No compromise on gun control?

[blues]

I agree that the right to self-defense is an ability we all agree on having. But then see one of our other threads where some folks don't.

As far as the right to eat, tell that to my wife and my diet class!

But I think we are all on the same page that having firearms for self-defense and protection against tyranny is a good thing for America and should be defended and expanded upon. We can argue about the theoretical basis.

People decide things cognitively and emotionally. Not getting killed appeals to both of my thought processes. I think, pragmatically, the latter approach works for some folks when they finally face a threat. Now, I have to go figure out house plans. That takes math.

Is there going to be a quiz?

Thanks for engendering a lively exchange.

[critter]

I agree that the right to self-defense is an ability we all agree on having. But then see one of our other threads where some folks don't.

As far as the right to eat, tell that to my wife and my diet class!

But I think we are all on the same page that having firearms for self-defense and protection against tyranny is a good thing for America and should be defended and expanded upon. We can argue about the theoretical basis.

People decide things cognitively and emotionally. Not getting killed appeals to both of my thought processes. I think, pragmatically, the latter approach works for some folks when they finally face a threat. Now, I have to go figure out house plans. That takes math.

True, we're not in disagreement, more like emphasizing various aspects which lend the appearance of different wavelengths. That's the reason I bring up Article V. IMO, anything less than a repeal of the 2A, through the prescribed method is unconstitutional, meaning that I am a staunch advocate that any control measures, save those which restrict convicted felons (and even those may be debatable, obviously) are innately unconstitutional from the get-go. They're non-starters. While I'm not pushing for the right to keep and bear Apache gunships, et al, at the inception of the Republic citizens could keep and bear the exact same firepower as the government if they could raise the capital to build/buy whatever -- warships, cannon, mortars, a million muskets. This is one reason the government does not fear us, because we give them ample financing to out-gun us. Just a little more food for thought.

[Hambo]

I would suggest that some look up compromise in the dictionary. I don't think that laws passed in 1934 and 1968 in any way resembled compromise. Congress served it up and gun owners had to eat it. If there ever was compromise on the issue we could talk about it, but after those experiences most gun owners get the idea of how "compromise" is going to go.

The laws provide an illusion of safety that is attractive to some only because they never think about the impracticality of getting criminals to obey the law. In gun-unfriendly Britain knives and acid take the place of bullets. Terrorists weaponize airplanes and cars. Since the first hominid murdered another there has been no end to it, and there never will be.

[Totem Polar]

Jack Donovan gave us plenty of grist for the mill alluded to in the last couple of posts in his excellent essay on violence being golden.

"Those who want to end violence — as if that were possible or even desirable — often seek to disarm their fellow citizens. This does not actually end violence. It merely gives the state mob a monopoly on violence. This makes you “safer,” so long as you don’t piss off the boss."

Where Mr Donovan fell down a little is in forgetting that disarming the citizenry does not, in actuality, always give the state a monopoly—as the state occasionally shares the privilege with criminal concerns. One only has to look to Mexico, et al. to see how this works out for all three parties (state mob, criminal mob, and the populace) in these instances.

[OlongJohnson]

Enlightenment and later philosophers in Western Europe did a pretty good job at bootstrapping their way to something like fundamental human rights without needing a diety to hand them out. That same civilization eventually became the freest and simultaneously most productive and powerful the world has ever known. I believe there is likely a causal connection.

If there is any such thing as a fundamental human right, the right to self determination and security in one's person surely qualify, as pointed out in earlier posts. The right to self-defense is merely an expression of that fundamental principle. The right to not be a slave is in fact identical to the right to self defense. These are, to me, the most fundamental questions of human relations.

[blues]

Enlightenment and later philosophers in Western Europe did a pretty good job at bootstrapping their way to something like fundamental human rights without needing a diety to hand them out. That same civilization eventually became the freest and simultaneously most productive and powerful the world has ever known. I believe there is likely a causal connection.

If there is any such thing as a fundamental human right, the right to self determination and security in one's person surely qualify, as pointed out in earlier posts. The right to self-defense is merely an expression of that fundamental principle. The right to not be a slave is in fact identical to the right to self defense. These are, to me, the most fundamental questions of human relations.

You'll get no argument from me on that score.


The nuances of this discussion remind me of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound?" ...

...If a tyrant had one shackled and imprisoned in a dungeon and one could do nothing to free oneself, does one still have rights?

[JclInAtx]

How would people propose reducing guns getting into the wrong hands (criminals, kids, mentally ill, etc.) a good guy with a gun does not stop a mass shooting, it just minimizes it.

I think the idea behind no notoriety, eliminating the notoriety for the perpetrators of mass shootings, seems worth investigating more.
https://nonotoriety.com/

[dragonmouse]

If you folks are done with this I apologize and maybe am taking this out of orbit a bit, but I have an observation rereading all of this. The original statement of "We Hold these truths to be self-evident" is a major key. Our founders 8th graders understood how important such a statement was/is. What about those of today? If the fundamentals of those basic truths is never taught, then how can they have relevance. We (most here) were taught history shows these are fundamental to life, liberty, etc etc. and more importantly the why. How can we restore those truths to folks that have never had them let alone have any understanding of what it takes to keep them? You cannot compromise away something you never had to begin with. Whether it's the 2nd or any of the other parts of our founding document. That is partly why Jefferson said " You have a republic if you can keep it" So How do we keep it?

[Qaz98]

Wow. This thread got way more profound than I thought. Gotta love p-f.

The biggest lesson I'm taking away, is that compromise has always consisted of whittling away at 2a. I had never thought of that. It's never been, we'll give you this if you give us that.

I got so fired up listening to npr talk about Cuomo's mandatory gun registry in NY. He says it's to help police cross reference gun owners with criminal records, mental health files, restraining orders, so they know who shouldn't have a gun. Yup. I'm sure the bad guys were the first to register their guns.

Also, I'm on my phone, so I can't get the link, but there was an article (bearing arms?) on how criminals are PROTECTED from registering their guns. There was a case where a known felon did not register his gun, because he said he knew he wasn't supposed to have one. If he did so, it would violate his 5th ammendment. Guess what, SCOTUS agrees. Think on that. Criminals, as ruled by the Supreme Court, are not bound to register their guns that they know they are not supposed to have. So then, how does a registry work?

BTW, Chris Murphy of CT and or Andrew Cuomo are going to make a run in 2020. That's going to be horrible.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[joshs]

Also, I'm on my phone, so I can't get the link, but there was an article (bearing arms?) on how criminals are PROTECTED from registering their guns. There was a case where a known felon did not register his gun, because he said he knew he wasn't supposed to have one. If he did so, it would violate his 5th ammendment. Guess what, SCOTUS agrees. Think on that. Criminals, as ruled by the Supreme Court, are not bound to register their guns that they know they are not supposed to have. So then, how does a registry work?

I'm certainly no fan of firearm registries, but the original NFA registry was unconstitutional as applied to prohibited persons because it required them to incriminate themselves or be punished for failing to register. The case is Haynes v. United States. The NFA was partially rewritten as Title II (that's why many people call them Title II firearms) of the 1968 law that also included the GCA. The amended law doesn't require or allow individuals to register already existing firearms, so there is no self-incrimination problem.