Is it time to talk about guns?

Wrat1

Sorry still couldn’t find that quote on that page have you got the right one?

So its not about tyranny at all its about choice – what do you mean by choice – I mean you would still have the choice to own a gun even with prudent gun laws.

Well it was in many cases state laws so yes government – I mean to me the whole segregation thing is tyrannical – but are you saying that tyrannical acts are ok if they are undertaken my non-government groups? So that even if the KKK was acting in a tyrannical why by lynching black people that was ok and not a reason to use a gun to stop them? Do you think that was the reason why they didn’t?

So once again when would people know when to use their guns and begin killing those they were opposed to?

What do you define as tyrannical acts?

Edit

So you are basically agreeing that the amendment is not fit for purpose in regard to countering tyranny, so why do you support it?

 

Scroll down to "who wrote the 2nd amendment"
NO Tyrannical acts are NOT ok was asking a question

and that brings us to the 2nd part of the amendment
prudent gun laws could and may hinder this
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

those laws have all been repealed I believe some could still be on the books though not enforced.

As to when to use guns in the face of tyranny I have not given that much if any thought
and being as that you are in the UK where thoughts on guns are radically different then the US
I cant see where we would ever see eye to eye on this issue

 

Wrat1

Sorry - your main reason for supporting the Amendment is to do with opposing tyranny but you have never ever actually give that viewpoint ‘much if any’ thought or questioned it in any way and this is the first time it has ever come up?

Why do you have a viewpoint that you have never questioned?

How do you know if it is any good if you’ve never examined it?

You talk earlier of how been educated is a good thing, yet you give little to no though to your own views or why you have them?

How is this a good defence of your viewpoint?

You live in the 21st century the thoughts and perspective of someone living in the 18th on guns and many other subjects are going to be radically different than those of someone living today yet you are trying to defend something written over 200 years ago.

Sorry this sounds like you are trying to find an excuse for ending the debate because your viewpoint isn’t standing up to scrutiny very well.

 

Because I can
good is an opinion and I am entitled to mine
Im good with that
Its not and thats ok

so why not just trash the whole constitution because you disagree/dont like/its 200+ years old therefore not relevant

 

Wrat1

You could murder someone – just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

But how do you know if it is a good opinion if you never question if it is or isn’t?

Of course, you are going to be good with something if you never question it.

Well actually many including Thomas Jefferson thought it should be every generation, writing - it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.

It was the idea that old ideas can become anachronistic, you keep stuff that is working while getting rid of the stuff that is not fit for purpose and a hindrance, just as the 2nd amendment has become.

I think Thomas’s 20 years or so is a bit too often, but every 50 years might be better.

 

By the standards of most of the world except for perhaps Yemen and Somalia, all of the proposed gun legislation in the US is minimal. The current status in the US is everyone held hostage by policies of the NRA and gun lobby and the ignorati. How many people must die before we can declare cease fire? As far as the so-called mental health issue being responsible for gun violence, well a large proportion of the Republican Party would be banned from gun ownership if such a test were in place....hmmm.
By the way, I grew up hunting and in my youth, nobody but nobody saw the need for a AR15 to mutilate a mallard.

 

Thing is at this point; I think even many of those that once defended the ease of access to firearms have realised their arguments don’t stand up well to scrutiny and their position has really become rather untenable.

I mean how many times can you lose the argument before doubts begin to appear before rational and reasonable people begin to wonder if their stance on guns is actually a good one?

There have always been just two arguments for ease of access to guns

· To tackle crime

· To tackle tyrannical government

And on a basic level they both seem plausible and seductive

Crime

If an individual has a gun, they can protect their families and their property.

But once you look deeper from that simple premise it becomes very clear rather quickly that ease of access to guns has little or no impact on the levels of general crime (the US basically having the same level as other comparable countries) but that the introduction of guns into the equation vastly increase the likelihood of crimes having more lethal outcomes.

Tyranny

An armed citizenry can be a bulwark against government repression

Again, on the surface that seems ‘obvious’ – the problem comes in the practice – I mean you’d first have to define what is meant by ‘tyranny’ – I mean tyranny usually doesn’t just happen all at once there are normally steps toward it so the problem becomes one of when does the armed citizenry act? Many would say that packing the courts with biased judges and limiting the voting power of your opponents are steps to tyranny yet many of the more vocal gun advocates actually support those moves, so what happens to the concept of ease of access to guns been a bulwark against government repression, when a large portion of the armed citizenry favour that repression – for example what was happening in many Southern sates of the US in regard to its Black citizenry.

So from a practical and historical prospective the ‘tyranny’ argument does not seem fit for purpose.

*

 

Gun ownership and personal protection take a back seat to safety from being shot!

 

It doesn't matter how many people get shot to death, it's a small price to pay for my God-given 2nd Amendment right to overcompensate for my feelings of inadequacy, impotence, and deep-seated insecurities about my masculinity by prancing about with a mass murder machine as a surrogate phallus.

 

FYI there isn’t such a thing as an assault rifle. It’s a coined term for something that doesn’t exist. The closest rifle that could be considered an assault rifle would be a full auto M4A1. However the general public can’t easily own one. It takes a FFL to legally own or operate one of those rifles. Unless it’s a pre-ban (prior to 1986) model and those cost $15,000.00+
The military and the police are issued the M4 variant. Honestly the guns aren’t the real issue. Intolerance and an appalling mental health care system are the problem

 

Nwcc

Many other countries have intolerance and mental health care problems but don’t have the gun problem’s the US has however they don’t have the ease of access to guns that the US has.

So honestly the ease of access to guns does seem to be the real issue

I’d also point out that the right wingers that traditional support that ease of access have been those that seem the least interested in addressing intolerance and mental health issues. For example in opposing universal healthcare and in supporting voter suppression.

 

We have neighbors just up I 5, eh? They do just fine without the array of weapons we have in Washington....want to compare the rate of gun deaths in BC with Washington State? Probably about the same rate of mental health issues tho. As far as intolerance, the gun lobby, racists, white supremicists, and T———- zombies account for virtually all of the intolerance in the US.

 

Well now that I have actually considered things.
I would say that #45 was about as close to a possible dictator (tyranny) that this country has seen and IF he had overturned or refused to leave or managed a coup in some way then the use of guns/force would be justified in removing him and there would be casualties on BOTH sides for almost certain
so there is your when would it be justified
and now due to the recent possibility of such happening AND the fact that the country is so divided AND if #45 stays in the spotlight and runs again its my belief that there is no way his supporters will allow him to lose regardless of popular vote or electoral college (meaning that time there will be an armed insurrection)
I would think the 2nd amendment is more important now then it ever has been.

 

The NRA loves to make these arguments. But those same voters don't believe in goverment efficiency or tax. So who pays for the mental health care? No one and the the idea because it allows the system to remain as it. The right wing as always says "no existing laws could have prevented this" as if to imply the situation is hopeless. Gun owners don't want any reform because it infringes on "freedom". I guess they can't admit it but their biggest fear is the goverment of all things having a system in place that decides who can own a gun.

It's not that anti-gun people assume military weapons are for sale to the public. When they say "assault" they mean a gun that can fire an entire clip quickly. Semantics don't matter what does is that many guns on sale today are meant for combat. They have a market because there is small fraction of Americans who hoard ammo and guns. Every pay check they buy a little bit because every Democrat is going to attack them. When that does not happen they jusy keep buying more not for deer or killing the burglar but so that their grand kids can fight the Democrats.

It's the 2nd amendment for a reason. It's right in the name laws change in America but the gun owner acts like Jesus himself personally wrote it. A majority of Americans want change and if the gun owner offers no compromise their guns will be "taken". It will happen because the gun owners themselves are telling us that guns are too dangerous. No laws or effort can stop them from killing apparently. Never mind the fact that gun deaths are much lower in Europe even though you could own them if you really wanted. You just agree to things like for example the police entering your home at any time with no warrant so they can check on the gun's storage and your mental health. The average American militia nut will not do that and it might cost them.

 

Welcome to the Balbus spider's web . Enter and be consumed .

Well , ok , I have a gun .

gun = within human strong . yes , this is concealed .

 

Look, don't start a gun thread and when someone asks what you mean by that, tell them to go to another thread.

 

I think that the realistic expectation is that in the event of a home invasion you don't need a military-style intervention.

What is it that you're imagining?

I don't think there is a strong argument for military-style weapons. You don't let someone who isn't facing automatic weapons own automatic weapons. Or grenades. Or bazookas.

They go hand-in-hand.

Why should they be allowed? In the event that we're overrun by Antifa?

 

I have spoken to and encountered people here and elsewhere who are of that ilk.

Let's not forget who are the ones who seem misguided.

Call me overprotective. Ok. Say it's an overreach? I don't think so. "You're not allowed to have weapons of certain lethal capacity" isn't overreach. It's governing. Why they haven't been governed before now is the real mystery here.




Someone pointed out before, the second amendment assumes muskets. If they were, in all their wisdom and insight, writing a constitution today what do you think should be said about military weaponry?

 

Or they need automatic weapons to stem the tide of the zombie horde, which is a metaphor for blacks and other minorities moving out to the white suburbs and deflowering their most valuable possession, horny teenage girls who no longer wish to be victims of family rape and incest.

 

And that Trump called other nations, "Shithole Nations."