Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

sculptor said:
You offer this as an example of an attempt at gun control gone awry ?
Click to expand...
No, but the law of diminishing returns (utility v danger) applies here.

Moreover, there are many States where the interpretation of "well regulated" are not uniformly applied or enforced. It's a mess...!
 
Consider how those who drafted the Constitution would view the personal arsenals that are claimed as a right.

Would the expression I give an inch yet you take a mile be the first thought to mind?
Alex
 
Bells said:
But they didn't prevent it, did they?
Click to expand...
Yes, they did.
Bells said:
Which is different to what I had said, how, exactly?
Click to expand...
You claimed the British Monarchy did not disarm the peasants under its rule - that the authors of the 2nd Amendment, whose family and lineage were that disarmed and oppressed peasantry, and who faced attempts by the Crown to disarm them, had no immediate and striking example of a central government (a monarchy, in this case) disarming its citizens for the purpose of oppressing them.
That was ridiculously false, and I have gone to some length - completely unnecessary in an honest discussion - to make its falsehood explicit.
Bells said:
You kind of missed the point I was making.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. Your point was an idiotic and dishonest splitting of hairs, and I responded with civility - actually took you seriously.
Bells said:
The Government's attempts to disarm the Scots failed dismally.
Click to expand...
So?
It created great hardship, and abetted oppression, and was clear in the memories and education of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.
Bells said:
The revolt against Britain was because of increased taxes and because the colonists felt they should have representation in Britain's Parliament and that taxes should be imposed by a direct representative and not a distant Government and Crown.
Click to expand...
Not increased taxes: tax breaks - reduced taxes - for favored British corporate interests.
Otherwise - sure. So?
Bells said:
When the Government of Britain passed laws to disarm the colonialists in the US, it was with the full support of the "peasantry" of the UK, as well as the Monarch, as they felt that the Americans were demanding a seat at a table they did not feel you belonged to. There is a reason why so many young British men volunteered to come and fight the Americans.. You know, the "peasantry" of Britain literally wanted to bring the US to heel. They felt that the acts of the colonists in the US were overtly aggressive and no colonial power would be willing to give up that much (ie the US that the British controlled at that point). You do get that, right?
Click to expand...
Of course. Already stipulated, above, three or four times now. Do you have a reason for posting that common knowledge here - some connection between that and our current political difficulties in enacting sane gun control?
Bells said:
Ermm actually, the slaves that were brought and bought and sold in the US were disarmed upon capture in Africa. It wasn't careful. And it happened long before your founders were even a twinkle in their parents eyes. These policies were in place before the US even became part of the slave trade.
Click to expand...
Uh - hello? How willfully and idiotically oblivious do you have to be to miss the ongoing and necessary efforts to prevent plantation slaves in the Americas from arming themselves? The laws, the sadistic punishments, the dogs, the mercenary cadres of enforcers, the continual and blatant threat of revolt - - that's extraordinary, that post.
Bells said:
In fact, it continues to this day. The well armed militia was meant to fight against oppression. I sometimes wonder how the founders would spin in their graves if the descendants of slaves and Native Americans armed themselves in the way that the US colonists armed themselves.. In other words, your founding fathers and their Constitution guaranteed rights to white males only. Which kind of makes the reliance on their actions during that time as proof of rising against tyranny, eyebrow raising at a minimum.
Click to expand...
So?
Are you somehow switching sides here - arguing for the necessity of firearms, pointing to the oppression of the systematically disarmed Blacks and Reds as examples of what central government disarming of its peasantry leads to? That was my argument. You didn't like it, from me.
Bells said:
Now, what is the risk of this happening again in the US?
- - -
Again, what is the risk of this happening again in the US?
Click to expand...
Low. Low for a long time - generations. Which is an amazing and quite unusual accomplishment or state of affairs, deserving of recognition and gratitude - only a fool would screw around with its foundation unless absolutely necessary.
Rule: If you have by some wonderful chance ended up with a complex working system, leave it alone. Don't change anything (John Gall: "Systemantics").
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Consider how those who drafted the Constitution would view the personal arsenals that are claimed as a right.

Would the expression I give an inch yet you take a mile be the first thought to mind?
Alex
Click to expand...
The people that wrote the constitution had a variety of opinions, none as important as the opinions of living people.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Consider how those who drafted the Constitution would view the personal arsenals that are claimed as a right.
Click to expand...
As a right.
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped
Hamilton, Federalist 29

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Madison, Federalist 46

In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Hamilton, Federalist 28​
 
spidergoat said:
I call it propaganda. A biased source.
Click to expand...
So add to your genetic fallacy poisoning the well.
You know what I mean. People with guns can just as easily establish a tyranny as prevent one. And people without guns like Ghandi and MLK can effect social change non-violently, a concept the framers would not have been familiar with.
Click to expand...
The operative word there being "people." Pure democracy is often called the tyranny of the majority, but that would take a significant change in government.
Maybe the left should arm themselves? Help you sleep at night?
 
btw: We have an example of armed slaves, or quasi-slaves, in history. Note that they were drawn from a disarmed civilian population, and though physically removed from that population required strict regimentation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissaries
and even then were in the service of the oppressors, not the oppressed, and obtained some freedom and power and status thereby - they joined the ruling class, were co-opted.

And that was necessary. An armed population is very difficult to keep subjugated.
 
Last edited:
Vociferous said:
As a right.
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped
Hamilton, Federalist 29

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Madison, Federalist 46

In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Hamilton, Federalist 28​
Click to expand...
I see if some fool is elloquent you quote him as if he wise.
Why think for yourself when there are so many fools the follow.
Alex
 
billvon said:
There is less pathologic fear on the left - so less need to do so.
Click to expand...
Well, spidergoat seemed to be worried about "People with guns can just as easily establish a tyranny as prevent one."
An armed left would at least equal the odds, and I encourage it.
Sometimes I wonder if the left is honestly afraid of what they would do with a gun. Poor impulse control, etc..
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I see if some fool is elloquent you quote him as if he wise.
Why think for yourself when there are so many fools the follow.
Click to expand...
You're the one who asked how "those who drafted the Constitution" would view things.
If you don't want the answer...
 
Vociferous said:
Well, spidergoat seemed to be worried about "People with guns can just as easily establish a tyranny as prevent one."
Click to expand...
Right. So? If you think the solution to a political problem is to buy a gun, a psychiatrist is a better solution than actually buying a gun.
An armed left would at least equal the odds, and I encourage it.
Click to expand...
See above.
Sometimes I wonder if the left is honestly afraid of what they would do with a gun. Poor impulse control, etc.[/quote]
Why do you think that? From what we've seen so far, right wing extremists are a much bigger risk for gun violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top