The Great American Gun Fetish

[The Ozzman]

I currently believe that many semi-automatic weapons with high-round capacities are unnecessary for personal use.

What makes them 'unnecessary'? What arbitrarily defines 'high round capacity'?

I'm going to assume you're speaking from merely an emotional viewpoint and not because you actually understand firearms. "I went hunting once. My opinion matters." is not valid here.


"No one needs 30 round magazines for home defense"

Exhibit A for why that's a dumbass argument:

https://fox61.com/2019/08/25/10-arr...mily-tied-up-beaten-in-home-invasion-robbery/

How was what I said fascist in any way?

Pretty sure he was referencing your retort about tearing up the Constitution and starting over

 

[Einherjar86]

What makes them 'unnecessary'? What arbitrarily defines 'high round capacity'?

"No one needs 30 round magazines for home defense"

Exhibit A for why that's a dumbass argument:

https://fox61.com/2019/08/25/10-arr...mily-tied-up-beaten-in-home-invasion-robbery/

If you're a good shot, then you only need ten rounds. Maybe you should practice more.

And honestly, in the vast majority of cases, as soon as you grab your gun and fire one shot, intruders will turn tail and run. You're not countering my argument, you're making sensationalist claims about very rare cases.

Pretty sure he was referencing your retort about tearing up the Constitution and starting over

And how is that fascist?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The 1A was interpreted substantially as a non-individual right until the 1930s-50s as well. Almost as if precedent set by the court case that effectively killed Reconstruction isn't good precedent to use anymore.

 

[The Ozzman]

If you're a good shot, then you only need ten rounds. Maybe you should practice more.

lmao okay. I have no idea if you're trolling here but obviously you're not factoring in stress or anxiety levels when you encounter a force on force situation. Even LEOs only have a 20% hit ratio in force on force encounters but of course your average civilian only needs 10 rounds because 'muh emotions'

And honestly, in the vast majority of cases, as soon as you grab your gun and fire one shot, intruders will turn tail and run.

Based on what empirical evidence? All you are doing is puppeting the anti-gunner side without actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about. If you talk to anyone who does any type of training, who teaches force-on-force classes, CQB expertes, etc they will all say you're wrong.

For being really educated and intelligent generally, you are truly showing how ignorant you are about firearms.

 

[Einherjar86]

lmao okay. I have no idea if you're trolling here.

Based on what empirical evidence? All you are doing is puppeting the anti-gunner side without actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about. If you talk to anyone who does any type of training, who teaches force-on-force classes, CQB expertes, etc they will all say you're wrong.

For being really educated and intelligent generally, you are truly showing how ignorant you are about firearms.

Honestly, my comment about my personal opinions on guns was an attempt to extend an olive branch. I was merely trying to say that I'm not arguing for the restriction of all firearms, merely that I think there's a reasonable line to be drawn. That line shouldn't come down to my perspective on guns, but it should come down to some kind of constructive, informed, and researched discussion.

I am pretty ignorant about firearm ownership and operation, and I know very little about self-defense techniques. I would hear an argument about magazine capacities and self-defense if there's one to make, and perhaps you're right that higher capacities does make for better home protection. I don't know of any studies or investigations into how much difference a 10-round versus a 30-round magazine makes when it comes to defense within the home, but I'd be interested in seeing one.

Speaking for myself, I'm inclined to believe (purely based on intuition) that the ultimate goal of gun ownership for home protection should be to deter any violence and/or lethal gunfire from taking place. Most home invaders aren't carrying firearms with them, and will flee as soon as they see a gun or hear one warning shot. If a home invader is carrying a gun, I'm inclined to believe that it's unlikely the magazine capacity of the homeowner's weapon will make much difference purely in terms of deterrence. It's more likely that a shootout will occur, in which case yes--the higher-capacity magazine will likely inflict more damage. But again, most home invaders value their lives more than whatever they might potentially gain from staying and fighting. In many cases, your gun will do its job without you having to fire any rounds.

But again, my comment was more of an aside to my main points about constitutional law and interpretation.

EDIT: I didn't see this...

The 1A was interpreted substantially as a non-individual right until the 1930s-50s as well. Almost as if precedent set by the court case that effectively killed Reconstruction isn't good precedent to use anymore.

...but for what it's worth, I also think the notion of "free speech" has been wildly misappropriated due to the extravagancies of individualism. Uninformed pro-free speech arguments often dive head-first into opportunistic apologies for saying absolutely anything, at any time, in any place--without any ounce of consideration. I don't think that's what free speech should be. For what it's worth, I also don't think that means speech should be sanctioned and restricted by the state; but I do think it means that not all speech carries the same value and authority, and that it falls on social discourse to determine what utterances are valid for particular purposes.

 

[Dak]

It was settled legally, but it was hardly settled definitionally or interpretively. The court decision was split 5-4.

But in what sense does it extend to the people? Militias are comprised of individuals; so in that sense, it must extend beyond the abstract notion of a militia and to concrete persons. This doesn't necessarily translate, however, into individual rights often associated with gun ownership and distilled from the language of the second amendment.

You might look at Saul Cornell's book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, published by Oxford UP. Cornell argues that gun ownership is neither a collective right (i.e. of states to maintain armed militias) nor an individual one (i.e. of individual citizens to own guns for any reason they deem appropriate), but a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves in order to participate in a militia. The second amendment contains no provision of ownership for personal reasons.

Well I'm sympathetic to this argument. The Selective Service is a formalized system of pulling able-bodied males for military service in the event of a major war. But at a minimum, broad individual ownership of weapons provides an extra layer of national defense. See: The Taliban, etc.

For what it's worth, I'm not a constitutionalist, and I think individuals should be able to use guns for personal reasons (i.e. hunting, target shooting, home protection, etc.). My concerns with gun control are with what kind of firearms people are allowed to "keep," and I currently believe that many semi-automatic weapons with high-round capacities are unnecessary for personal use.

But if it's not for personal use then this objection falls flat; you would want everyone to own an AR. Guns are not considered a problem (by some) because of "personal use" anyway. They are considered a problem because of rare but seemingly random shootings in public spaces. Then we have a lot of middle aged white males killing themselves and a lot of young black males killing each other, but these are only used to pad stats* after a media-sensationalized shooting in a walmart (while obscuring the facts of where and who/whom the majority of the violence is).

How was what I said fascist in any way?

Mort and other twitter/tumblr libs was who I had in mind; I could have been more specific.

 

[Einherjar86]

But if it's not for personal use then this objection falls flat; you would want everyone to own an AR.

In what case would it not be for personal use, e.g. hunting, target shooting, or protection? Sorry, just trying to understand. Do you mean that if it’s for military use—as in when individuals would be called upon to serve in, for example, a militia—then I would want people to have an AR?

 

[Dak]

In what case would it not be for personal use, e.g. hunting, target shooting, or protection? Sorry, just trying to understand. Do you mean that if it’s for military use—as in when individuals would be called upon to serve in, for example, a militia—then I would want people to have an AR?

Yes. The right is not to be infringed because all adult males (how the authors would have considered "the people" - also excluding slaves) are standing by as an unofficial national guard member. AR carbines (or similar types of more modern semi-autos like SCARs and ACRs) do a lot better job in a variety of combat situations than many other weapon platforms. They also work well for hunting for the same reason (although there's the issue of caliber vs type of animal). Target shooting is just what you do to stay skilled.

A change I would rather see related to gun ownership if there were a change would be to require some sort of civic engagement related to ownership, which is supported at least at the county level, where you meet regularly for organized target shooting, emergency contingency plans (not for invasion necessarily, but things like natural disasters), meetings with local Sheriff and Police Depts. This would make it easier to spot troubled persons and reduce the likelihood of suicide potentially through increased camaraderie/reduced loneliness. It doesn't address gang crime of course but then most things don't.

Of course, such a proposal wouldn't even come close to getting off the ground because of individualism on both sides and irrational gun hatred on the left.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

@Einherjar86

2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

"the people" in this instance clearly means that a random civilian has the right to use a gun to quickly solve a problem before the military/law enforcement show up

as in a mass shooting
"the people" having the "right to bear arms" means that
if someone's trying to do a mass shooting
"the people" have the right to shoot back
and resolve the problem quickly before the cops have time to show up

but
it also means things like
being robbed
a homeowner with a gun has the right to shoot a burglar trying to rob their house

or if a tiny woman is being mugged/assaulted/raped
she has the right to shoot her attacker

why the fuck is there this argument about the meaning of the 2nd amendment??
it's always been pretty clear to me

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes. The right is not to be infringed because all adult males (how the authors would have considered "the people" - also excluding slaves) are standing by as an unofficial national guard member. AR carbines (or similar types of more modern semi-autos like SCARs and ACRs) do a lot better job in a variety of combat situations than many other weapon platforms. They also work well for hunting for the same reason (although there's the issue of caliber vs type of animal). Target shooting is just what you do to stay skilled.

Sure, there’s ambiguity of overlap. It’s like when an employer issues you a company card for business expenses—there will always be some fuzziness about certain purchases.

As for the distinction you’re pointing out, I’d say that I believe people do have a right to private (individual) ownership, which isn’t guaranteed by 2A. The constitution ties gun ownership to military duties; but if I’m not a constitutionalist, then I’d say that I don’t support the notion that all able-bodies citizens are part of the unorganized militia. If gun ownership is an individual’s right, rather than a debt owed to the state, then I would also say that participation in the militia is an individual right/choice—not a responsibility owed to the state.

A change I would rather see related to gun ownership if there were a change would be to require some sort of civic engagement related to ownership, which is supported.

This is kind of the opposite of what I just suggested, but consistent with 2A at least (performatively at least).

@Einherjar86why the fuck is there this argument about the meaning of the 2nd amendment??
it's always been pretty clear to me

That shouldn’t reassure anyone.

 

[Dak]

not a responsibility owed to the state.

The state is too big at this point for people to really connect with any responsibility to community. That's why performatively county level is more functional.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

@Einherjar86



"the people" in this instance clearly means that a random civilian has the right to use a gun to quickly solve a problem before the military/law enforcement show up

as in a mass shooting
"the people" having the "right to bear arms" means that
if someone's trying to do a mass shooting
"the people" have the right to shoot back
and resolve the problem quickly before the cops have time to show up

but
it also means things like
being robbed
a homeowner with a gun has the right to shoot a burglar trying to rob their house

or if a tiny woman is being mugged/assaulted/raped
she has the right to shoot her attacker

why the fuck is there this argument about the meaning of the 2nd amendment??
it's always been pretty clear to me

seriously
the second amendment seems pretty fucking clear on this
"the people" have the "right to bear arms"
seems to be a just a simple direct-opposition to those specific countries where only law enforcement and military are allowed to bear arms

 

[Einherjar86]

For some reason, when I'm logged in this thread doesn't show up on my feed. Maybe the universe is trying to tell me something.

The state is too big at this point for people to really connect with any responsibility to community. That's why performatively county level is more functional.

It certainly is, but that's another (very complicated) conversation...

 

[Dak]

For some reason, when I'm logged in this thread doesn't show up on my feed. Maybe the universe is trying to tell me something.



It certainly is, but that's another (very complicated) conversation...

Doesn't show up for me either. Probably has something to do with muting the originator.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

@Dak
@Einherjar86
IIRC
putting the thread-starter on ignore does actually do this

 

[PrincessHades]

im totally pro gun. i dont like the idea of the state having armed cops and an armed military and the people having little to nothing to protect themselves. a better way of saying it would be that i am not pro gun but anti state

most of the pro gun ppl are all conservative as fuck and we all know they're never gonna use those guns to overthrow the government. theyre too blinded by their own patriotism to think that the government could actually do anything to wrong them. theyd rather play the victim and bitch about stupid shit like milkshakes and how the liberals are supposedly taking their masculinity from them

basically the majority of pro gun ppl in the us have been convinced that america is the greatest country in the world, and the majority of people who see most of americas flaws have been convinced that guns are bad

 

[-CC-]

Oh god, why did this thread get necro'd. At least it reminded me that UltimateApathy left this place - praise be to God.

 

[PrincessHades]

Oh god, why did this thread get necro'd. At least it reminded me that UltimateApathy left this place - praise be to God.

idk but i think this threads been necro'd for the past week

 

[The Ozzman]

Oh god, why did this thread get necro'd. At least it reminded me that UltimateApathy left this place - praise be to God.

Pretty sure Deron forced him to leave

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

im totally pro gun. i dont like the idea of the state having armed cops and an armed military and the people having little to nothing to protect themselves. a better way of saying it would be that i am not pro gun but anti state

most of the pro gun ppl are all conservative as fuck and we all know they're never gonna use those guns to overthrow the government. theyre too blinded by their own patriotism to think that the government could actually do anything to wrong them. theyd rather play the victim and bitch about stupid shit like milkshakes and how the liberals are supposedly taking their masculinity from them

basically the majority of pro gun ppl in the us have been convinced that america is the greatest country in the world, and the majority of people who see most of americas flaws have been convinced that guns are bad

i'm pro-gun because of mass shooters
i keep thinking that if the anti-gun people would just shut-the-fuck-up we'd eventually get to a point where mass-shootings are impossible
because someone would just shoot-the-shooter, YKWIM