I have no doubt that most people around here are reasonable (been here for 4 years today! woo!) but this is one of those issues that is so polarizing its almost impossible to talk about. Gun owners and hobbyists get irritated because non-gun owning individuals wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns, and pro-control folks get understandably irritated when people feel like they don't want to budge and awful shit like Vegas keeps happening.
Oddly, I get irritated because gun owners regularly wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns. It's almost like there's no gun competency test that you have to pass before becoming a gun owner!
People who are pro-gun-control don't inherently know less about guns than people who are anti-gun-control, and if we're going to call out the "I'm not so afraid of everything that I feel like I need to be armed all the time" bit as being insulting self-congratulatory nonsense that implies that people who carry must be cowards, we should apply the same standard to "People who oppose gun control actually know how guns work" as a means of suggesting that people who want gun control must not know what they're talking about.
Amendment doesn't mean infallible dictation by god. It means we had another thought. We amend the constitution with a pretty respectable frequency for something that's supposed to never change... even amending it to invalidate previous amendments. I don't find the "It's in the constitution!" argument compelling of anything except we should probably change the constitution again.
Edit: Should we change the constitution is probably way outside of scope, though.
Guns make holes in people from a long way away which makes people dead. You don't need to be able to build one to have a problem with that. Gun owners really get hung up on the jargon. It's really not that important.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Because some people hold freedom over safety as the measure to which they want to exist. Which simply translates to some people thinking that the freedom to do ____ hobby is more important than the out right safety of the collective.
There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in America, owned by 4% of the population (which is 14,000,000 people) and 40,000 deaths or injuries due to firearms (as of last data i found which was 2015).
So 14,000,000 people with guns and 40,000 casualties (using the military definition) equates to 1 in 350 gun owners seeing some type of consequence of owning the firearm.
Since 64% of that 40,000 is suicide (according to quick data googling) which is 25,600 people that leaves 14,400 people adversely affected by gun violence without their own choosing. So to the 14,000,000 gun owners that number is an amount that does not (in their opinion) surpass the barrier to not allowing them them to hunt/shoot/use gun responsibly.
Now then, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT THE LINE OF REASONING IS having heard it a gazillion times in my life being from Texas.
Doesnt mean its my view or opinion, but that is the logic which is used.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Yeah, that's one for the ages.
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Thanks, Founding Fathers who didn't know that inflation exists.
Relevant to the “we have a 2nd Amendment, I win the argument” chestnut:
The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine, that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living.
I have no doubt that most people around here are reasonable (been here for 4 years today! woo!) but this is one of those issues that is so polarizing its almost impossible to talk about. Gun owners and hobbyists get irritated because non-gun owning individuals wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns, and pro-control folks get understandably irritated when people feel like they don't want to budge and awful shit like Vegas keeps happening.
Oddly, I get irritated because gun owners regularly wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns. It's almost like there's no gun competency test that you have to pass before becoming a gun owner!
People who are pro-gun-control don't inherently know less about guns than people who are anti-gun-control, and if we're going to call out the "I'm not so afraid of everything that I feel like I need to be armed all the time" bit as being insulting self-congratulatory nonsense that implies that people who carry must be cowards, we should apply the same standard to "People who oppose gun control actually know how guns work" as a means of suggesting that people who want gun control must not know what they're talking about.
After two coworkers were finished talking about rail mounts for their ARs and one walked away I asked the remaining coworker what their rifle was chambered for. He looked at me a little puzzled and I thought maybe it was loud and he didn't hear me so I repeated it.
"I don't know that any of that shit, fucking bullets?"
If that's your answer you don't get to own a gun, I'm sorry. It's like claiming to know Kung Fu because he got Karate Magazine and bought a Gi out of the back of it.
Except your Gi shoots bullets and can hurt others.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Because some people hold freedom over safety as the measure to which they want to exist. Which simply translates to some people thinking that the freedom to do ____ hobby is more important than the out right safety of the collective.
If Beanie Babies occasionally killed people, I think they might get regulated.
I have no doubt that most people around here are reasonable (been here for 4 years today! woo!) but this is one of those issues that is so polarizing its almost impossible to talk about. Gun owners and hobbyists get irritated because non-gun owning individuals wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns, and pro-control folks get understandably irritated when people feel like they don't want to budge and awful shit like Vegas keeps happening.
Oddly, I get irritated because gun owners regularly wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns. It's almost like there's no gun competency test that you have to pass before becoming a gun owner!
People who are pro-gun-control don't inherently know less about guns than people who are anti-gun-control, and if we're going to call out the "I'm not so afraid of everything that I feel like I need to be armed all the time" bit as being insulting self-congratulatory nonsense that implies that people who carry must be cowards, we should apply the same standard to "People who oppose gun control actually know how guns work" as a means of suggesting that people who want gun control must not know what they're talking about.
Oh for sure. Im not justifying, I'm just observing a common occurrence. This is unfortunately the case with any hobby. Guns just so happen to have a very tragic consequence to stupidity.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I have no doubt that most people around here are reasonable (been here for 4 years today! woo!) but this is one of those issues that is so polarizing its almost impossible to talk about. Gun owners and hobbyists get irritated because non-gun owning individuals wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns, and pro-control folks get understandably irritated when people feel like they don't want to budge and awful shit like Vegas keeps happening.
Oddly, I get irritated because gun owners regularly wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns. It's almost like there's no gun competency test that you have to pass before becoming a gun owner!
People who are pro-gun-control don't inherently know less about guns than people who are anti-gun-control, and if we're going to call out the "I'm not so afraid of everything that I feel like I need to be armed all the time" bit as being insulting self-congratulatory nonsense that implies that people who carry must be cowards, we should apply the same standard to "People who oppose gun control actually know how guns work" as a means of suggesting that people who want gun control must not know what they're talking about.
After two coworkers were finished talking about rail mounts for their ARs and one walked away I asked the remaining coworker what their rifle was chambered for. He looked at me a little puzzled and I thought maybe it was loud and he didn't hear me so I repeated it.
"I don't know that any of that shit, fucking bullets?"
If that's your answer you don't get to own a gun, I'm sorry. It's like claiming to know Kung Fu because he got Karate Magazine and bought a Gi out of the back of it.
Except your Gi shoots bullets and can hurt others.
How....how do you not know? How does he buy rounds without knowing the calibre to buy?
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
If those aren't good enough, than revert to the default "because the Constitution says so" I guess.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
If those aren't good enough, than revert to the default "because the Constitution says so" I guess.
In which parts of the country are guns an effective means of self defense? Where are the studies saying so?
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
@spool32 can articulate it better than I can, because I can't spend the time, but I think a necessary component - and the more important one anyways - of a right to self defence is the idea of the right to the attempt. The right deals with the moral component on an individual scale, and not with a macro epidemiological level where the evidence is out/weighs against
You've a right to the opportunity, not a right to succeed
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
I'm actually pretty ok with freedom over safety in general.
That said, once your freedoms start impacting my safety, your freedom can get hanged.
And with guns, any freedom for one, will impact safety of others.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
Try and round them up in 2017 and see how well it goes for you.
An armed populace cannot be pushed around the way an unarmed population can.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
Try and round them up in 2017 and see how well it goes for you.
An armed populace cannot be pushed around the way an unarmed population can.
Ahahaha. If we were rounding up people in 2017 it'd be Muslims or Mexicans.
Mexicans are already being rounded up, if they are undocumented, and we don't exactly see them as brave freedom fighters if they try and shoot their way out, *do we*?
Muslims are like Japanese people in WW2: widely hated by the general populace, violence wouldn't do any good to defend from being rounded up, they'd just get labelled as "terrorists" and shot.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
That also leads into the question of why the government should feel the need to uphold the right of the people to form an angry mob.
Further, I've always found that this is ridiculous; the idea that you need a legal pretext to engage in open revolt against corruption/oppression/people that prefer D&D 5e to pathfinder! since either A: you win and the constitution of the preceding state is moot or B: You get your shit pushed in and it doesn't matter what the legal basis of your insurrection is.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Because some people hold freedom over safety as the measure to which they want to exist. Which simply translates to some people thinking that the freedom to do ____ hobby is more important than the out right safety of the collective.
There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in America, owned by 4% of the population (which is 14,000,000 people) and 40,000 deaths or injuries due to firearms (as of last data i found which was 2015).
So 14,000,000 people with guns and 40,000 casualties (using the military definition) equates to 1 in 350 gun owners seeing some type of consequence of owning the firearm.
Since 64% of that 40,000 is suicide (according to quick data googling) which is 25,600 people that leaves 14,400 people adversely affected by gun violence without their own choosing. So to the 14,000,000 gun owners that number is an amount that does not (in their opinion) surpass the barrier to not allowing them them to hunt/shoot/use gun responsibly.
Now then, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT THE LINE OF REASONING IS having heard it a gazillion times in my life being from Texas.
Doesnt mean its my view or opinion, but that is the logic which is used.
Those numbers might be a bit off too. Given that those numbers include killings in the commission of a crime and are overwhelmingly with unregistered or illegally owned guns.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
Specifically with lynchings, thats the reason why they were disarmed first. Much post- reconstruction jgun rights urisprudence is racist.
spool32 can articulate it better than I can, because I can't spend the time, but I think a necessary component - and the more important one anyways - of a right to self defence is the idea of the right to the attempt. The right deals with the moral component on an individual scale, and not with a macro epidemiological level where the evidence is out/weighs against
You've a right to the opportunity, not a right to succeed
Effectiveness is brought in because banning something ineffective doesn't impact your right of self-defense.
You have a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to defend yourself with any specific weapon.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
Specifically with lynchings, thats the reason why they were disarmed first. Much post- reconstruction jgun rights urisprudence is racist.
Right. So the only equitable solution is to disarm people of all races.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
Specifically with lynchings, thats the reason why they were disarmed first. Much post- reconstruction jgun rights urisprudence is racist.
Even if they hadn't been, it wouldn't have helped much, because black people had nowhere to hide from the KKK. Even if they scared them off one night, they'd be coming back with more people the next night.
Guns are useless for oppressed groups, unless they just provide that one night of protection to flee with all your family. And then it is necessary to have somewhere to flee *to*.
Okay, let's talk about the instrumentality-self defense argument for a moment. The instrumentality argument is about the methods people use to exercise rights. Instrumentalities are protected in the course of protecting the underlying right, because we don't want the government to sort of rules-lawyer their way into undermining the exercise of a right by denying the instrumentalities of it. As an example, your freedom of speech extends to being able to send and receive correspondence. Restricting an instrumentality in such a way as to unduly burden the underlying exercise of the right is therefore prevented under this logic.
While self-defense is actually a poor fit as an independent right (it's more that you have a right to be defended by yourself or others as a component of your rights to life, health, and security) we'll set that aside for a second as it's irrelevant. Self-defense as a right; the instrumentalities of that right are, therefore, also protected. Guns are instrumentalities of self-defense, therefore guns are protected. The argument is basically:
If, there is a right to self-defense and
If, firearms are an instrumentality to the right to self-defense, and
If, instrumentalities to rights are protected from government restriction if the restriction unduly burdens the exercise of the right and
If, restricting firearms unduly burdens the exercise of the right to self-defense
Then, guns are protected from government restriction.
There are a few additional bits and bobs to the argument but that's the basic form. We've seen it in this very thread. It's a pretty reasonable argument.
However, we can dig a little deeper. We can distinguish between different instrumentalities. There are what you might call a "mere instrument" of the right's exercise; something that can be used to exercise the right but isn't necessary or particularly useful to do so, either because it's utility is low or because there's an effective substitute. As an example, writing implements are an instrumentality of free speech. Bic releases a new line of pens accidentally laced with polonium, and the government bans them because they're highly dangerous. Because other writing implements exist as efficient substitutes (similar efficacy and cost) there's no undue burden on the right to free speech. "Undue" is just our qualifier to toss out non-material or trivial burdens; all laws create some kind of burden. A prohibitive cost to postage stamps would infringe on the ability to send and receive correspondence, burdening free speech, but a very low cost justified by the need to recoup public cost of production and limit overuse is not.
Note that, absent the toxicity issue, the government would have no grounds for the ban, but this is due to a separate "the government needs a rational basis for any laws serving a legitimate interest" principle. A ban on a particular variety of pen for no rational basis would also be wrong, just not on free speech grounds, because specific brands of pens are a "mere" instrumentality, not a "vital" instrumentality.
A vital instrument is one so connected to the exercise of the underlying right its restriction creates an undue burden on the exercise of the right. Perhaps because it offers substantial utility, or has no substitute. A modern-day vital instrumentality of free speech is the internet; banning internet access would unduly burden free speech as it is a communications medium of tremendous utility and there's no equivalent substitute. The level of justification for restrictions on a vital instrumentality has to be a lot higher. For example, radios are a vital instrumentality of free speech, but as radio frequencies are naturally scarce, some restrictions have to be imposed in order for anyone to successfully exercise the right at all. Cell phones are a vital instrument of free speech, but if cell phones actually caused cancer on a large scale, the justification for banning them would be sufficient even though it'd create a burden on free speech.
There's also what you could call a "convenient instrumentality", which is one that makes the exercise of the right more effective or less costly but its absence does not unduly burden the right. A top-of-the-line smartphone is a convenient instrumentality of free speech while cell phones in general are vital instrumentalities. In other words, it's nice to have, but it's not necessary.
You can probably guess that the burden for restricting a "mere" instrumentality and a "convenient" instrumentality is lower than for a "vital" instrumentality. If a particular smartphone brand caused cancer, the justification for banning it is pretty ironclad. If only smartphones with a particularly useful component caused cancer, but not other kinds of less-useful phones, then the justification for banning it does not need to be as strong as the one for banning all cell phones across the board.
So, back to firearms. I will assume that everyone in the thread will not concur with the following argument:
If there is a right to self-defense and
If instrumentalities of rights cannot be restricted if that restriction burdens the exercise of the right and
If hand grenades are instrumentalities of the right to self-defense and
If restricting hand grenades unduly burdens the exercise of the right to self-defense
Then, hand grenades are protected from restriction.
The obvious quibble is for premise 4; there's no real denying that you could defend yourself with a hand grenade. But their restriction doesn't "unduly burden" self-defense. They aren't a vital instrumentality. This is an empirical line-drawing exercise. Empirically speaking,
-the evidence indicates that guns are not especially effective at providing self-defense; that is, your rights to health and safety are not unduly burdened by inability to acquire a firearm; they may even be better protected by the absence of a firearm than its presence! This is in the abstract, of course; a person pursued by a stalker may have a heightened need for self-defense and would therefore face a greater burden.
-Substitutes exist. From tasers to locks to the family dog, there are lots of tools available to augment your home and personal defense. While not necessarily as convenient as a firearm, depending on the situation, these are not poor substitutes for the purposes of determining the vitality of firearms for self-defense.
For these reasons, while I would concede that a gun is probably a convenient instrumentality of self-defense, it does not strike me as a "vital" instrumentality. So all that remains are two additional issues, namely:
-Does the government have a rational basis, serving a legitimate interest, in regulating firearms?
and
-What to do about the Constitutional grant of protection to a specific instrumentality, in this case, guns?
I think the answer to the first question is yes. Guns are dangerous and costly to public health and safety; the "cancer causing cell phone" is not perfectly apposite, but we're in the same ballpark.
The answer to the second question, setting aside the interpretation issue of whether the 2A actually protects the individual right to a firearm, is it's too strict a barrier to regulation as interpreted today. Thus far I've treated all guns as a kind of generic abstract, but we're actually talking about multiple varieties of firearms. Substitutes between firearms exist; we could ban particularly deadly kinds (is a machine gun a "vital" instrumentality? I could defend myself with a machine gun, but acquiring them is quite burdensome...) and allow others, etc.
If you changed the 2A to say "People have a right to self-defense", that would permit pretty restrictive gun laws because guns are a. not the only viable instrument of self-defense, b. not particularly efficient when the cost/benefit to the individual is considered and c. socially costly in a manner that otherwise justifies state regulation. This is completely setting aside the problem of widespread firearm availability creating a burden on individual rights to health, safety, etc, by making society more dangerous, putting us in both "rights balancing" (shouting fire in a crowded theater) and "you need to restrict in order to protect" (radio frequencies) territories.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
Specifically with lynchings, thats the reason why they were disarmed first. Much post- reconstruction jgun rights urisprudence is racist.
Did every gun owner give up their arms peacefully? ( Honest question, I really don't know.)
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
Specifically with lynchings, thats the reason why they were disarmed first. Much post- reconstruction jgun rights urisprudence is racist.
Even if they hadn't been, it wouldn't have helped much, because black people had nowhere to hide from the KKK. Even if they scared them off one night, they'd be coming back with more people the next night.
Guns are useless for oppressed groups, unless they just provide that one night of protection to flee with all your family. And then it is necessary to have somewhere to flee *to*.
Look at what happened in Tulsa - blacks fought back with arms to protect their community, and in response their entire community was leveled.
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the idea that small arms will provide even the faintest measure of protection against the US military if shit goes down like a lot of 2nd Amendment Originalists say it will is an utter fallacy.
They could end any rebellion in minutes without a single person coming within a hundred miles.
Yeah, the idea that small arms will provide even the faintest measure of protection against the US military if shit goes down like a lot of 2nd Amendment Originalists say it will is an utter fallacy.
They could end any rebellion in minutes without a single person coming within a hundred miles.
I still have the dimmest of hope that if it would come to that, somewhere along the chain of command in the military would refuse to use drone strikes on American Citizens while inside the actual borders of the United States. I am not giving their plans of rebellion any more validity, or chance of being successful, but I just think that is a scenario that I can't even fathom.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
He's not flat out refusing. That was my point. Spool is very reasonable with his suggested legislation.
The problem is that when people agree with him, he accuses them of having an agenda and he has no choice but to oppose them. They're forced to defend themselves. It happened a few days ago in this thread, and it just happened again.
To be honest, though, the last few days have absolutely convinced me there will never, ever be any effective legislation at the federal level in the United States. Between this thread, and how the NRA spoke out both sides of its mouth and not a single media personality took them to task, the fight is over.
The fight was over when someone gunned down a bunch of kindergarteners and America just shrugged. A crime so ludicrous in it's monstrosity it would get cut from a script for 24 and america proved that politically, it's basically ok with that stuff because the right to own tons of guns is more important to enough people.
Like I've said before, at least O'Reilly was honest. He just said "Eh, Las Vegas is just what happens. It's the price of freedom."
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
He's not flat out refusing. That was my point. Spool is very reasonable with his suggested legislation.
The problem is that when people agree with him, he accuses them of having an agenda and he has no choice but to oppose them. They're forced to defend themselves. It happened a few days ago in this thread, and it just happened again.
To be honest, though, the last few days have absolutely convinced me there will never, ever be any effective legislation at the federal level in the United States. Between this thread, and how the NRA spoke out both sides of its mouth and not a single media personality took them to task, the fight is over.
The fight was over when someone gunned down a bunch of kindergarteners and America just shrugged. A crime so ludicrous in it's monstrosity it would get cut from a script for 24 and america proved that politically, it's basically ok with that stuff because the right to own tons of guns is more important to enough people.
Like I've said before, at least O'Reilly was honest. He just said "Eh, Las Vegas is just what happens. It's the price of freedom."
Yeah, the idea that small arms will provide even the faintest measure of protection against the US military if shit goes down like a lot of 2nd Amendment Originalists say it will is an utter fallacy.
They could end any rebellion in minutes without a single person coming within a hundred miles.
I still have the dimmest of hope that if it would come to that, somewhere along the chain of command in the military would refuse to use drone strikes on American Citizens while inside the actual borders of the United States. I am not giving their plans of rebellion any more validity, or chance of being successful, but I just think that is a scenario that I can't even fathom.
That's basically the only actual control on "fighting against the tyrannical government". Look at Cliven Bundy and his ilk. The only problem was that the police basically went "It'll look bad if we wholesale slaughter these people" and that saved those whackos way more than the fact that they owned guns did.
If the government wants to tyranny, the government can tyranny. The hope is that the people in the government won't do their jobs, not that they'll be scared away by some yokel with an AR.
Yeah, the idea that small arms will provide even the faintest measure of protection against the US military if shit goes down like a lot of 2nd Amendment Originalists say it will is an utter fallacy.
They could end any rebellion in minutes without a single person coming within a hundred miles.
I still have the dimmest of hope that if it would come to that, somewhere along the chain of command in the military would refuse to use drone strikes on American Citizens while inside the actual borders of the United States. I am not giving their plans of rebellion any more validity, or chance of being successful, but I just think that is a scenario that I can't even fathom.
That's basically the only actual control on "fighting against the tyrannical government". Look at Cliven Bundy and his ilk. The only problem was that the police basically went "It'll look bad if we wholesale slaughter these people" and that saved those whackos way more than the fact that they owned guns did.
If the government wants to tyranny, the government can tyranny. The hope is that the people in the government won't do their jobs, not that they'll be scared away by some yokel with an AR.
Across the world, a series of insurrections and rebellions, sometimes against the US military, suggest otherwise. Insurgencies are pretty effective at resisting overwhelming force, at least up to the point where the regular army is willing to flatten whole cities.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
He's not flat out refusing. That was my point. Spool is very reasonable with his suggested legislation.
The problem is that when people agree with him, he accuses them of having an agenda and he has no choice but to oppose them. They're forced to defend themselves. It happened a few days ago in this thread, and it just happened again.
To be honest, though, the last few days have absolutely convinced me there will never, ever be any effective legislation at the federal level in the United States. Between this thread, and how the NRA spoke out both sides of its mouth and not a single media personality took them to task, the fight is over.
The fight was over when someone gunned down a bunch of kindergarteners and America just shrugged. A crime so ludicrous in it's monstrosity it would get cut from a script for 24 and america proved that politically, it's basically ok with that stuff because the right to own tons of guns is more important to enough people.
Like I've said before, at least O'Reilly was honest. He just said "Eh, Las Vegas is just what happens. It's the price of freedom."
The freedom to be murdered is not freedom.
I don't want to live in a society that enacts the kind of restrictions it would require to prevent all murders.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
He's not flat out refusing. That was my point. Spool is very reasonable with his suggested legislation.
The problem is that when people agree with him, he accuses them of having an agenda and he has no choice but to oppose them. They're forced to defend themselves. It happened a few days ago in this thread, and it just happened again.
To be honest, though, the last few days have absolutely convinced me there will never, ever be any effective legislation at the federal level in the United States. Between this thread, and how the NRA spoke out both sides of its mouth and not a single media personality took them to task, the fight is over.
The fight was over when someone gunned down a bunch of kindergarteners and America just shrugged. A crime so ludicrous in it's monstrosity it would get cut from a script for 24 and america proved that politically, it's basically ok with that stuff because the right to own tons of guns is more important to enough people.
Like I've said before, at least O'Reilly was honest. He just said "Eh, Las Vegas is just what happens. It's the price of freedom."
The freedom to be murdered is not freedom.
I don't want to live in a society that enacts the kind of restrictions it would require to prevent all murders.
Again with the "USA is the only country in the world" stuff. Most first world countries have much lower murder rates, thanks largely to sensible gun laws.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
He's not flat out refusing. That was my point. Spool is very reasonable with his suggested legislation.
The problem is that when people agree with him, he accuses them of having an agenda and he has no choice but to oppose them. They're forced to defend themselves. It happened a few days ago in this thread, and it just happened again.
To be honest, though, the last few days have absolutely convinced me there will never, ever be any effective legislation at the federal level in the United States. Between this thread, and how the NRA spoke out both sides of its mouth and not a single media personality took them to task, the fight is over.
The fight was over when someone gunned down a bunch of kindergarteners and America just shrugged. A crime so ludicrous in it's monstrosity it would get cut from a script for 24 and america proved that politically, it's basically ok with that stuff because the right to own tons of guns is more important to enough people.
Like I've said before, at least O'Reilly was honest. He just said "Eh, Las Vegas is just what happens. It's the price of freedom."
The freedom to be murdered is not freedom.
I don't want to live in a society that enacts the kind of restrictions it would require to prevent all murders.
No one does - like most bumper sticker sentiments, it's basically nonsense.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the idea that small arms will provide even the faintest measure of protection against the US military if shit goes down like a lot of 2nd Amendment Originalists say it will is an utter fallacy.
They could end any rebellion in minutes without a single person coming within a hundred miles.
I still have the dimmest of hope that if it would come to that, somewhere along the chain of command in the military would refuse to use drone strikes on American Citizens while inside the actual borders of the United States. I am not giving their plans of rebellion any more validity, or chance of being successful, but I just think that is a scenario that I can't even fathom.
That's basically the only actual control on "fighting against the tyrannical government". Look at Cliven Bundy and his ilk. The only problem was that the police basically went "It'll look bad if we wholesale slaughter these people" and that saved those whackos way more than the fact that they owned guns did.
If the government wants to tyranny, the government can tyranny. The hope is that the people in the government won't do their jobs, not that they'll be scared away by some yokel with an AR.
Across the world, a series of insurrections and rebellions, sometimes against the US military, suggest otherwise. Insurgencies are pretty effective at resisting overwhelming force, at least up to the point where the regular army is willing to flatten whole cities.
So 30,000 actual deaths every year are just the price of some hypothetical future benefit?
Is anyone on the right in favor of doing things that will prevent tyranny, like not electing fascists, shoring up institutions, etc, or is the only worthwhile measure ensuring that the next civil war is a shooting one?
Yeah, the idea that small arms will provide even the faintest measure of protection against the US military if shit goes down like a lot of 2nd Amendment Originalists say it will is an utter fallacy.
They could end any rebellion in minutes without a single person coming within a hundred miles.
I still have the dimmest of hope that if it would come to that, somewhere along the chain of command in the military would refuse to use drone strikes on American Citizens while inside the actual borders of the United States. I am not giving their plans of rebellion any more validity, or chance of being successful, but I just think that is a scenario that I can't even fathom.
That's basically the only actual control on "fighting against the tyrannical government". Look at Cliven Bundy and his ilk. The only problem was that the police basically went "It'll look bad if we wholesale slaughter these people" and that saved those whackos way more than the fact that they owned guns did.
If the government wants to tyranny, the government can tyranny. The hope is that the people in the government won't do their jobs, not that they'll be scared away by some yokel with an AR.
Across the world, a series of insurrections and rebellions, sometimes against the US military, suggest otherwise. Insurgencies are pretty effective at resisting overwhelming force, at least up to the point where the regular army is willing to flatten whole cities.
Right, that's my point.
It's not "I can fight off the government", it's "I can fight off the government assuming they agree to my terms".
If there was an armed insurrection against the US Government by its citizens that was big enough to actually challenge the government, I bet those terms would change.
Posts
Oddly, I get irritated because gun owners regularly wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns. It's almost like there's no gun competency test that you have to pass before becoming a gun owner!
People who are pro-gun-control don't inherently know less about guns than people who are anti-gun-control, and if we're going to call out the "I'm not so afraid of everything that I feel like I need to be armed all the time" bit as being insulting self-congratulatory nonsense that implies that people who carry must be cowards, we should apply the same standard to "People who oppose gun control actually know how guns work" as a means of suggesting that people who want gun control must not know what they're talking about.
Edit: Should we change the constitution is probably way outside of scope, though.
Because some people hold freedom over safety as the measure to which they want to exist. Which simply translates to some people thinking that the freedom to do ____ hobby is more important than the out right safety of the collective.
There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in America, owned by 4% of the population (which is 14,000,000 people) and 40,000 deaths or injuries due to firearms (as of last data i found which was 2015).
So 14,000,000 people with guns and 40,000 casualties (using the military definition) equates to 1 in 350 gun owners seeing some type of consequence of owning the firearm.
Since 64% of that 40,000 is suicide (according to quick data googling) which is 25,600 people that leaves 14,400 people adversely affected by gun violence without their own choosing. So to the 14,000,000 gun owners that number is an amount that does not (in their opinion) surpass the barrier to not allowing them them to hunt/shoot/use gun responsibly.
Now then, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT THE LINE OF REASONING IS having heard it a gazillion times in my life being from Texas.
Doesnt mean its my view or opinion, but that is the logic which is used.
Relevant to the “we have a 2nd Amendment, I win the argument” chestnut:
After all, it's an Amendment. It's in the Constitution. Nobody would ever scratch out or change or repeal anything that's in the Constitution.
After two coworkers were finished talking about rail mounts for their ARs and one walked away I asked the remaining coworker what their rifle was chambered for. He looked at me a little puzzled and I thought maybe it was loud and he didn't hear me so I repeated it.
"I don't know that any of that shit, fucking bullets?"
If that's your answer you don't get to own a gun, I'm sorry. It's like claiming to know Kung Fu because he got Karate Magazine and bought a Gi out of the back of it.
Except your Gi shoots bullets and can hurt others.
If Beanie Babies occasionally killed people, I think they might get regulated.
Oh for sure. Im not justifying, I'm just observing a common occurrence. This is unfortunately the case with any hobby. Guns just so happen to have a very tragic consequence to stupidity.
How....how do you not know? How does he buy rounds without knowing the calibre to buy?
What on earth?
Self defense and protection from the government are reason enough. It might sound like fantasy, but the former is a reality in many parts of this country, and as for the latter? Remember that we are only two generations from forced internment based solely upon race in America.
If those aren't good enough, than revert to the default "because the Constitution says so" I guess.
Gosh, it's lucky the Japanese-Americans were able to fight their way out of the internment camps. And that African-Americans were able to save themselves from lynching due to their right to bear arms. I don't know what would have happened to freedom otherwise!
In which parts of the country are guns an effective means of self defense? Where are the studies saying so?
You've a right to the opportunity, not a right to succeed
That said, once your freedoms start impacting my safety, your freedom can get hanged.
And with guns, any freedom for one, will impact safety of others.
Try and round them up in 2017 and see how well it goes for you.
An armed populace cannot be pushed around the way an unarmed population can.
Ahahaha. If we were rounding up people in 2017 it'd be Muslims or Mexicans.
Mexicans are already being rounded up, if they are undocumented, and we don't exactly see them as brave freedom fighters if they try and shoot their way out, *do we*?
Muslims are like Japanese people in WW2: widely hated by the general populace, violence wouldn't do any good to defend from being rounded up, they'd just get labelled as "terrorists" and shot.
That also leads into the question of why the government should feel the need to uphold the right of the people to form an angry mob.
Further, I've always found that this is ridiculous; the idea that you need a legal pretext to engage in open revolt against corruption/oppression/people that prefer D&D 5e to pathfinder! since either A: you win and the constitution of the preceding state is moot or B: You get your shit pushed in and it doesn't matter what the legal basis of your insurrection is.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Those numbers might be a bit off too. Given that those numbers include killings in the commission of a crime and are overwhelmingly with unregistered or illegally owned guns.
Specifically with lynchings, thats the reason why they were disarmed first. Much post- reconstruction jgun rights urisprudence is racist.
Effectiveness is brought in because banning something ineffective doesn't impact your right of self-defense.
You have a right to defend yourself, but you don't have a right to defend yourself with any specific weapon.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Right. So the only equitable solution is to disarm people of all races.
Even if they hadn't been, it wouldn't have helped much, because black people had nowhere to hide from the KKK. Even if they scared them off one night, they'd be coming back with more people the next night.
Guns are useless for oppressed groups, unless they just provide that one night of protection to flee with all your family. And then it is necessary to have somewhere to flee *to*.
While self-defense is actually a poor fit as an independent right (it's more that you have a right to be defended by yourself or others as a component of your rights to life, health, and security) we'll set that aside for a second as it's irrelevant. Self-defense as a right; the instrumentalities of that right are, therefore, also protected. Guns are instrumentalities of self-defense, therefore guns are protected. The argument is basically:
If, there is a right to self-defense and
If, firearms are an instrumentality to the right to self-defense, and
If, instrumentalities to rights are protected from government restriction if the restriction unduly burdens the exercise of the right and
If, restricting firearms unduly burdens the exercise of the right to self-defense
Then, guns are protected from government restriction.
There are a few additional bits and bobs to the argument but that's the basic form. We've seen it in this very thread. It's a pretty reasonable argument.
However, we can dig a little deeper. We can distinguish between different instrumentalities. There are what you might call a "mere instrument" of the right's exercise; something that can be used to exercise the right but isn't necessary or particularly useful to do so, either because it's utility is low or because there's an effective substitute. As an example, writing implements are an instrumentality of free speech. Bic releases a new line of pens accidentally laced with polonium, and the government bans them because they're highly dangerous. Because other writing implements exist as efficient substitutes (similar efficacy and cost) there's no undue burden on the right to free speech. "Undue" is just our qualifier to toss out non-material or trivial burdens; all laws create some kind of burden. A prohibitive cost to postage stamps would infringe on the ability to send and receive correspondence, burdening free speech, but a very low cost justified by the need to recoup public cost of production and limit overuse is not.
Note that, absent the toxicity issue, the government would have no grounds for the ban, but this is due to a separate "the government needs a rational basis for any laws serving a legitimate interest" principle. A ban on a particular variety of pen for no rational basis would also be wrong, just not on free speech grounds, because specific brands of pens are a "mere" instrumentality, not a "vital" instrumentality.
A vital instrument is one so connected to the exercise of the underlying right its restriction creates an undue burden on the exercise of the right. Perhaps because it offers substantial utility, or has no substitute. A modern-day vital instrumentality of free speech is the internet; banning internet access would unduly burden free speech as it is a communications medium of tremendous utility and there's no equivalent substitute. The level of justification for restrictions on a vital instrumentality has to be a lot higher. For example, radios are a vital instrumentality of free speech, but as radio frequencies are naturally scarce, some restrictions have to be imposed in order for anyone to successfully exercise the right at all. Cell phones are a vital instrument of free speech, but if cell phones actually caused cancer on a large scale, the justification for banning them would be sufficient even though it'd create a burden on free speech.
There's also what you could call a "convenient instrumentality", which is one that makes the exercise of the right more effective or less costly but its absence does not unduly burden the right. A top-of-the-line smartphone is a convenient instrumentality of free speech while cell phones in general are vital instrumentalities. In other words, it's nice to have, but it's not necessary.
You can probably guess that the burden for restricting a "mere" instrumentality and a "convenient" instrumentality is lower than for a "vital" instrumentality. If a particular smartphone brand caused cancer, the justification for banning it is pretty ironclad. If only smartphones with a particularly useful component caused cancer, but not other kinds of less-useful phones, then the justification for banning it does not need to be as strong as the one for banning all cell phones across the board.
So, back to firearms. I will assume that everyone in the thread will not concur with the following argument:
If there is a right to self-defense and
If instrumentalities of rights cannot be restricted if that restriction burdens the exercise of the right and
If hand grenades are instrumentalities of the right to self-defense and
If restricting hand grenades unduly burdens the exercise of the right to self-defense
Then, hand grenades are protected from restriction.
The obvious quibble is for premise 4; there's no real denying that you could defend yourself with a hand grenade. But their restriction doesn't "unduly burden" self-defense. They aren't a vital instrumentality. This is an empirical line-drawing exercise. Empirically speaking,
-the evidence indicates that guns are not especially effective at providing self-defense; that is, your rights to health and safety are not unduly burdened by inability to acquire a firearm; they may even be better protected by the absence of a firearm than its presence! This is in the abstract, of course; a person pursued by a stalker may have a heightened need for self-defense and would therefore face a greater burden.
-Substitutes exist. From tasers to locks to the family dog, there are lots of tools available to augment your home and personal defense. While not necessarily as convenient as a firearm, depending on the situation, these are not poor substitutes for the purposes of determining the vitality of firearms for self-defense.
For these reasons, while I would concede that a gun is probably a convenient instrumentality of self-defense, it does not strike me as a "vital" instrumentality. So all that remains are two additional issues, namely:
-Does the government have a rational basis, serving a legitimate interest, in regulating firearms?
and
-What to do about the Constitutional grant of protection to a specific instrumentality, in this case, guns?
I think the answer to the first question is yes. Guns are dangerous and costly to public health and safety; the "cancer causing cell phone" is not perfectly apposite, but we're in the same ballpark.
The answer to the second question, setting aside the interpretation issue of whether the 2A actually protects the individual right to a firearm, is it's too strict a barrier to regulation as interpreted today. Thus far I've treated all guns as a kind of generic abstract, but we're actually talking about multiple varieties of firearms. Substitutes between firearms exist; we could ban particularly deadly kinds (is a machine gun a "vital" instrumentality? I could defend myself with a machine gun, but acquiring them is quite burdensome...) and allow others, etc.
If you changed the 2A to say "People have a right to self-defense", that would permit pretty restrictive gun laws because guns are a. not the only viable instrument of self-defense, b. not particularly efficient when the cost/benefit to the individual is considered and c. socially costly in a manner that otherwise justifies state regulation. This is completely setting aside the problem of widespread firearm availability creating a burden on individual rights to health, safety, etc, by making society more dangerous, putting us in both "rights balancing" (shouting fire in a crowded theater) and "you need to restrict in order to protect" (radio frequencies) territories.
Did every gun owner give up their arms peacefully? ( Honest question, I really don't know.)
Look at what happened in Tulsa - blacks fought back with arms to protect their community, and in response their entire community was leveled.
They could end any rebellion in minutes without a single person coming within a hundred miles.
I still have the dimmest of hope that if it would come to that, somewhere along the chain of command in the military would refuse to use drone strikes on American Citizens while inside the actual borders of the United States. I am not giving their plans of rebellion any more validity, or chance of being successful, but I just think that is a scenario that I can't even fathom.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
The fight was over when someone gunned down a bunch of kindergarteners and America just shrugged. A crime so ludicrous in it's monstrosity it would get cut from a script for 24 and america proved that politically, it's basically ok with that stuff because the right to own tons of guns is more important to enough people.
Like I've said before, at least O'Reilly was honest. He just said "Eh, Las Vegas is just what happens. It's the price of freedom."
The freedom to be murdered is not freedom.
That's basically the only actual control on "fighting against the tyrannical government". Look at Cliven Bundy and his ilk. The only problem was that the police basically went "It'll look bad if we wholesale slaughter these people" and that saved those whackos way more than the fact that they owned guns did.
If the government wants to tyranny, the government can tyranny. The hope is that the people in the government won't do their jobs, not that they'll be scared away by some yokel with an AR.
Across the world, a series of insurrections and rebellions, sometimes against the US military, suggest otherwise. Insurgencies are pretty effective at resisting overwhelming force, at least up to the point where the regular army is willing to flatten whole cities.
I don't want to live in a society that enacts the kind of restrictions it would require to prevent all murders.
And by extension, you don't want to live in a society that enacts the kinds of restrictions it requires to prevent some murders?
Again with the "USA is the only country in the world" stuff. Most first world countries have much lower murder rates, thanks largely to sensible gun laws.
No one does - like most bumper sticker sentiments, it's basically nonsense.
So 30,000 actual deaths every year are just the price of some hypothetical future benefit?
Is anyone on the right in favor of doing things that will prevent tyranny, like not electing fascists, shoring up institutions, etc, or is the only worthwhile measure ensuring that the next civil war is a shooting one?
Right, that's my point.
It's not "I can fight off the government", it's "I can fight off the government assuming they agree to my terms".
If there was an armed insurrection against the US Government by its citizens that was big enough to actually challenge the government, I bet those terms would change.
No, that doesn't follow from what I said.