CDZ Gun culture? or Disrespectful culture? Where does gun violence come from?

[JoeB131]

And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them

Get a handle on the areas where the most murders occur and like magic our murder rate drops up to 70%

But you don't want to do that

First, I kind of doubt your number about 5 counties... that just doesn't sound remotely correct.

In fact, of our 16,000 homicides, only 2000 are gang related. The rest are Cleetus shooting Billy-Bob in Jesus land over who ate the last strip of bacon.

 

[sparky]

well bacon is sacred ya know....~S~

 

[Skull Pilot]

And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them

Get a handle on the areas where the most murders occur and like magic our murder rate drops up to 70%

But you don't want to do that

First, I kind of doubt your number about 5 counties... that just doesn't sound remotely correct.

In fact, of our 16,000 homicides, only 2000 are gang related. The rest are Cleetus shooting Billy-Bob in Jesus land over who ate the last strip of bacon.

I never mentioned gangs, Moron.

Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[oldsoul]

We would be remiss if we did not mention the fact that culture (particularly in the information age) does not just evolve organically. There are people who have the power to influence the direction of the culture, and who benefit greatly from a culture of violence. A dangerous combination.

Politicians who want an increasingly militarized police force and looser “search and seizure” restrictions may find justification by declaring “war on drugs”. War profiteers have a vested interest in unending conflict, and find a steady stream of revenue from unwinnable wars like the “war on terror”. Those who want to disarm the population to foster greater governmental control and create a monopoly on physical force may use mass shootings to further their cause.

The worldview poisoning via mass media has everybody thinking the world is orders of magnitude more dangerous than their first-hand experience would suggest. This makes people cling to the false promises of protection offered by the politicians, and abide greater infringements into their personal liberty. Never mind the fact that governments are historically responsible for more deaths than anyone else (by a mind-warping margin). And not just deaths of “enemies” in war, but of their own people as well. One man’s “protector” becomes another man’s aggressor.

This leaves one wondering how much of this cultural trend is by design. I would never put it past ambitious people of wealth and influence to manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. A phone call to a friend in the media; a financial contribution to a political candidate... When you’re high atop the hill, it only takes a little nudge to get the snowball rolling... momentum takes care of the rest.

Excellent salient points, once again highlighting how culture is manipulated.

Another similar example can be seen in the whole "drug testing in the workplace" revolution where it's become commonplace for employers to require (REQUIRE) pee samples as a condition of employment. The fact that a vibrant social wave rises up to 'defend the Second Amendment' while an egregious violation of the Fourth is swallowed whole with nary a whimper, demonstrates again where our cultural value priorities are.

I see your point, and admit that it could be interpreted as a violation of the 4th, except for one little "obscure" point. As you pointed out it is a condition of employment. Last I checked one is not forced to work for anyone else. Therefore it is a choice, and not a violation of the 4th. Now, if it were a requirement to vote, well that is an entirely different matter.

Can an employer use "be of the white race" as a condition of employment?

Are people not "forced to work" in general?

And what happens when the President of the United States openly calls for such Fourth Amendment nose-thumbing? Especially since in order to be President he took an oath to preserve protect and defend that document?

>> On Sept. 15 [1986], President Reagan signed an executive order calling for drug testing of a broad range of the Federal Government's 2.8 million civilian employees, earmarking about $56 million for the undertak-ing in the first year. The increased use of drug testing by governmental agencies and private employers - more than a quarter of the Fortune 500 companies test job applicants - is part of a larger trend in society's war on drug abuse, with a pronounced shift of emphasis to the drug user. << --- NYT 10/86
​

Is this ^^ not in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? And more recently there have been pushes to drug-test welfare recipients ----- ALL of this absent any individual probable cause.

Whether, or how much the Fourth Amendment is violated by any of this, was not the original point anyway. The point is, here's multiple examples of Big Government and in following Big Employment, pushing for intrusive methods of behavior control, and the same population up in arms about their Second Amendment rights, seemed to care not a whit when the same thing, and far worse, has already gone down in rejection of the Fourth.

Can an employer use "be of the white race" as a condition of employment?

Um, no, an employer cannot. It has nothing to do with the 4th, but it was made illegal under the Civil rights Act of 1964. Specifically Title VII.

Are people not "forced to work" in general?

That depends entirely on your definition of "forced to work". One does have the choice to not work, though the consequences are quite extreme. I doubt this is what you intend though. I surmise that you mean one must work to enjoy the benefits of modern society, or at least to provide for their basic needs. So, I guess people are "forced" to work, however, no one is forced to work for a given employer, or for any employer at all.

Is this ^^ not in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment? And more recently there have been pushes to drug-test welfare recipients ----- ALL of this absent any individual probable cause.

How so? As no one is forced to work for the government, outside being convicted, under due process, of a crime.

Whether, or how much the Fourth Amendment is violated by any of this, was not the original point anyway. The point is, here's multiple examples of Big Government and in following Big Employment, pushing for intrusive methods of behavior control, and the same population up in arms about their Second Amendment rights, seemed to care not a whit when the same thing, and far worse, has already gone down in rejection of the Fourth.

You really should do your homework. There is, and has been plenty of opposition to the Patriot act (as an example), even on the right. Here are a couple of examples:
Patriot Act Opponents Say Law Endangers Rights
Ron Paul is right about the Patriot Act; Newt Gingrich is right about immigration
I could dig deeper to show other examples, but I am not inclined to do the work for you. We each have a responsibility, no a duty, to become informed.
So, your statement that gun rights advocates don't seem to care, would be an uninformed statement, at best.

 

[Pogo]

First, the focus on the 2nd Amendment is not merely the result of some psychological obsession with guns. It's because people perceive (either intuitively or intellectually) that the right to bear arms commensurate with those carried by police and military is the only thing protecting the people from outright tyranny (no matter how unlikely this possibility may seem to you).

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

Secondly, the point I was making in my previous post is fundamental to all other considerations regarding a culture that exists under government. It should not be dismissed as irrelevant to the topic you're discussing. and the fact that government permeates every aspect of our culture means that it is always relevant to the psychology of the people in that culture. It affects every area of our lives - work, marriage, children, food, shelter, personal hobbies, travel, death... everything. Government, being force, means that the use of force is psychologically present in all these areas where government is present. I will not impose upon your patience with examples, but just consider the thought process around any mundane subject long enough, and you will note how government force is present in one's mindset in subtle ways.

For this reason, government is a core topic, while the gun culture's effect on 2nd Amendment outrage is merely symptomatic. If you're willing to investigate the psychology that leads people to accept and support an immense power structure without being willing to earnestly investigate its validity, it may illuminate many symptomatic topics including the one you're focused upon now..

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Again I'd go back to my smoking analogy. We "culturally shifted" public attitudes toward smoking. Not laws but attitudes. Government didn't do that. It can't. "Cultural shift" means changing the extant values. In that case we changed "smoking is cool" to "smoking is uncoool". In the instant case the task is to shift the culture from "killing and blowing things up is cool" to "Respect for Life". Again, government can't change values. If we need a reminder of government's inability to shift a cultural value, I refer you to the Eighteenth Amendment.

My position is, and always has been, this is not a 'government' issue in the first place. Throwing laws at the problem is a distraction that at best serves as political theater so some politicians can claim, "look at us, we're doing something". But as long as that death-wish cultural value -- that desire -- continues to flourish in the culture, they are not.

Put simply, this is not a battle for laws or votes. This is a battle for hearts and minds and spirit.

I get the feeling I'm still talking over people's heads but I'll keep at it until I get through.

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

While I don't concur with Brian's stance, I suspect too that the above quoted remarks don't address the basis of his argument. He's not arguing about guns vis-a-vis a legal construct. He's arguing from the standpoint of the 2nd's alignment with notions of sovereignty and liberty. His is a philosophically founded argument, not a jurisprudentially founded one; thus invocations of what be or be not codified are insufficient refutations.

I got that. But I'm not ruminating on the Second Amendment or "sovereignty and liberty" at all, nor am I taking them as significant influences in what the topic is --- the root causes of rampant gun violence, which has nothing to do with "sovereignty and liberty", as the champions of those ideals correctly point out. My thrust is, and always has been, everyday common popular cultural values --- which is wholly unrelated to Constitutions, Amendments, or ideas of "sovereignty and liberty".

Nor, I might add, are those dynamics mentioned or even hinted at in the OP poll. Nor are they in the Governor Bevin video in her OP either. I may be the only one among us that stayed on the topic.

I'm talking apples, and he seemed to be responding with oranges.

 

[Leo123]

No, guns don't make you do anything.

They just give you the ability.

So angsty Hiro who plays too many video games really doesn't have the capability to shoot up a school before he kills himself.

Angsty Billy does.

see how that works?

No, your explanation doesn't 'work' at all. In fact it is singularly vapid.

 

[usmbguest5318]

First, the focus on the 2nd Amendment is not merely the result of some psychological obsession with guns. It's because people perceive (either intuitively or intellectually) that the right to bear arms commensurate with those carried by police and military is the only thing protecting the people from outright tyranny (no matter how unlikely this possibility may seem to you).

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

Secondly, the point I was making in my previous post is fundamental to all other considerations regarding a culture that exists under government. It should not be dismissed as irrelevant to the topic you're discussing. and the fact that government permeates every aspect of our culture means that it is always relevant to the psychology of the people in that culture. It affects every area of our lives - work, marriage, children, food, shelter, personal hobbies, travel, death... everything. Government, being force, means that the use of force is psychologically present in all these areas where government is present. I will not impose upon your patience with examples, but just consider the thought process around any mundane subject long enough, and you will note how government force is present in one's mindset in subtle ways.

For this reason, government is a core topic, while the gun culture's effect on 2nd Amendment outrage is merely symptomatic. If you're willing to investigate the psychology that leads people to accept and support an immense power structure without being willing to earnestly investigate its validity, it may illuminate many symptomatic topics including the one you're focused upon now..

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Again I'd go back to my smoking analogy. We "culturally shifted" public attitudes toward smoking. Not laws but attitudes. Government didn't do that. It can't. "Cultural shift" means changing the extant values. In that case we changed "smoking is cool" to "smoking is uncoool". In the instant case the task is to shift the culture from "killing and blowing things up is cool" to "Respect for Life". Again, government can't change values. If we need a reminder of government's inability to shift a cultural value, I refer you to the Eighteenth Amendment.

My position is, and always has been, this is not a 'government' issue in the first place. Throwing laws at the problem is a distraction that at best serves as political theater so some politicians can claim, "look at us, we're doing something". But as long as that death-wish cultural value -- that desire -- continues to flourish in the culture, they are not.

Put simply, this is not a battle for laws or votes. This is a battle for hearts and minds and spirit.

I get the feeling I'm still talking over people's heads but I'll keep at it until I get through.

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

While I don't concur with Brian's stance, I suspect too that the above quoted remarks don't address the basis of his argument. He's not arguing about guns vis-a-vis a legal construct. He's arguing from the standpoint of the 2nd's alignment with notions of sovereignty and liberty. His is a philosophically founded argument, not a jurisprudentially founded one; thus invocations of what be or be not codified are insufficient refutations.

I got that. But I'm not ruminating on the Second Amendment or "sovereignty and liberty" at all, nor am I taking them as significant influences in what the topic is --- the root causes of rampant gun violence, which has nothing to do with "sovereignty and liberty", as the champions of those ideals correctly point out. My thrust is, and always has been, everyday common popular cultural values --- which is wholly unrelated to Constitutions, Amendments, or ideas of "sovereignty and liberty".

Nor, I might add, are those dynamics mentioned or even hinted at in the OP poll. Nor are they in the Governor Bevin video in her OP either. I may be the only one among us that stayed on the topic.

I'm talking apples, and he seemed to be responding with oranges.

Yes, well, people talking at one another is pretty common on USMB.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.

The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.

This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"

There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).

To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.

 

[Pogo]

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.

The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.

This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"

There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).

To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.

See what I mean?

SMH

As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is where 99% of the conversation resides - on the leaf level, instead of at the root level. These are the kinds of mind-bending absurdities that arise when we begin with a trajectory that's off in the bushes.

We've got to back off, all the way to the beginning, to see where the problem lies. You've got a document - the Constitution - that's supposed to protect rights by violating them. This absurdity is then expressed in a myriad of ways all the way down the chain. You cannot start with an inequality of rights and end up with equality. The very fact that "Congress shall have power to XYZ" but the individual citizen shall not have the same power is the root inequality from which all others spring.

"Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute." - Frederic Bastiat

Do you claim the right to tell a business owner, on his own property, that he may not choose who to associate with, under threat of personal violence? Understanding that all law is ultimately backed by personal violence if each step in the attempt to enforce that law is resisted, this is precisely what's being claimed when you support legislation that disallows employment bias based on race/age/gender, etc.

Either that, or you are denying the verity of the above quote, claiming that government has rights that individuals don't have - so which is it? Therein lies the problem. I agree with you that it is stupid, unfair, etc., to discriminate based on race, but if the power of law is to have any legitimacy, it must be rooted in the rights of the individual. Incidentally, the achievement of that legitimacy also serves to obviate law entirely; as law becomes a hollow echo of individual rights (the mere act of writing it down add no actual content). Government, then, if legitimate, does not truly govern, as it has no authority of its own. It merely becomes an organized collective effort to enforce the rights already possessed by each within its jurisdiction. And since the rights of those within its jurisdiction do not differ from those without, its jurisdiction is effectually non-existent.

You see the absurdity of the very notion of government. You cannot derive rational solutions from a position of absurdity, and thus nearly all conversation on this website, and in the public political discourse, is little more than the caterwauling of the insane. A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but you see the point, and it is quite compelling - wouldn't you agree?

TBH my eyes glazed over about 20% of the way through that but it seems to be doing the same thing Emily keeps doing -- trying to veer off into "governments" and "rights".

My observation is (I thought) not that complicated. It's simply noting that, WHILE there is X number of megatons of rhetorical fury about the Second Amendment when its principle is perceived to be threatened, there is 1/1000 X of the same concern when the principle of the Fourth is. And we could cite similar comparisons with the First Amendment, and pick them from all over this board, just for a start.

And I find that inconsistent, to say the least. And that inconsistency points right back to my original citation of Gun Culture ---- which serves to explain why such a discrepancy exists.

That's another observation of the social values in play. Were we not infested with this gun fetish culture, concern for the Second Amendment would be commensurate with that of any other threatened Amendment.

For instance I've posted this literally dozens of times:

​

--- that's a direct, explicitly-stated threat to the First Amendment. And nobody cares. But if I were to start a discussion that dares to simply examine --- not even the Second Amendment but the social values behind firearms --- I'd have hundreds of posts attacking, I'd have the same not-listening drones that didn't hear Bob Costas plugging in their own content, I might be thread-banned as I was last week, I might be kicked off the site entirely as I was on another board prior to this one, simply for suggesting we have a gun fetish culture.

That glaring inequity speaks volumes. Its emotion-based vitriol confirms to me that I'm exactly on the right track.

In short, my focus on this issue is not at all concerned with "government" and never has been. It's entirely focused on collective social psychology. Because that, I submit, is where the answer is. Trying to shunt off to 'governments' and "laws" is just taking our eye off the ball. Gun violence isn't a legislation problem; it's a social problem.

Ah I see. Well that's unfortunate. It's a shame that you can't find the time or focus to explore what someone took the time and focus to say to you. I do understand your point, and I agree, but I there's a couple of things to consider:

First, the focus on the 2nd Amendment is not merely the result of some psychological obsession with guns. It's because people perceive (either intuitively or intellectually) that the right to bear arms commensurate with those carried by police and military is the only thing protecting the people from outright tyranny (no matter how unlikely this possibility may seem to you).

The authority of government is backed by the use of force. It's ONLY check is commensurate force; not the "checks and balances" of the three branches, which all sit on one side of the fence when the conflict is between a government and its people. All other rights can be defended if the right to bear arms in maintained, but if that right is robbed from the people, all other rights are in jeopardy. This is critical to understand - this world is still a jungle, despite the dream of artificial "civilized" society, and no amount of words on parchment change the fact that if one man has a spear and the other doesn't, the man with the spear is the master.

Secondly, the point I was making in my previous post is fundamental to all other considerations regarding a culture that exists under government. It should not be dismissed as irrelevant to the topic you're discussing. and the fact that government permeates every aspect of our culture means that it is always relevant to the psychology of the people in that culture. It affects every area of our lives - work, marriage, children, food, shelter, personal hobbies, travel, death... everything. Government, being force, means that the use of force is psychologically present in all these areas where government is present. I will not impose upon your patience with examples, but just consider the thought process around any mundane subject long enough, and you will note how government force is present in one's mindset in subtle ways.

For this reason, government is a core topic, while the gun culture's effect on 2nd Amendment outrage is merely symptomatic. If you're willing to investigate the psychology that leads people to accept and support an immense power structure without being willing to earnestly investigate its validity, it may illuminate many symptomatic topics including the one you're focused upon now..

Your first point is incorrect.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes a minority of private citizens who subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ and ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people have the fundamental right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and the judicial process; that First Amendment right of the people cannot be abridged by their fellow citizens absent the consent of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, or to fight crime, and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a duly and democratically elected government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First, the focus on the 2nd Amendment is not merely the result of some psychological obsession with guns. It's because people perceive (either intuitively or intellectually) that the right to bear arms commensurate with those carried by police and military is the only thing protecting the people from outright tyranny (no matter how unlikely this possibility may seem to you).

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

Secondly, the point I was making in my previous post is fundamental to all other considerations regarding a culture that exists under government. It should not be dismissed as irrelevant to the topic you're discussing. and the fact that government permeates every aspect of our culture means that it is always relevant to the psychology of the people in that culture. It affects every area of our lives - work, marriage, children, food, shelter, personal hobbies, travel, death... everything. Government, being force, means that the use of force is psychologically present in all these areas where government is present. I will not impose upon your patience with examples, but just consider the thought process around any mundane subject long enough, and you will note how government force is present in one's mindset in subtle ways.

For this reason, government is a core topic, while the gun culture's effect on 2nd Amendment outrage is merely symptomatic. If you're willing to investigate the psychology that leads people to accept and support an immense power structure without being willing to earnestly investigate its validity, it may illuminate many symptomatic topics including the one you're focused upon now..

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Again I'd go back to my smoking analogy. We "culturally shifted" public attitudes toward smoking. Not laws but attitudes. Government didn't do that. It can't. "Cultural shift" means changing the extant values. In that case we changed "smoking is cool" to "smoking is uncoool". In the instant case the task is to shift the culture from "killing and blowing things up is cool" to "Respect for Life". Again, government can't change values. If we need a reminder of government's inability to shift a cultural value, I refer you to the Eighteenth Amendment.

My position is, and always has been, this is not a 'government' issue in the first place. Throwing laws at the problem is a distraction that at best serves as political theater so some politicians can claim, "look at us, we're doing something". But as long as that death-wish cultural value -- that desire -- continues to flourish in the culture, they are not.

Put simply, this is not a battle for laws or votes. This is a battle for hearts and minds and spirit.

I get the feeling I'm still talking over people's heads but I'll keep at it until I get through.

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

While I don't concur with Brian's stance, I suspect too that the above quoted remarks don't address the basis of his argument. He's not arguing about guns vis-a-vis a legal construct. He's arguing from the standpoint of the 2nd's alignment with notions of sovereignty and liberty. His is a philosophically founded argument, not a jurisprudentially founded one; thus invocations of what be or be not codified are insufficient refutations.

As one of my friends would, in recognition of the fact that one can potentially argue coherently for literally years and never get to a mutually satisfying end (other than to agree to stop talking about it), say, "Oh, sh*t. He's gone Greek on us."

I think the above to be the case because, rhetorically, Brian does the same thing I do -- he plays to his strengths. Consequently, he's not going to embark upon a discursive path that depends on a strong understanding of the ideas of a discipline that isn't in his wheelhouse, as it were. That's what competent strategists do, regardless of what be the specific application -- discourse/debate, chess, business negotiations, career development, diplomacy, war, etc. -- of sound strategizing.

Eventually a philosophically founded ‘argument’ concerning the Second Amendment must come to terms with Amendment’s facts of law.

Eventually one's philosophically founded ‘argument’ concerning the Second Amendment must come to terms with Amendment’s facts of law.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.

The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.

This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"

There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).

To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.

See what I mean?

SMH

As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.

I’m raising points relevant to your topic. I’m pointing out aspects of the topic that I feel you are overlooking, and explicitly stated how they relate. If you want to remain myopic and utterly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived notion of that topic’s scope, so be it, but don’t try to spin it like you’re not being heard.

 

[2aguy]

Again, my point up there is that the volume of rhetoric -- turned up to the proverbial 11 -- on the 2A is far far beyond that of any other issue that claims to originate from a Constitutional basis. That indicates to me that the motivation behind it is not Constitutional at all --- if it were, we would have seen an equally active reaction to the threats cited on other Amendments --- it would be the same basis. That should indicate to anybody that there's much more going on there. And as to what that much more is, I think I've described it through the entire thread.

I agree that all infringements should be met with equal outrage, but I do believe this focus on the second embodies the outrage about the others. Imagine a scenario whereby there is only one grocery store in town and all citizens have 10 rights regarding use of the store - the first being the right to an ID card that grants them access to the store, and the other nine giving them the right to buy certain types of food once inside. If the right to buy poultry, let's say, were infringed upon, people would be upset; but if the right to have the ID card were infringed upon, people would lose their friggin' minds.

The 2A is THE right that secures all other rights. It's the bottom-line claim to (quasi) self-ownership via self-defense. Though I largely agree with you overall, I feel this acknowledgement is missing from your argument (though I admit to entering the conversation late, so correct me if I'm wrong).

I absolutely reject the premise that 'government permeates every aspect of culture'. The latter is a far stronger impetus to human behaviour than the former can hope to be. Government can only, at best, attempt to control it (e.g. Indian laws against honor killing). Culture leads government, not the other way round. It is the far stronger influence.

Absolutely, the discussion should be focused on mind and spirit, as law should be considered irrelevant, because it actually is. However, many people are still hypnotized by the illusion that law is the relevant factor, and so it is not misguided to remove this roadblock so we can get to the true issues at hand. This is the focus of my work on public forums.

This is difficult to do because government is ever-present. Despite its activity being fundamentally limited to control by threat of violence, its psychological influence is far broader. Since government builds roads, picks up garbage, provides education, investigates crimes, funds scientific projects, grants "permission" for driving, marriage, travel, construction, etc. people foolishly believe that government is the reason why we have these things, and that without it, these things would go up in smoke. Government is offered as the solution to every problem (particularly by government officials... go figure), and so people do not generally seek solutions outside of the governmental paradigm. The first thing people say when a conflict gets heated is "I'll call the cops!" or "I'll sue you!"

There is fundamental lack of self-responsibility due to the cultural indoctrination that says "government is the premier and proper channel for solutions and resolutions". It tempts us by dangling a sword of power over our heads, and encourages us to enter the arena and vie for its control. All the talk is about how government should work, and how tax money should be spent, which diverts us from questioning the fundamental validity of the institution (a question so taboo as to border on blasphemy). It's also important to recognize that there is a concerted effort to further this phenomenon (by those who have the wealth and power to influence the culture via mass media, public education, etc). So the culture that "leads government" is not pure; but is itself largely a by-product of the governmental influence to that point (of course, there are always other factors too).

To ignore government and its law when considering behavior and psychology is a huge mistake, in my opinion. And though I recognize the symbiotic nature of the relationship, government is so intrinsic to the culture, and influences it so strongly, that to say "culture leads government" is almost the same as saying "government leads government"... which is precisely what those who benefit most from government have intended all along.

See what I mean?

SMH

As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.

I’m raising points relevant to your topic. I’m pointing out aspects of the topic that I feel you are overlooking, and explicitly stated how they relate. If you want to remain myopic and utterly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your pre-conceived notion of that topic’s scope, so be it, but don’t try to spin it like you’re not being heard.

If we weren't in the CDZ I would explain exactly what pogo is.......since we are, you need to accept what you are arguing with....

 

[2aguy]

And 70% of those occur in very small areas of just 5 counties.
And since those 70% of murders are mostly young minorities with criminal histories killing other young minorities with criminal histories you people don't give a shit about them

Get a handle on the areas where the most murders occur and like magic our murder rate drops up to 70%

But you don't want to do that

First, I kind of doubt your number about 5 counties... that just doesn't sound remotely correct.

In fact, of our 16,000 homicides, only 2000 are gang related. The rest are Cleetus shooting Billy-Bob in Jesus land over who ate the last strip of bacon.

I never mentioned gangs, Moron.

Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders - Crime Prevention Research Center

And another key point made in that data.....even in those violent counties....the murder is hyper concentrated in a tiny area.......just like in Chicago...where a few neighborhoods and about 1,500 people out of over 2.5 million are the shooters and victims of gun violence...showing that guns are not the problem...values and culture are the problem....and the fact that democrats will not keep violent gun offenders locked up in prison...

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Your first point is incorrect.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes a minority of private citizens who subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ and ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people have the fundamental right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and the judicial process; that First Amendment right of the people cannot be abridged by their fellow citizens absent the consent of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, or to fight crime, and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a duly and democratically elected government.

Ah, very good. Thank you for clarifying that. I'm no expert on the Bill of Rights... Governmental authority is provably invalid to begin with, so I don't concern myself with what they wrote down on parchment to justify it. I do, however, respect your commitment to factual information regarding these matters.

My larger point is more pragmatic. People don't want their guns messed with because they see those guns as the only thing standing between them and outright tyranny, and I wholeheartedly agree. There is one other potential safeguard against overt tyranny, which is if the wealthy and powerful deem it more lucrative and desirable to maintain our current form of free-range slavery. This is a possibility, but I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, as historically such trust has been met with body counts in the tens of millions.

 

[blackhawk]

Gov. Bevin explains that it isn't as simple as just blaming guns or gun culture.
But the gun violence we see reflects a broader cultural problem with disrespecting people and demeaning human values.



Do you agree, disagree, or think both arguments are right?
Does the gun violence we see come from
1. gun culture
2. social culture that demeans other people and doesn't value life and respect for others
3. both, the dangerous gun culture is a major part of the social cultural problems in #2
4. #2 made worse by people rejecting the gun culture that defends against #2

I went with number 2 guns have been part of our culture for a very long time but mass shootings and school shootings are relatively new. When I was in school I don't recall any school or mass shootings guns were plentiful then as well though not as powerful as some today they were also a lot easier to get then so it seems to me something in our culture is what has changed to make people feel these type of actions are acceptable.

 

[thewanderer]

A fine poll Emily, striking (and it's rare) at the real heart of the matter.

I voted #3, although I'm not sure how to read #4.

We live in a culture that celebrates death, literally. And the star player in that cultural paradigm is the Firearm, an instrument created for war, passed down to the streets as if we're each in an individual war that could erupt at any moment.

Any of us can turn on any television at any time of day or night and within a few minutes find some depiction of someone shooting somebody else, an event that happens extremely rarely in the course of an average person's life if it ever happens at all. That's a cultural fetish. And in this case an extremely destructive one.

This is all fueled by a perverted hypermasculinity cult that deems the solution to problems is to overpower them, destroy them, blow them up, or in the case of people, including oneself --- shoot them. The whole "might makes right" canard. That's why mass shooters, and gun violence in general, is virtually always committed by a male, the same source of War for much the same reasons.

Ultimately the despicable problem of rampant gun violence derives from a crisis of the Spirit. Until we turn around this perverse glorification of death and destruction and the blowing of each other up, it isn't going away.

We live in a culture that sanctions violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution: from corporal punishment in our schools to capital punishment in our prisons, and our propensity for militarism and war when addressing conflicts abroad.

And at times that sanctioned violence manifests with an individual who believes he’s been wronged getting mad, getting a gun, and getting even.

We had just as much violence in the past yet, children were not killing children. It is the break-down of the traditional family-unit....See my prior post.

Maybe you haven't noticed but gun violence is more than "children killing children". It's usually adults killing adults, sometimes adults killing children --- really adults killing anybody they can find as a target.

Far FAR more to the point is the fact that that shooter, regardless of age, is virtually always male.

Not the latest one.

 

[thewanderer]

Except in France.....or Sweden.....or Australia......in France, they don't use pistols or AR-15 civilian rifles....they use fully automatic military rifles that are completely banned and illegal in France....they are the preferred gun for street level criminals as well as muslim terrorists who are on government terrorist watch lists.......

Wow, guy, this is your argument, once a decade or so, organized terrorists are able to pull something off.

Okay, what they don't have are regular people who get AR-15's or guns and attack because they got thrown out of school or YouTube wouldn't monetize their workout video.

Serious question. We have over 300 million guns in this country already and we share a border with a 3rd world country that Democrats refuse to control. All kinds of black market contraband comes over that border.

How do you think that someone who wanted to carry out a mass shooting wouldn't still be able to get any gun they wanted? How is it possible that you could truly think that?

Could you possibly think that they would be willing to break the law to commit murder, but wouldn't be willing to break the law to get a gun on the black market to commit murder?

 

[Leo123]

See what I mean?

SMH

As noted before, I'm used to not being heard. I can only lead 'em to the water.

Maybe you are not being READ.....Long rambling posts will not get read. Guaranteed.....Brevity is the soul of wit you know.

 

[Leo123]

Your first point is incorrect.

There is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes a minority of private citizens who subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ and ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The people have the fundamental right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and the judicial process; that First Amendment right of the people cannot be abridged by their fellow citizens absent the consent of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, or to fight crime, and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a duly and democratically elected government.

A militia does not overthrow their government they protect it. If politicians try to subvert the People's Constitution then the People have the right to take up arms if need be.