View Single Post
Old August 22, 2009, 08:19 PM   #383
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530

The problem with the argument that the 2nd Amend protects our liberty is that we have not seen it actually do such in many cases.
I have cited the Battle of Athens, TN so I will not link to it again.

Not to insult folks but many of the classic gun culture have been quite supportive of many infringements of the liberties of citizens as those have clashed with a controlling social conservative world view.
Because the classic gun culture associations have taken the stance that if they "compromise" with the oppressors they will appease them.

1. A compromise means that both parties receive something. We give, they take, and we receive nothing in return but the next "good first step" legislation.

2. Appeasers throw everyone else to the lions hoping to be eaten last.

Despite the wailing and lamentation - current gun rights are important as a last bulwark against a right that would institute a world view that is antithetical to liberty.
TG would disagree with you and has stated that he would take up arms against you. That is treasonous talk.

But, most changes today can be instituted by the electoral and judicial process.

Stewing about armed revolution or how the 2nd brought major increases in liberty just are not true.
Only if you ignore the American Revolution and the War Between the States.

I received the right not to be discriminated against on basis of religion because of the electoral and judicial process. I did not see one classic member of the conservative gun world rise in rebellion so my mother could get a job denied her because of religion. In fact, most of that group, in those times, would probably support the discrimination.
Two words: Mordechai Anielewicz. He did more in his short 24 years than most do in a long-lived lifetime. Maybe he was just an idealist.

To conclude - I think that the gun carry was not an effective means of communication. Signs saying we support the 2nd Amend by large numbers of polite folks probably would work better. But we know the gun world isn't much for that. Organized demos are chortled about but don't come off. The NRA works more effectively and law suits like Heller work much better.
I agree with that in part. It may not have been the best way to demonstrate.

The problem is that those who advocate concealed carry and lament that "Our right to bear arms does not end at the <enter boundary here>" are some of the same ones who are saying that the right to bear arms ends when the wrong person approaches their location.

The 2nd and arms of the civilian are important to large groups of us as a last bulwark if we went the way of something like Reich.
Which is what I was speaking to.

But the claim that the 2nd has brought about liberties in a major fashion isn't true now.
Yet you mentioned the display of arms of the Black Panther Party. That one act, coupled with many others, forced attention on the civil rights movement which brought freedom to millions without firing a single shot.
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

Last edited by jimpeel; August 22, 2009 at 09:23 PM.
jimpeel is offline  
Page generated in 0.03416 seconds with 7 queries