patrick.net

In case anyone wants to make a new counter-argument. I'll take on any challenge.

Dan, do you own a firearm?

Awesome post Dan.

Goran_K says

Dan, do you own a firearm?

Irrelevant. The arguments for and against gun control should have nothing to do with the individuals making those arguments. Nor would it be hypocritical to call for a change in the law that would require you yourself to alter your behavior. Symbolic gestures mean nothing. Only rational arguments backed by evidence matter. For example, I would gladly alter my behavior by paying a carbon tax that I do not currently paid if a law, which applies to all people, is enacted. I may even advocate such a law.

Another example... I currently drive a gasoline car, but I'd gladly give it up at my own expense if we banned all cars and replaced them with privately owned maglift vehicles that ran on electricity alone. Changing societal behavior as a group makes a material difference. Individual symbolic gestures accomplish nothing.

I would gladly give up any guns, if any, that I currently possess or will possess in the future if guns are restricted to authorized users only knowing that I'm safer with neither me nor anyone having a gun than I would be with me and lots of other people having them. It is not irrational, contradictory, or hypocritical to take this stance. It is logically consistent.

As to whether or not I have a gun right now, under the current system it is neither a requirement nor in my best interests to disclose that to the public. Nor does it affect the validity of the arguments I have presented as those arguments are not personal.

jazz music says

I realize the police use the knowledge of your having guns as a cheap excuse to shoot you when they are called.

Incorrect. Unless you have a CC permit police have no clue what you do or do not have.

If you have a CC permit, they have to run your plate to know. Now they approach with extra caution and typically the first phrase out of their mouth, "Do you have your fire arm on you."

Rew says

"Do you have your fire arm on you."

Ah but that brings up another point. Are you really safer having the gun? And do you really have the right to possess the gun when the police can order you to drop it?

If carrying a gun were a right, then you should be allowed to carry one at all times, everywhere, and do so either openly or concealed or both with multiple guns. Otherwise, your right to bear arms is, by definition, being infringed.

At a fundamental level, the right to bear arms is incompatible with allowing the police to possess superior firepower.

Law enforcement is granted rights above and beyond civilian rights, and legally has the ability to suspend some rights under certain circumstances.

Adittionally a regulated right is still a right.

I have the right to drive my car: I'm liscensed, my car is registered and tagged, and provided I obey the laws and regulations regarding motor vehicle operation ... I have the right to use the public roads and go where desired.

The 2nd as practiced today is a pale pale shadow of original intent: militia defense.

Another thing that I did not bring up, but is worth mentioning, is that encryption is considered an arm. So if the right to bear arms is uninfringable, then by necessity, the right to use unbreakable encryption and not give away any keys or supply any back doors and to export such technology is uninfringable.

And I am not the only one to realize this. The Second Amendment Case for the Right to Bear Crypto

On November 9, 1994, an American software engineer named Philip Zimmermann was detained by customs agents in Dulles International Airport as he returned from a speaking engagement in Europe.

His luggage was searched and he was interrogated at length regarding his possible illegal export of "dangerous munitions."

Though Zimmermann was carrying no guns, bombs, or chemical agents, he was carrying one item considered a weapon in the eyes of the US government: the strong cryptographic software of his own making known as "Pretty Good Privacy," or PGP.

While today it may seem surprising that software like PGP was ever considered a weapon, the US government has long viewed strong crypto—typically any encryption mechanism that cannot be bypassed efficiently—as a dangerous technology in civilian hands.

Meanwhile, "Software (including their cryptographic interfaces) capable of maintaining secrecy or confidentiality of information or information systems" remains on the ITAR Munitions List today—and the export of more sophisticated encryption software is still subject to both government oversight and a complex licensing process.

So if the Second Amendment were actually in effect and the "right to bear arms may not be infringed" were true, then bearing cryptography even when leaving the U.S. could not be infringed. Taking a person's private key or encryption technology away is equivalent to taking away his gun or any other arm.

Dan8267 says

Irrelevant. The arguments for and against gun control should have nothing to do with the individuals making those arguments. Nor would it be hypocritical to call for a change in the law that would require you yourself to alter your behavior. Symbolic gestures mean nothing. Only rational arguments backed by evidence matter. For example, I would gladly alter my behavior by paying a carbon tax that I do not currently paid if a law, which applies to all people, is enacted. I may even advocate such a law.

Another example... I currently drive a gasoline car, but I'd gladly give it up at my own expense if we banned all cars and replaced them with privately owned maglift vehicles that ran on electricity alone. Changing societal behavior as a group makes a material difference. Individual symbolic gestures accomplish nothing.

I would gladly give up any guns, if any, that I currently possess or will possess in the future if guns are restricted to authorized users only knowing that I'm safer with neither me nor anyone having a gun than I would be with me and lots of other people having them. It is not irrational, contradictory, or hypocritical to take this stance. It is logically consistent.

As to whether or not I have a gun right now, under the current system it is neither a requirement nor in my best interests to disclose that to the public. Nor does it affect the validity of the arguments I have presented as those arguments are not personal.

So what do you say to people who do not want to alter their rights, or behaviors, and they don't think it's for the greater good of society?

Rew says

Law enforcement is granted rights above and beyond civilian rights

And doing so is a violation of the Equals Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the very concept of government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The police are simply citizens with government jobs. All their power comes from the government, and all government power comes from the people. To say otherwise is to reject government of the people.

If you accept that we are all equal under law or that government power is derived from the people, then government cannot have rights that people do not have. It can have privileges, but not rights. After all, one cannot give to another what one does not possess. If I don't have the right to kill someone, then I can't give that right to a guy in a funny hat.

Rew says

and legally has the ability to suspend some rights under certain circumstances.

A freedom that can be suspended, by definition, is a privilege not a right. If a freedom can be suspended, then it's purely argumentative when, where, and by whom that privilege can be suspended.

Ultimately, we as a society need to choose which liberties are mere privileges and which ones are rights. Gun possession is at best a privilege, and that's being generous.

Dan, I think they carefully said "arms" to allow interpretation and evolution with the arms race.

I agree, it isn't an inherent everything goes right and is interpreted under current law. Just like everything in the constitution is.

Goran_K says

So what do you say to people who do not want to alter their rights, or behaviors, and they don't think it's for the greater good of society?

I say exactly what I said in the original post. They are wrong for the very specific and verifiable reasons listed.

I don't expect to change their minds anymore than I expect to change the mind of a racist or a jihadist. What I expect is to persuade those who have not made up their mind including those not yet conceived. I intend to prevent the viruses of incorrect facts, wrong arguments, and false reasoning from infecting future generations. This is the only thing one can do. Social progress like scientific advancement happens one funeral at a time.

Rew says

Dan, I think they carefully said "arms" to allow interpretation and evolution with the arms race.

Yes, obviously the intent and the letter of the Second Amendment is to include all arms especially ones created in the future and ones used by the federal government. The founding fathers just fought a revolution and expecting future revolutions to be necessary. They also thought the threat of revolution was the only way to keep government in line. That means the Second Amendment was intended to enable the public to overthrow the government and the public would need the same level of arms as the government has.

Of course, the founding fathers could never had thought of anything like nuclear weapons.

jazz music says

491 Americans shot by police so far this year.

And a large reason for police shooting unarmed people is the fear caused by guns being wide spread. A well armed society isn't a polite one. It's one where the courts give police zero accountability because it's tough being a cop when anyone could have a gun.

The freedoms and rights we have are all privileges extended by the society we live in. You can philosophically say they are unalienable human rights, but you can see many instances through the world where they are not extended.

All rights are interpreted in the court of law and evolve over time. So by that logic all rights must be privileges because in some instances we deem they do not apply?

Police, yes by occupation, have more legal rights and protection under the law : privileges extended them due to their position. Likewise military have more in some cases and many less in others.

I cannot on a private sidewalk say to someone: "Stay away from this area. Move around." An officer issuing that verbal command has the legal right to control and influence my movement for his/her own safety.

If I obey, I've lost my right to freedom of movement and access to a public utility for a short amount of time. If I choose to disobey, I can end up in handcuffs and have lost all sorts of rights until I am processed through detainment or arrest.

A regular citizen cannot do the above.

"Arms" and under what conditions you can "bear" them are all interpreted. That doesn't mean they are not a right extended to us.

Look at all the interpretation around any of the amendments. You can call them privileges if you want, because they are transient and regulated.

Dan, I agree with your thoughts on founders intent. Not only did the founders not envision WMDs but in general large standing professional volunteer armies.

But again, I say just because a right is interpreted in application and intent, doesn't mean it isn't one.

Oh further, I agree, gun possession is a privilege. Bearing arms is a right.

Keep has only one legal meaning, in every instance it is employed throughout the entire Anglo-Saxon tradition: personal possession. Not in an armory.

Your crypto example is wrong becuase that is an example of giving weapons to a foreign nation or power. That's punishable under treason and espionage laws. Same for gun running and such.

I'm packing some sick crypto right here on my cell-phone though. 😄

You can bear it but you cannot give it away and crossing outside national boundaries puts you in international law or the law of the nation you enter. You retain your rights as a citizen but also are now bound by other laws.

Thunderlips11, yes, you can poses arms on your person by right. What they are and the manner in which borne are for interpretation.

Rew says

Thunderlips11, yes, you can poses arms on your person by right. What they are and the manner in which borne are for interpretation.

Well, a militia armed with flintlock muskets that faces a modern military with M-16s is in big trouble, so it must mean modern military-equivalent personal weapons.

jazz music says

I realize the police use the knowledge of your having guns as a cheap excuse to shoot you when they are called.

Where would this "knowledge" come from when rifle and even pistol registration is a rarity in most states? Even in our fucked-in-the-head California long guns registration didn't start until 2014 (and for newly-purchased long guns only).

Meanwhile...

Blame the Stale Pale White Male is in full effect.

It's funny how Dan is threatening US gun owners with tanks and even ICBMs but can't explain why Taliban is still alive and kicking 15 years since the start of Afghan campaign...

Seriously, why not use these magic tanks on the fuckers and be done with it?

Thinderlips11, the militia also would need to be armed with ships of the line and horse ... to really effectively contest a professional armed force of the day. Not part of the clause. I don't believe intent was to equal but to resist and not be enslaved. Our power is from numbers not force equivalence.

Why draw line at just a combat rifle though? Everything is mech infantry with automatic grenade launchers, 60s, 50s, and all military rifles typically go burst or full auto.

We consistently regulate what is for militia/civilian possession, and it has never looked "equal" to me. The insurance is simply "enough to resist".

The law abiding gun owner is just that until they shoot someone and are then labeled as one of other things.

But I like this thinking line in general, because it is a secret cry for gun regulation. If you really wanted to address the mental issue you would put in legislation to prove fit ownership and retest periodically : just like cars.

StrawMan is the Taliban a significant source of gun violence in the United States of America? Compared to other sources?

Rew says

Why draw line at just a combat rifle though? Everything in mech infantry with automatic grenade launchers, 60s, 50s, and all military rifles typically go burst or full auto.

They can get that stuff from foreign assistance, or take it from the enemy. It's certainly not necessary to be equal, just in the same ballpark. Garands and SKS would be fine, but limiting it to matchlock pistols and cutlasses would be silly.

Also, if we really wanted to save lives: ban POVs.

Dan8267 says

I don't expect to change their minds anymore than I expect to change the mind of a racist or a jihadist.

These type of comments really weaken your position IMO.

Rew says

StrawMan is the Taliban a significant source of gun violence in the United States of America? Compared to other sources?

Not a source at all. Why?

jazz music says

Straw Man says

Where would this "knowledge" come from

That's another really underhanded thing in the typical reports. They get away with saying anything in your hands looks like a gun; it's criminal what they do.

Also they look for any person in the area and ask them whether you have any guns. Whatever that person says can be twisted into a potentially gun-affirming statement. For example, they can say they don't know, or probably, or maybe and that can be twisted because police are very anxious about coming to a home. They respect people according to their stereotypical probable ability to mount an effective defense against them to some degree. They should be anxious, they are running a scam on the public, they mean harm to all but their circle of favorites. They are an occupying army, the prosecutors are ring leaders, courts are slavers.

Yeah, they are out to get ya. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The idea that the police are running around using fear of guns as an excuses to kill people and get away with it : not true. Not in my cities. If you have higher rates of civilian gun violence you will have higher rates of police shootings. Are there police injustices : yes. The demonization of cops is asinine though.

I'm totally biased. Lots of friends and families serving as officers.

Straw Man says

Not a source at all. Why?

Don't have to use the tanks and ICBMs on them.

Have you seen us using any of those on them lately in other nations? If we did, they wouldn't last long. The truth is it isn't worth our Anerican lives and cost to exterminate them. Not our aim. We easily could though ... because they just have light arms, technicals, and remote terrain on their side.

Rew says

The idea that the police are running around using fear of guns as an excuses to kill people and get away with it : not true. Not in my cities. If you have higher rates of civilian gun violence you will have higher rates of police shootings. Are there police injustices : yes. The demonization of cops is asinine though.

Yep. Police shootings of African Americans is proportional (within the MOE) to their arrest rate.

The numbers of Blacks who die from other Blacks is sky high relative to the number killed by police. 4500 per year. But the BLM isn't so interested in that.

They'll scream about the few hundred shot by police while blasting gangster rap and posing with money, drugs, and pistols on social media.

First Gulf War was an amazingly broad coalition of nations repelling blatant aggression ... and of course preserving our national interests.

You're right. A nation might use any of the things we have used to project force and will into our own country. To do that, they have to go toe to toe with what?

Thunderlips11, do you not acknowledge that that has far less to do with being black than socioeconomic factors? Find me poverty and I'll show you violence.

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 6 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

jazz music says

Straw Man says

why Taliban is still alive and kicking 15 years since the start of Afghan campaign...

United States looks like a supreme existential threat to many middle eastern nations, not Israel or Saudis.

I'm not asking about their motives, stay on topic: I'm asking why Dan's magic tanks hasn't defeated the ragtag militia armed with rifles in 15 years. Dan's picture said the resistance is futile, but Taliban apparently can't view it on their old flip phones and keeps fighting...

jazz music says

Straw Man says

Yeah, they are out to get ya. Be afraid, be very afraid.

The whole situation can be reversed by using civilian oversight

You said "having guns at home gives them excuse to kill you". I countered with "they don't know what people have in most cases". For which you said "it doesn't matter whether you really have something because they will say you have it and kill you anyway". So, it looks like you agreed that having guns at home does not increase your chances of being killed by police. =))