5 ms·

> (infringing on what?) In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifical

by mod 5y ago

> (infringing on what?) In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So the word "infringe" is commonly used in that context. > making it easy for people to apply violence Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. I'm sure most of us can infer your actual point, but it might be worth it to come up with a less-easily-defeated argument.

krapp 5y ago
>In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IANACS, but to me the 2nd Amendment doesn't objectively imply the right to keep and bear all possible arms, rather it prevents the infringement of the right to bear any arms. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. >Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. Tell that to the Las Vegas shooter, or any mass shooter. There's a reason wars are no longer fought on horseback with melee combat and bows and arrows. The purpose of guns is to force-multiply the capacity of violence (both in power and in range) beyond what an unarmed body can commit. Yes, it's technically easier to apply the violence of a closed fist or a knife but that violence is also more contained and easier to control.
- jakearmitage 5y ago
  > You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. Could you elaborate on this? Why not a rifle?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 5y ago
    I'm hoping to avoid a tedious quagmire about gun classification here. A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both. But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.
    - mod 5y ago
      Depending on the scenario, but I'd want a rifle in a lot of self-defense scenarios against humans. Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle. Multiple attackers? I want a rifle. Attacker is extremely motivated to hurt me and won't quit until they're dead? I want a rifle. One guy breaks in my house with a knife? I guess a handgun will do, or preferably a shotgun. You interestingly just chose a rifle that is a semi-automatic rifle like most other long guns in the US (those that aren't bolt guns). An AK-47 is comparable to an AR15 is comparable to a Remington 742 Woodmaster, which is a nice deer rifle. It's unclear if you think the caliber is a problem, or if you've just decided they're all full-auto or something. I guess it sounded scarier. More importantly, self-defense is not the reason for the amendment. Gun classification is not mentioned. At the time, the founders wanted the citizens to have equal access to arms as the government. I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.
      - graderjs 5y ago
        > I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them. An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank". On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.
- lazide 5y ago
  Here in the (quite safe) city I live in, in the SF bay area (strongly anti gun), there was an incident last year where someone came up to a couples house in the middle of the night, knocking on their door asking to use their phone because their car broke down. Luckily the couple had a decent security camera on the front porch, because almost out of frame was another person waiting. It turns out that person (visible later in the video) had what appeared to be a AK-47 with a drum magazine on it. Both illegal in this state. The couple luckily checked the camera and called the police, and the police actually showed up (though the two people had already left), and those people didn’t try to break the door down or force their way in before the police showed up. Because criminals tend to not follow laws, and these things are not that hard to get ahold of if someone wants one - and doesn’t care if it is legal or not. And if those two people had been a bit more aggressive, the only thing that would have been useful is something like an AK-47 with a drum mag or better, or a ton of luck.
- setr 5y ago
  The 2nd Amendment is not about defending yourself from burglars -- it's about defending yourself from the government itself. It's essentially the right to revolt. Of course, it'd be a dark day when a sufficiently large portion of the population feels the need for revolution against the standing government -- but that's the point. The government can't get that bad (as say, a violent dictatorship), because the population is itself armed and able to take back control as necessary. The US in general operates on a distrust of centralized government -- a necessary evil -- and even today it's visible on both fronts of politics; both the defunding of the police on the left, and the populism of the right. And in that respect, it's important for the population to be equivalently armed as the armed forces that may one day turn inwards -- though by order of numbers, equivalently armed doesn't necessarily require equivalent capability to reign death and destruction -- a thousand men with a pistol will eventually defeat a single man with a nuclear bomb (assuming they're smart enough not to cluster..) -- but to do so, the population must bear arms. The other side of the problem however is that the US military is becoming continuously more effective at waging war against native populations and poorly armed/trained militia. They may not have succeeded in many of their goals in the Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, etc wars, but they're definitely getting better at it -- and they're getting a lot of practice.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The 2nd Amendment is not about defending yourself from burglars -- it's about defending yourself from the government itself Kind of, though not in the way its usually sold. > It's essentially the right to revolt. No, its supposed to be a guarantee against needing to revolt by providing a preventative against the situation where the government is able to use the unreadiness of the citizenry as an excuse to establish a large standing armed force for internal and/or external security (the latter being a problem because it, historically, often gets used for the former; purpose built forces for the former purpose were rare at the time of the founding, but the Founders had first-hand experience with external security forces turned to internal security use) with the distinct and separate culture and loyalties from the general population that such standing forces always entail. Since the people as the militia are then expected to be the security services, with only a minimal permanent cadre, there is nothing to have to revolt against. It kind of miserably failed, obviously.
oneplane 5y ago
I suppose if you live in the US, keep busy with the US government and do weapons/violence related things that might be a default go-to. In the rest of the world, not so much. Weapons exist for one reason: easier application of violence. That is their only purpose.
- mod 5y ago
  Yes, with the caveat that it's a pretty widely held opinion that it is okay to "apply violence" in a few scenarios, a couple of which are to procure food via hunting, and to defend oneself or others from entities who intend to do (egregious enough) harm. As mentioned in a sibling comment, force multipliers like firearms allow relatively equal footing for people that would otherwise just be victims in a violent encounter. I don't think everyone has to agree on what is a reasonable amount of freedom wrt firearms.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    Agree. It's easier to just go up and and hit someone in the head with a rock or knife them. But possibly harder for an untrained person to kill someone else like that, particularly with other people around. Guns make it easier to cleanly defend yourself, rather than having to rely on rocks or knives, but also easier to murder other people. I think the self-defense and defense of the people against a tyrannical government is a worthwhile tradeoff, tho. And, apart from anything else, the 2A is the law, and even if the law is not always comprehensible to people, as long as it remains the law I believe it should be respected and protected. So there's that, too. I think there's an argument to be made, too, for guns as a tool of true political feminism, in the sense that, if there is violence against women happening, guns 'correct the imbalance' of asymmetrical physical strength, giving women ability to defend themselves. I have one extreme idea, tho. I think if a society allows guns, then every citizen of age, whether or not they own a gun, must undergo a gun training course. I don't think we should mandate everyone must own a gun...while that could work in theory, it seems too extreme, but I think everyone should be trained to understand and respect what guns can do.

by mod 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

>In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IANACS, but to me the 2nd Amendment doesn't objectively imply the right to keep and bear all possible arms, rather it prevents the infringement of the right to bear any arms. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. >Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. Tell that to the Las Vegas shooter, or any mass shooter. There's a reason wars are no longer fought on horseback with melee combat and bows and arrows. The purpose of guns is to force-multiply the capacity of violence (both in power and in range) beyond what an unarmed body can commit. Yes, it's technically easier to apply the violence of a closed fist or a knife but that violence is also more contained and easier to control.

jakearmitage 5y ago
> You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. Could you elaborate on this? Why not a rifle?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 5y ago
  I'm hoping to avoid a tedious quagmire about gun classification here. A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both. But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.
  - mod 5y ago
    Depending on the scenario, but I'd want a rifle in a lot of self-defense scenarios against humans. Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle. Multiple attackers? I want a rifle. Attacker is extremely motivated to hurt me and won't quit until they're dead? I want a rifle. One guy breaks in my house with a knife? I guess a handgun will do, or preferably a shotgun. You interestingly just chose a rifle that is a semi-automatic rifle like most other long guns in the US (those that aren't bolt guns). An AK-47 is comparable to an AR15 is comparable to a Remington 742 Woodmaster, which is a nice deer rifle. It's unclear if you think the caliber is a problem, or if you've just decided they're all full-auto or something. I guess it sounded scarier. More importantly, self-defense is not the reason for the amendment. Gun classification is not mentioned. At the time, the founders wanted the citizens to have equal access to arms as the government. I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.
    - graderjs 5y ago
      > I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them. An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank". On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.
lazide 5y ago
Here in the (quite safe) city I live in, in the SF bay area (strongly anti gun), there was an incident last year where someone came up to a couples house in the middle of the night, knocking on their door asking to use their phone because their car broke down. Luckily the couple had a decent security camera on the front porch, because almost out of frame was another person waiting. It turns out that person (visible later in the video) had what appeared to be a AK-47 with a drum magazine on it. Both illegal in this state. The couple luckily checked the camera and called the police, and the police actually showed up (though the two people had already left), and those people didn’t try to break the door down or force their way in before the police showed up. Because criminals tend to not follow laws, and these things are not that hard to get ahold of if someone wants one - and doesn’t care if it is legal or not. And if those two people had been a bit more aggressive, the only thing that would have been useful is something like an AK-47 with a drum mag or better, or a ton of luck.
setr 5y ago
The 2nd Amendment is not about defending yourself from burglars -- it's about defending yourself from the government itself. It's essentially the right to revolt. Of course, it'd be a dark day when a sufficiently large portion of the population feels the need for revolution against the standing government -- but that's the point. The government can't get that bad (as say, a violent dictatorship), because the population is itself armed and able to take back control as necessary. The US in general operates on a distrust of centralized government -- a necessary evil -- and even today it's visible on both fronts of politics; both the defunding of the police on the left, and the populism of the right. And in that respect, it's important for the population to be equivalently armed as the armed forces that may one day turn inwards -- though by order of numbers, equivalently armed doesn't necessarily require equivalent capability to reign death and destruction -- a thousand men with a pistol will eventually defeat a single man with a nuclear bomb (assuming they're smart enough not to cluster..) -- but to do so, the population must bear arms. The other side of the problem however is that the US military is becoming continuously more effective at waging war against native populations and poorly armed/trained militia. They may not have succeeded in many of their goals in the Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, etc wars, but they're definitely getting better at it -- and they're getting a lot of practice.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The 2nd Amendment is not about defending yourself from burglars -- it's about defending yourself from the government itself Kind of, though not in the way its usually sold. > It's essentially the right to revolt. No, its supposed to be a guarantee against needing to revolt by providing a preventative against the situation where the government is able to use the unreadiness of the citizenry as an excuse to establish a large standing armed force for internal and/or external security (the latter being a problem because it, historically, often gets used for the former; purpose built forces for the former purpose were rare at the time of the founding, but the Founders had first-hand experience with external security forces turned to internal security use) with the distinct and separate culture and loyalties from the general population that such standing forces always entail. Since the people as the militia are then expected to be the security services, with only a minimal permanent cadre, there is nothing to have to revolt against. It kind of miserably failed, obviously.

oneplane 5y ago

I suppose if you live in the US, keep busy with the US government and do weapons/violence related things that might be a default go-to. In the rest of the world, not so much. Weapons exist for one reason: easier application of violence. That is their only purpose.

mod 5y ago
Yes, with the caveat that it's a pretty widely held opinion that it is okay to "apply violence" in a few scenarios, a couple of which are to procure food via hunting, and to defend oneself or others from entities who intend to do (egregious enough) harm. As mentioned in a sibling comment, force multipliers like firearms allow relatively equal footing for people that would otherwise just be victims in a violent encounter. I don't think everyone has to agree on what is a reasonable amount of freedom wrt firearms.
- graderjs 5y ago
  Agree. It's easier to just go up and and hit someone in the head with a rock or knife them. But possibly harder for an untrained person to kill someone else like that, particularly with other people around. Guns make it easier to cleanly defend yourself, rather than having to rely on rocks or knives, but also easier to murder other people. I think the self-defense and defense of the people against a tyrannical government is a worthwhile tradeoff, tho. And, apart from anything else, the 2A is the law, and even if the law is not always comprehensible to people, as long as it remains the law I believe it should be respected and protected. So there's that, too. I think there's an argument to be made, too, for guns as a tool of true political feminism, in the sense that, if there is violence against women happening, guns 'correct the imbalance' of asymmetrical physical strength, giving women ability to defend themselves. I have one extreme idea, tho. I think if a society allows guns, then every citizen of age, whether or not they own a gun, must undergo a gun training course. I don't think we should mandate everyone must own a gun...while that could work in theory, it seems too extreme, but I think everyone should be trained to understand and respect what guns can do.