The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

I don't need to provide "more free", the hypothesis is that the 2nd Amendment provides freedoms that other liberal democracies would remove.

I used marijuana criminalization as a (large) case study, and point out that not only did civilian guns not help Americans compared to other liberal democracies, but seems to have aggravated things

Let's put it this way. Did armed civilian resistance to marijuana criminalization incentivize American politicians to discover superior ways of dealing with marijuana compared to other liberal democracies?

The hypothesis proposed is that the American government is less likely to over-reach. Implicit in that is the understanding that they will be more likely to discover alternative mechanisms of dealing with social difficulties. I'm less than impressed

 

[Berzerker]

"I'm going to send people to take your property by force if necessary" is the initial threat. Calling out someone responding to a threat for making a threat is odd.

I didn't call them out, I said it was a threat and it is. Every law is a threat of violence, do as we say or else is a threat... Show your face on my property and my AR 15 will be waiting for you is a threat.

 

[cardgame]

The War on Drugs has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment though.

Of course it does, like we've been over before, the 2A exists to stop government tyranny and over-reach. It did nothing during the war on drugs, therefore...

 

[Hygro]

Wait a second Commodore, if *I* “step back and calm down”?

Do you even read my posts on guns? Do you even know what my position on guns is?

 

[Berzerker]

I think the 2A needs to be re-written to be less obsolete and make buying a gun a licensed privilege

Or we could just enforce it the way it was back then, the states had the power to make gun laws and the feds had the power to regulate militias.

 

[zxcvbob]

You're using case studies instead of statistics. It's like pointing out that Grandpa shot the intruder when other regions have much lower levels of home invasion. You have to attribute cause properly.

But corrupt elections. Has the Second Amendment caused there to be fewer corrupt elections, proportionally, than the rest of the Commonwealth? Look at gerrymandering for example. After the courts, the final solution to gerrymandering is violence against the politicians.

Given that American politicians are more subject to the Second Amendment when it comes to gerrymandering, are they less likely to gerrymander than the rest of the Commonwealth?

Is there any measurable deterrent effect? You have a couple corrupt elections, I will point out the widespread disaster of the War on Drugs. Honestly, I think my case study wins

Yes, but just one case that I'm aware of; it's more recent than you might expect. Read about the Battle of Athens (1946) https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, but just one case that I'm aware of; it's more recent than you might expect. Read about the Battle of Athens (1946) https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens

It's a great story! I mean, awfully exciting. But we're talking 'net fewer', not 'anecdotally'. For every uncorrupted election, do we balance it with an armed populace oppressing people with their guns? Upthread, Commodore linked that story, and it was in the same article where White Supremacists shot a bunch of black people to seize political power.

I'll grant, it's not an easy thing to unpack, and it's a little unfair to ask what I did. But the thesis of the 2nd Amendment is that it keeps the government honest. I'm not impressed with the track record.

Using anecdotes, I can show that coconut oil cures Alzheimer's. But if you want to propose the thesis 'coconut cures Alzheimer's', you're going to need a different data set to justify any type of investment.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes, but just one case that I'm aware of; it's more recent than you might expect. Read about the Battle of Athens (1946) https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens

Cool, that totally makes up for Linlcon and JFK being assassinated.

 

[zxcvbob]

Cool, that totally makes up for Linlcon and JFK being assassinated.

The soldiers at Athens didn't shoot Lincoln or Kennedy.

It's a great story! I mean, awfully exciting. But we're talking 'net fewer', not 'anecdotally'. For every uncorrupted election, do we balance it with an armed populace oppressing people with their guns? Upthread, Commodore linked that story, and it was in the same article where White Supremacists shot a bunch of black people to seize political power.

It's just one incident, but it demonstrates that tyranny can also happen on a local level, and that small arms can be effective against the government (just in case nobody learned that from Afghanistan)

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure thing. Keep in mind, most people don't doubt that. The discussion is whether things are better in the aggregate. The purported benefits of the Second Amendment can be hypothesized, and then can actually be tested against history. I don't think the argument passes.

Individual anecdotes will always be available, as I've mentioned, no one's been mugged wearing a bomb vest. This doesn't imply that cheap and easy access to bomb vest materials would make things safer overall.

 

[Commodore]

Cool, that totally makes up for Linlcon and JFK being assassinated

Are you seriously using presidential assassinations as an argument against private gun ownership? Because that would be a flat out stupid argument to make.

Private gun ownership being illegal didn't seem to stop Gavrilo Princip from assassinating Franz Ferdinand.

Sure thing. Keep in mind, most people don't doubt that. The discussion is whether things are better in the aggregate. The purported benefits of the Second Amendment can be hypothesized, and then can actually be tested against history. I don't think the argument passes.

Individual anecdotes will always be available, as I've mentioned, no one's been mugged wearing a bomb vest. This doesn't imply that cheap and easy access to bomb vest materials would make things safer overall.

The thing about the 2nd Amendment though is that it doesn't have to be "better in aggregate". Attempting to frame it in that context is dishonest at worst and simply misses the point at best. All that needs to exist for the 2nd Amendment to be justified is a realistic possibility for it to fill its intended purpose. So merely one case of it filling its purpose is more than enough to justify keeping around in its current form.

EDIT: And since you even admit in another post that what you are asking is unfair, that tells me that you are arguing in bad faith and are just trying to frame the discussion to fit your anti-2nd Amendment bias. This type of bad faith arguing is prevalent among the anti-gun crowd, which is why gun owners are becoming increasingly unwilling to even discuss the subject with you.

 

[Glassfan]

 

[Estebonrober]

View attachment 534749

"The strongest reason for me to keep and bear arms is to shoot my neighbor when he votes against me."

I am, along with over 50% of the population, asking; universal background checks, magazine maximums, and licenses for gun owners. Please counter our requests with logic or emotional pleas that over ride mine.
https://www.vox.com/gun-violence-shootings

 

[Berzerker]

we shouldn't need a license to exercise our rights

 

[Estebonrober]

we shouldn't need a license to exercise our rights

"regulated militia"

 

[zxcvbob]

Well regulated. Do you know what that means in its original context and period? (obviously not unless you are being dishonest) It meant about the same thing as "well functioning" now.

 

[Berzerker]

"regulated militia"

Congress has power under the Constitution to regulate militias, that power is not found in the 2nd Amendment. In the 2nd Amendment to the 'Bill of Rights' there is only one right mentioned, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Therefore while Congress has the power to regulate militias, it does not have the power to violate the right of the people to have guns.

So the questions become: what power does Congress have to regulate militias and can that power extend to 'the people'? The type of guns and ammunition to be used by militias do fall under congressional authority, banning guns not so much.

 

[Ajidica]

View attachment 534749

Strangely, all the 'protect the rights of the people' groups show up to 'protect' Nazis and the alt-reich. I don't remember the last time a 'protect the rights of the people' group showed up to, say, a Black Lives Matter protest.

 

[Estebonrober]

Congress has power under the Constitution to regulate militias, that power is not found in the 2nd Amendment. In the 2nd Amendment to the 'Bill of Rights' there is only one right mentioned, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Therefore while Congress has the power to regulate militias, it does not have the power to violate the right of the people to have guns.

So the questions become: what power does Congress have to regulate militias and can that power extend to 'the people'? The type of guns and ammunition to be used by militias do fall under congressional authority, banning guns not so much.

I'm not personally asking for a gun ban. So it still fits my desire for firearm regulation.

 

[Berzerker]

Strangely, all the 'protect the rights of the people' groups show up to 'protect' Nazis and the alt-reich. I don't remember the last time a 'protect the rights of the people' group showed up to, say, a Black Lives Matter protest.

Is Antifa showing up at BLM protests to attack them?