Leftist Militias: Should Liberals Be Pro-Second Amendment?

[Tobleste]

So what do you think it means?

The same thing that everyone else who isn't trying to grandstand pointlessly thinks it means, in that he is well versed on the subjects at hand.

I'm guessing you're pretty pro gun then?

[Tobleste]

In all 3?

In two of the three. Nazism and Communism. Terrorism I have a working understanding of through personal study.

As I said, college level course was just an example. I don't prejudice myself against self edification, to an extent. There are things it is simply necessary to be taught.

So if I read a book on US gun culture, I could think what I want? It does seem like the distinction is one you've just come up with.

[Paddy O Fernature]

The same thing that everyone else who isn't trying to grandstand pointlessly thinks it means, in that he is well versed on the subjects at hand.

I'm guessing you're pretty pro gun then?

Pretty Pro Constitution actually. Kinda against the whole illegally stripping peoples constitutional rights away over stupid and shitty reasons thing personally. To each their own though.

[Tobleste]

I'm guessing you're pretty pro gun then?

Pretty Pro Constitution actually. Kinda against the whole illegally stripping peoples constitutional rights away over stupid and shitty reasons thing personally. To each their own though.

It explains why you've been condescending and petty from the start. Also glad to know you think "preventing death" is a stupid and shitty reason.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Pretty Pro Constitution actually. Kinda against the whole illegally stripping peoples constitutional rights away over stupid and shitty reasons thing personally. To each their own though.

It explains why you've been condescending and petty from the start. Also glad to know you think "preventing death" is a stupid and shitty reason.

We'd prevent a whole lot of death if we clamped down on the free exchange of ideas. Are you down for that?

[Licana]

Also glad to know you think "preventing death" is a stupid and shitty reason.

Black people commit half of all the murders in America, should we remove them too?

[Paddy O Fernature]

It explains why you've been condescending and petty from the start. Also glad to know you think "preventing death" is a stupid and shitty reason.

We'd prevent a whole lot of death if we clamped down on the free exchange of ideas. Are you down for that?

We also would prevent a whole bunch more deaths then "gun control" if we clamped down on any number of things, you down for that?

Also glad to know you think "preventing death" is a stupid and shitty reason.

Black people commit half of all the murders in America, should we remove them too?

Nah, we clearly just need to ban police from arresting them, cause racism, and watch as those numbers magically go away.

*Nod nod*

[Tobleste]

It explains why you've been condescending and petty from the start. Also glad to know you think "preventing death" is a stupid and shitty reason.

We'd prevent a whole lot of death if we clamped down on the free exchange of ideas. Are you down for that?

Would we? I'm pretty sure all the most advanced and developed societies don't do that.

That said, you're a welcome break from Telconi and that other guy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We'd prevent a whole lot of death if we clamped down on the free exchange of ideas. Are you down for that?

Would we? I'm pretty sure all the most advanced and developed societies don't do that.

That said, you're a welcome break from Telconi and that other guy.

We absolutely would. How many people would die to right wing terrorism or Islamists if you just outright didn't allow either group to exist or spread their ideas?

[Len Hyet]

In two of the three. Nazism and Communism. Terrorism I have a working understanding of through personal study.

As I said, college level course was just an example. I don't prejudice myself against self edification, to an extent. There are things it is simply necessary to be taught.

So if I read a book on US gun culture, I could think what I want? It does seem like the distinction is one you've just come up with.

I thought the left was pro informed opinion.

[The South Falls]

I mean, it's a one-time authentication process, which prevents people from using your own guns against you. If you want to give a gun to someone, you open the "lock". Simple.

Yeah, no.

Making something overly more complex for the sake of "feels" and not actual practicality is a horrible thing to do. Especially when said complex thing is going to be possibly used in a life or death situation where you absolutely need it to go "Bang" when you want it to, and not get a 404 error cause your fingerprint is sweaty from stress and cant scan properly.

If someone steals your gun, what are you going to do? This applies to them, of course.

[Telconi]

We'd prevent a whole lot of death if we clamped down on the free exchange of ideas. Are you down for that?

Would we? I'm pretty sure all the most advanced and developed societies don't do that.

That said, you're a welcome break from Telconi and that other guy.

Yes. People also still die in these countries.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Would we? I'm pretty sure all the most advanced and developed societies don't do that.

That said, you're a welcome break from Telconi and that other guy.

We absolutely would. How many people would die to right wing terrorism or Islamists if you just outright didn't allow either group to exist or spread their ideas?

Or abortion. After all, arn't we supposed to be thinking of the children?

[Paddy O Fernature]

Yeah, no.

Making something overly more complex for the sake of "feels" and not actual practicality is a horrible thing to do. Especially when said complex thing is going to be possibly used in a life or death situation where you absolutely need it to go "Bang" when you want it to, and not get a 404 error cause your fingerprint is sweaty from stress and cant scan properly.

If someone steals your gun, what are you going to do? This applies to them, of course.

Remove the grip.
Remove the chip.
Replace the grip.
Bang Bang.

Or for those less tech saavy:

Use gun, inert or not, to rob a place via pure intimidation factor alone.
Profit!

[Tobleste]

Would we? I'm pretty sure all the most advanced and developed societies don't do that.

That said, you're a welcome break from Telconi and that other guy.

We absolutely would. How many people would die to right wing terrorism or Islamists if you just outright didn't allow either group to exist or spread their ideas?

There is an argument to be made for Islamists but right wing beliefs shouldn't be clamped down on because some are terrorists. Only if either group clearly promote violence.

[Telconi]

Yeah, no.

Making something overly more complex for the sake of "feels" and not actual practicality is a horrible thing to do. Especially when said complex thing is going to be possibly used in a life or death situation where you absolutely need it to go "Bang" when you want it to, and not get a 404 error cause your fingerprint is sweaty from stress and cant scan properly.

If someone steals your gun, what are you going to do? This applies to them, of course.

Buy a new one?

[The South Falls]

If someone steals your gun, what are you going to do? This applies to them, of course.

Remove the grip.
Remove the chip.
Replace the grip.
Bang Bang.

Or for those less tech saavy:

Use gun, inert or not, to rob a place via pure intimidation factor alone.
Profit!

I'll bet some guy will be just cutting at your grip for a while in your house.


That last point is valid.

[Paddy O Fernature]

If someone steals your gun, what are you going to do? This applies to them, of course.

Buy a new one?

Thief steals a Colt Gold Cup Series 70, insurance gives enough for a High Point after the deductible.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Remove the grip.
Remove the chip.
Replace the grip.
Bang Bang.

Or for those less tech saavy:

Use gun, inert or not, to rob a place via pure intimidation factor alone.
Profit!

I'll bet some guy will be just cutting at your grip for a while in your house.

That last point is valid.

My most complex grip is held in place by two screws. The simplest is literally a rubber ergo grip that's slip on/off. Easy thing to tamper with once you steal it and walk out of the home with it.

[Norskhavn]

Here's my insight on the matter, as an american liberal. The original text of the Second Amendment is as follows:

Code: Select all

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.

The amendment was written in 18th century english, and since then, english grammar and, in particular, the use of commas has changed substantially, somewhat obfuscating interpretation of the amendment's language.
For this reason, I much prefer this updated version, which, simply by eliminating a few extra commas, is much clearer in its meaning and intent:

Code: Select all

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.

The second amendment doesn't simply state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but it makes perfectly clear and obvious why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; because, at the time the amendment was written, the founding fathers believed a "well regulated militia" to be necessary to the security of a free state.

Notice the founding fathers said "a well regulated militia" and not "a standing regular army." This is a very important distinction. A Militia is a self-funded organization, formed of armed citizens coming together of their own accord, and paying for their arms and supplies out of their own pockets, whereas an Army exists by government mandate, and equipped and supplied by the government, with equipment and supplies payed for with taxpayer money. My understanding of the climate in which the second amendment was written is as follows:

In the beginning, the political climate of the United States was predominately Libertarian. The early US government intended to take a very hands-off role in both the affairs of the States, and of the People. They intended to keep federal spending to a minimum, and expected the people and the states and the people to provide for themselves.

They did not originally intend to fund and maintain a Standing Regular Army.

This is why a Well Regulated Militia was believed necessary to the security of the United States, and here I make my first point: Today, we have a Standing Regular Army, which serves the function that a Well Regulated Militia would have. Therefore, a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of the United States, and the validity of the second amendment is in question.

So, I would be in favor of the second amendment if I could be convinced of a defensible reason why we should have both a well regulated militia, and a standing regular army, but I have yet to hear of such a reason. If you have one, please reply with all due haste.

Here I make my second point: I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. Such a right does not exist in the U.S. constitution, but it should.

At the same time, I also believe that is is reasonable to limit this right to an extent; A full bore machine gun, for example, is a weapon of war, not a weapon of self defense. I'm simultaneously pro-gun, and pro gun-control because, while the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, there's no reason why any private citizen should have the right to keep and bear weapons of war.

I will agree with the right, though, that the legislature should not attempt to regulate what it does not understand. Moreso, I agree with the One Line Constitution of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Virtual Nation of Rationalia:

Code: Select all

All Policy shall be based on the Weight of Evidence.

For purposes of legally regulating firearms, what the weight of evidence supports is that, what makes a firearm deadly is just two simple physical quantities; The kinetic energy of the projectiles fired by the firearm, and the number of projectiles the firearm can fire in a given period of time. In more familiar terms, Average Muzzle Energy, measured in joules, and Rate of Fire (Cyclic Rate of Fire for fully-automatic firearms, and Practical Rate of Fire for semi-automatic and manually-operated firearms), measured in Rounds Per Minute.

Better yet, these two quantities can be combined in to one, quantifying Firepower in terms of Joules Per Second, AKA Watts. From here, it's a simple matter to to categorize what weapons are and are not permissible for civilian use, based solely on this quantity. No other qualities or quantities need be evaluated. Exactly where the line should be drawn is outside my expertise, and ultimately arbitrary, but there is one more element of simple, effective gun regulation I'd like to discuss....

No matter how they are classified or categorized, Firearms should be regulated like cars; In order to own one, you should be required to have a license, and to register the gun, and in order to have a gun license, you should be required to take classes and pass tests, including meeting physical and psychological standards, and passing background checks.

...And that's it. Thank you for bearing with me and following me down this tangent.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I hate to be rude new guy but that's a lot of incorrect information.

[Telconi]

Buy a new one?

Thief steals a Colt Gold Cup Series 70, insurance gives enough for a High Point after the deductible.

Or, as actually happened to me, thief steals gen 4 Glock, insurance says "lol, not available in CA" and refuses to pay on it at all...

[Paddy O Fernature]

Thief steals a Colt Gold Cup Series 70, insurance gives enough for a High Point after the deductible.

Or, as actually happened to me, thief steals gen 4 Glock, insurance says "lol, not available in CA" and refuses to pay on it at all...

.....

I'd be suing my insurance company for fraud.

[Norskhavn]

I hate to be rude new guy but that's a lot of incorrect information.

Telling me I'm wrong accomplishes nothing until you tell me what I got wrong specifically, and enlighten me to the truth.

Anyway, as a sidenote to my above manifesto, I will concede this: While a "well regulated militia" as I believe the founding fathers intended is not currently necessary, that could change relatively soon; President Trump's tenure in the White House has kept us constantly on the verge of the Second American Civil War, and if we cross that line, the Left will need a Second Amendment Militia with which to fight that war, or it will be doomed to end in disaster. As soon as that war is over, however, the need for such a militia will once again evaporate.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I hate to be rude new guy but that's a lot of incorrect information.

Telling me I'm wrong accomplishes nothing until you tell me what I got wrong specifically, and enlighten me to the truth.

Anyway, as a sidenote to my above manifesto, I will concede this: While a "well regulated militia" as I believe the founding fathers intended is not currently necessary, that could change relatively soon; President Trump's tenure in the White House has kept us constantly on the verge of the Second American Civil War, and if we cross that line, the Left will need a Second Amendment Militia with which to fight that war, or it will be doomed to end in disaster. As soon as that war is over, however, the need for such a militia will once again evaporate.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=439114&p=34765683&hilit=potato#p34765683