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
Redshirt
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 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:49 pm

Deacon wrote:There's no guarantee that "a good guy with a gun" will be there in the right place at the right time.
Likewise, having a gun does not make a person an unstoppable superhero who will unquestionably save the day.

I agree with your point, I just don't have a particularly good view of the average straw man in a crisis, with or without a firearm. I don't necessarily trust him to have my back. Which, I guess, means I have to go through life knowing that my safety is never guaranteed and some people may or may not have guns no matter whether we "allow" them to or not. How frightening.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
NorthernComfort
Redshirt
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:58 pm

Deacon wrote:There's no guarantee that "a good guy with a gun" will be there in the right place at the right time.
Of course not- as you said we've got 320 million people, 8124 murders involving firearms. So .002% Once you start to think of the odds of this occurring in the vicinity of "a good guy with a gun" we're talking chances so ridiculously slim that the good guys with their guns are pretty much just fantasy. The odds are more likely that those people who think of themselves as good guys with guns, or carry a little .308 for self-protection, will wind up using them to increase the gun murders. That actually happens.
"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: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:42 am

NorthernComfort wrote:we're talking chances so ridiculously slim that the good guys with their guns are pretty much just fantasy.
Not really, no. Here in San Antonio a year or two ago, some dude thought he might catch a few people in a movie theater, but he made mistake of picking one of the ones that don't ban authorized good guys from defending themselves and was stopped immediately by a woman who chose to do exactly that. It only took one person in the crowd. And the absence of bloodshed doesn't capture the entire nation and the world like what happens when no one is allowed to stop bad people, so you usually don't hear about. You might have heard about the one in Dallas when the would-be Muslim terrorists from AZ were put down, or maybe when officers outside Portland happened by chance to be at a particular high school when a kid illegally possessing and illegally carrying guns was stopped after a single random victim.

From Columbine to the Pulse, these headline grabbing events occur where nobody is allowed to stop them. That has to stop. There is no valid reason to leave anyone a sitting duck "for their own good."
The odds are more likely that those people who think of themselves as good guys with guns, or carry a little .308 for self-protection, will wind up using them to increase the gun murders. That actually happens.
I'd love to know what your assumption is based on, exactly. Though really, and this goes for The Cid, too: I'll take a little bit dangerous liberty over defenseless subjugation. When my choice is to die helplessly at the hands of a terrorist like in San Bernardino and Orlando or run the risk of someone stopping them like in Dallas, I'll take Dallas any day.
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
The Cid
Redshirt
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 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:31 pm

Deacon wrote:Though really, and this goes for The Cid, too: I'll take a little bit dangerous liberty over defenseless subjugation.
Actually, if you read my comment again, you'll see I'm completely fine with that, just not the idea that "good guys with guns" are automatically fated to save the day all the time if they're just around.

I wasn't being sarcastic. Life involves risk. I drive on Massachusetts highways regularly. All the guns in the world, and I guarantee you my odds are higher of dying in the shadow of what they once called the Big Dig. All the murderers and terrorists in the world, I'm sure I'm about as likely to get struck by lightning when I'm playing golf. Of course, we don't spend a lot of time trying to make me terrified of lightning.

I'm all for the second amendment, though I do not believe that the idea of compromise will be the end of America As We Know It. But I don't think guns are a cure-all to the problem of too many people getting shot. "Good guys with guns" aren't immune from victimhood. In fact, from the accounts I've read, there was at least one in Pulse. After all, it's the State of Florida, gun ownership is a big thing down that way. It's also not particularly restricted, so lots of people have them.

The gun debate is just proof our political divide has become so toxic as to be borderline irreconcilable. Nobody, and I mean nobody, seems to believe in the idea of reasonable compromise here. On one side, it's a "slippery slope" that will surely end in a dystopian government shooting unarmed men. (Oh wait, we recently had a huge nationwide thing about unarmed men getting shot to death by armed people, we're already there!) On the other, there's this belief that without guns the world is a smiling and happy place where everybody is safe.

Both sides are obsessed with a safety that you will never guarantee. Good guys with guns guarantee nothing at all. I'm not for taking them away, but in times of crisis I'm not sure every Tom, Dick, and Harry is capable of rising to the occasion. Admit it: It's a big ask. I mean, a good guy probably isn't inclined to point their gun at another human being, even a deserving one. I always hoped gun ownership was like they talk about karate, where it's good to have but you hope you'll never have to use it (in that situation anyway).

I just think there's room for compromise. And if nobody's going to admit that, I'll be sarcastic toward both sides. After all, good, bad, you're the guy with the OKAY OKAY IT'S FORCED, SORRY.

Because the rhetoric is ridiculous. There's a lot of paranoia, a ton of stereotyping, and not much in the way of reason. Which is about par for the course.

Related thought: I am far more likely to get killed behind the wheel of my car by some drunk driver than a terrorist or another Bad Guy With A Gun. In fact, I'm about as likely to get stuck and killed on a golf course by lightning.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
raptor9k
Redshirt
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Earth

Re: The second amendment

Post by raptor9k » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:39 pm

deleted
Last edited by raptor9k on Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
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 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:32 pm

raptor9k wrote:Why not have your own back? Learn to protect yourself. You're the only person in this world that is responsible for your safety. Everyone else is just a mild deterrent or there to clean up after the fact.
Because Bad Guy With A Gun is the least of my worries. Again, I'm more likely to get killed on the highway. I'm about as likely to get electrocuted on a golf course.

Why should I worry about hypothetical situations where I might need a gun? Look at the percentages, if I'm paranoid about that I'd have to be paranoid about travel, I'd have to be afraid to go outside when it's anything but sunny and temperate, driving should have me so scared I should be vomiting, and I'd certainly think twice before ordering fried chicken. But I for one refuse to live life in fear of the worst of us. They don't get to have that power. That's what makes them the bad guys.

I suppose someone could break into my apartment and murder me, but I feel like the odds of that are pretty low, even in a state with a growing smack issue.

To top it off if I owned a gun I'd better have it on me or nearby at all times, because again, if that gun gets stolen than someone's going to get shot with it. It would be, by far, the most valuable thing for a thief to steal in my apartment. Nobody's going to kill someone else with my TV. You can't Final Cut Pro somebody to death either.

That's what I talk about when I talk about paranoia. I don't have a need for a gun. Is there a nonzero chance I might, at some point, be in a situation where a gun and quick thinking and quick acting would save my life? Probably, but I have a feeling that a lot of other things are way more likely to do me in. The chances that a crazed junkie murderer breaks down my door and murders me, well, I guess I'll have to live with that possibility. Or failing that, take my chances with a golf club or a butcher knife or something else I have on-hand.
I'd really appreciate it if everyone else would stop trying to disarm me while doing fuck all to fix the actual problems in our country that lead to someone wanting to kill as many people as they can before they off themselves.
I just would appreciate it if we could address this issue without every hint of a compromise on either side being unacceptable. I can't remember a time in my life when the gun debate involved reason and not a combination of paranoia, stereotyping, and wild assumptions on both ends. I guess appealing for reason when our politics are completely broken is a fool's game.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
raptor9k
Redshirt
Posts: 1366
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 8:33 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Earth

Re: The second amendment

Post by raptor9k » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:07 pm

deleted
Last edited by raptor9k on Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
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 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:52 pm

raptor9k wrote:Maybe this is an internet tone confusion issue but, If it's so insignificant a possibility then why make a statement about how frightening it is that you have no guaranteed safety and you'll never be able to control who has access to a gun?
Because I made that statement in a deliberately dismissive fashion. Life involves risk. If I was to be frightened over everything that might take my life I'd never leave the home, or do that much within the home for that matter.
raptor9k wrote:Sort of like wearing snake boots in the woods
To me it's a little more like wearing snake boots in Harvard Square. I just think this logic often seems to overstate the likelihood that anyone will need to reach for a weapon. Less "carrying an umbrella because rain is in the forecast" and more "carrying an umbrella because it has rained somewhere, presumably at some point in recorded history." But hey, not my problem, if you're a reasonable person and you're responsible carry whatever you want. I may not be doing a great job of getting this across but I honestly don't care who is and isn't carrying a firearm. Feel free. But for my part, I feel it entirely unnecessary and if that means I'm taking some kind of risk by not having a gun then so be it. I'm completely cool with that. In other words I agree with you, but I don't think it is quite as necessary to my well-being as a seatbelt.
raptor9k wrote:Maybe the reason you think we're paranoid is because we're vocal about it online.
The same reason I think that your opponents in this debate, and I swear I am really not one of them (except for the part where reasonable compromise isn't the end of the world), are overly eager to stereotype people who are not like them. Which is funny because usually my progressive neighbors would consider stereotyping to be a bad thing.

I'm talking too much I guess. All I'm really trying to say is that, while I have zero problems with reasonable people in violation of nothing carrying firearms with them, I think that the need for such a thing is overstated and the ability to rise to the occasion and save the day as a result of carrying a gun is definitely overstated. That isn't to say it negates the broader point, but the picture in my head of a "good guy with a gun" isn't quite so rosy.

You can have your rights. Likewise I am free to choose not to own a gun, and I personally don't find that a particularly big risk for me to take. That is not to say I want you to leave yours at home, or that I think there ought to be a law, but I think the idea that the solution to gun violence involves giving more people guns is laughable. So too is trying to, through a few strokes of a pen, make weapons that can already be all too easily obtained in illegal ways vanish into thin air. But nobody seems to care about the unregistered and illegal guns.

It's paranoid when the NRA, which is by the way mostly a marketing organization comprised of people who make and sell firearms for a living, reacts to a mass shooting by telling people to stock up because the Gubmen are a comin'. That's not helping, that's just making people crazy. It's paranoid when people say out loud that they're carrying a gun just in case the dreaded Bad Guy With A Gun comes, because the statistics don't bear out that this is a thing that routinely happens. It's paranoid when people in the anti-gun camp act as though guns kill more people than all sorts of things we would never remove from daily life. It's paranoid when any suggestion that there is a compromise to be had regarding firearms is treated as a slippery slope that can only end in a dictatorship.

It's both sides. It's insane. There is no reason in this debate. Which guarantees nothing gets done, which I'm not sure anyone in this country really wants as the outcome. Every mention of the second amendment becomes a rhetoric machine between extreme polar opposites.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:42 pm

By the way, NC, there's really no such thing as "a little .308" no matter how you slice it ;)
The Cid wrote:In fact, from the accounts I've read, there was at least one in Pulse. After all, it's the State of Florida, gun ownership is a big thing down that way. It's also not particularly restricted, so lots of people have them.
No, it's 100% illegal for a Florida license holder to carry in the Pulse. And Florida is not a constitutional carry state. They require you to jump through hoops and be licensed to bear arms.

And yes, while your odds of dying by just about anything else is much higher, people aren't trying to outlaw those things and expend the existing bans and restrictions and compromised status. It's mostly from people who do not exercise that right and thus really don't care how much it's infringed. But like I said there's no guarantee that the famous "good guy with a gun" will be in the right place at the right time to defend others. There's only a guarantee that they won't be there when you outlaw it.

So people who want to expand the existing gun bans and lean harder on the existing compromises believe that if they just make life harder for those who are interested in exercising their second amendment rights then bad things can't happen or if they do they'll be super few and far between. They like to make erroneous and fallacious comparisons to Europe, with much smaller and more homogeneous populations with a history of subjugation to authoritarian figures and completely different cultures, largely without much history of individual rights to keep and bear arms. Sure, Germany only has a major mad shooting every 5 years or so, and France has hundreds of unarmed people gunned down by terrorists, but disarmament of the law abiding population in America is impossible impractical, and demanding further compromise and even further restrictions on what is supposed to be a constitutionally guaranteed right is a source of frustration.

You talk about paranoia and compromise, but there's no paranoia on my end, no matter how hard anti-gun activists try to paint me that way when I do carry concealed on occasion. It seems like the paranoia is primarily on the part of those who believe lightning will strike at any moment and they'll be killed by someone with a semi automatic rifle, even though the odds are much better they'll be beaten/kicked to death by an unarmed man or by someone with a blunt object. And there appears to be no talk of compromise, only of further infringements. One compromise I would be willing to make is that anyone who purchases a firearm at a gun show must go through an FFS, and in exchange all "gun free zones" must be eliminated. That's a compromise, and one I can live with.

PS Do you know any law enforcement officers, current or retired? Talk to them about whether and when they carry. It's always an interesting conversation. Many do, unless outlawed by their state, though some don't. I am 100% against forcing anyone to keep and bear arms if they don't want to. I have no desire to do that. So why don't we compromise and those who don't want to don't have to, and they don't get to stop those who want to.
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
Redshirt
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:12 am

Deacon wrote:By the way, NC, there's really no such thing as "a little .308" no matter how you slice it ;)
.380. I stand by my initial comments. Good luck shooting those bad guys.
"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: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:24 am

I sincerely hope I never have to. But I also hope it's no longer criminalized at some point.

It's frustrating to me that for every aberration that some foaming at the mouth Facebook group spreads around and makes national news, these kinds of stories that happen every day still go by quietly excluded from national headlines.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/portlan ... /257215399
http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/nation ... 3340-story

People forget that assault is a behavior, not a weapon. How long till they call to ban assault axes?
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
Redshirt
Posts: 2761
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 8:13 pm
Real Name: Alex
Gender: Male
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The second amendment

Post by NorthernComfort » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:28 am

But I also hope it's no longer criminalized at some point.
What's currently criminalized that you wish to see repealed? You mean removing the need to have a permit to conceal carry, or carrying into places where it's currently illegal?
"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: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Tue Jun 28, 2016 3:33 am

Some would argue for both, and they would have a point. But it would be sufficient for me to see an end to defense free zones. Maybe when bad or crazy people or religious nut jobs or whatever ignore such limitations, their victims won't necessarily have to be sitting ducks.
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
The Cid
Redshirt
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 2:27 pm

Deacon wrote:There's only a guarantee that they won't be there when you outlaw it.
You're using "you," but you surely don't think I'm advocating for universal gun bans after my many, many words of doing absolutely nothing of the sort, correct?
Deacon wrote:but disarmament of the law abiding population in America is impossible
Well, yeah. I agree. Which is why I don't, for the life of me, get why people talk about every second amendment discussion being so binary. The thing people are so worried might happen is, for all practical purposes, impossible. I've asserted this from the very beginning. It's impossible. Therefore, it is not a contingency worth worrying about in every single political debate that gets remotely close to the word "firearm."
Deacon wrote:So people who want to expand the existing gun bans and lean harder on the existing compromises believe that if they just make life harder for those who are interested in exercising their second amendment rights then bad things can't happen or if they do they'll be super few and far between.
You're still talking about this. Once again, did I give you the impression I was in favor of legislation that would ban guns? Did I?
Deacon wrote:So why don't we compromise and those who don't want to don't have to, and they don't get to stop those who want to.
Okay. Sure. But I don't think that the word "compromise" needs to be treated as "I'm advocating for a universal and immediate ban on all guns."

But hey, sure, let's sell guns to people the FBI is actively worried might be plotting acts of terror. Because any action involving guns is the end of the second amendment and therefore all freedom.

There is no room for compromise. It's either "leave guns alone, entirely, forever" or "ban all of them" apparently.

I'm very much in favor of neither of those options and that's all I've been saying. But I feel like my comments are being misconstrued, so I'm sorry for that.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:13 pm

The Cid wrote:You're using "you," but you surely don't think I'm advocating for universal gun bans after my many, many words of doing absolutely nothing of the sort, correct?
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. And when I say things like "some people [take a position]" I'm not talking about you in particular. There are more individuals in this discussion than just you and me, and this is a broader discussion than exclusively those people participating right now in this thread on this forum :)
I don't, for the life of me, get why people talk about every second amendment discussion being so binary. The thing people are so worried might happen is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
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. It would be a bad situation I would hate to see, because I don't see all Americans surrendering their arms willingly as they did in Australia, for example. So there's a legal side of things, constitutional limitations to what congress and the president can get away with long term, and there's also the practical side of things regarding what kind of subjugation can be imposed with no real possibility of civil disobedience, law enforcement non-participation, or even bloodshed.
I don't think that the word "compromise" needs to be treated as "I'm advocating for a universal and immediate ban on all guns."
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.
But hey, sure, let's sell guns to people the FBI is actively worried might be plotting acts of terror. Because any action involving guns is the end of the second amendment and therefore all freedom.
As someone with some pretty long running libertarian tendencies, I'm surprised that you would make that argument, and so glibly and flippantly. While superficially it sounds great and all, the 5th and 14th Amendments insist that you not be deprived of your rights without due process. Being secretly added to a secret list with secret provisions for inclusion that may or may not have fiery and potentially expensive bureaucratic and legal hoops to jump through to overcome the guilty-until-proven-innocent hurdles does not constitute due process, and that's without considering how open to abuse these lists are. The Selectee, No-Fly, and Terrorist Screening Database are far FAR more broadly encompassing that only those who are under active investigation for "plotting acts of terror."

See this CNN article for more info on the different secret lists. See this NY Times article for more info on how badly managed these lists are and how difficult it is to get removed from them even when it's just that your name is similar to someone else's. And see this article from ABC News in Denver about how the DHS/TSA have put minimum quotas on Federal Air Marshals filing Surveillance Detection Reports to add people to secret government databases and watchlists, meaning innocent people are being continually added to the lists just to satisfy bureaucratic quotas.
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

Who is online

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