Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events, and a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers. Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons.
You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. The "need" argument should not be used in order to restrict freedom. Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. And to further your arguments of need, utility, and danger, you, and "your side," bring in notions of buying nuclear weapons, or tanks, or other behemoth weapons . . . just in case, I guess, that could actually happen. Do you know of anyone who "needs" or even wants such things? Or how it is even possible to legally buy them? Do you "need" moderation of law so badly that you use such examples?
Even it were possible to buy ultra destructive weapons in times of peace, what about another possibility. You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) But if it's possible for common folks in a modern democracy to buy weapons of mass destruction and then use them to kill huge populations, presumably for fun, or madness, or power, why is it not possible for a modern, democratic government, which can interpret and moderate existing law into means of restricting freedom, to also use its weapons to consolidate power in order to totally mandate what freedom is or isn't. If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms for what you consider a noble purpose, how do you restrict a government from using its power, for supposedly benevolent purposes, over the people whom it is supposed to serve?
You want a "reasonable" moderation of law in order to save some lives. What is a reasonable moderation of government power over ALL the people? Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable? What reasonable law gives the people such power to resist tyrannical force? Hand guns and limited magazines? What is the people's power if it is possible, by moderation of law, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves against government force?
Do you say that Democracy is the people's ultimate power? The power to vote? The last and most important resort? (They do vote in dictatorships.) Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule. If the mob is cultivated by the government, educationally, financially, morally, philosophically, politically--as Progressive ideology strives to do--and has persuaded the majority that the ruler's "reasonable" fairness, largesse, and control, is right and just, the power of the vote is sealed into the hands of government. The vote is bought and paid for by that government and sustained by its propaganda of mass justice. "Freedom" in that instance becomes a word, if still even used, to mean what that government says it means. And, what Progressives mean by that word is what they prescribe. And the freedoms they promise, in order to keep the people happy, are government provided "freedoms" FROM such things as want or emotional or physical suffering. They are not freedoms OF something individuals inherently possess . . . and which the government cannot abridge or deny. By "interpreting," thus changing, the word into meaning what Progressives want it to mean, freedom, no longer exists unless they say it does.
If such a state of affairs has already been achieved, it may well be too late for those who believe in the ultimate value of individual rights to resist a benevolent despotism. The only recourse is the inevitable financial collapse of such a society. Which could lead to another revolution to return to a classically liberal one, or for society to further collapse into recent forms of harsher tyranny, or even ancient ones that could last for thousands of years.
Isn't absolute adherence to the Constitution, not a moderate interpretation of it, a means to resist such a collapse?
And isn't the actual purpose of the Second Amendment one of the expressed points in the Constitution meant to give the people the power to resist tyranny? If the people cannot be trusted to support the actual freedom the Constitution gives them because some very few of them might use their freedom to kill others, then the Constitution should, indeed, be a useless relic.
But can they, on the whole, if they understand what freedom really is, be trusted not to misuse the power given to them for defense against tyranny? If they can, so informed, be trusted, what is the danger of the Second Amendment in its actual meaning and intent? Why must it be submitted to the process of moderation, which will become incessant until the Amendment is erased?
I think your other suggestion of returning to moral and other values would greatly limit the abuse of the Second Amendment, as well as the abuse of the Constitution as a whole. We should actually educate our citizens, beginning in childhood, on the real meaning of freedom, why it is necessary for the fulfillment of wonderful notions that are used to despair it such as fairness, equality, and justice. It would help to teach them the value of economics and how economy can work to reign in not only their personal financial destruction, but to reign in government spending into fiscal unsustainability. It would help to teach them in depth the reasoning of and final drafting of the Constitution, how and why it protects real freedom, and the dangers of interpreting it on personal emotions and notions of social justice. And much more teaching of various values that create a successful society of free individuals.
But, in my opinion, avoiding that path because it is deemed too difficult, or because those who teach don't believe any of it anyway, and instead keep tinkering on meanings of words, changing history, marginalizing the Constitution, and embracing government as the answer rather than personal responsibility, furthers the path to tyranny with the constant little "moderations" of law instead of teaching and instilling liberty and right living.
|
"I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events"
Guilty as charged.
"a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers"
My lack of trust isn't entirely a figment of my imagination, is it? There are perfectly innocent people in the ground, some of whom I feel would be alive today, if such things were banned. I would lose no sleep if you had such things, or if my Dad had such things. But there are small number of very sick people out there.
"Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons. "
Correct. The same logic applies to speed limits. Some drivers are capable of driving 100 mph and never doing any damage. But some can't. We recognize that, and ratified laws to forcibly moderate all drivers, even those who aren't a danger to others.
It has been generally accepted in our history, that the second amendment isn't absolute or limitless. Not many people would support the idea of a citizen being able to buy a stealth bomber or a rail gun or a nuke. The founding fathers were onboard with the notion of limiting the rights of all of us to bring guns on the campus of the University Of Virginia. Which tells me, that they never intended the "right to keep and bear arms" to be without limits.
"You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. "
Correct.
"Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. '
I disagree, and think you argument here is flawed. No one is suggesting that we ban everything that isn't necessary. I am suggesting we talk about banning things that (1) are not necessary,
AND (2) can be used, as intended, to kill large numbers of citizens, in a small amount of time. You left out that second condition of what I would consider banning, and it's an important distinction.
"(whatever your or my "side" is)"
"My" side are those that would consider banning a small number of items in the name of public safety, "your" side, on this issue, are those who refuse. And I think you are more than smart enough to have already known that.
"You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "
In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.
"If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms"
I am confident that the data shows that the overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in gun stocks and high capacity magazines. And as I have said, I feel their "right" to own such things, is a matter of opinion, rather than a constitutional certainty.
"Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable?"
Yes. And in our country, the courts (and the constitution) give us all kinds of protection against tyranny. A couple of rifles in my basement, provide very little protection against tyranny. The feds can kill us all if they wanted, and there would be precious little we can do about it, armed or unarmed. If you want to convince me that I'm safer from tyranny if I get my Dad's Marlin .22 and keep it under my bed, well, that makes exactly zero sense to me.
"Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule"
Correct. Which is why we don't have that, we have a Republic, which is restricted by the Constitution.
I want to discuss banning the weapons of war. I am not going to be persuaded against having that conversation, because of your elegantly-worded fears that it would lead to cultural, economic, historical ruin of our nation.
Every criminal law on the books, restricts the choices that we can make. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to increase the restrictions, or further decrease liberty if that's how you prefer to frame it, if even one life can be saved, and very little (in my opinion, obviously many disagree) is given up in return.
We can probably put this to bed, until the next one.