| SuaveSocialist said: 1. Various options, possibly an equivalent to the institutions that issue Driver's Licenses and oversee auto insurance. 2. If you read one thing as a completely different thing, then your literacy is suspect. 3. I'm not seeing evidence of rational thinking, though. 4. That which is freely asserted is freely dismissed. Pretty much the rest of the free world has figured out how to be free without a Second Amendment. 5. Good for you. You're wrong. |
1. So obstacles that disproportionately affect the poor and racial minorities, right "socialist", you say. As it is now though, things are already equivalent where it makes sense. I don't need to have a license to buy a car. I can drive it on non-public property without a license. Likewise, I can buy a gun without a license. I can use it on non-public property without a license. If I must carry (or drive) in public I need to get a license/permit in most states.
Insurance for gun ownership makes very little sense when one looks at the statistics on the relative risk of carrying a gun compared to driving a car in public.
2. Actually to the contrary, I am using the context of the discussion to wrangle out the implications of your statement. You are the one likely not well-read (literate) on American gun laws, its social forces, how gun control has been used to deprive black people of their autonomy, the class dynamics of the society, and the tensions involved in its politics. It would make the American capitalists quite ecstatic to be able to control the common person's access to arms.
3. I think the reasons are clear. I am an American proletariat, I don't want the capitalists who control the United States' various governments dictating what arms I can own. That's plenty rational -- I justified my position with reasons.
4. Then convince the common man that they should reduce their ownership of arms, rather than saying "Good" when multi-billionaire corporations use their social and economic power with the aim to deprive the common person of their ability to induce violence. Your "the rest of the free-world" rhetoric is an example of the bandwagon fallacy, and is as sloppy as an argument gets.
5. And how, might I ask, would one revolutionize political institutions and society without the ability to induce costly violence as an ever-present threat? No revolution ever existed without violence from the common man looming over the society.
The Civil Rights revolution wouldn't have succeeded as far as it did if these men and women didn't exist, for example:
