Oh no, I was trying to support what you said not counter it.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
Oh no, I was trying to support what you said not counter it.
Oh ok, then I misread what you meant.
HeavenHarris
Banned
stoked and gameface are alts of each other. im 85% sure of it.
The very idea of there being some true, unique context held by every founder in 1789 is itself a fiction. There were many contexts held by many different founders. Some saw the Second Amendment as the means of putting down rebellions in part by organized religions. At the time, there was almost no United States Army from which one would need to defend itself. Most troops were in state military outfits. The Second Amendment was seen by some as a way to quickly put recruits into such outfits.
You (probably through sources you are absorbing) are projecting modern fears into a context that didn't really exist in a country that had no real Army, no FBI, no CIA, etc. It's one thing to claim the reason for a right is implicit. It's quite another to claim it's explicit in context, when you can't even get teh context right.
Actually, I said I prefer to the opposite, that I prefer to reason from evidence. I acknowledge I am not as successful at that as I desire, but I try to to keep the goal in mind.
I suppose that for people who do consider it evil, or at least dangerous, such use is laudable rather than disgusting. Such people would be just as culpable of arguing from first principles rather than evidence.
Let me ask you if you think it is rational to hold both of these positions:
1) If guns are completely banned, criminal use of guns will not decline, because criminals will still find ways to get guns.
2) If guns sales to certain classes of people only are forbidden, this will help prevent the criminal use of guns by these people.
While I generalized the thinking behind the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, as you suggest in your reply, the existence of a range of views on the subject at the time is indeed something I do understand. The range of views is one aspect, but the prevalent and prevailing reasons were as I described.
One thing about the United States citizenry at the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, is we did not call "tories" or loyalists to the Crown "terrorists" or even "treasonous" and did not force a mass flight of a significant portion of our population at that time, and did indeed start a country where the citizens had the right to think for themselves, and act within their civil rights, which for many citizens were significant. We also did not end slavery or vest native Americans with those broad provisions for "human rights", but at least the Americans fighting for their liberties from an oppressive British rule which had denied to those Americans even the civil rights generally accorded to British citizens did affirm their rights to self-rule and self-defense. And from that start we did go on to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to others, ending slavery and even including the native Americans eventually. . . .
Rather than shutting down peoples' rights, I think the way to go forward is to further protect them by law. Rather than being a view of "fear" as you seem to want to characterize it, I assert it is not "fear" but "hope", and a brand of true liberalism and progressivism that will make for better government in the future, which government will not have to fear its own people.
1) If guns were completely banned gun use would drop across the board. Gun crimes would drop. Gun deaths would drop. Guns confiscated at the scene of a crime would drop. There would still be some guns around. Many currently law abiding gun owners would simply stash their guns but have access to them, if not immediate access. Criminals would still occasionally (maybe even somewhat often) use guns in the commission of a crime. Occasionally a person who otherwise would have had a gun will be victimized, maybe raped, maybe killed, maybe beaten or maybe just violated in some other way, because they gave up their guns when they became illegal.
2) This would be far less effective. It would also be extremely unfair. I've stated several times that gun rights are linked directly to the concept of individual rights. That individuals own their own existence and as such they have the right to defend their existence. Connected to a person's right to defend their existence is the right to posses the tools that make that defense possible, i.e. guns. And not just granpa's old hunting rifle, guns that are of a capability to be useful in any foreseeable threatening situation, including the threat of a tyrannical government. To single certain segments of the population out and deny them that basic right is not consistent with the notion of universal individual rights, which is what I support.
What's disgusting to me about the way Sandy Hook is being used is that it is dishonest. I suppose some people might rationalize it and say "whatever we can do to get rid of as many guns as possible is good and therefore sufficient justification to lie and to take freedoms people currently posses away." But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the ends justify the means. I believe principals come first and even when certain aspects of the outcome of implementing those principals is bad it is only acceptable to change the way things are done if it is possible to identify the flaw in the basic principles used. I don't believe in the notion of a perfect society. I believe attempts to create a Utopian reality have caused some of the greatest horrors known to man.
Does my populist comment hit home any stronger yet?
How do you suppose the populist colonists sought redress by every other avenue before resorting to war? Don't have to buy into the downside to push and vote it.
OneBrow, if you're ever anywhere near remotely close to Utah then look me up and I'll take you shooting, most likely with plenty extra non-creepy company from JF. Getting comfortable with a firearm might diffuse your perceived disdain for them.
I understand fully if you're only interested in controlling highly dangerous weapons being held among the general public. On the other hand, I don't understand any lack of supporting for naturally weaker members of society having the ability to defend themselves from predators. Can you confirm that you are not at all interested in disarming vulnerable citizens from protecting themselves?
/
That's why I find most of the proposed ideas rather silly.
I agree. Traditionally, there has always been a conflict between protecting these rights and protecting people harmed by the irresponsible use of rights. It's why we have freedom-of-speech exceptions for libel, freedom-of-press exceptions for slander, and freedom-of-assembly exceptions that allow for the restrictions based on location and time. I don't see why we can't have similar methods of preserving the rights of gun ownership while enacting reasonable protections.
To be clear, when I said "certain classes of people", I meant former felons, those in mental health databases, etc. I don't know if your answer would be different in that context.
Outside of that, thank you for your answers.
I'm not sure how much of my disdain is based on fear, and how much on perceived lack of necessity. A hunting trip would probably ease the former, but not the latter. The one time I went fishing I was bored out of my mind.
I haven't seen any statistics that indicate people who own guns are more likely to have harm averted by the guns they own than they are to have harm inflicted by the guns they own; the usual claim is that you are more likely to be harmed by gun in your house than to keep harm averted. I believe in the ability to protect yourself, but prefer to find ways that place yourself less at risk. Sometimes you need to ingest poison as a medical treatment, but those times are rare.
Fair enough.
There already are laws about improper use of firearms. What you are asking for already exists.
I favor restricting gun rights from people who have proven to be violent. I do fear however that such restrictions could be widened to the point that gun rights become a privilege for a select group who has obeyed increasingly oppressive laws and that minor infractions, even ones where no criminal conviction was achieved, would result in a loss of gun rights.
Consider this. The current "war on drugs" has essentially been selectively waged against people in poor neighborhoods and even then overwhelmingly targeted at minorities. It's one of the most despicable realities we tolerate, encourage even. Within that established framework gun rights by and large could be stripped from minority communities. Many, even many who favor gun rights for good ol' law abiding Americans, would see massive restrictions on gun ownership targeted at poor minorities in the inner-cities as a good thing. I see gun ownership, or gun rights at least, as an enfranchising factor. When I am free to own powerful weapons it is clear that I'm not seen as the enemy. It is clear that I and the government are on the same team. To strip gun rights from minorities in the inner city it would just further drive a wedge between black and white America.
There are laws about what people can do during an assembly, and yet we still enact reasonable prior restrictions about where the assembly can happen, when, etc.
Also, I don't recall asking for any specific thing in this thread, except to find ways to reduce the number of bullets a shooter can send out in a killing rampage. What laws do that?
I agree, even while noting that those inner-city minorities are often the loudest voices for gun control. For example, it was a Washington, D.C. law that was thrown out in 2008. For those minorities, guns are a sign of lawlessness, not good standing with the government. Still, I agree that selectively targeting them would objectionable.