Thread: Gun Control
View Single Post
Old October 16, 2017, 11:37 AM   #54
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,392
I would love to make mass shootings of innocents go away. From all current evidence, it appears that the LV shooter come into possession of his firearms legally and decided to use them hurt innocents.

I see the issue as a balance scale (or teeter-totter) type scenario:
Side 1: Restrict firearms to the point that they can't possibly be used to hurt a large group of people ever. Extreme examples: Only allow private citizens access to revolvers, single-shot firearms and muzzle-loaders. This might be possible in a world that ignore both logistics (some but not all examples given above) and historical precedent (I like to point to the escalating gun violence in Brazil despite outright ban and no historical gun culture).

Side 2: the base requirement for a government to determine outcomes is for that government to restrict choices. Additionally, a government can collect intelligence on citizen behavior to restrict freedom of action as well. How far down this road do you want to go? And before you start working on the mental calculus, you need to recognize that you are giving the government a set of tools that could be turned against ANY right or any group.
NOW how far down this road do you want to go?

Among other reasons, the U.S. constitution/Bill of Rights are special because their adoption was the world's first "post-modern" form of law. The framers recognized that "the government" was simply a social construct which the general mass of citizens should be able to remove (up to and including removal by force if necessary), should that government began functioning in a coercive manner towards its own citizenry. The 2nd amendment is crucial to the the function of of government and the roll of citizenship. If no one buys a firearm, fine. If everyone chooses not to vote, fine. But if the government moves to abolish the availability of the types of firearms necessary to remove it, that should send alarm bells off the same way that it would if the government moved to restrict voting.

If this sounds extreme, recognize that the frames put this extreme power into the hands of the general citizenry by choice. Much has been made about the moral depravity of the founding fathers for holding slaves. While recognizing this, I would also point out that b/c so many of the founders WERE slave holders, they also knew what it took to keep a population in slavery and they didn't want to be on the other end of that pointy stick. There's a historical wisdom at work here that surpasses easy "I'm good/you're bad" labeling that passes as a "history lesson" in so many modern classrooms.

I accept the limits of law. I also accept that the law should have limits. I also accept that free will will also lead to bad outcomes. Tragedy happens. I wish they wouldn't (I realize that sounds trite and uncaring on the surface), and I"m sorry for your losses. The Greeks wrote many plays capturing how the failings of the individual often brought ruin on themselves as well as their entire community. They were also trying to understand these types of happenings.
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Page generated in 0.03083 seconds with 8 queries