ArcherandShooter
Member
I'm in the middle of a FB conversation / debate with a former clergy colleague and some others, and am a bit frustrated because we seem to be talking past each other. My sense is that they put something out there, I respond, and they change the subject. To be fair, let me ask, am I missing something? Is there some other way you all can think of that I might try to actually engage the topic?
Thanks. Here's how it has gone so far(names changed):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill (original post): Let's please bring some common sense to this and turn it back into a discussion instead of screaming. Who can be opposed to universal background checks to weed out the felons?
me: I can, Bill, because the only way to make that happen is to implement full registration. Besides, criminals' guns are not the $700 to $1000 models people buy in gun stores or at shows, but cheap crap they buy from the trunk of a car somewhere. Unless they stole it from a citizen, and there's no background checks involved there, are there?
Larry: Bill: I agree with you on background checks, even at gun shows. We also need to add psychotics, schizophrenics, major depressives (dislaying homicidal/suicidal ideations), and bipolars to the database to prohibit them from buying firearms. Mentl health providers need to be more proactive in this regard. I'm also not sure why somebody needs a 50 or 100 round magazine, unlss you're a cop or in the military.
Bill: I was in the Army 30 years and 10 so far with a well known conservative government organization which would never allow a tyrannical or highly restrictive US government - except by conservatives. As has happened in the past.
me: So, Bill, are you saying it is only conservatives who could create an oppressive tyranny in the U.S.? Why would liberals be the ones all hot to get rid of guns, then?
Joey: The idea that the 2nd Amendment was all about allowing citizens to resist some imaginary tyrannical government is simply a myth. It had more to do with the discussion of whether the country would have a professional standing army for defense or rely on state militias and how much control, if any, the states would have over appointing the officers of the militias. In discussing the possibility of imposition of such a thing (some sort of tyranny), Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 29, "Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of chagrined incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs." His discussion had centered on defending against invasions (from foreign powers), and "domestic rebellions" (that is, insurrections such as actually happened against imposition of taxes, etc., by the new federal government.) I have seen some comment that it also had to do with equipping the state militias to apprehend runaway slaves or put down slave rebellions but I have not read enough of the literature on that aspect to comment about it.
I would also wonder who could reasonably believe that even equipped with all the assault weapons available on the market today, and however many thousands of rounds can be purchased by mail order or online, the average citizenry could resist a government armed *by the people* with billions of dollars worth of the the latest, greatest, and most technologically advanced weapons in the world
me: Joey, it was no myth that the Founders had a healthy fear of tyranny and suspicion of centralized power. Your quote from Hamilton is from one side - the losing side - in the argument, and amounts to "Trust us! How could you imagine a tyranny among us." Regarding the discussion of armies, the Congress was given the power to raise and equip armies, so what purpose for state militias except as a balance against federal force?
James Monroe wrote, regarding a declaration of rights, "if these rights are well-defined and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
I commend to you the book "The Founders' Second Amendment" by Stephen Halbrook, as a well-researched and copiously-sourced look at the creation of the Second Amendment and the entire BoR.
And Joey, your second point assumes that the bulk of the American military would turn their guns on their fellow citizens, an assumption I do not share.
Bill: @<me>, the only voices shouting about taking away guns are those of the NRA and the gun lobby, saying it of the Left, who are only calling for universal background checks and no more sales of assault weapons Get your facts straight.
me: "Confiscation is an option on the table" - NY Gov Cuomo
"If I could get 51 votes in the Senate to pick 'em all up - Mr and Mrs America, turn 'em all in, I would do it." - US Senator Diane Feinstein
"We need to brainwash people that guns are evil, that owning a gun is shameful." - Eric Holder
And according to the new law rammed through in NY, most pistols that are not revolvers are banned because of their magazine capacity, and owners are forced to sell their currently-legal "assault weapons" to an out of state buyer within one year or become felons. That sounds like slow-motion confiscation to me.
I think my facts are pretty clear, thanks.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responses since that last exchange.
Thanks. Here's how it has gone so far(names changed):
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill (original post): Let's please bring some common sense to this and turn it back into a discussion instead of screaming. Who can be opposed to universal background checks to weed out the felons?
me: I can, Bill, because the only way to make that happen is to implement full registration. Besides, criminals' guns are not the $700 to $1000 models people buy in gun stores or at shows, but cheap crap they buy from the trunk of a car somewhere. Unless they stole it from a citizen, and there's no background checks involved there, are there?
Larry: Bill: I agree with you on background checks, even at gun shows. We also need to add psychotics, schizophrenics, major depressives (dislaying homicidal/suicidal ideations), and bipolars to the database to prohibit them from buying firearms. Mentl health providers need to be more proactive in this regard. I'm also not sure why somebody needs a 50 or 100 round magazine, unlss you're a cop or in the military.
Bill: I was in the Army 30 years and 10 so far with a well known conservative government organization which would never allow a tyrannical or highly restrictive US government - except by conservatives. As has happened in the past.
me: So, Bill, are you saying it is only conservatives who could create an oppressive tyranny in the U.S.? Why would liberals be the ones all hot to get rid of guns, then?
Joey: The idea that the 2nd Amendment was all about allowing citizens to resist some imaginary tyrannical government is simply a myth. It had more to do with the discussion of whether the country would have a professional standing army for defense or rely on state militias and how much control, if any, the states would have over appointing the officers of the militias. In discussing the possibility of imposition of such a thing (some sort of tyranny), Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 29, "Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of chagrined incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs." His discussion had centered on defending against invasions (from foreign powers), and "domestic rebellions" (that is, insurrections such as actually happened against imposition of taxes, etc., by the new federal government.) I have seen some comment that it also had to do with equipping the state militias to apprehend runaway slaves or put down slave rebellions but I have not read enough of the literature on that aspect to comment about it.
I would also wonder who could reasonably believe that even equipped with all the assault weapons available on the market today, and however many thousands of rounds can be purchased by mail order or online, the average citizenry could resist a government armed *by the people* with billions of dollars worth of the the latest, greatest, and most technologically advanced weapons in the world
me: Joey, it was no myth that the Founders had a healthy fear of tyranny and suspicion of centralized power. Your quote from Hamilton is from one side - the losing side - in the argument, and amounts to "Trust us! How could you imagine a tyranny among us." Regarding the discussion of armies, the Congress was given the power to raise and equip armies, so what purpose for state militias except as a balance against federal force?
James Monroe wrote, regarding a declaration of rights, "if these rights are well-defined and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
I commend to you the book "The Founders' Second Amendment" by Stephen Halbrook, as a well-researched and copiously-sourced look at the creation of the Second Amendment and the entire BoR.
And Joey, your second point assumes that the bulk of the American military would turn their guns on their fellow citizens, an assumption I do not share.
Bill: @<me>, the only voices shouting about taking away guns are those of the NRA and the gun lobby, saying it of the Left, who are only calling for universal background checks and no more sales of assault weapons Get your facts straight.
me: "Confiscation is an option on the table" - NY Gov Cuomo
"If I could get 51 votes in the Senate to pick 'em all up - Mr and Mrs America, turn 'em all in, I would do it." - US Senator Diane Feinstein
"We need to brainwash people that guns are evil, that owning a gun is shameful." - Eric Holder
And according to the new law rammed through in NY, most pistols that are not revolvers are banned because of their magazine capacity, and owners are forced to sell their currently-legal "assault weapons" to an out of state buyer within one year or become felons. That sounds like slow-motion confiscation to me.
I think my facts are pretty clear, thanks.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responses since that last exchange.
