Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

It's real easy to argue that the Founding Fathers were concerned about tyranny and oppression when you conveniently ignore literally all non-white people from consideration.

It's easy to argue even when you don't ignore it. Just because you're worried about a bully doesn't mean you're not one yourself; they're not mutually exclusive options. The Founders were hardly paragons of virtue, but to imply that their sole interest, as a collective whole, was to oppress the non-white non-male non-landowners is patently absurd.

Was that the primary interest of some? I have no doubt. Did the thought of protecting that interest happen to align with the interests of the people who were looking to protect the country from the abuse of a tyrannical government? In this instance, it sure did.

The Constitution (like the Articles before it, though less so) made it intentionally difficult to to Amend out its inherent protections. Did that also "bake in" some of the unfortunately common abuses of the time? You bet. But it's also led to a history of the following nearly 250 years in which the list of protections in the Constitution has greatly increased as the framework of those abuses has eroded.

At least until very recently, of course.

You can argue whether or not the higher bar for an Amendment is a good thing or a bad thing, but trying to say that "it's solely because of slavery" is just as wrong as saying "it had nothing to do with slavery".

- - - Updated - - -

I don't agree; since hunting, the real and historical primary use of having a firearm in the US...

You literally got this far before being hopelessly wrong.

Grats.


Edit: Hah, it got worse from there.

[Endus]

It's easy to argue even when you don't ignore it. Just because you're worried about a bully doesn't mean you're not one yourself; they're not mutually exclusive options.

Who am I "bullying", exactly? Racist white supremacists who've been dead for two centuries or so?

The Founders were hardly paragons of virtue, but to imply that their sole interest, as a collective whole, was to oppress the non-white non-male non-landowners is patently absurd.

That was the clear design and intent of the nation they founded. That's historical fact. They had no interest in equality or fairness or the rights of all people held in common. Any claim that they did is demonstrably false; it's propaganda, ignoring the context of their era and their actions.

The Constitution (like the Articles before it, though less so) made it intentionally difficult to to Amend out its inherent protections. Did that also "bake in" some of the unfortunately common abuses of the time? You bet. But it's also led to a history of the following nearly 250 years in which the list of protections in the Constitution has greatly increased as the framework of those abuses has eroded.

Don't applaud it too hard; the USA has largely lagged significantly behind the rest of the developed world on those issues, from the abolition of slavery onward. Most other developed nations have broader protections, and mostly always did. The USA is, literally, not that special nor unique in this regard. That's just American Exceptionalist propaganda.

[Daelak]

It's easy to argue even when you don't ignore it. Just because you're worried about a bully doesn't mean you're not one yourself; they're not mutually exclusive options. The Founders were hardly paragons of virtue, but to imply that their sole interest, as a collective whole, was to oppress the non-white non-male non-landowners is patently absurd.

Was that the primary interest of some? I have no doubt. Did the thought of protecting that interest happen to align with the interests of the people who were looking to protect the country from the abuse of a tyrannical government? In this instance, it sure did.

The Constitution (like the Articles before it, though less so) made it intentionally difficult to to Amend out its inherent protections. Did that also "bake in" some of the unfortunately common abuses of the time? You bet. But it's also led to a history of the following nearly 250 years in which the list of protections in the Constitution has greatly increased as the framework of those abuses has eroded.

At least until very recently, of course.

You can argue whether or not the higher bar for an Amendment is a good thing or a bad thing, but trying to say that "it's solely because of slavery" is just as wrong as saying "it had nothing to do with slavery".

- - - Updated - - -


You literally got this far before being hopelessly wrong.

Grats.


Edit: Hah, it got worse from there.

Hunting was and still is the primary reason for owning a firearm in the US. Gun manufacturers have created a new niche market with conservative media that encourages heavy users, a positive feedback loop or radicalization and purchasing of firearms, ammunition, and accessories. Go to a gun show or an NRA/GOA convention.

Why do you think law enforcement groups have been sounding the alarm on this market share since Columbine?

[PhaelixWW]

Who am I "bullying", exactly? Racist white supremacists who've been dead for two centuries or so?

A little defensive there, are you?

I wasn't saying you "you".

Just because someone is worried about being bullied doesn't mean they're not a bully themself towards others.

That was the clear design and intent of the nation they founded. That's historical fact. They had no interest in equality or fairness or the rights of all people held in common. Any claim that they did is demonstrably false; it's propaganda, ignoring the context of their era and their actions.

Nah, this is all just frivolous hyperbole. Just because they didn't get it perfectly right in the first pass doesn't mean that they weren't trying for a better system, and one that would hopefully only change for the better down the road. Honestly, had the Framers tried to propose a set of ideals that a large portion of the civilized world today hold to be self-evident, the nation would never have been founded at all. Again, that's the benefit of progress. We've (mostly) moved continuously towards a more fair and equal system.

Don't applaud it too hard; the USA has largely lagged significantly behind the rest of the developed world on those issues, from the abolition of slavery onward. Most other developed nations have broader protections, and mostly always did. The USA is, literally, not that special nor unique in this regard. That's just American Exceptionalist propaganda.

Don't strawman too hard; your well-known anti-America bias is showing. You seemingly can't but help to read shit that isn't there.

- - - Updated - - -

Hunting was and still is the primary reason for owning a firearm in the US.

Hah. No.

/10

[Daelak]

A little defensive there, are you?

I wasn't saying you "you".

Just because someone is worried about being bullied doesn't mean they're not a bully themself towards others.



Nah, this is all just frivolous hyperbole. Just because they didn't get it perfectly right in the first pass doesn't mean that they weren't trying for a better system, and one that would hopefully only change for the better down the road. Honestly, had the Framers tried to propose a set of ideals that a large portion of the civilized world today hold to be self-evident, the nation would never have been founded at all. Again, that's the benefit of progress. We've (mostly) moved continuously towards a more fair and equal system.



Don't strawman too hard; your well-known anti-America bias is showing. You seemingly can't but help to read shit that isn't there.

- - - Updated - - -


Hah. No.

/10

You own firearms. You literally just hunt with them. You are the quintessential American gun owner.

[PhaelixWW]

You own firearms. You literally just hunt with them. You are the quintessential American gun owner.

Just when I thought you couldn't actually be more wrong, you go and one-up yourself.


Edit: Like, I'm still laughing over here. The only thing you got right is the ownership part.

I've never once been hunting, nor do I feel a desire to do so.

Your definition of a "quintessential American gun owner" is, as I said, flat out wrong, but by neither your definition, nor a more realistic one, am I one. I'm a liberal Democrat gun owner; I couldn't be farther from a "quintessential American gun owner" while still being an American gun owner.

[Endus]

Nah, this is all just frivolous hyperbole. Just because they didn't get it perfectly right in the first pass doesn't mean that they weren't trying for a better system, and one that would hopefully only change for the better down the road.

Again, their "better system" wrote the institution of slavery right into the Constitution from Day 1, before the Bill of Rights was even included. You don't get to claim the good without also admitting the horrendous evils perpetrated by early Americans. The Founding Fathers were genocidal and most of them were at least fine with slavery, and a good chunk were slaveowners themselves, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin.

Don't strawman too hard; your well-known anti-America bias is showing. You seemingly can't but help to read shit that isn't there.

I have no "anti-America bias". I have anti-propaganda and anti-disinformation biases. I've got a D&D group I've been playing online in for like 8 years, and most of the gang are Americans, as are a lot of colleagues I've worked with over the years.

[PhaelixWW]

Again, their "better system" wrote the institution of slavery right into the Constitution from Day 1, before the Bill of Rights was even included. You don't get to claim the good without also admitting the horrendous evils perpetrated by early Americans. The Founding Fathers were genocidal and most of them were at least fine with slavery, and a good chunk were slaveowners themselves, including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin.

Except... I'm not denying the bad.

The viewpoint against which I'm arguing is the one that literally only sees the bad; i.e., hyperbole. I've been very clear that the reality is in the middle. The Founding Fathers were not some homogeneous group, and yes, we've had to deal with the legacy of the slave-owning states since the country's infancy. But you can't ignore the fact that the abolitionist movement existed even before the forming of the nation.

Quite demonstrably, quite a few of the Founders were supportive of that change, even if it hadn't become universally possible yet. The topic of slavery was a huge debate in the Constitutional Convention; it's not like they just said "okay, let's accept slavery" as you and others are implying. Ultimately, some unfortunate compromises were required to achieve the ratification of the Constitution, but the abolitionist movement continued apace.

I mean, all you have do is look at the fact that between 1777 and 1804, 9 of the first 17 states moved to abolish slavery.

I have no "anti-America bias". I have anti-propaganda and anti-disinformation biases. I've got a D&D group I've been playing online in for like 8 years, and most of the gang are Americans, as are a lot of colleagues I've worked with over the years.

"Some of my best friends are [black/gay/American/etc.]..." ...is not really a good defense.

Nor are Americans and America the same thing.

[Daelak]

Just when I thought you couldn't actually be more wrong, you go and one-up yourself.


Edit: Like, I'm still laughing over here. The only thing you got right is the ownership part.

I've never once been hunting, nor do I feel a desire to do so.

Your definition of a "quintessential American gun owner" is, as I said, flat out wrong, but by neither your definition, nor a more realistic one, am I one. I'm a liberal Democrat gun owner; I couldn't be farther from a "quintessential American gun owner" while still being an American gun owner.

You don’t hoard thousands of rounds of ammunition nor do you own an AR-15 or it’s variants. You own a handgun, that’s it.

[Spectral]

You don’t hoard thousands of rounds of ammunition nor do you own an AR-15 or it’s variants. You own a handgun, that’s it.

Wait, so is he the quintessential American gun owner because he owns a firearm and hunts, or because he owns a handgun and doesn't hunt?

That weird bit aside, how many rounds do you think someone should expect to have on hand for a normal day at a range with friends?

[Tentim]

quintessential in the form of stronger firearm laws just hurt the innocent gun owners, that's more important than dead innocents!

I mean when I'm stuck in a pitched hour long battle with an armed intruder while the cops wait outside to afraid of being shot to help I rather have a firearm then a BB gun.

You are your families defense. Nothing else.

[Edge-]

I mean when I'm stuck in a pitched hour long battle with an armed intruder while the cops wait outside to afraid of being shot to help I rather have a firearm then a BB gun.

You are your families defense. Nothing else.

What are the chances of this, btw?

And is this more of a, "I need a gun" problem? Or more of a, "Policing is fundamentally broken so we need to do the job ourselves" problem? Or a, "This won't be anything I likely ever have to deal with, but I like to think about it a lot." problem?

That last bit though, that's classic failed-state shit. That's when the state is no longer sovereign and has lost the monopoly on the use of force. I still don't think folks making these kinds of arguments realize how incredibly damning they are.

[Tentim]

What are the chances of this, btw?

And is this more of a, "I need a gun" problem? Or more of a, "Policing is fundamentally broken so we need to do the job ourselves" problem? Or a, "This won't be anything I likely ever have to deal with, but I like to think about it a lot." problem?

That last bit though, that's classic failed-state shit. That's when the state is no longer sovereign and has lost the monopoly on the use of force. I still don't think folks making these kinds of arguments realize how incredibly damning they are.

It's more like home insurance. Odds are I will never need it but you are pretty fucked without it.

Even in a strong police state it's up to you at first.

[UnifiedDivide]

What are the chances of this, btw?

And is this more of a, "I need a gun" problem? Or more of a, "Policing is fundamentally broken so we need to do the job ourselves" problem? Or a, "This won't be anything I likely ever have to deal with, but I like to think about it a lot." problem?

That last bit though, that's classic failed-state shit. That's when the state is no longer sovereign and has lost the monopoly on the use of force. I still don't think folks making these kinds of arguments realize how incredibly damning they are.

Gun culture relies heavily on making sure people are generally afraid. This is just the result of all the fear people are told to have; thinking their families will need them blasting intruders away with their weapons any day now.

[Edge-]

It's more like home insurance. Odds are I will never need it but you are pretty fucked without it.

Even in a strong police state it's up to you at first.

Again, this is some big "failed state" shit. Y'all still don't seem to realize how damning this is to hold this belief in a developed nation, much less the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world.

[Elegiac]

Trying to argue that the Founders weren't aware of (and earnestly hoped to prevent) the possibility of government oppression and/or tyranny is just asinine. Does their viewpoint on the subject colocate with ours? Of course not; that's progress.

But you're trying to obfuscate the point, which isn't whether or not we share the exact same values with the Founders, but whether or not the point of the process was to avoid oppression or enable it. You're tending to argue the latter, and while the concept of an entrenched system might have been appealing to the slaveowners who wanted to protect their "investment" (ugh), it was also appealing to the people who didn't want to see the system become worse for everyone not directly involved in the government.

Again, both free and slave states clearly thought strongly enough of this for the Articles to be ratified by all the states. And let's be honest, at the time that the Constitution was ratified, there were still more slave states than free states (8 to 6) with more seats in the House (40 to 27). They weren't the "minority" then, either. It wasn't until 1804, when New Jersey became a free state, that they had a majority of the House (77 to 65) and the balance of free/slave states was, as I said, maintained until the 1850s.

It's almost certainly a good thing, frankly, that it didn't require a simple majority of government and/or states to enact an Amendment for those first 60-70 years.

I'm not talking exclusively about slavery, is the thing. I'm also talking about economic class, among others.

Their definition of 'tyranny' was a government that curtailed their privileges - because every single one of them was on board with political or economic erasure of one group or another (be it women, indigenous people, foreigners, et cetera), which is what tyranny is understood to be in the modern sense. The idea that a government should be representative of and protect -all- people within its jurisdiction was not remotely mainstream within their social and political class.

[Mayhem]

Wait, so is he the quintessential American gun owner because he owns a firearm and hunts, or because he owns a handgun and doesn't hunt?

That weird bit aside, how many rounds do you think someone should expect to have on hand for a normal day at a range with friends?

None, you get them at the range.

[Endus]

It's more like home insurance. Odds are I will never need it but you are pretty fucked without it.

Even in a strong police state it's up to you at first.

If you've got to worry about needing a gun to defend your home, your nation's already a systemic failure. It isn't normal. This isn't how any developed nation in the free world feels about anything, other than the USA itself.

[PhaelixWW]

You don’t hoard thousands of rounds of ammunition nor do you own an AR-15 or it’s variants. You own a handgun, that’s it.

So you're doubling down on your embarrassment? From where exactly are you getting this garbage?

First you said I only hunted, then you said I only own a handgun. So... you think I hunt with a handgun?

You're either delusional or lying. Or maybe both.

Go ahead and post quotes to back up your statements. I'll be the one laughing while I wait for you to come back with nothing.

Or more of a, "Policing is fundamentally broken so we need to do the job ourselves" problem?

You realize that there's a large portion of this country where law enforcement wouldn't be able to show up any quicker than 15+ minutes, right?

Again, this is some big "failed state" shit. Y'all still don't seem to realize how damning this is to hold this belief in a developed nation, much less the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world.

Yet you're far more likely to be a victim of aggravated assault in a home invasion than you are to be a victim of a mass shooting.

I'm not talking exclusively about slavery, is the thing. I'm also talking about economic class, among others.

Their definition of 'tyranny' was a government that curtailed their privileges - because every single one of them was on board with political or economic erasure of one group or another (be it women, indigenous people, foreigners, et cetera), which is what tyranny is understood to be in the modern sense. The idea that a government should be representative of and protect -all- people within its jurisdiction was not remotely mainstream within their social and political class.

It wasn't mainstream anywhere, though. They were collectively ahead of their cultural time, though they still had work to be done. But the seed of that idea is what continued later to fight for an even better and more fair expression of equality down the road.

And yes, we've faced lasting problems in the lingering counter-ideals of slavery and other forms of oppression. Other countries have been able to use the same idea and progress faster without the dogged opposition of the ranks of bigoted asshats.

[Edge-]

You realize that there's a large portion of this country where law enforcement wouldn't be able to show up any quicker than 15+ minutes, right?

...and? I mean, are you going somewhere with this or just leaving it hanging as a self-contained argument for...I assume gun ownership?

Yet you're far more likely to be a victim of aggravated assault in a home invasion than you are to be a victim of a mass shooting.

Again...and? Are Americans just so constantly violent and lawless that we're the only country with this problem? Are there no other ways to attempt to resolve it short of arming everyone or something?