Yes … No … Maybe?


Over at World’s Pain, a rather long and detailed discussion related to the Second Amendment (and a few other contentious issues) has been taking place between Dave, a U.S. citizen, and rautakyy, the blog owner and a Finland resident (also an occasional visitor to this blog).

The former is a staunch supporter of gun ownership via the Second Amendment, while rautakyy disagrees and supports his stand through basic reasoning, along with sharing the various gun laws of his home country … AND common sense assertions.

As one might expect, Dave, the antagonist, touts the abbreviated version of the Second Amendment as justification for gun ownership in the U.S., along with the various and sundry reasons that many before him have expressed (including individual state laws, various facts and figures on gun-related incidents, etc.).

If this is a topic that interests you, I urge you to spend some time and follow the conversation. In the meantime, I wanted to share this latest (verbatim) entry by rautakyy:

@Dave, as a researcher of history, it appears as quite clear to me what the second amendment means and why it was formulated as it was. It needs to be looked at in the cultural and political context it was written in. That leaves very little interpretation room. The newly founded states needed a military, but did not have stable enough revenue to create one capable of fending off the global empire they had broken from. A nother option would have been draft, but that – just like taxation to build a standing army – reminded too much like the British empire. So, they worded the law to look like voluntary service in a regulated state militia and paying for the necessary equipment by oneself was one of the new freedoms they had given to people. This was a way to ensure also, that the frontiersmen would make less trouble, as it became possible for them to join the society, and be regulated at the same time. Most certainly the newly founded government did not think dudes sitting at home with their muskets would somehow make the government make any better laws. They may have written beatiful propaganda about it, but it is a bit absurd to think, that is how they saw their own social morals – incited to do better out fear for violence.

Here in Finland we are only experimenting on drivers licences for kids under the age of 18 years. The test has brought good and bad results. Neither driving a car, nor owning a gun are basic human rights. They are liberties regulated (well or poorly) and granted by the society to an individual based on an evaluation of that individual being responsible enough to not take exessive risks at the cost of others.

I am well aware this is a super contentious issue among U.S. citizens and more than likely we will never find common ground. Nevertheless, I believe that sharing statistics and laws that exist in other countries is a good thing … and MAYBE an “on-the-fence” person will give it some thought and (possibly) reconsider their position.

Image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

13 thoughts on “Yes … No … Maybe?

    • Plausible? How else can anyone read it? No non-American, or very few at least, can read that amendment any other way. Further, the weapons they were talking about in the 1700s were muskets and front-loaders. They could not have foreseen the weapons of today, and if they could have, they woild never have written the amendment the way they did.
      No, Americans that read the 2nd Amendment to say that weapons of terror are supposed to be in the hands of the average citizen are living in cuckoo-land (my apologies to cuckoo birds who are smarter than a whole lot of Americans)!
      The way certain Americans “interpret” the 2nd is the product of the gun msnufacturers who are using gullible Americans for their own purposes.
      The sooner Americans wake up and realize how badly they are being used, the sooner the world will be a safer place for the average citizen to live in peace.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Kinda’ misses the whole whities scared of their own shadows because they killed off most of the locals and forcibly imported more slaves than whities. The vague nod to “militias” a blind eye to slave patrols and random terrorizing their neighbors. Plausible because I can certainly see how someone outside the country might see it that way but implausible because it is gaslighting the truth. Lip-stick on a pig.

        Liked by 1 person

        • What is truth? My ancestors are the ones slaugntered by the Whites, and for the most part we were not slaughtered by militia, but deliberaftely by US soldiers, . They tried real hard to wipe us out. But when bullets failed to do the job they tried to make us into Red copies of themselves through what we in Canada call the Residential School system. I will not repeat the demeaning colonial terms used for this system in America, but no matter what it was called it ultimately failed too.
          I will not talk about what White Americans did to the Black folk they brought to Turtle Island, that is not my story to tell.
          But how you are connecting this to the 2nd Amendment I do not understand?

          Liked by 3 people

  1. I don’t have the luxury or free-time to get heavily involved with Rautakyy’s debate unfortunately—cuz I would love to—but I will simply emphasize two KEY points from my own arguments against Constitutional Originalists and repeat one of your FINE blog-posts Nan from Scottie’s blog by the Navy combat veteran, Ken Harbaugh, who poignantly & vehemently expressed how the opening of the 2nd Amendment clearly states a well regulated militia, which most certainly includes their military-style weapons/arms!!!

    Regarding 2nd Amendment Originalists, here is what Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Randolph, both Constitutional engineers, stated about evolving the Constitution and its Amendments with future times…

    “The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government.” […]

    “This principle that the earth belongs to the living, & not to the dead, is of very extensive application & consequences, in every country…” —Thomas Jefferson

    “To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events.” —Edmund Randolph

    And these two views/quotes were held also by Benjamin Franklin and others of our Constitutional Founding Fathers.

    A well regulated militia…” and by common sense default, their weapons. Period. Duh! Read this Amendment again until it sinks in properly and accurately. Simple.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I do hope that some day we can figure this out. I also hope we do something about climate. oh, wait. The environment…. oh wait. Education…. oh wait. Health care…. oh wait.

    It’s all pretty hopeless, isn’t it? Nice blog fodder. But the reality is, even if we managed to find sanity among the gun nuts, we’re fucked.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It is possible we are ****ed, but two things: The USA is only part of this whole world, Even is America is ****ed, as well they may be, the rest of the world is not. We are capable of existing without America, or whatever it becomes.
      I would prefer we figure this out with America, but you do not define tnis world. You are but one tiny bit of it.

      Liked by 2 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.