Yes, I know a person that got a $500 gift card for an old crappy rifle that wasn't worth that. He in turn, as I recall, used that towards another, newer gun. That is true.
You claimed you know people who got $500 for old beat up hunting rifles worth a fraction of that amount.
Not enough here for me to really get a sense of what you are saying but I get the feeling you may be basing some of this on assumptions I do not share. Just a suspicion, not sure for sure.Is it a requirement for every few generations to face something truly horrifying that renews their fear of others, and the death and destruction those others bring? Why do we not have the capacity to establish a steady-state of learning from our past and not repeating it? Why must our fear of oppression fade, and why must our government's fear of its people fade?
Shit fits are to be expected from passengers being driven off a cliff by mad men. Shit fits can be rational as well as a paranoid at root. We have a built in capacity to drug ourselves with adrenaline when under stress. It's a survival mechanism.I'd prefer 'an end to political shitfits, and a newfound focus on domestic policies which benefit the lowest, and the majority'.
That may be true. What I was stating/trying to get across is that most people in first world countries have little fear of oppression, as they haven't experienced it first-hand. Some/most have probably experienced something that made them feel like they should defend themselves (bullying, rape, etc) but generally they don't fear an overwhelming power appearing, taking their shit, and killing them/their family. From my personal experience, those that have experienced something like that vehemently maintain their right to bear whatever arms they can get their hands on in the event it happens again. Those that haven't appear to be perfectly comfortable giving up that right as they don't see a need for it.Not enough here for me to really get a sense of what you are saying but I get the feeling you may be basing some of this on assumptions I do not share. Just a suspicion, not sure for sure.
Yeh, you went from people you know to some guy you went shooting with long, long ago & the usual bullshit found on gun forums.
Anybody can get an idea of what a gun is worth by using their fucking cellphone. Gun buybacks are run by cops. They know guns. They generally won't pay too much because they'll run out of funds before they run out of people willing to sell & because they want guns off the street. What a shocker, huh?
The question as to how well founded such fear is, as you suggest, is subject to degrees. At certain times in certain places the need for self defense fluctuates. So the question is, I think, depends to some degree on trajectory. Is human culture evolving or devolving. Surprisingly, research says worldwide violence is on the decline, that humans are adopting an attitude that we all benefit from acceptance of others. We are making progress as a species generally. If so than there will be less and less to fear and then less fear and, in turn, less reason to be defensive. As you note, some of us live unarmed and don’t worry. Maybe they are justified in that.That may be true. What I was stating/trying to get across is that most people in first world countries have little fear of oppression, as they haven't experienced it first-hand. Some/most have probably experienced something that made them feel like they should defend themselves (bullying, rape, etc) but generally they don't fear an overwhelming power appearing, taking their shit, and killing them/their family. From my personal experience, those that have experienced something like that vehemently maintain their right to bear whatever arms they can get their hands on in the event it happens again. Those that haven't appear to be perfectly comfortable giving up that right as they don't see a need for it.
I do understand this is primarily based out of fear, but I wonder if it's a fear well-founded, given that our entire written history is basically a catalog of horrible shit we've done to each other. Is fear the appropriate response here, and should we just continue to point our guns at each other, just in case? Or should we completely disarm and hope against all reason, logic, and history, that nobody tries to upend our lives with force?
So then, that goes back to the original intent of the 2A. It's intended to give the populace a chance to fight back against an oppressive government. This is literally what the Taliban did, and now we're in negotiations with them, rather than having simply wiped them and their entire ideology off the face of the earth. Functionally, them having weaponry to defend themselves worked, and speaks volumes to the capacity of an armed citizenship, even with our multi-billion dollar weapons platforms.
I'll lead with stating that you look a lot more like a nutter than anyone else in this thread so far. Cool your tits.STOP WITH THIS COMPLETELY BULL SHIT NARRATIVE!!!
For fuck's sake all it does is make you gun nutters look crazy.
Do you know why the argument that the founding fathers wanted a mechanism to "fight back an oppressive government" is total and absolute bull shit?
Because the GOD DAMN CONSTITUTION says the exact opposite!
From the constitution:
Article 1 section 8 paragraph 15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress INSURRECTIONS and repel Invasions;"
Do you know what an insurrection is?
Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
So do yourself a favor along with your fellow gun nutters and stop using that argument.
As an aside: did you notice the use of the word militia? Does it sound like they were referring to ordinary citizens who happened to be armed? No? Not enough for you? How about in paragraph 16:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress);"
Does it sound like the word "militia" was being used to describe ordinary, armed, citizens? No?
Well then this whole paragraph certainly doesn't mean what you gun nutters thinks it means then does it?
"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."
Its a states right issue. Not a personal issue like that federalist society member, scalia, made it up to be.
STOP WITH THIS COMPLETELY BULL SHIT NARRATIVE!!!
For fuck's sake all it does is make you gun nutters look crazy.
Do you know why the argument that the founding fathers wanted a mechanism to "fight back an oppressive government" is total and absolute bull shit?
Because the GOD DAMN CONSTITUTION says the exact opposite!
From the constitution:
Article 1 section 8 paragraph 15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress INSURRECTIONS and repel Invasions;"
Do you know what an insurrection is?
Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
So do yourself a favor along with your fellow gun nutters and stop using that argument.
As an aside: did you notice the use of the word militia? Does it sound like they were referring to ordinary citizens who happened to be armed? No? Not enough for you? How about in paragraph 16:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress);"
Does it sound like the word "militia" was being used to describe ordinary, armed, citizens? No?
Well then this whole paragraph certainly doesn't mean what you gun nutters thinks it means then does it?
"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."
Its a states right issue. Not a personal issue like that federalist society member, scalia, made it up to be.
Its funny to me how the most strident constitutional literalists (ie Justice Clarence Thomas) are also the people who take the loosest interpretations of the 2nd amendment in favor of gun rights.STOP WITH THIS COMPLETELY BULL SHIT NARRATIVE!!!
For fuck's sake all it does is make you gun nutters look crazy.
Do you know why the argument that the founding fathers wanted a mechanism to "fight back an oppressive government" is total and absolute bull shit?
Because the GOD DAMN CONSTITUTION says the exact opposite!
From the constitution:
Article 1 section 8 paragraph 15
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress INSURRECTIONS and repel Invasions;"
Do you know what an insurrection is?
Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
So do yourself a favor along with your fellow gun nutters and stop using that argument.
As an aside: did you notice the use of the word militia? Does it sound like they were referring to ordinary citizens who happened to be armed? No? Not enough for you? How about in paragraph 16:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress);"
Does it sound like the word "militia" was being used to describe ordinary, armed, citizens? No?
Well then this whole paragraph certainly doesn't mean what you gun nutters thinks it means then does it?
"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."
Its a states right issue. Not a personal issue like that federalist society member, scalia, made it up to be.
How then is this proof or an argument that our current expansive spread of arms in the US non-militia populace is productive and in of itself useful and also a right? If you're merely stating that guns amongst normal civilians isn't covered by the 2nd-A which specifically only talks about militias rights not being infringed, then it seems to me that the basis for gun policy outside of that should be on practical grounds which can be addressed and limited by state laws as they see fit.The constitution doesn't state that only members of a militia are permitted to own weapons, merely that a well regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
None of that proves it's not the people and I don't even claim necessarily that "I'm the militia". Also, do you really think a corrupt government is going to call up the militia to straighten itself out?
Because rights are self-evident. A right doesn't have to be 'productive' or 'useful' to you or any other person to exist. Nothing is permitted to restrict a right to bear arms, per the second amendment of the Constitution. If the vast majority of the population decides that should be changed, because they all find it not 'productive' or 'useful', they're welcome to via further amendments to the Constitution.How then is this proof or an argument that our current expansive spread of arms in the US non-militia populace is productive and in of itself useful and also a right?
STOP WITH THIS COMPLETELY BULL SHIT NARRATIVE!!!
<snip>
Its a states right issue. Not a personal issue like that federalist society member, scalia, made it up to be.
True rights are self-evident. Many US rights however are artificially constructed and are not self-evident (meaning they are unique and specific to this society only). The 2nd amendment is one of those artificially constructed rights which again specifically talks about militias.Because rights are self-evident. A right doesn't have to be 'productive' or 'useful' to you or any other person to exist. Nothing is permitted to restrict a right to bear arms, per the second amendment of the Constitution. If the vast majority of the population decides that should be changed, because they all find it not 'productive' or 'useful', they're welcome to via further amendments to the Constitution.
Its funny to me how the most strident constitutional literalists (ie Justice Clarence Thomas) are also the people who take the loosest interpretations of the 2nd amendment in favor of gun rights.
How then is this proof or an argument that our current expansive spread of arms in the US non-militia populace is productive and in of itself useful and also a right? If you're merely stating that guns amongst normal civilians isn't covered by the 2nd-A which specifically only talks about militias rights not being infringed, then it seems to me that the basis for gun policy outside of that should be on practical grounds which can be addressed and limited by state laws as they see fit.
What's a 'true right' vs 'artificially constructed right'? I feel like you're creating a distinction to make your point more valid. The 2nd amendment states that the US govt won't interfere with the right of the state to create a militia (which could otherwise be seen as in conflict with the federal government's military) and that the people have the right to bear arms. That's all it states, there's nothing more or less to be 'read' from it. While I don't personally see a nominal sales tax as a restriction on the rights to bear arms, if the tax was overwhelmingly singling out firearms (similar to what was done with tobacco) I would have a problem with that, as it overwhelmingly favors those with money over those without.True rights are self-evident. Many US rights however are artificially constructed. The 2nd amendment is one of those artificially constructed rights which again specifically talks about militias. If you really believed that " Nothing is permitted to restrict a right to bear arms", you wouldn't stand for any sort of regulation for weapons including sales tax, income/profit taxes on gun companies, any sort of regulation such as waiting periods or registration or concealed carry permits, etc. How far do you really believe that the 2nd A is truly a natural universal right that cannot be restricted in anyway?
I'll lead with stating that you look a lot more like a nutter than anyone else in this thread so far. Cool your tits.
For one, the 2A was published on 15DEC1791, four full years after the constitution itself was published. The constitution is clearly granting the US govt permission to call for a militia for specific purposes, but remember, the constitution is what grants govt powers. It's a restriction on *government powers*, not a permission of definitions.
As a general rule, most people consider the national guard to be our modern-day militias, as it's the most established state-level force that exists, beyond a few woods-dwelling weirdies. I have no issue with that, they're armed appropriately. Neither the constitution nor 2A are capable of restricting literally anyone from owning a firearm, or 'arms' in general.
The constitution doesn't state that only members of a militia are permitted to own weapons, merely that a well regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
Always always always remember that the constitution defines what the govt is permitted to do, the limit of its powers. It is not a definition of govt powers, subject to interpretation and expansion.
Because rights are self-evident. A right doesn't have to be 'productive' or 'useful' to you or any other person to exist. Nothing is permitted to restrict a right to bear arms, per the second amendment of the Constitution. If the vast majority of the population decides that should be changed, because they all find it not 'productive' or 'useful', they're welcome to via further amendments to the Constitution.
Eh that's not what I was saying. The states cannot enforce a law which interferes with a constitutional right. Constitution states that people have the right to bear arms, state cannot decide that they don't.The definition of militia didn't suddenly change four years after the ratification of the constitution and any such claim is ridiculous.
As to your other point, I agree, it doesn't make any such statement as to who can or cannot own guns. It simply states that states have the right to regulate that. So when a state wants to ban a weapon or ban ordinary citizens from owning guns, they absolutely have that right according to the constitution. The federal government, again according to the constitution, says doesn't get to weigh in on the matter.
What key phrase?Again, you are leaving out a key phrase of the amendment to twist to mean what you want it to mean, STOP IT.
If it's a "states rights" issue like you said, then let's have SCOTUS overturn all the federal gun control laws on those grounds. Certainly seems odd the wordsmiths of the 2A would have used the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" though if what they meant was "the right of the states to keep and arm militias." We certainly don't interpret "the people" to mean the state, since states aren't corporal things and can't "bear arms". And it also makes into nonsense other phrases where "the people" is used, for example, the clause in the 1A "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" with your 2A interpretation would mean the states themselves (as "the people" you refer to in 2A and keeping consistent use of language) would be meeting somehow.
Eh that's not what I was saying. The states cannot enforce a law which interferes with a constitutional right. Constitution states that people have the right to bear arms, state cannot decide that they don't.
Careful with that. I went to basic/tech school with many national guard bretheren, they had just as much training as I did, relevant to their job code.As was mentioned, the national guard is essentially the current day militia. They are not professional soldiers, they have day jobs other than being a soldier, they meet regularly to train.
Your statements are incredibly counterproductive to discourse. If you aren't taking this seriously, I won't either.Lol no that's not what it says, stop lying.
What key phrase?
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.
Those are two different concepts, one for establishing a militia, one for the right to bear arms. If you have arguments as to whether or not those are unrelated, I'd direct you to the rest of the constitution and other amendments:
1A:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
4A:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5A:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
etc, etc, etc. Those who created the Constitution and amendments had zero issue codifying multiple concepts within a single text string.
Careful with that. I went to basic/tech school with many national guard bretheren, they had just as much training as I did, relevant to their job code.