Another 2nd Amendment/gun control thread.

[suncowiam]

If you & I can agree (on enuf), then is it possible for politicians to do better?

I hope politicians will act this time around.

 

[Revoltingest]

I hope politicians will act this time around.

Alas, I don't see them agreeing with me on much.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

There isn't an inverse relationship.

You envision a convenient but unrealistic scenario.
Consider that US experience in fighting overseas still involves small arms similar to
the AR15, & that the foe is not so easy to destroy as simply finding a compound.
I'll be that even with your beer belly, you could still be an effective armed revolutionary.

I think your scenario is a little more unrealistic than mine . . . I've never held a gun before, and just like skydiving and sightseeing in North Korea, I probably never will.

But I think the original point stands here. . . Most people who are pro gun are also pro government military. . . Yet the reasons they give for being pro gun is to stand up to a government military if it becomes necessary. . . You do see the contradiction, don't you?

It's like an arms race with themselves.

1. Advocate for more military spending.

2. Argue for more private arms to compete with our military.

3. Repeat.

Why not replace our gigantic, swinging-&#$@ military with a reasonable one that doesn't constantly kill civilians around the world to justify its spending . . . then the 3% of our population who own half the guns, you know. . . Those guys that hope to go Red Dawn on their own military someday . . . might actually have a fighting chance!

 

[Buddha Dharma]

For those who support the 2nd Amendment

What if we support the second amendment according to it's full wording and stated purposes? It doesn't allow for hoarding up guns pointlessly and using them for whatever.

 

[Curious George]

I agree that it is the foundation. But I believe it should be subject to period review and updated. Not rashly, but through a careful process with checks and balances. The framers were no less and no more wiser than anybody else, and they were necessary constrained by the time they lived. The current method where judges etc. "read in" modern necessities and needs into the words of the 300 year old document is looking increasingly like rabbinical midrash to me.

Don't you think the western legal system came from somewhere? Judaism was certainly one of the inspirations.

 

[sayak83]

Don't you think the western legal system came from somewhere? Judaism was certainly one of the inspirations.

I have noticed.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Don't you think the western legal system came from somewhere? Judaism was certainly one of the inspirations.

Judaism wasn't the great inspiration it is often exaggerated to have been. The first amendment for example is arguably contrary to the first four commandments. Greek philosophical ideas were much more of an inspiration than is credited.

 

[Enoch07]

But I think the original point stands here. . . Most people who are pro gun are also pro government military. . . Yet the reasons they give for being pro gun is to stand up to a government military if it becomes necessary. . . You do see the contradiction, don't you?

Thats a contradiction because it's a strawman. The military will not turn on it's citizens.

We reserve the right to keep arms to defend ourselves from criminals, foreign Invaders and a corrupt government.

Why not replace our gigantic, swinging-&#$@ military with a reasonable one that doesn't constantly kill civilians around the world to justify its spending . . . then the 3% of our population who own half the guns, you know. . . Those guys that hope to go Red Dawn on their own military someday . . . might actually have a fighting chance!

Here you reinforce your strawman with ridiculous Red Dawn fantasies. If you want to have a serious discussion than you need to understand the issue and discuss it instead of your immature conjecture.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Thats a contradiction because it's a strawman. The military will not turn on it's citizens.

We reserve the right to keep arms to defend ourselves from criminals, foreign Invaders and a corrupt government.



Here you reinforce your strawman with ridiculous Red Dawn fantasies. If you want to have a serious discussion than you need to understand the issue and discuss it instead of your immature conjecture.

Okay, I'm not trying to be strawmanish. My original concept I'm trying to disuss here is the founding father's mistrust of a government military, and their preference for local armed militias. This is a documented fact, and is the reason for the 2nd amendment.

As for defense against a corrupt government, how exactly shall that government enforce it's will? When you say the military wil never turn on it's citizens, then why would you need arms to fight a corrupt government? Who exactly are you using those arms against?

I admit this is not a common approach to thinking about the 2nd amendment, but I think it's one that has merit to rationally explore.

Edit: And for the record, I don't believe the military will turn on its citizens either. But if neither of us feel that way, then we can't list "fighting a corrupt government" as a reason to keep and bear arms.

 

[Curious George]

Judaism wasn't the great inspiration it is often exaggerated to have been. The first amendment for example is arguably contrary to the first four commandments. Greek philosophical ideas were much more of an inspiration than is credited.

That there were other inspirations doesn't preclude Judaism as being one of them. That is all I claimed.

 

[Enoch07]

As for defense against a corrupt government, how exactly shall that government enforce it's will? When you say the military wil never turn on it's citizens, then why would you need arms to fight a corrupt government? Who exactly are you using those arms against?

To protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic. It was made that way to cover all instances it might be needed.

There is no doubt some in the military will support a corrupt government. Some men can be bought, the founding fathers knew this. So thats why we have the law so that citizens can protect themselves from all enemies including criminals.

As a gun owner, I have been around guns my whole life. I hope I never have to fire my weapon at any other human being. I certainly don't fantasize about it. But if someone is threatening or endangering my family or myself. I am prepared to use my weapon to defend my family's lives. There is nothing sensational or glamorous in taking any living beings life. But if I have to chose between seeing my family hurt/dead, or shooting an aggressor who is hurting them. The aggressor will lose every single time.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think your scenario is a little more unrealistic than mine . . . I've never held a gun before, and just like skydiving and sightseeing in North Korea, I probably never will.

But I think the original point stands here. . . Most people who are pro gun are also pro government military. . . Yet the reasons they give for being pro gun is to stand up to a government military if it becomes necessary. . . You do see the contradiction, don't you?

It's like an arms race with themselves.

1. Advocate for more military spending.

2. Argue for more private arms to compete with our military.

3. Repeat.

Why not replace our gigantic, swinging-&#$@ military with a reasonable one that doesn't constantly kill civilians around the world to justify its spending . . . then the 3% of our population who own half the guns, you know. . . Those guys that hope to go Red Dawn on their own military someday . . . might actually have a fighting chance!

You might be surprised to discover that many of us pro-gun types don't like the
country's military adventurism. Defense of the country is necessary, but all this
invading & nation building stuff has a poor record. But if your convenient
stereotype helps you believe the worst of us, you've my permission to have at it.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

You might be surprised to discover that many of us pro-gun types don't like the
country's military adventurism. Defense of the country is necessary, but all this
invading & nation building stuff has a poor record. But if your convenient
stereotype helps you believe the worst of us, you've my permission to have at it.

I don't believe the worst of anyone.

I actual know that *you*in particular feel that way, which is a big reason you didn't vote for Hilary. With a solid moserte Rebublican as an alternative, I wouldn't have done so either.

My context is always in regard to the original intent of the 2nd amendment, and why that may be skewed. We can support oroginalism and think about what the founding fathers were intending. . . But the 2nd Amendemnt is about a distrust of a government military.

In my post, I did use a stereotype to characterize the 3% in the US who own half the guns. That does not include you. . . But I think a gun hoarder with dozens of weapons might qualify as having heroic thoughts. . . And using the rhetorical strategy of paying to te stereotype to twist those thoughts of heroism in a negative way has some merit.

Again, how does one stand up to a tyrannical government without military conflict? I guess I don't understand, and may need your clarification.

 

[Revoltingest]

But I think a gun hoarder with dozens of weapons might qualify as having heroic thoughts.

You don't actually know any, do you?
I think you're on the wrong track, continually trying to make it about your assumptions
about gun owners. It would be a similarly bad idea if I speculated about anti-gunners,
& their fears, lust for security, faith in government, & head in the sand approach to
self defense. Oh, such fun can be had!

 

[Kuzcotopia]

You don't actually know any, do you?
I think you're on the wrong track, continually trying to make it about your assumptions
about gun owners. It would be a similarly bad idea if I speculated about anti-gunners,
& their fears, lust for security, faith in government, & head in the sand approach to
self defense. Oh, such fun can be had!

My uncle.

He flew to Utah from Indiana, just to hunt mountain lions. He has a bunker on his property in rural Indiana.

Assumptions are fun.

Wanna deal with the argument I made? I know it's convenient to discuss my personal rhetorical style and not the content, but I'll restate.

Do you believe the argument that the 2nd amendment protects us from a tyrannical government? How does that play into support/rejection of a large military force?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you believe the argument that the 2nd amendment protects us from a tyrannical government?

Yes, albeit of low probability

How does that play into support/rejection of a large military force?

IMO, it bears no relation to military size.
Size is determined by defensive & other needs.
I oppose the "other", & favor a smaller military.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yes, albeit of low probability

IMO, it bears no relation to military size.
Size is determined by defensive & other needs.
I oppose the "other", & favor a smaller military.

You're saying that a smaller, less funded military would be just as effective at putting down local militias in open rebellion as a large, more well-funded force?

I believe that if local militias truly want to have a chance against the possibility of a tyrannical government, then their number one priority should be to dismantle the military jnsuctrial complex and the policies that feed it.

But no, that's not what we see. I live in Texas. . . ans around here, support of the 2ns Amendment and strong government military go hand in hand. Based on the founding father's intentions, that is a contradiction.

Yes, I know how YOU feel personally, but that you are of an uncommon mind. What I want is for that specific argument for the 2nd amendment, specifically "arms in defense against potential tyranny," to suffer a little self-reflection in those who make it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're saying that a smaller, less funded military would be just as effective at putting down local militias in open rebellion as a large, more well-funded force?

No, I wouldn't say such a thing.

I believe that if local militias truly want to have a chance against the possibility of a tyrannical government, then their number one priority should be to dismantle the military jnsuctrial complex and the policies that feed it.

I disagree.
The military has a job to do (defending the country), & it must be capable of doing it.

But no, that's not what we see. I live in Texas. . . ans around here, support of the 2ns Amendment and strong government military go hand in hand. Based on the founding father's intentions, that is a contradiction.

I'm not a Texan.
(I'll bet Texans are happy about that.)

Yes, I know how YOU feel personally, but that you are of an uncommon mind. What I want is for that specific argument for the 2nd amendment, specifically "arms in defense against potential tyranny," to suffer a little self-reflection in those who make it.

I only make the argument I see.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I disagree.
The military has a job to do (defending the country), & it must be capable of doing it.

That's a whole nother argument. . . Such as what defines "capability to defend a country" and what is "needless pork" and warmongering against innocents so that spending can be justified.

Could the country still be "defended" at 1/10th the budget? Yeah, I'll bet it could. . . Maybe if we had a robust state department and full faith in our intelligence agencies. . . Oh boy, I almost mentioned the T-word.

Rememer, I ALMOST didn't vote for Clinton on this very issue (the alternative was just that bad) . . . And it was certainly a factor for you too, based on our interactions. We agree here.

But it does bother me a bit that you won't cop to the frequency of the "defense against government tyranny" agument, and how it doesn't make any sense coupled with the desire for a "strong" government military. . . But I can't say it any differently than I already have.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a whole nother argument. . . Such as what defines "capability to defend a country" and what is "needless pork" and warmongering against innocents so that spending can be justified.

I was pointing out how the size of the military is independent of private gun ownership.

But it does bother me a bit that you won't cop to the frequency of the "defense against government tyranny" agument, and how it doesn't make any sense coupled with the desire for a "strong" government military. . . But I can't say it any differently than I already have.

I can't tell you what the frequency is....just low IMO.
So long as we have a strong libertarian component
in government, then it's good to be strong. Currently,
I'd like some changes, but I see no need to make it
weak.