What do Steemians think of guns and gun control?

in politics •  9 years ago  (edited)

View this post on Hive: What do Steemians think of guns and gun control?


Sun Yuchen is a liar, thief, charlatan, and all around cunt. But I don't need to tell you that. Find me at Hive, where we are glad to be rid of him and all of his fake followers, sockpuppets, and thieves.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

This discussion is dominated by the conservative narrative on gun control: that it’s about taking away a right you have, granted by the Constitution. And that private guns defend us against tyranny. So let me frame the opposite view, the liberal pro-gun control argument:

  1. First, gun control to a liberal is more of a public health issue than it is an issue of rights. If we didn't have multiple thousands of gun deaths in the U.S. every year, gun control would be a non-issue. Why take something away from someone for no reason? We liberals have plenty of other projects we’d rather spend our time on.
  2. The public has a right to pass measures that improve the safety of all. We pass seat belt laws, speed limits, etc. You may disagree with all this but it is not unconstitutional. Communities are empowered to pass laws for the common good.
  3. As such, many communities pass gun control laws. And until very recently, with the Scalia court, they were upheld constitutionally on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted as a collective, rather than an individual, right. Specifically this means that the preamble to the 2nd Amendment is meaningful ("A well regulated militia....") and the "the right of the people" means the right of the collective people rather than individuals. More on this here:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman

This makes sense when you think about it. Were the founders really concerned about Joe's right to own a gun just because he feels like it, because he thinks they're cool? No. They were interested in making sure we could stand up to tyranny, which meant the ability to organize “well-regulated militias”. The Constitution is as uninterested in your individual right to own a gun as it is with your right to run around town naked and call it freedom of expression. In both cases the Constitution devolves to states and local authorities to produce the applicable law. It’s not that you don’t have the right. You might, depending on where you live. But it’s not because of the Constitution.

On the point that’s commonly made about protecting ourselves from federal tyranny I would repeat what many others have said. You’d need a lot more than your gun at home to protect against the U.S. arsenal of planes, armor, bombs, and nuclear weapons. But hardly anyone is clamoring for the right to own this kind of equipment. And hardly anyone is organized into a militia structure that would stand a fighting chance. Why not? This is the ultimate contradiction in the tyranny argument. Pro-gun folks like the high minded cover the tyranny argument provides but are really not that interested. What they want is to keep their guns for their own personal reasons.

They also invoke, to be fair, concerns about protecting themselves against criminals. This is a legitimate argument but it has little to do with the 2nd Amendment. The argument now is about the effectiveness of one public policy or another. It is a debate about public health which is, again, where the liberal argument finds its home. Communities have a right to pass laws for the common good. Yes, even if those laws make you do something or take something away from you. On the whole, we view this imposition on your rights as worth the lives saved. This, btw, is the calculation made in all public policy. The community as a whole is better off, after you count the wins and losses.

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It was intended to protect the rights that the founders understood to be "god given." The fact you exist as a human means that you already have those freedoms at birth. The BoR was intended to keep those freedoms from being trampled upon by a tyrannical government. In theory, anyway.

I am not politically conservative but I follow conservative lines when it comes to the political topic of guns and controlling them. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was a good idea when it was drafted, ensuring that citizens' would have the right to own the means to defend themselves against threats from foreign or domestic oppression at the barrel of a gun. Even in World War II the 2nd Amendment gave our enemies second thoughts about invasion, because we were collectively so well armed. And today, for its original reasons, it's still a good idea.

The Constitution grants the right of the people to bear arms, but there is a strong desire from some politicians to erode that right. I'd rather see our politicians work towards something that doesn't take rights away from us. I find it unfortunate that the agenda of gun control gets lumped into the liberal issue "bloc" because I agree with some other positions on issues that would be called liberal. Polarized politics finds people taking an all or nothing approach with these opposite-spectrum issue blocs and the polarization effect just magnifies. For instance what does supporting gun rights but opposing abortion rights have to do with each other? They can be separate issues, but political blocs often have these positions aligned in the minds of people who identify as Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative.

If it comes down to it, the Constitution can be amended with 3/4ths of the states agreeing with the change, but thankfully there isn't that kind of support for repealing the 2nd Amendment.

That's the political part, now here's the opinion on guns themselves:

They're cool. They're fun to shoot. I can see how it would be a cool hobby to collect them, but I don't. And on a more serious note, if you need to defend yourself or your loved ones from major violence (murder or rape), they are the best tool for the job.

Guns good.

Gun control bad.

Guns are for protecting citizens from their governments (and other less serious things). So I don't know of a better way and I do not fancy genocide so hell yea I like guns. We are still going to want guns among us, it is a human right to benefit from our technology.

So, for this reason I like gun purchases to be completely private. It may not be obvious but background checks are a bad idea too simply because your trying to impose stringent requirements on otherwise free people. This leads to the need to enforce hard to enforce laws. Lets remind ourselves, if a free person is really too dangerous to own a gun, they are too dangerous to live among us and own bomb making material, dangerous chemicals, purchase or grow virus, own knives, own forks, own spoons, etc... Background checks send people away from well known public places into private especially when they are a easy target to put people on gun lists. If records are kept they should be kept by the buyer and seller. Additionally constitutional carrie is important. Your constitution is the gun permit.

Finally, last but not least gun training. Gun training is the easiest thing to do and does not prove that you own a gun or put you on any list. Many states are offering free gun training now. From training, to justify the use of a gun (or lethal force) their needs to be a threat of greater bodily harm to yourself of someone else. Greater bodily harm is subjective and decided by a jury but this can include the threat of rape, head-injury, scarring, or death.

  ·  9 years ago (edited)

How do you feel about the public owning BIG guns? (like the anti-aircraft kind). Would it not help protect us from genocide too[1]? If you don't like it, then how to you propose people defend themselves from the current public health crisis: aerosol chemical attacks. There is plenty of evidence showing that this is being done with full knowledge and participation of military in the UN nations.

[1] https://geoengineeringwatch.org

Yea, it is food for thought. Still it is retarded to have to arm ourselves to the teeth just to protect ourselves from ourselves. Would be nice if guns were just needed for a hobby (guns are fun).

It is really a simple question of property rights. Attempt to enforce gun control without violating the non-aggression principle and you find you cannot do it.

Gun control means hitting your intended target and not hitting any unintended targets.