You see, I'm old enough to remember who the most strident opponents of the 1968 Gun Control Act were: The Black Panthers. I also remember the Symbionese Liberation Army and their trademark cyanide bullets, along with the "Zebra" shootings in the city I would later call home for 23 years.
So I can recall a time when a very different group of people advocated a "Second Amendment solution" to what they saw as the nation's problems from the group advocating the same "solution" now - and as such, I would warn the left: Don't wish too hard for gun control. You might get it.
(10-22-2016, 01:55 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: [ -> ]You see, I'm old enough to remember who the most strident opponents of the 1968 Gun Control Act were: The Black Panthers. I also remember the Symbionese Liberation Army and their trademark cyanide bullets, along with the "Zebra" shootings in the city I would later call home for 23 years.
So I can recall a time when a very different group of people advocated a "Second Amendment solution" to what they saw as the nation's problems from the group advocating the same "solution" now - and as such, I would warn the left: Don't wish too hard for gun control. You might get it.
Sounds like a warning about NOT wishing for it. The Black Panthers, the SLA and the Zebra did not fare so well with their violent approach. David Hilliard said "the guns were our nemesis."
(10-22-2016, 01:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
The above photo is faked. Real GCU vans are unmarked, have firing ports on their side, and heavy enough protection that one absolutely needs high velocity armor piercing rounds and a very large magazine.
Fortunately, the prototype units of the Deportation Force are dual tasked. Until the inauguration they will be suppressing the GCU.
I chose to opt out of this thread almost from its inception, largely because the issue of gun control in America was rendered moot long ago, in my opinion. Anyway, tomorrow night PBS is airing a docu-series "Tower." The abstract on this program:
Explore the deadly August 1, 1966, mass shooting at the University of Texas that left 16 dead. 'Tower' reframes the events of that day via the perspectives of those who lived through it and examines the effects of the shooting over the last 50 years.
This mass shooting, one of the first--if not the first--to burst onto the national consciousness, took place in my backyard as I was growing up in Texas. The program should provide a good long-term perspective on mass shootings in the US.
Check your local listings if you're interested.
I watched it. It was very good, although it moved painfully slow; as did the police response to the shooting. It took an hour for the police to invade the Tower and shoot the madman. 16 died, and about 33 were injured. I remember that news story well. It was the moment when mass shootings became an epidemic in America, and thus posed a challenge to our gun culture. That was the era of the Kennedy/MLK shootings as well.
Newtown and Orlando have brought the epidemic to new lows. Astrologically, it corresponds to Uranus conjunct Pluto in 1966; it was almost exact at the time on August 1st. The square between these planets in 2012-2013 brought the issue to another climax. It is the revolutionary conjunction. What kind of revolution will the gun issue create, is the question now. It powers both liberal movements for gun control, and reactionary right-wing militias and rebellions like the events of 1992-95 I discussed here.
What strikes me, is how little progress America has been capable of since 1966. We have regressed on this issue, and so many others. Instead of tighter regulations on guns, especially on campuses and other public places where mass shootings have occurred, on the 50th anniversary of the disaster the State of Texas allowed "licensed" gun owners to conceal and carry. As the documentary showed, the result is the end of free inquiry on campus, because of the fear that a debate could turn into a shooting. And "license" in Texas means absolutely nothing, now that Trump and the Repugs are getting rid of such lenient regulations as now exist. Specifically, the Senate apparently removed restrictions on mentally ill people from getting guns. This would quite likely have prevented the original Texas University Tower shooting.
Here's a link to the PBS Newshour report on the documentary that covers the gun debate at the end of the film.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/concealed...-campuses/
Here's a link to the film
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/tower/
The stalemate and the refusal of the 40%+ reactionaries in America and in the red states to progress portents a whole lot of trouble at least before this 4T is over.
We on the left might have to arm ourselves against Fascists and you are still crowing about gun control, Eric?
I was thinking about this and what Mr. X says. Of course, Mr. X 84 and I are in California, which may need to secede against a fascist takeover. What do we do then, if Trump invades? Maybe then it will be time for citizens to arm. I think the State of California will call out the militia, in that case; and a militia has a right to bear arms, according to the Second Amendment. Gun control would not affect that. But that alone will not defend us. We'll need efficient anti-aircraft guns and anti-missile defense systems; the best that Silicon Valley can make. And fast! We'll need a steady supply of arms both made and imported. CA has good natural barriers of mountain and desert against tanks and armies. But you guys in places like Minnesota, a divided purple state to begin with, with likely fascist supporters like Classic Xer in your midst, and armed against you, and no natural barriers? What do you do against Trump with your guns? I don't know how that goes. Maybe get your NAVY seal former governor as your leader and go for it.
This is a last resort situation. The best means now of resisting Trump and his fascism is not to arm, but to organize non-violently and mobilize. Speak out, register people, vote, donate, petition, demonstrate. Demand that Democrats stand firm and filibuster everything that Trump and Ryan offer that is wrong. Demand that Republicans begin to show some real patriotism and judgement too.
Lack of gun control now only empowers the fascists; people like Dylann Roof and Timothy McVeigh and the Aryan Brotherhood. And the usual loonies who just want to use this technology to blow people away. A civilized society would have no need for guns at all. We ought to have that as our eventual goal, if our nation is to progress and not remain stuck in a dark age that only the USA lives in.
(02-16-2017, 12:19 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I watched it. It was very good, although it moved painfully slow; as did the police response to the shooting. It took an hour for the police to invade the Tower and shoot the madman. 16 died, and about 33 were injured. I remember that news story well. It was the moment when mass shootings became an epidemic in America, and thus posed a challenge to our gun culture. That was the era of the Kennedy/MLK shootings as well.
Newtown and Orlando have brought the epidemic to new lows. Astrologically, it corresponds to Uranus conjunct Pluto in 1966; it was almost exact at the time on August 1st. The square between these planets in 2012-2013 brought the issue to another climax. It is the revolutionary conjunction. What kind of revolution will the gun issue create, is the question now. It powers both liberal movements for gun control, and reactionary right-wing militias and rebellions like the events of 1992-95 I discussed here.
What strikes me, is how little progress America has been capable of since 1966. We have regressed on this issue, and so many others. Instead of tighter regulations on guns, especially on campuses and other public places where mass shootings have occurred, on the 50th anniversary of the disaster the State of Texas allowed "licensed" gun owners to conceal and carry. As the documentary showed, the result is the end of free inquiry on campus, because of the fear that a debate could turn into a shooting. And "license" in Texas means absolutely nothing, now that Trump and the Repugs are getting rid of such lenient regulations as now exist. Specifically, the Senate apparently removed restrictions on mentally ill people from getting guns. This would quite likely have prevented the original Texas University Tower shooting.
Here's a link to the PBS Newshour report on the documentary that covers the gun debate at the end of the film.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/concealed...-campuses/
Here's a link to the film
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/tower/
The stalemate and the refusal of the 40%+ reactionaries in America and in the red states to progress portents a whole lot of trouble at least before this 4T is over.
I liked the documentary, though I was hoping for more in the way of historical perspective and editorial content. But as I have said before, as political issues go, the issue of gun control is utterly
moot. (I don't even care to discuss it much; it's pointless) Given the
sheer number of guns in circulation, including hundreds of thousands of assault rifles, and more being manufactured and sold every day...
"Guns In America, By The Numbers"
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/...he-numbers
...short of outright
confiscation, there is no single measure or combination of measures, that will stanch the gun violence sufficiently to bring our gun homicides into line with that of other developed nations. The growing proliferation of weapons in America--now even "ghost guns" that can be assembled at home like kit cars--promises gun violence for as far as the eye can see. My girlfriend and I have talked about the possibility of moving to another country with saner gun laws, among other motivations. For all the overhyped fears of "radical Muslim terrorists," we as Americans are much more likely to be mowed down by a homegrown crazy.
We have paid an increasingly bitter and bloody price for the Second Amendment. When I learned of the massacre of small children at Sandy Hook, I cried. Wept for the innocent children, their parents, indeed for the country. And when Congress--which the NRA pretty much owns lock, stock, and barrel--couldn't even summon the moral courage to pass a simple gun control measure in response, well, I knew that we were through the looking glass as a society. If our Founding Fathers were alive today to survey the aftermath of any of the venues where mass shootings have taken place, I can't help but feel they would shake their heads in Prufrockian dismay, and say, "This is not what we meant at all."
(02-16-2017, 03:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]We have paid an increasingly bitter and bloody price for the Second Amendment. When I learned of the massacre of small children at Sandy Hook, I cried. Wept for the innocent children, their parents, indeed for the country. And when Congress--which the NRA pretty much owns lock, stock, and barrel--couldn't even summon the moral courage to pass a simple gun control measure in response, well, I knew that we were through the looking glass as a society. If our Founding Fathers were alive today to survey the aftermath of any of the venues where mass shootings have taken place, I can't help but feel they would shake their heads in Prufrockian dismay, and say, "This is not what we meant at all."
All true, especially the last point. I still have a hard time understanding how we got here.
(02-16-2017, 03:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]We have paid an increasingly bitter and bloody price for the Second Amendment. When I learned of the massacre of small children at Sandy Hook, I cried. Wept for the innocent children, their parents, indeed for the country. And when Congress--which the NRA pretty much owns lock, stock, and barrel--couldn't even summon the moral courage to pass a simple gun control measure in response, well, I knew that we were through the looking glass as a society. If our Founding Fathers were alive today to survey the aftermath of any of the venues where mass shootings have taken place, I can't help but feel they would shake their heads in Prufrockian dismay, and say, "This is not what we meant at all."
Yes, you can quite sincerely project your personal values on the Founding Fathers. Have you done any real reading on their times? In their day, massacres were generally natives coming out of the woods for a hit and run raid. There were no police forces. There wasn't much in the way of a standing army, certainly nothing that could respond to a massacre in a timely fashion. Yep, aggressors with guns are a problem. Unfortunately, what is often required is more aggressors with guns, armed, trained, and willing to take that elevator to the top of the tower, sooner rather than later. The Founding Fathers did what they could given the culture as it was to make sure the law abiding were in a position to do just that.
What law would you pass that would have changed Sandy Hook? The perpetrator was mentally unstable. One approach that might have made a difference would have been tight screening by psychologists of everyone with access to weapons. The goal would be to prove lack of mental competence to the degree required to strip a constitutional right? Are you aware of the legal standards required to do that? Can you guess how many psychologists would have to be screening people to stop a potential Sandy Hook?
If this isn't your approach, what is? It is one thing to state emotional distress at the status quo. Lots of people, including myself, are unhappy with the status quo. It is another thing to have a proposal that might actually help and might possibly be passed.
(02-17-2017, 07:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2017, 03:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]We have paid an increasingly bitter and bloody price for the Second Amendment. When I learned of the massacre of small children at Sandy Hook, I cried. Wept for the innocent children, their parents, indeed for the country. And when Congress--which the NRA pretty much owns lock, stock, and barrel--couldn't even summon the moral courage to pass a simple gun control measure in response, well, I knew that we were through the looking glass as a society. If our Founding Fathers were alive today to survey the aftermath of any of the venues where mass shootings have taken place, I can't help but feel they would shake their heads in Prufrockian dismay, and say, "This is not what we meant at all."
Yes, you can quite sincerely project your personal values on the Founding Fathers. Have you done any real reading on their times? In their day, massacres were generally natives coming out of the woods for a hit and run raid. There were no police forces. There wasn't much in the way of a standing army, certainly nothing that could respond to a massacre in a timely fashion. Yep, aggressors with guns are a problem. Unfortunately, what is often required is more aggressors with guns, armed, trained, and willing to take that elevator to the top of the tower, sooner rather than later. The Founding Fathers did what they could given the culture as it was to make sure the law abiding were in a position to do just that.
What law would you pass that would have changed Sandy Hook? The perpetrator was mentally unstable. One approach that might have made a difference would have been tight screening by psychologists of everyone with access to weapons. The goal would be to prove lack of mental competence to the degree required to strip a constitutional right? Are you aware of the legal standards required to do that? Can you guess how many psychologists would have to be screening people to stop a potential Sandy Hook?
If this isn't your approach, what is? It is one thing to state emotional distress at the status quo. Lots of people, including myself, are unhappy with the status quo. It is another thing to have a proposal that might actually help and might possibly be passed.
Bob,
With all due respect, did you read my
entire post? I mentioned only one solution:
confiscation. Which I'm not proposing, by the way. That will
never happen. It would be violently contested, logistically impossible and, of course, unconstitutional, given the recent liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment by SCOTUS. We are trapped in a
positive feedback loop: the answer to mass shootings--from the NRA, especially--is
more guns. Any perceived threat to gun ownership leads to a huge spike in sales of legally permissible weapons, including the most lethal category of all--assault rifles. Have you checked out the pattern of sales leading up to the presidential election, when existing and prospective gun owners rushed to buy, fearing new gun control measures under a Hillary Clinton administration? The same held true during Obama's time in office.
"The black helicopters are coming for our guns!" What ridiculous tripe.
And, yes, having taken a Constitutional Law course as an undergrad, I'm familiar with the historical context that gave rise to the Second Amendment. Does that same
raison d'être still apply to the times in which we now live? Since the enshrinement of the Second Amendment as a bill of right, 226 years have passed. Even some signatories of our Constitution realized upon its ratification that it might some day become an anachronism. In their infinite wisdom they foresaw the day when the great legal document that they had created, and with not a little contention, would quite simply outlive its usefulness. Given the unrelenting polarization in our country around a whole range of issues, including this one, I honestly believe that only a second Constitutional convention can break the ideological impasse, a remote possibility that I can no longer dismiss out of hand.
As wedge issues go, I can't think of a more moot issue than gun control. To me, it's literally a waste of breath to even discuss. As we used to say in Texas, that horse left the barn long, long ago...
(02-17-2017, 12:47 PM)"TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2017, 07:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2017, 03:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]We have paid an increasingly bitter and bloody price for the Second Amendment. When I learned of the massacre of small children at Sandy Hook, I cried. Wept for the innocent children, their parents, indeed for the country. And when Congress--which the NRA pretty much owns lock, stock, and barrel--couldn't even summon the moral courage to pass a simple gun control measure in response, well, I knew that we were through the looking glass as a society. If our Founding Fathers were alive today to survey the aftermath of any of the venues where mass shootings have taken place, I can't help but feel they would shake their heads in Prufrockian dismay, and say, "This is not what we meant at all."
Yes, you can quite sincerely project your personal values on the Founding Fathers. Have you done any real reading on their times? In their day, massacres were generally natives coming out of the woods for a hit and run raid. There were no police forces. There wasn't much in the way of a standing army, certainly nothing that could respond to a massacre in a timely fashion. Yep, aggressors with guns are a problem. Unfortunately, what is often required is more aggressors with guns, armed, trained, and willing to take that elevator to the top of the tower, sooner rather than later. The Founding Fathers did what they could given the culture as it was to make sure the law abiding were in a position to do just that.
What law would you pass that would have changed Sandy Hook? The perpetrator was mentally unstable. One approach that might have made a difference would have been tight screening by psychologists of everyone with access to weapons. The goal would be to prove lack of mental competence to the degree required to strip a constitutional right? Are you aware of the legal standards required to do that? Can you guess how many psychologists would have to be screening people to stop a potential Sandy Hook?
If this isn't your approach, what is? It is one thing to state emotional distress at the status quo. Lots of people, including myself, are unhappy with the status quo. It is another thing to have a proposal that might actually help and might possibly be passed.
Bob,
With all due respect, did you read my entire post? I mentioned only one solution: confiscation. Which I'm not proposing, by the way. That will never happen. It would be violently contested, logistically impossible and, of course, unconstitutional, given the recent liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment by SCOTUS. We are trapped in a positive feedback loop: the answer to mass shootings--from the NRA, especially--is more guns. Any perceived threat to gun ownership leads to a huge spike in sales of legally permissible weapons, including the most lethal category of all--assault rifles. Have you checked out the pattern of sales leading up to the presidential election, when existing and prospective gun owners rushed to buy, fearing new gun control measures under a Hillary Clinton administration? The same held true during Obama's time in office.
"The black helicopters are coming for our guns!" What ridiculous tripe.
And, yes, having taken a Constitutional Law course as an undergrad, I'm familiar with the historical context that gave rise to the Second Amendment. Does that same raison d'être still apply to the times in which we now live? Since the enshrinement of the Second Amendment as a bill of right, 226 years have passed. Even some signatories of our Constitution realized upon its ratification that it might some day become an anachronism. In their infinite wisdom they foresaw the day when the great legal document that they had created, and with not a little contention, would quite simply outlive its usefulness. Given the unrelenting polarization in our country around a whole range of issues, including this one, I honestly believe that only a second Constitutional convention can break the ideological impasse, a remote possibility that I can no longer dismiss out of hand.
As wedge issues go, I can't think of a more moot issue than gun control. To me, it's literally a waste of breath to even discuss. As we used to say in Texas, that horse left the barn long, long ago...
And here are the sad, grim statistics (not to be confused with "alternative facts") from a study published online Feb. 1 in
The American Journal of Medicine.
"How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-...countries/
We came very close to passing more gun control under Obama after Sandy Hook. It was very rudimentary regulation, but it would have been some progress. It had 90% support in some polls. The politicians bowed to the NRA, and it lost by a few votes. If progressives win again in the next swing of the pendulum, after a few more middle-aged whites pass on, it's quite conceivable that gun control could come up again and pass this time. It may even be more stringent. I can also see, if so, that this gun control might be fodder among the gun nuts and racist reactionaries for the violent right-wing rebellion likely during the next progressive wave, if and when it comes; but it will fail. I don't know how far another right-wing swing would go during a 1T, but probably not as far. I could be wrong on that; the right wing swing can be pretty strong in an early 1T. It's quite conceivable that another two or three pendulum swings would come, and I don't know where it would settle on this issue.
It could be that guns in America will last as long as the nation itself, probably at least another 300 years. But it could be two or three nations by then, even as soon as the next 1T. No doubt, our ridiculous gun obsession will be one of the deadly things that kills America, sooner or later. The Second Amendment is as much of a poison pill in our Constitution as "three-fifths of a person" and the electoral college have been. In a whole lot of ways these days, middle America just can't get it. Pathetic.
(02-17-2017, 02:53 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2017, 12:47 PM)"TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2017, 07:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-16-2017, 03:32 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: [ -> ]We have paid an increasingly bitter and bloody price for the Second Amendment. When I learned of the massacre of small children at Sandy Hook, I cried. Wept for the innocent children, their parents, indeed for the country. And when Congress--which the NRA pretty much owns lock, stock, and barrel--couldn't even summon the moral courage to pass a simple gun control measure in response, well, I knew that we were through the looking glass as a society. If our Founding Fathers were alive today to survey the aftermath of any of the venues where mass shootings have taken place, I can't help but feel they would shake their heads in Prufrockian dismay, and say, "This is not what we meant at all."
Yes, you can quite sincerely project your personal values on the Founding Fathers. Have you done any real reading on their times? In their day, massacres were generally natives coming out of the woods for a hit and run raid. There were no police forces. There wasn't much in the way of a standing army, certainly nothing that could respond to a massacre in a timely fashion. Yep, aggressors with guns are a problem. Unfortunately, what is often required is more aggressors with guns, armed, trained, and willing to take that elevator to the top of the tower, sooner rather than later. The Founding Fathers did what they could given the culture as it was to make sure the law abiding were in a position to do just that.
What law would you pass that would have changed Sandy Hook? The perpetrator was mentally unstable. One approach that might have made a difference would have been tight screening by psychologists of everyone with access to weapons. The goal would be to prove lack of mental competence to the degree required to strip a constitutional right? Are you aware of the legal standards required to do that? Can you guess how many psychologists would have to be screening people to stop a potential Sandy Hook?
If this isn't your approach, what is? It is one thing to state emotional distress at the status quo. Lots of people, including myself, are unhappy with the status quo. It is another thing to have a proposal that might actually help and might possibly be passed.
Bob,
With all due respect, did you read my entire post? I mentioned only one solution: confiscation. Which I'm not proposing, by the way. That will never happen. It would be violently contested, logistically impossible and, of course, unconstitutional, given the recent liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment by SCOTUS. We are trapped in a positive feedback loop: the answer to mass shootings--from the NRA, especially--is more guns. Any perceived threat to gun ownership leads to a huge spike in sales of legally permissible weapons, including the most lethal category of all--assault rifles. Have you checked out the pattern of sales leading up to the presidential election, when existing and prospective gun owners rushed to buy, fearing new gun control measures under a Hillary Clinton administration? The same held true during Obama's time in office.
"The black helicopters are coming for our guns!" What ridiculous tripe.
And, yes, having taken a Constitutional Law course as an undergrad, I'm familiar with the historical context that gave rise to the Second Amendment. Does that same raison d'être still apply to the times in which we now live? Since the enshrinement of the Second Amendment as a bill of right, 226 years have passed. Even some signatories of our Constitution realized upon its ratification that it might some day become an anachronism. In their infinite wisdom they foresaw the day when the great legal document that they had created, and with not a little contention, would quite simply outlive its usefulness. Given the unrelenting polarization in our country around a whole range of issues, including this one, I honestly believe that only a second Constitutional convention can break the ideological impasse, a remote possibility that I can no longer dismiss out of hand.
As wedge issues go, I can't think of a more moot issue than gun control. To me, it's literally a waste of breath to even discuss. As we used to say in Texas, that horse left the barn long, long ago...
And here are the sad, grim statistics (not to be confused with "alternative facts") from a study published online Feb. 1 in The American Journal of Medicine.
"How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-...countries/
Worth posting:
Results
US homicide rates were 7.0 times higher than in other high-income countries, driven by a gun homicide rate that was 25.2 times higher. For 15- to 24-year-olds, the gun homicide rate in the United States was 49.0 times higher. Firearm-related suicide rates were 8.0 times higher in the United States, but the overall suicide rates were average. Unintentional firearm deaths were 6.2 times higher in the United States. The overall firearm death rate in the United States from all causes was 10.0 times higher. Ninety percent of women, 91% of children aged 0 to 14 years, 92% of youth aged 15 to 24 years, and 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States.
Conclusions
The United States has an enormous firearm problem compared with other high-income countries, with higher rates of homicide and firearm-related suicide. Compared with 2003 estimates, the US firearm death rate remains unchanged while firearm death rates in other countries decreased. Thus, the already high relative rates of firearm homicide, firearm suicide, and unintentional firearm death in the United States compared with other high-income countries increased between 2003 and 2010.
Violent death is a serious public health problem in the United States. Among 15- to 24-year-olds, homicide is the second leading cause of death and suicide is the third leading cause; for 25- to 34-year-olds, suicide is the second leading cause and homicide is the third leading cause of fatality, following unintentional injuries for both groups.1
The United States is known to have higher levels of violent death, particularly homicide, compared with other developed nations. Although the United States does not appear to have higher rates of nonlethal crime, the rates of lethal violence and especially gun violence are much higher than in other high-income countries.2, 3 There are many more guns and less strong gun laws in the United States than in other developed nations.3
The gun control issue is dead, for now. But violent deaths and mass shootings will continue and even skyrocket under the Republican regime. If and when the pendulum swings back, between 2020 and 2024, gun control will be high on the agenda again. The only thing that can stop this, I think, is if Drump/Bannon succeeds in making America a one-party dictatorship without a free press and free internet; as he in fact wants to do.
The gun control proposals may be dead. But so are a lot of other people. The effects of America's incredible blindness and stupidity on this issue will just get bigger and bigger.
Alliance for Gun Responsibility says:
In 2O17 so far there have been 44 mass shootings, 1,985 gun-related murders, and nearly 3,OOO gun-related suicides in America.
(02-17-2017, 03:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... It could be that guns in America will last as long as the nation itself, probably at least another 300 years. But it could be two or three nations by then, even as soon as the next 1T. No doubt, our ridiculous gun obsession will be one of the deadly things that kills America, sooner or later. The Second Amendment is as much of a poison pill in our Constitution as "three-fifths of a person" and the electoral college have been. In a whole lot of ways these days, middle America just can't get it. Pathetic.
This is sad but seems to be the case. Our gun obssession is now a very real subculure, much like religin. It has many of the same traits of absoute belief and refusal to see the facts. Like TeacherinExile, I'm at a loss how this gets solved short of killing the 2nd Amendment, and that's a very heavy lift.
(02-21-2017, 02:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]I urge all to review the 2nd Amendment in the context of the improvements to our systems of governance proposed by Gary Hart in "Restoration of the Republic."
What he proposed would require organized militias on a much broader scale. Like what they have in Switzerland.
A lot of time would have to be spent in training. If there is no threat, no need for an awful lot of people to do something constructive, restoration of the militia seems very unlikely.
(04-19-2017, 09:30 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]And back then, there were two things we largely don't have today. First, shooters knew how to rapidly load the black powder muzzle loaders of the day. Second, in both offensive and defensive situations, multiple shooters were just the price paid for the technology of the time.
Today, the energy of the shot loads the next round or in some cases a bolt action, pump action, lever action, or the previous trigger pull/hammer cocking. Today, fewer shooters are needed to accomplish the same effect.
None of this materially changes the 2A. If anything, based on the main purpose of the 2A, today's technology strengthens the 2A by making it more forceful in potential application. Each Citizen has a greater 2A role now than they did 240 years ago. Technology is a wonderful force multiplier. I like it.
This is nonsense. The 2nd was there to allow common defense using weapons that were hard to load and poor in effect. Yes, a militia was needed ... then. Now, we have firepower that can kill easily in the hands of people with little if any training. Sorry, but those are very much material issues.
Guns are no means of defense.
![[Image: 14695349_1194530080603325_82890054679677...e=58A8ADCA]](https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/14695349_1194530080603325_8289005467967753102_n.jpg?oh=1a346550aae16b76c579144d8bd7fd3d&oe=58A8ADCA)