Guns in America

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
IlliniDave
Posts: 2193
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Guns in America

Post by IlliniDave » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:16 am

ThisDinosaur wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:55 am
BRUTE wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 11:11 pm
right. so citizens should have rights to even more guns.

brute is just confused as to why "not enough firepower no matter what" is an argument against any firepower.
If the justification for gun ownership is "in case the Government comes for me", I'm saying that gun ownership will not protect you if/when that happens. So that specific justification is invalid.
It isn't strictly about one man versus the entire state. The original intent considered the state (or some other powerful relative few) versus the population as a whole. The calculus is different when armed citizens number in the millions. An aspiring oppressor-by-force would have to be willing to prosecute something akin to the US Civil War.

jennypenny
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Guns in America

Post by jennypenny » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:59 am

I posted some links to JBP's comments on gun violence in the JBP thread for those who are into him ... viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9633&p=161665#p161665


re: gun owners vs. the state
When I think back to the hysteria after the election last year and the push to keep Trump from becoming president/remove him from office, I wonder if anti-Trump factions would have been more willing to push the envelope if Trump supporters weren't assumed to be the majority of gun owners in America. There was lots of discussion by Trumpsters regarding what could be done if 'they' tried to remove Trump. In my world, insurrection was often mentioned because Trumpsters felt he had won the election fairly and the cause -- supporting a fairly-elected president of their choosing -- was worth open conflict. It could be that the fear of pissing off the majority of gun owners in the country helped to keep the anti-Trump side (particularly the political arm) from pushing too far too fast and risking widespread violence. If true, it shows how gun ownership can influence politics without a shot being fired.

User avatar
Sclass
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:15 pm

Re: Guns in America

Post by Sclass » Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:46 am

ducknalddon wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:26 am
Sclass wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:33 pm
Iraq.
I should have qualified my question with "and produced a good outcome". :D
Well, you are right. The insurgents were eventually met with greater force. They got pretty rambunctious for a few years though when everyone turned their backs.

I was a young man during the LA riots. I was pretty far from the epicenter but I knew people in Inglewood. They fortified their positions with junk car barricades and held the lines with their deer rifles. It was an ugly night before the national guard finally showed up. The family friend leading his neighborhood “militia” was a Vietnam vet decorated for for saving his platoon during a surprise night attack. He laughed off the rioters as amateurs and encouraged the neighbors to prepare and create a “gated community” with junk cars. It was a long night.

The show of force encouraged the hooligans to move on to softer targets.

This has absolutely nothing to do with solving school shootings, sorry to go OT.

ffj
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by ffj » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:39 am

@dinosaur

It's called guerrilla warfare my friend, and it is the de facto method of opposing a larger force. Nobody wins, and each side pays a heavy price, therefore there are huge incentives not to engage in one for both sides.

We've just proven that the FBI was up to no good in the Trump campaign with pissing prostitutes and secret courts and failed to act in the prevention of the Florida massacre. These are the only type of people that should be allowed firearms?

Having a firearm is a good insurance policy that rough balances are kept in check.

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Guns in America

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:11 am

daylen wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:52 pm
@Kriegsspiel For what it's worth, charisma is probably not a characteristic found in these troubled kids.
Just because they are complete losers doesn't mean they can't do something that strikes a chord with others.

User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Guns in America

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:16 am

ducknalddon wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:26 am
Sclass wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:33 pm
Iraq.
I should have qualified my question with "and produced a good outcome". :D
Vietnam. Afghanistan (a few times). Algeria. I'm sure there's more, those were just the first ones I could think of.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by ThisDinosaur » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:19 am

@ffj, jennypenny, IlliniDave

I agree that it's inarguably a good thing when the government fears it's population a little. And, since jennypenny brought up Jordan Peterson, there's a chaos and Order situation worth considering. Chaos in the form of armed civilians keeps the government from overreaching. But that same chaos puts guns within reach of disturbed individuals.

Seems like part of the problem is framing ownership of guns as a Right. You can't take away rights without Due Process. The existence of rights implies the existence of responsibility (my right to due process = the state's responsibility to give it to me). But mentally deranged people lack "responsibility" in the metaphysical sense. As in, it's not useful to act as if you expect them to behave responsibly. So, then, who's responsible for making AR-15s available to 19yo high school students who are feared by their teachers enough to have FBI files?

Someone upthread was talking about how the UKs system requires, among other things, membership in a club. Which ensures some sort of eusocial behavior.

I'm saying, if we need high capacity, rapid firing rate weapons in the hands of civilians, we should make sure its only the civilians capable of leading a eusocial rebellion.

ffj
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by ffj » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:12 pm

@dinosaur

I agree with everything you just wrote. I have absolutely no problem with more stringent guidelines and requirements, mainly competency levels, with owning a firearm. Right now, the minimum standard is that you have to be of age, pass a background check, and be without a criminal background or forced psychiatric care to legally purchase a firearm ( that's the short form, I realize there are differences in various states).

I would absolutely support a mandatory training session on the laws of the land regarding firearm usage, proper care and shooting technique of the firearm, and safe handling and storage of the firearm. I wouldn't care if this was a 20 hour class with a written test that would be mandatory for every potential owner to have to pass before allowed ownership. I think that would lesson the accidental and negligent misuses of firearms, but I'm not so sure about mass shootings or other criminal behavior. But I think even this common sense measure would be heavily contested by certain groups because they would see it as a challenge to future rights. Slippery slope once again.

Even the mental health component is fraught with challenges. It's easy to say and agree that crazy people shouldn't have access to a gun but look into that issue for 5 minutes and you'll see even that would be a nightmare to enforce. Every aspect of it would be challenged in court by all sides as Americans will not stand for individual rights to be taken away.

There is no easy answer to this problem as it is multi-faceted and involves way more than just guns.

Campitor
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by Campitor » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:15 pm

If the justification for gun ownership is "in case the Government comes for me", I'm saying that gun ownership will not protect you if/when that happens. So that specific justification is invalid.
Government versus 1 guy or small group - you're correct. Government versus 100+million armed citizens, many who have military training in explosives, plus the general population that could make firebombs, IEDs, and conduct active sabotage to essential infrastructure, its a different story. And you're presupposing that the government and its armed branches would act in a uniform manner instead of fracturing into patriots and rebels.

I see the purpose of [Democratic] government as to empower the little guy. The absence of government would be anarchy. Anarchy on its face is equal to absolute freedom. But in reality, anarchy just makes you subservient to whoever has greater "size, training, and numbers." Being governed democratically is choosing the most benign gang of warlords you can.
You're very correct - both sides (Government and Warlords) rely on a monopoly or imbalance of power to impose their will via force. This is why monopolies on force should never be tolerated. This is a central tenet held by most responsible gun owners.
We are giving up tremendous autonomy to a mob of voters, their elected representatives, and the military and police force that those representatives employ. Anarchy vs. government are two sides of the same coin, or maybe different ends of a spectrum. In both cases, individuals are below an authority. The authority is the better-armed, higher numbered gang than the one you're in.
It is better to have a small chance to escape/evade/deter than zero chance against a corrupt and violent mob/government. I don't see the logic in "you'll get your teeth kicked so why even try" philosophy. The USA wouldn't exist if the 13 colonies had adopted this "why even try" pathos.

That being said, the primary purpose of any government is to sustain a military and a police force. The military protects us from outsiders while the police force protects us from each other. And the whole rest of the government apparatus is to determine how those two forces should act.

A monopoly on force is the logical outcome of this understanding.
Perhaps there are some governments, i.e., North Korea, that prioritize military and police power over other considerations but this was never the intent of the Founders of the USA. I believe the purpose of government, at least at the inception of the US Republic, was defined in the Constitution's preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Because a military, police force, and government is just a bunch of individuals. And individuals are prone to self-serving abuse of power as well as tend to form gangs. So you inevitably end up with corrupt individuals having the monopoly on force. This would justify an armed revolution.

For an armed revolution to be successful, you would need the armed populace to be at least evenly matched in firepower to the government, AND for them all to agree that the time for the revolution has come.

If you have varying sized groups of armed individuals fighting over how to govern each other, you are back to anarchy again.
The threats that arise from corruption and monopolies of force is the reason the US Constitution contains a framework for the separation of powers to prevent the abuse that occurs when a small minority runs everything. The definition of anarchy is " a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." The US Government and its citizens promote anarchy every time they allow anyone, including government, to disregard the authority granted via the US Constitution.

The right to bear arms is declared within the Constitution via the 2nd amendment. So we can't confiscate guns without repealing the 2nd amendment otherwise we are promoting anarchy by disregarding the very document that is the roadmap and foundation of the American Republic. Repeal the 2nd amendment and I would respect gun confiscation even if I don't agree with the decision; its my duty as a citizen to uphold the US Constitution.

And having an armed citizenry as a check to government power was the intent of some within the Constitutional Assembly; their letters and diaries state so specifically.

Having typed the above, you all might think I'm a gun nut. I don't own a gun even though I could obtain one easily via the legal rights within my state. I was in a competitive rifle club so I do know about gun safety and I have gone shooting with some of my police buddies on occasion. I have never felt the need to own a gun but should the need ever arise, I would like the option of protecting myself via a firearm as a measure of last resort.
Last edited by Campitor on Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ffj
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 3:16 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by ffj » Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:23 pm

@Campitor,

Well said.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by ducknalddon » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:36 pm

Campitor wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:15 pm
Government versus 1 guy or small group - you're correct. Government versus 100+million armed citizens, many who have military training in explosives, plus the general population that could make firebombs, IEDs, and conduct active sabotage to essential infrastructure, its a different story. And you're presupposing that the government and its armed branches would act in a uniform manner instead of fracturing into patriots and rebels.
So you think civil war or the potential for it is a good justification for arming citizens?

nestbuilder
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:22 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Guns in America

Post by nestbuilder » Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:47 pm

From a very young age I remember seeing the locked gun cabinets in the basements of my respective grandmothers homes, evidence of the hunting culture of my grandfathers(by the time I came around one grandfather had passed and the other was severely disabled). I would stare into those cabinets with awe as I knew guns killed things but I was never scared by their presence. My uncle was one of the most avid and respectful hunters I have ever met although now he is gone as he shot himself a couple of years ago. I pulled trap for skeet-shooting competitions as kid and while the target shooting crowd seemed a little odd and intense, I was never intimidated by the mostly frumpy old men with Band-Aids on their faces from recoil abrasions. However, from a very early age, I remember my Great-Uncle - first motorcycle patrolman in Nebraska, expert marksman(rifle slung over shoulder, holding a mirror, split bullets on axe-head and popped balloons - for real), respected regional gunsmith, wealthy retired local bank executive - he had a handgun in EVERY drawer in his house, in EVERY room. And I remember at a very early age feeling very uncomfortable in his home and how he seemed paranoid and fearful even though to me he seemed so tall and imposing.

I have had fun in the past shooting and think I understand the basic pleasure in target practice. But I do not own a gun. I do not feel compelled to own a gun.

When I hear most people talk about gun rights in terms of personal safety from the boogeyman or the government, I wonder what the heck they are so scared of. And yes I have heard of Ruby Ridge and Waco, but I have also heard from the victims of domestic and sexual violence I work with and statistically - that holds buckets and buckets more water. Where I live(just north of RJ) stray bullets from high-powered gun-nut parties (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/lo ... 02478.html) or poor judgement from hunters (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... er-family/) seem just as concerning as the boogeymen.

So, really, firearms for hunting and reasonable sport, seem sensible if you demonstrate basic safety knowledge/practice and know you will loose that right if you cannot abide. Self-defense? perhaps we should reserve that option only for those who statistically need it if we are going to justify widespread gun-ownership based on fear. Fun with high-powered, high-capacity iron for your personal enjoyment or delusional fears - I have yet to hear a convincing argument that justifies this and am pretty sure my grandpas and uncle would agree( although Great Uncle Allen...)

jennypenny
Posts: 5876
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Guns in America

Post by jennypenny » Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:23 pm

What qualifies as statistically needing it? A reasonable threat of violence? If that's the case, then all women should be armed since 1 in 4 experience domestic abuse, 1 in 3 experience sexual violence and/or stalking, etc. That's half the country right there.

I also believe governments have been the bogeyman often enough in history to justify allowing competent citizens to own firearms.

I'm really uncomfortable arguing for gun rights while parents in Florida are planning funerals for their kids but I feel strongly that the issue isn't gun laws or ownership. It's important to identify the underlying issue so it can be addressed -- an issue I suspect is related to the opioid issue, the suicide rate, and other emerging problems. If true, it's killing a lot more people than just the victims of mass shootings, albeit in a less made-for-TV way.

User avatar
Sclass
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:15 pm

Re: Guns in America

Post by Sclass » Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:16 pm

ffj wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:12 pm
@dinosaur

I agree with everything you just wrote. I have absolutely no problem with more stringent guidelines and requirements, mainly competency levels, with owning a firearm. Right now, the minimum standard .....

There is no easy answer to this problem as it is multi-faceted and involves way more than just guns.
The voice of reason FFJ. Unfortunately this is called “control” and the NRA among others won’t have it. Among my family, I’m blasted for taking a liking to the British system.
ThisDinosaur wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:19 am
Someone upthread was talking about how the UKs system requires, among other things, membership in a club. Which ensures some sort of eusocial behavior.
That would be me. I’m not British but I held a subscription to a UK fieldsports magazine that gave tutorials on how to navigate the FAC. So you need to join a club for at least two years shooting sub 12 FPE air guns. These are the weaker pellet guns you’d find at Walmart. You cannot be a solitary shooter at your club because when your FAC exam comes up two years in, the authorities come to your club and interview multiple members of the club about how they feel about you. They have to be members in good standing and possibly FAC as well. So there is a significant investment of time and social capital. You have to be serious about wanting to get through the FAC. Then, the next step (among others) is the coppers visit your home for tea and biscuits. They interview you in your home. The magazines said they are looking for tidiness, your gun locker and how you handle yourself - and any sign of sketchyness. As draconian as this is, it weeds out only the most serious players. Once you attain FAC you have a big time and social capital investment that any sane person would not want to discard over misbehavior. Like you have a domestic disturbance call you lose your FAC.

Another interesting detail is if you fail the interviewing process is all the interviews are sealed and confidential to protect naysayers from retribution.

My understanding is guns are available to those willing to go through the process. Nothing like the guns we have here but you can reasonably get a .22 rifle or a fowling shotgun.

I know, a bummer right? Nothing comes for free. It all comes down to how bad we want something. People in the USA overwhelmingly want things this way. Time to pay the piper literally like the old story.

Campitor
Posts: 508
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by Campitor » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:24 pm

ducknalddon wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:36 pm
So you think civil war or the potential for it is a good justification for arming citizens?
First let me preface my answer with the following. The US Government is composed of citizens and legal residents that don't auto-magically leave their beliefs and biases at the door. When we arm federal employees and their armies, we are arming citizens and residents of the US. When we talk about disarming citizens we are really talking about disarming only citizens and residents who are not government employees or members of the armed forces.

Yes. I do think civil war and its threat is a credible and reasonable means of deterring tyranny. I don't say this lightly. Our nation was founded on the principled idea that revolutions are a right and responsibility to remove the boot of despotism. The Declaration of Independence, through its eloquence and gravity, makes the argument for a just revolution clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And let me further state that there is no need to "justify" arming citizens because it is a right guaranteed within the US Constitution. Similarly we don't need to justify free speech, freedom of religion, assembly, free press or any other rights enumerated in the Constitution. There is no gray area here. Once you allow government to ignore any section of the Constitution without a lawful amendment, regardless if you support it or not, you are sowing the seeds of anarchy and despotism. Slavery, a blatant disregard of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, almost led to the dissolution of the United States. Let's not repeat this most grievous of errors with another blatant disregard of our enumerated Constitutional rights.
Last edited by Campitor on Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Riggerjack
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Guns in America

Post by Riggerjack » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:57 am

Sclass wrote: ↑ Iraq.
I should have qualified my question with "and produced a good outcome". :D
I'm surprised nobody brought up the Bundy Ranch standoff. This is the extreme demonstration.

Ducknalddon, I know you are from the UK Commonwealth, somehow. So I assume you aren't familiar with how identity politics has worked in our system. When the red team has the White House, traditionally, the secretary of state will announce military action against some brown people in a small, far off place that most Americans couldn't find on a map, and nobody cares about. Grenada, Panama, Libya, Somolia, blah, blah, I'm sure Wikipedia has a list.

When a blue team president is in office, he chooses an attorney general who activates small armies of federal agents and sends them off to kill families of white people nobody ever heard of in places most Americans couldn't find on a map. Ruby ridge, Waco, (I'm sure it was unintended to send the same sniper who was ordered to kill all men with firearms, and interpreted it as authority to shoot a mom with a baby in her arms, as part of the Waco team.) Then, Bundy Ranch.

But I'm not talking about armed insurrection against the state. I'm talking about arms limiting the overreach of the state, thus preventing the armed insurrection issue.

I'm talking about the old lady getting the same treatment as a citizen as the respected father of three or the young lady. Because any of them could fight, could have a gun, could sue, could file a complaint, could vote. We have lots of ways to address improper behaviors. Guns are one of many, and I'm against losing any of them.

(And right here is where we should insert all the other, less direct methods of dealing with conflict 7w5 will bring up)

I don't want to live in an armed society to stop the government agents from being abusive. That license to the power to abuse is one of the reasons they became agents, and can make them more effective. But having an armed society puts limits on the abuse. But far more importantly, it puts limits on policies of abuse. When the agents read the new abusive policy, whether it be round up all the cattle, or round up all the Jews, it doesn't take the strong backbone to tell your boss, "and what about when they don't want to come along?" And the boss has to provide enough force to overcome resistance. Which puts a strong limit on how abusive a policy can be. Not because of superior morals, but because the more firepower is in the hands of citizens, the less thin the forces can be spread.

So, for everyone who remembers the dysfunction around the end of 2016, a certain amount of the misbehavior of the public was allowed from a "no need to make this worse" perspective. That the public owns as many guns as it does is part of the reason for authorities to allow some leeway. That my ownership of firearms allowed a bunch of leftist, unappreciative, spoiled kids go out and be heard in their angst and frustration is something I am proud of. As a mature member entrenched in this society, it is in my interests to want angry youth to have their say. I may not like what I hear, but I'd rather they had the chance to speak.

We tend to think of advanced economies as being similar, and in gun ownership argument, this comes up quite a bit. But only one side of the argument comes up, gun death. There is another. Freedom for minorities. Or worse, unpopular minorities. I haven't been off the continent, so I have to go off of what I have read. When it comes to the status of unpopular minorities, we can hold our heads up high. We aren't perfect, but we set the standards pretty high. This is a function of inheriting English law, and an armed populace. But let's look at those many exceptions.

Lynchings. They go back to the Reconstruction. And it was an armed white majority against unarmed blacks. The authorities didn't protect them, all they could do was protect themselves. Some did, some didn't. And it continued for a century.

But, slowly, things got a bit better in terms of material wealth. And we started sending black men into combat arms. And then, men trained to hold their heads high came back to the same places they were recruited from. It's no coincidence that the Civil Rights movement and black men in combat, and the Black Panther Party overlap as they did.

And now you think I'm just an old man rambling, but I'm coming to the point.

If you look at all the most restrictive gun laws, in Chicago, DC, NYC, California, Illinois, NY, they were all created as a reaction to black men in leather jackets walking around in public with longarms, policing the neighborhoods the cops wouldn't. I think the black Panther Party was wrong about alot of their beliefs, but their self policing policy was a reasonable reaction.

Banning firearms to keep blacks from being scary to soft city folk, not so reasonable.

Of course, they won't call it that, but their actions line up like dominos. Probably going to be contentious among the people that believe speeches, but the actions are clear.

NYC and many other cities had weapons laws early, but these tended toward just keeping the working class armed with knives. Shear cost of arms and munitions was enough to keep them out of the hands of the poor.

Serious gun control started with the national firearms act of 1934, mainly concerned with banning automatic weapons. Thompson submachine guns used to be sold through the mail. But, prohibition, and organized crime, made for a sharp uptick in extreme violence. The NFA of 1934 was the reaction. A rousing success. No more organized crime problem, right?

In the sixties, we got Black Panthers, and gun control. It's not like we didn't have crime before, or political minorities. Hell, Puerto Rican separatists shot up Congress, while in session, wounding 5 Congressmen back in the fifties. Not a blip. But armed black men walking around in the open? That couldn't fly. We talk about gun control today as being about middle aged white guys, and nutcases who shoot up schools and malls. But that's because gun grabbers have already succeeded in their primary goal of effectively disarming minorities. See what a rousing success that was?

Australia has confiscated the guns. Since, they haven't had any spree shootings. But they didn't have many before, and they missed the great recession, so we will see how that works out. But Australia was the example I was thinking about when I mentioned an advanced economy that doesn't seem to treat their minorities well. Just confining their murders to groups of 3 or less seems too low a bar for giving up the benefits of an armed society.

nestbuilder
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:22 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Guns in America

Post by nestbuilder » Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:22 am

@RJ

"Just confining their murders to groups of 3 or less seems too low a bar for giving up the benefits of an armed society" Wow. It is no wonder our country struggles to talk about guns when this is the starting point for some.

As I boil-down your argument, I see you suggesting American citizens should be thanking you for owning your guns because it enables our free speech? "That my ownership of firearms allowed a bunch of leftist, unappreciative, spoiled kids go out and be heard in their angst and frustration is something I am proud of." Again, wow. Guns sound downright magical in their power. Thank you for allowing me the freedom of speech - I mistakenly thought it was the First Amendment.

Additionally, you speak of the racial reality of gun control advocacy in the 1960s after your brief primer on lynching. But I do not hear you speak of the racial reality of current police and law enforcement "overreach" that continues in our modern society and I am guessing you would not suggest black men get armed up to counter the police violence they may encounter? Or the protestors at Standing Rock? I think many would argue it is safer for non-white citizens to not be armed in the face of potential "overreach" otherwise they are all the more likely to be shot. The "gun grabbers" policies of the 1960s may have been trained on non-white citizens per your account, but it is the ongoing racism that undergirds our country that makes it safer for non-white men to not have weapons in the face of that overreach.

And back to the Bundys, if that is going to be held up as why white folks should arm up, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. And it is probably worth reflecting on if you want to understand why people like me welcome restrictions on gun ownership and the types of weapons available to the public. The Bundys flagrantly broke the law for 20+ years due to their belief that the federal government/public should not own the land they grazed their cattle on. When their cattle were confiscated, a posse of armed people gathered at the cow holding pen and trained all sorts of weaponry on federal staff/law enforcement until their cows were released(and now continue to graze on those very lands illegally). I would never suggest all levels of law enforcement(and our military for that matter) do not suffer from amped up, over-confident and power-high individuals that wield weapons unjustly on American people (see history of African-Americans from slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights demonstrations through modern police violence or history of Native Americans from first contact, most contact, Wounded Knee to the present). But I do not think the Bundy drama is the best example of "overreach" for many Americans and if that is the drum that gets beat to justify unfettered access to guns, well, that argument will fall flat for many of us. Perhaps reviewing the secession and armed resistance of the South in the face of government overreach?...oh wait, that example may not be so good either.

The benefits of an armed society are not experienced the same by everyone. And I would question the assumption/speculation that free speech or as JP suggested earlier, Trumpsters victory, are somehow more safeguarded by ubiquitous arms in our society. It seems rather presumptuous and righteous and overreaching a bit.
Last edited by nestbuilder on Sun Feb 18, 2018 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

George the original one
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Guns in America

Post by George the original one » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:17 pm

So what's the difference between an armed populace revolting against a government and a lynch party or death squad?

User avatar
Tyler9000
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Guns in America

Post by Tyler9000 » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:14 pm

As for whether we should just DO SOMETHING already about gun control, the Washington Post did an impresisvely thorough analysis of whether proposed gun legislation would have prevented any mass shootings since 2012. Spoiler alert -- it would have had no effect.

Gun violence is a complicated issue with no easy answers.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3472
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Guns in America

Post by BRUTE » Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:32 pm

ducknalddon wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:36 pm
So you think civil war or the potential for it is a good justification for arming citizens?
28 human lives per year as insurance against government tyranny?

seems like a fair price.

brute doesn't own or regularly shoot any guns, but the arguments from the Blue Team are just so bad that he constantly finds himself arguing for the Red side.

again, 28 lives per year in mass shootings. humans arguing about "assault rifles" (in fact, using that term) prove that they're disingenuous. that's not even a weekend in Chicago, and those gun deaths are mostly small arms fire between black gang members.

Blue Team members might not realize this, but they sound like Creationists when they talk about something they don't understand but have really strong feelings for. not even wrong, just not fit for the adult table.

Post Reply