The anti's never give up

[TomJ]

Not worried about common criminals. It's a bigger issue than that.

The usual pro-gun narrative is that the elites are trying to disarm the common people. What if, instead, it's the common people who end up trying to disarm the elites? This is not so far-fetched, since we're seeing the rise of the populist movement in this country. Populism is fueled by hatred of the elites. Plus, it's a matter of definitions. "Elites" are being defined as anyone even slightly left of center. Just look at the language being used -- "commies," "homo-globalists," etc., applied to people who aren't any of those things.

My advice to these potential victims, if they aren't already armed, is to arm themselves before it's too late.

You're making up scenarios that haven't occurred. We can all play the what if game and make things up but that, in my opinion is dishonest in that you're asking people to address things that happened only in your imagination. It doesn't make them true but what is for a fact occurring is people primarily, but not exclusively on the left doing what they can to infringe on the 2A. Personally I don't care what side of the aisle someone belongs to. If they're trying to infringe on our rights they need to be stopped legally, through the ballot box or the courts.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Not worried about common criminals. It's a bigger issue than that.

The usual pro-gun narrative is that the elites are trying to disarm the common people. What if, instead, it's the common people who end up trying to disarm the elites? This is not so far-fetched, since we're seeing the rise of the populist movement in this country. Populism is fueled by hatred of the elites. Plus, it's a matter of definitions. "Elites" are being defined as anyone even slightly left of center. Just look at the language being used -- "commies," "homo-globalists," etc., applied to people who aren't any of those things.

My advice to these potential victims, if they aren't already armed, is to arm themselves before it's too late.

Heh.
Most of the common folk are contemptuous of the martial abilities of the wealthy and powerful.
They could care less whether or not the elites are armed, although that would take an effort.
No, they are more concerned about the private armies and security forces that protect those elites.
Do you really care if Bill Gates or Joe Biden has a gun?

 

[AlexanderA]

Matyas Rakosi, the Communist boss of Hungary 1945-1956 bragged about his "salami-slicing" tactics-just a little bit at a time.

Bad example. Those salami tactics ultimately failed. The Hungarians revolted in 1956, and it took Soviet tanks to quell them. So much for gradualism.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The Commies ran Hungary until 1989-1990, those "salami slicing" tactics worked pretty well.

 

[I6turbo]

Nope. That’s the dirty, nasty reality, as personally observed from the ground view. That hasn’t been a theory since humans learned to wield weapons. It doesn’t matter what “side” one may be on. Sides don’t even matter at all, as there are so many silly “sides” to begin with. If your potential enemies have weapons and the means to project violence, and you don’t, and they decide they want to be your enemy, then good luck. If you also have the means to project violence upon them, then you have a better chance of not being destroyed, oppressed, or killed.

It’s pretty basic, and it’s way beyond theoretical.

Yes, and reminds me of this:

“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

• March 7, 2016

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill,

USMC (Ret.)

 

[Poper]

Yes, and reminds me of this:

“The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)

• March 7, 2016

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.

Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill,

USMC (Ret.)

I see maj. Caudill left out the third option: Bribery.
See also Joe Biden, Hunter Biden in reference to China, Afghanistan, Ukraine, et. al.

 

[I6turbo]

I see maj. Caudill left out the third option: Bribery.
See also Joe Biden, Hunter Biden in reference to China, Afghanistan, Ukraine, et. al.

Good point, but he would probably include bribery under the category of reason.

Your reference examples are probably beyond bribery, into abject corruption and treason.

 

[AlexanderA]

The Commies ran Hungary until 1989-1990, those "salami slicing" tactics worked pretty well.

After 1956, they abandoned all subtlety. In other words, they didn't need to slice the salami. They just took the whole thing.

 

[kwguy]

After 1956, they abandoned all subtlety. In other words, they didn't need to slice the salami. They just took the whole thing.

With guns.