PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: Gun Rights  (Read 7708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1800 on: November 07, 2017, 01:30:06 PM »
But what It fails to address it the fact that many gun rights advocates cannot reconcile the loss of individual liberty with gun control. If you want gun control, you need to start talking to gun advocates on their terms.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1801 on: November 07, 2017, 02:10:05 PM »
But what It fails to address it the fact that many gun rights advocates cannot reconcile the loss of individual liberty with gun control. If you want gun control, you need to start talking to gun advocates on their terms.

Gun right advocates don't want to debate.  That book was closed after Sandy Hook.  They want to pretend their distorted view of reality is how the world is but it's not.  What "terms" should I start using?  Those are the facts.  You can either choose to acknowledge them as truth or stay blind to reality.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1802 on: November 07, 2017, 02:10:26 PM »
Oh JFC.  No Paul Ryan is defending his "thoughts and prayers" over legislative inaction.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/paul-ryan-defends-call-prayers-090149931.html

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1803 on: November 07, 2017, 02:30:00 PM »
But what It fails to address it the fact that many gun rights advocates cannot reconcile the loss of individual liberty with gun control. If you want gun control, you need to start talking to gun advocates on their terms.

Gun right advocates don't want to debate.  That book was closed after Sandy Hook.  They want to pretend their distorted view of reality is how the world is but it's not.  What "terms" should I start using?  Those are the facts.  You can either choose to acknowledge them as truth or stay blind to reality.

It's because you are not trying to understand their POV. This is not about gun control but individual liberty. If you can frame a gun control argument as a way to protect individual liberty then they will listen. Just like they do not address your concerns about preventing gun violence, they are not speaking on the same plane as you are. You cant debate with each other when your arguments don't intersect. Find a little common ground and they will pay attention.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1804 on: November 07, 2017, 02:35:05 PM »
But what It fails to address it the fact that many gun rights advocates cannot reconcile the loss of individual liberty with gun control. If you want gun control, you need to start talking to gun advocates on their terms.

Gun right advocates don't want to debate.  That book was closed after Sandy Hook.  They want to pretend their distorted view of reality is how the world is but it's not.  What "terms" should I start using?  Those are the facts.  You can either choose to acknowledge them as truth or stay blind to reality.

It's because you are not trying to understand their POV. This is not about gun control but individual liberty. If you can frame a gun control argument as a way to protect individual liberty then they will listen. Just like they do not address your concerns about preventing gun violence, they are not speaking on the same plane as you are. You cant debate with each other when your arguments don't intersect. Find a little common ground and they will pay attention.

What are our three inalienable rights?  Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right?


You can see gun control as an infringement on liberty, but inaction directly impacts people's right to life and pursuit of happiness if mass shootings continue to persist at one/day.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1805 on: November 07, 2017, 02:40:02 PM »
So the argument is going to be whether individual liberty is infringed more by guns or gun control. That is where the conversation should begin.

Online X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9602
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1806 on: November 07, 2017, 02:58:48 PM »
The conversation should begin right where you have it framed out on your terms?  The underlying values in that framework need to be questioned.  Do you think your individual liberty to own guns should be valued above other people's lives?  If yes, then I think your values are a mess.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1807 on: November 07, 2017, 03:58:19 PM »
Quote
“The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16615218/ted-cruz-gun-control-sutherland-springs-texas-shooting

Another good breakdown by Vox, similar to the NYT article.  Ted Cruz actually makes the case FOR gun control (accidentally). 

Offline DarkandStormy

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1808 on: November 07, 2017, 07:31:26 PM »
https://twitter.com/repdinatitus/status/927973090201567232

We can end the thread. Republicans don't give a shit about reducing gun violence.

"The House Rs just blocked a vote to set up a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would study how to prevent future tragedies."

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45642
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1809 on: November 07, 2017, 08:33:59 PM »
Disgusting. But like I said, an issues-based debate is never going to be had without removing money as the primary influence on debates.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1810 on: November 07, 2017, 11:25:21 PM »
https://twitter.com/repdinatitus/status/927973090201567232

We can end the thread. Republicans don't give a shit about reducing gun violence.

"The House Rs just blocked a vote to set up a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would study how to prevent future tragedies."

You want a "Select Committee on Violent Crime", go for it.   

We see a problem with singling out guns.  They are tools.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1811 on: November 07, 2017, 11:26:53 PM »
Disgusting. But like I said, an issues-based debate is never going to be had without removing money as the primary influence on debates.

Money isn't the primary influence.  It's one of them.  The others are organization, individual prominence, media control, and incumbency.

Diminishing one strengthens the others.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1247
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1812 on: November 08, 2017, 08:35:22 AM »
https://twitter.com/repdinatitus/status/927973090201567232

We can end the thread. Republicans don't give a shit about reducing gun violence.

"The House Rs just blocked a vote to set up a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would study how to prevent future tragedies."

You want a "Select Committee on Violent Crime", go for it.   

We see a problem with singling out guns.  They are tools.


What is the fastest and easiest way to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time?  Guns.

What is the most sure fire way to kill someone?  A knife?  Fists?  Baseball bat?  No.  It's guns.

Stop being obtuse.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1813 on: November 08, 2017, 10:31:12 PM »
https://twitter.com/repdinatitus/status/927973090201567232

We can end the thread. Republicans don't give a shit about reducing gun violence.

"The House Rs just blocked a vote to set up a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would study how to prevent future tragedies."

You want a "Select Committee on Violent Crime", go for it.   

We see a problem with singling out guns.  They are tools.


What is the fastest and easiest way to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time?  Guns.

What is the most sure fire way to kill someone?  A knife?  Fists?  Baseball bat?  No.  It's guns.

Stop being obtuse.

Don't tell me what to "stop".  That kind of crap is a trend I've been seeing online and it's obnoxious.

The answer, actually, is "explosives".

Online X

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 9602
    • Western Reserve Meadery
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1814 on: November 08, 2017, 11:49:15 PM »
Why don't we see explosives used more often in mass murders then instead of guns?  Could it be because access to explosives are highly regulated?  That they actually take more technical knowledge to use effectively?  That outside of confined spaces their effective radius is actually quite limited?  Is it that they have to be planted in advance?  In fact, in what regard are explosives easier than guns- at least at a scale that most individuals can get their hands on?

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1815 on: November 09, 2017, 12:24:05 AM »
Why don't we see explosives used more often in mass murders then instead of guns?  Could it be because access to explosives are highly regulated?  That they actually take more technical knowledge to use effectively?  That outside of confined spaces their effective radius is actually quite limited?  Is it that they have to be planted in advance?  In fact, in what regard are explosives easier than guns- at least at a scale that most individuals can get their hands on?

They are used, more often, in places where it is more difficult to obtain firearms.

Offline mrnyc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 12934
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1816 on: November 09, 2017, 05:40:46 AM »
https://twitter.com/repdinatitus/status/927973090201567232

We can end the thread. Republicans don't give a shit about reducing gun violence.

"The House Rs just blocked a vote to set up a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would study how to prevent future tragedies."

You want a "Select Committee on Violent Crime", go for it.   

We see a problem with singling out guns.  They are tools.


ah the tool argument.

yeah, a crane with a swinging demolition ball, for example, is a tool too.

which one requires training, licensing and monitoring because, you know, it could be dangerous?

it could be said people with serious mh and legal issues are tools too.

potential tools of violence.

thats like letting the operator getting in the crane cab drunk.

so whats a solution here?

i got an easy one.

here goes:

i’ll never understand why this country doesnt just outright adopt the canadian model for gun rights. its right there under our nose. look at the murder rates in their booming cities. they basically dont have any. they dont take away ‘muh freedoms’ and ‘muh guns’ either. its just a few basic common sense measures like manditory waits and training, criminal checks and restricted assault weapons.

ah well.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45642
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1817 on: November 09, 2017, 08:41:56 AM »
If we are to understand the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then we need to understand the mindset of the Founding Fathers and what was going on at the time it was written. We can also decide whether or not to keep or reject those provisions if we determine they no longer apply to 21st century America. The Constitution was intended to be a living, changing, dynamic document. Here, a friend of mine shares a description of that history.....
________

The “well-regulated militia” that the US Constitution's second amendment refers to were slave patrols, land stealers and Indian killers, all quite necessary as the amendment's language states “to the security of a free state” built with stolen labor upon stolen land.

Unless and until we acknowledge that history, we cannot have an honest discussion about gun control.

Why does the US Constitution guarantee a right “to keep and bear arms”? Why not the right to vote, the right to a quality education, health care, a clean environment or a job? What was so important in early America about the right of citizens to have guns?

And is it even possible to have an honest discussion about gun control without acknowledging the racist origins of the Second Amendment?

The dominant trend among legal scholars, and on the current Supreme Court is that we are bound by the original intent of the Constitution's authors. Here's what the second amendment to the Constitution says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Clearly its authors aimed to guarantee the right to a gun for every free white man in their new country. What's no longer evident 230 years later, is why.

The answer, advanced by historian Edmund Morgan in his classic work, American Slavery, American Freedom, the Ordeal of Colonial Virginia , sheds useful light on the historic and current politics and self-image of our nation.

Colonial America and the early US was a very unequal place. All the good, cleared, level agricultural land with easy access to transport was owned by a very few, very wealthy white men.

Many poor whites were brought over as indentured servants, but having completed their periods of forced labor, allowing them to hang around the towns and cities landless and unemployed was dangerous to the social order.

So they were given guns and credit, and sent inland to make their own fortunes, encroaching upon the orchards, farms and hunting grounds of Native Americans, who had little or no access to firearms.

The law, of course did not penalize white men who robbed, raped or killed Indians. At regular intervals, colonial governors and local US officials would muster the free armed white men as militia, and dispatch them in murderous punitive raids to make the frontier safer for settlers and land speculators.

Slavery remained legal in New England, New York and the mid-Atlantic region till well into the 1800s, and the movements of free blacks and Indians were severely restricted for decades afterward.

So colonial and early American militia also prowled the roads and highways demanding the passes of all non-whites, to ensure the enslaved were not escaping or aiding those who were, and that free blacks were not plotting rebellion or traveling for unapproved reasons.

Historically then, the principal activities of the Founding Fathers' “well regulated militia” were Indian killing, land stealing, slave patrolling and the enforcement of domestic apartheid, all of these, as the Constitutional language declares “being necessary to the security of a free state."

A free state whose fundamental building blocks were the genocide of Native Americans, and the enslavement of Africans.

The Constitutional sanction of universally armed white men against blacks and Indians is at the origin of what has come to be known as America's “gun culture,” and it neatly explains why that culture remains most deeply rooted in white, rural and small-town America long after the end of slavery and the close of the frontier.

With the genocide of Native Americans accomplished and slavery gone, America's gun culture wrapped itself in new clothing, in self-justifying mythology that construes the Second Amendment as arming the citizenry as final bulwark of freedom against tyranny, invasion or crime.

Embracing this fake history of the Second Amendments warps legal scholarship and public debate in clouds of willful ignorance, encouraging us to believe this is a nation founded on just and egalitarian principles rather than one built with stolen labor on stolen land.

Maybe this is how we can tell that we are finally so over all that nasty genocide and racism stuff. We've chosen to simply write it out of our history.

END
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1818 on: November 09, 2017, 08:48:02 AM »
You have historians on both sides with their own accounts as to the intent of the founders with the Second Amendment. Many Federalists disagree with your friend. However, NONE OF THEIR OPINIONS MATTER, NEITHER DOES YOUR HISTORIAN FRIEND. The intent of the Founders has often been cited as a basis for deciding cases and interpreting what the law should be, but I have a secret for you, IT IS MOSTLY BS.

The only precedent that matters is what the Supreme Court Justices say and what their past precedent and decisions say. If you want to have a meaningless academic discussion about gun control, you can pit a Federalist Historian and a Jeffersonian Historian in a room and let them debate, but both their opinions are mostly meaningless on the issue.  All that matters is what portion of these views get into prior Supreme Court opinions to create the precedents that lead the court forward on future decisions.

Offline YABO713

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1819 on: November 09, 2017, 08:50:30 AM »
As I said, as a proponent of the 2nd Amendment. I don't buy the "guns are tools" argument.

They often trot out the "should we ban spoons because they make people fat?" To which I always say, "It would be a lot harder to get fat if you had to eat your ice cream with chop sticks."

We have a Constitutional right to guns. We do not have a Constitutional right to ANY gun. The same way all of our rights are able to be limited in America - including the right to life in some circumstances - so is the 2nd Amendment limited. We all have a right to interstate and intrastate travel, yet we are forced to register our cars - and rightfully so. No right is infinite.

Additionally, people are correct to point out that people are sick and that people will figure out a way to harm someone regardless. To that I remind everyone:

TEN men attacked a train station in Kunming, China in 2014. All of them killed 29 people and injured hundreds in an act of cowardice and sickening violence. Point being, the damage was limited when compared to the scale in which one shooter was able to kill in: Aurora, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, and now San Antonio.

Online surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6785
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1820 on: November 09, 2017, 12:03:32 PM »
I don't believe the second amendment was enacted for slave persecution. I had a professor who, to me, was fairly persuasive on this issue.

http://www.theroot.com/2nd-amendment-passed-to-protect-slavery-no-1790894965

Good points have already been made about how difficult it is to further restrict gun ownership constitutionally. If the common goal is to reduce gun violence there should be really be viable options to attain this.




Offline GCrites80s

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7869
  • 1492 or 4,192?
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1821 on: November 09, 2017, 12:06:55 PM »
We were able to outlaw Everclear without changing the Constitution.

Online surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6785
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1822 on: November 09, 2017, 12:13:22 PM »
We were able to outlaw Everclear without changing the Constitution.

You can get it in WV lol.

Offline GCrites80s

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7869
  • 1492 or 4,192?
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1823 on: November 09, 2017, 12:16:32 PM »
Yes or on military bases.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45642
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1824 on: November 09, 2017, 10:37:12 PM »
#BREAKING: Giffords gun control group sues Trump for refusing to turn over correspondence with NRA https://t.co/dmYt07V4Ec
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline E Rocc

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1825 on: November 09, 2017, 11:09:35 PM »

i’ll never understand why this country doesnt just outright adopt the canadian model for gun rights. its right there under our nose. look at the murder rates in their booming cities. they basically dont have any. they dont take away ‘muh freedoms’ and ‘muh guns’ either. its just a few basic common sense measures like manditory waits and training, criminal checks and restricted assault weapons.

Mindset.

Keep in mind that Canada got their independence by asking nicely.

We took ours.

The majority of Americans simply do not trust the government enough to positively control who is allowed to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.  (bans on felons, etc are negative controls).

Looking at our last Presidential election, it's easy to see why.  That would mean trusting either of them.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45642
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1826 on: November 10, 2017, 07:28:31 AM »
One of the biggest reasons why the Framers wanted well regulated militia is because they didn't trust having a standing army in place. See the Federalist Papers. They considered state-run militias as more democratic however inefficient.

The shortcomings of the last election are being dealt with by the checks-and-balance institutions created by the Founding Fathers, namely a free press and the judiciary. The only way that the gun would ever come into play is if those institutions are halted, then Mueller is fired and there is no follow up his investigation.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 07:32:43 AM by KJP »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.

Offline YABO713

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1827 on: November 10, 2017, 08:04:20 AM »
One of the biggest reasons why the Framers wanted well regulated militia is because they didn't trust having a standing army in place. See the Federalist Papers. They considered state-run militias as more democratic however inefficient.

The shortcomings of the last election are being dealt with by the checks-and-balance institutions created by the Founding Fathers, namely a free press and the judiciary. The only way that the gun would ever come into play is if those institutions are halted, then Mueller is fired and there is no follow up his investigation.

You're right, in part @KJP. I wrote a thesis on the Federalist Papers in law school and I am BEYOND a nerd with regards to all Colonial and Revolutionary literature, as I think it is some of the most brilliant writing and political theory in the world's history...

James Madison saw our Constitution as a means of controlling regional factions that might otherwise be powerful enough to control the government of all 13 states. In Federalist 10, he offers brilliant insight into how to control this factionalism. In reading some of his personal correspondence and notes, along with Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, it becomes very clear that they intended each state to have a standing "well-regulated militia" if the Constitution was unable to effectively control factions and/or one region became allied with British interests.

Thankfully for us, James Madison got it right, and the Constitution did an excellent job limiting the power of factions. Accordingly, the need for a militia lessened as the Constitution proved effective. During the War of 1812, almost the entire war was fought by regulars. This means, that from 1787 to 1812 Americans had bought into the effectiveness of the Constitution to such an extent that the need for "well-regulated militias" seemed non-existent. From roughly 1800-1980, the need for citizen militias was laughable to most Americans. It wasn't until blue collar jobs started leaving the country and (pardon my bluntness) a black man assumed the Presidency that there seemed to be an urge to form militias once again.

We all have the right to bear arms, that is indisputable via the 2nd Amendment. However, the need for militias dissipated as our Constitution proved effective. Nothing in the notes of Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, or Hamilton really stresses the need for a militia without a "tyrannical threat" - and when contextualized, this threat referred to the British in almost all instances.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1831
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1828 on: November 10, 2017, 08:13:32 AM »
One of the biggest reasons why the Framers wanted well regulated militia is because they didn't trust having a standing army in place. See the Federalist Papers. They considered state-run militias as more democratic however inefficient.

The shortcomings of the last election are being dealt with by the checks-and-balance institutions created by the Founding Fathers, namely a free press and the judiciary. The only way that the gun would ever come into play is if those institutions are halted, then Mueller is fired and there is no follow up his investigation.


But Ken, right or wrong, while history is important in gaining insight as to what went through the founder's thoughts when they crafted the Constitution. It is not binding nor does it matter too much outside of an academic argument.  Even if all the founders came wrote a memo "saying the 2nd amendment only applies to a militia and if we ever live in a day where there is no longer the need for a militia because the army is strong enough to support itself on its own," it would not really have much relevance in the conversation outside of the argument that the founders did not or would not necessarily support today's gun culture.

Both sides argument about what the founders would think is totally irrelevant in this argument. THe only thing relevant is what the Supreme Court thinks and how they frame the issue. The only real relevance on the issue is their prior case law that has essentially framed how we interpret the 2nd Amendment today. Those decisions and the history behind how they came to be are the only ones that matter.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 45642
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Gun Rights
« Reply #1829 on: November 10, 2017, 08:15:23 AM »
If you enjoy Colonial history, you'll probably love this multi-article blog I wrote a couple years ago about my family. Start with this introduction:

http://prendergast-rent-war.blogspot.com/2015/05/introduction.html

Then work your way up from the bottom in the blog archive. Enjoy!
America will never be destroyed from the outside. -- Abraham Lincoln.