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.
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But yeah, in the extremely unlikely scenario that the 2a is repealed any time soon, and states give up their gun laws, and it gets to the point where they’re coming door to door to grab the guns (aka fantasy land), I do think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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay, so your fellow ideologues on gun control. Not sure that i understood the parenthetical, though.
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.
Yeah, that’s the point of terrorism. threaten violence so that people will not enact social policies through the democratic process.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
Well hell, if all it takes is a some bad PR, then nothing will ever get done. If we agree on that, discussion over.
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.
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.
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.
Not a non-sequitur, just saying that there are people that think that they have rights that they don’t actually have.
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.
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?
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.
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.
This is significant progress from where you were a couple of hours ago:
I’ll accept it as good enough and drop the matter. Glad you came around.
Now, about this:
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
Well I’m glad you see how pernicious that tactic is, regardless of who’s employing it for what goal.
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.
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.