Now is not the time to talk about gun control (2 Viewers)

[brandon]

T&P

Redirect Notice

 

[V Chip]

It's absolutely their right to carry firearms, IMO, which is definitely something that happened during the BLM protests last summer. Open carry of a rifle is already legal.

You know, though, that the vast majority of those in favor of open carry of all firearms would absolutely think twice when the carriers are mostly black.

 

[DaveXA]

You know, though, that the vast majority of those in favor of open carry of all firearms would absolutely think twice when the carriers are mostly black.

That's their problem though.

 

[Denzien]

We require licenses and/or permits for any number of things from driving a car to owning a pet to adding on to your house. I don’t think it’s an absurd idea to require something for something quite literally designed to kill. But we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I understand where you're coming from, but those are not equivalent.

Gun rights people often throw out the "More people die in car accidents than are shot every year - should we ban cars?" argument, which seems just as disingenuous as comparing firearms licensing to getting a fishing license. And frankly, just because there are permit requirements for certain activities does automatically make them just.

If the 2nd Amendment needs to be changed, then we need to have a conversation about changing it - not about how it can be twisted to mean something new. Granting the government the ability to control who can exercise what rights and when is very dangerous because what, then, is a right if telling Washington "No" in plain English transliterates into "Probably" in lawyer speak?

I understand the mistrust of one's fellow man to act responsibly with a firearm, but how can one then blindly trust their fellow man in power positions not to declare someone a criminal for the sake of convenience or political points toward their re-election?

 

[Denzien]

You know, though, that the vast majority of those in favor of open carry of all firearms would absolutely think twice when the carriers are mostly black.

Why do you think 60% of those polled were against it?

Tell me, do you always throw the race card out when you don't have any actual facts or data to back up your position in a conversation that has nothing to do with race?


ETA: Actually, here's an article with a video from 2016 when open carry was legalized for LTC holders. My LTC instructor, Michael Cargill, is interviewed and his FB updates are my portal to news on this topic. He hosts a podcast called "Come and Talk it" where they have a round table discussion that includes dissenting opinions, even if Cargill can get a little pushy.

I can guarantee that he's been open carrying everywhere since 2016, so I'm not sure if your insinuation really holds as a general rule, so anecdotally I have more evidence that your inference is wrong than you have presented to support it.

 

[V Chip]

Tell me, do you always throw the race card out when you don't have any actual facts or data to back up your position in a conversation that has nothing to do with race?

Tell me do you always lose control and start saying stupid shirt when someone mentions anything remotely related to guns?

 

[Denzien]

Tell me do you always lose control and start saying stupid shirt when someone mentions anything remotely related to guns?

How did I lose control? What did I say that was stupid?

Edit: actually, I think I'd like someone else to answer before you for a neutral opinion.

 

[V Chip]

How did I lose control? What did I say that was stupid?

Edit: actually, I think I'd like someone else to answer before you for a neutral opinion.

We’ll see if someone does.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I think that's exactly what happened in the 70s with the Black Panthers

California maybe?

Yes with Ronald Reagan as governor

 

[SystemShock]

I understand where you're coming from, but those are not equivalent.

Gun rights people often throw out the "More people die in car accidents than are shot every year - should we ban cars?" argument

But that is a plain stupid argument.

If the 2nd Amendment needs to be changed,

The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be changed; we just need to actually enforce the "well regulated" part. We also need to stop worshiping guns.

 

[brandon]

At least 22 people shot, 2 fatally, after assailants get out of an SUV and fire assault rifles at a club, police say
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/30/us/florida-shooting/index.html

 

[bird]

But that is a plain stupid argument.

The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be changed; we just need to actually enforce the "well regulated" part. We also need to stop worshiping guns.

Hmmm, stopping the worship of guns. Well, considering what a mature and critical thinking population we have I am sure that will happen. Sorry, I realize that was sarcasm. We have a gun worshipping population for a multitude of reasons. Just a few are: toxic masculinity, fear of “the other”, immaturity, a rush to violence when change (political or demographic) happens, militarized policing, heavily militarized foreign policy, an “every problem is a nail that requires a hammer” reaction (as Tom Lehrer noted “send the marines”) etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Humans in this country are idiots. Of course, humans in other countries are idiots but generally they are idiots about different things. Doesn’t make them better, just different.

 

[Optimus Prime]

An interesting take I've never heard before but wouldn't be surprised

If you did deep enough into nearly anything there's almost always at least little racism baked in

Would anyone be that shocked by "The racist history of circus clowns"?
===================================================

...........It was a stirring moment because Heston dramatized the belief that an individual's right to own guns is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The amendment declares that a "well-regulated Militia" is necessary for the security of a free state," and that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Gun rights supporters say the Founding Fathers created the amendment so that citizens could protect their homes from tyrannical governments abroad and at home.

But while that interpretation may provide great political theater, it's sloppy history, according to a prominent scholar in a provocative new book. In "The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America," Carol Anderson argues that the Second Amendment is not about guns -- it's about anti-Blackness. She says it "was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African-Americans powerless and vulnerable."

Anderson cites legislative debates from the Founding Fathers and a range of historical records to make some bold points. She says some early lawmakers who supported the Second Amendment were more worried about armed Blacks than British redcoats. She says that even after the Civil War ended, many Southern states banned Black citizens from owning weapons.

And that famous line about a "well-regulated militia?" Well, that was inserted primarily to deal with potential slave revolts -- not to repel a foreign army, she says.........

Why haven't more historians made this link you talk about?

It's because of several things. The emphasis on the Second Amendment has been crafted as a well-regulated militia in terms of (opposing) a tyrannical government or stopping a foreign invasion, and the individual right to bear arms. That's the way it's been cast in the legal debates. That's driven our historical debates. We've got a weird bifurcation in the scholarship between the history of slavery and the history of the Second Amendment. What I'm doing is saying these things are all happening at the same time. Let's see what's going on. And what actually drew me into this was the killing of Philando Castile.

How did Castile's shooting spark this?

Here was a Black man who was pulled over by police, who followed NRA guidelines in letting the police officer know that he had a license to carry a weapon. And that led to Philando Castile being shot dead. And then the NRA went virtually silent with what I call "non-statement statements" [A NRA spokeswoman eventually called Castile's death a "terrible tragedy that could have been avoided" after the group was criticized for its silence on the shooting.] And then journalists were saying, "Don't Black people have Second Amendment rights?" And I went, "That is a great question." And I went hunting. That was the genesis of this book.............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Denzien]

But that is a plain stupid argument.

Yes, and I don't agree with making that argument ("More people die in car accidents than are shot every year - should we ban cars?")

The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be changed; we just need to actually enforce the "well regulated" part. We also need to stop worshiping guns.

What do you believe the words well regulated mean in the context of the 2nd Amendment?

What is gun worship? Plastering them all over our movies and TV shows, injecting them in some form into most of our video games?

 

[brandon]

What do you believe the words well regulated mean in the context of the 2nd Amendment?

Clearly defined, consistently enforced regulations, naturally.

 

[Denzien]

Clearly defined, consistently enforced regulations, naturally.

The subject of the thing needing to be well regulated, as stated by the prefatory clause (the thing that describes the raison d'être of the amendment), is the militia.
How does that then does that apply to the operative clause, which has no such language?

Reading this in any other way based on ones' political motivation is what I was referring to when I said:

If the 2nd Amendment needs to be changed, then we need to have a conversation about changing it - not about how it can be twisted to mean something new. Granting the government the ability to control who can exercise what rights and when is very dangerous because what, then, is a right if telling Washington "No" in plain English transliterates into "Probably" in lawyer speak?

If it needs to be changed, then we should discuss it rather than contort it to mean what we think it should mean. If we go down the later path, then no rights are safe from re-interpretation by whoever is in power.

 

[coldseat]

The subject of the thing needing to be well regulated, as stated by the prefatory clause (the thing that describes the raison d'être of the amendment), is the militia.
How does that then does that apply to the operative clause, which has no such language?

Reading this in any other way based on ones' political motivation is what I was referring to when I said:



If it needs to be changed, then we should discuss it rather than contort it to mean what we think it should mean. If we go down the later path, then no rights are safe from re-interpretation by whoever is in power.

I'm still trying to understand how and Amendment that clearly deals with a "well regulated militia" and the "security of a free state", translates into and individual right to bear arms. It would be nice of the originalist would be able to explain that because it was never understood as such originally.

The conversation should be whether the 2nd Amendment is even applicable today, because States don't rely on well regulated militias for their security. They have the national guard and we as a country have a standing military and such. This amendment would have to be re-written in order to have any applicability to our country today. But Scalia forced and wrong interpretation in Heller and here is where we're at.

 

[SystemShock]

What do you believe the words well regulated mean in the context of the 2nd Amendment?

Regulation, done well
But seriously, it means proper 21st century governance of ownership of 21st century firearms and the conduct of the owners; and because this is part of the Constitution, it should be applied equally across the nation.

What is gun worship? Plastering them all over our movies and TV shows, injecting them in some form into most of our video games?

Things like "pry from my cold dead fingers", "not the time to talk about gun control" after a mass shooting, holding gun worship rallies at cities immediately after a mass shooting in that city, the idea that what keeps the U.S. free is guns, 2nd amendment checks, groups of people showing at Wendy's in 511 gear strapped with multiple guns, gun churches, the idea that the 2nd amendment is a God given right to own any and as many guns as you wish, and so forth and so on.

 

[brandon]

The subject of the thing needing to be well regulated, as stated by the prefatory clause (the thing that describes the raison d'être of the amendment), is the militia.
How does that then does that apply to the operative clause, which has no such language?

Reading this in any other way based on ones' political motivation is what I was referring to when I said:



If it needs to be changed, then we should discuss it rather than contort it to mean what we think it should mean. If we go down the later path, then no rights are safe from re-interpretation by whoever is in power.

No shirt. Did you think you were baiting me into something?

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed in the context of a well-regulated militia. So get your rocks off in the national guard.