Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ragedaug]

I didn't side step your absurd question, but you do exhibit the irrational paranoia of your typical NRA supporting gun proponents.

You certainly didn't answer my "absurd" question. So if that's not a side step, what do you call it?

I'll bet you said the same thing in 1932 Germany...about all those irrational paranoid people saying Hitler's fascists would do bad things.

[cuafpr]

You really think out the average citizen and his rifle has any chance against the worlds most powerful, well trained, and well equipped military, or that the military that swore to protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign or domestic, would actually follow such an unlawful order?

while the question raised is out there, citizens have stood up to the worlds best army before....and won Its the basis for how the US came to be and is enshrined in myth legend and history. Even today insurgents harass superior forces with the goal being not to win but to make the costs in lives and money so high the superior force says fuck it and goes home.

I agree that in no way would the entire of the US Military turn on the constitution though regardless of who is in office.

[Daelak]

The writers could have had every intention of what you say, but they worded the Second Amendment as they did to protect an individual right. It's not a matter of breaking it into parts. The amendment as written, has a distinct meaning in the English language. Even the punctuation used is distinctive to a declarative clause. The writers used that declarative clause to explain the purpose of the right that is being enumerated in the sentence. To determine the meaning of the sentence, the clause is irrelevant. It is for descriptive purposes only. Now, if you want to declare that the writers of the BoR were not educated in the proper use of the written language, then that would be a completely different discussion.

But it doesn't say that anywhere in the amendment. Reading the earlier draft versions of the amendment, they even allude to recusal of militia service due to religious obligations, a statement that wouldn't make any sense with just the last phrase of the amendment. Declarative clauses start with the subject at the beginning of sentences, which again, doesn't make any sense if you put the subject, 'right of the people to bear arms', at the end of the sentence, since now it's merely a descriptor of the subject listed first, 'well-regulated Militia'.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/gra...s/clause-types

- - - Updated - - -

Your reading represents nothing short of the (metaphorical) rape of English grammar and syntax. There is no earthbound way to diagram that sentence in which the right described is to a well-regulated militia*, or that the object to which that right attaches is the state, or to the "people" only collectively** but not individual. It is a red ink nightmare. But if it is any consolation I put it down to willful fraud and deceit and not a good faith stab at the language.

*the militia, which, again, refers to individual citizens ready to take up arms on an ad hoc basis, being well-regulated, i.e. of skill comparable to regular army.

** this was written at near-peak Enlightenment; there are not, and certainly not to these people, any such thing as "collective rights". They didn't have CBAs in the 18th century but hell, even those -- the bargaining power they operate under is a delegation of the individual's bargaining power to a commonwealth. There isn't a word anywhere in the document or any contemporaneous writing to suggest this was the mindset behind the 2nd Amendment, not any rational reason to think they wouldn't have given it more distinctive language from other individual rights protected if it were. You are wrong and should at some point just stop making stuff up.

You keep saying this, however it seems your blind spot is actually understanding how an individual citizen can become skillful enough to be considered up to par to a regular army infantry. It's not them playing regular infantryman in their backyard shooting at womp rats to become adept at becoming a soldier. It's been staring at you in the face, this entire time. Here I will give you a hint: IT'S THE LOCAL MILITIA AND THEIR ARMORY that trains them to become comparable to a regular army soldier.

Try as you might, you cannot in honest fashion interpret the 2nd Amendment as anything but a right for citizens to keep well-regulated militias in their communities, a right that can never be infringed upon by any government.

[Macaquerie]

You certainly didn't answer my "absurd" question. So if that's not a side step, what do you call it?

I'll bet you said the same thing in 1932 Germany...about all those irrational paranoid people saying Hitler's fascists would do bad things.

Gun laws in Weimar Germany may have been strict but they were loosely enforce and there were plenty of armed paramilitary groups, pretty much all of whom enthusiastically backed the Nazis when they seized power. Hitler quickly gained the backing of both the military establishment and the masses of armed hooligans, by the end only the communists were left to oppose him.

[Ragedaug]

Trump or any President is not going to do what you think could happen. The US military swore a oath to defend the Constitution. So never happen. My sole purpose and stance for the Second Amendment right , is the right to keep and carry firearms for self protection. I have no concerns whatsoever for any rogue politician going into dictator mode

To be fair, I don't think Trump would do this, and I don't think he could, mostly because I don't believe the U.S. military would support him.

That said, you had many soldiers during the U.S. Civil War who swore oaths to defend the Constitution who fought against the Republic, not to mention you can see tyrannical leadership throughout history (including the last 100 years) who turned good soldiers into blind followers. So while I don't think it can or will happen in the U.S. currently, I think it's naive to say it could never happen.

*The other caveat here is that I believe one of the big reasons it won't happen in the U.S. is because so many citizens are armed. If the population is disarmed, I think it becomes a little more conceivable.

- - - Updated - - -

Gun laws in Weimar Germany may have been strict but they were loosely enforce and there were plenty of armed paramilitary groups, pretty much all of whom enthusiastically backed the Nazis when they seized power. Hitler quickly gained the backing of both the military establishment and the masses of armed hooligans, by the end only the communists were left to oppose him.

OK, so the paranoia that Hitler would do bad things seems to be justified. Not sure why you are mocking it.

[Citizen T]

But it doesn't say that anywhere in the amendment. Reading the earlier draft versions of the amendment, they even allude to recusal of militia service due to religious obligations, a statement that wouldn't make any sense with just the last phrase of the amendment. Declarative clauses start with the subject at the beginning of sentences, which again, doesn't make any sense if you put the subject, 'right of the people to bear arms', at the end of the sentence, since now it's merely a descriptor of the subject listed first, 'well-regulated Militia'.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/gra...s/clause-types

- - - Updated - - -




You keep saying this, however it seems your blind spot is actually understanding how an individual citizen can become skillful enough to be considered up to par to a regular army infantry. It's not them playing regular infantryman in their backyard shooting at womp rats to become adept at becoming a soldier. It's been staring at you in the face, this entire time. Here I will give you a hint: IT'S THE LOCAL MILITIA AND THEIR ARMORY that trains them to become comparable to a regular army soldier.

Try as you might, you cannot in honest fashion interpret the 2nd Amendment as anything but a right for citizens to keep well-regulated militias in their communities, a right that can never be infringed upon by any government.

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or just don't have a good grasp of the English language. The subject of this sentence is "right" with the verb "shall". I was going to go to the effort of creating a sentence diagram for you but found one with a quick search that even has a bit of explanation for you.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-gra...dment-so-weird

[zenkai]

same freaking story every time.

Mass shooting > democrats yell gun bans > republicans say don't politicize it > everyone forgets > rinse and repeat.

Feel sorry for americans to have an extremely broken political system.

Well our system is broken thanks to Republicans and Democrats but that has nothing to do with gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you aware this video is from last year ?

And that matters because?

[Daelak]

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or just don't have a good grasp of the English language. The subject of this sentence is "right" with the verb "shall". I was going to go to the effort of creating a sentence diagram for you but found one with a quick search that even has a bit of explanation for you.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-gra...dment-so-weird

Your source just strengthens the case, since it considers the 2nd to last phrase of the amendment as a descriptor to the first, to specify that well-regulated militias cannot be restricted by local, state, and federal law.

[Stormdash]

"A well-spent 15 minutes in the morning being necessary to the sanity of a household, the right of the sleepers to use the snooze button on their alarms shall not be infringed".

Reasonable people who speak and read English: "in that house, sleepers have a right to use their snooze buttons."

Daelak and other 2A revisionists: "the household has the power to determine how 15 minutes is spent every morning, and while maybe all the sleepers can jointly decide to use the snooze button, this says nothing about whether any given individual one has a right to do so."

[bladeXcrasher]

You certainly didn't answer my "absurd" question. So if that's not a side step, what do you call it?

I'll bet you said the same thing in 1932 Germany...about all those irrational paranoid people saying Hitler's fascists would do bad things.

I wasn't around in 1932 Germany so no, I didn't say the same thing. But I'll say a little history lesson would show how absurd you comparing 2018 USA to 1932 Germany is.

I answered your question, you come out with some ridiculous what if "arguement" and I answered just like I answered one of your like minded people in another thread, you either think that the strongest military on the planet can be defeated by some NRA fan boys with shotguns and semiautomatic rifles or you think that the military made up of a 100% volunteer force would actually attack the country and people they swore to defend. I will tell you it is easy to tell you never served. Your "question" is some paranoid conspiracy level trash.

- - - Updated - - -

"A well-spent 15 minutes in the morning being necessary to the sanity of a household, the right of the sleepers to use the snooze button on their alarms shall not be infringed".

Reasonable people who speak and read English: "in that house, sleepers have a right to use their snooze buttons."

Daelak and other 2A revisionists: "the household has the power to determine how 15 minutes is spent every morning, and while maybe all the sleepers can jointly decide to use the snooze button, this says nothing about whether any given individual one has a right to do so."

You know you are losing an arguement when you come up with retarded analogies.

[Daelak]

"A well-spent 15 minutes in the morning being necessary to the sanity of a household, the right of the sleepers to use the snooze button on their alarms shall not be infringed".

Reasonable people who speak and read English: "in that house, sleepers have a right to use their snooze buttons."

Daelak and other 2A revisionists: "the household has the power to determine how 15 minutes is spent every morning, and while maybe all the sleepers can jointly decide to use the snooze button, this says nothing about whether any given individual one has a right to do so."

If the 2nd amendment said what you want it to say: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What the 2nd amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They wanted the successful military strategy of well-trained and stocked militias with local armories be the right of all Americans that could never be restricted by local, state, or federal law. Just as much they wanted to ensure no local, state, or federal law could foist quartering of soldiers; another 'barbaric' act committed by the patriots in defiance of standard English wartime etiquette.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah. Besides the Supreme Court ruling, the average police response time is 8 mins. Way too much time for them to be a effective defender of my life. Out here in the country where I live, the time would be closer to 20 mins or more.

Between response time and the cops having no repercussions for gross negligence and incompetence, or just outright failure to do their job; yeah I'd rather trust myself and a pistol than America's police force.

- - - Updated - - -

You want really eye opening, check out Castle Rock v. Gonzales or even worse Lozito v. City of New York

It gets worse and worse. I knew about Lozito, but a quick scan of Castle Rock v. Gonzales is terrifying.

Yeah, it is stuff like that that makes me send a check to the NRA.

[Citizen T]

Your source just strengthens the case, since it considers the 2nd to last phrase of the amendment as a descriptor to the first, to specify that well-regulated militias cannot be restricted by local, state, and federal law.

At least I now know whether or not you're being disingenuous since you obviously didn't bother to read the source.

The first phrase is the descriptor of the main the sentence. It tells why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - it's not the subject.

[Stormdash]

If the 2nd amendment said what you want it to say: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What the 2nd amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They wanted the successful military strategy of well-trained and stocked militias with local armories be the right of all Americans that could never be restricted by local, state, or federal law. Just as much they wanted to ensure no local, state, or federal law could foist quartering of soldiers; another 'barbaric' act committed by the patriots in defiance of standard English wartime etiquette.

You actually just acted out my (originally) parodic summary. Like there was a string on your chest, I pulled it, and out the words came. That's fantastic.

[Daelak]

At least I now know whether or not you're being disingenuous since you obviously didn't bother to read the source.

The first phrase is the descriptor of the main the sentence. It tells why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed - it's not the subject.

Your diagram you linked shows both of them as subjects, even showing how the 3rd phrase is tied to the first phrase.

[Citizen T]

Your diagram you linked shows both of them as subjects, even showing how the 3rd phrase is tied to the first phrase.

The base sentence is "the right shall not be infringed."

"of the people" specifies whose right.

"to keep and bear arms" specifies which right.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" describes why the purpose of the right.

This is plain simple English. I'm not going to debate this any further as either you are not debating in good faith or else you are incapable of understanding this.

[Daelak]

The base sentence is "the right shall not be infringed."

Which is a meaningless sentence, void of any insight or information without the rest of the amendment.

"of the people" specifies whose right.

Yes, the right for citizens to form and maintain well-regulated militias and armories

"to keep and bear arms" specifies which right.

In relation to the first phrase; the militia has the unfettered right to bear arms against a common enemy.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" describes why the purpose of the right.

"why the purpose of the right" isn't grammatically correct. A well-regulated militia, which is only obtained via a local armory that trains regularly, like during the American Revolution, is necessary because it worked literally less than a decade before, defeating the largest and most sophisticated military in the world at the time.

This is plain simple English. I'm not going to debate this any further as either you are not debating in good faith or else you are incapable of understanding this.

Seeing as you just committed a grammatical error, I wouldn't be so sure you have a firmer grasp on English, considering how the patriots beat the British military.

[Citizen T]

Which is a meaningless sentence, void of any insight or information without the rest of the amendment.




Yes, the right for citizens to form and maintain well-regulated militias and armories



In relation to the first phrase; the militia has the unfettered right to bear arms against a common enemy.



"why the purpose of the right" isn't grammatically correct. A well-regulated militia, which is only obtained via a local armory that trains regularly, like during the American Revolution, is necessary because it worked literally less than a decade before, defeating the largest and most sophisticated military in the world at the time.



Seeing as you just committed a grammatical error, I wouldn't be so sure you have a firmer grasp on English, considering how the patriots beat the British military.

The base sentence is not meaningless. It means exactly what it says. The right shall not be infringed. Everything else in the sentence describes the right and makes the sentence more precise. "I am." is a purely correct sentence whereas "I am working." is the same but more precise.

As I've been replying to this between bouts of coding an application for my researchers, I'm surprised that I've not made many more spelling/grammar/typo errors. Since this is the extent of your argument (and against forum rules) it's best if it's dropped at this point.

[Svifnymr]

Conceptually, I'm not against any type of weapon being illegal, especially considering the idea that the founders considered a canon as a legal device that could be used for self defense.

But that line gets gray real quick for me when I consider the destruction that a nuke or other types of chemical/biological weapons are capable of. So while I can't justify or quantify my feelings with a strict body count number, I still feel like there's a line where you can say 'if it can kill x amount of people before a first responder can stop them, then it's illegal.

I figure it's about controlling side effects. You can't use a nuke without collateral damage. Regular explosives, with training, no collateral damage, so registration. Fireworks, no training, no collateral damage. Misuse could result in damage. Same with firearms, machineguns, with training, no problem, so registration. Regular firearms, no problem.

The next question I would have to any anti-gun people in this thread (though I am still interested in my last question getting answered) is: What is your response if Trump declares Marshal Law and declares himself Dictator for life. Do you just give up and say "well there's nothing we could do anyway". I'm very curious, especially since you want to ensure that Trump's troops would be the only people left in the country who have guns.

So if Trump does that and says "anyone who speaks against me will be shot", do you just become Trump supporters? Do you run up against the U.S. Army behind black masks with pepper spray and bike locks? I really am curious what your response to that would be.

Once the killbots take over, I'm siding with them. Until then, I'll be keep my head down and wait. Once I get my cyberbody, I'll be happy to help skynet hunt humans.

[Stormdash]

Ultimately, the prefatory clause does not set a condition precedent to the operant clause. The right does not, in either a legal or linguistic sense, exist solely in the context of the militia purpose -- which ultimately renders all the gobbledy gook fraud and/or misapprehension of the phrase "well-regulated militia" by the revisionists as referring to government control of civilian arms completely moot. If I were to say tell employees "quick access to the workplace being necessary for productivity, the right of the staff to park in the two closest rows shall not be infringed", it does not logically follow that the addition of a light rail that drops off at the office nullifies the validity of their parking pass.