The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Bugfatty300]

So then the U.S. Army is unconstitutional?

Congreff buys weapons for the army and militia which is based on Sectionn 8 of the constitution, not via the right 'described' in the 2nd amendment.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's the thing about rights though, you aren't supposed to have to justify them or explain why you need them.
...
If you want to fight to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, then fine.

Surely any such fight is going to begin with an honest discussion about why the right is needed in the first place, what benefits it brings, what problems and dangers it presents etc. It seems rather disingenuous to claim to be "fine" with people trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, whilst simultaneously trying to shut down any discussion on the topic. What form do you propose this "fight" should take if not through reasoned argumentation?

I've said it before, but this slavish and unquestioning devotion to following the rules written down by some dead dudes hundreds of years ago that a lot of Americans seem to have is really weird and pretty religious in nature. Yes I can see why having a set of basic principles that are very hard to overturn can be a good thing, but when it's got to the point of "well that's what they wrote down so that's what we do", you've stopped functioning rationally.

 

[metalhead]

Surely any such fight is going to begin with an honest discussion about why the right is needed in the first place, what benefits it brings, what problems and dangers it presents etc. It seems rather disingenuous to claim to be "fine" with people trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, whilst simultaneously trying to shut down any discussion on the topic. What form do you propose this "fight" should take if not through reasoned argumentation?

I've said it before, but this slavish and unquestioning devotion to following the rules written down by some dead dudes hundreds of years ago that a lot of Americans seem to have is really weird and pretty religious in nature. Yes I can see why having a set of basic principles that are very hard to overturn can be a good thing, but when it's got to the point of "well that's what they wrote down so that's what we do", you've stopped functioning rationally.

When laws or rules become impossible to justify, all you can do is try to strip away all context and pretend that rules don't have to be rational or just in order to be followed. It's the ultimate "appeal to authority" fallacy, and of course 2nd Amendment supporters always resort to it because they know there is no rational basis by which the text of the amendment is applicable in modern society.

 

[Lexicus]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-g...provoked-fatal-stand-ground/story?id=56751894

Another good guy with a gun

 

[rah]

I was opened minded after reading he was pushed to the ground, but after reading the guy had threatened to kill other blacks in the same parking lot prior, yeah, scum.

 

[Farm Boy]

When laws or rules become impossible to justify, all you can do is try to strip away all context and pretend that rules don't have to be rational or just in order to be followed. It's the ultimate "appeal to authority" fallacy, and of course 2nd Amendment supporters always resort to it because they know there is no rational basis by which the text of the amendment is applicable in modern society.

Weird how that strips away 200 years of context in application of a right. Utterly confounding, I tell you. Ah well. I've never really gotten evangelicals.

 

[Sommerswerd]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-g...provoked-fatal-stand-ground/story?id=56751894

Another good guy with a gun

As I understand the incident, the shooter, Michael Drejka, objected to Britany Jacobs being parked in a handicapped space. She was in her vehicle with her 5 year old son when Drejka approached the vehicle and began verbally confronting her about the parking space and his view that she should not be parked there. Her boyfriend, and the father of the child in the car, Markeis McGlockton, saw the altercation in-progress as he left the store where they were parked, and he approached Drejka and pushed him away. Drejka fell to the ground and McGlockton began to back away, then Drejka pulled out his firearm and shot McGlockton in the chest, killing him.

I read an article on Vox which says that Drejka actually has a history of going around starting arguments with people over parking in handicapped spaces. This reminds me of the Zimmerman case, because like Zimmerman, Drejka seems to be a guy who was specifically looking for trouble in order to give him an excuse to use his firearm on someone.

Should the mother (Jacobs) have just shot Drejka when he approached her and her son? Or should McGlockton have exited the store, guns blazing? Serious question. And when I say "should have" I am talking from the perspective of Jacobs, McGlockton and their child who obviously would have preferred that McGlockton survived rather than Drejka if they had to choose.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sheriff there is an idiot.

Yes, McGlockton should have just shot Drejka in the head under the legal logic being applied, but I'd guess that he'd be charged because sheriff.

 

[Lexicus]

I read an article on Vox which says that Drejka actually has a history of going around starting arguments with people over parking in handicapped spaces. This reminds me of the Zimmerman case, because like Zimmerman, Drejka seems to be a guy who was specifically looking for trouble in order to give him an excuse to use his firearm on someone.

Should the mother (Jacobs) have just shot Drejka when he approached her and her son? Or should McGlockton have exited the store, guns blazing? Serious question. And when I say "should have" I am talking from the perspective of Jacobs, McGlockton and their child who obviously would have preferred that McGlockton survived rather than Drejka if they had to choose.

By the logic of the Stand Your Ground crowd, the answer is obviously yes. Or rather, it would be, if Stand Your Ground wasn't just an excuse to shoot black people under exactly these circumstances.

I was opened minded after reading he was pushed to the ground,

If you think shooting someone is a reasonable response to being pushed to the ground, you shouldn't be allowed within 500 feet of a gun.

 

[EgonSpengler]

iirc, the guy in Detroit and the other guy in Florida were both convicted of murder in cases where they claimed self-defense. The guy in Detroit fired a shotgun through his own front door, killing a woman on his porch who had been in a car accident nearby and was trying to get help. The guy in Florida killed a kid in a parking lot after a disagreement over loud music playing on a car stereo. I haven't looked in on either case in a while, but I think both men were convicted of murder or manslaughter or something. I can't remember if Michigan has any kind of 'Be a Man, You Pansy' law for gunning down strangers, but I believe Florida does.

 

[metalhead]

Weird how that strips away 200 years of context in application of a right. Utterly confounding, I tell

Well Commodore is actually trying to strip the context up to and including the first half of the text of the amendment itself, in order to twist it to suit his preferred interpretation. The obvious reason for doing this is to avoid having to answer the question, "What if militias are no longer necessary for the security of a free State?"

The Framers put the reason for the amendment right in the text of the amendment itself, and it is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is written with an explicit statement of why the enumerated right exists. It is obviously not accidental.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the police chief just got done with a masterful jumping through hoops performance.

Guy has a domestic dispute and shoots his grandmother, then takes off in her car. Police chase him, guns blazing. He crashes and runs into a store. Police chase him, guns blazing. A 'hostage situation' ensues. Much to the chagrin of the local police the guy holds out until the FBI arrives, then handcuffs himself and surrenders so they really just can't shoot him.

A woman is shot dead at the store, and police smugly congratulate themselves for having "prevented greater loss of life."

Three days later they are scrambling to find any evidence that the fleeing suspect ever fired a weapon, because they need to justify the fact that the dead woman was shot by LAPD.

 

[Lexicus]

Three days later they are scrambling to find any evidence that the fleeing suspect ever fired a weapon, because they need to justify the fact that the dead woman was shot by LAPD.

If she didn't want to get shot, she shouldn't have been living in a city with a police force. She knew the score and was responsible for her actions.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well Commodore is actually trying to strip the context up to and including the first half of the text of the amendment itself, in order to twist it to suit his preferred interpretation. The obvious reason for doing this is to avoid having to answer the question, "What if militias are no longer necessary for the security of a free State?"

The Framers put the reason for the amendment right in the text of the amendment itself, and it is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is written with an explicit statement of why the enumerated right exists. It is obviously not accidental.

And then 200+ years of application happened.

 

[rah]

If you think shooting someone is a reasonable response to being pushed to the ground, you shouldn't be allowed within 500 feet of a gun.

I don't remember saying that. Having an open mind and thinking that is two different things. You obviously need a more open mind.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't remember saying that. Having an open mind and thinking that is two different things. You obviously need a more open mind.

Having a mind open to murder is not really a virtue.

 

[Farm Boy]

Having an open mind and thinking that is two different things.

An open mind is a good thing for a jury of peers. Which is what should have been used here.

 

[rah]

Of course here, we all know his shtick. Grandstanding by accusing others of approving of the abhorrent action here when it's obvious we don't gets old.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm following now. Right. Shoot all raaaasists.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course here, we all know his shtick. Grandstanding by accusing others of approving of the abhorrent action here when it's obvious we don't gets old.

Maybe you can quote where I accused you of this?