4 ms·

> I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machi

> I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines. Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom. The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. As simple as that.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US. It's weird to me that advocating for the cessation of an absolute right to self-defense is a mainstream political position. It's not as if history is one peachy peace-and-love orgy.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Let me clarify: the reason that viewpoint is weird to me is that it's essentially political terrorism. A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence. The other side here is basically just people supporting and voting for the laws they think will improve society, a.k.a. democracy working normally.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      "A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence." On the other hand, the moral majority can make the law and then murder people who don't follow it. This is called "democracy working normally".
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        I oppose capital punishment, but yes — that's how democracy works.
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Yes, if you use a strict denotative definition of "works" as being a method of operation. But that says nothing as to the ethical justification relative to the other case that you complained about. Your position just comes off as saying "in its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges".
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        I'm saying that democracy is the least worst way of a society determining the rules by which it abides. Is your position that dictating those rules under threat of violence is better?
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Oh sorry, your dictating the rules with violence is much better than their dictating the rules with violence.
- seiferteric 7y ago
  It's really not about that. The US was founded by a revolution that required guns. The founders wanted to make sure the same thing could happen again if needed. The second amendment isn't about personal protection, it is about the right to overthrow a government (ours or an invading one) if necessary. You can argue that times have changed or whatever but that was clearly the intention and it hasn't changed much.
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I understand that. My point is that "if needed" is a pretty squishy phrase, and if you asked different groups of US citizens what that entails you'd get wildly divergent results. For example, I would say if we keep going along our path of putting people in camps, that is worthy of rising up — but there are other people who think that's a good thing and we should keep going. There are also certain demographics that are much likelier to own guns, so "is armed revolution necessary" is really more a question of "is this particular group of people unhappy".
    - seiferteric 7y ago
      Isn't that what happened during the revolution? A critical mass of people decided it was necessary and eventually succeeded? Then during the civil war some other people tried and failed (luckily). And of course there have been smaller failed uprisings and rebellions in the past as well. Not really sure what your point is, we will never reach a time when everyone agrees, life is messy.
- TheArcane 7y ago
  > threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression So much this. Growing up, it was so strange to see people pulling out a gun on someone for walking on their lawn in Hollywood movies.
TheArcane 7y ago
> when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for? At least that's what they're for in my part of the world.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for? That works fine and well until the police are the ones kicking in your door to drag you away. Fortunately for us all, that's not a thing that ever happens. Since it clearly needs said, the 2A is not about day-to-day life. It's about large-scale societal failure modes.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Are you going to ask the attacker to pause and wait 5+ minutes?
- kazinator 7y ago
  That's what they are for if they are in the right place at the right time. In a situation in which you have to shoot someone to save yourself, it's implicitly understood that the law enforcement won't be there for at least another 15 minutes. Also, who will call them? You may have to shoot your opponent first, just to be able to call the police. At least in the leg or something, if killing makes you squeamish.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  No. They might never show up, and you can't even sue them for negligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Every adult should have the means to protect who they care about.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for? > At least that's what they're for in my part of the world. I really wish the Jewish populations of Warsaw had known this. If only they had called on the professional law enforcement to help them! And then the Tutsi made the same mistake in Rwanda 50 years later - shouldn't people have learned by then? Point is, sometimes it's the "professional law enforcement" that's coming to kick your face in, and asking them to defend you doesn't work so well. And even when they aren't the ones doing the kicking, their priorities might not match yours - as Koreatown found in the LA riots.
dowst 7y ago
Bad people kill so kill bad people. So logical...
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  It's much more logical and moral to let the bad people kill you, so that you can maintain your integrity into death.
lukewrites 7y ago
I’m reading the book Loaded, which makes a pretty convincing argument that the reason for the amendment was to quell worries that the colonists would be in any way impeded in grabbing land from the native people by force.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. No, the reason for the amendment was the perception (possibly true) that reliance on citizens militias for internal and external security was an essential guarantee of liberty, as otherwise the government would have no choice but to rely on professional forces (army/police) that would become culturally distinct from the general population and become oppressive either on their own or on behalf of the government which would become more attached to it's security services through whuhbit applied force, and which could withhold that ability or use it in ways the political authority did not approve of unsatisfied, than the general public. Combined with the perception (false, as it turned out) that the only thing needed to protect this model was to assure that the government's understandable desire to regulate weaponry didn't make it impractical to rely on militias of the citizenry for this purpose. The idea was that it would be impossible to oppress the general public if the government had to call up the general public to do the oppressing, whereas if there was a distinct warrior tribe whose whole profession was applying force as ordered by higher authority, the government would be much more able and inclined to be oppressive. Unfortunately, even those who hold themselves out as defenders of the second amendment have forgotten it's purpose.
- jki275 7y ago
  That is a very tortured misunderstanding of the second amendment. I would strongly suggest reading Scalia’s decision in Heller - he thoroughly debunks this argument, and it’s now settled law, so it would be worthwhile to understand how it really is vice how revisionist historians want it to be.

jakelazaroff 7y ago

It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.

mieseratte 7y ago
> It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US. It's weird to me that advocating for the cessation of an absolute right to self-defense is a mainstream political position. It's not as if history is one peachy peace-and-love orgy.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Let me clarify: the reason that viewpoint is weird to me is that it's essentially political terrorism. A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence. The other side here is basically just people supporting and voting for the laws they think will improve society, a.k.a. democracy working normally.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    "A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence." On the other hand, the moral majority can make the law and then murder people who don't follow it. This is called "democracy working normally".
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      I oppose capital punishment, but yes — that's how democracy works.
      - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Yes, if you use a strict denotative definition of "works" as being a method of operation. But that says nothing as to the ethical justification relative to the other case that you complained about. Your position just comes off as saying "in its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges".
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        I'm saying that democracy is the least worst way of a society determining the rules by which it abides. Is your position that dictating those rules under threat of violence is better?
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Oh sorry, your dictating the rules with violence is much better than their dictating the rules with violence.
seiferteric 7y ago
It's really not about that. The US was founded by a revolution that required guns. The founders wanted to make sure the same thing could happen again if needed. The second amendment isn't about personal protection, it is about the right to overthrow a government (ours or an invading one) if necessary. You can argue that times have changed or whatever but that was clearly the intention and it hasn't changed much.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I understand that. My point is that "if needed" is a pretty squishy phrase, and if you asked different groups of US citizens what that entails you'd get wildly divergent results. For example, I would say if we keep going along our path of putting people in camps, that is worthy of rising up — but there are other people who think that's a good thing and we should keep going. There are also certain demographics that are much likelier to own guns, so "is armed revolution necessary" is really more a question of "is this particular group of people unhappy".
  - seiferteric 7y ago
    Isn't that what happened during the revolution? A critical mass of people decided it was necessary and eventually succeeded? Then during the civil war some other people tried and failed (luckily). And of course there have been smaller failed uprisings and rebellions in the past as well. Not really sure what your point is, we will never reach a time when everyone agrees, life is messy.
TheArcane 7y ago
> threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression So much this. Growing up, it was so strange to see people pulling out a gun on someone for walking on their lawn in Hollywood movies.

TheArcane 7y ago

> when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for? At least that's what they're for in my part of the world.

mieseratte 7y ago
> Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for? That works fine and well until the police are the ones kicking in your door to drag you away. Fortunately for us all, that's not a thing that ever happens. Since it clearly needs said, the 2A is not about day-to-day life. It's about large-scale societal failure modes.
jakeogh 7y ago
Are you going to ask the attacker to pause and wait 5+ minutes?
kazinator 7y ago
That's what they are for if they are in the right place at the right time. In a situation in which you have to shoot someone to save yourself, it's implicitly understood that the law enforcement won't be there for at least another 15 minutes. Also, who will call them? You may have to shoot your opponent first, just to be able to call the police. At least in the leg or something, if killing makes you squeamish.
erik_seaberg 7y ago
No. They might never show up, and you can't even sue them for negligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Every adult should have the means to protect who they care about.
DuskStar 7y ago
> Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for? > At least that's what they're for in my part of the world. I really wish the Jewish populations of Warsaw had known this. If only they had called on the professional law enforcement to help them! And then the Tutsi made the same mistake in Rwanda 50 years later - shouldn't people have learned by then? Point is, sometimes it's the "professional law enforcement" that's coming to kick your face in, and asking them to defend you doesn't work so well. And even when they aren't the ones doing the kicking, their priorities might not match yours - as Koreatown found in the LA riots.

dowst 7y ago

Bad people kill so kill bad people. So logical...

CompanionCuuube 7y ago
It's much more logical and moral to let the bad people kill you, so that you can maintain your integrity into death.

lukewrites 7y ago

I’m reading the book Loaded, which makes a pretty convincing argument that the reason for the amendment was to quell worries that the colonists would be in any way impeded in grabbing land from the native people by force.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. No, the reason for the amendment was the perception (possibly true) that reliance on citizens militias for internal and external security was an essential guarantee of liberty, as otherwise the government would have no choice but to rely on professional forces (army/police) that would become culturally distinct from the general population and become oppressive either on their own or on behalf of the government which would become more attached to it's security services through whuhbit applied force, and which could withhold that ability or use it in ways the political authority did not approve of unsatisfied, than the general public. Combined with the perception (false, as it turned out) that the only thing needed to protect this model was to assure that the government's understandable desire to regulate weaponry didn't make it impractical to rely on militias of the citizenry for this purpose. The idea was that it would be impossible to oppress the general public if the government had to call up the general public to do the oppressing, whereas if there was a distinct warrior tribe whose whole profession was applying force as ordered by higher authority, the government would be much more able and inclined to be oppressive. Unfortunately, even those who hold themselves out as defenders of the second amendment have forgotten it's purpose.

jki275 7y ago
That is a very tortured misunderstanding of the second amendment. I would strongly suggest reading Scalia’s decision in Heller - he thoroughly debunks this argument, and it’s now settled law, so it would be worthwhile to understand how it really is vice how revisionist historians want it to be.