• 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.

The 2nd Amendment solution to gun violence

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,313
Location
WA USA
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions/second-amendment-solution-to-gun-violence-yang/index.html

Interesting article, but he passes off opinion as fact.

The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.

Under this proposal, being granted a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice
Click to expand...
So even honorably discharged veterans are not to be trusted to own firearms.

Under this proposal, being granted a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice — it's that simple. And it should be that simple ... because it's what the framers intended.
Click to expand...
There is much disagreement about this part.

Reserve status would ensure that all guns are registered; there are currently no legal requirements for gun registration in order to purchase and own a firearm in 36 states -- no permit or license needed -- and, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,
Click to expand...
This is not true. The people at Giffords should know better as should the writer of this article. There is not a single state that grants immunity from federal registration requirements.

How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
Click to expand...
Since when is personal protection selfish?

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions/second-amendment-solution-to-gun-violence-yang/index.html

Interesting article, but he passes off opinion as fact.

The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.

So even honorably discharged veterans are not to be trusted to own firearms.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking of another problem: What about people who would be trustworthy to own a firearm, but would not be suitable to serve in the military reserves for various reasons. (For example, someone who might be a paraplegic, but who wants a gun for target shooting.)
 
Like I said in the mass shooting thread, this is pie in the sky stuff.

Why would someone who wants a gun for hunting or home defense have to be in the military? That flies in the face of one of the central arguments of the Second-Amendmentists.
 
I support the proposal with the proviso that military service is also required to vote or hold public office.
 
This makes no sense.

Let's suppose such a law were actually adopted. Let's further suppose that the military needs much more manpower than is currently enlisted, and fast, because of a major war. How would the military get that additional manpower? By calling up a bunch of untrained people of various ages because they have guns? Well, no. They'll do what they've always done: institute a draft. They'll pick people based on age and physical fitness, not whether they own a gun.

And if there isn't a major war, would the military ever call on these people? No, they wouldn't. They're mostly untrained, many of them will be too old, and they won't want to serve (because if you wanted to serve, you would have enlisted). The military doesn't want people like that in peacetime.

So under no condition would such a law actually mean anything.
 
The point the author the piece is trying to make (I think) isn't that letting our current gun nuts have access to military training is a good thing, but that if military availability was a requirement our currently crop of gun nuts would not be in general tripping over each other to put their money where their mouth is.

I brought it up in the other thread not so much as I liked this literal version of it, but the base idea of that "okay now put your money where your mouth is" idea.
 
Segnosaur said:
I'm thinking of another problem: What about people who would be trustworthy to own a firearm, but would not be suitable to serve in the military reserves for various reasons. (For example, someone who might be a paraplegic, but who wants a gun for target shooting.)
Click to expand...
That is addressed in the article.

Now, there are some limitations imposed for reservist status. For example, generally one needs to enlist before the age of 42. Recognizing the value of serving one's country, this proposal would waive all restrictions to enlistment -- age, gender, sexuality, and so on -- as long as the enlistee is physically and mentally capable of service. Even the "physical capability" aspect could be waived, allowing for desk work or other participation for those not capable of field combat. (Of course, even for noncombatant enlistees, the compulsory gun safety training would still be required.)
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
Let's suppose such a law were actually adopted. Let's further suppose that the military needs much more manpower than is currently enlisted, and fast, because of a major war. How would the military get that additional manpower? By calling up a bunch of untrained people of various ages because they have guns?
Click to expand...

The reservists go through boot camp and then train one weekend a month and two weeks a year. Some are deployed for longer periods. While a reservist who has never seen active duty is unlikely to be as ready as a professional Soldier, Marine or Sailor, they are not untrained draftees who are new to the uniform.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
The point the author the piece is trying to make (I think) isn't that letting our current gun nuts have access to military training is a good thing, but that if military availability was a requirement our currently crop of gun nuts would not be in general tripping over each other to put their money where their mouth is.
Click to expand...

But that's just it: this proposal doesn't actually require them to put their money where their mouths are, because this is really no different than being eligible for the draft.

Well, that's not totally true. Women are ineligible for the draft, so this might discourage some women from getting gun licenses. But that would be it, and even that probably negligible, since basically everyone thinks there won't be a draft for the foreseeable future.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The point the author the piece is trying to make (I think) isn't that letting our current gun nuts have access to military training is a good thing, but that if military availability was a requirement our currently crop of gun nuts would not be in general tripping over each other to put their money where their mouth is.

I brought it up in the other thread not so much as I liked this literal version of it, but the base idea of that "okay now put your money where your mouth is" idea.
Click to expand...
What about the veterans? I was forced out on the permanent disabled list. This proposal would mean I would have to give up my firearms.

Edited to add; The firearms training in the military can also be rather substandard. In 1983 my boot camp firearms training consisted of a few hours of classroom time. I didn't handle a gun for the military until after I arrived on my first ship and was trained as part of the security team. It was also very limited but it was the first time I shot a 1911, M-14 and a 12 gauge.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
What about the veterans? I was forced out on the permanent disabled list. This proposal would mean I would have to give up my firearms.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine (within the context of this hypothetical) to make the "money where you mouth is" property transit. If you had put your money where your mouth was so to speak.
 
I assume the suggestion is also the dissolution of the US armed forces, "because it's what the framers intended."?
 
There is a much simpler solution: all firearms must be stored in a local Magazine and need to be signed in and signed out together with a limited amount of bullets.
 
3point14 said:
I assume the suggestion is also the dissolution of the US armed forces, "because it's what the framers intended."?
Click to expand...

Listen the whole "what the framers intended" is a farce anyway because the framers never intended their word to set in stone.

The idea that the framers meant for gun ownership to be restricted to "organized militias" (like on the level of the National Guard) is absolute silliness because that level of organized militia didn't exist then. An "organized militia" was basically someone in power had a vague idea of how many farmers with rifles existed within a certain radius of whatever the problem that needed shooting was.

But the reason the 2nd Amendment exist also isn't because the Framers had a hard on for guns. They weren't flipping through a quarterly "Musket Accessories Catalog" in-between sessions of the Continential Congress.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns in the abstract, it's about a failsafe against tyranny as a concept and that's the only failsafe that made any sense at the time. But if Billy Bob Podunk thinks his AR-15 or the AR-15s of him and all his hunting buddies is a "failsafe" against 12 aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and 3,800 nuclear weapons he's an idiot.

We're way past the point where "balance of firepower" is anything approaching a failsafe against tyranny.

That's why to me the 2nd Amendment isn't right or wrong, it's just not in context anymore in which it can be judged.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns in the abstract, it's about a failsafe against tyranny as a concept. And if Billy Bob Podunk thinks his AR-15 or the AR-15s of him and all his hunting buddies is a "failsafe" against 12 aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and 3,800 nuclear weapons he's an idiot.

We're way past the point where "balance of firepower" is anything approaching a failsafe against tyranny.

That's why to me the 2nd Amendment isn't right or wrong, it's just no in context.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. I see lots of people make this claim, but that isn't how it works, and I don't think the people who make it have spent more than a couple of seconds actually thinking it through.

The Soviets never oppressed their own people with the threat of nuclear weapons. Aircraft carriers are not useful against internal insurrection, that isn't what they're designed for. And how the hell is stealth even relevant against an opponent that doesn't use radar?

The situation is inherently asymmetric, you don't need a "balance of firepower". But you do need firepower. I bet the citizens of Hong Kong wish they had a 2nd amendment right about now.
 
theprestige said:
I thought the Supreme Court has already established that the militia clause is not causally coupled to the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't make sense to me. Ok, so maybe nowadays no one cares about it anymore, which means that the clause no longer matters in practical terms. But as written, it's relevant.
 
Belz... said:
Which doesn't make sense to me. Ok, so maybe nowadays no one cares about it anymore, which means that the clause no longer matters in practical terms. But as written, it's relevant.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Semantically as written, and also philosophically in the context of the other writings of the founders about the nature of rights and the design of the constitution, and also philosophically in general.
 
theprestige said:
I disagree. Semantically as written, and also philosophically in the context of the other writings of the founders about the nature of rights and the design of the constitution, and also philosophically in general.
Click to expand...

As I said before:
In order to keep my car in working order, I shall change my oil twice a year.

The first clause is rather important, because if I no longer care about keeping the car in good order, the second clause is no longer needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom