• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The 2nd Amendment solution to gun violence

theprestige said:
I thought the Supreme Court has already established that the militia clause is not causally coupled to the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Yep, and there are lots of other ways to restrict gun ownership that do not violate the second amendment. This is a bit silly.

A licensing scheme would be easier to manage and not require so much fluff and overhead for the reserves.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Listen the whole "what the framers intended" is a farce anyway because the framers never intended their word to set in stone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the point I was clumsily trying to make. Anyone spouting 'the framers intended' who is not also canvassing for the dissolution of the US military is self evidently talking bollocks.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Listen the whole "what the framers intended" is a farce anyway because the framers never intended their word to set in stone.
Click to expand...

This is concept that I think most people can get behind.

The idea that the framers meant for gun ownership to be restricted to "organized militias" (like on the level of the National Guard) is absolute silliness because that level of organized militia didn't exist then. An "organized militia" was basically a vague idea of how many farmers with rifles existed within a certain radius of whatever the problem that needed shooting was.
Click to expand...

Here I have to disagree.

Historically, the local militia wasn't a vague idea - it was one of the primary responsibilities of the local magistrates (who were often the local militia officers) to keep the militia rolls. Now, I will freely admit to not knowing exactly when this changed in the various US states, but in Canada, up until 1855, the idea was that the Sedentary Militia consisted of every male citizen aged 18 to 55. Said magistrates were also required to maintain a list of the exceptions to the call up (allowing that persons with certain physical or other limitations could not do so). And every year for two days they were supposed to be called out and drilled so that, in the event of an emergency, the militia could be called on to repel the invaders/insurgents - part of this muster included a weapons inspection (because the locals likely didn't have enough spare muskets, bayonets, etc to issue out) and the authorities needed to know what was available for defence. Up here at least the rolls were fairly accurate - since the magistrates cross referenced the rolls with the county tax rolls.

This levee en masse approach to raising military forces in both the American and Canadian colonies was used for fiscal reasons - it was cheap military if you didn't need to provide it with anything more than some beer, bread and beef for two days a year and it meant that forces were available locally to deal with "whoever needs shooting", or to at least delay them until the Regulars or Fencibles showed up. What was determined beyond a shadow of a doubt during the War of 1812 by both sides was that this method of raising forces was completely useless for getting effective military forces, and depending on the political feeling in the county, may or may not be completely politically reliable.
 
Belz... said:
As I said before:
In order to keep my car in working order, I shall change my oil twice a year.

The first clause is rather important, because if I no longer care about keeping the car in good order, the second clause is no longer needed.
Click to expand...

If you are stating a law, the law clearly requires continuing to change the oil until the heat death of the universe. It provides absolutely no clause on what to do in the event you no longer need an operating car.

You better not sell that car, because I'm going to sue the crap out of you when you are no longer able to change oil twice a week.
 
Ranb said:
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions/second-amendment-solution-to-gun-violence-yang/index.html

Interesting article, but he passes off opinion as fact.


So even honorably discharged veterans are not to be trusted to own firearms.


There is much disagreement about this part.


This is not true. The people at Giffords should know better as should the writer of this article. There is not a single state that grants immunity from federal registration requirements.


Since when is personal protection selfish?

Ranb
Click to expand...
Do you think a [whatever you call it] rifle with 100-round clip is for personal protection?

I like the "well armed militia" aspect but it's not practical given the cost of everyone joining the reserves, and the physical requirements surely make it impossible to have every gun owner join the reserves.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Do you think a [whatever you call it] rifle with 100-round clip is for personal protection?
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain the people I've seen with beta mags got them solely to enhance their gun collection.

Do you think personal protection is selfish? I think it can also be selfless.

Skeptic Ginger said:
I like the "well armed militia" aspect but it's not practical given the cost of everyone joining the reserves, and the physical requirements surely make it impossible to have every gun owner join the reserves.
Click to expand...
The military could find a job for just about anyone who is not completely disabled.
 
Belz... said:
As I said before:
In order to keep my car in working order, I shall change my oil twice a year.

The first clause is rather important, because if I no longer care about keeping the car in good order, the second clause is no longer needed.
Click to expand...

Not a good analogy.

Here's a better one:

Bearing arms is a human right. Here's one good reason not to infringe on it, which is sufficient to not infringe on it. But in fact, the recognition of the right itself is sufficient reason not to infringe on it, even in the absence of an exhaustive list of other reasons. Burden of proof rests on those who wish to infringe on the right.
 
Everyone is taking the article too seriously - I think it was meant as a thought experiment to break the current logjam.

Basically it makes as much sense as the current position.
 
I think this is a monumentally stupid idea, for reasons people have already commented on in both threads (and way too many for me to even want to enumerate), but the one aspect I wanted to comment on is how bad of an idea I think it is to even propose this as a serious solution on a major news site.

This idea is authoritarian trash, and it's really not a good look for the people who want changes to the status quo of firearm laws/culture. I mean, I already have a problem with a lot of the ways that people on the left talk about guns, but most of that boils down to ignorance. This idea is straight up totalitarian, and that's really not the kind of thing you want your critics to be able to lobby at you if you want to be taken seriously. Especially when part of the goal of progressiveness (and what I personally like most about it) is the idea that you want to be able to provide people the freedom to do whatever they want (get healthcare, education, live a comfortable life, marry whoever you want, etc.). Forcing someone into military service because they want to own something, especially in a country as likely as this to be involved in active conflict, is downright repugnant to a person that loves individual freedom as much as I do. To me, there's seriously nothing about this proposal that works (even rhetorically - I don't care about calling people out on perceived hypocrisy or whatever, this is dumb idea that looks terrible), and I think, more than anything, it furthers the idea that liberals are a group of people that hate gun owners and want to strip rights from people. As a die-hard leftist that loves guns, it really rubs me the wrong way.

The real solution, as far as I'm concerned, is something we probably don't know yet. The US government hasn't put any research into gun safety in years. Once that happens, we'll probably have a better idea of what will work, and what won't. That, and providing mental health care and coping skills to people who desperately need it.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Do you think a [whatever you call it] rifle with 100-round clip is for personal protection?

I like the "well armed militia" aspect but it's not practical given the cost of everyone joining the reserves, and the physical requirements surely make it impossible to have every gun owner join the reserves.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that the magazine in question isn't a reliable feeding device, there isn't a heck of a big difference between one Beta C-mag and 3 30 round GI mags that are reliable, past two mag changes.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns in the abstract, it's about a failsafe against tyranny as a concept and that's the only failsafe that made any sense at the time. But if Billy Bob Podunk thinks his AR-15 or the AR-15s of him and all his hunting buddies is a "failsafe" against 12 aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and 3,800 nuclear weapons he's an idiot.

We're way past the point where "balance of firepower" is anything approaching a failsafe against tyranny.

That's why to me the 2nd Amendment isn't right or wrong, it's just not in context anymore in which it can be judged.
Click to expand...
This certainly explains how we were able to so easily pacify Afghanistan.
 
theprestige said:
The action in the second clause isn't a human right.
Click to expand...
So bearing arms is a human right?

Interesting. What arms? Any arms? Where exactly do we draw the line? Nuclear arms? Why?

So what argument would work in favor of allowing anyone to bear any kind of arms and yet prohibit the Iran or North Korea from having nuclear weapons? Human rights apply to all humans, don't they?
 
Aber said:
Everyone is taking the article too seriously - I think it was meant as a thought experiment to break the current logjam.

Basically it makes as much sense as the current position.
Click to expand...

There are many current positions, including this one. This idea has been part of the "current" logjam since it was the "historical" logjam.

How do you take the article?
 
Actually, to imporve the analgous sentence:

"A well-oiled engine being critical to the function of a car, the right of the people to add oil shall not be infringed."

Now, is this saying that only people with cars can add oil? Or that, because adding oil is important, that all people have a right to do it?

Supreme Court says B, and it makes more sense. There is no "because" in the 2nd amendment, and the addition of it in the original analogy changes things.

ETA: Or even better:

"Mechanics adding oil to cars being essential to the proper running of the engine, the right of the people to add oil shall not be infringed."

Again, only mechanics can add oil? Or all people, with mechanics an example?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom