Celebrating the 40th anniversary of Return of the Jedi

Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
The Avenger

Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021
Subj: Re: Italy has a gun culture but no mass shootings
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 02:41:26 pm EDT (Viewed 198 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Italy has a gun culture but no mass shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 at 05:56:48 pm EDT (Viewed 206 times)


      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.

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.

    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.


      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.

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.


      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.

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 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software