Reply With Quote
I'd be interested to see just how popular "assault weapons" were before and after the ban.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/guns...ever_saved_us/Are recurring massacres carried out by maniacs with automatic weapons the price of liberty in the United States? Is the maintenance of democratic government in America inseparable from the alleged Second Amendment right of individual citizens to amass personal arsenals of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines? In the aftermath of the latest horrific school shooting in the U.S., this is what the civic republican argument against stricter gun control boils down to: a political science theory which is either true or false, as a matter of fact.
Forget the Second Amendment. If opponents of stricter regulation of assault weapons had the courage of their convictions, they wouldn’t hide behind legalistic interpretations of the Second Amendment to the federal cons ution. They would argue that private ownership of small arsenals of assault weapons would be a good thing, even if it weren’t allegedly protected by the cons ution. Indeed, if they were consistent, they would argue that private ownership of assault weapons should be compulsory among citizens, as a defense against government tyranny — not only in the U.S. but in every democracy in the world.
So forget about the cons utional and legal argument. And while we are at it, forget about the argument from rural sportsmen, too. Nobody uses a machine gun on a deer or a dove or a duck.
The argument, then, is a policy argument. And the wisdom of the policy depends on the truth or falsity of a political science proposition: unless a majority or a large minority of the citizenry own firearms in general, and assault weapons in particular, the replacement of democracy by tyranny is likely if not inevitable — not only in the U.S. but in any country.
I'd be interested to see just how popular "assault weapons" were before and after the ban.
So forget about the cons utional and legal argument.
This is a big part to forget.
This is a whole lot of setting up a strawman and then attacking it. Is Michael Lind really Aaron Sorkin?
George Washington had to import weapons after we declared war on Brittain= Guns didn't win the war...
Militias were untrained and did not help plus we had to initiate the draft=gun owners weren't helpful
Because countries who took away gun ownership from its citizens they have not created a dictatorship=They never will
"So forget about the cons utional and legal argument."
these are bull smokescreens, easily suckering red-state/rural/ less s. The real objective is guns-and-ammo sales, the $$$, NOT the 2nd Amendment legalities, self-defense, etc
"Happiness is warm ...." profit stream.
Fair enough, but don't forget to attack Lind's strawman. I note in passing you used one too, so you've tacitly endorsed it as being rhetorically convenient, though in the very next moment you purport to condemn it.
The cons utional argument really doesn't make sense. Having assault weapons isn't going to check the government if it becomes tyrannical. You're kidding yourself if you think there's any merit to the second amendment.
They are ing fun to shoot and I have killed deer, turkey, coyotes, pigs, prairie dogs, and even quail (head shots) with an AR15.
What baffles me is that societally, we seem far more willing to tolerate limits and conditions on the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments than we are on the Second Amendment. I think the defense of the Second Amendment has lost any real mooring in originalism, which is ironic given the fact that most who favor broad interpretations of the Second Amendment generally will find any thread of limitation that originalism will allow in making First and Fourth Amendment arguments in particular.
I don't really see that the governmental threat of abuse with a cir scribed Second Amendment is, to any reasonable degree, greater than the threat of abuse with a restrained Fourth Amendment.
Good point. I certainly see the danger in a restrained Fourth Amendment. I think you will find that most strong 2nd amendment defenders are also strong 4th amendment defenders.
I don't find that to be true in my experience. My friends who love their guns and most ardently support a broad view of the Second Amendment tend, in my experience, to be down with allowing the government to act pretty expansively in Fourth Amendment matters (which is contrary to a strong Fourth Amendment, in my view).
There are certainly those gun totin rednecks that want no holds barred against "them damn terrorists" but most of my friends that strongly support the 2nd amendment also understand the inherent danger in allowing the government to determine who is and isn't a "threat" and allowing them to determine who does and doesn't get 4th amendment rights. That is a terribly slippery slope.
Well, here's to hoping society is more like your friends than mine -- though I wouldn't describe the people who come to my mind in this situation as "gun totin rednecks;" I tend to think of them more as rank-and-file Republicans. I certainly understand your point (and I'm not trying to suggest that your conclusion is dubious), but it's contrary to my own experience.
I disagree. I was merely trying to simplify his simplistic generalization.
Or my friends, who don't vote but . Then again I haven't voted for quite a while so me too.
Here's the problem that people who say who gives a crap about the cons ution are forgetting.
The government, ANY government needs legitimacy in order to survive
America's legitimacy comes from its founding myths about freedom, liberty etc.
The more people realize that we aren't that country anymore, the less it will matter that the US exist anymore in its present form.
happens and countries reform every day all over the world. America will be no different.
There is nothing sacred about 50 states.
Homeland Security isn't posting because he is WATCHING you....
Happiness is a warm gun.
Gun ownership has crossed a threshold where the law is not sufficient to curtail the problem. They are far too engrained into our culture now, so stiffening regulations on their production or sale would only increase demand and funnel money to illegal gun manufacturers. Given how horrible drug cartels are, I can only imagine what a gun cartel feeding the demands of a gun-obsessed but gun-starved USA would wreak.
I'd love to go decades back and ban the production and sale of assault weapons... , I'd love to rid the whole planet of all guns... But that's just not feasible at this point. There are too many guns and too many people who know how to make them.
I'm not taking a hard-line stance against any gun control legislation, I just don't think we'll see much effect from legislation alone. We need a real cultural change in our at ude towards guns. That's the only thing that will reduce the demand for guns.
well said.
We would have to round up all the AK's that the USSR lost track of with their collapse would be a good place to start.
This world is not a perfect and safe place. I won't lie and say I don't say ignorant/Southern to the bawls, because I do, but I enjoy the safety and comfort owning an assault rifle brings. Luckily for the rest of the universe, the only time I would ever even imagine innocents getting gimped with one would be so I could someday out wit the future killer executing the former before he could play out what I already saw in his mind with my mind
In a representative government the government is supposed to represent to a certain extent as to the will of the people. If any sort of ban is to take place it would take a whole lot of 'will of the people.' I just don't think you can separate the two notions. If the government does get over inertia then culture has changed. If you feel that is the way it should be then why do you not strive to attain it rather than just give up?
Groupthink starts with somebody's thought.
Because the minority in that representative government is still sizable enough to drive significant demand for guns. And they'll have as much trouble getting those guns as a coke head has finding an eight ball. I'm not saying give up, I'm saying change the culture's at ude about guns first, and it will make legislation easier and more effective.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
