team politics talking points.

[JohnRoberts]

Still no challenge, other than to look toward history (not directed toward me), but I’m unaware of a true apples to apples comparison. I’m looking for a convincing argument based on something, rather than just saying it’s so.

Its complicated and I have opined about the 2nd amendment here over the years... I am not as good of a mind reader as so many here but it appears our founders were concerned about preventing the central federal government from gaining too much power over the states, and viewed state militias as a counterbalancing force.

Guns for self defense (and hunting et al) was not enumerated as a constitutional right or even considered because it was very likely considered a "natural" right.
======

These days one driving motivation for personal gun ownership is a breakdown in justice and policing. Releasing violent criminals back onto streets without punishment just empowers them to break the law again.

===

It is common sense that psychotic, unstable, imbalanced individuals should not have access to force multipliers (like semi-automatic weapons). Some states are having modest success with red flag laws but these are still relatively new so not much track record to assess.

JR

PS; It is perhaps interesting that former prime minister Abe was assassinated with a home made gun. Japan has very strict gun laws.

 

[living sounds]

How am I selectively applying written law to support only my point of view? Yes, our laws are shaped by our history and tradition. As are yours. The simple solution is that you worry about your laws and we'll worry about ours. You don't hear a bunch of Americans here trying to tell Germans what to do in thier own country. MYOB.

Can we maybe just discuss factual issues like adults without retreating to nationalist viewpoints? I really don't care for the latter at all.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Can we maybe just discuss factual issues like adults without retreating to nationalist viewpoints? I really don't care for the latter at all.

You don't get to control the discussion like that. The fact is that our nations differ in many respects. Why won't you answer simple questions about your own political philosophy? What makes you so opposed to individual liberty and ownership of arms? Who do you consider a guiding light in personal or political philosophy?

 

[fallout]

Still no challenge.

I'm not sure what challenge you're looking for. Are you saying just because our military is so powerful that a citizen's right to bear arms should be taken away?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Still no challenge, other than to look toward history (not directed toward me), but I’m unaware of a true apples to apples comparison. I’m looking for a convincing argument based on something, rather than just saying it’s so.

So you believe that our military, which is a volunteer force, will, if commanded, attack their neighbors, friends, family, and communities with massive destructive force. Flatten cities indiscriminately, kill thousands with artillery and missile strikes, drone their fellow citizens, and generally apply "shock and awe" here at home. Interesting.

 

[fallout]

Liberal policies. No thanks.

 

[Recording Engineer]

I'm not sure what challenge you're looking for. Are you saying just because our military is so powerful that a citizen's right to bear arms should be taken away?

No. It’s just exactly as I presented and asked. Am I correct that the original concern and reason for the right, long gone, so defending with originalism is moot?

 

[living sounds]

Why won't you answer simple questions about your own political philosophy? What makes you so opposed to individual liberty and ownership of arms? Who do you consider a guiding light in personal or political philosophy?

Again, your trying to make this about me. Ad hominem instead of addressing the factual issues. Procedural/legalistic arguments instead of arguing on the merits. People don't usually act like this when they hold a position of strength...

 

[Recording Engineer]

So you believe that our military, which is a volunteer force, will, if commanded, attack their neighbors, friends, family, and communities with massive destructive force. Flatten cities indiscriminately, kill thousands with artillery and missile strikes, drone their fellow citizens, and generally apply "shock and awe" here at home. Interesting.

You got that out of that? How can anyone have any kind of discussion?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Again, your trying to make this about me. Ad hominem instead of addressing the factual issues. Procedural/legalistic arguments instead of arguing on the merits. People don't usually act like this when they hold a position of strength...

It isn't ad hominem to discuss your politics any more than it is for you to question mine. My country was founded on the principles of individual liberty (and responsibility), limited government, and the rule of law. You've done nothing but try to pretend these things don't matter and have offered no viable alternatives. Why are you afraid to answer simple questions? What principles of merit do you propose? That only powerful government should be entrusted with the means to defend itself?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You got that out of that? How can anyone have any kind of discussion?

Then what do you suppose the all-powerful military is going to do? You implied that it was unstoppable. Tbink it through. What scenario do you see where it matters?

 

[living sounds]

It isn't ad hominem to discuss your politics any more than it is for you to question mine. My country was founded on the principles of individual liberty (and responsibility), limited government, and the rule of law. You've done nothing but try to pretend these things don't matter and have offered no viable alternatives. Why are you afraid to answer simple questions? What principles of merit do you propose? That only powerful government should be entrusted with the means to degend itself?

And we are back to second guessing my mind. I have read more books about these topics than I can remember, BTW. I'll leave you to your imaginations now.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Guns for self defense (and hunting et al) was not enumerated as a constitutional right or even considered because it was very likely considered a "natural" right.

And here in lies the problem.

It continues on every level, throughout our history, and will never change. A government for elite lawyers, laws so vague that they can be bent any which way at any given time; with enough money, litigation, and influence. State laws stepping on federal laws with backdoor state litigation tied up for years, only to be challenged again and again per state governor administrations, makes it even worse.

 

[fallout]

No. It’s just exactly as I presented and asked. Am I correct that the original concern and reason for the right, long gone, so defending with originalism is moot?

If legal scholars can't come to an agreement on the original intent, I doubt you'll find any meaningful argument on an audio electronics forum.

I'm curious why you think the original concern (open to interpretation) is no longer valid?

 

[Recording Engineer]

Then what do you suppose the all-powerful military is going to do? You implied that it was unstoppable. Tbink it through. What scenario do you see where it matters?

Not me. Just pick any of the endless conspiracy-theories from endless gun-toting nut-jobs out there; some of whom are in militias and some of whom hold seats in our government.

 

[Recording Engineer]

If legal scholars can't come to an agreement on the original intent, I doubt you'll find any meaningful argument on an audio electronics forum.

I'm curious why you think the original concern (open to interpretation) is no longer valid?

Already said in the post. How are your arms or state arms for that matter, going to hold up the the federal government’s. Valid concern then, been long gone though.

 

[fallout]

Already said in the post. How are your arms or state arms for that matter, going to hold up the the federal government’s. Valid concern then, been long gone though.

How 'my' arms hold up to the federal government's isn't in question.

The way I'm reading your statement is.. Citizens of the US are overpowered by the government therefore, citizens need to surrender their right to bear arms.

Being held up at gunpoint TWICE at my dad's business changed my views about the right to bear arms at a fairly young age.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Already said in the post. How are your arms or state arms for that matter, going to hold up the the federal government’s. Valid concern then, been long gone though.

Assert your scenario. It seems apparent to me that an armed populace is a valid deterrent to tyranny to this day. You've not made the contrary case.

 

[Matador]

Not me. Just pick any of the endless conspiracy-theories from endless gun-toting nut-jobs out there; some of whom are in militias and some of whom hold seats in our government.

There of course can be no meaningful answer to your question, because the answer has already been arrived at, and now we are working backwards towards the justification.

I can give you a hint of an answer, by looking how George Mason originally authored Virginia's original declaration of rights in the decade prior to the Constitution:

That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Strikingly similar, yes? Followed by James Madison:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty...The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Coupled with a strong disdain of a centralized Federal standing army (e.g. exactly what we have today), your question is even more relevant.

 

[Recording Engineer]

How 'my' arms hold up to the federal government's isn't in question.

The way I'm reading your statement is.. Citizens of the US are overpowered by the government therefore, citizens need to surrender their right to bear arms.

Being held up at gunpoint TWICE at my dad's business changed my views about the right to bear arms at a fairly young age.

I’m simply trying to see if we can eliminate originalism out of the 2nd Amendment argument since it seems to no longer apply.