- This topic has 78 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ubiq
I recognize there is a greater question of hishtadlus here. I just take issue with the idea that there is something not hashkafic about ownership
And Jackk
If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns. I know two frum people whose lives were saved. Now we can argue that their lives were meant to be saved anyway, even without a gun. But as someone else has already said. Areas with people carrying guns tend to be safer.
We need to focus on getting the guns away from criminals. Stop and frisk etc. if we aren’t doing that , if we are allowing BLM protests etc. please don’t strip me of my right to protect my family.Yserbius > @Always_Ask_Questions I am far more scared of a bunch of yokels running around with murderous weapons than I am of our government turning on the people
Mi hu chacham .. But you somehow ended in a country with a constitutional system specifically built to prevent tyranny. If you don’t appreciate it, fine, you are free to suffer or move to a country with other priorities. It is hard to argue about the future and yes currently most developed countries look stable. But if you were to move from revolutionary America to revolutionary France, you would have lost your head several times over an average lifetime.
menctch, I agree. In most cases in Tanach, Jews were granted victory when they fought AND were following Hashem’s will. Interesting though how here arguments on two sides of the spectrum converge – those on a liberal side who propose to fight with no arms, and those on the other side who claim that their learning is substitute for military effort. It seems that wishful thinking and self-deceit are non-partisan.
Mentch
“Your comparison to roe is limited at best. Roe was bad law with no constitutional backing.”Roe is but one example.
My point is “the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .” is nonsense. Supreme court decisions can and have been overturned.Again I understand that you think Roe was bad and Heller was good. My point is that once the Supreme court has spoken conversation is over is simply incorrect.
” and logic is on the side of private ownership.”
History isnt, though.
And even if it was it clearly allows regulation (both based on history and text)
and even if it didn’t that doesn’t really argue WHY we should live this way (whcih was the OP’s question) it just shifts the blame/ Ok so we are stuck with a constiution lets chaneg it and if not why not ? ((rhetorical question I know why not, I explained in my first comment. But the reason why we Allow easy access to guns is not BECASUE of the constituion that just begs the question, why not chaneg the constitution)“Ubiq
The tanach argument is fallacious”
I agree completely. Though Iwas not the one who commented regardign Tanach I dont think it is relevent at all, nor do I think a selective choosing of examples is meaningful“But feel free to pack the courts with liberals who overturn the second amendment sometime in the next 50 years. By then we will have another 200 million guns in the hands of Americans. Then what?”
packing the court wont need to overturn, we can just interpret it the way it was originally undersatood. As to then what.
I dont know. buy back programs?
Ban further sales of ammunition?I don’t know, (Though again I’m not calling to ban all guns so I’m not super worried about what to do) but the idea that people won’t listen is not a reason not to enact a law
I asked you this in the other thread.
Can you think of any other such example, where you oppose a law being enacted because people wont listen ? (we do find this by Chazal lehavdil) People use this argument for abortion, that people will just abort anyway and unsafely (which is obviously true) I don’t find that a convincing argument do you?
Is there any other potential law that you find this convincing?“I think we can all agree on some measures. Especially mental health and background checks. And I fault the NRA and states for not implementing these measures.”
Agreement!
AAQ
“But if you were to move from revolutionary America to revolutionary France, you would have lost your head several times over an average lifetime.”
Well my how times have changed
You are far far far far (4 times) more likely to lose your head in the US than France
The homicide rate in France was 1.2 in the US was more than 4 times higher 4.96 (2018 numbers)
These numbers have not changed by much over my lifetime“If you don’t appreciate it, fine, you are free to suffer or move to a country with other priorities. I”
Interesting is that in the Constition?
No complaining no trying to change the system? If you don’t like it leave!
Where are you getting this notion from?
sounds quite tyrannical. I want to stay here and try to make it better. why don’ t I have that right ?Mentch
“If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns.”Reminds me of a patient taking immodium and Miralax. (true story)
“Why are you taking miralax?”
“Well after my surgery, I got constipated (was on opiates) so Surgeon prescribed miralax”
“Why the Imodium?”
“I developed diarrhea'”Arguing well I need guns to protect myself from guns doesn’t do it for me
“If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns. ”
Seriously though
THAT is precisely my pointNobody would seriously argue that there is no individual who benefited from having a gun. The question is do we look at the individual or the collective
If you look at antiseatbelt magazine (if there was such a thing ) they would highlight a few people whose lives were saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt.
We ignore those few at look at the collective ALL must wear a seatbelt (in most states) because overall we all benefit. sure an individual might not.THIS is the point of disagreement
The Constitution argument is fluff, for arguments sake lets say it said “an unregulated gun toting populace being fun, the right of each individual to bear any arm wherever and whenever he wants shall not be infringed ”
That still wouldnt answer the OP here was his question “I am genuinely confused by Americans who have tried to explain why gun control is not the correct response to hundreds of mass shootings a year”
Answering oh the constition,… doesn’t address his question, so change it. And if not why not?Your reason is twofold
1) The cat is out of the bag, there are two many guns
2) Some indiviudals benefited#2 Is where we disagree (as I said in my first post)
#1 Might be another point of disagreement, I’m not yet sure if it is a real argument or notPS and 2021 had another 5% increase in murders. Pew and others list Floyd protests and subsequent decrease in policing as possible factors, “requiring more research”. So, this seems to be an argument that those who do not want to depend on fickle public to fund police, have a right to protect themselves.
ubiq,
you are also offering a confused picture: mass shootings call a lot of attention and understandingly horrify people, but most murders in USA are not in mass shootings. There is a definite increase in the last 10 years, but it is still median number is 40 people per year (out of 15-20 thousand murders per year). These numbers are from Statista. Looked up some partisan anti-gun source and their numbers are slightyl higher: 100 people per year are killed in mass murders. Wiki listing seem to better fit the first source.So, if you care, murderes in 2020 increased dramatically – from 15 to 20K, highest percentage increase in 100+ years.
“but most murders in USA are not in mass shootings.”
True. Though, and this may surprise you, all murders are bad. SO the argument sure there is more murder but they aren’t mass shootings, is one that puzzles me.
Secondly fear not the US has more mass shootings than France too. So even if we said well murder isnt bad only mass shootings are (again, not clear why we’d say that) You’d still be more likely to lose your head in a US mass shooting than in a French one
ubiq > Can you think of any other such example, where you oppose a law being enacted because people wont listen ? (we do find this by Chazal lehavdil)
yes, a constitutional amendment can be passed to overrule any court decision about constitutionality. Or court can be packed – the reason it is rarely done is because it is not popular. Or a law can be passed that takes court jurisdiction away in specific areas.
ubiq > No complaining no trying to change the system? If you don’t like it leave!
you are right. I was just giving you etza tova to achieve your mental balance without fighting a (hopefully) impossible fight. Maybe this is why Canada is right here as a place where loyalists could always move.
And you are very myopic in your defense of France – even less than 100 years ago, they were occupied. Not fully their fault that they are in Europe, of course. Maybe this gemora applies to US: it is better to live in a new city than in an old one, as it has less sins accumulated.
ubiq > murders v mass murders
I agree that all murders are bad, of course, So, then, one should discuss statistics of those and what are possible reasons behind it and not substitute it with discussion of mass murders however horrific they are. As statistics show that we had 40% increase in just 2 years _possibly_ due to decrease in policing, then anyone who really cares should first restore the policing and save 40% of victims while you are looking at your longer-term plans.
AAQ
“yes,,,,”
That in no way answered my question.My question to Mencth was as follows:
One of his arguments why banning guns was a bad idea, is that people won’t listen.
My question was, Is there any other law that he opposes passing becasue people won’t listen? for example would he oppose banning abortion becasue people won’t listen (obviously not all people will)
The words you typed do not (as far as I understand) answer this“even less than 100 years ago, they were occupied”
as mentioned that was in spite of an army more armed than even the most liberal and expansive interpretation of the second amendment would allow.“So, then, one should discuss statistics of those and what are possible reasons behind it”
Sure! ITs becasue we have more guns.
More guns = more murder
This is obvious and is born out by data. ITs true fo states its true for countires (developed countries anyway)
see for example Harvard Injury Control Research Center > Firearm research > Homicide for a bunch of studies“I was just giving you etza tova to achieve your mental balance without fighting a (hopefully) impossible fight.”
not to worry.
balanced quite fine.
I enjoy these discussions its just hock for hock sakeI find it funny when Someone argues that he opposes a tyrannical government, yet if you don’t like his ideas you should leave.
You (almost) can’t make this upIt doesn’t get me upset, just the opposite its amusing
Again, I am not pushing you out! Re people not listening, a simple answer is federalism where people are free to make laws in their states according to the local opinion, unless you are breaking some guardrails. You can’t say that there will be no freedom without a particular amendment, I am just urging some conservatism when arguing with historical success. If you think that there are good ways to limit violence do that at state level and hopefully others will follow. Yes, guns can be transported between states, but I would think that if Chicago would have a solution, we would notice that the only guns there are from Texas
“I am just urging some conservatism when arguing with historical success”
The opposite is true
Heller was the first time The court interpreted the second amendment as applying to an indivudal.
That is > 200 years after it was written. At the time it was written states had laws regulating the ownership, use and storage of firearms. (Thomas cites some of these in Bruen but dismisses them as being exceptions and irrelevant)
Historically the second amendment was quite regulated (“well regulated” if you will)This interpretation that it applied to individuals was “long-lost” (thats a quote) and uncovered in the past few decades. See the 1982 SEnate report “THe Right to Keep and Bear arms”
But this is all besides the point. Since it isnt really the “historical success” nor “conservatism” that you support. It’s not like now that I’ve pointed out that Heller was a recent decision in terms of US history you will suddenly change your mind , and say oh forget it lets go back to a more conservative interpretation, don’t argue with “historical success”. becasue that was never your real argument.
it isnt really about history just like it isnt about the constitution it is about, as I said from the get go favoring the individual over the collectiveTo be clear you might be right, that the indivdual’s rights trumps the collective. But THAT is the point of disagreement.
You talk about traveling between States as if it is some long arduous journey full of obstacles and peril. You don’t need to go to Texas to get guns to Chicago (though if you did I’m not sure how those guns would be noticed) Indiana has very loose gun laws, doesn’t require universal background checks, no waiting period. Gary Indiana is less than an hour away fro Chicago (depending on traffic)
“Re people not listening, a simple answer is…”
I’m not sure if there is a typo. There was no answer to the question there.
Ubiq,
I am not insisting on “no limits” position, just pointing that tradition of mass ownership is very American and part of the constitution. Heller is 2008, gun ownership was 45% of households in 1973 and declined now to 30%, so Heller did not increase actual ownership at all.As to specific restriction, unfortunately everything is viewed as partisan, so even you’ll propose “reasonable” measures, the other side will see it as an attack and fight back. You need peshara, where each side gains something while the country moves to a safer/better place. Supposedly, that is what senators are doing (or should be).
“I am not insisting on “no limits” position”
shlom al yisroel!
“unfortunately everything is viewed as partisan, so even you’ll propose “reasonable” measures, the other side will see it as an attack and fight back.”
YES! NAILED it!
The word you are looking for that describes a group that opposes “reasonable” measures is unreasonable
The reason I brought up Heller, was just to show that the constitution argument is fluff. I understand why people like guns, I get it completely.
Thought experiment:
Say we find the minutes as the the 2nd amendment was written:
“Ok so we agree that states need a milita”
“Yes, very important”
“What if someone thinks it applies to individuals”
“Easy lets write “A milita being necessary…” Like this nobody could possibly think it applied to non-militia members”
“Ok but still a bit risky, we can’t have a free for all militia with who knows who has weapons”
“Ok lets make sure it is “regulated””
“I don’t know guns can be dangerous, I’m not sure a little regulation is enough”
“Ok lets make it “well regulated””
“Ok so it is settled the amendment protects a milita only, not individuals”
“Yes though make sure to write “well regulated militia””
[all in unison] ” Agreed! Huzzah”
“On lets make sure we all sign these minutes and clip it to the bill of rights that way it will never get lost and can be consulted on in the future should some group wonders why we included that phrase”Would your view on guns change at all?
My guess is no (correct me if I’m wrong)
You would argue that even if not in the constitution it is an American tradition, people have the right to defend themselves, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun… (again correct me if I’m wrong)THAT is my point. I’m not trying to convince you that more gun control is necessary. I’m trying to show that the reason those who support guns do so has nothing to do with the constitution, without the constituion you’d have the same view. So forget the fluff arguments and stick to real ones
Ubiq, I am not a legal scholar. I understand that there are sources that recount history as you say and it sounds reasonable, but Heller claims opposite. I am not planning to go in details over Scalia’s arguments and see where you disagree, but maybe you want to. Heller brings the summary on page 1 with page references. Underscores are mine:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an __individual__ right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an _individual_ right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to __deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right___ of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by ___analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions____ that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment ___proposals____ that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from _immediately__ after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
People who want to ban guns have faith in the government to not abuse their authority and to protect them from bad actors (who will inevitably possess smuggled guns despite any law written on a piece of paper). People who don’t want to ban guns think the first group of people are ignorant of the rich world history of corruption amongst the ruling class (see unconstitutional blue state covid lockdowns for recent example) and failure of police to save the day (“when seconds count, police are minutes away.” Also, see lazy Uvalde police response.) Freedom has a price that some are too cowardly to pay.
ubiq > The reason I brought up Heller, was just to show that the constitution argument is fluff.
Why talk hypothetical minutes? There are actual documents. I quoted Reb Scalia from Heller that it is not fluff. Others strongly disagree, but I saw them stating rather than proving their position. If you are so interested, just go through the documents he is citing and let us know what is there and what you think.
I agree with Curiosity summing up positions. Also, note US history, where you had people living in low density areas (there were 3 mln people in revolutionary US) with limited government
presence, especially on frontier where a lot of development was happening. Compare this with living in London or suburbs with grass being cut daily for last several hundred years.“There are actual documents. ”
Yes, but they all support my point.
” that it is not fluff.”
Scalia, is not Fluff but blaming your view on him is.
Even if we do Accept Heller, my point stands
Heller can be overturned by another court or by a constituional amendment.“If you are so interested, just go through the documents he is citing and let us know what is there and what you think.”
I have!
Its fascinating
But it doesn’t matter what I think, the court gets to decide, not me.
I am not questioning what the law is today July 2022. That is clear. Sure you can selectively read the constition and history to get any result you want. No questionI am responding to the OP’s question “why gun control is not the correct response to hundreds of mass shootings a year”
The answer is NOT because of the second amendment
“I agree with Curiosity summing up positions.
Of course you do. but he is largely making fluff arguments (there is a hint of the correct answer in there but covered by fluff)The rogue govt argument is bunk.
In almost 250 years of US history there have been many armed uprisings. Do you support any of them? Whiskey rebellion? NY draft riots? civil war? for that matter, the BLM riots in 2020 (though arguably not armed per se, they certainly caused damage) which of those exercised their constitutional right to fight tyranny ?
how does this work? anybody who decides they dont want to pay taxes defend their property with arms?He mentioned “see unconstitutional blue state covid lockdowns for recent example)” Ok lets follow this through, Say my store was forced to close “unconstionaly”, do you support my taking up arms and opening fire on any agents trying to fine me, shut me down?
I’ll assume you don’t (correct me if I’m wrong) in which case the argument, well we need guns to protect us from govt shutting stores during a pandemic is nonsense.
sure it feels good to say and sounds like it makes sense, but if you think aboiut it it just doesnt hold upfurthermore to properly fight the US army we’d need grenades, tanks Jets, anti air craft guns. Unless he second amendment defines my right to bear those arms, there is not much good my small arms (not even automatic) will do
“Why talk hypothetical minutes?”
Because it is a useful way t o make my point .
We’ve come so far
do you mind answering the questionWould your view on guns change at all if we uncovered those imaginary minutes ?
Then you don’t know RECENT History.
In the last 100 years, 120 MILLION people were murdered by THEIR GOVERNMENT,
after the Government FIRST disarmed the people. It happened in:Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Turkey….
Anyone who supports Gun Control is Enabling Mass Murder by Government!
We are in much greater danger of being murdered by our own government – the Democrat Socialists, then in a mass shooting!
In the last 100 years, 120 MILLION people were murdered by their own government, after
the government first DISARMED the public:Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, N Korea, Cambodia, Turkey…
It is madness to allow the Government to disarm the people! Learn from history!
120 MILLION Murdered by their own Government – AFTER the Government FIRST DISARMED
the People:Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, N Korea, Cambodia, Turkey
Learn from history. NEVER let Government Disarm the People!
@doomsday, you sure take your profile name seriously, lol!
If you are seriously worried about all Jews being murdered by the government (חס ושלום, הי’ לא תהי’, לא תקום פעמים צרה, אל תפתח פה לשטן, וכו’ וכו) – give up your gun and start praying. G-d is the only one who can protect you, no weapon will protect you from the US military (על דרך הטבע).
Nu, start davening for Moshiach!
Menachem
That’s exactly what the Maccabees did.
Gave up their weapons and davened.
Certainly our history is not replete with examples of our small armed ragtag army fighting (and winning) against superior governmental forces.R Berel Wein clarifies position on fighting v davening (when discussing BM2 wars) – we support defensive wars, but not solving social and personal issues by war
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.