Aseahawkfan wrote:
If I were positing a theory, I think it has something to do with the very open culture we have. We don't really have a formal, controlling culture like almost every other nation in the world. Even places like the United Kingdom and Germany have certain formal and restrictive cultural elements we lack. We're kind of a free for all culture with no expectations of manners, address, or much of anything since the 60s really when the counterculture movement threw everything out.
We're gonna have to do something at some point.
For me I want the 2nd Amendment properly addressed:
1. It's purpose as a right to violent revolution and ensuring military power is held by the people must be confirmed. There is no evidence that the 2nd Amendment was created as anything other than a right of violent revolution to be used both against aggressors foreign and domestic. It was created specifically as a check on government military and police power by people who understood very clearly that control of police and military power was a precursor to tyranny. I need to see politicians acknowledge the 2nd Amendment is a check on government power as important as free speech, assembly, right to trial, or any of the Amendments checking government power.
2. Once that is done, then I am more open to legislation that makes it clear what a person can own much like Switzerland. I'm not a big "guns as a hobby" guy or the like. To me gun ownership and The 2nd Amendment have a very specific purpose. People who exercise it have both a right and a responsibility same as they do with any other right.
3. I would be ok with some limits on gun ownership, especially background checks which I have never opposed and honestly wonder why there are so many loopholes to background checks. I'm not for some kind of untouchable gun right as long as the basis for the 2nd Amendment is clear and communicated to the American people.
There is a saying I learned in political science that goes "All politics is force." When I first heard it, I wondered at it. But the more I learned, the more I understood. We pay taxes, follow laws, and people respect our borders and resource claims solely because we have the means to violently enforce our laws, taxes, borders, resource claims, and the like. A people as a group have extremely limited control over their government or political power if they do not have the means to violently revolt and enforce their will same as the government has no real power if they cannot violently enforce their laws, taxes, resource claims, borders, etcetera.
This idea is inherent in The 2nd Amendment ensuring the power of violent enforcement of the people's will is a right guaranteed in the Constitution to ensure the American people are not disarmed and unprepared to deal with a tyrant foreign or domestic.
That being said it is not some kind of right that we cannot provide intelligently as many towns and states did back in the old days when Town Marshalls often enforced no guns in city limits or at bars or other areas where violence should be controlled. So it is not historical precedent that we are provided some unalterable gun rights. We can ensure the 2nd Amendment right is respected, while at the same time having intelligent implementation of the 2nd Amendment. Thus I would support some laws governing the 2nd Amendment that both acknowledge its purpose while also limiting access to threats like some lone wolf scumbag losing his mind and going on a killing spree because he hates the world. So I guess we'll see what happens this time around.
Given I'm in Washington State, we already have pretty restrictive gun laws. It hasn't seemed to help a great deal at this point as we're still having homicide problems. Mainly because criminals and lunatics always seem to find a way to get guns unless you completely ban them from society, which I would never support. Hopefully they can figure some method other than a total ban to gain some control over these scumbag lunatics wanting to inflict pain on the world before they go out.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm going to post one last time and call it a day. This discussion never changes. The two sides are so far apart that it's hard to even have a conversation.
What do I need to support measures to fix some of this?
1. I need to hear the Democrats acknowledge they understand The 2nd Amendment. They understand its purpose in the Constitution in the same manner they understand the 1st Amendment or any of the others they tend to use when convenient for them. The 2nd Amendment is simply written as is every Amendment in our Constitution. That doesn't mean the direct meaning of the words is the intent or definition of the Amendment. No one goes the 1st Amendment says "Freedom of Speech", that means exactly what it says and I can say whatever I want whenever I want even if I'm screaming curse words at your grandma while you can't do nothing but respect my 1st Amendment rights.
2nd Amendment is not for hunting. It's not only for home defense. It's an Amendment to provide the individual and the people as a whole the means to violently protect or dissolve their government should it be necessary to do so.
This is all very clear if you read the rhetoric surrounding the 2nd Amendment, the debate on standing armies, and the like associated with the idea of a citizen militia and ultimate military power resting with the people to offset any military or police power controlled by the government.
Democrats need to accept and show understanding this is the purpose of The 2nd Amendment. It's not some anachronistic afterthought tossed in by some yahoos with no understanding of how to put severe checks and balances on the power of government. It's a powerful check on governmental power the American people should never surrender. It is the Amendment of the citizen soldier, not gun hobbyists or hunters. Americans are expected to protect their rights with their very lives if necessary.
Democrats consistently disrespect and downplay the importance of The 2nd Amendment. This is a non-starter and conversation ender for those us who believe in the 2nd Amendment and understand its intended purpose within the Constitution.
2. Once I see one, then I'm open to discussion as to how we implement The 2nd Amendment in the modern day.
I do not believe in some unregulated right to own firearms. I don't believe The 2nd Amendment was intended to create an unregulated right to own firearms. The Founding Fathers were not some anarchist yahoos wanting unregulated access to weapons.
Thus I would be open to regulation of weapons that includes understanding that American citizens are expected to be able to carry out their duties as a citizen soldier regardless of having a standing army or police force not only to protect against foreign invasion, but to provide a very real check on the police and military power of government.
I won't support a full ban of assault weapons as the assault rifle is the current standard weapon of soldiers of all types worldwide. Americans should be able to own them and train with them so they can execute their duty in defense of the nation if attacked from outside or within as the 2nd Amendment intends.
Does this idea preclude background checks? No. There is a lot of room once you acknowledge the purpose of The 2nd Amendment and work to incorporate it into the modern day in terms of ensuring training, keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable people, and teaching Americans the power of and responsibility of weapons ownership.
I myself was raised by uncles who all owned guns. All believed in the 2nd Amendment even while some were union supporting Democrats. And very much taught me to respect gun ownership and the power of the gun. They never taught me any stupid crap like "Guns don't kill people, people do." I was always taught a gun was a tool for killing and you need to respect that at all times. Even I carried a gun in an unsafe manner, I was yelled at and told never to carry a gun in an unsafe or negligent manner. I learned to respect guns and what they represent.
This seems to be a very forgotten idea in America. It needs to come back strongly. Gun culture seems to be driven by hobbyists and people who like to show off the power of the gun, but not teach any of the responsibilities and dangers of gun ownership. The Democrats seem to want to just teach that we should just get rid of them all and no one should have them rather than teach the gun culture that Americans learned early on this nation which was one of responsibility, duty, and respect for the gun as a weapon.
That narrative needs to return. Not this hobbyist, gun ownership as fun right wing narrative or this left wing get rid of all the guns, we don't need them narrative. But the one that served us well for hundreds of years and you can even see at times in older movies where teaching the use of the gun was a real life lesson that included the skill to fire it and the wisdom to not use it needlessly as well as respect for its deadly power.
When I hear some of this talk in the public discussion, then I'm more on board to support legislation to clean some of this up.
c_hawkbob wrote:To demand that everybody agree with a single narrow interpretation of the 2nd before even discussing gun control is the same as saying you just choose not to confront the issue.
I don't care how you interpret the 2nd, applying the same controls to guns that we apply to motor vehicles would save lives and not infringe on the rights guaranteed within it.
I-5 wrote:Let's look at the actual words of the 2nd Amendment as passed by congress and used by the Supreme Court in 'District of Columbia vs Heller':
"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."
To go from the language above to violently protecting or DISSOLVING their government should it be necessary to do so is....a leap. So who decides when it's necessary exactly? And what if republicans and democrats don't happen to agree? What is that process going to be like?
c_hawkbob wrote:To demand that everybody agree with a single narrow interpretation of the 2nd before even discussing gun control is the same as saying you just choose not to confront the issue.
I don't care how you interpret the 2nd, applying the same controls to guns that we apply to motor vehicles would save lives and not infringe on the rights guaranteed within it.
RiverDog wrote:Agree with your first sentence, disagree with your 2nd.
The difference between guns and motor vehicles is that MV's are not specifically called out in the Constitution the way guns are. You need to find a better analogy.
c_hawkbob wrote:Why? I don't need an analogy at all, I reference motor vehicles as a framework of potential controls, not as an analogy. The 2nd guarantees your right to bear arms, not your right not to have to carry liability insurance to protect society against any harm those arms might do due to your mishandling, neglect or malfeasance while owning them.
c_hawkbob wrote:To demand that everybody agree with a single narrow interpretation of the 2nd before even discussing gun control is the same as saying you just choose not to confront the issue.
I don't care how you interpret the 2nd, applying the same controls to guns that we apply to motor vehicles would save lives and not infringe on the rights guaranteed within it.
RiverDog wrote:Agree with your first sentence, disagree with your 2nd.
The difference between guns and motor vehicles is that MV's are not specifically called out in the Constitution the way guns are. You need to find a better analogy.
c_hawkbob wrote:Why? I don't need an analogy at all, I reference motor vehicles as a framework of potential controls, not as an analogy. The 2nd guarantees your right to bear arms, not your right not to have to carry liability insurance to protect society against any harm those arms might do due to your mishandling, neglect or malfeasance while owning them.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The People decide. Same as they do with a vote or with words. It is a right provided by the Constitution same as the others to be exercised when a sufficient number of people feel it necessary to do so. Just as was done by those who wrote it when they violently dissolved the colonies from control by Great Britain.
This is what the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is no long definition there defining all speech. It simply says "or abridging freedom of speech" and yet no one would argue the reason for these check is to ensure the government cannot silence opposing political speech or assembly for protest. I see Democrats screaming about "right to protest" which falls under the 1st Amendment even though they didn't spell it out.
But when it comes to The 2nd Amendment it's for hunting? Don't try to play games around language. The 2nd Amendment was created for political purposes. Not for hunting. It's not any more debatable than why freedom of speech or freedom of assembly was included. These Amendments were not written because you want to get together to hang out with your friends.
The political purpose of The 2nd Amendment is to maintain military power with the individual and the people. It is not some narrow interpretation, it is the reason it was created. It is well documented, well supported, and clear in the intent and reasoning behind its inclusion.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Well, it has a great deal to do with dissolving a government. I sincerely hope that voting and talking is all that is needed for change, but that may not always be the case. Under drastic circumstances, non violent means won’t work.
The forefathers knew this and lived it. Britain wouldn’t give up her colonies without a fight. That’s why the preamble in the Declaration of Independence states that governments are established by men with powers given to them by the citizens and when it becomes tyrannical and destructive to the citizens, they have the right and obligation to dissolve that government.
Again, that is very drastic circumstances, but I don’t believe our founders believed that the citizens of this nation would never have to fight for their freedoms again.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:You’re presupposing that will definitely be the case. I don’t blame you given the division in this country along party lines. I certainly hope it never comes to that, though I don’t even think that means throwing out the 2nd amendment.
It is possible the majority of the nation might get fed up with an abusive government. In that case, unarmed citizens would stand zero chance of resisting a tyrannical government.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Okay, that is essentially the scenario, but a unified but unarmed populace wouldn’t get very far is the point. The left or the right are both capable of going far enough off the rails to turn their supporters agains them.
RiverDog wrote:The reason why the framers of the Constitution created the 2nd Amendment is because at the time, we had no standing army. If we were attacked by a foreign enemy, the only common defense available would have been for ordinary citizens to band together to repel the attack, ie "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...Various accounts describe a situation during the constitutional convention where there were other founding fathers that wanted the citizens to maintain arms as they feared a repressive government, but it's not reflected in the actual language that is written into the document that was ratified.
My point is (1) that there is no provision in the 2nd Amendment that allows for citizens to take up arms against the government, and (2) if we had a standing army when the Constitution was written, we likely would have had a much different looking document than the one we treat today as the Holy grail.
I-5 wrote:If we apply that theory, Jan 6 2021 was the closest we’ve seen to a president not willing to transfer power, and roughly half the nation seemed to be in support of it. That’s how it is. The only unifying event I can picture is if another country invaded the US, which I can’t see Mexico or Canada attempting. Got anything else?
I-5 wrote:You just said it. The people decide with a vote or with words. What the $#% do owning guns have to do with dissolving the government...the 2nd amendment only talks about maintaining the security of a free state. 'Dissolving' sounds nothing less than civil war. That's not what the amendment is about, whether you think so or not.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Read some more history. The Founders lived in a time of constant wars and huge standing armies engaged in colonial empire building. They also came from nations conquered by William the Conqueror, Romans, and other nation-states built around military power. They knew what they were doing when they created the 2nd Amendment.
Guns have to do with dissolving government when the words and votes don't work any more because someone like Putin runs your government and you gotta take him out. Like the Ukrainians are doing right now handing out guns to everyone who will take one up to fight against that bastard.
I cannot believe the cognitive dissonance of Democrats like yourself. You watched 9/11 where you consider Trump to have almost launched a coup. He wouldn't have given a crap about your words or vote. Only you violently opposing him with a gun which he would have used and wanted to use to shut you up according to reports.
You're even watching in Ukraine a group of people fight against a tyrant invading their nation who doesn't care about their words or peaceful resistance. He is ordering his army to kill them. They are handing out guns to their regular citizens to fight, not just their professional military.
You watch this and ask the above question? That question has been answered for you, but you don't like the answer.
I-5 wrote:I will overlook your patronizing language and ask, who is our Putin when it comes to threats against our country? The closest we had to a president trying to make himself king was 1/6 (not 9/11). All this talk is a waste of time, when an 18 year old mentally disturbed kid making threats online EASILY can purchase an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds, then spend an HOUR inside an elementary school committing mass murder. What happened to all the good guys with guns? When you look back, you will find yourself on the wrong side of history. The world is seeing the problem, only some americans can’t.
I-5 wrote: If we apply that theory, Jan 6 2021 was the closest we’ve seen to a president not willing to transfer power, and roughly half the nation seemed to be in support of it. That’s how it is. The only unifying event I can picture is if another country invaded the US, which I can’t see Mexico or Canada attempting. Got anything else?
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Well, it has a great deal to do with dissolving a government. I sincerely hope that voting and talking is all that is needed for change, but that may not always be the case. Under drastic circumstances, non violent means won’t work.
The forefathers knew this and lived it. Britain wouldn’t give up her colonies without a fight. That’s why the preamble in the Declaration of Independence states that governments are established by men with powers given to them by the citizens and when it becomes tyrannical and destructive to the citizens, they have the right and obligation to dissolve that government.
Again, that is very drastic circumstances, but I don’t believe our founders believed that the citizens of this nation would never have to fight for their freedoms again.
RiverDog wrote:The "Founding Fathers" were 55 delegates drawn from 13 colonies ip and down the eastern seaboard that participated in the Constitutional convention in 1787, There wasn't widespread agreement on very many of the items. It was a bill created by a committee, filled with compromises, the 'you vote for my pet peeve and I'll vote for yours'. It was a political exercise. The Bill of Rights, ie the first 10 amendments, were added during a very bitter ratification fight to satisfy the concerns of the Federalists.
It always irritates me when people talk about what the Founding Fathers 'knew and lived.' They were a group of privileged white men with a wide range of experiences and motivations and scattered up and down the 13 colonies. Some were slave holders. Many had their own selfish, personal interests. They were not a cohesive unit with a single, unifying set of principles. They weren't like Moses coming down from heaven to read his commandments.
Was the Founding Fathers' motivation for the 2nd Amendment because they were worried about a tyrannical government that might have to be overthrown? Or was it the opposite, ie were they worried about a group of domestic terrorists attempting a coup d'état? Or were they worried about not having a standing army to repel a foreign invader?
Bottom line is that it's impossible to read in-between the lines of the Constitution and figure out what the 'Founding Fathers' meant. It has to be taken literally.
c_hawkbob wrote:The Founding fathers were not right about everything in perpetuity and they knew it. Times and situations change so they made a system (amendments) capable of accommodating change. When the 2nd was written guns had a capacity of one and could fire one round a minute, times have changed, now 30 or more round capacity is common and 600 rounds per minute is possible. We needn't consider ourselves stuck with 2nd either as originally intended or as currently interpreted.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:Yeah, pretty sure a lot of supporters of the 2nd Amendment agree with this, including myself and others on this forum. Things like bump stocks or other non-factory modifications that ridiculously increase the fire rate should be criminal. That among other measures should most definitely be taken.
MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:I've only heard about the LEO hesitation; haven't read into, yet, but, for sure, that ain't right. I know fight or flight is a thing, but I would hope I would put myself in harm's way ahead of children, especially if I was a LEO.
I hate to say it, but an AR15 with a 30 round clip and a average level of training, one could put out 2 rounds per second (120 rounds per minute) roughly on a stationary target. I'm not against having them, but it should be very difficult to get one. Pistols less so, but training and education and verification still required to the nth degree. Even a 9mm pistol with a 15 round clip with hollow points is incredibly destructive. Pistol revolvers (6 shot max; double action only), pump action shotguns, and bolt action rifles wouldn't need the same level of restriction. They aren't high capacity and take a lot of training and proficiency development to increase their rate of fire.
I'm not sure the where the fascination comes from for gun nuts to be able to fire ludicrous amounts of bullets in seconds. You don't need it for hunting or home defense.
I'm guessing we disagree on allowing private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, and I don't blame people who want them gone. I think responsible individuals can handle having those just fine, but making sure those are the only people who own them is obviously very difficult and maybe impossible to make happen. Limiting them to 10 round magazines may help, and they need to criminalize high-capacity mags and anything that increases the rate of fire beyond the factory semi-automatic rate. First time heavy fine (like Louisiana hits you with a $10k for drunk driving), next time it's jail time. And people and retailers that sell to anybody with a pulse have to be held liable for crimes committed with the firearm they sold.
RiverDog wrote:Interesting article, I-5. It's contrary to what I've been told by law enforcement officers that I've met in person, and contrary to the actions of some very brave policemen and women that we've all witnessed over the years.
I have to wonder if our societies' 'defund the police' movement, initiatives to cut police departments of staff, the restrictions they've placed on tactics and weapons, and the general demoralization of law enforcement in general, didn't have something to do with this 'cover your ass' mentality demonstrated by the police in Texas.
I-5 wrote:Is it true the supreme court decided the police’s job doesn’t include protecting the public?
RiverDog wrote:Interesting article, I-5. It's contrary to what I've been told by law enforcement officers that I've met in person, and contrary to the actions of some very brave policemen and women that we've all witnessed over the years.
I have to wonder if our societies' 'defund the police' movement, initiatives to cut police departments of staff, the restrictions they've placed on tactics and weapons, and the general demoralization of law enforcement in general, didn't have something to do with this 'cover your ass' mentality demonstrated by the police in Texas.
I-5 wrote:Tough to say, Riv. It could be a chicken or egg scenario. I’m not saying I agree its the rule not the exception, but it backs up its points. It’s worth paying more attention to. I just couldn’t believe the blatant disregard for what seemed like the obvious right thing to do based on all the other school shootings we’ve seen. Each minute you stand down instead of engaging a shooter is potentially another life lost. The fact some police got their own children out speaks to something way beyond incompetence.
RiverDog wrote:Yeah, I couldn't believe it, either. Most police officers, or at least the ones I've ever met, have a genuine interest in helping those that are in need, and what other people have a greater need than grade school children?
I might be going off on a tangent, but the other thing I worry about is that this labor shortage is eliminating the fear employees used to have of losing their job. I can remember when I was in college, you could tell which professors had tenure, in other words, they couldn't be fired. They were the ones that wouldn't stay when class was over to answer a question.
Over the years, I've told a number of people not to "F this job up as jobs are hard to come by." Fear is a powerful motivator, but it doesn't work in today's economy. Why should a cop, or anyone else, worry about losing their job when they can easily get another job of equal or greater value? I wonder how many cops are in their jobs simply for the pay and benefits, especially after the past couple of years of humiliation and unending attacks on their profession. Has the combination of these factors resulted in an "I don't give a crap" attitude? Or being that the school was predominantly Hispanic, did race enter into it? I have lots of very ugly thoughts and suspicions about what was really going on in those cop's minds.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests