What If We’re Wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Liberal said:
Most of us see the 2A and RKBA as absolutes, a right explicitly identified by the Founders to allow us to own, carry and use anything. But what if (hypothetically), the Founders had a different interpretation, and could clearly tell us so?

Would your personal opinion change?
Click to expand...
They had different ideas on slavery than I do.

That doesn't make me think that one human being can own another. One reason to own guns is to make sure that they CAN'T.
 
Deanimator said:
They had different ideas on slavery than I do.

That doesn't make me think that one human being can own another. One reason to own guns is to make sure that they CAN'T.
Click to expand...

That's one of those lies that have made their way into the common knowledge. The majority of the founders found the practice of slavery abhorrent and would have done away with it entirely if not for the need to bring the southern states into the union. It's evidenced by the compromises written into the constitution and their various writings... a good a collection of such opinions can be found here here. Constitutionally speaking, the 3/5th's clause was intended to limit the representation of slave-holding states so that they couldn't overrun the free states and the importation of slaves was only up to the states until 1808.
 
The Liberal said:
Most of us see the 2A and RKBA as absolutes, a right explicitly identified by the Founders to allow us to own, carry and use anything. But what if (hypothetically), the Founders had a different interpretation, and could clearly tell us so?

Would your personal opinion change?
Click to expand...

No. I'm glad the 2nd amendment is there, but my views on whether the right to bear personal arms, etc., are important - and whether gun control is inherently an ill-considered and unproductive exercise - are not dependent on the 2nd amendment.

If I lived in a nation without an explicit RKBA, I would still be against most gun control.
 
One of the things about the gun-control people and their legislative proposals which has always irked me is the unending calls for compromise from us pro-gun folks. It's always a case of, "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable." Righteousness, if you will.

It's an exact parallel to the negotiating techniques of the Soviet Union during Stalin's tenure.
 
If I walk into the BMW dealership and demand an M5 for free, and they tell me "no," and then I demand an 340i for free (certainly a less expensive car, but still pretty nice), have I "compromised"? The question for gun control advocates asking for "compromise" is what of value are they willing to offer.

I think all kinds of deals could get cut to address particular concerns. But adding any rights, or removing any existing restrictions, is seen as such anathema that there is literally zero that the pro-gun-control proponents are willing to offer. A total unwillingness to give anything of value means that compromise is, literally, impossible. It's just one side taking and the other side losing.
 
Last edited:
paulsj said:
That only mattered when the only weapons available to military were muskets or rifles and front loaded cannons. Today private citizens have no chance against modern American military which is part of big government. The argument we need firearms to prevent tyrannical government is laughable.
Click to expand...

You might want to study up on asymmetrical warfare. Also what makes you think that the majority of the military would fight against the Citizens?
 
Times change. We now have a standing army. The National Guard acts as an organized militia. However, by a law passed by Congress, there is indeed an unorganized militia, sexist as it may be: Males within an age group (IIRC) 16 to 45 or some such grouping.
 
This whole thread is a bit of a wind-up if you ask me (which no one did!!! ;))

The OP's name is The Liberal, and if you look at his past posts, he supports the right to bear arms, but also thinks we should be more regulated.

He starts this thread, then disappears and sits back and watches all of us get hot under the collar and justify our opinions.

We are entitled to our opinions just as he is entitled to his opinions.

I will leave with this one sentence: "Don't Tread on Me".
 
paulsj said:
That only mattered when the only weapons available to military were muskets or rifles and front loaded cannons. Today private citizens have no chance against modern American military which is part of big government. The argument we need firearms to prevent tyrannical government is laughable.
Click to expand...
History has proven the assertion that tyrannies cannot be resisted successfully by ordinary citizens wrong, time and again. Hopefully, we will never see such as situation develop here but history's lesson is that yes, weapons wielded by individuals, have checked the most powerful militaries and tyrants and effective resistance eventually undermines an oppressor's will to fight if other alternative exist.

Effectively most of this military's weapons cannot be used against individuals without destroying that military's coherence and that country's governance. For example, callow U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) mentioned that government had nuclear weapons if people actively opposed weapons confiscation. After the massive blowback, he claimed more or less that he was just joking. In reality, if the military did use an atomic weapon, on let us just say Dallas. First, it would kill mostly supporters of such a ban. The most avid opponents of confiscation are in rural areas where nuclear weapons are simply not that useful. Second, it would make the American people furious at the government as more people would be killed in a microsecond than perhaps centuries of people killed by firearms in the U.S. There would also be fallout, care for massive numbers of wounded, destruction of economic potential. Last but not least there would be a countervailing thirst for revenge against anyone that authorized and committed such a stupid thing.

The moment that any government used such a weapon against its own people would kill any moral authority whatsoever to govern--and that makes a difference as well. I also doubt that the military would want to take the blame for such an action and might well decide to get rid of any leader(s) ordering them to do such a stupid thing.

If you look at the sad situations of countries that end up fighting themselves, you will find a consistent pattern. A significant amount of the military defects with its weapons, foreign countries often get involved in supplying weapons/and or troops to one side or the other, and crude alternative weapons are invented. Humans are unfortunately uniquely able to fashion weapons of violence from pretty much anything.

Violence then does not ignore families and friends of political targets--no bodyguards can protect everyone. As the society gets brutalized, an eye for an eye becomes the standard and a country cannot effectively be ruled beyond embattled military compounds. A relatively "nice" version of this was Northern Ireland in the Time of Troubles or other areas under military occupation. In many places the British military was besieged by an angry and hostile populace and their rule extended in yards from that particular post.

The nightmare versions are that of Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia, in the 90's, Lebanon 1970's to the 1990's, current Syria, Colombia during the 1960's to 1990's, Spain in the 1930's, and Afghanistan since the 1970's. If you keep going back, you find countless other examples. Everyone is against everyone else, violent crime flourishes, life is cheap--your basic Hobbesian nightmare where life becomes "short, brutish, and nasty."

Far too many people are fascinated by the story of the Germans and Hitler and assume simply that a civil society will just give way to effective dictatorship. The truth is that Germans, by and large, supported the Nazi's political goals of restoring Germany's economy, order, and international status, if not the Nazis themselves.

The counter revolutionary actions post WWI, often supported by hardened former soldiers, were because violent communists that launched blood soaked coup attempts in places like Munich, Berlin, Hungary (look up Bela Kun sometimes), etc. failed after alienating most of the populations that simply wanted peace, food, and jobs, not an extension of the Russian Revolution.

There is a reason that the U.S. military did not succeed in stabilizing S. Vietnam, is not succeeding much in creating a civil state in Afghanistan, and had great difficulty in Iraq before leaving. There is a difference between holding territory against opposite organized militaries and that of fighting counter insurgencies. Insurgents, supported by a sizable population, both directly and covertly, ultimately can wear down the most powerful military by attrition. Water is softer than granite but water will eventually wear through any granite in a stream.

There is a reason that Gen. Petreaus was given command is that he understood that ultimately you must get the population on your side, not through oppression and use of weaponry, but by changing their hearts and minds. Before his command, he had conveniently written on counter insurgency failures in S. Vietnam. That is why the military would not be able to use artillery or tanks for example or bombers, helicopters gunships etc. among its own populace without failure in the long run. Far too many people are fascinated and bewitched by technology but ultimately it is people that decide what will be, not the technology. Anything invented by man can be circumvented by another invention by man.

If you are much interested in the topic, it has been developed through dry military tomes, fictionalized in novels, and appears quite frequently in academia. The general consensus is that if a large cohesive bloc (not necessarily a majority) of a population exists, it has an effective veto on government actions because almost always the cost of getting that bloc to comply will ultimately risk the destruction of that polity. Thus, in the long run, persuasion and ordinary politics is a hell of a lot cheaper in lives and money. To do that, a government must avoid conversion of political opponents into military opponents by coercive policies that leave those opponents with no alternative than active resistance. Leaving well enough alone is more effective in the long run at preserving a country's political regime and societal peace.

The problem with democracies, in some ways, versus authoritarians, is that wise authoritarians can and do back down from policies that could provoke their downfall. A political faction though, through shared ideologies, can often become so infatuated with their "virtue" that they ignore reality and provoke something that they cannot shut off once it starts. Usually that occurs because that "good think" faction becomes obsessed with making another group submit to their demands and is willing to use violence to make the resistors comply. Then, everything goes to hell.
 
Doublehelix is right that this is a windup, but I'll answer anyway. First, we're not wrong about the Founder's intent. Second, even if we were, the RTKBA is still necessary. The sad fact is that evil exists and to deny that is naive and childish. As we've seen throughout history, it rears it's head through governments and individuals and we have not only the right, but the obligation to protect ourselves and our loved ones. The Founders were aware of this and did not give us this right, but acknowledged that it was a right granted to us by God. As has been discussed in a recent thread, any attempt to limit the 2A is not for our benefit, but an attempt to increase government control. The anti's can't say that, so they lie about their reasons to limit the 2A.
 
The Liberal said:
Most of us see the 2A and RKBA as absolutes, a right explicitly identified by the Founders to allow us to own, carry and use anything. But what if (hypothetically), the Founders had a different interpretation, and could clearly tell us so?

Would your personal opinion change?
Click to expand...

Plenty of posters mentioned items that you absolutely need to read first. Then let us know if you need more help with those documents.

Wisco said:
The Founders had lots opinions I think are good and many that are absolute trash...Slavery. Indian removal. Second class citizenship for women.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's fair to call the founders "bigots". It was a different time. A time of indentured servants from all races.
-They knew slavery was going to end, inevitably. I'll bet most of them accepted that it was wrong. Not all slave owners were cruel though. Most of the world was racist, and remains very much that way today.

-Women weren't part of the workforce, weren't land owners, and weren't in the military. Being that all 3 of those items are different today, I have no doubt the founders would have let them vote.

At first, only land owners were allowed to vote. This was to make it easier to track, and to prevent complete simpletons from messing it all up. In my opinion, we desperately need something like this back. Only employed people actually contributing to our nation need voting rights IMO. Not retirees that haven't been living in the real world for ages. Or welfare rats, that'll vote for satan himself, if they can get some free cheese. We have way to many people being duped into voting for people they'd normally hate.

I believe half of my idiot family voted for Obama, and HRC. Some of them were completely duped, because they're senile and old. I gave a pass to the closest ones. The smart younger ones have been ostracized from my life. They are family no more, and are dead to me. (And my life has been far better for it.)

-The Indians lost the war. Deal with it. It's a cruel thing to say. But there's a reason we spend wanton amounts of money on our brilliant navy and military. The natives over here were too busy fighting each other, to put together any kind of credible nation able to defend its self. Their loss, our gain. Cruel, but that's life. If America continues to vote left, maybe the same will happen to us eventually.
 
Last edited:
The Liberal said:
Most of us see
Click to expand...
Did you take a poll? You don't have the foggiest idea what "most of us" see or don't see.
But just to keep this post slightly gun related, there's a well know gun writer in Montana that writes for one of the gun magazines I used to subscribe to. I dropped my subscription, and never buy any of the other magazines he writes for because somewhere in every article that gun writer writes, he includes the statement "most people," or most rifle shooters, or most hunters" think, or believe, this or that. Yet, like you (and I, for that matter) he can suppose what "most" people think or believe, but he doesn't know for sure.
I can tell you one thing though, The Liberal - at least that gun writer in Montana is getting paid for the nonsense he spews.
 
Zerodefect said:
In my opinion, we desperately need something like this back. Only employed people actually contributing to our nation need voting rights IMO. Not retirees that haven't been living in the real world for ages.
Click to expand...
Uh, say what? Listen up, sonny, I've retired from two careers (the first was serving over twenty years on active duty); I've earned the right to vote many times over. Newsflash: retirees do live in the real world, and some of us actually know a thing or two ...
 
I hear you. Please don't take offense.

But my own parents, should not be voting. They are completely out of the loop and have no idea what's going on. They have no idea how much the people they vote for, completely hate people like them (Catholics). Most of their peers haven't worked in ages and have the problem solving ability of a 2nd grader.

This nations ability to weed out morons from the voting booth, ended a millennia ago.

Now we're letting foreign nationals vote. Yeah, that's a great plan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment (long-ish)
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
5K
JShirley
JShirley
M
  • Locked
Proper "gun control" debate
Replies
1
Views
263
Skribs
Skribs
K
  • Locked
It is not a policy question
Replies
1
Views
240
SuperNaut
S
G
  • Locked
Gun Cotrol...another word for TYRANNY
Replies
0
Views
252
gym
G
G
  • Locked
Administration counting on "legitimate media" to further gun control agenda
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
Manco
M
Back
Top