Are we a menaced society? Yes. Are we are a violent society? No.

[ancianita]

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2022, 09:20 AM - Edit history (2)

We do have a well regulated militia in the National Guard.
We don't have well regulated gun ownership, and so we don't have a well regulated armed population.


Whenever the problems of the few hurt the many, we might feel collective menace, but we really know who causes that menace because we see the clear ownership of the problem. It's only when we don't know the few who menace the many, that we tend to assume collective guilt over our collective suffering while we're told to tolerate "lone wolves."

When some of us say we're violent, they imply that we're overly responsible in criminalizing ourselves along with others -- that's diagnosed as neurosis in an individual, and collective neurosis in our society. Those who create gun problems tend to "spread guilt" among the rest of us for a problem we didn't make -- are diagnosed as behaviorally disordered as individuals, and pathologically disordered for collective entities like corporations.

Corporate (and industrial) psychology is a university major because corporations have studied this neurotic tendency in humans. It's the basis of their profits in dividing and buying 50 united states. When you hear them use "we," in connection to violence and menace, they want us humans to believe "we" are talking about all of us.

We need to keep clear on who are most of the problem of gun violence -- it's not all of us. Not even a sizable minority of us.

One overlooked fact means that most of 'we' are not even potentially violent. "We" are almost 335 million.

As of five years ago:

Two-thirds of Americans today say they live in a gun-free household.

3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms


One guy's shooting up a classroom does not make the class violent. Same for a society.

We the many still feel the menace in the very presence of guns and unnamed people who carry them. Gun makers and their bag men love to create the confusion that their menace makes us a violent society. But the numbers disprove and clear up such confusion.


Per capita gun ownership by state.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state

Per capita gun deaths by state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

Gun laws in 50 states, FWIW.

Are we literally a menaced society that wants well regulated gun owners, but are structurally blocked from establishing such laws? Yes. We are now in danger, but that doesn't make us dangerous or violent.

Those who constitute the menace to civilians are the 3% who own guns, and gun corporations who "invest in" no regulation of their gun making & mass distribution of military assault weapons under protection of the commerce clause.

Gun ownership laws well regulate individuals by preventing high gun suicide numbers and high accident numbers by the " 'good guys ". As we know, corporate bag men say that because gun owner regulation laws don't perfectly prevent human problems, we humans shouldn't even try to infringe on other humans' 2A rights to accidents and suicide. Because they want us to believe that 2A trumps 1A.


Do the many believe 2A trumps 1A? No.




Do the many want to regulate 2A to support 1A? Yes.




(apologies for the graphic sizing)


Living victims have finally established legal precedent against unregulated corporate gun makers. Sandy Hook parents have set the legal precedent against gun makers. Uvalde parents will follow the Sandy Hook legal model.

Regulating gun makers will take time. But in the meantime, let's not call ourselves violent.

We are not what we are called. We are only what we answer to.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Ya know, we have free speech and free religion guaranteed in much stronger terms than gun ownership

is, but we still manage sensible regulation of both of them, even if it seems questionable at times.

[ancianita]

2. Question 1:What do you mean by "much stronger terms." Terms like 'crying fire in a crowded theater"?

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2022, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Question 2:
Isn't the infringement argument around "background checks" for 2A usable for the "crying fire" infringment in 1A?

Question 3 re

by we still manage sensible regulation of both of them

:
What do you mean?
I can't see how we sensibly manage 1A by overturning all its precedent support for Roe. At all.

I can't see how we sensibly manage 2A by not overturning all its precedent support in Heller. At all.

So how is overturning the precedents of Roe sensible in shrinking bodily autonomy rights of 51% of the nation, and how is not overturning Heller sensible in expanding 'shall not be infringed' rights to 3% of the nation.

We on DU have already established the SCOTUS bias of overturning precedent for Roe, and not so much the SCOTUS bias of not overturning Heller. Why is that. Who benefits.

For the both of them, maybe you could explain in what way "we" "still manage sensible regulation."
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't count myself in your "we."

[TreasonousBastard]

5. "Congress shall make no law... " kinda settles it. No questions...

like "what's a militia" , and how well do you regulate it.

Of course free speech is not free license to lie, cheat, steal or cause other sorts of mischief with a big and nasty mouth, it simply stops government from shutting you up without good cause.

Guns, however, are not opinions, and don't normally even express them, but are often part of the mechanism that nasty ol' gummint uses to shut you up. It is also often part of the mechanism anyone else uses to shut you up.

So, the two are hardly comparable, and should not be compared.

[ancianita]

9. Doesn't the Ninth Amendment give Congress the constitutional out?

Doesn't the 9th cover privacy rights retained by the people in 1A and 2A, which justify both Roe's 51% and Heller's 97%?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. The 9th covers all rights not otherwise spoken, but although...

it sounds good, it's been controversial from day 1. I don't fully understand the legalisms, but having a catchall statement of rights sounds like a good idea.

[ancianita]

13. Right. And so,

though it hasn't been used in arguments before the court, or even in public discourse, it seems viable enough because it is an amendment in the Constitution, to guide our discussion of natural rights laid out in "Life, liberty and ..." etc.

Thanks for considering.

[Lonestarblue]

3. Thought-provoking, but I have to disagree on a couple of points.

The first is that free speech is well regulated. It is barely regulated when organizations like Fox and hate radio are free to broadcast dangerous propaganda that motivates the anger and hatred that contribute to mass murders. Rarely is anyone ever charged with a violation of free speech. For example, it’s still your right to free speech to call the police on an innocent black man knowing that the police might shoot him, and you will not be charged with a crime. The Supreme Court determined through Citizens United that money equals free speech, thus deregulating the power of the wealthy and corporations to use unlimited money to buy legislators’ votes, thus overwhelming the free speech of millions of citizens who, for example, do want gun regulation that is prevented by the lobbyists for gun manufacturers. To me, all of that equates to virtually no regulation of free speech.

The second point is that we are not a violent nation. While the majority of us are not violent and wish for peace between the different factions, a significant minority are violent. I’m not just referring to those who pull the trigger on their guns. Many millions more who do not shoot the gun nevertheless support and approve of violence against those they hate or dislike. By not standing against those who commit the violence, they are complicit in that violence and there are many millions of them willing to see violence done to achieve their goals of totalitarian and/or religious-based government.

The other reason I tend to think of our country as violent is its history. We are like most countries that have committed violence in their formation, but unlike most developed nations we have been growing in violence. Our country was founded on violence with the near extermination of native peoples and the enslavement of black people to serve economic riches. The violence after the end of slavery continued for decades, and the violence of many police officers toward black people continues today. Our police and our border patrol members have been trained to be violent when such violence is not often necessary.

Just my Sunday morning thoughts.

[ancianita]

6. I don't think I said anything about free speech. As for 'violent,' if the majority are not,

then why is it fair to be defined by the minority.

And if armed protest -- because it's both unregulated use of arms and money speech -- is unregulated, what's the point of the Jan 6 Committee's work? Because then we're headed for the unfreedom of the many through the unregulated freedom of the few.

Just asking.

Thanks for the Sunday morning thoughts.

[Lonestarblue]

8. I think the free speech comments were in reference to some of the other comments.

I always enjoy the OPs and commentary here because they make me think and often question my own ideas. So thanks for the ideas!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Our national culture is extremely violent; it's built on structural, interpersonal and institutional

violence and as a result, individuals find it difficult to divest themselves of violent solutions to problems they face, whether that violence comes from a bullet or a pen.

[ancianita]

7. Is the national culture subject to regulation? If not, what were the structural 27 amendments for?

Are they going to hold up in spite of 2A?

Is the U.S. Constitution violent from both the bullet and pen?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. .

Is the national culture subject to regulation?

Politically and indirectly, sure. But all of it is based on a largely unacknowledged foundation of violence that is then codified and reinforced through culture, as well as further legislation and litigation.

Is the U.S. Constitution violent from both the bullet and pen?

Written by violent pens to uphold violent intent, resulting in violence in different forms.

[ancianita]

11. So if violent national culture, which was built before we arrived, is subject to regulation,

how are we violent when by majority rule of law we try to modify its structural, interpersonal and institutional violence, along with "individuals [who] find it difficult to divest themselves of violent solutions to problems they face."

I'm thinking that we are "in" but not "of" the structural violence we face (through amendments and laws that protect and enforce rights), and therefore are not a violent society.

Are the violent few to define the non-violent many? That is what we need to consider. I say no, because we are government of, by and for the people, the majority of whom are non-violent. We are the many menaced by the few, but they do not define us.

Isn't that fair logic?