The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[MaryKB]

Nope, I'm certainly not wrong. Wanting to own a death-stick is an emotional reaction to insecurities.

And are you saying Vietnam isn't on the opposite side of the world from France?

 

[Commodore]

I think that you in turn overestimate the difference that makes. Removed from the organization and discipline of a combat unit the overwhelming majority of them are just another idiot with a gun.

Sure, if you assume veterans won't make any attempt to organize themselves into small militias or be organized by rebellious elements of the military.

Which is why I also specified combat veterans. Someone who just served but never saw combat will just be another idiot with a gun. But a veteran who has seen combat is a completely different story. This is because those veterans have been on the receiving end of asymmetrical tactics, so they have working knowledge about how to execute those tactics successfully. They have also seen how the US military operates on a real battlefield, not just how it is theoretically supposed to operate in a training exercise. That allows them to predict the actions and reactions of the military with a much greater degree of accuracy than the average yahoo that's just trying to stick it to the Man. And when you can reasonably predict what your enemy is going to do, it's a lot easier to evade/defend against them.

There is no logical or rational reason to want to own a gun

Sure there is. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they aren't logical or rational. Even if we accept your statement as true, the funny thing about rights is that you don't need a reason to exercise them.

silly little men

You do realize a significant portion of gun owners are women right? The latest survey I saw showed 39% of men admitting to owning a gun and 22% of women admitting to owning a gun. That's not that big of a gap with the number of women owning a gun trending upwards. So the idea that gun ownership is strictly a "man thing" just doesn't hold up.

For me personally, I'm happy with the current guns in our house and it's my wife that wants to expand our "collection".

 

[MaryKB]

That's beside the point, we know who drives the death-stick industry and gun lobby (men are more than twice as likely to own a death-stick as women) But my point is that it's a male inadequacy issue, and it's irrelevant that some women get caught up in it.

And the thing about "rights" is that not everything is a right. There's no logical reason to make it a "right" to have death-sticks, there's nothing constructive that comes from them and they only cause harm.

 

[cardgame]

Nope, I'm certainly not wrong. Wanting to own a death-stick is an emotional reaction to insecurities.

And are you saying Vietnam isn't on the opposite side of the world from France?

They were the governing authority, and later South Vietnam claimed to be the governing authority. In both cases putting down a rebellion is the apt descriptor, not an invasion.

I have a shotgun and am hoping to acquire a .22 in a few months, neither of which are especially deserving of the title "death-stick" especially when I've only fed birdshot through the shotgun, and the only things I've killed have been clay discs. I find shooting quite fun. It has absolutely nothing to do with your misandric assumptions of 'inadequacy'.

 

[Commodore]

And the thing about "rights" is that not everything is a right. There's no logical reason to make it a "right" to have death-sticks, there's nothing constructive that comes from them and they only cause harm

Well that's something that certainly can be debated, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a right currently in the US.

 

[MaryKB]

I said putting down rebellions at home. It's much harder to project your power around the world.

And it's absolutely a death-stick, it's an instrument of violence, and nothing else. You can practice destroying things that aren't people, but you hardly need a killing device to have fun in that way.

It's still about having the power to destroy, which is what I'm talking about.

Well that's something that certainly can be debated, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a right currently in the US.

And your point? Just because it's currently being misinterpreted as a "right" doesn't mean it should be.

 

[Commodore]

And your point? Just because it's currently being misinterpreted as a "right" doesn't mean it should be.

My point is that as long as it is a right, then the argument of "you don't have a reason to own one" is 100% irrelevant to the discussion.

And it's not being misinterpreted as a right. You can say that it shouldn't be a right, but since the Constitution clearly says it is, then it is incorrect to say it is being misinterpreted as a right.

 

[cardgame]

If you want to amend the 2nd amendment, be my guest. Good luck, in sincerity. But as it stands right now the only one misinterpreting it is you, because it's been practiced the same way all the way back to its origin, which means the original writers and the original context, and never once did they think individual people did not need 'the power to destroy.' Like, that would be a point if things had changed, for example applying other constitutional amendments through things like the interstate clause, you could argue for a certain interpretation there. 2A? I don't see it. It has a very long and very practiced implementation of individual firearm rights. The only way it has been diminished at all is by banning certain classes of firearms, machine guns and "destructive devices" but to do away with it entirely is more than a matter of interpretation, you would have to repeal it completely.

 

[MaryKB]

Ummm, no? This discussion is about what should be done, isn't it? If there's no logical reason to own one, then why do we need this law on the books?

And it's certainly being misinterpreted, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be about having an organized and armed militia, not about every nut having whatever death-sticks he wants. I believe it was in 2008 (?) when death-stick lobby convinced the government to reimagine the Amendment?

 

[MaryKB]

If you want to amend the 2nd amendment, be my guest. Good luck, in sincerity. But as it stands right now the only one misinterpreting it is you, because it's been practiced the same way all the way back to its origin, which means the original writers and the original context, and never once did they think individual people did not need 'the power to destroy.' Like, that would be a point if things had changed, for example applying other constitutional amendments through things like the interstate clause, you could argue for a certain interpretation there. 2A? I don't see it. It has a very long and very practiced implementation of individual firearm rights. The only way it has been diminished at all is by banning certain classes of firearms, machine guns and "destructive devices" but to do away with it entirely is more than a matter of interpretation, you would have to repeal it completely.

Nope, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to form an organized and armed militia, not about every lunatic having whatever killing instrument he wants. We don't need to change the 2nd Amendment, we just need to revert it back to its original intent and purpose.

 

[zxcvbob]

And your point? Just because it's currently being misinterpreted as a "right" doesn't mean it should be.

This is one of those "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul" remarks. It is number 2 of the enumerated civil rights listed in the Constitution, in the section called the Bill of Rights.

 

[MaryKB]

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, I really hate death-sticks and death-stick culture.

 

[Commodore]

And it's certainly being misinterpreted, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be about having an organized and armed militia, not about every nut having whatever death-sticks he wants. I believe it was in 2008 (?) when death-stick lobby convinced the government to reimagine the Amendment?

Nope. The 2008 ruling was really just a reaffirmation and expansion of an earlier ruling from the 1886 Presser v. Illinois case that held the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not contingent upon membership in the militia.

 

[MaryKB]

This is one of those "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul" remarks. It is number 2 of the enumerated civil rights listed in the Constitution, in the section called the Bill of Rights.

Ummm, no. The 2nd Amendment says that the people (as a group) have the right to form a regulated and armed militia.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[zxcvbob]

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

 

[MaryKB]

Nope. The 2008 ruling was really just a reaffirmation and expansion of an earlier ruling from the 1886 Presser v. Illinois case that held the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not contingent upon membership in the militia.

Idiots "reaffirming" the mistakes of other idiots doesn't make it correct.

 

[cardgame]

Thinking that the 2A is/was a mistake is fine, but when we have a traceable implementation to the beginning of the nation you can't call every single person incorrect.

If you want to change what is correct, like I said, be my guest. But the misinterpretation argument is really, really weak. Militia isn't defined anywhere in the constitution AFAIK, but we do have the 1st amendment giving us freedom of association, which means we can form a militia any time with any number of other people. To accomplish this, it would be helpful if we were all armed already, since that part of a militia (being armed, and being independent) is pretty well defined.

 

[Commodore]

Ummm, no. The 2nd Amendment says that the people (as a group) have the right to form a regulated and armed militia.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nope. It says the people have the right to keep and bear arms. The only thing it says about a militia is that it is necessary for the security of a free state.

 

[MaryKB]

We're on a tangent anyway, none of this changes that death-stick ownership is completely illogical and irrational.

 

[Commodore]

We're on a tangent anyway, none of this changes that death-stick ownership is completely illogical and irrational.

But that's just, like, your opinion man.