|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom.
You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny.
Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now.
|
United States24569 Posts
On January 15 2013 07:03 TheFrankOne wrote:I'm going to move on from the bowling ball analogy, it still makes no sense to me and I don't think it ever will. Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 03:55 BluePanther wrote:On January 15 2013 03:44 TheFrankOne wrote:
I did ask for a solid argument refuting my view of it.... I enjoy target shooting. My brother enjoys hunting deer (and usually feeds me for a week each year). My uncle enjoys hunting gamefowl. There, I've given you a solid argument. Your refusal to accept it does not mean it wasn't given. I also enjoy going out into the woods and killing deer. My guns do a damn fine job of it too. When you are "hunting" you are "looking for things to kill" I'm not sure why people talk as if hunting is not killing things. If you have guns for hunting, you have guns for killing things. This should be obvious. They don't need to be "protected animals" to be alive and then dead when they are shot, in a word, killed. The function of a gun when hunting is killing, @ Micronesia: Unless your dad was in the military or police, I think his ownership of guns is irresponsible. Owning guns just so you can go target shooting shouldn't happen because the externalities are too high. I like guns, I like them a lot, I want a fully automatic AK, because it would be cool. The problem is I would have no use for it beyond entertainment. I do not think that justifies my indirectly putting other members of society at risk. If I get burgled, it will be stolen and probably be used less than responsibly. It's not about the impact of any one responsible gun user, it's about how the proliferation of firearms throughout our society has provided easy access to people who commit crimes with them. There is evidence that when property crimes are committed by criminals armed with firearms people die who wouldn't if the criminal had a less lethal weapon and that in a heavily armed society criminals feel like they have to be more armed. There is a societal cost here, it's a heavy cost, and I don't think target shooting justifies it. I know that most guns do not enter the black market through theft but a lot do, At the end of the day we end up with a gun death rate over 10. (combined homicide & suicide) I will never see that as an acceptable price for people to do target shooting. They can go throw a baseball, or watch a movie. If you want a gun for self-defense or hunting, that's one thing, but if you want it just to shoot at targets, you are imposing entirely too high of a cost on society because what you are using for entertainment has another function, one that it is damn good at. I specifically mentioned a shotgun because I was still thinking about the horrible things using it as a hammer would do to my own shotgun. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I do think anyone who believe gun ownership is justified by target shooting should go hunting and feel just how easy it is to take an animal's life with a firearm, it's where my perspective on this is coming from. I have conflicted feelings on gun control and don't think it would be reasonable to bar people from buying them unless they had tags or something. Edit: As someone who comes from a family of hunters, I am used to thinking of target shooting as practice, for when you actually shoot something you intend to kill. That is how I was taught to view it and how hunters I know look at it. It's fun, but that's not really the point.
So hunting justifies guns but target shooting doesn't? And hunters need to use target shooting for training/practice, anyway. So if someone wants to target shoot, they can, as long as they succeed at pretending that they are preparing to hunt, even if they aren't? I don't get what you are saying. Perhaps hunters shouldn't be allowed to target shoot anymore, so they can have terrible aim?
Calling a responsible gun owner irresponsible is quite something, though. It's not quite up there with 'baby killer' bit it's the same idea.
|
I said I was conflicted on the whole subject for a reason. I'm trying to deal with a lot of cognitive dissonance. I just don't see gun ownership as justified by the entertainment value of target shooting. Hunting at least gets you food, but... I'm honestly just not sure what the best policy is but I really don't like the "more guns" solutions from groups like the NRA.
Irresponsible in a minor kind of way, certainly not a criminal offense kind of irresponsible.
I don't think the supreme court has ever endorsed this idea of the second amendment protecting a right to revolution. My understanding of the historical context would point more strongly to a succession right for the states but that didn't pan out. Anyone know more about this?
|
On January 15 2013 07:32 TheFrankOne wrote:@Bluepanther: I think you should read what I wrote a little more closely. Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 07:03 TheFrankOne wrote:
If you want a gun for self-defense or hunting, that's one thing, but if you want it just to shoot at targets, you are imposing entirely too high of a cost on society because what you are using for entertainment has another function, one that it is damn good at.
I have conflicted feelings on gun control and don't think it would be reasonable to bar people from buying them unless they had tags or something.
From earlier: Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 02:15 TheFrankOne wrote:
I don't believe it is a right but the 2nd amendment clearly establishes that it is legal. (That said, I do own and regularly use guns.)
I don't think I've really proposed any rules, I just don't think gun ownership is justified by entertainment value edit: of shooting at targets.
I understood what you were saying. My point is that whether or not you think entertainment value justifies their legality is kind of irrelevant (at least in the USA), as the legal grounds for them being legal is self-defense. That's all. I wasn't trying to insult you or anything.
You have to remember that the NRA is the lobby organization for gun manufacturers. While it has a lot of citizen involvement and has kind of taken up the banner for gun rights, it's still an industry lobby.
|
Tue enough, but the thread title starts with "should" not "can" which are two totally different questions.
I was mostly confused, not offended.
|
United States24569 Posts
On January 15 2013 08:11 TheFrankOne wrote:
I said I was conflicted on the whole subject for a reason. I'm trying to deal with a lot of cognitive dissonance. I just don't see gun ownership as justified by the entertainment value of target shooting. Hunting at least gets you food,
Another important aspect of hunting is that it is used (in cooperation with the government) to control animal populations. In some places, without hunting permits and carefully chosen seasons, etc, certain animals would become too numerous for their environment and create some disastrous ecological effects. The alternative would be putting natural predators back, but that has some pretty big costs.
|
On January 15 2013 08:18 TheFrankOne wrote:
Tue enough, but the thread title starts with "should" not "can" which are two totally different questions.
They are, but when you're discussing the issue in the light of the USA, I think the "should" part has to be taken in the context of "can" due to our Constitution for it to be a meaningful conversation.
|
Oh yeah, I forgot about population control there, I'm on the way out the door so tese things will happen.
Yea, the point about constitutional context definitely has some validity.
|
On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now.
Well, civilians make up our present and our past military.
Don't forget that we are an entirely volunteer military, and oaths are sworn to the constitution and not to the commanders. IF things ever got that far, it would be much more interesting than red versus blue, I'll just say that. As a former military guy myself, I never would have followed an order to fire on American citizens short of some super bizarre scenario (where they were clearly the "bad" people).
|
On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now.
I'm pretty sure that Iraqi 'insurgents' (AKA objectively: freedom fighters) would have something to say to your 'impenetrable US military' argument. What were we at, 4000~ coalition forces dead? The fight was neverending, such that most Americans turned against a war that most Americans supported.
But in my opinion, there just needs to be enough ubiquitous resistance on the ground that our boys side with the people instead of the government. And that doesn't take much more than an AR and courage.
|
On January 15 2013 08:29 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now. I'm pretty sure that Iraqi 'insurgents' (AKA objectively: freedom fighters) would have something to say to your 'impenetrable US military' argument. What were we at, 4000~ coalition forces dead? The fight was neverending, such that most Americans turned against a war that most Americans supported. But in my opinion, there just needs to be enough ubiquitous resistance on the ground that our boys side with the people instead of the government. And that doesn't take much more than an AR and courage.
This "resist the government" crap that the nuttiest of the nuts keep spouting is the worst possible argument for gun control. Seriously, just listen to yourselves for a minute. What are you going to do, start shooting the cops and anyone from Washington if you decide for yourself that the government is a communist dictatorship (something that I bet some of these Tea Party crazies are close to doing)?
As for the "impenetrable US military" bit, guess how many we've killed for every one of our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who have died? I actually don't know the answer, but I can tell you one thing: IT'S A SHITLOAD. If, god forbid, the US military was ever turned against its own people, those hillbillies would have NO chance. I am a soldier and I know what we can do.
|
On January 15 2013 08:29 StarStrider wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Iraqi 'insurgents' (AKA objectively: freedom fighters) would have something to say to your 'impenetrable US military' argument. What were we at, 4000~ coalition forces dead? The fight was neverending, such that most Americans turned against a war that most Americans supported.
But in my opinion, there just needs to be enough ubiquitous resistance on the ground that our boys side with the people instead of the government. And that doesn't take much more than an AR and courage.
How many people would you be willing to sacrifice to get 4000 soldiers killed? Because so far in Iraq they estimate that number to be around 150.000, with largely civilian casualties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_Logs). And that is the military playing nice.
|
On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now.
You're right its not even funny, its a serious matter that is in our constitution for a reason. The 2nd amendment is there for when the majority can't vote in a better government. We're no where near that point right but who's to say that 100 years down the road we might be. That's why Americans can't throw out the 2nd amendment now because of a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. A real war of civilians against the modern US army would have a ton of US army on the civilians side. If there wasn't that much support for it then it wouldn't happen. Now imagine a 100 years from now President Hussein or whomever thinks he wants to start himself a dictatorship because after all the civilians liberties have been chipped away for the last 100 years and now there is not even a remote threat of resistance to his dictatorship.
You say times have changed and that is true. The 2nd amendment didn't regulate that citizens couldn't own canons. Or how long the barrel of their musket would be. It was meant for the population to have a comparable arms to the military. Now present day a civilian can own a fully automatic weapon, although much more heavily regulated and more expensive then semi-autos or other weapons as they should be. I'm all for a progressively more strict regulation on more lethal weapons. Like a simple bolt-action hunting rifle you pass the normal background check. An AR-15 and its the next level of certification or mental health check up. A fully automatic you have to pass the most rigorous back ground check and pay the $200 tax or whatever it currently is. Somebody wants to own an RPG or tank or attack helicopter, well if he has the money, and will act responsibly with it, who am I to tell him he can't. Now if his RPG slipped into the wrong hands I'm all for him being fully accountable for whatever damage it causes. Same with firearms. Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their actions? Firearms are a big responsibility though and there are probably too many irresponsible people who own them. But make the laws that hold them accountable, or prevent them from acquiring them. Don't strip the rest of us our freedoms.
As a civilian I'm glad that I live in a country that allows me to defend myself with a firearm the same way that a non-civilian does. Being a responsible, mentally stable, and educated on firearms I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to own and carry a firearm when politicians (via armed body gaurds) or law enforcement are allowed to. Is their life more important then mine? Are they so infallible that hey have more rights then me? Yes they have been trained and certified but why shouldn't a civilian be able to have the same training and certification (ie concealed handgun license)?
Today I registered for my Concealed Handgun License and the first available class is in April.
|
On January 15 2013 09:01 usNEUX wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 08:29 StarStrider wrote:On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now. I'm pretty sure that Iraqi 'insurgents' (AKA objectively: freedom fighters) would have something to say to your 'impenetrable US military' argument. What were we at, 4000~ coalition forces dead? The fight was neverending, such that most Americans turned against a war that most Americans supported. But in my opinion, there just needs to be enough ubiquitous resistance on the ground that our boys side with the people instead of the government. And that doesn't take much more than an AR and courage. This "resist the government" crap that the nuttiest of the nuts keep spouting is the worst possible argument for gun control. Seriously, just listen to yourselves for a minute. What are you going to do, start shooting the cops and anyone from Washington if you decide for yourself that the government is a communist dictatorship (something that I bet some of these Tea Party crazies are close to doing)? As for the "impenetrable US military" bit, guess how many we've killed for every one of our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who have died? I actually don't know the answer, but I can tell you one thing: IT'S A SHITLOAD. If, god forbid, the US military was ever turned against its own people, those hillbillies would have NO chance. I am a soldier and I know what we can do.
You do realize no one is talking about resisting this current government right?
You said you are a soldier, are you going to follow orders when the government tells you to kill you're own brother, or neighbor, or high school buddy who lives down the street?
No one will stand one person against an army, or a few thousand against the US army. Its protecting the rights to bear arms for when more then half of America is against the government.
I don't see any reason for this to happen anytime soon but history shows time and time and time again governments collapse, shit gets ugly, I want my gun or for my great grand kids to be armed for times like that.
|
On January 15 2013 09:37 Rhino85 wrote:
You do realize no one is talking about resisting this current government right?
You said you are a soldier, are you going to follow orders when the government tells you to kill you're own brother, or neighbor, or high school buddy who lives down the street?
No one will stand one person against an army, or a few thousand against the US army. Its protecting the rights to bear arms for when more then half of America is against the government.
I don't see any reason for this to happen anytime soon but history shows time and time and time again governments collapse, shit gets ugly, I want my gun or for my great grand kids to be armed for times like that.
If I asked you to give me an estimated percentage. Like, within 200 years, how likely do you think it is it that the second ammendment becomes relevant?
Because I think this is an extrapolation of data without taking into account any of the changing conditions of the world in the last 100 years. Realistically, you would probably be better off protecting your future by selling your guns and donating the money for the US national debt.
|
On January 15 2013 08:19 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 08:11 TheFrankOne wrote:
I said I was conflicted on the whole subject for a reason. I'm trying to deal with a lot of cognitive dissonance. I just don't see gun ownership as justified by the entertainment value of target shooting. Hunting at least gets you food, Another important aspect of hunting is that it is used (in cooperation with the government) to control animal populations. In some places, without hunting permits and carefully chosen seasons, etc, certain animals would become too numerous for their environment and create some disastrous ecological effects. The alternative would be putting natural predators back, but that has some pretty big costs.
Not to mention how much money hunting generates for various Departments of Natural resources to preserve habitat's (and in a lot of case's construct new habitats like putting salt water fish into the great lakes and somehow them flourishing on asian carp) and fight invasive species.
this thread ties me greatly with its lack of anyone talking about anything constructive and people only wanting to strawman arguments that make them feel better on both sides of the issue. Almost no one is anywhere close to talking about actual solutions or proposed ideas just pointless rehashed rhetoric they read on their respective propaganda sites.
|
On January 15 2013 10:19 Fenris420 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 09:37 Rhino85 wrote:
You do realize no one is talking about resisting this current government right?
You said you are a soldier, are you going to follow orders when the government tells you to kill you're own brother, or neighbor, or high school buddy who lives down the street?
No one will stand one person against an army, or a few thousand against the US army. Its protecting the rights to bear arms for when more then half of America is against the government.
I don't see any reason for this to happen anytime soon but history shows time and time and time again governments collapse, shit gets ugly, I want my gun or for my great grand kids to be armed for times like that. If I asked you to give me an estimated percentage. Like, within 200 years, how likely do you think it is it that the second ammendment becomes relevant? Because I think this is an extrapolation of data without taking into account any of the changing conditions of the world in the last 100 years. Realistically, you would probably be better off protecting your future by selling your guns and donating the money for the US national debt.
200 years? 90+% (cautiously)
In the last 200 years there have been revolutions/civil wars/resistance to occupation in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, Peru, the United States... you get the point. I don't think I actually need to list almost every nation across the world.
I understand that world economies, politics, and military have changed drastically in the last 200 years. They also changed drastically in the 200 years before that. I'd be willing to bet that they'll change drastically in the next 200 years too.
|
I understand that world economies, politics, and military have changed drastically in the last 200 years. They also changed drastically in the 200 years before that. I'd be willing to bet that they'll change drastically in the next 200 years too.
Agreed. While the world may seem more stable than say, right before WWII, all it would take is one drastic event to upset the world order. While the likely-hood of any one such event is very low, there is so much potential for conflict in the world and 200 years is a long time to go without something crazy happening.
|
On January 15 2013 09:01 usNEUX wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2013 08:29 StarStrider wrote:On January 15 2013 07:48 Sejanus wrote:On January 15 2013 07:35 Sway.746 wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't exist so that civilians can shoot animals or shoot guns for fun. It exists so that civilians can shoot the government if it becomes too corrupt and threatens freedom. You do understand how silly does it sound now? Times have changed. If the government becomes too corrupt the only thing civilians can do is elect a better one. Vote responsibly. A real war civilians against modern USA army.... not even funny. Probably it made sense when the amandment was created, sure. Not now. I'm pretty sure that Iraqi 'insurgents' (AKA objectively: freedom fighters) would have something to say to your 'impenetrable US military' argument. What were we at, 4000~ coalition forces dead? The fight was neverending, such that most Americans turned against a war that most Americans supported. But in my opinion, there just needs to be enough ubiquitous resistance on the ground that our boys side with the people instead of the government. And that doesn't take much more than an AR and courage. This "resist the government" crap that the nuttiest of the nuts keep spouting is the worst possible argument for gun control. Seriously, just listen to yourselves for a minute. What are you going to do, start shooting the cops and anyone from Washington if you decide for yourself that the government is a communist dictatorship (something that I bet some of these Tea Party crazies are close to doing)? As for the "impenetrable US military" bit, guess how many we've killed for every one of our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors who have died? I actually don't know the answer, but I can tell you one thing: IT'S A SHITLOAD. If, god forbid, the US military was ever turned against its own people, those hillbillies would have NO chance. I am a soldier and I know what we can do.
There's nothing "nutty" about it. Study history, governments always turn corrupt and tyrannical at some point. The 2nd Amendment probably keeps our government from going even more overboard. US won it's freedom and was created after overthrowing the British. Without civilian gun ownership this country would never have been founded.
Look at Iran, the people there are suppressed and they do not own firearms. They are slaves to their corrupt government. There are many other examples that back this up too.
|
On January 15 2013 11:25 Esk23 wrote:
There's nothing "nutty" about it. Study history, governments always turn corrupt and tyrannical at some point. The 2nd Amendment probably keeps our government from going even more overboard. US won it's freedom and was created after overthrowing the British. Without civilian gun ownership this country would never have been founded.
There are several amusing jumps in logic here. For one, governments do not "always turn corrupt and tyrannical". However, there is a very high percentage of it, which oddly correlates to the percentage of autocracies.
And the British government was not corrupt and tyrannical when the US declared independence. In fact, they had created the parliamentary system over a century before you even founded the good ol' USA.
And if you like parallels, Canada, still officially part of the commonwealth, essentially gained autonomy in 1867, and made all official with writing in 1931. All without a single shot fired at Britain.
Look at Iran, the people there are suppressed and they do not own firearms. They are slaves to their corrupt government. There are many other examples that back this up too.
You mean the Iran that has 5x the civilian guns that Syria has? And just under double the percentage of civilian owners?
Because there clearly isn't a civil war going on in Syria right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
