Open carry: Too many guns on the street??

[[DHT]Osiris]

But that’s always been the problem, the wrong people always seem to be the ones that are armed more than than anyone else. Might makes right, except it doesn’t.

Is the solution to disarm the 'wrong ones', or to arm the 'right ones'? I understand that not every well-balanced individual might want to have a firearm in the home, much less carry, but do we accept that as a cost of our country and way of life? Or do we attempt to abolish the 2A, deal with the fallout from that, AND hope that it just all works out in the end? Or is it something in between, as it is now?

The founding fathers understood this which is why they were implicit in giving states and congress the ability to put down rebellions and insurrections. Making the purpose of the 2nd to be able to overthrow the government completely contradicts article 1 section 8.

And what if congress is corrupted, as it is now? What's the resolution? The 2A give the implicit right for We The People to put lead in every member of Congress' head, if it becomes necessary to secure our nation from authoritarianism. Just because the states have the right to quell rebellions doesn't mean we don't have the right to try, if it comes to that. The 2A is there to ensure we always have that right, even if we never actually make use of it.

You want to know how you preserve democracy and guard against authoritarianism? By having an educated and engaged populace, by making is easier for citizens to participate, not make is harder like we’ve been doing for decades.

Totes agree, and every single motherfucker that's been hindering our education system for the last what, 70 years? needs to be the first under the guillotine, and I'll pull the rope. Education is antithetical to hatred, xenophobia, authoritarians, and all the other evil shit that runs rampant in our society.

 

[Skel]

Good god what horse shit!! I’ve already debunked most of your opinion in one of my previous posts but your last claim is easily debunked as well. We are the most heavily armed country in the world and we are on the cusp of losing our democracy to an authoritarian. Your guns don’t stop authoritarians, they enable them.

The reason you can’t figure out how to normalize the disparity in weapons access is because it doesn’t work (although you can check with former communist countries to see how your interpretation works).

Democracy doesn’t work when it’s held at gun point.

I'll bite.. how do civilians having guns enable authoritarians? According to Madison's federalist papers the whole reason he wanted to arm civilians was to at the least to slow down the ability of any authoritarian group..

 

[ivwshane]

Is the solution to disarm the 'wrong ones', or to arm the 'right ones'? I understand that not every well-balanced individual might want to have a firearm in the home, much less carry, but do we accept that as a cost of our country and way of life? Or do we attempt to abolish the 2A, deal with the fallout from that, AND hope that it just all works out in the end? Or is it something in between, as it is now?


And what if congress is corrupted, as it is now? What's the resolution? The 2A give the implicit right for We The People to put lead in every member of Congress' head, if it becomes necessary to secure our nation from authoritarianism. Just because the states have the right to quell rebellions doesn't mean we don't have the right to try, if it comes to that. The 2A is there to ensure we always have that right, even if we never actually make use of it.

Totes agree, and every single motherfucker that's been hindering our education system for the last what, 70 years? needs to be the first under the guillotine, and I'll pull the rope. Education is antithetical to hatred, xenophobia, authoritarians, and all the other evil shit that runs rampant in our society.

The safest option is to put education at the forefront of priorities while making it easier to vote and at the same time restructuring how money in politics used (think campaign finance reform and publicly financed campaigns).

However, as you say, how do you enact change when the system has been corrupted? If there aren’t enough good Americans in place and there aren’t enough safe guards in place then it may already be too late. I personally believe we are at a tipping point where we could go either way and if more Americans don’t participate in this next election we will be screwed and I doubt there will be any turning back.

My gut feeling is that this year will be a record turnout and Trump will lose in the biggest landslide since Reagan. We shall see.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll bite.. how do civilians having guns enable authoritarians? According to Madison's federalist papers the whole reason he wanted to arm civilians was to at the least to slow down the ability of any authoritarian group..

Like Mussolini's blackshirts.

 

[ivwshane]

I'll bite.. how do civilians having guns enable authoritarians? According to Madison's federalist papers the whole reason he wanted to arm civilians was to at the least to slow down the ability of any authoritarian group..

By the very nature of authoritarians, those with guns make the rules, aka might makes right.

As for Madison, you’ll have to tell me which federalists papers you are referring to because in federalists 28 he essentially says what I’ve already stated and in federalists 46 he goes into why the fear of government is unfounded and as I have stated in the past but not in this thread, it’s because the government IS OF THE PEOPLE (which is why I said the best defense of our democracy is an educated populace).

 

[theeedude]

The problem in Kenosha is that protesters weren't armed. So when a gunman was running through a crowd, all they could do is try to tackle him, and got killed. If they had guns, they could have neutralized him in a safer fashion.

 

[NostaSeronx]

As for Madison, you’ll have to tell me which federalists papers you are referring to because in federalists 28 he essentially says what I’ve already stated and in federalists 46 he goes into why the fear of government is unfounded and as I have stated in the past but not in this thread, it’s because the government IS OF THE PEOPLE (which is why I said the best defense of our democracy is an educated populace).

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12: Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention

Government always leads to tyranny! Our government can't be tyrannical we are AMERIKANZ!!!



"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." <== Hence, this quote.

 

[nickqt]

I'll bite.. how do civilians having guns enable authoritarians? According to Madison's federalist papers the whole reason he wanted to arm civilians was to at the least to slow down the ability of any authoritarian group..

It's authoritarians who purchase multiple guns and open-carry the guns as a badge of "law and order". The child vigilante illegally open-carrying a rifle who murdered 2 people in Kenosha was a "law and order" authoritarian Trump fan willing to murder (as he did) to protect concrete and asphalt and stuff.

Anti-authoritarians wouldn't be cheering on the police shooting people in the back. Or encouraging children to murder other civilians they consider their political opponents.

 

[nickqt]

double post

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Sorry you're going to have to answer without me providing open carry stats. I was reminded 2A absolutists don't even allow those stats to be collected. We have this latest real world example along with school shootings, movie theater shootings, etc

Is that why those stats aren't collected? For real? If true, that sucks. I can recall reading a couple of articles where open carry dudes were robbed, but I can't recall reading about a whole lot of open carry violence. That all being anecdotal, it's hard to come to any kind of a statistical conclusion. I do have a suspicion that if open carry dudes were committing a lot of crime then there are certain news outlets that would report that with glee. Not seeing any of that gleeful reporting makes my spidey senses tingle, but isn't proof.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

This is just mho, but where we used to have primarily gang violence and single person disputes that ended in murder, we now seem to have insane shit like school shootings, mass shootings at malls, political shootings, etc. The stakes feel higher at this point than in the past, and it feels as though a higher percentage of victims are 'innocent' now (note, not saying that people who died to gun violence before deserved it, just that they weren't commonly third parties).

This could be wrong, not backed up by any empirical evidence. Just based on observations of what floats to the top.

It's hard to look at any reduction of people dying in any kind of a negative light, but I feel you on the school shootings stuff. If it helps, there are different studies that show a large percentage of gun murders are still related to gang violence and the war on drugs. If we could somehow end the violent and lucrative black market for drugs, those killings would almost completely disappear within a generation. So yeah, end the war on drugs. Provide mental help to anyone who needs it. Require background checks and mental health screening to purchase guns. That's my 2 cents.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's hard to look at any reduction of people dying in any kind of a negative light, but I feel you on the school shootings stuff. If it helps, there are different studies that show a large percentage of gun murders are still related to gang violence and the war on drugs. If we could somehow end the violent and lucrative black market for drugs, those killings would almost completely disappear within a generation. So yeah, end the war on drugs. Provide mental help to anyone who needs it. Require background checks and mental health screening to purchase guns. That's my 2 cents.

Legalize MJ!! But the problem is the war on MJ in particular is a big money business!!
I hate to say it but the government makes money off the war on MJ!!
To and including using the proceeds to fund the police and prisons!!

 

[VRAMdemon]

Yes - There are to many guns on the street in the hands of people illegally, or who don't live up to the responsibility. That kid answered some wacky militia "call to arms" ... and was most likely there to shoot people.

As long as enough voters in the mathematically important swing states hate and fear the same people Trump hates and fears, he as a half decent chance of winning.

 

[Skel]

By the very nature of authoritarians, those with guns make the rules, aka might makes right.

As for Madison, you’ll have to tell me which federalists papers you are referring to because in federalists 28 he essentially says what I’ve already stated and in federalists 46 he goes into why the fear of government is unfounded and as I have stated in the past but not in this thread, it’s because the government IS OF THE PEOPLE (which is why I said the best defense of our democracy is an educated populace).

The reason that he says fear of the government is unfounded is because the citizens are armed. The idea was groups would come together and make their own militias. These wouldn't be government run, which makes sense considering that's how they got rid of the British. While there was a standing army, there were militia that weren't getting orders from Washington. Considering there was no mass communications at the time, it would have been very counter productive to have the States control the arms. The idea someone from the State would declare an emergency and hope everyone would get the message.. and make it to the arms.. and hopefully spent time training (something Hamilton said wouldn't work out as requiring people to not work to train would be disastrous for the economy) .. and get organized would allow way too much time for the other side.

From 46
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. "

For the self defense part of 2A, IDK.. I'm not sure defending yourself is a 'right' that needs to be spelled out. I don't think 2A really covers it directly, but if you look at that time (not tech.. just the concept) it makes sense that the people writing this up would expect everyone to use guns to defend their homes and well being. There wasnt a reliable way of calling for help, and I shutter to think how long that help would take. It's bad now, I can't imagine it then. Most states have covered (if not all.. I haven't looked too deep into other states past my own) self defense with laws allowing you to match the tools being used to threaten your life. I know I personally feel if someone's shooting at me, I'd like to be able to shoot back. YMMV greatly though.

Having said all this, as I've said before, it's very possible that 2A is out of date. Communications and other tech have developed making gaps less and less important. I highly doubt it'll ever be overturned in my lifetime, but it's very possible.

It's authoritarians who purchase multiple guns and open-carry the guns as a badge of "law and order". The child vigilante illegally open-carrying a rifle who murdered 2 people in Kenosha was a "law and order" authoritarian Trump fan willing to murder (as he did) to protect concrete and asphalt and stuff.

Anti-authoritarians wouldn't be cheering on the police shooting people in the back. Or encouraging children to murder other civilians they consider their political opponents.

No offense, but this reads like more "My team is the good guys and anyone else is the bad guys team" bullshit that chokes politics. There are many democrats I personally know that own guns, myself included. I can get why it appears that way right now as the only guns you're hearing about are those that are very misguided on how society works and are going out of their way to start/escalate shit. You're still seeing a small portion of gun owners though.

As for the kid, that wasn't vigilantism.. that was pure murder.

 

[nickqt]

The reason that he says fear of the government is unfounded is because the citizens are armed. The idea was groups would come together and make their own militias. These wouldn't be government run, which makes sense considering that's how they got rid of the British. While there was a standing army, there were militia that weren't getting orders from Washington. Considering there was no mass communications at the time, it would have been very counter productive to have the States control the arms. The idea someone from the State would declare an emergency and hope everyone would get the message.. and make it to the arms.. and hopefully spent time training (something Hamilton said wouldn't work out as requiring people to not work to train would be disastrous for the economy) .. and get organized would allow way too much time for the other side.

From 46
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. "

For the self defense part of 2A, IDK.. I'm not sure defending yourself is a 'right' that needs to be spelled out. I don't think 2A really covers it directly, but if you look at that time (not tech.. just the concept) it makes sense that the people writing this up would expect everyone to use guns to defend their homes and well being. There wasnt a reliable way of calling for help, and I shutter to think how long that help would take. It's bad now, I can't imagine it then. Most states have covered (if not all.. I haven't looked too deep into other states past my own) self defense with laws allowing you to match the tools being used to threaten your life. I know I personally feel if someone's shooting at me, I'd like to be able to shoot back. YMMV greatly though.

Having said all this, as I've said before, it's very possible that 2A is out of date. Communications and other tech have developed making gaps less and less important. I highly doubt it'll ever be overturned in my lifetime, but it's very possible.



No offense, but this reads like more "My team is the good guys and anyone else is the bad guys team" bullshit that chokes politics. There are many democrats I personally know that own guns, myself included. I can get why it appears that way right now as the only guns you're hearing about are those that are very misguided on how society works and are going out of their way to start/escalate shit. You're still seeing a small portion of gun owners though.

As for the kid, that wasn't vigilantism.. that was pure murder.

Read more carefully in my qualifying statement.

It's authoritarians who purchase multiple guns and open-carry the guns as a badge of "law and order"

Owning a gun, and even conceal carrying is one thing. It's entirely another thing when you have an AR strapped to your chest when shopping at Target. Or going to a protest out on the street.

 

[Skel]

Read more carefully in my qualifying statement.

It's authoritarians who purchase multiple guns and open-carry the guns as a badge of "law and order"

Owning a gun, and even conceal carrying is one thing. It's entirely another thing when you have an AR strapped to your chest when shopping at Target. Or going to a protest out on the street.

I'd concede the later part, but the multiple gun I wouldn't consider a authoritarian thing. I completely agree on it being a whole different convo when you're walking around with a AR strapped. The only reason to do that is to start shit.. which is sadly what happened with the murdering kid.

 

[ivwshane]

The reason that he says fear of the government is unfounded is because the citizens are armed. The idea was groups would come together and make their own militias. These wouldn't be government run, which makes sense considering that's how they got rid of the British. While there was a standing army, there were militia that weren't getting orders from Washington. Considering there was no mass communications at the time, it would have been very counter productive to have the States control the arms. The idea someone from the State would declare an emergency and hope everyone would get the message.. and make it to the arms.. and hopefully spent time training (something Hamilton said wouldn't work out as requiring people to not work to train would be disastrous for the economy) .. and get organized would allow way too much time for the other side.

From 46
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. "

For the self defense part of 2A, IDK.. I'm not sure defending yourself is a 'right' that needs to be spelled out. I don't think 2A really covers it directly, but if you look at that time (not tech.. just the concept) it makes sense that the people writing this up would expect everyone to use guns to defend their homes and well being. There wasnt a reliable way of calling for help, and I shutter to think how long that help would take. It's bad now, I can't imagine it then. Most states have covered (if not all.. I haven't looked too deep into other states past my own) self defense with laws allowing you to match the tools being used to threaten your life. I know I personally feel if someone's shooting at me, I'd like to be able to shoot back. YMMV greatly though.

Having said all this, as I've said before, it's very possible that 2A is out of date. Communications and other tech have developed making gaps less and less important. I highly doubt it'll ever be overturned in my lifetime, but it's very possible.



No offense, but this reads like more "My team is the good guys and anyone else is the bad guys team" bullshit that chokes politics. There are many democrats I personally know that own guns, myself included. I can get why it appears that way right now as the only guns you're hearing about are those that are very misguided on how society works and are going out of their way to start/escalate shit. You're still seeing a small portion of gun owners though.

As for the kid, that wasn't vigilantism.. that was pure murder.

You are not using the term militias correctly. A militia at the time of the constitution’s creation meant a volunteer army comprised of non professional soldiers who were to be trained by a command chosen by the state and those state electors were chosen by the people. Militia did not mean random people who banded together and whose command and orders came from themselves.

What Madison was arguing in the 46th is that the notion that the federal government would over power the state was nonsense and he gave hypotheticals to show why it was nonsense.

He also explained that the common theme between the state and federal government was the people, aka the voters and that they were the ones who ultimately controlled both. Which is why having a democracy that can be torn down by whoever has the most guns is ridiculous and not a democracy at all.

 

[Skel]

You are not using the term militias correctly. A militia at the time of the constitution’s creation meant a volunteer army comprised of non professional soldiers who were to be trained by a command chosen by the state and those state electors were chosen by the people. Militia did not mean random people who banded together and whose command and orders came from themselves.

What Madison was arguing in the 46th is that the notion that the federal government would over power the state was nonsense and he gave hypotheticals to show why it was nonsense.

He also explained that the common theme between the state and federal government was the people, aka the voters and that they were the ones who ultimately controlled both. Which is why having a democracy that can be torn down by whoever has the most guns is ridiculous and not a democracy at all.

Can you provide any proof that the people that founded this country and wrote all these docs didn't want it's citizens armed? I get they talked about militias and I also get that you'll never agree on what one of those were at the time, who they were made up of, and how it would possibly work out if it wasn't made up of citizens that may or may not have kept their own arms. I can't find anything on it, nor could a friend that majored in US history. Granted he's of the believe that the idea was to make sure the citizens could keep and bare arms if needed to avoid another authoritarian group from taking US. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't find it. I can find quotes from Jefferson where he directly wrote “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776. I can also find other quotes from others that seem to back up the idea that the idea was citizens were to be allowed to keep arms. I just can't do the other way where they clearly and directly said 'only the militias.. or army, which by your definition is what a militia is. I also find it odd that for centuries the US just went with the version of things were everyone was allowed guns. You'd think if this wasn't the case, and it was only those trained and ordered by heads of state we'd have heard more about it and the US would look different.. but IDK.. Maybe I'm wrong. I do look forward to learning something if I am. Won't change how the laws currently work as those that can tell us what the laws are have already decided (right or wrong) and you'll need 2/3s of the states to agree to the change.

I also find it really interesting the fact that everyone seems to want to Canonize the people that wrote the original docs. I said before that it's very possible that the Second Amendment is something that is out of date and touch with modern day. What's odd is rather than look at that question, there insists upon this odd debate that those writers must have agreed with whatever side of the argument. These were the same people that held and kept slavery around, so I'm not sure whatever they thought at the time should be considered gospel. The quote from Jefferson directly says that only free people could have arms, but not slaves. Makes sense as you wouldn't want to arm those you wrongly bound, but it does point out that they weren't the infallible source of all wisdom. This doesn't really have much to do with if they meant for people to have guns, but I do find it very interesting.

 

[ivwshane]

Can you provide any proof that the people that founded this country and wrote all these docs didn't want it's citizens armed? I get they talked about militias and I also get that you'll never agree on what one of those were at the time, who they were made up of, and how it would possibly work out if it wasn't made up of citizens that may or may not have kept their own arms. I can't find anything on it, nor could a friend that majored in US history. Granted he's of the believe that the idea was to make sure the citizens could keep and bare arms if needed to avoid another authoritarian group from taking US. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't find it. I can find quotes from Jefferson where he directly wrote “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776. I can also find other quotes from others that seem to back up the idea that the idea was citizens were to be allowed to keep arms. I just can't do the other way where they clearly and directly said 'only the militias.. or army, which by your definition is what a militia is. I also find it odd that for centuries the US just went with the version of things were everyone was allowed guns. You'd think if this wasn't the case, and it was only those trained and ordered by heads of state we'd have heard more about it and the US would look different.. but IDK.. Maybe I'm wrong. I do look forward to learning something if I am. Won't change how the laws currently work as those that can tell us what the laws are have already decided (right or wrong) and you'll need 2/3s of the states to agree to the change.

I also find it really interesting the fact that everyone seems to want to Canonize the people that wrote the original docs. I said before that it's very possible that the Second Amendment is something that is out of date and touch with modern day. What's odd is rather than look at that question, there insists upon this odd debate that those writers must have agreed with whatever side of the argument. These were the same people that held and kept slavery around, so I'm not sure whatever they thought at the time should be considered gospel. The quote from Jefferson directly says that only free people could have arms, but not slaves. Makes sense as you wouldn't want to arm those you wrongly bound, but it does point out that they weren't the infallible source of all wisdom. This doesn't really have much to do with if they meant for people to have guns, but I do find it very interesting.

I’ll find supporting evidence for you and you can post your quotes. Be careful though, most quotes people post are missing context.

 

[BUTCH1]

 

[shortylickens]

Guns make almost every situation worse.

If thats true we really need to disarm police.
European countries seem to be doing alright. Of course, they dont have a small fraction of the social problems we do.
Social problems which lead directly to violent crime.
We gotta cure societies ails before we can do anything else.

 

[Jhhnn]

I’ll find supporting evidence for you and you can post your quotes. Be careful though, most quotes people post are missing context.

Meh. I think the war of 1812 disabused America's leaders of a lot of romantic notions the Founders held about militias. Didn't work fer shit.

State Organized Militia - War of 1812

www.globalsecurity.org

Various militias existed up to the Civil War but few actually engaged in it as militias but were rather enlisted & trained in the Armies.

The whole thing became moot with the establishment of the National Guard in 1903. People who took it seriously joined the Guard & poseurs played militia ever after.

 

[ivwshane]

Meh. I think the war of 1812 disabused America's leaders of a lot of romantic notions the Founders held about militias. Didn't work fer shit.

State Organized Militia - War of 1812

www.globalsecurity.org

Various militias existed up to the Civil War but few actually engaged in it as militias but were rather enlisted & trained in the Armies.

The whole thing became moot with the establishment of the National Guard in 1903. People who took it seriously joined the Guard & poseurs played militia ever after.

While that is true it doesn’t affect the original meaning/intent of the second amendment.

 

[Jhhnn]

While that is true it doesn’t affect the original meaning/intent of the second amendment.

It means they were mistaken as to the utility of militias for the purposes of national defense.

 

[Skel]

I’ll find supporting evidence for you and you can post your quotes. Be careful though, most quotes people post are missing context.

That's fair. Here's a page full of them, though to be honest a good chunk of them could go either way on the subject of militias. I'm very interested in seeing what you find. I'm much more interested in learning about it than I am trying to prove anything.