4 ms·

People don't use books to kill, maim and disfigure other people, they use guns. There are zero logical reasons to prohibit a database that maps gun metadata to

by jolynch 10y ago

People don't use books to kill, maim and disfigure other people, they use guns. There are zero logical reasons to prohibit a database that maps gun metadata to the gun record (search by name is actually detrimental to proper investigations). I've heard lots of emotional reasons, but I haven't heard a single well reasoned logical argument. Just a lot of reductio ad absurdum.

douche 10y ago
They can use books to inspire other people to kill, maim and disfigure other people.
- allemagne 10y ago
  Sure, buying an orange peel can result in death too. Guns just happen to be especially efficient at it.
  - hga 10y ago
    Mein Kampf, periodicals like Der Stürmer, The Communist Manifesto and the many other books like What Is to Be Done?, they were part of vastly more leveraged ways to end up killing people with guns, gas, or starvation/overwork than any single gun, or the collective guns in civilian hands, which, of course, weren't an issue in the disarmed populaces that were genocided in the 20th Century by the 10s, probably 100s of millions.
chris_va 10y ago
Well, not that I agree with it entirely, but here's my understanding of the argument (which might be entirely wrong): Going way back, the 2nd amendment entitles US citizens to own firearms because it's supposed to be a government for the people, by the people. If the people no longer support the government, they can revolt (ala american revolution). At the time, citizenry owning firearms was sufficient for a revolution to be successful. See 3rd amendment, as well. So, the 2nd amendment was really an escape clause for citizens if they no longer wish to support the government. It just happened to be written as a gun measure. Having a governmental database controlling gun ownership thus violates that intention.
- revelation 10y ago
  Is there an argument in here? None of that has anything to do with having an registry of who bought a gun. Vehicles have to be registered, and so should guns. For essentially the very same reasons.
  - chris_va 10y ago
    The argument is that a gun registry defeats the intended purpose of the second amendment, which (indirectly) is to prevent the government from stopping a popular revolution.
    - revelation 10y ago
      When you say indirectly, you gotta make the connection for it to be an actual argument. Something like "when the government has a list of every gun owner, they could stop a popular revolution because (X insert here)". You can't hand wave it into being. I don't see the connection to a registry at all. So you're an evil dictator and want to kill that revolution, what good is a list of 150m individual persons? What good is the mapping from "identification number" to "gun owner"? Is it important which "guns" participate in the revolution? Can anyone tell that?
      - chris_va 10y ago
        The "indirection" here is on the intention of the 2nd amendment, which while written to provide for gun ownership is actually intended to provide for popular revolution. Having said that, yes, I left out why a gun registry might restrict the probability of a revolution unstated. Let's imagine it's 1860, and the local ex-slave population is acting up. But, you have a registry of all ex-slaves who own guns. You drive around with a posse and confiscate them all before a popular revolution gets going. Is that in the best interests of the local people? Probably not, thus a registry in this context could be used to suppress the citizenry. The same thing is true today, but realistically there is no way individual gun ownership in 2016 is going to be sufficient to for a population to successfully revolt. It's not like we are letting people own gunships. However, the 2nd amendment hasn't been updated to reflect modern reality. In a lot of ways, this boils down to an "originalist vs living constitutional" argument.

by jolynch 10y ago

douche 10y ago

They can use books to inspire other people to kill, maim and disfigure other people.

allemagne 10y ago
Sure, buying an orange peel can result in death too. Guns just happen to be especially efficient at it.
- hga 10y ago
  Mein Kampf, periodicals like Der Stürmer, The Communist Manifesto and the many other books like What Is to Be Done?, they were part of vastly more leveraged ways to end up killing people with guns, gas, or starvation/overwork than any single gun, or the collective guns in civilian hands, which, of course, weren't an issue in the disarmed populaces that were genocided in the 20th Century by the 10s, probably 100s of millions.

chris_va 10y ago

Well, not that I agree with it entirely, but here's my understanding of the argument (which might be entirely wrong): Going way back, the 2nd amendment entitles US citizens to own firearms because it's supposed to be a government for the people, by the people. If the people no longer support the government, they can revolt (ala american revolution). At the time, citizenry owning firearms was sufficient for a revolution to be successful. See 3rd amendment, as well. So, the 2nd amendment was really an escape clause for citizens if they no longer wish to support the government. It just happened to be written as a gun measure. Having a governmental database controlling gun ownership thus violates that intention.

revelation 10y ago
Is there an argument in here? None of that has anything to do with having an registry of who bought a gun. Vehicles have to be registered, and so should guns. For essentially the very same reasons.
- chris_va 10y ago
  The argument is that a gun registry defeats the intended purpose of the second amendment, which (indirectly) is to prevent the government from stopping a popular revolution.
  - revelation 10y ago
    When you say indirectly, you gotta make the connection for it to be an actual argument. Something like "when the government has a list of every gun owner, they could stop a popular revolution because (X insert here)". You can't hand wave it into being. I don't see the connection to a registry at all. So you're an evil dictator and want to kill that revolution, what good is a list of 150m individual persons? What good is the mapping from "identification number" to "gun owner"? Is it important which "guns" participate in the revolution? Can anyone tell that?
    - chris_va 10y ago
      The "indirection" here is on the intention of the 2nd amendment, which while written to provide for gun ownership is actually intended to provide for popular revolution. Having said that, yes, I left out why a gun registry might restrict the probability of a revolution unstated. Let's imagine it's 1860, and the local ex-slave population is acting up. But, you have a registry of all ex-slaves who own guns. You drive around with a posse and confiscate them all before a popular revolution gets going. Is that in the best interests of the local people? Probably not, thus a registry in this context could be used to suppress the citizenry. The same thing is true today, but realistically there is no way individual gun ownership in 2016 is going to be sufficient to for a population to successfully revolt. It's not like we are letting people own gunships. However, the 2nd amendment hasn't been updated to reflect modern reality. In a lot of ways, this boils down to an "originalist vs living constitutional" argument.