Plus it’s just terribly written.
Even proponents of gun rights would probably prefer that it clearly articulated what the principle is.
Leaving aside that a constitutional right doesn’t in itself mean you can’t have licensing.
Then what’s supposedly terribad about not being a “monoculture” (not that such a thing exists anywhere in the world, but that’s another matter) ? How is that a hurdle that prevents a massacre-free society ? Why present it as an argument at all ?
“Monoculture” doesn’t just refer to the ethnic backgrounds of the population, it’s a general sense of cultural cohesion and shared values. Some countries just have this more than others. America is one that has it the least, in my experience. Fragmented into 50 states, all with different demographics and different relationships to the federal government, and vastly differing politics. Most of the things that make it the opposite of a monoculture don’t even have to do with the people from other cultures of the world who have become citizens there, but rather already-existing divisions within the existing population. “Race” is only a small part of the overall division. It’s simply easier to get public policy of any kind passed in a country with more cultural cohesion.
Mostly I’m just pissed that you put that vile word into my mouth in your previous post. I don’t suppose I can ask for an apology, in which case I will retract my earlier request for you to ram that word up your ass, mon ami.
No offense, but all the people I’ve heard use “Because those countries are homogeneous” or “Monocultural”, it’s because they mean “Those countries don’t have black people in them”
Not saying you mean that, but that’s what it sounds like when you say it.
Well, if I bring it up in the future, I’ll try to elaborate a little with the points I made above.
A monoculture isn’t inherently “good” or peaceful. It just means it’s easier for the population to pull together for the common good…especially when the country is geographically small.
It’s not about being “white” either. Japan isn’t white. Japan is a monoculture. In WWII, they were under bad leadership, so they were collectively directed into horrible violence. Today they’re under good leadership, and so they can collectively be directed into efficient and positive paths for improving their country in a peaceful way. (I know Japan has its problems - but they’ve also done a lot of good.)
People say “Finland/Iceland/etc can do this or that, why can’t America?” Do I really need to explain how a small and tightly-knit society where everyone has had to pull together to survive brutal winters for thousands of years, or freeze/starve to death, is going to evolve into a more well-oiled machine when it comes to collectively working together for the common good, than a place like America?
It’s not ONLY monocultures who can do this. Singapore isn’t a monoculture. They’ve got their shit wired tight nonetheless.
Why do you think that repealing 2A automatically results in confiscations?
2A just says that no one is allowed to make any laws about guns. Any laws about guns have tengental effects at best, and are fought and often overturned.
Repealing 2A doesn’t make guns illegal. It doesn’t make ATF agents come and get them. It just frees up legislatures to make laws that are effective, and not beholden to a bunch of dead white guys.
Will some states ban guns? Probably. That may be interesting to see how it plays out. Will all states ban guns? Well, only if all states have decided that guns should be banned.
Because of 2A, we can’t even pass laws that make it illegal to sell guns to criminals who will take the gun out of state to commit crimes. Closing the loophole that allows gun owners to sell or give their guns to others without asking for a background check, proof of state residency, or really anything over having enough cash to make it worth their while is problematic due to the current interpretation of 2A. Requiring that people do a background check before selling or giving their gun to someone is not going house to house confiscating guns.
You threaten that if 2A is repealed, that gun owners will become violent criminals. Well, that you, as a presumed gun owner, have the insight that gun owners only follow laws that they like, and if there are laws that they do not like, then they will be willing to kill law enforcement agents makes me think that gun owners are even more dangerous than I thought they were. You are making a very, very poor case for allowing people that, in your estimation, would start a civil war over not getting their way to keep having guns.
You do realize that there is literally an entire world of actual examples of middle ground that you have excluded here.
I don’t understand how amending the Constitution via the legal means outlined IN the Constitution is somehow “pissing on the Constitution”?
The idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment in the present day America that exists in this reality, is absurd. If any high level politicians attempt to do this or even just talk about it, they might as well be installing Donald Trump as King, with Mike Pence as the Prince of Wales and Ted Cruz as the Archbishop. Even just discussing the concept online, on social media, or in public, will generate more ammunition for the NRA and the Republicans than you can possibly conceive of. Democrats collectively need to treat this idea like an extreme sexual kink. Talk about it behind closed doors if you want, otherwise just shut up about it or you are going to do unbelievable damage to our goals.
MILLIONS of people stand to die of horrific poisonings and cancer because of the environmental mismanagement caused by the Republican policies. Any gun deaths are a drop in the bucket. This needs to be stopped YESTERDAY. The only way to defeat the GOP is to win elections, and the only way to win elections is to get votes, and the only way to ensure that you will LOSE votes is to talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment. You might as well talk about renaming Washington D.C. to Stalinville. Just STOP!
The funny thing about black people in this debate is that they have no effective gun rights at all in the US. They can be executed by the police at any time in any place for any reason and all the cop has to do is say that he was scared that they might have a gun. Black men who actually have guns, even registered licensed ones, are shot while reaching for their ID. A gun or even the suspicion of a gun is a death warrant for a person of color. If black people were the ones doing these mass shootings the Second Amendment would be repealed tomorrow.
Right, so what was the point of bringing it up? It’s a non sequitur here.
I may as well say that landlocked countries have low gun violence, as do countries with a coastline.
What relevance does it have, other than to rule out a coastline, or lack of, being a major causal factor?
Of course there are some relevant causal factors. Homicide rate is inversely correlated to GDP.
So, if you group the US with poor countries, instead of rich ones, it looks pretty average.
But would we be satisfied with the US being sandwiched between guatemala and liberia (or whatever countries, I didn’t google this) on any other benchmark?
I’ve been expressing thoughts similar to this for years, including at this board. I’ve even noted that no less than Bill Clinton noted in his autobiography that ramming the AWB through the legislature, against the warnings from Democratic legislators, gave the GOP control of the legislature. The shriller and more extreme this kind of talk gets, especially when there are True Believers expressing a willingness to see gun owners and LEO die in large numbers, the more votes the Democratic Party loses. The NRA became the National Republican Association because the Democrats insisted on being the gun control party. But my party never learns…they would rather dick-yank over who is purest and most woke and CARES THE MOST than win offices and accomplish anything.
I understand what you are saying, but that works from both ends. There are consequences to saying “the only thing that will help is repealing the 2nd” and refusal to consider anything else in the meantime.
Because there might be other things we can do, and it might be better to talk about those things rather than something else that has no realistic chance of success for the next fifty years at least.
Regards,
Shodan
What other things do you propose we do?
Having you tried thinking and praying harder?
I would hope that by now we’d all be damn sick of being told that nothing discussed will work by people who have nothing serious of their own to propose instead. However, by exposing their own lack of seriousness, it does make clear that they’re a problem to be worked around, not partners in any sort of mitigation attempt. If they choose to oppose civilized society, that is indeed their choice, with their consequences.
Happy to be shown wrong, of course. But the next time would be the first time.
I already pointed that out :"*And I am not sure if repealing the 2nd would make that much of a dent. Next you’d have to have every state in the union pass laws to go door to door confiscating every gun. Does anything think that would happen, even if you did get the votes to repeal?
However, the gun grabbers here want every single gun gone. That would be the only way to do it.
Yes, indeed, you can pass laws that require background checks. The 2nd doesn’t stand in your way for that. In fact, several states already do, and it hasn’t done a damn thing to reduce violent crime.
Of course, only a few would. Others would simply overreacted to LE busting down their doors with warrentless searches in the middle of the nite.
And, I am not much of a gun owner. I have my old .22 rifle my Dad game me when I was a kid, and my service weapon from when I was a State security guard. But I am a small L libertarian, and I have seen clearly that no gun control law in American has reduced violent crime in any significant way. All the gun grabbers have is excuses why their gun laws dont work.
Pass some laws that are reasonable: ban bump stocks, ban the sale of large capacity magazines, increase the buying age to 21.
And search out those troubled kids and help them before they kill.
Finally, maybe ban publishing the names of mass killers.
This would seem to me to be “pissing on the Constitution”
I thought that, given that you said “Next you’d have to have every state in the union pass laws to go door to door confiscating every gun.” that that was something that you thought was desired.
This is not a statement that you can back up with facts, especially with the “here” part. That you consider anyone who wants to see fewer children gunned down in their classroom as a gun grabber that wants every single gun gone is only something that you have chosen to believe, but has no relation to reality.
Right, and we’ve had this conversation before, but, because there are states where you commit no crime if you sell a gun to some guy that offers you money for it, and we don’t really have border control of any kind between states, those weak half measures do no good.
I can’t parse this sentence. Did you mean “by LE busting down”? If so, why do you think that it would be the case that LEO would be randomly kicking down doors? Now, it is possible that if you have a criminal that refuses to give up illegal weapons that he keeps in his house, that a warrant may be sworn out. But you are thinking that they won’t even need a warrant?
That is because anything effective gets struck down as being against 2A, if it ever even makes it to the floor, much less get passed. You can look at other places that don’t have 2A held as sacred, and see that the laws that they have are effective at having a society with significantly lower violent crime than our own.
It’d be like saying that you’ve tried everything to lose weight, except diet and exercise, and it’s just excuses as to why other things don’t work that proves that diet and exercise won’t either.
It is the people that are in the 2A camp that are against banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines. They will often even call you a stupid head for even suggesting it.
And your last one would be a violation of the first amendment.
You think Japan or Denmark are “monocultural” because you live far, far away and don’t get their local news nor know very much about what it’s like over there. Japan, for example, has a wealth of social issues and dissensions around feminism & older values the younger generations don’t necessarily share, the former *bunrakumin *who still are ostracized as are survivors of the nuclear bombings (along with their families and descendants), ethnic Japanese folks who were born or went abroad then came back (and aren’t considered “real” Japanese), Japanese families that have married with Koreans or Chinese, not to mention Korean, Chinese, Pinoys and Westerners living in Japan… oh, and the Ainu, too ! Japan of course also enjoys the ubiquitous progressive cities vs. rural bumpkins fracture.
To that you can add the most well-established, all-encompassing and entrenched organized crime on the planet, the whole salarymen and corporate culture encroaching on peoples’ private lives and crushing their collective spirit (Japan, much like the Scandinavian countries for that matter, top the suicide charts), huge issues with racism and bellicism on the rise (including nostalgics of WW2, which seem to be on the political rise as evidenced by the recent and very controversial switch in their military policies) and you’ll maybe understand that your average Japanese would have just as much angst, individual and societal, to fuel rampages with as much as American kids & assorted nutters.
And yet they don’t.
Because they have no guns to rampage with, and the last time Yakuza families got into a major war that was starting to involve heavy firepower the usually complacent gvt & police cracked down on them like several tons of bricks.
The word was there for effect, specifically to shock you into realizing what the hell you’re saying and the type of folks who typically brings that argument forward. Not only in the US, but also in Europe… and Scandinavia ;).