Yping88 and 牧马人 on 2nd amendment

yping88

@牧马人

Background: As stated in the USA's constitution in 1791, Bill of Rights protects citizen's freedom to own and bear firearms. However, the supreme court ruled that the citizens here were referred to those who only use firearms for self-defense. Those felons or mentally ill individuals were not considered trustworthy to own and bear firearms.

Over the years, several states and the supreme court had ratified this amendment regarding the gun right and control. In 1876, Supreme Court ruled again that "the right to bear guns is not granted by institution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"...Most recently, in 2008, Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun at home in self-defense.

As well known that the debate on gun right and gun control in the States has never come to a very convincing point due to American's enjoyment of freedom and gun violence.

Folks, here in Australia, we are relatively safely sheltered from the gun violence thanks to Howard government's strict restriction and regulation on the firearms ownership since Port Arthur's massacre in 1996, in which 35 people lost their lives due to one evil gunner. So, as the by-standers, we would like to share where we stand on gun right and gun control.

Please feel free to weigh in any time you feel like! Your perspective will be very much appreciated!

妮南

牧马人

Bring it on

yping88

I had to throw in a little background first, then, if you don't mind, please just repost our previous posts here, maybe start with the youtube video of yours first!

牧马人

That #walkaway video wasn't really about 2nd Amendment. So let's start from this one.

牧马人

2nd Amendment is a super super interesting topic. People will argue forever and ever but guess what there will be never overall consensus.

The gun violent casualties is over 30,000 each year. Sounds like a bloody war zone doesn't it? i understand many people see the number and conclusion is almost a nobrainer, get rid of all the guns the meaningless loss of lives will be spared. I used to think that way but not anymore. Believe me it's not that simple.

This issue is very complex. We have to probe it in the context of history. The origin of the gun rights in the US was not even about rights. Let's be real there is no such thing as god given rights in the any holy book saying 'Let men have their guns'. it's out of necessity. American history is unique. Unlike any other old fashion empire is Eurasia continent or any late nation state in Europe America was built on a virgin land purely by the settlers. They needed guns for EVERYTHING. If there were no guns for individuals the US we know wouldn't even exist.

The necessity lasted for over 100 yrs and by then it had already become a right deeply embedded in the culture. One may question the necessity no longer exists and the 2nd Amendment shall be obsolete. Well, just think about it who can de-arm the US? If there were someone it must be the government. BUT to get this job done get 300 million guns confiscated it must be an authoritarian regime which is not possible.

On the other hand is the necessity really gone? Not really. Not like China, the US has small government. You can't have a police state with such a government and such a system. You won't have surveillance cameras all over the place to maintain law and order. You won't have police patrolling around every corner of the city, impossible. But the racial and social complexity within US is similar as China and in some aspects even worse.

So just think about this. If you live in the US and all the guns are gone (in fact bad guys always can find guns) would you really feel safer? I bet you wouldn't. You wouldn't even stand a chance if any attack occurs. I wouldn't go into the details what or who makes you feel unsafe. If you live in the west suburbs of Melbourne or Luton in London you would know.

Myost Europeans couldn't understand Americans' love for guns simply because those countries used to be nation states. The Europeans used over a millennium to kill each other to sort out the mess and got the borders finalized and got the language, culture, way of thinking unified within borders and since then they never had the complexity the US have. But now things have changed. I believe more and more people want their 2nd amendment badly. That's not gonna happen. Totalitarian regime will come back. Let's see.

yping88

Thank You, @牧马人

Almost impeccable for anyone to pick a bone with your arguments!

But, let me have another read tonight after work!

I am currently on break for my 12 hour shift, you know about nursing life!

Serin

I'm cynical enough to see (in the US) gun control never a debate around 2nd Amendament any more, but a bargaining chip between arms dealers and pollies. Therefore I'm somewhat grateful that the max damage a lobbyist can do here in oz is to oust a PM.

牧马人

Serin 发表于 1-10-2018 11:26
I'm cynical enough to see (in the US) gun control never a debate around 2nd Amendament any more, but ...

Welcome to join this.
Well the lobbyists or NRA are merely the representatives. The scope and the rigidity of the power behind it are far more profound than most of the outsiders can imagine. Especially if we only look it cynically then lobbyists are just the biggest evil doers who take the most of the responsibilities in this the gun lovers are nothing but a bunch of redneck fuckwits who happened to be the sidekicks for the evil doers. The only reason for NRA to defend 2nd Amendment is about money and for gun lovers is about ‘I love my gun so F-off’. Is it really that simple?

yping88

@Serin @牧马人

Serin

牧马人 发表于 1-10-2018 12:01
Welcome to join this.
Well the lobbyists or NRA are merely the representatives. The scope and the ...

I'd rather back off from something more profound as it makes my brain hurt.;) But joke aside, I honestly can't tell which system is superior. The status quo in the US is the gun right has been so well established that there is no way back. The right comes at a price and the real debate here is whether the price is justified enough.

At least Australia has not gone that far in terms of gun right, which gives the government more headroom to make future policies. There is always a chance, however slim it may seems, that the government will degenerate into tyranny and guns will arguably be more effective for people to defend themselves, but we'd rather prevent that from happening than anticipate it.

牧马人

The gun rights issue is complex. The most asked questions like ‘Shall we get rid of the guns to save innocent lives?’ ‘Shall we stop the NRA from lobbying so we can control the guns to save innocent lives?’ are absolutely meaningless. Again, to study such a complex issue we have to put it in the context of history and in perspectives of American social texture. Then we can start to ask valid questions and try to seek answers for them.

Firstly like the question raised in Tucker Carlson Tonight, who are gonna take the guns away from the owners and how? I believe nobody would expect all the owners will voluntarily hand over their weapons and hang on the faith of the police force for their safety so somebody must do it and the somebody must be the government. Think about this the government have to confiscate hundreds of million guns from the owners, law abiding citizens, can we expect this go peacefully? No. We are looking at a nationwide revolution overnight. This small government can’t do it. Full stop.

If there were such a government to get this job done then this very government would be so powerful that it also be capable of maintaining law and order in the US. Sounds nice? But such a government is no longer small. We are looking at something like the one in China. Then it turns to single choice question, do you want to bear the cost of gun violence casualty and keep a small government or you would rather have a totalitarian regime? I believe the majority of Americans even including the gun control advocates would choose the former one. A lot of people don’t understand how the freedom can be associated with gun rights in the US. The answer lies in here.

This only explains the technical unfeasibility. To be continued in regards to the necessity of gun rights.

牧马人

OK. Necessity.

There is widely a pessimistic opinion that the gun rights can not be revoked simply because it’s gone too far it’s been embedded too deeply in culture, in politics, in business so there is no way back. Well it’s true. But to think it’s an unnecessary evil that America is stuck with is far from the reality. In fact Americans need guns today in a different way from before but the necessity is no much different. In the old days the Americans use guns to explore and conquer the new continent. Today they need guns to maintain the balance of their society and it’s probably the only country that way. Why? The answer lies in the context of history and the social texture.

American history is unique. It has the complexity of an old fashion cross-culture, cross-race, cross-regional empire yet still have a robust democracy and a small government. It’s so-called a melting pot but on a macro level there are still clear lines between difference races and cultures. Then how do you keep the balance, maintain peace and order with such complexity? There is an old school answer, totalitarianism. No matter it’s with monarchs or dictators. China is one good example. Just imagine what Xinjiang would be like if it were a small government over there. Next Syria or Iraq, guaranteed. Russia is even a better example. The balance was broken as soon as the USSR collapsed. Then a decade later the Russians realised they have to get another Stalin back to keep from further division.

But America is different. For a bunch of pioneers on a virgin land with faith for freedom totalitarianism is w/o question a NOGO. Then how? The secret lies in the gun rights. A tough minded main stream group with guns in their hands to maintain the foundation of the culture and the political system to keep from being taken over. Meanwhile minorities with guns in their hands to ensure equality, to keep away from persecution and the worst case, genocide. Hence the balance. The cost to break it is unbearable for any side. Not convinced? OK let’s go to the micro level.

牧马人

Though the balance of the society might be too abstract the necessity for gun rights on the micro level is very tangible. It still goes back to the macro level. The gap of income of different people and the racial composition make the US the country that has the highest potential for crimes in the western world. The guns indeed are the tools for crimes in many cases but does that leads to the conclusion if would be helpful to reduce the crime rates simply by taking the guns away? It would be naive to think yes.

No matter how many guns are out there, hundreds of millions or nil, criminals are still criminals. With or without guns they would still do the same, just with different tools. Less destructive for sure which is a pro but what is the con? Keyword here is COST OF RISK. This is the fundamental change that disarming will bring. In a society where everyone may have a gun in his hand the tool for criminal is lethal but so is the tool of the defender. The cost of crime could be life! In a gun-free society it's difficult to quantify if but for sure the cost of risk is significantly reduced. So let's do the maths. The gain of crime still stays the same, winner takes all and the cost of risk is lowered then what would happen? If you think the crime problem in the US is too bad that we need to take guns away then wake up it only does the opposite.

yping88

Thank you, @牧马人 @Serin for throwing your weight in on this ever-lasting issue in America and other societies.

I will spend sometime to take myself up to speed on this topic!  

yping88

牧马人 发表于 1-10-2018 08:52
2nd Amendment is a super super interesting topic. People will argue forever and ever but guess what  ...

Of course, all citizens of sound mind can be armed out of safety reason as per the second amendment, given the unique and particular historic context in the States!

However, my big question is who is to decide whether a potential gun-owner is psychologically healthy and sound to be trusted with the guns? The gun-right lobbyists and gun-control advocates have been always seemed to be on the same page regarding the background checks on those who are to own a gun. Question is who conducts the checks and how!

Other issue that baffles me is how come a person needs the powerful assault-rifles or high-capacity magazines to ensure their safety? For a home invasion or a personal attack, how many attackers would have to be there to launch the attack to justify the machine-gun? Besides, in which gun-violence did we see the victims were able to combat their attackers with a heavy machine-gun?

So, I can never be convinced enough to believe that the gun-right should grant people the privilege to own the high-capacity magazines!

yping88

牧马人 发表于 1-10-2018 08:52
2nd Amendment is a super super interesting topic. People will argue forever and ever but guess what  ...

I absolutely realized that how Australia confiscated the weapons from their owners since Port Arthur Massacre can not be universally applicable to every society given their own respective social background. But, gun-control success in Australia definitely provokes US' gun-control debate and sets a benchmark for them to match against, doesn't it?

yping88

Serin 发表于 1-10-2018 11:26
I'm cynical enough to see (in the US) gun control never a debate around 2nd Amendament any more, but ...

The bargain chip is so outrageously expensive that it costs NRA about 419 million dollars to support the gun-right lobbyists and ads in 2016 election, therefore, it will cost the government more than that amount of integrity and dignity (in money's value) to heel and be dictated by the NRA as far as the gun-right appeal is concerned. It will cost those of Americans far, far more than those figures to gain a sense of security, which is most of time not even available when they really need it. Finally, it costs 30,000 innocent lives a year and leaves 30,000 forever grieving families to come to terms with the fact that 30,000 their loved ones lost their home-coming right just because some sick bastards enjoyed the right that 2nd amendment has granted them!

And, I can ever understand this equation!

By the way, love your humor on the OZ lobbyist's achievement---To oust a PM. Hahaha

yping88

牧马人 发表于 1-10-2018 12:01
Welcome to join this.
Well the lobbyists or NRA are merely the representatives. The scope and the ...

Impeccable arguments!

And I personally believe that maybe OZ's gun-control model could stand a perfect chance in America if NRA, Lobbyists and government become less thirsty for money and power!

牧马人

yping88 发表于 3-10-2018 19:29
Of course, all citizens of sound mind can be armed out of safety reason as per the second amendm ...

Now we are talking. As an engineer I'd love to get into the details.

Of course, all citizens of sound mind can be armed out of safety reason as per the second amendment, given the unique and particular historic context in the States!

Excellent! We are 100% on the same page in regards to the basic principles.

However, my big question is who is to decide whether a potential gun-owner is psychologically healthy and sound to be trusted with the guns? The gun-right lobbyists and gun-control advocates have been always seemed to be on the same page regarding the background checks on those who are to own a gun. Question is who conducts the checks and how!

Sorry I have to say I have no answer to this question and I don't think anybody does at this moment. The real problem is the majority of the people with psychological issues are not real psychos! So where to draw the line and how can you possibly manage this? One might have depression for 3 months and then turns OK. So deprive him of the rights to bear arms for 3 months and then return the gun back? That only encourage people not to do the psychological check.

Other issue that baffles me is how come a person needs the powerful assault-rifles or high-capacity magazines to ensure their safety? For a home invasion or a personal attack, how many attackers would have to be there to launch the attack to justify the machine-gun? Besides, in which gun-violence did we see the victims were able to combat their attackers with a heavy machine-gun?

Good question. How many attacker to justify machine gun? Well doesn't have to be many! 3 gangsters breaking in your house will make it a de facto war zone. Believe me Ma'am. You would die for a AR15 or MP5 if you were in that situation because that's your best chance to survive. If assault rifles with high capacity magazines don't make a remarkable difference why do special police force need them to combat the criminals? Please bear in mind they are in a much better position than any regular defenders, with their bullet proof helmets and vests.

One the other hand it's a completely myth that the assault rifle is the key problem. Not even close. The majority of mass killings were carried out with pistols coz they are so easy to conceal. One can easily carry 5 hand guns and 10 magazines w/o drawing any attention. Well try to hang around with an AR15....

yping88

Serin 发表于 1-10-2018 14:40
I'd rather back off from something more profound as it makes my brain hurt.;) But joke aside, I ho ...

Amen to that!

Fingers crossed! Love the status quo that the majority of Australians are enjoying right now, love the days during which we don't have to arm ourselves, enjoy the sleep in which we don't have to leave the guns in the accessible space.

I really don't want to even fancy what my dreams would be like with a weapon near my finger tips!

牧马人

yping88 发表于 3-10-2018 20:13
Impeccable arguments!

And I personally believe that maybe OZ's gun-control model could stand a ...

Can't agree with you on this. The key here is not NRA or not even money. Australia and America are fundamentally different in regards to gun rights not only because of difference in history but also and more importantly because of difference in social texture.

Put it this way. If half of the OZ suburbs are like Werribie or even worse I'll join the social movement to call for 2nd Amendment for OZ. In that kind of society the rights to bear arms doesn't guarantee safety but it's the only thing that allow the law abiding civilians to stand a chance in front of criminals. W/o that rights ordinary people will have to live in fear 24/7 hence no dignity.

牧马人

yping88 发表于 3-10-2018 19:36
I absolutely realized that how Australia confiscated the weapons from their owners since Port Arth ...

I can't help wondering why France had a much more strict gun control than Australia yet still had the Charlie Hebdo shooting.

yping88

牧马人 发表于 1-10-2018 14:46
The gun rights issue is complex. The most asked questions like ‘Shall we get rid of the guns to sav ...

I doubt that the small governments find it impossible to confiscate the weapons from the gun-owners is because they would like to pay the 2nd amendment the very respect but because their thirst for money and power!

I guess it will be safe to say that 2nd amendment started in good faith, but got hijacked by those gun dealers and lobbyist who could literally print the money right out of those law-abiding citizens and rednecks' freedom (their own freedom to own a gun toppled other's right to live) to gun-right. Then, the government accepts the gun-dealer's political donation and become an enthusiastic representative group in the office. When it comes to the public appeal to tighten the gun law, the government will be the first party to play the 2nd amendment card and sit through 100+ years during which the firearm owning and bearing system has come to a well-established point that there is no (simple) way to turn back (As per @serin argument).

There are lots of small government in this world, but almost no any other government ends up in the same bed with the gun dealers and lobbyists as US government does!

yping88

牧马人 发表于 3-10-2018 21:01
I can't help wondering why France had a much more strict gun control than Australia yet still had  ...

This will lead us to embark on a totally different topic, my dear, which I am not quite sure could get us anywhere!

牧马人

yping88 发表于 3-10-2018 21:07
I doubt that the small government find it impossible to confiscate the weapons from the gun-owne ...

And no other small government has to deal with the income gap and racial composition like the US, well at least for 2 decades ago. London has a higher murder rate than NY. Stockholm has become the rape capital in the entire West. Gun rights is not a bad answer after all, especially in that kind of society

牧马人

yping88 发表于 3-10-2018 21:17
This will lead us to embark on a totally different topic, my dear, which I am not quite sure could ...

Not necessarily. I won't go any further than unspecific social texture theory. Definitely don't want to sound too politically incorrect.

yping88

牧马人 发表于 3-10-2018 21:17
And no other small government has to deal with the income gap and racial composition like the US,  ...

To be able to make sense out of this argument, I will have to demand you to lay out more context here!

While we are taking this to income gap and racial composition level, can you please explain that who kills who? Lower income group kill their counterparts, or vise versa? Minorities kill mainstream ethnic group, or the other way around?

If those mentioned countries don't share the same backgrounds, then I won't be very convinced that you can really draw a comparison among them!  

yping88

牧马人 发表于 3-10-2018 21:22
Not necessarily. I won't go any further than unspecific social texture theory. Definitely don't wa ...

Hahaha

Too politically incorrect=Too politically correct

牧马人

yping88 发表于 3-10-2018 21:35
To be able to make sense out of this argument, I will have to demand you to lay out more context h ...

No, you don't get to trick me.