They finally said it.

[yokel]

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

Louis Dembitz Brandeis--Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.

 

[JRH6856]

And some have accused Brandeis of being exactly the thing he warns against.

No matter what side you are on, in your eyes, your side is right and the other side is wrong.

 

[blkbrd666]

If the plan was to disarm us it backfired.. more people became armed citizens due to their (liberal) mania

So true, and mostly with weapons that resemble assault rifles. There was almost nothing for sale at the local gun show today except AR15s. Hundreds of them from one end of the building to the other for $799. I saw people walking out the door with ARs that I would never have thought would want one. That is the only good thing about this whole situation...that and the increase in NRA membership.

 

[yokel]

No matter what side you are on, in your eyes, your side is right and the other side is wrong

Now is not the time for relativism; we must reject the concept that our values and beliefs are not absolute but relative to those holding them.

It's really not a complex issue.

What we learn from history is that folks do not learn its lessons! Despite what we have learned about the deleterious effects of draconian gun control in other countries, particularly during the previous bloody century, our foes continue to beat the drums calling for more gun control.

Whatever their professed or unacknowledged aims and designs, the upshot remains that domestic disarmament is not only dangerous to one's liberties but also counterproductive in achieving safety.

 

[JRH6856]

we must reject the concept that our values and beliefs are not absolute but relative to those holding them.

And yet, the very Bill of Rights we seek to defend protects the right of individuals to hold and express differing beliefs, It is unavoidable that they may be in conflict.

It's really not a complex issue.

Except that it is

 

[yokel]

I would submit that there is really nothing subtle about what's at stake.

Whoever has the arms tends to win when it comes to self-defense and doesn't lose life or property. But if the tyrant/criminal has the arms, he has the upper hand.

 

[JRH6856]

I would submit that there is really nothing subtle about what's at stake.

And I would agree. What is at stake is the individuals right to individual liberty in an increasingly collectivist society. Self defense is an extremely important part of that liberty, but is only a part.

 

[yokel]

Self defense is an extremely important part of that liberty, but is only a part.

Huh?

The right to keep and bear arms is a part of the right to life, which is the only fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived!

 

[JRH6856]

I'm not sure there is a right to life, it may be more of a privilege. But once an individual has life, all other rights come into existence. Among these are the right to continue that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and yes we do hold these truths to be self evident.

But these rights are not inalienable. They can be lost, they can be taken, and they can be surrendered voluntarily. The most important right is the right to individual identity, the right to self. After that comes the right to self defense because if you do not value your identity as an individual, there is no self to defend.

This is where progressive collectivists leave us. They find their value and identity not in them but in the society of which they are apart and upon which they believe their existence depends.

 

[yokel]

The right to life that the Declaration of Independence enshrines protects the individual’s ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life. It is based on the idea that life is the standard of moral value.

Self preservation, i.e., self-defense defines life in it's most fundamental description.

 

[JRH6856]

As for our views regarding individual rights, I really think we are saying the same thing, I just see it a bit more complicated than you but there is no real disagreement.

As for the collectivists, self preservation defines selfishness. They (at least the ones I know personally and have argued with) tend to see themselves as cells in the body of society, each cell having a defined role that contributes to the greater good. Any cells seeking individuality and self preservation are seen just like cancer cells in the human body: a disease that is dangerous to the body as a whole. Out of control cells that live off of the body politic without making meaningful contribution.

 

[alsaqr]

Schumer, Feinstein and the rest of the anti-self defense suspects in congress have been saying this stuff for >20 years. Does anyone remember Schumer's reference to the "rest of the camel" in his victory speech after the AWB was signed into law?

 

[yokel]

I trust that we can all agree that only a full philosophical system upholding life, reason and self-interest can ground the founding principles of America.

As absurd as it sounds, some gun control and confiscation cretins truly believe in a “social liberty” where no one has to worry.

Another ugly form of collectivism that gives priority to "group" rights over individual rights and individuals sacrificing themselves for the "group" or "greater good".

The forced equality of the convict camp.

Of course, every form collectivism is linked to statism and the diminution of freedom when political authority is used to advance collectivist goals.

 

[JRH6856]

I trust that we can all agree that only a full philosophical system upholding life, reason and self-interest can ground the founding principles of America.

That may be what grounded the founding principles of America, but there is obviously disagreement today as to what should ground the principles of America's future.

Collectivism and statism are anathema to me, but that does not stop me from seeking to understand the thinking of those who embrace those ideas in order to attack their arguments.

I say "seeking to understand" because I clearly have not yet succeeded. For example, I don't fully understand how statists (both socialist/progressive and corporatist/capitalist) can consider George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four to be anthing but utopian, yet many of them consider it to be the dystopian novel that it is. It is easy to think that they are confused or in denial, but I suspect it is just a symptom of their philosophy: They were told by an authority that it is dystopian so that is what it is in spite of the fact that it describes the kind of society they want to build.

 

[yokel]

All you really need to "understand" is that all collectivists/statists are divorced from reality. All of them are irrational and foolish. But I must admit the fact that they are somehow aware of the nature of this battle. Yes, they know, albeit not consciously, that they are engaged in a battle of ideas.

But if there’s one thing that the collectivist/statist could claim as some sort of achievement, it would only be their uncanny ability to create lies, myths, and propaganda.

 

[BigG]

Remember what Ayn Rand said, - There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

You are seeing it today for yourself.

 

[Archer]

Well, locally to me, at least, it seems the manufacturer lag time in ramping to meet need has finally wound down- all manner of black rifles in three local gun shops and two box stores in the past few days. I personally picked up a Colt 6920 from the local sporting big box (for a pre-Newtown price, no less).

However the mentality is still there for a while among the great unwashed- I was offered double what I paid for it later that very day by a co-worker. I set them on the correct path rather than take advantage.

Ammunition, on the other hand. is still an issue. Thankfully not for me, having prepared years ago.

 

[VVelox]

As for our views regarding individual rights, I really think we are saying the same thing, I just see it a bit more complicated than you but there is no real disagreement.

As for the collectivists, self preservation defines selfishness. They (at least the ones I know personally and have argued with) tend to see themselves as cells in the body of society, each cell having a defined role that contributes to the greater good. Any cells seeking individuality and self preservation are seen just like cancer cells in the human body: a disease that is dangerous to the body as a whole. Out of control cells that live off of the body politic without making meaningful contribution.

Which is ironic as collectivism demands one press their own individualism as far as possible for the purpose of being as small of a drain as possible on the collective. This among other things means being armed for both the purpose of defending ones self(for the lose of one weakens the collective) and the collective.

Individualism and collectivism are mutual and heavily interlinked dependencies.

 

[shafter]

Needs to be BIGGER rallys. I think the local gun communities should spearhead this. I would love to participate/start my own but not sure where/how to start(Legalities)

Elected officials don't care about rallies. They're too busy "buying" their votes with government handouts and looking the other way when dead people and pets vote multiple times. They're also busy working feverishly to allow the illegals to vote.

 

[JRH6856]

Which is ironic as collectivism demands one press their own individualism as far as possible for the purpose of being as small of a drain as possible on the collective. This among other things means being armed for both the purpose of defending ones self(for the lose of one weakens the collective) and the collective.

Individualism and collectivism are mutual and heavily interlinked dependencies.

Which is why there is so much focus on "It if saves just one life..." Self defense by any means which results in any loss of life is unacceptable. Except when it is their life at stake, and then collectivists can become very individualist.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Its not whether or not I 'feel' have an argument. There is no argument. I have no position to defend. In that clip she was specifically referring to the weapons grandfathered in 1994 ban. To represent it as anything other would be taking her quote out of the context of the interview. TO use that clip as evidence that she wants to take all guns is intellectually dishonest. I cant stand the woman. And I am pretty certain that, if she was king for a day, she would take every gun out of every house. But that clip is simply not the smoking gun evidence of that.

Intellectually dishonest? So you don't believe in inferring intent from statement and actions? If someone said they wanted to hit you in the head with a sledgehammer, you would consider it intellectually dishonest to assume that person wants to kill you since they didn't specifically say what amount of force they wanted to apply and you might survive it anyway?

If we just list the weapons she has unequivocally indicated she wants to ban, it would be more than half of every firearm designed since 1898, yet you think it is productive to quibble over whether she intends to ban all firearms? Why do you think that distinction is worth debating?

 

[Agsalaska]

Intellectually dishonest? So you don't believe in inferring intent from statement and actions? If someone said they wanted to hit you in the head with a sledgehammer, you would consider it intellectually dishonest to assume that person wants to kill you since they didn't specifically say what amount of force they wanted to apply and you might survive it anyway?

If we just list the weapons she has unequivocally indicated she wants to ban, it would be more than half of every firearm designed since 1898, yet you think it is productive to quibble over whether she intends to ban all firearms? Why do you think that distinction is worth debating?

There is a difference between claiming you want to confiscate all guns and claiming you want to confiscate all guns in a specific category, specifically those falling under the 1994 act. Claiming they are the same is.... Never mind.

Actually, to use a much better analogy than yours. It would be as if I supported a treaty with Muslim terrorists. I am then asked what I thought about it and I made the comment that I would have killed every last one of them. Then you, or someone else, turns around and claims I want to kill all Muslims. That is the same logical analogy. It doesn't mean I do or don't want to(and for the record I do not hate or want to kill all Muslims), But you could not come to a definitive conclusion based on that comment. That's exactly what people are doing in the case of her comments from the interview.



This is stupid. I'm not going to argue about it. If you don't see it then you don't see it. I can't stand the woman anyway and don't know why I put myself in a position to defend her. Have a good night.