[TommygunNG]

I am the one who wrote this up. Here is my response:


The trouble with his propositions (no matter which one you look at) is that all of them depend on the right to keep and bear arms no longer being a right.

This is probably the key error in Buffalo Wing's reply. He and so many others treat the right to arms as little more than a guarantee of a hobby. It is not about that. It is about a collective community function--the militia. Any military veteran will tell you that individuality is contrary to unit function.

1. 2A: "Well-regulated militia" -- Me: "...even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation..."
2. It is still a legal right. HE JUST DOESN'T GET HIS PREFERENCE. If the Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting, it ain't about any other hobby, either. In fact, the right is made stronger by the official recognition of specific arms indeed being constitutionally protected.


Such proposals would be tantamount to saying that urbanites can use computers while rural dwellers can only have landline phones and newspapers. The good government men, however, can have laptops and smartphones.
1. It's better than being down to 7-round pistols.
2. Urban and rural realities are different in terms of arms.
3. Government already has monopoly on modern artillery, etc.
4. Political realities (contrary to what he says later) simply do point to the American people wanted more regulation. What I propose is a way to appease the idiots who would go too far, while retaining the ability to defend home and homeland.


The second proposal would be similar to telling me I can only use a computer with 4GB RAM and specific processors to use the internet or do whatever other speech related activities I so desire, simply because it fits the purpose satisfactorily and I don't *need* anything more powerful.
1. BW: "activities I so desire" -- Ultimately, the militia function is not about "activities I so desire". It is about activities contributing to "the security of a free State"--the defense of home and homeland. BW's simple statement here goes back to the key error--focus on personal preference. He sees it solely as a right, and not a duty or responsibility.
2. Me: "...even as an active duty soldier does not have a 'right' to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the 'unorganized militia' would be subject to regulation..." -- Authorities decide such things as configuration of weapons and the size of magazines. The standard combat load today in the Army is 210 rounds in seven 30-round magazines. No 100-round drums. The Army made a judgment call and set the policy.
2. Non-military personnel do not have the same skill as military personnel. They have never had the sort of displinine that military experience puts into people, and they by and large lack the knowledge they would need if they led a fight. (Sorry, A-Team reruns and Nutnfancy vids just don't qualify.) Simply put, they can't "assault" very well, and the militia purpose is better served by them having coordinated with arms as I described.
3. Political realities can be conformed to in my plan. It is not dependent on pipe dreams.


Furthermore, public opinion is divided enough that I don't see any serious legislative threats from the federal government, and the states capable of or willing to restrict gun rights any further can do so at any time they choose, anyways (see my home state, the wonderful New York, for Exhibit A). We aren't in such serious jeopardy that such discussions should be considered as "last resorts."
1. He's delusional regarding the federal government. The polls are shifting, and people find the idea of a bunch of mismatched individuals with their ARs overthrowing a tyranny ludicrous. In truth, the best way to resist a tyranny is not with long guns in a stand-up fight, but rather very small arms and certain, uh, extreme measures directed at government agents and their families. Too many pro-gunners need to get real.
2. He's the defeatist one on the state governments (remember McDonald).
3. The idea is to head off the "serious jeopardy" while retaining the ability to perform the duty for which the right exists. If we go to what I suggest, we retain the means to the basic purpose. If we insist on "no-compromise," the people of the country will turn against us, and we lose everything. We have burned up a LOT of public goodwill as it, and burn more every time some hayseed in Tennessee spouts off.


Finally, we aren't going to defend our rights successfully by willingly giving parts of them up (whether gun rights or other rights).
1. Again, too much focus here is on "rights," not function. The truth is that we aren't going to defend home and homeland by stubbornly refusing to be politically realistic.
2. I did suggest working trade-offs on "liberal" rights (First Amendment). In fact, some Second Amendment proponents make the same mistake as First Amendment proponents--taking them way too far.
3. Another trade-off possibility would be to secure such things as concealed-carry reciprocity.
3. The right is made more productive, as the plans guarantee appropriate armament of the people. What isn't secure is personal preference, about which the Second Amendment is NOT. This is the distinction he and so many others seem unable to embrace. Such is the societal result of individualism.
4. Second Amendment concerns are on the down side in public opinion. Stubbornness will drive them against us. Pushing or holding for too much WILL eventually drive the people against this right. That is reality.


Quote:
Folks, it is inevitable that some changes will occur in this area. Purism is NOT the order of the day. Purism is suicide right now. Real and viable ideas for arrangements are needed, or a catastrophic failure will occur. You negotiate things in your personal lives all the time. You have to be willing to do that here, even if you "jus' kinda think" we shouldn't have to do so.

This isn't the language one uses to defend a right. It's perfectly fine, and often necessary, when handling the practical matters of something like finances (especially on a national level). Changes (restrictions) are not inevitable if we continue to make the incremental changes and successes in our favor like Heller and McDonald. We need to be active and responsible proponents of a natural human right, not compromisers, if we ever hope to maintain our rights for the future.
1. BW needs to look at the polls.
2. Notice he is not addressing my idea of how to handle registration.
3. CREDIT: At least he thinks incrementally.
4. The militia is actually more powerful under my proposals than it is today, as there is coordination of arms. Current individualism not only makes that difficult, it actually leads to attitudes resisting this. The old "militia codes" of the post-Revolution period laid out restrictions and guidelines as to what qualified for militia use. In our time of mass production and more complicated weapons, we need coordination and standardization.


The right to arms, while boiling down to arms in the possess of an individual, is about more than the individual. He needs to learn think of the purpose for the right, and not focus on the right itself. And unless he thinks he can fight off a national or community enemies all by his lonesome, he needs to learn to think in collective terms.


========================


VANYA:

I don't believe this
I will not read it again
Ain't no militia

Nice haiku, but that last line kinda hangs out there and points to what I'm suggesting. That said, it is in fact backwards. A militia has regulation and discipline. My ideas would make it MORE of a militia than anything we have had in America in generations. But discipline and regulation are the last thing the largely libertarian-minded Second Amendment community wants. And that individualism is why we are suffering the losses we are.