Pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelor, Apr 21, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    In the US, in particular, we have reason to maintain the distinction of metaphorical, vs actual, enslavement.
    There have never been free people, then - at least not since the invention of firearms.
    True. But not the only people willing to vote it away.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    Chinese soldiers in Korea often didn't bring guns. They would just pick one up from the dead. If you need to revolt, you are ignoring laws anyway, so who needs a right to bear arms?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,948
    Not really its meant as a specific mention to the democratic and to the us in particular. and it stands. in a democratic society if you need to use firearms to protect your freedom than you've already sat on your ass and let freedom being taken. it should also be noted its a belief of mine that was first brought to the attention of mine by a fantasy series where their were no guns.

    it depends on ones conceptilization of freedom.
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    18,314
    a quote out of my arse...
    "There is no greater oppressor of freedom than fear" - Psychology 101
    ...either your fear or someone elses fear...
    You need a gun because...why?
     
  8. Capracus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    943
    Who needs guns. Any self respecting gun advocate knows that guns are just tools, and anyone wishing to kill another only needs to use the tools at hand to accomplish that goal. Cars, trucks, knives and screwdrivers are all that’s necessary to launch a successful revolt.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    Not if the guns are useful as foreseen. A gun that works to protect your freedom does so mostly by forestalling attempts to take away. Just as their presence, not their use, reduces the rates of burglary of an occupied dwelling and similar violence.

    And in that emergency situation, in that failure to protect, better to have them than not as well.
     
  10. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,948
    not really. weaponry throughout history has been a vehicle for tyranny far more often than a vehicle for freedom. just look at roving bands of miltia in africa participating in genocide. The Nazis loosened gun control laws. That didn't stop them from attacking peoples freedom. If some wants to end your freedom they will attempt to do so, gun or no gun. Attacks on freedom tend not to come as naked violence but as psychological attacks and against the population. Guns have never proven useful in that respect in human history. its a fantasy.
    and yet it is in areas of high gun ownership that top the list of burglaries and ones with low gun ownership at the bottom
    https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/city-highest-burglary-rate-america.html/
    hell guns are so bad at stopping burglaries they are one of the most commonly stolen items

    the go to city to prove guns prevent burglaries is kennesaw georgia a city, a city half an hour from me. a study shows that it reduced it. problem was they picked a year that had 75% more burglaries( which i doubt is a coincidence) as their starting point. using any other year no change. in fact the biggest crime problem in kennesaw is people stealing guns.

    now this digresses from the thread topic so im going to attempt to link it back.

    The idea that guns reduce crime or protect freedom is not a rational factual based argument. it is an emotional one. people's identity is tied up in being a gun owner and no one wants to look like a fool so they ignore information that proves them wrong. people have these beliefs in part because organizations like the NRA and the republican party push a badly ahistorical and mythological view of the second amendment that ignores anything that contradicts this. Many have fallen for it, like yourself. this mythologization of the gun attitudes goes hand in hand with the mythologization of the colonization of the western united states in that a lot of the misguided views in that the were free and permissive of guns when nothing could be further from the truth.
     
  11. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,152
    And all you need to make guns is a machine shop or a 3D printer. Bullets may be a problem.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    That's only if tyranny has been far more common than freedom.
    There is no historical record of a disarmed population remaining free for long. Africa provides several good examples. The Nazis disarmed the Jews.
    But lack of guns has often proved crippling.
    The point of my post, that you are replying to, is that guns provide most of their good effect and benefits (if any) when not "useful" in that sense. The arguments based on "use" - shooting people, etc - miss the point.
    It can be.
    The bothsides jamb is of course dominating with its lousy stats and worse arguments, but one can set that aside in good faith.
    Burglary of an occupied dwelling. Try to pay attention, eh?

    Besides, that's probably not true ( I can't see your link, but the usual problem with that category of stat is that the crime and the guns are in different areas) . We have had entire thread discussions on bad stats as a bothsides phenomenon.
    Bad stats: A bothsides phenomenon in gun issues.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,314
    I would seriously dispute that...
    except that you are talking about a government deliberately disarming the population of all guns, which of course is even worse that what you have already. (and is a fear based conflation ~ paranoia)

    Examples:
    • Great Britain has plenty of well regulated guns. The population has not been disarmed by a government. The police force only recently gained firearm support. The people of Great Britain remain relatively free.
    • Australia also has plenty of well regulated guns. The population was invited to hand in illegal firearms under amnesty some time ago. The people of Australia remain relatively free.
    You wish to promote an "all or nothing" situation when it suits you and not when it doesn't.

    Any how, IMO the situation in the USA is so hot that there is little chance of any head way in the short to medium term, so if you wish to live free of the threat of getting shot by a paranoid granny**, migrate to Australia but leave your guns in the USA.

    ** you are not the only one that can make use of conflation to promote a point.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  14. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,948
    untrue
    untrue. the vatican has been disarmed for years and remained free for almost a century since the lateran treaty.
    africa proves the dangers of arming a society not disarming them.
    they did no such thing. they armed everyone else. while the net effect is relatively the same the distinction is important. also only a moron would actually make that argument. modern armies fell before the nazi military. the idea of scattered armed jewish bands making a differences is laughable. Your not stupid why are you insisting on an argument that makes you looking a fucking idiot. any hill to choose to die on, why one this stupid?
    http://www.armedwithreason.com/mili...ns-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/

    no it has not often been crippling. you'd be hard pressed to legitimately show where arming a population would have stopped oppression without making absurd assumptions.
    no they dont. a gun is useful only in shooting someone or the threat of shooting someone. thats it.

    than why hasn't anyone done it? because it cant be done.
    their is no both sides jamb. that is your own personal delusion. there is only one side thats a problem the pro gun side. your side. their is the pro control side. which with some outliers is generally fact based, rational, and operating in good faith. than there is your side the pro-gun side which relies on threats, lies, data manipulation. whose principle scholar can't find a reputable job because he is a proven fraud.
    I ignored it because its an attempt to use an overly narrow subset of data to make comments on a larger set to bake a bad faith argument. it should be noted that 28% of robberies are of an occupied dwelling of those only a quarter involved a violent crime so 7%. of those two thirds the offender was known to the victim. instances in which a gun is less of an effect because the offender can rely on familarity to reduce suspicion. We both know what your reaction to someone using a 7% subset would be but were supposed to accept from you because your clearly better than us and we should all defer to you, right your highness? funny how you talk how its both sides using shifty statistics but its you intentionally using a dishonest representation of information to make your point and not me.
    so your point it might slightly bump down the small subset but bump up the other 93% so that means we have to hurt the 93% for the 7%?

    talk about being biased. i cant look at it an evaluate it but its probably bad anyway. Why is that ice? is it because it disagrees with you you royal highness? its far more likely that my info is true and you just dont want to accept it because it proves you wrong. not that i am willing to believe you it didn't work. your are renown for your bad faith arguing on this topic.
    no we haven't. a discussion implies anyone has taken you seriously, no one has. there is no both sides its a lie so you don't have to take responsibility for the consequences of your beliefs. as i said there are 2 sides. the gun control side which has its outliers but is generally factual, rational, scientific and operating in good faith. the their is your side the pro gun side. which relies on threats, making shit up, and its principle scholars most known for their fraud. but since i'm kind and unlike you am willing to operate in good faith I'll give you a deal. Find the gun control version of john lott and find the gun control version of the 500k to 3 million defensive gun use lies and i might be willing to play ball on it being a both sides issue. though i decide if its your accurate. you have long since lost any benefit of the doubt on this topic ice. you dont get treated like your acting in good faith until you can actual show your willing to act in good faith.

    For lott comparison to be valid the person must be
    have it been proven theyfraudulently manufactured surveys to use in a study
    have been accused of academic dishonesty in defense of their work
    have been completely discredited in academic circles. By this i mean the works they are most known for have been repeatedly been debunked by non partisan, non biased academics.

    For the defensive gun use
    it once again must be repeatedly debunked by non partisan non biased academics
    it must be used excessively by people on the side no matter how many times it has been shown false. find me these and than we can begin to maybe have a discussion that its both sides. until than its just one side yours.
     
  15. pjdude1219 screw watergate i want to know about zaragate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,948
    We never going to make head way. this is an emotional argument for him. He's never going to be capable of discussing it rationally.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    Not "all" guns - just enough of them.
    Read the history of Great Britain and the British Empire, and you will find many, many examples of the central government disarming some population - including some of its own citizens - and proceeding to abuse and oppress them, or (even more common) make them vulnerable to abuse and oppression by government-favored forces. This common sequence of events was ready at hand in the British colonies of North America in the late 1700s - it was an immediate concern of the American population, especially the Scotch Irish on the frontier.

    Otherwise, if as you point out the citizens of Australia and Great Britain now have "plenty of" guns, and also in correlation they have civil liberties and freedoms, they stand as examples of my description.

    And - just to note the obvious - the recent restrictions on gun ownership in Australia and Great Britain are untested circumstances. History also presents us with examples of freedom and liberty lasting for a while - even a couple of generations - before well armed men with bad agendas appeared on the scene.
    I have never, in any situation, in any post, in any thread, promoted or defended or even failed to oppose any "all or nothing" situation. The exact and explicit and repeated and quite forceful opposite is the case, at all times in every post of mine here. I am, for example, the primary poster of suggestions for more sensible and immediately implementable control of firearms and ammunition in the US, complete with arguments and evidence and so forth, on this forum. None of them are "all or nothing".
    I live under no such threat. I'm not sure where you are getting your idea of what American life is like, but the only realistic threat of getting shot I face is when walking in the woods during firearm deer hunting season.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,314
    Oh ... but you did... and sort to change the context as you went about it...
    Context is like a leaf in the wind....
    eg.
    so what do you mean by disarmed population?
    I am referring to regulated weapons and you are referring to complete disarmament and some how believe that your contextual manipulation is not noticed.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    That's the best counter example you can find? I rest my case.
    No, it doesn't. After the slave trade and colonial oppression of the disarmed, African societies and private citizens were too poor to become armed.
    What were armed in Africa were the police, the armies, the security forces, the gangs of this warlord or that one, the tribal paramilitaries and mercenaries with corporate support.
    And that situation - restricting firearms to such professional and semi-professional organizations - is whose recommendation for the US? remind me.
    You didn't just ignore it, you substituted your own bs for it, and treated your bs as if it were my posting. You do that a lot.
    What I posted was an example - just one, but one that a diligent person can actually check out to a limited but informative degree - of the claimed role of guns in self-defense.
    The threat is much different than the shooting, and you overlook its role at all other times - your attempts to conflate disparate factors when they are central to the discussion are frequent.
    I've posted various arguments and half dozen counterexamples to this error of yours. Some of them quite obvious.
    Because the last two hundred examples of that kind of argument on this forum - including every single one you've posted for years now - were bad in exactly that way. And a lot of your links don't work, which is a pain in the ass.
    I've done it right here. So have many others, in various places - including the people who wrote the US Constitution.
    The barrage of bad arguments and bad stats and misrepresentations and general bullshit from the "anti-gun side" has effects on sensible people that you refuse to recognize.
    If you had attempted an honest argument, you would have addressed the comparative frequency of violent crimes that involved burglary of an occupied dwelling in gun-heavy vs gun-light communities. That was the basis of my point.
    Instead you post statistics that even fail to distinguish - accurately - between gun-heavy and gun-light communities.
    I'm on the gun control side, remember?

    Meanwhile: Not the general arguments dominating the public media, and jambing from that side. They are remarkably irrational, unscientific, counter-factual, and disingenuous. The side behaves as you do, in other words. And many reasonable people will refuse to hand political power to that kind of rhetoric and behavior - even when they agree with the claimed agenda, even when they support specific proposals.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    No, I didn't. No context, no example, never once.
    You are referring to partial disarmament of the citizenry.
    There is no other context for your references to Australia (weapons confiscated by the government under "amnesty", etc), and Great Britain (many obstacles and prohibitions of ownership and use, leading deliberately to a citizenry generally without firearms in their possession).
    And there is no other context for legal measures aimed at reducing the prevalence of guns in the US - coercion aimed at making guns less prevalent than they already are is disarmament.
    That partial disarmament is what I refer to when I refer to your examples, which I refer to as disarmaments, because they are.
    I have also referred to the paramilitary oppression of black people in the US, the historical record of Great Britain's disarmaments - partial disarmaments, in every case - of various abused and oppressed populations under its authority, and several other such public records I regard as significant.
    I don't think I have referred to a single "complete disarmament", in the weird sense you seem to be implying, except possibly that of slaves in the Americas.

    So you appear to be confused. And this is pretty late in the game to be confused like that. How do you suppose that happened?
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,314
    perhaps you don't have kids going to school?
    Or maybe you avoid casinos or any crowded place?
    Do you know where the next mass shooting is going to take place?
    You say you live under no such threat... and demonstrate by saying so exactly why the problem of gun regulation is so vexatious. "I live under no such threat" ... speaks volumes....besides we are not discussing just your safety here but the safety of the public generally. I am sure many who got gunned down at Vegas shooting thought that the same as you...."I live under no such threat"...
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,314
    see my edit... ( sorry )
    edit:
    What I think you are referring to is the ability to carry and conceal weapons in public spaces. This is highly illegal in Australia and I would imagine so to the UK unless strictly licensed/regulated for law enforcement or armed security guards, with heavy restrictions on the concealment aspect. ( most side-arms are deliberately visible)
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    No more than I avoid sheltering under roofs and trees when it's raining, because I don't know where the lightning will strike next.

    And if you took that comment as some kind of opposition to lightning rods and electrical codes for buildings and safety precautions on golf courses during thunderstorms and so forth, you would be behaving like a too common kind of gun control advocate.
    It was your question, your focus, your emphasis on my personal circumstances, that provoked the response.
    That's you, not me, exaggerating the personal and appealing to selfishness and so forth.
    That was you, not me, failing to address the safety of the public generally - if we are really to take your question and my reply in such a pretend-stupid manner.

    But why do that? Of course you were rhetorically commenting on public safety, simply setting it as a personal address - and you got a rhetorical answer in kind, my safety standing in for the safety of the general public in my response as it did in your provocation. I took you in good faith - why not respond in good faith?

    Here's your question:
    The safety of the general public is not threatened in any such fashion, or to that degree, in the US. Better?
    Why in hell would you think something like that?
    I directly stated what I was referring to, using the words "refer to", "referred to", and "have referred to", so you could tell.

    And when I refer to the strange, irrational, unscientific, politically jambing behavior of the "sides" in the US gun control public discussion? It's like this thread, joining so many others.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,314
    The political culture of the time is quite interesting:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    and note the similarity to an early alleged Scottish Freemasonry crypt stone "Obey, or die" (1450's) suggesting that perhaps the "call" had evolved over the 300 years or so. (glib)

    The symbolism and mythology associated of using a segmented snake is rather striking as well.

    "The Confidence of the French in this Undertaking seems well-grounded on the present disunited State of the British Colonies, and the extreme Difficulty of bringing so many different Governments and Assemblies to agree in any speedy and effectual Measures for our common defense and Security; while our Enemies have the very great Advantage of being under one Direction, with one Council, and one Purse...." ~Benjamin Franklin​

    ** notice the use of caps on key words...
    Suffice to suggest that the 2nd amendment was a part of a somewhat desperate struggle for the unification of many British Colonies and the succession from the British crown.
     

Share This Page