Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-22-2017, 09:06 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I haven't ignored things, but this debate is very tiresome and goes over the same ground over and over. Again, what's being proposed is not prohibition, except with respect to military weapons, which have nothing to do with self-defense. And no, guns do not work for that purpose anyway, but since people believe it does, and because Americans have a perceived need for guns, total prohibition is off the table for the foreseeable future. So the conflict is not over the value of self-defense, since on the pro gun control side, guns are not perceived as a reliable means for it. They are a means for people to kill people, and that's it. I don't know when rural folks might learn to see this fact. The right-wing/libertarian (or revolutionary left wing) American point of view on guns is purely an American one among developed countries; our gun obsession is unique.

In a 4T, one side emerges victorious. Values changes happen to an extent, but the victory is only partial and the cycle continues until the next 2T and 4T when values may change further. Based on the statistics I have seen, it's clear that gun control works. What is also clear, is that gun possession is becoming increasingly concentrated among an ever-smaller group of people who have this obsession.

As I said before, though, if the constitution becomes moot due to the tyrannical and unconstitutional conduct of our government, then the 2nd amendment and the entire constitution becomes irrelevant, and so probably does gun control or prohibition. Revolution and/or civil war means that the people need an army to overthrow the regime, and sometimes this might include a peoples' army. Gun control is irrelevant for the people of Syria, for example.

Many blues want to prohibit certain guns with certain features. It's prohibition.

Agreed, total prohibition by constitutional amendment is not happening any time soon.

I believe large cultures have a reason for coming into existence. If you look at the major memes and values underlying a major culture, if you examine the history you can find a time and place where these memes helped the culture grow and thrive. While I disagree with many of the red unraveling memes, blind squirrels do find nuts. Not everything they believe in is certified wrong.

Much of this 'discussion' is me reviewing the history of why certain memes came into being and still work in some places. The response is that everything red is evil and wrong. I'll review revolutionary values and how they are still functioning is some parts of the country. I'll review how Jim Crow law was bad, and there has been and still is a continuing a pattern of Jim Crow law being removed from precedent and the books. I also see the gun policy results as dependent, among other things, on population density. Depending on the professionals for defense works better in areas where lots of people live close together. All history and values aside, rural people will see more need to be able to defend themselves than urban people. There are good practical reason why the gun policy debate divides along rural / urban lines. One policy does not fit everywhere equally well. Different parts of the country want policies that work best in their local environment. One part of the country forcing their values and policies on another is not a smooth easy path to walk.

The dominant response seems to be a vilification and demonization of the Reagan era Republicans. Hey, I don't much care for those guys either. I will disparage most of the unraveling memes merrily. If they were ever good ideas, they have been taken well beyond the point of diminishing returns.

But blaming everything on a few people and a political movement isn't going to be convincing to members of that political movement. The core of your perspective seems to be a hatred of unraveling Republicans. Arguments based on this hate aren't going to work well on unraveling Republicans, or on me. I can understand and sometimes respect where they are coming from. You might try focusing on the issues more and denouncing people and groups less. Reinforcing the mutual hatred between the opposing cultures doesn't seem constructive.

In many ways, we are both correct. Jim Crow was real. Ronald Reagan was real. The founding fathers were real. The gun policy question is extremely complex with many layers. You are focused tightly on modern political aspects, while I'm into culture, history and law. Your expressing again how much you hate modern Republicans will not make the culture, history and law go away. Seeing different things as important, how we argue and what points we see as decisive differ.

I am having a real difficulty comprehending your notion that guns can't be used for defense. We live in an occasionally violent environment. If one is caught in an incident, a weapon does give many more options for controlling the indecent, for resolving the conflict on one's own terms. You seem to be claiming that they don't. If guns are not useful tools for resolving conflicts on one's own terms, why to both cops and robbers carry guns? Your ex cathedra pronouncements that guns cannot be used for defense simply do not make any sense to me at all, yet this bogus bit of nonsense seems to be the core of your argument. If one repeats a Big Lie often enough, does it help you convince yourself? I know you're not going to convince me, or many red leaning folk.

Another note is that just because one is fighting for one issue does not imply the other guy is fighting for the flip side of the other issue. Some say the Civil War was fought over slavery, some say over state's rights, some say it was a conflict between the old agricultural plantation and slave owning elites against the up and coming industrial robber baron elites. If the other guy is looking at the elite economic conflict, raging against slavery isn't going to move him. He is looking at the conflict from a different perspective. For me, it seems necessary to be aware of all the various perspectives. Locking into one angle only leaves one with an incomplete and lopsided view of the issue.

The founding fathers saw many reasons for an armed trained populace. That some reasons have become obsolete does not imply all reasons have gone away. It is reasonably obvious that large numbers of unarmed amateurs are no longer needed to repel invasions or suppress insurrections. This does not mean the founding fathers didn't think protecting one's self important as well, or that a well armed populace shouldn't be there to make the ruling elite at least a little nervous. Their thoughts are clear and well documented.

The justification phrase presses the need for a well regulated militia. If one is not going to be suppressing insurrections or repelling invasions with masses of amateurs, there is less need to train the masses to fight as a large team. I have considered what sort of training ought to be given to all adult males of military age, should the Congress decide to exercise their authority to train them. How does one securely store a weapon when not in use? What is the chain of command? What are the rules of engagement? How are officers appointed? If an incident is developing, who do you report it to? This sort of training is available, and is very different from revolutionary era doctrine. No one trains in how to march from a travel column formation into a firing line anymore. Maintaining proper spacing so one can concentrate fire while still having room to use one's ramrod isn't a big deal these days. This in no way implies that if one is carrying a weapon, one doesn't need to know what one is doing.