Do you support the second amendment?

[Vonsalza]

Very powerful and pointed statement. Excellently well done.

Jon over-romanticized it just a bit.

The rifle clubs it began out of were championed by General Burnside because government officials learned that only 1 confederate was hit for every 1000 union shots fired during the civil war.

They found that number unacceptable and wanted to start clubs for improving the marksmanship of the civil populace so they’d be a little more efficient with their shots in wartime.

-Which is totally fine. But the desire to defend and support the 2nd Amendment was not the primary aim of the NRA in its infancy. Improving American marksmanship was.

 

[Vonsalza]

I see engineering efforts. Engineers at Marlin and Ruger sat down to design a mechanism for a specific purpose.

I claim that ‘people-hunting’ never entered their minds when they were designing the actions for the 10/22 or 60

The blow-back action came to be as an innovation to better kill people.

This is a historical fact. And it’s true for the advent of every other firearm action.

I’ll happily concede that those particular rifles were designed to be plinkers. .22s aren’t good for much else. But they created them by modifying technology that was invented for warfare.

 

[pnewton]

Here is one good reason not to base an argument for the Second Amendment on the fact that it is a Constitutional right. Besides that it is circular reasoning, the same argument would mean we should adhere to this,

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

So, do immigrants without documentation count? Do we exclude those of Native American ancestry? Do we include the unborn? Corporations? There is some garbage in the Constitution. It was a product of its time and limited by the moral understanding of that time.

 

[Vonsalza]

Here is one good reason not to base an argument for the Second Amendment on the fact that it is a Constitutional right. Besides that it is circular reasoning, the same argument would mean we should adhere to this,

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

So, do immigrants without documentation count? Do we exclude those of Native American ancestry? Do we include the unborn? Corporations? There is some garbage in the Constitution. It was a product of its time and limited by the moral understanding of that time.

Well, we do and should have a right to bear arms. And yes, a constitution is a circular document by its very nature. It is the base axiom of the law.

But obviously the right to bear arms in limited. We were having a discussion about to what degree it should be limited beyond how it’s already limited now.

 

[Brendan]

And it is a historical fact that turbochargers developed out of racing engines

No one can claim that ( to parapharase you) “The modern turbo charged engines were designed as racers”

So your statement “The modern semi-automatic rifle actions and handguns were designed as people-hunters” is likewise false. You are confusing the terms ‘invented’ with ‘designed’.

Did the Marlin engineers invent the blowback action, no. Did they design a different one than J.M. Browning, certainly. And that PURPOSE of that design is decidedly different.

 

[pnewton]

. We were having a discussion about to what degree it should be limited beyond how it’s already limited now.

The topic is pretty much the application of the Constitution, though I respect this expansion of the discussion. I note the Second Amendment is listed in the title and firearm engineering is not. So, I will go with the right to bear arms must be broad enough to allow a well-regulated militia, as per the actual wording.

 

[upant]

there is a way to change it.
if you don’t want the 2nd by all means amend it if you have the votes.
otherwise follow it as written and adjudicated.
heller & mcdonald settled the militia issue.

moral understanding of the time, do you think the subjective morality of today is better?

why is there such violence today? because we have no objective morals in main stream society. the i want to be/do so it is ok mentality allows for all kinds of behaviors from saintly to satanic and no one can say it is wrong.

how many older members thought child sacrifice would ever be allowed? if this isn’t satanic nothing is.

 

[pnewton]

if you don’t want the 2nd by all means amend it if you have the votes.

otherwise follow it as written and adjudicated.

heller & mcdonald settled the militia issue.

Dred Scott, Plessey v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade

Of course I will support the law and how it is adjudicated, but surely you know nothing is adjudicated forever. “Settled” is a mythical notion.

moral understanding of the time, do you think the subjective morality of today is better?

Well, I see how white people might thing this. I doubt many blacks would think that our subjective morality of today is worse than the any morality that dehumanized an entire population. But one thing this thread has made clear. Racism is still alive and well today. In fact, so much so that I started discussing a science project for my son and seeing if there is any correlation between such things as gun ownership, NRA membership, and believe in little gun control; and racism. It should make an interesting study.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do you know what progressives and conservatives have in common? They like to exercise control when they are in power and oppose it when they are not.

Actually, one of the biggest problems with the current GOP Congress is they aren’t using their power to further reverse big government intrusion on many issues.

 

[upant]

Well, I see how white people might thing this.

funny i see morality as a religious issue.

I doubt many blacks would think that our subjective morality of today is worse than the any morality that dehumanized an entire population.

you missed the point. subjective morality allows for no wrong all right. it would allow the behavior of the past and worst.

But one thing this thread has made clear. Racism is still alive and well today.

but since you mentioned it, gun control was started as a racist issue. they wanted to limit people of color from arming themselves. now it has spread to any poor person. people of means will always have access we don’t. you just have to pay the fees or hire the bodyguards.

The Declaration of Independence stated hat all men are created equal; but, colonel colt gave us the tool to really make us equal.

 

[upant]

Of course I will support the law and how it is adjudicated, but surely you know nothing is adjudicated forever. “Settled” is a mythical notion.

if rump keeps picking judges like gorsuch it will be settled for a while

 

[starshiptrooper]

They don’t necessarily have to. But if the option of “flight” is available when faced with a potentially deadly confrontation, you’re morally and seemingly legally obligated to select it if it doesn’t present any immediate additional dangers to yourself or others.

I disagree, retreat should never be a primary option. I see no reason why good men should have to yield to evil men. If a retreat is a reasonable possibility, it might behoove the individual to take advantage of it, but this should never be obligatory.

If there’s a loon out in the street holding a gun and yelling obscenities, immediately challenging him directly with deadly force would be a phenomenal way to go to prison.

Call the cops. Hold your fire unless me makes potentially lethal aggression toward you specifically.

Agreed, in this particular situation, there is no threat to you personally, no justification to draw a weapon, and therefore this is best handled by law enforcement. I have no desire to be a police officer without a badge.

 

[ChaosGamma]

I knew that. I was thinking of Hamilton or somebody trying to get the President to have the same powers as the Crown during the Constitutional Assembly and mixed things up. Mea culpa.

Nevertheless, as far as practical matters go, the President of the United States did and does have more power than the Queen of Great Britain. It has similarly degenerated over the last two centuries but it’s not all gone. If Her Majesty were to try to oppose some bill (at least, so long as it’s some progressive pet) from making it through Parliament, I have little doubt things would turn out similarly to Belgium and Luxembourg when those countries’ monarchs tried to step in, with their constitutional powers, and prevent evil being done to their people.

EDIT: I do have some fondness for the Federalists and Washington, though a traitor, wasn’t a terribly bad guy. And the fact that their government, even though highly degraded and little resembling their design, has survived 230 years is a testament to their not being wholly removed from reality. At least it hasn’t yet blown up the way the First French Republic did.

Still, the Enlightenment and its descendants are a bastardization of the true heritage of the West. That lies in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the Catholic Reformation. It was the Throne and Altar that built the West. It is liberty, equality and democracy that are destroying it.

 

[godisgood77]

The survey answers are insufficient.

You can support the 2nd amendment and support con sense laws governing how people acquire firearms and what types of firearms

The answer options as presented are too narrow and are disconnected from reality

 

[thephilosopher6]

“Common sense” gun laws do exist already in the U.S, the survey is sufficient.

 

[JonNC]

Just noting that Dred Scott, Plessey and Roe along with Jim Crow were all supported and championed by the Democratic Party

 

[godisgood77]

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Wanting common sense gun laws do not make one against the 2nd amendment.

I,like many, support the 2nd amendment ad the fathers intended it and I support common sense laws that governs the way people acquire guns - We do not have that today

Here’s a good example of the so called ‘common-sense’ gun laws in action Redirecting...

 

[upant]

the Dickey amendment passed to prevent research on gun violence lest it give reveal information that might aid in a reasonable regulation of firearms, or as the Second Amendment says, “well-regulated”.

the CDC isn’t explicitly banned from researching gun violence, in 2013 they funded a research project and conducting their own study in 2015.

they just can’t advocate or promote gun control.

 

[petra22]

That’s a curious POV considering that Detroit didn’t start its decline while Republicans were in city government. New York did much better under Guliani than under extremists like the mayor there now.

The problem is progressives view rules in terms of controlling people’s lives. That’s not the job of government, unless it is authoritarian or totalitarian

Wow, I think this is an interesting POv. I’ve never thought of why types of government would work better in one place than another… thanks, I’m going to put that in my memory bank for later, seriously!

 

[upant]

if the option of “flight” is available when faced with a potentially deadly confrontation, you’re morally and seemingly legally obligated to select it if it doesn’t present any immediate additional dangers to yourself or others.

whether you are legally obligated depends on the state you are in. some have stand your ground laws with no requirement to retreat and of course you have the castle doctrine.

i don’t believe you are morally obligated either. the right to self-defense is innate. a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be.

If there’s a loon out in the street holding a gun and yelling obscenities

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

you may be morally required to stop this aggressor if he is indeed intending harm. his actions would dictate your obligations. in one way we are all responsible for the lives of others