Question for supporters of the second amendment.

[dfnj]

Perhaps you missed it.
I've proposed a whole bunch of additional regulations to curb violence.

Public guns should have a clips with a 6 bullet maximum. Being able to shoot 30 bullets per minute is not necessary for anything but mass murder.

Look at these numbers:

Mass Shooting Tracker

Just look at that data. Crazy!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Public guns should have a clips with a 6 bullet maximum. Being able to shoot 30 bullets per minute is not necessary for anything but mass murder.

Look at these numbers:

Mass Shooting Tracker

Just look at that data. Crazy!!

I focus more upon regulating behavior of gun owners & government.
Be trained.
Be safe.
Be informed.
Act on information.

 

[averageJOE]

I focus more upon regulating behavior of gun owners & government.
Be trained.
Be safe.
Be informed.
Act on information.

I'd argue that a person who is trained, safe, and informed on various guns is the most dangerous with them.

 

[sayak83]

This is a question for those who think gun ownership is an important human right.

Do you think people who live in other countries (ie Canada, Britton, France etc) are less free? Do you think it is an injustice that in Canada gun ownership is a privilege? Or is this a question that has never occurred to you?

Having guns in society decreases freedom as people walk around afraid that every rowdy place can turn into a shooting zone.

 

[Curious George]

I guess a good follow up question at this point would be “should the US invade Canada to liberate the poor Canucks from their oppression and bring them the freedom of firearms?”.

No. People of Canada chose it. As I have acknowledged their are likely ways in which Canada is more free than the U.S. do you think countries should "liberate" other countries because of a lack of freedom in one particular area?

 

[Curious George]

Having guns in society decreases freedom as people walk around afraid that every rowdy place can turn into a shooting zone.

People who walk around in fear of unlikely scenarios, will always find something of which to be afraid.

 

[sayak83]

People who walk around in fear of unlikely scenarios, will always find something of which to be afraid.

Have you lived for long time in a country where you know that nobody anywhere nearby (including the common police in the streets) has a gun? It feels free-er, safe-er, secure-er. We don't require to learn how to interact with the police or how to react when a gun is being brandished.

 

[Curious George]

Have you lived for long time in a country where you know that nobody anywhere nearby (including the common police in the streets) has a gun? It feels free-er, safe-er, secure-er. We don't require to learn how to interact with the police or how to react when a gun is being brandished.

I guess I just don't walk around in fear. I don't feel less free, unsafe, or insecure.

I understand that guns are scary to some. I try to be understanding of their point of view. Similarly, vaccinations are scary to some and I try to be understanding of their view. There is a line though Sayak. While we can be understanding of people's views we do not make policy based on irrational fears.

 

[sayak83]

I guess I just don't walk around in fear. I don't feel less free, unsafe, or insecure.

I understand that guns are scary to some. I try to be understanding of their point of view. Similarly, vaccinations are scary to some and I try to be understanding of their view. There is a line though Sayak. While we can be understanding of people's views we do not make policy based on irrational fears.

I too consider it unwise to make policies pandering to irrational fetish about having guns that some have and value over the life and safety and peaceableness of society.

 

[Curious George]

I too consider it unwise to make policies pandering to irrational fetish about having guns that some have and value over the life and safety and peaceableness of society.

Absolutely we should neither pander to irrational fetishist about gun ownership or irrational fears of gun ownership.

We should evaluate the subject with reason and see if diminishing one's right to self defense and protection is done with a compelling reason and done in a fashion that is narrowly tailored to fit that compelling reasoning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I guess I just don't walk around in fear. I don't feel less free, unsafe, or insecure.

I understand that guns are scary to some. I try to be understanding of their point of view. Similarly, vaccinations are scary to some and I try to be understanding of their view. There is a line though Sayak. While we can be understanding of people's views we do not make policy based on irrational fears.

What about rational fears, I.E: the fact that gun ownership results in far more innocent people dying than actual instances of protection? I would say that is a perfectly rational fear. Meanwhile, the fear that guns are necessary to protect you from the encroachment of government is completely irrational, considering personal firearms would literally do nothing to protect you from a government that has a military arsenal vastly outweighing anything private hands could ever hope to assemble.

 

[Curious George]

What about rational fears, I.E: the fact that gun ownership results in far more innocent people dying than actual instances of protection? I would say that is a perfectly rational fear. Meanwhile, the fear that guns are necessary to protect you from the encroachment of government is completely irrational, considering personal firearms would literally do nothing to protect you from a government that has a military arsenal vastly outweighing anything private hands could ever hope to assemble.

Hmmm, that first statement is really manipulation of statistics is it not. It sounds like you are trying to draw a causative inference when no proof of such causation exists.

As far as the second statement, I have no fears of the "government" trying to take over. But certainly we can find historical instances of facets of the government encroaching on rights of individuals. Police brutality in black communities in the 60's is a prime example. And black Panthers at the time did believe that gun ownership was going to protect them. Let's just say that we didn't see the fighter jets queued up. The whole discussion is nonsense, and I have no idea why either side likes to pontificate about drone strikes on civilians and coupes.

The discussion is simple. Guns are effective tools of self defense. A right of self defense is necessitated by a right to life. Hence, self defense is a fundamental right. Limiting a person's fundamental right to self defense is not something that should be taken lightly. It should only be done when a compelling reason exists and when the limitation is narrowly tailored to that compelling reason.

It is not about people needing a reason to own guns, it is about other people needing a reason to limit their ownership of those guns.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hmmm, that first statement is really manipulation of statistics is it not. It sounds like you are trying to draw a causative inference when no proof of such causation exists.

Where is the manipulation? More deaths are caused by legally owned guns than lives are saved - that's just a fact.

As far as the second statement, I have no fears of the "government" trying to take over.

So, the second amendment is completely irrelevant then.

But certainly we can find historical instances of facets of the government encroaching on rights of individuals. Police brutality in black communities in the 60's is a prime example. And black Panthers at the time did believe that gun ownership was going to protect them.

Funny you should bring that up, because guess what happened in that case? The government clamped down on gun ownership. Despite the fact that the black panthers were a well-regulated militia, the Republican government (backed by Democrats) of the time decided that having a well-armed militia in this particular case was totally not okay and essentially stripped them of their rights to carry guns (Mulford Act - Wikipedia). The second amendment does not protect you from the encroachment of government.

The whole discussion is nonsense, and I have no idea why either side likes to pontificate about drone strikes on civilians and coupes.

Agreed, the idea of the government turning its military on its people are fairly absurd right now. Which is why the second amendment is no longer relevant.

The discussion is simple. Guns are effective tools of self defense.

No, they aren't. They cause and facilitate far more murders and home invasions than they prevent. They demonstrably fail at the task of self defense.

A right of self defense is necessitated by a right to life. Hence, self defense is a fundamental right.

That doesn't mean that ownership of weapons is a fundamental right.

Limiting a person's fundamental right to self defense is not something that should be taken lightly.

Except it isn't. You can still defend yourself, you can still have that right without the ability own firearms, just as you can have that right without the ability to own a personal, nuclear device.

It should only be done when a compelling reason exists and when the limitation is narrowly tailored to that compelling reason.

It is not about people needing a reason to own guns, it is about other people needing a reason to limit their ownership of those guns.

And there are reasons: they are demonstrably not a deterrent to violent crime, serve no function in the protection of people, increase violent crime rates, and don't even fulfill the function for which they were originally specified in the second amendment.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why does defense of the home necessitate a gun? Or self defense at all? There are many ways to defend ones self and home, without the use of guns.

Security doors and not opening the door to strangers, for example. Simple, effective measures the gun fetishists angrily dismiss out of hand.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So we should have no regulations at all? Why are stinger missiles illegal? If stinger missiles are illegal than why not make AR-15s illegal for the same reasons?

prepare to be scoffed at dismissively. Thats the goto m9ve when you ask questions they can't answer.

 

[Curious George]

Where is the manipulation? More deaths are caused by legally owned guns than lives are saved - that's just a fact.

It is the implication that said deaths would not have occurred otherwise. For instance, if I decide I want to commit suicide and a gun is available I might choose to use that, if a gun is not available I will choose another means. The use of the gun is ancillary to the decision.

So, the second amendment is completely irrelevant then.

Nope. It is there for protection of democracy to threats domestic and foreign.

Funny you should bring that up, because guess what happened in that case? The government clamped down on gun ownership. Despite the fact that the black panthers were a well-regulated militia, the Republican government of the time decided that having a well-armed militia in this particular case was totally not okay and essentially stripped them of their rights to own guns. The second amendment does not protect you from the encroachment of government.

Yep. The state government, not the federal. But that is not the point. The point is that you had a group of people, with guns, that at times followed police because of brutality against black people in the community. People with guns acted out and no jets were scrambled. It is ridiculously absurd to think that the U.S. government is going to magically poof into the Nazi party and all out war between them and the citizens will emerge.

The constitution was not written to later have armed resistances overthrow the constitution.

Agreed, the idea of the government turning its military on its people are fairly absurd right now. Which is why the second amendment is no longer relevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. While we have no draft right now, there is no reason why the draft could not occur. Armed citizens are likely better trained in shooting. Moreover, that a time could exist where the government needed to call upon the militia to assist in a time of need is always a possibility. That such a possibility exists is one reason why the framers put the ammendment in the constitution in the first place. And lastly, threats to our democracy occur when individuals commit crimes upon our democracy.

If protection of our democracy is paramount to the second ammendment how much more paramount is the lives of all of our individual citizens.

No, they aren't. They cause and facilitate far more murders and home invasions than they prevent. They demonstrably fail at the task of self defense.

That is not true. It is demonstrably not true.

That doesn't mean that ownership of weapons is a fundamental right.

Guns are used for self defense an attempt at limiting guns entails an attempt at limiting self defense.

Except it isn't. You can still defend yourself, you can still have that right without the ability own firearms, just as you can have that right without the ability to own a personal, nuclear device.

I agree that you can still defend yourself without guns. I didn't say it was a negation of that right, I said it was a limitation on that right. If I said you could only eat and drink wine and cheese, I wouldn't be negating your ability to eat, but I would be limiting it.

To your second point, there are compelling reasons why people cannot own nuclear devices. The laws that prevent such are narrowly tailored to those compelling reasons. (Though they needn't be, based on which federal powers they are rooted).

The point is if you do not think there is a compelling governmental interest in preventing you from owning a nuclear weapon, or you think the laws that prevent you from doing so are too broad, I would love to hear your argument.

And there are reasons: they are demonstrably not a deterrent to violent crime, serve no function in the protection of people, increase violent crime rates, and don't even fulfill the function for which they were originally specified in the second amendment.

Well that they serve no function in the protection of people is a lie. That they increase violent crime rates is unfounded. And that they do not fulfill the originally specified function of the second Ammendment is murky at best.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And is having guns legal really going to stop the government from abusing power? How is having an AR-15 going to stop F15s from blowing up your house?

The standard response here is "our patriotic military would never shoot at our own citizens". When you point out the obvious "then you don't need guns to protect you from the government", prepare for angry sulking.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

People who walk around in fear of unlikely scenarios, will always find something of which to be afraid.

Like governnent tyrany or strangers breaking into the home with an intent to do harm?

 

[Curious George]

Like governnent tyrany or strangers breaking into the home with an intent to do harm?

Well I think you would need to define government tyranny. But yes. If a person is perpetually afraid of "government tyranny" or strangers breaking into their home with intent to harm they are likely to replace that fear with something else if that fear were to be alleviated. However, being aware of something like that some strangers do intend to commit harm and taking precautionary steps is not really fear.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd argue that a person who is trained, safe, and informed on various guns is the most dangerous with them.

Dangerous to perps.
Take the being informed aspect.....
A gun owner who knows the law won't accidentally run afoul of the myriad of restrictions.
A government which disseminates information to all of its many tentacles, would more
likely react properly....exactly as the FBI didn't recently.

Training.....
Safe handling avoids accidents....like the one shooting included in the "18 school shootings
in 2018". The cop allowed a child to pull the trigger of his loaded duty weapon.

And so on.....