01-17-2024, 12:56 PM
(01-17-2024, 11:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, we also have to remember that what we consider right and left wing is inherently subjective, even. The biggest example of this is when it comes to firearm regulation. In the US it is a partisan issue seen as the left favoring stronger gun control and the right opposing such measures. However, when you look at the policies themselves and understand the classical views, a more democratic society would favor firearms in the hands of the people and those that prefer a more centralized, strong man authority favor fewer firearms in the public. One of the most commonly repeated phrases from the more leftist folks is "under no pretext" which is attributed to Marx and Engels in an 1850 speech when they said:
As power is consolidated in the hands of a few, however, the desire to disarm the people increases. It is for this reason that gun control is, from a pure ideological perspective, one of conservatism, but that isn't how we view it in the US or in most of the western world.
Oh my, you've moved this discussion on to my pet topic. As we have discussed previously, the 2A is pretty much unique in human history. Governments have traditionally done everything they can to keep arms out of the hands of the general populace. This tradition continues is much of the world to varying degrees, and nowhere else is it explicitly forbidden as it is in the US Constitution. You also correctly cite it as the moment when the Bolshevik revolution abandoned the actual principles of Marx. Despite the assertions of men like Biden and Swallwell (and no few posters here), an armed populace is impossible to subjugate. This is the very foundation for the 2A being introduced. People get hung up on the no standing Army, or "what militia are you in?" (hint, it's the same one we're all in) but the crux of the 2A is to provide the common citizen with the means of resisting oppression, whatever the source. This is why most people react vehemently against attempts to further restrict the ownership of arms. I will add that the Dems are openly flouting the Heller decision in numerous ways, so they have no moral high ground in regard to adhering to the Constitution.
I really don't know why it became such a polarized topic in terms of "right v. left". I have a feeling it's partly because the Dems heavily court the "minority" community which is proportionately more affected by gun violence.
(01-17-2024, 12:18 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: gun regulation is what I was thinking of when I wrote, "at least not an economic one" as I generally don't have an issue with gun ownership. I think more controls should be placed on ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands (those of convicted felons, domestic abusers and children), but that is my only real issue.
My friend, believe me when I say there are plenty. Most instances which prompt cries for more gun control would have been prevented if the system actually functioned as intended, or if laws already on the books had been enforced. The Parkland shooting and the recent Maine shooter leap to mind. If you're not a gang member, or adjacent to gang activity (meaning you associate with gang members, not live in a gang neighborhood) your chances of being shot are insanely lower than you dying in a car accident or slipping in the shower. Freedom is messy, and some people will inevitably abuse it. Which is why it's so frustrating to me when I hear calls for more gun control when our DA routinely charges illegal possession of a firearm as a misdemeanor. Or refuses to charge minors who murder people as adults, and I'm talking cold blooded murder here. Don't cry for more laws when you don't even enforce the ones already on the books. Not you, of course, people in general.
