If guns were banned, would civil war break out?

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
You’re probably a gun owner, but at the very least a gun supporter. So you would probably say that its smarter to go on offense then stick to defense. But if you want an apology, sure, I’m sorry I said it first. I expect it to happen and I figured it’s better to get that out of the way beforehand. Now if nobody accuses me of being fascist for the rest of this thread, I owe you a Coke
[/QUOTE]

I don’t want an apology, just wanted you to think about it. You were the one who jumped to over the top reactions and insults of large numbers of folks you painted with a ridiculously broad brush. And it said more about you and your thought process than it does about them.

Again, I answered this. It’s the same answer. It’s how the US works. If, using the processes put in place, the Constitution is amended and the Amendment taken off the books, as has been done in the past, then anything from them on, law wise would be the law of the land and completely Constitutional. This is how our system is supposed to work. I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t think it was ‘a horrible spiral of doom’. It would still be the same America as before, since we would be staying within the framework of our system to do it that way.

If only your side would/would have respect(ed) that as well, things wouldn’t be as ridiculous as they are these days.

If you can’t see how trying to subvert our system by going against it, reinterpreting it out of existence and under the table then there is simply no common ground for us to debate anything. It would be like ‘interpretation and re-litigation’ to broadly censor any anti-government writings, or disallow all Muslims (or pick any religious groups) or prevent any but red headed left handed Anabaptist from assembling. The right way to do this would be to remove the Amendment and then create laws to change the things you want to change. That isn’t what your side attempted to do. And we both know why…because it’s not just some aristocratic farmers from 2 centuries ago who would protest, but a sizable percentage of the population. So, to get around that uncomfortable fact and circumvent the will of the people (for their own good, of course), your side chose the slimy path. And failed, at least so far. And now, the crazies on both side are riled, and there is no give anywhere, no place to compromise, since your side won’t, and ‘my’ side won’t either.

Nice job!

Bummer. I think a lot of things contribute to ‘violence and harm’, including humans, but sadly we just can’t get rid of them all. :stuck_out_tongue: As for the first part, you have a large percentage of people who support it (in one of those Democracy thingies) AND you have that whole Constitution thingy as well, so good luck with that. But this is exactly what I mean here…you don’t care about any of that. Any means to get your way, right? That’s been the battle cry of the hard core gun banner types for decades now, and it’s what’s backed us into this situation we are in now. And, of course, it’s also what finally led the SC to their current stance, so I guess we have you guys to thank for that.

Why should I? What factual information would you accept? You think what you think, and what you think is so over the top it’s not something that can be fought. It’s like trying to convince a dyed in the wool racist that black people are really ok, or that hispanics can be as hard working and intelligent as white folks. Can’t be done, IMHO, not once you get to the point you are at where you really believe painting literally 10’s of millions, maybe over a hundred million people with the same broad brush is reasonable.

Then you’d be wrong in this case as well. Because someone fears something doesn’t make them a coward. They might be WRONG, but you seriously don’t seem to understand how fear works or what cowardice actually IS. If a regular adult (whatever that is) is actually swimming in 3 feet of water but using a life preserver that means S/HE IS FACING THEIR FEARS. That’s exactly the opposite of cowardice by any reasonable definition. But I’m pretty sure by telling you how you are wrong it’s not going to make a bit of difference to your attitude on this…right?

We are talking past each other here. I moved on from the cowardice thingy by this point that you are quoting since, as I said, it’s so ridiculous. If you want to hang onto that then that’s up to you, but I was talking about why ‘my’ side is paranoid these days and a bit, um, gun shy, so to speak, on this issue. :stuck_out_tongue:

The entire part where they tried to circumvent the Constitution by reinterpreting it, tried to get laws passed under the table and use slippery slopes to get more and more things banned with the ultimate goal of total bans on categories of weapons, if not all guns, used misinformation and misdirection to do it…stuff like that.

There IS a middle ground in all of this. Sadly, I don’t think we shall get there, since your side has never seemed to want a middle ground, and ‘my’ side are now snake bit, if not raving paranoid loons clutching their guns and jumping at shadows, convinced your side is out to get them at every turn. Of course, even paranoids can be right sometimes, since your side IS out to get them and swipe their guns by hook or by crook, whatever it takes. Right? Because they are all ‘cowards’…

sigh It really didn’t have to be this way. We could reasonable and sane controls within the Constitution that would make us (marginally) more safe and secure.

In order to get a real ban, which is what you and at least the more fervent on your side REALLY want, you need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, um, first. This is completely within the scope of our system. There is precedence for this, after all. Our Constitution has been amended, and the Amendments have been vacated. If you simply want controls, well, those are within the scope of the Constitution…we have controls on speech and assembly after all. But not controls that go completely against the Constitution. You can’t put in ‘controls’ on speech that bans broad categories, not and stay within our system. So, if you want to ban broad categories, you need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, then you are free to create laws to do what you want to do and they would be constitutional and lawful.

If your side was doing that, I’d have zero issue with them, since that’s really how our system is supposed to work. And, ironically, I think there has been a sea change in attitudes concerning guns and gun ownership. Less and less American families have guns. I don’t own a fire arm and haven’t in 2 decades, for example…and I know there are stats to back this up.

This is simply wrong. If I passed a law tomorrow that said that no liberals speech would be allowed in any news paper, on any US web site or in any magazine it would immediately be challenged on Constitutional grounds…and over turned. Or, to give you and example concerning the 2nd, how goes DCs fight with their hand gun banning laws?

So, there IS a ‘right’ way to do this…and your side chose not to go that route. Your side has less sand than those who overturned 18th…THAT is the ‘right’ way to do things. Your way would be to leave the 18th in place, but just make all ‘manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors’ perfectly legal within the US, because that’s REALLY what the framers meant. :stuck_out_tongue:

102

How many of those civilians were then charged by prosecutors with a crime other than homicide?

It’s funny how there are four or more non-police justifiable homicides a week in this country, but you go months between one happening that gun advocates want to use to build up their case.

Here are some non-police examples I get when googling:

ruled justifiable homicide

http://www.whas11.com/story/news/crime/2015/02/11/adrienne-way-shooting/23234219/

http://www.wdrb.com/story/11835568/death-of-son-ruled-justifiable-homicide

These news stories are mostly too brief to draw complete conclusions. But common themes are disputes between criminals and within families.

Re my last link, where the father justifiably pistol whips his son to death, I’m not sure if that meets the FBI criteria for a justifiable firearms killing. But I am sure it’s no argument for keeping a gun around the house.

103

To answer your first question: I don’t know. I don’t believe the FBI tracks that, and if they do, they don’t publish it AFAIK.

I’m not personally aware of all the circumstances surrounding every justified homicides by private citizens, and at four a week, it’d be a full-time job just to keep up with them all. But there are cases that come along frequently enough that I can see that guns do provide their owners some value in self-defense situations.

Here are quotes from two of your stories:

I don’t have a problem with these shootings. Sounds like the bad guy got shot. What wonderful news.

104

No cite needed. It was a response to conjecture by HurricaneDitka speculating that one reason criminals may get guns is to kill private citizens in response to police shooting them.

The issue is the alleged “arms race” between criminals and police. If criminals get better and more weapons (through relaxing of gun control laws) then police will get better and more weapons, which leads to criminals doing the same yada yada yada. So my solution is that we shouldn’t accept that as the default and should make guns harder to get, not easier, through regulation. You seem unmoved in your position that such an arms race should lead to relaxing of gun control regulations. I asked you why you want to just accept that as a given since even with very relaxed gun regulations, people STILL don’t arm themselves. My conclusion is that strict gun regulations do not hurt law-abiding citizens more than they hurt criminals, and that more and stricter gun regulations are a better response to escalating violence than looser restrictions.

That’s why I made that point and that’s why its important. And that’s why it has to do with whether or not gun laws need to be relaxed or strengthened. Law abiding citizens are only hurting themselves by demanding access to more and better weapons.

The theme from your side seems to be that there are crimes in the world and you need a gun to protect yourself. My purpose is to shift that them belief to “There is crime in the world, reduce guns so that there is less crime and you’re less vulnerable”. It never ends well for your side in my opinion that your response to crimes are that more people should be armed. Rather, we should reduce and restrict guns so that there will be less of a need in the first place. And the fact that shootings are not stopped given the amount of guns available is not helpful to your cause

You’re wrong to tie this into what I said to you earlier. I make my arguments without a scenario, it doesn’t need it. It will not take much of a change in people’s beliefs to have a gun ban, that’s why I asked you and others the question of what your reaction would be. I only gave you a scenario because you asked for one, it is separate from the argument at hand.

I wouldn’t have to do that if people didn’t misunderstand my posts through either willful ignorance or genuine confusion. In terms of the gun debate, we’re on opposite sides and I’ve had much experience with people trying to twist my words to make a point that is illogical. Consider it a helpful guide, its neither strawman nor the reverse, simply a way of trying to understand each other

I’m not in government so it matters little what I say here. I get that you’re trying to get something out of this debate but I assure you what we’re both doing is irrelevant to the world at large.

Your mistake is that you don’t believe it happens, or don’t believe it happens to me. You assume the pro-gun side would not do what I said, or it is an extreme outlier. Assume for the sake of argument that it happens. Then it would be a perfectly rational thing to say. I will not stop saying it, nor apologize for it, but I’m happy to explain why I say it

I don’t think you did specifically, but thank you for answering it here.

What is it that you wish our side, or me specifically, to respect?

No, you are absolutely, 100% wrong.

Every law gets re-interpretated. To hold some laws sacred and untouchable is to accrue it religious divinity. Even if tomorrow we reinterpret the First Amendment to be not about free speech, I would not say the process is wrong, only that the outcome is. It is right, correct, lawful, and Constitutional if by our Amendment process we remove the 2nd, or the 1st, or all 10 Amendments. NOTHING would be wrong about that except the outcome, which we are free to also interpret as wrong. You cannot choose to replace objective philosophy with your opinion or anyone’s opinions. On that, you might be right, we have nothing more to discuss. I will never consider it to be wrong to use the tools given to us by the Constitution to reinterpret or remove part of the Constitution. It is what we are told we can do by the law, so I will always vote or choose to do it. It is not slimy, underhanded, or subversive at all. We have a difference in opinion on what’s objectively right, but you would consider your opinion so sacred you wouldn’t let anyone else even try to change it.

Also, just in case you’re going there next, don’t confuse objective truth with what I said. My statement about you being 100% wrong piggybacks on subjective opinions and objective fact and what the human mind can comprehend, so it is not a contradiction. I can both say you are wrong and say that what you believe is relative

Given that you think we probably cannot have a discussion if we cannot agree to that above common ground, I’ll skip responding to the rest of your post. However if you want me to respond to it, I will

105

It’s certainly not an argument that your side has had much luck convincing people with: http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx

106

I get that we’re losing, but just because people believe that guns make them safer doesn’t make that true. Eventually, I hope conditions will improve to the point where people won’t feel the need to own guns.

107

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing just by claiming you are right because you say you are. I agree that there is no discussion to be had with you, nor is one necessary,. You’ve annointed yourself as both good and right. Bone had your number days ago.

108

[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
No, you are absolutely, 100% wrong.

Every law gets re-interpretated. To hold some laws sacred and untouchable is to accrue it religious divinity.
[/QUOTE]

No…I’m not. And your strawman here is pretty obvious. I mean, not only did I take the time to explain but I gave you a freaking example as well. Cutting to the chase, I never said that laws couldn’t be re-interpreted, nor that they (or even ‘some’) are ‘laws sacred and untouchable’. However, when you reinterpret a law in such a way that it’s actually directly opposite of the original intent the point is obviously to get around the law. The fact that you are OK with this (in this one specific instance…I have to think that you wouldn’t be nearly so sanguine if we were talking about ‘reinterpreting’ the 1st, say, so that we basically banned broad categories of speech, stifled broad categories of assembly or freedoms of religion) and that you don’t see anything wrong with it cuts to the heart of why so many 2nd Amendment advocates are so paranoid and suspicious of anything coming from folks like you.

Again, the rest of this paragraph is you building a strawman and then demolishing it and has little to do with what I actually wrote, so no real point in going over it. I’m unsure why you keep doing this with my posts, but it’s clear that you are doing it.

The law? Democracy? Hell, in your case I simply wish you’d engage what I actually say, instead of strawmen XT’s. That and fess up…your side simply wants to get it’s way on this issue, regardless of what the Amendment says, regardless of what the majority of citizens think and regardless of the process. Your side has been trying to do this for literally decades, does not use the process created to do it properly, and has tried to sneak this stuff in under the table and below the radar.

No worries, though to me it’s all the same. You either respect our system and how it works, or you don’t. If you do, then you respect that attitudes can shift and change, and so our laws, amendments and even the Constitution can as well. That’s why your strawman later is so puzzling to me, when I went to the trouble of saying all of this AND giving freaking examples, and you responded thanking me for answering. It’s like you didn’t read any of my answers, at least from my perspective.

Yet you jumped the gun and poisoned the well before anyone DID do what you thought they would. Hell, no one still has done it…except you. But never mind. The fact that someone on the gun rights side will is certain, even if they don’t in this thread. But it’s a strawman position since no one HAS in THIS thread…except you with the coward thing.

109

Yes, laws get re-interpreted. The 19th-century authors of the Fourteenth Amendment probably weren’t thinking of gay marriage when they said that no state should “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. (And yet, that’s what they wrote, and from a 21st-century P.O.V., gay marriage–and equal rights for LGBT people more generally–winds up being kind of a no-brainer, really.)

But, no it would not be legitimate to “re-interpret” the First Amendment “to be not about free speech”. Now, if we use the process of amending the Constitution (almost) anything goes. The process is by design difficult, but a sufficiently large, persistent, and widespread majority could abolish free speech entirely. I’d probably seriously consider emigrating, but if the Twenty-eighth “Protecting Every American from Criticism for Ever” Amendment (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, including all articles of amendment, no person shall have the right to say, publish, or broadcast any verbal or non-verbal expression which may have the effect of injuring another person’s self-esteem. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”) was duly passed by the requisite super-majorities of both houses of Congress and by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, you could call it “stupid and un-American” (although that would probably hurt someone’s feelings…) but by definition it wouldn’t be “unconstitutional”.

But the anti-gun side has never, as far as I know, made any serious proposal for any kind of constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment outright, or limiting its scope, (or “clarifying” it if you prefer), or anything of the sort. I’m pretty sure what XT was referring to as “the slimy path” is this tactic of saying of the Second Amendment “That? Oh, that old thing! That doesn’t mean anything! It’s just an inkblot! We can adopt any ‘reasonable’ gun control laws we want, up to and including a total ban!”

110

I’m wrong? This isn’t tying into some esoteric notion you posited in an unrelated way. This was your direct response to the question at hand. It is specifically on point. The line of this discussion is what you would consider slight changes that could lead to a gun ban. Let’s rewind the tape:

So when I ask you for a specific example of what could happen that you would consider “slight” and would also result in guns being banned, this was your response. Mass tragedy, victim exploitation, overturning SCOTUS precedent, and hastily passing laws like the Patriot Act was. This is what you consider *slight *changes in people’s sentiment towards guns. This is a data point for the reader to evaluate your ability to accurately assess the reality of a given scenario. It speaks to my earlier point that the hypothetical that you laid out was absurd and not based in reality.

On a macro sense, the impact is probably very small. But my donations, advocacy, and outreach may help influence how people feel about the topic (I’ve volunteered to be a plaintiff as well, but no takers thus far). They in turn may be convinced, and may convince others. On balance, sentiment on this board to the extent it’s changed over time has moved more in my direction than yours. That’s on this board. This is mirrored in the laws of this country, and the courts. So please, continue to do what you’re doing - it may be having an impact. Just not necessarily the one you wish for.

111

I don’t think I’m right if I say I am. I think the response is right given when I was responding to. He said a “what if” and I countered with a “what if”.

Your example makes the argument that we shouldn’t reinterpret. So that IS your argument

It doesn’t matter. Things change. Many have made the case that the 14th, ratified right after the Civil War, has been reinterpreted to include women and gays. I don’t really care about their arguments as I consider the ultimate result to be desireable. However, I have no problems with the process of reinterpreting that Amendment to include people that the Amendment creators never even considered.

If you look in our history, there are lots of such examples, usually related to black people. We basically told the original Constitution to fuck off by declaring blacks 1) not slaves and, 2) a full person.

So there is absolutely no issues legally with the reinterpretation process if someone in the future wants to reinterpret the 2nd as favoring restricting guns. None whatsoever. And if you have a problem with that, you can take it up with all those un-enslaved people.

So one, you’re admitting there is paranoia amongst many of the 2nd’s defenders, like I said would happen and does happen. And two, they are paranoid because they overestimate their vulnerability. I can build a bunker and live there with years of freeze dried food because I’m scared of dying in a nuclear attack, but I would be paranoid because while that can happen, the chances are miniscule. To me, a proper response to people like me who want to ban guns is to ignore our admitted outlier and focus on working with politicians who simply want to restrict guns. I do not know of more than possibly a handful that want to actually ban guns like me. Most just want reasonable restrictions. Democrats aren’t like the GOP, the most leftward of the party have not taken over nor will they in the near future

You may think that’s a strawman, but it is a reasonable reading of your attack on the process of reinterpretation and relitigation

What law have I broken or advocated to be broken?

My interpretation is that you mean “respect the will of the voters” because they have consistently been polled to favor gun rights. So you think the judiciary should never make laws contrary to the will of the voters? That maybe Loving v. Virginia got it wrong? Before you complain again about strawmen, note that it is a reasonable reading of your democracy promotion. More often than not, it means voter will, majority rules, that sort of thing. And plenty of things go against it.

So if that’s democracy, no, I will not respect it because voters often don’t know what the hell they’re doing. In this case, it is a fact that having a gun is more dangerous than not having one, therefore voters who know little deserve to have their will ignored. If people want to be safe, they’ll not own guns.

You keep using strawman as an epithet, I don’t think you are using that correctly. Because everything I’ve said is based on your own words. You’re lucky I don’t get pedantic like that other guy and accuse you of moving the goalposts. You brought up reinterpretation as a bad thing, then you added that you actually meant I’d reinterpret it to the opposite of what you consider its meaning to me. There is no strawman here, that is an accurate description of your points.

As for getting my way, we all want to get our way, let’s not pretend otherwise. Your side consistently ignores the “well regulated militia” part, inventing arguments out of thin air to justify private ownership and no regulation. We have a standing army, a national guard, and police. To me, that’s a well-regulated militia. A guy in his house with a shotgun rack full of guns is not a militia nor is he well regulated, he should not be allowed to have a gun in that case.

Nothing we’ve done has been improper. Well, I should say that I’m sure somebody somewhere, an outlier, has tried something patently illegal to get gun regulation passed, but the movement as a whole respects the rule of law and go through legislation and the courts to get what we want, you know, the proper channels.

You and I have a severe disagreement on some fundamental things like legal process, interpretation, litigation, and the definition of “strawman”. But I asked a question and you answered, of which I’m grateful. As you see from the size of my posts, I like to answer all questions if I think people are genuinely wondering how I can come to that conclusion.

Should I not have said I thought they were cowards even though I believed it? Should I have just said it and just left the topic? Or, and I suspect this is more of what you want, should I have somehow not held that opinion in the first place and come in and support what everyone else is saying? What do you do when you have an unpopular opinion and a topic that is relevant to post it in?

Because its too hard to attack an Amendment directly but if you can achieve the same ends by reinterpretating local ordinances, its smarter and more efficient to do so.

What do you consider a “well-regulated militia” to consist of?

112

Yes, you’re wrong. The only reason I mentioned the “slight change in people’s perceptions” on guns is that you were determined to ignore the question and called it a fantasy that doesn’t have an answer. I’d rather have you answer the question than ignore it, so I gave you that. Full stop, that was the end of that specific debate point.

You later asked me for my own view on how a change could happen, mirroring my question that I asked you to answer. I did answer it, but with the understanding that it was a standalone question. So therefore, the two are not tied together in any way and I’m not going to be dragged into defending something I never argued for.

I’ve seen no shifts in the personal opinions of specific people here in my 7 years. If the board has changed, it has done so simply because more people are here that are pro-gun. But giving no voice of opposition to the more opinionated pro-gun people on this board is helpful, even if I don’t immediately witness the benefits. Of course you are free to see it however way you want

113

In light of your first sentence, what would be the point of talking about your second sentence?

114

Taxpayer-funded gun ranges and an ammunition allowance so gun owners can get the target practice they need. :wink:

115

If by crime you mean robberies, assaults, etc., do you mean to say they simply wouldn’t happen if there were no guns? If nobody had firearms criminals would use knives, bludgeons or their fists, which would hardly be a comfort.

No, the provisions of the Constitution aren’t “untouchable”. Changing them DOES require the active assent of an abiding super-majority, to confirm that the people really want the change. The Constitution is a covenant, the terms under which the states and the people agreed to have to consent to the Federal government’s authority in the first place. “Re-interpreting” is a fraud, comparable to saying "All animals are Equal"But some are more equal than others.

116

They already have in almost all countries not at war.

This certainly brings out the clash of values into the open.

Alabama, where this wonderful news event took place, is, of course, awash in guns:

117

From that report:

I hate to have to be the one to bring up the race factor, but since it’s well-documented and undeniable that African-Americans statistically commit (and are victimized by) gun crime at much higher rates than the average, I would hypothesize that Alabama’s ranking in this study may be demographic in origin. For example, the study mentions the high gun crime rate in Birmingham- 73% African-American in 2010. Vermont? 0.3%

To put it crudely, white people get tired of being told guns must be banned because of blacks’ violence culture.

118

Perhaps if you took the time to read the question before responding you would offer more coherent answers. In this case, the idea you are trying to delineate (slight changes) is integral to the question that was asked - it was in the same sentence. Here it is again: " … what set of circumstances do you think could happen that would fall under your description of slight changes in feelings towards guns that would result in guns being banned?" I bolded it for you so you wouldn’t miss it. It’s okay to retract what you said if you made a mistake. But somehow claiming that the question you were responding to didn’t contain the bolded section is very strange.

The third sentence above doesn’t make sense to me. Did you mean to say “But giving A voice of opposition …”? In any event, I agree that giving a voice of opposition is helpful - but again probably not in the way you like. That’s why I appreciate your continued advocacy for repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I’ve read the sentiment many times over the years on this board, but from a quick search, here’s a thread where two posters expressed the idea. Post #4 and #27.

119

If you mean the 14th Amendment ot the US Constitution, it was not re-interpreted to give the vote to women - the 19th gave the vote to women, and gays always had the right to vote.

Regards,
Shodan

120

To be sure, there have been ideological leanings of different Supreme Courts over the decades. For example, if the Fourteenth Amendment is held to give the federal government a role in upholding citizens’ rights, by any rational reading it should do so under the Privileges and Immunities clause. But that avenue was closed in a series of 19th century rulings by a court seemingly determined to avoid any expansion of federal power- perhaps as a reaction to Reconstruction. In fact throughout the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, the court tended to be extraordinarily illiberal; one theory is that Socialist radicalism sparked a backlash. To give but two examples:
[ul]
[li]in 1897 in Robertson v. Baldwin, the SC ruled that the 13th Amendment did not protect (merchant) sailors who’d jumped ship from being forcibly returned to their ships. In that case the court actually ruled that the Bill of Rights had exceptions grandfathered in from common law(!)[/li][li]After World War One, the court upheld several convictions under federal law that had made it a crime to to publicly oppose the war effort by word or deed, seemingly in flat contradiction to the First Amendment. The court’s rationalization? - a state of war trumps the Bill of Rights(!)[/li][/ul]
In the 1930s the court famously went from striking down New Deal legislation as outside the federal government’s enumerated powers to a reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause so expansive as to justify almost anything. In the 1950s the court suddenly discovered the uses of the 14th’s “due process” provision to enforce civil rights laws.

So yes, there have been fads for “interpreting” the Constitution to serve the political cause of the day; but it’s an abuse of the judicial process and weakens respect for the Constitution.