The fundamental stupidity of US gun laws

Post Reply New Topic

It is perfectly alright for practically anybody to carry a loaded gun in the public.

Only when someone starts shooting, the 'good guys' can start to think about stopping the shooter.

It's the second amendment of the Constitution: "Right to bear arms." Though I'd rather have someone assessed for any signs of mental disturbance or anything else that could hinder their judgement.

The purpose of gun control is not to protect the citizens from the criminals, but to protect the politicians from the citizens.

I'm pretty sure no one gets killed by a gun in nations where it is illegal to carry a gun in public.

I don't think a right to gun ownership lies in the oft-trumpeted Second Amendment, at least not in the context gun lovers so often claim.

The version ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson reads:

"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."

This text is in a very simple "premise, conclusion" format- at least with the comma,
(the original version by Congress doesn't contain the comma, interestingly, and IMO that's cause for a whole 'nother conversation)
the right to bear arms is justified on A SPECIFIC BASIS.
Guns weren't thought of then in a Gran Torino "Get off my lawn"/away from my INDIVIDUAL property-type fashion like they are today-
they were considered a tool for a BODY OF PEOPLE to fend for their liberties, and, given the times, we have to conclude the presumed adversary was an OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT.

This is Jefferson we're talking about:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

I believe there can be asserted a vested ethical right to physical protection of one's person, which, in a culture where guns are rampant,
realistically should mean that my right to own and use a firearm rests in the sheer fact that firearms are precisely what might very well be used against ME,
and illegalization of them would logically mean only law-breakers would possess/use them,
and the thing with lawbreakers is that they tend to break more than one type of law, whether it be outright robbing of banks, buarglaries, etc.
It's just the nature of correlation.

In my opinion, however, the types of economic disparity we're as a society faced with render the Second Amendment all the more ambiguous,
in that one can view deliberate, systematic and institutional economic oppression (the most profound effects of which ALSO correlate with crimes such as those described above)
as precisely the same type of tyranny Jefferson referred to,
and in his conflicts with Alexander Hamilton, fought against...
is a hungry person, starving in a nation of great material possession, not fighting back against a tyrant when he takes money which was otherwise-destined for the pockets of a millionaire?

There is also great argument to be made, based on Jefferson's other comments, that in the foundational premise "the security of a free state",
"security" referred to strength against a foreign invader of a then-extremely vulnerable Republic as a first line of defense.

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

Either way, "gun nuts" (I consider myself at least an enthusiast) too often parrot the conclusion to one another, and insert their own applications, usually ones appealing to their individualism,
and never seem to know even the wording, let alone the historical philosophies, of the foundational premise on which it rests- whatever the interpretation of it, it can't be said to be an appeal to "personal freedom" as opposed to group necessity.

Whatever. I carry.

That only argues that the constitution is stupid.

Nothing but baseless assertion.


Western Europe has lower homicide rate than US...

So, do tell, what bastion of free and open society do you hail from?

This assessment would be an expensive and arbitrary infringement of a right.

How is it baseless? Do you want the rich controlling you?

Still, some of those homicides are committed with guns, and therefore, gun crime still happens in Western Europe.

Crime sky rocketed in Jamaica after they banned and had people turn in their guns. They found out that people that followed their gun laws were actually law abiding citizens.

Less gun crime happens in Western Europe.

The rich control America, even more so than they control most of Western Europe (I would point to relative tax burdens as evidence for this).

Politicians don't need shooting. Again, in Western Europe we don't have politicians imposing authoritarian regimes because nobody is assassinating them. Politicians are people too. Heck, the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords is an argument in favour of extra gun control!

If no gun crime happened in Western Europe, then gun control would work. Don't let yourself be fooled, surveillance cameras on every street corner, super-national bodies that the people have no control over, the rich control you and they are afraid of losing that control.

No, gun control works if it reduces gun crime. If even one fewer death happens due to gun control, it has worked.

As for the rest of your post:



(I hope I'm failing to see a stealth parody here)

I am not going to dignify that with a response.

Jamaica has total gun control, as in they went door to door and confiscated guns. The crime rate has exploded since 1974.

Europe has no moral high ground to stand on when it comes to violence. They are a homogeneous collectivized society whose tribes long ago separated themselves and have warred against each other for most of their history. When that homogeneity is challenged with in their borders they elect Nazis.

I'm not taking any moral highground here, I'm simply stating facts. Western Europe is a society that is comparable in terms of development to America, and it has a much lower rate of gun crime.

What about Australia? Historically a lower level of crime, that has remained low (and mass shooting have dropped, though overall firearm homicides cannot be shown to have dropped) after the introduction of tight gun control and a gun buyback scheme.