• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fight for your right to bare arms!!

jimtron

Illuminator
jimtron
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
3,105
Location
Los Angeles, California
Is it just me, or is the sentiment to protect Second Amendment rights a straw man to divert attention away from more important issues (like health care reform)? There's a group on Facebook, with 199,000 members, called Preserve our right to keep and bear arms. I'd like to converse with these folks, but I'm not sure I want to be a member of their club. Here's a post from one concerned American:
I believe in the principals of the founders of the United States. We should have the right to bare arms. I own guns and want to keep them. My husband fought for this country to keep us safe.
Click to expand...
Is Obama not only going to take away our guns, but also force all American women to wear burqas? Seriously though, Is anyone proposing that we repeal the Second Amendment?

Some other posts from that group:

So why do us as American give up are freedom of speech...
Click to expand...
something are to be and this one is the right to defend my family myself and this country that I love !!!!!!
Click to expand...
We need to hunt our food now days.
Click to expand...
Criminal get weapons regardless of the law. It is not only our right, but our obligation to protect our family and property. The fact that certain people in the government want to band firearms is just criminal and un American. It is our obligation to vote for those politicians that support our constitutional right, and prevent those who oppose from ever being in a position of power.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michelle Obama has certainly been a strong and impressive advocate for bare arms.

DC
 
You know, if they want bare arms, all they have to do is roll up their sleeves.
 
jimtron said:
Is it just me, or is the sentiment to protect Second Amendment rights a straw man to divert attention away from more important issues (like health care reform)?
Click to expand...

It's not just you. Much like in the 1990's, it's almost certainly that type of strawman.
 
jimtron said:
Is it just me, or is the sentiment to protect Second Amendment rights a straw man to divert attention away from more important issues (like health care reform)?
Click to expand...

Is sentiment to protect the environment a straw man to divert attention away from X?

It is possible for people to be concerned about more than one issue at a time.

Seriously though, Is anyone proposing that we repeal the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

Not many people advocate repealing the Second Amendment, but many people advocate ignoring it, and there are currently many municipalities around the nation that DO ignore the Second Amendment.

For instance, Chicago wants to "experiment" with the Second Amendment, where the words "experiment with" means "ignore". We, of course, do not allow governments to experiment with violating any of our other enumerated rights.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/15/does-the-second-amendment-appl
For its part, Chicago currently maintains that the Second Amendment should have zero authority over its gun control regime, arguing that the city should enjoy “the greatest flexibility to create and enforce firearms policy” and that “Firearms regulation is a quintessential issue on which state and local governments can ‘serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”’ But of course the Supreme Court would never allow Chicago to try a novel “experiment” like banning free speech, so why should the Second Amendment enjoy any less respect than the First Amendment does?
Click to expand...

Yes, there is still broad support for ignoring the Second Amendment. From the City Mayors Society:
28 June 2008: A June 2008 US Supreme Court ruling on gun control appears to be a clear defeat for American cities struggling to control gun violence. The ruling struck down the city of Washington DC’s ban on handguns and will likely lead to fewer restrictions on the ownership, sale, and possession of firearms. (MM - which is a clear "defeat" for American cities)

...

Washington, DC received support in its defense of gun control before the Supreme Court from the cities of Baltimore, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, Oakland, Philadelphia, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and Trenton. These cities, joined by the US Conference of Mayors, filed an amicus brief
Click to expand...

Notice they aren't calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment (that would display some respect for limits on government power) they are simply arguing that courts should ignore the Second Amendment.
 
Excellent.... 25-30,000 people die every year in the US by gunshots and 70-80,000 are shot and wounded, but hey, most of them are suicides or criminals shooting each other so who cares right? Why bother making sure that those with and carrying guns are sensible and stable enough to do so when you can give everyone them and kill off the population of a small town every year. Helps keep the population down.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Excellent.... 25-30,000 people die every year in the US by gunshots and 70-80,000 are shot and wounded, but hey, most of them are suicides or criminals shooting each other so who cares right? Why bother making sure that those with and carrying guns are sensible and stable enough to do so when you can give everyone them and kill off the population of a small town every year. Helps keep the population down.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the OP?
 
The Facebook "Atheist" group to which I contribute has listed 40,000 plus members. Of these, perhaps a dozen contribute to the discussions in any meaningful way, and at least two of those are fundamentalists trying to convert us all....
 
MikeMangum said:
I think his post was a good way of destroying your "straw man" argument a few posts ago.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, because it doesn't in any way, shape, or form display any threat to the Second Amendment as a precedence for all-of-the-sudden trying to make it a more up-front or important issue. Considering healthcare is on the table in Congress currently and the right to bear arms is not, I would say that his post displayed quite clearly that it is a strawman.
 
Frankly, the Second Amendment is pretty vague. There are at least three distinct legal theories of what it means and how to manage it.
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.
Click to expand...

It's like silly putty in that it can be toyed with if the bloodletting gets too high. I agree with LoneWolf that there's a problem but voters seem to think those numbers don't qualify as unacceptable losses.

To directly answer the OP, I don't think there's a serious effort underway by anyone right now to rescind the Second Amendment. It's a diversion from more important topics. There are many of these right now which speak to the effectiveness of the tactic.
 
GreNME said:
No it wasn't, because it doesn't in any way, shape, or form display any threat to the Second Amendment as a precedence for all-of-the-sudden trying to make it a more up-front or important issue. Considering healthcare is on the table in Congress currently and the right to bear arms is not, I would say that his post displayed quite clearly that it is a strawman.
Click to expand...

Actually it had nothing to do with the OP, it had to do with the post directly above it about the Supreme Court preventing cities from introducing gun control laws in cities where gun violence is out of control. As for "strawman", it is only that if the argument that "most gun deaths are suicides and drug dealers shooting each other so we don't have to have cointrols, just better education" wasn't actually used by gun control opponents. Unfortunately it is used.

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.

Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.
Click to expand...
 
PhantomWolf said:
Actually it had nothing to do with the OP, it had to do with the post directly above it about the Supreme Court preventing cities from introducing gun control laws in cities where gun violence is out of control. As for "strawman", it is only that if the argument that "most gun deaths are suicides and drug dealers shooting each other so we don't have to have cointrols, just better education" wasn't actually used by gun control opponents. Unfortunately it is used.
Click to expand...

Which means that it is currently a straw man, correct?
 
GreNME said:
Which means that it is currently a straw man, correct?
Click to expand...

Not at all. A Strawman is taking someone's argument and making a parody of it so that you can knock it over easier. I've shown that in fact people do make the exact argument I portrayed. Whether anyone here had made the argument is irrelevant since my post was never aimed at anyone here, rather at the SCOUS and the pro-gun lobby such as I quoted.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Not at all. A Strawman is taking someone's argument and making a parody of it so that you can knock it over easier. I've shown that in fact people do make the exact argument I portrayed. Whether anyone here had made the argument is irrelevant since my post was never aimed at anyone here, rather at the SCOUS and the pro-gun lobby such as I quoted.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Straw man would be an incorrect label. Red herring is more appropriate.
 
GreNME said:
Point taken. Straw man would be an incorrect label. Red herring is more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Again no, a red hering is an attempt to distract or derail, much like you are doing now. The post above mine referenced the SCOUS denying cities the ability to introduce gun control, my post responded to that, thus was on topic.

If you want to argue the whole bringing up of the gun issue is a red herring to throw light off the health bill, well you may have a case, but my post wasn't responsible for that.

Funny thing. I actually doubt that any American really and truly doesn't believe in at least some form of gun control. After all, if the guy that just moved in next door to you had spent the last 10 years in a hospital for the criminally insane after shooting dead his entire family, but now was totally cured, as long as he stayed on his meds, would you be alright with him have unlimited access to guns? The real argument is how much is too much.

Personally I think we have it about right here. If you are over 16, have no criminal or psychiatric record, can find two un-related (to you) people of good standing to act as referees and say you'd be safe and sensible, then pass a short test on gun laws and safety, you get to have them. And honestly, anyone that can't pass those requirements should not even be allowed a sling shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom