• 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

It's like the saying goes: the solution to the ills of weird constitutional fetishism is more weird constitutional fetishism.

I don't remember who said it. Probably either Abraham Lincoln or Jesus.
 
Tommok said:
So bearing arms is a human right?

Interesting. What arms? Any arms? Where exactly do we draw the line? Nuclear arms? Why?

So what argument would work in favor of allowing anyone to bear any kind of arms and yet prohibit the Iran or North Korea from having nuclear weapons? Human rights apply to all humans, don't they?
Click to expand...

I was going to do a serous reply on the grounds of "Sometimes Arms are necessary to defend human rights" but this whole post is so outrageous and silly and bear so little relation to reality it's best just to laugh on it.
 
Ranb said:
I'm fairly certain the people I've seen with beta mags got them solely to enhance their gun collection.

Do you think personal protection is selfish? I think it can also be selfless.


The military could find a job for just about anyone who is not completely disabled.
Click to expand...


Sergeant Ho, is that you?
 
BStrong said:
I support the proposal with the proviso that military service is also required to vote or hold public office.
Click to expand...
Is this meant to be serious?


JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's right because tyranny won.


Border Reiver said:
What was determined beyond a shadow of a doubt during the War of 1812 by both sides was that this method of raising forces was completely useless for getting effective military forces, and depending on the political feeling in the county, may or may not be completely politically reliable.
Click to expand...
Yep, exactly. The issue is that at the time, the founders didn't want an "effective military force" which is why they explicitly said as such. The big switcharoo from having a purely defensive militia composed of all able-bodied members of society to a standing army in some sense eradicated the necessity of the 2nd amendment.


ArchSas said:
I think this is a monumentally stupid idea, for reasons people have already commented on in both threads (and way too many for me to even want to enumerate), but the one aspect I wanted to comment on is how bad of an idea I think it is to even propose this as a serious solution on a major news site.

This idea is authoritarian trash, and it's really not a good look for the people who want changes to the status quo of firearm laws/culture. I mean, I already have a problem with a lot of the ways that people on the left talk about guns, but most of that boils down to ignorance. This idea is straight up totalitarian, and that's really not the kind of thing you want your critics to be able to lobby at you if you want to be taken seriously. Especially when part of the goal of progressiveness (and what I personally like most about it) is the idea that you want to be able to provide people the freedom to do whatever they want (get healthcare, education, live a comfortable life, marry whoever you want, etc.). Forcing someone into military service because they want to own something, especially in a country as likely as this to be involved in active conflict, is downright repugnant to a person that loves individual freedom as much as I do. To me, there's seriously nothing about this proposal that works (even rhetorically - I don't care about calling people out on perceived hypocrisy or whatever, this is dumb idea that looks terrible), and I think, more than anything, it furthers the idea that liberals are a group of people that hate gun owners and want to strip rights from people. As a die-hard leftist that loves guns, it really rubs me the wrong way.

The real solution, as far as I'm concerned, is something we probably don't know yet. The US government hasn't put any research into gun safety in years. Once that happens, we'll probably have a better idea of what will work, and what won't. That, and providing mental health care and coping skills to people who desperately need it.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly except on one point: the real solution is something we do actually know about and has been in effect since the earliest days of humanity. One hint: it isn't the state that can solve the ills of the state.


Tommok said:
So bearing arms is a human right?
Click to expand...
Yes. Self-defense is a human right as is the defense of others. That a tool such as a firearm can be and is often used for attack isn't a problem of the tool itself.

If you want to discuss nukes, fine. I say that if people aren't to be trusted with them, then certainly a named group of people (such as a government) isn't somehow exempt from that mistrust.
 
theprestige said:
Not a good analogy.

Here's a better one:

Bearing arms is a human right. Here's one good reason not to infringe on it, which is sufficient to not infringe on it. But in fact, the recognition of the right itself is sufficient reason not to infringe on it, even in the absence of an exhaustive list of other reasons. Burden of proof rests on those who wish to infringe on the right.
Click to expand...

Do you think everyone encompassed in the definition of "The People" should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice, loaded, in public, not concealed?
 
ahhell said:
This certainly explains how we were able to so easily pacify Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

What a gross oversimplification, well done.

There's this thing called logisitics

War isn't about what you have, it's about where you can get it to.
 
From the article:

"The literal language used in the Constitution focuses on the right to bear arms within the context of — if, arguably, not solely limited by — the security needs of our nation."

Not exactly.

The Constitution is primarily about the relationship between the states and the federal government. A "nation" arguably did not exist, though it was said the Articles of Confederation created a "nation of nations." James Madison, one of the main architects of the Constitution, wanted to foster a national identity, mainly by creating a stronger central/federal government. Still, people found their state identity more meaningful than a national identity. In other words, some people Virginians before they were Americans -- if they even had a concept of being "American."

The country has since evolved culturally. An example of someone who consciously identifies with his state before country is BobTheCoward, which gives some idea of how out of touch and alien that view has been (especially out west).

Modern conservatives and liberals like to imagine the Constitution was created to protect sacred individual liberty, but this is mostly nonsense (ask any African-American). People also speak breathlessly about the sacred Bill of Rights, but these were amendments added later -- not part of the core product. More obvious and essential freedoms were written directly into the Constitution (writ of habeas corpus, prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder). The states were seen as guardians of liberty -- and under threat by a strong central government. Under the AoC, the federal government could not directly draft soldiers or impose taxes, which led to collective problems, compelling Madison and others for creating a stronger central government.

One of the compromises for ratification was passing "a Bill of Rights," initially opposed by Madison. Many state constitutions had included such rights, and Madison finally warmed to the idea, in part because it was popular and would give Congress a measure of credibility. The Bill of Rights were originally intended as restrictions on the federal government. Regarding the First Amendment, for example, "Congress shall make no law..." establishing a national church. State governments still had the authority to create official churches, and a couple of them did, a fact fondly recalled by people like Clarence Thomas.

Again, the country has since changed, especially with an obscure extra-Constitutional event known as the Civil War, which chartered a more national government -- one of the people, by the people, and for the people. There were hiccups when it came to establishing a national character (see for instance the Corrupt Bargain of 1876, which effectively ended Reconstruction).

A national orientation started gathering again in subtle ways. The courts would begin to "incorporate" parts of the Bill of Rights (i.e., applying the first ten amendments to the states via the 14th Amendment, which would prohibit state authorities from establishing churches, restricting speech and so on).

And with a little of this historical background out of the way, we can finally get to the Second Amendment. The most overlooked clause is the "necessary security of a Free State." Again, the historical context of the Constitution is about distributing power between the states and central government. Some people, such as antifederalists like "Brutus," feared the central government would "swallow" up state governments, so they wanted assurances. One of those safeguards was allowing states to raise their own militias. These could be "well-regulated" -- meaning, well-equipped and well-trained.

There are a couple of rich, ironies in contemporary politics. Nowadays, the so-called supporters of the Second Amendment, people who tend to have an "originalist" view of the Constitution, will not hesitate to use the power of the federal government to overturn state and local gun laws. Richard Posner, a pro-gun libertarian/conservative judge and scholar has said Scalia's Heller opinion is more of a snow job.

https://newrepublic.com/article/62124/defense-looseness
 
dudalb said:
I was going to do a serous reply on the grounds of "Sometimes Arms are necessary to defend human rights" but this whole post is so outrageous and silly and bear so little relation to reality it's best just to laugh on it.
Click to expand...

To me this demonstrates how deeply ingrained culture is.

I believe it's an important question. If you're going to have civillians armed it would seem appropriate, even essential, to have the discussion about what defines "arm". Those that wrote the document knew nothing but cannon, sword and musket.

I think this is a cultural thing. I think your response shows a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.
 
ArchSas said:
The real solution, as far as I'm concerned, is something we probably don't know yet. The US government hasn't put any research into gun safety in years. Once that happens, we'll probably have a better idea of what will work, and what won't. That, and providing mental health care and coping skills to people who desperately need it.
Click to expand...
Partly because of the Dickey Amendment. On the plus side, the wording was softened a bit last year.
 
dudalb said:
DId not like the movie at all. A travesty of Heinlein's novel, which badly distorts the points Heinleon was trying to make..many of which I disagree with.
Click to expand...

Seconded, but I was only half kidding - I'd love to have a little 4 or 5 question quiz on civics that would be required to be passed before someone could vote, but Barack Obama will be the grand dragon of the Pointy-Hat Club before that happens.
 
3point14 said:
To me this demonstrates how deeply ingrained culture is.

I believe it's an important question. If you're going to have civillians armed it would seem appropriate, even essential, to have the discussion about what defines "arm". Those that wrote the document knew nothing but cannon, sword and musket.

I think this is a cultural thing. I think your response shows a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I think this is a projection thing. Showing a lack of understanding of the role your cultural background plays in your reasoning.
 
3point14 said:
What a gross oversimplification, well done.

There's this thing called logisitics

War isn't about what you have, it's about where you can get it to.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

Do you think that the failure of the USA to pacify Afghanistan was that they :

1) lacked the logistical capability to transport their incredible firepower/nukes etc to Afghanistan,
or
2) that the USA considered nukes to be inappropriate tools in combating an insurgency
 
Ranb said:
Nope, still have both of my legs attached. :)
Click to expand...
As long as you're not blind, I support your right to bear arms. Even then, if you have some residual sight and like to target-shoot.

A desire for personal protection is not selfish on the level of the individual. But as far as I can tell, having more guns does not make us any safer collectively, for the depressing reasons we're all familiar with.

If it was possible in the U.S. to pull back from our current levels of gun ownership, I think I'd be more supportive of gun control. I don't see how that can happen, though.
 
3point14 said:
Do you think everyone encompassed in the definition of "The People" should be allowed to carry a firearm of their choice, loaded, in public, not concealed?
Click to expand...


No way. Hell no. It's bad enough we let many of them drive on public roads. Millions of these idiots carrying guns? I'd never leave home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom