6 ms·

> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation... I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or

by bbg24 6y ago

> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation... I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.

loceng 6y ago
It's a failsafe to have a chance to fight in case the government and enough of its military and commanders become tyrannical. Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.
- patagonia 6y ago
  I actually agree that the 2nd amendment exists for this purpose (protect against a tyrannical government) and think that is a good thing. An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke. Futile. Even the most practiced and prepared "militias" would fairly quickly be put down if the full might and focus of the US military where to be trained on them. The most a militia could hope for in such a scenario would be a guerilla warfare style protracted conflict combined with broadcasting a message that would win over the hearts and minds of the general public, that would then cause the US military to stop due to political, not military reasons. But such an outcome is unlikely in the scenario you're presenting, because the military would be controlled by a tyrant, not the public. One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government. "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." Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State" Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    > An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke Tell that to the Afghans.
    - patagonia 6y ago
      If you call that an "effective" defense, yeah idk what to say. We went in there with impunity, didn't even use the full capabilities of our forces, changed their government, killed over a hundred thousand of people, destroyed their economy, incapacitated their military... So can one individual cause a little damage to the US military? Sure. I wouldn't call it effective by any measure.
  - jdanp 6y ago
    There’s no law banning the “stockpiling” of weapons in any locale of the United States or at the federal level. You can own hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and handguns even in places like NYC as long as you purchase/possess/register the guns in accordance with all local laws.
    - patagonia 6y ago
      I should have said "effectively". There is no law saying that explicitly, however, try stockpiling 1000 weapons of the same sort in a manner not meant to be difficult to be noticed and see how long it takes for you to be on someones radar.
  - loceng 6y ago
    It wouldn't be 100% of the military that would likely fall to tyranny or be controlled by a tyrant - there would be splintering and sides taken, who then can support and organize civilian militias. There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on. A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down. Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy. I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease. I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values. It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally. Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.
- krapp 6y ago
  The failsafe fails when the militias/armed populace have been captured by extremism and welcome tyranny with open arms.
4ggr0 6y ago
I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need a gun. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective. Not trying to mock you, just seems like we have the same argument for our opposing views :)
- SftwreEngnr 6y ago
  Yes you are. At least admit something if you believe it.
- GiorgioG 6y ago
  You might change your mind if you’ve ever had someone try to break into your home at 3am. Happened when I was a kid. Fortunately my father had a lowly 0.22 rifle. The sight of the rifle in my fathers’s hands was enough to convince them to leave. My father is as left-leaning as they come (and an Italian immigrant) but he knew even then that the police can’t always protect you.
  - 4ggr0 6y ago
    Yeah, I hear about a lot of examples like yours. I have an air rifle laying around somewhere, maybe that could scare someone off :D I was raised by the standards of "Talk or Run away", and I want to adhere to them. But I don't live in the US and in my country I don't have to be afraid to be home-invaded, especially not with guns. I see that some people "need" guns, I just don't want that as a pacifist. To each their own I guess ;)
- erdos4d 6y ago
  I don't get why there is a need in a city, but there are definitely wilderness places in the US where it is required. What's wacky is that nobody can see this difference when laws get passed.
  - jdanp 6y ago
    Most major cities have additional gun restrictions compared to surrounding suburban/rural areas.
dsmithn 6y ago
How else would you know if the carrier is an "average civilian" without some sort of documentation?
jdanp 6y ago
The way you phrased this is funny because it can be interpreted as either a pro gun or anti gun statement: 1. Civilians should be able to keep or carry a firearm without a license. 2. No civilian should be able to keep or carry a firearm. In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns, rifles, or shotguns except in the more restrictive states. And each year more and more states are trending towards being able to carry without a permit as well.
- thr_120 6y ago
  > In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns... Now I understand why police in the USA is so aggressive when they expect citizens to be armed. People are talking 'defund police' while problem lies in Constitution.
  - benjohnson 6y ago
    The primary stated American reason to have guns isnt't personal self defense - it's to prevent governmental tyranny. Frankly, I consider governments that have nuclear weapons and a disarmed citizenry much more dangerous that if the citizens are ultimately in control.

by bbg24 6y ago

loceng 6y ago

It's a failsafe to have a chance to fight in case the government and enough of its military and commanders become tyrannical. Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.

patagonia 6y ago
I actually agree that the 2nd amendment exists for this purpose (protect against a tyrannical government) and think that is a good thing. An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke. Futile. Even the most practiced and prepared "militias" would fairly quickly be put down if the full might and focus of the US military where to be trained on them. The most a militia could hope for in such a scenario would be a guerilla warfare style protracted conflict combined with broadcasting a message that would win over the hearts and minds of the general public, that would then cause the US military to stop due to political, not military reasons. But such an outcome is unlikely in the scenario you're presenting, because the military would be controlled by a tyrant, not the public. One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government. "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." Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State" Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  > An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke Tell that to the Afghans.
  - patagonia 6y ago
    If you call that an "effective" defense, yeah idk what to say. We went in there with impunity, didn't even use the full capabilities of our forces, changed their government, killed over a hundred thousand of people, destroyed their economy, incapacitated their military... So can one individual cause a little damage to the US military? Sure. I wouldn't call it effective by any measure.
- jdanp 6y ago
  There’s no law banning the “stockpiling” of weapons in any locale of the United States or at the federal level. You can own hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and handguns even in places like NYC as long as you purchase/possess/register the guns in accordance with all local laws.
  - patagonia 6y ago
    I should have said "effectively". There is no law saying that explicitly, however, try stockpiling 1000 weapons of the same sort in a manner not meant to be difficult to be noticed and see how long it takes for you to be on someones radar.
- loceng 6y ago
  It wouldn't be 100% of the military that would likely fall to tyranny or be controlled by a tyrant - there would be splintering and sides taken, who then can support and organize civilian militias. There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on. A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down. Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy. I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease. I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values. It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally. Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.
krapp 6y ago
The failsafe fails when the militias/armed populace have been captured by extremism and welcome tyranny with open arms.

4ggr0 6y ago

I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need a gun. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective. Not trying to mock you, just seems like we have the same argument for our opposing views :)

SftwreEngnr 6y ago
Yes you are. At least admit something if you believe it.
GiorgioG 6y ago
You might change your mind if you’ve ever had someone try to break into your home at 3am. Happened when I was a kid. Fortunately my father had a lowly 0.22 rifle. The sight of the rifle in my fathers’s hands was enough to convince them to leave. My father is as left-leaning as they come (and an Italian immigrant) but he knew even then that the police can’t always protect you.
- 4ggr0 6y ago
  Yeah, I hear about a lot of examples like yours. I have an air rifle laying around somewhere, maybe that could scare someone off :D I was raised by the standards of "Talk or Run away", and I want to adhere to them. But I don't live in the US and in my country I don't have to be afraid to be home-invaded, especially not with guns. I see that some people "need" guns, I just don't want that as a pacifist. To each their own I guess ;)
erdos4d 6y ago
I don't get why there is a need in a city, but there are definitely wilderness places in the US where it is required. What's wacky is that nobody can see this difference when laws get passed.
- jdanp 6y ago
  Most major cities have additional gun restrictions compared to surrounding suburban/rural areas.

dsmithn 6y ago

How else would you know if the carrier is an "average civilian" without some sort of documentation?

jdanp 6y ago

The way you phrased this is funny because it can be interpreted as either a pro gun or anti gun statement: 1. Civilians should be able to keep or carry a firearm without a license. 2. No civilian should be able to keep or carry a firearm. In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns, rifles, or shotguns except in the more restrictive states. And each year more and more states are trending towards being able to carry without a permit as well.

thr_120 6y ago
> In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns... Now I understand why police in the USA is so aggressive when they expect citizens to be armed. People are talking 'defund police' while problem lies in Constitution.
- benjohnson 6y ago
  The primary stated American reason to have guns isnt't personal self defense - it's to prevent governmental tyranny. Frankly, I consider governments that have nuclear weapons and a disarmed citizenry much more dangerous that if the citizens are ultimately in control.