Gun control ... actual question

[Hypoxia]

I don't disagree with you, but it is an indisputable fact that the framers opted for a militia and the arming of individual citizens by endorsing their preexisting right to "keep and bear arms" (presumably through their own purchase or manufacture) because those same framers mistrusted the presence of a standing army in the hands of the very republican government they were forming.

Honoring "original intent" thus requires disbanding the standing regular army and its derived air force, or to only "raise and support" them for two-year terms as needed.

USC Art.I Sec.8 again: "The Congress shall have Power... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years; To provide and maintain a Navy..."

A permanent Navy and its components are mandated, but not eternal armies. The full text of the 2nd implies the Militia is the Union's legitimate long-term armed force. Is that realistic in our hyper-militaristic world? Likely not. I guess that's how interpretation of the Constitution 'evolves': merely ignore the inconvenient clauses.

Now if that falls short of a legal sanction of rebellion in light of the other language you cited, you would at least have to admit, would you not, that the establishment of the militia with that thought in mind was, at the very least, disingenuous?

Vaguely prescribing a "well-regulated Militia" was a political compromise at the time; a more specific 2nd would not be ratified. But as (I forget who) said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not authorize its own overthrow.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I own several guns, thanks for asking.

OHHHH!!! He can answer the question.......glad you're pro-2A and civil rights.


You really seem to support the anti-gun folks though, what's with that?

 

[Wats_butthole]

OHHHH!!! He can answer the question.......glad you're pro-2A and civil rights.


You really seem to support the anti-gun folks though, what's with that?

I have no problem with people owning guns, I have never stated otherwise. I don't support people walking down the street with guns and I don't think guns are the answer to all of society's problems. I certainly don't support the piling on of the rape victim with the guns and ammo sermon. I do support nipple pistols and cuntlishnikovs.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I have no problem with people owning guns, I have never stated otherwise. I don't support people walking down the street with guns and I don't think guns are the answer to all of society's problems. I certainly don't support the piling on of the rape victim with the guns and ammo sermon. I do support nipple pistols and cuntlishnikovs.

So you own guns but DON'T support people having the right to defend themselves?

We've gone back to unclear position now.

Do you or do you not believe people have a right to self defense?


I don't think anyone thinks it's the answer to all of societies problems and nobody is piling on the rape victim with a guns and ammo sermon.....just trying to get a straight answer with a low bullshit factor.

 

[Que]

Honoring "original intent" thus requires disbanding the standing regular army and its derived air force, or to only "raise and support" them for two-year terms as needed.

USC Art.I Sec.8 again: "The Congress shall have Power... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years; To provide and maintain a Navy..."

A permanent Navy and its components are mandated, but not eternal armies. The full text of the 2nd implies the Militia is the Union's legitimate long-term armed force. Is that realistic in our hyper-militaristic world? Likely not. I guess that's how interpretation of the Constitution 'evolves': merely ignore the inconvenient clauses.


Vaguely prescribing a "well-regulated Militia" was a political compromise at the time; a more specific 2nd would not be ratified. But as (I forget who) said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not authorize its own overthrow.

You have that exactly wrong as to why it is not a suicide pact.

The parties to that compact were the soveriegm States. The federal government did not create this document, the States did.

The States did not agree to a murder-suicide pact as illegally prosecuted and later enforced by Abraham Lincoln. They, as parties to any contract could disolve it at any time. This contract had zero penalties for any party in breech. This was not a bug, this was a design feature. It was hoped that the association would last because of mutually beneficial self interest, not because any State or collection of States would take up arms to prevent its dissolution.

It is absolute nonsense after what you just quoted above about how they feared a standing army that they thought it would be okay to raise one to go after one of their own member States? That's absolutely neither prescribed in the document nor ever even contemplated.

Brexit was not treason to the European Union because Britain owes no allegiance to the European Union over their own sovereignty. Neither does any individual State.

 

[Wats_butthole]

So you own guns but DON'T support people having the right to defend themselves?

We've gone back to unclear position now.

Do you or do you not believe people have a right to self defense?


I don't think anyone thinks it's the answer to all of societies problems and nobody is piling on the rape victim with a guns and ammo sermon.....just trying to get a straight answer with a low bullshit factor.

It's a very clear position as I have spelled it out, literally. Guns at home or hunting is fine. If you feel the need to be armed to go to the store you need to live in a better neighborhood. It's all so confusing.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's a very clear position as I have spelled it out, literally.

No, you haven't, you keep deflecting.

Guns at home or hunting is fine.

I didn't ask you about storage or hunting.

I asked you if you believe people have a right to self defense.

If you feel the need to be armed to go to the store you need to live in a better neighborhood.

You hate poor people, noted.

It's all so confusing.

Wouldn't be if you'd just answer the very simple and direct question.

Do you believe people have a right to self defense?

 

[mcFart]

Excellent point, and one which I tend to forget myself. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect a "right" which we now prohibit by statute: violent overthrow of the federal government.

So, does the statute support the illegitimacy of the Amendment with respect to current law, or is the statute unconstitutional?

I'd suggest the latter, but at the point when such an question would have to be adjudicated in a court of law as the result of an overt attempt to do that very thing, the legal issues may well be moot, depending on who won. There would also be treason statutes to contend with.

IMO, all of the various statutes outright banning any guns are clearly unconstitutional, and overthrow of an unjust government would always be a difficult task, as no corrupt government would ever recognize that right.

I am not looking forward to revolution because there is never any guaranty that what happens after the fall of a government is any better than the overthrown government. But it's inevitable, sooner or later. They all fall. At that time, I'd be happy to have the guns that were made available under that "archaic, outmoded amendment" to deter people who would take advantage during such a lawless, chaotic time.

Some people just don't give a damned about anything other than their own devices. I deplore violence. Weapons don't fix anything, but they can create enough of a deterrence to live another day and provide an opportunity for something better. I am not a "gun nut". I just see a larger picture where yes - someday we will absolutely need to defend ourselves with something with more tooth than political correctness and goodwill toward all.

 

[mcFart]

If you feel the need to be armed to go to the store you need to live in a better neighborhood. It's all so confusing.

Even better neighborhoods are subject to bad things happening. What's confusing is how you can make a statement like that and keep your shoes free of drool.

 

[ChadwickDMoss]

He's forgotten the Willie Sutton maxim: You have to go to where the money is. Maybe he was too stupid to have picked up on that. Poor people are like that.

 

[Wats_butthole]

No, you haven't, you keep deflecting.



I didn't ask you about storage or hunting.

I asked you if you believe people have a right to self defense.



You hate poor people, noted.



Wouldn't be if you'd just answer the very simple and direct question.

Do you believe people have a right to self defense?

Sorry, I guess I'm not a pussy who feels the need to be armed all the time to feel safe. It's amazing how I made it this far in life without being victimized for not carrying, isn't it?

 

[Wats_butthole]

Even better neighborhoods are subject to bad things happening. What's confusing is how you can make a statement like that and keep your shoes free of drool.

Not everyone is a coward like you.

 

[Hypoxia]

You have that exactly wrong as to why it is not a suicide pact.

The parties to that compact were the soveriegm States. The federal government did not create this document, the States did.

Incorrect. States were sovereign under the Articles of Confederation, which didn't work. The Constitution was a product of "the United States in Congress assembled." Claims of sovereignty are merely sleazy covers for slavery.

USC Art.IV Sec.3 grants Congress the power to establish statehood. USC Art.I Sec.8 specifies what a federal State may NOT do vs what a sovereign state may. By ratifying the Constitution, states ceded their sovereignty to the Union.

The States did not agree to a murder-suicide pact as illegally prosecuted and later enforced by Abraham Lincoln.

Southern feudal slaver forces opened fire on the Union, waging insurrection against the United States. As enemies levying war on the United States, they became traitors. All surviving oath-breaking treasonous thugs and warlords leading the slavers' insurrection should have been hanged.

They, as parties to any contract could disolve it at any time.

Please point to the Constitutional language authorizing unilateral dissolution.

Brexit was not treason to the European Union because Britain owes no allegiance to the European Union over their own sovereignty. Neither does any individual State.

The EU had treaty provisions for withdrawal. The southern slavers could have introduced a Constitutional amendment to allow secession. They didn't; they turned traitor instead.

 

[Que]

Sorry, I guess I'm not a pussy who feels the need to be armed all the time to feel safe. It's amazing how I made it this far in life without being victimized for not carrying, isn't it?

It helps embiggen your manly courage that the solitary time that you ventured into one of "those" neighborhoods there was a security guard with what you referred to as a steel penis extension there for you to hide behind after you shoved that woman for having the audacity to approach you for a handout.

#"ThosePeople"areSCARY
#He'sGladTheyDon'tLiveInHis'Hood

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sorry, I guess I'm not a pussy who feels the need to be armed all the time to feel safe. It's amazing how I made it this far in life without being victimized for not carrying, isn't it?

More deflection.....

Do your or do you not believe people have a right to defend themselves?


I don't think you do, I think that you want people to just lay there and take it until the cops finally show up to try and talk them out of continuing to violate you....or even more likely just fill out the paperwork afterwards.

But since that is the position of a total fucking twat and moron you're having a hard time owning up to it.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It helps embiggen your manly courage that the solitary time that you ventured into one of "those" neighborhoods there was a security guard with what you referred to as a steel penis extension there for you to hide behind after you shoved that woman for having the audacity to approach you for a handout.

#"ThosePeople"areSCARY
#He'sGladTheyDon'tLiveInHis'Hood

CLEARLY....another example of his privilege.

If you feel the need to be armed to go to the store you need to live in a better neighborhood.

#whitesupremacisttalk^^

 

[wickedpanda]

Out of the 74 countries for which data seems to be available, the US has the 11th highest rate of gun deaths (and the 10 higher countries are not exactly surprising). Of the 64 countries for which data is available, the US is the 12th highest for accidental gun deaths. (Source - yes, it's Wikipedia, but the way they make their tables able to be manipulated works pretty well. If anyone has a more reliable source for these data, I'd be interested to see it.)

Since the Vegas shooting, I've read a lot of stuff here and been thinking a lot about the issue of gun control. I personally don't have a problem with guns as a concept. However, we don't own a gun, and we don't live in a context in which gun ownership is common. We also have an incredibly low rate of gun death.

I've learnt a lot about the Second Amendment in the last few days, and read quite complex arguments about how gun ownership is a 'right' ... I'm not sill convinced that it's a human right, but I get that it's a right under the US constitution. And I have a better understanding (although far from complete) of the history of the US that's created the culture in which that seems to make sense.

So, in the light of all that, I'm thinking most people would still agree the stats in para one above are not great? Given that, what is proposed as the solution? If you don't think greater gun control is the answer, what is?

It would be great if any thoughts along any lines were supported by actual evidence.

*Feel free to hurl whatever insults you want in my general direction in response to anything that's said in this thread, but I won't respond to that. I'm actually genuinely interested in getting an understanding of the situation.

Why is there always this Gun Control question when its the Law and there is nothing to ever talk about!
Gun haters, gun grabbers will never stop Infringing on this right and its just so dumb to argue over an issue that is Law and settled.

If your scared of guns then its your issues and not a problem the Government needs to fix.

Just stop and ask why are all Gun Control states,cities also filled with crime,high taxes and a failing to keep its people safe over states that follow the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Wats_butthole]

It helps embiggen your manly courage that the solitary time that you ventured into one of "those" neighborhoods there was a security guard with what you referred to as a steel penis extension there for you to hide behind after you shoved that woman for having the audacity to approach you for a handout.

#"ThosePeople"areSCARY
#He'sGladTheyDon'tLiveInHis'Hood

Get off the meth, Connie. I kissed my kids goodbye before I left for work. Something you can't do with your kids anymore until that restraining order is lifted.

 

[Wats_butthole]

More deflection.....

Do your or do you not believe people have a right to defend themselves?


I don't think you do, I think that you want people to just lay there and take it until the cops finally show up to try and talk them out of continuing to violate you....or even more likely just fill out the paperwork afterwards.

But since that is the position of a total fucking twat and moron you're having a hard time owning up to it.

Are you really this fucking stupid? Dont answer, we already know the answer. I can defend myself quite fine with the meat clubs at the end of my arms. Guns are not the only solution, dimwit. I dont feel threatened when i go to "those neighbourhoods" as you and queefy like to call them. Like i said, im not a scared little pussy like you guys obviously are.
Save your retarded questions for someone else, I've already given you too much attention.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Are you really this fucking stupid? Dont answer, we already know the answer.

Says the guy who can't back up his bullshit or won't answer the simple question that wrecks his derp.

I can defend myself quite fine with the meat clubs at the end of my arms.

In a boxing match maybe.

In the real world your meat clubs are a fucking joke, have been since the STONE AGE.

Even cave men and simple apes understood that weapons> meat clubs....that's why every security force on the planet worth it's weight in shit from port authorities to the Secret Services is armed to the teeth with shit loads of weaponry, the modern standard being guns.

Guns are not the only solution, dimwit.

But they are without question the most expedient and effective self defense solution and physical equalizer available today.

A large part of why you won't answer that very simple straight forward question.

I dont feel threatened when i go to "those neighbourhoods" as you and queefy like to call them. Like i said, im not a scared little pussy like you guys obviously are. Save your retarded questions for someone else, I've already given you too much attention.

I don't care how tough you feel....that's just you putting your ignorance and stupidity on display, because weapons > meat clubs.

Bottom line is you can't answer or even refuse to answer it without looking like a total moron or hypocrite. You seem to have gone the moron route, your turning tail and running from the conversation however is highly indicative of this realization setting in.

 

[KimGordon67]

Are you really this fucking stupid? Dont answer, we already know the answer. I can defend myself quite fine with the meat clubs at the end of my arms. Guns are not the only solution, dimwit. I dont feel threatened when i go to "those neighbourhoods" as you and queefy like to call them. Like i said, im not a scared little pussy like you guys obviously are.
Save your retarded questions for someone else, I've already given you too much attention.

Exactly. 'Defending yourself' is not a synonym for 'holding a gun'. In case Bot Boy missed it above, my friend hospitalised a guy with her teeth. (That's how the cops found him - they ended up in the same emergency room. True story.)

Botany Boy's approach to debates is so fucking repetitive is ridiculous. He basically boils extremely complex issues down to one overly reductive points, turns that into a confrontational 'yes/no' question, and then keeps asking the question as though it's the only point that needs to be made regarding the issue. Whichever of the binary response options you give, he claims it as a 'win'. If you don't answer at all because of the ridiculousness of the question, he calls it 'deflection'. If you give a binary response options answer but qualify it because of the inherent complexity of the situation, he calls it 'deflection'. He has no interest in learning more about the complex situation, or attempting to understand the perspective of others - he just wants to 'win' ... although it's difficult to see exactly what is to be gained from that. But I guess if that brings some small joy to your life, then yay.

(The rest is a general comment, not a response to the above post.)
However ... yes, I believe people have the right to defend themselves.
Botulism Boy's version of 'defending himself' obviously involves some mythical immediate aggressor in a situation in which he will have easy access to his gun, the calmness and forethought to use it, and the range for that to be possible. I'm not sure if you've ever actually been attacked, but in the instance it happened to me, none of those variables were in my favour - and, at the age I was, I very much doubt that even in Texas I could have been legally carrying anyway.

My version of 'defending myself' involves protecting a context in which my risk of being shot at is so minimal, it's not even something I consider. While I thus consider the right to 'defend oneself' as something that operates at a social, rather than individual level, there are individualised situations in which that context has increased my safety. When I've been attacked, when I've had someone in my house in the middle of night, when I've had dickhead young men do dickhead young men things at a party at my house (which actually did result in someone being killed), I have NEVER thought 'damn, wish I had a gun'. What I have retrospectively thought in every single actual instance was 'I'm so fucking glad the other guy/s didn't have a gun', because trust me, things would have been different. Yes, arming everyone levels the playing field IF everyone is prepared to basically risk killing any potential aggressor AND always has the ability to do so. I'm not even slightly confident I'm prepared to do that, and my actual experience demonstrates that it's not always possible. I also cannot find ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that high rates of gun ownership reduce crime. All things being equal, my feeling is that benefits of living in a context with very low gun ownership levels massively outweigh the negatives.
I fucking AM 'defending myself' by maintaining an anti-gun stance. If I lived in a context where gun ownership was widespread, I might feel differently. But I don't, and I intend to do whatever I can (minimal though that is) to keep that. 'Gun ownership' isn't a 'right'. Living in a safe society is. How that's defined is really up to the people concerned.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Exactly. 'Defending yourself' is not a synonym for 'holding a gun'. In case Bot Boy missed it above, my friend hospitalised a guy with her teeth. (That's how the cops found him - they ended up in the same emergency room. True story.)

I never said it was synonymous with holding a gun.

I said it's easier and far more effective when holding a gun....not the same thing.

Kim gordon's approach to debates is so fucking repetitive it's ridiculous. She engages in obscurification and ascription then deflects when you ask her to clarify her bullshit.

 

[KimGordon67]

I never said it was synonymous with holding a gun.

I said it's easier and far more effective when holding a gun....not the same thing.

Kim gordon's approach to debates is so fucking repetitive it's ridiculous. She engages in obscurification and ascription then deflects when you ask her to clarify her bullshit.

I've 'clarified my bullshit' in the extreme. I know it's more than two sentences in a row, and there's no pictures, but just work through it slowly, maybe with a dictionary. You'll get there in the end.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've 'clarified my bullshit' in the extreme. I know it's more than two sentences in a row, and there's no pictures, but just work through it slowly, maybe with a dictionary. You'll get there in the end.

Yea after I pulled your teeth to get the bottom line out of you.

And you STILL tried cover it with ascription in the end.

But you did state it and seem to have embraced the "I'd rather risk being victimized than take on the responsibility of my own security." position since then which is a far cry better than that coward watsbutthole.

So kudo's for that...at least you own it.

I just hope the USA is never so lame as to embrace that ideology, I'd hate to have to leave.

 

[Que]

Exactly. 'Defending yourself' is not a synonym for 'holding a gun'. In case Bot Boy missed it above, my friend hospitalised a guy with her teeth. (That's how the cops found him - they ended up in the same emergency room. True story.)

Botany Boy's approach to debates is so fucking repetitive is ridiculous. He basically boils extremely complex issues down to one overly reductive points, turns that into a confrontational 'yes/no' question, and then keeps asking the question as though it's the only point that needs to be made regarding the issue. Whichever of the binary response options you give, he claims it as a 'win'. If you don't answer at all because of the ridiculousness of the question, he calls it 'deflection'. If you give a binary response options answer but qualify it because of the inherent complexity of the situation, he calls it 'deflection'. He has no interest in learning more about the complex situation, or attempting to understand the perspective of others - he just wants to 'win' ... although it's difficult to see exactly what is to be gained from that. But I guess if that brings some small joy to your life, then yay.

(The rest is a general comment, not a response to the above post.)
However ... yes, I believe people have the right to defend themselves.
Botulism Boy's version of 'defending himself' obviously involves some mythical immediate aggressor in a situation in which he will have easy access to his gun, the calmness and forethought to use it, and the range for that to be possible. I'm not sure if you've ever actually been attacked, but in the instance it happened to me, none of those variables were in my favour - and, at the age I was, I very much doubt that even in Texas I could have been legally carrying anyway.

My version of 'defending myself' involves protecting a context in which my risk of being shot at is so minimal, it's not even something I consider. While I thus consider the right to 'defend oneself' as something that operates at a social, rather than individual level, there are individualised situations in which that context has increased my safety. When I've been attacked, when I've had someone in my house in the middle of night, when I've had dickhead young men do dickhead young men things at a party at my house (which actually did result in someone being killed), I have NEVER thought 'damn, wish I had a gun'. What I have retrospectively thought in every single actual instance was 'I'm so fucking glad the other guy/s didn't have a gun', because trust me, things would have been different. Yes, arming everyone levels the playing field IF everyone is prepared to basically risk killing any potential aggressor AND always has the ability to do so. I'm not even slightly confident I'm prepared to do that, and my actual experience demonstrates that it's not always possible. I also cannot find ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that high rates of gun ownership reduce crime. All things being equal, my feeling is that benefits of living in a context with very low gun ownership levels massively outweigh the negatives.
I fucking AM 'defending myself' by maintaining an anti-gun stance. If I lived in a context where gun ownership was widespread, I might feel differently. But I don't, and I intend to do whatever I can (minimal though that is) to keep that. 'Gun ownership' isn't a 'right'. Living in a safe society is. How that's defined is really up to the people concerned.

Your anti-gun approach to defending yourself is completely moot in America, which is the location of your original question. Trading off your right to carry a gun because you feel that that means that less criminals would have guns is meaningless in America where we already have more than one gun for every man woman and child in America. We also are never going to decide to disarm the law-abiding portion of the populace, even if someone in another country comes up with a brilliant reason why we should. No matter how many millions of dollars Mayor Bloomberg throws at the issue we still are never going to do it.

The reality is if you are attacked by a criminal in America there is a significant chance the criminal is armed with a gun. Since that is our reality substituting your reality doesn't make any sense when you're asking about gun ownership and self-defense in, specifically, America.