The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! I’m pro 2nd Ammendmentin Politics

ReedleYeetle

Change my mind

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Can a militia be well regulated if there is no regulations, or militia?

Yes; the militia can be well regulate, i.e. fall under the same rules and regulations as the regular military, when it is called to arms.

What you meant to say, is that the in the US right now, there is nothing that really resembles anything close to the civilian Militia envisaged by the second ammendment, other than a few sovereign citizen groups and organized communities of preppers.

What you actually did, was try and argue as if Militias exist, while talking about the theoretical application of military regulations to a theoretical militia at the point where they are theoretically activated in some way: with no detail on how you have deduced any of those points are true.

Thought I needed to clear that up.

Gooberry

ReedleYeetle said:

Change my mind

Can a militia be well regulated if there is no regulations, or militia?

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

Can a militia be well regulated if there is no regulations, or militia?

Yes; the militia can be well regulate, i.e. fall under the same rules and regulations as the regular military, when it is called to arms.

MayCaesar

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of lawmaking in the history of humanity. The statement that citizens have the rights for the same means of protecting themselves as the government means that the citizens can reasonably fight back in case the government stops serving their interests, as well as guarantees their independence from the government and ability to rely on themselves and their friends for protection. I also like the clause in the Constitution prescribing that the citizens have the right to take down the government in case it no longer serves the people - while somewhat vague, it demonstrates a high degree of respect the Founding Fathers had for the individual, given that they were willing to essentially tell them, "If we misbehave, you should bring us down by force".

The 1st and the 2nd Amendment are the clauses the analogues of which every proper legal system in the Universe should have.

Gooberry

MayCaesar said:

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of lawmaking in the history of humanity. The statement that citizens have the rights for the same means of protecting themselves as the government means that the citizens can reasonably fight back in case the government stops serving their interests, as well as guarantees their independence from the government and ability to rely on themselves and their friends for protection. I also like the clause in the Constitution prescribing that the citizens have the right to take down the government in case it no longer serves the people - while somewhat vague, it demonstrates a high degree of respect the Founding Fathers had for the individual, given that they were willing to essentially tell them, "If we misbehave, you should bring us down by force".

The 1st and the 2nd Amendment are the clauses the analogues of which every proper legal system in the Universe should have.

Citizens do not have access to Apache’s, jets, nuclear weapons, or even fully automatic weapons. Nor should they.

At the time the ammendment was written, well trained militia could potentially be a military match for government forces - and often were.

The political and military reality now, is that unless you have portions of state or local government or respective military involvement - the ability to “overthrow the government” is for all intents and purposes non existent.

What this means, is that the individual right to bear arms has very little use in this context.

What is worse is that the available and the individual right to gun ownerships:  - rather than simply the collective right - presents actual damage to the citizenry - in the form of death, murder, crime that is easier to commit with such weapons and, most importantly, crack pot groups and movements that now have the ability to arm themselves and attack a flawed - but non oppressive governments.

the idea that this is what the founding fathers really had in mind, is rather flawed in that regard.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

What you meant to say, is that the in the US right now, there is nothing that really resembles anything close to the civilian Militia envisaged by the second ammendment, other than a few sovereign citizen groups and organized communities of preppers.

What you actually did, was try and argue as if Militias exist, while talking about the theoretical application of military regulations to a theoretical militia at the point where they are theoretically activated in some way: with no detail on how you have deduced any of those points are true.

Thought I needed to clear that up.

Um, no.  The militia still exists in current US law,

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

     (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

     (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

If you're going to "clear something up", it helps to know what you're talking about.

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

What you meant to say, is that the in the US right now, there is nothing that really resembles anything close to the civilian Militia envisaged by the second ammendment, other than a few sovereign citizen groups and organized communities of preppers.

What you actually did, was try and argue as if Militias exist, while talking about the theoretical application of military regulations to a theoretical militia at the point where they are theoretically activated in some way: with no detail on how you have deduced any of those points are true.

Thought I needed to clear that up.

Um, no.  The militia still exists in current US law,

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

     (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

     (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

If you're going to "clear something up", it helps to know what you're talking about.

Yes, because we all know the specific wording in military law makes things exist.

I am attempting pointing out that “the militia” - described as the unorganized militia - and this is normally what’s referred to in the context of the second ammendment rather than just the National Guard which is generally run and controlled through the auspices of the US military - doesn’t actually exist outside of the context I said.

I am not sure why something would somehow magically begin to exist just because it’s defined in the law. 

MayCaesar

@Gooberry

My interpretation is different. I see what the Founding Fathers created as a means of people to counterweight the power of the government. As such, in my opinion (and the Amendment can be interpreted in such a way), citizens should have access to the same weaponry the government possesses: tanks, nuclear bombs, etc. If a certain weapon is deemed too dangerous when owned by a random citizen, then the government should not be able to own it either, as any weapon in the hands of a well coordinated government is far more dangerous than it is in the hands of anyone/anything else. It is not the random individuals gone rogue who performed genocides over the course of history, but it is those individuals who had access to the weaponry through the government which the objects of the genocides did not have.

In the distant future, as I see it, every homestead will have automated defenses put across its perimeter, and the public-funded military will essentially disappear, giving way to well trained private armies and defense systems. This is the only way we as humanity are going to survive; any centralization of military technology past a certain stage of technological development will mean the end of our species the moment it is misused - and it will be misused, since every government, including the most pacifist ones, is prone to power abuse.

To summarize my view: if the average Joe from Texas cannot drive a tank, then the soldier employed by the government even more so should not be able to drive a tank. And the fact that this point of view is essentially a part of the spirit of our Constitution is truly a remarkable success in state-making, something all other states should strive to adopt.

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

Citizens do not have access to Apache’s, jets, nuclear weapons, or even fully automatic weapons. Nor should they.

At the time the ammendment was written, well trained militia could potentially be a military match for government forces - and often were.

The political and military reality now, is that unless you have portions of state or local government or respective military involvement - the ability to “overthrow the government” is for all intents and purposes non existent.

What this means, is that the individual right to bear arms has very little use in this context.

What is worse is that the available and the individual right to gun ownerships:  - rather than simply the collective right - presents actual damage to the citizenry - in the form of death, murder, crime that is easier to commit with such weapons and, most importantly, crack pot groups and movements that now have the ability to arm themselves and attack a flawed - but non oppressive governments.

the idea that this is what the founding fathers really had in mind, is rather flawed in that regard.

Oh yeah, all those military weapons brought the Afghans to heel in record time.  That's what turned Afghanistan into the idyllic paradise it is today.

And what civilian gun ownership really means is that numerous lives are saved and millions of crimes per year are thwarted by law-abiding gun owners.

WordsMatter

Would those who support the second amendment describe the guy who shot at the politicians during baseball practice a patriot? He did exactly what these amendments were designed for. No where is it defined how many people have to view the government as tyrannical to justify an attack on the government. If that one man truly believed that the government is tyrannical then he must be a patriot right?

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter ;

Patriot? Maybe. Patriotism is a pretty horrible ideology though, so I am assuming that the real question you are asking is: was he justified to do so? In my view, no.

One's being unhappy with the government does not give them right to do vigilantism at the expense of everyone else's preferences. When a critical mass of people becomes so unhappy with the government, they are willing to start an armed rebellion, then such a rebellion will be found to be legitimate according to the Constitution. But if it is just one guy who is unhappy with something and goes on a killing spree over it, then it does not matter what his motives are: he is a criminal. Not to mention that killing the governmental members is not the point of the Constitutional rebellion; the point is to depose the government, not to murder everyone from it. This person's actions made little sense from this point of view.

I agree that the line is grey, however. Take North Korea: the majority of people on paper seem to be happy with everything - but the state is obviously extremely oppressive. Would a rebellion by a small group of people be justified from the point of view of our Constitution? Hard to say.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

Would those who support the second amendment describe the guy who shot at the politicians during baseball practice a patriot? He did exactly what these amendments were designed for. No where is it defined how many people have to view the government as tyrannical to justify an attack on the government. If that one man truly believed that the government is tyrannical then he must be a patriot right?

We can't stop every idiot from attacking every symbol of government authority everywhere at every time.  If we don't agree with his justification, then there is no reason we would view him as a patriot.

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar I really did mean a patriot, not a question on justification. It's a very interesting thought with no real answer. Are you a terrorist or a freedom fighter? We're the rebels in star wars really the good guys, or a force of evil? If everyone in the country except for you wanted to turn completely communist would that mean you wouldn't be justified in a rebellion because you are only one person? If that man honestly believed that the government was tyrannical and that the only way to destroy that tyranny was via murder then he is fully justified in my mind. The American revolution killed tons of government agents, any grassroot rebellion involves the murder of government agents. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution defining how many people need to believe the government is tyrannical to justify a rebellion.

It was one of the few times a murder with a gun in America was actually closest to the reason we have guns. Wilkes Booth, Oswald, could very well be defined as Patriots. I agree that patriotism is a toxic ideology, but fighting against a tyrannical government is so very American.

On a completely different topic. Is an armed rebellion of the people versus the government even possible anymore? Could there be enough support and consensus among citizens to make a clear people vs government rebellion? Or would any attempt at that just result in civil wars? 

Gooberry

CYDdharta said:

Gooberry said:

Citizens do not have access to Apache’s, jets, nuclear weapons, or even fully automatic weapons. Nor should they.

At the time the ammendment was written, well trained militia could potentially be a military match for government forces - and often were.

The political and military reality now, is that unless you have portions of state or local government or respective military involvement - the ability to “overthrow the government” is for all intents and purposes non existent.

What this means, is that the individual right to bear arms has very little use in this context.

What is worse is that the available and the individual right to gun ownerships:  - rather than simply the collective right - presents actual damage to the citizenry - in the form of death, murder, crime that is easier to commit with such weapons and, most importantly, crack pot groups and movements that now have the ability to arm themselves and attack a flawed - but non oppressive governments.

the idea that this is what the founding fathers really had in mind, is rather flawed in that regard.

Oh yeah, all those military weapons brought the Afghans to heel in record time.  That's what turned Afghanistan into the idyllic paradise it is today.

And what civilian gun ownership really means is that numerous lives are saved and millions of crimes per year are thwarted by law-abiding gun owners.

I don’t think you can buy fully automatic AK-47s, RPGs, and explosives in the US, right? And I’m sure every weapon the Taliban and al-Qaeda have used - for the last 17 years was all stored in individual members cupboards for all this time.

I don’t have much of a problem with an organized, collective right to bear arms in line with the 2nd ammendment - rather than individual ownership: which much better supports the intent.


Secondly it’s not a great argument about how great guns are when you are saying that they are good because they help protect from guns.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta what if he really believed the government was tyrannical? Patriotism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country. The Constitution creates the country not the government, notice government isn't in the definition of patriotism. So he truly believed in the country and the Constitution of the country allows for him to take up and against a tyrannical government, he practiced his right as an American, abided by the constitutional rules. 

So here's my question. Who gets to define or decide what or when a government is or isn't tyrannical? When you say the second amendment is good because we may need militias to fight a tyrannical government, it sounds so simple and easy to support. However the idea of tyranny is so subjective. Some on the right thought Obama was tyrannical, would they be right in taking up arms? Would some on the left who think Trump is a tyrant be justified in taking up arms? How many does it take? What if every Hillary voter took up arms, are they within their rights and protected by the Constitution? I don't believe an armed rebellion is possible without quickly turning into a civil war therefore not people vs government but people vs people.

ReedleYeetle

Currently, there is no impending threat that a militia would be neccesary for, however, if there’s was a reason for the civilians to call to arms by and they had none none. We would be totally screwed. But since we do have arms to defend ourselves and our country with, we will have a chance. Also, the second amendment isn’t just about a melitia, burn it is also important for or personal defense and home defense. Taking gunshot away from good people doesn’t make dangerous people woolen or less dangerous.@Gooberry

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

I don’t think you can buy fully automatic AK-47s, RPGs, and explosives in the US, right? And I’m sure every weapon the Taliban and al-Qaeda have used - for the last 17 years was all stored in individual members cupboards for all this time.

I don’t have much of a problem with an organized, collective right to bear arms in line with the 2nd ammendment - rather than individual ownership: which much better supports the intent.


Secondly it’s not a great argument about how great guns are when you are saying that they are good because they help protect from guns.

You can buy a full-auto AK-47 if you want, there are better firearms available.  Besides, you can't legally buy military firearms and explosives in Afghanistan, either, sans an immediate and/or critical threat.

Ministry of Interior Affairs can distribute weapons and ammunitions in emergency and critical cases to rightful individuals for defending the property of the government, private property and self defense according to the provisions of this Law.

http://www.kakaradvocates.com/Afghan Laws/English/The Law of Firearms, Ammunitions and Explosives - English.pdf

Secondly, why is that not a great argument?  Do you really think laws outlawing guns will really get rid of all guns?  How well did Prohibition work out?  How about the War on Drugs?

Gooberry

MayCaesar said:

@Gooberry

My interpretation is different. I see what the Founding Fathers created as a means of people to counterweight the power of the government. As such, in my opinion (and the Amendment can be interpreted in such a way), citizens should have access to the same weaponry the government possesses: tanks, nuclear bombs, etc. If a certain weapon is deemed too dangerous when owned by a random citizen, then the government should not be able to own it either, as any weapon in the hands of a well coordinated government is far more dangerous than it is in the hands of anyone/anything else. It is not the random individuals gone rogue who performed genocides over the course of history, but it is those individuals who had access to the weaponry through the government which the objects of the genocides did not have.

In the distant future, as I see it, every homestead will have automated defenses put across its perimeter, and the public-funded military will essentially disappear, giving way to well trained private armies and defense systems. This is the only way we as humanity are going to survive; any centralization of military technology past a certain stage of technological development will mean the end of our species the moment it is misused - and it will be misused, since every government, including the most pacifist ones, is prone to power abuse.

To summarize my view: if the average Joe from Texas cannot drive a tank, then the soldier employed by the government even more so should not be able to drive a tank. And the fact that this point of view is essentially a part of the spirit of our Constitution is truly a remarkable success in state-making, something all other states should strive to adopt.

Preventing the government from being able to defend its citizens against foreign countries that do have those weapons is a terrible, terrible idea - and a recipe for making the government not be one for very long.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta what if he really believed the government was tyrannical? Patriotism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country. The Constitution creates the country not the government, notice government isn't in the definition of patriotism. So he truly believed in the country and the Constitution of the country allows for him to take up and against a tyrannical government, he practiced his right as an American, abided by the constitutional rules. 

So here's my question. Who gets to define or decide what or when a government is or isn't tyrannical? When you say the second amendment is good because we may need militias to fight a tyrannical government, it sounds so simple and easy to support. However the idea of tyranny is so subjective. Some on the right thought Obama was tyrannical, would they be right in taking up arms? Would some on the left who think Trump is a tyrant be justified in taking up arms? How many does it take? What if every Hillary voter took up arms, are they within their rights and protected by the Constitution? I don't believe an armed rebellion is possible without quickly turning into a civil war therefore not people vs government but people vs people.

Support of the government is synonymous with support for one's country. The government was established in Articles 1 and 2 of the US Constitution.  It was quite literally the first order of business. 

There is no mention of fighting tyranny in the Constitution, none whatsoever, however treason is specifically defined;

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

James T. Hodgkinson, Timothy McVeigh, the Tsanaev brothers, etc., were ALL committing treason. Anyone who decides to take up arms against the government had better be willing to accept the consequences.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta the Tsarnaev brothers were not wagging war against the government. They committed a terrorist attack against civilians to draw attention the the crimes against chechnya. So the second amendment allows arms for a malitia, what grounds are there to let individuals own them? A militia can function with it's own stockpile owned as a group. 

CYDdharta

Gooberry said:

Yes, because we all know the specific wording in military law makes things exist.

I am attempting pointing out that “the militia” - described as the unorganized militia - and this is normally what’s referred to in the context of the second ammendment rather than just the National Guard which is generally run and controlled through the auspices of the US military - doesn’t actually exist outside of the context I said.

I am not sure why something would somehow magically begin to exist just because it’s defined in the law. 

Correct, a law defining what a militia is does, in fact, mean that it exists.  Simply because it has rarely been used does not negate it.  "But, but, but, that law hasn't been used in a long time" is NOT a legal defense.  The law was just reauthorized in 2016.  We haven't been invaded in centuries (the 2nd Amendment is likely one of the reasons for that) but if we were, the unorganized militia may be called to arms.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta the Tsarnaev brothers were not wagging war against the government. They committed a terrorist attack against civilians to draw attention the the crimes against chechnya. So the second amendment allows arms for a malitia, what grounds are there to let individuals own them? A militia can function with it's own stockpile owned as a group. 

Already answered by citing US law; 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter On the absolute level, what is "justified" and what is not is defined solely by the moral system used. In the eyes of the terrorist, his actions may be justified; in the eyes of their victims, probably not. This is one of those cases where "common sense" should be used, in my opinion. Going on a killing spree in order to change the oppressive government will not solve anything; building a movement that will change that government naturally, or by force if the natural way is blocked by the government, is a much more viable solution.A man can be a patriot and exercise their patriotism in a violent way. It happens. Like I said, in my view patriotism is a very malicious ideology, as it puts the land or, maybe, the nation above the individual - I do not see anything wrong with calling Oswald a patriot, given how negative the connotation of this word is.

@Gooberry People can defend themselves just fine if they are the ones owning the means of defense. At the very least, if the government owns them, then people should own them to, so people could defend themselves from the government if needed, and both the people and the government could defend themselves from an external aggression.

AmericanFurryBoy

Reed, it looks like you got more attention than you thought you would.

ReedleYeetle

There are regulations on guns. @Gooberry

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar I mean if you kill all officials in the government on a killing spree you will certainly accomplish something. I'm just trying to understand why an amendment, worded so subjectively, is so important to people, when what justifies the use of arms against the government is totally down to each individual person. I own guns and will keep them, but if that is made illegal I will give them up. I just can't understand the 'militia' argument as that seems very poorly defined and too dependent on the situation and what side you are on. If we go through the Democratic process to remove the first two amendments does that mean you would be unjustified in rebellion? The second amendment is just too broad and almost impossible to define a circumstance where it could be used by people that are OBJECTIVELY in the right

When it comes to the argument for getting rid of guns that at least makes objective sense to me. You remove all guns and gun violence and death is gaurented to drop.

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter

To me, it is so important mainly because it establishes the status-quo: "The government is your servant, and if it stops serving you, then you may force it to start serving you again". The government essentially acknowledges that it has no authority over people and it exists by and only by the mandate the people give it. It relinquishes (at least, in theory) all hopes on getting special military benefits regular citizens do not have, because it has no rights for them, since, by design, it is a servant of the people and not a lord over them.

Very few other countries, if any, have similar philosophies not only declared and accepted unofficially, but proclaimed in the central document describing the basic principles of the societal organization. I believe Switzerland has similar clauses, albeit I am not intimately familiar with their Constitution.

The day the 2nd Amendment is repealed, if it occurs, will be a devastating blow to the American liberal ideas. The moment the government decides that common people have no rights on something public servants do, not just with regards to particularities, but with regards to an entire category of effective lethal weapons - will be the moment the republic dies, and the oligarchy is born. It has happened in the vast majority of the Western countries already, and I am hoping that the US will avoid this fate.

I agree with you that there is a lot of debate to be had on how exactly to interpret the 2nd Amendment and similar clauses - however, I do not think that the vagueness of the Amendment means the Amendment itself is not grounded on solid ideas. Perhaps the Amendment should be clarified, but definitely not dismissed, in my opinion.

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar I'm definitely not dismissing is I just don't think a large number of those that defend it can articulately do it with very fine details and specifics.

I really don't care about the 2nd amendment. And I think the state it is in now is such a bad one. I'd be in favor of either extreme, either no guns at all because regulations won't do a thing to stop gun violence if they are still easy to get. I also think If the second amendment is there it should me massively expanded to the point I can get an RPG or TOW missle, any military grade weapon. 

As long as those who support the second amendment see and treat gun deaths like deaths from car accidents then they are fine in my book. They shouldn't comment on it being a tragedy and shouldn't give many thoughts or prayers about it. If you want a society with legal guns then you want a society in which innocent people will be killed by them. As long as they accept the bad with the good then that's fine by me. 

To those who say gun deaths will still happen even if they are illegal that number would drop dramatically. Weapon sales would turn to the black market with exorbint prices create a significant wealth barrier and the right social connections to be able to access them.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

To those who say gun deaths will still happen even if they are illegal that number would drop dramatically. Weapon sales would turn to the black market with exorbint prices create a significant wealth barrier and the right social connections to be able to access them.

Maybe, but the price for drugs isn't really all that high (no pun intended).  What you fail to acknowledge is that the people who WOULD own guns in such a situation, would be criminals, leaving more people to the mercy of people who have shown they have none and increasing crime.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta please point me to the number of gun deaths in first world countries where they are illegal to back up your claim? The international drug trade and weapons trade are so drastically different. And yes there is a huge difference in price of legal vs illegal drugs. I can get an ounce of weed for $100 dollars in a legal state. I'd be lucky to pay $320 for an ounce where it's illegal, it would be more around $400. You can get an AR-15 for around 2k, now the price is all of a sudden 8k, you are pricing a massive percentage of current criminals that use guns out of that market. The people who commit gun violence aren't exactly middle class unless we are taking about all the white male Mass shooting terrorists.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta please point me to the number of gun deaths in first world countries where they are illegal to back up your claim? The international drug trade and weapons trade are so drastically different. And yes there is a huge difference in price of legal vs illegal drugs. I can get an ounce of weed for $100 dollars in a legal state. I'd be lucky to pay $320 for an ounce where it's illegal, it would be more around $400. You can get an AR-15 for around 2k, now the price is all of a sudden 8k, you are pricing a massive percentage of current criminals that use guns out of that market. The people who commit gun violence aren't exactly middle class unless we are taking about all the white male Mass shooting terrorists.

Here's the folly of trying to compare US gun deaths to other similar countries; what other first world country had similar homicide rates before they passed their draconian gun control measures? 

Free markets don't work the way you're trying to paint them, and there is no freer market than the black market.  Supply will follow demand and determine the prices.  Currently, you can get an AR-15 for $500

If someone can make $7500 per transaction, a lot of people will jump into that market, bringing the prices down.  Besides, AR-15s are NOT crime guns.  The vast majority of criminals that use guns use handguns;small weapons that are easily concealable.  That's why the assault weapons ban did nothing to reduce crime.  Used handguns can be had for very little money on the black market.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta you are 100% right that hand guns are the majority of deaths. Let's say we make hand guns illegal today. 100 years from now how many of them will be kicking around? Would it be worth the risk to the international drug trade to snuggle in and find butters for hand guns with a lower profit margin than selling AKs elsewhere? One last question, have you ever had a hand gun held up against your head?

beckysmith

MayCaesar said:

@WordsMatter

To me, it is so important mainly because it establishes the status-quo: "The government is your servant, and if it stops serving you, then you may force it to start serving you again". The government essentially acknowledges that it has no authority over people and it exists by and only by the mandate the people give it. It relinquishes (at least, in theory) all hopes on getting special military benefits regular citizens do not have, because it has no rights for them, since, by design, it is a servant of the people and not a lord over them.

Very few other countries, if any, have similar philosophies not only declared and accepted unofficially, but proclaimed in the central document describing the basic principles of the societal organization. I believe Switzerland has similar clauses, albeit I am not intimately familiar with their Constitution.

The day the 2nd Amendment is repealed, if it occurs, will be a devastating blow to the American liberal ideas. The moment the government decides that common people have no rights on something public servants do, not just with regards to particularities, but with regards to an entire category of effective lethal weapons - will be the moment the republic dies, and the oligarchy is born. It has happened in the vast majority of the Western countries already, and I am hoping that the US will avoid this fate.

I agree with you that there is a lot of debate to be had on how exactly to interpret the 2nd Amendment and similar clauses - however, I do not think that the vagueness of the Amendment means the Amendment itself is not grounded on solid ideas. Perhaps the Amendment should be clarified, but definitely not dismissed, in my opinion.

That is a good point, however, in this case, shouldn't the bigger fear be: why should we even fear the government stop serving us? In my opinion people see owning a gun as such as big right, and would feel that removing this right would be a large violation of their freedom and rights, but the United States has many laws which removes our freedom which is often ignored. Firstly, the United States is in my opinion the most free country and respects its citizens rights more than any other, but there are still ways where we aren't so free which in my opinion are more serious than owning a gun.

For example:

1. In terms of freedom of expression, the United States ranks #49th out of 180 countries behind countries like South Africa, Uruguay, Ghana, Namibia, Estonia, Jamaica plus many Western European countries and more (and are downgrading in rankings this year included). The US government really does control what we say especially when we have a large following so we do not influence our audience in a certain way. "In the United States, 2014 was marked by judicial harassment of New York Times investigative reporter James Risen in connection with the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer charged under the Espionage Act with giving him classified information. US journalists are still not protected by a federal shield law that would guarantee their right not to name their sources or reveal other confidential information about their work. Meanwhile, at least 15 journalists were arbitrarily arrested during clashes between police and demonstrators protesting against black teenager Michael Brown’s fatal shooting by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri."

2. Justice department: The US has one of the highest percentages of its population in prisons (probably due to the fact that prisons can be privately owned and you can be profited from)

3. Public Indecency: (debatable) but it is still removing rights of free expression to some (not me)

4. Taxes: Most countries do not run like this, but for Americans, any American citizen living abroad still pays U.S. taxes, and even to resign from United States citizenship, this requires a tax sum

5. Gay marriage was legalized in 2015

6. Education is not a right

7. Health Care is not a right

Some of these are debatable and even I don't agree with but the bottom line is, that not everybody will agree with what is a right vs a privilege and what is needed vs what is not needed, but in my opinion, owning a gun shouldn't be our priority.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta you are 100% right that hand guns are the majority of deaths. Let's say we make hand guns illegal today. 100 years from now how many of them will be kicking around? Would it be worth the risk to the international drug trade to snuggle in and find butters for hand guns with a lower profit margin than selling AKs elsewhere?

As long as there are buyers, there will be sellers.  There are still handguns in good working order today that were made a century ago, and manufacturing techniques have improved immensely since then, have you ever heard of the Colt Model 1911?

One last question, have you ever had a hand gun held up against your head?

How does that in any way have anything to do with any part of this conversation?

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta yes but when guns are made illegal many will give them up willingly. The ones that don't and are used by criminals will slowly be taken off the market with each crime.

I ask because it's actually a pretty significant event that really makes you think about guns, because your life is finally put right up against what a society that allows guns looks like.  I've had one held to my head and still don't fight on the gun control issue one way or the other. However it was a homeless guy who used to ask me for money for groceries and if guns were illegal he wouldn't have been able to afford one. Then there is the disgruntled co-worker who flashed his gun around a different car that a couple worker bartended at, and called my place of work on theth different occasions threatening to shoot it up. The cops were called each time and they said they couldn't do anything because they didn't hear the call or actually see anything. Granted this is more of a problem with policing than guns, but there would be nothing they could do until he shot at us. If guns were illegal they could do something before he pulls the trigger.   What it does do is make me dislike those who try to mislead on both sides of the argument.

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter People often defend good ideas on bad premises. This is hardly an argument against the ideas themselves. There is a lot of people who defend the 2nd Amendment just because their political opponents do not like it, or people who defend it because they just love guns, or think tanks paid by organizations like NRA to develop theories justifying the Amendment... The Amendment, just like anything else, should be assessed independent on what people say about it, and based purely on what it is objectively.

I would like a society with no gun deaths. But I would like even more a society in which every individual is free and independent and does not need to rely on anyone to be able to, at least, try to protect themselves. 

@beckysmith I agree, and I do not think the gun laws are that important in the overall scheme. In my view, the biggest concern is the over-bureaucratization of the US economy and politics, leading to extremely inefficient resource utilization and slowing down economical activities considerably.

However, the gun laws are not irrelevant regardless, and from the philosophical perspective, I see how society treats the gun rights as a strong indication of that society's core values.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta yes but when guns are made illegal many will give them up willingly.

To begin with, guns WON'T be made illegal; there isn't nearly enough support for it.  But in your fantasy, sure, many could be persuaded to give up their guns, but the vast majority won't.  This is illustrated by the mass-noncompliance with registration requirements in New York and Connecticut where just 65,000 out of 1,300,000 gun owners registered their "assault weapons".

The ones that don't and are used by criminals will slowly be taken off the market with each crime.

Brand new firearms will be manufactured and smuggled into the US.  Right now, for $2000 you can buy a machine that will churn out all the AR-15 and Colt 1911 lower receivers you'd ever want.  Parts kits with everything else to make fully functional firearms are readily available.  Such resources will only become more distributed as manufacturing systems (like 3-D printers) become more available.

I ask because it's actually a pretty significant event that really makes you think about guns, because your life is finally put right up against what a society that allows guns looks like.  I've had one held to my head and still don't fight on the gun control issue one way or the other. However it was a homeless guy who used to ask me for money for groceries and if guns were illegal he wouldn't have been able to afford one. Then there is the disgruntled co-worker who flashed his gun around a different car that a couple worker bartended at, and called my place of work on theth different occasions threatening to shoot it up. The cops were called each time and they said they couldn't do anything because they didn't hear the call or actually see anything. Granted this is more of a problem with policing than guns, but there would be nothing they could do until he shot at us. If guns were illegal they could do something before he pulls the trigger.   What it does do is make me dislike those who try to mislead on both sides of the argument.

Ah; so what you're saying is that such an event would make me more likely to ignore facts and logic in favor of making such a decision based on emotion.  I was right, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta and what decisions am I making? I literally don't care about whether we have the second amendment or not. You have this preconceived notion about guns yet you have no experience facing them. Here's some facts. My work was called theth times being threatened to be shot up. There times the police did nothing because they can't until someone gets shot. Fact I had a gun put to my head from behind me. Fact I could have had a rifle shotgun and handgun and would still be unable to defend myself. Fact prices go up on the black market. Fact the guy wouldn't be able to afford a black market gun. No emotion there at all.


I get it you live in this delusional world where guns are good and everyone is safer with them. You see it as an infallible amendment and therefore should never be removed yet you supported ending proabition, literally taking away an amendment, it is perfectly fine to do that. I'm saying that such an event would get you to actually look into the facts instead of parroting what Fox news and your dad told you. You love to talk about this all theoretically but it actually has an effect on people's lives everyday. If you can honestly say you would be ok being shot or your family getting killed by guns, because of the principal and need for and in society, then ok you actually support having guns. As you said emotion shouldn't be involved so your family's death is acceptable because that's just the costc ofo living in a society with guns. I laughed at a libertarian I know when he got hit by a stray bullet, because that's the society he fought for, then he got to live in it.

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter

Applying your logic to you, you must be okay with being hit by a truck running a red light killing you instantly, since you support the right of people to drive vehicles and that is the society you fought for. Do you accept this judgment? I assume not.

This is the problem with advocacy for legal systems based on emotions: it is inconsistent and dishonest, and it only takes into account the bright images one envisions and not the whole picture around the discussed matter.

People can accept a risk of something happening in favor of the (in their eyes) bigger gain. Every legal stance has positive and negative sides. Just because one believes that the positive side outweighs the negative side, does not mean they are okay with the negative side.

Freedom over security is a hard choice, and it carries a lot of risks with it. We choose it and accept the risks. We are not blind to the negative sides of lax gun laws, and we do not live in the world where "everyone is safer with guns". Some people are safer, other people are not. But everyone is freer, and that is what matters to many of us.

John_C_87

Why are you Pro 2nd Amendment?

Changing your mind on a blind statement is not practical. The Amendment is made on a United State of common defense to the general welfare against independence itself. If a person is upholding the United States Constitution then there is no freedom to obtain as a goal the united state sets a qualification of independence with a boundary that is a matter of liberty.

Is a Fire-arm a common defense to the general welfare described as precedence of fact by preamble?

Does a ratification of united state in the way of amendment represent an introduction of fact by preamble?

Do you believe a State inside this union should have right to form militia under the title of police?

WordsMatter

@MayCaesar my post was an exaggeration because@CYDdharta believes no emotion can be brought into this debate at all. I also find it funny he freaks out about emotion when I've been held at gunpoint yet still don't fight for gun control, I would think that would help his argument but anything I say he feels he must take the opposite side.

As an LGBT I carry a pistol because people like to assault my population. Where I see guns to be most important however would be in interactions with the police. It's not uncommon for police to violate your rights and I believe that should give you the ability to shoot them seeing as how they are allowed to shoot just because of a feeling of danger. But the police are infallible to so many. But that's the group that tramples on very important rights most regularly.

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta and what decisions am I making? I literally don't care about whether we have the second amendment or not. You have this preconceived notion about guns yet you have no experience facing them. Here's some facts. My work was called theth times being threatened to be shot up. There times the police did nothing because they can't until someone gets shot. Fact I had a gun put to my head from behind me. Fact I could have had a rifle shotgun and handgun and would still be unable to defend myself. Fact prices go up on the black market. Fact the guy wouldn't be able to afford a black market gun. No emotion there at all.


I get it you live in this delusional world where guns are good and everyone is safer with them. You see it as an infallible amendment and therefore should never be removed yet you supported ending proabition, literally taking away an amendment, it is perfectly fine to do that. I'm saying that such an event would get you to actually look into the facts instead of parroting what Fox news and your dad told you. You love to talk about this all theoretically but it actually has an effect on people's lives everyday. If you can honestly say you would be ok being shot or your family getting killed by guns, because of the principal and need for and in society, then ok you actually support having guns. As you said emotion shouldn't be involved so your family's death is acceptable because that's just the costc ofo living in a society with guns. I laughed at a libertarian I know when he got hit by a stray bullet, because that's the society he fought for, then he got to live in it.

You aren't making any sense.

I literally don't care about whether we have the second amendment or not.

When it comes to the argument for getting rid of guns that at least makes objective sense to me.

It certainly sounds like you've already made up your mind.

As an LGBT I carry a pistol because people like to assault my population.

Fact I could have had a rifle shotgun and handgun and would still be unable to defend myself.

If you can't defend yourself with a gun, why do you carry one?

I get it you live in this delusional world

You remove all guns and gun violence and death is gaurented to drop.

The person living in the delusional world is the one who thinks it's possible to remove all guns from American society.  Theoretically, you could pass a law banning all guns, but that wouldn't actually remove them, it would only remove them from the hands of people who aren't the problem.  Carrying firearms outside of the home by anyone other than law enforcement and the military is virtually forbidden in Mexico, that hasn't stopped gun deaths.

You love to talk about this all theoretically but it actually has an effect on people's lives everyday. If you can honestly say you would be ok being shot or your family getting killed by guns, because of the principal and need for and in society, then ok you actually support having guns.

I HAVE been shot, and by an AR-15 at very close range no less.  (I guess I get to claim victimhood status now, too)  That is just as irrelevant to this discussion as your experiences.

MayCaesar

@WordsMatter

I do think emotion should not be a part of policy debates, however. Policy debates should be based on raw logic, and emotion interferes with our ability to make logical connections.

A popular misconception with regards to policies I see is that many people think that the law shapes human behavior. While it does to a certain extent, it does not do so on its own. What the law does is create incentives - but whether people actually act on those incentives or not depends much more on the societal culture and on the individual, than on the law itself.

There is this term many policy fellows use called "unintended consequences". This is something that a law was not intended to achieve, but achieves in practice due to the peculiarities of human behavior. The problem with emotional approach is that emotions focus our attention on a very narrow, specific side of the discussed issues - and missing the bigger picture, we lose the ability to predict those "unintended consequences", hence losing the ability to understand how the proposed policies are going to work in practice.

To illustrate my point, consider the popular narrative on heavily taxing the rich. To a person agitated over the fact that there are extremely poor people in a modern First World country, living alongside multibillionaires, who sees it as injustice - can have the following train of thought: "We must introduce a 95% tax on the rich. This will lead to the money they do not really need being taken away from them and given to those who is in a much bigger need of them." From the justice-based emotional approach it may seem like pa good idea.
However, when this policy is actually implemented, we see quite a different outcome. The rich, losing such an enormous fraction of their income, have to change their business models in order to maintain the level of income they want. So they start hiring fewer workers, requiring them to work harder and paying them less, to compensate for the losses. Unemployment rises, salaries drop, economical output plummets, the tax income the government receives ends up far below the projected figures... Add to it the fact that the government is notoriously bad at utilizing resources, and you will see that not only did the policy not achieve the intended outcome - but it actually had an adverse effect on the very people it was supposed to benefit.
All these "unintended consequences" would be easily predictable, had the policy-makers and the policy advocates employed a raw logic-based approach. But since their narrative was heavily affected by emotions, they failed to grasp the intuitively understandable effects their policy would lead to.

That is why such arguments as "I have been shot. If you had been too, you would understand how I feel", "That person raped me. Go preach about the negatives of death penalty to someone else", "Our people were killed in an explosion. This restriction of freedoms is not up to you to criticize, since you were not there" or "My wife was irradiated at Fukushima. When I say that the nuclear energy is dangerous and should be banned, I know what I talk about" - should have no place in serious political debates. "Suppose we implement this policy. What are the positive and negative consequences? Do they align with our values or not?" is the train of thought I would like to see much more often. Not "You are not homosexual, so you do not know what it is like being one and your argument against diversity quotas is irrelevant", but "Homosexuals encounter prejudiced attitude. Suppose we introduce diversity quotas. What will the effects be?".

---

That is not to criticize everything else you said. Just wanted to make my point clear. Regarding your debate opponent, I personally do not have a very high opinion of him, as his arguments tend to be copy-pasted from his political camp's narrative and he does not seem to be putting much thought into them.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

Regarding your debate opponent, I personally do not have a very high opinion of him, as his arguments tend to be copy-pasted from his political camp's narrative and he does not seem to be putting much thought into them.

The feeling is mutual, to be sure.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta you are so convinced that criminals will be able to get guns around every corner? Why don't the terrorists in Europe just get one of those easy guns on the black market instead of using a knife?

A gun wouldn't have helped me in that situation because he grabbed me from behind putting the gun to my head. How am I going to shoot someone when I literally don't know they are coming? A gun can protect me when I'm aware that something could be coming. 

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta you are so convinced that criminals will be able to get guns around every corner? Why don't the terrorists in Europe just get one of those easy guns on the black market instead of using a knife?

I don't know about every corner, but anyone that really wants one would be able to get one. 

Maybe they're just waiting until they run out of hand grenades.

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta ;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present) more stabbings than shootings, about an even number of bombings to stabbings, and some vehicular attacks thrown in there. Were the terrorists who resorted to stabbings just stupid or something? Why wouldn't they just go get a gun to cause more damage? 

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta ;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present) more stabbings than shootings, about an even number of bombings to stabbings, and some vehicular attacks thrown in there. Were the terrorists who resorted to stabbings just stupid or something? Why wouldn't they just go get a gun to cause more damage? 

Who knows, maybe they thought hacking their victims to pieces was more intimidating and thus more effective for their purposes.  if bans worked, why were there so many bombings?

WordsMatter

@CYDdharta because you can make a bomb with a shopping trip to home Depot supposedly

CYDdharta

WordsMatter said:

@CYDdharta because you can make a bomb with a shopping trip to home Depot supposedly

Inmates have made guns, what's your point?  The objective of terrorism isn't to kill people, it's to spread terror.  Explosions and hacking people to pieces is more terrifying than just shooting them.