8 ms·

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to w

I agree with you. I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cause the friction. I'm of the opinion that the founders of the United States did not envision a government that people should fully trust, and that mistrust in the government's actions and motives by the populace would actually be healthy for the government. I'm further of the opinion that the founders did not envision a medical profession that could, with a diagnosis and the stroke of a pen, be able to essentially enforce such government full trust, by removing a person's constitutional right to own a firearm, and that without a crime having been committed, and the person not having been convicted of such a crime in a court of law. If you ask me, that's exactly what the movie Minority Report foretold: "We think you are going to commit a crime, and therefore we will pre-emptively curtail your freedom." Is this the America the Founding Fathers envisioned when they signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776?

mrchucklepants 13y ago
Your second paragraph is a perfect explanation of the conflict at the core of the gun control debate. Well said.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Thank you.
alan_cx 13y ago
"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and at the same time they argue that they need guns to protect against a threat from within, they believe Obama is a non American, communist, Muslim. Well, er, wouldn't that be a great threat from with in to the US? Where were these citizen protectors of American freedom when Obama the commie Muslim took office? Shouldn't they have been using their arsenals to protect America? Or do such people actually know they are taking nonsense? On top of that, when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens, such that they citizens needed to break out the weapon to protect them selves? Frankly I think its more to do with male machismo, culture and being stuck in the 17th century. They have always had guns, and what ever logic you argue with, they simply don't want to change. If you managed to convince then that the government isn't out to get them, they'd just find another excuse. It reminds me of fox hunting in the UK, or bull fighting in Spain. All these things defy reason, logic and decency, but we all want to hang on to them, simply because they have always been there. Heh, its kinda like saying you can have music any more. I'm sorry, people may claim they want guns for the reason you cite, but I honestly don't believe them at all.
- dxhdr 13y ago
  "when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens" I'll name one -- Japanese internment camps during WWII. Forcibly imprisoned over a hundred thousand citizens against their will, depriving them of their liberty and property. But I suppose in your world view the government has final say over your life and property, so being able to deter or resist attacks like this is unnecessary.
  - purplelobster 13y ago
    So in your mind, it would be better then if a hundred thousand armed Japanese would have started fighting back on mainland US? How about, instead of permanently distrusting the government, try to make it more democratic. There shouldn't have to be rebellions in a democratic country, then you talk it out and try to convince everybody else. If you can't, then touch luck, you're in the minority. That doesn't mean you have the right to start a damn rebellion and carve yourself a new country by force.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      Read the second paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...) It seems indeed that he has the right, nay, the duty, to do exactly that. I quote from the above: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
        While the Declaration states that they (Jefferson et al.) see it as their civic duty to fight an oppressive government (a fairly Lockean view, pretty much lifted from the Second Treatise), again, it was mostly an inflammatory document, written not for the benefit of Parliament and the King, but for other nations who might consider joining the fight. Analogically using the Declaration today doesn't really work, there aren't any of the great political thinkers of yore around, and we don't have any comparatively great thinkers (in the same sense). We're too founded on our two party system at the present to move anywhere. Plus, today's government would refuse to accept any rebellion, regardless of what historical document they cite. Technically, politically, the Union never recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation, but a rebellion. That's the largest and longest instance of such a 'rebellion'. It's likely going to remain such. Of course, that's due to the fact that there really wasn't any way for the Confederacy to win. They couldn't have taken and held the north. If they did, they would have assimilated the culture they were fighting against, and would be in the same situation as before they rebelled. That actually leads me to a slight tangent, but my favorite fact about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn't technically free the slaves. It freed the slaves only in rebelling states. Northern slave-holding states could remain as-is. Moving back on topic: the Declaration of Independence continually cites 'Him' and 'He' in reference to George III. George III had no power. Okay, he had a little power, but he wasn't really calling the shots any more (he never was, his reign started almost a century after the fall of the Commonwealth and slightly less after the Glorious Revolution, which cemented Great Britain as a constitutional monarchy). One could argue the use of He and Him are due to George's refusal to intervene with Parliament (something he really couldn't do). Again, it goes back to they saw an opportunity to start something new, even though if they worked slightly harder at getting representation, they could have.
dkuntz2 13y ago
I would say that the framers did envision a government that people didn't fully trust. Most of them came with a healthy distrust of government, and wrote in all of the checks and balances because they didn't trust governments, and the checks helped allay their concerns. I agree on the revocation of constitutional rights by, they probably didn't want a system which would let a single diagnosis revoke a right. But, based on their goals in designing our current government, multiple, corroborating reports would probably be accepted by them.
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
Well the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and militias. If the spirit/intent were fully what some people say, why don't we each have a 2nd amendment right to an attack helicopter, nukes, chems, bios, and UAVs? (Because assault rifles instead of muskets doesn't add much to the equation.) Since that would be clearly insane, reductio ad absurdum. Right?
- thecoffman 13y ago
  I think you would find that there are a subset of people, myself included, that don't find that notion so insane. If you accept the idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to overthrow their government then having the government restrict what citizens can and cannot purchase is somewhat nonsensical. Historically speaking, government restriction on firearm ownership is a relatively new thing. "Weapons of war" like ships and artillery were privately owned in this country as recently as the civil war. Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...
  - 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
    To make sure I understand, you're saying we should have a constitutional right to own attack helicopters, armed UAVs, and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? (And since the SCOTUS has opted to interpret that corporations are people, too, presumably they would have this right as well?) Although tyranny would be unquestionably bad, the proposed prophylactic for that hypothetical scenario is worse. Possibly I'm biased because I live in Boston and recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Cannot corporations already own heavy duty weaponry? Aren't these the companies we are "contracting" to fight our wars for us? Regardless, being in favor of particular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment does not mean that you are automatically in favor of considering corporations people. > recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version. Weren't those bombs packed with the same stuff that you buy if you want to shoot your musket? There was a lot of misinformation going around at the time and I haven't kept up on that story so I honestly am not sure, but I am pretty sure the word is that they were pressure cookers with gunpowder (which you can buy "loose" to load your own rounds for modern guns, or use to load muskets). I am not sure that it makes sense for you, coming from your perspective, to be pushing something that would make buying loose gunpowder more mainstream.

mrchucklepants 13y ago

Your second paragraph is a perfect explanation of the conflict at the core of the gun control debate. Well said.

chris_mahan 13y ago
Thank you.

alan_cx 13y ago

"Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check," Really? Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry? I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and at the same time they argue that they need guns to protect against a threat from within, they believe Obama is a non American, communist, Muslim. Well, er, wouldn't that be a great threat from with in to the US? Where were these citizen protectors of American freedom when Obama the commie Muslim took office? Shouldn't they have been using their arsenals to protect America? Or do such people actually know they are taking nonsense? On top of that, when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens, such that they citizens needed to break out the weapon to protect them selves? Frankly I think its more to do with male machismo, culture and being stuck in the 17th century. They have always had guns, and what ever logic you argue with, they simply don't want to change. If you managed to convince then that the government isn't out to get them, they'd just find another excuse. It reminds me of fox hunting in the UK, or bull fighting in Spain. All these things defy reason, logic and decency, but we all want to hang on to them, simply because they have always been there. Heh, its kinda like saying you can have music any more. I'm sorry, people may claim they want guns for the reason you cite, but I honestly don't believe them at all.

dxhdr 13y ago
"when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens" I'll name one -- Japanese internment camps during WWII. Forcibly imprisoned over a hundred thousand citizens against their will, depriving them of their liberty and property. But I suppose in your world view the government has final say over your life and property, so being able to deter or resist attacks like this is unnecessary.
- purplelobster 13y ago
  So in your mind, it would be better then if a hundred thousand armed Japanese would have started fighting back on mainland US? How about, instead of permanently distrusting the government, try to make it more democratic. There shouldn't have to be rebellions in a democratic country, then you talk it out and try to convince everybody else. If you can't, then touch luck, you're in the minority. That doesn't mean you have the right to start a damn rebellion and carve yourself a new country by force.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Read the second paragraph of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...) It seems indeed that he has the right, nay, the duty, to do exactly that. I quote from the above: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      While the Declaration states that they (Jefferson et al.) see it as their civic duty to fight an oppressive government (a fairly Lockean view, pretty much lifted from the Second Treatise), again, it was mostly an inflammatory document, written not for the benefit of Parliament and the King, but for other nations who might consider joining the fight. Analogically using the Declaration today doesn't really work, there aren't any of the great political thinkers of yore around, and we don't have any comparatively great thinkers (in the same sense). We're too founded on our two party system at the present to move anywhere. Plus, today's government would refuse to accept any rebellion, regardless of what historical document they cite. Technically, politically, the Union never recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation, but a rebellion. That's the largest and longest instance of such a 'rebellion'. It's likely going to remain such. Of course, that's due to the fact that there really wasn't any way for the Confederacy to win. They couldn't have taken and held the north. If they did, they would have assimilated the culture they were fighting against, and would be in the same situation as before they rebelled. That actually leads me to a slight tangent, but my favorite fact about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn't technically free the slaves. It freed the slaves only in rebelling states. Northern slave-holding states could remain as-is. Moving back on topic: the Declaration of Independence continually cites 'Him' and 'He' in reference to George III. George III had no power. Okay, he had a little power, but he wasn't really calling the shots any more (he never was, his reign started almost a century after the fall of the Commonwealth and slightly less after the Glorious Revolution, which cemented Great Britain as a constitutional monarchy). One could argue the use of He and Him are due to George's refusal to intervene with Parliament (something he really couldn't do). Again, it goes back to they saw an opportunity to start something new, even though if they worked slightly harder at getting representation, they could have.

dkuntz2 13y ago

I would say that the framers did envision a government that people didn't fully trust. Most of them came with a healthy distrust of government, and wrote in all of the checks and balances because they didn't trust governments, and the checks helped allay their concerns. I agree on the revocation of constitutional rights by, they probably didn't want a system which would let a single diagnosis revoke a right. But, based on their goals in designing our current government, multiple, corroborating reports would probably be accepted by them.

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

Well the 2nd amendment was written in a time of muskets and militias. If the spirit/intent were fully what some people say, why don't we each have a 2nd amendment right to an attack helicopter, nukes, chems, bios, and UAVs? (Because assault rifles instead of muskets doesn't add much to the equation.) Since that would be clearly insane, reductio ad absurdum. Right?

thecoffman 13y ago
I think you would find that there are a subset of people, myself included, that don't find that notion so insane. If you accept the idea that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizenry to overthrow their government then having the government restrict what citizens can and cannot purchase is somewhat nonsensical. Historically speaking, government restriction on firearm ownership is a relatively new thing. "Weapons of war" like ships and artillery were privately owned in this country as recently as the civil war. Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...
- 6cxs2hd6 13y ago
  To make sure I understand, you're saying we should have a constitutional right to own attack helicopters, armed UAVs, and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? (And since the SCOTUS has opted to interpret that corporations are people, too, presumably they would have this right as well?) Although tyranny would be unquestionably bad, the proposed prophylactic for that hypothetical scenario is worse. Possibly I'm biased because I live in Boston and recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Cannot corporations already own heavy duty weaponry? Aren't these the companies we are "contracting" to fight our wars for us? Regardless, being in favor of particular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment does not mean that you are automatically in favor of considering corporations people. > recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version. Weren't those bombs packed with the same stuff that you buy if you want to shoot your musket? There was a lot of misinformation going around at the time and I haven't kept up on that story so I honestly am not sure, but I am pretty sure the word is that they were pressure cookers with gunpowder (which you can buy "loose" to load your own rounds for modern guns, or use to load muskets). I am not sure that it makes sense for you, coming from your perspective, to be pushing something that would make buying loose gunpowder more mainstream.