๐ณ๐ฑ
Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.
@freemo right on. And before someone posts the "well regulated militia" argument, the militia at that time was the able-bodied male population. The 2a is definitely about the general public being armed and trained to repel either invasion or tyranny.
If the Federal government wanted to take the 2a seriously, they should be expanding the Civilian Marksmanship Program and offering free rifle lessons in high school.
@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.
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.
Why is it more terrifying than being all by yourself? Just make sure your club is not hostile to the government.๐
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.
@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.
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.
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.๐
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha
Yes. you can do it all by yourself, but you need an ISP to access the Net, don't you?
@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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
No worries. The “shut up” part was a figure of speech๐. 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
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.
right, you should be just as protected if you buy a gun and have no association to the NRA, both protection in terms of the ability to use a gun to defend yourself, as well as protected from having yoru gun taken
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.
When has a restraining order ever provided any protection of any kind against a person who chooses to rape you? the only thing a restraining order would do is make it easier to get the person arrested after the fact (since you only need to prove they were near you, not that they raped you)… But no restraining order in any country would do anything to physically prevent a person from raping you if they decided they were going to… so I dont follow your logic here.
Yes. That’s exactly my point.
You should be, as an individual, protected from being killed, raped, or prevented to use a gun for legitimate reasons, but in this imperfect world you are not, so joining a group or club or some other kind of people’s #system gives you more protection than if you are facing all of that alone. In some way, these community-sanctioned associations can become a replacement for gangs.
I think this applies to 2) as well. Instead of just shoving a gun into the victim’s hands and calling it done, set up a women’s shelter or some other safe community place they can use, or get a GPS tracker on the bozo. Yes, it will violate his human rights and hurt his feelings, but who cares.
If you ever find or make a society where I am better protected from rape, murder, and violent acts without a gun than with a gun then i will be the first to join you there… For now that does not and never has existed.
@freemo
Oh, there are plenty of countries like that. I believe you are in one right now. Didn’t bring a gun with you, did you? @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha
That is just completely false. Compute all statistics you want. Your odds of dying from a gun (suicide or homicide, together or separately) in Europe are lower than in the US. And if your US household has guns, you are much more likely to get shot than if it doesn't (after controlling for income, neighborhood, etc ). Guns don't make you or society safety. They just make you feel that way. But feeling is not science.
Don't bother saying you computed this otherwise in some data savvy way, if you have not published it. And don't insult us with saying we don't know statistics. I have been doing AI and data science professionally since the late 80s with the resume and published work to back that up.
Most people who argue political stuff arent really engaging, thinking, and learning.. they have these talking points they just repeat and because when they were with other people who agreed it soubded bulletproof so they stopped engaging and just parrot these points.. when you challenge them and point out the fkaws thry arent prepared so all thry can do is keep reverting to their unrelated talking points and hope no one notices the inconsistency.
He keeps talki g about gu violence despite the fact that what he said i admitted as true from the first moment, I also pointed out why its entierly irrelevant to what i was actually saying, that last part though i guess he doesnt want to hear because then he woukd have to actually construct a valid defense to address it, and he probably doesnt have one.
If your goal is really to deal with all categories of violence, I don’t think that indiscriminately giving everyone a gun is helping at all. I wonder if the fact that there are so many unregulated guns on the streets has any influence on why the police shoot first and then ask questions. I also don’t believe they are too happy with the expansion of the, no questions asked, concealed carry in some states.
Also, @freemo still didn’t convince me that guns have any positive impact on other kinds of violence. If this was true, with the number of guns per capita in circulation, the USA would be the least violent country on the planet. Do you have any indication that the rate of other violent crimes is higher in countries with fewer firearms?
@pj @thatguyoverthere @freemo @mike805 @lmrocha German here, we don’t toss guns around like candy. No violence surge here, just the politicians doing their thing. shrugs
There you go with antivaxxer logic.. you are entierly right that in a society with guns your chance of dying by a gun is higher than in countries without guns. No one ever argued anything to the contrary.
What you sayin is thr intellectually equivelant argument of "In a society where vaccines are illegal far fewer people die of vaccines...
Well duh, irrelevant what you said, but duh ;)
@freemo that is very silly. Vaccines demonstrably save many lives (with antibiotics the key reason for population explosion in xx century). In contrast there is zero, zilch, nada evidence that guns save lives ---the net effect in killings is demonstrably more death as you acknowledged, while the opposite is true for vaccines. You think they do, but, alas, no demonstration.
This comparison with anti-vaxxers makes no sense at all
It really is hard to get a good faith discussion.. I guess that would risk having to accept that maybe its not as clear cut as the talking points suggest
@thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha @pj well the ancient Greeks summarized the logical fallacies. And probably about 90% of the media's content would fall into one of these categories.
@mike805 @thatguyoverthere @freemo @lmrocha @pj Actually, the medieval Scholastics summarized logical fallacies as we know them. E.g., โargumentum ad hominemโ is Medieval Latin (note the prepositional phrase).
It is undeniable guns save lives, we have countless examples of it.
What you mean to say is that guns take more lives than they save... but when you refuse to show data that actually examines that question its all just hot air. You keep using thr antivax argument rather than addressing the question.
@freemo Another thing, or another angle perhaps?
You will never be safe, not in the absolute sense. Not with a gun, not without one. There is no absolute certainty.
@pj
You are delusional (no disrespect intended) if you think this or any other place I will be safe from all violent acts.
No I dont have a gun here, and my life is more at risk than if I was allowed one, and had one.
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha