Would you support an asbolute ban on all guns?

[Robert Mugabe]

I should quite confidently state that Americans don't have the right to bear arms. They continue to prove that every night on the 6 o'clock news. A driving license isn't a right. It is a privilidge.
Why do people of most other countries where gun deaths are not epidemic, not insist it is their right to have guns?

 

[DinkleMouse]

My interpretation is that a government armed militia would have been too expensive so they told people to bring their own.

The entire premise of the US was that there would be almost no federal government; it's role was to be limited to international agreements, resolving disputes between states, etc. The idea is federal taxation and a standing army was anathema to what they wanted. State militias, of which only free, white, males could join, was the means of defense. Regulated, disciplined, armed citizens.

Which is why some question if the 2nd amendment is still relevant given how much they have drifted from that initial propose. I don't think the problem is a right to keep and bear arms in and of itself. It's the lack of regulation around it. As the point John Stewart tries to make: registration is not an infringement. It's a facilitator. It's regulation. It's order. It's rational common sense.

 

[Robert Mugabe]

The entire premise of the US was that there would be almost no federal government; it's role was to be limited to international agreements, resolving disputes between states, etc. The idea is federal taxation and a standing army was anathema to what they wanted. State militias, of which only free, white, males could join, was the means of defense. Regulated, disciplined, armed citizens.

Which is why some question if the 2nd amendment is still relevant given how much they have drifted from that initial propose. I don't think the problem is a right to keep and bear arms in and of itself. It's the lack of regulation around it. As the point John Stewart tries to make: registration is not an infringement. It's a facilitator. It's regulation. It's order. It's rational common sense.

Or. People really shouldn't have guns.

 

[dirtyharry555]

I also believe Americans have a right to bear arms, so I'm not sure what your point is.

He's asking a lawmaker why he's constantly making laws that curb and curtail rights in a reasonable manner but refuses to do the same with gun rights. He starts with the fact that there a correlation between the number of guns and gun deaths, but that's not the point he's trying to make.

Being glib rather than addressing the points just makes it look like you can't debate them. Tell me what I've "misread" about history if you actually want to be taken seriously.

Oh so your position is support for guns and not banning them. That's your answer to the thread.

You arrived at that conclusion through some other revision of history. Hey, whatever works for you.

If you were making any other related point, I'm not sure what it was.

The video that I posted and that you quoted didn't address gun regulations, which the host is in favor of... it was a simple debate about the 2nd Amendment.

Your "better" video was unrelated, in that regard.

 

[DinkleMouse]

Oh so your position is support for guns and not banning them. That's your answer to the thread.

Quit being a troll.

My position, as I've stated, is that in Canada it's a complex problem and that I'm not convinced that either "ban guns" nor "adopt US-style guns-for-all policies" are the answer, and that Americans do have a constitutional right to bear arms but I disagree with the GOP vote that any and all regulation amounts to infringement.

You arrived at that conclusion through some other revision of history. Hey, whatever works for you.

Still won't say what those revisions are, eh? Using the Fox News and CNN method of debate. "I'm just going to say you're wrong but not offer anything to back that up."

 

[dirtyharry555]

My position, as I've stated, is that in Canada it's a complex problem and that I'm not convinced that either "ban guns" nor "adopt US-style guns-for-all policies" are the answer, and that Americans do have a constitutional right to bear arms but I disagree with the GOP vote that any and all regulation amounts to infringement.

It's not complex nor is it a problem in Canada. Until last year, Canadians could buy handguns. Stringent regulations were in place to buy them, and the availability of types of guns very limited.

There was no problem with this. Trudeau banned the sale of handguns for optics. He invented a "problem" that didn't exist and you now believe there was a problem and that it was complex.

Just another example of your revisionist history based on your personal feelings about guns.

Still won't say what those revisions are, eh? Using the Fox News and CNN method of debate. "I'm just going to say you're wrong but not offer anything to back that up."

Your point about the inconsistencies and racism that were part of the new nation isn't worth debating because it's not the focus of the topic.

That said, the tyranny of slavery goes hand in hand with the laws that made it illegal for slaves and free blacks to own guns.

 

[DinkleMouse]

It's not complex nor is it a problem in Canada. Until last year, Canadians could buy handguns. Stringent regulations were in place to buy them, and the availability of types of guns very limited.

There was no problem with this. Trudeau banned the sale of handguns for optics. He invented a "problem" that didn't exist and you now believe there was a problem and that it was complex.

Just another example of your revisionist history based on your personal feelings about guns.

Or maybe I have a mind of my own and felt there was a problem long before Trudeau ever stood for election. I don't wait for politicians to tell me what to think. I've been very clear in various posts in various topics about my past working for the security and intelligence branch of the Canadian Forces. I've been of the opinion that there's a gun problem in Canada since the late 90s.

But sure, assume you know me and my mind so you can declare it's revisionism.

Your point about the inconsistencies and racism that were part of the new nation isn't worth debating because it's not the focus of the topic.

That said, the tyranny of slavery goes hand in hand with the laws that made it illegal for slaves and free blacks to own guns.

So you take such great offense to that post of mine that you called it revisionist, but now you're just backing up everything I said in a post where you still called me revisionist.

Clearly you're just a troll and I'm not wasting anymore time with you. Welcome to the ignore list, Shrek.

 

[Valcazar]

Besides, the entire point of the second amendment was to arm the white male slave owners only. It was not "let everyone have a gun" it was "let the people we want have a gun", and many places had little to no gun control at the time so it was hardly unique.

I am going to disagree with the first point, but that it was not "let everyone have a gun" is simply obvious to anyone who bothers to look at anything involving the history of the US.

The mechanisms by which the US became a superpower are well studied, and no rational, scientific mind attributes it to gun rights.

Don't bring facts into an ideology fight, you know that doesn't work!

Voting is arguably a bigger, more important right in the quest to avoid tyranny

Absolutely, although hardly sufficient.

Freedom of speech is what enabled the founders to hold assemblies, and get up on chairs in pubs, and on soap boxes in the street, and share their views on the "tyranny" they saw to drum up support to launch their war against it, but the GOP is happy to limit that in the name of protecting people.

Protecting the right kind of people, of course.

And this whole "guns are the ultimate right from which all others derive" is far too new a thing to be founding principle anyway.

I'm less certain about that.
Ideas about who controls legitimate violence show up in the 16th and 17th century, so it isn't completely crazy to think there were thoughts along those lines during the 1780s.
But even then I doubt it was framed in terms of "all other rights derive from that" language, so doesn't really support that argument as a founding principle as much as this guy would like.

 

[DinkleMouse]

I am going to disagree with the first point, but that it was not "let everyone have a gun" is simply obvious to anyone who bothers to look at anything involving the history of the US.

Not the guy in the video or most of the pro-gun crowd. They yell "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" so loudly at the first hint of limiting anyone from getting a gun that you'd almost swear they're about to argue inmates in prisons have a right to give.

I'm less certain about that.
Ideas about who controls legitimate violence show up in the 16th and 17th century, so it isn't completely crazy to think there were thoughts along those lines during the 1780s.
But even then I doubt it was framed in terms of "all other rights derive from that" language, so doesn't really support that argument as a founding principle as much as this guy would like.

I wasn't trying to imply that was what the founding fathers thought (quite the opposite, it's clear the founding fathers did not feel this way), but rather that it's the view of the guy in the video, have why he's not even worth listening to.

 

[Valcazar]

I wasn't trying to imply that was what the founding fathers thought (quite the opposite, it's clear the founding fathers did not feel this way), but rather that it's the view of the guy in the video, have why he's not even worth listening to.

I got that.
I just don't think the founding fathers didn't believe that guns are needed to secure rights on any level. They obviously thought the government needed to be able to defend itself and put down rebellions and so on. The specific kind of phrasing wherein all rights come out of having guns that this guy uses is very modern, but I don't think the root of the idea isn't much older.

Anyway, I think we both agree the guy in the video is basically just spouting ahistorical nonsense.

 

[dirtyharry555]

I got that.
I just don't think the founding fathers didn't believe that guns are needed to secure rights on any level. They obviously thought the government needed to be able to defend itself and put down rebellions and so on. The specific kind of phrasing wherein all rights come out of having guns that this guy uses is very modern, but I don't think the root of the idea isn't much older.

Nowhere did he say that all rights come out of having guns nor did he elude to such a notion. You and your friend are adept sophists.

All rights are abstract ideas and need to be enforced in practice otherwise they're just writings on pieces of paper.

Enforcement is achieved by force - e.g. the threat of detention, seizure, violence, imprisonment, death. Under normal conditions we give the government the power of enforcement, and the government trains and hires armed individuals to achieve that end: police, military and administrators such as corrections, prosecutors, judges.

Anyway, I think we both agree the guy in the video is basically just spouting ahistorical nonsense.

It seems you neither understand his arguments and the historical context for them.

 

[basketcase]

I also believe Americans have a right to bear arms, so I'm not sure what your point is.
...

Unless they make another amendment. The originalists sometimes forget that the 2nd isn't part of the original constitution. Not that I think it likely. Nor do I see the "well regulated" part being acted upon.

The entire premise of the US was that there would be almost no federal government; it's role was to be limited to international agreements, resolving disputes between states, etc. The idea is federal taxation and a standing army was anathema to what they wanted. State militias, of which only free, white, males could join, was the means of defense. Regulated, disciplined, armed citizens.

Which is why some question if the 2nd amendment is still relevant given how much they have drifted from that initial propose. I don't think the problem is a right to keep and bear arms in and of itself. It's the lack of regulation around it. As the point John Stewart tries to make: registration is not an infringement. It's a facilitator. It's regulation. It's order. It's rational common sense.

When the US removed the legal requirement that men be part of a militia and replaced it with State National Guard, the 2nd could have become irrelevant.

Instead we now have an interpretation based mainly on the desire of an industry to keep sales high. The NRA has such a small base but their volume, messaging, and pay-outs have kept the idea that people need guns to protect themselves. And it works.

A nation rocked by mass shootings goes on an extended gun-buying run | CNN

A growing number of Americans, particularly women and people of color, have gone on an extended firearm shopping splurge -- many for the first time.

www.cnn.com

 

[basketcase]

It's not complex nor is it a problem in Canada. Until last year, Canadians could buy handguns. Stringent regulations were in place to buy them, and the availability of types of guns very limited.
...

You're right, it is simple in Canada. We compare the need for the tool of a gun vs the risk that tool provides.

Hand guns in Canada have (with very few exceptions) no legal use other than target shooting. Hand guns are designed for self defence which is not a valid reason to carry in Canada (with those few exceptions). Responsible gun owners also keep their guns locked up at home so unless a home invader was kind enough to give you time to unlock your safe ... (not as if that kind of thing happens here - at least to people not involved in organized crime).

Sorry but the societal benefit of some people liking to go bang bang on paper targets is far outweighed by the risk.