Orion's picture

    Reassessing Violence

    During a conversation, Artappraiser took note of the fact that everything going on in Ukraine reinforces the need for people to have firearms in order to defend themselves or a community. I retorted by saying that the weapons there are only accessible by militia members, who get them after an application process.

    Part of why gun rights are so salient is that there is a strong logic to it. In NRA literature, I once read that "the simple presence of a gun is enough to end a situation." This is honestly true. Display a weapon and you could very well end a toxic situation that would only just continue if people didn't realize that you could actually take it that far. 

    I would say that the Ukraine situation makes us reassessing weapons as tools that are quite necessary. Weapons are tools - you can use them to get a rapist to stop or you could use them to kill children.

    Nevertheless the Second Amendment is pretty clear about what it intended:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    An individualist, capitalist culture is going to lead to rogue individuals shooting people. The Second Amendment not only mentions "well regulated," which could constitute gun control but also "militia," which denotes a community of people tasked with defense. That is a fantasy that right wing survivalists would play out but the Ukraine situation actually shows it in action. A communitarian society is going to have those tools in the hands of those who are in a position to protect.


    The simple presence of a gun is enough to cause a shootout as well. Seen it happen. Happening more and more - especially to/from rappers.

    Orion it's the same old same old. The solution is simple and has long been offered: firearms must be licensed and insured and users must be licensed JUST LIKE MOTOR VEHICLES.

    The founders didn't know from licensing of anything, so they used the terminology "well regulated" instead.

    Why can't we accomplish this like we did when horseless carriages started to become popular?

    Well, libertarian types think if the gummint knows where the guns are, they will have all the into. to come door to door and confiscate them when they plan a totalitarian takeover. 

    I will then add this about Ukraine. Those individual firearms weren't enough for Zelensky's crew to fight back against against a takeover. You may have noted how he's been begging every day, every hour, every minute for more bigger weapons.

    Not really - the Founding Fathers were all about militias as the way to preserve democracy, and militias are obviously more "regulated" than "licensed", which wouldn't make sense. There was a pretty decent article on this recently, but God knows where.
    And seems Azov guys are much better behaved as part of a well-regulated militia, go figger.

    Guns are maybe sort of useless in large scale war.

    And Peracles is on point. When I've travelled, I've seen guns on guards and other individuals that I'm pretty sure weren't licensed - but when I asked, I was told there is a network by which as are made available.

    That means you have to get informal social approval to get a weapon. If there's money involved, the money is informal too. I think the Second Amendment was really just reaffirming how weapons are usually distributed and prohibiting a ruler from screwing that up.

    In a militia setting, weapons are provided and they get them by being in the militia. It's a transaction based on social trust, not necessarily a license and registration.

    The concept got screwed up by us being a commercial republic in which nothing is commercially out of bounds.

    I think there's also an implication there that in a society where everything is for sale, there's not much of a social trust.

    Democrats have gone nowhere by treating the issue materially but current events in the world, I think, actually give them an opportunity to affirm what the role of weapons are. They can point to Zelensky and demonstrate that this is a man defending his country. They can point to women in Hindu fundamentalist India who have acquired guns. They can demonstrate that these are the social situations in which defending yourself or others is necessary, and they can then affirm that the Right has been affirming the right of anyone to have such tools for whatever context they see fit, even if that means evil.

    Seriously guys, if Democrats used words like "social trust" on this issue, they would go gangbusters.

    Gun advocates are always on about how kids used to be taught marksmanship and what not. Okay, so Dems should propose just such programs and then advocate them for community defense against people who shouldn't be armed. Flip the whole script on them.

    Imagine the narrator's voice -."You want to defend your family, not those who would harm them."


    Latest Comments