The gun debate in my opinion boils down to

InvaderRam wrote:

martin luther king defended our “freedoms” without lifting a single finger.

and honestly freedom is something we all have regardless of whatever restrictions society puts on our rights as a civilian.

that’s the freedom i’m more concerned about if that makes any sense.

Yeah, MLK!! A fellow leftist/socialist. Non-violence is the answer. A radical demilitarization of the nation is the answer. Top down. Not a bottom up arms race, led by fringe lunatics who think they need to keep up with advances in military firepower, because they dream of Wolverines and Red Dawn at night.

The answer is to radically deescalate, instead. End the glorification of guns in the media, by government, Hollywood, etc.. Shame the NRA into silence. Shame the even more vile GOA into silence. Demilitarize our police. Roll back our empire. Stop being World Cop. End our wars. No more wars of choice. Decriminalize and legalize drugs and victimless, non-violent “crimes.” Empty our jails of those incarcerated for those non-violent, victimless crimes. From the top down, preach peace, not violence and war. Preach non-violent conflict resolution, not resorting to guns. Preach democracy, not “2nd amendment remedies to the ballot box.”

It’s time our society shunned all those who preach violence, hate, gun-fetishism, worship of guns, worship of dead white slaveholders, etc. etc.

That would mean actual “freedom and liberty” for all. You can’t get there with guns.

Why should I or any other law abiding gun owner be further impacted? Go after the criminals not the law abiding gun owners. Law abiding. Look it up.

Almost without exception, mass shooters were “law abiding” before they snapped and slaughtered dozens. The vast majority of domestic shootings are committed by people who were “law abiding” before they snapped and killed their wife, or friends, or neighbors and so on.

The vast majority of gun violence in America is committed by people with no priors. And the easy access to guns enables this. The easy access to high-capacity weaponry weaponizes the person who snaps to kill dozens.

The guns themselves, being so prevalent, are a menace to all of us and take “freedom and liberty” away from us on a daily basis. Guns are the weapon of choice for rapists, kidnappers, thieves, terrorists, mass shooters, etc. High-capacity guns are the weapons of choice for mass shooters and terrorists.

Logic tells us we should make it radically tougher to obtain those weapons of mass destruction, and the best way to start is by banning them. Ban the manufacture, sale, import, export, trade and possession of those high-capacity guns. No citizen needs them. And no amendment protects the purchase or ownership of them.

It’s time to put the health and safety of the American people above the desire of a tiny minority that endangers all of us. It’s time to put human life first and foremost, radically ahead of the desire of that tiny minority to play with deadly pieces of metal.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Play? Far from it. Tell that to the victims of crime who are determined to protect themselves.

Guns rarely do protect anyone from any crimes. They are far more likely to be turned on the owner and result in the owner’s death. Guns in the home, guns in the street, radically increase the likelihood that the owner or someone in their family dies. Especially women. Dozens of toddlers, for instance, have killed their siblings already this year. This is common. Homicides, accidents and suicides all skyrocket in likelihood when you have a gun in your home or carry it on the street.

And, again, this isn’t about the 2nd amendment. It’s not at all accurate when you try to make the debate about its support. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control. It’s never given any American an unfettered right to unlimited, unrestricted consumer choice in the first place. No such right has ever existed anywhere in the world, including here. And that’s even if we completely ignore the fundamentally essential aspect of state militias — as written.

The only way the 2nd amendment could legitimately play a part would be if some entity decided to ban all arms, with no exceptions. That would go against the amendment. But restricting the type of weapon, capping firepower and capacity, quantity, requiring licensing and registration, training, waiting periods, background checks, smart gun tech and so on — none of that goes against the amendment in any way, shape or form.

The amendment has never protected you from added inconvenience or more hoops to jump through before purchase. Nor has it ever given you a right to consumer choice, especially not unlimited consumer choice. As long as you can “keep and bear” an arm, we’ve conformed with the 2nd amendment. And, again, that means ceding away its essential context, the state militias, where the “bear arms” term has always meant in a military setting, only.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

Guns got you the freedom in the first place.

See, it’s always going to go like this. (And this is said with all due respect. I assume we agree on other issues, just not this one.)

The 2nd amendment is clearly open to interpretation, which is why it has been interpreted differently across history. (Which is just a fact).

But to me, there will always be this type: they interpret amendment 2 a certain way, and declare that interpretation to be a “truth.” They show fanatical devotion to this “truth.” They see it a certain way, and instead of admitting or understanding that, proclaim it all to be a “truth.”

Meanwhile all I hear is someone proclaiming a religion.

Not that that stops the proclaimers…the hardcore religious devotees.

But that’s all I will ever hear.

That’s what you face. You will never persuade anyone, just as no jehovah’s witness, or hindu activist, or muslim iman coming to my door will ever talk me into anything. I know better. They have a view of things, and that’s all I will hear…that they have a view of things. Them swearing up and down with profound conviction and dedicated zeal that they have a “truth” will just look to me like a symptom of them believing their own interpretation of things. It will not look like “truth.” It will only look like they believe their religion.

I also understand that arguing with people of deep faith is just usually a waste of time. They should understand the same about me.

Oh and btw the reason we weren’t free in the first place is because the british had guns, so I tend not to take much notice of bumper sticker slogans. Also the reason we (or actually, a lot of us…it wasn’t all of us) were free in the first place is because the americans had good diplomats and the French had ships.

Either way, the upshot is, not a single other person here believes the debate boils down to what YOU believe it boils down to. All I saw was you proclaiming your religion.

Is it possible for you to see me the same way? Sure.
…

You have a reasonable take on tbe subject, Maddy.

Also, I have heard it repeated that if a killer is going to kill, he doesn’t need a gun, and regulations and restrictions will be of no use. I don’t think tighter regulations will end all gun violence. But what if it reduces gun violence by some percentage? I think it is reasonable to expect that it woludlow

It is reasonable to expect that it would work. Why? Because tighter restrictions have worked in every country that has implemented them. Also, this idea that someone who wants to commit a mass killing can do so without a gun is ridiculous. The gun makes the mass killing easy. It would be nearly impossible to commit a mass killing like what happened in Orlando without a gun. Yeah, a bomb could be used, but the complexity of finding the materials, building it, placing it and then detonating it is prohibitive. If it was easy bombings would occur more frequently. Much easier to pull a trigger.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by nittany ram.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by nittany ram.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by nittany ram.

bnw wrote:

“When the British attempted to disarm the American populace during 1774-75, citizens formed private militias that were independent of the royal governors’ control.”

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/Bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm

And what happened to that once the states banded into a legal order under the auspices of the continental congress?

Again for convenience sake, from the wiki:

The Continental Army consisted of soldiers from all 13 colonies, and after 1776, from all 13 states. When the American Revolutionary War began at the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers, for local defense, or the raising of temporary “provincial regiments” during specific crises such as the French and Indian War of 1754–63. As tensions with Great Britain increased in the years leading to the war, colonists began to reform their militias in preparation for the perceived potential conflict. Training of militiamen increased after the passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774. Colonists such as Richard Henry Lee proposed forming a national militia force, but the First Continental Congress rejected the idea.

On April 23, 1775, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress authorized the raising of a colonial army consisting of 26 company regiments. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut soon raised similar but smaller forces. On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common defense, adopting the forces already in place outside Boston (22,000 troops) and New York (5,000). It also raised the first ten companies of Continental troops on a one-year enlistment, riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia to be used as light infantry, who became the 1st Continental Regiment in 1776. On June 15, 1775, the Congress elected by unanimous vote George Washington as Commander-in-Chief, who accepted and served throughout the war without any compensation except for reimbursement of expenses.

On July 18, 1774, the Congress requested all colonies form militia companies from “all able bodied effective men, between sixteen and fifty years of age.” It was not uncommon for men younger than sixteen to enlist as most colonies had no requirement of parental consent for those under twenty-one (adulthood).

“Private militias” from that period (ie. really, former colonial militias in insurrection) were not legal when there were in fact a body of laws governing the former colonies.

The right-wing and white supremacist paramilitary groups in existence today claiming a legal foundation in those early, pre-continental army militias are just basically ignoring law and re-writing history.

Oh and it honestly does not matter what you personally know or don’t–I am posting for everyone. Not everyone reading this thread is familiar with the history. So don’t take it personally when I post context.

Some of the muskets came from private citizens but many of the muskets came from the armories of individual states. The states maintained armories to supply the militias. By 1778, most of the continental army’s muskets were supplied by France.

WRONG! Such lies won’t help your cause of gun control. I have answered this ad nauseum. Whenever gun technology has advanced the law abiding citizen has had access to that gun. From the musket to the machine gun. From the very beginning of this republic and 150 years before it on this continent. Machine guns could be bought easily before 1934. Since 1934 you have to pay $200 tax per each machine gun, silencer etc. You also have some hoops to jump through. BUT THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL TO OWN. Here. ALWAYS.

People don’t realize that because they are IGNORANT of the facts. I have to correct people all the time here yet I admit it isn’t doing any good since all they have to do is hear their lying MSM reporters and their LYING gun grabbing politicians and in their mind they are an instant expert.

bnw, you’re getting personal again, calling me a liar, and I don’t appreciate it.

Beyond that, you’ve never provided one iota of proof regarding your insistent claims. We have, to back up ours. Repeatedly. It’s actually the case that America has always had laws regulating the kinds of guns people could buy, at times, how many, or when. That has always been the case. Sometimes these laws are relaxed in this or that state. Sometimes they’re tightened. By in the last two plus centuries, the NORM has been to regulate firepower and set limits to the kinds of weapons private citizens can buy. That’s in practice, and the way our courts have always seen this. Even Scalia, in Heller, said we could limit firepower, and he was a hardcore gun nut.

I know it’s hopeless with you, but you’re dead wrong regarding the meaning, origins, intent and history of the 2nd amendment, and its application throughout American history. You’re just wrong. Wildly, irrationally wrong. It’s never, ever, ever given Americans the right to unfettered consumer choice. It’s never been about that. Not even when the state militia part, which is central, isn’t being considered.

Oh, and about MLK and guns:

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Complicated Legacy On Gun Violence

“If you went to King’s house in 1955 or 1956, there were guns,” Cobb said in an interview. “When they bombed his house in 1956, his first instinct was to apply for a gun permit. He moves toward nonviolence slowly. By the 1960s, he abandoned the idea of weapons for self-defense.”

and

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, a King aide who was at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, when King was shot and killed, said King was mindful of the role of guns.

“Dr. King’s point was that the protection of one’s home is self-evident, but he was quick to add that you’re more likely to shoot a relative or commit suicide (with a gun),” Jackson said. “He refused to keep a gun in his house for that reason.”

After his home was bombed, King got rid of his gun and eschewed weapons, said King lieutenant Andrew Young. Before joining King, Young owned a shotgun and a handgun. The movement did not condemn defensive violence, Young explained; King simply did not engage in it.

“He decided he was not going to have a gun, and he didn’t want anybody with guns around him,” Young said.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.