I think some people need to calm down

[Tinman357]

Seems to me...

That some people don't know their history. A "revolution" is a foregone conclusion. It will happen. I'm sure that it will be a politically oriented movement but it will happen none the less.

The 2nd is just as fragile as the 4th. OP... Been through an airport lately?

 

[Nushif]

And what does the Peace Corpse have to do with national security, again...tell me

The Peace Corps (not the dead guy) helps with National Security by providing the US a sanctioned force of trained personnel to engage the civilian populace of any given level via "grass roots" presence and goodwill.
The difference being that the military goes armed and ready to do its job when it deploys to even a disaster zone. the PC however, is unarmed and much less of a threat to a foreign countries powers that be, while providing *again* SANCTIONED presence by a state agency.
In essence it allows us to put boots on the ground without stepping on some overgrown dictator's <expletive>.

[edit]
As an example of "Lawn Security:"
Situation: Neighbor's dog is digging holes in my lovely flowers.
Mission: Stop said Dog from digging holes in my lovely flowers.

Execution 1: Buy shotgun, shoot dog when next spotted.
Execution 2: Go to neighbor and tell him "dude, your dog has been diggin holes in my yard, could you kindly not let him do that."
[/edit]

Where the Military is the continuation of politics via non-diplomatic means, the PC is still well within diplomatic means.

I have some mad respect for the Peace Corps. And this is coming from a military guy. I frankly don't know where this brown shirt crap came from, but well ... I don't know where half the fabrication on TV networks and radio shows comes from.

That being said there is an ongoing fight to erode the right to be armed in this country.
While no one single law, or no one single circumstance will ever "take away" our guns, a continuing barrage of minor infringements does continue to erode the right for people to carry a firearm. (Notice the distinction, a *firearm* because I can oddly go armed with a Baton wherever I please.)
The devil of disarming the US is in the details, not the broad strokes.

 

[KosmicKrunch]

<---- CALM - My time clock at work, when I punch in.... despenses a Xanax, like a Pez despenser

 

[Sky]

This has been a good discussion on many topics and concerns. There are those who refuse any thought that take them out of their comfort zone and their are those who think and live spring loaded to vigilance. Neither is wrong for the individual who has to live their life or walk in their "own" shoes.

The problem seems to come from those who walk in their shoes but want you to follow in their foot steps (and take your shoes) for they think they know best.

 

[S. Hill]

Who are you talking about?

Ummmm... who is "shut out from equal rights by law"? The only groups that I can think of are felons and illegal immigrants. Their rights should be!

Everybody else sits in some protected minority group defined by race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin..... Each of those groups whines and complains until they get some sort of priority. They don’t get EQUAL rights, they get a preference.

Oh, I just thought of one!!! Cigarette smokers! They have had their rights taken away! In Wisconsin you can’t smoke inside a public building or private place of business. If I own a bar or tavern, my patrons are not allowed to smoke while indoors. They have to stand or sit outside or I’m breaking the law. It will soon be considered “child abuse” to subject your children to “second-hand smoke”. You won’t be able to smoke in your house or car if there is anyone within sniffing distance.

So, who are you talking about?

 

[ShaiVong]

I think the discussion has wandered a bit far afield, so let me reset some of the individual threads and explain why I've been such a contrarian.

I think we all agree that the RKBA is never safe to the point of 'let's move on to something else'. Because we're visiting this site, it's fair to assume that we all want to see the RKBA stay intact.

To me, the quality of an argument is very important, regardless if the ultimate end is correct or not. I don't think anyone here want's to be right for the wrong reason.

To say, privately or publicly, "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because responsible adults can and should be trusted with firearms and should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to own them. It strengthens the individual and in certain situations can strengthen a society as a whole." is a good argument (when properly developed).

Good arguments are important if you're out to convince those who may not agree with you a priori.

To say, privately or publicly "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because we may need to overthrow the United States Government." is a bad argument, and harms the RKBA more than it helps.

 

[S. Hill]

Thought of another one!!!

Rich people! They have to pay taxes that are completely out of line with the rest of the population. To say that they are getting "equal rights" is a hoot! Their property is being confiscated every April 15. And if they die....

 

[ShaiVong]

Ummmm... who is "shut out from equal rights by law"? The only groups that I can think of are felons and illegal immigrants. Their rights should be!
...

So, who are you talking about?

That's really too off topic to get in to, which is why I didn't specify it in my post. I can send you a private message if you'd like.

 

[Toaster]

Telling people on an internet gun forum to stop worrying about RBKA is rather like telling the preacher at the pulpit to stop delivering his sermon with passion.

Yeah, folks on the 'net tend to overstate things, regardless of the subject, as did the person on the soapbox back in the day.

Overstatement is not a bad thing. It creates debate, ( hopefully a well thought out healthy debate). And when people debate a given subject, eyes are opened, ideas begin to form.
With ideas, complacency and non-chalance are replaced with activism. People become activists when they join organisations, when they vote, when they write letters to elected officials.
I know that the army isn't going to suddenly show up at my front door and take all my guns away. But the thought of such an occurance can inspire many people to become involved. With out the occasional "paranoid rant" folks may be more inclined to allow their rights to be trampled.
So, in regards to the OP, a liile paranoia can be a gpood thing , so long as it helps people to THINK for themselves

 

[wideym]

Are all those who rushed out to buy ARs, AKs, ect...after the presidential election paranoid? Or did they recall what happened in 94' after the last Democrat was elected and who's wife was appointted Secretary of State?

Most people forget and children nowadays aren't taught that the first shots fired in the American Revolution wasn't because the British were oppressing the Colonists, it was when the British sent troops to confiscate the Colonist guns. The Colonists were mostly content to peacefull negotiations with the Crown, even as their rights as British citizens were being trampled, until troops arrived in Lexington.

 

[ShaiVong]

Are all those who rushed out to buy ARs, AKs, ect...after the presidential election paranoid? Or did they recall what happened in 94' after the last Democrat was elected and who's wife was appointted Secretary of State?

Most people forget and children nowadays aren't taught that the first shots fired in the American Revolution wasn't because the British were oppressing the Colonists, it was when the British sent troops to confiscate the Colonist guns. The Colonists were mostly content to peacefull negotiations with the Crown, even as their rights as British citizens were being trampled, until troops arrived in Lexington.

Though the British didn't go door to door taking rifles from citizens, they heard that there was a stockpile of arms and gunpowder in Lexington, and moved to seize it. It's kind of a different milieu.

 

[9mmforMe]

The OP said:

"All you have to do is: be NRA or other org. member, vote, protest anti-gun bills. Worrying every second about your guns isnt going to help any thing. It will just cause grey hair"

It seems that most people in this thread agree with the OP that joining a pro-gun group is a wise thing to do. It seems that most people agree with the OP that voting (political involvement) is a wise thing to do. Lastly it seems that most people also agree that protest is wise as well re: anti-gun bills (also political involvement). As far as worrying is concerned, you will or you won't...that's a personal decision that only affects YOU emotionally, do as you will. Grey hair isn't all that bad anyway...shows wisdom.

We have gotten off topic, but it has been good reading, and stimulating to rehash significant historical occurrences, individual rights and potential scenarios of revolution germain to the theme of this thread.

For me...money has been very tight with the wife in law school, tending to my young daughter and planning to try for another child in the next few months.

Though I don't move with all of their political perspectives, I am going to rejoin the NRA ASAP. In the end its for my wife, daughter and any other little ones that might come our way; they are just too dear to me not to re-up.

 

[jdowney]

To say, privately or publicly, "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because responsible adults can and should be trusted with firearms and should be allowed to decide for themselves if they wish to own them. It strengthens the individual and in certain situations can strengthen a society as a whole." is a good argument (when properly developed).

Good arguments are important if you're out to convince those who may not agree with you a priori.

To say, privately or publicly "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because we may need to overthrow the United States Government." is a bad argument, and harms the RKBA more than it helps.

There's an awful lot of room between your good and bad arguments, and also many better ways of phrasing each. Frankly, I find your "good" argument to be so vague and general to be worthy of one of our fine friends in Washington DC.

Back to the "bad" argument though. You've phrased a reasonable point in the worst possible way in order to make your point. I will give you credit that it is sometimes phrased similarly by its proponents.

I say it is a reasonable position because I think the 2nd Amendment was included by the founders as a check or balance against undesired political change, either from within (as has been seen numerous times since with other fledgling democracies around the world), or from the outside - I believe France was only marginally trusted as an ally after the Revolution.

The mere threat of the real ability to resist political change by revolution is typically enough to prevent its need, rather like an arms race. It has been speculated that the 2nd Amendment prevented the serious consideration of a mainland invasion by the Japanese in 1941, and the equivalent state of affairs prevented an invasion of Switzerland by the Nazi's.

Likewise, the mere existence of an armed populace should provide a check against the wanton or trumped up declaration of martial law. We have been very fortunate in this country to never have seen this put to the test.

Back to your "good" argument. It's boring. You lost me somewhere around "responsible adults", and I am interested enough to go back a second time and force myself to get your drift. Any who didn't already agree wouldn't bother.

There are of course many opinions about how to defend the RKBA. I think the best way is to try to force the anti's to confront the root of their desire to regulate weaponry. It is almost invariably based on fear. In any debate, you can never win defending a position held based on something as irrational as fear.

So my idea of a "good" argument is more along the lines of: "How can you justify limiting my civil liberties out of fear of a person you don't even know, some malicious individual who really exists only in the depths of your mind?"

 

[ShaiVong]

There are of course many opinions about how to defend the RKBA. I think the best way is to try to force the anti's to confront the root of their desire to regulate weaponry. It is almost invariably based on fear. In any debate, you can never win defending a position held based on something as irrational as fear.

One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

 

[jdowney]

One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

One could say that, but I've no intention of defending rhetoric. I will defend my own arguments, not someone else's - unless I find them rational enough to be defensible, as many are.

 

[RochPersDef]

Look at history, even starting with the feudal times. Lords and kings would ensure that only their personal armies would have the free will to arm themselves.

Back up to the early turn of the millennium. Roman times. Tactics were to subdue the protectors of the villages and areas of interest and then march right in and take over.

Pre war Germany. Hitler. First thing to do was to confiscate and outlaw all of the sporting, target, and other firearms in Germany so he could take over. In Every country he took over, he started by confiscating arms.

Look at Korea, China, Viet-nam, etc. Same basic tactics and 'control the populace' ideas.

I have actually talked with people that came to the US from some of the communist bloc countries. They describe life before the bad times. They could hunt, shoot for sport and possess arms all they wanted (like here) and then, one day, they woke up and discovered that they couldn't. Their rights were eroded bit by bit. No one really cared as they were thinking the same thing we do: "They don't want our guns. They're just trying to help us be safer"

We are dealing with one of the most anti gun administrations ever. We all need to stop thinking that each little step is OK because it does not really mean anything. Look at us now with imports. "Oh, let's just buy a small amount" then a few years later, "Oh just a bit more" and so on and so on. Now where are we? They make practically everything we have and we are getting so indebted to them it's ridiculous.......

 

[iibao]

I don't know how you feel comfortable with that, but 55.55% scares the **** out of me.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

"we have it in our constitution"

So. The Constitution also says that it is Congress that has the power to declare war. I was born when the Korean War was bubbling away, and my recollection is that the government has been involved in wars around the globe for most of my life. And you know something: the last time Congress declared war was in December 1941.

 

[jdowney]

One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

Come to think of it, looking at your sig line, I can give you another one to think about.

Not being a church-goer myself, people telling me about their religion makes me vaguely un-comfortable. But I recognize that this is an irrational reaction of my own, and I do my best to ignore it rather than project some kind of distrust or fear onto those who are overtly religious.

Why is it so hard for anti-gun people to think through the reasons that they hold their beliefs?

 

[ShaiVong]

Come to think of it, looking at your sig line, I can give you another one to think about.

Not being a church-goer myself, people telling me about their religion makes me vaguely un-comfortable. But I recognize that this is an irrational reaction of my own, and I do my best to ignore it rather than project some kind of distrust or fear onto those who are overtly religious.

Why is it so hard for anti-gun people to think through the reasons that they hold their beliefs?

Well, I'm sure some don't. There are some beliefs that I have or have rejected that I think through quite a bit... some I'm sure I haven't even realized that I haven't thought through (unknown unknowns? Oh boy..). But you're doing your opponents a dis-service to assume they haven't thought through their beliefs; maybe their reasons are simply different than yours?

For example; there are still people kicking around who oppose inter-racial marriage. The reason for this is they find racial 'purity' important. I don't oppose it because I think racial 'purity' is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't mean they don't have a reason, it just means that I think their reasons are wrong.

Those who point to gun deaths as reasons why gun ownership (specifically handgun) should be severely restricted are (generally) reasoning that less guns total in circulation will reduce gun crime/accidents. They're probably correct about accidents, and I think they're probably slightly correct about gun crime. To me, the incremental reduction in gun crime is not worth disarming the law-abiding and stripping them of some valuable rights while simultaneously making them defenseless. I agree they have reasons, but I think their reasons are wrong.

 

[jdowney]

But you're doing your opponents a dis-service to assume they haven't thought through their beliefs; maybe their reasons are simply different than yours?

Those cases do occur, and I then get a good opportunity to refine my own arguments by seeing how they hold up with someone who can think clearly, yet simply holds different beliefs. The two times I remember that happening, I convinced them that gun control was not a practical way of approaching the various problems. Whether that conviction was firmly held or not is beyond me, I expect not though.

For example; there are still people kicking around who oppose inter-racial marriage. The reason for this is they find racial 'purity' important. I don't oppose it because I think racial 'purity' is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't mean they don't have a reason, it just means that I think their reasons are wrong.

I would answer that they are wrong, based on a very naive idea of racial "purity". The most basic understanding of evolution is enough to see the practical disadvantages of such "purity". Such beliefs are not logically defensible.

Those who point to gun deaths as reasons why gun ownership (specifically handgun) should be severely restricted are (generally) reasoning that less guns total in circulation will reduce gun crime/accidents. They're probably correct about accidents, and I think they're probably slightly correct about gun crime. To me, the incremental reduction in gun crime is not worth disarming the law-abiding and stripping them of some valuable rights while simultaneously making them defenseless. I agree they have reasons, but I think their reasons are wrong.

Here again the problem is naivety. In a world of ideal situations, such restrictions might be effective. The reality is that the criminal elements do not follow the rules and will obtain weapons if they need them. Severe restrictions will simply decrease the supply and increase the price. One need only look to Prohibition, the war on drugs, prostitution, and the gun situation in Mexico to find ample evidence to support this point. I do not agree that these reasons are really any more valid than fear, since they do not reflect the practical realities visible in the world.

 

[hardworker]

Actually, Hitler made owning guns for the average german easier. Jews were another story though.

 

[RochPersDef]

There is that........

 

[wvshooter]

Hi guys. I just think SOME people are a little to paranoid when it comes to gun control.

Easy to say if you don't live in New Jersey, New York, Illinois, or California.

Our US Supreme Court situation is very scary. One vote away from some VERY bad decisions. Most people in this country have no idea how important gun rights are. Everybody who hunts and most who own firearms should belong to the NRA. We've got along way to go to secure gun rights in America.

Try telling that to the poor guy who just got a seven year prison sentence in New Jersey for having two handguns in the trunk of his car. He was moving to Hoboken from Colorado.

 

[Old krow]

One could say that much of the pro-2A rhetoric is also based upon fear; in this case the fear of an un-defined future national aggressor.

This is probably true, however, why is this a factor? It isn't a factor anymore than trying to convince a true "anti" that they're wrong. This is far more exaggerated on these ends of the spectrum. The arguments that should occur wouldn't be taking place against someone that is fervently opposed to owning firearms. It's an exercise in futility.

To say, privately or publicly "The RKBA should be upheld as an individual right because we may need to overthrow the United States Government." is a bad argument, and harms the RKBA more than it helps.

How is this a bad argument? I suppose that it could be worded differently, however, it isn't that far from the truth. The intent of the 2nd, if one reads back through history, was for security. The debate on whether or not a revolution could occur can go on until the end of time or until it is decisively answered. However, the truest enemy that the RBKA faces isn't necessarily the "antis", it's the voters that are desensitized to what it means to have and keep freedom. It's the people who do not believe that losing "a" freedom is okay provided that it isn't the one that they exercise. We have (as a nation) lost sight of what it takes to keep it or what it could cost us to not have it. To tell the truth, "antis" don't really bother me. We'll always have them. A nation of voters who do not prize the freedom that was granted to us scares me. So why exactly would the truest intent of the 2nd be a bad idea to make an argument upon? The whole of the argument over gun boils down to individual liberties, that's where it all starts. If everyone prized their individual freedoms as much as I do, or you, would guns even be an issue? Can you make the case that we were intended to have control of this from the start without referencing the COTUS or its intent?

On the other hand, the terrorism scare has allowed some segments of our government to bloat beyond reason (DoD) and given some politicians the excuse they need to erode our liberties in the name of 'national security'.

I agree with 100%. The mere fact that we allowed this to happen scares me. What it shows me is that as long as we can be kept in a state of fear we can be controlled or even provoked into removing our own rights. The fact that it is and has been often overlooked is worthy of paranoia.