I added the following to my profile so people can quickly get a sense for what I am about... Thoughts?

(See my profile but pasted below for ease)

My stance on various issues:

Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect

@freemo I will never understand the gun infringement issue. Otherwise 💯

@alper And likewise I doubt id every understand people wanting to infringe on that right, happy to discuss but to each their own.

@freemo absolutely. I'm trying to imagine possible scenarios that the original intent could play out. I don't see a use. State tyranny cannot be the reason, at least for those who really are oppressed. I'm all ears if you believe that it is needed.

@alper

There are two discussions:

1) What **is** the law (which doesnt care much about original intent anyway)
2) What the law **should** be.

As for #1 the law is quite clear "Shall not be infringed", and any talk of militia has long since debunked a it is an exemplary clause not a conditional clause (we can verify that not just with early court documents and statements from the authors, but also its obvious from the wording if you replace it with similar sentence structure to eliminate your bias, we can discuss that separately if need be).

As for #2 that matters even less about original intent and has everything to do with what is the right choice... The logic is quite simple IMO If someone is about to kill you almost 100% of the time you will be killed and the murderer gone long long before police arive. ITs the nature of it. In fact in almost all cases you wont even be able to call the police until after the crime (in other words once your dead or dying).

Your only possibility for survival in such a situation rests solely on you, I for one find it irresponsible of anyone who is not armed for this very reason.

Keep in mind we arent just talking about humans here, the logic applies equally to wild animals (for example I always take my gun hiking and camping).

Thats the biggest logical reason, I have many others, and yes as a check against tyranny and invasion is a very valid one too. But overall they are much less relevant arguments.

@freemo hunting or defense in wildlife (or even dangerous jobs) in many countries are valid reasons to apply and get a permit. Do you have safety concerns and need your gun in Netherlands?

@alper

> hunting or defense in wildlife (or even dangerous jobs) in many countries are valid reasons to apply and get a permit.

Requiring permits would be an infringement on the right to bear arms. So assuming the amendment is faithfully interpreted (it usually isnt) by current law that would require a new constitutional amendment.

That aside the issue with permits are many fold, but most importantly is they can put gun owners at legal risk since they allow police to search for everyone with a gun and then target people **simply** for owning a gun.. This is something we already see constantly (people being stopped for having a gun on them) so that would not be something I would support.

> Do you have safety concerns and need your gun in Netherlands?

The guns I own are all at my american house due to limitations to my freedoms int he Netherlands sadly. But yes, yes I do have safety concerns personally. And frankly anyone can get mugged, knifed or killed so again, would be responsible for everyone to carry one if it were legal.

@freemo yes. An amendment shouldn't be a big deal since there are many already.
Tyranny argument is not realistic since 1)not just muskets anymore, huge asymmetry 2)state is more likely to use armed civilians as a fear tactic (personally witnessed in protests in Istanbul where armed "civilians" opposed (chased down with machetes and guns) the peaceful protestors and never got caught by the police (a miracle!)

@alper

Your arguments against armed populace to deter tyranny are in fact arguments for it.

1) In a world where weapons arent infringed then any weapon the govt is allowed on american soil and used against the populace then the populace is also allowed to buy. Ergo by default there is no asymetry.

Moreover even if we accepted the current state of affairs where the govt is allowed more power, the fact that the other side is better armed is **not** an argument for your side to dearm itself.. If anything its an argument to ensure you keep as much armament as you legally can muster as disarming only serves to make the asymetry worse, not better.

2) Using an armed populace as a fear tactic only works when people are used to be around armed people and thus associated it with fear. By arming the populace and encouraging people to carry their guns it exposes people to it and makes the fear angle less likely to be exploited.

@freemo does this suggest you are not at all concerned with the level of gun violence in the US? Because the laws change when there is a problem and many believe that there is. I cannot accept that Sandy hook is the price to pay. I'm able, some are and some aren't. They cannot fight. The whole point of civilization is that we protect our weakest. Half of America is armed to the teeth and specifically for a civil war. Outcomes are only getting worse.