Defend the Second Amendment!

Gee whiz, seriously, stick to the games forums.

 

Gas

I’ve reply to that question many times – have you an example when I didn’t answer it for you – it might have been that I just didn’t have time then or missed it.

Here's an old reply

I have an interest in politics that is wide and eclectic, I have shelves of books on history, economics and politics. Covering many places, times and ideas.

I happen to be here because I have an interest in American history and politics and many here are from the US or are American citizens and am trying to understand their ideas.

Thing is that anything other than American issue don’t do that well on this forum, because many Americans don’t have much interest or knowledge of things outside of America.

That is why I discuss British politics with other people rather than here.

I’m a republican I don’t give a fuck about the royal family

And anyway have you seen the way some Americans and US media act when royals go on a visit to the US? The coverage the royal birth got on American TV etc?

And it’s always struck me as strange how much the US film industry seems to loves royals and princess.

As pointed out before the meaning of what freedom means is open to interpretation.

Freedom from harm, freedom from exploitation, freedom from hardship, freedom from sickness.

There is also people’s freedom of choice this can change according to a person’s circumstance and in a monetary based system wealth can dictate those circumstances.

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them freedom from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of freedom.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?

I’m trying to understand American gun ownership and although there is a lot of talk about ‘freedom’ when examined it seems to be more about suppression, threat and fear, as I’ve explained.

 

2008 DC v Heller.

No need for any connection with a militia for a citizen to personally own firearms.

Sorry.

 

I am 100% in favor of US citizens retaining enough weaponry to make sure the government fears its people and not as much the other way around. I wonder however if all these gun activists can picture a situation where everyone carried all the time as OP stayed. If Trayvon were carrying he'd be alive.

Remember the theater shooting at the Batman movie? Picture a theater with 50 guns in it. The gunman begins to unload. Onlookers draw as well and begin to fire back at him. 10% of the gun carriers are profoundly confused and are unsure whether there is more than one attacker. One of the bullets from a good samaritan trying to stop the bad guy goes astray and hits a kid. He is immediately put down by several witnesses. His friend who was carrying fires at his killers in defense of his friend and now we have a shooting more massive than the original.

Introducing large numbers of guns into chaotic environments does not seem like a recipe for success to me. This is not a subject where empirical data is easy to gather so I remain open to discussion on the subject but my intuition says the world NRA enthusiasts are describing is at least as dangerous as the one we're currently living in.

 

Perhaps this is not what you were trying to say but I can't remember any one saying; "I killed because there "are many guns in circulation"". There are many reasons for a person to kill another person but the number of "guns in circulation" is not one of them.

As for your relatively frequent call for lessening the "number of guns in circulation", even if guns of all types were eliminated from the face of the earth, do you really think that people would stop killing each other?

The fact is before guns were invented, mankind demonstrated its ability to kill and murder in great quantities for thousands of years without the use of guns and mankind will continue to do so even if you find some way to “lessen the number of guns in circulation”.

 

I am thrilled to see you and thank you for blessing me. Joy friend

 

Hi friend, you are welcome and I'm happy to be seen.

It's winter and I spend a little more time on the computer, maybe we'll get a chance to talk a bit.

 

What about now? I think we should defend the first commandment
But in a way that appreciates the political situation. The political situation is to use shrillness tactlessness and deception, when the political ideal is to use shrewdness, tact, and cunning

 

Old

This has been covered what seems like hundreds of times and is what I term as the natural born killers argument.

Here is something I wrote on that subject a while ago -

This is the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens - that they’re so violent and murderous that they just want to kill. That it’s not guns that count for the high level of murders but the murderous nature of Americans - that the same amount of carnage would go on because Americans are so bloodthirsty that they would use anything to kill, kill, kill.

When you think your fellow citizens are like that it is no wonder that so many Americans are so frightened.

But why do they think that is it true?

Are Americans truly that different than other people, so much more violent and murderous?

Now if things are looked at in those terms (that Americans are murderous savages that are just waiting to kill people) then when crime figures are looked at they seem to back up that view.

For example

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?

 

Does simply living on US soil make you an American? Does it make you more murderous? Or is it access to guns? America is full of immigrants of all kinds.

 

Theprodu

You think the majority of gun related homicides in the US involve people who are not Americans? Have you any evidence for that?

Anyway my point is the relative ease of access and fearful mentality.

 

America is a melting pot. Fearful mentality is not born exclusively on our soil. I live in a state with the highest percentage of firearms per capita. It's a lot harder to get firearms in Philly, but they also have a lot more problems contributing to violent crime than can be shown by mere statistics. I don't know where you get the idea the Americans think Americans are so bloodthirsty.

 

That is one of the most hilariously ironic things I've ever read.

The 2nd amendment has "regulated" in it - regulating guns is fine, in fact it implies a much stronger regulatory framework and limitations being totally acceptable. It does not say that guns are an absolute right in every form everywhere all the time - it says that to the end of the state having a well regulated militia, you can bear arms - for the state. The numbers say that the american public is fully behind things like universal background checks - but the politicians are not because the NRA is effectively a trade lobby group for gun manufacturers, and wants to sell as many guns as possible.

The other amendments are the ones under attack, and though it's generally "bi-partisan", it's spearheaded by the right. Things like the right to free speech and the right to assemble and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the fact that even rights not enumerated individually in the constitution (so, reasonable, humanistic rights) are recognized by the constitution, etc.

 

It isn't that simple. "Regulated" was never meant in regards to firearms. It was, as you point out, meant in regards to militias themselves being regulated. This is meant to mean militias need laws and regulations regarding the behavior of militia members. "Regulated" certainly isn't, to the best of my knowledge, what any ruling on the 2nd Amendment as pointed to in order to justify some firearm regulations being warranted. Nor is service to the state tied to firearm ownership. The 2nd Amendment, like every other amendment in the bill of rights, was meant as an individual right from the get go and not tied to service to the State.

 

The second amendment is being confused with the idea of personal liberty. It is not. Is is the idea of preserving a resposible militia in defense of the constitutional state. Personal liberty is defined in the feedom of religion speech and assembly. Your right to bear arms does not protect your liberty obvously because the government has bigger guns.

 

We lost the opportunity to take advantage of this constitutional amenbment wa lost when the state militia idea became the natioal gaurd and was absorbed by the federal military. The opportunity for the realization of personal freedom idealized in the constitition is still speaking up for yourself.

 

The only effective adbantage of having a gun these days is target practice, whether your target be a clay pigeon or a human being. Just a good way to get shot.

 

Actually, I was referring to the huge surge in gun sales that occurred after Obama's reelection. The left wing played a game of good cop bad cop to convince the American voters to back them on their anti-2nd amendment agenda. It vaguely went something like this:

Good Cop (Obama): Now now, we are not going to restrict your civil liberties. We just think it would be appropriate to, well.. you know.. limit the number of rounds in a magazine, or make expand the background checks. Hell, I go skeet shooting all the time *wink wink nudge nudge*

Bad Cop (Sen. Feinstein) I support a nationwide ban, if not attempt to dry up the supply of all assault weapons, certain shotguns and handguns. What's an assault weapon? Fuck if I know. Anything that holds lots of rounds, shoots rapidly, and looks big and scary.

And what was the result? The greatest firearm and ammunition purchase of all time. I made decent money on my Smith and Wesson stock I owned at the time. Obama was named gun salesman of the year. But personally I think that title belongs to Feinstein. They've accidentally created a "better buy a gun before it's too late" mentality all over the country. Honestly, if the opponents of the second amendment just admitted defeat and accepted the fact that they are fighting an uphill battle against American tradition and present-day 3D printed guns, it's unlikely the NRA would be a very politically active lobby group. In fact, it would probably dissolve into a firearm training and maintenance school and gun club.

 

The NRA is like NATO. Good luck getting rid of them, once they've been this big. They find or make a reason to keep existing.

You're stating blatantly untrue things as if they're undeniable fact. Doing feinstein's proposal is not contrary to the intent of the second amendment, at all really. The second amendment is pretty allowing in terms of regulation, if you actually read it.

 

The second amendment clearly allows people to have guns, that they may contribute to a well regulated militia.

A well regulated militia does not mean anyone can grab any gun they want, or even train with any gun they want. It means you can have your service weapon - the one assigned you, the one that you take orders and follow procedures concerning the handling of. Just like regulations on free speech under the first amendment (which are much more dangerous than regulations on guns, go complain about them, those are real and actual attacks our country has sustained, unlike shaman's imaginary 2nd amendment war), the second amendment provides for (and rather more obviously than the first) further legislation and regulation on the matter. It says that your right shall not be infringed, not that it shall not be abridged - this is a rather important distinction, as any change would be abridging but a change or limitation is not inherently an infringement. In fact, the second amendment pretty clearly lays out what is and is not infringement - regulation that prevented you from being a part of a well regulated militia would be infringement, because your right is to have a gun pursuant to service in a well regulated militia.