The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
MeDotOrg
2nd Quorum of 70
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:55 pm
Location: San Francisco

The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by MeDotOrg »

Tonight I read about 4 people gunned down in Tulsa. An 8-year-old boy visiting South Carolina from New Hampshire was shot and killed by a man randomly firing a gun at passing cars from woods near his house.

So I thought about posting as an addendum the Uvalde shooting post. But do we need another post about another shooting tragedy? Will these deaths move the needle?

It has become increasingly clear that NOTHING will move the needle. This country suffers from a psychological tyranny imposed by the most extreme interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Other countries that have experienced mass shootings respond by banning assault rifles and initiating gun buyback programs. But the worship of guns in this country makes it impossible for many to separate the mythos of our gun culture from the logos of the damage in does in the 21st Century.

What other civilized country in the world could look at what the gun culture reaps in the United States and not be horrified?

Ask yourself: If the founding fathers were to write the Constitution today, what exactly would the worlds "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state" mean? What would a debate about the 2nd Amendment look like?
The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization.
- Will Durant
"Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6824
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Jersey Girl »

The reports of mass shootings feel like a blur. I can't distinguish betweens incidents and locations any more. I don't have any idea how to answer your questions. I don't know anything at all. I wanted to add this link. It's repulsive.

MASS SHOOTINGS IN 2022
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/repo ... s-shooting
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5777
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Moksha »

Because of the gun culture, life in the US will increasingly be defined as nasty, brutish, and short.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Chap »

Taking up a relevant point from the 'Adios' thread:
ajax18 wrote:
Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:16 am
canpakes wrote:
Wed Jun 01, 2022 11:04 pm



"Don't think you're going be a hero," Has nothing to do with, “Do you believe private citizens should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves from criminals or not?”

With a setup like yours, maybe you should ask yourself if you’d be willing to be ‘that hero’.
I wish I could get the exact quote. It had everything to do with whether or not private citizens or even police officers for that matter had the right to own a firearm to have a hope of not being mowed down by criminals who will always have guns whether they are legal or not.

You know, there are countries in the advanced and democratic west where my risk of being 'mowed down by a criminal [with a firearm]' is so small compared to other risks (such as being injured in a road accident) that it plays no part in rational life planning. In those countries, the idea that a kid just turned 18 can walk into a shop and buy a military grade assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition seems simply laughable. In political terms, my rights and my ability to influence the government I live under are at least equal to those in the US, and in some ways arguably superior.

Will somebody kindly tell me:

If I could suddenly press a button and transform the countries where I live into societies like the US where (amirite?) there is more than one gun for every adult in the population, and a kids just turned 18 can walk into a shop and buy a military grade assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, then - HOW EXACTLY WOULD I BE BETTER OFF?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 6824
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Jersey Girl »

I don't know, Chap. I do know this. In the state of Texas (Uvalde shooting) that young person can't legally buy a beer on his 18th birthday but he can legally buy a gun and, I guess, all the high capacity magazines he wants to. Throw himself a party. Maybe in a school.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Chap »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Thu Jun 02, 2022 9:17 am
I don't know, Chap. I do know this. In the state of Texas (Uvalde shooting) that young person can't legally buy a beer on his 18th birthday but he can legally buy a gun and, I guess, all the high capacity magazines he wants to. Throw himself a party. Maybe in a school.
Makes sense to me. If he had a can of beer and then tried to load his guns, he might have a serious accident.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Chap »

Chap wrote:
Thu Jun 02, 2022 9:02 am
Taking up a relevant point from the 'Adios' thread:
ajax18 wrote:
Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:16 am


I wish I could get the exact quote. It had everything to do with whether or not private citizens or even police officers for that matter had the right to own a firearm to have a hope of not being mowed down by criminals who will always have guns whether they are legal or not.

You know, there are countries in the advanced and democratic west where my risk of being 'mowed down by a criminal [with a firearm]' is so small compared to other risks (such as being injured in a road accident) that it plays no part in rational life planning. In those countries, the idea that a kid just turned 18 can walk into a shop and buy a military grade assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition seems simply laughable. In political terms, my rights and my ability to influence the government I live under are at least equal to those in the US, and in some ways arguably superior.

Will somebody kindly tell me:

If I could suddenly press a button and transform the countries where I live into societies like the US where (amirite?) there is more than one gun for every adult in the population, and a kids just turned 18 can walk into a shop and buy a military grade assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, then - HOW EXACTLY WOULD I BE BETTER OFF?
So, no suggestions?
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Kukulkan
High Priest
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:36 pm
Location: Slipping deeper into the earth

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Kukulkan »

I want to offer some push back on some ideas because I think it would make for interesting debate. Is personal gun ownership an extreme interpretation of the 2nd amendment? Historically, militias and armies were comprised purely of private citizens that in a time of war were called up by the king or leader to serve the country. Often they would supply their own armor, weapons, horses, etc. This was also the understanding of the FF when it came to security of the states. In the United States, the state militias were comprised of regular citizens that in a time of need could be called up to defend the state. They were expected to supply their own firearms and ammunition. Although basically impossible, if the mainland U.S. were to be invaded, the civilian populace would certainly use the weapons they own to defend their country.

Would you support rifle ownership if it were attached to some sort of service in a state militia? Maybe training would be attached to it as well like Drill for National Guard members? After service in the state militia you are granted a 'clearance' to own that rifle perhaps? Just throwing some ideas out there.

I also am not in favor of the argument that because the likelihood of a despotic leader is highly unlikely in our day in age (which is arguably the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment), we should essentially 'do away' with the 2nd amendment because it is no longer relevant. Should we do away with the 13th amendment because the likelihood of slavery coming back is highly unlikely as well?

Also people who are gun skeptic seem to become very textualist interpreters of the Constitution when it comes to the 2nd amendment and gun ownership yet I would assume heavily support the Obergefell v Hodges case which granted nationwide right to gay marriage through the 14th amendment which mentions nothing of marriage. (For the record I support gay marriage, just want to play devils advocate since the discussion seems to be very one sided.)
"I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness." -Joseph Smith
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9521
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Res Ipsa »

Interesting points, Kulkukan. I’m not a textualist, but I think one must certainly start with the text. The second amendment is tough to deal with because of the It is worded. It starts with a narrow rationale for the right, followed by an unqualified statement of the right. If we interpret the right as a personal one to own firearms for any damn reason we want, it effectively reads the first clause out of the amendment. But if we treat the first as some kind of meaningful limitation, it takes the right away altogether because we don’t have militias as they existed at the time the country was founded.

The Constitution is designed to prevent the federal government from maintaining a standing army. In case of war, the militias would be called up to defend the country until the federal government could raise an army.

Today, the federal government maintains a standing army through the fiction that it raises a new army every time it passes a defense bill. With the existence of standing army, there is no need for militias as they were used when the country was founded.

So, how do we interpret the second amendment today when the stated rationale no longer exists? Obviously, militia members in the 1700s owned and used their personal weapons when acting as a militia. But what do we do when we don’t have militias?

As a practical matter, the issue is over the constitutional test the court will choose to decide whether a given law or regulation is constitutional. If the right is premised on the need for an armed militias to defend the country, that would argue for the rational basis test as long as the law would not affect well regulated militias. If the right extends beyond the need for a militia, that would call for strict scrutiny.

In my opinion, there is no “textual” answer. Intent doesn’t help us much either. Modern weaponry is so different from what arms meant back in the day, that there in no rational way to divine the intent.

I don’t think that saying the right is personal is “extreme” in and of itself. What I would would describe is the position that the right is absolute or nearly absolute.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8952
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Chap wrote:
Thu Jun 02, 2022 9:02 am
If I could suddenly press a button and transform the countries where I live into societies like the US where (amirite?) there is more than one gun for every adult in the population, and a kids just turned 18 can walk into a shop and buy a military grade assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, then - HOW EXACTLY WOULD I BE BETTER OFF?
I don’t think you’d be better off. Like most of us you seem to possess sense and empathy, so the thought of living with a statistically nominal event is still gut wrenching and barbaric. However, let’s look at it like a selfish paranoid asshole who is convinced if we lose our guns they’ll be rounded up by demonrat communists and gulag’d to death.

I suppose their question might be along the lines of how much should we fear mass shootings in the US? This comment might be a bit much for some people in the aftermath of the Texas Ohio Pennsylvania Michigan Colorado Arizona Nevada California shooting, but try and bear with it. Since, say, 2012 there have been 1500 deaths from mass shootings. These are 1500 people, with hopes and dreams and unquantifiable experiences. That being said, this is .0000045% of the us population (I might be off by a zero or whatever, I’m terrible at math). It’s an insanely improbable number to worry about, you might as well worry about being eaten by a shark in a kiddie pool.

You’re 76 x as likely to die from drunk driving. 2775 x as likely to die from obesity-related issues. 4300 x as likely to die from cancer. All of that is fairly preventable with good choices, as is with gun ownership. One can argue nuances with regard to choice and consequences, but you can’t with statistics.

In other words, don’t worry about it, man. You’ll be fine. And if not, oh well.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Post Reply