It's time. It's time to repeal the second amendment (revisited)

I stated why. You didn't elaborate why not.

 

Dreaming up some far-fetched "worse case scenario" like 5000 mass shootings per year to help your argument...... does not help your argument.

 

you sometimes think these gun banners actually are hoping for more massacres to fuel a push for their beloved gun bans.

 

No, it does, indeed, illustrate the absurdity of your argument.

It's called 'following your claim to it's logical conclusion'.

That is how you find out if your premise is absurd or not.

And, of course, as I thus proved, your premise most certainly is.

 

You are the one who wants to take away hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizen's second amendment rights because of a few bad actors. THAT is absurdity.

 

The court, after granting women the right to abortion for 50 years, several conservative justices upholding, took away that right from millions of law abiding women.

I think making guns a privilege, given 351 mass shootings to date, is it clear that 2A is no longer serving America well enough to keep it as a right at the federal level.

Note that states could still make it a right in their state.

 

How many people killed and how many gun owners? It still comes down to punishing the vast majority for the crimes of a small minority. As I have said many times "How does taking my gun save a single live in Whatever City in Whichever State?

 

How long has the 2A been a right? Much longer than 50 years, and the "right" to abortion was never instituted during the original drafting of the constitution and amendments. The founding fathers rolled over in their graves when Roe was established.

 

50 years is long enough for me to make my point.

 

Thanks for all the ideas you shared. I have no doubt, that some of the ingredients in your "toxic brew," are at least contributing factors. I'd intended to get back to you sooner, but I got tangled in a series of other arguments, which kept me from it. Though I'm sorry to have made you wait, yet it worked out well, because I just yesterday saw an excellent piece on a news program, featuring interviews with a couple of very knowledgeable and credible experts, which gave me much more to share, on the topic.

First, though, as to your offering. I appreciate the article link, to your top culprit: the breakdown of the two parent family. There are, I imagine, numerous reasons why this has occurred. Does the article go into the root causes? If not, to what do you attribute it? This is important to identify because, whatever it is that would have caused the family breakdown-- if that is where the blame for shootings can indeed be placed-- would be the true source, if we run it to ground, of the escalation in violence (right?).

Secondly, I'm sure this article on divorce, does not make the connection to increased proclivity for mass shootings. I think it seems justifiable to speculate that these shooters feel less connected to our overall society, more isolated, and so exist with an image of that society, which is more artificial, than is so for most of us. Yet, feeling isolated, does not generally lead to killing-- except for oneself (suicide)-- does it? That is, it seems that it might take a complex of the factors that you cite, a combination of forces, to argue for this result (in lieu of statistical studies, that are confirmative of causation).

I realize that, as some of the additional factors you list, are interconnected with one another, this could get rather involved, to try to sort out, and quantify. But just, in brief, why do you think that the prime reason that we have mass shootings, is because these young men, who you note are most often responsible, only got to see their dad on weekends, if that?

It is an interesting idea, though my initial reaction would be that this has got to be an over generalization. I don't think it would imply that it was pointless to do anything, other than to wait for the cycle to turn, as if on its own accord. The way to get a better guage, though, on how much truth there may be to this theory, would obviously be to test it, in comparison to the history of particular societies, over more extended periods of time, than you have, in your example. I would also caution against a bias in your interpretation.

What I mean, is that you mark the mid 1940s as the start of our "High" phase, and so the mid '60's, roughly, for our "Awakening" period. This would approximately coincide with the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-war movement, the rise of feminism, and an interest, especially by the youth, in exploration of altered states of consciousness, through drugs. So far, so good; though arguments could be made that many of these were contingent upon other factors-- the War in Vietnam, and the awareness in the popular culture of LSD, for instance-- which were outside influences, that is, more a matter of happenstance, than of conscious choice. Nevertheless, I would accept that it had been the prior generation's actions, which spurred the actions of the 1960s teens and young adults, and the overall culture of the 1970s.

But, by your model, it should have been the mid 1980s, when we'd entered our "Unravelling" stage. Instead, you place it in the 1990s, but without there being anything one could call as dramatically clear a rationale, as obviously would be the end of WW2, or the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, and the Countercultural Revolution. To the contrary, I think most sociologists would say that the 1980s did represent, a cultural shift, after the 60's and 70's-- after "free love," and the Sexual Revolution-- back towards more traditional, more Conservative values. I doubt, though, that you, personally, would see this as indicative of a cultural "Unravelling." But perhaps, what I would call this "Reactionary Counter-Awakening," was an "unravelling," of sorts, that most still fail to recognize. (I'm not sure if or how these apply, but I'll add, incidentally, that we had just experienced a truncated time of crises, in the gas crisis, the economic hyperinflation crisis, and the hostage crisis. All of these, though, were again based more on the extraneous influences of outside events.) As a side note, this time of "Unravelling" arrived ahead of scedule-- unless we pin its beginning closer to the end of Reagan's first term, with the beginning of the gearing up of our military machine, in the 1983 invasion of Grenada, followed in 1985 with the Iran-Contra affair.

The first way, above, would fairly neatly place our "Crisis" stage, around the turn of the millennium-- not starting with 9/11/01 (another extraneous causation), but with our 2000 Presidential election-- a sure sign, to those with foresight, of trouble ahead.

The later dating of our Unravelling to have begun in 1983, would then jibe with a 2003 start to our Crisis stage, beginning with our (2nd) invasion of Iraq. But, even by that later timeline, we should be just about ready to move to a new High phase. If that happens in the next year, I will give Strauss-Howe, much more serious consideration.

Otherwise, though, I would say that this sounds a bit like astrology, which allows one to make the reality, fit the prediction. There will always be arguments one might use, to call something the start of a new stage; what were you thinking of, as the start of our unravelling-- the mere election of Bill Clinton, or his getting a BJ in the Oval Office, or his being impeached for lying about said BJ?

I look forward to your further detailing of the connection between divorce and mass shootings, before I move on to the alternate thesis, from the interviews, I'd seen. We can also talk more about Strauss-Howe, anytime you like.

P.S.-- Happy Labor Day!

 

Actually it isn't that is the reverse of the claim.

 

The article does go into the root causes, citing a cultural change from the culture of the 40s and 50s to the culture of the 60s and 70s. The author never mentions the Strauss-Howe theory, but what he notes is consistent with it. Strauss-Howe says that during the High period, the culture is focused on the community at large, its health, its unity, and how we all act to help build that community strength. The individual often takes second place to the responsibility we feel towards the larger community, and that larger community may be our own children. The article I asked you to read notes that during this period, married couples who "grew apart" or "fell out of love" more often chose to stay together for the good of the children. An iconic quote that fits the culture during a High period is JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Your responsibility is to something more important than self.

The Awakening period is described as a period where the emphasis shifts from the community to the happiness of the individual, and it is also a period wherein tradition and the support of our institutions is questioned. And by the way, this is not all bad. But it's a shift nevertheless. In the 60s and 70s we saw the culture turn its focus, its priority, inward in an attempt to find personal happiness, and we saw our cultural norms and our institutions questioned and fought against. "Do your own thing" was the saying. And the Isley Brothers sang, "It's your thing, do what you wanna do, I can't tell you, who to sock it to ..."

The article I asked you to read, and I do wish you would read it, notes that among the many changes during the 60s and 70s were two things relating to families and divorce. One was no-fault divorce, and the other was the rise in feminism. The author is more articulate and well researched than I, but he notes a steep rise in divorces during this period, and he makes a strong case that this was not good for children. (He specifically excludes cases where abuse is the cause.)

No, not mass shootings. But it does make the connection to crime in general.

I agree with you that feeling isolated does not generally lead to killing. It is a factor, I believe, but I agree with you that, with mass shooters, that factor is combined with elements of the toxic brew I described.

That's a great question. Sadly, some dads are terrible. They may be abusive. They may be drunks. They may model terrible morals and behaviors. They may be present, but they end up creating deep anger and hatred in their kids. And then there are a lot of dads who are just simply absent. It could be that careers may have taken the divorced parents far away from each other, or it could be that dad just wants to pursue his life without the responsibility of raising kids. In that case, who knows what male role model might imprint on a boy growing up with no father? In either case the father has failed to make a positive imprint on his children, and he has especially failed his son or sons. I think male children need a positive, loving, male role model as they grow up. But to answer your question, no. I don't think we have mass shootings because they only got to see their dad on weekends. We have millions and millions of children of divorce, don't we? And how many mass shooters? And there are many fathers who are divorced who try their best to support their kids and spend time with them every chance they get. So no. But I do believe that the horrible father, or the absent father, are important factors. But they are combined with other ingredients - the toxic brew.

Thanks. Same to you.

I am not an expert on Strauss-Howe. I am aware of its fundamentals. I would dismiss it in a heartbeat if I thought it was just sociological gobbly gook, but I think it may have some validity. And sure, the Unraveling may have started in the 80s rather than the 90s. I'll leave that to the sociology experts and historians.

In spite of ourselves, and in spite of the present political polarization, our country, believe it or not, still has some inner strength - ties that bind, if you will. And so I think that if there is an Unraveling leading to a Crisis, that these changes are gradual rather than triggered by one event - like a White House bj or whatever. And so those transitions (called "turnings") are happening perhaps more slowly than the Strauss-Howe model postulates which is 20-25 years. I could be right or wrong, I suppose. But what I've seen in my lifetime until the present seems consistent with their theory. Anyways ... I am interested in your alternate thesis as to the cause or causes of mass shootings. In an earlier post on this thread I mentioned that in the 31 year period between 1949 and 1979, there were only 3 mass shootings where 10 or more people were killed. What I didn't mention was that from 1950 until a mass shooting in 1966, there were none. Zero of that magnitude. But from 1980 to the present, there have been 29 such mass shootings. So ... what changed? It obviously wasn't something for the better. Why did we have so few mass shootings in the past and so many now?

There must be a reason ... or a combination of reasons. My focus is not on the availability of weapons. Firearms, including magazine fed semi-automatic rifles and pistols have been available to the public for a long time, including the 1940s and 50s. What I want to know is why there is a desire and willingness to commit these crimes in this day and age while there wasn't in the past. So I await your alternate thesis.

 

Actually, this was my thought on this "rule"....

LINK: Biden administration issues rule clarifying definition of being ‘engaged in the business’ of selling | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

How about you join that thread and give your thoughts to the question posed? While you're there perhaps you can also expound on why you think it appropriate for the Executive Branch to make law? (assuming you do since you apparently support this new "rule"?)

 

There are well over 100k gun defensive uses every year. That fact over rules your hypothetical and your actual number of mass shootings. And is a good reason to KEEP the 2nd Amendment.

 

The problem with Strauss-Howe is that it cannot explain the huge discrepancy in the growth of single parent families among black and white house holds, which were very nearly identical prior to 1968.

 

Over how many years? This smacks of the same sort of toying with numbers that the climate alarmist do when they use 420 parts per million rather than say 42 part per hundred k or 4.2 parts per 10k all of which are precisely the same amount.

 

Your attempt to trivialize mass shootings, 2 per day, to date, 350 or so, to date, by comparing that number to the number of people is SPECIOUS logic. the population is irrelevant to a statistic that was once rare (remember Columbine? several per year prior to 1999) to now, the increase over the last 2 decades is in the hundreds per year, and that is relevant fact, not the total number of people.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

 

Before Columbine, the per year stats were countable on your hands, but now the number is in the hundreds per year. The population has increased, but not anywhere near the rate that mass shootings have increased.

THAT is the relevant fact.

 

You're conflating 'repeal 2A' with banning guns. I addressed this point in the OP, read it again.

The ONLY reason for repealing 2A would be to give legislatures more freedom to regulate, and given the severity of mass shootings, growing from just several per year prior to 1999, to several hundred per year now, I think there is a need to give legislatures more room to regulate. Repealing 2A would disallow the NRA from stopping legislatures at every turn, wasting everyone's time and taxpayer money.

No one is going to take away your damn pistol or rifle.

 

1st: I don't own any guns.

2nd: Lots of anti-2nd Amendment people "say" that they don't want gun bans. I don't believe a single one of them. Particularly since they are pushing for gun bans. And don't say that they're not. The fact that they're failing does not mean that they're not trying. LINK: House passes assault-style weapons ban | CNN Politics

That AR-15 that Dems keep hollering about? Its a rifle. Just like the type of rifle's that you say no one is going to take away.

What's ironic is that you also say that no one is going to take away pistols...and yet they are used in more mass shootings than the AR-15. They are also by far the most used gun in other types of crimes outside of mass shootings. There are literally more blunt object deaths than rifle deaths. Yet gun banners focus on "assault weapon" deaths and point towards the AR-15 as an example of an "assault weapon". Of course we all know why. Since they are used the least amount, if they succeed in getting them banned, and the problem still exists, they'll next point to the next least used gun and aim to ban that. Then rinse and repeat. Until they've managed to leave people with nothing more than single shot rifles...at best.

 

Since none of those issues are enumerated powers of federal government in the constitution, then only the states have the power to make these laws and to repeal these laws. These things are none of federal government's business. So it appears to be you who wants to ignore the bill of rights. Go read the 10th amendment.

 

So far.

 

It changed almost entirely because a we started counting drive by shootings as mass shooting. The one the triggered you boy golem wasn't even a mass shooting.

 

But it is there are very few more guns now then there were then. So if guns are not the problems and they aren't then what is?

 

Am I the right poster for this argument