The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[EgonSpengler]

Oh no Tim, handwaiving like that is your framing, and it is a common argument in significantly more applications than gunz. The argument revolves around there being things that are more important than maximizing safety and efficiency in the macro. The safety argument is then secondary. And that's how it will always be. No matter how any of these specific issues plays out.

I'm glad Lex posted his reply to this, because I missed Farm Boy's post. It's got me thinking. If the safety argument is secondary, then aren't all the claims about self defense also secondary, or are safety and self defense two different things? In essence, individual safety trumps group safety. Is the position "As long as I'm not the one doing the shooting, no amount of murders or suicides by other people should have any effect on my ability to own a gun"? That position could also be described as "I should be allowed to put everyone around me in danger, because I might need to defend myself with lethal force and/or shoot agents of a tyrannical government." And I suppose the argument has to go on to declare that every individual is allowed to determine for themselves when lethal force is necessary to preserve their own life, and/or that the government has turned to tyranny and the time is right to resist with lethal violence.

This isn't just theoretical, btw, this was essentially the position claimed by Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton in the mid '60s, when they were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. In response, the California Republican Party - led by Gov. Ronald Reagan - supported legislation to restrict the 2nd Amendment, specifically the open carrying of loaded firearms and the carrying of firearms in government buildings (I think the NRA supported the legislation too, but I can't find that right now). To provide my rhetorical adversaries with *ahem* ammunition, if I were asked to represent a pro-2nd Amendment position in a debate today, I'd be reading up on the Black Panther Party.

 

[Farm Boy]

The Black Panthers, think of them what you may, were probably in the right on this.

The argument is that the ultimate right to protection of effective lethal force, in a world where effective lethal force exists, should reside within the individuals of the nation, not merely those raised above. Then comes the complication of weaponry and age and hormones and numbers. If the argument was only lethal force, then you get the guys that want private nukes. If the argument disregarded casualties entirely, you get the guys that are fine with sawed off shotguns and grenades. If the argument was hunting only, you get the guys that believe only in the power of those raised above, and not the people.

 

[cardgame]

Ten million Christians in Africa could machete people to death in religious wars and it still wouldn't trump anyone's natural right to freedom of religion. Either it's a right or it isn't, aggrandizing circumstances are irrelevant if we're talking philosophy. If we're talking legislation, then consequentialism matters a bit more and I don't think I've made my position on guns clear since I'm often arguing both sides in gun threads here. I'm for gun restrictions, specifically some kind of BASIC firearm safety course being mandatory, optionally up to the complete ban of all handguns (the criminal's gun, look at the stats). Against the typical liberal 'I don't know anything about guns but the black ones are scary' arguments from ignorance.

 

[Lexicus]

So what level of insane defense of gun rights is required before someone starts to violate my natural right to self-defense by being alive?

 

[rah]

If you haven't figured out by now that there is no level you haven't been paying attention.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The Black Panthers, think of them what you may, were probably in the right on this.

I think if the Black Panthers had gotten into a shootout with police, they would have died in a hail of bullets. I guess they might've become martyrs, but usually when I name-drop Fred Hampton, I just get blank stares.

 

[Commodore]

Ten million Christians in Africa could machete people to death in religious wars and it still wouldn't trump anyone's natural right to freedom of religion.

This is an excellent statement in defense of not only gun rights, but every right. Just because some people may abuse or misuse their rights does not mean those rights should be taken away from those who aren't abusing them.

This isn't just theoretical, btw, this was essentially the position claimed by Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton in the mid '60s, when they were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. In response, the California Republican Party - led by Gov. Ronald Reagan - supported legislation to restrict the 2nd Amendment, specifically the open carrying of loaded firearms and the carrying of firearms in government buildings (I think the NRA supported the legislation too, but I can't find that right now). To provide my rhetorical adversaries with *ahem* ammunition, if I were asked to represent a pro-2nd Amendment position in a debate today, I'd be reading up on the Black Panther Party.

I believe I've been asked about this before by other posters and I have expressed my support for Huey P. Newton's position on this matter. They were exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in order to protect themselves and their communities like every American has the right to do. The fact that there were efforts to prevent them from doing so is an outrage and if it were going on today, I'd oppose those efforts just as much as I oppose other gun control efforts.

 

[metalhead]

Just because some people may abuse or misuse their rights does not mean those rights should be taken away from those who aren't abusing them.

But what if the right itself is arbitrary and meaningless? The Second Amendment itself justifies this "right" with a justification that is moot. You want to posit it as an absolute right, but the document which you cite to support that says otherwise.

 

[Commodore]

But what if the right itself is arbitrary and meaningless?

That's a subjective opinion and the whole point of having rights is that they can't be taken away simply because some people believe it is meaningless. I mean, I'm sure most people would agree that the 3rd Amendment is largely useless in the 21st century, but that doesn't mean we should take away people's right to refuse the quartering of government troops in their homes. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. What a lot of people fail to understand about the Constitution is that it does not exist to protect the majority opinion. The majority already has all the protection it needs by virtue of being the majority. The Constitution exists to protect the minority opinion on any given issue. That's why things like the Electoral College and the Senate were incorporated into our system of government.

 

[metalhead]

That's a subjective opinion and the whole point of having rights is that they can't be taken away simply because some people believe it is meaningless.

It's not subjective. The 2nd Amendment spells out its justification and purpose. It also states explicitly that the right is for defense of the State and not the individual, but for some reason amateur constitutional scholars seem to have very selective amnesia about this when arguing about the scope of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment.

What a lot of people fail to understand about the Constitution is that it does not exist to protect the majority opinion. The majority already has all the protection it needs by virtue of being the majority. The Constitution exists to protect the minority opinion on any given issue. That's why things like the Electoral College and the Senate were incorporated into our system of government.

Those things don't exist because the Framers believed they were optimal. They exist because they protected slavery from abolition, and the Southern states would not sign a constitution that didn't provide states the ability to protect the institution in perpetuity. It is that, and not some ideal of "minority opinion" that they sought to protect. This reads awfully similar to civil war revisionism that euphemises slavery as "states' rights." The "minority opinion" you refer to is slavery. Just slavery.

What you fail to understand is that the Constitution is not a sacred text. There is no reason to take on faith that the government created through the constitution is any good. In fact there is more reason to assume it wasn't.

 

[cardgame]

They gave us the means to rewrite the Constitution for a reason. That's what the "Founding Fathers are Gods" people never seem to realize...

 

[Broken_Erika]

They gave us the means to rewrite the Constitution for a reason. That's what the "Founding Fathers are Gods" people never seem to realize...

Blasphemy!
Don't you know that the constitution was written by God and Proofread by Jesus before being passed down to the founding fathers to codify!

 

[Berzerker]

It's not subjective. The 2nd Amendment spells out its justification and purpose. It also states explicitly that the right is for defense of the State and not the individual, but for some reason amateur constitutional scholars seem to have very selective amnesia about this when arguing about the scope of the rights protected by the 2nd amendment.

The states = the people

as in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Those things don't exist because the Framers believed they were optimal. They exist because they protected slavery from abolition

How?

 

[EgonSpengler]

How?

It's just what Commodore was talking about, giving the minority a louder voice, so they're not drowned out by the majority. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, slavery was being phased out in several Northern states, and at least one, Vermont, had made it fully illegal. It wasn't an overnight thing in most places - Pennsylvania's 1780 law was even formally called "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" - but the Southern states could see which way the wind was starting to blow. And right before the Constitutional Convention, slavery had been outlawed in the Northwest Territory and in any westward expansion (which the Southern states never let go of - they were still sore about it when the Civil War started). I suppose it was easier to ban slavery in the Northwest Territories overnight because they weren't states and had no representation in the single-chamber 'Congress of the Confederation', which probably didn't go unnoticed by the delegates of the Southern states. So the dismantling of slavery was very much underway and those states who relied on it were fighting to protect it, even in 1789. That's also where we got the "3/5 Compromise."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But what if the right itself is arbitrary and meaningless? The Second Amendment itself justifies this "right" with a justification that is moot. You want to posit it as an absolute right, but the document which you cite to support that says otherwise.

What is arbitrary and meaningless is taking away people's access to stuff w/o basis.

A large number of tools can be used to kill people, and a large number of things people can legally do are dangerous. If we're going to talk about "arbitrary" policies, singling out guns due to overt media sensationalism is a clear example.

 

[EgonSpengler]

What is arbitrary and meaningless is taking away people's access to stuff w/o basis.

A large number of tools can be used to kill people, and a large number of things people can legally do are dangerous. If we're going to talk about "arbitrary" policies, singling out guns due to overt media sensationalism is a clear example.

*groan* This is like Groundhog Day.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not like the idea that guns are a credible public safety risk just fell out of the sky. They aren't being randomly targeted.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not like the idea that guns are a credible public safety risk just fell out of the sky. They aren't being randomly targeted.

So you say, but yet guns are not top 10 in leading causes of death. How many of the others get similarly frequent/extensive pushes for legislation?

They aren't "randomly" targeted. They're targeted to push an agenda, using arbitrary reasoning as the basis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you say, but yet guns are not top 10 in leading causes of death. How many of the others get similarly frequent/extensive pushes for legislation?

How many others serve no additional purpose?

By the way, cars kill far more people than guns so they are a fine example. They have vast utility beyond killing.

And guess what, they are far more regulated than guns are.

 

[Lexicus]

Actually guns recently surpassed cars as a cause of death so...yay I guess? I suppose you could argue that from a pro-gun perspective, the more harm that we ignore so that we can all have all the guns we want, the stronger the demonstrated commitment to whatever higher purpose Farm Boy is alluding to here:

The argument revolves around there being things that are more important than maximizing safety and efficiency in the macro.