Who's getting shot by the cops is so irrelevant to a discussion of free speech (except in the meta way that free speech is necessary to effectively debate it in public fora) that I just can't conceive of how that comment is anything but snark. Agreed? Why? What's white privilege got to do with Free Speech in the context of gun control?
In the context of who owns all the media, sure.
Cops performing street executions with little or no repercussion is egregious regardless of color but is obviously, definitely racially motivated in the US. No doubt about it. So... what's that got to do with Free Speech, though? Help me out I'm dumb.
I bet, if we had a constitutional convention today, that we'd have stronger gun rights in the constitution than Free speech rights if left up to the current political climate. (which is why I'm not in favor of a constitutional convention.
I bet, if we had a constitutional convention today, that we'd have stronger gun rights in the constitution than Free speech rights if left up to the current political climate. (which is why I'm not in favor of a constitutional convention.
As Scott and I have often said, if a real constitutional convention actually convened, we would honestly, seriously, in-no-way-am-I-joking make moves to get citizenship elsewhere just in case.
That's largely because Free Speech is taken for granted and/or people believe that THEIR speech will be protected while others' shouldn't be (like those niggers and homos).
So yeah, I don't disagree that this would be a scary thing in the current, highly gamed, highly propagandized environment. :-(
I'm way more scared of getting shot/fucked up by the police than some random criminal, and I sure don't hear much about concealed carry holders killing unarmed black people all the time. Maybe because they actually have a standard for when they can use their gun?
And gun control probably wouldn't be much of an issue if we could get that whole poverty thing under control.
As a security officer, I haven't taken a position at an armed post, not because I don't think I could handle the responsibility of a weapon (I am pursuing a CCW license), but I'm afraid of the attitudes my coworkers might have.
My point was that in a culture where gun ownership and use for self defense is protected constitutionally, the police must be able to use guns too. The proliferation of civilian gun ownership means proliferation of police gun use.
There is no way for the police to stop shooting black men in the back/shooting anyone accidentally/shooting mentally ill people until there are so few guns in the general population that the police don't need to carry guns 100% of the time. Cops doing traffic violation stops carry guns. Cops doing checkups on mentally ill people carry guns. For someone from outside of the US, this is TOTALLY CRAZY to me. Just completely fucked up.
White middle class people in New York benefit faaaaaaar more from free speech rights than gun ownership rights. If they were to give up guns of free speech, of COURSE they'd give up guns.
Poor black people would benefit faaaaaar more from NOBODY, including the police, having any access to guns at all than free speech rights. Their free speech already gives them fuck-all benefits. Nobody, including them, having guns, legally or not, would mean a whole load fewer deaths all round.
White middle class people in New York benefit faaaaaaar more from free speech rights than gun ownership rights. If they were to give up guns of free speech, of COURSE they'd give up guns.
Poor black people would benefit faaaaaar more from NOBODY, including the police, having any access to guns at all than free speech rights. Their free speech already gives them fuck-all benefits. Nobody, including them, having guns, legally or not, would mean a whole load fewer deaths all round.
So thus the question. Who actually benefits more from guns existing than from free speech?
Who actually, really, truly is better off because of barely restricted civilian gun ownership? It wouldn't still be a thing without a core of well funded long-term support politically.
So thus the question. Who actually benefits more from guns existing than from free speech?
Who actually, really, truly is better off because of barely restricted civilian gun ownership? It wouldn't still be a thing without a core of well funded long-term support politically.
You are the one who brought up the "what keeps our freedom of speech is what also keeps our gun ownership rights." My question is:
If the same reforms that would allow gun rights to be restricted would also allow free speech to be restricted, would you take a chance with those reforms?
And now, same question, but you're a young black man in a city with trigger happy racist police?
If the same reforms that would allow gun rights to be restricted would also allow free speech to be restricted, would you take a chance with those reforms?
And now, same question, but you're a young black man in a city with trigger happy racist police?
The police as a whole commit less murders than happen in some (probably many but I haven't cross-checked the numbers) U.S. cities per year, so I think that's not really the right question to be asking. Most urban blacks I know are more scared of being robbed by the police than being killed by them. I hear it's especially popular now to raid speakeasies and private parties and take everyone's cars without charging any crimes or issuing any tickets.
So thus the question. Who actually benefits more from guns existing than from free speech?
Who actually, really, truly is better off because of barely restricted civilian gun ownership? It wouldn't still be a thing without a core of well funded long-term support politically.
You are the one who brought up the "what keeps our freedom of speech is what also keeps our gun ownership rights." My question is:
If the same reforms that would allow gun rights to be restricted would also allow free speech to be restricted, would you take a chance with those reforms?
The problem is that guns are more popular than speech. Until the electorate swings back around to at least the center once rural gerrymandering finally runs out of steam, I wouldn't risk any change to the constitution of any kind. State legislatures are the ones who actually make those changes, and state legislatures are the worst part of American politics right now.
If the first amendment came up on the chopping block, I'd gtfo. If a constitutional convention came on the realistic horizon, I'd gtfo.
Guns have a powerful lobby that speech does not. Free speech is usually unpopular in practice, and in general the first amendment has been the sole justification for countless court cases overruling anti-speech laws in the last 40ish years.
And now, same question, but you're a young black man in a city with trigger happy racist police?
Far be it for me to speak on behalf of one of the most oppressed demographics in American history.
What I will say is that in general this demographic is so deeply disenfranchised from real political influence that I shudder to think what would happen if their most powerful weapon - video - were restricted.
If speech and guns were restricted, I think we'd just see more black people in jail for speaking out against the racist cops beating the shit out of them for no reason.
The problem is that guns are more popular than speech. Until the electorate swings back around to at least the center once rural gerrymandering finally runs out of steam, I wouldn't risk any change to the constitution of any kind. State legislatures are the ones who actually make those changes, and state legislatures are the worst part of American politics right now.
If speech and guns were restricted, I think we'd just see more black people in jail for speaking out against the racist cops beating the shit out of them for no reason.
They are restricted. It's the degree of restriction that matters.
Personal opinion: Guns should be a local issue. Speech should be a national issue.
If your stance is "firearm discipline is impossible on the part of the police because gun culture" well then I'm just going to write you off as not worth discussing this with. Holy Jesus Christ.
If your stance is "firearm discipline is impossible on the part of the police because gun culture" well then I'm just going to write you off as not worth discussing this with. Holy Jesus Christ.
I don't understand what you wrote there, so I'm not sure if you are framing my view or someone else's.
Isn't this all moot once you can download a car gun? From the legal side at least. How do you legislate firearms in the Diamond Age?
If you make a PGP-style book out of it, is an e-gun speech?
From what I understand the substrate used in 3D printing is too weak to hold up to more than couple of shots from any caliber. You can certainly mass-produce zip guns eventually, but for the cost why not go buy a nice new (or used) gun and get as many shots as you want?
The thing is with 3d printed guns, the Defense Distributed guy got all this press from making AR lowers and whatnot and everyone freaked out. Except his printer is like a $100,000 printer. You might be able to make just a lower with a cheap several hundred dollar printer, but it will take a lot more work and may break after the first shot. There was also talk of a completely 3D printed gun, which was shitty but worked and might be more feasible with consumer printers. But it was still overly large and only a single shot. If you wanted something like that you can easily spend less than $20 at home depot and build something much more sturdy.
If you want to get into AR lower or more "real" gun you could get a CNC machine for a fraction of the cost of a high end 3D printer. Hell, the Ghost Gunner is a fraction of that. Or just buy an 80% lower and get busy with your power tools. I have no doubt 3D printing guns will be popular at some point but right now its not very practical.
Oh yeah and you can buy a decent AK for $500 but we're talking about technology making gun control not so feasible here.
Gun control is already infeasible. Any gun you can name, you can find for sale on the black market, probably for cheaper than in the store. It's not unheard of for AKs to be sold for $50... There is no way to stop guns from getting into the hands of those who want them, so the only result of retail-oriented gun control is making it harder for legitimate sales to occur (this isn't a bad thing necessarily, but I don't think more legislation here will help reduce gun crime, except for closing the gun-show loophole where it exists).
Oh yeah and you can buy a decent AK for $500 but we're talking about technology making gun control not so feasible here.
Gun control is already infeasible. Any gun you can name, you can find for sale on the black market, probably for cheaper than in the store. It's not unheard of for AKs to be sold for $50... There is no way to stop guns from getting into the hands of those who want them, so the only result of retail-oriented gun control is making it harder for legitimate sales to occur (this isn't a bad thing necessarily, but I don't think more legislation here will help reduce gun crime, except for closing the gun-show loophole where it exists).
Pretty much. If we introduced a lot more restrictions I have a feeling we'd just end up seeing a lot more guns being built here or imported illegally from other countries rather than from straw purchases and things like that. I bet there are plenty of out of work machinists and other engineers who wouldn't say no to a good pay from a criminal organization paying them to work a CNC machine building guns.
My point was that in a culture where gun ownership and use for self defense is protected constitutionally, the police must be able to use guns too. The proliferation of civilian gun ownership means proliferation of police gun use.
There is no way for the police to stop shooting black men in the back/shooting anyone accidentally/shooting mentally ill people until there are so few guns in the general population that the police don't need to carry guns 100% of the time. Cops doing traffic violation stops carry guns. Cops doing checkups on mentally ill people carry guns. For someone from outside of the US, this is TOTALLY CRAZY to me. Just completely fucked up.
Every cop in Germany is armed right? In fact all over Europe most cops are armed. It's only the UK where the armed cops are the exception and even there there are patrol cops now carrying their guns on patrol and not just for special calls.
Look at the shootings in Germany and you will see that most of the people getting shot are mentally ill or minorities. Even in Germany which has the strictest gun control laws in Europe the cops still shoot and kill people who didn't have guns. Is that an endorsement for me to have less gun rights? No. Can you extrapolate German culture onto the US and do things the same way here, no way.
Finland ranks as no 4 in the world for the rates of privately owned guns. Finish cops are armed. Is there an epidemic of Finnish cops shooting people? No, for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with the guns.
Iceland ranks about 15 in the rate of gun ownership, has either 0 or 1 firearm related homicide a year and the cops are armed, yet the first and only shooting of a citizen by the cops recently happened. It was with a mentally ill person.
I know you think it's crazy, but there are places in this world with lots of guns without lots of gun violence. With armed police and armed populaces and without lots of police shootings.
The US is different for lots of reasons, cops carrying guns and shooting unarmed people in the back as they run away is not a reason to take away my right to own a firearm.
Comments
In the context of who owns all the media, sure.
Cops performing street executions with little or no repercussion is egregious regardless of color but is obviously, definitely racially motivated in the US. No doubt about it. So... what's that got to do with Free Speech, though? Help me out I'm dumb.
Free speech exists as such an unassailable idea in the US due to the power of the first amendment.
Gun right exist as such an unassailable idea in the US due to the power of the second amendment.
So yeah, I don't disagree that this would be a scary thing in the current, highly gamed, highly propagandized environment. :-(
And gun control probably wouldn't be much of an issue if we could get that whole poverty thing under control.
There is no way for the police to stop shooting black men in the back/shooting anyone accidentally/shooting mentally ill people until there are so few guns in the general population that the police don't need to carry guns 100% of the time. Cops doing traffic violation stops carry guns. Cops doing checkups on mentally ill people carry guns. For someone from outside of the US, this is TOTALLY CRAZY to me. Just completely fucked up.
White middle class people in New York benefit faaaaaaar more from free speech rights than gun ownership rights. If they were to give up guns of free speech, of COURSE they'd give up guns.
Poor black people would benefit faaaaaar more from NOBODY, including the police, having any access to guns at all than free speech rights. Their free speech already gives them fuck-all benefits. Nobody, including them, having guns, legally or not, would mean a whole load fewer deaths all round.
Who actually, really, truly is better off because of barely restricted civilian gun ownership? It wouldn't still be a thing without a core of well funded long-term support politically.
If the same reforms that would allow gun rights to be restricted would also allow free speech to be restricted, would you take a chance with those reforms?
And now, same question, but you're a young black man in a city with trigger happy racist police?
If the first amendment came up on the chopping block, I'd gtfo. If a constitutional convention came on the realistic horizon, I'd gtfo.
Guns have a powerful lobby that speech does not. Free speech is usually unpopular in practice, and in general the first amendment has been the sole justification for countless court cases overruling anti-speech laws in the last 40ish years. Far be it for me to speak on behalf of one of the most oppressed demographics in American history.
What I will say is that in general this demographic is so deeply disenfranchised from real political influence that I shudder to think what would happen if their most powerful weapon - video - were restricted.
http://thespeaker.co/more-americans-favor-gun-rights-over-gun-control-for-first-time/
Personal opinion:
Guns should be a local issue.
Speech should be a national issue.
If you make a PGP-style book out of it, is an e-gun speech?
If you want to get into AR lower or more "real" gun you could get a CNC machine for a fraction of the cost of a high end 3D printer. Hell, the Ghost Gunner is a fraction of that. Or just buy an 80% lower and get busy with your power tools. I have no doubt 3D printing guns will be popular at some point but right now its not very practical.
Look at the shootings in Germany and you will see that most of the people getting shot are mentally ill or minorities. Even in Germany which has the strictest gun control laws in Europe the cops still shoot and kill people who didn't have guns. Is that an endorsement for me to have less gun rights? No. Can you extrapolate German culture onto the US and do things the same way here, no way.
Finland ranks as no 4 in the world for the rates of privately owned guns. Finish cops are armed. Is there an epidemic of Finnish cops shooting people? No, for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with the guns.
Iceland ranks about 15 in the rate of gun ownership, has either 0 or 1 firearm related homicide a year and the cops are armed, yet the first and only shooting of a citizen by the cops recently happened. It was with a mentally ill person.
I know you think it's crazy, but there are places in this world with lots of guns without lots of gun violence. With armed police and armed populaces and without lots of police shootings.
The US is different for lots of reasons, cops carrying guns and shooting unarmed people in the back as they run away is not a reason to take away my right to own a firearm.