Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Apr 23, 2018.

  1. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Yes, I think there's a flaw in your logic, unless you consider the violence the actual explosion of the gunpowder or release of pressure (as is the case with air guns) that propels the projectile the gun fires. If one does not accept that form/context of "violence," all uses of guns are not necessarily violent. Not all uses of guns violent because target shooting, however violent one considers it to be, is hard to classify as violent. With target shooting, I dare say that sport is no more materially violent than is target shooting with a bow or throwing a stone. There's also the greyish area of hunting, which is violent, for a hunted animal anyway, but it's a form of violence we accept as okay, for the most part. However violent hunting is, it's lawful too, and that's not likely to change, whether it be gun hunting or other means.

    So as line of opposition based on "violence by humans," I don't see a strong argument there. I do think, however, that one can refine the assertion/conclusion so that there is a sound/cogent argument that says "promoting certain kinds of gun use is necessarily a tacit promotion of violence." Indeed, I think that argument may be makeable for any gun use that results in a dead/injured creature. The thing is that it's a purely moral argument, which means that even being sound/cogent, it can be rejected out of hand on the basis of the law sanctioning hunting, unless that line is proscribed/pre-empted from the get-go. If the legal angle isn't snuffed at the outset, having to make the moral argument when facing the pragmatic context of the law will push one into the philosophical quagmire natural law versus human law, or, equally messy, when and whether one must/should obey or disobey the law which leads, in turn, to a discussion about anarchy, ethics underlying each progression in the discussion/debate. I'm sure you can see that that line has no end, no matter how sound be the "opening salvo" of "promoting certain types of gun use = promoting violence," thus leaving one in the position of accepting a "draw" or a contested win.

    As you saw from my "registration argument" thread, what I will and won't discuss (open the door to) here is driven in part by strategy. As goes the "gun debate," there are certain strategic positions that one can take that accepts the current legal constraints and rights attendant to the 2nd Amendment and the SCOTUS' interpretations of law pertaining to it. Those positions rely on and/or acknowledge the following:
    • The SCOTUS has deemed that gun registration does not limit the right to bear arms. We know this to be so because of the registration requirement for machine guns which has been in place since the mid-1980s.
    • Holding gun owners accountable for "reasonably" maintaining their guns doesn't limit the right to bear arms, but it will ensure that people won't want to be held accountable for the unlawful use of guns the don't own.
    • Increasing the certainty that one will do time for irresponsibly maintaining one's firearms will reduce the incidence of "straw purchases," kids and other unauthorized "friends" of lawful gun owners obtaining possession of lawful gun owners' firearms, successful gun thefts from careless lawful owners, falsely reported losses, etc.
    • Lawful and sane owners who "flip out" are going to exist and we may have ways of identifying them before they unlawfully use their gun(s) or we may not. (I haven't conjured any ideas for just how to deal with this aspect of unlawful gun use.)
    • The majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners/users and the proposals I've submitted aren't going to change that or be something about which they need worry because while they probably haven't registered their guns, they're probably responsibly maintaining them. If they're doing that and keep doing it, they really haven't anything to be concerned about.
    The real problem as goes gun-related violence is guns ease of use, portability and effectiveness at killing. Those traits militate for there being (1) a high degree of accountability to which owners and would-be owners must be held and (2) a lot of circumspection given to determining what individuals have shown they don't deserve to be trusted as being responsible and lawful actual owners of guns.

    I'm not of a mind that guns should be prohibited property. I am of the mind that certain types of guns don't belong in the public sphere -- automatic and semi-automatic guns -- but I know that ownership of them can't be outright prohibited, but it can be tracked as is ownership of machine guns. (And let's face facts. None of the 400+ machine gun owners have been "flipping out" and shooting people or letting others get hold of machine guns and shooting people.) It's not that those types of guns themselves are so bad, but that unfit individuals who obtain possession of them can inflict vastly more amounts of death and injury than they can with manual firearms.

    Even as I'd just as soon semi-automatic and automatic guns not be in the public sphere, I don't particularly want to remove any class of gun from circulation, but I do want people to exercise far more circumspection over their guns and gun use than they do currently; thus I proposed the registration + accountability ideas I have, but not the production restrictions in place for machine guns.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I will respond to your post with gratitude first and then post another post later...
    Yes I agree. It is also important, in this situation to avoid confusing the issue with strictly sports shooting such as clay and circular target shooting. However when using a human form as a target the exception becomes harder to allow.
    Suffice to say that violent intent regardless of whether it is a paper target or a water melon is important to the overall point I was attempting to make regarding the degree a society experiences violence generally. More later...

    or intent to do so or offer a threat to do so likewise.
    I tend to think of violence, in this instance, not so much a moral issue, although of course it can be seen as such. It is also a very pragmatic issue and one that forces any civilization to develop "the rule of law" whether tribal or 1st world contemporary in the first instance. A rule of law that enables a society to function in an orderly fashion and for justice(?) to be served according to a per-determined law/sentence after guilt has been established.

    In the USA situation you are correct IMO. It is impossible to expect dramatic improvement given the sheer scale of the problem hence my desire to deal with the root. That being the general acceptance of violence as a solution to problems being faced.
    By in the least, acknowledging with out moral judgement, that guns are designed to inflict harm ( with previously mentioned exceptions), that guns are tools that human use to violently solve problems then there will be no fundamental shift in attitude towards guns or the acceptance of violence generally.
    Xelor likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    In theory - in the case the gun ban folks are arguing against if they wish to make relevant arguments:

    The capability of violence solves some problems - serious, historically predominant, currently relevant problems.

    And when employed by the courageous, it does it in the best way - by preventing them from arising.

    Polar example: The armed guards on money trucks - not there to shoot people (they take care to be obvious and easily spotted) but to discourage robbery attempts in the first place. When the guns they carry work perfectly, nobody ever gets shot except by accident, incompetent mishap.
    Polar example: the KKK terrorism of a disarmed subpopulation of Americans, part of the living memory of a large fraction of American adults.

    Neither the KKK or the bank robbers are fantasies of the paranoid.

    The ratio of dead perps to dead innocents is 0, when guns work perfectly in the self defense of courageous people.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    "Perps"? Too much TV, maybe?

    What do you know about the KKK and southern racism? My father and uncle were lawyers in Mississippi the the 60's. My father was working with CORE to help prevent more murders in Neshoba county. My uncle had a cross burned in his yard for being a "nigger lover".

    He loaded one their asses with birdshot, and the way the story goes, he had to go to a veterinarian for treatment. A Klan vet, no doubt...

    Don't talk out of school.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Bluster is of course the other, neglected, aspect of the thread topic.

    One of the symptoms of the American cowardice ( that has been electing Republicans (notably Trump) to political office, its role as an actual factor strikes me as underestimated. In the gun control bothsides jamb, say, it seems to be a linchpin. For one thing, it demonstrates impunity - which is a threat.

    In many diseases it's the symptoms that kill you.
  9. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    And blather is the response. Foolish sycophant, who is your master? Reason or repetition?
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    ok... as promised,
    just my unqualified take ok?

    It is the acceptance of violence as a solution that limits or inhibits the rule of law and any reform that may be required.
    The primary purpose of the rule of law is to allow a predetermined mechanism of orderly, uniform and consistent management of disputes between individuals and between individuals and the collective with out the need to resort to violence.
    Any acceptance that violence is necessary to solve problems immediately infringes on the ability of the rule of law to perform it's primary function.

    When a society evolves with the acceptance of violence as the USA has done**, then it is to be expected that a degree of anarchy will be present hence the degree for violence generally in the USA (and world) today. This state of acceptance also corrupts any legal reform processes further inhibiting progress towards a society less inclined towards the use of violence to solve problems.
    There fore, I believe, one can clearly state that the 2nd amendment impinges on the rule of law. Therefore is in contradiction to the constitutions primary function of enshrining the rule of law.

    I am not attempting to moralize violence I am merely suggesting that any acceptance of violence as a solution leads to significant dysfunction of that society. domestically, politically and internationally.

    **As evident in the current need for the 2nd amendment in a founding document.

    Apologies, if my post is not clear or lacking detail.
    Is my reasoning flawed?
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The Constitution's primary function is impinging on the rule of law.
    sideshowbob likes this.
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    what document do you believes creates a rule of law that later may be impinged?
    Remember you are impinging the rule of law using it's antithesis , violence, to do it. (using contemporary interpretations of the 2nd and not necessarily original interpretations)
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Not "later": its function was immediate upon ratification.
    No, I'm not. I'm using the Constitution, a nonviolent means of restricting the rule of law.
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps going back to basics is necessary... a government is what? Other than a law making, management and enforcement body, established under a constitution that is agreed to by all parties concerned to facilitate such law making and management.
    The original interpretation of the 2nd I believe was to establish a capacity to defend the new union from external threat. This would be a very sensible inclusion given the circumstances of the time. IMO
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    except you are using an amendment that allows violence to restrict it with, which is the antithesis of the establishment of the rule of law to prevent violence to begin with..thus a contradiction ( if the 2nd is interpreted as it appears to be today)
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The original interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the central government from disarming its citizens for any reason, including security. That hasn't changed.
    The 2nd Amendment does not allow violence of any kind forbidden by law.
    There's no contradiction anyway - the Constitution restricts the rule of law.
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    perhaps in lieu of adequate government infrastructure and enforcement provisions at the time?
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    iceaura Just to clarify:
    My argument is that:
    • The rule of law establishes a rule of law to over rule the rule of law..... therefore a contradiction.
    Your argument is that:
    • The rule of law establishes a rule of law that restricts the rule of law. .... therefore legally consistent and not a contradiction.

    Do agree with the above assessment?
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nope. In prevention of the consequences of being disarmed by a central government.
    The Constitution restricts the rule of law. Begin there.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    So Uhm that's no..OK
  21. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1888, it's been the duty of Congress through its use of, and authority over the state militias to put down acts of insurrection by rebellious armed citizens. It's always been the constitutional duty of the government to disarm citizens who threaten the security of the government.

    Article 1, Section 8:
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    So while there have been those who have expressed opinions that the the 2nd Amendment was a means to keep the government in check through civilian force of arms, the reality has been that such opinions have always been in direct conflict with the original language and intent of the Constitution.
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    There is an easier way to clarify this crazy logic use by the NRA and others...
    By replacing the word "law" with it's intent we have...

    My argument is that:

    • The rule of law(non-violent solutions) establishes a rule of law(non-violent solutions) to over rule the rule of law(non-violent solutions)..... therefore a contradiction.
    Your argument is that:
    • The rule of law(non-violent solutions) establishes a rule of law(non-violent solutions) that restricts the rule of law(non-violent solutions). .... therefore legally consistent and not a contradiction.
    which is obviously flawed.
    or explicitly
    My argument against your (iceaura) interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that:
    • The rule of non-violent solutions establishes a rule of non-violent solutions to over rule the rule of non-violent solutions..... therefore an obvious contradiction.
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2018
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    This is mistaken.
    No insurrection against the army of the State is indicated as the normal manner in which a central government is kept in check by 2nd Amendment guaranteed civilian arms. Insurrection is almost irrelevant - the Constitution has been discarded at that point. For example, the Civil War was not fought by militia.

    The check is on extrajudicial, paramilitary, mercenary, foreign, criminal, and similar, terrorization and abuse by government "tolerated" outfits. The classic American example would be the KKK, which rose in the denial of Constitutional protections to black people in the Confederacy.

    The authors of the Bill of Rights were sophisticated and experienced, they knew how central government oppression actually worked both from the history they had read and the events of their lives. They knew that civilians in revolt against the army of the State was last ditch desperation. The Constitution was written to prevent that situation, forestall it, not abet it.
    My observation is that the Constitution was written to restrict the rule of law. Restricting the rule of law by violent use of firearms is obviously a different way to do it, since a firearm and a Constitution are quite different entities.

    And they have different roots in personal character and states of mind. A Constitution - imho - embodies a certain courage, an adult and calculated willingness to accept risk and undertake collaborative work in the service of faith and sound judgment.

Share This Page