ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2nd amendment issues , gun violence

Reply
Old 8th August 2019, 08:25 AM   #1
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
The 2nd Amendment solution to gun violence

The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opini...ang/index.html

Interesting article, but he passes off opinion as fact.

Quote:
The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.

Under this proposal, being granted a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice
So even honorably discharged veterans are not to be trusted to own firearms.

Quote:
Under this proposal, being granted a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice — it's that simple. And it should be that simple ... because it's what the framers intended.
There is much disagreement about this part.

Quote:
Reserve status would ensure that all guns are registered; there are currently no legal requirements for gun registration in order to purchase and own a firearm in 36 states -- no permit or license needed -- and, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,
This is not true. The people at Giffords should know better as should the writer of this article. There is not a single state that grants immunity from federal registration requirements.

Quote:
How different would our gun debate be today if the focus weren't on the selfish right to personal protection but on our responsibility to serve our country?
Since when is personal protection selfish?

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 8th August 2019 at 08:27 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:43 AM   #2
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,492
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opini...ang/index.html

Interesting article, but he passes off opinion as fact.

The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.

So even honorably discharged veterans are not to be trusted to own firearms.
I'm thinking of another problem: What about people who would be trustworthy to own a firearm, but would not be suitable to serve in the military reserves for various reasons. (For example, someone who might be a paraplegic, but who wants a gun for target shooting.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:44 AM   #3
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Like I said in the mass shooting thread, this is pie in the sky stuff.

Why would someone who wants a gun for hunting or home defense have to be in the military? That flies in the face of one of the central arguments of the Second-Amendmentists.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:51 AM   #4
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,329
I support the proposal with the proviso that military service is also required to vote or hold public office.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:52 AM   #5
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
This makes no sense.

Let's suppose such a law were actually adopted. Let's further suppose that the military needs much more manpower than is currently enlisted, and fast, because of a major war. How would the military get that additional manpower? By calling up a bunch of untrained people of various ages because they have guns? Well, no. They'll do what they've always done: institute a draft. They'll pick people based on age and physical fitness, not whether they own a gun.

And if there isn't a major war, would the military ever call on these people? No, they wouldn't. They're mostly untrained, many of them will be too old, and they won't want to serve (because if you wanted to serve, you would have enlisted). The military doesn't want people like that in peacetime.

So under no condition would such a law actually mean anything.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:54 AM   #6
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
The point the author the piece is trying to make (I think) isn't that letting our current gun nuts have access to military training is a good thing, but that if military availability was a requirement our currently crop of gun nuts would not be in general tripping over each other to put their money where their mouth is.

I brought it up in the other thread not so much as I liked this literal version of it, but the base idea of that "okay now put your money where your mouth is" idea.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:56 AM   #7
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
I'm thinking of another problem: What about people who would be trustworthy to own a firearm, but would not be suitable to serve in the military reserves for various reasons. (For example, someone who might be a paraplegic, but who wants a gun for target shooting.)
That is addressed in the article.

Quote:
Now, there are some limitations imposed for reservist status. For example, generally one needs to enlist before the age of 42. Recognizing the value of serving one's country, this proposal would waive all restrictions to enlistment -- age, gender, sexuality, and so on -- as long as the enlistee is physically and mentally capable of service. Even the "physical capability" aspect could be waived, allowing for desk work or other participation for those not capable of field combat. (Of course, even for noncombatant enlistees, the compulsory gun safety training would still be required.)
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Let's suppose such a law were actually adopted. Let's further suppose that the military needs much more manpower than is currently enlisted, and fast, because of a major war. How would the military get that additional manpower? By calling up a bunch of untrained people of various ages because they have guns?
The reservists go through boot camp and then train one weekend a month and two weeks a year. Some are deployed for longer periods. While a reservist who has never seen active duty is unlikely to be as ready as a professional Soldier, Marine or Sailor, they are not untrained draftees who are new to the uniform.

Last edited by Ranb; 8th August 2019 at 09:00 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:58 AM   #8
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The point the author the piece is trying to make (I think) isn't that letting our current gun nuts have access to military training is a good thing, but that if military availability was a requirement our currently crop of gun nuts would not be in general tripping over each other to put their money where their mouth is.
But that's just it: this proposal doesn't actually require them to put their money where their mouths are, because this is really no different than being eligible for the draft.

Well, that's not totally true. Women are ineligible for the draft, so this might discourage some women from getting gun licenses. But that would be it, and even that probably negligible, since basically everyone thinks there won't be a draft for the foreseeable future.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 08:59 AM   #9
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
That is addressed in the article.
The end result would be that everyone would "work for" the military. They'd find a way to fudge it so that it would work.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:01 AM   #10
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The point the author the piece is trying to make (I think) isn't that letting our current gun nuts have access to military training is a good thing, but that if military availability was a requirement our currently crop of gun nuts would not be in general tripping over each other to put their money where their mouth is.

I brought it up in the other thread not so much as I liked this literal version of it, but the base idea of that "okay now put your money where your mouth is" idea.
What about the veterans? I was forced out on the permanent disabled list. This proposal would mean I would have to give up my firearms.

Edited to add; The firearms training in the military can also be rather substandard. In 1983 my boot camp firearms training consisted of a few hours of classroom time. I didn't handle a gun for the military until after I arrived on my first ship and was trained as part of the security team. It was also very limited but it was the first time I shot a 1911, M-14 and a 12 gauge.

Last edited by Ranb; 8th August 2019 at 09:08 AM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:05 AM   #11
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What about the veterans? I was forced out on the permanent disabled list. This proposal would mean I would have to give up my firearms.
I'd be fine (within the context of this hypothetical) to make the "money where you mouth is" property transit. If you had put your money where your mouth was so to speak.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:06 AM   #12
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
I assume the suggestion is also the dissolution of the US armed forces, "because it's what the framers intended."?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:12 AM   #13
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,915
There is a much simpler solution: all firearms must be stored in a local Magazine and need to be signed in and signed out together with a limited amount of bullets.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:13 AM   #14
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,519
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I assume the suggestion is also the dissolution of the US armed forces, "because it's what the framers intended."?
Listen the whole "what the framers intended" is a farce anyway because the framers never intended their word to set in stone.

The idea that the framers meant for gun ownership to be restricted to "organized militias" (like on the level of the National Guard) is absolute silliness because that level of organized militia didn't exist then. An "organized militia" was basically someone in power had a vague idea of how many farmers with rifles existed within a certain radius of whatever the problem that needed shooting was.

But the reason the 2nd Amendment exist also isn't because the Framers had a hard on for guns. They weren't flipping through a quarterly "Musket Accessories Catalog" in-between sessions of the Continential Congress.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns in the abstract, it's about a failsafe against tyranny as a concept and that's the only failsafe that made any sense at the time. But if Billy Bob Podunk thinks his AR-15 or the AR-15s of him and all his hunting buddies is a "failsafe" against 12 aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and 3,800 nuclear weapons he's an idiot.

We're way past the point where "balance of firepower" is anything approaching a failsafe against tyranny.

That's why to me the 2nd Amendment isn't right or wrong, it's just not in context anymore in which it can be judged.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 8th August 2019 at 09:24 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:22 AM   #15
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
I thought the Supreme Court has already established that the militia clause is not causally coupled to the right to bear arms.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:24 AM   #16
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,212
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
There is a much simpler solution: all firearms must be stored in a local Magazine and need to be signed in and signed out together with a limited amount of bullets.
That sounds like an infringement on the bearing of arms.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:25 AM   #17
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,794
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns in the abstract, it's about a failsafe against tyranny as a concept. And if Billy Bob Podunk thinks his AR-15 or the AR-15s of him and all his hunting buddies is a "failsafe" against 12 aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and 3,800 nuclear weapons he's an idiot.

We're way past the point where "balance of firepower" is anything approaching a failsafe against tyranny.

That's why to me the 2nd Amendment isn't right or wrong, it's just no in context.
Yeah, no. I see lots of people make this claim, but that isn't how it works, and I don't think the people who make it have spent more than a couple of seconds actually thinking it through.

The Soviets never oppressed their own people with the threat of nuclear weapons. Aircraft carriers are not useful against internal insurrection, that isn't what they're designed for. And how the hell is stealth even relevant against an opponent that doesn't use radar?

The situation is inherently asymmetric, you don't need a "balance of firepower". But you do need firepower. I bet the citizens of Hong Kong wish they had a 2nd amendment right about now.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:48 AM   #18
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I thought the Supreme Court has already established that the militia clause is not causally coupled to the right to bear arms.
Which doesn't make sense to me. Ok, so maybe nowadays no one cares about it anymore, which means that the clause no longer matters in practical terms. But as written, it's relevant.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 09:56 AM   #19
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Which doesn't make sense to me. Ok, so maybe nowadays no one cares about it anymore, which means that the clause no longer matters in practical terms. But as written, it's relevant.
I disagree. Semantically as written, and also philosophically in the context of the other writings of the founders about the nature of rights and the design of the constitution, and also philosophically in general.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:00 AM   #20
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I disagree. Semantically as written, and also philosophically in the context of the other writings of the founders about the nature of rights and the design of the constitution, and also philosophically in general.
As I said before:
In order to keep my car in working order, I shall change my oil twice a year.

The first clause is rather important, because if I no longer care about keeping the car in good order, the second clause is no longer needed.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:04 AM   #21
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I thought the Supreme Court has already established that the militia clause is not causally coupled to the right to bear arms.
Yep, and there are lots of other ways to restrict gun ownership that do not violate the second amendment. This is a bit silly.

A licensing scheme would be easier to manage and not require so much fluff and overhead for the reserves.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:08 AM   #22
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,000
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Listen the whole "what the framers intended" is a farce anyway because the framers never intended their word to set in stone.
Yeah, that was the point I was clumsily trying to make. Anyone spouting 'the framers intended' who is not also canvassing for the dissolution of the US military is self evidently talking bollocks.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:09 AM   #23
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,646
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Listen the whole "what the framers intended" is a farce anyway because the framers never intended their word to set in stone.
This is concept that I think most people can get behind.

Quote:
The idea that the framers meant for gun ownership to be restricted to "organized militias" (like on the level of the National Guard) is absolute silliness because that level of organized militia didn't exist then. An "organized militia" was basically a vague idea of how many farmers with rifles existed within a certain radius of whatever the problem that needed shooting was.
Here I have to disagree.

Historically, the local militia wasn't a vague idea - it was one of the primary responsibilities of the local magistrates (who were often the local militia officers) to keep the militia rolls. Now, I will freely admit to not knowing exactly when this changed in the various US states, but in Canada, up until 1855, the idea was that the Sedentary Militia consisted of every male citizen aged 18 to 55. Said magistrates were also required to maintain a list of the exceptions to the call up (allowing that persons with certain physical or other limitations could not do so). And every year for two days they were supposed to be called out and drilled so that, in the event of an emergency, the militia could be called on to repel the invaders/insurgents - part of this muster included a weapons inspection (because the locals likely didn't have enough spare muskets, bayonets, etc to issue out) and the authorities needed to know what was available for defence. Up here at least the rolls were fairly accurate - since the magistrates cross referenced the rolls with the county tax rolls.

This levee en masse approach to raising military forces in both the American and Canadian colonies was used for fiscal reasons - it was cheap military if you didn't need to provide it with anything more than some beer, bread and beef for two days a year and it meant that forces were available locally to deal with "whoever needs shooting", or to at least delay them until the Regulars or Fencibles showed up. What was determined beyond a shadow of a doubt during the War of 1812 by both sides was that this method of raising forces was completely useless for getting effective military forces, and depending on the political feeling in the county, may or may not be completely politically reliable.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:09 AM   #24
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,212
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As I said before:
In order to keep my car in working order, I shall change my oil twice a year.

The first clause is rather important, because if I no longer care about keeping the car in good order, the second clause is no longer needed.
If you are stating a law, the law clearly requires continuing to change the oil until the heat death of the universe. It provides absolutely no clause on what to do in the event you no longer need an operating car.

You better not sell that car, because I'm going to sue the crap out of you when you are no longer able to change oil twice a week.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:13 AM   #25
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,915
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That sounds like an infringement on the bearing of arms.
as does the original suggestion.

But if we want to treat gun owners like soldiers, we certainly don't let them carry around their weapons around all the time whilst in the service.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:19 AM   #26
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,212
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
as does the original suggestion.

But if we want to treat gun owners like soldiers, we certainly don't let them carry around their weapons around all the time whilst in the service.
Too bad that is an infringement and unconstitutional.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:19 AM   #27
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 75,106
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opini...ang/index.html

Interesting article, but he passes off opinion as fact.


So even honorably discharged veterans are not to be trusted to own firearms.


There is much disagreement about this part.


This is not true. The people at Giffords should know better as should the writer of this article. There is not a single state that grants immunity from federal registration requirements.


Since when is personal protection selfish?

Ranb
Do you think a [whatever you call it] rifle with 100-round clip is for personal protection?

I like the "well armed militia" aspect but it's not practical given the cost of everyone joining the reserves, and the physical requirements surely make it impossible to have every gun owner join the reserves.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:30 AM   #28
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,837
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Do you think a [whatever you call it] rifle with 100-round clip is for personal protection?
I'm fairly certain the people I've seen with beta mags got them solely to enhance their gun collection.

Do you think personal protection is selfish? I think it can also be selfless.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I like the "well armed militia" aspect but it's not practical given the cost of everyone joining the reserves, and the physical requirements surely make it impossible to have every gun owner join the reserves.
The military could find a job for just about anyone who is not completely disabled.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:45 AM   #29
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As I said before:
In order to keep my car in working order, I shall change my oil twice a year.

The first clause is rather important, because if I no longer care about keeping the car in good order, the second clause is no longer needed.
Not a good analogy.

Here's a better one:

Bearing arms is a human right. Here's one good reason not to infringe on it, which is sufficient to not infringe on it. But in fact, the recognition of the right itself is sufficient reason not to infringe on it, even in the absence of an exhaustive list of other reasons. Burden of proof rests on those who wish to infringe on the right.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:49 AM   #30
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,742
SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP

Would you like to know more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:50 AM   #31
Aber
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,457
Everyone is taking the article too seriously - I think it was meant as a thought experiment to break the current logjam.

Basically it makes as much sense as the current position.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:53 AM   #32
ArchSas
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 145
I think this is a monumentally stupid idea, for reasons people have already commented on in both threads (and way too many for me to even want to enumerate), but the one aspect I wanted to comment on is how bad of an idea I think it is to even propose this as a serious solution on a major news site.

This idea is authoritarian trash, and it's really not a good look for the people who want changes to the status quo of firearm laws/culture. I mean, I already have a problem with a lot of the ways that people on the left talk about guns, but most of that boils down to ignorance. This idea is straight up totalitarian, and that's really not the kind of thing you want your critics to be able to lobby at you if you want to be taken seriously. Especially when part of the goal of progressiveness (and what I personally like most about it) is the idea that you want to be able to provide people the freedom to do whatever they want (get healthcare, education, live a comfortable life, marry whoever you want, etc.). Forcing someone into military service because they want to own something, especially in a country as likely as this to be involved in active conflict, is downright repugnant to a person that loves individual freedom as much as I do. To me, there's seriously nothing about this proposal that works (even rhetorically - I don't care about calling people out on perceived hypocrisy or whatever, this is dumb idea that looks terrible), and I think, more than anything, it furthers the idea that liberals are a group of people that hate gun owners and want to strip rights from people. As a die-hard leftist that loves guns, it really rubs me the wrong way.

The real solution, as far as I'm concerned, is something we probably don't know yet. The US government hasn't put any research into gun safety in years. Once that happens, we'll probably have a better idea of what will work, and what won't. That, and providing mental health care and coping skills to people who desperately need it.

Last edited by ArchSas; 8th August 2019 at 10:55 AM.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 10:53 AM   #33
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not a good analogy.
Stop right there.

Why not? The first clause is a justification for an action described by the second clause. How is it not a good analogy?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:00 AM   #34
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Stop right there.

Why not? The first clause is a justification for an action described by the second clause. How is it not a good analogy?
The action in the second clause isn't a human right.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:06 AM   #35
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,329
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Do you think a [whatever you call it] rifle with 100-round clip is for personal protection?

I like the "well armed militia" aspect but it's not practical given the cost of everyone joining the reserves, and the physical requirements surely make it impossible to have every gun owner join the reserves.
Aside from the fact that the magazine in question isn't a reliable feeding device, there isn't a heck of a big difference between one Beta C-mag and 3 30 round GI mags that are reliable, past two mag changes.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:12 AM   #36
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,472
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns in the abstract, it's about a failsafe against tyranny as a concept and that's the only failsafe that made any sense at the time. But if Billy Bob Podunk thinks his AR-15 or the AR-15s of him and all his hunting buddies is a "failsafe" against 12 aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and 3,800 nuclear weapons he's an idiot.

We're way past the point where "balance of firepower" is anything approaching a failsafe against tyranny.

That's why to me the 2nd Amendment isn't right or wrong, it's just not in context anymore in which it can be judged.
This certainly explains how we were able to so easily pacify Afghanistan.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:22 AM   #37
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The action in the second clause isn't a human right.
In neither case, it turns out.

Come on, you can do better than that. The logic is the same in both instances. You've railed against analogies long enough to know what their scope is. Don't pretend like you don't.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:23 AM   #38
Tommok
Student
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 49
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The action in the second clause isn't a human right.
So bearing arms is a human right?

Interesting. What arms? Any arms? Where exactly do we draw the line? Nuclear arms? Why?

So what argument would work in favor of allowing anyone to bear any kind of arms and yet prohibit the Iran or North Korea from having nuclear weapons? Human rights apply to all humans, don't they?
Tommok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:27 AM   #39
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,889
Originally Posted by Aber View Post
Everyone is taking the article too seriously - I think it was meant as a thought experiment to break the current logjam.

Basically it makes as much sense as the current position.
There are many current positions, including this one. This idea has been part of the "current" logjam since it was the "historical" logjam.

How do you take the article?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 12:09 PM   #40
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,762
Actually, to imporve the analgous sentence:

"A well-oiled engine being critical to the function of a car, the right of the people to add oil shall not be infringed."

Now, is this saying that only people with cars can add oil? Or that, because adding oil is important, that all people have a right to do it?

Supreme Court says B, and it makes more sense. There is no "because" in the 2nd amendment, and the addition of it in the original analogy changes things.

ETA: Or even better:

"Mechanics adding oil to cars being essential to the proper running of the engine, the right of the people to add oil shall not be infringed."

Again, only mechanics can add oil? Or all people, with mechanics an example?
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco

Last edited by Hellbound; 8th August 2019 at 12:11 PM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.