|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Gun control in the US
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
One of the most helpful aspects of the President's press conference currently going on was that he began by framing the gun control issue as a broader issue than just Sandy Hook. Far more than 20 children have been murdered this year. While Newtown rightly raised our awareness, as Pres. Obama pointed out, thousands of American families have had their own private Newtown every year as innocent men, women, and children are shot down in a variety of situations. There are a number of factors behind that, but one common denominator is the availability of guns.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I think that another commonality with many of these acts of violence is years of desensitization from video games and graphic movies. There have been some rumblings about looking at the permissiveness wrt violent ideation in our culture, but I wonder whether it will go anywhere or not.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I would be very, very surprised if any of the signories thought to themselves, 'Here we are, we are giving our citizens the right to rise up against us in rebellion if they so choose ...'
Prepare to be surprised.
The founders didn't see it as the citizens rising up against them. They saw it as rising up against the government. They were trying their best to make one that wouldn't require that and that if it did it would be a long time away. As it so happened, it took only 74 years.
From the Declaration of Independence
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I want to be very clear that I do not support an open rebellion. I am not one of those crazed people practicing for war behind the barn with like-minded nuts. I don't think we are at the end of a long train of abuses and usurpations nor on the verge of despotism. Hopefully we'll never get there. But if we do, unarmed citizens can be forced into cattle cars.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Yes, that's the Declaration of Independence. But when the Constitution was framed, in Article 3, it says:
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The 2nd amendment did not repeal the treason clause. Therefore, bearing arms against our own government is not what the 2nd amendment allows. The 2nd amendment is there because our founders did not want a standing army; they wanted to be able to summon a militia to deal with threats to the country.
They clearly did not envision armed revolt to be protected in the Constitution.
[ 19. December 2012, 17:58: Message edited by: Josephine ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Does France, which has an obsession with 'la chasse', and where there must be a lot of weapons about, have mass shootings?
The most recent one I can remember (non-terrorist related) was in 2001 in Tours in which four people were killed and seven injured. The perp was captured alive and is currently serving a life sentence. He was a gun enthusiast. This page mentions only three others, one of which is basically the perp's extended family "only".
There are certainly guns around in France but I have never seen one apart from in the hands of a civilian apart from hunters (I have probably had a near miss at seeing at least one held illegaly but that's another tale). AK-47s appear to be becoming the weapon of choice for drug-related battles and raids on vans carrying cash.
Otherwise I live not far from a firing range which sounds as if it gets some heavy-calibre weapons practice sometimes, and have got used to seeing guns through working in prisons (guards are not usually armed but may be for transfers and in exceptional circumstances).
When it comes to suicide, as I said the nearest equivalent I can think of in terms of social impact is throwing oneself under a train. The nearest frequent gun-related incidents are when somebody barricades themselves in a house, with or without hostages; more often than not, these end without bloodshed. Occasionally there will be a domestic murder-suicide.
I think there's something in this demystification/desacralisation idea. I still think the idea of tightening obligations on gun owners might help the process.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Yes, that's the Declaration of Independence. But when the Constitution was framed, in Article 3, it says:
quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The 2nd amendment did not repeal the treason clause. Therefore, bearing arms against our own government is not what the 2nd amendment allows. The 2nd amendment is there because our founders did not want a standing army; they wanted to be able to summon a militia to deal with threats to the country.
They clearly did not envision armed revolt to be protected in the Constitution.
Josephine
I'm wondering if the message varies in different parts of the US. I provided this link earlier and recommended folks clicked onto the interview between Jeremy Clarkson and author Lionel Shriver.
It's possible you can't access it in the US, but Lionel Shriver observes that this "in last resort, you can take up arms against your own government" was precisely the lesson she learned in the US when she was a child. Associated with quotes from the Declaration of Independence.
She goes on further to observe that there is an element in the gun-rights lobby which truly believes that US citizens do have that right and responsibility.
I hope you can access it; it is a fascinating interview given the place this discussion has moved to.
[ 19. December 2012, 18:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Seems a bit of a stretch from that part of the Declaration of Independence, monkeylizard (am I to put everyone's names in lower-case now, moron?).
The whole context of the thing, of course, is that they were declaring themselves independent in open rebellion against the government of the day - King George III's. I'm not saying whether they were right or wrong to do that - but it's a bit of a post-justification thing going on ... in the same way that some of the extreme Parliamentarians and regicides in the English Civil War cited the deposition of ungodly rulers in the Old Testament as a precedent for rebellion against the Crown.
Again, I'm not taking sides there either - just providing the context.
I can see what the Founding Fathers were trying to say - but I'm with Josephine, it seems like it has more to do with a 'well-regulated militia' - which in itself suggests a stable form of government, like it or not - than with enshrining the right to rise up in rebellion against any future despotic government.
I won't take sides on the US Civil War issue either, I think the whole thing was a terrible tragedy ... although I'm glad the South didn't win - imagine an America with Southerners gaining the upper hand. It doesn't bear thinking about. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seriously, no, I'm not taking sides, but one could argue that 600,000 lives lost in a bitter, internecine Civil War is the price paid for enshrining the right to bear arms in your nation's Constitution.
People have cited Waco and other incidents - fair enough - but I don't see the Government of the USA - whether it's Republican or Democrat - coming along any time soon to cart civilians away in cattle-trucks. The people most likely to that sort of thing are nut-case survivalists and gun-freaks and the kind of whackoes on the fringes of the NRA and so on.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Otter
Shipmate
# 12020
|
Posted
Yesterday morning there was a radio news story about a proposed law that would require a gun owner to report the lost/theft of a firearm to the police.
My first reaction was: That's a really good idea.
Second reaction: Wait, WTF?!! That isn't already a law?!?
I really hope it had not been previously enacted into legislation because its one of those common-sense things - somebody steals your gun, you let the police know. [Insert pithy comment about common sense and lack thereof here.]
I was an NRA member at one point, but they got too extremist for me, so I didn't renew. (I remember reading one of their hunting-focused magazines that Grandpa got with some fondness) The extremes on both ends of the debate scare me.
--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", YMMV, limited-time offer, IANAL, no purchase required, and the state of CA has found this substance to cause cancer in laboratory aminals
Posts: 1429 | From: Chicago, IL 'burbs | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
I stand by my observation that the founders very much thought that the goverened have the right or even responsibility to do so. By virtue of rebellion, the rebels are stating they no longer recognize the existing government as legit and aren't likely to be too concerned about its laws. That's pretty much what the Declaration did. I can see the point about the 2A vs rebellion and that the Constitution doesn't need to protect that right. I think that's simply because as a matter of fact the founders knew the Constitution didn't mean anything to rebels if they declared independence from it.
I don't see that happening any time soon and hope it never happens. If at some future time the government truly has grown to being an overbearing despotic tyrant, but the citizens have been disarmed, there's not much that can be done about it. Nazi Germany did that during the 1930s and used existing national gun registrations of their invaded nations to confiscate arms from citizens. We can say "it can't happen here" and I'm sure that's what many people thought in central Europe in the 1920s.
FYI - my Ship name actually is all lower case. I simply don't care one way or another.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I provided this link earlier and recommended folks clicked onto the interview between Jeremy Clarkson and author Lionel Shriver.
Jeremy Paxman. Just saying.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I provided this link earlier and recommended folks clicked onto the interview between Jeremy Clarkson and author Lionel Shriver.
Jeremy Paxman. Just saying.
Freudian error of the thread! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar: I'm sorry I let this run a while, but, living in a safe country (one that doesn't expect that guns are a solution) I do have time for the RL thing.
Now, to repeat my question for the third time, since you are obviously trying to avoid answering it (Yes, you're not unintelligent just because you worship guns): Why do you, as a priest in a Christian church, insist that you, personally, should have to carry weapons that are only intended for killing people?
That position seems to be one that you prefer, and I'm wondering how you justify the opposition to what Jesus taught.
I also wonder why, since the US is the "most Christian" of the developed countries in the world, is the murder rate there so high. Does the Christian message carry so little weight?
Oh, and thanks for the "Canuckian" word, which puts you right in there with the alternative universe of certain Christian preachers of dubious values. I note that I have been sworn at and threatened with attack by certain Americans when i use the term "USian", as have other Shippies. Is there one rule for dealing with Americans and a different one for all other places in the world? Perhaps you could discuss this with RuthW. Only one of you is right.
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Otter:
Yesterday morning there was a radio news story about a proposed law that would require a gun owner to report the lost/theft of a firearm to the police.
I don't see how this helps prevent gun crimes. So what if it was reported as stolen or not? Reporting the theft doesn't make it any more or less likely to be used in a crime. The only advantage to that is that if the gun turns up, there's a chance it might get returned to its rightful owner, just like any other stolen property.
I guess the FBI could have one more statistic to track, but that's about it.
[ 19. December 2012, 19:32: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And, if you are dead, you can't report the guns were stolen. Reporting the gun stolen won't reduce gun crime. The police don't put much effort in recovering stolen property even guns.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So citizens with guns would have prevented the Nazis from getting into power. Yeah, right ... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Hitler was voted in and enjoyed considerable support . Sure, there was opposition and a very, very gallant German 'resistance' right the way through the Nazi period and several ill-fated assassination attempts.
You're making the assumption that it's always going to be the government that's despotic and evil and the ordinary joes that are going to be freedom-loving and benign.
The KKK lynch-mobs and various armed and dangerous nut-jobs throughout US history give the lie to that.
I stand by my contention that it is nut-jobs and extremists in the US who are more likely to shunt people off in cattle-trucks than any democratically elected government of left (or what passes for left in the USA) or right.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Don't be so sure of that, Gamaliel.
Would it have been better if they had been armed, and fought back?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
Couple of things stick out here...
If assault rifles {properly defined etc} were to be banned, would there be anyway of knowing how many were in circulation?
If there were to be a licensing scheme, how could anyone know if all guns were accounted for?
Personally I don`t like either handguns or "assault" rifles, but that`s just my (uk) context.
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
If at some future time the government truly has grown to being an overbearing despotic tyrant, but the citizens have been disarmed, there's not much that can be done about it.
But the thing is, even if that was the reason for the 2nd amendment being written, it was during a time when a bunch of citizens armed with guns could fight that government and stand a chance.
But now we have tanks, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, planes, bombs and grenades, and more...
So if one wants to live up to the spirit of the 2nd amendment (if that spirit is being equipped to rebel against a corrupt government), then surely it follows that the right of the individual to bear nuclear and chemical weapons, etc. shouldn't be taken away from them?
ISTM that the way many Americans view their constitution is similar to the way biblical innerantists view scripture. So, in the same way that a YECist only gets as far as believing and following the simple literal meaning of the infallible scripture, strong American patriots see the constitution in the same way. Questions like "why was it written? how can we view it in the context it was written? is what was written applicable to us today in our own circumstance? was it right then but wrong now? was it just plain wrong?" don't occur to the innerantists, whether you're talking about scripture or constitution.
From those of us outside of that mindset, it's very hard to do anything but shake your head when you encounter it. (By the way, that's not aimed at you or anyone else, monkeylizard, more of a general observation).
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Otter
Shipmate
# 12020
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
quote:
Originally posted by Otter:
Yesterday morning there was a radio news story about a proposed law that would require a gun owner to report the lost/theft of a firearm to the police.
I don't see how this helps prevent gun crimes. So what if it was reported as stolen or not? Reporting the theft doesn't make it any more or less likely to be used in a crime.
Point, I wasn't considering it from exactly that direction.
I was looking at it from the point of view of growing up in a small-ish town (as opposed to the major (sub-)urbanish sprawl where I live now). In that case, I'm assuming, the police would want to know that there's a weapon of X make/model/capabilities the hands of criminals. Was it another valuable the thieves grabbed, or were the gun(s) were the point of the theft. Or maybe they have a fence/pawnshop they have suspicions about, and knowing what was stolen may be useful. Very similar to getting information about my neighbors' stolen bicycle, except that stolen bikes aren't really a risk of use in a subsequent crime.
In the "loss" category, it also lets the officialdom know that if a shotgun is found in the lake, they can more easily tie it back to Dan Duckhunter's boating accident, as opposed to trying to determine if somebody was disposing of evidence of a crime.
Going further out, if the requirement to report loss/theft were coupled with requirements for responsible storage and fines for failure, maybe it would drive some people to be more responsible.
--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", YMMV, limited-time offer, IANAL, no purchase required, and the state of CA has found this substance to cause cancer in laboratory aminals
Posts: 1429 | From: Chicago, IL 'burbs | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Don't be so sure of that, Gamaliel.
Would it have been better if they had been armed, and fought back?
In hindsight, for the Japanese Americans, no.
In hindsight, for the European Jews, most definitely.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
There was a time in our country not long ago where high school kids kept shotguns and rifles in their trucks in the school parking lots legally and openly. They would go hunting early before school, or in the afternoons after school.
Do school children normally drive round in pick-up trucks? And was it ever OK to leave a gun in the back of one where any passer by can steal it?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Oh for fuck's sake ...
Arm your citizens and look at the wonderful things you can achieve:
- You stave off the Holocaust.
- You act like the Viet Cong and see off one of the world's greatest military powers ...
No - what happens is this:
- You get over 30 people a day killed by guns (I've quoted 85 in the past but the BBC News today reckons it's more like 30).
I'm getting fed up of this. Posters like Beeswax Altar, monkeylizard and the estimable RuthW RIGHTLY criticise the rest of us for apparently seeking to impose our own Western European values on the USA. We want to make the USA more like Western Europe.
Well, if it made the USA a more peaceful and less dangerous place to live - then yes, I would like the USA to be a bit more like Western Europe - but there are mistakes and weaknesses over here I wouldn't want to see the USA repeat.
But then, by the same token they (not RuthW) impose their own fucked up values on the rest of us by claiming that if European Jewry had been armed the Holocaust would never have taken place and that the only thing standing in the way of complete and utter anarchy is the right to bear arms.
Bollocks.
The point about fundamentalism and inerrancy is well-made. It's as if the 2nd Amendment dropped down from heaven on gold tablets and should be regarded irrespective of context.
All this bollocks about rising up and having armed rebellions against legitimate governments. I'll tell you who was carrying out armed rebellions before the Nazis came to power - it was the Nazis themselves. Ever heard of the Munich Putsch?
The authorities put that down with much bloodshed.
Where does this fucking idea come from that the rebels are always the good guys?
Just because the USA was born out of a rebellion doesn't mean that every rebellion before or since has to be surrounded by some kind of aura of sanctity.
Charles Wesley wrote a poem calling for God to have mercy on the rebel Colonists and to show them the error of their ways ... I've chuckled when I've read it in the past. The next time I read it I'll ponder how right he was ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
There was a time in our country not long ago where high school kids kept shotguns and rifles in their trucks in the school parking lots legally and openly. They would go hunting early before school, or in the afternoons after school.
Do school children normally drive round in pick-up trucks? And was it ever OK to leave a gun in the back of one where any passer by can steal it?
Not anywhere I ever lived.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
There was a time in our country not long ago where high school kids kept shotguns and rifles in their trucks in the school parking lots legally and openly. They would go hunting early before school, or in the afternoons after school.
Do school children normally drive round in pick-up trucks? And was it ever OK to leave a gun in the back of one where any passer by can steal it?
Of course they do.
You don't leave the gun in the back of the pick-up truck. You leave it on the gun rack attached to the back window and lock the door. I kept my 12 gauge on a gun rack behind the seat. Passers by didn't even know it was there. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 19. December 2012, 22:25: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Posters like Beeswax Altar, monkeylizard and the estimable RuthW RIGHTLY criticise the rest of us for apparently seeking to impose our own Western European values on the USA. We want to make the USA more like Western Europe.
fyi: Ruth et al don't speak for all of us. Some of us don't believe we are all that "exceptional" and are even open to the slim possibility that there might be something, somewhere that we can learn from others. To Sarah Palin & Bill O'Reilly that indicates we aren't Real Americans.
[ 19. December 2012, 22:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by goperryrevs:
But now we have tanks, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, planes, bombs and grenades, and more...
You are right.
It is simply impossible for lightly argmed guerillas to fight the vaunted US military.
or the military of any world power
I said they didn't stand a chance, not that it was impossible, but my language was still probably too strong. Of course, you're right, guerilla warfare can work. But do you think if the US decided to blanket bomb or nuke Afghanistan the locals would have a chance? The US chooses to restrain force because they don't want too many civilian casualties (or international condemnation), but it it didn't have those scruples, the military technology it possesses wouldn't be defeated by a few civilians with their guns.
But anyway, we're straining the gnat and missing the camel. The main point I was making is that the reason given for the second amendment existing is so that the people can be equipped militarily to fight their government.
If that's the case, then either you should be arming citizens with most of the advanced weaponry that we have today, or you need to say that the 2nd amendment can't work for you any more, because militrary technology is so different today that the risks are too great.
The former is just too scary, so if it's the latter, then for fuck's sake, please America, confine the 2nd amendment to history and change your gun laws before any more people have to die unnecessarily.
Of course, the other alternative is (as Jospehine said) that the 2nd amendment isn't about facilitating rebellion. If that's the case, then there is no reason not to go for stricter regulations (again, stricter regulations does not mean a ban). Regulations like properly vetting gun owners & their families, compulsory gun training, strict laws on storing guns etc. would do nothing to inhibit a militia ready to help defend America against some external attack, in fact it would probably be of benefit to it.
But whatever, keeping the status quo is not only the dumbest, but also the most illogical thing to do.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Some of us don't believe we are all that "exceptional"
I know. But probably not enough to count. Comes with being "leader of the free world" and all that. Coupled with a long-running strand of isolationism.
It really is about votes in the end. It will be interesting to see what votes Obama can corral on this - and for what proposal. Given the emnity of the majority in the unrepresentative and gerrymandered House of Representatives, he'll probably have his work cut out to get anything even of marginal advantage.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Posters like Beeswax Altar, monkeylizard and the estimable RuthW RIGHTLY criticise the rest of us for apparently seeking to impose our own Western European values on the USA. We want to make the USA more like Western Europe.
fyi: Ruth et al don't speak for all of us. Some of us don't believe we are all that "exceptional" and are even open to the slim possibility that there might be something, somewhere that we can learn from others. To Sarah Palin & Bill O'Reilly that indicates we aren't Real Americans.
I don't believe in American exceptionalism. I'm just equally opposed to the myth of European exceptionalism. Conservatives in the United States believe in American exceptionalism. Progressives in the United States believe in European exceptionalism just as much as Europeans. Beeswax Altar believes in neither.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
There was a time in our country not long ago where high school kids kept shotguns and rifles in their trucks in the school parking lots legally and openly. They would go hunting early before school, or in the afternoons after school.
Do school children normally drive round in pick-up trucks? And was it ever OK to leave a gun in the back of one where any passer by can steal it?
I said high school kids, so yes, those with drivers licenses will drive to school. Pickup trucks are very common in many parts of the country. The Ford F150 has been the best selling vehicle in the nation for a long time.
It used to be common to see a gun rack in the rear window of many trucks. Now that someone would steal them and its generally a no-no at schools anyway, it doesn't happen any longer.
Like I said, there was a time. The point I was making is that many many people have guns, know guns, shoot guns, and are not mass murdering crazy people.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
Couple of things stick out here...
If assault rifles {properly defined etc} were to be banned, would there be anyway of knowing how many were in circulation?
If there were to be a licensing scheme, how could anyone know if all guns were accounted for?
Personally I don`t like either handguns or "assault" rifles, but that`s just my (uk) context.
1. Maybe. Manufacturing and import records could give a broad idea of how many there are.
2. They wouldn't. Because private sales are done with no records, there's no way to track who has what. It would have to be voluntary to some degree. Mandatory by law, but near impossible to fully enforce. The threat of felony prosecution would get lots of participation, but some people would never register theirs and nobody would ever know. Especially guns that are held illegally already. Gary Gangster isn't exactly ready to show up and register the gun he just used to rob a liquor store.
[ 19. December 2012, 23:37: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I don't believe in American exceptionalism. I'm just equally opposed to the myth of European exceptionalism. Conservatives in the United States believe in American exceptionalism. Progressives in the United States believe in European exceptionalism just as much as Europeans. Beeswax Altar believes in neither.
Glad to hear it. European democracies are not united enough to have any clear belief in the exceptionalism of Europe.
Feel free both to point out and learn from the mistakes of European democracies. Plenty of scope there. So much variety.
[ 20. December 2012, 00:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Progressives in the United States believe in European exceptionalism just as much as Europeans.
This is an incredibly stupid thing to say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
If there were to be a licensing scheme, how could anyone know if all guns were accounted for?
Ask our Canadian Shipmates how well their registry has (not) worked...
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Progressives in the United States believe in European exceptionalism just as much as Europeans.
This is an incredibly stupid thing to say.
I just call em like I see em.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Progressives in the United States believe in European exceptionalism just as much as Europeans.
This is an incredibly stupid thing to say.
I just call em like I see em.
[ 17. November 2015, 15:27: Message edited by: Simon ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
If there were to be a licensing scheme, how could anyone know if all guns were accounted for?
Ask our Canadian Shipmates how well their registry has (not) worked...
well, the existing registration and licensing requirements for handguns and a variety of other guns is working just fine...as it has been doing for several decades. And the banning of several types of weapons and ammunition allowed in the US is also doing just fine, again as it has been doing for some decades.
If you are suggesting that there were problems with the recently abolished long gun registry, there were -- it was badly implemented and the costs were far in excess (due I think to the incompetance of the agency) of what they should have been. The current government thought it right to throw away the money that had been invested, and for ideological reasons abolished the registry against the advice of police, among other crime fighters, who apparently found it most useful (millions of checks a year carried out through it, as I recall, though the number may have grown in my mind). The Government of QUebec will be bringing in a provincial version in 2013.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
Another practical challenge to creating a national registry is that we didn't require serial numbers or the current license requirements for being in the business of buying and selling until 1968. Anything on the market before that is effectively a ghost. There is a LOT of stuff out there pre-1968. If cared for properly, firearms will last a long time.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
If you are suggesting that there were problems with the recently abolished long gun registry, there were
That is what I was referring to, yes.
I've also been under the impression (from other Canadian folks I know) that the other registration laws of all sorts were followed less out in western and rural Canada than in the east. I could be incorrect in that, however.
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Another practical challenge to creating a national registry is that we didn't require serial numbers or the current license requirements for being in the business of buying and selling until 1968. Anything on the market before that is effectively a ghost. There is a LOT of stuff out there pre-1968. If cared for properly, firearms will last a long time.
Exactly. To say nothing of the issue with "pre-ban" and "post-ban" magazines that will come up if a new AWB actually manages to pass Congress...
[ 20. December 2012, 02:04: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
I wouldn't assume Congress will be involved this time.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
The history of the Second Amendment is really quite complicated--there were various factions supporting a right to bear arms for different reasons. One was simply that there was a general antipathy toward standing armies (part of our British heritage) and a desire to make sure there would always be a state militia to make them unnecessary. However, it was also widely recognized that that was not realistic. Even during the Revolution, it was generally acknowledged that the militias were ineffectual--Washington regarded them as an undisciplined mob who were more of a nuisance than an asset. Carl Bogus makes the case that the the Second Amendment was actually a concession to the slave states (it would be called a "dog whistle" nowadays) to assure them that the free states would not try to abolish slavery in a backhand manner by suppressing state militias and so making slave rebellions possible--this was a real fear in Virginia. (The article, though long, is well worth reading--it summarizes much of the debate and the different positions).
Certainly there were those who took a straightforward "insurrectionist" stance--the argument that an armed populace is the ultimate defense against tyranny--but this is fundamentally illogical in a democratic system. To suggest that an armed faction has the constitutional right to rebel against a democratically elected government is absurd. In fact, the Constitution defines that as treason (and gives Congress the right to organize and regulate state militias). The insurrectionist group do not seem to have been the core.
And of course, it's completely obsolete now, when a standing army is an accepted part of US government, for better or worse, and slave rebellions are no longer an issue.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Because private sales are done with no records, there's no way to track who has what.
Take this argument and apply it to another icon of American culture: cars.
I'm presuming registering them, and recording details of private sales, is pretty much accepted all round and not seen as an infringement of fundamental liberties but more as a social necessity. Presumably you are not vehemently opposed to vehicle registration and the recording of private sales simply because not everybody abides by the system?
I think the best way of exercising control is to increase obligations on gun-owners, along similar lines to car-owners/drivers, rather than ban guns. I think the long term effect would (or at least could) be to demystify guns.
Earlier I talked about the prospect of quote:
a more acceptable balance between personal freedoms and legislation
It seems to me that how cars and driving have been regulated is one example of that.
Beeswax Altar has studiously avoided my earlier question about whether he thinks that finding such a balance (between personal freedoms and legislation) for guns is needed, achievable or desirable.
I'm still hoping he might (although I'm beginning to think, following goperryrevs' insight, that he's a "second amendment inerrantist"), but in the mean time, monkeylizard, can you answer that one for yourself?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Hitler was voted in
The Nazis never won an electoral majority.
The most they got was 37% of the votes in a free and open election (1932), and 44% in the March, 1933, election which was seriously interfered with under the powers of the so-called Reichstag Fire Act.
Once in power, Hitler received a massive majority vote in August, 1934, in favour of his becoming Fuhrer, but the results of a plebiscite in such circumstances need to be taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons.
[ 20. December 2012, 05:32: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks for the clarification Kaplan, the point I was making, of course, was that the Nazis got into power by means other than armed rebellion - which they had previously attempted in 1923 I think it was.
I wasn't suggesting that they got in with a free an fair election and a sizeable majority.
The whole thing was pushed through by an unholy alliance of various factions who thought they could use the Nazis to achieve their own ends ...
The whole thing is a salutary lesson.
I was reacting against Beeswax Altar's apparent contention that armed rebellion or an armed citizenry is an expedient counter to any despotic form of government.
I'm suggesting that this isn't necessarily the case. And hence my reference to Wesley's poem (which has earned me another Doublethink reference on the Hell thread about my apparent racism against Americans - which seems to have morphed into a more Purgatorial discussion about racism in general).
Wesley was suggesting that the Colonists were effectively in rebellion against God by being in rebellion against King George III - a rather late High Tory twist, if you like, on the old Stuart 'Divine Right of Kings' thing.
The point I was making was that whilst I don't agree with Wesley's point, the kind of rhetoric employed by Beeswax Altar and monkeylizard about good ol' down-home folks seeing off evil gummints with their shootin'-irons was making me more likely to go in that direction. If you're reading, Doublethink, it was hyperbolic ...
Back to the plot, though, there does seem to be an assumption on the part of Beeswax Altar and monkeylizard that rebellions are almost always justified and that 'right' lies on the side of the ordinary Joe with his musket or whatever else.
Yes, there are examples of guerilla wars being successful ... but most instances of armed rebellion end up with the rebels being overwhelmed and executed, imprisoned etc. I'm thinking of the Monmouth Rebellion and Bloody Assize, of the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745-6 - the near success of the latter has been grossly exaggerated.
It's a kind of High Noon version of history, the good guy with the white hat and the baddies in black and whoever is quickest on the draw wins.
Life ain't like that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
I wouldn't assume Congress will be involved this time.
So this procedure won't produce proposals for Congress to consider?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Take this argument and apply it to another icon of American culture: cars.
I'm presuming registering them, and recording details of private sales, is pretty much accepted all round and not seen as an infringement of fundamental liberties but more as a social necessity. Presumably you are not vehemently opposed to vehicle registration and the recording of private sales simply because not everybody abides by the system? ...
Isn't the reason why cars are registered is so that they can be taxed?
Although there are one or two other things you have to demonstrate at the same time, the documentation here makes it very clear that it's mainly about you paying your money.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It's not just about tax; it's also about liability and insurance*.
I'm not quite sure what your point is.
Mine is that car ownership and use is controlled and legislated and, I would guess, while they like we might see it as a hassle (he says staring at his insurance premium bill on his desk), Americans now see all this as a social necessity rather than an infringement of their fundamental liberty to drive a ton of metal how and where they like.
(Pushing the analogy further, there is good evidence that the generation of Westerners now reaching driving age are actually a lot less interested in owning a car than their forebears, thus proving that major shifts regarding cultural icons do happen).
My thinking is that more like this needs to happen for guns in the US. It needn't interfere with legitimate possession and use, but would help to regulate and demystify them.
*I would also guess that there is money to be made out of fresh gun regulation, quite possibly by people whose financial interests are in guns, which might actually make more control an incentive for them, too.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
I don't think we are at the end of a long train of abuses and usurpations nor on the verge of despotism. Hopefully we'll never get there. But if we do, unarmed citizens can be forced into cattle cars.
Yes, but if you've got to that point then armed citizens won't fare any better. They might not all end up in the cattle cars, but that'll only be because some of them were killed in the gunfight that happened when the army came to take them away.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
It's a kind of High Noon version of history, the good guy with the white hat and the baddies in black and whoever is quickest on the draw wins.
Life ain't like that.
<tangent> Nor was High Noon; the hero won because his Quaker wife turned out to be an unexpectedly efficient sniper. Otherwise the last bad guy standing would have killed him.
The point of High Noon (as I see it) was that there is a limit to what one man with a gun can do without backup, even if he is wearing a white hat. Of course it was talking about a time before semi-automatics. <\tangent>
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
