Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

Curious the number of people from other countries, such as England that has, by other countries standards, very draconian gun laws feel obligated to
comment and even pity those poor unfortunate Americans who are still protected by the Second Amendment and are still willing to accept the
sometimes negative consequences.

In some civilised countries, people are willing to accept gun restrictions instead of gun deaths. It seems to work; our people remain alive. And free of government skulduggery, too.

The Nazi Regime had gun control laws.
The right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government - I would say that the Nazi Regime was tyrannical.
Russia has gun control laws- need I say anything on that matter currently? I think we traded a drug addict basketball player for a mass black market gun supplier.

Currently, in my state- you must provide 2 forms of legal identification with one current photo identification, must be at least 18 years old, provide proof of your address just to be able to possibly buy a gun- doesn't matter what kind - high power bb gun and up. They run a background check before you can buy one. If you are a concealed carrier you have to have a license, take a test, and pay $200 for the license. As an open carry state- not everyone has to buy a license but if you use your weapon in self-defense without it and the person dies, you can go to jail for possession of a firearm without a license while in the commission of committing a felony. They will also seize all firearms you may own. Even if you beat that case, you won't get your firearms back. And you still face the possibility of a civil prosecution from the person's family- for wrongful death- which I think is straight ignorant. Never mind that "Bob" was trying to burglarize your home and had a gun.

If they outlaw guns - I guess I will be one of those people who will be committing a felony because I refuse to relinquish what I own.

Nice try. In Oklahoma, private gun sales do not require a background check, all you need to do is write a check... for the purchase price of the gun. Since Oklahoma is a "permitless carry" state (law passed in 2019) and since a loaded gun can be carried open or concealed there, you can carry a concealed weapon without a background check.

No one is going to outlaw guns in the US, that's just a boogie man scare tactic for the unsophisticated. The maximum laws that could possibly be passed would be at the level of centralized databases, universal background checks, 3 day waiting periods, high capacity magazines, bumpstocks and other fiddling around the edge things that frankly wouldn't actually change anything for the average law abiding gun owner.

[Pattern-chaser]

Curious the number of people from other countries, such as England that has, by other countries standards, very draconian gun laws feel obligated to
comment and even pity those poor unfortunate Americans who are still protected by the Second Amendment and are still willing to accept the
sometimes negative consequences.

In some civilised countries, people are willing to accept gun restrictions instead of gun deaths. It seems to work; our people remain alive. And free of government skulduggery, too.

The Nazi Regime had gun control laws.
The right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government - I would say that the Nazi Regime was tyrannical.
Russia has gun control laws- need I say anything on that matter currently? I think we traded a drug addict basketball player for a mass black market gun supplier.

Currently, in my state- you must provide 2 forms of legal identification with one current photo identification, must be at least 18 years old, provide proof of your address just to be able to possibly buy a gun- doesn't matter what kind - high power bb gun and up. They run a background check before you can buy one. If you are a concealed carrier you have to have a license, take a test, and pay $200 for the license. As an open carry state- not everyone has to buy a license but if you use your weapon in self-defense without it and the person dies, you can go to jail for possession of a firearm without a license while in the commission of committing a felony. They will also seize all firearms you may own. Even if you beat that case, you won't get your firearms back. And you still face the possibility of a civil prosecution from the person's family- for wrongful death- which I think is straight ignorant. Never mind that "Bob" was trying to burglarize your home and had a gun.

If they outlaw guns - I guess I will be one of those people who will be committing a felony because I refuse to relinquish what I own.

I repeat:

In some civilised countries, people are willing to accept gun restrictions instead of gun deaths. It seems to work; our people remain alive. And free of government skulduggery, too.

People are willing to accept these restrictions. They bring great benefits. We stay alive, that's one of the best of them. And my UK government is no more corrupt than that of most nations, whether they have gun control laws or not. I.e. my government is totally corrupt, but that isn't the point.

We don't *need* guns. That's the point.

[Robert66]

Currently, in my state- you must provide 2 forms of legal identification with one current photo identification, must be at least 18 years old, provide proof of your address just to be able to possibly buy a gun- doesn't matter what kind - high power bb gun and up. They run a background check before you can buy one. If you are a concealed carrier you have to have a license, take a test, and pay $200 for the license. As an open carry state- not everyone has to buy a license but if you use your weapon in self-defense without it and the person dies, you can go to jail for possession of a firearm without a license while in the commission of committing a felony. They will also seize all firearms you may own. Even if you beat that case, you won't get your firearms back. And you still face the possibility of a civil prosecution from the person's family- for wrongful death- which I think is straight ignorant. Never mind that "Bob" was trying to burglarize your home and had a gun.

So if you want to carry a gun, you should get a license. That sounds reasonable. If you are foolish enough to not bother with the license, or actually have bad intentions, then there are potential consequences.

If they outlaw guns - I guess I will be one of those people who will be committing a felony because I refuse to relinquish what I own.

Not this again. How many examples can you show where 'they' have outlawed guns?

[Xenophon]

First the Second:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

I could not watch the news this morning save for only one story: 27 people, 20 of which were children between 5-10 years old were gunned down by a lone gunman who also killed his mother who was teaching the children at the time. Gun control advocates can now celebrate {cynicism intentional}. Again they will start to call for more draconian anti-gun laws to protect the public - But will this really protect the public? Australia after a similar incident some years ago outlawed all guns. And then the crime rate went up so high they had to rescind the law. In the USA with many millions of guns already in the hands of the public a gun ban would cause, to use an old saying: "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

So how can 'we the people' be protected from the lone mad gunman determined to kill? We can not be protected completely, both guns and for that matter life itself is dangerous. Recently a lone swordsman dispatched a bunch of people in Japan and don't forget terrorist bombers who kill many more with no guns at all. So what do we do? If we took the Second Amendment literally and allowed the the right of the people to bear arms, this mass murder scenario would end. If enough of the 'well armed militia' was in fact armed the public would no longer be subjected to mass murderers; they could be stopped before their carnage was complete. To quote a somewhat controversial politician of years past" "A well armed society is a polite society" -G. Gordon Liddy

Presently, drug overdoses kill about 100,000 a year in the U.S. Cars kill about 33,000. Guns kill about the same as cars, BUT half that number are suicides. Of the remaining 16,000, an easily identifiable demographic of about 6% of U.S. population account for half the killings. You Yanks have a people control problem, not a gun control problem. And you're too weak to do anything about it. Like the man said, "Hard times create hard duties, call for hard hearts." Anything else is cultural suicide. 文化自杀 (in Chinese, it rhymes: wen hua zi sha).

[UniversalAlien]

I think what we have to understand even more than the obvrious ramificatrions of the Second Amendment, is the psychology of the peoople, some of whom are sometimes called Right Wing Christian Gun Nuts.

From a recent experience on one of their forums I've come to realize that some of these people are not in any shape, size or form Christian , either by religion or philosophical inclination. Baring the possibility that I was positing a forum controlled by Russian trolls, known to be generators of chaos and descent among Americans - I realized I was debating wiht a group of people who are indeed religious, but their weird religion revolves upon worshipping guns, the gun is their symbol and to them the only thing wrong with the Second Amendment is thar it is not the First Amendment

They believe that America's Free Speeach Amendment exempts any critcism of the 'holly gun' they worship.

To make a long story short, theses hypocrites, posing as American Patriots are a clear and present danger to the United States and the US Constitution.
And here is why I say this - On a section of their forum having to do with 'non lethal' self defense I posed the concept of having civilians carrying non lethal ammunition instead of the normal lethal ammunition - to them this was pure heresy - they like the idea of civilians carrying guns locked and losade and ready to kill And did everything to insult and antagonize me for even proposing that there might be a more humane way of having
self- defense without the implicit 'license to kill' that they apparently love so much. When I contuend my argument they bared me from the forum claimimng I was a troll - When rigjht from the beginning they launched a continous troll attack agasinst me !!!

So after arguing on this forum for the Second Amendment as you know I have since I began this post - I'm now getting to wonder if many of these so called patriots who worship guns so much, may indeed be the people that should not even have that right to own them - Especially if their Second Amendment right is going to be used to take away my First Amendment right to free speach.

Of course they have boss Trump's blessing - What more do they need

[Lagayascienza]

Agghhh! You are right and they are wrong. It's a no-brainer. Just get rid of the guns and there will be a lot less dead people. Other countries don't have the problems the US has with school and shopping-mall massacres every other day. If less guns are out there there will less nutters who can use them to shoot up schools and malls.

In Australia, and most other civilized countries, it's against the law to walk around toting a gun, and if we see anyone in public with a gun, we call the cops to come lock'em up. In the US it seems anyone and everyone can proudly walk around with a gun. It's crazy. Gun toting should be a crime and not a right.

The American frontier hasn't been a thing for over 150 years. So the only people who have a legitimate reason to carry guns are the military and law enforcement. And, at a pinch, sport-shooters who should only be allowed to shoot on designated ranges and the guns locked up when they are done. The only other people who might need them are famers in isolated areas. The idea of a fully armed populace walking around cities toting guns is madness. No wonder the murder rate is so high in the US. It's Second Amendment madness peddled by the NRA who has control of the minds of religious nutters and trump loonies.

[LuckyR]

Agghhh! You are right and they are wrong. It's a no-brainer. Just get rid of the guns and there will be a lot less dead people. Other countries don't have the problems the US has with school and shopping-mall massacres every other day. If less guns are out there there will less nutters who can use them to shoot up schools and malls.

In Australia, and most other civilized countries, it's against the law to walk around toting a gun, and if we see anyone in public with a gun, we call the cops to come lock'em up. In the US it seems anyone and everyone can proudly walk around with a gun. It's crazy. Gun toting should be a crime and not a right.

The American frontier hasn't been a thing for over 150 years. So the only people who have a legitimate reason to carry guns are the military and law enforcement. And, at a pinch, sport-shooters who should only be allowed to shoot on designated ranges and the guns locked up when they are done. The only other people who might need them are famers in isolated areas. The idea of a fully armed populace walking around cities toting guns is madness. No wonder the murder rate is so high in the US. It's Second Amendment madness peddled by the NRA who has control of the minds of religious nutters and trump loonies.

Well you are correct that if one could wave a magic wand and restart the US and either have European gun ownership laws or prevent the huge escalation of fear based gun purchasing brought about by the gun industry (relatively recently), the US would have many fewer gun injuries and deaths. However, getting from where things are today to a better place would be an almost insurmountable challenge. Even if Australian laws were passed and enforced, the number of total guns and ammo in the community is so large and the technical knowhow to DIY your own gun is so low (they really are very low tech), that I don't anticipate a meaningful change in criminal gun usage. I agree the number of gun accidents and suicides would likely drop, but not mass shootings.

[UniversalAlien]

The Supreme Court Is on the Verge of Expanding Second Amendment Gun Rights

Law professor Darrell Miller forecasts a “radical change” in the law coming from the Court’s conservative justices.

UPDATE: On June 23, the Supreme Court blocked the New York law.

The Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling in a New York gun rights case that will likely expand the scope of protections the Second Amendment affords individual gun owners who want to carry a gun outside of their residences. The biggest question in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen may not be whether a majority of justices strike down the state’s century-old handgun licensing requirement but how far that majority goes in signaling that other licensing measures created by government officials are now constitutionally suspect.

To get a sense of where we are now on the Second Amendment and where we are likely headed given the Court’s current makeup, I reached out to Darrell Miller, a professor at Duke Law School who is an expert on the Second Amendment and gun rights and regulations.

COHEN: Three days after the Capitol riot and insurrection, you gave a fascinating interview to Olivia Li at The Trace in which you talked about an insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment. “There is always someone who thinks that tyranny is in the present” is the quote you once used to help describe the concept. It’s now been 15 months since January 6, 2021. What have you seen between now and then, among the hundreds of federal cases to arise involving the alleged rioters and insurrectionists, to support or undermine your old theory?

MILLER: If anything, the past 15 months have only reinforced my conviction that the normalization of threats of political violence in American society is undermining the foundation of American democracy. We’re learning through these prosecutions just how widespread and coordinated the attack on the Capitol actually was. We’re learning through the January 6 Committee how complicit a significant segment of the political, legal, and professional class was in supporting a multi-pronged attack on the peaceful transfer of power. Yet instead of seeing bipartisan condemnation of political violence, we’re witnessing ever more transparent appeals to it. I remain alarmed.

Quotes source:
© 2024 Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law


So you see in spite of my post criticizing many of the 'nut cases' who worship guns - I'm not changing my basic view on the Second Amendment
- SELF DEFENSE should and is protected under the Constitution

Still we do have to consider how can we be protected from lunatics with guns, especially high capacity guns

I STILL SAY THERE IS A MIDDLE WAY

[Sy Borg]

I cannot see how US can unscramble this egg. I see no path between the current situation and sensible pragmatism.

[UniversalAlien]

I cannot see how US can unscramble this egg. I see no path between the current situation and sensible pragmatism.

In a sense true - But what can 'sensible pragmatism' mean when the last US President, Trump, almost started a Civil War by turning one of the major political parties in the US, the party that puts gun rights above women's rigthts and vows to win the next US Presidential Election by any means possible regardless of the vote count, into a criminal cartel instead of a legitimate political party

Remember what I said earlier, these gun nuts worship guns over people and when I accidentally crossed their path on another forum I gathered from the way the conversation was going that they would be perfectly willing to literally 'shoot if out' with any Liberals trying to limit their gun rights
- And when I suggested just the possibility that guns use 'non-lethal' ammunition, I was ridiculed and faced an immediate troll attack.

You see they thrive on chaos and dangerous cities and streets - they create paranoia and convince even Americans with no interest in guns one way or the other that they must have guns to protect themselves - And right now after the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021 and the collapse of the legitimate Republican Party into the Boss Trump rules party, You 'll be hard pressed to convince many Americans that all is well - You see for now they' have pragmatism on their side And gun sales, as usual, continue to increase

[Lagayascienza]

It would take a total mind-reboot of the entire US population, a striking out of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, the political will to enact gun control legislation and the collection and destruction of most of the weapons already out there in the US community. I can't see any of that happening. However, reasoned argument and legislative change instituted by Australian Prime Minister John Howard after the Port Arthur massacre did show that it is possible to get people to relinquish their guns. But we did not have a 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. If we had, then a referendum would have been required to change the Constitution.

Constitutional change in the US is more complex. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. Imagine trying to get two-thirds of Congress or three-quarters of the 50 US states to agree on anything. Not gonna happen.

So, as you say, it's hard to see how the US can unscramble this egg.

[Sy Borg]

I think the US will have to do what every nation on the planet has been forced to do at some stage or another. Admit that their society is actually an uncontrollable dog's breakfast that somehow manages to press forward. Come to think of it, that's the story of life itself.

Life is inherently messy, and we humans like things in their place. Thus, we either learn (via philosophising and experience) to accept life's messiness or we will be forced accept the emotional tumult that comes from having one's ideals repeatedly dashed upon the rocks of reality.

[UniversalAlien]

I think the US will have to do what every nation on the planet has been forced to do at some stage or another. Admit that their society is actually an uncontrollable dog's breakfast that somehow manages to press forward. Come to think of it, that's the story of life itself.

Life is inherently messy, and we humans like things in their place. Thus, we either learn (via philosophising and experience) to accept life's messiness or we will be forced accept the emotional tumult that comes from having one's ideals repeatedly dashed upon the rocks of reality.

WELL SAID

[UniversalAlien]

Now I have a specific political question having to do with what we've discussed on the pros and cons of gun control and whether society is better off if people can own guns for self defense or whether they can not be trusted because too many nut cases get their hands on guns

I know, and we have shown that this is a debatable question - So let me get more specific to the politics of here and now

Is gun control and the fact that most Democrats are always advocating more gun control, the "Achilles' heel" of the Democratic Party

An other words how many people, often including me, who are otherwise Liberal, do not trust a political party that is trying to disarm them by removing their Second Amendment right to defend themselves Is this weakening the Democratic Party and causing some, possibly even many, people who would otherwise vote Democratic to vote Republican or just not vote at all

What do you think

[Lagayascienza]

Advocating gun control probably harms the Democrats. The right of individuals to own and carry guns is such a longstanding feature of American culture, and the politicization of the issue runs so deep, that the Democrats probably cannot gain politically by advocating gun control. Maybe the only way it could happen would be for America to become a one party authoritarian state like China.