (Ed Harris as General Hummel and Sean Connery as Agent Mason):

Spoiler NSFW :

Somehow I've always heard that as "when I want your opinion I'll beat it out of you." Different social circles I guess.

 

[Farm Boy]

Imma report chuuuu!!!

Moderator Action: Warned for PDMA --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889



You're probably right though. The human killing you endorse, and it's no small amount, doesn't seem to be spite driven. Convenience, perhaps, but not spite. Not sure the difference in ethics is all that compelling a one. None of us really requires anger to do evil, do we?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's daytime! Farmers don't get to sleep in the daytime! Wake up!!!

 

[Commodore]

Imma report chuuuu!!!

Funny he said that when CFC specifically has rules against publicly declaring you are going to report someone. Relevant quotes from the rules:

Do not post that you have reported someone else, as that is likely to inflame the situation rather than calm it, and is therefore considered trolling.

Do not take moderating into your own hands. Telling people to "stop trolling" or "stop flaming" or "warning" is unlikely to stop them, and may make the situation worse. As such, this may be considered trolling. This also applies to telling people that you have reported their posts.

Moderator Action: Warned for PDMA --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Funny he said that when CFC specifically has rules against publicly declaring you are going to report someone.

I thought two things...one, that he was talking about me since it was right under my post, and two, that it was a pretty funny line and not to be taken seriously.

 

[Farm Boy]

Funny he said that

<shrugs> Some people care when it's specific BLM protesters. A couple cared when it was specific hicks. Almost nobody when it's a terminally sick child. Apparently, misconstruances to rhetorically constructed people is a bridge too far. Variable comfort levels. We're busily cutting hairs over somebody who apparently wants a public figure gone, but we need to argue transubstantiation-like over the preferred method of the tarring and feathering. Is it really so surprising?

 

[cardgame]

From the DOI:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,"

Combine that with the 2nd amendment and you get the culture of 'muh government oppression'. Now to clarify, I love the text as it is - but the culture it has generated is pretty toxic.

 

[stinkubus]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. To paraphrase George Carlin a bunch of unelected, white, slave owners having the nerve to state that "All men are created equal" (except for the natives, the slaves, women, men without property, etc.) is stunningly and embarrassingly full of you know what.

 

[inthesomeday]

How do you feel about unelected, white slaveowners saying it today?

 

[stinkubus]

How do you feel about unelected, white slaveowners saying it today?

Not a fan, because privileged people buy it, but (in the States at least) we are starting to dispense with the pretense.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. To paraphrase George Carlin a bunch of unelected, white, slave owners having the nerve to state that "All men are created equal" (except for the natives, the slaves, women, men without property, etc.) is stunningly and embarrassingly full of you know what.

This is really well-said. The same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment also helped create the system where the US was late-to-the-party when it came to outlawing slavery and giving women suffrage. The united states got a lot of things right, but I would bet against the 2A being a key aspect of the granting of these freedoms, given that other nations were so able to beat the States to it.

 

[Arwon]

Which brings me to an interesting point: When people compare the US to other countries on this matter, they only compare gun violence rates and of course point to less gun violence in other countries as evidence that gun control works. However, I think a better comparison would be to compare overall violent crime rates to determine what impact gun control really has on violent crime. Right now, it's looking like the answer is "not much" since the UK has gun control, yet violent crimes in London are still a problem. Kinda proves the point that if you take guns away, criminals will just move on to some other weapon.

"New York has become as safe as London" is actually the story there.

US homicide rates are substantially higher than comparable first world countries. You're about 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than Australia, ten timnes as likely than in many Western European countries, about twice as likely than in much of eastern Europe.