5 ms·

I dont understand why. How can they see school shootings and see that toxic masculinity in the form of guns is so bad for society. Do they just value different

by rvo 9y ago

I dont understand why. How can they see school shootings and see that toxic masculinity in the form of guns is so bad for society. Do they just value different things culturally?

reitanqild 9y ago
Because if you follow along here you'll see a lot of hate and vile comments about people on the countryside. Some even seems to take pride in how they can't even talk reasonably to their relatives once a year. People notice this and might not be very keen on cooperating with people who despise them. Also maybe they've read history and knows what happens to unpopular unarmed people.
- rvo 9y ago
  Thats an interesting point. There is actual hatred for country folks. I get it though. My folks are from a village in India. We sometimes get shit on by city folks too. Some country folks like guns. But its not a "right".
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    In the US constitution, it actually is a right. We have a right to bear arms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
    - rvo 9y ago
      Yea, I know. I am asking why not repeal this amendment, like the 21 amendment did for the 18th. Why have it as a "right"? If its not a right, then the government can pass much stronger gun laws, including confiscations, etc. But still allows good citizens to own guns for hunting and stuff. Maybe even limit the number of guns per person, control the type of gun, etc. Just give enough so that country folks are happy with simple hunting rifles and cant do much damage.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        I apologise because I usually abhor semantic arguments, but I feel in this case it might be illuminating. Rights are not granted by the Constitution. The founders believed rights were natural. The Constitution grants the government limited ability to infringe on our natural rights. So the question is not whether we should remove the right to bear arms from the Constitution, but whether or not we should grant the government the ability to infringe on our natural right to armed defense. The semantics are important because it illuminates the philosophy of rights and the Constitution, and perhaps that illumination may help you to understand how many people see it differently.
        rvo 9y ago
        I am precisely saying that Congress should be allowed to pass any type of gun laws. Right now, Congress cannot infringe on people's rights to bear arms due to 2A. I am saying Congress should be able to do that. They should be able to ban anything they want by passing laws. And if the people that they are representing want gun confiscations, Congress should pass laws for that too... Right now they cannot because the constitution doesn't allow it. If you repeal 2A, then they (Congress) will be able to do much more about guns.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        All I'm trying to point out is that your philosophy of law is the exact opposite of the philosophy of the Constitution. You seem to be working from a position where you believe all power lies in the state except where the state has so graciously limited itself by kindly granting us rights to things like free speech, religion, or armed defense. The Constitution is written from the opposite direction, that all power lies in the people and the Constitution is the mechanism by which we grant limited authority to the government. In fact, this was a big part of the debate around passing the Bill of Rights in the first place, that it would confuse this issue. Repealing the 1st Amendment would not remove our right to free speech. It would simply remove the codification of that right and we would revert to natural law which still would include free speech. In order for the government to infringe on our natural right to free speech we the people would have to pass an amendment explicitly granting the government the authority to do so. The same of course applies to the 2A. This is essentially the philosophy of the founders and the limited government crowd you're going to be arguing against if you want to regulate guns. I'm hoping that you'll see that this isn't just a semantic difference in the mechanism by which you might accomplish gun restrictions, but a deeper difference in the belief system around the philosophy of law. I'm not trying to change your mind about the 2A here, but to help you relate to the small government crowd with the way you talk about the law. You're not trying to revert a power granted to us by the government, you're trying to subvert natural law.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Thanks. A little nitpicking: in US it is actually a right. It might seem weird for the rest of us but then again in their defense they never had a Srebrenica, an Auswich, a Rwanda in the last century so I guess it can be seen as an insurance: They're paying a few lives every year to protect against genocides. (And to be perfectly clear: I don't want that system here where I live, I just try to understand their situation.)
    - rvo 9y ago
      Yea but the civil war happened, which was super deadly. I see what you are getting at. But honestly, if the gov wants to do a genocide, they have tanks and bombers to do it. No AR15 will help against that anyway.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam beg to differ. The armed population there did an excellent job of fending off a technologically superior force.
        rvo 9y ago
        I won't call it excellent. If they didn't have weapons, then the US government would have caused less destruction and would have fixed those countries much more quickly. Similarly, if America didn't have guns, the civil war would have been faster and less bloody.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        If you're a native person living there opposed to US occupation, it went very well. That's the whole point of using them as an example to how a population armed with little more than rifles and IEDs in many cases can hold back the might of the US military.
      - dingaling 9y ago
        Tanks and bombers can do genocide, but they can't occupy & control. We saw that throughout the past 100 years, from the RAF's attempts to do 'air policing' in the Middle East in the 1920s to shock-and-awe in Iraq. To control a population you need boots on the ground.
- archagon 9y ago
  It’s pretty obvious that the spite goes both ways, and has for as long as I can remember. It’s like our country is two different ones stacked on top of each other. Unfortunately, many in the country seem to feel that America is White and Christian, and that’s just not a viewpoint that can be easily reconciled with more cosmopolitan city folks.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    > It’s pretty obvious that the spite goes both ways, and has for as long as I can remember. you are right. Maybe I should have mentioned. My intention was not to single out anyone but to talk to the people who actually attend HN.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by rvo 9y ago

I dont understand why. How can they see school shootings and see that toxic masculinity in the form of guns is so bad for society. Do they just value different things culturally?

reitanqild 9y ago

Because if you follow along here you'll see a lot of hate and vile comments about people on the countryside. Some even seems to take pride in how they can't even talk reasonably to their relatives once a year. People notice this and might not be very keen on cooperating with people who despise them. Also maybe they've read history and knows what happens to unpopular unarmed people.

rvo 9y ago
Thats an interesting point. There is actual hatred for country folks. I get it though. My folks are from a village in India. We sometimes get shit on by city folks too. Some country folks like guns. But its not a "right".
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  In the US constitution, it actually is a right. We have a right to bear arms. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...
  - rvo 9y ago
    Yea, I know. I am asking why not repeal this amendment, like the 21 amendment did for the 18th. Why have it as a "right"? If its not a right, then the government can pass much stronger gun laws, including confiscations, etc. But still allows good citizens to own guns for hunting and stuff. Maybe even limit the number of guns per person, control the type of gun, etc. Just give enough so that country folks are happy with simple hunting rifles and cant do much damage.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I apologise because I usually abhor semantic arguments, but I feel in this case it might be illuminating. Rights are not granted by the Constitution. The founders believed rights were natural. The Constitution grants the government limited ability to infringe on our natural rights. So the question is not whether we should remove the right to bear arms from the Constitution, but whether or not we should grant the government the ability to infringe on our natural right to armed defense. The semantics are important because it illuminates the philosophy of rights and the Constitution, and perhaps that illumination may help you to understand how many people see it differently.
      - rvo 9y ago
        I am precisely saying that Congress should be allowed to pass any type of gun laws. Right now, Congress cannot infringe on people's rights to bear arms due to 2A. I am saying Congress should be able to do that. They should be able to ban anything they want by passing laws. And if the people that they are representing want gun confiscations, Congress should pass laws for that too... Right now they cannot because the constitution doesn't allow it. If you repeal 2A, then they (Congress) will be able to do much more about guns.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        All I'm trying to point out is that your philosophy of law is the exact opposite of the philosophy of the Constitution. You seem to be working from a position where you believe all power lies in the state except where the state has so graciously limited itself by kindly granting us rights to things like free speech, religion, or armed defense. The Constitution is written from the opposite direction, that all power lies in the people and the Constitution is the mechanism by which we grant limited authority to the government. In fact, this was a big part of the debate around passing the Bill of Rights in the first place, that it would confuse this issue. Repealing the 1st Amendment would not remove our right to free speech. It would simply remove the codification of that right and we would revert to natural law which still would include free speech. In order for the government to infringe on our natural right to free speech we the people would have to pass an amendment explicitly granting the government the authority to do so. The same of course applies to the 2A. This is essentially the philosophy of the founders and the limited government crowd you're going to be arguing against if you want to regulate guns. I'm hoping that you'll see that this isn't just a semantic difference in the mechanism by which you might accomplish gun restrictions, but a deeper difference in the belief system around the philosophy of law. I'm not trying to change your mind about the 2A here, but to help you relate to the small government crowd with the way you talk about the law. You're not trying to revert a power granted to us by the government, you're trying to subvert natural law.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Thanks. A little nitpicking: in US it is actually a right. It might seem weird for the rest of us but then again in their defense they never had a Srebrenica, an Auswich, a Rwanda in the last century so I guess it can be seen as an insurance: They're paying a few lives every year to protect against genocides. (And to be perfectly clear: I don't want that system here where I live, I just try to understand their situation.)
  - rvo 9y ago
    Yea but the civil war happened, which was super deadly. I see what you are getting at. But honestly, if the gov wants to do a genocide, they have tanks and bombers to do it. No AR15 will help against that anyway.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam beg to differ. The armed population there did an excellent job of fending off a technologically superior force.
      - rvo 9y ago
        I won't call it excellent. If they didn't have weapons, then the US government would have caused less destruction and would have fixed those countries much more quickly. Similarly, if America didn't have guns, the civil war would have been faster and less bloody.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        If you're a native person living there opposed to US occupation, it went very well. That's the whole point of using them as an example to how a population armed with little more than rifles and IEDs in many cases can hold back the might of the US military.
    - dingaling 9y ago
      Tanks and bombers can do genocide, but they can't occupy & control. We saw that throughout the past 100 years, from the RAF's attempts to do 'air policing' in the Middle East in the 1920s to shock-and-awe in Iraq. To control a population you need boots on the ground.
archagon 9y ago
It’s pretty obvious that the spite goes both ways, and has for as long as I can remember. It’s like our country is two different ones stacked on top of each other. Unfortunately, many in the country seem to feel that America is White and Christian, and that’s just not a viewpoint that can be easily reconciled with more cosmopolitan city folks.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  > It’s pretty obvious that the spite goes both ways, and has for as long as I can remember. you are right. Maybe I should have mentioned. My intention was not to single out anyone but to talk to the people who actually attend HN.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]