• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2019ish

Status
Not open for further replies.
^ Regulation is a balancing act.

JessFR said:
Could you please explain to me how you got that from what I said?

Cause I'm still at a loss for how saying that I've met very few non Americans who really understand this aspect of American politics, that just about everyone seems to agree is unusual by international standards, justifies any of what you've suggested.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to answer but your question has a contradiction in it. How can "very few non Americans" not understand yet "just about everyone" agrees it's unusual by international standards? Your comments and questions really are at odds with each other from one sentence to the next.
 
w01fg4ng said:
^ Regulation is a balancing act.


I'm trying to answer but your question has a contradiction in it. How can "very few non Americans" not understand yet "just about everyone" agrees it's unusual by international standards? Your comments and questions really are at odds with each other from one sentence to the next.
Click to expand...

Dude, people can see a phenomenon happening and note how unusual it is without understanding why. There's nothing inconsistent about that.

If I said "almost everyone agrees scientology is a very strange religion", it wouldn't be a contradiction if I also said "I haven't met many people who understand scientology as well as ex scientologists".

Honestly I'm ready to drop this now. This seems like the third post in a row that's claimed something with seemingly no logical basis. Each time I ask you to explain and instead I get another post with yet another suggestion that seems to come from nowhere.

I swear I'm not trying to attack you here, it just doesn't seem like this is going anywhere.
 
Jess, I hate to steal your thunder, but the constitution is actually the document which was amended to allow for the bearing of arms by all citizens. It has to do with the need for raising a militia. The Revolutionary War actually transpired on a much smaller scale than most Americans think. The continental congress could raise about 50,000 fighting men at any given time, although hundreds of thousands would serve throughout the course of the war. The British fielded an approximately equal force, although the British were a well-oiled, trained and disciplined fighting force. Along with their loyalist allies, it made the colonists' victory that much more surprising.

Anyway, the Bill of Rights which you have referenced does not contain the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Thanks for playing Jess, but I'm a history teacher and to be blunt, you're not likely to pull one over on me in this context and I tell you this for your own good. I take no pleasure in schooling you on the foundation of our country.

The musket argument stands. All they had were muskets. The Brown Bess was pretty ubiquitous although the Charleville Carbine would be imported and also see significant action. At any rate, these were Muzzle-Loading Long Guns and were capable of firing only a few rounds per minute by a skilled, well trained and drilled soldier. How many shots do you think your average Revolutionary Patriot could fire as he's pissing his pants staring at a solid line of the aforementioned, well-trained Lobsterbacks or Hessians?
 
Keif' Richards said:
Jess, I hate to steal your thunder, but the constitution is actually the document which was amended to allow for the bearing of arms by all citizens. It has to do with the need for raising a militia. The Revolutionary War actually transpired on a much smaller scale than most Americans think. The continental congress could raise about 50,000 fighting men at any given time, although hundreds of thousands would serve throughout the course of the war. The British fielded an approximately equal force, although the British were a well-oiled, trained and disciplined fighting force. Along with their loyalist allies, it made the colonists' victory that much more surprising.

Anyway, the Bill of Rights which you have referenced does not contain the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Thanks for playing Jess, but I'm a history teacher and to be blunt, you're not likely to pull one over on me in this context and I tell you this for your own good. I take no pleasure in schooling you on the foundation of our country.

The musket argument stands. All they had were muskets. The Brown Bess was pretty ubiquitous although the Charleville Carbine would be imported and also see significant action. At any rate, these were Muzzle-Loading Long Guns and were capable of firing only a few rounds per minute by a skilled, well trained and drilled soldier. How many shots do you think your average Revolutionary Patriot could fire as he's pissing his pants staring at a solid line of the aforementioned, well-trained Lobsterbacks or Hessians?
Click to expand...

Well you certainly have the arrogance I'd expect from a teacher. You're doing a bang up job BTW, the education of the public is a living testament to the quality of its teachers. (yeah I couldn't resist, the vast majority of teachers I've met have not been people I'd want to be around, and your remarks certainly didn't do a great job deterring that impression)

I'm not seeing a lot in your post that addresses what I actually said. For reference...

JessFR said:
I think you're conflating the declaration of independence with the constitution. I'd also like to remind you that in the historical context of the US constitution, it was only intended to constrain the federal government. Even the bill of rights didn't apply to state power. That came later on.

As for the "they only had muskets back then" argument. I don't think it works. Soon as you say that, you say the first amendment doesn't cover the internet, for exactly the same reason.

You can't get around it. The law is the law. Now, I actually agree with you that we can't reasonably expect to know how the founders might have made the 2nd amendment different had they known what the consequences would be. But it's not an excuse to just ignore laws you don't like arbitrarally.

The constitution and the founders provided a method to modify the constitution. Through an amendment. That's the lawful way to change the 2nd amendment. Creative reinterpretation of it is illegitimate and undermines all legal protections that exist.

I tend to think the 2nd amendment could stand to be changed too, I don't know that I really believe in an absolute right to own a gun for everybody. But I for one will never support illegally ignoring the law and just having the government do whatever it wants. Even if the reason is altruistic.

The reason we can't change it legally is because a lot of people don't agree. And regardless of if they're right or wrong not to agree, they have a say too in a democracy.

And I'd rather live in an imperfect democratic country with rights that aren't so easily thrown out or reinterpreted as you would seem to prefer.

Doing the right thing doesn't justify doing it the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Which was in reply to...

Keif' Richards said:
When the constitution was written, one could fire a musket maybe 3 times per minute. To say that the historiography of this mess applies to automatic weapons and assault rifles. It's just not possible to say that the "Founding Fathers" would have had any idea of how things would turn out, which in my opinion makes the constitution invalid. I believe the constitution to be completely invalid anyway.

Our "Founding Fathers" had no problem proclaiming that all men are created equal in the eyes of God, yet, it is still okay for us to own human beings. The constitution was an absolute farce from the moment it was written as those who wrote it clearly either had no integrity whatsoever or are simply two-faced. I find it hilarious... HILARIOUS that Americans continue to discuss this document as if it is relevant in any way whatsoever.

Learning History sucks. You inevitably get to a point where you realize all men are dishonest, liars, violent to the death and disregarding of the wants, needs and desires of others.
Click to expand...

So, to sum up, from my interpretation you made the following points...

That the constitution was written at a time when firearm technology was very different. A point I condeeded, although seeing as you made reference to how the constitution was the document which was amended with the bill of rights just now, I find it amusing that you appear to have conflated them in exactly the way you accuse me of.

Nevertheless, I condeeded that point, along with your argument that we can't know what the founders would have done had they known the future.

You also argued that you consider the constitution invalid, with a reasoning being that actions taken over much of our history contradict with stuff said in the declaration of independence.

I then made the point that I thought you were conflating the declaration of independence with the constitution. But no matter, your points still a valid argument, which is why my other, primary counterargument was that the constitution and the bill of rights were originally written to constrain the power of the federal government. It wouldn't expand to the state level until the 14th amendment. And slavery was largely a state level issue. Which was my argument against the accusation of hypocracy by the US federal government and the documents and people it is founded on.

I also argued that suggesting the 2nd amendment doesn't apply today because of changes in weapon technology fails because if that's the case you can say the internet isn't subject to the first amendment because it wasn't around back then either.

Then you posted this arrogant "I'm a teacher so I know better" shit, that seems to have absolutely no counter argument to mine at all. It seems to just say "I'm a teacher I know history, my musket point stands".

I'm not seeing an argument to my point about free speech and the internet. Or that the constitution was exclusively federal in the beginning and so claims of hypocracy are somewhat dubious. Seems more like your point was "I'm a teacher, and since I disagree with you, that proves you were wrong"

You're still welcome to make such counter arguments though.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty simple Jess. The Bill of Rights does not contain the second amendment. There was no need to write a novel on the subject. Arrogance is not my primary setting, but it rubs me the wrong way when folks actively disseminate information that is incorrect. There is no argument available to you in which the Second Amendment is contained within the Bill of Rights. You can discuss it and twist it until the cows come home, but it will never be historically accurate.

This doesn't mean every argument you've ever made is inaccurate. Things that have happened in the past cannot be changed, so unfortunately, there is no gentle way of correcting inconsistencies. History is unbending, so if I were to be polite and say "Well, you do have a somewhat valid argument, but..." I would only be further propagating these historical inaccuracies and as is evident in this thread, Americans are vastly under-educated in the History of their own country.

I don't really understand what the internet and/or free speech have to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing and only further confuses what should have been an easy point. No need to get nasty. I'm still arguing about the constitution not about a Straw Man named JessFR.
 
Last edited:
Keif' Richards said:
It's pretty simple Jess. The Bill of Rights does not contain the second amendment. There was no need to write a novel on the subject. Arrogance is not my primary setting, but it rubs me the wrong way when folks actively disseminate information that is incorrect. There is no argument available to you in which the Second Amendment is contained within the Bill of Rights. You can discuss it and twist it until the cows come home, but it will never be historically accurate.

This doesn't mean every argument you've ever made is inaccurate. Things that have happened in the past cannot be changed, so unfortunately, there is no gentle way of correcting inconsistencies. History is unbending, so if I were to be polite and say "Well, you do have a somewhat valid argument, but..." I would only be further propagating these historical inaccuracies and as is evident in this thread, Americans are vastly under-educated in the History of their own country.

I don't really understand what the internet and/or free speech have to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with what we are discussing and only further confuses what should have been an easy point. No need to get nasty. I'm still arguing about the constitution not about a Straw Man named JessFR.
Click to expand...

I figure you must have something in mind when you say "there is no second amendment in the bill of rights". I can think of some possibilities of what you might be going for, but I don't want to second guess what you mean by that. So could you please elaborate?

As for the internet and free speech. OK this is my argument, but it's predicated on the 2nd amendments existence so we're gonna have to get on the same page there first before it'll mean very much.

But the argument is, if you propose the 2nd amendment isn't valid today because firearm technology has undergone such significant advancement that founders like Madison could not be expected to have intended it to apply in the way it does today. Then it becomes just as logical to say there is no right to free speech covering the internet. Because the internet is also an advance in communication that could not have been predicted.

The courts have held that the bill of rights extends as technology advances, and I'd say with very good reason.
 
Right. My original argument included my implication that the majority of our founding documents are irrelevant and useless in modern times. It's all a bunch of bullshit in my opinion. I'm a Patriot and I would die for my country, but we seriously need to stop referring to this shit as if it has any kind of meaning to us in the modern United States.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…."

What is utterly hilarious to me, is that the primary author of our Declaration of Independence was none other than Thomas Jefferson. Tom, as many of us know, is pretty famous for owning, fucking and impregnating his slaves. Not only did he sire numerous children with his side-piece Sally Hemmings, he was nice enough to allow her to keep her position... as a slave... until his death... along with the children.

So, I'm supposed to venerate and respect a man who was essentially a rapist; a man who owned other human beings and used them as sex toys. This man has the gall to write a document declaring all men to be created before God. It is a farce. These documents are used merely to spur patriotism among Americans. It helps convince people that we are a nation of integrity, built upon documents and theory that are unchangeable and True

Just so you all know, there was a study conducted in the 00's that essentially concluded 60% of Americans cannot locate the nation of England on a blank, unlabeled map of the world, while 30% could not locate the United States on said blank map. If that doesn't scare the shit out of you I don't know what will. My point is, most Americans do not know enough about the world around them. I don't think I'm superior for knowing this shit. I believe it is one's duty to learn these things.
 
Wikipedia: The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

Guy on internet: It's pretty simple Jess. The Bill of Rights does not contain the second amendment.

Can someone clarify this please? I am not American.
 
You're allowed to believe all that of course, but I still don't see what you meant by saying there's no second amendment in the bill of rights.

For what it's worth, I don't entirely disagree with you here. I do think it can be difficult to make moral judgements of people who lived in such different times from our own, and I also think there are many ways America has triumphed in progressing freedom to be impressed by in addition to many terrible failures. I don't think it's as one sided and black and white as it seems you're suggesting.

Zoqium said:
Wikipedia: The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

Guy on internet: It's pretty simple Jess. The Bill of Rights does not contain the second amendment.

Can someone clarify this please? I am not American.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm still not sure either. I can think of a few interpretations that make some sense, like that there is no second amendment the way people interpret it in the bill of rights. I'd disagree but it's a lot more sensible than just saying it doesn't exist at all.

Given some of the other things that were said I had considered maybe he was talking about the Virginia declaration of rights. Which does have an ancestor to the 2nd amendment in section 13. But I'd still say it's a highly dubious argument.

So yea I have no idea. But those were some of my guesses for where it might have been going.
 
F.U.B.A.R. said:
Wow, so you're saying that anyone over 18 can turn up at a gun show and buy whatever they like with no background checks or anything? Fuck me, that's insane. You guys can't even buy a beer until you're 21...
Click to expand...

Yes, well I think it's on a state-by-state basis. Some states have different rules but yes where there are gun shows, there are no checks, you can just buy them if you're old enough. As opposed to if you buy a gun from a gun store, you have to pass a background check and there is a waiting period. Also (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) but I recall in some places you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, but you can be 18 or 19 to buy an assault rifle (probably with the idea that an 18 year old should be able to buy a hunting rifle but then the assault rifle ban lifted and they counted them the same as non high-powered semi-automatic rifles). It's a clusterfuck.
 
You actually don't even need to be 18.

Think of it this way. If the legal marijuana industry allowed non-licensed sellers to show up at a convention and sell their product, how honest do you think these blackmarket sellers would be?
 
My big issue with people bitching about the gun show loophole is that I've never seen any evidence to suggest it's actually being exploited in any significant way. I'd be happy to see the loophole closed, but only if I had a bit more evidence that it would do some good. So if anyone has any, let me know.

Otherwise I tend to think of the gun show loophole as more of a distraction. A sacrificial lamb that groups like the NRA pretend to care about to keep activity away from anything real.

Something they can sacrifice one day along with several other meaningless consessioms when political pressure is high, but will have only the most negligible impact on anything they really care about. Like being able to buy an Uzi for home security. :)
 
But don't you find it ridiculous that we have gun laws, yet it's clearly not important to enforce them since you can completely ignore them at gun shows? What's the point of having laws at all? What do we lose by enforcing the laws at gun shows? Why NOT enforce them across the board? I don't get why we wouldn't and don't. I mean clearly gun shows make it much easier for anyone to get their hands on guns, including powerful guns made for killing a lot of people fast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that someone wanting to obtain a gun for nefarious purposes is going to exploit gun shows. Anyone interested in committing a mass shooting has got to instantly think of going to a gun show so they can get what they want no questions asked. How would they not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top