Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:42 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Fair enough. But understand that people need to realize other people do. And this thread is asking about those other people. The OP's question asking, "What scary thing might happen after all the government thugs kick in doors and take everyone's guns following a gun ban?" That's the scary thing people fear. It's not necessarily what happens next. That's the terminal event; the sum of all fears. Every piece of gun legislation, they fear, puts us one step closer to the day when guns are banned and the government comes to get them. It would be more productive to discuss why they fear that. The question should be, "Why are people so scared of the government stripping away their constitutional rights, entering their home without permission, and taking their legally purchased property?" And in my opinion, it's because it's a scary thought to live in a country that could so easily vote away a major right, and a major part of their identity, and then send in armed government thugs to enter their homes to take their property.
I dunno, the OP just struck me as strange to frame a question that basically says, "Suppose the country becomes a dystopian police state. What is the feared result of that?" The country becoming a dystopian police state is the feared result.
Yes, but the repeal of the Second Amendment can only happen by a process that requires a large majority of the population to support it. Calling such a process the harbinger of a dystopian police state is wrong.
  #102  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:49 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but I have to ask: why does abolition of the Second Amendment mean that guns are banned?

I live in a country where guns are allowed, but are not a constitutional right. Nobody in a uniform has shown up on my doorstep demanding to see papers, or demand to see storage. Sure, they could (well, no, not without a search warrant), but they aren't. I don't have the right to possess firearms, but I am allowed the privilege to own them. And I have, for years, as a responsible gun owner.

Abolishing the right to gun ownership is not the same as a gun ban. You can still own guns--you just have to do so within parameters laid down by the government you elected, and if your breach those parameters--wll, bye-bye gun privileges.
A lot of people act like the only two possibilities are unrestricted gun ownership and a complete ban. Guns are a topic in which it seems like only the two extremes are heard.

Personally, I'd like to see gun ownership treated as the equivalent of driving and owning a car. People would generally be allowed to own guns. But guns would be regulated and there would be standards which would prohibit ownership in some cases.
  #103  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:51 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
Can you say specifically which "black guy" this is who you are referring to?
Good point. There are dozens of instances of "Cop shoots black guy because he was black." (I recall one such just as Chronos described and will bet ten gallons of rum I could find it in less than a minute's Googling -- were there others just like it?) Blacks are shot for reaching for their driver's license after cop tells them to reach for their driver's license. For a black to tell a cop he's carrying seems suicidal.

So I'm not sure American cops are competent to carry guns. The idea that America's greatness depends on every Branch Davidian or neo-Nazi having a cellar-full of guns seems absurd.

BTW: In many of these cop-shoots-obviously-innocent-black stories, the black is left to bleed out with no first aid or call to paramedics. Is this also part of NRA/gunlover doctrine?
  #104  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:53 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, but the repeal of the Second Amendment can only happen by a process that requires a large majority of the population to support it. Calling such a process the harbinger of a dystopian police state is wrong.
IF the Constitution is changed in that way, by the will of the people, then the justification will change to "God-Given Rights" and/or "Natural Law".
  #105  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:53 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but I have to ask: why does abolition of the Second Amendment mean that guns are banned?
In the OP, I wrote that the 2A was repealed and also that laws were passed, to confiscate guns.
  #106  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:56 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, but the repeal of the Second Amendment can only happen by a process that requires a large majority of the population to support it. Calling such a process the harbinger of a dystopian police state is wrong.
I've always thought a lot of gun owners goalposted immediately on this.

"The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms - therefore we have a legal right to own guns, the law must be upheld and respected"

** asks gun owners what if the 2A were repealed and laws passed to ban gun ownership **

"We have a moral/philosophical right to bear arms, we won't obey the law!"
  #107  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:02 AM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Which, I might point out, is what other conservative - I won't speculate on the overlap between the gun guys and the anti-abortion guys - have been doing for a few decades about abortion. Small steps, chipping away at a right defined by the Supreme Court leading to a hoped-for ability to ban abortion completely.

What the gun guys fear, outlined above, is a reasonable thing given that their own allies are using the same approach. A man fears most what he knows HE would do in the same situation.
In many ways, gun owners are to conservatives what pro-choicers are to liberals: People who consider a particular right to be cherished and fiercely defended, and fear that others want to eventually repeal their right (via judges, elections) to have. Although a woman's uterus is arguably of greater direct physical importance to her than whether a gun owner has his Glock or not.
  #108  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:21 AM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 13,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Cite? Because whenever I've seen any issue about blacks or Hispanics with guns, the NRA never seems to have their backs. Like, that black guy who was shot because he told a cop that he had a concealed carry, and then followed the cop's instructions: Did the NRA push for the cop's prosecution?
They also don't fight as a rule if a white citizen is shot under questionable circumstances. But turn it into a class or race issue concerning basic ownership and all bets are off. A quick Google picks up

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-matter-215084

https://www.quora.com/Has-the-NRA-ev...infringed-upon

There have been exceptions (California in the 60s and 70s where the NRA actually favored gun control targeting minorities) but from what I see, even within the liberal press, that was an aberration that crossed into a fear of not just blacks but hippies and the whole anti-war movement headed by a few individual officers and districts. By the first Bush administration they look to have rotated their world view by quite a few degrees.
  #109  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:26 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
What does the NRA's support or lack thereof for Black gun owners have anything to do with this? Is there some "blacks only" gun ban move I'm not aware of? The most (indirectly) pro-black gun move recently was Heller vs DC and that was not that long ago, and you can bet your ass the NRA had something to do with that.

Last edited by Ashtura; 01-11-2019 at 11:27 AM.
  #110  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:33 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Waco wasn't on a national scale. If it was, you'd see shit that made Oklahoma City seem quaint. The problem with confiscation of 100M people with guns is not that it'd be impossible to pull off, more like 1000 Wacos and subsequential retribution terror attacks (what they'd be classified at least) just isn't worth it. Nobody wants to see that kind of blood bath.
Are you saying that gun owners are potential terrorists? that if they do not get the results that they want through democratic means, they will resort to violence and "bloodbath" in order to enforce their will?

In the OP's scenario, at least 3/4ths of the states have gone along with this, and it is very popular. Defending an unpopular viewpoint with threats of violence is nothing but terrorism.

If gun owners would be that violent because they disagree with the results of the democratic process, then they probably shouldn't be trusted with guns in the first place. Is that really how you view your fellow gun owner? I had much more faith in the law abiding part of a law abiding gun owner, but here you are, insisting that they only will abide the laws they agree with, and violently resist the ones that they don't. Is that really a good PR move for convincing us that guns are in the right hands?




Personally, I do not think that the OP's scenario would come to pass, if 2a were revoked, it would not be immediate gun ban and confiscation. We may be looking at some more restrictions on where and how you can carry, and some on what kinds of guns you can buy, but a total gun ban only exists in the most fervent dreams of the extreme, extreme anti-gun advocate, and in the irrational nightmares of a surprising number of pro-gun advocates.
  #111  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:38 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
In many ways, gun owners are to conservatives what pro-choicers are to liberals: People who consider a particular right to be cherished and fiercely defended, and fear that others want to eventually repeal their right (via judges, elections) to have. Although a woman's uterus is arguably of greater direct physical importance to her than whether a gun owner has his Glock or not.
The difference is is that liberals will not kill to protect pro-choice, conservative will kill due to their anti-choice position. Same as liberals will not kill in order to protect a anti-gun stance, but it is claimed right here that conservatives will kill to protect their guns.

Any argument of "both-sideism" like the one you attempted there has to take into account that only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box.
  #112  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:39 AM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 13,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
What does the NRA's support or lack thereof for Black gun owners have anything to do with this?
First read post number 50, my reply at post 84, and the reply to my reply at post 93. That puts the post (108?) you seem to question more in context. Ideas discussed over multiple pages can get like that sometimes.
  #113  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:43 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
What does the NRA's support or lack thereof for Black gun owners have anything to do with this? Is there some "blacks only" gun ban move I'm not aware of? The most (indirectly) pro-black gun move recently was Heller vs DC and that was not that long ago, and you can bet your ass the NRA had something to do with that.
The point is that a confiscation of guns will not trigger any major uprising if it is done by targeting unpopular groups first. Certain unpopular religions, people from hated countries...NRA propaganda and spewings from various right wing sources tell us we need firearms to protect ourselves from "invasions" from people like them, so I don't see any general uprising to defend the gun rights in those cases.
The problem with depending on a violent uprising is that this kind of event needs a clearly defined and agreed upon trigger event for it to work. A line in the sand cannot work if everyone is drawing their own lines.
  #114  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:15 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The difference is is that liberals will not kill to protect pro-choice, conservative will kill due to their anti-choice position. Same as liberals will not kill in order to protect a anti-gun stance, but it is claimed right here that conservatives will kill to protect their guns.

Any argument of "both-sideism" like the one you attempted there has to take into account that only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box.
That's an awfully bold claim to make after James Hodgkinson tried to assassinate a bunch of Congressional Republicans.
  #115  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:05 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The point is that a confiscation of guns will not trigger any major uprising if it is done by targeting unpopular groups first. Certain unpopular religions, people from hated countries...NRA propaganda and spewings from various right wing sources tell us we need firearms to protect ourselves from "invasions" from people like them, so I don't see any general uprising to defend the gun rights in those cases.
Maybe I don't understand you. Are you thinking that the NRA won't object if gun-banners start by banning guns for black people?

Regards,
Shodan
  #116  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:06 PM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal Nonesutch View Post
Can you say specifically which "black guy" this is who you are referring to?
Philando Castile is the most famous one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
What does the NRA's support or lack thereof for Black gun owners have anything to do with this? Is there some "blacks only" gun ban move I'm not aware of? The most (indirectly) pro-black gun move recently was Heller vs DC and that was not that long ago, and you can bet your ass the NRA had something to do with that.
Yeah, the NRA doesn't as a rule "defend" every unjustifiable shooting. But their complete silence on this one was weird (except unofficial spokesman Colion Noir has lots of stuff to say). But I think it had less to do with race than NRA not wanting to piss off the Thin Blue Line.

NRA did not have much to do with Heller, more like inserting themselves in an unwanted way. I think it's funny when people say "the NRA" as if they are the only gun rights group. SAF and FPC and others are the ones actually changing the law. And I read lots of gun forum-type pages, some apolitical (which may lean conservative) and some that are explicitly "liberal." NRA is not popular right now across a wide political spectrum, yet outside observers think that it's some monolith.

Last edited by thelurkinghorror; 01-11-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  #117  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:07 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I've always thought a lot of gun owners goalposted immediately on this.

"The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms - therefore we have a legal right to own guns, the law must be upheld and respected"
Ironically, if I was a Supreme Court Justice, I'd probably get a favorable rating from the NRA.

While I don't agree with the Second Amendment, I recognize that it exists and unrestricted gun ownership is a constitutional right. I would rule against most gun control laws on that basis.
  #118  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:24 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Suppose against all odds the 2nd Amendment is repealed and laws are passed and the government goes knocking door-to-door to confiscate all privately owned guns. What is the feared result exactly?

Is is that gun owners would lack self defense, or financial loss (guns are expensive and maybe Uncle Sam wouldn't compensate enough,) or that there would be no way to resist governmental tyranny?

No snarkiness intended at all - just want to understand. I don't own guns and probably never will, but want to understand what the main worry is exactly.
A primary worry is the incredible, self-imposed, ignorance of the anti-2nd/anti-inanimate-object haters who repeatedly ask the same questions in spite of having heard the answers before. Choosing to ignore the answers doesn't mean the answers will change, or are invalid.

No snarkiness intended at all, but are you demanding that government agents invade your home, announced or unannounced, with or without a warrant, in order to search your home for now-illegal-to-own-firearms? All it would take for that to happen is for one, or more, of your neighbors, friends, co-workers, or family to anonymously notify those government agencies that you have firearms in your house.
  #119  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:42 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That's an awfully bold claim to make after James Hodgkinson tried to assassinate a bunch of Congressional Republicans.
I completely and unreservedly condemn his actions, as do pretty much all liberals. Do you condemn without reservation the actions of, say, Timothy McVeigh?

And it is the gun advocates in this very thread who are stating as a plain fact that the gun owners will rebel against the govt if democracy doesn't go their way. That is the argument that is made by the people on your side.

If you don't agree with them, argue with them, don't try to play your hypocrisy gotcha games in order to distract from the argument that is being made by your side, right now, that they will not respect the law, and will commit to violence if they do not get their way.

And these threats are not even against political leaders who would make these decisions, but against people just doing their job in enforcing the laws that were voted upon by the a super majority of your fellow citizens.

Your tu quoque failed, hard.
  #120  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:46 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I completely and unreservedly condemn his actions, as do pretty much all liberals. Do you condemn without reservation the actions of, say, Timothy McVeigh?

And it is the gun advocates in this very thread who are stating as a plain fact that the gun owners will rebel against the govt if democracy doesn't go their way. That is the argument that is made by the people on your side.

If you don't agree with them, argue with them, don't try to play your hypocrisy gotcha games in order to distract from the argument that is being made by your side, right now, that they will not respect the law, and will commit to violence if they do not get their way.

And these threats are not even against political leaders who would make these decisions, but against people just doing their job in enforcing the laws that were voted upon by the a super majority of your fellow citizens.

Your tu quoque failed, hard.
I didn't ask if you condemned him or not. You made a claim. Specifically, you said, "only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box." That claim is false. James Hodgkinson is an example from your side that was "willing to kill" when he didn't get his way at the ballot box. Do you now recognize that your claim is false?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-11-2019 at 01:47 PM.
  #121  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:23 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I didn't ask if you condemned him or not. You made a claim. Specifically, you said, "only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box." That claim is false. James Hodgkinson is an example from your side that was "willing to kill" when he didn't get his way at the ballot box. Do you now recognize that your claim is false?
No, as I didn't say that there was no one at all that may do stupid things. The difference is in how we treat those who do those stupid things. Our side condemns violence, and condemned anyone on our side who commits it.

You side is threatening violence, right now, right here, in this very thread. Your attempts of comparing the most extreme single example of someone who did some stupid stuff which was not encouraged or condoned with your side threatening a bloodbath of thousands if their fellow citizens do not vote the way they want, is very poorly done.

If you do not condone violence, look to your fellow posters on your side who are threatening it. If you continue to harp on a single example that has been condemned, then you just dig in on your side's intellectual bankruptcy.
  #122  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:30 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, as I didn't say that there was no one at all that may do stupid things. ...
Don't be absurd. Everyone can see exactly what you said. Here is your post in its entirety:

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The difference is is that liberals will not kill to protect pro-choice, conservative will kill due to their anti-choice position. Same as liberals will not kill in order to protect a anti-gun stance, but it is claimed right here that conservatives will kill to protect their guns.

Any argument of "both-sideism" like the one you attempted there has to take into account that only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-11-2019 at 02:30 PM.
  #123  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:35 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Are you saying that gun owners are potential terrorists? that if they do not get the results that they want through democratic means, they will resort to violence and "bloodbath" in order to enforce their will?

In the OP's scenario, at least 3/4ths of the states have gone along with this, and it is very popular. Defending an unpopular viewpoint with threats of violence is nothing but terrorism.

If gun owners would be that violent because they disagree with the results of the democratic process, then they probably shouldn't be trusted with guns in the first place. Is that really how you view your fellow gun owner? I had much more faith in the law abiding part of a law abiding gun owner, but here you are, insisting that they only will abide the laws they agree with, and violently resist the ones that they don't. Is that really a good PR move for convincing us that guns are in the right hands?


Personally, I do not think that the OP's scenario would come to pass, if 2a were revoked, it would not be immediate gun ban and confiscation. We may be looking at some more restrictions on where and how you can carry, and some on what kinds of guns you can buy, but a total gun ban only exists in the most fervent dreams of the extreme, extreme anti-gun advocate, and in the irrational nightmares of a surprising number of pro-gun advocates.
Yes, I am saying some gun owners are potential terrorists. I think people of all stripes are potential terrorists. Fact is when the government gets heavy handed it brings out the crazies.

And they are not "fellow gun owners" - I don't own one (although I came very close to buying about 6 months ago because my state brought up yet another gun bill that gets shot down every time), but I am sympathetic to 2a supporters.

I do know that there is a segment of the population that don't view rights as something granted by the government and are inherently possessed. Now, I say, that a repeal of the 2nd amendment will never happen, and that this whole discussion is moot, and that even if it did I could move to some state that had gun rights if I really wanted a gun.

But yeah, in the extremely unlikely scenario that the 2a is repealed any time soon, and states give up their gun laws, and it gets to the point where they're coming door to door to grab the guns (aka fantasy land), I do think there will be people that will "forget" they had guns, or "lost" them, or whatever. I think there will be a smaller subset that will meet them with armed resistance and inevitably get blown away. And I think that will trigger an even smaller amount of homegrown terrorists to do some serious shit like Timothy McVeigh. At which point a person will need to ask themselves, was this worth it?

You might ask, why hasn't there been more Timothy McVeigh's, and also you might ask, why haven't there been more Waco's and Ruby Ridges?

It's not about PR, or if "guns are in the right hands", it's just going off what's already happened, the culture, and knowing the kind of people that exist out there. Anyone think a smooth confiscation like Australia would ever happen in the U.S., is naive to to the edge of being delusional.

Last edited by Ashtura; 01-11-2019 at 02:38 PM.
  #124  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:36 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The difference is is that liberals will not kill to protect pro-choice, conservative will kill due to their anti-choice position.
At the risk of hijacking this into an abortion debate - and I am quite pro-choice myself - this is an inaccurate representation of the situation. "Choice" here means "abortion" and most people who are against it view it as killing - killing that's already taking place now. By their definition, liberals are already killing.
  #125  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:38 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Don't be absurd. Everyone can see exactly what you said. Here is your post in its entirety:
Yes, and they can see what I said is entirely correct, and they can see that you are trying to make some sort of false narrative and comparison as to something that I did not say in order to make your usual false charge of hypocrisy.

The people on your side, in this very thread, are threatening violence. In order to come up with anything like what you see of your fellow posters, you have to pick a singular incident of someone who is not a poster here, does not represent any mainstream thought, and has been thoroughly condemned, and then try to shoehorn that into some sort of argument that he represents anything on our side.

You have failed, miserably, to make your both-sideism argument, as usual. Condemn the violence threatened on your side, and you may have some small room to maneuver. As long as you allow your side to continue to threaten to use violence against democracy, you have no leg to stand on.

But I'll let you have the last word to keep digging.
  #126  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:53 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yes, and they can see what I said is entirely correct, and they can see that you are trying to make some sort of false narrative and comparison as to something that I did not say in order to make your usual false charge of hypocrisy. ...
Mine isn't a charge of hypocrisy, it's a charge of factual error. You wrote "only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box." As a matter of historical record, that is false and you are wrong.
  #127  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:55 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,951
Conservatives have a stronger fear response to threats and are more tribal, so their behavior doesn't make sense to liberals.

So their fear is prov that America will be overrun by Muslim terrorists, black and Latino Street criminals, liberal government, etc and they will be defenseless against the onslaught without their guns.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #128  
Old 01-11-2019, 02:59 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Yes, I am saying some gun owners are potential terrorists. I think people of all stripes are potential terrorists. Fact is when the government gets heavy handed it brings out the crazies.
Already armed potential terrorists.
Quote:
And they are not "fellow gun owners" - I don't own one (although I came very close to buying about 6 months ago because my state brought up yet another gun bill that gets shot down every time), but I am sympathetic to 2a supporters.
Okay, so your fellow ideologues on gun control. Not sure that i understood the parenthetical, though.
Quote:
I do know that there is a segment of the population that don't view rights as something granted by the government and are inherently possessed. Now, I say, that a repeal of the 2nd amendment will never happen, and that this whole discussion is moot, and that even if it did I could move to some state that had gun rights if I really wanted a gun.
And there is a segment of the population that views murder as a right as well. What people think about their rights doesn't matter. What the law says about them is all that does.

What you think your rights are is fine for when you advocate a position, or vote for an issue or candidate. What you think about your rights is not when you think that you have the right to break legally passed laws. Certainly not when you offer violence in return for not getting your way.

The segment of the population that you describe does not believe in democracy or the rule of law. We cannot make laws that cater to those like that.
Quote:
But yeah, in the extremely unlikely scenario that the 2a is repealed any time soon, and states give up their gun laws, and it gets to the point where they're coming door to door to grab the guns (aka fantasy land), I do think there will be people that will "forget" they had guns, or "lost" them, or whatever. I think there will be a smaller subset that will meet them with armed resistance and inevitably get blown away. And I think that will trigger an even smaller amount of homegrown terrorists to do some serious shit like Timothy McVeigh. At which point a person will need to ask themselves, was this worth it?
Yeah, that's the point of terrorism. threaten violence so that people will not enact social policies through the democratic process.
Quote:
You might ask, why hasn't there been more Timothy McVeigh's,
I like to think that there are not all that many monsters and potential terrorists among my fellow citizens. I am being told I am mistaken on this?
Quote:
and also you might ask, why haven't there been more Waco's and Ruby Ridges?
Because bad PR has stymied the efforts of law enforcement. Now, when a bunch of terrorists take over a compound, we just sit and wait for them to decide to leave, then slap them on the wrist.
Quote:
It's not about PR, or if "guns are in the right hands", it's just going off what's already happened, the culture, and knowing the kind of people that exist out there. Anyone think a smooth confiscation like Australia would ever happen in the U.S., is naive to to the edge of being delusional.
Do I think that such a gun confiscation would be smooth, no, but that is why I do not propose such a thing, as I know, and am reminded, that there are many gun owners that do not believe in democracy and the rule of law. I prefer an educational approach to reducing gun violence and accidents.

It just seems odd that the defense of guns is that the people who do not respect democracy and the rule of law will become violent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
At the risk of hijacking this into an abortion debate - and I am quite pro-choice myself - this is an inaccurate representation of the situation. "Choice" here means "abortion" and most people who are against it view it as killing - killing that's already taking place now. By their definition, liberals are already killing.
Yeah, I don't want to hijack this either, but I do not believe that they actually believe that it is the same as killing an adult, or a 16 year old, or a 10 year old, or a 5 year old, or even an infant.
  #129  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:05 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Mine isn't a charge of hypocrisy, it's a charge of factual error. You wrote "only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box." As a matter of historical record, that is false and you are wrong.
Ah, I see the problem. You are conflating "side" with "individual". They are not the same thing, they do not mean the same thing, and trying to pretend that they are the same thing is not going to get you anywhere. Pulling it out, so that it appears as though I am talking about always and forever, as opposed to over this particular issue, is also a very dishonest tactic that I doubt that anyone will fall for.

The people on your side are specifically threatening violence if the democratic process goes against them. That is not comparable to a nutball who pulled off a very poorly planned "attack".
  #130  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:17 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Were you also 'conflating "side" with "individual"' when you brought up McVeigh or an individual that kills an abortion doctor?

Look, I think we probably agree here (if you could calm down long enough to think through it rationally), that both sides have the occasional radical that will do something violent, and that those violent acts are overwhelmingly condemned by people on both sides of the aisle. But that's not the tone your post #111 took. That post was very much making the argument that "only one side" has this issue. I don't know if you just got carried away in your excitement to condemn conservatives, or if you really don't understand.
  #131  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:19 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, as I didn't say that there was no one at all that may do stupid things. The difference is in how we treat those who do those stupid things. Our side condemns violence, and condemned anyone on our side who commits it.

You side is threatening violence, right now, right here, in this very thread. Your attempts of comparing the most extreme single example of someone who did some stupid stuff which was not encouraged or condoned with your side threatening a bloodbath of thousands if their fellow citizens do not vote the way they want, is very poorly done.

If you do not condone violence, look to your fellow posters on your side who are threatening it. If you continue to harp on a single example that has been condemned, then you just dig in on your side's intellectual bankruptcy.
But forcible confiscation of private property is violence. Resistance to it is just that, resistance.

Would you accuse someone on this message board of 'threatening violence' who said something like "if someone tried to steal my wallet, I'd punch them in the face".
  #132  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:26 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Already armed potential terrorists.

And there is a segment of the population that views murder as a right as well. What people think about their rights doesn't matter. What the law says about them is all that does.
Well, I don't know who those people are and am thus not going to speak to that. That's a non-sequitur as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
What you think your rights are is fine for when you advocate a position, or vote for an issue or candidate. What you think about your rights is not when you think that you have the right to break legally passed laws. Certainly not when you offer violence in return for not getting your way.
I'm not talking about what I would do. What I would do is say, "No sir, I don't have a gun in my home", and that would be the truth.

Quote:
I like to think that there are not all that many monsters and potential terrorists among my fellow citizens. I am being told I am mistaken on this?
I don't know for sure. I probably don't think it takes as much to radicalize people as you do, because I've seen it happen simply through social media. I think we would be remiss not to find out first though, right? Not do the calculus?

Quote:
Because bad PR has stymied the efforts of law enforcement. Now, when a bunch of terrorists take over a compound, we just sit and wait for them to decide to leave, then slap them on the wrist.
Well hell, if all it takes is a some bad PR, then nothing will ever get done. If we agree on that, discussion over.

Quote:
It just seems odd that the defense of guns is that the people who do not respect democracy and the rule of law will become violent.
I am not defending the 2a on that ground, nor am I threatening or advocating violence. I just don't have as rosy of attitude when it comes to human nature.

Last edited by Ashtura; 01-11-2019 at 03:27 PM.
  #133  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:29 PM
Wheelz Wheelz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,312
My two cents (which may be worth less than that) is that the idea of federal agents going door-to-door confiscating guns is laughably ridiculous. It's an image used to stoke up fear and paranoia, but would be nearly impossible, logistically.

If the Second Amendment is ever repealed (I could see it happening in another two or three generations, but that's a different conversation), it won't be a sudden, spontaneous move. As many have mentioned, amending the Constitution is not a fast or easy process. And repealing the amendment would not mean all guns are suddenly outlawed; it would just mean the government could create laws to restrict ownership. Any such laws would probably include grandfather clauses or other methods of gradual implementation.

In short, nobody is going to come knocking at your door to take your guns away, so relax.
  #134  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:09 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Were you also 'conflating "side" with "individual"' when you brought up McVeigh or an individual that kills an abortion doctor?
No, I was replying to your conflation, and using it as an example as to why you should not conflate them. There are actually groups on your side advocating violence against doctors who perform medical procedures they disagree with.
[quoe]
Look, I think we probably agree here (if you could calm down long enough to think through it rationally), that both sides have the occasional radical that will do something violent, and that those violent acts are overwhelmingly condemned by people on both sides of the aisle. But that's not the tone your post #111 took. That post was very much making the argument that "only one side" has this issue. I don't know if you just got carried away in your excitement to condemn conservatives, or if you really don't understand.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I mean, you could look at that guy that shot that shopkeeper last night, and show that he voted for Obama in 2008, and therefore use him as an example of "both sides."

but that's not how this is. It was asked what would happen if a particular policy was favored by enough americans to amend the constitution, and we were told that that would mean that there would be a bloodbath.

If someone asked, what would happen in 2020 if Trump is elected, and liberals said, "There'd be a bloodbath.", or if it was asked what would happen if abortion was outlawed, and liberals replied that they would start killing people that disagreed with them, or if it was asked if ACA was repealed, then liberals would probably say that people would be dying, but not because they are committing violence against them.

Contrast that with the question of what happens if the democratic process takes away the ability to legally have a gun, and we are told that there will be massive violence.

If you really want, you can correct my statement to, "One side is far, far, far more willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box." and I will accept that correction to my statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Well, I don't know who those people are and am thus not going to speak to that. That's a non-sequitur as far as I'm concerned.
Not a non-sequitur, just saying that there are people that think that they have rights that they don't actually have.
Quote:
I'm not talking about what I would do. What I would do is say, "No sir, I don't have a gun in my home", and that would be the truth.
As would I, but apparently, there would be many who would lie to law enforcement in order to prevent the execution of laws that are asked for by the majority of the populace.
Quote:
I don't know for sure. I probably don't think it takes as much to radicalize people as you do, because I've seen it happen simply through social media. I think we would be remiss not to find out first though, right? Not do the calculus?
If we have reason to believe that ISIS will blow up some important thing that we don't want blown up if we enact a social policy, should we not do so? Would we be remiss in not running any and all changes to social policies by any and all terrorist groups?
Quote:
Well hell, if all it takes is a some bad PR, then nothing will ever get done. If we agree on that, discussion over.
Exactly. which is why the govt stood around with its head up its ass as ranchers trespassed on their lands, and then took over and occupied a federal building and lands.

They were worried about further bad PR.
Quote:

I am not defending the 2a on that ground, nor am I threatening or advocating violence. I just don't have as rosy of attitude when it comes to human nature.
I may only be slightly more optimistic about human nature than you, but it does not matter. If I believe that someone is going to commit violence due to my democratically created policy, then that is not going to stop me from implementing the democratically created policy.

In the OP, the constitution has been changed. that means that 3/4 of states signed on to this.

If tomorrow, suddenly, guns were illegal and cops were busting down your door to take them, then sure, I can see that being met with violence. In a generation or so, after we have outgrown these dangerous toys, and such a change becomes politically viable, I think it would play out a bit differently.

It is the gun advocates in this thread who say that there will be violence, no matter what. It really is a threat, even if it is not they themselves that are willing to shoot a cop for doing his job. The reason for bringing it up is to make the threat known, that such an act would have violent consequences, and as such, we should not enact this policy out of a fear of violent reputation for doing so.

That's a terroristic threat, and we should not base policy on the threats of terrorists.
  #135  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:20 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... If you really want, you can correct my statement to, "One side is far, far, far more willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box." and I will accept that correction to my statement. ...
This is significant progress from where you were a couple of hours ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yes, and they can see what I said is entirely correct...
I'll accept it as good enough and drop the matter. Glad you came around.



Now, about this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... It is the gun advocates in this thread who say that there will be violence, no matter what. It really is a threat, even if it is not they themselves that are willing to shoot a cop for doing his job. The reason for bringing it up is to make the threat known, that such an act would have violent consequences, and as such, we should not enact this policy out of a fear of violent reputation for doing so.

That's a terroristic threat, and we should not base policy on the threats of terrorists.
This thread wasn't started by a gun owner, threatening to kill anyone who tried to touch his guns, or anything like that. It was started by Velocity, who wrote "I don't own guns and probably never will, but want to understand what the main worry is exactly."

He has been given some frank answers in this thread, but it wasn't gun owners "bringing it up" or trying to "make the threat known". They were responding to a sincere question by Velocity with sincere answers.
  #136  
Old 01-11-2019, 04:22 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

It is the gun advocates in this thread who say that there will be violence, no matter what. It really is a threat, even if it is not they themselves that are willing to shoot a cop for doing his job. The reason for bringing it up is to make the threat known, that such an act would have violent consequences, and as such, we should not enact this policy out of a fear of violent reputation for doing so.

That's a terroristic threat, and we should not base policy on the threats of terrorists.
It's not a threat, it's risk assessment, for an extremely unlikely hypothetical in a purely acedemic discussion (The 2a will not be repealed in our lifetimes). Even in that, a discussion of potential (and, think, likely) repercussions is completely valid. If this were to happen for real, do you NOT think TPTB would be discussing this?
  #137  
Old 01-11-2019, 05:06 PM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,978
It is a shame this has degenerated into calls of " my side" and "the other side". Those positions make further discussion impossible. A shame, but not surprising.
  #138  
Old 01-11-2019, 05:43 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They were responding to a sincere question by Velocity with sincere answers.
Yes, they're absolutely sincere in their fears. That's the central part of the problem.
  #139  
Old 01-11-2019, 06:16 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but I have to ask: why does abolition of the Second Amendment mean that guns are banned?
Because a ban, or a near-ban, is the only plausible motive to abolish the Second Amendment in the first place. Gun control advocates don't want guns "regulated"- they want the fewest number in civilian hands as possible. Given what gun control laws the antis have pushed and their own statements, what they would enact given the ability would be: no handguns at all beyond a few special rare permits (Olympic target shooters for example); no semi-automatics at all; no gun that can fire more than six rounds without a lengthy reloading process; no guns in the home at all (you'd have to be a member in good standing of a shooting club and store your gun there); in short, the most restrictive gun laws possible that wouldn't make hunting impossible (and I'd bet the antis would then start in on how "unsporting" taking game with guns was).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Yes, and that's one of the ways we advance as a society.
Fine, let's all become enlightened anti-gunners first, THEN abolish the Second Amendment- not forcing it's abolition on us in the hope that the public will adapt to the new reality.

Quote:
There is, as you might admit, considerable disagreement about that claim. To put it mildly.
About whether the Founders were pro-gun? Seriously? One can argue (unconvincingly imho) that the letter of the Second doesn't defend private gun ownership; but does anyone, anywhere claim that the Founders thought that guns ought to be kept out of the hands of the rabble? That ANY American person of influence at the time thought that?

Quote:
That is, essentially, what people who cannot make a convincing argument to the majority in a democracy has to do. Your claim is that it constitutes tyranny, not your own failure.
Unless it's a minority consisting of those privileged few permitted to possess guns, who start throwing their weight around. As has been pointed out before, there's a cognitive disassociation where some people constantly accuse cops (with some justification) of being arrogant, swaggering racist bullies- but nonetheless they maintain that cops should be the only people with guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Which, I might point out, is what other conservative - I won't speculate on the overlap between the gun guys and the anti-abortion guys - have been doing for a few decades about abortion. Small steps, chipping away at a right defined by the Supreme Court leading to a hoped-for ability to ban abortion completely.

What the gun guys fear, outlined above, is a reasonable thing given that their own allies are using the same approach. A man fears most what he knows HE would do in the same situation.
Well I'm glad you see how pernicious that tactic is, regardless of who's employing it for what goal.
  #140  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:39 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Given what gun control laws the antis have pushed and their own statements, what they would enact given the ability would be: no handguns at all beyond a few special rare permits (Olympic target shooters for example); no semi-automatics at all; no gun that can fire more than six rounds without a lengthy reloading process; no guns in the home at all (you'd have to be a member in good standing of a shooting club and store your gun there); in short, the most restrictive gun laws possible that wouldn't make hunting impossible (and I'd bet the antis would then start in on how "unsporting" taking game with guns was).
I see nothing wrong with this at all.

Quote:
About whether the Founders were pro-gun? Seriously? One can argue (unconvincingly imho) that the letter of the Second doesn't defend private gun ownership; but does anyone, anywhere claim that the Founders thought that guns ought to be kept out of the hands of the rabble? That ANY American person of influence at the time thought that?
I agree in principle that the Founders were 'for' allowing the citizenry to have guns. What I will dispute is the extent to which circumstances are radically different. You cannot shoot 900 people with a musket, no matter how hard you try. And they lived in an era where highly disorganized and isolated communities relied on citizens to form posses and militias. Trying to apply a decision crafted for 18th century circumstances to 21st century America is simply ridiculous.

Quote:
Unless it's a minority consisting of those privileged few permitted to possess guns, who start throwing their weight around. As has been pointed out before, there's a cognitive disassociation where some people constantly accuse cops (with some justification) of being arrogant, swaggering racist bullies- but nonetheless they maintain that cops should be the only people with guns.
Because a suspect should be allowed to shoot a policeman if he thinks that policeman is abusing his authority? And if a suspect shoots a policeman, are the other police expected to stop and consider whether the suspect might actually have been right to do so? I cannot imagine a scenario where this would actually work. Or even be desirable.

As much as it frustrates me that the only recourse we have against police abuse is to suffer it and then seek remedy in the courts later, I cannot conceive of any practical alternative.
  #141  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:19 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Because a ban, or a near-ban, is the only plausible motive to abolish the Second Amendment in the first place. Gun control advocates don't want guns "regulated"- they want the fewest number in civilian hands as possible.
I disagree. As I wrote above, I'd like to see the Second Amendment repealed. But only so gun ownership could be regulated not abolished. I would not support a general prohibition of private gun ownership.

I think the problem is that moderates like myself usually avoid these debates. The only people who regularly participate in them are the people on each extreme. So people get the mistaken impression that the extremists they're hearing are representative of a far broader demographic than they really are.

People like myself aren't that worked up about gun control or gun ownership. I might like to see the Second Amendment get repealed but quite frankly I'm not putting any significant effort into that cause.

But if the gun control extremists ever manage to get the Second Amendment repealed, then they'll be handing the issue over to moderates like me. Gun regulation would become an issue for the general electorate and regular legislation. And I don't see any consensus in the general population for a gun ban.
  #142  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:04 PM
ExTank's Avatar
ExTank ExTank is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Creve Coeur, MO
Posts: 6,722
I've lived (and suffered) in the world where the winners of the genetic lottery (in terms of size/strength) set the rules and everyone else suffered at their (often) cruel whim(s).

I've heard the God created all Men, but Sam Colt made them Equal.

Ain't got much use for God; never got any help I could hang a hat on from on high, not when I needed it. God can stay in whatever church he chooses; I live in the world he (may or may not have) created.

The two times in my life when I needed a gun, one of them I didn't have one, and I'm still dealing with the scars.

The other time, I did have a gun. And it all ended just fine, a bad guy locked up, and no one hurt.

In the mean time, I put holes in paper targets, and choose to live in places that generally don't require its residents to be armed in order to secure themselves and their homes.

That doesn't mean I'm ready to turn ploughshares to swords and trust my "fellow man," though.

And I'm not willing to let someone else make the decision (armed/disarmed) for me.
  #143  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:37 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
Drop the last one and you basically described me.

I grew up in an area where you don't have any actual police protection; just the State-ies and the average response is still something like 45 minutes. I also travel in some equally remote areas. Its been adjudicated different times and ways but since the police and government have any actual responsibility to protect me as an individual I figure I'm partly on my own. I carry and I have needed to so loss of that ability scares me.

A lot of what I own and shoot is very valuable; we're talking in the neighborhood of a grand or more each. Its my hobby and an accumulation 50 years in the making. If it comes to seizure (and there are already certain conditions in some cases where you can be subject to a seizure) what will the compensation be? Fair market value say a year before the law was enacted? $25 per gun like the average "buy back" program? Just take them? And as I have seen from fellow Dopers -- it could include anything since some of the folks looking to go this far want my antique flintlocks and EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! Even stuff that isn't currently even considered a firearm.

So yeah; I'm afraid. Not terribly ---- just call it nervous about the subject when it comes up.
Your position seems pretty reasonable to me.

But I think there needs to be a licensing system that works for people like you while still making it harder to bring guns into my neighborhood, in town.
  #144  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:41 PM
MichaelEmouse MichaelEmouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,699
While I won't deny that having a gun has on occasion kept people safe, the amount of fear that motivates gun owners as a group is nearly as puzzling to this Canadian as that of survivalists. If I only relied on their comments, I would think that US society is like the movie Seven and on the brink of turning into Mad Max.

We don't have a Second Amendment here yet you can indeed get guns; There are 2 million firearms licences in Canada for a country of about 36 millions (https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...guns-in-canada) . They haven't been confiscated en masse and we're not a tyrannical dictatorship. We even have government health insurance and yet we didn't turn into Soviet Russia, the capital owners haven't been expropriated and no one's stuck in a gulag*!

Are you telling me that good 'ol USA isn't capable of doing at least as well as Canada? And no, it's not because we hardly have any brown people or immigrants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...ity_population

Last edited by MichaelEmouse; 01-11-2019 at 10:43 PM. Reason: * unless you count Winnipeg
  #145  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... Specifically, you said, "only one side is willing to kill if and when they don't get their way at the ballot box." That claim is false. James Hodgkinson is an example from your side that was "willing to kill" when he didn't get his way at the ballot box. Do you now recognize that your claim is false?
Whose side is James Hodgkinson on? In your worldview, anyone who targets a Republican is allied with the forces of reason?

But suppose we stipulate that James Hodgkinson is allied with the rational team. Does that end the claim? Come up with 1000 or 2000 or 10,000 violently criminal rightwingers would have no effect on the discussion as long as you "have one", James Hodgkinson, you've got your "What about? ... nanner nanner nanner"?

BTW, are we sure that what James Hodgkinson did was entirely unreasonable?
  #146  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:17 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Oh OK, I see. But posters in this thread have said that they would use the guns against those government agents seeking to take them. That's a bust.
The government wouldn't stand a chance. A government cannot hold territory if enough people object. I give you Poland as proof. It was held by the second most powerful country in the world. A country with thousands and thousands of tanks. Forget tanks, they had thousands and thousands of nukes and yet Poland is now free. Try visiting the country that held Poland under it's power. You can't. It doesn't exist anymore.

The Second Amendment serves many purposes but ultimately it's designed to protect us from ourselves. It allows us individual protection from criminals and it protects us from political oppression. Something the people of China are learning in a very hard way. Everything they do is monitored by a government that will actively suppress them for the crime of opinion. They are now assigning points to citizen's behavior. Read or type anything on the internet that's negative about China and it's points against you. Jay walk in China and it's points against you. If you don't buy enough products from China then it's points against you.

It's not just China. Countries like the UK are now prosecuting people for hate speech. It's a slippery slope when your opinion is criminalized because we're not that far away from technology that reads minds. Keeping your mouth shut won't be enough when that happens.
  #147  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:19 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Because a ban, or a near-ban, is the only plausible motive to abolish the Second Amendment in the first place.
Slippery slope fallacy.

Quote:
Fine, let's all become enlightened anti-gunners first, THEN abolish the Second Amendment- not forcing it's abolition on us in the hope that the public will adapt to the new reality.
"All"? You have a strained idea of how democracy works.

Quote:
About whether the Founders were pro-gun? Seriously? One can argue (unconvincingly imho) that the letter of the Second doesn't defend private gun ownership
That was your claim, unless you worded it extremely badly.

Quote:
As has been pointed out before, there's a cognitive disassociation where some people constantly accuse cops (with some justification) of being arrogant, swaggering racist bullies- but nonetheless they maintain that cops should be the only people with guns.
There is no dissonance in saying what they all should do, but noting that some of them fail to do it.
  #148  
Old 01-12-2019, 09:50 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Because a ban, or a near-ban, is the only plausible motive to abolish the Second Amendment in the first place.
We're repeatedly told, by gun-lovers, that every half-crazed redneck who hasn't been convicted of a felony yet is entitled to buy all the AR-15's he can afford, and if we don't like it we need to repeal the Second Commandment.

Now you tell us that the only reason to repeal the Second is for a ban or near-ban.

So those are the only two choices, hunh? Every half-crazed redneck gets his own AR-15 or guns are completely banned. There is no middle ground. Got it.
  #149  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:17 AM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,978
For the last time: supporting the rights of citizens to bear arms does not make me a "gun-lover".

And some of you might want to check and see what regulations already exist on the ownership of guns in various locations; it's not the free-for-all you imagine.
  #150  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:31 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
For the last time: ...
Promise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
And some of you might want to check and see what regulations already exist on the ownership of guns in various locations; it's not the free-for-all you imagine.
I don't want to check, but would be willing to read your reply. Which states ban the AR-15 and what does the NRA think about that?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017