In fact, they encourage it.
Posted on 08/31/2019 8:44:17 AM PDT by DoodleBob
New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Radical New Progressive Left abhors guns as much from an aesthetic standpoint as from a political, social, and ethical one.
Thus, they never fail to use a particularly tragic albeit rare instance of misuse of a firearm by the criminal and the occasional lunatic to denounce firearms ownership and possession generally, vociferously, and this is reflected in the question they ask and the manner in which they ask it: How can society protect itself from the “scourge” of guns?
You will note that their professed concern is that of society, of the Collective, the Hive, not that of the individual, even if they perforce assert that their concern is to protect lives. Be advised, the question they pose is really rhetorical as their answer to the scourge of guns is implied in the question as framed, namely: remove as many guns, and as many kinds of guns, and from as many people, as possible, and in the shortest amount of time. But, will doing so, really serve to protect people? Radical New Progressive Leftists don’t respond rationally to this query, because they accept their premise as a given, even if statistically untrue; and the assumption is untrue that more innocent lives will be spared once guns are removed from the citizenry.
... Who will protect the lives of the people when they they are denied the best means available for defending their life and the lives of family members?
On the issue of gun violence, the Conservative, asks a different question entirely. It is this: “How can the citizenry best protect itself from violent acts, generally?”
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
My only disagreement with this piece is whether it is firearms, or abortion, or illegal aliens that exemplifies the political divide the most. But it is clearly in the top 3 IMHO, and in many ways distills a person's overall view of the individual vs collective.
I'll read the article later.
individual vs collective. BUMP!
One of the books, but a ridiculous book I have read on home defense, fifty years ago, said that every home needs a “safe room” designed to get the family into quick, if there is a break in. You also needed a second telephone line in case the main line is cut.
If someone tries to break into the safe room, (here is the ridiculous part) you need to have a broom handle, break apart a pair of scissors, and tape the blade and make a spear. SAY WHAT!
No mention of home firearms in the book at all.
They have _no_ desire to remove guns from thugs in the hood.
The proof—the left has ruled these cities with an iron fist for two generations—and the guns are still there.
Their only goal is to take guns from law abiding citizens.
Interesting thought;
How would things be different in Hong Kong if the population were able to own firearms? How does the restriction in Hong Kong contribute to totalitarianism?
I will say again for emphasis;
HOW does the restriction of firearms in Hong Kong contribute to the goals and agenda of totalitarians???????????????????????????????
individual vs collective.
Every one really need to read the highly suppressed 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
If by some means, magical or otherwise, every firearm were to be made to disappear, and the memory of the existing technology to make such a device were erased from the minds of everyone who has even a passing knowledge of how to make or use any kind of firearm, within a very short time, the ingenuity of mankind wold re-invent a similar device, and these new projectile weapons would be in widespread use almost immediately afterwards.
The innate driving impulse to have some kind of personal defense is ingrained in the human psyche. Lacking teeth of powerful nature, or claws of any kind, the progression to the use of some other kind of tool is almost a biological imperative. Knives and clubs come to mind, and even spears and some kind of bow to drive a fletched arrow would be quickly employed.
A device using means to propel a projectile with great force is just a natural part of the progression.
If men did not have guns, they would invent them pretty darned quick.
If men did not have guns, they would invent them pretty darned quick.
Good point, however the more important issue is that there would be such a difference in power remaining, regarding size and strength. All of a sudden, no guns, a 100 pound women is totally defenseless against one 200 pound man, or five. *a gun in the woman’s hand would make the difference between life and death.
And think of this; The average gang banging MS13 type in prison spends all his time doing pushups, making weapons out of spoons, and honing his hand to hand combat skills,,,, before he is released...
On this issue, I’m glad I’m on the side with guns.
I have guns, my side has guns. The other side doesn’t.
Molon Labe
I wish our side would quit using that phrase. It is letting the antis frame the issue. Who ever heard of "knife", "club", or "car" violence?
To see how far they have captured the narrative, play the word association game and ask your friends what word pops into their mind when "violence" is heard. What just popped into yours? Even your gun-owning buddies will fall for it.
Dunno what to replace it with. "Crime violence", I guess.
David Kopel's book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? posits that:
The cultural lesson that is taught in Japan by the very strict gun laws reinforces a message that exists throughout Japanese society--the individual is subordinate to the larger organization, whether it's the child and the family, the student and the school, the worker and the corporation, or the individual and society. People are expected to subordinate their individual desires to the greater collective good. Gun control, even though it doesn't directly work at disarming criminals who want to get guns, plays an important role in reinforcing this cultural message.
... What the gun laws do in Switzerland, in a way, is the same kind of thing that they do in Japan, which is to reinforce the existing social order. The laws help integrate people into the larger world of the community. That is one of the most important functions of the militia, and why the Swiss are resistant to abolishing the militia, even though, with the end of the cold war, there is no realistic threat to national security. The Swiss want to keep the militia as a very important socializing institution in the nation. Marksmanship is one of the things that brings the generations together. Dad will clean the rifle at the kitchen table and take Junior shooting at the target range. That is one of the things that keeps Junior happily occupied with the family as opposed to getting in trouble. What I think Switzerland and Japan collectively suggest is that the issue is, not how many guns are there in the society but, how guns are viewed in the society and how they fit into the overall system of socializing individuals in the society.
I don't know if the good citizens of HK have a spirit or a culture whereby self-preservation via ordnance is "acceptable." If they do, firearms may help. If not, it is likely we'd see a NZ like response where politicians blame the protesters. Stay tuned.
Actually, Antifa is arming.
I see nuance in this issue. People on FR were against the bump stock ban. I am not. I believe if Republicans don’t take it upon themselves to apply certain checks like that, then the Dems will milk mass shootings, take over, and install legislation to the point of no return.
Our country is in a spiritual crisis in case no one noticed. And John Adams himself said our Constitution was written ONLY for a religious and moral people. Say bye bye to our Christianity and morals, and you can expect our liberties to go bye bye too.
Self ping.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List
“They have _no_ desire to remove guns from thugs in the hood”
EVERY anti-gun anus ought to be asked —
What is your plan for removing guns from the hands of CRIMINALS ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.