What's the philosophical rationale for an individual right to bear arms? — MysticMonist

Why would one be necessary?

Plato, in think, would be in favor of strict gun control. — MysticMonist

On what basis?

JOHN LOCKE (“Two Treatises of Government”, 1689):

“Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself...”.

Thanks that's interesting. I worry in today's world that giving untrained people (maybe with marksmanship but without tactical trainging) small arms is unlikely to be a significant threat to an organized and well equipped state. That's why the FBI and police has SWAT teams with gear and training civilians don't have. Their job is arrest or stop armed criminals and they are very good at it. Yet modern history has shown the long term cost of fighting insurgencies. I don't know if arming the minority with small arms really prevents genoocide. It's a good question for historians.
If the second amendment is helpful to protect minority rights then it is the least important of the 10 rights (even after quartering) because without the other rights the state will just take away guns or arrest their owners. A bunch of rednecks with limited ammo in a vast array of calibers is no match for a uniformly equipped and well trained force with air superiority, armored vehicles, and superior firepower.

As long as self defense doesn't infringe on the rights of others to live and be free of violence. I do wonder what Locke would say about mass shootings and if they justified surrendering of arms to the state or if he says only the criminals should have that right taken away.

Why is it more dangerous to give an untrained, or even unscrupulous person a gun, than political power, and influence without being informed, or scrupulous?

You have politicized caricatures of the government, and the types of people that would want guns for their self protection as dumb, violent red necks or something...

Less guns, less fatalities. Do you want less fatalities or not, America?

I think that he would note the overall significance of them, and number, and see them as not nearly as worrisome as people pretend, compared to much more significant issues.

People have a right from unjust violence, but that means that you would be protected from someone using unjust violence against you, you can't expect the state to, let along to have the omnipresent ability to remove all possibilities of violence from the land... that's not minimal government at all, and Locke was in favor of a minimal government.

Why is it more dangerous to give an untrained, or even unscrupulous person a gun, than political power, and influence without being informed, or scrupulous? — Wosret

That's pretty funny and very true.

It's not fair to characterize gun owners and dumb rednecks. Fair point. But there is a big difference from being able to shoot okay and tactical skills. Granted, I think history is still deciding the effectiveness of poorly trained and poorly armed insurgents against well equipped militaries. The dynamics of war are always changing. So it's an open question.
Really my argument comes down to a cost and benefit analysis. Does the potential ability of a armed public to resist tyranny outweigh the current gun violence rate? Of course neither of these values would be zero under complete gun control, so the formula is complicated and there maybe a happy medium which may even be our current system. But I don't think because the 2nd amendment says so is sufficient reason to continue to gun violence.
Also perhaps the solution isn't as simple either. Perhaps if we as a society say gun ownership is critical to who we're are we need more robust mental health screenings and early warning systems and increased police presence in inner cities and better funded anti-gang initiatives. Maybe we want the right or privilege of gun ownership but aren't willing as a society to support their responsible use.

I was wondering about the possibility of military takeover in the US, would be possible. Some argue that the constitution provides a method of prevention. It seems that places where there are gun restrictions do seem to have quite a few military coups.

https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-a-military-coup-happened-in-Europe-or-the-USA

https://historyguy.com/coups_in_europe_since_world_war_two.htm

I don't know exactly what it means, if the public having guns does stop the military or not, but I think it would be damned hard for the American military to take over if they wanted to. How long would it take for the English army to have complete control of the country?

As long as self defense doesn't infringe on the rights of others to live and be free of violence. — MysticMonist

Self defense cannot infringe on the rights of others without becoming offensive and stopping being self defense.

You know that in the 18th century violence was like 1700% higher. People are focused, and flipping out over this kind of stuff because of the rarity. If it was business as usual, people would be a lot more cavalier. Global international news was hardly even a thing, so we all didn't get to be freaking out about the thing that happened in one place in a world of 7 billion.

The fact that we do that, just shows how comfortable and safe we are. I personally, simply think people are soft, and whiny, looking for "micro aggression" because there are no real ones, and scouring the globe for danger, because it isn't anywhere near me.

I don't think anyone important takes immaturity, and name calling as all that devastating of an opposition. — Wosret

Right. I certainly don't.

The English army haven't taken over control of the country since the times of Oliver Cromwell, around 360 years ago. That it would happen again any time soon is not a realistic prospect and should not be taken seriously.

There are still serious points that have been left unaddressed, and this kind of nonsense appears to be merely a diversion.

I bet making it illegal to not wear a helmet at all times would save more lives, and prevent a lot of head injuries. Don't you want to protect everyone from head injuries? Leaving bed without a helmet ought to be illegal.

You seem to have forgotten our previous discussion. I suggest you refresh your memory.

The English army haven't taken over control of the country since the times of Oliver Cromwell, around 360 years ago. That it would happen again any time soon is not a realistic prospect and should not be taken seriously. — Sapientia

I can't resist.
Of course it is not going to happen, even if they are shit sick of the idiots that rule them. They don't have any guns and the bloody government knows it.

Oh, I remember...

I bet making it illegal to not wear a helmet at all times would save more lives, and prevent a lot of head injuries. Don't you want to protect everyone from head injuries? Leaving bed without a helmet ought to be illegal. — Wosret

I am 100% percent in favor of this idea. Draft the bill tonight and we can present to all of the governments in the morning. It is obvious that there are a lot of people walking around that have suffered grievous injuries to the point where their thinking is very unclear.

scouring the globe for danger — Wosret

This is very true. Fear is a tool used heavily both by the Right and Left in politics.

Thanks, I appreciated your defense far more than the redneck inlaws I have that blindly support the 2nd amendment and are still talking about Obama taking away their guns.
Obviously I'm little bit left on this issue, but a Republic friend of mine were talking about how we really need civilized public debates by non-politicians, perhaps even philosophers, that covered these issues with an emphasis on mutual respect. Of course this exists on university campuses but it needs to be more central to our culture. It's a sad thing that the ratings would be so low.

I wouldn't blame the inlaws. The most expedient way to get people to do what you want is to just emotionally manipulate them, with fear, pride, sympathy, shame and things of that nature, and politicized topics have a hell of a lot of that flying around.

Remember that Plato's political work was called "the republic", making him a republican.

I can't resist.
Of course it is not going to happen, even if they are shit sick of the idiots that rule them. They don't have any guns and the bloody government knows it. — Sir2u

I'm not sure whether you're making a bad joke, genuinely making an absurd claim about the English army, or you just don't have a good understanding of how to clearly express yourself using the English language.

Given that we were both talking about the English army, and you even quoted me talking about the English army, then it would be conventional to assume that that's what you're referring to. But that's obviously false. So perhaps you meant to refer to the English citizenry, although that would be changing the subject.

Perhaps it was an exaggeration.

Someone help me out here. Which would be the most charitable assumption?

The leftist mod brigade has tried very hard, sometimes with sarcasm and sometimes with apparent seriousness, to paint me as a gun-loving and toting nutjob. Just look at the hyperventilation, condescension, and references to petri dishes earlier in this thread. — Thorongil

To be clear, my incredulity has nothing to do with your stance on guns as it was to your rhetorical strategy. Again, to move from a point about the constitution to a largely imagined - and entirely unrealistic - fear that all guns will be banned or made inaccessible is a rhetorical leap so wide as to be fantastic. It's the immediate argumentative instinct - to imagine and conjure up a thinly grounded fantasy mired in conspiracy theoretic language - that I think is so wild. It's as if, having suggested that perhaps dogs should be put on leashes in public, you were to immediately leap to the fear that the real, hidden and nefarious motive is to have all dogs everywhere put down or made unavailable for purchase. In-sane.

Remember that Plato's political work was call "the republic", making him a republican. — Wosret

Plato's political theory is completely unworkable. I think Plato meant the Republic on both a literal political level and on allergory to the individual soul to which it works much better.
He does say one gem though. If we raised our children without being ever exposed to anything short of collaboration in the stories they hear, they would learn those values over violence. I think about how ingrained and normalized violence and being unkind to others is in our culture. It's not okay to get what you want by unkind means or unjustly, yet culture sends all sorts of mixed messages there.

As an actual voter, I never vote based on gun rights. The issue doesn't really worry me. I used to own an AR-15 but I sold it and don't plan to own a firearm again. I am an army vet and would be happy if never heard gunfire again.

I'm not sure whether you're making a bad joke — Sapientia

If that is what you want to call it. Maybe I could have worded it a bit better.
Who rules England? The government.
Who backs up the government? The military.
They don't need a coup because they already run the place, and could the citizens do anything about if they wanted to. No

To be clear, my incredulity has nothing to do with your stance on guns as it was to your rhetorical strategy. Again, to move from a point about the constitution to a largely imagined - and unrealistic - fear that all guns will be banned or made inaccessible is a rhetorical leap so wide as to be fantastic. It's the immediate argumentative instinct - to imagine and conjure up a thinly grounded fantasy mired in conspiracy theoretic language - that I think is so wild. It's as if, having suggested that perhaps dogs should be put on leashes in public, you were to immediately leap to the fear that the real, hidden and nefarious motive is to have all dogs everywhere put down or made unavailable for purchase. In-sane. — StreetlightX

Fair assessment and apt analogy.

Not to mention the facile talk about "the left". Unfortunate yet predictable.

Moral principles are important to be freely chosen or imparted, otherwise it is just tyranny, and slavery. I really don't think that violence is ingrained and normalized. You know what the major delusion of people is? That everyone else is a product of their culture, but they're immune. Are you violent and unkind? If you aren't, then you can be sure that most people aren't either, as you're all products of each other. This is also why societal, and cultural change doesn't happen with arguments, war, or laws, but you and me. Change yourself and you'll change the world.

I don't much like guns either, but because they're too unskilled and equalizing, destroying the majesty of the martial arts, which has never truly been a thing after their invention. Making it possible for there to be child armies, and for four hundred pound hunters to wheeze from cover and kill animals four hundred yards off.

...could the citizens do anything about if they wanted to? No — Sir2u

And is this a serious consideration worthy of bringing up here? No.

We live in a stable democracy with a very good track record.

And is this a serious consideration worthy of bringing up here? No. — Sapientia

Based on the fact the the American want to keep this from happening to them and that the English have already let it happen, maybe yes.

You might look up what DC v. Heller decided. Sorry, but your continued attempts to describe the possibilities I listed as - to take just a few adjectives that you have presently chosen to deluge me with so as to paint me as a raving lunatic - "imaginary," "unrealistic," and "fantastic," don't hold up. I wouldn't call being one supreme court vote away from losing the individual right to bear arms any of those things. But go ahead and persist in your ignorance. It's clearly cathartic for you to write these posts labeling me a conspiracy theorist in fifty different ways.

You said one thing in the Shoutbox, which you then contradicted here. I'm just calling it like I see it. — Thorongil

My statements aren't inconsistent particularly seeing as I clarified the first one in the Shout box in a reply to Sapientia. But even if there were an inconsistency, your conclusion makes no sense. You think you've found an inconsistency, you admit that you know of no reason that I would lie.Your conclusion: I'm lying. As I said, you're an odd one.

You also ignored the first half of my post. So my point about leftist tactics still holds good. — Thorongil

I like that you presume I'm a leftist and I have tactics. It's kind of like being in a movie.