Defend the Second Amendment!

The actual question that should be addressed is people. If people didn't kill other people would we be having this discussion?

But then the topic of this conversation is the second amendment and what that says about who should have guns and why.

The question here is not whether guns are destructive, they are but who do you want to have that destructiveness in their hands? And how is that to be accomplished?

In this thread I have taken the side of the more the merrier.

If there was some way to eliminate guns from the earth I could go for that but short of that, laws and restrictions only take guns out of the hands of people who would use guns responsibly and would leave guns in the hands of the irresponsible few who find it easy to disregard laws and restrictions in the first place.

Balbas has said over and over again; “if people stop been so afraid of their society and fellow citizens then they stop feeling they needed guns for protection”

Okay let’s go with that and say Americans are afraid like Balbus says and let’s say that overnight people stop being so afraid of their society and fellow citizens and then they stop feeling they need guns for protection and turn in all the guns they thought they needed for production.

Does that mean that criminals no longer exist? Does that mean criminals will turn in their guns and no longer use guns to attack and rob these now unarmed citizens? Honestly, criminals don’t have guns because they are afraid or think they need protection; they have guns because it helps them do their job, crime.

 

Thanks, it looks like there are those here who can answer a simple question.

Since you seem to have the ability to recognize a question and answer it, unlike some here, let me ask you another similar question;
If you were traveling and passed a 1500 year old stone house and stopped and asked the person who lived there who build it and were told they didn't have any idea who build it.
Would you assume that no one built it and that the stones must have somehow assembled themselves into the shape of a house and that maybe a nearby tree had fallen to form the roof?
Or would just assume that there was a builder but that the builder is just unknown to you?

 

You are talking about the propensity for man to kill in large numbers, not weapons. I think this is how you get mixed up in reading comprehension in that you don't recognize the subject of a sentence on occasion. I say it is not even possible for man to kill in large numbers and very difficult to kill in isolation by use of tooth and nail. Without weapons it is impossible for man to kill at a distance. That so what. While man may have murderous desires he doesn't have the native equipment for murder on any large scale without the invention of weapons. Your argument that guns do not contribute to the death toll because man is a murderer is bogus and as Balbus points out many times recycled. To say it is a recycled position is not dismissive but says it is of a type. And yes natural born killers is an apt and mutually understandable description of the argument. You don't recognize it because you think the shoe doesn't fit because to you it is an unattractive shoe. Doesn't mean at all that it doesn't fit.

I don't wonder at all. I told you why, your reason fails.

 

See here is where you are not being sly. It is not a simple question is it? it is a leading question as it leads to your already anticipated further arguments. Your suggestion that some are not following the simple rules is an effort to inflict emotional discomfort where reasonable discourse fails to satisfy you.

 

Strike the 2nd!
It has out-lived its purpose after the last Indians where herded onto the res.
Gun owner ship should be a privilege, not a right!
Mass shootings daily, crimes involving firearms hourly.
I understand that many US 'men' need guns to make up for the shortcomings in their manhood, as firearms are phallus symbols;
inserting the barrel into their woman instead of their short and limp dicks.

 

When debating Gun Policy, it is important to note the presence of illegal firearms in circulation; which render discussion about the Second Amendment less important.

An illegal gun is far riskier proposition than a registered gun.

 

I have never heard of "Paley's Watchmaker argument" but I assume that it is probably similar to what I'm saying.

And you are correct, belief or disbelief in God has little to nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not sure why but Balbus asked me to prove God's existence and this was part of that proof.

In any case thanks for answering the question.

 

MeAgain,

I would agree that some gun control might be necessary and agree that a person has a right to self-defense and for me that would include the right to possession of a gun if he deemed it necessary.

But one must realize that guns also serve other purposes than self-defense, such as hunting. And whereas a hand gun is what is generally thought of when the subject is self-defense, a rifle is what is thought of for hunting. So deciding what kind of gun is needed and what kind should be regulated or restricted suddenly becomes a little more complicated.

As for the 2nd Amendment, as you point out there is a divide as to what it says and means. Whereas I can see the other side of the coin; I see this amendment as the right to own whatever arms a person deems necessary to be quickly called in to a militias to defend the nation but also to defend himself against the nation itself, if the need arise.

As for disregarding the laws that are already on the books, the 2nd amendment came first and so if there are laws on the books that disagree with the 2nd amendment then they are unconstitutional and should be disregarded.

Now getting into restricting the type of guns allowed and bringing fire rate into the discussion, again it depends on the purpose of the 2nd amendment. If it is there to allow a militia to be quickly formed then restricting gun ownership to “flintlocks” would not be conforming to the spirit of the amendment.

As for Guns being proof against "Big Government", federal intervention, a police state etc., one might ask themselves if guns are not effective against such things, why is it that almost the first thing a despot does when he comes to power is take guns away from private citizens. Why don’t they just let them have their “ineffective” guns?

But then I also agree with you, guns or no guns, without a populace of integrity that will stand up for the rights of others the nation will sooner or later fall into the hands of despots.

 

Old

You are still huffing, puffing and stamping your foot and demanding others just accept the ‘fact’ that your god exists and if we don’t you call us closed minded fools.

Honestly I don’t care if people feel the need for a god as a crutch in their lives that’s up to them but I would argue against anyone like that been given power or influence in a society because history has shown us that they would soon become intolerant of dissenters, and their god would soon be commanding them to take retribution out on the unbelievers.

But we have and can examine the sun, it is there for us to do so, but on one has been able to produce their god [or only in fairy-tales] in the end it comes back to belief [faith] in a particular gods existence.

No you have your version of a god and others have theirs, you can dismiss theirs and I’m sure many with a differing version will dismiss yours.

No I think people wrote stories [fairy-tales] to justify their actions or to explain things they were ignorant of.

I‘ve read human written stories [fairy-tales] about the resurrection of the dead, personally my favourite is Frankenstein.

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Why would I assume no one built it? Ok so that would only be 515AD a lot would already be known about the people of the area at that time in a general sense, a stone house from such a period would be reasonably high status so there is the serious possibility of written records, the building techniques and style would also tell us a lot and then there is also the large amounts of information that could be found through modern archaeology. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]For example we know a lot about the Hagia Sophia inaugurated in 537 AD it was built on the orders of Justinian and the original architects were Isidore of Miletus and Anthemius of Tralleswe. [/SIZE]

*

I don’t want to get into the old watchmaker argument because I’ve been there before and know where it leads and in the end once again it will come back to ‘faith’ and someone like you demanding they are right because they are right.

The thing is that it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny "everything we do know about the universe tells us that it was formed, not created"

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080515215302AAw9RUw

 

[SIZE=11pt]So regurgitating we will go it seems….[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I faked my response? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But easy access to guns seems to increase the numbers killed as the examples given seemed to indicate. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]No but it would be harder for them to do so. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The fact is that guns make it easier for people to kill. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Anyway reading through your other come backs they seem weak to the point of fatuousness. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean to a serious point about how lethal guns are over distance you reply – [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]When you come back with such things it is hard to take you in any way seriously. And other things you say just don’t make any sense [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Why have they stop been afraid? Have the things they seem afraid of gone away because that is the only way that would happen. Magic doesn’t exist in the real world you do know that don’t you or does your belief in the supernatural mean you don’t? [/SIZE]

 

Meagain

Old brought god into the discussion in post 283 (the number on my screen) in defining what is reasonable.

Anyway I think it has established that Old is a person of ‘faith’ and in an argument seems to fall back onto ‘faith’ and the conviction that he is right because of it.

 

Gun theory

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

Against Government

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

Against Crime

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

(Just a reminder here that “In 1998, more than four times as many women were murdered with a gun by their husbands or intimate partners than were killed by strangers' guns, knives or other weapons combined”… and “One study found that, in Atlanta, family and intimate assaults involving guns were 12 times more likely to result in death than family and intimate assaults not involving guns (L. Saltzman, et.al; Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults; 1992). ‘Guns and Domestic Violence’ by Beth Levy. These were crimes but ones were the gun supposed protective deterrence of outside forces caused internal tragedy)

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

Well back to those other means of intimidation.

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

And in the same way many believe ‘government’ suppression isn’t possible because they are armed that if the ‘government’ comes for them they have a gun to protect themselves and that enough people have guns that the ‘government’ could be overthrown anyway if it tried to suppress its citizens.

**

I have tried to point out that this doesn’t seem to fit with US history, and have given some examples but here I would like to go into a little more detail and show how the US political establishment colluded in the often systematic and overt repression of what it saw as a political rival to power.

And to show that during this obvious case of state repression the American people did not rise up to champion freedom and democracy in fact most accepted it, many thought it a good thing and others were happy even eager to help in it.

**

Unions that tried to improve the conditions of some of the poorest in society often found themselves the object of state repression from the very beginning. Demands for such things as an eight hour day were ignored or suppressed with force by private police forces, state militias and even the National Guard, there was the suppression of public meetings or free speech, the imprisonment of people without charge, many people including women and children were beaten up and others killed.

Also it was difficult for left wing groups to break into the political mainstream. The Democrats and Republicans have often joined together to exclude other political groups or party’s, since these are in the main right wing in outlook it has meant that the groups most often excluded have been left wing.

(That is why many people in the US don’t vote for what they believe in or want but just to keep out something that they see as worse.)

Against such opposition it is amazing that in 1912 the US Socialist Party had over a thousand elected officials in local government and that Eugene Debs got a million votes in that years presidential race (6 per cent of the vote, the envy of many socialist around the world at the time). It was able to get over thirty Majors into power as many legislators and had large numbers of loyal votes in many urban areas. It was a growing force.

But the repression of trade union groups and left wing political ideas continued.

For opposing WWI Debs was arrested and convicted to ten years in prison, from where he stood for President in 1920 receiving 913,664 votes (Nader got about half that in 2004 and Perot about double in 1992)

Another socialist opponent of the war was also sentence to prison Victor Berger however he did get elected to Congress but was refused entry this caused a re-election that he again won, but he was still refused entry.

In other areas like New York openly socialist representatives to the city and state - who had been democratically elected - were also barred from their posts.

Around this time many states passed laws banning the display of red flags (a communist and socialist emblem) and the federal government set up the General Intelligence Division headed by none other than J. Edger Hoover to monitor (harass) left wing ‘radicals’.

This harassment turned into repression during the late 1930’s with the establishment of the committee for ‘Un-American Activities’. This was set up to root out people whose view didn’t conform to what was thought of as American (basically thought policemen) and what the US political elite that had a grip on the system came to see those with left wing views as un-American.

It began by targeting those that advocated the overthrow of any government in the United States. Now think about that many people here have advocated the overthrow of the US’s government. As I’ve pointed out above it is the justification for many to have guns so they can overthrow the government of the US if ‘needs’ must.

It made it illegal to advocate or teach such ideas or help disseminate them in any way also any group that the government didn’t like could be targeted and forced to give the names and address of its members and the FBI illegally was authorised to tap phones and mail open peoples mail.

This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."

**


What followed seems very like a move by the American political elite to rid the US of what they saw as a political rival.

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

The Progressive Party of the time, which among other things advocated an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance, was branded a ‘communist’ party. Its leader Henry Wallace, along with others advocating such ‘radical’ ideas were then banned from speaking at a number of universities.

The purge spread from the government into other areas most famously the entertainment industry, but also academia were airing ‘communist’ ideas (that in practice meant many left wing ideas) could bring about dismissal and the law where the American Bar Association also brought in a loyalty oath, and lawyers that defended those accused of having un-American ideas could find themselves been accused of the same thing and put under investigation.

At the same time there was a constant stream of anti-communist propaganda but this very often made no distinction between what was ‘evil communist’ and the vast majority of left wing thought. And many Americans even today seem to make little distinction between hard line Stalinism and the wishy washy leftism of say New Labour - it happens frequently on these forums with ‘communist’ been thrown out as an insult and being directed at those with even the most moderate of lift wing views. And on the many right wing websites there are shrill cries whenever anyone says anything that isn’t firmly right of centre, and the kind of attack and slander once directed at commies has now expanded to include ‘liberals’.

**

Many pro-gunners seem to feel they are the final arbiters, the ones that would defend American liberty, uphold the US constitution.

So what were they doing when their fellow citizens rights were been curtailed in such open fashion and the Constitution trashed?

As establishments know if they want to go after a people, religion or political group they first have to demonize it and or make it seem threatening.

This can be done for many reasons to scapegoat, blaming a particular group or race for the woes of the majority as happened with the Jews and Bolsheviks in 1930’s Germany, or it can be directed at whose that are seen as political rivals.

The Nazi propaganda films showing Jews as rats seem crude today but the principles are the same as the anti-communist films made in the US.

(And with every threat or policy the villains change, Columbian drug dealers to accompany the ‘war on drugs’ and Arab terrorists to accompany a pro-Israeli foreign policy).

The thing was that many people at that time (as now) who were pro-gun were also right leaning politically and were therefore not seen as a threat by the political establishment but rather as an ally.

The thing is are they still?


If they are I think the establishment will continue to stand by them.

But if they stop being seen as allies or the establishment believes it has other means of control they will turn on the gun owners. I think many pro-gunners realize this and feel the threat.

Now many are going to cry ‘YES that’s why we need guns’ but what I’m trying to point out is that those guns are unlikely to save them.
Because once the government - which the establishment is happy with - is threatened the thing threatening it is put under pressure. Look at what happened to the anti-government citizen militias after the Oklahoma bombing opened up an opportunity to move against them (and how they briefly became the villains in a number of films).


The problem is that I think many pro-gunners believe the guns will protect them and so do very little (if anything) to actually counter the establishment.

That could be done politically but only if they were willing to ditch the views that help the establishment to stay in power and realign the political system so that it is not a threat to its people.

 

[SIZE=10.5pt]I probably had a hand in it.[/SIZE]










[SIZE=10.5pt](Sorry but I hate this Editor, one to many deletes and it scrambles the post and you have to start over.)[/SIZE]

 

I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t.

When I said; “So deciding what kind of gun is needed and what kind should be regulated or restricted suddenly becomes a little more complicated.” I was indicating that when it comes to banning those awful “assault rifles”, for the most part the only difference between them and a hunting rifle is appearance and so banning “assault rifles” often ends up banning popular hunting rifles.

I am not here to advocate anything but to talk about the 2nd amendment and yes, although I personally don’t feel comfortable with the idea of the personal ownership of “unregulated machine guns, ground to air missiles such as Stingers, M1 tanks, etc?” It would seem that the 2nd amendment would allow it.

Perhaps but since the US did not as of yet exist during the Revolutionary war; the militias, largely ineffective as they were, were used to fight against the UK, the standing government of the time.

Next, there are those who would argue that the 2nd amendment says that because of the need for a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed whether they are part of that well-regulated militia or not and not the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed only if they are part of a well-regulated militia.

Interesting but I would have to say that most of this was largely unknown to those who wrote the 2nd amendment and would not have been part of their thinking on the matter.

Again, I’m not here to advocate anything. I’m just discussing what the 2nd amendment means. I mean there are those who believe that income tax is unconstitutional and it very well may be but I’ll be paying my income taxes until the law is overturned.

Interesting, again I’m advocating anything but I would say that the 2nd amendment would allow it.

As a side note I would not recommend owning or using such a "Phaser", since pulling apart that amount of atoms would release enough energy to probably destroy the Earth.

Thanx for the history lesson, it was very interesting reading.

Let’s take one; Mao, do you suppose he would have won a civil war without guns? It would seem that Mao is an example that proves the rule; he took a “militia” and over threw a standing government.

In any case; like I said before, this was all unknown to the writers of the 2nd amendment and would not have entered into their thinking on the matter.

 

Most of this is just you saying, how do you phrase it, you're wrong, because you are wrong.

As for this; The thing is that it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny "everything we do know about the universe tells us that it was formed, not created".

Yea right, like saying that in the beginning there was nothing and somehow the nothing got together and the nothing exploded and nothing somehow turned into everything is so "reasonable" and "able to stand up to scrutiny". Yep, just as I thought you are one of those who believe houses build themselves.

 

Quite frankly, with your cut and paste one size fits none debate style, you are the only one [SIZE=11pt]regurgitating here.[/SIZE]

Yep, when a person uses [SIZE=11pt]regurgitated hackney cut and paste arguments that don't really fit what is being said to him, then he's just phoning it in or faking it. [/SIZE]

I would say that "seems" is the operative word in this case, we all know that what seems to be is not always the case.

Are you really going to go into a matter of degree? It is easier with a knife than a baseball bat, easier with a baseball bat than a rock, the truth is if someone wants to kill you you will be just as dead no matter what he uses.

Didn't anyone ever tell that Ad Hominem attacks are pointless and rude?

As for lethal over distance the comment was made about arm length and I merely pointed out that both a spear and a bow and arrow can be lethal quite a bit farther than arm length and have been used to do so.

For instance a heavy spear can be thrown about 240 ft or 75 meters, whereas an arrow from a hand draw bow can travel up to a 1/4 mile or about 400 meters and is considered lethal at about 400 ft or 120 meters, hardly the chump change you imply them to be.

Sorry, I guess you've never heard of a hypothetical question.

 

Yes, I used the word God in an example to show that people on different sides of a discussion might both feel they have "reasonable" arguments and not to discuss God or faith.

As to falling back onto "faith", I did not bring it up. You are actually the one who brought up faith and started a religious discussion with your post at #284 Balbus.

This seems be an example of dishonesty in "debating" with others?