The second amendment

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:42 pm

Deacon wrote:Right, sorry for any confusion, I meant the editorial "you" as in the public and government, or those seeking to drive them, not literally you as an individual.
Fair enough, and that's kind of what I thought, but I was getting confused. It doesn't help that my personal starting point is a belief that everybody is paranoid in regards to this issue. Sorry about that.
Deacon wrote:The problem is that a number of people in power driving these policies and legislation have said they would outlaw gun ownership if they could, and until then they'll work tirelessly to come as close to that as possible.
Fair, but we both know there are plenty of politicians who have all but sworn to do the exact opposite, and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country that would go to great lengths to prevent that.
Deacon wrote:Right, but it's disingenuous to use the word "compromise" to mean giving one side what they want or for them to only get most of what they want. That's not a give and take. That's just not as severe a take as they'd like. There are already extensive gun bans in place and a long list of compromises in place that infringe on our Second Amendment rights. It's not a "compromise" to extend those even further, just not to the totalitarian extent some would prefer.
Perhaps I'm on the same page, and did not direct the word "compromise" directly at the people defending the second amendment. You don't hear a lot of room for compromise on the other end of the debate, either. There's usually a very dismissive mention of hunters but little else. I'd like both sides to be willing to meet in the middle, but neither is willing to even recognize the other as valid and honestly I'm really just confused.

I can think a bit too academically and get very unrealistic at times and this is one of them I guess, but there has to be some kind of middle ground. Not just concessions on one side, some kind of a real middle ground. For everyone. It bothers me that nobody seems interested in even looking for it. Everyone just plays things for points off their opponents. As I've become fond of saying that's what sports are for.
Deacon wrote:As someone with some pretty long running libertarian tendencies, I'm surprised that you would make that argument, and so glibly and flippantly.
Well I'm very libertarian, but I'm also not willing to believe that one size fits all for every single issue I come across. If I'm going to rail against the two major parties and the prevailing "wisdom" therein I can't exactly read my answers from somebody else's book, can I?

I'm just confused. I don't understand how we can move heaven and earth in certain matters because terrorism still exists, but people we're actively looking at can buy guns. Legally.

I really shouldn't have put that in there because my thoughts on that issue barely touch this topic after about fifteen seconds. Besides which it was out of nowhere, and a topic that hadn't even been mentioned before in the discussion. In fact in doing this reply I just deleted a couple of paragraphs of those thoughts. Bottom line, yes, the lists are open to abuse, and frankly government related abuse should be punished and punished severely. But if these lists don't prevent that guy from buying a gun, what the Hell are we doing? Either it's weird that we're standing up now, or it's weird that the same people weren't standing up and getting furious years ago when we began trading freedoms away in the name of protection against terror.

I really should just fade away and lurk for the rest of this thread, clearly I don't have any solutions or much else to add and I'll just keep doing laps.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:13 pm

How's this for compromising our rights? Hawaii just passed a law to place gun owners into a national database. And if you're visiting Hawaii, well, Hawaii's Attorney General says maybe you can petition to have yourself removed from the database after you leave.

Hawaii already has some of the most draconian and hostile infringements to the Second Amendment in the nation, requiring special permits to acquire a firearm, requiring registration of all firearms, and making concealed carry by law abiding citizens essentially forbidden. A citizen must "prove" an "exceptional" and "urgent" "need" sufficient to satisfy the whims of the chief of police in their county, and even if somehow granted it applies only to that county, not even the rest of that tiny state. And of course they recognize no other state's license, even similarly hostile states like California.

Just to purchase any firearm of any sort, you're forced to prove your citizenship, submit to fingerprinting, pay a fee that they will only accept in the form of a money order or cashier's check, pay for an approved hunter education or firearms safety class, just to obtain a temporary permit to have permission to buy a firearm. They go so far in their laws to call out that it applies even if it's a disabled and unusable, unserviceable antique. If a member of your family dies and leaves you a firearm of any type in their will as an heirloom, as part of the grieving process you have to either go through that entire permitting process, take it straight to a licensed dealer to be sold off, or "You may also relinquish the firearm to Hawaiʻi Police Department for destruction." And if you go through all that and they choose to grant you the temporary permit, you then have a minimum mandated 14 day waiting period before you can even receive the permit.

Then, once you do receive the firearm you inherited or purchased, you have 5 days to register it with the Hawai'i Police Department or face criminal charges. And it's illegal to transport a firearm for any reason except unloaded and in an enclosed container. So you have to make an appointment during restricted hours on restricted days with restricted availability with an approved Hawai'i Police Department registration station, take it into the approved station, and submit yourself and the firearm for inspection and approval for registration. And you have to petition for and be granted a special permit from the Police Chief for anyone other than you to store a firearm in your home even temporarily. And even if lending someone a firearm for hunting or target shooting purposes for longer than 15 days, it requires you to petition for and be granted a special permit by the Police Chief. If you sell or transfer the ownership of a handgun, you must obtain the recipient’s permit at the time of sale or transfer. For a handgun, you are required to sign the permit in ink and submit the permit to the Hawaiʻi Police Department within 48 hours of the transfer via hand delivery or registered mail, with an additional form required for any rifle or shotgun. And as a non-resident forget bringing in any kind of firearm for any reason. You will have to seek permission, be fingerprinted, and be registered.

And despite all this...ridiculous horseshit...two of the most gun-friendly states in the country, New Hampshire and Vermont, both have fewer people per capita murdered by people with guns. And this relaxed and idyllic tropical paradise still has an overall higher murder rate than other much more gun friendly states like Minnesota, Idaho, Iowa, the Dakotas, Wyoming, etc. Of course, as a proportion of murders, those states that are less hostile to the Second Amendment are still more likely to see a higher proportion of murders committed with firearms of some sort (whether a type that's banned or not) compared to other tools that are more prevalent in places like Hawaii, like knives and blunt objects.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:18 pm

And another you I'm sure you never heard of before either, where a violent intruder was stopped by an armed homeowner. The police are not around to protect you. They show up later to cordon off the crime scene and draw chalk lines and begin the investigation.

http://krqe.com/2016/06/24/father-shot- ... o-charges/
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:39 pm


Deacon wrote:The police are not around to protect you. They show up later to cordon off the crime scene and draw chalk lines and begin the investigation.
Or, if you're black, they're going to shoot you once you inform the officer that you have a carry permit. 2nd amendment right isn't given to blacks, even now in 2016. Just trying to give this conversation a little more context. It's good to keep in mind the history of the rise of the NRA and their talking points we so viciously defend.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
raptor9k
Crazy Person
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Arkansas

Re: The second amendment

Post by raptor9k » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 pm

Clearly, assuming her story is what happened (looks that way, but I wasn't there), the officer is in the wrong and I would hope he goes up on voluntary manslaughter charges. Hopefully, the investigation will be unbiased and the justice will be served.

That being said, this is a textbook lesson in what not to do during a traffic stop as a concealed carry license holder. Every instructor I've talked to has told me to hang my hands out the window during a traffic stop. Cops are jumpy as fuck during a traffic stop because that's when they're most likely to be killed by the public. Keep your hands in view at all time and make known that you have a concealed carry license and are currently carrying, followed by the location of the weapon. THEN let the officer decide what he wants you to do. If you're reaching for your pocket while telling the cop you have a gun it's just going to key him up that much more. In Arkansas we're required to hand our current carry license over with our DL if we're carrying, but it's always best to inform the officer BEFORE you start moving around and looking for things. In some states officers will request you exit the vehicle and will make the weapon safe before proceeding with the traffic stop.

It sucks that the world is as it is but a black male carrying legally would need to be even more vigilant than I am. I wouldn't do what looks to have happened here even as a white male of the upper middle class driving a $50k truck in a small town in a southern state.

On a completely random note, is the video mirrored or are they in a right drive car?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:03 pm

Context? First of all, what in the world does the NRA have to do with whatever happened between that dude and the cop, or what legal and civil ramifications will come from his actions? Are you trying to suggest that you put the blame on the man for being a licensed carrier and the blame on the NRA for encouraging such an option? Secondly, saying the second amendment isn't extended to blacks isn't just silly and inflammatory, it's both factually incorrect and morally wrong. In fact, now that I think about it, I imagine you're "right" in that I would guess (just a guess, no source) that even though the raw numbers aren't higher, a higher percentage of black adults compared to whites have felony convictions for nonviolent drug crimes due to the continued insistence of persisting with this war on drugs, a primary contributor to violence in the first place, especially gun violence.

As I've said repeatedly, end drug prohibition, at least starting with marijuana, and watch how things change for the better. For everyone, and definitely including the black communities. It's a major point of frustration to me that the anti-gun crowd, who lumps into their arguments already illegal acts committed with tools that are already illegally obtained and illegally possessed, refuses to consider any causes for those acts and instead wants to seize the opportunity to continue to ineffectively address a symptom.

Yes, raptor is correct about the best and most reasonable mechanics of handling an interaction with police as a licensed carrier, and yes due to a microculture of violence perpetuated in no small part by the drug war cops of any skin tone are going to be more on edge pulling over black men. But if this man were duly licensed, then it's even more ridiculous to say that the second amendment rights aren't given to blacks.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:55 pm

Raptor, yeah, I think the video is mirrored.

Since the video starts after the shooting, it's impossible to know exactly what happened, but the woman sounds pretty calm and collected while she summarizes. And the officer listens to it, then screams "Fuck! I told him to not to reach for it! I told him not to reach for it!" And she retorts that the officer had instructed him to get his ID. But - once again - it's his 2nd amendment right to legally carry a firearm, he had informed the officer of the presence of the firearm, and now he is dead for exercising his right. Super fucked up, and I can't lay blame on anybody but the officer. We didn't see how it went down, so laying blame on the driver for supposedly not behaving properly during a traffic stop feels like a cop-out (har har har)... we just don't have the facts.
Deacon wrote:First of all, what in the world does the NRA have to do with whatever happened between that dude and the cop, or what legal and civil ramifications will come from his actions?
Historical context re: black panthers, Huey Newton, Reagan's gun control as governor of California... basically several decades of important history for anybody interested in gun rights / control & the rise of NRA in politics.
Deacon wrote:Are you trying to suggest that you put the blame on the man for being a licensed carrier and the blame on the NRA for encouraging such an option?
No?
Deacon wrote:Secondly, saying the second amendment isn't extended to blacks isn't just silly and inflammatory, it's both factually incorrect and morally wrong.
Again, this is a huge theme throughout US history as it relates to gun rights & control. I appreciate the lofty words but if you get killed for exercising the right to bear arms then I'd hardly consider that a right. How about this: blacks have the right to bear arms*. Pay no attention to the asterisk, and how the fine print reads that there is a non-zero chance of being killed for legally exercising said right.

I don't think this issue relates to drug prohibition, although I agree with your sentiments.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:18 pm

NorthernComfort wrote:the woman sounds pretty calm and collected while she summarizes.
That's one thing that struck me the most, how incredibly level headed and collected she was during the whole thing, how reasonable and still respectful she was. I honestly don't know if I could say the same for myself.

By the way, one interesting thing to consider is that by and large most cops across upon hearing that someone is licensed to carry immediately become a little less guarded, a little friendlier. Not always, but almost. Because if someone holds a valid license, it means they're not one of the bad guys. It means they're not criminals, they're not crazies, they're not druggies, and they've jumped through all the hoops and fingerprinting and background checks and steep fees and so on, having made a decision to go through the prescribed legal process to be able to defend themselves, their family, and innocents around them from the actual shitheads out there who are carrying anyway.

You're right, it is fucked up, a collection of various individual fucked up factors that led to a clusterfuck. I really hope that the cop had a body camera on him, which together with dashboard video (if present) would serve to either exonerate him or bury him. Because if he did what the girlfriend is suggesting he did, then he should go straight to prison. But as you say, you can't yet "lay blame" for sure on anyone without more information.
Historical context re: black panthers, Huey Newton, Reagan's gun control as governor of California... basically several decades of important history for anybody interested in gun rights / control & the rise of NRA in politics.
What does that have to do with the NRA? Black Panthers? And California? This happened in 2016 in Minnesota. I covered my take on the rise of the NRA here.
Again, this is a huge theme throughout US history as it relates to gun rights & control. I appreciate the lofty words but if you get killed for exercising the right to bear arms then I'd hardly consider that a right. How about this: blacks have the right to bear arms*. Pay no attention to the asterisk, and how the fine print reads that there is a non-zero chance of being killed for legally exercising said right.

I don't think this issue relates to drug prohibition, although I agree with your sentiments.
Maybe I'm just being thick, but it sounds like you're saying that black people legally exercising their rights puts them in a situation with a higher likelihood of getting in trouble or even dead for it. If that's true, then it absolutely relates to drug prohibition, as the black community is at a much higher proportion tangled up with drug possession and distribution. It's the raison d'etre of most street gangs. The unjust (in my mind) persecution and prosecution of marijuana prohibition absolutely affects the black community is a much bigger way than the greater white community (and hispanic for that matter), and is a significant contributing factor to the "NWA SAID FUCK THE POLICE" mentality, building a trend of lives being ruined for non-violent crimes, being pulled over for driving while black, cops being a lot more twitchy and nervous pulling over black people in a bad neighborhood, and so on. It's clearly not 100% of it, but drug prohibition looms very large in all those negative outcomes.

And it all goes to laying the foundation for whether or not the cop is already primed for violence and pulls the trigger on a black man reaching for a gun. Because I doubt you'd argue with my speculation that if it were me as a white man being pulled over in a nice rural area of the Texas hill country, whatever actions the man took would be less likely to have the same kind of result of me getting shot as it was for that dude pulled over in Minnesota. That's not his fault, nor would it be mine, but it exists all the same, and it's due in large part to the culture of violence and distrust fomented by drug prohibition.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:47 pm

Deacon wrote:That's one thing that struck me the most, how incredibly level headed and collected she was during the whole thing, how reasonable and still respectful she was. I honestly don't know if I could say the same for myself.
I know... it was almost surreal, the contrast between the overwhelmed police officer still pointing his gun at a dying man, and her being an ocean of calmness and civility.
Deacon wrote:What does that have to do with the NRA? Black Panthers? And California? This happened in 2016 in Minnesota. I covered my take on the rise of the NRA here.
I'm aware of what year it is. :) But this incident immediately reminded me of Huey Newton's antics in Oakland in 1967, in which he would sit in his car with firearms in order to claim his Constitutional rights to the flummoxed police. It worked, of course, with the cops yelling "Constitution my ass!" ... but even then, there was no gunplay. Now in 2016 a black man just says they have a gun and they get shot 4 times.
Deacon wrote:Maybe I'm just being thick, but it sounds like you're saying that black people legally exercising their rights puts them in a situation with a higher likelihood of getting in trouble or even dead for it.
Yep.
Deacon wrote:If that's true, then it absolutely relates to drug prohibition, as the black community is at a much higher proportion tangled up with drug possession and distribution.
This isn't true, if you look at data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration... whites use drugs more often, but blacks are arrested at a far higher rate. I still don't see how this relates to this incident, however- there were no drugs involved, the officer was stopping the car for a busted tail-light.
Deacon wrote:It's the raison d'etre of most street gangs.
As a small aside, most "street gangs" these days are just loosely organized crews of kids who grew up together. Drug cartels have monopolized and changed the distribution game significantly. Gang membership has plummeted and become very de-centralized.
Deacon wrote:That's not his fault, nor would it be mine, but it exists all the same, and it's due in large part to the culture of violence and distrust fomented by drug prohibition.
I dunno- go back to 1967. This was before the war on drugs. It's just racism. That's where the violence and distrust comes from. Has the war on drugs made interactions more violent? Probably. But things were pretty violent back then too.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:27 pm

Refer madness and the origins of marijuana prohibition are 100% racist against the hispanic and black communities that were primarily associated with marijuana long before 1967, and marijuana was illegal long before 1967 even back when suburban white housewives were popping methamphetamine pills so they could really kick ass cleaning house.

It's a sad case study in cultural biases and authoritarianism winning over reason and individual freedom. And whether or not you believe the black community all over the country is still shot through with drug dealers and gangs, those same continued policies rooted in racism absolutely have contributed and continue to contribute significantly to the violent attitude so many black people exhibit toward police and the violence committed by police against them.

Regardless, the point is that the root or cause of the problem here isn't the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:44 pm

Deacon wrote:Regardless, the point is that the root or cause of the problem here isn't the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Of course not! The problem is that his right to bear arms was so egregiously trampled upon, and of course the police randomly executing black men.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:22 pm

I agree, but too many do not.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Crazy Person
Posts: 2756
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:25 pm

Very sad week. Not much to say.
"I guess I have a gift for expressing pedestrian tastes. In a way, it's kind of depressing." -Bill Watterson

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44117
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:10 pm

So elsewhere the argument has been made that we should ban "assault weapons" again, that Europe and Australia don't have a problem with violent crime anymore since they banned guns, and that the peer reviewed JAMA study showing a failure of the Brady Bill's ban ground check mandates to reduce homicides or even suicides isn't going to convince a true believer. The accusation has also surface again accusing me of being unwilling to am compromise my rights for the comfort of others, suggesting that it's in my best interest to at least let them be compromised a little further lest I invite even more draconian infringements.

So the "compromise" is simply whether or not to use lube when I'm grabbing my ankles? That doesn't sound like a compromise.

But no, I don't think you can readily compare small, homogenous, mostly wealthy European countries with a very long history of subservience and heavy handed regulations with minimal gun ownership to start with and America, with a much more diverse ethnic and cultural and economic backgrounds where an individual's rights, including to keep and bear arms, are not only held higher in the first place but explicitly codified into the Bill of Rights.

Of course, even the draconian infringements on what isn't even recognized as a right doesn't stop terrorists, nor does it stop Germany from having a major mass shooting every few years. It's really hard to stop crazies, whether they're hoping for 70 virgins or for messed up notoriety.

And of course I didn't expect you to actually acquiesce to the JAMA study. If you're already a true believer in whatever, it's hard to break out of that (for some it can take a lifetime). The important part to realize is that you're saying it doesn't go far enough, even though there was no indication that it had any impact at all, not that it only had a limited impact that could be furthered by pushing it harder. At what point would you be satisfied? Not a rhetorical question, I'm legitimately interested. Is it even possible to reach a point where you'd concede that no worthwhile difference is being made? Or will the goal posts always just get moved a little further back, convinced that the "answer" lies just a little further down this road?

It's critical, I think, to stick to one narrative at a time. I agree with you that violent crime and murder in particular are things we should always look at for causes. But if you deviate from violence where a gun was used and branch out to all violence, that's a much broader and different conversation.

In the mean time, in a nation of about 350 million people, about 8,000 a killed by someone who used a gun to do it, most of which were not justified of course. The made up term "assault weapons" aren't tracked independently, but rifled of all types put together account for only about 300 total, less than bare hands, less than blunt objects.

No, every death doesn't make the national news. And few preventions ever make any news at all. But there are two independent things being conflated here: 1) regular old homicides and 2) spectacular mass shootings. Regular old homicides are a much bigger problem statistically, but they're also not very spectacular. So when a mass shooting occurs, it gets people riled up, demanding a ban on "assault weapons" which didn't stop anything under Clinton when it was in place last time, and has almost nothing to do with any actual crime that might affect your life. It's irrational, but fuck those idiots who cling to their guns anyway, right? I don't personally care to own one, so nobody should. Of course, they're missing the bigger and far more important picture that these spectacles are only able to be pulled off where it's illegal to stop them.

But OK fine, that's not you, right? You're keeping your wits about you, you realize that such a ban would be as ineffective at stopping mass shootings as it's always been, and that while spectacular they account for only a very tiny number in the broader scheme of things.

Might it make sense to stop and wonder why it is that the only person I have ever known who was killed by someone with a gun was in gun-free Mexico? If violent crime is an epidemic--and it's been falling as quickly as gun ownership has been rising--then why can't we all reel off a list of at least a handful of people killed by someone with a gun? Because violence regardless of the weapon used is a result, a symptom, not a cause. And as people not involved in a redneck meth trade or inner city crack dealing, we aren't likely to ever run into it.

I don't know about Sacramento, as I've never been much less lived there, but in San Antonio the vast majority of violence springs from the illicit drug trade and adjacent crime committed by career criminals whose lives have been ruined by prison time for what are so often non-violent crime, followed in the distance by volatile domestic disputes. And lost in all this conversation is any attempt to address the causes of violence rather than the tools that are sometimes used to commit it. That's why there are organized campaigns in the UK and Australia (not sure off the top of my head about European countries) to ban knives. Australia has already banned swords and a bunch of other weapons. Because they didn't address any causes of violence, they only "did something" about a particular set of tools that can be used.

Dealing with domestic violence is a lot harder and more culturally driven. But dealing with the much bigger cause, drug prohibition, is much easier to deal with. We caused this. We made marijuana illegal. We made the rest illegal, too, and we treat it as a crime problem instead of a health issue. Forget gun violence, that remains a major building block of the problem in this country with police in the inner city, fishing for drug possession to pad their quotas. If black lives really matter, we'd stop getting into fights with them over stupid shit that too often ends up with them dead because they had a joint in the glove box or an unpaid fine or selling loose cigarettes. We'd be focusing less on scrutinizing the tiniest detail of each police encounter and removing the wildly unnecessary reasons for those encounters to happen so often in the first place.

I'm the end, that's really why I'm supporting the Libertarian ticket this year. No, they won't be able to do all that much when blocked by a congress populated predominantly by status quo Democrats and Republicans. But what they can do is reclassify marijuana and for that matter other drugs and remove the federal traps in place that continue to feed the cycle of violence in the first place.

You say decrease freedom even more in an attempt to address in a small way a problem caused largely by decreasing freedom in the first place, whether outlawing marijuana or outlawing self defense. I say it's premature and misguided to go after such surface level symptoms when we have the opportunity to address the actual underlying causes instead. And it doesn't even have to be that difficult.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Rorschach
The Immoral Immortal
Posts: 17668
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: The second amendment

Post by Rorschach » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:22 am

I'm very much enjoying that particular debate.
Interesting points on both sides.
To Let

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests