X:post - "The Fallacy of Second Amendment Absolutism".

[beevul]

Can we maybe talk about at least limiting, even if it turns out to be only a symbolic gesture, the nearly unfettered ability to legally purchase weapons of unlimited caliber and capacity for carnage?

Sure we can, right after we talk about the current legal limit of caliber - it isn't unlimited.

Maybe add reasonable waiting periods and background checks onto that...

Number one, a right delayed is a right denied. Number two, who told this guy there were no background checks?

Any guesses?

According to never-compromise NRA arguments, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and absolute, without room for nuance, interpretation or application to changing historical circumstance.

The absolutist nra: "NRA-backed bill aims to keep guns from the mentally ill"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/nra-backed-bill-aims-keep-guns-mentally-ill/

...along with some renewed teeth in mental health services...

I've been informed repeatedly by the local branch of the gun control cult, that mental health is an nra talking point.

Approximately the usual erection of straw and back slapping when its knocked over, for the rest of it.

I will note this, however: The fact that the voice of DUs gun control movement in bansalot is now posting sources which emit talking points that many local denizens of the gun control cult itself have deemed to be 'nra talking points', and actually highlighting them in bold
...well, that's just endlessly entertaining to me.

The OP in bansalot:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211269

The...piece ...which they're discussing:

http://andrewhidas.com/the-fallacy-of-second-amendment-absolutism/

[DonP]

1. The advantage of a one person echo chamber + 1 or 2 Bobbleheads ...

... is you get to create and destroy as many fantasy straw men as you need to keep your conversation with yourself going.

No one is ever allowed to question you, or point out your foolishness and obvious errors, so you get to regularly pat yourself on the back for "fighting the good fight" and achieving ... absolutely nothing.

[Puha Ekapi]

3. There's only one...

...or two there because most people are smart enough to see that gun control is a non-starter. There isn't widespread support for it, contrary to the message that the astroturfers and some politicians keep pushing.

[DonP]

4. He's not building much of a broad base either

Any new poster shows up, generally agrees with him but asks a question, gets berated and banned immediately.

Just in case the newbie might say something true before he can ban them.

I hope they all keep building their "movement" so effectively.

[Duckhunter935]

7. Yep, I think that is so funny

He is sure great at limiting traffic to 2 or 3 posters.

[jmg257]

2. "even if it turns out to be only a symbolic gesture" My favorite line - "symbolic gestures"

are cool.

One comes to mind almost immediately.


Hey - limiting unlimited caliber (that is actually limited) is important...if only we "take at least one step, however tiny, however inconsequential it may ultimately be"

Nailed it.

[sarisataka]

5. So the bar has been lowered?

Instead of measuring success by "if it saves even one life" it now would be a success to get "only a symbolic gesture".

But tipping point...?

It is impressive that the short excerpt managed at least one false or incorrect statement in every paragraph.

[oneshooter]

6. Lowered?

They have to dig trenches to keep that bar in.

[jmg257]

8. They do love to double-down over there...

"That’s the debate we should be having: On one side are people like the NRA, Ben Shapiro, and, whether he likes it or not, Alex Jones, arguing that the Second Amendment assures the right of the people to maintain an equality of arms with their government.

On the other side are people who believe that the Second Amendment’s provision that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is contingent on the requirement that it be in the context of a “well-regulated militia,” as the text actually provides. Those of us on in latter camp, who make up a substantial majority of Americans, will continue to insist that things like assault weapons and clips holding more than ten bullets have no place in the hands of anyone other than the military."

"So...does the Second Amendment provide for an armed insurrection against the US Government, or does it provide for the common defense of the US Government? Contrary to the right-wing gun nuts, the intent of the Founders was for the common defense of the new Republic -- and not it's overthrow."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/126211269#post3


Interesting question, so lets see what a founder actually said, and see if we can also ignore the strawmen some nuts tend to put forth:


"...it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Hamilton Federalist #29


So the original intent & notions of the 2nd amendment were to 1) deter the pretext for standing army 2) provide for the common defense 3) ensure an army would not be formidable to the liberties of the people, because a large body of the people would not be inferior in arms.

The problem lies today in the re-thinking by we the people with regards to the fear & need for large(HUGE) standing armies, vs. the usefulness and role of all the people as the militias. And the obvious inequality in power between the entities - in direct contrast with what was intended.


It COULD BE an interesting debate, couldn't it? Unfortunately there is little of that over there.