Board 8 > What the US needs to ban guns

(+) Yeah! (+)

The 2nd amendment is arguably the most important in the whole Bill of Rights. Without it, none of the other rights are valid. It might deserve the #1 spot, but there's no question it should be in the top 2.

The 2nd amendment exists to ensure individuals have a legal check against the inherent violence of government enforcement. It tries to maintain the balance between the enforcement ability of the state, and the defensive ability of civilians. It discourages state oppression from the bottom-up individual level by requiring a massive (i.e. deadly and ineffective) escalation to enforce an illegal policy.

If you see no value in this, you are either stupid, ignorant of history, highly privileged, or some tediously common combination of the above. If you do see value and think it's just not worth the cost, then this topic is for you.

1. Disarm the police. Non-lethal firearms are fine (anything civilians also have access to). On ALL levels: local, state, federal. This includes FBI, Secret Service, SWAT, Timjob, whatever. No special gun-toting task force bullshit.

2. Dissolve the standing army. Reserves only, until war is officially declared. This includes national AND foreign based armies. War Powers Act kinda stuff is fine, but it has to be declared legally.

This would maintain the critical effects of the 2nd amendment, while overwhelmingly reducing gun deaths. These 2 things are the absolute minimum changed necessary.

If you think this is impossible and not viable for the US, then just listen to your same arguments for getting rid of the 300+ million guns in the US: Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not worth doing. It doesn't have to be perfect. Would you rather do nothing? How many more people must die before it becomes viable? And so on, use your imagination.
---

but the police can still have militarized tanks right
---

The 4th and 5th amendments are both far superior tbh
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The 4th and 5th amendments are both far superior tbh

Did you not even read the first post? Like, every single amendent is better than the 2nd in theory, but without the 2nd they are literally just words on paper.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

The 2nd amendment is arguably the most important in the whole Bill of Rights. Without it, none of the other rights are valid. It might deserve the #1 spot, but there's no question it should be in the top 2.

The 2nd amendment exists to ensure individuals have a legal check against the inherent violence of government enforcement.

This made sense in the 18th century, when civilians and governments had roughly equal access to weapons technology. It makes absolutely no sense today, when the government can afford tanks, jet fighters, helicopters, and drones. No amount of man-portable, civilian-affordable weaponry can come close to equaling those. Even if we take your suggestion of dissolving the standing military, there's still the issue of the government being able to outspend any civilian militia - it's far easier and more feasible for the government to purchase and train people to use those weapons than it is for an ordinary citizen, or even a fairly large group of citizens.

I submit to you that the Second Amendment is not the check on government tyranny that it once was, and that if you seriously believe an armed civilian uprising has any chance at all of winning a lasting victory over sufficiently equipped, organized, and directed modern armed forces then you are living in fantasy land.
---

Also: Japan has a standing army and some of the most stringent firearms laws in the world. Are the Japanese in danger of succumbing to tyranny?

The United Kingdom has a strong standing army and restrictive gun laws. Are they just one step away from being back in the days of direct monarchy?

Australia banned semiautomatic and automatic weapons from civilian ownership following the Port Arthur massacre, and they have a military substantial enough to contribute to American Middle East military adventures. Are the Australian people slaves to their government?
---

I mean I agree with you about the tech the government has over the "people", but 50 million vs 1 million, no matter what they have is gonna be a fight regardless.

I personally dont think taking away peoples guns solves the problem. I mean cars kill waaaay more people than guns, why dont we take those away?

Drugs? Knives? Bats?

I mean I think you get the picture. Anyone can kill someone else if they really want to. Now while guns make it possibly easier to do it on a large scale, it doesn't mean that it still wont happen.

I just think the guns are the scapegoat in the bigger picture. Safer regulations need to be put on the buying and selling of guns. They all should be registered to the person. Maybe licences like cars. Pay yearly registration fees. Things that help you keep track of who owns what. That way if a guy starts getting wacky you can check up and see what kind of guns he owns.

I dunno, just typing. I just think there is a better answer than "BAN ALL THE GUNS!"
---

Jukkie posted...

I personally dont think taking away peoples guns solves the problem. I mean cars kill waaaay more people than guns, why dont we take those away?

Drugs? Knives? Bats?

Let me know when you can kill 50 people and injure 500 more with a car, knife, drug, or bat from a 32nd floor hotel window, and then we can talk about banning those things.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

The United Kingdom has a strong standing army and restrictive gun laws. Are they just one step away from being back in the days of direct monarchy?

The fact that they still have a monarchy is seriously super creepy
---

Jukkie posted...

I personally dont think taking away peoples guns solves the problem. I mean cars kill waaaay more people than guns, why dont we take those away?

This is everyone's go-to argument, and it's terrible.

Why don't we take away cars? Because they're essential to daily life, and deaths caused by them are a bad side effect of something that is absolutely necessary to get by. Meanwhile guns one and only use is for violence, as that's literally the one thing they're designed to do, and are otherwise inessential.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Let me know when you can kill 50 people and injure 500 more with a car, knife, drug, or bat from a 32nd floor hotel window, and then we can talk about banning those things.

I mean, that kind of puts me into a box. But I will try.

A Car full of bats with knives stuck through them goes up the elevator.

A certain mix of drugs, when dropped from the 32nd floor of a hotel window, explodes on impact creating a car bat knife drug bomb.

With 550 people standing under it.

Got em.
---

Johnbobb posted...

This is everyone's go-to argument, and it's terrible.

Why don't we take away cars? Because they're essential to daily life, and deaths caused by them are a bad side effect of something that is absolutely necessary to get by. Meanwhile guns one and only use is for violence, as that's literally the one thing they're designed to do, and are otherwise inessential.

I mean I guess, but that doesn't make it a terrible argument. Knives? You could say the same about those to an extent. Some people need guns to be by. The vast majority don't I understand, but alienating a few to suffice the problem would just cause another problem. IMO.
---

Jukkie posted...

The vast majority don't I understand, but alienating a few to suffice the problem would just cause another problem. IMO.

I don't know. A lot of pro-gun people seem perfectly fine with alienating a bunch of people(not to mention uncomfortably accepting of all the murders) just so they can keep doing their little hobby.

A bit of an impasse it seems.
---

I mean yeah, that's kind of what I am getting at. Happy medium.

More restrictions I am totally for, I just dont think a sweeping ban solves the problem. In some cases, it will probably make it worse.
---

Jukkie posted...

I mean yeah, that's kind of what I am getting at. Happy medium.

More restrictions I am totally for, I just dont think a sweeping ban solves the problem. In some cases, it will probably make it worse.

How does a widespread ban on firearm possession make the problem of firearm-related deaths worse?
---

You really like throwing that special little "got em" on all your posts huh? Common sense is a thing...

Well, it means that if you go try and take some people's guns, I'm sure there is a possibility they might not want to give them to you. Do you think that would go smoothly in all cases?
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

The United Kingdom has a strong standing army and restrictive gun laws. Are they just one step away from being back in the days of direct monarchy?

Making references to anything in modern day Europe is bad support for whatever case you are trying to make...
---

Jukkie posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Let me know when you can kill 50 people and injure 500 more with a car, knife, drug, or bat from a 32nd floor hotel window, and then we can talk about banning those things.

I mean, that kind of puts me into a box. But I will try.

A Car full of bats with knives stuck through them goes up the elevator.

A certain mix of drugs, when dropped from the 32nd floor of a hotel window, explodes on impact creating a car bat knife drug bomb.

With 550 people standing under it.

Got em.

Oh I didn't know we were doing another Umineko board game topic.
---

Pretty good stuff so far
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

It makes absolutely no sense today, when the government can afford tanks, jet fighters, helicopters, and drones.

This is what I mean when I say:

requiring a massive (i.e. deadly and ineffective) escalation to enforce an illegal policy

Let's say the government has a new policy that every house will have cameras installed in it. All they want is mass surveillance into every citizen's life, they explicitly DON'T want to declare war on their own citizens and murders thousands/millions of them. The 2nd amendment and the proliferation of arms among citizens makes it so, if people want to resist cameras in their home, the government has to decide whether it's worth starting a vicious murderous war just to get what they want. It's a simple decision. (which is why government goes for far more acceptable surveillance like Alexa/etc)
---

are american politicians actually afraid of its citizens taking arms against them

america is weird
---

Have you seen us? We're crazy.
---

the left literally believes that the president is a racist, incompetent cheeto who is trying to impose fascist rule and that US cops go around indiscriminately slaughtering minorities on a daily basis

but for some reason they also want to take away all of the guns from responsible gun owners and give them to the government so that only the police, military, and criminals will have guns

sorry to say it but logical arguments will not work on these people
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Also: Japan has a standing army and some of the most stringent firearms laws in the world. Are the Japanese in danger of succumbing to tyranny?

Japan is under the thumb of the US military, which forcefully disarmed the country. So yes, they are completely in danger of, and have already experienced lots of, tyranny.

Not_an_Owl posted...

The United Kingdom has a strong standing army and restrictive gun laws. Are they just one step away from being back in the days of direct monarchy?

Not 1 step, but closer than the US. However, this touches on a broader subtlety to this issue. The UK and other more strict gun countries benefit generally from 2nd amendment culture in the US and other places. The respect for individuality, globally, protects the UK public from oppression indirectly. A good analogy is how MLK's peace derived a ton of respect from the threat of Malcolm X's violence. Banning guns in the US hurts the UK in that way.

Not_an_Owl posted...

Australia banned semiautomatic and automatic weapons from civilian ownership

The US also CURRENTLY BANS automatic weapons and at one point did ban semi-autos. Of course you know this discussion has nothing to do with auto/semi-auto, which account for ~2% of total gun deaths in the US (auto wayyy less), so why bother even bringing it up?
---

the logical disconnect between these two positions is in fact so huge that you pretty much have to conclude either

A) they don't seriously believe trump is as serious a threat to the country as they constantly profess, otherwise they would not be volunteering to turn over all citizen guns to his administration

B) they don't seriously believe the narrative that racist cops go around killing minorities is a regular occurrence, otherwise they should be far more wary of having the police force be the only one who can legally own guns

C) they don't seriously advocate for gun control, because that would require admitting that they trust trump, the police, and criminals more with guns than the average law abiding american citizen.

a combination of all three is also highly likely. especially for people who don't seriously consider any issue and just like to engage in empty virtue signaling after any emotionally charged event.
---

Johnbobb posted...

Because they're essential to daily life, and deaths caused by them are a bad side effect of something that is absolutely necessary to get by

We have self-driving car technology TODAY. We also have buses, trains, all kinds of public transportation that ASTRONOMICALLY reduces car deaths.

Why don't we ban manual driving and force everyone to use public transport and self-driving vehicles right now? If you actually cared about saving lives, that's the way to go.

And indeed guns are for violence - which is the whole point of the 2nd amendment. But you haven't argued against the 2nd amendment at all so your proposal doesn't mean much at all.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

the left literally believes that the president is a racist, incompetent cheeto

In fairness? Two of these are pretty indisputable.
---

Maybe if someone came and gunned down all the families of the members of congress? That'd probably change a few minds. Kinda like how most Republicans were pro-torture, but John McCain was against it. If every Republican had been tortured, most of them would probably be against it too. If all the congress members had their families killed by crazy people with guns, support among them for gun control would increase substantially.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

the left literally believes that the president is a racist, incompetent cheeto

In fairness? Two of these are pretty indisputable.

yes I understand that making hilarious quips makes you feel good about yourself for a full 6 seconds

but keep in mind it does literally nothing to address the serious issues we face in the real world
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

are american politicians actually afraid of its citizens taking arms against them

Wayyyy less than they should. Not the least because they are never really at risk, even considering the 2nd amendment, because they always get some poor schmuck to do their dirty work. If there's a revolution they'll just fly away to China or something. The whole guillotine thing wouldn't with such fast transportation nowadays.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

CelesMyUserName posted...

are american politicians actually afraid of its citizens taking arms against them

Wayyyy less than they should. Not the least because they are never really at risk, even considering the 2nd amendment, because they always get some poor schmuck to do their dirty work. If there's a revolution they'll just fly away to China or something. The whole guillotine thing wouldn't with such fast transportation nowadays.

CelesMyUserName posted...

america is weird

---

MariaTaylor posted...

B) they don't seriously believe the narrative that racist cops go around killing minorities is a regular occurrence, otherwise they should be far more wary of having the police force be the only one who can legally own guns

I believe the police force's willingness to use their own guns so readily is partly due to the likelihood that criminals have guns of their own. In countries with stricter gun control laws and armed police forces, police don't kill as many suspects.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

the left literally believes that the president is a racist, incompetent cheeto

In fairness? Two of these are pretty indisputable.

yes I understand that making hilarious quips makes you feel good about yourself for a full 6 seconds

but keep in mind it does literally nothing to address the serious issues we face in the real world

What I said was neither hilarious, nor did it made me feel good about myself.

But more to the point, painting an entire side of people with the same brush doesn't exactly contribute either.

But eh. That's politics these days it seems.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

B) they don't seriously believe the narrative that racist cops go around killing minorities is a regular occurrence, otherwise they should be far more wary of having the police force be the only one who can legally own guns

It's this, 99% of the time. Because the police actually ARE on their side.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

the left literally believes that the president is a racist, incompetent cheeto who is trying to impose fascist rule and that US cops go around indiscriminately slaughtering minorities on a daily basis

but for some reason they also want to take away all of the guns from responsible gun owners and give them to the government so that only the police, military, and criminals will have guns

sorry to say it but logical arguments will not work on these people

Yeah, the Left definitely literally believes all of this.
---

Mac Arrowny posted...

If all the congress members had their families killed by crazy people with guns, support among them for gun control would increase substantially.

That's way too painful. It's much easier to just have a few dozen people killed at a concert or nightclub to get all the citizens to beg for their representatives to enact gun control. Your family can be safe and you get your political victory!
---

Mac Arrowny posted...

I believe the police force's willingness to use their own guns so readily is partly due to the likelihood that criminals have guns of their own. In countries with stricter gun control laws and armed police forces, police don't kill as many suspects.

Great example of the privileged white perspective, thanks
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yeah, the Left definitely literally believes all of this.

but

the very next post I made was me outlining the ways in which they DON'T seriously believe all of this

it's almost as if my first post was me being facetious and

holy shit, nevermind

I seriously cannot waste the mental energy to walk someone through this
---

I thought the criticism was less "cops are racist and go around killing minorities all the time" and more

"Bad cops keep getting away with their misdeeds, and 'Good' cops either turn a blind eye out of indifference, or because cop culture actively punishes a good cop when they rat out a bad cop"

That is to say, they're held to lighter standards.
---

Mac Arrowny posted...

Maybe if someone came and gunned down all the families of the members of congress? That'd probably change a few minds. Kinda like how most Republicans were pro-torture, but John McCain was against it. If every Republican had been tortured, most of them would probably be against it too. If all the congress members had their families killed by crazy people with guns, support among them for gun control would increase substantially.

A pro-gun Congressman was literally shot and is still pro-gun.
---

It's not about good cop and bad cop when it's your orders. I mean, it's a WAR against drugs, right?
---

Dark Young Link posted...

I thought the criticism was less "cops are racist and go around killing minorities all the time" and more

"Bad cops keep getting away with their misdeeds, and 'Good' cops either turn a blind eye out of indifference, or because cop culture actively punishes a good cop when they rat out a bad cop"

That is to say, they're held to lighter standards.

the criticism changes depending on which argument people are trying to make at the time, because they actually have no consistent values, integrity, or conviction

also did you seriously respond to the bait of making a low hanging racist cheeto joke and then tried to high road me when I called you out on it

oh that's just politics I suppose HEH
---

foolm0r0n posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

B) they don't seriously believe the narrative that racist cops go around killing minorities is a regular occurrence, otherwise they should be far more wary of having the police force be the only one who can legally own guns

It's this, 99% of the time. Because the police actually ARE on their side.

I think A is true as well. the trump thing is more about everyone trying to outdo each other and prove they hate him more than anyone else. the truth is they would gladly turn their guns over if given the chance. if that's the case they must not seriously believe he is that much of a threat.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yeah, the Left definitely literally believes all of this.

but

the very next post I made was me outlining the ways in which they DON'T seriously believe all of this

it's almost as if my first post was me being facetious and

holy shit, nevermind

I seriously cannot waste the mental energy to walk someone through this

I mean

A) I hadnt read that far

and

B) Your second post ignores the possibility that people can hate Trump but think some basic background checks cant hurt?

But that would require not generalizing literally anyone not politically aligned with you as one homogeneous blob, and some people have a hard time with that.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

the criticism changes depending on which argument people are trying to make at the time, because they actually have no consistent values, integrity, or conviction

Indeed. Many people don't these days, pity.

MariaTaylor posted...

also did you seriously respond to the bait of making a low hanging racist cheeto joke and then tried to high road me when I called you out on it

I was actually implying that the "incompetent" and "cheeto" parts were true. >_>

And no, I'm on no high road. What gave you that impression?
---

MariaTaylor posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

B) they don't seriously believe the narrative that racist cops go around killing minorities is a regular occurrence, otherwise they should be far more wary of having the police force be the only one who can legally own guns

It's this, 99% of the time. Because the police actually ARE on their side.

I think A is true as well. the trump thing is more about everyone trying to outdo each other and prove they hate him more than anyone else. the truth is they would gladly turn their guns over if given the chance. if that's the case they must not seriously believe he is that much of a threat.

Uh, obviously? People exaggerate their criticism for politicians all the time. Remember when people said George W Bush was the dumbest man alive? Or that Obama was a muslim who was working with Al Qaeda? Very few people believe Trump is actually going to convert the US to a fascist nation.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Let's say the government has a new policy that every house will have cameras installed in it. All they want is mass surveillance into every citizen's life, they explicitly DON'T want to declare war on their own citizens and murders thousands/millions of them. The 2nd amendment and the proliferation of arms among citizens makes it so, if people want to resist cameras in their home, the government has to decide whether it's worth starting a vicious murderous war just to get what they want. It's a simple decision. (which is why government goes for far more acceptable surveillance like Alexa/etc)

Well first of all this is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and would be struck down in an instant by any court.

Second, citizens in this hypothetical would have a number of recourses short of armed rebellion, like breaking the cameras or applying tape over the lenses and microphones to obscure any information gathering.

Third, armies are made of human beings and while there are some people in any population who will blindly obey any order an authority figure gives them I have a hard time believing the military en masse will obey orders to essentially enslave and murder their countrymen, neighbors, friends, and family.

Fourth, actually executing this policy would immediately and irreparably trash the current administration's reputation both at home and abroad, so I hope they're ready to suspend elections (further destroying any shred of credibility the government had left) and live with economic sanctions roughly on par with what North Korea currently enjoys.

And finally, if the government doesn't want to murder millions of their own citizens they could always... just not murder millions of civilians? It's really not that hard, most U.S. governments to this point have come and gone without doing so!
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

But that would require not generalizing literally anyone not politically aligned with you as one homogeneous blob, and some people have a hard time with that.

except this argument requires me to be on the right which I am not. so it seems like you're the one left with egg on your face. it's possible for someone to criticize the general behavior of the left without being the right. the fact that you're incapable of conceiving this is pretty much proof that you're the "team player" here, not me.
---

Mac Arrowny posted...

Uh, obviously? People exaggerate their criticism for politicians all the time. Remember when people said George W Bush was the dumbest man alive? Or that Obama was a muslim who was working with Al Qaeda? Very few people believe Trump is actually going to convert the US to a fascist nation.

so it seems like you're agreeing with pretty much everything I've posted so far then. my argument was that people who advocate for gun control obviously contradict points A and B that I noted above and so they must not actually believe it. but then you're like, trying to argue with me, by saying that you don't actually believe strongly in points A or B. so you're saying... I'm right. so what exactly is the problem?
---

The whole "Obama's a Muslim" thing was less exaggeration and more.... something else.
---