rigorousintuition.ca

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... nstitution

Something isn't working, is it?

Leaving aside whether that phrase meant 'the army' as such, or at least 'an army,' a reasonable question might be to ask how much tyranny the second amendment has prevented in the last hundred years or so? Since we might reasonably conjecture that some if not many of the companies which make the object in question have certainly enabled a great deal of the actual tyranny, perhaps there are grounds for some discussion.

There are countries with high numbers of guns in circulation which do not suffer with mass shootings so the argument isn't simple, but I would hazard the notion that there is no other nation on earth which fetishises the gun, gun use and killing with quite the same degree of relish, and certainly no other country which produces such a high volume of popular media creations centred around the use of lethal machinery, as far as I am aware. The mythos of using variants of this machine go back a long way in the America's. A totem of power, it has a binary symbolic logic as the ultimate symbol of powerlessness. In a civilian setting the gun is rarely used when all other discourse has failed but precisely when that discourse has never begun, when there appears no other means of expression.

Hi, Harvey!

Just a short note to thank you for opening the discussion. I've got to run, but I'll be back to follow and participate in the thread.

Blessings, Peace and Love,
Jim

The fastest way to kick off the civil war would be to attempt to ban guns, so I'd go all in for it. If you think a few hick clerks refusing to marry gays was bad, you haven't seen nothing yet. And before anyone says something about drones and jet fighters versus ar-15's, Russia, China and every other swinging dick will be arming rebel factions and deploying Special Operations Forces to train militias, take territory for them to defend and use complex weapons that cannot be entrusted to rebel forces. Also there will be lots of passive resistance and the armed forces will be completely infiltrated.

All of which makes it worth doing.

I agree. I think I've mentioned it before, but if we see a "new" well-regulated militia "of the people" that is supposed to offer a counter to a nebulous idea of power, that force would be up against the most powerful, most technologically-sophisticated, and (in terms of intelligence and surveillance) most omnipotent military power that has ever existed on this planet. The rules and the playing board have definitely changed sometime over the course of the last 60 years or so.

Wait - I'm getting a very different reading from each of the two posts above although they do seem to complement each other

tapitsbo » Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:59 am wrote:Wait - I'm getting a very different reading from each of the two posts above although they do seem to complement each other

To clarify, I support banning all firearms at the Federal level and explosive products such as tannerite.

A-ha, it read to me like you were endorsing an attempt to ban guns as a way to splinter/put an end to the USA.

So I should've read something like "better to do this sooner rather than later?"

tapitsbo » Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:39 am wrote:A-ha, it read to me like you were endorsing an attempt to ban guns as a way to splinter/put an end to the USA.

So I should've read something like "better to do this sooner rather than later?"

Regardless of the reasons, we all agree on what to do. And that's what gets things done.

Now I'm confused about what you're trying to get done.

General Patton » Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:08 am wrote:

tapitsbo » Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:59 am wrote:Wait - I'm getting a very different reading from each of the two posts above although they do seem to complement each other

To clarify, I support banning all firearms at the Federal level and explosive products such as tannerite.

Shall I use this as my invitation to "lmfao"? I don't want, the children of Earth don't want, nobody who is sane wants guns floating around where peace is not just sought but is a given. Weapons have far too much of a say on this planet and it grows worse by the day and dare I say, is getting pretty boring which is the most concerning part. I personally don't want General Patton rolling around the city or wherever it is with a gun. I do not want children to see them, I don't want to see them and unless you're hunting for subsistence you don't need one anywhere unless they are all existentially criminally everywhere. Everywhere you go a gun is not needed.

It's interesting to ponder the idea of curbing proliferation of guns as has been done with nuclear weapons. Maybe people would go back to throwing stones like Palestinians as a way of expressing their disagreements.

I don't support banning all guns outright, but they should be strictly regulated - background checks, registration with the police/other agency, loss of the right to own guns if you're mentally unstable, have a violent criminal record etc. Guns should only be allowed for two reasons - hunting and sport.

Norway is pretty high on the guns per capita list (no. 10 with 31.3 guns per 100 person), but they're almost exclusively hunting rifles/shotguns. Handguns are only allowed if you're a member of a registered gun club, and the only legal way to transport them in public is unloaded in a locked case.
Just the idea of carrying a gun for self-defense is frowned upon and ridiculed.

The result is very low gun-crime rates, and it's the same in other countries with similar laws.

The problem in the US is that guns (and violence) are an accepted part of everyday life and part of the myth of the nation (revolution, wild west, second amendment etc.). Owning a gun for self-defense is almost a non-issue, and using violence to resolve conflict is normal.

Unless there is a huge cultural shift nothing is going to change.

DrEvil » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:43 pm wrote:I don't support banning all guns outright, but they should be strictly regulated - background checks, registration with the police/other agency, loss of the right to own guns if you're mentally unstable, have a violent criminal record etc. Guns should only be allowed for two reasons - hunting and sport.

So self-defense is illegal? Or do you consider self-protection to be "sport" ?

tapitsbo » Fri Oct 02, 2015 12:20 pm wrote:It's interesting to ponder the idea of curbing proliferation of guns as has been done with nuclear weapons.

Controlling steel and aluminum alloy like uranium and thorium might prove cost prohibitive -- on every level. The sheer scope of regulatory intervention and enforcement required is massive enough, but the "cost" in terms of complicating basic economic supply chains, and rendering many industrial and manufacturing processes illegal, is even more imposing.

Nothing has "curbed" the proliferation of nuclear weapons quite so much as the cost of obtaining and protecting them. This is why Israel, despite the absurdity, continues to officially deny even having such an arsenal.

If only we could build a God; he would protect us from ourselves.