[NYT] John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Guys

Seriously I apologise for carrying this stupidity with bobrek into this thread

I made a simple comment, accompanying a mistake I make too much but it wasn't a big deal

 

You know there was more time between the Stegosaurus and the Tyrannosaurus than there's been between the Tyrannosaurus and the Human.

 

Laws are based in values. Defending yourself is a value taught early in childhood

You have to separate guns from defense but guns in a practical sense guns are the great equalizer. In terms of the amendment if the government can have guns then it's citizens shall. It's one of the toughest chains of logic to crack in the Constitution.

I'm not against banning assault rifles but we just have to become a less violent and less mentally ill country

I mean I know these mass shooting casualties are ridiculous but the biggest American mass murder by an American happened with fertilizer. It's a lot ways to kill a bunch of people. You have to attack this issue from mental health.

 

And there has been massive regulations on fertilizer and ag chemicals since then. And there hasn't been another bombing. I have to have a state license, it requires continuing education classes, to buy that stuff...

So...regulations work?

 

It's only happened once. Beyond that I don't wanna argue about banning assault rifles or casualty count

Talking mental health is two fold. Preventing someone from getting guns and treating it.

The Waco lubys guy had a Ruger and a Gloc

 

That was the point.

 

You're missing my point

There wasn't an impending rash of fertilizer bombings. I'm sure McVeigh wasn't the first person to think of it.

Making a deadly gas is as simple as mixing ammonia and bleach.

 

Defense from what now a days?

 

Do you believe society as a whole can never collapse again? For whatever reason?

There has never been a nation that has not had a social collapse and/or been conquered. What makes you think it will never happen to us?

 

Of course, irony of all this...

Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second

 

Elect an authoritarian, get authoritarianism.

Derp.

 

Could you define societal collapse? Does this mean a "Balkanization" of the US where central authority collapses and the rights enshrined in our Constitution no longer apply because the country doesn't exist anymore?

Or does this mean that the existing US government has become tyrannical and citizens must rebel? If it's the latter, it seems like the original intent of the second amendment wouldn't really matter if a bunch of citizen militias are shooting at F-16s and drones in the sky.

Either way refusing to negotiate on any legislation regarding assault-style weapons, in deference to weekend warrior prepper fantasies, seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

I think this is a question that everyone herping and derping about the 2nd amendment needs to ask themselves.

If our government were to turn tyrannical, why would it happen and how would it transpire?

Would having semi-automatic rifles and handguns really make that big of a difference in terms of our ability to defend ourselves versus a tyrannical government? For that matter, do they make that big of a difference in terms of being able to defend ourselves from other citizens? How would the police and state military organizations side in the event of such societal upheaval?

If we look through the checklist for how tyrannical governments form....

1) blur the lines between the police and the military (enables nationwide occupation and enforcement of unjust laws)

2) declare the press the enemy of the state (removes transparency and accountability)

3) appoint family and friends to positions of power (replaces checks and balances with enablers)

 

This is where the weekend warrior daydreams fall apart. When the Bill of Rights was written, it was possible that local militias could defend against a loosely-constructed national army with equivalent firepower.

A band of modern-day patriots wearing ghillie suits in the woods stand no chance against modern weaponry. Zero.

 

In the spirit of preventing tyranny, the 2nd amendment is pretty small potatoes.

If we really want to prevent tyranny, we need to look to scaling back our military/budget and de-militarizing the police.

 

I agree. The concept of preventing tyranny in the 18th century was probably more reactionary in a grab-the-guns kind of way. If a farm community in Georgia was suddenly overrun by a tyrannical, Philadelphia-based standing army demanding that they turn over their land to appease George Washington then I can see the need to be reactionary rather than proactive. Information traveled differently than it does now.

We have the luxury of being proactive. Standing pat with our AR-15s waiting for the inevitable collapse of the government and the call to arms against the current military is rooted in delusional cynicism.

 

This is true, and it's one of the reasons I would have never supported Trump....but the existence of the authoritarian right doesn't justify the authoritarian left.

 

Unless the current movement turns into a civil rights type of movement in the 60s, there is zero chance anything gets done, let alone repealing the second amendment.

 

It's funny talking about what would happen if an anti-civil rights movement turns into something like the civil rights movement of the 60's

 

This is pretty much how the civil rights movement started.

This movement needs to define its demands though.

Lay out specific requirements and form a PAC.

Saying "this is bad and needs to stop" or "we need common sense regulation" is not going to move the needle.