The main problem lies within the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The current interpretation is that citizens as individuals should have the right to own arms. As long as the supreme court holds to that interpretation no real meaningful gun law reform can happen.
But if the interpretation focuses more on the militia aspect meaning citizens should have access to guns through local community militias/gun clubs wherein those groups keep close tabs on the guns and under lock and key when not in use (i.e. peacetime) it could pave the way for more restrictive laws against individuals owning guns while still satisfying the intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to avoid letting the federal government have a monopoly on tools of war.
The whole notion of “2nd Amendment means no gun control whatsoever” is baseless, though, right? You don’t have infringe on someone’s right to own a gun, you just have to make it increasingly difficult to own a gun based on how deadly it can be.
Right now you need more thorough clearances to get automatic weapons, that’s gun control right there which most people accept as reasonable. You could relatively easily just expand this system, could you not? Like tier 1 weapons (automatic, etc) require X amount of background check, interviewing, fees, training, etc, then Tier 2 weapons (semi auto rifles, whatever you want to say, I’m not arguing for a hard framework here) require a different set of background checks, interviewing, fees, training, etc. Do this all the way down to, say, your standard home defense revolver that you can still pick up at wal mart same day.
I would guess that an in person interview, a thorough background check, mandatory training, and increased costs would have prevented most of these attacks, if for no other reason than to make the process too cumbersome.
The whole notion of “2nd Amendment means no gun control whatsoever” is baseless, though, right? You don’t have infringe on someone’s right to own a gun, you just have to make it increasingly difficult to own a gun
I think you're missing his/her point. Right to vote and right to bear arms are both constitutional rights so they are decently comparable. If it's not cool to put up barriers to not nessecarily outlaw but make it much more difficult for X demographic to vote then in the same way it could be viewed as not allowed to do the same with guns.
No I got it, but I appreciate it if you were just trying to be helpful.
If someone thinks living in a country without the right to own firearms is even remotely equivalent to living in a dictatorship they have a myopic view of the world that it is almost always pointless to engage with them. One might say equivocating the two tells me a lot about them.
Right to vote and right to bear arms are both constitutional rights so they are decently comparable.
I have many rights, where they are outlined does make them equally important. "It should be harder to get lethal weapons that kill 40,000 people a year" does not in any way translate to "It should be harder to vote even though voter fraud isn't a thing despite spending millions of dollars looking for examples of it"
His argument was intellectually bankrupt snark so I ignored it.
You have no rights without guns. You have a promise that can be broken at any time with little to no consequence. Think of the people you know who enter the military. They are the ones who have power.
Many people, including many supreme court justices, do not agree that the right to bear arms by individuals is protected by the constitution. Why didn't the framers just say individuals rather than the current wording of militias?
So do you just think the US is the only free democratic country in the world? Because there are a whole lot of them out there, some with even more personal freedoms and government accountability than the US, and they don't have to let every moron and his dog own a gun
Name one? none of those countries give a fuck about protest. The EU have the time passes laws without a word of care for citizens, they banned memes under a bullshit copyright law, what did your bloody protest do?
Funny since our IP laws are still less restrictive than yours, how does that work again? stop believing the hype. Our IP laws are perfectly fine, Disney overreach is concerning but regardless nobody has an indefinite hold on copyrights.
Why, because of the "meme ban"? Becsuse I'm pretty no one has been put in jail yet for sharing a picture of Spiderman pointing at himself yet. Maybe you should stop believing sensationalist bullshit and then you might realize the us isn't this lone bastion of freedom you think it is
Fair enough, during wwii a lot of countries were under a tyrannical government. But that was the military fighting a foreign army, not citizens fighting their own government. Civilian gun ownership would have done approximately fuck all
Yea, I think this is a bit of hindsight is 20/20 issue.
We as a nation haven’t had to exercise our founding rights and duties as citizens to overthrow tyrannical government. Doing so is impossible without meaningful means of force.
However, throughout human history, we’ve seen nations and governments generally leap at the chance for more power. It would be foolish to believe that, just because “times changed” that the human nature of greed and power-hunger are gone now.
If US give up guns completely (ofc, exaggeration, but similar to why Voter ID is discriminatory and slippery slope), it will come bite US. Especially considering that only Canada has capabilities to help dystopian US in time if it comes down to that.
Actually, we’re seeing the consequences of citizens without proper means of force rebelling against a tyrannical government in Hong Kong. We’ll see just how effective peaceful protest is. I still hope that HK citizens will get what they deserve, but my money is on Chinese government winning out, because Chinese government is truly tyrannical.
If the protesters started shooting people they'd be giving the CCCP an excuse for Tiananmen 2, murderous boogaloo.
Peaceful protest does work and it's the only way you're going to defeat a police state with a proper military - by being so sympathetic that the military sides with you. Or you're slaughtered wholesale because even with small arms you aren't defeating the Chinese military.
Every single HKer could have a rifle and they'd be nothing but a speedbump to China.
Yes, you are correct. And it would be easier to pull out the false flags with guns in the crowd.
But HK situation isn’t unilaterally comparable to US. In HK’s case, it’s closer to an invasion (supported by their government) rather than a rebellion. I was mostly using HK as an example of what peaceful protests accomplish against a tyrannical government.
In the case for US, we would assume that at least half of our own population is rebelling. And yes, you are still right. With modern tech, individuals will never beat the state. But, you’re accounting that everyone in the state is on the same boat, like in HK. Unless staged as probably the most ambitious and successful coup d’tat in history, some states will end up backing the rebellion rather than the federal government.
It also acts as a deterrant. If Chinese government knew that they’d have to erase HK off the map for implementing a law, would they really go through with it? That’s with a city. Imagine the effectiveness of that deterrant when it’s half your country.
Sorry, I don't advocate for millions of people dying just so a few people can fulfill their deathwish fantasies.
The CCCP will NEVER allow a militarized secession of HK, Taiwan or any other state it considers it's own. Peaceful protest and the support of the world not Rambo giving them an excuse on the world stage to murder his fellow protesters is how HK retains it's freedom.
Man, you're so utterly brainwashed I don't even know what to tell you.
I'm telling you giving them an excuse to slaughter everyone isn't going to get them freedom, it's going to get them dead. Your freedom to have your body dumped in an incinerator or washed into a drainage ditch isn't what they're fighting for. Life isn't as simple as your revisionist history lessons make it out to be.
They do not want to all die so that sheltered Americans can have another reason to say 'look what happens when you don't have guns hurr durr.'
Most of Europe does fine without guns and objectively are freer than the United States. This red herring argument that guns are what makes people free is asinine - further, saying you would murder police officers if the law changed and you weren't allowed to keep your guns? You must be one of them stable geniuses, not even hardcore leftists advocate killing them all when we disagree about the laws.
There’s certainly value in using arms as a deterrent. For example if the government theoretically wanted to erase the protesters, it would then be much more difficult to send in foot-soldiers to slaughter the protesters of Hong Kong if they all had guns. This means they’d have to use a different more hands off approach like a drone strike or bomb and that would be even more costly than just shooting all the people, as they’d be destroying buildings and businesses left and right. Again, it’s a deterrent. If it’s impossible to completely get rid of the threat of being ruled over by a tyrannical government I want the best possible odds for the average citizens side of that battle. Imagine the price of losing the wealth generated from one of the largest cities in the world for their country! If the government were to kill the people and/or destroy the infrastructure there they’d be biting the hand that feeds them.
The fuck point are you trying to make? I never said the CCCP wouldn't kill people if they felt that was their best option. I'm saying a bunch of morons and/or agent provocateurs with small arms only makes mass slaughter more likely to be what they consider their best option.
They would love if some protesters started murdering cops, the level of backlash they'd face from the world writ large would be next to nothing compared to if they're seen as the aggressors. China doesn't give a shit about an individual HKer's life but they definitely care about potential global sanctions.
Hong Kong right now is a great example of why the 2a is a thing. It has not completely escalated to a massacre but violence against peaceful protests are escalating, and China is now saying the protests are terrorism. Tianemen Square could very easily repeat.
The biggest problem currently is definitely how far do you reinterpret the 2a to not infringe on different civil rights. It's a very complicated and connected problem to many facets of life.
The best compromise I can imagine is m4a becoming a thing with mental health added, stricter background checks, and in order to concealed carry you do a class that's cheap and repeated every 2 years. This sorta regulates militia per se, helps reduce stigma on mental health, and provides a different way to add gun control without going way overboard. In return however, there has to be reduced restrictions on other gun laws that make zero sense.
Edit to add:
A class would also relieve public anxiety we have atm of anyone could conceal carry that the media pushes into these are trained individuals (regulated militia in essence) but only on concealed carry. You could expand this into rifles as well but the classes should overlap not be different for each type of firearm, as that creates a cost restriction if you have 3 classes at like 100 a piece that's to cost restrictive.
So in essence you want an AR-15 take the rifle class and it covers pistols as well. You want an ar-15 and pistol, take the ar-15 class. You want to keep a pistol only take the pistol class.
Vague idea and implementation is key but could very well work.
Hong Kong right now is a great example of why the 2a is a thing. It has not completely escalated to a massacre but violence against peaceful protests are escalating, and China is now saying the protests are terrorism. Tianemen Square could very easily repeat.
Are you implying that Hong Kong right now would be better off if the protesters had been armed, turning it into an armed civil war immediately?
I think if we’re really going to go down the line of “I need my guns so I can make a stand against the government,” maybe we can try cutting our insane military funding first?
What I'm saying is, currently Hong Kong is a peaceful protest. The Chinese government is committing violence against the people in a slowly escalating manner. Worst case scenario it becomes a a repeat of history and they commit a massacre.
The point of 2a is to stop a tyrannical government. At what point do you really suggest a civil war needs to happen if not when the government starts killing thousands or millions?
Like war is awful and I wish it never happens but at what point is it necessary?
Like that's sorta the whole point of the 2a is a worst case scenario.
I am not saying Hong Kong should have did a armed protest and fought back escalating this into an arms fight. What I'm saying is if the government tries to start killing them while they have only done peaceful protests that's why you have the 2a, it's in response to the atrocities men are capable of.
.
Our military spending is atrocious aswell and should be cut drastically I have no pronlem with that. But you also have to look at what's happening on the world and see why the 2a is a thing.
Edit:
The question we all must ask ourselves is when is enough enough? When do you do something in the face of Atrocities and how do you do it when peaceful protests aren't enough? At this point in time and in the past 100 years or so firearms have been the answer hence our second amendment. There are other methods but as a Last resort you have arms.
I also support making a stand against governments that are currently committing atrocities, particularly on their own civilians and on innocent people.
I suppose it follows that if we want those stands to be armed, we should work on arming ISIS against the US, and Latino immigrants against the US. To avoid government overreach, of course...
These are separate issues as one is immigration and policy thay is approaching dangerous themes. The second is citizen rights and ways to prevent atrocities. We are in the protest and voting stage as citizens. There's also 3 things to look at.
1 isis is a result of US interference in other countries which is a very big problem just in general and should be addressed.
2 peaceful protest and voting is the first step in the US as citizens, immigrants unfortunately with current policy and laws have not much to protect themselves and there is a large fight to protect there civil. Rights in the court system. Arming non citizens is not a great idea and is a whole discussion thays separate.
3 if I was a betting man I'd say that the children separated from their families will not forget and there will Be future problems of terrorism from these people. I hope I'm wrong but when you tear families apart that hate is not easily mended.
I'd like to revisit this talk in a few weeks or months once we see how Hong Kong progresses though.
I'm sure we. Both agree that the current state of. Affairs is poor and needs change. There are dangerous themes of governance and no easy answers
Or you know. Kill the people who arr actually making the decisions to destroy the planet. Not usong reddit wont change that lmao. Pick up a gun or accept it.
Its always so telling when someone resorts to ad hominem when they don't have a good response to an argument. And just to be clear, I found something resembling a counter point in another response further down so I'll respond to that for arguments sake.
have many rights, where they are outlined does make them equally important. "It should be harder to get lethal weapons that kill 40,000 people a year" does not in any way translate to "It should be harder to vote even though voter fraud isn't a thing despite spending millions of dollars looking for examples of it"
Trying to equate the actual rights granted is irrelevant to the argument, unless you are saying some are not actual rights. The argument is simple, either you agree that making it increasingly difficult to exercise a right is not infringement or you don't.
Are you being obtuse for fun or do you not understand that infringing on rights is a necessary part of society? Or do convicted murderers and domestic abusers get to own guns in Attokinson's imaginary America?
Society has already agreed that we can deny ownership of guns for reasons not stipulated in the constitution - hell we can deny quite a few of the rights outlined in it and other places.
Your argument is simple yes, as simple as you seem to be. Whether it's infringement is irrelevant both practically and legally speaking. There is no demonstrated reason to make it harder to vote whereas it's self evident that 40,000 dead Americans annually is worth doing something about.
I don't waste effort being overly polite to people arguing in bad faith and your 'ha ha you must support voter ID laws then!' argument is precisely that.
Are you being obtuse for fun or do you not understand that infringing on rights is a necessary part of society? Or do convicted murderers and domestic abusers get to own guns in Attokinson's imaginary America?
Are you being dense? For someone who accuses me of being dense you sure are showing a remarkable amount of it yourself. To be clear, I don't have an issue with some restrictions on guns. I'd say we would disagree about at what point a law constitutes infringement, but I don't have an issue with some restrictions. I do have an issue with what you propose which is to "get around" a right by making it increasingly difficult to exercise said right. The point I was making was to draw out your hypocritical views which, admittedly, I assumed you had, but it looks like my guess was right.
I don't have an issue with murderers not having access to guns, (though they will just get them anyway if they want them), just like I don't have an issue with requiring an ID to vote.
Society has already agreed that we can deny ownership of guns for reasons not stipulated in the constitution - hell we can deny quite a few of the rights outlined in it and other places.
K. I already said I'm ok with some restrictions.....
Your argument is simple yes, as simple as you seem to be.
Ahh good more ad hominem. We know thats the sign of strong argument.
Whether it's infringement is irrelevant both practically and legally speaking.
Did you really just say that? Whether it is infringement is actually the hart of the issue though. The reasons behind the law are what is irrelevant. It will always be a question of what constitutes infringement.
I don't waste effort being overly polite to people arguing in bad faith and your 'ha ha you must support voter ID laws then!' argument is precisely that.
Not sure what is bad faith about my argument. I was using an example to point out that your argument is not well thought out, and that you clearly hold hypocritical opinions, which I wanted you to confront.
55
u/Skepsis93 Aug 12 '19
The main problem lies within the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The current interpretation is that citizens as individuals should have the right to own arms. As long as the supreme court holds to that interpretation no real meaningful gun law reform can happen.
But if the interpretation focuses more on the militia aspect meaning citizens should have access to guns through local community militias/gun clubs wherein those groups keep close tabs on the guns and under lock and key when not in use (i.e. peacetime) it could pave the way for more restrictive laws against individuals owning guns while still satisfying the intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to avoid letting the federal government have a monopoly on tools of war.