06-02-2022, 05:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2022, 06:13 PM by Eric the Green.)
(06-02-2022, 03:39 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: There are a lot of misunderstandings here I don't have the time to address, but I can do a few
1) "Turn the other cheek" means "don't make a big deal out of nothing" and "have the social grace not to turn small infractions into fights". He says turn the other cheek when you are slapped, not when someone attacks you with weapons. I'll give you an example: when I was in my apartment in Chicago a few years go, an older woman gave me lip because I didn't move out of the way fast enough. I could see she was clearly having a bad day, so instead of escalating, I simply smiled and moved on my way. The next day, she saw me again and apologized profusely for how rude she was. Her daughter was in the hospital after being attacked and was having trouble breathing, so again I smiled and simply said "apology accepted". We had several pleasant interactions from then until I moved a year or so later. There were many ruthless and well-justified wars fought in the Bible.
The Bible is full of violence, but the teachings of Jesus are turn the other cheek. He did not have guns for him to parse his words.
Quote:2) Frankly, "move to a safe neighborhood" is a "let them eat cake"-ism. Good luck to the bottom 30% trying to afford the necessary funds to move.
If you want to be safe, pay the bill and don't complain. Don't impose guns on poor neighborhoods that don't want them and are the chief victims of them.
Not everyone can pay to move, but it's a good move for those who can afford it, and it's mostly those folks who can afford to move who complain the loudest about gun control and threats to their guns and their second amendment. The Republican Party is overwhelmingly white, and defends the interests of the wealthy.
After the 1968 gun control law, which I myself participated in lobbying for, being a Kennedy fan, it was not the poor folks in the ghettoes who started the gun rights movement in response to the law and the riots; it was white people in the suburbs who flocked to gun stores, put bumper stickers on their cars in huge numbers saying "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", and started gun rights organizations and took over the NRA.
Quote:3) If "regulated" means "run by the state", that would make America a socialist country because we "regulate" various business activities. As these entities are still owned by shareholders, this is a faulty definition.
Regulation at least means the militia must submit to government regulations and supervision. Whom do you say "owns" these militia "businesses"?
A militia is not a business. It is an army. Since we have state armies, we don't any longer need the citizen militia, which was defined in the 2nd amendment as necessary for the security of a free State. The American Revolution ended in 1781-83. The 2nd amendment is a very-costly and deadly anachronism.
Quote:4) Most of these militias do not believe that situation currently exists. They believe that it has a material possibility some time in the future, and they want to be prepared when it does and, even better, act as potential deterrence, the same way we do with Mutually Assured Destruction concepts with regards to nuclear war.
Yes they do; they constantly say so. They proved it on January 6th, 2021. If you give up on democracy and law enforcement and want to depend on citizen militias to guarantee your freedom against the government, then we are no longer a republic of laws but a republic of men. If you want a free country, and seek to deter violence by the government, then the best thing to do is vote, and vote wisely. And contact your representatives and use people power.
Right now, it is the right-wingers upset by non-existent violence by Black Lives Matter and Antifa who want the police to crack down on them by violating their rights, which Trump has done. The domestic terrorism in the USA today is right-wing terrorism.
I admit, though, that if we are moving to civil war, then citizens will be arming for the fight. Gun control will be over; mayhem on the way. There could be a transition period in which rebels assemble an armory of sorts, like what happened in 1859-1860 in Dixie. If it happens, though, the rebels will need to soon establish a government like the Confederacy that also regulates behavior. And it will be a violent state. A national rule established by violence creates a state run by violence. The right-wing militias are already in this process.
When has a citizen army ever prevented a dictator from taking over the USA? I'd rather attribute this to our constitution than to our ammosexuality. Up until Donald Trump, losing candidates in a presidential election willingly stepped aside. Not at the point of a citizens' militia, but because of respect for the law and the democratic tradition. Indeed, Trump used citizens militias to defy the constitution and attempt a coup.
I believe it was the real "well-regulated militia," the National Guard and DC police, who finally stepped up and expelled the Trump rioters (the "militia" you favor) from the capitol.
Quote:5) Comparisons between high-gun and low-gun ownership countries is cherry picked at best. We could just as easily point to high gun ownership countries like New Zealand or Switzerland (mentioned in the video below)
The USA has 5% of the people and almost half the guns in the world. New Zealand was also mentioned in one of these reports (I thought it was this one, but I guess not) as having passed strict gun laws and bans on guns in the wake of its deadly mass shooting recently. The Swiss have far fewer guns than the USA has.
Quote:6) Also mentioned, people who resist intruders with a firearm are half as likely to be injured as those who offer no resistanceIs that a stat? I would think those who offer no resistance would not get shot. And remember the other defense measures.