Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL X (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is (0+ / 0-)

    getting to be a long conversations, eh?

    My apologies if you intended the PT comments as mockery, it did get past me.  Probably because on the internet it no longer surprises me when someone has a complete misunderstanding or misperception of history.  (I mean, good lord, we have entire day-long marathons on the so-called History Channel about how aliens built damned near everything!).  :-p

    And I wasn't trying to confuse the issue with the munitions comment.  Let's note that you brought up the issue of "weapons of war" which is, you have to admit, covers everything in history from a pointed stick on up to the biggest nuke we have.  Once I pointed that out, you started changing the it from just "weapons of war" to then making a distinction between munitions and arms.  I merely provided definitions from Federal Code that showed that arms were munitions.

    I tip my hat to your logic that arms are munitions but not all munitions are arms, and I'll concede that on consideration that seems to be the case.  Been a long time since I've done Venn diagrams, but that makes sense even to me.

    I don't think the FF's only intended us to have flintlocks, actually, but quite often the argument around the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution in general) just devolves down to some kind of  (IMO opinion often ridiculous) "original intent" argument where people pretend to know what people living at the end of the 18th Century would think or do about real-world situations in the early 21st.  The flintlock argument on MY part was snark, because it's an attempt to show how ridiculous that Originalist argument can be when taken to the logical extreme and offering another way to look at it -- "The FF's only knew black powder weapons-- therefore it must have been their intent for people to own those".  Or, you can take the argument that they wanted people to be able to protect themselves from the government, so why not a nuke, right?  Because after all, technology now is such that the only sure way to defend yourself from a military a big as the US is to assure mutual destruction.  And Goober and his friends holed up in the backwoods with a shack full of assault rifles dreaming of "defending their rights against the tyranny" aren't going to last long against a drone strike, if the government really decided it wanted to drop the hammer on the people.

    Obviously, the FF's intended neither of those, and the hard part is for us, now 225 years on down the road, to figure out the best path with the framework they gave us to work with.  And because the Constitution itself was a compromise document hammered together by people from different sections of the country with varied interests, sometimes that framework is unfortunately vague, and because language and meanings evolve over time, we end up with arguments over what constitutes "arms" and "well-regulated" and "militia".

    •  the good news / bad news paradigm (0+ / 0-)

      of DK RKBA discussions, as illustrated by everything else above.

      Good news:  once both sides of the issue get their fill of snark and mockery of the message, both parties to the discussion can usually find common ground and some meaningful discussion can be held, about how to both preserve 2A rights while promoting safety.  We are after all, reasonable and intelligent people here (at least more reasonable then other online communities).

      Bad news:  Once the snark/mockery starts, it can take a while to let it burn itself out, then when meaningful discussion (finally) takes place, both parties are usually wiped out.  So it ends up being 90% noise and 10% useful discussion (i.e Kossacks talking to one another instead of shouting down one another).

      I just wish we could just skip past the emotion and snark every time and get to the discussion part sooner.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site