7 ms·

its not the 2nd amendment that killed him, it is political violence. Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Remember, it is only law abidi

by slt2021 1y ago

its not the 2nd amendment that killed him, it is political violence. Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Remember, it is only law abiding citizens who are affected by the gun laws. Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment

evelant 1y ago
[flagged]
mapontosevenths 1y ago
> Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment "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 US Constitution Neither do private citizens. What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane." It means what it says, not what some gun owners like to pretend it says and the simple truth is that making them harder to get does actually reduce crime every single time it's been tried.
- HaZeust 1y ago
  Heller put your claims to sleep. For better or worse, this ideologue lost.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    It did, but it was a politically motivated decision that had most serious scholars without an agenda agree was flawed. Scalia decided to treat the miltia bit as if it were entirely prefatory, which of course begs the question "why did the put it in there if they didn't mean it?" Again, common sense says that it means what it says and you don't get to ignore the bits you don't like.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dexterdog 1y ago
  > What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear? If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part. > Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane." What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    > What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation? Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw? >If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part. I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.
    - dexterdog 1y ago
      > Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw? It was the price and also the reference to WMDs. You can't get WMDs at all so the price part is irrelevant. > I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written. That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line. You're intentionally leaving out the part that is inconvenient to your opinion.
      - mapontosevenths 1y ago
        > You can't get WMDs at all so the price part is irrelevant. How many deaths per minute do you consider the minimum to qualify as a WMD? There are probably several firearms legally available that can meet it. > That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line. See my other post beneath this grandparent. It's long, but a bit more nuanaced. It's objectively clear what the founding fathers meant, and it wasn't "lunatics should be able to buy guns without a drug test first" as the NRA seems to think.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  It is unclear, it is easy to misread using inaccurate modern interpretation of the words. well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time militia = everyone, all citizens. In counterpoint to the army, professional paid soldiers.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    > well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time No it doesn't. Even then that usage was uncommon. This is something later scholars made up to justify their position.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      I was wrong about this.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  The definition of "militia" has been explicitly written into US law since the 18th century, you don't need to guess at its meaning. It essentially includes every able-bodied male and explicitly recognizes that this militia exists separate from any "organized" militia. Being part of the militia is not an exclusive club, a large percentage of all Americans are a member as a matter of law. That said, I would argue that the definition should be updated to include women as well.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    You will note that the 18th century is quite some time AFTER the constitution was drafted.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      I often get the indexing confused myself - the 18th century is the 1700s.
      - mapontosevenths 1y ago
        You are right of course. Thanks for explaining rather than just downvoting.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    Actually, lets let James Madison (who wrote the amendment) explain what a militia is: Madison said "the advantage of being armed," together with "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...
- skulk 1y ago
  This is off-topic, but it always amuses me that the sentence isn't even a grammatically correct construction in English, and I don't think it was in the 1770s or whenever this was written. - A well regulated Militia: noun phrase, - being necessary to the security of a free State: parenthetical phrase, - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: another noun phrase - shall not be: verb - infringed: adjective Two consecutive noun phrases separated by a parenthetical is not valid English grammar. The only time I can imagine you'd see consecutive noun phrases is as part of a list of at least 3 elements (like "x, y, and z"), but there is no list here.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    The history explains the oddness a bit. It was originally loosely based on Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Bill of Rights which said: > "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." I think that's very clear. They were deeply concerned about the threat a standing army posed, and wanted the militias to act as a balance. Based loosely on that Madison's first draft then said: > "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." Again, more comprehensible than what we have today. Still a bit oddly phrased, but it's clear that the right can't be infringed BECAUSE we need a well regulated militia. Then, after much debate and quibbling over the exact phrasing and in regard to religious objectors the committee submitted this to the senate: > "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." As you can see, even this version was a more complete thought, and made it very clear what the purpose of those arms actually was. However, the senate then did the final butchery, that resulted in the version we have today and because unscrupulous people have exploited it's vagueness, school children can't be safe: > 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. Reference: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_... To me, the real bitch is that the original purpose (to serve as a balance against the standing army) is completely null. There is no militia, or even professionally trained army strong enough to stand against the permanent army the founding fathers didn't even want us to have. Thermonuclear warheads and fighter jets didn't exist back then. Even though the NRA likes to claim the "militia" means every American, that is NOT what Madison and the others meant by it. It's made clear in the Federalist papers, and even if it were what the founding fathers meant not even the NRA seems to be taking the stance that since the "miltia" means "Everyone" then "Everyone" can own thermonuclear warheads. The second amendment has been wrongfully interpreted, and it's killing people.
bdhe 1y ago
> Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. If a simplistic definition of political violence is targeted killings of political leaders, then this is trivially false. Look at Europe, Australia and other countries with comparable statistics to US and look at the number of events you'd classify as political violence. It is likely zero. The only person I can think of from recent memory is Shinzo Abe. In the US alone, thanks to no gun control, we have attempts at Presidential candidates, and successful killings of state-level law makers, CEOs, and now, political influencers.
- slt2021 1y ago
  >>thanks to no gun control talking about gun control as a form of solution is talking about spilled milk under the bridge. There are 100 guns per capita in the US and even if gun sales are banned, the black market will be enough to supply guns for another century
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 1y ago
> Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Definitely, considering what is happening in Nepal ATM. However, some kind of ban on gun supply (not just controlling them) definitely has an impact on your country's murder rate. You can't just expect 20 million guns produced in the USA for consumers not to get in the hands of people who want to do bad things with them. Really, I would be happy if they just lowered that number a lot (to say 1 million) without any other gun control laws, the murder rate across the whole continent would fall.
- slt2021 1y ago
  or just jail criminals El Salvador style. Bukele showed us that having a high crime environment is a policy choice, an explicit policy chosen by the government
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    Police state measures are only temporary, El Salvador can't sustain a 2% incarceration rate forever.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      Doesn't the US have something like a 3% incarceration rate already, for years?
      - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
        You just have to use search no? El Salvador: Rate: Over 1,000 per 100,000 residents as of early 2024, with a specific rate of 1,659 per 100,000 in March 2024. USA: The U.S. incarceration rate was approximately 541 per 100,000 residents in 2022, with nearly two million people in state or federal prisons and local jails. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate among independent democracies and is home to the world's largest prison population. (we don't get a rate for 2024, but it probably hasn't grown much since then)
      - wpm 1y ago
esarbe 1y ago
What makes you think this was political violence?
01100011 1y ago
Por que no los dos?
cm2187 1y ago
particularly if he was killed indeed with a hunting rifle. You can find those in pretty much any country.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
joshlemer 1y ago
> Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment. This is kind of an argument from tautology that is disconnected to reality. In the real world, supply of criminality and violence is elastic, if you raise the cost, you lower the amount supplied. Crimes and violence committed are affected by committers having the opportunity and tenacity to do so. If you erect more barriers to achieving it, make it less convenient or straight forward to do it, you'll deter some percentage of violence/criminality who just give up or don't make it past the hurdle or whatever. Otherwise, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, we could get a whole bunch of dumb conclusions, like: We should just abolish auditing and other anti-corruption accountability mechanisms. By definition, cheats don't need to follow the law, so auditing doesn't catch them, it just imposes extra paperwork on law-abiding citizens!
yepitwas 1y ago
One of the most popular arguments in favor of the necessity of the second amendment as an individual (not collective) right is precisely so ordinary people can engage in political violence. The current president even suggested doing so was ok, in his first campaign, naming the amendment in the process. (Anyone who was paying attention at the time and noticed this didn’t immediately end his campaign like it definitely would have in any prior election in living memory, should have been able to guess we were about to have a spike in political violence) There’s no “defense of liberty” justification for the individual right to bear arms that isn’t also saying “political violence is sometimes necessary”. (I happen to think that justification’s silly, personally—I’m not endorsing it)

evelant 1y ago

[flagged]

mapontosevenths 1y ago

> Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment "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 US Constitution Neither do private citizens. What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane." It means what it says, not what some gun owners like to pretend it says and the simple truth is that making them harder to get does actually reduce crime every single time it's been tried.

HaZeust 1y ago
Heller put your claims to sleep. For better or worse, this ideologue lost.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  It did, but it was a politically motivated decision that had most serious scholars without an agenda agree was flawed. Scalia decided to treat the miltia bit as if it were entirely prefatory, which of course begs the question "why did the put it in there if they didn't mean it?" Again, common sense says that it means what it says and you don't get to ignore the bits you don't like.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dexterdog 1y ago
> What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear? If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part. > Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane." What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  > What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation? Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw? >If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part. I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.
  - dexterdog 1y ago
    > Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw? It was the price and also the reference to WMDs. You can't get WMDs at all so the price part is irrelevant. > I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written. That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line. You're intentionally leaving out the part that is inconvenient to your opinion.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      > You can't get WMDs at all so the price part is irrelevant. How many deaths per minute do you consider the minimum to qualify as a WMD? There are probably several firearms legally available that can meet it. > That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line. See my other post beneath this grandparent. It's long, but a bit more nuanaced. It's objectively clear what the founding fathers meant, and it wasn't "lunatics should be able to buy guns without a drug test first" as the NRA seems to think.
WillPostForFood 1y ago
It is unclear, it is easy to misread using inaccurate modern interpretation of the words. well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time militia = everyone, all citizens. In counterpoint to the army, professional paid soldiers.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  > well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time No it doesn't. Even then that usage was uncommon. This is something later scholars made up to justify their position.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    I was wrong about this.
jandrewrogers 1y ago
The definition of "militia" has been explicitly written into US law since the 18th century, you don't need to guess at its meaning. It essentially includes every able-bodied male and explicitly recognizes that this militia exists separate from any "organized" militia. Being part of the militia is not an exclusive club, a large percentage of all Americans are a member as a matter of law. That said, I would argue that the definition should be updated to include women as well.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  You will note that the 18th century is quite some time AFTER the constitution was drafted.
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    I often get the indexing confused myself - the 18th century is the 1700s.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      You are right of course. Thanks for explaining rather than just downvoting.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  Actually, lets let James Madison (who wrote the amendment) explain what a militia is: Madison said "the advantage of being armed," together with "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...
skulk 1y ago
This is off-topic, but it always amuses me that the sentence isn't even a grammatically correct construction in English, and I don't think it was in the 1770s or whenever this was written. - A well regulated Militia: noun phrase, - being necessary to the security of a free State: parenthetical phrase, - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: another noun phrase - shall not be: verb - infringed: adjective Two consecutive noun phrases separated by a parenthetical is not valid English grammar. The only time I can imagine you'd see consecutive noun phrases is as part of a list of at least 3 elements (like "x, y, and z"), but there is no list here.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  The history explains the oddness a bit. It was originally loosely based on Pennsylvania and Massachusetts Bill of Rights which said: > "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." I think that's very clear. They were deeply concerned about the threat a standing army posed, and wanted the militias to act as a balance. Based loosely on that Madison's first draft then said: > "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." Again, more comprehensible than what we have today. Still a bit oddly phrased, but it's clear that the right can't be infringed BECAUSE we need a well regulated militia. Then, after much debate and quibbling over the exact phrasing and in regard to religious objectors the committee submitted this to the senate: > "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." As you can see, even this version was a more complete thought, and made it very clear what the purpose of those arms actually was. However, the senate then did the final butchery, that resulted in the version we have today and because unscrupulous people have exploited it's vagueness, school children can't be safe: > 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. Reference: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_00013262/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_... To me, the real bitch is that the original purpose (to serve as a balance against the standing army) is completely null. There is no militia, or even professionally trained army strong enough to stand against the permanent army the founding fathers didn't even want us to have. Thermonuclear warheads and fighter jets didn't exist back then. Even though the NRA likes to claim the "militia" means every American, that is NOT what Madison and the others meant by it. It's made clear in the Federalist papers, and even if it were what the founding fathers meant not even the NRA seems to be taking the stance that since the "miltia" means "Everyone" then "Everyone" can own thermonuclear warheads. The second amendment has been wrongfully interpreted, and it's killing people.

bdhe 1y ago

> Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. If a simplistic definition of political violence is targeted killings of political leaders, then this is trivially false. Look at Europe, Australia and other countries with comparable statistics to US and look at the number of events you'd classify as political violence. It is likely zero. The only person I can think of from recent memory is Shinzo Abe. In the US alone, thanks to no gun control, we have attempts at Presidential candidates, and successful killings of state-level law makers, CEOs, and now, political influencers.

slt2021 1y ago
>>thanks to no gun control talking about gun control as a form of solution is talking about spilled milk under the bridge. There are 100 guns per capita in the US and even if gun sales are banned, the black market will be enough to supply guns for another century
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

seanmcdirmid 1y ago

> Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Definitely, considering what is happening in Nepal ATM. However, some kind of ban on gun supply (not just controlling them) definitely has an impact on your country's murder rate. You can't just expect 20 million guns produced in the USA for consumers not to get in the hands of people who want to do bad things with them. Really, I would be happy if they just lowered that number a lot (to say 1 million) without any other gun control laws, the murder rate across the whole continent would fall.

slt2021 1y ago
or just jail criminals El Salvador style. Bukele showed us that having a high crime environment is a policy choice, an explicit policy chosen by the government
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  Police state measures are only temporary, El Salvador can't sustain a 2% incarceration rate forever.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Doesn't the US have something like a 3% incarceration rate already, for years?
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      You just have to use search no? El Salvador: Rate: Over 1,000 per 100,000 residents as of early 2024, with a specific rate of 1,659 per 100,000 in March 2024. USA: The U.S. incarceration rate was approximately 541 per 100,000 residents in 2022, with nearly two million people in state or federal prisons and local jails. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate among independent democracies and is home to the world's largest prison population. (we don't get a rate for 2024, but it probably hasn't grown much since then)
    - wpm 1y ago

esarbe 1y ago

What makes you think this was political violence?

01100011 1y ago

Por que no los dos?

cm2187 1y ago

particularly if he was killed indeed with a hunting rifle. You can find those in pretty much any country.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

joshlemer 1y ago

> Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment. This is kind of an argument from tautology that is disconnected to reality. In the real world, supply of criminality and violence is elastic, if you raise the cost, you lower the amount supplied. Crimes and violence committed are affected by committers having the opportunity and tenacity to do so. If you erect more barriers to achieving it, make it less convenient or straight forward to do it, you'll deter some percentage of violence/criminality who just give up or don't make it past the hurdle or whatever. Otherwise, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, we could get a whole bunch of dumb conclusions, like: We should just abolish auditing and other anti-corruption accountability mechanisms. By definition, cheats don't need to follow the law, so auditing doesn't catch them, it just imposes extra paperwork on law-abiding citizens!

yepitwas 1y ago

One of the most popular arguments in favor of the necessity of the second amendment as an individual (not collective) right is precisely so ordinary people can engage in political violence. The current president even suggested doing so was ok, in his first campaign, naming the amendment in the process. (Anyone who was paying attention at the time and noticed this didn’t immediately end his campaign like it definitely would have in any prior election in living memory, should have been able to guess we were about to have a spike in political violence) There’s no “defense of liberty” justification for the individual right to bear arms that isn’t also saying “political violence is sometimes necessary”. (I happen to think that justification’s silly, personally—I’m not endorsing it)