Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
My point was not to address the legal in any great detail, but rather to address the philosophy behind our national heritage's right to arms. I aimed to start a discussion of possible compromises which would preserve suitable firepower in the hands of private citizens in this current political climate. By looking at the limited capability of common citizens in the context of modern warfare (I agree with Tennessee Gentleman on that point, and he did a good job exposing ignorance in the original post), I came up with two approaches which would deal with opposition while enabling the regular people to be part of the solution to our national problems. You see, I put higher values just a little bit higher than your precious personal image of freedom and your "rights". It always seemed stupid to me to insist on some benefit which I knew would ultimately lead to the loss of that benefit.
Unfortunately, this site has proven to be full of self-focused, self-defeating individualists who would rather see it all be taken than put their their country first, make sacrifices, and keep what they can. It is that attitude, regardless of ones thoughts on my ideas, that costs us in the political realm, and which might ultimately cost us our national sovereignty and personal freedom. It makes me proud to be a statist, and hence one of the few patriotic Americans here.
Regarding Heller: My concerns in 2008 stand, as by separating the constitutional militia function from the right to arms, the Supreme Court is--intentionally or not--setting up clearance for sweeping "assault weapons" bans. Arguing a right to pistols is easy. Shotguns--easy. Carbines--maybe. Even "hunting rifles" can be justified. However, tt is quite a stretch to argue you have a "right" to an AR or such, unless it is that such arms allow you to contribute to the national security apparatus. Eliminating the militia function precludes arguing that, and makes the "unusual and dangerous" label look attractive for at least some of the targeted arms. Many of them exceed reasonable demands in the area of self-defense, and hobbies and fun might not be enough when people see school shootings happening practically everyday. You see, judges are human. They feel people's pain. They feel pressure. And if they can use their jurisprudence to get around having to invalidate laws most people seem to want, there's no guarantee they won't.
I suggested a line of thinking which would keep firepower in private hands, so I'm a "statist." Odd, but oh well. In any case, yes, as I said before, I am indeed a statist. I actually believe in authority and my country. I put that above myself and my little hobbies. I believe in values and principles, and am morally consistent enough to suggest implementing them as possible by force of law. Libertarians, while sometimes loyal, are by definition NOT patriots, as they put the individual (in reality, themselves) before their country. I know I will never convince you of how destructive your attitudes are. It's just too nice to be selfish. But at least by you being selfish, you will have no one to blame but yourselves when it all comes crashing down.
If the Founding Fathers could be resurrected today, they would look at you all and not only not lead another revolution, but also tell you all you deserve tyranny. You gave up principles of uprightness, community, and righteousness in the name of the precious "freedom" which is being used right now to choke your freedom. (It's kinda like what the Muslims in the UK said: "We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy".) Freedom is only good when it is the freedom to what is right, not what is wrong and not the freedom to frolic and play at hobbies. The more we can limit freedom to right choices, the stronger our country is, and thus the stronger our real freedom is. At one time, non-government forces in society could do the restraining. But those days are gone. People have indeed changed, bringing to my John Adams' line, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
One last point before I bid this libertarian cesspool farewell: If major gun bans and confiscations do occur, the firepower scheme I laid out will look very good to you. But it will be too late.
But before you go running off I don't find it overly amusing that you wish to take the path towards the high ground on Patriotism. I have served my country more than twenty years in the US Military through several wars on the ground. I don't doubt that you believe yourself committed but your questioning the resolve of others because they disagree with your POV is really, really misguided. You really should rethink that.
These "higher values" that you keep referring to are not an end to themselves. My commitment to my country extends to the social compact and legal contract that the government made with me to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the President; unto death if needed. I am not sure where your level of commitment lies but if it is anything less than that you really have no room to point fingers. If it is that high than you should understand why you are wrong.
If the government starts torching the Constitution then I will be forced to execute the primary clause of defending it. I don't think we are anywhere near that nor do I think we will get there in my life time but often times the government needs a little help to stay on the right path.
I defend the Constitution not to assert the rulership of whoever is currently running things but to preserve the liberties and freedoms that most people in this country cherish.
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.