Yes, You Can: Physicians, Patients, and Firearms

[deleted480308]

I am a human first. "American" comes second.

I agree. I prefer freedom to safety because of my humanity, not my nationality

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

Maslow

 

[hamstergang]

while I agree with all these things, I think it's a mistake to even have discussions like this with anti-gun/anti-American types. Because it is a spineless attempt on their part to change the terms of the discussion into something more possible for them. Don't fall for their crap.

When we were 5 and our moms told us we couldn't have that coca cola before bed, what was her response:

a) "I'm your mom and I said no and that's that"

or

b) "well coke has caffeine in it and that may keep you up and it will also cause tooth decay"

I sure as hell hope it was A. Because that's the only ****ing answer that is relevant. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to a 5 yo on the degree to which coke causes tooth decay or staying up to late or whatever. WHO THE **** CARES. What does matter is that the parent makes the rules at that age, so that's that. Just like all these arguments anti-American/anti-gun people come up with on guns. Of course they are wrong on all their 'points' anyways, but it doesn't matter if everything they say is spot on. It just doesn't matter. Because that's not the issue.

Sorry many mistakes here. First, anti-gun doesn't mean anti-American. These really are 2 separate issues. Second, the government isn't our parent. It's really weird to hear a conservative talk of the government as such a big, powerful, in-charge entity.

Third, the reason for the ammendment does matter. And the number of people dying matters too. The government puts restrictions on the types of arms citizens can own and which citizens can't own arms. This is done due to concerns of safety for society, and based on our understanding of the writers' intentions. We, the people that make up the government, are always weighing various factors in addition to the literal words written on the page. That's a good thing and an important thing to understand if you want to be an informed citizen (and informed discussant in this forum or elsewhere).

 

[Salpingo]

Even if cars were around in 1776 they would not have made it into the Constitution. Cars can be helpful, but are not the critical item necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment is a "Doomsday Provision", a "break the glass" kind of tool. The US Government was built upon an intricate system of checks and balances. The 2nd Amendment is the "Final Check" when all other checks have failed. Contrary to what anti-gun people will claim, the 2nd amendment does not enshrine the right to hunt delicious deer, or even to defend your home. It is there for only one purpose: to defend your freedom when everything else has gone to hell.

Anti-gun people claim that guns are useless to fight a government with nukes and tanks. My rebuttal is:

1.) If I'm facing a government with nukes and tanks, I say it's infinitely better to have guns than have nothing
2.) Every successful revolution in history starts with a group of angry, armed people.
3.) No totalitarian dictator has ever tolerated civilian gun ownership. Ask Kim Jung Il.
4.) Angry guys with guns have given our all-powerful military with its nukes and tanks a LOT of trouble in the Middle East and Vietnam.

1) I guess, but why stop there? Should we legalize IEDs, sarin gas, home made rockets? Because it would be better to have those htan nothing.
2) No, the most famous examples off-hand include India's overthrow of the British Empire, the Velvet Revolution, the Orange Revolution, the Ukraine's 2014 Revolution, the majority of the Arab Spring (although that may be debatable).
3) Sorry to bring up Hitler, but he actually liberalized gun use for Aryan citizens (Jews weren't allowed to own). Immediately after Versailles, civilian gun ownership was severely restricted.
4) Again, why stop with guns?

Most importantly, why do people trust a random militia over their government? I mean, I don't necessarily trust either, but I feel like the government at least has better bathing habits (based on what I've seen of militias on TV).

I think both sides of the issue are prone to exaggeration. Anti-gun extremists have this fantasy that all firearms are going to inevitably fall into the hands of children who are going to shoot-up their elementary school, and pro-gun extremists have the fantasy that they're going to save their families in a heroic firefight. If you want to take an evidence based approach, you'd have a better chance of treating anxiety with gabapentin or, dare I say, Vistaril. And its not a leftist or rightist issue -- I'm more conservative than Bernie Sanders on most issues, but he's probably much more pro-gun than I am.

 

[MacDonaldTriad]

So if we are in agreement that the constitution is not to be taken literally, but in the context of modern interpretation like the bible then this whole thing is up for grabs and using the constitution to make a point for or against gun control is rather moot. We are just debating if this particular freedom is worth whatever damage you believe freedom of gun ownership causes or conversely how many lives would be saved if we were not free to own guns. People are rather far apart on where they stand on this spectrum, but I still say our founding fathers should be left out of this. Both sides get very obtuse: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. “Oh yah, well I’m an avid pipe bomber and I insist you protect my right to pipe bomb.”