To be fair, I was really trying to highlight the constitutional issues that distinguish America vs other countries that have the right to bear arms. It's a thorny issue because of how our founders set it up. In a country like Switzerland the government can just restrict ammo at a whim because they State is who bestows the right to bear arms in their system. There is no real question from the people about the authority of the State in that regard, like their would be here in America. That's why I was boiling things down that way. And in reality, that's why I think many are maligned in this current debate as valuing guns over innocent lives. I'm trying to point out that there is more at play due to our system. And I don't think that system is flawed. But it is dangerous in the hands of an idiotic and evil population.FredS wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 14:01I shouldn't be shocked that you can condense this whole historically and socially nuanced issue down to freedom and virtue (Guns and God) vs a nanny statetuttle wrote: ↑02 Jun 2022, 06:07 . . . And so, the solution goes well beyond the need to introduce some new gun reform laws. Black and white, it's a freedom issue.
. . . That's it. Keep freedom and promote virtue, or create a nanny state.
That's it boiled down, but there's certainly more involved. More issues that mingle with it.
At least there at the end you left a little wiggle room for more issues that mingle with it. But those issues are the heart of the matter. Free and virtuous men don't kill innocents. The government already does a million things trying to promote virtue but neither the president nor the pastor can force it upon anyone. The issue, then, is what to do about the free and non-virtuous man. I'd be OK with preemptively killing them at the schoolhouse door. But could we maybe do some things before that? Identify them. Surveil them. Arrest them. Imprison them. Hospitalize them. Treat them. Rescind their right to own firearms. Even if that right is granted by God Himself, I'd let the courts rescind/restrict it. These guys are almost always known as a threat by someone in their community. Keeping an eye on them wouldn't be that hard.
When you write "That's it. Keep freedom and promote virtue, or create a nanny state" you seem to be giving up and saying there's nothing - short of a miracle that turns all men's hearts toward God or at least towards virtue (which truly won't be found apart from Him) - that can be done short of creating a nanny state which regulates every breath we take. The non-virtuous man with a gun is the problem here.
If you really want to make it about Godliness or Godlessness, and you want to boil it down to black and white, maybe we should ask, "at the end of the day does He care more about us protecting innocents or about virtuous men owning guns?"
So lots of layers are running through this debate. I don't doubt there are people out there who care more for their guns than innocent lives, but I think when most people do fall back to foundational issues (and begin framing things like freedom vs nanny state) it's not that they don't care for the innocent victims of the latest tragedy, but rather they recognize a greater danger to even more innocent lives if the State removes inalienable rights. It's the same mentality of putting the oxygen mask on yourself before your child. It's not selfish, it's not thinking of yourself before an innocent, it's in all reality the best way to save more lives.
Now that said, I'm not denying the reality in front of my face. We're in a heaping mess. However, I still don't think infringing on our rights is the solution. There are a plethora of ways we can begin righting things without infringing rights. But I also don't know if our country has the fortitude or will or wisdom or morality to implement them and see them through. And that in and of itself is why so many people will throw up their hands (if they haven't already) and just give the State control.