Scepticalscribe
Cancelled
- Posts
- 6,644
- Reaction score
- 9,457
I come from a country where the police aren't armed, let alone the population.
Is it even possible to have a sane and civilised discussion on the Second Amendment?
That is, without stirring the soil and drawing forth those who shout, "Out of my cold, dead hands.....",
Or, prompting vehement reactions from those who scribble condescending diatribes about the pressing necessity of being able to bear arms in a frontier society (was Philadelphia a "frontier society" even in the 18th century?)
Or, the ability of such a society to be able to create citizen militias in the frontier society in the 18th century who could bear arms (thus, their state was not obliged to equip them, nor carry the financial cost of equipping them).
Or, perhaps, citizens bearing arms may have had something to do with having to deal with the political reality of what an oppressive - or potentially oppressive - tool of state power, such as a large body of armed men (a standing army), with questionable allegiances may have represented; above all, one that could have been used against them,..., or perhaps it was more that such power should not be devolved to a federal (or foreign) authority...
Then, there are the hunting & shooting folk.
(And as for country folk who shoot something for the pot, for dinner, I do have some sympathy, for they tend to use their firearms intelligently and responsibly, and with respect for weapons and people).
(An aside: Recent Covid-19 restrictions in England on crowds, or assemblies, or groups of people, inexplicably, appear to deliberately exempt grouse shooting parties in England from the requirement to adhere to these restrictions).
Then, there are those who argue "guns don't kill people, people do" - well, yes.
And, there are those who argue that the fear of crime, or potential threat to their homes ("I'll raise a gun to any one who breaks into my house..") justifies the possession of a veritable arsenal in the kitchen.
Now, I will concede that - notwithstanding the astonishing number of school killings that have occurred in the US (a complete statistical aberration and absolute anomaly in the western world, or First World,) I have yet to read a post that argues for the right to bear arms in terms that support the right to slaughter kids at school, especially girls.
Another aside: in all of the school slaughter threads in The Other Place, I have yet to read one which notes the link between a surprising number of the killers, their ethnicity (usually white), gender (male), more often than not from better off backgrounds, or, not poor or deprived backgrounds in terms of social class, and also known to hold rather robust misogynistic views and repellant practices (often, if adult with a history of domestic abuse), and vehemently racist views.
Instead, were such killers black, or Asian, or Muslim, or members of some such ethnicity, it would become a matter of further proof by the right, or some conservatives, in defining the degeneracy of such an ethnic background, but, because the killers are more usually disaffected young, white, men from reasonably well-off backgrounds, the disingenuous "loner" excuse - the supposedly single rotten apple in a rather commodious barrel, is put forward instead.
Nevertheless, @SuperMatt has (elsewhere) posted - very saliently - as follows:
With that, I'll open the discussion to the floor and the forum.
Is it even possible to have a sane and civilised discussion on the Second Amendment?
That is, without stirring the soil and drawing forth those who shout, "Out of my cold, dead hands.....",
Or, prompting vehement reactions from those who scribble condescending diatribes about the pressing necessity of being able to bear arms in a frontier society (was Philadelphia a "frontier society" even in the 18th century?)
Or, the ability of such a society to be able to create citizen militias in the frontier society in the 18th century who could bear arms (thus, their state was not obliged to equip them, nor carry the financial cost of equipping them).
Or, perhaps, citizens bearing arms may have had something to do with having to deal with the political reality of what an oppressive - or potentially oppressive - tool of state power, such as a large body of armed men (a standing army), with questionable allegiances may have represented; above all, one that could have been used against them,..., or perhaps it was more that such power should not be devolved to a federal (or foreign) authority...
Then, there are the hunting & shooting folk.
(And as for country folk who shoot something for the pot, for dinner, I do have some sympathy, for they tend to use their firearms intelligently and responsibly, and with respect for weapons and people).
(An aside: Recent Covid-19 restrictions in England on crowds, or assemblies, or groups of people, inexplicably, appear to deliberately exempt grouse shooting parties in England from the requirement to adhere to these restrictions).
Then, there are those who argue "guns don't kill people, people do" - well, yes.
And, there are those who argue that the fear of crime, or potential threat to their homes ("I'll raise a gun to any one who breaks into my house..") justifies the possession of a veritable arsenal in the kitchen.
Now, I will concede that - notwithstanding the astonishing number of school killings that have occurred in the US (a complete statistical aberration and absolute anomaly in the western world, or First World,) I have yet to read a post that argues for the right to bear arms in terms that support the right to slaughter kids at school, especially girls.
Another aside: in all of the school slaughter threads in The Other Place, I have yet to read one which notes the link between a surprising number of the killers, their ethnicity (usually white), gender (male), more often than not from better off backgrounds, or, not poor or deprived backgrounds in terms of social class, and also known to hold rather robust misogynistic views and repellant practices (often, if adult with a history of domestic abuse), and vehemently racist views.
Instead, were such killers black, or Asian, or Muslim, or members of some such ethnicity, it would become a matter of further proof by the right, or some conservatives, in defining the degeneracy of such an ethnic background, but, because the killers are more usually disaffected young, white, men from reasonably well-off backgrounds, the disingenuous "loner" excuse - the supposedly single rotten apple in a rather commodious barrel, is put forward instead.
Nevertheless, @SuperMatt has (elsewhere) posted - very saliently - as follows:
If cars and guns had the same restrictions on their usage, I think that would be great, but I fear the NRA would oppose:
1. Pass a written and shooting test to get a license.
2. Register all guns, with the same fees as for cars.
3. Personal property tax like cars.
4. Regular inspections
5. Insurance
With that, I'll open the discussion to the floor and the forum.
Last edited: