In the meantime, we must stop exploiting the Second Amendment to justify our pathetic, quasi-patriotic, petty imitations of antediluvian, cowboy-esque individualism.
Hoo-ee. He sure makes purdy words. Not only that, but we live in "an inversed Orwellian state."
Soo Yang said it, I believe it, that settles it. How does the government endure all these pesky oversights?
What is it lately with sophomoric opinions? And I wonder if this child has any idea how seriously some of us are taking things?
Reminds me of the ones I ran into in college back in the late sixties; everything could be solved: "If people just stop hating, and start loving one another". As always, you give some people a semester in college, and they think they've solved all the world's problems.
ReplyDeleteThis "inversed Orwellian state" concept is going to be popping up a lot in the near future as we're pushed into accepting more surveillance, censorships and rights limitations. Just this weekend Fox News had more than one commentator arguing that Google's street level views were just the opposite of privacy damaging and were, in fact, empowering us all. Who knew that living under constant surveillance would empower me?
ReplyDeleteDoublespeak? Certainly is.
Watching these eloi assume room temp by the thousands will be pathetic too. Don't know how far I'll get when it hits the fan, but I'll wager it's a lot longer than the college boys. Youth and skill can always be overcome by old age and treachery. Oh, and having good weapons and knowing how to back up what you say with them, that's purty good too.
ReplyDeleteI like to keep up my optimism by seeing both the good and the bad. I give Soo Yang credit for actually reading and attempting to find the meaning of the Second Amendment. The majority of disarmers don't even bother, and have never seen nor used a firearm. (You'd think this creates some type of disqualification.)
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, like myself and many others who grew up with the falsely-promoted idea that militia was superseded by the National Guard, he has been trained to believe that the amendment must fall within strict limitations pertaining to government-organized civil defense.
He does, however, acknowledge the possibility of civil defense against a domestic government. We know that "guncontrol" is a euphemism for "citizen disarmament", so it must occur to him that he both acknowledges the possibility of politically irreconcilable differences with an authoritarian government and but proposes that this government should also be the keeper of our weapons. Does that make any sense?
I sincerely hope I am "cowboy-esque". I like to think of myself as self-reliant, able to function to moral standards of my own without needing the approval of the townies to do the right thing. I like to believe I am capable of social interaction, but not incapacitated if I find myself in solitude. I like to think I will trespass no man, but will deal him a load of Hell if he trespasses me.
ReplyDeleteYessir, I sincerely hope I am "cowboy-esque".
Said much the same to an op-ed writer here whining about gun owners' "12th Century" mentality (talking about the Assize of Arms, yippee, another happy customer for Wikipedia!). I asked, Is that supposed to be an insult? The only thing it suggests is that perhaps the people of the 12th Century better understood their legal and moral rights and obligations than do the people of the 21st.
ReplyDeleteInstead of talking about him, I registered and gave him something to chew on:
ReplyDeleteRE: Americans must take gun control seriously
Submitted by pdavisnwa on Mon, 10/15/2007 - 21:56.
I must say that you are devoid of understanding the true reason that the Founders of this nation insisted upon the right to keep and bear arms. Although you admit that tyranny existed in 1787, and exists now, somehow you equate words spoken and written, with the power and force of arms.
It is obvious that Hamilton and Madison understood far more that you give them credit for, and perhaps far more than you will ever understand when they framed the passage in the Federalist 51, explaining why our country has the government that our constitutions (state and federal) dictate and why we have the right to keep and bear arms:
"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Now, take the above statement and apply the principles contained in it to yourself, the Chinese, the folks in Burma, and everyone else: What does the above statement declare about us? What did the Founders of this country understand about man and man's nature?
Taking away and/or denying access to guns absolutely will not solve a problem of man's basic nature. In fact, all it will insure is that certain among us will amass arms and brutally oppress everyone around them. All of us are evil, and we tend that way without any assistance or encouragement whatsoever. If the Founders of this country knew that all men were evil back then, and force, or the threat of force is required to keep us in line; when did that change? Just when did man's basic propensity for evil change?
The fact is: it hasn't. Moreover, it never will. The basic nature we are born with, will not change unless an external power changes it. To claim that we (mankind, or the race of man) can somehow make ourselves pure by our own efforts, it to defy all the evidence we see in this world. Once something has begun to decay, it does not, and cannot purify itself. Even in nature, we do not see the animals changing their nature. Cats do not begin to act like dogs, and deer to not act like squirrels -- that would require a change in the basic nature of the animal. That, my friend, simply does not happen.
The founders of this nation knew there were and are only two possible solutions to the problem of man's nature:
1. Everyone has an immediate, simultaneous change in their basic nature so that none of us are evil any more. (A highly unlikely event -- in fact, impossible.)
2. Arm everyone. The fear factor alone will keep the vast majority of people in line. Incidentally, it will also stop all forms of dictatorship by government. (The point of the above discourse in the Federalist 51.)
Sadly, you have bought a lie: hook, line and sinker. That lie is that somehow mankind has begun to rise above his basic nature. Moreover, you have believed another lie, which is that someone bent on oppressing, or destroying you is somehow going to respect what you say. And, the fact that others are watching is supposed to somehow deter them. Hate to inform you, there are folks in this world who will listen to what you say, and then laugh as they crush your skull. These are the same folks who also delight in showing the world how they slaughter others.
The only reason why that many of those perpetrating this kind of evil hide it, is strictly due to the fact that they fear retribution -- in the form of the force of arms.
By the way, you should be able to figure out that a gun makes the 60 year old granny fully equal to a strapping 20 year old man. You do know that don't you?
In addition, James Madison made it plain that being individually armed was an advantage that we, as Americans, enjoyed over the people of many other nations:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." (Federalist 46)
You need a better education.