4 ms·

At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry an

by 15155 8y ago

At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars. None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances. The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.

mikepurvis 8y ago
Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?
- 15155 8y ago
  > If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." > mass shooting deaths Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country. > suicides Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights? > law enforcement killings Do you know how few of these actually happen? > accidental discharges by children Sad, but statistically very rare. > road rage incidents ?? > and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place. You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list. I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    Suicides do have a real cost (https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere. In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.
    - 15155 8y ago
      I posed this question in another thread, but I think it is interesting in other people's perspectives: As a citizen in the developed world, how do you defend yourself against violence? How would your (wife|husband|child|grandmother) defend theirselves? I am not tough enough to physically fend off multiple violent aggressors, unfortunately.
      - mikepurvis 8y ago
        How many scenarios are you likely to face in your life where it's necessary to "fend off multiple violent aggressors"? Is it a statistically significant number? How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it). Even in the rare circumstance where there is a violent confrontation, most people are not able to effectively wield a firearm and make the situation better than it would have been without. That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative.
        15155 8y ago
        > Is it a statistically significant number It's non-zero and happens quite frequently where I live. Not all of us are privileged. > How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it Meanwhile, the victim is raped or not alive to see this possible "justice." What a fucking joke - I'll take my chances with a firearm instead. "Justice after the fact" isn't acceptable to me, I'd rather stop the crime being committed against me from happening. > That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative. Just a moment ago you were a citizen of the "developed world," where firearms apparently don't exist and violence doesn't happen, and now you understand how "hard" it is to utilize and use firearms for one's protection? Really curious as to where your knowledge comes from! You never answered my question, either. You presupposed that these "situations don't happen" as your argument. Should I just take this to mean the default of: "I cannot protect myself or my family from violent individuals?"
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  > suicides Suicides should be a human right (and I don't see how they are relevant to guns anyway). > overseas military adventurism Colonialism was a thing that started before the american revolution. > law enforcement killings Authoritarianism and all the deaths caused by it existed since the ancient times.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    > Suicides should be a human right (and I don't see how they are relevant to guns anyway) Sure, and I'm there with you on that. However, gun suicide attempts are worse than most other means in the sense that very little preparation or premeditation is required— you can pull the trigger in an instant and there's no recovering from it. Quoting a Vox piece from 2015: "There's a popular myth that suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves no matter what, and that closing off one method (like guns) will just lead to an increase in suicides through other methods (like hanging or overdoses). But most suicides aren't committed by determined people who can't be talked out of it. They're impulsive actions that can usually be prevented by small barriers. Many survivors say they deliberated less than a day, and sometimes for only a matter of minutes, before making a suicide attempt." https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control
    - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
      Gun suicides are some of the most painless - why force someone who wants to end their life experience hell through their last moments? > very little preparation or premeditation is required Assuming that you already own a gun. I do agree with what you said, but I don't believe that trying to limit the freedom of someone to kill themselves using a gun is the best solution.
      - mikepurvis 8y ago
        Did you actually read the article? The point is that there is at least one gun in 1/3 US households. So someone living in one of those households can have a passing thought of suicide, and then act on it irreversibly in a matter of minutes. You're welcome, I guess, to frame that in terms of limiting someone's freedom, but it doesn't have to be about the government taking away the guns; maybe there's just an argument there that having a gun in your house is unwise given the potential impact it could have on future you or your family members. An alcoholic doesn't keep beer in their fridge either, because the potential for self harm is too great.

by 15155 8y ago

mikepurvis 8y ago

Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?

15155 8y ago
> If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." > mass shooting deaths Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country. > suicides Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights? > law enforcement killings Do you know how few of these actually happen? > accidental discharges by children Sad, but statistically very rare. > road rage incidents ?? > and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place. You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list. I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  Suicides do have a real cost (https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere. In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.
  - 15155 8y ago
    I posed this question in another thread, but I think it is interesting in other people's perspectives: As a citizen in the developed world, how do you defend yourself against violence? How would your (wife|husband|child|grandmother) defend theirselves? I am not tough enough to physically fend off multiple violent aggressors, unfortunately.
    - mikepurvis 8y ago
      How many scenarios are you likely to face in your life where it's necessary to "fend off multiple violent aggressors"? Is it a statistically significant number? How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it). Even in the rare circumstance where there is a violent confrontation, most people are not able to effectively wield a firearm and make the situation better than it would have been without. That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative.
      - 15155 8y ago
        > Is it a statistically significant number It's non-zero and happens quite frequently where I live. Not all of us are privileged. > How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it Meanwhile, the victim is raped or not alive to see this possible "justice." What a fucking joke - I'll take my chances with a firearm instead. "Justice after the fact" isn't acceptable to me, I'd rather stop the crime being committed against me from happening. > That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative. Just a moment ago you were a citizen of the "developed world," where firearms apparently don't exist and violence doesn't happen, and now you understand how "hard" it is to utilize and use firearms for one's protection? Really curious as to where your knowledge comes from! You never answered my question, either. You presupposed that these "situations don't happen" as your argument. Should I just take this to mean the default of: "I cannot protect myself or my family from violent individuals?"
AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
> suicides Suicides should be a human right (and I don't see how they are relevant to guns anyway). > overseas military adventurism Colonialism was a thing that started before the american revolution. > law enforcement killings Authoritarianism and all the deaths caused by it existed since the ancient times.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  > Suicides should be a human right (and I don't see how they are relevant to guns anyway) Sure, and I'm there with you on that. However, gun suicide attempts are worse than most other means in the sense that very little preparation or premeditation is required— you can pull the trigger in an instant and there's no recovering from it. Quoting a Vox piece from 2015: "There's a popular myth that suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves no matter what, and that closing off one method (like guns) will just lead to an increase in suicides through other methods (like hanging or overdoses). But most suicides aren't committed by determined people who can't be talked out of it. They're impulsive actions that can usually be prevented by small barriers. Many survivors say they deliberated less than a day, and sometimes for only a matter of minutes, before making a suicide attempt." https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    Gun suicides are some of the most painless - why force someone who wants to end their life experience hell through their last moments? > very little preparation or premeditation is required Assuming that you already own a gun. I do agree with what you said, but I don't believe that trying to limit the freedom of someone to kill themselves using a gun is the best solution.
    - mikepurvis 8y ago
      Did you actually read the article? The point is that there is at least one gun in 1/3 US households. So someone living in one of those households can have a passing thought of suicide, and then act on it irreversibly in a matter of minutes. You're welcome, I guess, to frame that in terms of limiting someone's freedom, but it doesn't have to be about the government taking away the guns; maybe there's just an argument there that having a gun in your house is unwise given the potential impact it could have on future you or your family members. An alcoholic doesn't keep beer in their fridge either, because the potential for self harm is too great.