If you want gun control, shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed/amended? - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15164954
Potemkin wrote:Only those who are actually armed would matter in any insurrection or revolution or civil war. Power grows from the barrel of a gun.


Of course, that premise was stated in my example; my question you quoted was entirely rhetorical, in response to sophistry.
#15164984
Abatis wrote:Of course, that premise was stated in my example; my question you quoted was entirely rhetorical, in response to sophistry.

This is true. After all, despite our other differences, we both believe that the general population should be armed and dangerous, and for similar reasons - they must be capable of carrying out a revolution.
#15165013
Abatis wrote:Lockean and Hobbesian principles

The Bolsheviks had roughly 5% of 'The People' behind them when, with hardly a shot being fired, they overthrew the Czarist government. Within months a civil war broke out that the Bolsheviks put down using the power of the state.

Were the Bolsheviks Lockean actors?

If not, why not?

ISIS had less than 100,000 fighters when they declared the Caliphate, and 6.5 million people fled.

Were ISIS 'The People'?

Potemkin wrote:they must be capable of carrying out a revolution.

I agree.

But there is no need to pretend that the revolutionaries are defending right. That is as silly as some here who argued the Americans were defending democracy when they fought their pipeline wars.
#15165069
ingliz wrote:Were the Bolsheviks Lockean actors?

If not, why not?


And the sophistry continues, leaping with both feet into disingenuousness (AKA, trolling) . . .

The guy with Iron Felix as an avatar is asking if Bolsheviks were Lockean actors.

Iron Felix would have gulaged your ass for contemplating the thought.
#15165080
Abatis wrote:And, blah, blah, rhubarb, blah...

Legitimate action, in your own words.

"The hinge point is the federal government becoming illegitimate. Thus citizen action throwing it off is legitimate."

You said such legitimate action is Lockean.

So if the Bolsheviks' actions are legitimate - it was citizens' action, the Bolsheviks are Russian citizens, and the government was illegitimate, a Monarchy - why weren't they Lockean? The Bolsheviks had an inherent right to implement a new constitutional order; a duty to remove the old.

The Will of the People

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 Declaration of Independence

Monarchy as an illegitimate form of government

The US presidency has been an elected kingship since 1776 in all but name.

federal

Here, I am assuming that the US government is not the only illegitimate government.


:)
#15165149
ingliz wrote:I will remind you what you said earlier was legitimate action, "The hinge point is the federal government becoming illegitimate. Thus citizen action throwing it off is legitimate."

You said such legitimate action is Lockean.


Locke spent much time laying out what made a governing system illegitimate thus subject to rejection by the people. My comments about illegitimacy are framed in those explanations (and what features Locke presents a legitimate government exhibiting).

I’m not making any statements about the Bolshevik Revolution not being legitimate, even under the doctrine you dissected out from America’s Declaration of Independence, divorced from the predicate Lockean conditions*:

  • [It] is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [government], 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.

On it's own, it could be argued that doctrine stands on its own and even contemplates that a future America might discard Lockean principles and adopt some other model. That said, I recognize a Marxist would certainly claim the Bolshevik Revolution was legitimate and I’m not disputing that, (who am I to speak for Marxists), all I’m saying is that the Bolshevik Revolution wasn’t Lockean. I wonder, do Marxist governing principles stipulate that the people have the right to cast it off if it is not conducive to the happiness of the people? That's entirely rhetorical, no need to answer or even acknowledge . . .

ingliz wrote:So if the Bolsheviks' actions are legitimate - it was citizens' action, the Bolsheviks are Russian citizens, and the government was illegitimate, a Monarchy - why weren't they Lockean? The Bolsheviks had an inherent right to implement a new constitutional order; a duty to remove the old.


The basic action of a people throwing off one government and replacing it with another, does not make such action Lockean.

The Bolshevik Revolution was not Lockean; the primary feature, that of socialization [government theft] of private property, was the antithesis of Lockean.

To be Lockean the new government must be grounded in Lockean principles and any subsequent rescinding of consent to be governed, is only Lockean when it is undertaken to either remedy or remove a government that has strayed from Lockean principles, with the intention of reinstating Lockean principles.

In the case of the USA, I would say abolishing the government that has abandoned the Constitution and restoring the Constitution as the rules of government operation, would be Lockean and in reference to that is all I have spoken of.

It goes without saying --but I guess I better say it to avoid confusion and later consternation-- if the US government were challenged and overthrown by Marxists and they instituted a Marxist system, that action would not be Lockean.



* You conveniently leave off your quote that the DOI's right to abolish the government is predicated on that government becom[ing] destructive of these ends, the self-evident truths . . . "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, . . . "

Of course Marxism adheres to none of those principles and all it has ever produced is stolen property, destitution, famine, brutal subjugation and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people around the globe.

The thought that Marxism and by extension, the Bolshevik Revolution could be described as Lockean, is absurd and profoundly ignorant of political philosophy and history . . . It's only use is as a disruptive, diversionary and disingenuous trolling statement on an internet forum. I'm sure you are giggling with childish glee that you prodded me into replying but that is more a demonstration of my intellectual integrity -- that I will try explain my position no matter how ridiculous the challenge is -- rather than any obligation to reply I owe you.

<PLONK>

.
#15165152
Once when I was in Cuba, I was at a construction site on the north side of the island.

The foreman then showed us the guns locker. Apparently, the government was handing out guns so that the citizens could protect the city in case of attack.

Putting guns in the hands of the people seems quite Lockean, seeing as how we are using that as a synonym for “democratic”.
#15165155
Abatis wrote:all it has ever produced is stolen property, destitution, famine, brutal subjugation, and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people around the globe.

I could say the same about Capitalism.

An example:

In the middle of the 20th century, China and India had the same life expectancy – around 40 years. After the Chinese revolution, a massive divergence took place. By 1979, Maoist China had a life expectancy of 68 years, more than 14 years longer than that of capitalist India.

The excess in mortality of capitalist India over communist China was estimated to be a horrifying 4 million human lives a year. So why isn’t India held up as a case study for the murderousness of capitalism?


Pants-of-dog wrote:seeing as how we are using that as a synonym for “democratic”.

He is not.

For him, the primary feature of a Lockean revolution is the privatization (private theft) of public property.


:lol:
#15165170
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 Declaration of Independence


What a wonderful bit of evidence that the people have the right and indeed the responsibility to institute gun control in any form they wish.

I am not arguing whether or not they ought to be armed.

Should the people have the means to revolt? Sure. Is there any evidence that in a nominally capitalist country, armed revolt is more effective than, say, prolonged general strike? Civil disobedience? The vote?

I see plenty of evidence for the last three being effective but little for the first three. As far as I can tell there is no example of a first world nation falling to armed civil war. There are several examples of other means.
#15165197
Drlee wrote:
  • 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 Declaration of Independence

What a wonderful bit of evidence that the people have the right and indeed the responsibility to institute gun control in any form they wish.


You're not grasping the significance of the statement.

Principles are foundational; they are not subject to retroactive reassessment, revision or revocation. The 'organization of powers and their form' happens after principles are agreed upon. In the US Constitution, the powers of the government extend to only that which is included in the Constitution and while the Constitution is supreme, (there is no greater power) the government created by the Constitution, "can seldom act," (is strictly limited and has no power to change those principles) so, those principles are designed to be permanent.

The first problem for your theory is the Supreme Court of the USA has affirmed the above:

  • "That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

    This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

    The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written."

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Another problem for your theory is the Supreme Court of the USA has affirmed that an armed citizenry is a foundational principle of the republican form of government the Constitution establishes.

  • "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, . . ."

    Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

So even without any reference to the 2nd Amendment, even if it wasn't there, the citizens can not be disarmed.

.
#15165217
@Abatis Every single thing you posted is irrelevant or based on a discredited principle.

Principles are foundational; they are not subject to retroactive reassessment, revision or revocation. The 'organization of powers and their form' happens after principles are agreed upon. In the US Constitution, the powers of the government extend to only that which is included in the Constitution and while the Constitution is supreme, (there is no greater power) the government created by the Constitution, "can seldom act," (is strictly limited and has no power to change those principles) so, those principles are designed to be permanent.


This is demonstrably untrue. We have amended the constitution many times. And we are not just talking details. We have fundamentally changed our guiding principles. We have given women the vote. Changed how and who may be elected to office. Freed the slaves. Given human and political rights to corporations. Redefined who is an adult. We have, as a nation, changed profoundly our basic principles and changed our constitution to accommodate these changes.

The first problem for your theory is the Supreme Court of the USA has affirmed the above:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.


And the Supreme court does not even rule on constitution amendments. They have absolutely no part in their passing or failing. They are merely there to interpret the constitution that is given them by the people. They could not, for example, reinstate slavery or even rule on the idea of it.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)


Among those powers is the power to call for an amendment to the constitution. If we the people ratify the total abolition of firearm ownership by constitutional amendment then that is the deal.

Another problem for your theory is the Supreme Court of the USA has affirmed that an armed citizenry is a foundational principle of the republican form of government the Constitution establishes.


"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, . . ."[/quote]


Read the whole thing. Not just the Fox News notes. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the state and local right to regulate the ownership of firearms including where they may be carried, what kinds of weapons may be owned and how they may be used. This is not even open to debate. The assault weapons ban, for example, was upheld by the Supreme Court. Further, in the 2008 decision that affirmed the right to personal ownership of firearms, the SCOTUS specifically excluded "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

So what you did not say, and what you should in candor admit, is that the government (state, local and federal) has broad power to limit the ownership of weapons as long as they do not create an absolute ban.

And I will go further and say that you are creating a straw man. I know of nobody who wants to ban all firearms. That is not even seriously proposed. I know people who do not want 18 year old boys buying assault weapons body armor and thousands of rounds of ammunition and I agree with them.

I was a soldier for a long time. I am quite familiar with them. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for a civilian to own such a weapon except to use it to fight the soldiers of our country. That is treason and a capital offense. My personal opinion as a gun owner and one who can carry concealed if I desire, is that the government should license handgun ownership in the first place. I also believe that all firearm transactions should be processed through a FFP holder and comply with all background check requirements.

But if you are one of those unmitigated idiots who have contrived to believe that you ought to carry a pistol under your coat, then have at it. Get a permit and undergo the same training required of a policeman who wants to do the same thing.

Enough high sounding language from you. We live in the real world. The absolute bottom line is this. If the people of the US want to ban firearms then they have the absolute right to do it through amendment. They won't. They don't want to. But they do overwhelmingly favor limits and someday we will have them.
#15165226
Drlee wrote:And the Supreme court does not even rule on constitution amendments.


Yeah, the Court has never uttered a word about the 14th Amendment . . .

Drlee wrote:They could not, for example, reinstate slavery or even rule on the idea of it.


Do you think they would take a case and rule on a law that reinstated slavery?

Drlee wrote:If we the people ratify the total abolition of firearm ownership by constitutional amendment then that is the deal.


Would an amendment, as long as it followed the Article V process, be automatically legitimate even if it violates foundational principles of the Constitution?

Let's say an amendment was ratified that rescinded requiring warrants, right to counsel, holding fair trials and forbidding unusual punishments. Would you argue it would then be constitutional to round people up, hold kangaroo trials and immediately after conviction, hang, draw and quarter the "guilty"?

Drlee wrote:The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the state and local right to regulate the ownership of firearms including where they may be carried, what kinds of weapons may be owned and how they may be used.


The Supreme Court affirmed? You really think so?

I know Heller said "19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment". Is that what you mean?

That isn't really saying much because the 2nd Amendment had no binding effect on state law until 2010. Any case you can point to before 2010 that says a state or city law does not violate the 2nd, is just saying the 2nd had no impact on the law. There are hundreds of state and local gun laws on the books now only because a court sustained them against a 2nd Amendment challenge because the 2nd Amendment had no operation on state law.

There's only been one SCOTUS 2nd Amendment case since 2010 (deciding a state law banning a stun device) and the Court invalidated it, quoting Heller, "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”.

Drlee wrote:The assault weapons ban, for example, was upheld by the Supreme Court.


Huh?

Was that in the Axios / MSNBC /CNN / MotherJones /OccupyDemocrats / MoveOn notes you read for that?

Please cite the Supreme Court case that upheld the federal assault weapons ban.

Drlee wrote:Further, in the 2008 decision that affirmed the right to personal ownership of firearms, the SCOTUS specifically excluded "dangerous and unusual" weapons.


Yup. No problem with that.
Can you tell me how "dangerous and unusual" is determined?
What is the constitutional status of arms that do not fall under "dangerous and unusual" . . . Which is to ask, what is the status of laws that seek to restrict the possession and use of guns that do not fall under the "dangerous and unusual" type?

Drlee wrote:So what you did not say, and what you should in candor admit, is that the government (state, local and federal) has broad power to limit the ownership of weapons as long as they do not create an absolute ban.


We can revisit that after we discuss "dangerous and unusual".

Drlee wrote:There is absolutely no legitimate reason for a civilian to own such a weapon except to use it to fight the soldiers of our country.


And who are you to decide the object of the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid?

Drlee wrote:My personal opinion as a gun owner and one who can carry concealed if I desire, is that the government should license handgun ownership in the first place. I also believe that all firearm transactions should be processed through a FFP holder and comply with all background check requirements.


And you and other like-minded people can advocate for the laws you want and me and other like-minded people I can take my/our stand, OK?

Drlee wrote:But if you are one of those unmitigated idiots who have contrived to believe that you ought to carry a pistol under your coat, then have at it. Get a permit and undergo the same training required of a policeman who wants to do the same thing.


I have the permit (in multiple states) and carry routinely but I have no desire to enforce any laws, why do I need police training. I can tell you, I am a better shot than most cops.

Drlee wrote:Enough high sounding language from you.


I won't apologize nor retreat from discussing the Constitution and the law, I'm sad to hear you denigrate it like that.

Drlee wrote:We live in the real world. The absolute bottom line is this. If the people of the US want to ban firearms then they have the absolute right to do it through amendment.


The thought that 38 states would ratify an amendment surrendering the rights of their citizens to the federal government is ludicrous. In July, Iowa will join the green "unrestricted" constitutional carry states, bringing to 19 the states that require no permit to carry concealed. Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming limit Constitutional Carry for their residents only.

Image

With my permits and multi-state reciprocity, I can carry in 35 states right now, where are the 38 you need going to come from?

Image

Drlee wrote:They won't. They don't want to.


Of course they would if they thought they could.

Drlee wrote:But they do overwhelmingly favor limits and someday we will have them.


The recent 9th Circuit en banc decision guarantees SCOTUS will take a carry case. You have no clue just how close you are to having wide swaths of gun control wiped out. Your side did not heed Heller's warning, there are literally thousands of gun laws on the thinnest of ice.
#15165233
Almost unrecognized in this debate is not so much the for or against options concerning the second amendment, but the underlying moral foundation that is assumed behind the second amendment and it's advocates.

What I mean is, is that an immoral society composed of individuals almost entirely lacking in civic or personal virtue, has absolutely no business running around with privately owned weapons, even assuming that the underlying assumptions behind the second amendment were true.

Back when the founding fathers lived, the mental, moral and spiritual topography of much of mankind was still informed by certain absolute and eternal truths, taught and implanted within the human soul. And this still was the case even in a society that had just been infected with ''enlightenment'' thinking as revolutionary America. Today mankind now wonders if there are any eternal truths, or even if they have a soul. Such people in the days of the founding fathers would have neither been allowed to vote or sit on a jury, much less trusted to bear arms in a militia.

The experiment is over, the results were a failure.
#15165242
Abatis wrote:Your side did not heed Heller's warning, there are literally thousands of gun laws on the thinnest of ice.

Post-Heller Second Amendment Jurisprudence

To date, no federal appellate court has invalidated on Second Amendment grounds any provision of the GCA or NFA.

I can tell you, I am a better shot than most cops.

That would not be difficult.

Most police departments only train with firearms about two times a year, averaging less than 15 hours annually.

why do I need police training?

To avoid legal liability: it helps if you know the law.

Example:

Why the peculiarly American obsession with modifying your EDC from stock is not a good idea if you ever have to use it.

'Hair Trigger'

NY v. Magliato

Sent to prison originally for Depraved Murder, the appellate court reduced the conviction to Manslaughter, with the majority opinion holding that it was reckless and negligent to aim a gun with such a light trigger pull at a man one obviously did not intend to shoot at that moment. (The minority opinion held that doing so did indeed constitute Depraved Murder under NY law.)




:)
Last edited by ingliz on 08 Apr 2021 13:26, edited 3 times in total.
#15165254
ingliz wrote:The Bolsheviks had roughly 5% of 'The People' behind them when, with hardly a shot being fired, they overthrew the Czarist government. Within months a civil war broke out that the Bolsheviks put down using the power of the state.

The Tsarist government was overthrown in February, not by the Bolsheviks, although I don't doubt Bolshevik members and sympathisers were key organisers in the protests. The Petrograd garrison was vital to the success and survival of the February Revolution and at least my understanding is that the Bolsheviks had very little penetration prior to February. However although the Bolshevik faction had long been thoroughly infilitrated by the Okrana and in early 1917 was thoroughly disrupted and in disarray, Lenin even in February 1917 was not the insignificant nobody that had created Iskra in 1900. He could expect to garner significant support in anyway halfway free and fair election.

And in the Constituent Assembly elections of late 1917 the Bolsheviks won 30 percent of the vote. This means that in the crucial big cities, the major rail network hubs, the Bolsheviks had at least close to majority support if not actual majority support. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Bolsheviks had actually achieved a 51% vote in the local Moscow Duma elections prior to the October coup in Petrograd.

It must be also pointed out that to any Russian Marxist of the early 20th century the terms people and proletariat were definitely not interchangeable. Although many Russian WWI soldiers may have taken their weapons home upon desertion / disbandment it doesn't mean the Russian rural population in 1918-21, let alone during collectivisation, was effectively armed. The American revolution was a plebeian revolution, but certainly not a proletarian one. Even Washington was a Pleb like Pompey, not a Patrician like Brutus or Caesar. The mass base of the Revolution was the mass rural yeomanry of the prosperous, land rich, low-inequality rural colonies. 2nd Amendment culture in the United States long predates the 2nd Amendment itself or even the declaration of independence. If the Ukraine had, had even a decade of relative freedom to establish a Second Amendment culture, I believe the outcome of the civil war would have been very different.
#15165257
Rich wrote: the terms people and proletariat were definitely not interchangeable.

@Abatis says it makes no difference.

As long as they are citizens, it's all good.

Once they revolt, they are 'The People'.

"It has been said that 3% of the population supported kicking the English in their bullocks [sic]."


:)
#15165510
Post-Heller Second Amendment Jurisprudence

To date, no federal appellate court has invalidated on Second Amendment grounds any provision of the GCA or NFA.


My first takeaway? One gets what you pay for in a "research paper" and since Congress paid for it, it has a lot of garbage in it.

This paper has obvious bias and draws conclusions that confirm that bias. It misrepresents the law and ignores the implications of facts when it states facts correctly.

This paper opens repeating the lie that SCOTUS had not held for the individual right before Heller, two examples:

  • "In Heller, though, the Supreme Court adopted the individual right theory, . . ."

  • "The Supreme Court’s landmark 5-4 decision in Heller upturned the earlier majority view with its holding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms for historically lawful purposes"

To debunk that we can look to the four dissenting Justices in Heller. All four acknowledge that the individual right interpretation is represented in all three opinions issued that day (the majority and 2 dissents) and has always been the Supreme Court's position.

Justice Breyer says in his Heller dissent (which the other 3 dissenting Justices concur):

  • "The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

      (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). . . . "

So the paper is proven to spread lies.

Now to my statement that there are many gun laws that are on the thinnest of ice . . . This research paper states an actual fact:

  • "Pre-Heller, the vast majority of lower federal courts had embraced the collective right theory."

What's the implication of that? What was the "embracing"?

Well, between 1942 and 2008 (66 years) the "collective right theory" was employed to directly uphold / sustain hundreds of gun laws in lower federal, state and local courts (and by later court's inference, many, many more). Those courts ruled the citizen had no grounds to make a 2nd Amendment claim contesting the constitutionality of a gun law. After Heller reaffirmed the individual right, slapping those lower courts back into the constitutional fold, the legal reasoning that those decisions are grounded on, is invalidated.

So yeah, while those laws still exist, the judicial justification upholding them has vaporized. Many courts kinda knew the collective right theory wasn't a real thing so when they were judging a state law, they backed-up their BS opinion by saying, if it turns out the 2nd protects an individual right, the 2nd Amendment has no effect on state laws so the contested law is still good. Well, that is no longer true after 2010, when SCOTUS incorporated the 2ndA under the 14th Amendment, making the 2ndA binding on the states . . . So the back-up to the BS is knocked out.

The Heller warning I spoke of is just the legal truth that when those cases / laws are challenged again, they will fall, taking the laws they sustained with them.

Heller was a warning to the federal ,state and local governments to rework the gun control that is constitutionally justifiable and distance it from those invalid court decisions.

Nobody listened.

Once the domino's begin to fall, it will not stop; it will be a baby thrown out with the bathwater situation.

.
#15165533
You know we get a lot of really long posts about these very few words. But here is the thing that always remains.

The US gun laws are abjectly stupid. We have 80 year old untrained women with semi-automatic pistols in their purses.

We lose an obscene number of people in the US to gun violence and clearly, without argument, the rest of the armed public is unable or unwilling to save them despite the bullshit the NRA puts out about "good guys with guns".

Every single other civilized country in the world has stricter gun regulation and fewer gun deaths.

Our laws, no matter what obtuse argument one might make about the second amendment are simply stupid.

I say this as a retired combat arms soldier and gun owner. Because I am also of average intelligence or higher I realize that nobody should EVER carry a firearm for ANY purpose unless they have been very well trained. I also know that NO private citizen who cannot demonstrate a need to do so and training to do so, should EVER carry a handgun concealed and only open carry when actually hunting or target shooting. Why? They are dangerous to themselves and the public.

The mere fact that anyone can and many do carry guns has turned our police forces into military organizations and our constitutional rights are sacrificed to these gun freaks.

Nobody who has ever killed anyone with a gun wants to carry one. (Maybe a few mentally disturbed people do.) Firearms don't kill people like in the movies. They blow holes in people with extreme violence. They are horrible weapons. As I say this there is one within a few inches of me. The difference is that I have been carefully trained on when and how to use it. And I have seen what it can do.

Second amendment types live in a dream world where they pull their hog-leg and safe the day. They are pathetic and deluded. The real world simply does not work that way. Ever seen what's left of a 10 year olds head when he gets his hands on the glock daddy keeps in his nightstand? Ever seen the look on daddies face as he tries to push the brains bank into his dead child while he waits for the paramedics and the police. Ever met the 16 year old who accidentally killed his brother when he was 11.

Sick deluded and dangerous people want to carry guns when they do not have to.
#15165538
@Drlee

Drlee wrote:Nobody who has ever killed anyone with a gun wants to carry one. (Maybe a few mentally disturbed people do.) Firearms don't kill people like in the movies. They blow holes in people with extreme violence. They are horrible weapons. As I say this there is one within a few inches of me. The difference is that I have been carefully trained on when and how to use it. And I have seen what it can do.


Man Drlee, this comment really hit home for me. When I got back from Afghanistan, I sold all my guns and never wanted to see another gun ever again. I mean that too. You really hit the nail on the head with this comment here. People might find it odd or strange that a soldier who served in combat doesn't like carrying guns, but now, when I read your comment I feel so much more better and re-assured.

You know, funny enough a few guys that I served with didn't shoot guns for many many years after our deployment to Afghanistan. Many of them too stayed away from guns. I thought I was the only one till I reconnected with some of my buddies that I served with a few years later. So, when I read your comment, I knew you were the real deal for sure. Guns are terrible man just like you say. They most certainly should be heavily regulated and controlled in our society and for very good reason. Thanks brother for speaking out. It's great to see you speaking out. I don't own any guns myself because honestly, I have no good reason for owning one and I really don't want to see a gun ever again.

I guess they could fun to shoot for sport but really, they are designed to do one thing and one thing only. And for me, I am fine with never seeing a gun again in my life. I would have to have a very good reason before I go out and purchase one which currently, I have no reason to own a gun so I really don't want to be around them. I find guns unpleasant to be around quite frankly speaking. I just don't like them and I enjoy just living in peace with my family and not being around violence or weapons. I like peace and harmony. Peace is beautiful and good.
#15166306
The population of the United States is about 328,000,000 (this includes babies under the age of one). The number of guns owned by Americans is about 398,000,000 with, just guessing, another 100,000,000 off the charts ….. I was sitting in a neighbor's living room recently when two guys showed up and one sold the other a 9mm for $1800 …… no paperwork, no background checks ….. nothing.

Seems not a day goes by these days without a daily random shooting/murder ……. mass or otherwise. "Three shot dead at a 7/11 in Shit Falls, Texas." "Family of 5 shot dead in Utica, N.Y." "Man opens fire and kills 7 at random in Wichita, Kansas." ad infinitum. No big deal anymore. The daily news.

And yet the bigger problem, as defined by the gun lobby headed by the NRA, is not the normalization of gun violence in America but the idea that if anyone should suggest the slightest effort to reduce daily random gun killings they are attacking the second amendment and the very existence of America and that, somehow, the 400,000,000 guns owned by less than 300,000,000 citizens will be confiscated.

I am in favor of gun ownership but, sorry, this strikes me as mass insanity/stupidity.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14

@Pants-of-dog you can read both yourself, I don[…]

If you haven't noticed, there are voters behind R[…]

Identity Politics

Identity politics is a sticky one. Will it be effe[…]

Ukraine Warns It May Go Nuclear

Nukes stopped Kennedy from invading a second time.[…]