Wait, let me guess... As such, they are not allowed to buy weapons, right? How convenient...
Seriously: I fully support background checks -- extending what we already have, to cover all sales. I also think that if motor vehicles require registration, insurance, and license to operate, then firearms sure as heck should, too.
Even so, if I'm being intellectually honest, I also have a twinge of doubt when it comes to "mental health" grounds, and I have some concern about a Minority Report pre-cog sort of exercise.
This will probably just get me down-votes from both sides of the debate, but, there you have it.
I see the main problem as this: Many people want to keep firearms to keep the power of the government in check, and the government wants to write the rules on who can keep arms. This causes a friction. Either the people give up the right to bear arms and trust the government fully, or the government should not be allowed to make rules on who can keep arms. Anything short of that will continue to cause the friction.
I'm of the opinion that the founders of the United States did not envision a government that people should fully trust, and that mistrust in the government's actions and motives by the populace would actually be healthy for the government. I'm further of the opinion that the founders did not envision a medical profession that could, with a diagnosis and the stroke of a pen, be able to essentially enforce such government full trust, by removing a person's constitutional right to own a firearm, and that without a crime having been committed, and the person not having been convicted of such a crime in a court of law.
If you ask me, that's exactly what the movie Minority Report foretold: "We think you are going to commit a crime, and therefore we will pre-emptively curtail your freedom."
Is this the America the Founding Fathers envisioned when they signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776?
Really?
Are you sure its not just a case of guns being ingrained in American culture and make the owners feel all macho and strong, and that any old excuse is good enough to argue that they should be allowed to keep huge pointless arsenals of weaponry?
I mean, from what I can tell, such people are generally on the right of politics, and at the same time they argue that they need guns to protect against a threat from within, they believe Obama is a non American, communist, Muslim. Well, er, wouldn't that be a great threat from with in to the US? Where were these citizen protectors of American freedom when Obama the commie Muslim took office? Shouldn't they have been using their arsenals to protect America? Or do such people actually know they are taking nonsense?
On top of that, when in the last, say, 100 years has the US government posed a threat to American citizens, such that they citizens needed to break out the weapon to protect them selves?
Frankly I think its more to do with male machismo, culture and being stuck in the 17th century. They have always had guns, and what ever logic you argue with, they simply don't want to change. If you managed to convince then that the government isn't out to get them, they'd just find another excuse.
It reminds me of fox hunting in the UK, or bull fighting in Spain. All these things defy reason, logic and decency, but we all want to hang on to them, simply because they have always been there. Heh, its kinda like saying you can have music any more.
I'm sorry, people may claim they want guns for the reason you cite, but I honestly don't believe them at all.
I'll name one -- Japanese internment camps during WWII. Forcibly imprisoned over a hundred thousand citizens against their will, depriving them of their liberty and property.
But I suppose in your world view the government has final say over your life and property, so being able to deter or resist attacks like this is unnecessary.
Analogically using the Declaration today doesn't really work, there aren't any of the great political thinkers of yore around, and we don't have any comparatively great thinkers (in the same sense). We're too founded on our two party system at the present to move anywhere.
Plus, today's government would refuse to accept any rebellion, regardless of what historical document they cite. Technically, politically, the Union never recognized the Confederate States of America as a sovereign nation, but a rebellion. That's the largest and longest instance of such a 'rebellion'. It's likely going to remain such.
Of course, that's due to the fact that there really wasn't any way for the Confederacy to win. They couldn't have taken and held the north. If they did, they would have assimilated the culture they were fighting against, and would be in the same situation as before they rebelled.
That actually leads me to a slight tangent, but my favorite fact about the Emancipation Proclamation is that it didn't technically free the slaves. It freed the slaves only in rebelling states. Northern slave-holding states could remain as-is.
Moving back on topic: the Declaration of Independence continually cites 'Him' and 'He' in reference to George III. George III had no power. Okay, he had a little power, but he wasn't really calling the shots any more (he never was, his reign started almost a century after the fall of the Commonwealth and slightly less after the Glorious Revolution, which cemented Great Britain as a constitutional monarchy). One could argue the use of He and Him are due to George's refusal to intervene with Parliament (something he really couldn't do).
Again, it goes back to they saw an opportunity to start something new, even though if they worked slightly harder at getting representation, they could have.
Your attitude suggests that government can do no wrong, that the Japanese had no right to defend their liberty against unwarranted aggression.
"If you can't, then touch luck, you're in the minority." I don't agree with the tyranny of the majority. Perhaps that's why this country was actually founded a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
How about, instead of permanently distrusting the government,
try to make it more democratic.
Note: while I disagree with the parent, I gave it an upvote, because the parent was grayed out and I did not find anything in it that would be a good cause for a downvote.
The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right.
As for naming incidents in the last 100 years where armed resistance to the United States government would have been productive or useful, I recommend you look up the forced internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2. I also recommend that you read about the Black Panthers standing up to corrupt Oakland police and marching on government buildings, loaded guns in hand.
You don't have to be a crazy conspiracy theorist or a right-winger to realize the thought that "something like that couldn't happen in America" is naive at best.
edit: I omitted an "n"
> The right to bear arms is a right of last resort. Its the right that protects all others and, as such, it is the _most_ essential right.
I'm going to have to disagree with this statement though. The 1st amendments's protections on speech, assembly and the press strikes me as a more important collection oy rights. It's what prevents us from needing to pull out our weapons and go to war against our government. Especially these days, with our technology and ability to disseminate information. I won't make the claim that many of the travesties of the past couldn't be repeated today in the US, but they'll be a lot harder to accomplish. Also, given the relatively short period US presidents and congresspersons stay in office, the voters actually have a chance to accomplish something if they'd show up in greater numbers and vote along something other than party lines.
Regarding Robin Hood: he was a cop-killer and a bandit, but when we read a fiction novel, this can be overlooked for a better literary presentation.
If America were being ruled by some sort of King George and the Founding Fathers had their revolt today, the Founding Fathers would be called "terrorists", just like the Boston Bombers are.
Americans have had this stuff drummed into their heads as a result of nationalist propaganda for over 200 years, because history is written by the victors.
If history were different and King George had won, they'd instead have been hearing about how gun control was the foundation of their liberty and how it protected loyal subjects of the Crown from those nefarious pro-French traitors.
The same goes for Robin Hood: he isn't given a better presentation because we are reading fiction but because King John lost. And John was a tyrant, by the way, who was made to submit to Magna Carta by force.
According to media accounts of the Boston Bombers that I have seen, they claimed to be fighting America because of America's injustice to Islam.
Apart from its increased plausibility, how is this different from the claims of American gun-nut militias who are worried about being forced to give up their liberty and their Christianity because of plots by the United Nations, an organization led by the anti-Christ?
> The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world
So then what? Japanese-Americans give up all their possessions and live the hills? Where would they get food, guns and ammunition? After the war, there would be no way for them to reintegrate into society.
As for the Black Panthers, I would argue that images of them carrying weapons in the media did more harm than good to their cause. Today few people remember them as a community service organization and most remember them as a sort of quasi-terrorist death squad. A recent presidential candidate was even intimated to have had some sort of nebulous association with them as a way of tarnishing his reputation (though I hear he won anyway).
So I'm underwhelmed by arguments that guns are going to stop a tyrannical government. They may stop one that is completely inept, but a government with even modest propaganda resources will have no trouble playing one group of citizens against the other. Firearms enthusiasts aren't going to be portrayed as 'freedom fighters' by the media: They will be called 'terrorists' or 'cop killers.'
Not that I'm against gun ownership (though I don't personally own one). I just don't live under the misapprehension that it's going to magically 'solve government.'
> Japanese American internment was the World War II internment in "War Relocation Camps" of about 110,000 people of Japanese heritage who lived on the Pacific coast of the United States.
Are you suggesting that on a national scale things would have turned out for the better if Japanese Americans started shooting anyone who tried to intern them? Or if Black Panthers started shooting cops in the street?
It seems to me both those scenarios end up in a bloodbath. One which both minority groups would have little chance of surviving. And when the massacre is over, the government will say "Look - we were right all along! They were violent terrorists and we had no choice.".
It's interesting you think I need an "excuse" for owning a firearm. As if it's our natural place in this universe to require permission from said "authorities". Here's an excuse -- I want one. You don't want me to? Come and take it.
Regardless I find your position to be a bit naive and fails to fully realize how governments progress and the impacts they have on their citizenry. Just because a government isn't actively out to get you ATM doesn't mean they don't possess the overwhelming means to do so and that people should have the means to defend themselves against that if such an occasion arises.
Rebellion is a last resort. Things haven't gotten bad enough yet.
> when in the last, say, 100 years
This number is conveniently chosen to be just below the Civil War.
> they'd just find another excuse
Self defense? If we were some European country that's historically always had only a few gun owners and tight control of guns since firearms were invented, then gun control would make some kind of sense, it would be possible to control the small number of firearms that exist. But the US started out as a frontier country where firearms were necessary for survival, and gun ownership has always been part of the American way for a large number of people. So there are millions of guns already out there -- too many to possibly control.
If the massive supermajority necessary to repeal a constitutional amendment and outlaw firearms magically materialized tomorrow, those millions of guns would still be out there. Presumably drug dealers, rapists, bank robbers, stalkers, and other criminals would keep their guns, and there would be enough remaining in underworld circulation to supply future members of those professions. If a person wants a gun badly enough, he'll always be able to get one. Gun control wouldn't significantly reduce the number of bad people who have access to guns, it would just curtail access for responsible, law-abiding citizens.
Guns -- and in particular concealed carry laws -- also act as a deterrent for criminals. If someone's in a desperate situation and contemplating crime, it seems to me that the possibility of a hole in the head from an armed bystander would make them hesitate a lot more than if the worst-case scenario involves getting a roof and three square meals a day at taxpayer expense (even if they get the death penalty it'll be many years before the appeals are exhausted and the sentence is carried out).
At least to me, these considerations don't sound like "excuses," but well-reasoned arguments. Please point out the holes.
Which was 150% the original number, not "just" below the Civil War. The Civil Wars was closer to the signing of the Declaration than today.
Not to mention eventually you'll be able to 'print' a gun from a 3d printer or use your personal affordable CNC mill. Its just going to get easier and easier to make your own weapons.
Most of them came with a healthy distrust of government, and wrote in all of the checks and balances because they didn't trust governments, and the checks helped allay their concerns.
I agree on the revocation of constitutional rights by, they probably didn't want a system which would let a single diagnosis revoke a right. But, based on their goals in designing our current government, multiple, corroborating reports would probably be accepted by them.
Historically speaking, government restriction on firearm ownership is a relatively new thing. "Weapons of war" like ships and artillery were privately owned in this country as recently as the civil war.
Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...
(And since the SCOTUS has opted to interpret that corporations are people, too, presumably they would have this right as well?)
Although tyranny would be unquestionably bad, the proposed prophylactic for that hypothetical scenario is worse.
Possibly I'm biased because I live in Boston and recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version.
Regardless, being in favor of particular interpretations of the 2nd Amendment does not mean that you are automatically in favor of considering corporations people.
> recently saw first-hand what a homemade IED can do. I am not eager to see people have the right to upgrade that kind of musket to the pro version.
Weren't those bombs packed with the same stuff that you buy if you want to shoot your musket? There was a lot of misinformation going around at the time and I haven't kept up on that story so I honestly am not sure, but I am pretty sure the word is that they were pressure cookers with gunpowder (which you can buy "loose" to load your own rounds for modern guns, or use to load muskets). I am not sure that it makes sense for you, coming from your perspective, to be pushing something that would make buying loose gunpowder more mainstream.
> Believe it or not, the country didn't degrade into people waging private wars against each other, mass murder, etc...
We did have a civil war (which is the end bound you placed on your time line). It wasn't a private war, it technically wasn't mass murder, but, it was a war.
Again, sorry, I couldn't help myself on this one.
I don't think it would be clearly insane.
My assumption is that the US political landscape would look a lot different if the citizens of the United States were indeed allowed to own any weapon they chose and paid for. I don't know if things would be better; they would definitely be different.
(A better rebuttal, from the substance, has already been offered in the rest of the thread.)
Of course, the gun control crowd would probably want any psychiatric disorder to be grounds for preventing someone from buying a gun, if only as a way to ban large numbers of people from firearm ownership.
Also, it isn't just communist countries it's authoritarian regimes generally. Hyperbolic comparisons and innuendos don't help the conversation, they just push potential participants away.
As to the idea of mass disarmament of "sensible liberty-definding anti-authoritorian citizens", I doubt that any organization within the government has the manpower to assemble an army of shrinks to diagnose the whole population. And then another literal army to quell the ensuing rebellion - considering that much of the current armed forces would be deserting. They may make it more difficult to purchase a firearm, but the existing ones aren't going anywhere for a while. Especially since Congress can barely cooperate enough to agree that the sky is blue.
What? On top of everything else the mentally ill get to own guns? That is honestly shocking to me.
Then there's association therewith. Is a mentally stable person prohibited weapons just because s/he lives with someone labeled "mentally ill", despite suitable securing of the arms?
Finally, who gets to define "mentally ill"? Per the lead article, just being "anti-authoritarian" (in, say, a George Washington sense) could get one involuntarily labeled as such. Dictatorships are fond of so labeling, and ultimately eliminating, political opposition by application of the label.
We can all agree that the just-plain-nuts should be disallowed guns, and all firearms licensing processes include some level of certification of sanity. Problem is, the anti-gun movement is leveraging that restriction to expand prohibition in ways which are honestly shocking to me.
The author's personal experience was being diagnosed with "issues with authority" because he didn't kiss up to his crazy boss. I don't see any conflict between not kissing up to his boss and owning firearms, so sure, let him go deer hunting on vacation if he's got no other, real, issues.
Think hard about this, and ask yourself what you would have done in 1774: sided with the Revolutionaries, or sided with the Royalists.
No, those founding fathers were not anti-authorianists to the degree that people would call a pathology. The continental congress did not descend into a bunch of bickering every time someone asked someone else to do something. They were mostly, from all reports, pretty well-adjusted and got along with each other civilly even with major disagreements on how to do things.
There is probably a lesson in that disorders that make you inconvenient for the system are more likely to be recognized/categories than those that make you a sheep. Fine. I don't think you can generalize from that to "documented mentally ill should be able to buy guns because what if it's actually a conspiracy vs them and not just voices in their head? then they can use their gun to stop the conspiracy.". That seems like pretty awesomely bad policy to me.
Sometimes things happen within the normal human spectrum. You're conflating behavior with a category in the DSM with political action by generally sane individuals.
As far as what little relation this has to the gun debate: Background checks for mental illness are probably a reasonable idea, and I'm pro gun rights.
I was against the recent Toomey-Manchin legislation until I heard that:
- It makes creating a federal database of gun owners explicitly illegal
- It makes transporting unloaded guns across state lines explicitly legal (this is apparently currently illegal a lot of the time)
- It's only applying the same standards for licensed gun dealers to gun shows and internet sales, while explicitly making internet sales legal (gray area before)
It's actually a totally reasonable bill that does a lot of what gun rights people have been asking for. But what's the upside for the NRA in a reasonable bill, versus vilifying it and raising a bunch of money to STOP THE GUN GRABBING BILL? That is why we can't have nice things.
O that we too in America today could think people hold valid grievances against our own government instead of painting them broadly with the brush of mental illness and washing our hands of the mistreatment they suffer at the hands of our own agents...
How do you get from
A) At least one person, somewhere in history, has been falsely accused of being crazy because he was inconvenient to authorities.
To:
B) Johnny over here is telling me that the illuminati are conspiring to destroy the world through mind-control agents in flouridated water and he needs to take violent action to protect our vital essences. He should have the right to buy a gun.
I think you're operating under the assumption that actual mental illness doesn't exist.
And a lot of slaves and native americans sided with the Royalists and decent portion gained freedom after the war in GB (though many were returned to their masters after the fact), so I think whose side one would take is more complicated than being mere anti-authoritarians.
This crashcourse video points out some of these things: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiSymRrKI4]
Despite it all, I would say that an oppressive government could use "medical condition" to confiscate weapons, but whether the populous is armed or not has little to do with the oppressive nature upon the governed in any country.
The Revolutionaries were really just opportunists. They could have received the representation they wanted in parliament, however they saw the chance to start their own government, a new one, built by them, however they wanted. I'm not saying it was a bad thing that they decided to focus their efforts on starting a new government instead of working with their current one, but they didn't have to.
The Declaration of Independence was written to discredit parliament and the king (who, at this time, didn't have power anymore, it was already with the House of Commons), and to drum up support with other powers who didn't really like England (specifically France). They could have worked out a deal with the House of Commons giving them a representative spot, but their declaration explicitly decided against it.
Take a history class. You might get some context to the events you cite.
You defy the very premise of the United States of America's existence: The God-given right to live free from the oppression of a Draconian Regime!
(I kid, I kid, I like to hear people's opinions)
But it's got to strike you as interesting that I have taken many history classes, along with reading many historical books, and still evidently lack the profound knowledge of the 1770s that you have. I wonder whether my classes and books were somehow deficient, perhaps as they were written and taught by the victors, the same sort of people who benefited from these Colonial Opportunists, and may thus be unwilling to besmirch their hallowed reputations...
I also had the same teachers, teaching from the American view, but my college (Carthage College) has a Western Heritage requirement, where second semester freshmen year some of our readings were Locke, Marx and Engles, and two drafts and the final version of the Declaration of Independence.
Plus, political systems intrigue me.
It could happen to any of us lawful gun owners with criteria this broad.
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/swat-team-10a.jpg
http://inmenlo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SWAT-team-comp...
Do they think that the queen is a lizard and the government is putting chemicals in contrails? I really don't care if they have a gun. Lizard and chemtrail people are clearly loony, but they seem perfectly harmless.
Instead are they a psychopath fascinated with violence? In that case yeah, I am not comfortable with them having a gun... but if we know who they are then why the hell are they not institutionalized already, rendering the issue moot?