The US 2nd Amendment.....

[dneal]

Yes, I understand.
I get both sides of this, I really do.

There's the,
"What should come first, personal rights or community rights ?", that HughC nicely summarized.

Verses the,
'if guns are banned only the criminals will have them' /
"the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", that stonerman33 also nicely put forward.

What I'm saying is that this is a never ending rhetorical argument that blows up every 6 weeks or so when there's yet another mass shooting that, I think, can be solved by a country wide referendum.

Basically, let democracy work it out in a no holes barred, 2 go in, 1 comes out fight for gun freedom or gun control.

Power to the people; right on.

Cheers,
Noel

We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.

[bamapendude]

We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.



WELL SAID! The problem is the minority bring it up again and again and outsiders looking in that see our leftist media pushing the minority agenda on the subject. No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....

[HughC]

We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.



WELL SAID! The problem is the minority bring it up again and again and outsiders looking in that see our leftist media pushing the minority agenda on the subject. No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

[dneal]

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

[pengeezer]

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

[dneal]

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.

[HughC]

It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.

Indeed the US did initially favour neutrality in both World Wars, public opinion dictated this option then in both cases public opinion changed in favour of entering the wars (http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww1/cou...1cush-opi.html http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/michigan_2003.pdf ) which thankfully happened. The stance of Govt. is reflected in the opinions of the people in these cases which supports "American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world".

Since then the political, economic and military importance of the US has grown to it's current world dominating position ( economically though as an entity the EU is larger and in output terms China is the leader) with military facilities throughout the world. A stuff up in the US ( or China for that matter) can have far reaching impacts, the sub-prime fiasco that started the GFC is one example, and the reality is domestic US policies can flow over to other countries. Looking at the last Iraq invasion, it had public support and the US Govt. went with that support....of course Uncle Sam knocked on a few doors and said " come on"....you don't say no when asked so many countries where tied up in it. Again that's what you do to keep on the good side of the "big boy" but it also shows how much power the US Govt. has and as it's a product of it's people that power is in the voters hands (to a degree).

The current fiasco in Syria and Iraq ( you could add Libya and Afghanistan) show clearly the perils that military action can have when not backed up with a workable future plan. I'm not sure arming opponents of Assad can be shown to have been in the "national interest", more a case of guns before brains, because the Russians where never going to allow their military presence in the region to be reduced. With hindsight the dictators where better than the current situation that's evolved. While few would criticize US targets in Pakistan it needs to be noted there is scant regard for Pakistani sovereignty, if the boot was on the other foot...

I'm of the opinion that "public opinion" is a very powerful political force and Govts take notice.

[pengeezer]

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.

I would personally disagree with our entrance into WW2 via Pearl Harbor(from what I've read FDR intended and
intentionally let the Japanese attack PH),but technically you could consider that forcing us into WW2.
In the case of the Spanish-American war,neither country wanted the Phillipine natives to have their
own independence,so they fought a "fake" war over it,though many died in the process.



John

[duckmcf]

No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....

Quite right, I have no skin in the game. It wouldn't bother me if you collectively banned every private gun in the US or if gun related death in the US went up by an order of magnitude.

I kicked the tread off because I couldn't get my head around why, post a mass shooting, the left talks up gun reform, but then almost never talks about repealing the 2nd.

Given that this thread has been active for around 8 months plenty of other people have been interested enough to exchange views to the point that I now have a better understanding of the body politics' view on the gun issue. As a bonus, I also have a better understanding of how your constitutional amendment process works.

I guess, and no disrespect intended here, I was interested in US gun violence kind of like the way David Attenborough is interested in the natural world. It's just too fascinating to look away.