Is it time to talk about guns?

Jen

I’m not sure what your rational argument is since you don’t actually explain - but i’m confused as to what it is - given your examples i mean you say

‘An unarmed populace is always subjugated by its government’

But the Boxer’s actually supported their government (which was an absolute Monarchy) and in 1930’s Germany many of the people that were armed actually supported the Nazis so you could say that the armed populace helped in bringing about Nazis tyranny.

 

Jen

Again i’m confused and unsure what your argument is - I mean to begin with who is this ‘our’ in

If the ‘our’ here is gun owners, Isn’t one of the (flawed) big pro-gun arguements that people have guns to to prevent crime? As in the slogan ‘ “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Can you explain your thinking?

And again a vast number of government activities are aimed at deterring crime so can you explain what you mean?

Who are the ‘powers that be’?

Actually if you look at gun control proposals they are often aimed at handguns because as you say a vast majority of crimes involve such weapons - so your assertion seems to be incorrect.

This just seems to come across a paranoia.

Again you seem to be implying there is a ‘them’ and ‘us’ - who is the ‘them’ and who the ‘us’?

Again people have presented measures to try and lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal - you don’t seem to have put up any rational argument against them.

Sorry but this has already been covered many times, the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals were purchased legally and then either given or sold on to the criminal or stolen from the legal owner.

Many of the gun control measures proposed are aimed at closing off those routes to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal.

With any illegal guns, once found, been ‘disappeared’ by being destroyed. It cannot be done through a snap of the fingers Thanos style but will work over time to limit the number of existing guns in circulation and the ease of access to them.

Again already covered in post 37

These would be national laws the same through all the states and a Federal department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country.

So there would be one set of minimum/standard laws that local areas would have to adhere to.

 

I've been reading lately how the more ambitious reloaders out there who dont mind religiously cleaning their barrels have learned to weather the ammo shortage with a homebrewed version of the primer compound used back in the 30-40 Krag to recycle their primers.
Legal to do for personal use, risky.

 

The Penn & Teller video doesn’t make much sense either

To repeat this is something from 200 year olds ago things have moved on and clearly the 2nd amendment isn’t fit for purpose today.

Also what ‘tyrannical state militia’ did the writers fight against?

What tyranny was there before 1776?

Those fermenting the rebellion certainly began calling British rule tyranny because…well they were trying to ferment a rebellion, but actually many colonists were happy or at least apathetic to British rule.

As Francis D Cogliano asks -Was the American Revolution Inevitable?

Writing with the benefit of hindsight in 1818, John Adams, one of the central figures in the American Revolution, recalled that Americans were committed to independence in their hearts long before war broke out in America in 1775. Adams' comment suggests that American independence was inevitable: this was not the case.

In 1763, Americans joyously celebrated the British victory in the Seven Years' War, revelling in their identity as Britons and jealously guarding their much-celebrated rights which they believed they possessed by virtue of membership in what they saw as the world's greatest empire. Americans had contributed significantly to the recent victory both militarily and financially….In 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers.[my bold]

It was only when the British parliament (against many members opposition) began rising taxes in the colonies (that was going through a recession at the time) that the colonists started getting annoyed

And remember their call was - "No taxation without representation"

It wasn’t a call against tyranny or for war - it was asking to have representation within the British Empire in Parliament.

If it was tyranny they were basically asking to be part of the tyranny.
Even when the war began there were American colonist who stayed loyal to the British Crown for example William Franklin the son of Benjamin Franklin was a loyalist who worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war on the side of the British and of course the famous and much maligned name been Benedict Arnold.

The historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority

 

Jen

History has it that these said 'militias' have never been any good. Further, the tyranny they stand against today is liberal progressive majority-rules democracy.

What do they hope to accomplish?


In the context of militia I feel the gun ownership, particularly of assault weapons like the infamous AR-15, is basically a means of intimidation and coercion.

 

The Defensive Gun Use arguement - is actually very bad for the pro-gun lobby if you just think about it for a minute

The argument is that guns are good at tackling crime

But it has already been established that the general crime rates of the US are not that different than other comparable countries with much lower levels of gun ownership or eaase of access to guns.

But if guns are good at tackling crime - then the US with its much much higher rates of gun ownership and ease of access to firearms should have much lower rates of crime than places witthout.

But it doesn't - in other words ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to relate to lower general crime rates.

Some gun people argue that these crimes stopped by DGU are not reported - but if that's the case then the US has higher crime rates than comparable countries that don’t have guns so actually they are doing a lot better at tackling crime than the US with guns.

But the US has vastly greater gun related deaths and injuries compared to those countries where ease of access to guns is lower.

So ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to tackle crime but does increase the likelihood of people getting killed or injured by a gun.

Any rational and reasonable person would conclude that it would be better to take ease of access to guns out of the equation when tackling crime, for both law enforces and citizenry

 

If more and increasingly lethal weapons were the way to reduce gun deaths, the US would long ago have reduced the gun deaths to zero. What kind of twisted logic can ignore the simultaneous increases in gun violence and gun availability? The same twisted logic also ignores the experience of the rest of the developed world where some level of gun control is associated with fewer gun deaths. Long past time to for t he clueless to get a clue. Seems like those listening to the gun lobby would also be interested in a purchase of a certain bridge in the greater New York area.

 

IMO, it comes down to percentages as usual. There is a percentage of people that will harm and kill others. Always been thus from the days of rocks and clubs used to subdue-harm-kill others for whatever contemporary reasons. The fact that there ARE weapons shows that a %age humans are a murderous bunch whether for political, social, or reasons of survival. Under the right conditions, an extremely high %age will kill----most will not go out of their way to harm or kill others, but speaking for myself--if someone attempts to harm/kill my family---they will get an immediate case of lead poisoning with no feelings of regret. Imo--there is no solution to this gun problem and there never will be unless ---I suppose there was/is an actual ,creator that gave a shit about the continual slaughtering in which humans continue to engage. Ri-i-i-ig-h-ht.

 

Having watched gun control talk for many, many years now it seems to have held true when the far left thinks they have he power to push something through we have a SHARP rise in mass shooting.

 

Social irresponsibility is what gives the lunatics their fantasies . Insane war , for instance , invites a warrior's
illusion of power with no regard for protecting community . The AR-15 becomes a black magical object . The
lunatic warrior of anxiety walks alone , wishing to lay among the dead .

 

Sure wouldn't want to limit my options in the event I ran into such an individual, (Or a face-munching bath salt zombie for that matter)

 

Reread what I posted, can see how it can be twisted into your statement. I nearly posted what I
ve watched happening over Many years.

 

If bullets cost 5,000 dollars a piece, every time one was sold, you KNOW a motherfucker needs shot!!

 

Right....and the control points around those cities can effectively keep guns out, huh? It’s like pouring your morning coffee in a sieve and wondering why it doesn’t work. I guess some folks tried to keep covid out of their communities with a picket fence too. Sounds like good argument for a National gun control policy as is the case in most other nations that purely by chance have fewer gun deaths.

 

Exactly. Unfortunately, the pro gun people gloss over the 2A, until they see”right to bear arms”.

 

I saw this quote, today, that I think really sums it up, “my right to live is more important than your right to own a gun”.