USA Gun Rights/Gun Control Discussion Thread

[PyroPlazma]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

Generally, if I'm quoting someone, I want them to answer it.

Quote

 

Two questions:

1. Why was that little bit thrown in the Bill of Rights?
2. Assuming that we take that passage (the one that's a link) at face value, how can it be done without guns?

 

1. To protect the newly founded state as 

A. It didn't have a particular large standing army and at the time the founding fathers were weary of large standing armies 

B. So that the people had the means to secure their rights by force if necessary if peaceful means via the first amendment failed. 

Can't stress this enough to read the constitution through the lens of the founding fathers who had just done fighting a bloody revolution for their state against a tyrannical mother nation.

2. Short answer, it can't, Why do you think most politicians are pro gun control. They gawk at the idea of regular citizens having that level of power and them not holding a monopoly on the use of force. 

[eclipse]

11 minutes ago, XRay said:

You mean the Second Amendment being thrown in the Bill of Rights or the militia and security part being thrown in?

For the former, if I remember my American history correctly, the Second Amendment was a response to the British taking away the guns of the local militias and population in general I think. I will have to double check this.

As for why the militia part was thrown in, I am not 100% sure, but it seems to make sense to pair the right to bear arms with the responsibility of being part of the militia. The document was written at a time when we were revolting, so mentioning the militia and the security of the free state just sounds right?

Woops! I just realized I did not actually put a link in there. Fixed it now.

Taking it at face value strictly from a national security perspective, I would argue we cannot do it without guns, and we definitely need guns to help safeguard our democracy. Having a standing national army is necessary in my opinion, and decentralizing some of that to local militias, reserves, and other security forces would help with mobilizing for war and other emergencies.

 

3 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

1. To protect the newly founded state as 

A. It didn't have a particular large standing army and at the time the founding fathers were weary of large standing armies 

B. So that the people had the means to secure their rights by force if necessary if peaceful means via the first amendment failed. 

Can't stress this enough to read the constitution through the lens of the founding fathers who had just done fighting a bloody revolution for their state against a tyrannical mother nation.

2. Short answer, it can't, Why do you think most politicians are pro gun control. They gawk at the idea of regular citizens having that level of power and them not holding a monopoly on the use of force. 

And that's the biggest argument for having some sort of guns IMO.  Or a constitutional convention, at a later date (since your average handgun isn't going to be particularly effective against a modern military).

EDIT: Second-biggest is a first-hand account somewhere in this thread.

Edited April 5, 2020 by eclipse

[Johann]

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

You're missing a lot of details behind that ban, and it's for the better.  Besides, didn't you notice something really different between the two?

Not to say it's the same guy, but I can't help but be skeptical about someone's intentions when they join a Fire Emblem forum to overwhelmingly post in one specific serious discussion thread.

[PyroPlazma]

7 minutes ago, eclipse said:

 

And that's the biggest argument for having some sort of guns IMO.  Or a constitutional convention, at a later date (since your average handgun isn't going to be particularly effective against a modern military).

EDIT: Second-biggest is a first-hand account somewhere in this thread.

A constitutional convention would be a terrible idea IMHO. Like I get that the constitution is over 200 years ago and waaay out of date. But it is also the longest lasting constitution in the world! People have WAAAAAAAAY to many agendas for a constitutional convention to ever turn out well. I guarantee you with the corrupt politicians we have today you'd come out of that far worse than what you would be with the constitution as it stands.

Just look at how much the government has undermined the constitution as it stands today! 

The whole deal about civilian up risings in the modern in is a massive can of worms that would probably require its own thread. 

[eclipse]

3 minutes ago, Johann said:

Not to say it's the same guy, but I can't help but be skeptical about someone's intentions when they join a Fire Emblem forum to overwhelmingly post in one specific serious discussion thread.

That's not what I asked.  Can you spot the difference in posting styles?  This is super-important, because it'll give you clues towards who to write off and who to pay attention to.

1 minute ago, PyroPlazma said:

A constitutional convention would be a terrible idea IMHO. Like I get that the constitution is over 200 years ago and waaay out of date. But it is also the longest lasting constitution in the world! People have WAAAAAAAAY to many agendas for a constitutional convention to ever turn out well. I guarantee you with the corrupt politicians we have today you'd come out of that far worse than what you would be with the constitution as it stands.

Just look at how much the government has undermined the constitution as it stands today! 

The whole deal about civilian up risings in the modern in is a massive can of worms that would probably require its own thread. 

You're right that this is another can of worms entirely.  But it's also important to understand that the constitutional writers couldn't have predicted the rate that technology advanced, to the point where having consumer-grade guns for a militia looks silly.  Or that people would be crazy enough to unload said guns on their community for no good reason.  Giving the people a Final Option to defend themselves from a government gone awry is noble, but as it's written, does it do its job?

[PyroPlazma]

3 minutes ago, eclipse said:

That's not what I asked.  Can you spot the difference in posting styles?  This is super-important, because it'll give you clues towards who to write off and who to pay attention to.

You're right that this is another can of worms entirely.  But it's also important to understand that the constitutional writers couldn't have predicted the rate that technology advanced, to the point where having consumer-grade guns for a militia looks silly.  Or that people would be crazy enough to unload said guns on their community for no good reason.  Giving the people a Final Option to defend themselves from a government gone awry is noble, but as it's written, does it do its job?

Why is having "consumer-grade" firearms available to the general public a "silly" idea? People have performing mass killings since the dawn of civilization, firearms are just another way to do it and not even the most effective means. Also today we live in a world of global telecommunications so when these tragedies happen everyone gets wing of it real quick. It's important to remember that the instant week long 24/7 news cycle mass shootings tend to generate total victims account for less than 1% of total firearm homicide victims. 

Whether or not the second amendment is doing its job is entirely up to the individual and how they interpret things. Unfortunately the country these days is so divided and with so many groups having their own agendas (another huge can of worms) in many ways it has honestly failed... That being said there are few examples because most countries disarm their populace and all tyrannical governments disarm their populace that should mean something.

[eclipse]

3 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Why is having "consumer-grade" firearms available to the general public a "silly" idea? People have performing mass killings since the dawn of civilization, firearms are just another way to do it and not even the most effective means. Also today we live in a world of global telecommunications so when these tragedies happen everyone gets wing of it real quick. It's important to remember that the instant week long 24/7 news cycle mass shootings tend to generate total victims account for less than 1% of total firearm homicide victims.

I'm looking at this purely from the Second Amendment standpoint.

3 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Whether or not the second amendment is doing its job is entirely up to the individual and how they interpret things. Unfortunately the country these days is so divided and with so many groups having their own agendas (another huge can of worms) in many ways it has honestly failed... That being said there are few examples because most countries disarm their populace and all tyrannical governments disarm their populace that should mean something.

Yeah, it means that you've made quite the logical leap.

The crux of the gun control issue in America is that it's in the Bill of Rights.  So to completely remove guns means that the Constitution needs to be amended.  Yet it's also a good idea to make sure that the laws of the land make sense in the given context, because at one point in time, it was illegal to have alcohol.  So taking those two facts into account:

1. No, America in its current state can't fully get rid of guns.
2. However, it may not be a bad idea to revisit that amendment, and see if it can be updated such that the spirit is intact, but the constraints are more in-line with current times.

[Tediz64]

13 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I'm looking at this purely from the Second Amendment standpoint.

The crux of the gun control issue in America is that it's in the Bill of Rights.  So to completely remove guns means that the Constitution needs to be amended.  Yet it's also a good idea to make sure that the laws of the land make sense in the given context, because at one point in time, it was illegal to have alcohol.  So taking those two facts into account:

1. No, America in its current state can't fully get rid of guns.
2. However, it may not be a bad idea to revisit that amendment, and see if it can be updated such that the spirit is intact, but the constraints are more in-line with current times.

 

47 minutes ago, eclipse said:

 

And that's the biggest argument for having some sort of guns IMO.  Or a constitutional convention, at a later date (since your average handgun isn't going to be particularly effective against a modern military).

So then by this logic when you combine these two statements, it's obvious we need more guns. And in addition to that, even more powerful guns that can decimate hundreds of people or at least 50 cals as well as DU Tips and armor piercing.

Why I say that? Because thus far what I've gathered from the discussion was that if the context of the 2nd amendment was made to help the people maintain their freedoms (by force if peace isn't an option) and to keep "milita" ready in the event that the government is oppressing it's people, then the people need weapons up to date and on par with fighting back against the military (should the government give them the command to start using force against the citizens). 

Because your right. A conventional firearm won't do jack squat against the military so as it stands now, in the context of the 2nd amendment we already are having our constitutional right being denied. In other words, we need less gun control. So any restrictions such as higher grade weapons being unavailable, silencers being banned or hard to get, and so forth all need to be removed. The current citizen (if it were to form a milita) wouldn't stand a chance against the military. So that means our government has slowly been suppressing us passing more and more restrictions while their army is getting more powerful and completely outclassing the people ability to fight back. 

Btw, as I make this statement, I'm only pointing out a perspective to look at this from. Where I stand at on the issue is different but as I am reading this discussion and hearing some say context matters, it's clear we aren't even aligned with the 2nd amendment. In fact we don't even have a trained milita in case all of sudden the government wanted to oppress us.

You saying that the founding fathers didn't know technology or weapons would advance this far and that they didn't suspect they'd be used this way on innocent citizens, is a pretty good point. The more I think about it, these hand guns seem insufficient as far as in when you look at it from the perspective of us having to be ready to protect our freedom. I think these tools were more or less the result of an industry finding a way to pitch a certain narrative saying you need them (so they can make sales). 

[Shoblongoo]

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

 

You have absolutely zero evidence to back up this notion of more gun control=less gun homicide besides broadly comparing America to other countries based on being "developed"

Best empirical evidence you can bring to the table. (this is like going up to a homicide detective and saying "you have zero evidence he committed the murder, except DNA and fingerprints")

You look at what countries are doing different. You account for the relevant differences in country conditions. And then you look at what results you're getting vs. what results they're getting.  Thats how you analyze policy.

(This is illustrative of the deficiency in how American gun enthusiasts think about this issue--the You have absolutely zero evidence to back up this notion of more gun control=less gun homicide argument invariably just boils down to dismissing the rest of the worlds experience with this issue as unusable or invalid.) 
 
And then you have--what--an 18th century American piece of theocratic political doctrine that posits everybody should have unregulated access to firearms because God wills it as your counterpoint??? 

...sure....
 

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

Strict licensing requirements to own firearms runs contrary to the fact it's a constitutional right. What you're proposing would be to turn gun ownership into a privilege not a right. At which point state and local governments will over tax and place needlessly stringent requirements on obtaining licenses to make it impossible for regular citizens to own them.

It is a sacred right dude. 

Let me tell you a little something about legal "rights."

You have a constitutional right to free speech.  (i.e. the government can't punish you for your speech)

...you can still be punished by the government for terrorist threats if your "speech" is telling someone you're going to mail a pipebomb to their house
...you can still be punished by the government for lewdness with a minor if your "speech" is telling a child to perform sex acts on you
...you can still be punished by the government for inciting a riot if your "speech" is running into a crowded theater and shouting "FIRE!!!"

A right is not an unqualified right. 

Implicit in every right is the understanding that it is subject to reasonable regulation, to the extent necessary to advance competing legitimate interests of law and public policy.  (the keyword there being "Reasonable")

And that a regulation is objectively reasonable if it strongly advances a legitimate interest of government in the least restrictive manner that the interest can be advanced. 

...thats how the Second Amendment works...

Thats why the gun laws that we do have in this country haven't all been struck down as unconstitutional.

You can have a country that legally recognizes the right to own a firearm. And that lets you buy, possess, and use them in a reasonable manner.

And that still places reasonable restrictions on things like: Some types of guns have no legitimate non-military use, and shouldn't be accessible to the civilian populace. Some people shouldn't have guns because of their mental health and criminal histories. Lawful gun owners should have to pass licensing exams, register their firearms, and should have their licence revoked if they commit a particularly egrigious unsafe operation offense.    
 

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

You haven't even stated what kinds of measures from said countries you want to implement. 

What I want and what we could feasibly get done in this country are 2 entirely different things.

To strike a balance between the rights of Americans who love their guns and the legitimate needs of public health and safety, I'd be satisfied with something like the Norwegian gun control system.

i.e. Lawful use and ownership subject to robust government oversight and regulation. With a license and registration process akin to something like how America currently treats driving privileges + lawful ownership and operation of a motor vehicle.

 

Edited April 5, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

But it is also the longest lasting constitution in the world!

San Marino would beg to differ.

5 hours ago, eclipse said:

I'm looking at this purely from the Second Amendment standpoint.

Yeah, it means that you've made quite the logical leap.

The crux of the gun control issue in America is that it's in the Bill of Rights.  So to completely remove guns means that the Constitution needs to be amended.  Yet it's also a good idea to make sure that the laws of the land make sense in the given context, because at one point in time, it was illegal to have alcohol.  So taking those two facts into account:

1. No, America in its current state can't fully get rid of guns.
2. However, it may not be a bad idea to revisit that amendment, and see if it can be updated such that the spirit is intact, but the constraints are more in-line with current times.

For the spirit of the second amendment to be in anyway fulfilled then the USA would need to massively reduce their defense spending. Because no matter how many guns people stock up, there's no way they could take down the United States army if they decided to go full tyrannical on it. Assault rifles are great for killing crowds of people, not so great at taking on tanks, planes and missiles.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Jotari

[Tryhard]

A reminder that the constitution is simply a work, and something that I believe Americans take too literally. I do not think this is a good thing in general.

Many other countries have the same or something similar, and yet they are not so beholden to a piece of writing that is hundreds of years old. Your constitution is not really that special, at least - in modern times.

At least conceptually. Because we know the US government violates the constitution repeatedly to the point that it seems to be almost pointless. Talking about the fourth amendment when you are subject to official government wire tapping.

Then again, I always hear about the reason for the second amendment is protection from a tyrannical government - considering how much your government violates the constitution that those types claim to hold dear, I have no idea why they haven't already risen up in force...

Edited April 5, 2020 by Tryhard

[PyroPlazma]

10 hours ago, eclipse said:

I'm looking at this purely from the Second Amendment standpoint.

Yeah, it means that you've made quite the logical leap.

The crux of the gun control issue in America is that it's in the Bill of Rights.  So to completely remove guns means that the Constitution needs to be amended.  Yet it's also a good idea to make sure that the laws of the land make sense in the given context, because at one point in time, it was illegal to have alcohol.  So taking those two facts into account:

1. No, America in its current state can't fully get rid of guns.
2. However, it may not be a bad idea to revisit that amendment, and see if it can be updated such that the spirit is intact, but the constraints are more in-line with current times.

Sure you can legally amend the constitution, but good luck with that. It's intentionally designed to be hard to admit. Bringing up 18th in reality is a terrible example, because the entire basis of that amendment was someone exercising his personal agenda against alcohol on the whole country. Never mind the fact it was a complete and utter abject failure (just like the war on drugs today) and that it objectively caused far more problems than it ever solved. Lets also not forget the method to push the 18th amendment was hilariously shady and anything but legitimate (just like what gun grabbers do today in regards to getting rid of gun rights).

 

Quote

You look at what countries are doing different. You account for the relevant differences in country conditions. And then you look at what results you're getting vs. what results they're getting.  Thats how you analyze policy.

Except every time this argument is presented that never happens. It's always a elementary correlation implies causation case. Oh look Britain basically banned all private gun ownership following a massacre in 1996 therefore gun control works! 

-Ignoring the fact that the U.K. has never had high rates of gun homicide within its history. 

Or the famous "But what about Australia!"???

-Ignoring the fact that Australia also never saw particularly high rates of gun homicide minus a anomalous period around the nineties and was already beginning a steady decline downwards around the time the 1996 law was passed and studies show that said laws had no discernible impact in gun homicide rates. 

For more information look here  NOTE: Some of those links are broken/no longer exist as a result of time so be prepared to find them yourself. 

 

Quote

(This is illustrative of the deficiency in how American gun enthusiasts think about this issue--the You have absolutely zero evidence to back up this notion of more gun control=less gun homicide argument invariably just boils down to dismissing the rest of the worlds experience with this issue as unusable or invalid.) 

If you account for all the relevant differences between America and these "developed nations" then you to acknowledge you're no longer comparing on even terms and alot of Americas differences contribute great to its higher gun homicide levels. Likewise other "developed nations" have reasons besides gun policy as to why they have lower gun homicide. 

Quote

And then you have--what--an 18th century American piece of theocratic political doctrine that posits everybody should have unregulated access to firearms because God wills it as your counterpoint??? 

No just any document, our nations founding document and one of these longest lasting founding documents in the world! Also "God" is never mentioned once between having the freedom to practice Christian via the 1st amendment so I don't know why you're calling it "theocratic" 

Quote

Some types of guns have no legitimate non-military use, and shouldn't be accessible to the civilian populace. Some people shouldn't have guns because of their mental health and criminal histories. Lawful gun owners should have to pass licensing exams, register their firearms, and should have their licence revoked if they commit a particularly egrigious unsafe operation offense.    

1. Who put you in charge of defining what guns have "no legitimate non-military use"? What is your basis for determining this? I have carried and fired M4's in the Army and personally own an Ar-15, what difference does it make that I own a functionally identical firearm to the one I use in the military? 

2. Criminals/mentally Ill individuals ALREADY AREN'T ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS 

3. Why do I have to pass a licensing scheme to exercise a constitutional right? How is it even a right at that point? It's not, I'd be a privilege. At which point the government would overtax and put in overly strenuous requirements to obtain licenses effectively making it impossible for regular citizens to own firearms. 

4. "particularly egrigious unsafe operation offense."   

What the heck does this even mean^   

Let me tell you a little something about legal "rights."

 

Quote

You have a constitutional right to free speech.  (i.e. the government can't punish you for your speech)

...you can still be punished by the government for terrorist threats if your "speech" is telling someone you're going to mail a pipebomb to their house
...you can still be punished by the government for lewdness with a minor if your "speech" is telling a child to perform sex acts on you
...you can still be punished by the government for inciting a riot if your "speech" is running into a crowded theater and shouting "FIRE!!!"

 

1. That's not speech that's making a real world imminent threat to enact physical violence on another person. See how that kinda not the same thing?

2. Children are not full grown consenting adults and traditional laws and tribulations don't apply to them 

3. That's not speech that's knowingly and deliberately misusing a call to action to incite mass action and panic in a situation that did not warrant it resulting in demonstrable harm to other people and public/private property 

All of these are horrible non examples of speech. There are already laws on the books which cover all three of these topics. This would be the same manner of saying you have a constitutional right to own firearms, but you don't have a right to shoot people unless they're threatening you or another innocent by-standards life.

Quote

Implicit in every right is the understanding that it is subject to reasonable regulation, to the extent necessary to advance competing legitimate interests of law and public policy.  (the keyword there being "Reasonable")

And that a regulation is objectively reasonable if it strongly advances a legitimate interest of government in the least restrictive manner that the interest can be advanced. 

...thats how the Second Amendment works...

1. Who and what defines "reasonable"?

2. "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."

As per DC v Heller

The Supreme Court held:[46]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

Quote

i.e. Lawful use and ownership subject to robust government oversight and regulation. With a license and registration process akin to something like how America currently treats driving privileges + lawful ownership and operation of a motor vehicle.

Get for this amped up x10

 

Quote

For the spirit of the second amendment to be in anyway fulfilled then the USA would need to massively reduce their defense spending. Because no matter how many guns people stock up, there's no way they could take down the United States army if they decided to go full tyrannical on it. Assault rifles are great for killing crowds of people, not so great at taking on tanks, planes and missiles.

This is the can of worms I don't want to go into because it has far too many variables and undermined factors. I'll just say this. If you think the government can just declare martial law the have the military proceed to start indiscriminately committing wholesale slaughter of its own citizens you're as crazy as the guys who claim 100,000,000 gun owners would rise up and march on D.C......

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

This is the can of worms I don't want to go into because it has far too many variables and undermined factors. I'll just say this. If you think the government can just declare martial law the have the military proceed to start indiscriminately committing wholesale slaughter of its own citizens you're as crazy as the guys who claim 100,000,000 gun owners would rise up and march on D.C......

Well the government could, they shouldn't, very probably won't and legally aren't allowed, but they still could, and that's precisely what the second amendment was created to prevent. My point isn't that the government will declare martial law (quite the opposite in fact), it's that the the spirit of the second amendment, that being the people militarily empowered to take on a tyrannical government, simply isn't possible to follow in the modern world (or well, at least modern USA; Iceland is probably exactly what the writers of the constitution would want) due to how powerful military grade weapons now are. A government will always have way more force, knowledge and experience at hand than a citizenry can muster against unless the government elects to just not have an army at all. The closest thing you could probably reasonably get in America (and I say reasonably because with having a military based in every second country in the world it's highly unlikely) would be state militarizes instead of a centralized army (and well the whole civil war fiasco would be enough to convince people that that's not a good idea). So long as the USA remains a major military power in the world the spirit of the second amendment is not being fulfilled (and let's face it, the USA has garnered so much influence and power in the world that they literally couldn't stop being a heavily militarized nation at this stage).

Edited April 5, 2020 by Jotari

[PyroPlazma]

1 minute ago, Jotari said:

Well the government could, they shouldn't, very probably won't and legally aren't allowed, but they still could, and that's precisely what the second amendment was created to prevent. My point is that the the spirit of the second amendment, that being the people militarily empowered to take on a tyrannical government, simply isn't possible to follow in the modern world (or well, at least modern USA; Iceland is probably exactly what the writers of the constitution would want) due to how powerful military grade weapons now are. A government will always have way more force, knowledge and experience at hand than a citizenry can muster against unless the government elects to just not have an army at all. The closest thing you could probably reasonably get in America (and I say reasonably because with having a military based in every second country in the world it's highly unlikely) would be state militarizes instead of a centralized army (and well the whole civil war fiasco would be enough to convince people that that's not a good idea). So long as the USA remains a major military power in the world the spirit of the second amendment is not being fulfilled (and let's face it, the USA has garnered so much influence and power in the world that they literally couldn't stop being a heavily militarized nation at this stage).

That's a massive oversimplification of what would in reality be a very complex situation. That's why I don't like talking about this, too many unknowns and variables to deal with. But just so you know armed uprisings/revolutions do still happen in the modern day.

[eclipse]

13 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

So then by this logic when you combine these two statements, it's obvious we need more guns. And in addition to that, even more powerful guns that can decimate hundreds of people or at least 50 cals as well as DU Tips and armor piercing.

 

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

For the spirit of the second amendment to be in anyway fulfilled then the USA would need to massively reduce their defense spending. Because no matter how many guns people stock up, there's no way they could take down the United States army if they decided to go full tyrannical on it. Assault rifles are great for killing crowds of people, not so great at taking on tanks, planes and missiles.

So, you two. . .how's the wars in the Middle East going?

3 hours ago, PyroPlazma said:

Sure you can legally amend the constitution, but good luck with that. It's intentionally designed to be hard to admit. Bringing up 18th in reality is a terrible example, because the entire basis of that amendment was someone exercising his personal agenda against alcohol on the whole country. Never mind the fact it was a complete and utter abject failure (just like the war on drugs today) and that it objectively caused far more problems than it ever solved. Lets also not forget the method to push the 18th amendment was hilariously shady and anything but legitimate (just like what gun grabbers do today in regards to getting rid of gun rights).

I think you're married a little too hard to the idea that the Constitution is the word of God.  Which. . .it isn't.

[PyroPlazma]

10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

 

So, you two. . .how's the wars in the Middle East going?

I think you're married a little too hard to the idea that the Constitution is the word of God.  Which. . .it isn't.

If you're saying God in a theocratic sense, then I must inform you I'm not religious. 

If you're saying God in a figurative sense, then you're right. The constitution is the supreme authority of the land. It's been heavily gutted and undermined in recent history by power hungry politicians exploiting a fearful politically apathetic population. 

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, PyroPlazma said:

If you're saying God in a theocratic sense, then I must inform you I'm not religious. 

If you're saying God in a figurative sense, then you're right. The constitution is the supreme authority of the land. It's been heavily gutted and undermined in recent history by power hungry politicians exploiting a fearful politically apathetic population. 

Figurative sense, of course.  Given the religious leanings of the ones that wrote it, attributing that to the Christian God would be utterly insulting.

I think I remember something way back in my studies about how the Constitution was meant to be changed as times changed or something like that (hence why no source). . .yet here we are.

[PyroPlazma]

Just now, eclipse said:

Figurative sense, of course.  Given the religious leanings of the ones that wrote it, attributing that to the Christian God would be utterly insulting.

I think I remember something way back in my studies about how the Constitution was meant to be changed as times changed or something like that (hence why no source). . .yet here we are.

I always say this in regards to changing (more specifically updating) the constitution.

Yes the constitution is 200+ years old and very out date.

It needs to be updated, but at the same time it doesn't need to be updated

The founding fathers are long gone and the people at the helm now have far worse agendas then ever before

Any attempt at a convention for the updating the constitution would end up with us being far worse off than we already are

Like I don't have a problem with the principle of requiring a license to own a firearm until you realize how certain states handle it and just how many politicians don't believe in private citizens owning firearms. If you gave the government the power to control licensing for firearms you'd see a similar situation with regards to early voter suppression of minority voting through poll taxes, dumb literacy test, inconvenient polling locations/tomes etc.  

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, PyroPlazma said:

I always say this in regards to changing (more specifically updating) the constitution.

Yes the constitution is 200+ years old and very out date.

It needs to be updated, but at the same time it doesn't need to be updated

The founding fathers are long gone and the people at the helm now have far worse agendas then ever before

Any attempt at a convention for the updating the constitution would end up with us being far worse off than we already are

You're saying this as if humanity suddenly took a huge downward spiral or something.  News flash: it didn't.

2 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Like I don't have a problem with the principle of requiring a license to own a firearm until you realize how certain states handle it and just how many politicians don't believe in private citizens owning firearms. If you gave the government the power to control licensing for firearms you'd see a similar situation with regards to early voter suppression of minority voting through poll taxes, dumb literacy test, inconvenient polling locations/tomes etc.  

IMO voting is a much bigger threat to politicians than firearms are.  One of these can legally get rid of them.

You know what else requires a license, insurance, test, and is also responsible for a lot of deaths?  Cars.  Yet we don't bat an eye at those regulations.

[PyroPlazma]

1 minute ago, eclipse said:

You're saying this as if humanity suddenly took a huge downward spiral or something.  News flash: it didn't.

IMO voting is a much bigger threat to politicians than firearms are.  One of these can legally get rid of them.

You know what else requires a license, insurance, test, and is also responsible for a lot of deaths?  Cars.  Yet we don't bat an eye at those regulations.

Humanity never took a downward spiral because it's always been at the bottom of the barrel anyway (call me cynical) But the founding fathers where in a much better place due to the circumstances to right a document of supreme governing authority for the people. Do you really have faith in our politicians to act in good faith? A sizable portion of them don't even believe in climate and actively fight to deny science and potentially ruin the earth for future generation. 

 

I'm all for voting first and foremost. Given the state of the American electorate these days being brain washed by a giant fake news media outlet (fox news) and tons of independent host (clowns like Rush Limbaugh) I wouldn't put much faith in them either. Regardless of voting or not I'd still like to hold on to my guns. Especially when our current POTUS is literally held up and supported by ethno state pushing white nationalist bigots who they themselves are often armed to the teeth that our government refuses to classify as terrorist groups.  

 

Ah yes it was only a matter of time before the car false equivalence showed up

1. Cars are NOT a constitution right, if they were rest assured I'd be against their continued licensing 

2. You don't need a license to drive a car, you only need a license to drive a car on public roads. Government buys and builds those roads so you have to play by their rules to drive on them. You absolutely don't need a license if driving around on private property. 

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, PyroPlazma said:

Humanity never took a downward spiral because it's always been at the bottom of the barrel anyway (call me cynical) But the founding fathers where in a much better place due to the circumstances to right a document of supreme governing authority for the people. Do you really have faith in our politicians to act in good faith? A sizable portion of them don't even believe in climate and actively fight to deny science and potentially ruin the earth for future generation.

You're saying this like politicians back in the day weren't in the same boat on their own hot-button issues.  Hence why I'm seriously questioning your stance.

2 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

I'm all for voting first and foremost. Given the state of the American electorate these days being brain washed by a giant fake news media outlet (fox news) and tons of independent host (clowns like Rush Limbaugh) I wouldn't put much faith in them either. Regardless of voting or not I'd still like to hold on to my guns. Especially when our current POTUS is literally held up and supported by ethno state pushing white nationalist bigots who they themselves are often armed to the teeth that our government refuses to classify as terrorist groups. 

Ironically, that POTUS you so despise is the one that's not going to restrict your guns (his voter base would be unhappy).

But still, voting is powerful -far more than guns, which is why I think it's a little odd that you're so fixated on guns.

5 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Ah yes it was only a matter of time before the car false equivalence showed up

1. Cars are NOT a constitution right, if they were rest assured I'd be against their continued licensing 

2. You don't need a license to drive a car, you only need a license to drive a car on public roads. Government buys and builds those roads so you have to play by their rules to drive on them. You absolutely don't need a license if driving around on private property. 

Yeah, because THEY DIDN'T EXIST WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.  So bringing that up as a "nuh-uh it isn't in the Constitution" is mentally dishonest.

[PyroPlazma]

Quote

You're saying this like politicians back in the day weren't in the same boat on their own hot-button issues.  Hence why I'm seriously questioning your stance.

They were? What's wrong with my stance then?

Quote

Ironically, that POTUS you so despise is the one that's not going to restrict your guns (his voter base would be unhappy).

Actions speak louder than words. POTUS has done absolutely nothing to strengthen gun rights. 

Quote

But still, voting is powerful -far more than guns, which is why I think it's a little odd that you're so fixated on guns.

You make it sound as if I'm advocating for a violent revolution over peaceful elections. I like having an armed population that in theory (most likely won't these days) could help if the government oversteps it bounds. But that's going into other territory.

Quote

Yeah, because THEY DIDN'T EXIST WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.  So bringing that up as a "nuh-uh it isn't in the Constitution" is mentally dishonest.

What's stopping them from writing cars into the constitution? 

[eclipse]

15 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

They were? What's wrong with my stance then?

The fact that politicians today are SO HORRIBLE that we can't possibly make the constitution better.  Because let's face it, politics almost always found a way to screw over some group or other.  There's a reason why amendments exist so that non-white people/women can vote.

15 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

Actions speak louder than words. POTUS has done absolutely nothing to strengthen gun rights.

Please explain how each of these somehow gets in the way of owning a gun.

15 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

You make it sound as if I'm advocating for a violent revolution over peaceful elections. I like having an armed population that in theory (most likely won't these days) could help if the government oversteps it bounds. But that's going into other territory.

When theory and reality don't match, it means that your theory needs to change.  So while I respect the fact that the people should have some recourse over a government gone wrong in theory, using consumer-grade guns as the method isn't as feasible.  I'm all for proper exceptions (see: another post somewhere in this thread), but those are fairly rare.

15 minutes ago, PyroPlazma said:

What's stopping them from writing cars into the constitution? 

Would require a constitutional amendment.  Which you seem to be against.

Edited April 5, 2020 by eclipse

[Tryhard]

These days I can't really be bothered arguing about where gun control should go in the US - but one thing that I always despise is the notion that somehow more guns and a more armed populace makes the population safer. Which as we can tell from the US, is not true, unless the implication is that the US would be at troubled third-world country homicide status without guns.

A lot of the common "reasons" to own a gun are pretty flawed in nature.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Tryhard

[eclipse]

5 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

These days I can't really be bothered arguing about where gun control should go in the US - but one thing that I always despise is the notion that somehow more guns and a more armed populace makes the population safer. Which as we can tell from the US, is not true, unless the implication is that the US would be at troubled third-world country homicide status without guns.

A lot of the common "reasons" to own a gun are pretty flawed in nature.

There's a post earlier in this thread for one of them.  Do you want to argue against it?