All NRA and GOA members need to acknowledge the following facts . . .

[bellisarius]

That's literally the point of the second amendment!

And that is quite literally the point that so many miss.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not understanding why this is self-evident. I think that's a big part of our disconnect. I don't have a natural, instinctive trust in the military. I'm not being a smart-ass, and I feel like you think I am. I genuinely don't understand the difference here. Why is it ok for a government-backed military force to have something, but it's not ok for a civilian to have it if the civilian has proven themselves responsible through an agreed-upon series of regulations? Why are we supposed to trust that the military can handle these kinds of things?

Thanks for that considered logic. It's exactly what the Founders had in mind when they crafted the Second Amendment.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Dude when you can't get a gun control thread going in this place then it's time to consider maybe it's you.
Wait for the next mass shooting. It's all in the timing.

I guess now is the time.

 

[Kirkrapine]

That's literally the point of the second amendment!

No, it isn't. The "militia" (which, importantly, no longer exists, nor has any good reason to) was intended to be an arm of the state, not a countervailing popular force against the state. The Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia, and the 2nd Am. does not change that.

 

[Mikethick57]

Wow...that’s been a lot of reading. I am new to this forum but I like the topic.
Some of the points I’ve read here have me a little bothered, such as I was not aware that I only “need” two guns. Fact is, someone who is a firearms enthusiast does need more than one. Ask a person who plays golf why he takes so many clubs. Firearms have many different uses...you cannot take a deer rifle and go skeet shooting. Firearms are not all the same either. While shotguns have many uses, they are not interchangeable. Home defense shotgun are useless in hunting situations ( can not exceed the 3 round limit), most handgun calibers are not effective for hunting large game, they barely stop a human ( read up on the 1986 Miami-Dade FBI shootout). As gun people explore their sport, their interests get drawn in other directions. For many years I hunted deer, upland birds and was an avid trapshooter. I had no use for an AR platform rifle, didn’t want one, didn’t see the need. That is, until I shot one! I had to have it. Why? It was fun!

As for our society in general. First thing we as a society must accept is we cannot legislate evil from existence, with or without firearms, people will still kill. Recently I think in Beirut, I could be wrong but a woman attacked and killed children with a knife. Look at what is happening in London, England. London has no private gun ownership yet their murder rate has eclipsed New York City, how? Stabbings, with knives. Things are so bad that now knives are against the law in London, any type of implement or tool that could inflict injury is now subject to confiscation.
This isn’t to say we do nothing, it is to point out, we as a society need to do things differently but with so many individuals that make up a society, this proves difficult if not impossible.
How about we stop glamorizing violence? Hollywood attacks gun owners after every shooting but they still crank out violent movies one after the other, video games of the first person shooter type tend to desensitize people to act violently. For the keyboard tough guys out there who decry “I’ll shoot anyone come in my house” or my favorite “better judged by 12 than carried by 6”. You’re all full of it. Drawing a weapon in self defense is the last line of defense you should take. Preparing, being alert to circumstances, in other words don’t be a victim to crime. Walking the streets with your head down looking at your phone, might as well paint a bullseye on you, you’re what is termed a soft target. I have been through more than 150 hours of defensive handgun training, I train a lot because the skills will diminish, I have been through live fire simulation bays where when I turned a corner in my “house”, I had to shoot someone, it is not an easy decision. Firearm ownership is never to be taken lightly, it is a lot of work. Firearm training involves far more than going out with friends and having them show you what to do. I am a mixed race...1/2 white, 1/2 Hispanic. I identify with the white half more. Why? Because I was around my father and his brothers more than my mothers family. I have identified with the people I had greater exposure to. I’m a white guy, and a dad,and a firearm enthusiast. I do not compartmentalize my behaviors based on I’m a white guy I have to be this way or I’m with a bunch of gun people I have to act that way. I am true to myself, and I am the man my father raised, nothing more or less.
Many mass shootings are the result of mental illness, Parkland is a classic case. I will always cite Sandyhook as a case of irresponsible gun owner. Mom knew her son had mental issues yet showed him how to use a firearm, how to access them from her safe etc. irresponsible.
I’ve rambled one enough but I wanted to speak my piece on this subject.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, it isn't. The "militia" (which, importantly, no longer exists, nor has any good reason to) was intended to be an arm of the state, not a countervailing popular force against the state. The Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia, and the 2nd Am. does not change that.

The militia has nothing to do with 2A beyond being a stated reason for it.

It was never a prerequisite for the individual right itself.

And yea it is. Especially if you consider the opinions and thoughts of the people who wrote it.

You know, the radical libertarians who started a war over a 3% tax on their tea?

 

[Kirkrapine]

And yea it is. Especially if you consider the opinions and thoughts of the people who wrote it.

They authorized the president to command the militia. That ain't no rebel force.

 

[CandiCame]

Oh, hey, this is thread where I talked about how to actually deal with this issue, Kirk.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They authorized the president to command the militia. That ain't no rebel force.

Yes it does and no it's not.

But the militia could be, and the 2nd directly protects their right to do so should they deem it necessary.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Yes it does and no it's not.

But the militia could be, and the 2nd directly protects their right to do so should they deem it necessary.

The 2A does not authorize insurrection. Just ask Washington, who had a Whiskey Rebellion to put down.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Oh, hey, this is thread where I talked about how to actually deal with this issue, Kirk.

Which post?

 

[BotanyBoy]

The 2A does not authorize insurrection.

Never said it did, I said it protects our ability to should it become necessary, which is a huge bullshit deterrent in the first place.

Other things do that and they are usually defined by very distinct lines.

Like in the case of an illegal coup.....

 

[Kirkrapine]

Never said it did, I said it protects our ability to should it become necessary.

That was never what the 2A was for.

Like in the case of an illegal coup.....like if the (D)'s lost the mids and Trump got term 2 so they decided to just take him out right?

Not by any illegal coup. Impeachment is a constitutional process.

Oh man...that would be a terrible move on their part and open them up to total insurrection and likely start a civil war they are unlikely to win.

The Trumpers certainly wouldn't win it -- who does that leave?

 

[BotanyBoy]

That was never what the 2A was for.

Then you are either ignorant or in denial of who our founding fathers were and their opinions on taking up arms against tyrannical governments.

Not by any illegal coup.

Yes an illegal coup is the hypothetical situation.

Impeachment is a constitutional process.

Sure, irrelevant but sure.

The Trumpers certainly wouldn't win it -- who does that leave?

A civil war? LOL

Yea....they have all the guns, the training and most of the military.

Your communist revolution against the USA would not end well.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Yes an illegal coup is the hypothetical situation.

Why? No such thing is on the horizon.

A civil war? LOL

Yea....they have all the guns, the training and most of the military.

Your communist revolution against the USA would not end well.

You're wrong about the military, whose officers swear loyalty to the Constitution, which RW rebels will never have on their side; and those dumbass traitors in the RW militias are fucked if they ever have to go up against Redneck Revolt.

 

[bellisarius]

Why? No such thing is on the horizon.



You're wrong about the military, whose officers swear loyalty to the Constitution, which RW rebels will never have on their side; and those dumbass traitors in the RW militias are fucked if they ever have to go up against Redneck Revolt.

What in the hell are you talking about? That "Redneck Revolt" is a left wing org.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why? No such thing is on the horizon.

Because that is a condition under which insurrection would not only be legal but an obligation of the people.

How do you know?

You're wrong about the military, whose officers swear loyalty to the Constitution,

Yes, which a coup would violate, making the violators a legal target of our armed forces, law enforcement and militia.

which RW rebels will never have on their side;

RW rebels wrote it you idiot, it's already on our side.

Individual inalienable rights superior to that of the STATE

Free speech....private property.....armament....due process....on and on and on all right wing shit.

The left are the ones who don't have our highly right wing Constitution on their side, that's why they want it compromised to no end and were extra ass hurt once they realized their chances to subvert it via the SCOTUS went out the window with Trump.

and those dumbass traitors in the RW militias are fucked if they ever have to go up against Redneck Revolt.

Mostly RW....again, they would be on our side, not yours.

They say they are anti-capitalist but don't really bash capitalism or offer an alternative, so anarchistic, default capitalist.

And I doubt the number of those retards is anywhere close the the number needed to take on most of the US military, it's veterans and the civilian volunteers they would lead.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What in the hell are you talking about? That "Redneck Revolt" is a left wing org.

Nah...just anarco-libertarian it looks like.

There is nothing on their page about egalitarianism or nationalizing the economy.

Just that they are "anti-capitalism" because reasons they can't express....pretty much everything else about them is RW.

Individual rights, private property, anti state authority.

 

[Kirkrapine]

How do you know?

Because nobody but the RW militias are even talking about insurrection now, in the event Trump is removed -- and if that happens, those cowards will only slink back under their rocks.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Nah...just anarco-libertarian it looks like.

There is nothing on their page about egalitarianism or nationalizing the economy.

Just that they are "anti-capitalism" because reasons they can't express....pretty much everything else about them is RW.

They're also fiercely anti-racist. That ain't RW -- and is the main thing distinguishing them from the RW militias, who oppose the federal government for the sake of racism, not capitalism.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because

Tick question high speed, you don't fucking know.

You don't.


The whole idea of a coup is predicated upon nobody seeing it coming.

It's a political ambush.

If one were to happen with any level of success, we the public wouldn't hear about it until it was all over.

 

[BotanyBoy]

They're also fiercely anti-racist. That ain't RW -- and is the main thing distinguishing them from the RW militias, who oppose the federal government for the sake of racism, not capitalism.

RW =/= racist.

And the RW militias who oppose the fed for the sake of racism is like 30 dudes in Alabama and of no real concern to anyone.

Everyone else in the RW just wants you and the control freaks in DC to take your anti-liberty control freak bullshit and go spin on it.

 

[bellisarius]

Nah...just anarco-libertarian it looks like.

There is nothing on their page about egalitarianism or nationalizing the economy.

Just that they are "anti-capitalism" because reasons they can't express....pretty much everything else about them is RW.

No, they're left wing. Notice the anti-capitalism agenda? The "rednecks" were hardcore socialists bordering on communists. Coal miners revolting against the "company store" trap that the mine owners had set up. Look up "The Battle of Blair Mountain." That is also where the legend of "Mother Jones" started.

 

[CandiCame]

Which post?

It was actually a whole conversation, but this'in is a good jumping off point.

It's not an easy solution, which is why I think people want to cry, "Just take the guns!" Because that's a good sound bite.

Really we need vast social change in the way that we treat a LOT of topics, and that takes years of dedication and hard work. I'm not a sociologist, I work with individuals, not populations, so I don't have an absolute answer for this. But there are people do study this that I would defer to.

For example, a LOT of mass shooters, when questioned, site xenophobia and racism- and we did see rises in this particular type of crime along the same time that we saw rises in membership of terrorist organizations along the alt-right. If we were to spend more resources enforcing the crimes already on the books, as I already mentioned, to stop these crimes before they start, that by itself would go a long way. The fact is, we're managing our resources poorly.

https://www.christianpicciolini.com/

Christian Picciolini is a former neo-Nazi who founded the group "Life After Hate", who writes, tours, speaks, and in general is a good person to go to to learn on this topic and I heartily recommend him. There are a lot of activists, but I like this guy in particular not because he has any special training, but because he can answer the question, "What the fuck is wrong with you?" with brutal honesty, and I think that's something that is generally missing from the conversation.

Really, to move away from a culture of violence means to combat the forces within ourselves that lead to violence, and it's difficult to do that on a group scale. You really have to work with people one-on-one to answer the question, "What the fuck is wrong with you?" Before you let it get that bad.

If someone opens fire on a gay nightclub, the problem is not that they had a gun- the problem is that we let the homophobia get that out of hand and let him post on facebook, or make threatening phone calls, or post racist hate-speech (in this particular example the shooter chose a gay-Hispanic event), and at every step in that line before the violence began- no one did anything. The vast majority of these crimes can be avoided.

Something else that a lot of people are advocating for involve ways to fight toxic masculinity. Another group that we see a lot of violence, particularly mass shooting violence, is a group that has a lot of names, that I've not done a lot of research on, but that I do see keep popping up. I've heard it called "the manosphere", the "red pill", and "incels", but there are a lot of names. That group keeps getting kicked off of various places online where they start to form, because of how violent they are, and how off-the-wall their worldview is. They get it into their heads via groupthink that a lot of things that just plain don't exist do- and then they act on those fantasies. Again, this is an issue like the alt-right, where we really need someone to be honest and forthcoming about the way these people think, so that it can be combated, and people are doing great work in that area, but unfortunately, I'm not aware of anyone who got out and then was able to become an activist like we have with the alt-right.

The overall bullet point is that these aren't isolated incidents- they're not lone "crazy" gunmen who lost their minds, snapped, and decided to murder people. They're normally part of a group that is a circle of negative groupthink that creates a "reality" where these attacks would make sense, would be justified. to address that, we need to know how domestic terrorism works- how these groups convince their members that these actions are ok.

I think a big part of that would be funding sociologists to study this, and making domestic terrorism a top priority in law enforcement. Right now we spend a lot of time, money, and training on international terrorism, and things that aren't significant threats in the way domestic terrorism is.

If we look at the statistics, we know what demographic we need to focus our efforts on, and that's a decent jumping-off point. As I already mentioned, only about 1% of mass shooters have any kind of neurodivergency- so we're not looking at crazy people. So it pisses me off, as both a crazy person and someone who would rather not be shot- to see this focus on "mental illness" after every mass shooting. Passing laws that restrict gun sales among the mentally ill will do absolutely jack shit, because we're not the ones doing this, we're the ones getting shot. Focusing on that aspect isn't going to work.

When we look at the data, we can see that the vast majority of mass shooters are men- only about 2% of shooters are women. We also know that most violent crime is purported by, and experienced by, men. That is, we know that men are more likely to be both aggressors and victims of violence. We don't see a gendered gap in violent crime like that outside the US. There's something about the way American men specifically are socialized that makes us violent- and that can be a hard pill to swallow. I'll tell you the truth- I used to fight. I don't think of myself as a violent person, but I know I COULD be, I know I HAVE been. I've never shot anyone, but I know that if I HAD to, I COULD. The way that you speak, it makes me think that you maybe couldn't. And the thing about this in particular, is that psychologists knew this was a thing before the mass shooting epidemic began- there was already a name for it in psychological circles, "Toxic Masculinity".

This term applies to a specific set of circumstances wherein cultural expectations are toxic for men- in our case, there's a lot to it, but we see this toxicity more among men who feel that they need to adhere to traditional gender rolls, or force others to adhere to them. We see that as early as middle school, our boys are pressured by outside forces to stunt their emotional development. You're not taught healthy emotion-focused socio-coping mechanisms during concrete development in the same way that little girls are, and because of that, perfectly healthy people start exhibiting behaviors that we only see in other countries in people with emotio-social developmental disorders. The only way to really change this is to get every parent in the country to agree to change the way we raise our sons- to be held accountable and to do better. We have to give our boys the same tools we give our girls if we want to see results. We have to teach them to express their emotions in a healthy way, to talk to their peers, to cry, to write, to channel it into art- the problem isn't that you're angry, the problem is that you solve anger through violence.

I want to reiterate- these are people with perfectly normal functioning amygdalas. They are not mentally ill. They were just raised in such a way that we would EXPECT this behavior to manifest because they were not given the tools to cope with normal human emotions.

Continuing the breakdown of the demographics, we see that the vast majority of these shooters are racially and ethnically white, and that many of them who could be considered to have one or more ethnicity more strongly identify with their white ethnicity. There's an intersection between this strong ethnic and racial identity and the membership that we see in hate groups- that is the more you tie your sense of self to your "whiteness", the more likely you are to display the traits associated with those groups, like racism and xenophobia. Several causational theories have arisen about this link, but I'm going to talk about the one that makes the most sense to me.

"Defaulting" is the name of this theory, and I like it because it makes a lot of sense, and it holds up when we perform cross-regional sociology studies, which I think is important. Basically, it ties into history. Historically, in the US, "white" has been a "default" race- that is, there are no cultural ties that unite white people in the same way other racial groups can be united. Many African Americans are united via a shared history wherein they can't trace their original culture because those records were deleted during chattle slavery. Many Asian Americans are united through a shared past of immigration. Many hispanic-Americans can trace their cultural heritage to Latin America. But white Americans, more than any other group, have no shared historical or cultural past with each other to pull from. We see these issues with other ethnicities as well, but not to the extent we see them with white Americans. Some are immigrants, some have been here since colonial times, some arrived as indentured servants, some were raised in ghettos, some came to the US as European Jewish immigrants fleeing prosecution from Nazis, some were Nazis who arrived after the war as criminals to be charged, etc. When you have no shared culture, yet you long for an underlying ethnic idenity- the only thing you can cling to is that you are the "default"- that is, you must "default" to white, because you only know what you aren't. You know that you aren't black, or native, or hispanic or asian, etc. Because othering is a mindset that leads to dehumanization, you can begin to see yourself as distinctly different from those "other" groups, rather than being able to take pride in your own ethnicity, because you don't have pride in a culture, only that you AREN'T part of some "other" culture. Then, you begin to see the "default" American culture as your own and lay ownership to it, and see anyone else as an outsider who is trying to "steal" it. It's easy to see how this mindset could lead to violence.

Fighting that underlying cause involves getting people to see themselves as multi-faceted, so that they do have things to be proud of other than what they aren't. The more aspects of self you have to pull from, the less likely you are to base your self-identity on a single aspect. If you don't base your self-identity strongly on your race, it's far more difficult to be recruited by a terrorist organization when the only real thing they have to offer you is based on your race and longing to understand your ethnicity.

To give an example, let's say you're a white guy who is also a dad. You now have two identity aspects- "white" and "father". If your "father" aspect is more important than your "white" aspect, you see yourself represented more among dads- that is, you're more likely to do "dad" things than "white" things- to join PTAs, to host playdates, to have BBQs for your kids' classmates and their parents. Let's say that you're also a hunter- so now you see yourself represented among "whites" "dads" and "hunters". You go hunting on the weekend with a group of friends who share your interests, then you have to get back on Monday because you know you have to get the kids ready for school. Now say that you're "white" "dad" "hunter" "avid book enthusiast". You go hunting, you have to get back to take your kids to school, you have a podcast episode you want to record about the latest book you read. Do you see how as you keep adding aspects of self you just run out of shits to give about nonsense? And how by doing that you guard yourself against being the kind of person who could be taken in by groupthink? Because you're not just a member of ONE group, you're a member of MANY groups- and if you get kicked out of one group for not putting up with nonsense, you don't lose your sense of self, you just bitch about that group to your friends in the other group. Like if you're this guy and you get kicked out of your book club, during your next dad BBQ you're standing there with Stan (Haliey's Dad) going, "And then they said not to come back! Can you believe that shit?" And Stan is there to support you- you have several social support networks.

I have a LOT more to say about this but I've been typing for a long time. The bullet point is that this is a complicated issue that will take real, long-term solutions that are also multifaceted and complicated. It's not something that is as easy as, "take away all the guns".

Again, I'm not saying that if you could somehow magically destroy every gun in the world it wouldn't make it more difficult to commit mass shootings. But if we don't address the underlying causes of this kind of violence as a society, these folks have proven that they can figure out how to make bombs and shit.

Further reading: I will preface this by saying that some of these require a paid subscription and I get mine through work, so if you can't read it, that's on me. I'm not super sure where to get peer-reviewed articles for free, but google scholar might have them? Honestly, like I said, I already feel like I spent too much time on a forum post and this is meant as a jumping-off point.


https://psyarxiv.com/c9uvw
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/17/gun-violence-masculinity-216321
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/oct/06/newsweek/are-white-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
https://psmag.com/news/how-science-can-combat-the-alt-right
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2882688/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/magazine/white-people-are-noticing-something-new-their-own-whiteness.html
http://jroan.com/HtIBWhite.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jclp.20105
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.409
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jclp.20098
http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2007-00915-004
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jclp.20099
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2016.1120490?journalCode=rfms20

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, they're left wing. Notice the anti-capitalism agenda?

Anti- capitalism =/= left wing.

Just not typical of the right.

The "rednecks" were hardcore socialists bordering on communists.

How? They don't support the state nor do they seem to advocate state control, ownership and or administration over the means and markets.

They appear to be expressly against such things which is why I say they seem more like anarchist/anarcho-libertarians than leftist.

Coal miners revolting against the "company store" trap that the mine owners had set up.

So? Nothing left wing about "fuck your company store, pay me bitch"

That's just a naturally occurring consequence of poor management skills.

Look up "The Battle of Blair Mountain." That is also where the legend of "Mother Jones" started.

Yea I know.....but they seem more like anarchist than leftist.