The sanitized NRA version of a militias being citizen soldiers is pure historical dreck. The 2nd Amendment was about one thing - southern slave owners killing and exploiting blacks. Your narrative is nonsense.
— Landru Guide Us

Ah, so a controversial issue and it's entire history can be boiled down to just one thing.

The best scholarship shows that
— Landru Guide Us

By best, you mean the scholarship that boils it down to one thing. — Marchesk

Thing is, I've read all the traditional stuff you've read. But you haven't read anything else. Indeed this is the first time you've heard about the real scholarship. And still you're so sure of yourself.

So you're projecting.

Read some of this, and then get back to us, a sadder but wiser man.

http://www.carltbogus.com/guns
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=432106001013079074025065070001092113002025093035058063121102109120074116091086100066102029123005005035117116006091082103064123013008066061053120103098102004126070059052008009006086111083019070089092029064126076065100119022126003096090029123096111123&EXT=pdf
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~tripmcc/the_amicus_curiae_project/heller-racove_et_al.pdf
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Jesus man, this is not promoting a healthy democracy. I get it that the other side decided to play mean and dirty in their interest of power, but this kind of framing doesn't help. It divides people. It polarizes. The problem with your average conservative is that they hear too much of that crap on their radio and TVs. Then they end up thinking liberals are their enemies, and an evil amongst them that needs to be dealt with somehow. That goes nowhere good. — Marchesk

And that's why although the majority of Americans want gun control, they don't vote that way, because gun control advocates need to be more "reasonable" and provide more facts. Jeez.

I'm sorry I don't think you know how politics works in a democracy. It's more like selling used cars. Vulcans don't vote in our elections.

This is the real world, muchacho, and you're in it.

No, I'm arguing that you call them that for the same reason conservatives call you evil. — Marchesk

I don't think this matters. But in any case, I do think there is a difference between killing people and not killing people, exploiting people and not exploiting, enriching the rich and empowering the poor. I call the former evil. But I'm happy just to call it freakish conservatism. Same thing.

Apparently you find it difficult to make that distinction. I kind of feel sorry for you that you are unable to commit to an emancipatory view of the world, and are stuck on some abstract rules of debate as if politics were a game.

before you start damning American culture as if you speak for it and all Americans, you must know that the American constitution and very many Americans do not agree with current gun policy in this country.

I do know that. I agree my original post was hyperbolic, and I'm not saying every American is complicit, I'm aware many Americans are horrified by it. What I'm saying is the manifest and obvious unwillingness of a democratically-elected government to regulate the distribution of weapons, amounts to a tacit acceptance of high murder rates by guns. Basically, those in high office shrug it off, every time. 'You can't interfere with human rights', they say. The gun lobby equates ownership of weapons with freedom. And that meme is incredibly hard to shake: to challenge it is to be portrayed as anti-American.

And after every major incident, applications for gun ownership spike upwards as more people seek to 'protect themselves'. So it's a vicious cycle.

After the Sandy Hook monstrosity, my son, who lives in the USA, called via Skype, in tears. And he's a tough kid, he doesn't let things worry him. He said, surely this time, something will be done. But the 'great groundswell for change' just broke against the doors of the House and precisely nothing happened. Save for the NRA pushing Open Carry laws and insisting that more people ought to have weapons.

Hence, the OP.

Apparently you find it difficult to make that distinction. I kind of feel sorry for you that you are unable to commit to an emancipatory view of the world, and are stuck on some abstract rules of debate as if politics were a game. — Landru Guide Us

I just think the kind of rhetoric you're using is very divisive. The other side using the same tactic. The result is to polarize people. But hey, if it wins elections, right?

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2015/12/11
I'm not to the point where I would claim that a vote for "a conservative" makes one complicit in shooting people, as I'm constitutionally [get it?] opposed to excess in rhetoric. But Cicero's cui bono? and this link suggest what may be behind the fear motivating the increase in the purchase of firearms.

The way to nudge them to vote on the issue is to use the meme that the other side is totally illegitimate and freakish. It happens to be true, but that doesn't matter. Political memes don't work because they're factual, they work because the frame the issue in terms that people resonate with. — Landru Guide Us

A political campaign might (or might not) be an appropriate place to totally delegitimize the opposition, and brand them as 'freakish'. Memes are good for that. The Irresponsible Right Wing in this country is quite practiced at this: "Guns don't kill people, people do." or "Obama Care is destroying the nation."

Inserting memes into even reasonably serious barstool discussions, however, is not appropriate. It's inappropriate because such rhetorical devices retard rather than advance understanding. It is true that freakish gun nuts exist, (Christ, I'm related to some of them), but using such rhetorical devices here isn't helpful or appropriate at all.

And in political campaigns, I want to see zero uses of phrases that merely resonate with the audience and have no truth value whatsoever. We aren't working for the Ministry of Truth, are we?

"Obama Care is destroying the nation." is a patently absurd, non-truthful statement. Obama Care just isn't destroying the nation. It may not work well, it may be too little to late, or it may have other flaws, but causing the nation to crumble, no. "Guns don't kill people, people do." is a very popular meme and has done a great deal of damage by asserting another logical absurdity. On the one hand, guns don't up and kill people on their own volition, true enough. But then, nobody ever suspected guns of doing that. On the other hand, guns are the most effective tools an individual can buy for the purpose of killing other people. The more automatic, the bigger the magazine, the more people one can kill. A gun in the hand can kill a lot of people, and quickly.

Blasting out memes to counter memes might work for a while, but ultimately it delegitimizes the process of reasoned discussion, reasoned persuasion and dissuasion, and reasoned decision making. There's way, way too much of that sort of dishonest crap as it is.

I appreciate and share your commitment to "reasoned discussion" which is appropriate to a philosophy forum. It has no place in politics however. Vulcans don't vote in our elections. They never have and never will.

Instead people do and we really don't need more understanding of the gun issue to act on it -- we all know what the facts are. They're just being ignored and debased by conservatives. You don't fight memes with more fact -- memes are not factual. You fight memes with memes. Every important change in our society - from the end of slavery, to women's suffrage, to the New Deal, to Civil Rights to environmental protections - happened not because of reasoned debate, but because of compelling narratives that moved the voters to vote in an emancipatory and humane way.

I think our situation proves my point: most Americans want gun control. But we don't have it. The reason is not that we don't have enough reasoned debate about it. The reason is we have too much. Reasoned debate in politics is bringing a knife to gun fight. Conservatives bring guns to the fight. Progressives must do so also. (Oh the irony of the metaphor).

I just think the kind of rhetoric you're using is very divisive. The other side using the same tactic. The result is to polarize people. But hey, if it wins elections, right? — Marchesk

Yeah, so like the people who think that Obama is a marxist Kenyan Muslim, that lesbian witches caused 9-11, and that scientists are conspiring to impose socialism by faking global warming, need to reasoned with so that they don't get offended and "polarized".

That ship has sailed, my friend. Welcome to tea party America. We either defeat them completely or we'll all be in the Hand Maiden's Tale.

We either defeat them completely or we'll all be in the Hand Maiden's Tale. — Landru Guide Us

Possible complication: couldn't you damage your side's credibility by talking that way? There is a fine line, after all, between "impassioned" and "raving."

Fight meme with meme, not meme with reason. Now, progressive memes happen to be factual, but that doesn't matter.

What raving are you talking about? Gun nuts are in fact dangerous freaks. People who think lesbian witches caused 9-11 should be laughed at, not reasoned with. People who propose tax cut for billionaires are morally odious. I could go on.

Give me an example of what isn't true here?

Just as an aside I often hear people say that, yes, conservatives are extremist, but look at all the extreme ideas proposed by "leftist" Democrats. I ask them to name one. They never can.

Give me an example of what isn't true here — Landru Guide Us

I can say something true in a manner, or use a conversational tone, that makes me sound hysterical. You can fight memes with memes, sure, and propaganda with propaganda - but if you sound like you're using propaganda, then you're not an effective propagandist.

I can say something true in a manner, or use a conversational tone, that makes me sound hysterical. You can fight memes with memes, sure, and propaganda with propaganda - but if you sound like you're using propaganda, then you're not an effective propagandist. — Pneumenon

I really don't think propaganda works that way, and I would invoke George Lakoff in that regard, and the fact that conservatives continue to win elections and policy decision saying absolutely crazy things. Gun policy is a case in point.

As long as progressives do the stupid thing and fight memes with facts (Lakoff analyzes why this fails completely and gives the issues to the Right), they will continue to lose on policy. And policies matter in people's lives. It matters whether we have gun control or not. Since the archaic rational debate method doesn't work, and since we even know why it doesn't work, to continue to engage in it seems almost cowardly to me, or even worse, unimaginative.

I really don't think propaganda works that way, and I would invoke George Lakoff in that regard, and the fact that conservatives continue to win elections and policy decision saying absolutely crazy things. Gun policy is a case in point. — Landru Guide Us

There is a question of tone. I can say something batshit insane and, if I say it the right way, it will sound reasonable. Conversely, one can say reasonable things and sound like a lunatic if one uses the wrong wording.

Since the archaic rational debate method doesn't work, and since we even know why it doesn't work, to continue to engage in it seems almost cowardly to me, or even worse, unimaginative. — Landru Guide Us

Do you think that this statement is going to help or hurt your credibility (and, by extension, that of your movement) with people here?

Do you think that this statement is going to help or hurt your credibility (and, by extension, that of your movement) with people here? — Pneumenon

Sorry, Pneu, but credibility is an archaic term in the world of modern politics in the digital age. How much credibility did Bush have? And he won the election. How much credibility does Trump have with his bizarre boorish counterfactual comments? None. Doesn't bother his supporters. I predict he'll win the GOP bid handily. And of course his competitors are equally freakish.

In any case, I'm not running for anything; I'm just doing my little part to delegitimize the conservative freakazoids who have used their usual memes on this thread and elsewhere. If somebody doesn't like it and wants to do position papers backed by empirical studies, no skin off my nose. Experience shows, however, that that technique fails and is a terrible waste of time.

My view is progressives want a powerful uncompromising critique of the Right, attacking it mercilessly and never accepting the frame of its memes. Besides it's fun. If you think that results in a loss of credibility (I don't see why), that's OK. I don't think credibility matters one wit in modern politics. Just look at Berlusconi and Putin and Trump. This is, after all, a political thread.

Sorry, Pneu, but credibility is an archaic term in the world of modern politics in the digital age. — Landru Guide Us

I'm just doing my little part to delegitimize the conservative freakazoids who have used their usual memes on this thread and elsewhere. — Landru Guide Us

This is where the error is. Credibility may be archaic in the world of modern politics, but I'm talking about your audience on this board.

This is a political thread and the usual suspects have posted their memes. I have no argument with you if you want to respond to gunnuttery with factual studies. Be my guest. It won't get you anywhere, if experience is a guide. Meantime I'm going to address memes as memes not as real arguments. It's a disservice to reason to treat them any other way.

I have long claimed that philosophic types place too much emphasis on reasoning and insufficient emphasis on emotionwhen discussing behavior (which would include voting). Whether it's screaming memes or whispered insinuation, many decisions are made with more emotional than rational weight.

Donald Trump isn't merely babbling nonsense. In his person and in what he has to say he represents something particular to a certain aggrieved strata of white, losing-class Republican. He represents a hope to several million of these people because he is uttering statements which resonate with the aggrieved Republican's frustrations. These aggrieved people have real aspirations, real desires, preferences, and so on, and they feel like they are really getting stepped on left and right. I may not feel like they feel, you may not feel like they feel, but neither of us is one of them.

So, attempting to win MEME VS. MEME, is not very different than trying to win by slinging sticky, stinky, slimy mud at one's opponent. (Naturally, they sling raw manure; we sling pearls of wisdom and shovels full of facts.)

Elections of persons is prone to be about symbolic representations. "Who the man really is" is less important than "What does the man represent to whom?" The electorate seems to behave more rationally when the election is about facts (bond issues, recalls, referenda, that sort of thing). If the citizens of West Cupcake, Nebraska believe their schools are adequate as is, they probably won't buy the school board's memes in favor of a new building. Electing the school board might be all about memes, though, because that's all about persons and symbolic value.

I don't think it's possible to avoid the conclusion however that the success of Trump represents the dumbing-down of the electorate. He makes many factually incorrect statements and engages in hyperbole - lies and exaggerations. He bets that his Reality TV persona will draw the kind of crowd that doesn't give a hoot about such niceties as 'facts'. That's what makes him a demagogue, the Wikipedia entry about which says:

A demagogue is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower socio-economic classes to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

I reckon Trump scores 100% against that description.

So, attempting to win MEME VS. MEME, is not very different than trying to win by slinging sticky, stinky, slimy mud at one's opponent. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, exactly. That's how you win modern elections, not to mention the broader agenda of the "universe of discourse" about what vision we have of the future. It's not for wussies. There are no Vulcans voting in our elections.

Donald Trump isn't merely babbling nonsense. In his person and in what he has to say he represents something particular to a certain aggrieved strata of white, losing-class Republican. He represents a hope to several million of these people because he is uttering statements which resonate with the aggrieved Republican's frustrations. These aggrieved people have real aspirations, real desires, preferences, and so on, and they feel like they are really getting stepped on left and right. I may not feel like they feel, you may not feel like they feel, but neither of us is one of them. — Bitter Crank

These are a minority, and always will be. The problem is they vote. The logistical problem for progressives is getting the majority of people, who support progressive policy, to the voting booth. The way you do that is to lead, to fight, to bash the other side and show people that you're angry and you're on their side and something is at stake.

I attribute the rise of the rightwing agenda in this country less to the rightwing (they have always used their odious rhetoric and techniques) but to progressives who fail to oppose that agenda with passion and vehemence and even with white-hot hate.

If progressive leaders aren't willing to take on the weirdos of the Right, then why should they expect young people and minorities and women to follow them.

Carville knew how to win an election: you attack, and then you attack and then you attack again. It's what the GOP does. It works. It was pitiful watching hapless Kerry being swiftboated and not having the balls to call Bush an AWOL coward whose Daddy got him out of Vietnam. Honestly, if you want to be a leader, you gotta bash the opposition's head.

I

I attribute the rise of the rightwing agenda in this country ... to progressives who fail to oppose that agenda with passion and vehemence and even with white-hot hate. — Landru Guide Us

The 'progressive movement' does seem to have lost its balls somewhere along the line. Probably a result of straddling the fence so much. A lot of progressives seem to have a relatively weak belief in their own values. No fire in the belly. They have been 'going along to get along' too long. Tepid conviction just doesn't rise to the occasion of squashing their opponent's soft squishy ideas, like one steps on vermin in a damp cellar.

So, guess it's time to send the squealing Republican pigs to market.

How about this for a co-meme-mercial: Silent camera pans over Repubican meetings, featuring their candidates, no sound except for a recording of pigs grunting, snorting, squealing -- what pigs do. Brief video insertions of pigs squabbling in the trough. No captions till the end... "This is the best Reublicans have to offer."

Or, borrowing something from Dorothy Parker and Talulah Bankhead...

Have actors made up to match candidates, have a young Republican and a Bernie Sanders type meet at a doorway. Young Republican (Rubio? Fiornina?) graciously says, "age before beauty"' Sanders (or Clinton) character says, "Pearls before swine." and walks through open door.

VOTE DEMOCRAT. VOTE PEARLS, NOT SWINE.

A portion of your OP has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

This is not why murder, suicide or shootings happen. Most of it happens for reasons beside guns. The tool used is not the cuase it is a symptom. Its kind of like saying "you vommited so stomach acid is evil".

What do we want? Dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery?

I prefer being armed.

Something like 2,000,000 criminals in the last year were stopped from carrying out a crime when they were confronted by an armed citizen of the US. Now compare that with gun deaths (or even the far greater amount of deaths caused by drivers on their cell phones).

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91da/afbf92d021f06426764e800a4e639a1c1116.pdf

Good point. However, I doubt there are less criminals doing crimes in 2018 than in 1995 and I doubt there are less armed citizens in 2018 than in1995.

"The point" is really the phenomenal difference between gun deaths and crime prevention by guns being either presented or used against a criminal carrying out a crime.

If the 1995 study holds any water then even if one halves it to 1,000,000 for 2018 the "the point" is still "The" point.

Does this mean you are arguing that armed citizens are not stopping criminals committing crimes out of proportion to gun deaths?

Is that your argument?

Do you think taking all guns away from legal owners will reduce gun deaths?

Maybe you should state your argument to save me guessing.

If my argument is well supported for 1995 then was it not a good idea for citizens to be armed in 1995?

Are you suggesting we are considerably more evolved in 2018 than in 1995?