Today at the gun shop:

[RZehr]

I think outlawing guns would certainly, over time, decrease gun violence and accidents in this country. Probably take quite a few years to see any impact, given the vast quantity everywhere.
But so far, this country values guns as a protection against government tyranny higher than the deaths. The deaths are the “subscription” price to keep the status quo.
It speaks to the values of individualism, freedom, autonomy, & distrust of government in this country.

[Ken]

I think outlawing guns would certainly, over time, decrease gun violence and accidents in this country. Probably take quite a few years to see any impact, given the vast quantity everywhere.
But so far, this country values guns as a protection against government tyranny higher than the deaths. The deaths are the “subscription” price to keep the status quo.
It speaks to the values of individualism, freedom, autonomy, & distrust of government in this country.

I don't disagree with you. But no one who has ever seen a modern armored column or infantry battalion in operation would ever think that owning an AR or Glock would ever even slow down any government, especially one bent on "tyranny" Weapons are everywhere in the 3rd world and they don't bring safety or prevent government tyranny in the slightest. To the contrary. All that happens if you fire on a military formation is that they keep bringing bigger and bigger weapons to bear on your location until all that is left is a smoldering crater in the ground. Small arms fire is nothing but a minor nuisance for modern military units.

You do realize that one reason we have the 2nd Amendment language regarding militias and right to bear arms wasn't to protect some fantasy of colonial minutemen who could stand up against the red coats or other government tyranny. The language was insisted on by southern politicians who wanted to preserve the right of southern states to raise local militias to put down slave revolts. The whole purpose of southern militias was to hunt runaway slaves and prevent slave revolts. So the point of the second amendment militias, at least in part, was to enforce tyranny (slavery) not protect against it. Blacks or Indians or basically anyone not white certainly didn't have the "right to bear arms" in late 18th Century America.

The other reason for militias was to eliminate the need for a standing army. Northern politicians like Hamilton thought that armed citizen militias would eliminate the need for standing armies which posed considerable cost and were feared as an instrument of tyranny. It had little to do with individual rights to bear arms. The industrial revolution put a quick end to the notion of civilian militia armies. An AR-15 isn't much use against an F-15.

[temporal1]

I think outlawing guns would certainly, over time, decrease gun violence and accidents in this country.
Probably take quite a few years to see any impact, given the vast quantity everywhere.
But so far, this country values guns as a protection against government tyranny higher than the deaths.
The deaths are the “subscription” price to keep the status quo.
It speaks to the values of individualism, freedom, autonomy, & distrust of government in this country.

i have no love of guns.
when young, i fantasized about all guns being removed from everywhere+everyone.
then i realized men’s hearts are the problem.
and, the vast majority of gun owners, guns, weapons, including police and military, never harm man nor beast.

Switzerland has lots of guns
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/ ... th-from-US

motor vehicles are another obvious “subscription” price trade off.
as are smartphones+driving. no “learner’s permit” or min age required for smartphones/texting, et al.

“A new Vermont bill would make it illegal for anyone under 21 to use a cellphone, punishable by up to a year in prison”
https://www.businessinsider.com/vermont ... -21-2020-1

(there are previous threads that cover these questions pretty thoroughly.)

i have never owned a gun, have no plans to.
i much prefer seeking EFFECTIVE mitigation of gun and other violence through methods that will work,
not through increased “force of the sword” laws - - - waged against legal law-abiding citizens.

Mark Robinson / I AM THE MAJORITY

[Robert]

But no one who has ever seen a modern armored column or infantry battalion in operation would ever think that owning an AR or Glock would ever even slow down any government, especially one bent on "tyranny"

Have you missed the past 3 wars? Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly how they have been fought.

The issue is there is a constitutional amendment giving the rights to citizens. If it is wrong, it has to be modified or removed just like what was done with prohibition. We can't just change things because we don't like them without going through the right process to do so.

Don't forget that at the time of the Bill of Rights being drafted, some had their own battleships. They gave them the right to own them too.

It is a basic concept that is presented in the Bill of Rights. The individual is responsible for their actions. We do not have thought police. Well, not until Covid. What is illegal is committing the crime, not owning property. Weapons are property. Cars are property. More die every year by cars, yet there is little push to outlaw them. They may not be built as weapons of harm, but they have sure been used that way.

[RZehr]

I think outlawing guns would certainly, over time, decrease gun violence and accidents in this country. Probably take quite a few years to see any impact, given the vast quantity everywhere.
But so far, this country values guns as a protection against government tyranny higher than the deaths. The deaths are the “subscription” price to keep the status quo.
It speaks to the values of individualism, freedom, autonomy, & distrust of government in this country.

I don't disagree with you. But no one who has ever seen a modern armored column or infantry battalion in operation would ever think that owning an AR or Glock would ever even slow down any government, especially one bent on "tyranny" Weapons are everywhere in the 3rd world and they don't bring safety or prevent government tyranny in the slightest. To the contrary. All that happens if you fire on a military formation is that they keep bringing bigger and bigger weapons to bear on your location until all that is left is a smoldering crater in the ground. Small arms fire is nothing but a minor nuisance for modern military units.

If the population was actually being repressed aggressively, to the point that the population turned against the government, small arms would be a key part along with societal support in overthrowing the government. No indigenous government has ever been overthrown without small arms, have they? I say indigenous because of Gandhi & the British.

You do realize that one reason we have the 2nd Amendment language regarding militias and right to bear arms wasn't to protect some fantasy of colonial minutemen who could stand up against the red coats or other government tyranny. The language was insisted on by southern politicians who wanted to preserve the right of southern states to raise local militias to put down slave revolts. The whole purpose of southern militias was to hunt runaway slaves and prevent slave revolts. So the point of the second amendment militias, at least in part, was to enforce tyranny (slavery) not protect against it. Blacks or Indians or basically anyone not white certainly didn't have the "right to bear arms" in late 18th Century America.

No, I don't realize that. I think it was specifically because of red coats and government tyranny. And it wasn't some fantasy, they actually did stand up the the red coats (with French & Hessian help). It actually says right in the 2nd Amendment that the militia was "necessary to the security of a free State". I suppose slave revolts would threaten their "free State" so to speak, but at the time slavery wasn't in any danger of being canceled. The matter at hand was government.

The other reason for militias was to eliminate the need for a standing army. Northern politicians like Hamilton thought that armed citizen militias would eliminate the need for standing armies which posed considerable cost and were feared as an instrument of tyranny. It had little to do with individual rights to bear arms. The industrial revolution put a quick end to the notion of civilian militia armies. An AR-15 isn't much use against an F-15.

I can see this making sense.

[temporal1]

But no one who has ever seen a modern armored column or infantry battalion in operation would ever think that owning an AR or Glock would ever even slow down any government, especially one bent on "tyranny"

Have you missed the past 3 wars? Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly how they have been fought.

The issue is there is a constitutional amendment giving the rights to citizens. If it is wrong, it has to be modified or removed just like what was done with prohibition. We can't just change things because we don't like them without going through the right process to do so.

Don't forget that at the time of the Bill of Rights being drafted, some had their own battleships.
They gave them the right to own them too.

It is a basic concept that is presented in the Bill of Rights. The individual is responsible for their actions.
We do not have thought police. Well, not until Covid.

What is illegal is committing the crime, not owning property.
Weapons are property. Cars are property. More die every year by cars, yet there is little push to outlaw them.
They may not be built as weapons of harm, but they have sure been used that way.

i wish you were teaching Civics teachers all across the U.S.

one thing,
i believe the thought police of today have been built on decades of small steps to get here.
nothing that happened as of 2020 happened instantly: creeping incrementalism.

[Ken]

If the population was actually being repressed aggressively, to the point that the population turned against the government, small arms would be a key part along with societal support in overthrowing the government. No indigenous government has ever been overthrown without small arms, have they? I say indigenous because of Gandhi & the British.

What would you consider to be the last successful indigenous revolution or civil war? There have been dozens of them every decade but how many were successful? Vietnam? That was a civil war not an indigenous revolution. North Vietnam had conventional armies with artillery, MIGs, anti-aircraft missiles, tanks, and and endless supply of heavy weaponry from the Soviet Union. In fact, North Vietnam had one of the largest standing armies in the world at that time. Maybe the Sandinistas in Nicaragua? That was in 1979 over 40 years ago.

The world's trouble spots have been dripping in weapons for decades. From the jungles of Colombia to Syria to Yemen to Afghanistan to a dozen or more countries in Africa. Crisis and violence often lingers on for decades. But how many have been successful. Especially fighting against a functional government? I worked in Central America in the late 1980s when the US was pouring weapons into the region in support of revolutionaries in Nicaragua and governments in Guatemala and El Salvador. Much of it wound up in the hands of criminal gangs via the black market. None of it was successful or led to any kind of free and stable result. The Central American refugee waves that we are seeing today is, in part, due to this.

I'm always surprised to see so much sentiment in favor of weapons, armed insurrection, and violence in an Anabaptist-leaning forum. What happened to Isaiah 2:4: "And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

[temporal1]

.. I'm always surprised to see so much sentiment in favor of weapons, armed insurrection, and violence in an Anabaptist-leaning forum. What happened to Isaiah 2:4: "And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

i’m saddened at numbers of Christians clamoring to use gov “force of the sword” to beat swords into plowshares.
not at all cognizant of what they’re doing. “not i!”

i love Isaiah 2:4. certainly, “He shall judge.” the day to both long for and respectfully fear.

[Ken]

.. I'm always surprised to see so much sentiment in favor of weapons, armed insurrection, and violence in an Anabaptist-leaning forum. What happened to Isaiah 2:4: "And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

i’m saddened at numbers of Christians clamoring to use gov “force of the sword” to beat swords into plowshares.
not at all cognizant of what they’re doing. “not i!”

i love Isaiah 2:4. certainly, “He shall judge.” the day to both long for and respectfully fear.

Don't be ridiculous. We are talking about common sense gun regulations passed by democratically elected legislatures that are no different from any other law in a civilized country. And which largely if not entirely address sales of new firearms, not confiscation of existing ones. Most civilized people are law abiding. And yes, those who violently resist or violate the law can be met with force whether we are talking about drug smugglers, ANTIFA rioters, bank robbers, or dealers in illegal weaponry. Even speeders can get taken out by force as you would discover if you drove at 100 mph through a populated city and refused to stop for the police. Resist arrest for any crime at all and you are likely to be met with force. None of that is unique to gun laws in any way.

You sound like the most radical "defund the police" BLM protester. Are you objecting to all use of force by the police? Or are you only "saddened" when they enforce gun laws?

[temporal1]

.. I'm always surprised to see so much sentiment in favor of weapons, armed insurrection, and violence in an Anabaptist-leaning forum. What happened to Isaiah 2:4: "And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

i’m saddened at numbers of Christians clamoring to use gov “force of the sword” to beat swords into plowshares.
not at all cognizant of what they’re doing. “not i!”

i love Isaiah 2:4. certainly, “He shall judge.” the day to both long for and respectfully fear.

Don't be ridiculous. We are talking about common sense gun regulations passed by democratically elected legislatures that are no different from any other law in a civilized country. And which largely if not entirely address sales of new firearms, not confiscation of existing ones. Most civilized people are law abiding. And yes, those who violently resist or violate the law can be met with force whether we are talking about drug smugglers, ANTIFA rioters, bank robbers, or dealers in illegal weaponry. Even speeders can get taken out by force as you would discover if you drove at 100 mph through a populated city and refused to stop for the police. Resist arrest for any crime at all and you are likely to be met with force. None of that is unique to gun laws in any way.

You sound like the most radical "defund the police" BLM protester. Are you objecting to all use of force by the police? Or are you only "saddened" when they enforce gun laws?

you have no regard for me, you describe personal amusement at those on this forum who see things differently from you. how nice for you. this is your right. do enjoy yourself.

i defer to Mark Robinson, Robert, Thomas Sowell, and many many others who dare to step away from the prevailing script.

for myself and my family, for everyone on this forum, and for most overall, violent physical harm or violent death is much more likely to come from misuse of smartphones while driving, bicycling, walking, etc., than gun violence. as Robert briefly noted above, there are several causes of death that outnumber gun violence. crickets.

i believe the Vermont representative that proposed age requirements for smartphone use was on a good path - similar to requirements for motor vehicles. typically, i’m not for increased laws like this, but this seems indicated. it deserves dialogue. deaths are not the only reason to consider min age requirements and training for smartphones. i’m sorry the Vermont rep has a weak stand on his own proposal, but not surprised. he must choose his battles.

who does not know of someone harmed/killed due to distracted driving by texting/cellphones?
thankfully, many do not personally know anyone killed by gun violence.

some know many - focus on those in problem locations.
restricting/removing all legally owned firearms in (example) Switzerland (or anywhere) will NOT solve Chicago’s illegally owned gun violence. criminals laugh at laws. Chicago HAS restrictive gun laws. laws only impact the law abiding.

Mark Robinson tells the tale. in about 4 min. he has a compelling credible testimony.

however, smartphones are everywhere, victims are everywhere.
most smartphone users ARE generally law-abiding,and would respect ownership laws.**
smartphone injuries+deaths are not intentional. they occur due to ignorance and negligence. some restrictions could be helpful for prevention.

in the world, i routinely see babies chewing and slobbering on smartphones. they are not viewed as the potential instruments of violent death they are.

**not to suggest smartphone restrictions would be wanted. nope. very unwanted.
As Mark Robinson describes, for the law-abiding, wanting versus respecting laws are 2 very different matters.
criminals do as they please.