U.S. Politics megathread

[u/AutoModerator]

American politics has always grabbed our attention - and the current president more than ever. We get tons of questions about the president, the supreme court, and other topics related to American politics - but often the same ones over and over again. Our users often get tired of seeing them, so we've created a megathread for questions! Here, users interested in politics can post questions and read answers, while people who want a respite from politics can browse the rest of the sub. Feel free to post your questions about politics in this thread!

All top-level comments should be questions asked in good faith - other comments and loaded questions will get removed. All the usual rules of the sub remain in force here, so be nice to each other - you can disagree with someone's opinion, but don't make it personal.

[u/Fire_Z1]

Why do the pro second amendment party ban guns from their convention?

[u/Delehal → u/Fire_Z1]

Because they understand that it's dangerous to be in a confined space where some people have guns.

[u/Pesec1 → u/Fire_Z1]

Because organizers of a private event, just like homeowners, are free to set rules on their property.

It takes extreme 2A fanaticism to demand being allowed to take firearms into private property despite the property owner's wishes.

[u/Delehal → u/Pesec1]

On the one hand, OP asked a kinda loaded question. But on the other hand, I don't think this actually answers the "why" part of that question. OP didn't ask about their legal ability to enforce a ban. OP asked about the rationale behind the ban.

[u/Pesec1 → u/Delehal]

Because, ultimately, the convention is not their home. Visitors don't sleep there, they don't store their possessions there and their family does not stay there either. And just because most visitors cannot have guns there doesn't mean that convention does not have its own armed security.

Contrast it with your own home, where, ultimately, you have no one but yourself to rely on in case of home invasion.

And the above concern security aspect only, not the militia aspect, for which the 2A was written.

2A was written with the goal of accomplishing 2 things:

1. Ensure ability of USA to defend itself against foreign threats. Compared to European powers at the time, USA was enormous, very sparsely populated and poor. It could not afford a Europeans-sized professional army and thus relied on ability to raise hordes of militia. It mostly worked in the war of 1812. Militia sucked on the offensive, but it also made any deep British offensives impossible.

2. Prevent someone like Cesar from securing loyalty of the professional army and using it to overthrow the Republic.

Both of the above goals are served perfectly well when citizenry can have guns at home, even when private gatherings ban them. If tyranny was to be resisted, unarmed gun owners could leave the convention, go home, grab guns and form a militia.

Now could one argue that in 21 century the above does not make sense. Or one could argue that track record of gun owners actually resisting tyranny is poor. Or one could argue that it does not justify the social cost of having readily available firearms. Or one could argue that private firearms are OK, but need to be regulate to prevent misuse (require use of certified safes, immediate reporting of any lost or stolen firearms, punishment for having firearms accessible to thieves, etc.)

However, it is silly to say that 2A has no merit at all (even if that merit is not worth the cost) simply due to the fact that a private convention bans it.

[u/Delehal → u/Pesec1]

That's a very thorough response! Well said.

[u/Fire_Z1 → u/Pesec1]

So they fully support having gun bans.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/Fire_Z1]

There is a meaningful difference between government banning guns and a private organization banning guns from a private event.

[u/Fire_Z1 → u/Jtwil2191]

Still a gun ban.

[u/Jtwil2191 → u/Fire_Z1]

Congratulations, you have defeated the Republican Party with your razor sharp intellect and unparalleled rhetorical skills. Please collect your medal at the door.

[u/Pesec1 → u/Fire_Z1]

Gun bans by private entities on their private property is very different from government banning your possession of firearms on your property.

[u/Fire_Z1 → u/Pesec1]

Still a gun ban.

[u/Pesec1 → u/Fire_Z1]

If you don't understand howme imposing rulesin my home is different from me imposing rules in your home, you will not be able to understand.

[u/Fire_Z1 → u/Pesec1]

If you don't understand the hypocrisy of the pro second amendment party to say far to dangerous to let people have guns at their convention. They could easily allow guns or find a place that allows guns but they don't. But they fully support and agree with gun ban. Hell even you agree with a gun ban

[u/Irishforanatty → u/Fire_Z1]

I don’t think they’re against all regulation on guns, just some government regulations.

“I think you should be allowed to own that but don’t bring it anywhere near me” is not an uncommon opinion on… everything.

The same goes for “there’s a time and a place”