"Stuck in the 1700's" (PA)


PDA






K-Romulus
August 15, 2006, 10:48 AM
This op-ed is from a NJ(?) public high school teacher. Never mind the circular logic, it is his premise and his position of authority that concern me.

Since his views have undoubtedly been spoon-fed to his students for the past 18 years (students who probably do not get a countermessage from their families), this is why we 2A-supporters are probably doomed to the dustbin of history in one generation or less. I have seen this effect on my own younger family members thanks to their "schooling."

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/opinion/local1/15275880.htm

Stuck in the 1700s

By Tom Derby

Two of my former students were shot dead in separate incidents - not in the streets but at parties, and not by drug dealers but by other students they knew.

Another of my students was knifed to death in a dispute over ownership of a handgun. Wouldn't it be nice if students had such a sense of ownership in their education?

A few A-graded papers still in my files bring back my worst memory of all.

A good athlete and an A student in ninth grade, Len used to express fascination with guns and gangs. His departure from school was not sudden but gradual. He would greet me politely at his locker in the morning even after, as I later learned, he was in deep trouble.

I lost track of Len, and a colleague brought me the bad news before the papers got it: He had become a professional assassin, and his own gang killed him and set his body on fire in a football field in North Camden.

While I am continually saddened by gun tragedies - Philadelphia is experiencing a spate of them - it is not possible for me to know the devastation of parents who have lost children this way.

Why do we want to go on killing our children?

Just as President Lincoln in an 1863 speech looked back in sadness to the failure of past presidents to address the moral issue of slavery, it is time for us to search our past for the roots of the absurdly easy availability of firearms in our nation.

"Dirty Harry" Callahan may have contributed to our gun culture, but he didn't invent it.

A fundamental language skill we teach our students - context - is required to understand our predicament.

We cite the Second Amendment and see ourselves as proud individuals jealously defending our individual rights. The shotgun is still strapped to the door of the pickup. Bullets blaze through the streets.

But let's look at the context in which the Founding Fathers had to operate.

When in 1791 James Madison led the adoption of 10 amendments to our Constitution, formally recognized today as our Bill of Rights, there were fresh memories of the brutality suffered by the first Americans as they tried to carve out a nation independent of a foreign king.

They remembered the British and Hessian thugs who had roamed the countryside, ready to steal cows and pigs, quarter themselves in whatever homes they chose, violate women, and use their weapons at will.

The Second Amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

American farmers were the standing militia of the day. There were no police or National Guard, and only the beginnings of an army. These were the minutemen - brave, tough men and women ready to fight at a moment's notice.

The historical context of this part of the Bill of Rights - the recurring nightmare of Redcoat soldiers - shows that every American family needed a musket standing against the wall, ready to load and ready to kill.

Not so today. The premise of the Second Amendment, the need for minutemen, no longer exists. In a free society we must rely on the police. We have more important rights to fight for than the right to bear arms.

I do not own a firearm. If I did, I would be loath to call it my "constitutional right."

The Second Amendment will not go down easily, but go down it must. Marketing of weapons is too profitable an enterprise for attitudes to change overnight, but change they must.

When wolves as well as human predators roamed freely in the Northeast, one was entitled to defend one's family and property with firearms.

Circumstances have changed; we need to reconsider that entitlement. Why do we want America to continue being the murder capital of the Western world?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Derby, of Newtown Square, has taught reading and English at Woodrow Wilson High School in Camden for 18 years.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Stuck in the 1700's" (PA)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
the pistolero
August 15, 2006, 11:06 AM
In a free society we must rely on the police.

Yes, of course. Never mind the courts have made it clear, time after time, that the police have no duty to protect individuals. And what do you want to bet this character typed this missive in an air-conditioned office, thousands of miles removed, of course, from places like the post-Katrina Gulf Coast? It's absolutely amazing what the people who run the broadsheets are printing these days. And they wonder why newspaper subscriptions are going through the floor.

rev214
August 15, 2006, 11:08 AM
the moonbats own the public educational system, i'm sorry to say...K-12 and higher ed...
private schools or homeschooling are the only saving grace...

i work for an educational company in the People's Republic, and i see it directly everyday in the "clients" and "programs" i deal with...its critical for parents who believe differently than the educrats to ingrain in their children the truths and morals that won't be taught in the public school system...

my own parents took me at a young age to revolutionary war and civil war sites...it developed an interest in early american history for me, and over the years that led to my strong beliefs in the RKBA...

Sindawe
August 15, 2006, 11:12 AM
Ahhh...the ignorance of the educated. Like a morning breeze off a rotting corpse.

I think I've found the "author" of this peice.

http://www.wwhsnj.org/apps/staff/show_staff.jsp?REC_ID=15004&rn=9652

I was able to confirm that their Thomas Derby does teach reading and English. His email is TDerby@camden.k12.nj.us

Superpsy
August 15, 2006, 11:17 AM
When wolves as well as human predators roamed freely in the Northeast, one was entitled to defend one's family and property with firearms.


I don't think circumstances have changed. Human predators still roam freely...:barf:

hillbilly
August 15, 2006, 11:27 AM
Three quick reactions.

1) Another typical poorly-written, all-emotional "argument" from an anti-gunner. Surprise, surprise.

2) Wow, a New Jersey public school English teacher who's anti gun. Who'd a thunk it? (I write these words as a college English instructor myself.).

3) The most disturbing, depressing part of the whole post is what K-Romulus wrote.

"this is why we 2A-supporters are probably doomed to the dustbin of history in one generation or less. I have seen this effect on my own younger family members thanks to their "schooling."


Good Lord.

I've been hearing gunnies predict that it's all over in just a few years, and that we're doomed in only a generation or so for almost 30 years.

I couldn't have been more than seven or eight years old when I read a fictional piece in Field&Stream magazine (That'd be 1977 or 1978).

In this story "Grandpa" was burying his shotguns and rifles out in a field with "Grandson" because they'd all finally been banned, and he wasn't going to let the police confiscate and melt down his hunting guns.

That was about 28 years ago. You know what? I'm still waiting on the inevitable end.

In the intervening 28 years, I cannot count how many times I've heard gunnies and gun dealers moan and sigh that it's only "a few more years" and it'll all be over in "about one more generation" and that we're "all doomed" and it's hopeless, etc. etc. :barf:

Instead of moaning and sighing, maybe gunnies ought to do something else like teach folks how to shoot? Or take non-shooters shooting?

Oh no. It's just so much more fun and self-satisfying to sit around the gloomily predict the end that's just around the corner. Because we're doomed, you see? It's hopeless. It's just a matter of a few years.

Of course, we get to stylize ourselves as the last romatic holdouts, the only folks who aren't "sheeple," the rugged individualists who cling to the hopelessly doomed romantic idealism of owning personal weapons.

But, of course, we're doomed, because the antis own the schools and the media, and it's just a matter of time. We're doomed.

:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

One English teach in NJ writes an editorial, and it's all over and we're doomed?

Give. Me. A. Friggin. Break.

I know I have probably angered some folks.

But I get really angry every time I hear a gunnie gloomily predict the end, and say we're doomed.

How about doing something about it?

How about writing an editorial back at this idiot? How about taking some newbies to a range? How about getting an instructor certification and starting a local air rifle team? How about doing just about anything?

But what difference does it make? We're doomed anyway. It'll all be over in just a few more years. Maybe one generation at the most.....:rolleyes:

If this is the attitude out there, then it doesn't matter what the antis do or don't do.

People who believe they are doomed and it's inevitable that they are going to lose cannot be saved. Such people, however, easily snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

hillbilly

DonP
August 15, 2006, 11:28 AM
I may have missed the paragraph where this concerned teacher bemoans the lack of parental involvement in these dead "children's lives.

Or is it still politically incorrect to ask where the father and mother were when these people joined the gang and became an assassin?

The lack of respect for human life and the law isn't sugically implanted the first time some would-be thug picks up a gun. Respect for the law and decency is taught by parents, ministers, teachers and others. His tragically dead young people never learned that lesson and it's not the fault of Smith & Wesson or Glock.

I'll set aside his twisted view of what the militia is and what "well regulated" means in an 18th century context. My daughter is a public school teacher in Chicago and she knows darn well what the entire BoR means, 1 through 10. That it grants NO rights, but restricts the governments power on certain God given rights. She learned about it the old fashioned way, arguing with me at the kitchen table when she was growing up.

I wonder how he'd react to a parallel article on how the internet was never envisioned by our forefathers, so that whole first amendment free speech thing ... is probably obsolete now too?

There is no excuse for ignorance of this level in a teacher beyond his own willfullness to stay that way.

In the long run he's just another wistful moonbat gazing at his tattered '60's psychedelic posters dreaming of a world full of peace, love and harmony that never was and never will be.

K-Romulus
August 15, 2006, 12:40 PM
I write rebuttals to 90% of the anti-gun-owner hit pieces I come across. About 30% of my rebuttals get acknowledged and even fewer get published. If a rebuttal gets written, but no fence-sitter gets to read it, "does it make a sound"?

I try to get people to the range when I can, but most people I come across are firmly in the anti-gun-owner camp. It is a product of my location: suburban DC.

My own kid brother in VA Beach, VA, of all places, was "turned out" after one college-level sociology class where his teacher showed a Mike Wallace documentary on the history of US gun control. I did enough damage control after that to at least get my bro' to see the nonsense behind the so-called AWB, but he is still firmly now in the "license and registration" and "handgun = penile compensator" camps. He is now 20 years old and a regular voter. This NJ guy has probably done this x18000 over the past 18 years.

I hear you about overblowing the whole "sky is falling" thing, but from where I sit it is more reality than overkill. Talking to people around here (where most of the voters in two states live) on this issue is like talking to a brick wall. These are supposedly educated people with critical thinking skills, undoubtedly the products of teachers like this NJ guy. Maybe it's my perspective, but that's what it's like here. That's where my concern for the future comes from.

And it's not just the NE. Look at other states where gun bans (like Colorado and Ohio) are put into effect, or modest pro-gun-owner bills like CCW in restaurants get ridiculed and killed.

I'm not throwing in the towel, just looking at the sewage on the floor and the broken pipeline spewing it out and wondering if we have enough buckets to keep bailing before we drown.

beerslurpy
August 15, 2006, 12:57 PM
In a free society we must rely on the police.

If such a small segment of the population has you by the short and curlies, how long do you imagine your freedom will last? Wait until the needs of your "free society" conflict with the needs of the police. Then you will see just what you are free to do and not do.

wingnutx
August 15, 2006, 01:23 PM
If he's get knifed over ownership of a gun, he'd get knifed over ownership of a pair of sneakers or an iPod.

Correia
August 15, 2006, 02:34 PM
hillbilly, excellent post.

K-Romulus, if you were anywhere other than suburban DC, it probably wouldn't seem so bleak.

The only comment I have about the initial article is that working in the gun industry, I missed the part where we were massively profitable. :p Since the entire US gun industry is the size of Home Depot, I think many of us missed that memo.

Leatherneck
August 15, 2006, 03:21 PM
Actually, Hillbilly, I think it's well written; just poorly thought out.:neener:

American farmers were the standing militia of the day. There were no police or National Guard, and only the beginnings of an army. These were the minutemen - brave, tough men and women ready to fight at a moment's notice.

The historical context of this part of the Bill of Rights - the recurring nightmare of Redcoat soldiers - shows that every American family needed a musket standing against the wall, ready to load and ready to kill.

Not so today. The premise of the Second Amendment, the need for minutemen, no longer exists. In a free society we must rely on the police. We have more important rights to fight for than the right to bear arms.

He misses the point that the very Founding Fathers he cites knew that the government they were then establishing would not--could not--be responsible for every citizen's safety.

TC

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 03:23 PM
In a free society we must rely on the police. We have more important rights to fight for than the right to bear arms.

Yeah, like the "right" of teachers' unions to run state governments.

beerslurpy
August 15, 2006, 03:30 PM
k-rom, it isnt as bad as you think, at least not entirely so.

I was raised in a completely anti-gun household and went through the anti-gun NYC public school system. Yet despite this I developed an interest in firearms and have succeeded in turning everyone in my family neutral and turning one of my siblings pro-gun (I wont say which in case my parents read this).

I try whenever I can to wake people out of dependent mindsets and get them to embrace the concept of armed self-help. I also try to get people involved in shooting sports whenever I can. But Florida is already a very good environment for turning antis. "But almost everyone in here is carrying a gun, so where is the violence?" is sort of the ultimate argument crusher, thanks to years of widespread CCW.

I think most of the problem in DC (and other anti areas) is that because people have no experience with firearms, scaring and fooling them with outlandish tales is very easy. Critical thinking is only worthwhile if you have good data to start with- if all you ever hear is that 50 bmg = homing nuclear missile, the idea of shooting down an airliner with one no longer seems laughable. Think of how easily many of us were fooled by the stupid anti-drug propaganda as children. How many of us still are...

Phetro
August 15, 2006, 04:05 PM
While I am continually saddened by gun tragedies - Philadelphia is experiencing a spate of them - it is not possible for me to know the devastation of parents who have lost children this way.

The only tradegy related to guns is that every citizen doesn't own them and respect the right to carry them.

Why do we want to go on killing our children?

This reminds me of a Nasrudin story.

Nasrudin was at the inn with his friends, listening to a book-learned man who claimed to be able to answer any question.

"You can answer any question at all?" asked Nasrudin.

"Yes, I can!" replied the man.

"I think I have a question you can't answer," said Nasrudin.

"Ask! I guarantee I can answer it."

"Very well: why have you been stealing into my house by my window each night?"

So, why do we want to go on killing our children...? Well, we don't. But we aren't killing them now, so...

In a free society we must rely on the police.

This has me rolling! :D If you must rely on the police, how are you free?!

XD_fan
August 15, 2006, 05:49 PM
I find it fascinating that Mr. Derby makes an emotional plea to remove the right to possess firearms and protect oneself as being outdated, outmoded by our modern society. It's also interesting he doesn't feel the way about knives. Or bats, rocks, fists. But I forget, there are no more human predators. Just other people.

The Drew
August 15, 2006, 06:13 PM
This guy's a moron...

Everyone knows that in a free society we must rely on OURSELVES!!!

Police states and fascism rely on the police...

thpa
August 15, 2006, 06:57 PM
Sindawe
thank you very much for Mr. Derby's email. I will be droping him a polite note on his commentary and I do know it won't do any good but I still wish to educate him a little and highlight the flaws in his commentary.

coyote_jr
August 15, 2006, 08:22 PM
Dear Mr. Derby,

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. You say we must rely on the police. What about the hundreds of New Orleans Police officers that deserted their posts after Hurricane Katrina devestated the area? How were the affected residents of New Orleans supposed to rely on them? What about the hundreds of Los Angeles Police officers that stood by and did nothing as rioters and looters ransacked the city during riots in LA of 1992? How were the affected residents of Los Angeles supposed to rely on them? Even in the absence of a crisis, the police simply can't be everywhere at once. To rely on them for your own personal safety is to take a greater risk than being responsible for your own well-being.

Furthermore, a society that is largely or completely unarmed, save for the police, is the definition of a Police State. History has shown that Police States are doomed to failure. It is human nature to fight against perceived oppression. To surmise that our nation, with its 230 year old tradition of being armed so as not to be oppressed, needs to instead have a few uniformed men among the masses be charged with gaurding the well being and property of all is unrealistic and in my honest opinion un-American.

I would like to add that human predators still roam free. The answer is not to take away means of self defense for "prey". This is illogical. In fact, the cities in this country that are routinely labeled as the "Murder Capital's of the U.S." have the strictest gun control laws. How do you explain that? For example, Illinois and Pennsylvania have nearly identical populations, both around 12 million. Illinois does not allow its citizens to carry weapons concealed at all. Pennsylvania does, and yet every year Illinois has more firearm homicides. Illinois, and specifically Chicago, has some of the most restrictive laws on guns nationwide. And some of the highest murder rates. How would you explain it?

Finally, firearm ownership is not an entitlement as you assert in your article. It's not an entitlement any more then you writing your article is an entitlement. These are rights, sir. Granted to us in our Constitution. And neither of these rights are "going down" unless they all go down and we write a new Constitution. I am sorry for the experiences you've had lately with people you've known personally being killed. I do understand where your argument comes from. However, please do not blame the gun. Blame the environment that produces the criminals that use the gun illegaly.

Respectfully,

xxxxx

feedthehogs
August 15, 2006, 08:54 PM
In a free society we must rely on the police. We have more important rights to fight for than the right to bear arms

Words fail me in expressing the shear ignorance of this dangerous individual.

I say dangerous because you know his bias is being preached in his class.

Although in the sewer that is known as Camden, most of his students are already carrying and probably laugh at his comments.

When wolves as well as human predators roamed freely in the Northeast, one was entitled to defend one's family and property with firearms.


By his own account, nothing has changed and especially in Camden has gotten worse.

Kaylee
August 15, 2006, 09:51 PM
I'd like to give hillbilly a standing ovation. :)

New blood is where its at. And honestly, things are a lot better off than they were a decade ago I think. The momentum is slow, but it is still on our side I'd say.

crazed_ss
August 15, 2006, 09:51 PM
Guys like this author are why I hate taking college courses.

thpa
August 16, 2006, 08:54 AM
Cyote,
Well done!

xd9fan
August 16, 2006, 12:15 PM
I am continually saddened by gun tragedies

I am continually saddened by police tragedies. should we ban them too?

In a free society we must rely on the police.

One of the most idoitic statements I have seen in a while. Completely devoid of human history and understanding of the words "free society"
and he teaches kids....everyday.....

I wonder if he would feel the same way with the first Amendment?

DirksterG30
August 16, 2006, 01:41 PM
These are rights, sir. Granted to us in our Constitution.
Actually, the Bill of Rights does not grant us specific rights; it recognizes existing rights. The Founding Fathers understood that these rights were granted to us by God, not the state, and thus the state has no legitimate authority to restrict these rights. It really makes you see how far off course we are as a nation.:banghead:

FreedomKommando
August 16, 2006, 02:30 PM
Dear Mr. Derby,

"Another of my students was knifed to death in a dispute over ownership of a handgun."

Obviously, if we had adopted reasonable knife control laws, such knife tragedies would not happen.

Did you know that more small children drown every year than are killed by gun violence? That more children 12 and under are killed in bicycle accidents than by bullets? That more high school students are killed by high school football than high school gunfire? That more Americans are killed by baseball bats, rolling pins and other blunt objects than by "assault weapons"?

Why do we want to go on killing our children?

Yours truly,

Pushrod
August 16, 2006, 03:59 PM
These are rights, sir. Granted to us in our Constitution. And neither of these rights are "going down" unless they all go down and we write a new Constitution

Dirkster also addressed this quote by Coyote (whose letter was spot on up until this sentence) and I just want to reiterate the difference. These are rights we are born with, not granted by any entity, especially a government. The ammendments enumerate some of these basic rights and are a restriction on the government as to what they can and can't do!

A right can never be removed, something granted can be taken away by the grantee!

Grey54956
August 16, 2006, 07:08 PM
***!?!!??!

"In a free society we must rely on the police." - Whaaaaat!?!?!

In a free society, we are forced to rely on the state for protection? FORCED!?!?! Screw that... what the $%&@ kind of freedom is that?

What color is the stripe down this guy's back? Red or yellow?

Get the tar and feathers.

22-rimfire
August 17, 2006, 12:55 AM
I find Mr. Derby's piece disturbing but typical of the way liberals feel. Many teachers feel the way he does. His writing suggests that the mere existance of firearms results in these tragedies and puts no responsibility on the parents, his pier group, or the young adult (teen). They are all such good kids.... right? It is up to the parents to detect these changes in habits or personality and try to do something about it.

thpa
August 17, 2006, 11:43 AM
Mr. Derby said he had observed the slow departure his student developed from school due to his fascination with gangs and guns. Well isn't it prudent for he as an educator to let this boys parrents know of this behavior with gangs and absence from school? Wouldn't it be prudent of Mr. Derby to also try to steer this student in the proper direction rather that to just find blame in guns for the cause of all thats wrong with americas youth.

longeyes
August 17, 2006, 12:51 PM
Don't worry, just keep practicing your firearms skills. We are slowly but surely devolving into anarchy. Mr. Derby isn't the future, Mad Max is.

Americans, if they were not more interested in who killed JonBenet Ramsey than who's killing America, would disband public schools and turn off the tv transmitters for ten years of "psychic rehab."

Thefabulousfink
August 17, 2006, 01:37 PM
I find Mr. Derby despicable, at the first sign that Len was becoming interested in gangs he should have done something to intervein. Derby and his fellow teachers have failed this kid. He outright states that he knew Len was becoming involved in gangs and he and his colleagues did nothing (that I can tell). In my oppinion, they are just as guilty as the gang members that murdered Len.

Before Mr. Darby tries to place the blame on the tools used in Len's death, he should look at the faillings in society that lead to Len's death; his parents, his friends, his enviroment, and the adult influences that were in his life (i.e. his teachers). If Mr. Darby actually cared about these kids he would be reching out to them and tring to keep them out of stituation where they might be stabbed or shot.

If he was my childrens' teacher I would pull them from the school.

Linux&Gun Guy
August 17, 2006, 04:01 PM
He lives near Camden - I might think guns are bad too if I lived there.

He should come and see what guns outside Camden are used for - like self defence and hunting and recreational shooting and collecting.

geim druth
August 17, 2006, 07:58 PM
Camden is probably more dangerous than Colonial America was, even with Hessian thugs and wolves. I don't think the answer to Camden's problems is gun control, maybe better education is the solution. ;)

coyote_jr
August 17, 2006, 08:26 PM
this is why we 2A-supporters are probably doomed to the dustbin of history in one generation or less.

I have to second Hillbilly's response to this gloomy prediction. I don't think people will just stop caring about the 2nd Amendment. It's just too ingrained into our society.

I also have to say, true to form, this thread has predictably produced the same type of scenario that I personally see all over the internet, everytime. One person writes an opinion piece about the evil of guns, and the majority of responses are pro gun responses and it becomes tee off time on the author. Now granted, what else could the response possibly have been on this forum, but nonetheless, it is the same everywhere, at least where I get into discussions. Awhile back this woman, a stand up comic, wrote a sarcastic piece about her anti gun views for the Seattle Post Intelligencer online. When opened up for feedback, people went berserk, on both sides, but the overwhelming majority of responses were pro gun, and I believe that is a fairly liberal area (Seattle). One of my current favorite places online for debate, www.arguewitheveryone.com, has several gun control threads. One lone voice will pop up every now and then with an anti view and then spends the next month getting trounced by pro gun voices. Obviously these are only two examples but they represent a larger overall phenomenon that I would call a "par for the course" type of reaction.

All that being said, I think the current culture of gun ownership/2nd support is strong and intact. I will say that I try to do my part as best I can by taking college kids to the range. They absolutely love it. Will it take and add numbers to the cause? Who knows? I think it helps.

Don't be so gloomy, the guy was from NJ, not Texas. If we get teachers in Texas, Arizona, Alabama, etc. etc. etc. etc saying those things...then I may raise an eyebrow.:scrutiny:

mike101
August 19, 2006, 01:01 PM
Those of us gun owners who live in NJ still raise eyebrows when we read garbage like this, too.

This guy teaches in Camden, voted the most dangerous city in the US for two of the last three years. I don't understand how this guy can even mention Philadelphia, considering where he teaches.

Camden is also the heroine and crack capital of the Middle Atlantic States. It got so bad a couple of years ago, that the governor decided that the Camden Police couldn't handle it. So, he ordered the NJ State Police to aid in patroling the streets. It actually got worse. Many people from Philly come to Camden to buy their drugs, because they are less likely to get busted. Drug whores come to Camden , too, to ply their trade. They are all over the place. Anyone who has ever commuted to Philly via Admiral Wilson Blvd ( RT 30) has seen them lingering under overpasses starting around 7AM.

To make matters worse, the police do little to stop the crime. I have driven through Camden, past known drug houses, where the customers are virtually lined up outside. All of this as patrol cars are cruising the neighborhood. Hell, if I know where the drug houses are, the police must.

I'll bet this teacher doesn't actually live in Camden. If he did, he'd have a gun himself. :fire:

mike101
August 19, 2006, 01:27 PM
You folks who live in Texas, Arizona, Tennessee, etc., crack me up. Do you really think there is nothing for you to worry about, regarding the Second Ammendment?

Let me remind you. People from the Northeast tend to move south and west. Who do you think is ruining places like California?

A good friend of mine moved to Maui a few years ago. He tells me it is full of tree hugging anti-gunners from the west coast, many of whom are originally from the the east coast. Now they are ruining Hawaii for gun-owners. Don't make the mistake of thinking this can't happen in your state.

Phetro
August 19, 2006, 01:58 PM
I have to second Hillbilly's response to this gloomy prediction. I don't think people will just stop caring about the 2nd Amendment. It's just too ingrained into our society.

Being optimistic feels good.

But it doesn't take all the people to stop caring. Just a majority. And that percentage--the percentage that doesn't care--is growing just as rapidly as is the shift of the Republic toward democracy. Its growth is being encouraged by Big Media every step of the way. Gradually, the sheep are filing into the corral. Even many "conservatives" now have little or no concern for the RKBA.

When that number of sheep that don't care reaches a majority, and democracy completely replaces the Republic, the legislators will have no trouble passing laws to do away with the right to keep and bear arms. And the optimists will say, "I don't get it...we were doing so well...we were making headway in concealed carry!"

Concealed carry doesn't matter half as much as securing the right to keep and bear real weapons. You know--the ones that are actually effective in combat against oppressive governments. While you're busy celebrating the anthill of concealed carry and the saving of the molehill called "assault weapons," and saying our situation is improving somehow, the enemy is gathering momentum toward destroying the entire mountain of rights.

They are currently mustering strength for another wave. They will resume the attack. Our victories have been mere small battles, while the trend in the war belongs to them. Our victories have been insignificant--their victories STICK. Ask anyone how likely an NFA repeal is. Or a GCA repeal. Or a FOPA repeal. WHAT THEY WANT, THEY WILL GET EVENTUALLY. They will pass the ban again and worse. They will do it because they can, and because they now know that no one will stop them. Most people won't even complain.

The "center" of politics is now to the left. Look at what a "moderate" Republican stands for. Behold how few true conservatives remain, and even out of those few, how fewer still favor the sort of liberty the Founding Fathers wanted for everyone. Can you think of anyone other than Ron Paul anywhere in national government who has that level of dedication to liberty? I can't.

And look at our situation now compared to 30 years ago one more time. Are firearms more generally accepted now than they were then? Not by a long, long shot. People used to be able to buy them almost anywhere. People used to be able to mail them. Dealers were more numerous. Licensing was less enforced, and the regulations less strict. "Domestic violence" prohibitions were inconceivable, as were "restraining order" prohibitions. Ammunition restrictions were unheard of. Machine guns could be obtained for reasonable prices, and parts imported easily. Explosives weren't considered "evil." People still preferred favoring the individual over the government until it was proved that the individual couldn't be trusted.

The left wing has created the stigma for weaponry of all kinds, and they are making it stick in the minds of the sheep. So keep hoping "doomsday" will never arrive. Frankly, I pray you're right. But I know history, and I know government. And thus, I know you're wrong.

coyote_jr
August 20, 2006, 01:35 AM
Forgive me for not sharing your defeatist point of view. I am optimistic that's true. But not merely for self reassurance. I live in Providence which is an east coast urban elite. Most of the people I've met from here have never even seen a gun except for on TV. Yet everyone I've taken to the range, without exception, loved the experience. Once fear is removed from the issue, it's not an issue. that's why I'm optimistic. Just have to keep eliminating the fear factor.

publius
August 20, 2006, 07:50 AM
We cite the Second Amendment and see ourselves as proud individuals jealously defending our individual rights. The shotgun is still strapped to the door of the pickup.

Hey, anyone know where I can pick up one of those shotgun door strap things for my hickup truck? I've never seen that, but it sounds good to me!

longeyes
August 20, 2006, 01:09 PM
I have to second Hillbilly's response to this gloomy prediction. I don't think people will just stop caring about the 2nd Amendment. It's just too ingrained into our society.

The issue isn't whether the Second Amendment is going to expire, it's whether America, as we have known it, is going to expire. The only way we are going to preserve not only the Second Amendment but our other essential Constitutional protections, in the LONG run, and that could be as short as one generation, will be to draw a hard line around that part of the nation that still cares about those values. Much of America is already a lost cause, fellow gun rights advocates, and we are well-advised to understand that striving for some mythical national "unity" on this matter will only lead to the eventual utter dissolution of all of our gun rights.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Stuck in the 1700's" (PA)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!