Forum Replies Created
-
WV,
As mentioned before, a focus on guns doesn’t prevent a focus on all kinds of other issues. We can deal with many things at the same time, and that’s the norm.
That said, to me, cars are quite different from guns, in a host of ways. But this one is key: They are designed to transport people safely from one place to another. They are not designed to kill, though they do sometimes. Guns, OTOH, have one purpose: to kill. They can’t take you to market. You can’t eat them. You can’t drink them. They’re designed to kill. Cars aren’t. And when people do kill others with their cars, it’s virtually always accidental. People intentionally use guns all the time to kill, or rape, or kidnap, or overthrow democratically elected leaders, etc. etc.
Also, whipping up a frenzy of fear and paranoia, so more and more people buy guns — the right’s speciality — helps corporate capitalism. A lot. Placing common sense, public safety regulations on guns would actually hurt their bottom lines. In a small way, it’s fighting corporate capitalism, while at the same time saving lives.
Btw, I’m in favor of reducing speed limits too. Not sure what the science tells us is the ideal. But, yeah. That’s an excellent idea.
I also think legally-mandated, NRA-led restrictions on research into gun violence represents this 1984-style weirdness.
I don’t buy for a second that government will take our guns away, but I already know a lobby group took our research away.
Agree with your edit, too.
IMO, government’s main client is Big Business. Always has been in America. It’s not going to hurt Big Business with a mass confiscation, ever. It will never, ever “go there,” at least as currently configured.
Ironically, the side of the debate in favor of violent revolution to topple “tyrannical government,” using guns, would most certainly engage in gun confiscation of its enemies. To me, anyone who believes they would remain consistent “gun rights” advocates, once in power, after a bloody revolution, is beyond naive.
Of course, they’re also beyond naive if they think they could topple the government by force in the first place.
My two cents: I’d strike a balance between the two extremes of the gun debate:
No guns
No restrictions on gunsTo me, this is the best way to balance the interests of gun owners and public safety, and it easily conforms with the 2nd amendment, even under Heller — which no longer has majority support on SCOTUS, btw.
I’d limit our guns to just those with internal chambers only. No detachable ammo containers of any kind, shape, name or type. No ability to modify guns to utilize them, ever, under any circumstance. No way. No how. Six bullets max. Must be hand loaded, and that’s key. That way, there isn’t any chance of getting lost in the weeds over gun jargon or semantics, so we don’t have to argue about what constitutes an “assault weapon,” etc. etc. It’s very straight forward and easy for anyone to understand.
Six shooters, max. Must be hand loaded, one bullet at a time. This provides for self-defense, target practice and hunting. But it will also radically reduce the likelihood of mass shootings, as has been the case in Australia. The gun that sparked the ban in Australia was the AR-15, and since it and similar guns were banned, no mass shootings have occurred there, and their total gun homicides have fallen by half.
My proposal will save lives. Actual, human lives. And that should be THE focus.
There are lots of other things we can do to reduce gun carnage in America. But that’s where I’d start.
A major theme that is missing most of the time is the idea of limited federal government. That is, that the Constitution in many ways was to set limits on what the federal government could do, but was hands off in regards to what the states could do (exception being the Bill of Rights, which the states also must follow).
That is one way to look at things. From my reading of the Constitution and the founders, and the Revolutionary War period and its aftermath, I draw quite different conclusions. I don’t see the new government as being formed with the intent to limit itself at all. Far from it. In fact, I see the shift from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution as one of the most radical increases in federal power in history, up to that time. One need merely look at Article One, Section Eight, and see the massive powers the founders gave to themselves to know this. The General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and all kinds of powers to tax and spend at will.
As for the states. The shift away from the Articles of Confederation was also a shift away from state power, and this was, perhaps, completed with the Civil War and the amendments that followed, which basically annihilated “states’ rights.” But even before that, the Constitution already had the Supremacy Clause, so it always trumped the states.
In short, personally, I think it’s a conservative myth that the founders ever intended to restrict their own powers, and quite the opposite was the case. It was a massive expansion of federal power, well beyond the British, in fact.
Not at all saying the above was (necessarily) good, or bad, or anything in particular. In many ways, such centralized power has been terrible. But our states don’t have a history of acting any better. So they’ve been every bit as “tyrannical” when that word actually applies.
I would rather see no political parties, no capitalism, no states, no ruling class (or any class divisions whatsoever) and no state apparatus . . . just small, local, democratic, left-anarchist communities, federated to one another, living under a Constitution created by the people, for the people — something we never got.
Instead, our Constitution was created by fewer than a dozen white slaveholders, with no input from millions and millions of Americans. We can do better. Much, much better, IMO.
And that kinda sums up the difference in the ‘gun-debate’
One trusts the gov. (on guns) One doesn’t.w
vBut is that really the difference? I don’t trust the government. And I don’t trust 2nd amendment absolutists — I’m trying to be nice with my terms. I don’t trust either of them. I also don’t believe that the rationale for having guns (put forward by those on the “gun rights” side) — they must have their AR-15s to defend against government tyranny — makes any sense. I see it as insane, to be honest. For a host of reasons. And from my encounters with those who hold these beliefs, they’re all too often the last people on earth I’d want to lead the revolution against a system I, too, want to replace. I just want to replace it non-violently, democratically.
To them, “tyranny” usually consists of things like raising tax rates on rich people, the existence of Medicare, small grazing fees on public lands, and the mere existence of public lands themselves. They also have more than their share of white supremacists in their midst. It’s pretty rare for blacks and minorities to hold those views, even though they really have far more reason to be angry about things than the “gun rights” crowd. They tend not to side with gun extremists, however.
To me, the debate can’t be divided that way, WV. Just my take, but I don’t think that’s an accurate way to describe differences.
Quick followup: Personally, I am opposed to BOTH visions for America. The GOP’s and the Dems’. I find them both despicable on balance. Though I see one as slightly less despicable overall.
I just find it beyond ironic that it is the Dems and Obama who are the real conservatives (with exceptions and room for nuance, etc), as that word has traditionally been defined . . . . at least since the French gave us the Left/Right split to talk about in the late 18th century.
To me, the Dems are the actual conservatives now, the true center-right party. And the GOP is well to the right of actual conservatism. I see them and much of their constituency as far-right radicals, not “conservative” as that word has traditionally been used.
Again, I detest both visions for America and the world and wish we could have true leftist alternatives. Anticapitalist, antiwar, against all empire, against hierarchy, against the class system entirely . . . . pro-environment, pro-human rights. Libertarian socialist, left-anarchist, in a nutshell. That would be my preference.
To make a long story short, I think too many people assume that “conservative” rulings must be an attempt to return us to our origins, or to “traditional” America. In reality — and this is not hyperbole — in the last three decades or so, American movement conservatives have engaged in the most radical reshaping of our judicial landscape in history. Again, this is not hyperbole. And this radical reshaping is “new,” as ZN mentions. It is the opposite of some return to a golden age . . . . though that’s what movement conservatives claim they’re doing. Taking us back.
In reality, they have been forging a brand new, quite radical and literally unprecedented conception of America. Ironically, it’s Obama and the Dems who have been trying to hold onto the past.
This.
This is why I don’t allow argument papers on this topic.
It isn’t an actual argument that respects the rules of logic and rational argumentation as laid out by Aristotle. It is a religious argument with underlying realities that do not correspond. It isn’t an “argument.” It is a declaration of religious allegiance.
True, Zooey. And “religious allegiance” is an excellent way to put it, as is “not following the rules of logic and rational argumentation.”
For instance, bnw previously asserted that Americans are not legally constrained regarding the kinds of weapons they can buy. I asked him to prove this. He responds by showing a picture of some completely random and unspecified re-enactment. This, of course, tells us absolutely nothing about the legal constraints involved, who bought what and how, what kinds of local, state and federal laws come into play, etc. etc. It tells us nothing about all the limitations imposed on those weapons, the buyers, the time and place limits and so on. Where they are stored once the re-enactment is over (or prior to it), and so on.
It’s not “proof” of his assertion in the slightest. At best, it’s “proof” that re-enactments occur, which wasn’t the topic under discussion. Not by light years. And even there, it’s weak. The picture doesn’t tell us if the re-enactment is even legal.
It’s classic desperation. Moving those old goalposts again and again. Flailing away, and a true sign of being utterly out of one’s depths.
I’ve already wasted waaaay too much time arguing with bnw. Time to do other things.
bnw,
Don’t just repeat your assertions. Prove them. Show legal proof that Americans can legally purchase, possess and use machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, tanks, armored cars, grenades, high explosives and so on. Prove it.
Repeating your claims isn’t proof.
And citing “re-enactments” is beyond silly. To the extent those are ever possible, they are highly regulated, require umpteen licenses and special permits. The weaponry must be in the form of “duds” and basically unusable. And those re-enactments can only be held in specific places, for a specific purpose and specifically limited time, as per those licenses and permits. Once that time allotment is over, they are no longer allowed.
You’re not making your case for the supposed lack of regulations through time.
At issue is the 2nd Amendment and the intent when written. Your mentioning militia anything after that is not germane.
The 2nd amendment was written in 1791. It was written nearly a decade after America defeated the Brits. The Constitution had been ratified two years before this, signaling the defeat of the anti-federalists. Madison didn’t even want the addition of the BOR, seeing the Constitution as sufficient. But he and other federalists were willing to compromise a bit with the losing side. That was very generous of them.
The context of that amendment meant it was not designed as a way to raise troops to fight a foreign power in control of America. That scenario no longer existed. And control of the militias was now federalized, as per the Constitution. That foreign power was vanquished. It was written in the context of an established state, a new state, and it set things up to secure that state, including the 2nd.
Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Congress shall have the power, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Article 1 section 2 of the constitution. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Back to the amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
obviously refers to the protection of the state itself, not to the enabling of its overthrow.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
refers to securing that state. “Bear arms” was understood at that time, and for well over a century afterward, to mean a military context only. It had nothing whatsoever to do with home use, or hunting. That aspect of self-defense and self-provision was established centuries before via English Common Law.
Again, there is absolutely no mention, anywhere, regarding an individual’s “right” to purchase weaponry for any use outside of a well-regulated militia, and absolutely no mention, whatsoever, of keeping up with weapons technology. Not in Madison’s notes. Not in the text itself. Nowhere. It doesn’t exist.
Do you think I pull this stuff out of my ass about civilians having the right to own:
machine guns, mortars, artillery, antiaircraft guns, tanks, armored cars, grenades, and HE (high explosive) rounds for same? With the aforementioned being LEGAL your bitching about an AR-15 WHICH HAS BEEN LEGAL TO OWN SINCE 1963 is ridiculous.
Yes. That’s exactly what you’ve done.
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.
