@mike805 The well regulated militia is clearly an exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause

@freemo also "the people"in the 2a definitely refers to the actual human beings living in this territory. So that quashes any "collective right" claim.

The use of "the people" to refer to some theoretical group right is really a Marxist invention. The founders said what they meant and meant what they said.

@mike805 @freemo the founders were not gods. Their conception of guns, militia, armies, people (who they thought mattered), rights (for those they throughout mattered) bear absolutely no relevance today. All of those have changed dramatically since then.

I might have a suggestion that could satisfy most of the people here:

**Problem:** The perpetrators in mass shootings are mainly "loners" with some unresolved issues.

**Solution:** To be able to legally buy a gun you need to be a member in good standing and have a permit from a "well-regulated militia" (a.k.a. a gun club or society).

So the responsibility for the security of a society is neither on the individual nor on the government, but on the society itself.

What do you think? Is everybody happy? You have your guns (as many as you wish) and the rest of us are a little bit less concerned we'll get shot at our place of work, learning, or praying.

@lmrocha @mike805 @freemo

@pj

I think the problem is misrepresented. Mass shootings are not the problem, violence overall is and mass shootings is a very low priority when it comes to addressing that. It is too arbitrary and rare to call it the problem

@lmrocha @mike805

@freemo @lmrocha @mike805

Maybe it is not ***the*** problem but it surely is ***a*** problem. We can argue about priorities, but I believe a well-regulated ecosystem of gun clubs with proper shooting ranges, competitions, and other social events may go a long way in easing the violence, especially among younger people.

@pj

The issue with trying to address a very small and rare subset of the problem is you often make the larger problem which is more common worse in a desire to fix a less common problem... its similar to premature optimization in software

@lmrocha @mike805

@pj @lmrocha @mike805 @freemo That's actually terrifying. You have to join a militia with a roster that the government approves of, and if ever your club (the people you associate with) is deemed by the state to be hostile to the state you are stripped of your rights.

@thatguyoverthere

Why is it more terrifying than being all by yourself? Just make sure your club is not hostile to the government.😀

If the government thinks you, or any bunch you are currently associated with, are hostile, you will be stripped of your rights anyway, club or not club. At least in a club that was previously sanctioned by that same government, you have some kind of protection.

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha the government can and does regularly decide previously innocuous organizations are hostile. Sometimes it's warranted and sometimes it's political. The reason requiring you to put your name on a list is more terrifying is the same reason I think a national digitized database of firearms ownership would be. It's cute to say "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" but reality tells a different tale.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

If it helps, think of it as a ***"gun owners' fediverse"*** where each club is an "instance" and the NRA, instead of an association of individuals, is a federation of all the gun clubs of America.
Then, instead of taking care primarily of just the needs of their wealthy donors (gun manufacturers), they may start also thinking about the needs of all of their other members and their local societies.

@pj

The idea is great except where its required.. it would be like saying if you want access to the internet you need a fediverse instance you join and that gives you permission to get on the internet.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

How don't you see it is the same situation?

I can get access to the Internet from a library or walk onto a shooting range and shoot a few rounds under supervision, but if I want to buy a gun and take it home where there is a risk of harming other people, I have to get an IP subscription and join some of the social platforms where I can "shoot" nonsense like this.😀
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Do you think getting on the internet should mean approval from a club thoigh? Cause thats not how we do it now, anyone can get internet and cant be denied.

@freemo

Oh, it can.
Try downloading child porn or other shit and look how fast it will be denied.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @freemo @mike805 @lmrocha and with guns if you attack another person without just cause you will also lose access.

@thatguyoverthere

Attacking a person is in this analogy akin to physically harming a child as opposed to "just" downloading child porn.

Ideally, you would want to prevent evil or sick people to harm anyone.

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

If you physically attack someone with a gun you loose the gun... how do you physically attack someone on the internet though? Not sure i follow

@freemo
Yes, I've said it is not the same. @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

Fair

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo @pj @mike805 @lmrocha i think maybe brandishing might be like bullying

@pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha brandishing then :shrug:

there are laws that prevent people from using weapons to intimidate.

It is much easier to regulate human behavior than inanimate objects.

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

Try shooting someone and watch how fast your gun is taken away... same logic.

@freemo Same answer as to @thatguyoverthere

@mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @freemo @mike805 @lmrocha you literally never HAVE to join any platforms to browse the web. You can run your own server (blog, fedi, game, whatever) and others can access it. If you just want to build something for a local community you could even skip the internet altogether and run a wide area network on your own if you have the resources completely separate from the internet.

@pj @freemo @lmrocha @mike805 you also don't have to provide fedi admins with a state approved ID to join. Some don't even care if the email is valid (big ups IMO). Some people on the internet need privacy just like some people in real life need to have the ability to defend themselves. Not everyone has a strong need for either of these things at all times, but we all should have access to them if ever we do.

@thatguyoverthere

No, but your ISP always knows who you are.

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@pj

No you can buy prepaid 5g for your router and have anonymous internet if you want.

Thats what i do in Israel, my internet is completely anonymous.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

Buy how, in cash?
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

Yea you just buy top up cards from the phone store in cash.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha not always

@thatguyoverthere

Yes. you can do it all by yourself, but you need an ISP to access the Net, don't you?

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@pj @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

You also need a gun shop to buy a gun, not sure the analogy works too well honestly

@freemo
The problem is that you don't need a gun shop to buy a gun or the shop doesn't care who they sell their guns to.

This is the same as if you could access the internet from your computer without an ISP. Imagine what a shitshow the Internet would be then compared to what it is already is now.

If you could only buy a gun from a gun shop, I believe more than half of all the problems we have now with gun violence would go away.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

I have nonproblems with making sure the usual background check from a gun were enforced on all purchases. So if thats all you are puahing for you have my support

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

Yes. That would be a good start. My suggestion was though to try seeing things from a larger perspective.

I believe that one of the problems is that too many individuals are #alienated from their immediate local (physical) #community while fulfilling their "communal needs" primarily with strangers over the Internet except for #Work and maybe #Church, which is obviously not enough, and sometimes even adds to further alienation.

I think people should be free (or even encouraged) to form their own local societies with real people they get to know because of things they feel strongly about, and guns seemed like one such catalyst to increase the number of "good guys" and minimize the harm done by "bad guys" with guns.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

One more thought about the analogy between ISPs and gun clubs with regard to privacy, and then I'll shut up.

Long ago, I received a letter from my ISP that they got a request from an entertainment company to get my ID because they want to sue me for downloading one of their pirated series from somewhere (which I did). They were just informing me of that fact and that they won't comply with the request if I stopped.

Well, I'm not downloading anymore (streaming is better) and even if I moved a couple of times, I'm still with the same ISP.

So being a member of a good club (who knows who you are) sometimes also means you can protect your #privacy better.

@pj

No need to shut up.. Disagreeing and talking about this is healthy, even if no one changes their mind the exercise is healthy.

As long as you stay respectful, as you have, please feel free to keep brining up as many points as you want.

being in a gun club, taking gun training, and everything in that regard which you suggest is a good thing. I totally encourage people join gun clubs... where the analogy breaks down is when you suggest it be a legal requirement (rather than a strong suggestion) for gun ownership.

There are a few reqasons gun licensing or requiring clubs is problematic...

1) it means some entity can take away your rights if they feel you arent living up to their expectations, this has the potential to be abused, specifically if those clubs that have the power are decided on by the government

2) It can delay your access to a gun, and if you are in danger that may cost you your life. a good example of that would be someone with a restraining order who might be at risk of being raped. They cant wait

3) Unless done very carefully it would effectively act as a registery for who does and doesnt have guns. This can potentially be used by a corrupt government to track down and take away said guns should the government want to infringe on gun rights and become oppressive.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

No worries. The "shut up" part was a figure of speech😀. Many tried, unsuccessfully.

"legal requirement" vs. "strong suggestion"? I can work with that as long as it minimizes the chances of "bad guys" legally getting their hands on guns (e.g. more than a dozen AR-15s)

Specifically:

1) Not if being part of a club, who is a member of the NRA means you are ***more*** protected than as an isolated individual.

2) If you need to arm the victim to protect themselves from being raped by someone they have a restraining order on, that order and the agency that issued it is worth as much as the paper the order is written on.

3) See 1)
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj @mike805 @freemo @lmrocha you can build your own networks without if you so choose, but yes to join the larger "Net" you need someone on the network to grant you access. For personal access there are a variety of methods both that are tied to identity and anonymous (some of questionable legality), and for hosting services yourself the same is true. You don't even need a domain name if you don't want, but if you do there are ways to acquire one without exposing a real identity.

@pj

I think its good to join a gun club, and most gun owners tend to.. but yea requiring membership is a horrible idea imo.

@lmrocha @mike805

@mike805 @freemo even if that were the case (it's isn't), you still have them "well-regulated" bit. Also, if the first part is to be taken for sacred, by your interpretation then only white men should have the right to bear arms?

The reification of an old document is a choice. One that is killing our children. Guns are the number one cause of death for children in America! Our life expectancy is way lower than all other advanced countries. Choosing this mortality for an interpretation of an old text is the definition of a death cult. One that is imposed on a majority of Americans who do not want it.

@lmrocha @freemo then change it The Founders put in a procedure to change the Constitution. If a strong majority really does oppose the public ownership of guns, then you should have no trouble getting an amendment passed, right? A previous generation of progressive activists actually managed to get a ban on alcohol passed as an amendment, so it's not impossible.

I don't agree with you, but campaigning for an amendment would be the honest approach.

@mike805 @freemo if we had a democracy that would work, but we have an oligarchy where the lobby of the gun manufacturers out votes the people. Just see what the supreme court did recently to my state of New York. Our democratically enacted gun controls were wiped.

And if you don't believe we are in an oligarchy, see the news about Clarence Thomas. That is why I take issue with this reification of the founding fathers. That is all a smoke screen to face that there is no democracy on this issue. It's the rule of the lobby, which I very much doubt the founding fathers intended. Indeed, a century later Lincoln called the death penalty for profiteers, which is what the gun manufacturers who profit from there daily assassination of American children are.

@mike805 @freemo you have changed the interpretation of only the bits you like: guns for all, when it was meant for well regulated militia of white men. There was no need for amendments to change that interpretation. But if we want to set the limits clearly specified by the "well regulated" bit (the point @freemo was commenting with meme, incorrectly in my view) then we need an amendment. Isn't that convenient? Of course it is all a matter of interpretation, which depends on the supreme court, which depends on money---or a president with the balls to pack it.

The only hope it's that this conservative overreach (as in Tennessee and recent supreme court rulings) will result in a youth backlash that has not been seen since 1969.

@lmrocha

Nah, the amendment says nothing of white men, and the foubding fathers made no hijts that is what they intended... well regulated militia is very obviously an exemplary clause not a qualifying clause

@mike805

@freemo @mike805
Dude, for the founding fathers, "we the people" meant men with property. Voting was not universal. Everything about the second amendment, from gun technology to whom it applied to (it certainly did not apply to slaves), the concept of militia and regulation has changed, and so has its interpretation.

The way it characterizes "well regulated militia" for instance, is because they really had no concept of national army as we have today. The idea of serving in a national army did not exist until after the french revolution and Napoleon. Up to that point, soldiers were paid by kings to fight for the king's army in defense of his property and lands. Those were the days when people like the founding fathers were defining how armies, national and state guards should work.

@lmrocha

None of this argument is relevant.. yes a lot of people were oppressed, we passed amendments to protect them (and their right to own guns as an extension)... Again, this is the point, if you want to change the current state of the constitution, create an amendment.

@mike805

@freemo @mike805 the current state of the constitution is only what a (very small) majority of supreme court justices, corrupt as some of them are, decides it is. It can, it has, and it will be changed without an amendment.

@lmrocha

Well no argument that the justices will abuse their reach by misinterpriting the constitution... luckily with the right lean in the supreme court we are likely to see stronger defense of the #2A, though I'd much rather this be done by the way the constitution is designed to work rather than to be at the whims of a supreme court.

@mike805

@freemo @mike805 there is no misinterpretation. There is only interpretation, in context, in time, as needed, as the framers of the constitution intended. You seem to think the constitution holds some kind of immutable truth. That's reification. It obviously is not the case.

@lmrocha

Of course the constitution is intended to change... thats what amendments are for.. what its not intended to do is say one thing and people make up completely opposite things and say thats what it means.

@mike805