Our country's fetishizing of guns is revolting

[HumpDayHoratio]

They had no way to know other kinds would be invented. It really is just that simple.

They had no way to know other kinds would be invented. It really is just that simple.

Of course they did. They were smart enough to divine a document that has stood the test of time, and multiple assaults on it from your ilk. They were aware of advancements in ARMS at the time and I can assure you they knew it was going to only get better from there. It may be time for a little history lesson…

Repeating ARMS…a walk down history lane…

Some more of that pesky…history stuff…

Aaaaaannnnnddddd, so more.

 

[Politruk]

Of course they did. They were smart enough to divine a document that has stood the test of time

But, it hasn't. Time has shown it to be ill-conceived in many ways, e.g., the Senate, and the EC, and the three-fifths compromise -- and the 2A.

 

[TrailerHitch]

But, it hasn't. Time has shown it to be ill-conceived in many ways, e.g., the Senate, and the EC, and the three-fifths compromise -- and the 2A.

This is why you aren't taken seriously by anyone here. The Constitution is one of the most amazing documents ever written. It has been copied by other countries. It has the ability to be changed IF people follow the proper process. Just wanting a change doesn't make it happen.

 

[Politruk]

This is why you aren't taken seriously by anyone here. The Constitution is one of the most amazing documents ever written. It has been copied by other countries. It has the ability to be changed IF people follow the proper process. Just wanting a change doesn't make it happen.

All true -- but I am not wrong on any point.

 

[HisArpy]

They had no way to know other kinds would be invented. It really is just that simple.

"Arms" include swords, knives, clubs, throwing stars, mace, and everything else which can be borne in self defense.

 

[Politruk]

"Arms" include swords, knives, clubs, throwing stars, mace, and everything else which can be borne in self defense.

And the FFs knew all about those. But not about repeating rifles or even revolver pistols.

 

[UltraChad]

They had no way to know other kinds would be invented.

It didn't matter. Arms serve the same purpose.

It really is just that simple.

Yes.

All true -- but I am not wrong on any point.

You've been wrong about damn near everything you've posted in this thread and demonstrated over and over again you know fuck all about the topic.

 

[Politruk]

You've been wrong about damn near everything you've posted in this thread and demonstrated over and over again you know fuck all about the topic.

I am not wrong to say the Senate was a bad idea, or the EC, or the three-fifths compromise -- or the 2A.

We really have no good use at all for the 2A -- fair criticisms might be made of any particular system of gun control, but there is no good reason to place the matter above the reach of ordinary electoral and legislative politics, to give gun rights constitutional protection like free speech or religious freedom.

 

[UltraChad]

I am not wrong to say the Senate was a bad idea, or the EC, or the three-fifths compromise -- or the 2A.

Yea, you are.

Again you've been wrong about almost everything and bitch slapped around this thread like a cheap hooker for it.

 

[Politruk]

Yea, you are.

Again you've been wrong about almost everything and bitch slapped around this thread like a cheap hooker for it.

No one in this thread has stated any good reason to have the 2A in the Constitution.

The relevant question there is not, "What did the FFs want/mean/intend?" -- that always comes down to ventriloquism in a cemetery -- but "What should we put in a Bill of Rights if we were drafting it now?" And in that event, nobody in the country would be able to state any good reason to include a provision protecting gun rights.

We really have no good use at all for the 2A -- fair criticisms might be made of any particular system of gun control, but there is no good reason to place the matter above the reach of ordinary electoral and legislative politics, to give gun rights constitutional protection like free speech or religious freedom.

 

[UltraChad]

No one in this thread has stated any good reason to have the 2A in the Constitution.

They have and your moving the goalpost around again.

Not the move of someone who's so right about everything.

The relevant question there is not, "What did the FFs want/mean/intend?" -- that always comes down to ventriloquism in a cemetery -- but "What should we put in a Bill of Rights if we were drafting it now?"

Outside of a Article V convention, wrong again.

The relevant question is not what you want and wish the Bill of Rights said, but what it DOES say. And what it DOES say is that you and the other gun controllers are basically shit out of luck in these here United States of America. Gun control is as dead as speech control. Youand the other anti-civil rights leftoids LOSE.

We really have no good use at all for the 2A

That's an unpopular and wildly ignorant opinion.

 

[Politruk]

The relevant question is not what you want and wish the Bill of Rights said, but what it DOES say.

No, because what the BoR says is not the question under debate. Reread the OP.

That's an unpopular and wildly ignorant opinion.

It is only really unpopular out West, and It is by no means ignorant, and you cannot point to any flaw in it. You have never in any thread on this subject stated any good reason why gun rights deserve -- not have, but deserve -- constitutional protection.

 

[UltraChad]

No, because that is not the question under debate..Reread the OP.

Neither was the bullshit you posted, you're just deflecting at this point....did it really hit you that hard??

It is only really unpopular out West,

"west" being the USA.

and It is by no means ignorant,

It is ignorant.

and you cannot point to any flaw in it.

Disregard for human rights is about as flawed as it gets bud.

You have never in any thread on this subject stated any good reason why gun rights deserve -- not have, but deserve -- constitutional protection.

Because human rights deserve protection. If one human right doesn't then no human rights do.

 

[Politruk]

Because human rights deserve protection. If one human right doesn't then no human rights do.

That formulation provides no ground to distinguish between the "right" to have a gun and the "right" to rob a bank with it.

 

[Imakewetspots]

This country's love affair with guns is revolting. ..And we're so far gone we don't see it for what it is - a twisted, psychotic fetish.

To think there are millions of American's who consider gun play a hobby, a lifestyle, or an activity around which the family spends time bonding - as though celebrating a device engineered to shoot a projectile that pierces skin, bone, and brain was a normal, wholesome thing.

Imagine you moved next door to a guy who, instead of worshipping guns, enjoys brewing poison for killing people and making full-size guillotine replicas. "Don't worry neighbor!" he tells you, "I would never use these on people unless forced to do so! I only use the poison on lab rats and the guillotines on pig carcasses." What would you think of the guy? ..You would think he was fucking nuts. ..But worshipping weapons that can kill multiple people from hundreds of yards away in a matter of seconds? Spending weekends at gun clubs showing off their arsenal and debating accuracy and stopping power with fellow nut-jobs? .Nope! nothing to see here people. ..He's just a normal American celebrating his birthright.

Are guns a necessity? ..Of course they are... for law enforcement and military personnel.

I totally see your point but it seems you are thinking too hard and being too rigid in your understanding of other people.

I once was quite into target shooting. Huge hobby for me but over time, it faded. Other hobbies came along and I’ve since sold almost everything. What I have left has sat in the safe for twenty years unused.

When I was big into shooting, I knew a ton of guys in the hobby. I even worked at an indoor shooting range from age 18 to 21. I have probably met more gun owners than most people. I have never met a single person who ‘worships’ guns. That’s a stretch to put it like that.

Now, I have met many who qualify as obsessive collectors. And it’s easy to look at them sideways and think there’s something wrong with them. But there are folks who obsessively collect beanie babies or Coca Cola stuff. Almost everyone is into avidly collecting something.

Yes, there are a few gun nuts out there. Can’t deny that but the vast majority of the people you complain about are just normal folks and their collection is safely locked up in a gun safe because they don’t want their prize collection stolen.

You might be tempted to think I’m just some right wing crackpot and you might even be right but there are certain issues, guns being one where my stance has changed drastically over the years. I’m honestly okay with banning quite of huge assortment of stuff out there. But to ban it all is excessive and unnecessary.

Even if we did. Even if every gun owner turned in his guns, there would be a vacuum and new markets love a vacuum of supply. Every day, truck loads of drugs enter our country through shipping ports and across our northern and southern borders. This happens because there’s a huge demand and short local supply. The moment all guns are gone in this country, expect them to come in illegally just as freely as drugs come in here. In short, for me to support total gun control, you must convince me the borders are secure and our ports aren’t operated by crooked, scumbag Longshoremen like it is now.

There are two final points I’d argue:

1) Hollywood and television LOVES putting gunplay in their product. American society is greatly influenced and shaped by what they see in these productions. If they all started smoking in every scene, guarantee you’d see an increase nationwide in smoking. Oddly enough, most of that industry is anti gun politically but they have no problem promoting gunplay like it’s sexy. Because it sells and money is more important to that industry than its principles. If Americans are truly worshipping the gun, I’d argue their interest began with this. Convince that industry to stop promoting gun play and the next generation will be less into them.

2) No one likes being told what to do. Right wingers are particularly fierce on this. Tell me you’re considering a new law against purple cars and I’m far more likely to buy one. I can’t stomach being controlled by others. Now, if you persuade me that purple cars are just ugly, you stand a far better chance of winning me over.

In my opinion, coming across too strongly on any given topic is a sure way to get people to obstinately dig in. Outlawing it doesn’t ensure compliance. You have to get people to have a real distaste for it.

 

[UltraChad]

That formulation provides no ground to distinguish between the "right" to have a gun and the "right" to rob a bank with it.

Of course it does, because arming oneself and not abusing others with it, is not the same as committing armed robbery.

You absolute fucking retard.

 

[Politruk]

Even if we did. Even if every gun owner turned in his guns, there would be a vacuum and new markets love a vacuum of supply. Every day, truck loads of drugs enter our country through shipping ports and across our northern and southern borders. This happens because there’s a huge demand and short local supply. The moment all guns are gone in this country, expect them to come in illegally just as freely as drugs come in here.

That dos not happen in countries that have gun control, such as Japan and the UK.

 

[Politruk]

Of course it does, because arming oneself and not abusing others with it, is not the same as committing armed robbery.

You absolute fucking retard.

Of course it is not the same -- but your simplistic "human right" formulation does not imply that, it only presents the question, "What is and what is not a human right?" You cannot just build gun rights into the definition -- it is by no means intuitively obvious that the freedom to have a weapon is on the same order as the freedom to choose one's religion.

 

[Imakewetspots]

That dos not happen in countries that have gun control, such as Japan and the UK.

This might shock you but the US is one of the most open, uncontrolled countries in the world.

But let’s say you’re right, are you really saying illegal drugs aren’t coming into this country? We have drug overlords in other countries getting that stuff in here. Your approach would create gun overlords doing the same.

 

[Imakewetspots]

Of course it is not the same -- but your simplistic "human right" formulation does not imply that, it only presents the question, "What is and what is not a human right?" You cannot just build gun rights into the definition -- it is by no means intuitively obvious that the freedom to have a weapon is on the same order as the freedom to choose one's religion.

Politruk, I know you describe yourself as a former libertarian who became a socialist. You might believe that but I think you have a very warped view of yourself.

A libertarian, even a former libertarian (as I once was) believes in freedom to the extreme and limited government interference.

Living in So. California for fifty years, I’ve worked beside some of the most absolute, hard core progressive Democrats. You make them all look like a maga supporter. You’re views aren’t just progressive, they are extreme even for progressives.

 

[Politruk]

But let’s say you’re right, are you really saying illegal drugs aren’t coming into this country? We have drug overlords in other countries getting that stuff in here. Your approach would create gun overlords doing the same.

Illegal drugs are coming into countries like Japan and the UK. But illegal firearms are not -- enforcement is easier, for some reason.

 

[Imakewetspots]

Illegal drugs are coming into countries like Japan and the UK. But illegal firearms are not -- enforcement is easier, for some reason.

So those two countries are experiencing fentanyl and heroin overdose deaths in the same proportions we are here? I find that difficult to believe.

 

[Politruk]

So those two countries are experiencing fentanyl and heroin overdose deaths in the same proportions we are here? I find that difficult to believe.

Any difference there is attributable to America's generally higher level of social dysfunction. Which mainly results from our higher level of capitalism and plutocracy.

 

[UltraChad]

Of course it is not the same --

I know.

but your simplistic "human right" formulation does not imply that, it only presents the question, "What is and what is not a human right?"

Sure, pretty important question.

You cannot just build gun rights into the definition --

Why not?

it is by no means intuitively obvious that the freedom to have a weapon is on the same order as the freedom to choose one's religion.

If you've ever been violently attacked or under eminent threat of violence.....it's super obvious that the right to self defense is every bit as much as the right to choose ones religion or speak ones mind.

 

[Imakewetspots]

So those two countries are experiencing fentanyl and heroin overdose deaths in the same proportions we are here? I find that difficult to believe.

Any difference there is attributable to America's generally higher level of social dysfunction. Which mainly results from our higher level of capitalism and plutocracy.

The other variable you overlook is those two countries have never had a culture of gun ownership. So there probably is very little demand. There is a massive gun culture here, perpetuated by tv and movies.

The culture has to change to reduce demand otherwise they will be illegally brought in.

You know what law I would support. Let’s regulate the tv and movie industry so they don’t shamelessly promote that.

The only way smoking was greatly reduced in this country was to change the culture over a couple generations. That’s a good way to lessen gun ownership in this country.