Thousands peacefully protest for Constitutional gun rights in Virginia, legacy media screeches, WV offers to annex pro-2A counties

[Himster]

Citizens of certain European countries have significantly less individual freedoms then Americans do, which is the point.
it is only negative as "default" in authoritarian regimes or authoritarian-leaning regimes.

Ah, I see. So the intercontinental ubiquitous reaction to guns is actually somehow a universal authoritarian conspiracy where all countries that aren't the US (including all democracies and republics) have gotten together and somehow convinced the world that guns are bad, magically, without hardly ever mentioning a word about it. That's amazing.
Yet in America, where people voice their negative opinion about guns, there is a unique and bizarre frothing support for widespread gun ownership.

As for public opinion, it was already pointed out to be mainly result of smear campaign and misniformation from corporate media and politicians, both institutions being coincidentally owned by elite. Hence why we never see any real grassroots anti-gun movements, but plenty for the opposite.

There is no smear campaign outside America, yet, we see the results that we see. So if we were to correlate the effects of smear campaigns, it seems that it is correlated with extreme popularity, rather than the opposite.

[Cope]

Ah, I see. So the intercontinental ubiquitous reaction to guns is actually somehow a universal authoritarian conspiracy where all countries that aren't the US (including all democracies and republics) have gotten together and somehow convinced the world that guns are bad, magically, without hardly ever mentioning a word about it. That's amazing.
Yet in America, where people voice their negative opinion about guns, there is a unique and bizarre frothing support for widespread gun ownership.

There is no smear campaign outside America, yet, we see the results that we see. So if we were to correlate the effects of smear campaigns, it seems that it is correlated with extreme popularity, rather than the opposite.

There is no conspiracy. In many countries outside of the US, people just weren't/aren't socialised to recognise the importance of the right to bear arms. It's odd to hear a liberal (in the true sense of the word) secularist making this point when the 2A's intellectual basis comes from thinkers like Locke, Jefferson and later Orwell. Even Marx agreed that the workers should never be disarmed.

[conon394]

But the 2A states that it is a Right, not a privilege, nor does it mention any exceptions to the entitlement of this Right.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Actually you will note it does. It puts it in the context of a well regulated militia. Also of course you note the same guys who wrote that were also (at least the southern aristocrats) pretty chill with slavery. Nor could they possibly have conceived of the firepower and ease of use and absolute reliability of modern firearms.

SO are you a member of well regulated militia, to own a gun?

[Himster]

There is no conspiracy. In many countries outside of the US, people just weren't/aren't socialised to recognise the importance of the right to bear arms. It's odd to hear a liberal (in the true sense of the word) secularist making this point when the 2A's intellectual basis comes from thinkers like Locke, Jefferson and later Orwell. Even Marx agreed that the workers should never be disarmed.

I agree that there is no conspiracy in reality, I was actually mocking the notion.
I am not making the case that any population should be disarmed, rather that it is right for particular members of any population to be deprived of arms and that basic precautions should be taken in order to prevent catastrophe.
For example I do agree, with the liberal notion, that a good way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by a good guy with a gun. However a more reasonable way is to stop the bad guy from getting said gun, if possible. Which it demonstrably is, based upon equivalent successes in countries with appropriate firearm regulations in place.

[Cope]

I agree that there is no conspiracy in reality, I was actually mocking the notion.
I am not making the case that any population should be disarmed, rather that it is right for particular members of any population to be deprived of arms and that basic precautions should be taken in order to prevent catastrophe.
For example I do agree, with the liberal notion, that a good way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by a good guy with a gun. However a more reasonable way is to stop the bad guy from getting said gun, if possible. Which it demonstrably is, based upon equivalent successes in countries with appropriate firearm regulations in place.

The primary purpose of the amendment is to prevent state tyranny, not to facilitate better personal protection (although that is an important aspect). Since the state cannot be prevented from arming itself, it is necessary for the citizenry to be armed to protect the "free state" from an authoritarian/criminal state.

[Sar1n]

The primary purpose of the amendment is to prevent state tyranny, not to facilitate better personal protection (although that is an important aspect). Since the state cannot be prevented from arming itself, it is necessary for the citizenry to be armed to protect the "free state" from an authoritarian/criminal state.

And how's that working out?

When the second amendment was written, the common soldier was armed with smoothbore musket, and armies considered smoothbore, muzzle loading howitzers with unreliable fuzed black powder explosive shells to be the greatest military technological advancement.
These days, to have even a chance of success, militias would need stockpiles of explosives, handheld AT and AA rocket launchers, automatic weapons and helova lot training, not to mention enough information and drive to actually form in the first place...and that is something that in this era does not come that easily.

[sumskilz]

And how's that working out?

When the second amendment was written, the common soldier was armed with smoothbore musket, and armies considered smoothbore, muzzle loading howitzers with unreliable fuzed black powder explosive shells to be the greatest military technological advancement.
These days, to have even a chance of success, militias would need stockpiles of explosives, handheld AT and AA rocket launchers, automatic weapons and helova lot training, not to mention enough information and drive to actually form in the first place...and that is something that in this era does not come that easily.

I imagine it would be much easier to get American soldiers to round up unarmed citizens who hadn't really done anything wrong than it would be to get them to fire on armed citizens who hadn't really done anything wrong. In the latter case, I assume a lot more soldiers would refuse orders or switch sides.

[Cope]

And how's that working out?

Since the United States is yet to turn tyrannical, I'd say fairly well.

When the second amendment was written, the common soldier was armed with smoothbore musket, and armies considered smoothbore, muzzle loading howitzers with unreliable fuzed black powder explosive shells to be the greatest military technological advancement.

That's a bit like arguing that when the 1A was written there were no radios, telephones, televisions or internet so free speech shouldn't apply to communications which occur via those mediums.

These days, to have even a chance of success, militias would need stockpiles of explosives, handheld AT and AA rocket launchers, automatic weapons and helova lot training, not to mention enough information and drive to actually form in the first place...and that is something that in this era does not come that easily.

You'd be surprised how successful insurgencies equipped with small arms can be. And as sumskilz mentioned, a prospective showdown between a tyrannical state and rebels would be unlikely to take the shape of an unrestricted conflict between the existing military and the rest of the population.

[Love Mountain]

I imagine it would be much easier to get American soldiers to round up unarmed citizens who hadn't really done anything wrong than it would be to get them to fire on armed citizens who hadn't really done anything wrong. In the latter case, I assume a lot more soldiers would refuse orders or switch sides.

If we are at a point where soldiers, rather than local law enforcement, is rounding up people, then we are probably past the point where anyone is switching sides. The bigger issue and bigger violations of personal liberty has less to do with centralized power anyway. It is most often minorities who suffer most from "tyranny" and I doubt that starting a shooting war between minorities and security forces is going to produce a positive outcome.

[Heathen Hammer]

Ah, I see. So the intercontinental ubiquitous reaction to guns is actually somehow a universal authoritarian conspiracy where all countries that aren't the US (including all democracies and republics) have gotten together and somehow convinced the world that guns are bad, magically, without hardly ever mentioning a word about it. That's amazing.
Yet in America, where people voice their negative opinion about guns, there is a unique and bizarre frothing support for widespread gun ownership.

Except that there is no evidence that "universal opinion" against gun ownership exists.
Again, let's not equate opinions presented by elites and their pocket media outlets as some sort of public census.

There is no smear campaign outside America, yet, we see the results that we see. So if we were to correlate the effects of smear campaigns, it seems that it is correlated with extreme popularity, rather than the opposite.

The popularity of gun control is highly questionable (since for some reason elites are afraid to put up the matter to a referendum), but we do see a smear campaign and misinformation perpetrated by elites and mainstream media in regards to civilian gun ownership.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Actually you will note it does. It puts it in the context of a well regulated militia. Also of course you note the same guys who wrote that were also (at least the southern aristocrats) pretty chill with slavery. Nor could they possibly have conceived of the firepower and ease of use and absolute reliability of modern firearms.

SO are you a member of well regulated militia, to own a gun?

Nah, "well regulated" is universally interpreted as "well-supplied". Of course, constitution does not imply that you have to be a member of a militia to own a gun either. Just that you can own firearms to be able to deal with either foreign invaders or domestic tyrants.

[Vanoi]

The popularity of gun control is highly questionable (since for some reason elites are afraid to put up the matter to a referendum), but we do see a smear campaign and misinformation perpetrated by elites and mainstream media in regards to civilian gun ownership.

You mean like in Virgina where its population elected Democrats into power who thus passed laws for more gun control? Or do they not count?

[Heathen Hammer]

You mean like in Virgina where its population elected Democrats into power who thus passed laws for more gun control? Or do they not count?

Its like saying that population that elected Democrats in the 60s wanted Ma Lai massacre.

[Vanoi]

Its like saying that population that elected Democrats in the 60s wanted Ma Lai massacre.

Lol except the Democrats were never responsible in anyway for the massacre. Horrible analogy.

If the people of Virgina don't want gun control then why did the elect a Democratic majority? A party known for its support of gun control?

[Heathen Hammer]

Lol except the Democrats were never responsible in anyway for the massacre. Horrible analogy.

If the people of Virgina don't want gun control then why did the elect a Democratic majority? A party known for its support of gun control?

Except that they were the government at the time. So they were. It is a good analogy as far as your argument goes.
There is no evidence that Democrats were elected because they support gun control.

[Vanoi]

Except that they were the government at the time. So they were.

A Democratic President in power doesn't suddenly make the party responsible for the acts of individual soldiers. Try again.

It is a good analogy as far as your argument goes.
There is no evidence that Democrats were elected because they support gun control.

You were the one claiming the popularity of gun control was questionable. And yet the people of Virgina felt compelled to elect the party known for its support of gun control. Why?

Oh and here's a poll on gun control in Virgina.

https://www.insidenova.com/news/poli...c8b418c52.html

So Virginians do support gun control.

[Heathen Hammer]

A Democratic President in power doesn't suddenly make the party responsible for the acts of individual soldiers. Try again.


You were the one claiming the popularity of gun control was questionable. And yet the people of Virgina felt compelled to elect the party known for its support of gun control. Why?

Are you claiming that Democrats were elected specifically because of their stance on gun control? Source?

Oh and here's a poll on gun control in Virgina.

https://www.insidenova.com/news/poli...c8b418c52.html

So Virginians do support gun control.

Polls are famously inaccurate when it comes to popular opinions. Otherwise Brexit and Trump presidency would have never happened, at least according to polls.
If you think that population wants to be disarmed and unable to defend itself, then why not hos a referendum on that matter?

[Vanoi]

Are you claiming that Democrats were elected specifically because of their stance on gun control? Source?

Nice try but you are still avoiding the question. If gun control isn't popular in Virginia then why did they elect a Democratic majority?

Polls are famously inaccurate when it comes to popular opinions. Otherwise Brexit and Trump presidency would have never happened, at least according to polls.
If you think that population wants to be disarmed and unable to defend itself, then why not
Host a referendum on that matter?

Two polls being inaccurate doesn't make all polls inaccurate. By your own logic any poll opposing gun control would also be inaccurate.

If Virginia is so opposed to gun control then why did the elect a Democratic majority?

[Heathen Hammer]

Nice try but you are still avoiding the question. If gun control isn't popular in Virginia then why did they elect a Democratic majority?

Again, your argument is based on assumption that all Democrat electorate are single-issue voters.

Two polls being inaccurate doesn't make all polls inaccurate. By your own logic any poll opposing gun control would also be inaccurate.

If Virginia is so opposed to gun control then why did the elect a Democratic majority?

I think polls in general are flawed, at least based on rather distinct disparity between actual electoral results and polls. You keep implying that Democrats were elected because of their policies on guns. Again, what is the source of your claim?

[Vanoi]

Again, your argument is based on assumption that all Democrat electorate are single-issue voters.

Still no answer. Only two possible answers to this question. Either Virginians support gun control or gun rights aren't a major issue in Virgina to the point they'll elect the Democrats into power regardless of the Democratic position on gun control. Ether way, opposition to gun control is low.

I think polls in general are flawed, at least based on rather distinct disparity between actual electoral results and polls. You keep implying that Democrats were elected because of their policies on guns. Again, what is the source of your claim?

Quote my claim please. I've only been asking you a question you have directly avoided answering for a couple posts now.

Infact it was you who claimed gun control isn't popular. I have yet to see any source for that claim nor an answer for how the Democrats managed to win in Virginia.

[Heathen Hammer]

Still no answer. Only two possible answers to this question. Either Virginians support gun control or gun rights aren't a major issue in Virgina to the point they'll elect the Democrats into power regardless of the Democratic position on gun control. Ether way, opposition to gun control is low.

The events in OP clearly prove the latter wrong and former is your assumption.
Again, one can vote for one policy, but not the other.

Quote my claim please. I've only been asking you a question you have directly avoided answering for a couple posts now.

Infact it was you who claimed gun control isn't popular. I have yet to see any source for that claim nor an answer for how the Democrats managed to win in Virginia.

Your claim was implied in the part you quoted. I'm just pointing out lack of objective evidence that gun control is popular, but we see the proof that opposition to gun control is popular, given how this thread is about massive pro-gun rally.