4 ms·

Why is "prevent a determined individual from getting a gun" the bar?

_mlbt 2y ago
What specifically do you propose for effective gun control that isn’t already on the books? Also remember that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. So please keep your proposal constitutional.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    That’s a common misconception. The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. District of Columbia vs Heller simply reaffirmed this. It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      > The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
      - _mlbt 2y ago
        We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding… “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” -James Madison “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-united-states-on-the-second-amendment/ https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-...
- baseballdork 2y ago
  Repealing the 2nd.
  - _mlbt 2y ago
    What would that actually accomplish? By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
    - baseballdork 2y ago
      It would allow for more stringent laws. The number of guns relative to population is irrelevant.
      - _mlbt 2y ago
        In a world where the second amendment was repealed, what gun control laws would you like to see passed and what would you expect them to accomplish? Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals? Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
        baseballdork 2y ago
        With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether. Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns. The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
        _mlbt 2y ago
        > With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether. Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. > Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns. As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed. > The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants. What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.

What specifically do you propose for effective gun control that isn’t already on the books? Also remember that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. So please keep your proposal constitutional.

JohnFen 2y ago
> that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _mlbt 2y ago
  That’s a common misconception. The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. District of Columbia vs Heller simply reaffirmed this. It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > The second amendment was always intended as an individual right. Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
    - _mlbt 2y ago
      We don’t have to guess or interpret the founders intentions on this. There are several quotes from them that affirm this as being intended as an individual right from the very beginning of our founding… “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson “The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” -James Madison “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-united-states-on-the-second-amendment/ https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-...
baseballdork 2y ago
Repealing the 2nd.
- _mlbt 2y ago
  What would that actually accomplish? By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
  - baseballdork 2y ago
    It would allow for more stringent laws. The number of guns relative to population is irrelevant.
    - _mlbt 2y ago
      In a world where the second amendment was repealed, what gun control laws would you like to see passed and what would you expect them to accomplish? Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals? Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
      - baseballdork 2y ago
        With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether. Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns. The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
        _mlbt 2y ago
        > With no second amendment, you could plainly ban firearms altogether. Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. > Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns. As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed. > The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants. What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.