The great gun rights compromise

[wufan]

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/20...o-gun-control/

a cartoon to explain gun rights compromise

[jdshock]

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/20...o-gun-control/

a cartoon to explain gun rights compromise

I'm not sure anyone who is making a compelling point is really pushing the idea that it's a "compromise." The "compromise" isn't in the policy, it is in the discussion surrounding it.

A "compromise" today is acknowledging that there are restrictions on the right to bear arms that are sensible and logical. If you're of the opinion that the Second Amendment provides me unfettered access to nuclear warheads, F-18s, and chemical weapons, since those are the arms that would be necessary to take down a tyrannical government and because the Second Amendment says my rights shall not be infringed, well... there probably isn't a lot we can talk about. If, as many reasonable people are willing to do, we can have a conversation based around the idea that certain restrictions are lawful and make sense, we can discuss which ones make sense. The history of gun control should not be portrayed as gun rights activists always asking for a fully unlimited Second Amendment and gun control advocates asking for a total repeal of the Second Amendment. The cartoon acts like the two sides keep meeting in the middle (i.e., somewhere between full Second Amendment rights and full repeal; then somewhere between the middle and full repeal; then somewhere between that new place and full repeal). Technology has progressed and societal values have changed, and they will continue to change.

More succinctly: for every gun control policy that has ever been passed, you either supported it or you didn't. If you didn't support it, well fine, you didn't "compromise." If you did support it, it's because you thought it was a good policy (or, if you were a politician who supported it, it's because you thought your constituents/donors/whatever supported it). I do not believe there was anyone who ever said "alright, well I support unfettered Second Amendment rights, and you support a full repeal of the Second Amendment, so I'm happy with meeting in the middle with the Brady Law." Gun laws are not like the budget where we have to raise and lower dollar amounts and we're all going to win some and we're all going to lose some.

As one final thought, if gun control measures are the equivalent of eating a slice of the cake, what happens when the measures are undone? If the assault weapons ban was eating a big slice of cake, when it expired in 2004, did the other person regurgitate a big slice of cake back on the table?

[DUShock]

Our nation could use more intellectually honest civil discourse, not only for governance but for all of society. I say this as a gun toting predominantly left libertarian (edit: ala Joel Saladin) with no real representation at the state and federal level. I am reminded of the Jungian quotes:

“Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism.”

“Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.”

[shockfan89_]

I have yet to hear a "common sense" gun law that is going to prevent a deranged person from committing a mass shooting/killing. Deranged people don't follow laws. Murder is against the law. How is another law (short of confiscation) going to help at all?

[Dark Lord]

What's wrong with allowing civilian access to F-18's and the like? If one can afford it, I support their ability to obtain it. The vast majority cannot come anywhere close to being able to purchase one.

Not sure why you would think a revolution could only be fought and won with nuclear or chemical options. Those are options that are highly frowned upon internationally. The people though should have every right to defend themselves with any weapon the government has access to if they can afford to buy them.

Soulless bastards will be soulless bastards no matter the legality of anything. Pushing more and more restrictions do absolutely nothing to prevent the soulless from committing acts of evil.

I like cake

[ShockCrazy]

Basic question for those who think it only stops good people, why do no other modern industrial have problems with mass shootings? Why since Australia passed sweeping regulations have they seem a drastic change in gun violence? If bad people were gonna do bad things regardless, wouldn't we expect them to be the same?

Also I love attachment to the Constitution and Bill of Rights by people who have literally no understanding of it and it's context. Specifically, how many people know much about Daniel Shays, or incorporation of the Constitution, or the status of a federal army in 1787 and why do these things matter with regards to the 2nd amendment? My guess is very very few.

[Dark Lord]

Gun violence may go down, but violent crime as a whole increases. And that may be attributed to the fact that fewer people are able to protect themselves.

And Europe has a lot of gun violence as well. Per capita, not counting suicide, the USA doesn't have the gun violence problem that others attempt to portray.

[SB Shock]

Basic question for those who think it only stops good people, why do no other modern industrial have problems with mass shootings? Why since Australia passed sweeping regulations have they seem a drastic change in gun violence? If bad people were gonna do bad things regardless, wouldn't we expect them to be the same?.

If you have the guns laws they have - of course you are going to see drastic change in gun violence. But their numbers show that assaults have increased 40% over the last 10 years. Sexual assaults by 20%.

[wufan]

I'm not sure anyone who is making a compelling point is really pushing the idea that it's a "compromise." The "compromise" isn't in the policy, it is in the discussion surrounding it.

A "compromise" today is acknowledging that there are restrictions on the right to bear arms that are sensible and logical. If you're of the opinion that the Second Amendment provides me unfettered access to nuclear warheads, F-18s, and chemical weapons, since those are the arms that would be necessary to take down a tyrannical government and because the Second Amendment says my rights shall not be infringed, well... there probably isn't a lot we can talk about. If, as many reasonable people are willing to do, we can have a conversation based around the idea that certain restrictions are lawful and make sense, we can discuss which ones make sense. The history of gun control should not be portrayed as gun rights activists always asking for a fully unlimited Second Amendment and gun control advocates asking for a total repeal of the Second Amendment. The cartoon acts like the two sides keep meeting in the middle (i.e., somewhere between full Second Amendment rights and full repeal; then somewhere between the middle and full repeal; then somewhere between that new place and full repeal). Technology has progressed and societal values have changed, and they will continue to change.

More succinctly: for every gun control policy that has ever been passed, you either supported it or you didn't. If you didn't support it, well fine, you didn't "compromise." If you did support it, it's because you thought it was a good policy (or, if you were a politician who supported it, it's because you thought your constituents/donors/whatever supported it). I do not believe there was anyone who ever said "alright, well I support unfettered Second Amendment rights, and you support a full repeal of the Second Amendment, so I'm happy with meeting in the middle with the Brady Law." Gun laws are not like the budget where we have to raise and lower dollar amounts and we're all going to win some and we're all going to lose some.

As one final thought, if gun control measures are the equivalent of eating a slice of the cake, what happens when the measures are undone? If the assault weapons ban was eating a big slice of cake, when it expired in 2004, did the other person regurgitate a big slice of cake back on the table?

I think you point out reasonable logical arguments against this cartoon. It’s meant to show that the current rights have already been restricted. Certainly there have been several instances where some rights have been restored, and they should be recognized. I got the comic from an article (different from the link) where the author was proposing an actual compromise where some gun rights were restored and other regulations were imposed.

[wufan]

Basic question for those who think it only stops good people, why do no other modern industrial have problems with mass shootings? Why since Australia passed sweeping regulations have they seem a drastic change in gun violence? If bad people were gonna do bad things regardless, wouldn't we expect them to be the same?

Also I love attachment to the Constitution and Bill of Rights by people who have literally no understanding of it and it's context. Specifically, how many people know much about Daniel Shays, or incorporation of the Constitution, or the status of a federal army in 1787 and why do these things matter with regards to the 2nd amendment? My guess is very very few.

I need clarification here as I think you are missing some key words. Other modern industrial countries do have issues with mass shootings. Norway, France, Finland, Switzerland and Belgium all had higher death rates per capita from mass shootings than the US. https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/co...us-and-europe/

Australia did see a decrease in gun violence since the gun confiscation. By percentage, the US saw an almost identical decrease in gun violence death over the same period, however we didn’t have a gun confiscation. The truth is that gun violence has been decreasing in the western world for 30 years at roughly the same rate. Some European countries have had a recent spike however. Regardless, there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence.

[wufan]

Basic question for those who think it only stops good people, why do no other modern industrial have problems with mass shootings? Why since Australia passed sweeping regulations have they seem a drastic change in gun violence? If bad people were gonna do bad things regardless, wouldn't we expect them to be the same?

Also I love attachment to the Constitution and Bill of Rights by people who have literally no understanding of it and it's context. Specifically, how many people know much about Daniel Shays, or incorporation of the Constitution, or the status of a federal army in 1787 and why do these things matter with regards to the 2nd amendment? My guess is very very few.

What type of context would you like to add to the second amendment in regards to Shay’s rebellion?

[ShockCrazy]

What type of context would you like to add to the second amendment in regards to Shay’s rebellion?

Well there's a few things. I know this will come as a shock too some with only their crappy public school history informing them, but the founding fathers weren't some big revolutionaries fighting for rights, they were British citizens who were just annoyed they weren't treated and given those same rights while being within the empire.

So with regards to Shays and the 2nd amendment. One people forget that the Constitution happened and then over a year later they finally got around to the Bill of Rights after states went to ratify and said "hey wait what are these actual defined rights???" So in the interim Shays rebellion happened. But because there was absolutely never any intention to have a federal standing army there was an issue, who the heck was going to put this down? If not for Massachusetts militia and Benjamin Lincoln the nation could have very likely ended right there.

So in the aftermath the framers realized they explicitly had to protect the rights of states such that they could defend themselves and actually put down rebellions. So they created an amendment that stopped the federal government from denying the ability to protect themselves as a state. Sorry to say but the founding fathers didn't give a flying fig about standing up to a tyrannical government. These were rich aristocrats who viewed themselves as the long term leaders of that government, you think they wanted people fighting against that? Nope. The 2nd amendment was entirely about the defense of the states, it was a practical matter, that's why the clause about militias is there. Also then there's incorporation which happened later in response to the Civil War amendments, so founding fathers actually believed the states could have the right to restrict access if they wished.

[wufan]

Well there's a few things. I know this will come as a shock too some with only their crappy public school history informing them, but the founding fathers weren't some big revolutionaries fighting for rights, they were British citizens who were just annoyed they weren't treated and given those same rights while being within the empire.

So with regards to Shays and the 2nd amendment. One people forget that the Constitution happened and then over a year later they finally got around to the Bill of Rights after states went to ratify and said "hey wait what are these actual defined rights???" So in the interim Shays rebellion happened. But because there was absolutely never any intention to have a federal standing army there was an issue, who the heck was going to put this down? If not for Massachusetts militia and Benjamin Lincoln the nation could have very likely ended right there.

So in the aftermath the framers realized they explicitly had to protect the rights of states such that they could defend themselves and actually put down rebellions. So they created an amendment that stopped the federal government from denying the ability to protect themselves as a state. Sorry to say but the founding fathers didn't give a flying fig about standing up to a tyrannical government. These were rich aristocrats who viewed themselves as the long term leaders of that government, you think they wanted people fighting against that? Nope. The 2nd amendment was entirely about the defense of the states, it was a practical matter, that's why the clause about militias is there. Also then there's incorporation which happened later in response to the Civil War amendments, so founding fathers actually believed the states could have the right to restrict access if they wished.

I find it odd that you feel that “people have literally no understanding of it and it's context,” yet you totally omit federalist paper #46 from your “context”. You are obviously taking any of your framing from federalist paper number 29. Here’s a link to many quotes about arming the people from before and after Shay’s rebellion.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-founding-fathers-explain-the-second-amendment-this-says-it-all

Here’s a dandy in the aftermath of Shay’s 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, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

[ShockCrazy]

Do you just like little short quotes from Federalist papers or do you actually care about the whole? Because all discussion about arms revolves around some form of structure and command. Locally appointed, yes, but command, order, and regulation nonetheless. No where are they talking about random personal ownership with no obligations. I'm fine with that idea but if you want that route ownership comes with a burden and responsibility to ones communities.

[wufan]

I’ve previously read multiple papers on the thoughts of various founding fathers around the right to bear arms. They don’t all agree. Federalist paper #29 lays out the argument that the militia is there for the protection of the state. This follows what you are saying. Federalist paper #46 lays out that the state militias are there to prevent tyranny. This is in stark contrast to your statement that, “Sorry to say but the founding fathers didn't give a flying fig about standing up to a tyrannical government. These were rich aristocrats who viewed themselves as the long term leaders of that government, you think they wanted people fighting against that? Nope.” That’s why I went with those federalist papers to point out where the viewpoint you hold comes from and to point out where you missed some significant “context.”

[wufan]

There are no federalist papers on the individual right to bear arms outside of the militia. They believed these rights to go hand in hand. There are numerous papers that discuss the inalienable god given right of self-protection, but none that discuss guns as that means. There are a few letters that reflect those thoughts though, and even after the ratification of the 2nd amendment, congress told shipping companies that they could equip their vessels with cannons to protect against pirates.

Also, the state constitution of Pennsylvania stated at the time of the writing of the bill of rights, “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.”

Here’s another quote to add context to the thoughts of one founding father:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

[wufan]

Just to recap:

The 2nd amendment was written so that the states could use militias to defend themselves against uprising AND against a tyrannical government. Further, it was written to protect self-protection.

Your argument is the void of context to such a point as to make it nearly meaningless, yet you insult others as not having the historical understanding nor the education to understand these very basic rights.

I guess that’s the argument you get from someone that reads a single article that confirms his bias. Something like this:

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/the-rights-second-amendment-lies-2/