All Things Second Amendment

[Idolater]

. . . the sudden onset of liberty would probably create a lot of problems.

An interesting position, and one that reminds me of the effect of globalization upon for our purposes we can just call them local 'family farmers.' When their countries enter into free trade agreements with other countries, they are impacted because all of a sudden they are competing with imported food. There are a lot of corporate or factory farms that do a lot of international business, and their costs, even after shipping, can be so economical, that local family farmers who are used to living on their volumes and with their own fair market prices, are suddenly pressured to lower their prices to compete, leaving many of them out of luck /business.

People put into such a state no doubt bemoan rather than celebrate the introduction of liberty into their world. It sounds like a similar pattern might occur if liberty wrt guns were suddenly introduced, if I'm reading you right.

It's as I said an interesting position /problem.

This is probably true of any attempt to install a good justice system: People are so used to the government doing things for them that if it were to refrain, a lot of things would founder. Examples:
If the death penalty were properly implemented.
If prisons were eliminated.
If IP rules were thrown out.

A lot of good ideas would have horrendous consequences if implemented unwisely (fully formed all at once) in societies as mollycoddled as today's.

This makes it easy for "status quo" people to fall into the trap of the fallacy of appeal to consequence. Which they do with great eagerness.

. . . There would likely be a great spike in murders and other gun-related deaths until society could adjust.

And in a democracy, they wouldn't get a chance.

So the best way forward is a gradual introduction of what liberty, justice and rights are.

But in a democracy, that would never get a chance.

I think I understand your view, that while liberty (what I think is rightly called classical liberalism) is ultimately good, that the implementation or pursuit of it, wrt laws, might need to be carefully governed and rolled out gradually, rather than to just 'open the flood gates' of freedom.

It's a very interesting conundrum.

...That said, arming the general population and fostering gun control (ie, trained people bearing arms being the general rule for the everyday man) would be a fantastic deterrent to invasion (by China)...

'Sure couldn't hurt. Ceteris paribus of course.

 

[Idolater]

Before the 30's, you could buy guns of any sort, unregulated, military grade, whatever, easier than today. You could buy a machine gun through the mail. You could buy dynamite from the Sears catalog. And no mass shootings.

So what's changed?

Availability of dynamite and machine guns has been reduced drastically. Mass shootings have spiked.

It would seem foolish to argue that a further drastic reduction in availability of guns is the answer.

So what's changed?

Maybe it's not the guns.

Population's increased. If we take an assumption that suicidal mass murderers are going to present in any population at a certain fixed small but non-zero probability, then greater population would tend to lead to a greater number of suicidal mass murders.

For my part I think this is More of a reason and not Less, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to recognize, affirm, protect, and defend our inalienable right to carry standard issue military small arms, at a minimum. And others disagree.

But that's assuming it's even true that there's some fixed probability that suicidal mass murderers will present in all populations. Instead I think that suicidal mass murderers are influenced by ideology /philosophy. Kamikazes were influenced by a Japanese culture that smiled upon 'honor suicide' /"harakiri," and in some forms of Islam there is a very similar value. In dealing with such motivated suicidal mass murderers, the last thing that we need is to be prevented from preparing ourselves; to be forbidden from protecting ourselves against being outgunned.

 

[Stripe]

Murderous Belgians.

 

[Nihilo]

Murderous Belgians.

lol. They are more murderous than New Hampshire residents. Nice video. Old data though, there are over 120 guns per 100 Americans now, not 90.

So we've seen a 33% increase in murders right?

lain: :nono:

Just think of that. 33% increase in guns, and no increase in murders. It's almost like it's not about guns.

 

[Nihilo]

Before the 30's, you could buy guns of any sort, unregulated, military grade, whatever, easier than today. You could buy a machine gun through the mail.

You could buy one of these:

Through mail order.

(If anybody wants to visualize how a mass shooter might shoot during a massacre, go right to 5:25 in the video, where the host shoots the gun in semiauto, at target after target. This would be how a rampage shooter might be shooting innocent people during a mass shooting massacre, if the shooter had a semiauto gun with a normal /high capacity magazine. Later when the host switches to full auto makes that gun an "NFA Title II Weapon," and highly regulated.)

 

[ok doser]

I'm confused - all those bullets fired from a gun designed to kill lots of people quickly, and not a single dead child?

Must be defective.


Or maybe it's not the guns.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local...oter-thwarted-california-gun-control-1815970/

You'd think gun control is ineffective, because the criminals will just go around the laws...

Maybe it's not the guns after all...

 

[Town Heretic]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local...oter-thwarted-california-gun-control-1815970/

You'd think gun control is ineffective

Only if you don't look at the actual numbers where it's the rule and not the exception.

But be clear, nothing will ever be an absolute cure for what ails man. All you can do with law, good law, is limit the opportunity for some to express the horror of what's in them.

because the criminals will just go around the laws...

A lot of people who commit the worst atrocities aren't in violation of law until the act.

Maybe it's not the guns after all...

This is the false, right wing narrative in full bloom. No one, no one has ever said it's about the guns. It's about people and what they do with access to certain kinds of guns. What they will do more easily and more often.

We lock our doors because we understand that principle. Not because we think a lock guarantees our safety.

 

[northwye]

"Maybe it's not the guns after all..."

"This is the false, right wing narrative in full bloom. No one, no one has ever said it's about the guns. It's about people and what they do with access to certain kinds of guns. What they will do more easily and more often."

Suppose, that at the time of the beginning of World War II, that the American Second Amendment did not exist, and that Western Europe and England had laws making ownership of guns illegal. But there did exist a German Warrior Class, which, when put into the Nazi War Machine was an effective fighting force, which could very well have won the War.

The Japanese also had a strong Warrior Class, and Hitler could have got it to help him defeat Communist Russia, so the Japanese Warrior Class was another threat to the United States.

The American Second Amendment was created after the Revolutionary War when the American Colonies developed their own very different kind of "Warrior Class" to finally defeat the British in North America.

The Second Amendment was meant to give Americans a way of defending themselves from a foreign nation or nations who have Warrior Classes. England in the Revolutionary War had a Warrior Class, though not with a Warrior Class Culure like that of Germany and Japan in the forties of the 20th century

 

[Stripe]

Only if you don't look at the actual numbers where it's the rule and not the exception.

:dizzy:

But be clear, nothing will ever be an absolute cure for what ails man. All you can do with law, good law, is limit the opportunity for some to express the horror of what's in them.

You do not understand the law or what it is for.

Hint: It is not for preventing people from actions.

A lot of people who commit the worst atrocities aren't in violation of law until the act.

Almost none of them, in fact. Even in the so-called "law" you studied.

This is the false, right wing narrative in full bloom.

That's rich coming from the king of left-wing narrative.

In fact it is trivially true that it is not the guns, but the people who are to blame.

No one, no one has ever said it's about the guns.

But that's all we ever hear about when it comes to proposed policy fixes. Ban this, ban that! And you yourself have spent hours typing posts saying that specific types of weapons are problems that needs to be removed.

It's about people and what they do with access to certain kinds of guns. What they will do more easily and more often.

You say "it's about people," but your proposals are about guns. Your own ideas betray you.

We lock our doors because we understand that principle.

What principle? And you want "high-capacity locks" banned.

Not because we think a lock guarantees our safety.

We lock doors because that decreases the likelihood that we will be robbed. We carry guns because that increases the likelihood that murderers will be gunned down and go to hell, with the added bonus that fewer innocent people will die.

 

[Town Heretic]

"Maybe it's not the guns after all..."

"This is the false, right wing narrative in full bloom. No one, no one has ever said it's about the guns. It's about people and what they do with access to certain kinds of guns. What they will do more easily and more often."

Suppose, that at the time of the beginning of World War II, that the American Second Amendment did not exist, and that Western Europe and England had laws making ownership of guns illegal. But there did exist a German Warrior Class, which, when put into the Nazi War Machine was an effective fighting force, which could very well have won the War.

The Japanese also had a strong Warrior Class, and Hitler could have got it to help him defeat Communist Russia, so the Japanese Warrior Class was another threat to the United States.

The American Second Amendment was created after the Revolutionary War when the American Colonies developed their own very different kind of "Warrior Class" to finally defeat the British in North America.

The Second Amendment was meant to give Americans a way of defending themselves from a foreign nation or nations who have Warrior Classes. England in the Revolutionary War had a Warrior Class, though not with a Warrior Class Culure like that of Germany and Japan in the forties of the 20th century

The 2nd Amendment was created at a time when we needed the militias, to be sure. We no longer do. Beyond that, the right supports all sorts of legitimate purposes, from livelihood, food gathering (which can benefit animal populations), recreation, and public safety via self defense and as a deterrent.

I am a gun owner and support the 2nd Amendment, but not the notion that any type of weapon should be put into the stream of commerce for exercising the right. We can be a safer society while preserving the right and any legitimate use of firearms if we put into place stronger gun laws, from mandating registration and safety courses, to banning semi and fully automatic weapons and the sort of aids that facilitate rapid fire.

Every other Western democracy has some variation of those stronger laws and they're all much safer places for their citizens.

 

[Right Divider]

The 2nd Amendment was created at a time when we needed the militias, to be sure. We no longer do. Beyond that, the right supports all sorts of legitimate purposes, from livelihood, food gathering (which can benefit animal populations), recreation, and public safety via self defense and as a deterrent.

The second amendment has nothing to do with:

• Livelihood
• Food gathering
• Recreation
• Public Safety
• Self-defense (in the individual sense).

It had/has to do with FREEDOM!

It has to do with defending ourselves from tyranny of any kind

 

[ok doser]

The second amendment has nothing to do with:

• Livelihood
• Food gathering
• Recreation
• Public Safety
• Self-defense (in the individual sense).

It had/has to do with FREEDOM!

It has to do with defending ourselves from tyranny of any kind

Tyranny doesn't happen any more, silly

 

[Right Divider]

Tyranny doesn't happen any more, silly

Precisely what the tyrants would like the sheep to believe, eh?

 

[Town Heretic]

The second amendment has nothing to do with:

• Livelihood
• Food gathering
• Recreation
• Public Safety
• Self-defense (in the individual sense).

No, it has a great deal to do with all of those, though what I wrote was, "Beyond that, the right supports all sorts of legitimate purposes, from livelihood, food gathering (which can benefit animal populations), recreation, and public safety via self defense and as a deterrent."

That is, beyond its intended purpose it carries additional value (a thing that couldn't be lost on them).

It had/has to do with FREEDOM!

No, it has to do with a well regulated militia being necessary to the Republic, principally one that still had reason to cast a wary eye on our former lands. Freedom is a larger abstract notion that laws and Constitutions impair by their very existence. The moment a law is written you lose the freedom to do at least one thing.

It has to do with defending ourselves from tyranny of any kind

Too broad and too subjective. The tyranny they had in mind was from the outside in. They cobbled a peaceful means of revolution from the inside out.

 

[Right Divider]

No, it has a great deal to do with all of those, though what I wrote was, "Beyond that, the right supports all sorts of legitimate purposes, from livelihood, food gathering (which can benefit animal populations), recreation, and public safety via self defense and as a deterrent."

That is, beyond its intended purpose it carries additional value (a thing that couldn't be lost on them).

All that I can do is laugh at that.

No, it has to do with a well regulated militia being necessary to the Republic, principally one that still had reason to cast a wary eye on our former lands. Freedom is a larger abstract notion that laws and Constitutions impair by their very existence. The moment a law is written you lose the freedom to do at least one thing.

Once again... funny!!

They had just expelled their own government. Do you not think that this was in their minds?

Too broad and too subjective. The tyranny they had in mind was from the outside in. They cobbled a peaceful means of revolution from the inside out.

They had just expelled their own government. That was the context of their documents.

 

[Town Heretic]

All that I can do is laugh at that.

That would have been my guess. So now we're both happy.

Once again... funny!!

Conversation is always better when everyone is having a good time.

They had just expelled their own government.

Well that's just rude.

Do you not think that this was in their minds?

Ah, I see. The "cast a wary eye" should have ended with motherland. It doesn't really make sense without it. Lands doesn't really fit and I'm not sure how that happened...probably stopped to do something else (Jack is sick and underfoot) then came back and almost stuck the landing.

So sure, that was my point. We needed militias because we had rags as a standing army and the Brits were still openly hostile.

They had just expelled their own government. That was the context of their documents.

This you just missed. Here it is again:

"Too broad and too subjective. The tyranny they had in mind was from the outside in. They cobbled a peaceful means of revolution from the inside out."

I'm saying that it was a fairly particular tyranny. One outside our borders aimed inward. That's the motherland I left off the earlier. Tyranny that might try to emerge from within we could deal with using the ballot box.

 

[ok doser]

Precisely what the tyrants would like the sheep to believe, eh?

Baaaaa

 

[northwye]

"The 2nd Amendment was created at a time when we needed the militias, to be sure. We no longer do."

We did not "need" the Second Amendment and a citizen's militia in World War II because the Roosevelt Administration was Democratic and Left leaning, though not as Marxist at the present day Democratic Party.

The Left and Marxism oppose the Second Amendment and a citizen's militia, independent of the federal government.

Beginning in a reaction against the leftist Clinton Administration and its Waco Massacre in 1993, a Patriot-Populist movement began, first on short wave and by 2016 on the Internet'

Although the 2016 version of this new Patriot-Populist-Alternative Media Movement was not as overt in its support of the Citizen Militias as were many of the Short-Wave Broadcasters of the nineties, still the object of the Patriot-Populist Movement in 2016 to 2019 is to put political and even cultural power back in the hands of the larger masses of the people, and to take it out of the hands of the financial and corporate ruling elite, something which the Citizen Militias want also.

An armed citizen’s militia which is independent of the control of the federal government was the constant theme of the Whig pamphleteers from the period of the founding of the U.S. Constitutional Republic

Bernard Bailyn has shown in his The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, that Whigs, such as John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, were influences upon the creation of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment.

 

[annabenedetti]

In this country, they mostly look like right-wing domestic terrorists.

Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting Suspect Posted About Far-Right Book Moments Before Shooting

Also:

The rise in domestic terrorism — as profiled in a captivating New York Times Magazine report from 2018 — is largely driven by an uptick in far-right extremism. Of the 263 acts of domestic terrorism that occurred between 2010 and the end of 2017, 92, around a third, were committed by Americans on the far right. “If you have politicians saying things like our nation is under attack, that there are these marauding bands of immigrants coming into the country, that plays into this right-wing narrative,” Gary LaFree, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, told the Post. “They begin to think it’s okay to use violence.”

Today's racist, right-wing Trump-supporting El Paso gunman (multiple fatalities, don't have an exact count yet) was radicalized by reading The Great Replacement.