Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public's Health

[Mowgli1647545497]

I don't believe owning a handgun will save democracy - although if I had to load up in my Caddy and drive down to capital hill and lay waste to any Hitler wannabe with my 9, I could do it action movie style, sure - but the last 3/4 of your post says you're going to where I'm standing conceptually. The last lego is this: armed citizen translates to state militia (note I make a clear distinction here to state run military constructs, those ostensibly given their mandate by the local people collectively) translates to a federal standing army. And all of these separate from a police. These armed separations of the absolute argument ending authority of a gun is what keeps (our) society standing.

 

No other governing and empowerment model currently in the world has the same track record as measured on a combination of liberty and longevity (and my wife is Dutch so I see all the european models first hand every time we visit the inlaws). England? Close but no cigar. England has illusionary freedom born more from their more homogenous demographics than by model, and its breaking down as immigration takes the %s away from the tea sipping traditional englishman - their model never would work in the melting pot America has always been. Ditto (modern) Japan.

 

I don't think you hate the second amendment but I do beleive you hate my interpretation. And I'm here to tell you that legistating away gun ownersip, while more palatable and easy to swallow than other means, is just as pacifying a totalitarian governmental power play than just sending the nazi youth goon squads out into the neighborhoods and raidng homes taking away their guns. It amounts in the end to the same thing. Taking power away from the people. By pen or by sword it is *the* *same* *thing*.

 

Ultimately all I'm trying to say is this: Demogracy isn't a recipe for success. Look at all the failed democracies around the world plagued with regional or even national corruption and oppression. No. What's genius about the US design is the system of checks and balances. An armed populace is as much a part of that instrinic check and balance system as is any other overt part such as a free judicial system.

 

Eh you don't have to beleive it. Smarter men than you or I along those that have lived thru the worst of man's inhumanity to man understand it. Luckily for us both a body of those men were were in the group we call our founding fathers.

 

An armed populace is a cornerstone to the surety of your liberty and freedom.

[Guest mrhobbz]

I think the best president would be..... A GIANT PIZZA WITH EYES!

[Spidey2721]

The problem with the pro-gun lobby in the US is that the basic message is that 'anyone (without abridged rights) should be able to have a gun any where, at any time, since it says so in the constitution'.

 

The problem with refusing to recognize that gun control laws do have benefits, is that the opposite is insisting that no gun control law has a benefit, and therefore any laws should be thrown away in favor of a gun-rich society. Some would even go so far as to argue that it's a citizen's *responsibility*, not just a right, to carry a gun at all times in order to defend themselves.

 

Looked at from a second amendment prospective, this argument makes sense. What the founding fathers didn't foresee was the modern handgun shrinking in size and cost to the point where it is trivial to obtain one and conceal it to the point where you can be a mortal threat with little advanced warning. This is where gun control laws have stepped in and attempted to return civil society to just that, a civil landscape where people don't have to fear imminent death if they should choose not to carry with them the means to defend themselves to any possible threat.

 

My point, in summary, is that refusing to value gun control laws has just as grave a consequence as refusing to value second amendment rights. When the gun control issue comes up, and people immediately respond with "pry my gun from my cold dead hand", they are basically saying they prefer anarchy to civility. Open your minds just a little and consider that properly executed gun control might improve what has become, there is no doubt, a very unfortunate consequence of the evolution of the handgun.

 

 

Who the hell said we are against all gun laws??

 

This is where gun control laws have stepped in and attempted to return civil society to just that, a civil landscape where people don't have to fear imminent death if they should choose not to carry with them the means to defend themselves to any possible threat.

 

so ummm... who here walks around fearing "imminent death"? honestly if you walk around fearing "imminent death" you probably shound NOT carry a gun! kid pops a balloon near ya.... BAM! off with his head.

 

 

"pry my gun from my cold dead hand", they are basically saying they prefer anarchy to civility.

 

um no... dude please just stop now while your ahe... er no. well... maybe you can break even.

[jeffmeden]

What you don't really address is what good guns actually do in the hands of every single citizen, to preserve democracy from "hitler wannabees". No, you could not in fact go shoot some aspiring dictator no matter how sure of yourself you are. You are not a militia, thats the bottom line. It would take a lot of people, and a lot of guns, (something on the order of a state militia, perhaps?) in order to practically guard against that risk.

 

Your reaction to anyone suggesting a law alter the second amendment in any way is to basically put your hands over your ears and insist that if you have a gun, you will be ok. The sad truth for the many many people who are victims of gun violence is that it's simply not the case. Am I saying we should ban guns? No. Am I saying that alternate legislation and enforcement should always be considered to reduce the many tragedies that occur in this country daily as a result of handguns? Yes, that would be my point.

 

Here is a thought experiment for you. Say the government passed a law stating that any gun owner, whose gun was used to commit a crime by a person other than the owner and whom would not have otherwise legally been able to purchase a gun (felon, warrant, etc.,) would be charged as an accomplice to whatever crime was committed. What would you do?

[jeffmeden]

Who the hell said we are against all gun laws??

 

 

 

so ummm... who here walks around fearing "imminent death"? honestly if you walk around fearing "imminent death" you probably shound NOT carry a gun! kid pops a balloon near ya.... BAM! off with his head.

 

 

 

 

um no... dude please just stop now while your ahe... er no. well... maybe you can break even.

 

Pls learn 2 read. K thx bai.

[Scotty2Hotty]

 

Here is a thought experiment for you. Say the government passed a law stating that any gun owner, whose gun was used to commit a crime by a person other than the owner and whom would not have otherwise legally been able to purchase a gun (felon, warrant, etc.,) would be charged as an accomplice to whatever crime was committed. What would you do?

I believe technically that is the case. I believe that current law is something to the fact, that if your firearm is stolen, you must report within 24 hours. Maybe it was something I had heard, but that would be #1 in my book of to do things, if anyone of my firearms were to come up missing. I agree that gun owners take full responsibility for owning them. Now if it were stolen by someone who is not by law, able to own/purchase a firearm, and the owner was not aware, then that person shouldn't be responsible. Now if the owner did have knowledge, and did nothing, they are wrong. Most gun laws are in place to keep firearms from criminals/felons, but it's almost impossible to track all those selling/giving firearms to those criminals. It's like drugs, no matter what the law, they'll never go away. And I'm a firm believer of fighting fire with fire.

[V8 Beast]

Guns + drugs + idiots + criminals + politicians + morons + psychos + knives + bombs + uneducated + chemicals + poison + WOMD + conspiracy + hate + murder + lies + death + violence = Human Beings. Control whatever you want, we are going to kill each other to the point of extinction anyway.

[Guest mrhobbz]

Guns + drugs + idiots + criminals + politicians + morons + psychos + knives + bombs + uneducated + chemicals + poison + WOMD + conspiracy + hate + murder + lies + death + violence = Human Beings. Control whatever you want, we are going to kill each other to the point of extinction anyway.

 

You'll be the last one standing... You have a helmet :|

[RedRocket1647545505]

Oh my, what's this? England post-gun ban?

 

 

Watch it.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Oh wait, another?

 

[Drewhop]

Anyone selling a nice 22 hand gun i want to get one for the wife? She is preparing for the zombies but will only shoot the smaller ones when they come.

[Mowgli1647545497]

What you don't really address is what good guns actually do in the hands of every single citizen, to preserve democracy from "hitler wannabees". No, you could not in fact go shoot some aspiring dictator no matter how sure of yourself you are. You are not a militia, thats the bottom line. It would take a lot of people, and a lot of guns, (something on the order of a state militia, perhaps?) in order to practically guard against that risk.

I never said every single person. But I do believe in the *right* to do so. I thought I did address this, I'll do it again, see below. Hitler was a metaphor, btw. That tangent was called humor: illustration by extreme absurd. Its sometimes a useful tool for getting a point across. Since you balked, I'll keep it straight for now on.

Your reaction to anyone suggesting a law alter the second amendment in any way is to basically put your hands over your ears and insist that if you have a gun, you will be ok.

No it isn't. Please don't put words in my mouth. So we'll just drop this one and move on.

The sad truth for the many many people who are victims of gun violence is that it's simply not the case. Am I saying we should ban guns? No. Am I saying that alternate legislation and enforcement should always be considered to reduce the many tragedies that occur in this country daily as a result of handguns? Yes, that would be my point.

Not sure about the first part- you lost me. The second part, I don't disagree. What I'm quoting Franklin for is that this slippery slope needs to be watched. Repeating myself: legislating away this citizen empowerment and sendi govt goon squads out to physically yank them away seems like two different things but both roads land you at the same destination: An emasculated public.

Here is a thought experiment for you. Say the government passed a law stating that any gun owner, whose gun was used to commit a crime by a person other than the owner and whom would not have otherwise legally been able to purchase a gun (felon, warrant, etc.,) would be charged as an accomplice to whatever crime was committed. What would you do?

Lets expand that to include: cars, knives (hunting, steak, butter, and hell lets throw in forks too), lighters, motorcycles, baseball bats, lawn poison, and oh, various types of food.

 

Wondering why? Aside from the fact that I can recognize a hackneyed debate trap called the strawman, and won't bother with it, its actually because more Americans die from those things per year than guns. See, I just replied with a different hackneyed debate tactic. How about we withdraw both of those piles of crap.

 

So now if you'll agree I'm not an idiot lets proceed.

 

If you confuse the power of a bullet with the power of the concept of the armed citizen then that is not grasping the full set of the issue. Not asking you to agree, but let me take another swing at it.

 

I'm not referring to the literal power of an armed (singular) citizen. I am referring (and so was Benjamin Franklin, btw) to the empowerment that the ability to be armed gives the american citizen. It is, beyond the obvious, the social agreement that we are a land of empowered humans, who each matters, and not a chorus or crowd of mere lemmings, and that we agree that we are surrounded by like adults all fully entitled to, capable of and enabled to realize and defend their liberties. It has been referred to as the American Spirit. It is part of what separates a socialist or communist or, say, a kenyan democratic citizen from an american democratic citizen.

 

People, individuals, *matter* in the United States. And they matter more than the Government. It makes it a whole lot messier, it makes it a whole lot harder to govern and protect. It also makes it a whole lot damn harder to take away. And I can understand that to otherwise good hearted individuals who'd like to protect us all from ourselves, liberty really just gets in the way of that tidy neatness.