Replies

Thank you for quoting that portion of my last reply to you which expresses my hope that the Second Amendment will deter a tyrannical government. For the record, I fully support our constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The problem is that if such a government can be deterred it is likely also to be amenable to the Democratic process. If the government is not amenable to the Democratic will and/or constitutional norms, middle-aged, potbellied men with small arms will do nothing but pitch the country into a dystopian hell because of the reasons which I cited in the reply that I linked in my last reply.

I share your patriotic horror at the notion of surrendering to a to radical left-wing government. We see enough of that today in Venezuela. When our founders acknowledged in the Constitution the "gift" to bear and keep arms, both the government and the people, like my ancestor, were armed with flintlocks. When subsequent generations of my ancestors took up arms against what they regarded to be a tyrannical federal government, they were armed with muzzle loaders but the government had slightly better arms and more of them and, more important, much better artillery. Today, the only chance for the insurrectionists against the world superpower is to wage a guerrilla war or to engage in terrorism. Even so, after much blood of innocents having unnecessarily been shed, they will lose.

All the red-blooded patriotic fervor will not change that. I will rent my rainments and put on sackcloth and ashes with you on the dark day that occurs. But I owe it to my children, and to your children if you have any, to spare them that needless pain and the futility.

That brings us to Article V. You want us to forgo a chance to save our children from tyranny by peaceful means for a chimerical hope that somehow small arms will defeat the superpower turned tyrant. That mindlessness is unfair to my children and to the children of every other patriotic American. To the degree that the NRA propaganda would sell out the rest of the Bill of Rights to protect their special interest, they deserve a special place in hell.

I have long posted on the subject. Years ago, I posted several times that I do not favor an Article V solution because I believe that state politicians are more righteous, or even less venal than federal politicians. I simply believe that their ambitions run along a different line, primarily a desire to enhance their power at the expense of the federal government. That is in keeping with the founders understanding of the nature of man, always to grasp for power. Right now we need to rein in federal power.

So I don't have any "Republican friends" anymore than the Framers had faith in factions, I put my faith where the Framers put their faith, in checks and balances, separation of powers, in constitutional provisions. I do not put my faith in a bunch of middle-aged fools who bear less relationship to modern martial realities than do reenactors, no matter how "free and well armed," no matter much they've been misled by the NRA.

"The problem is that if such a government can be deterred it is likely also to be amenable to the Democratic process."

Yes, especially a democratic process like a COS. A lot more deals and trade-offs can be made (and hidden) in a wide ranging rewrite of the Constitution than can be worked in an attempt to change the 2nd Amendment through the existing process.

Right now the 2nd is protected by the requirement for super-majorities in the Senate and among the States and as long as it comes up as a single issue I think the 2nd Amendment will remain as it is and right where it belongs - but if back room dealing ever begins on a whole slew of issues at once the 2nd could possibly get traded away. I, personally, believe it is too valuable to put at risk that way.

I do admire your hopeful attitude Nathan, but I don't think we have any chance of winning as long as we are playing on their turf. And it is their turf. They own our political system now and the best we can do is play for a stalemate until their magic money machine runs out of time. Thankfully, there is a timer on that machine due to the wonder of compound interest and if that clock runs out while we still have our freedom then they lose and we win. That's the game I'm playing and the reason I don't support a Convention of States.

"If the government is not amenable to the Democratic will and/or constitutional norms, middle-aged, potbellied men with small arms will do nothing but pitch the country into a dystopian hell because of the reasons which I cited in the reply that I linked in my last reply."

That threat of dystopian hell is exactly why our guns will remain in our hands and will continue as a check on the actions of our oppressors. They have no desire to own and rule over a dystopian hell - but that is what they will get if they cross the line. Our reactions to every new attempt to whittle back our gun rights are noted and analyzed and they move us along the path to their new world only at a speed that does not provoke outright rebellion.

And, on a personal note, who are you calling pot-bellied, old man? :)

I may have put on a few pounds, but my combat trained and experienced sons and nephews all seem to be in good shape. They each swore to protect the Constitution and they have the tools and skills to do so. You don't want to be on the wrong side of them if the shooting ever does start.

"When our founders acknowledged in the Constitution the "gift" to bear and keep arms, both the government and the people, like my ancestor, were armed with flintlocks."

And cannons and warships. I may not have a cannon today, but if need be I could have one in about two weeks. But really, who would want a cannon in a modern war? That would just turn you into a target. The combination of knowledge and precise violence is much more effective. If bad times come and I have my choice of a battalion of artillery or the wife of the local gestapo's commander strapped into my chair, I know which one I'll choose.

"Today, the only chance for the insurrectionists against the world superpower is to wage a guerrilla war or to engage in terrorism. Even so, after much blood of innocents having unnecessarily been shed, they will lose."

That military might is wielded by the likes of my sons and nephews and I know what they would do with it. And while active military patriots are doing their duties us old, pot-bellied has-beens will be doing ours. Guerrilla warfare and terrorism? Sure. And more. And worse. I'm a nice enough guy, but if war comes and freedom is on the line I won't hold back.

"...I owe it to my children, and to your children if you have any, to spare them that needless pain and the futility."

And your willingness to forgo that pain in futile resistance is what our would-be masters are hoping for. If you won't engage in a losing battle what will you do should your COS gambit fail? Submit? Do you have a plan B?

Hell, even your plan A is flawed. Do you think they won't scuttle any convention that looks like it might actual solve some of our problems? They have more than enough traitors-within that can be called up to make sure of that. They've been playing this game for a long time and know all the tricks.

Ain't it great to live in such interesting tines?