The 2nd Amendment solution to gun violence

[3point14]

I'm sure I will!

But Afghanistan is a good example. It's not a problem of logistics, but of political will.

The two are deeply intertwined.

Logistics is about what you can move to where and when. Part of that calculation is a political one.

 

[theprestige]

(Pointless barb removed)


Just checking.

Not a barb, a serious question. What's your point?

 

[Belz...]

From the article:

"The literal language used in the Constitution focuses on the right to bear arms within the context of — if, arguably, not solely limited by — the security needs of our nation."

Not exactly.

The Constitution is primarily about the relationship between the states and the federal government. A "nation" arguably did not exist, though it was said the Articles of Confederation created a "nation of nations." James Madison, one of the main architects of the Constitution, wanted to foster a national identity, mainly by creating a stronger central/federal government. Still, people found their state identity more meaningful than a national identity. In other words, some people Virginians before they were Americans -- if they even had a concept of being "American."

The country has since evolved culturally. An example of someone who consciously identifies with his state before country is BobTheCoward, which gives some idea of how out of touch and alien that view has been (especially out west).

Modern conservatives and liberals like to imagine the Constitution was created to protect sacred individual liberty, but this is mostly nonsense (ask any African-American). People also speak breathlessly about the sacred Bill of Rights, but these were amendments added later -- not part of the core product. More obvious and essential freedoms were written directly into the Constitution (writ of habeas corpus, prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder). The states were seen as guardians of liberty -- and under threat by a strong central government. Under the AoC, the federal government could not directly draft soldiers or impose taxes, which led to collective problems, compelling Madison and others for creating a stronger central government.

One of the compromises for ratification was passing "a Bill of Rights," initially opposed by Madison. Many state constitutions had included such rights, and Madison finally warmed to the idea, in part because it was popular and would give Congress a measure of credibility. The Bill of Rights were originally intended as restrictions on the federal government. Regarding the First Amendment, for example, "Congress shall make no law..." establishing a national church. State governments still had the authority to create official churches, and a couple of them did, a fact fondly recalled by people like Clarence Thomas.

Again, the country has since changed, especially with an obscure extra-Constitutional event known as the Civil War, which chartered a more national government -- one of the people, by the people, and for the people. There were hiccups when it came to establishing a national character (see for instance the Corrupt Bargain of 1876, which effectively ended Reconstruction).

A national orientation started gathering again in subtle ways. The courts would begin to "incorporate" parts of the Bill of Rights (i.e., applying the first ten amendments to the states via the 14th Amendment, which would prohibit state authorities from establishing churches, restricting speech and so on).

And with a little of this historical background out of the way, we can finally get to the Second Amendment. The most overlooked clause is the "necessary security of a Free State." Again, the historical context of the Constitution is about distributing power between the states and central government. Some people, such as antifederalists like "Brutus," feared the central government would "swallow" up state governments, so they wanted assurances. One of those safeguards was allowing states to raise their own militias. These could be "well-regulated" -- meaning, well-equipped and well-trained.

There are a couple of rich, ironies in contemporary politics. Nowadays, the so-called supporters of the Second Amendment, people who tend to have an "originalist" view of the Constitution, will not hesitate to use the power of the federal government to overturn state and local gun laws. Richard Posner, a pro-gun libertarian/conservative judge and scholar has said Scalia's Heller opinion is more of a snow job.

https://newrepublic.com/article/62124/defense-looseness

I'd say this was an excellent post but I first have to ask you: who are you, and what have you done with Cain?

 

[Belz...]

DId not like the movie at all. A travesty of Heinlein's novel, which badly distorts the points Heinleon was trying to make..many of which I disagree with.

You have to take it as its own thing. It's definitely satirical, but it works in its own way.

 

[3point14]

Not a barb, a serious question. What's your point?

My point is that infringement is going to happen or you're going to be living in loonyland.

The question is never about if the 'right' to bear arms is to be infringed. It is only about how and why that infringement happens.

Which makes the actual text of the document utter lunacy without interpretation.

Those that scream "Shall not be infringed" just doin't understand the problem.

 

[theprestige]

The two are deeply intertwined.

Logistics is about what you can move to where and when. Part of that calculation is a political one.

I completely disagree. Logistics is a question of can. Politics is a question of should. There's a huge difference between -

"We want you to win this, and we want to send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we simply don't have the resources or the means to do that, so please just do your best with what we can manage to get to you."

And -

"We want you to win this, and we could send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we need to keep this pretty lowkey for political reasons, so please just do your best with what we are willing to send to you."

That difference is the difference between a logistical problem and a political problem.

 

[theprestige]

My point is that infringement is going to happen or you're going to be living in loonyland.

The question is never about if the 'right' to bear arms is to be infringed. It is only about how and why that infringement happens.

Which makes the actual text of the document utter lunacy without interpretation.

Those that scream "Shall not be infringed" just doin't understand the problem.

Then what was your point with the question you asked originally, and your response to my answer?

 

[Belz...]

Since it's a myth, perhaps?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/



https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no

Thing is, it's hard to use statistics, which tell you how much safer on average the presence of firearms makes people who own them, to convince an individual that, in their specific case, they'll be safer without guns. It's true, but it may or may not apply to that individual. And the feeling of control is a powerful motivator.

 

[The Norseman]

It is beyond laughable to suggest that likes of Jefferson, Washington or Adams would have been in favor of a popular revolt to restore personal liberty. That's why they specified a "well regulated militia". They were trying to recreate the army of Republican Rome. They wanted citizens armed, ready to heed the call to form an army and then go back to their farms after the war.

Well said, except for this last part.

How do you reconcile what you wrote and the founders' explicit comments (i.e.; "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.")

The only way to avoid that would've been for regular citizens to have tanks and jets and nuclear weapons.

There was a fair amount of history between the founding and the creation of tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons for it to have possibly turned the other way. Now, alas, not enough force can be brought to bear to override the current levels of force arrayed against the people.

I still am not buying that nuke.

I don't usually do this, but for a friend like you, I can get you a great deal!

 

[3point14]

I completely disagree. Logistics is a question of can. Politics is a question of should. There's a huge difference between -

"We want you to win this, and we want to send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we simply don't have the resources or the means to do that, so please just do your best with what we can manage to get to you."

And -

"We want you to win this, and we could send you an overwhelming force to get it done, but we need to keep this pretty lowkey for political reasons, so please just do your best with what we are willing to send to you."

That difference is the difference between a logistical problem and a political problem.

I don't think there's any practical difference at all. You can either move what you want to where you want it or you can't.

Why you can't, be that practical or political has no bearing on the outcome. Particularly in reference to the post to which I was initially replying.

 

[3point14]

Then what was your point with the question you asked originally, and your response to my answer?

I just wanted to know.

I'm sorry there's not some grand plan behind my inquisitiveness. I could make something up if you like?

 

[Ranb]

Since it's a myth, perhaps?

I was commenting on this claim in the article;

How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?

Is personal protection in general a selfish act? I think not. It can also be selfless.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think there's any practical difference at all. You can either move what you want to where you want it or you can't.

Why you can't, be that practical or political has no bearing on the outcome. Particularly in reference to the post to which I was initially replying.

I think there's a huge practical difference, one that goes directly to the question of the practicality of armed opposition to the government.

Particularly in reference to the post to which you were originally replying.

Anyway, if the argument is that we're having trouble winning in Afghanistan because we lack the political "logistics" to win in Afghanistan, then it seems to me that we'd have the same "logistical" problems with armed insurgencies in the US as well. Which is the whole point of the Afghanistan comparison (or the Fallujah comparison, or the Vietnam comparison) in the context of these 2nd Amendment debates.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was commenting on this claim in the article;

Is personal protection in general a selfish act? I think not. It can also be selfless.

If you're not more safe with a gun, or if having a gun makes you less safe, then it's not "personal protection" at all. Instead, the idea of "personal protection" from a gun is a myth.

If having a gun makes other people less safe - either directly by, for example, escalating a situation, or indirectly by being part of a culture that leads to things like mass shootings - then I'd say it's selfish. In the latter case you could make the argument that it's selfish even if it really is "personal protection" - it's putting your own personal safety above societal good. It's saying "I don't care how many children die in school shootings as long as I'm safer".

 

[Belz...]

There was a fair amount of history between the founding and the creation of tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons for it to have possibly turned the other way. Now, alas, not enough force can be brought to bear to override the current levels of force arrayed against the people.

But you'd still need tanks and nukes in the hands of civilians.

 

[3point14]

I think there's a huge practical difference, one that goes directly to the question of the practicality of armed opposition to the government.

Particularly in reference to the post to which you were originally replying.

Anyway, if the argument is that we're having trouble winning in Afghanistan because we lack the political "logistics" to win in Afghanistan, then it seems to me that we'd have the same "logistical" problems with armed insurgencies in the US as well. Which is the whole point of the Afghanistan comparison (or the Fallujah comparison, or the Vietnam comparison) in the context of these 2nd Amendment debates.

I think it's a bobbins comparison. Mainly due to the roughly ten thousand K between the two locations.

If the US could bring the full force of their entire military might to bear in Afghanistan then things would be different. But, for both practical and political reasons, they can't.

The comparison (you might call it an analogy) is utterly useless.

You may think moving an entire armed force ten thousand miles is of no note. I disagree.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's a bobbins comparison. Mainly due to the roughly ten thousand K between the two locations.

If the US could bring the full force of their entire military might to bear in Afghanistan then things would be different. But, for both practical and political reasons, they can't.

The comparison (you might call it an analogy) is utterly useless.

You may think moving an entire armed force ten thousand miles is of no note. I disagree.

It's been done many times, though. The US did twice, simultaneously, in WW2. Did it again in Korea. Did it again in Vietnam. Did it again, repeatedly, to maintain readiness for a Soviet invasion of western Europe (ETA: simultaneously with Vietnam). Did it again to liberate Kuwait. Did it again to conquer Iraq. If it's technically possible, the US has the resources to make it logistically feasible.

Global logistics is a solved problem for the US military. Politics is not, and is not mediated by distance.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the US could bring the full force of their entire military might to bear in Afghanistan then things would be different. But, for both practical and political reasons, they can't.

Political reasons are why we can't. Practical reasons are why we won't, and possibly shouldn't, not why we can't. Aside from an unwillingness to pay the cost it would take (that's a practical reason not to, but not a reason we couldn't), we would need massive land supply routes which we don't currently have. Pakistan won't willingly agree to that. We could conquer Pakistan, or at least military force them to open up sufficient supply routes, but there are both political and practical reasons not to do so.

 

[Minoosh]

If you're not more safe with a gun, or if having a gun makes you less safe, then it's not "personal protection" at all. Instead, the idea of "personal protection" from a gun is a myth.

If having a gun makes other people less safe - either directly by, for example, escalating a situation, or indirectly by being part of a culture that leads to things like mass shootings - then I'd say it's selfish. In the latter case you could make the argument that it's selfish even if it really is "personal protection" - it's putting your own personal safety above societal good. It's saying "I don't care how many children die in school shootings as long as I'm safer".

Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible. So we get this kind of blasé attitude that oops, accidents happen, or that any legislation is futile because it would not have stopped 100 percent of mass shootings.

Since I don't think the levels of gun ownership are going to go down, I'm pretty much resigned to hoping for a cultural shift - people will simply stop doing mass shootings.

Personally I feel safer in countries with low gun ownership rates.

 

[Ranb]

If you're not more safe with a gun,...

I think you're being evasive. Is personal protection in general, selfish or not?