Community >> View Thread

Author
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021


Organized crime is alive and well in Italy, but mass shootings are not a thing there, and here's why:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/italy-has-a-gun-culture-but-no-mass-shootings-here-s-why/ar-AAXXkLU?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=65e5a8ebb103477cb40e982f5d4972d1


Blue states will learn from Italy (or already have) and red states will say they need guns to fight the government, as per this Congressman's recent comments:
https://www.businessinsider.com/mo-brooks-people-need-guns-to-take-back-dictatorial-government-2022-5

Joe Biden openly mocks that position, and rightly so:
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-mocks-gun-right-advocates-who-say-assault-weapons-needed-fight-government-2021-6



Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


That's all pretty much common sense. Strong gun regulation + universal healthcare = less mental health issues and less access to guns

Unfortunately, common sense is not common in many states. There are many best practices easily found working all over the world that the United States ignores because of some ideology blinding people.




How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI
Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



The argument their guns can protect them from the government is so ridiculous I question the validity of the source (it has to be a joke). I mean, unless the people starts to own tanks, war ships, fighter jets and nukes, I don't see how they can even be relevant at all.




Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:

    The argument their guns can protect them from the government is so ridiculous I question the validity of the source (it has to be a joke). I mean, unless the people starts to own tanks, war ships, fighter jets and nukes, I don't see how they can even be relevant at all.



An article from 2013:
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny


This is one of those areas where originalism would lead us astray. The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about states' rights. It's highly plausible that they intended the 2nd Amendment to do exactly what it says - allow for state militias - with the underlying assumption that these militias would stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny. But how relevant is that today? In our world today, the federal government has control of an army so formidable that it would slaughter any number of "minute men" armed with semi-automatic rifles.





Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,777


It always makes me think of Waco. Or more recently in my state, the Malheur State Park occupation. Militias with AR-15s are powerless against the federal government. I think the better weapon to use against the feds in this day and age to hold them accountable is simply media exposure. Make sure your story gets out. Which doesn't always mean you're on the right side.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/1/3/10703712/oregon-militia-standoff


Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.0.0 on Linux
Visitor


Member Since: Sun Jul 30, 2017
Posts: 2,929



    Quote:
    Unfortunately, common sense is not common in many states. There are many best practices easily found working all over the world that the United States ignores because of some ideology blinding people.


This isn't on the United States Congress.

The House has repeatedly sent sensible gun reform bills to the Senate and they have refused to even bring it on the floor for debate. They won't even entertain the simplest measures such as background ID checks and yet they block voting right bills because they say stricter ID checks are required.

The Senate has also BLOCKED other measures to protect the public such as the George Floyd police reform and domestic terrorism bills passed by the House of Representatives.

Clearly it's the Republicans who are the supporters of radical ideologies to blind people and appease their base.






Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.67 on Windows 10
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




Posted with Google Chrome 50.0.2661.89 on Linux
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


The arguments are sort of dumb really. If you need guns to overthrow what is supposed to be a democratic government than you are a terrorist.

The second amendment has stopped zero tyrants but has led to alot of innocent people to be killed.

Gun culture is supposedly enshrined in the constitution but it is not and is not a sacred thing. It is an outdated amendment gone out of control. As militias are a thing of the past. Yet scotus is likely to expand gun rights and make gun control harder despite their supposed concerns for originalism and textualism.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.78 on Linux
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    The arguments are sort of dumb really. If you need guns to overthrow what is supposed to be a democratic government than you are a terrorist.



Unless the government goes insane.

But I would argue that our government is too strong for militias of any size to threaten it.



    Quote:
    The second amendment has stopped zero tyrants but has led to a lot of innocent people to be killed.



I agree. But we haven't had any tyrants yet. Gun enthusiasts would claim we haven't had any tyrants because our populace is well armed. We can claim bullshit but we can't prove a negative.



    Quote:
    Gun culture is supposedly enshrined in the constitution but it is not and is not a sacred thing. It is an outdated amendment gone out of control. As militias are a thing of the past. Yet scotus is likely to expand gun rights and make gun control harder despite their supposed concerns for originalism and textualism.



Actually, textualism very clearly supports state militias, and originalism (based on writings of the time) supports the idea that the states wanted to be able to protect themselves from federal tyranny. Fear of federal tyranny was a very big thing back then. But back then, everybody had the same weapons. Nowadays, militias have semi-automatic rifles, and the government has fighter jets, helicopters, missiles, tanks, fully automatic machine guns, and on and on, plus they're highly trained and highly coordinated with battle-tested strategies and tactics. They would squash any militia like a bug.



Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      The arguments are sort of dumb really. If you need guns to overthrow what is supposed to be a democratic government than you are a terrorist.



    Quote:

    Unless the government goes insane.


Who is to judge that though? It seems more likely from history that those with the gun rights position would side with a populist insane authoritarian sort of government.

Not to mention that on paper it would be harder for a system like the US to go insane so to speak. Or at least not very quickly.


    Quote:
    But I would argue that our government is too strong for militias of any size to threaten it.


Sure. I would agree but would have several other arguments against it. I will get into some below.

I also do not think militias even exist anymore. The nearest that exists now would be something like the National Guard. Not the militias referred to in the Constitution.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      The second amendment has stopped zero tyrants but has led to a lot of innocent people to be killed.



    Quote:

    I agree. But we haven't had any tyrants yet. Gun enthusiasts would claim we haven't had any tyrants because our populace is well armed. We can claim bullshit but we can't prove a negative.


It would be up to them to support that claim though, not for us to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. Just because one makes a claim does not mean there is evidence for it.

Depending on the gun enthusiasts you are talking about, they claim alot of folks are tyrants and they are everywhere. So, they are either there or they are not. Paranoia may say they are but in the US there have not been any to this point with Trump, among their heroes, probably being nearest to a modern tyrant.

I will also add that doing an evaluation would not be too hard to demonstrate this or not. Define tyrant and evaluate countries adjusted for population with the US about the rise of tyrants and correlate with gun rights. Without the data I would start out with the assumption that countries that are not heavily armed have also had few tyrants, particularly over the timeframes evaluated.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      Gun culture is supposedly enshrined in the constitution but it is not and is not a sacred thing. It is an outdated amendment gone out of control. As militias are a thing of the past. Yet scotus is likely to expand gun rights and make gun control harder despite their supposed concerns for originalism and textualism.



    Quote:

    Actually, textualism very clearly supports state militias, and originalism (based on writings of the time) supports the idea that the states wanted to be able to protect themselves from federal tyranny. Fear of federal tyranny was a very big thing back then. But back then, everybody had the same weapons. Nowadays, militias have semi-automatic rifles, and the government has fighter jets, helicopters, missiles, tanks, fully automatic machine guns, and on and on, plus they're highly trained and highly coordinated with battle-tested strategies and tactics. They would squash any militia like a bug.


My criticism is more over the current SCOTUS selective views of the matter. The Heller decision for instances granted the individual right to own weapons despite such a thing never existing before. So, now it exists. SCOTUS says it and the irony is that this group is supposed to not do this sort of thing.

I would take some issues with your use of militia here. The only militias I know of are the ones that could be seen as near terrorist groups. The National Guard in each state is a much closer alagory. As militias as they did exist are not really a thing anymore.

To another point about protecting the state, I am not sure I totally agree. The states were concerned about Federal power, and it is what led to the Articles of Confederation failing outright. The general fear was over a standing Federal army. It worried states. So, each state had it's militia that could be called upon to serve in the Federal army. This was done in the Revolution and for a time after.

The Second Amendment has to be understood in that context. At the time all people that served were expected to have their own guns, but this is something that Washington and Hamilton in particular noticed earlier on was a major failure. Farmers showing up with their hunting rifles of varying quality, varying states of repair and accuracy. It was a thorn in their side during Washington's first years as president. However, it was the thought at the time.

The standardization of weapons was required and eventually worked in when there was a standing army.

In many respects each state having its own mini army that could be called upon had alot of logistical problems with it from the onset. And the Constitution includes several quotes about the presidents powers over militias.

The other thing I wanted to bring up is the idea of the Second Amendment being there to stop tyranny. To me this is a poor argument. The Constitution and the Amendments as a whole is a work to prevent that sort of thing. Not just one Amendment. It makes no sense at all for there to be one Amendment that legalizes insurrection for any reason a disenfranchised group believes is happening. Usually those in majority positions.

It undercuts the whole idea of Democracy at all if one group can just say screw it and overthrow things or attempt to do it just because they are unhappy and refuse to use the systems in place.

For that matter the Second Amendment in no way shape or form was ever meant to protect an individual's right to have guns over the taking of people's lives. Having somebody delayed in getting a gun is not burden enough compared to somebodies kid getting killed and never coming back.

Gun violence is a complex problem for sure but guns are the main thing involved. The number of weapons is a big problem but anything to delay folks from getting them that may do harm is a delay that could lead to events being stopped or harm averted and I am all for that. It is a joke in some states that you can go in and buy a gun and wear it around with no restrictions on the same day. There is more scrutiny adopting a dog.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.0.0 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:

      The argument their guns can protect them from the government is so ridiculous I question the validity of the source (it has to be a joke). I mean, unless the people starts to own tanks, war ships, fighter jets and nukes, I don't see how they can even be relevant at all.






    Quote:

    This is one of those areas where originalism would lead us astray. The framers of the Constitution were very concerned about states' rights. It's highly plausible that they intended the 2nd Amendment to do exactly what it says - allow for state militias - with the underlying assumption that these militias would stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny. But how relevant is that today? In our world today, the federal government has control of an army so formidable that it would slaughter any number of "minute men" armed with semi-automatic rifles.


I mean maybe? The fear in general at the time was that of a standing Federal Army. That was feared so that the President would not be a king and just rule with force.

Around the Revolutionary war, before and somewhat after, all states had militias. This was their national guard of sorts. They had to be called up and put together to make an army to fight the British in the first place and one of the many flaws was states did not always want to do this or to keep their men in place in the Federal army. Which made a mess that states could recall their own troops.

One could look at it as a way to avoid Federal tyranny I guess, but it seems clearer to me that it had more to do with practical need at the time.

There was no standing army except what could be called up from state militias. Given that states were not giving their militia's weapons, nor was the Federal government, the members had to have their own guns to use. At least by and large.

So, they worked it into the Constitution that people needed their guns in order to serve in the militia so their ability to do so should not be taken from the.

However, it makes no sense outside of the serving in the state militia context and became pointless once there was a standing army. Since weapons were then provided.

The battle over a standing army was for sure state's rights vs federal power, but it was also a natural extension of the failed Articles of Confederation where each state saw itself more as a country and this led to failed coordination that nearly doomed the Revolutionary War in the first place.

I just do not agree with the premise that the 2nd Amendment in and of itself is a direct check on federal power as much as it is a practical solution to ensure that there was an army to call upon when there was need. At least given the wording and situation of the day. If we want to construct an originalist picture.

As courts of that period even indicated that it was the militia aspect that was important and not the individual as such.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


I am not sure that the Feds are always the enemy. They can be but often State's have been pretty bad as well in terms of putting people in bad situations. I mean just consider the Reconstruction period in the South. Those State's were happy to allow the murder of minorities and those of different political stripes and to stop them from voting ensuring their own return to power.

I agree with the transparency aspect but would consider it what should be a feature of Democracy. The electorate has to know what is going on to make a choice.

Which is the problem with transparency. If the electorate does not care or those in power are so insulated that exposure that threatens their power base is directly reduced. Add that to social media and echo chambers and you have pretty good protection from any real accountability.

I mean we seem to have accepted as a country (at least politically) that kids getting gunned down is not enough to really act on. As it is more important folks can shoot vermin with weapons I guess. And the politicians saying this sort of thing will be reelected comfortably.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 102.0.5005.63 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software