What The Left Doesn’t Understand About The Gun Ownership Debate
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 5 months ago
Mike (who isn’t a gun guy at all):
A close reading of sources from the debates over the Bill of Rights makes clear that individual gun ownership represented the ability of citizens to protect and defend their political rights; rights to free speech, free assembly, due process and the like. But the argument for gun ownership advanced by the NRA today, Ollie North’s appeals to patriotism notwithstanding, is based on the alleged social value of guns to protect us against crime. The NRA would never argue that the Glock in my pocket should be used to stop cops from coming through the door, but they insist that the same Glock is my first line of defense when a bad guy breaks down that same door.
Waldman clearly understands that by using the Second Amendment to justify gun ownership as a defense against crime, the pro-gun community has successfully restated the history of the Second Amendment to buttress a contemporary social justification for owning guns. Neither will be readily undone as long as gun control advocates believe they can respond to this strategy by stating and restating the “facts.” Remember “it’s the economy, stupid”? Now “it’s the guns.”
I’m not sure whether Mike argues for or against his thesis, intentionally or accidentally, or even if Mike knows what he wants his thesis to be.
But assuming that he knows the second amendment is about being the surest defense against government tyranny – whether an army or its close cousin, a police state – if he has just figured that out, he can join the millions who already know that and intended it to be that way.
As for the NRA, they do what’s expedient, but Mike is stuck in a world in which large organizations develop talking points for idiots and the idiots vote the talking points. The left operates that way, so they naturally assume that the rest of the world does as well.
But it doesn’t. Katie Pavlich notes that at least half of the country believes ownership of a weapon is patriotic. Try as they may like, the real intentions behind the second amendment cannot be hidden by the left, despite its reinterpretation and deconstruction.
As for the notion of gun ownership being a right because of the need for self defense, we’ve dealt with that before. The second amendment was written within the context of everyone already owning guns because of the moral duty of self defense.
But the second amendment says nothing about self defense or hunting. It says everything about tyranny. My main intention here is to point out that whether the NRA recasts this issue or not, the context of guns in America cannot be undone or written out of the textbooks. Men and women had them anyway, not armories or townships. It’s ludicrous to argue that folks shouldn’t be able to bear arms individually because of the second amendment. This misreads history, and badly so.
What the author is calling a “contemporary social justification for owning guns” is nothing of the sort. God gives me the right to bear arms, not the state, the second amendment or any law or regulation. The author only says the things he does because his understanding of history, theology and ethics is bankrupt and his thinking vacuous.
On July 7, 2014 at 10:32 am, Josh said:
This is why I read your stuff. It’s not the only reason – the analysis is awesome. But it’s the guilty pleasure side. You manage to eviscerate idiots without turning the lines in to throw-aways or tarnishing the rest of the commentary.
I would read a 1,400 word editorial with that voicing and cherish every minute of it.
On July 7, 2014 at 10:33 am, Burk said:
Nope, it does’t say anything about tyranny either. It says something about a “well-regulated militia”, i.e. what we would now call a national guard force, lacking a central armory. There is nothing well-regulated about the current phallo-gun open-carry nuts. Well-regulated is when you have civilian oversight of the various police and SWAT units, so that they operate their monopoly of force with skill and legitimacy.
On July 7, 2014 at 10:58 am, Herschel Smith said:
Militia exists to be a hedge against tyranny. As for well-regulated, this is a common misunderstanding. I’m not forgiving you for the mistake, you should know better, as should all Americans, but I’m pointing out that it’s a common mistake, so you’re in well-populated company. But well-regulated is a well-rehearsed phrase in our circles, and has to do with “regulated” in the sense of shot & weapon manipulation, shot and firearm control, gun sights, round trajectory, etc. See Bob Owens’ post: http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/what-well-regulated-means/
On July 7, 2014 at 11:28 am, Burk said:
Mr. Smith-
Not only is a militia mentioned, but the state is mentioned as well. Not a ragtag bunch of yahoos, but a well-regulated arm of the state, i.e. its militia. I suspect you have been in an echo chamber so long you no longer know how to read the constitution. If, say, the state of Texas wants to maintain a well-regulated militia whose arms are kept with its members, that would be constitutional. But this amendment has no room for the gun rights of self-appointed militias, let alone self-appointed individual protectors of the precious bodily fluids of this, the greatest country on earth. Let alone those of confederate throwbacks who want to overthrow the state. The regulation has nothing to do with muzzle discipline, shot control or anything of the sort. The document is political, and its reguation is a political concept connected to the explicitly mentioned “state”.
On July 7, 2014 at 12:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Burk, you only say the things you do because of perspective. Your god is the state, which is why you are okay with your “monopoly of violence” being ensconced with the state. That’s a good commentary, as I’ve pointed out before, on what by necessity must become of hippie bohemianism. It isn’t liberatarian – it is statist at its core. It’s okay with gun ownership and violence, as long as the guns are owned by those with whom you agree.
Your proposal is that the very men who had just fought a horrible war against a totalitarian state which had a monopoly of violence at the hands of its standing army, then decided that they wanted a nation which had a monopoly of violence at the hands of its own standing army. Your proposal is prima facie preposterous.
It’s sad, really. Even if you disagree, it behooves you to understand where we come from. Instead, you make it up as you go and fabricate myths out of your own imagination. I’m doing the best I can to pull you out of ignorance, but I can only do so much.
But you fail to go to the next level. I don’t turn to the second amendment for my rights. I turn to God. I only discuss the second amendment because of the context in which is was born. I have long suggested for you that you rely on your state gods to protect and provide for you. You have that right. You don’t have the right to force anyone else to take the same oath of fealty to your god. It’s all about presuppositions and axiomatic irredicibles, Burk. We’ve discussed this before. But becareful. God hates totalitarianism in all of its forms. Your philosophy is doomed to catastrophic failure.
On July 7, 2014 at 11:49 pm, milesfortis said:
Burk: “Praise State from whom all blessings flow! …….
And he’s someone who apparently never read the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Or, if he did is nothing more than a shill.
“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE (my emphasis) clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Yep, the second amendment was to give the state the exclusive use of military power and monopoly of violence. Bull Butter, Burk.
These jackwads keep trying it and we keep showing where they’re effed up in the brain.
Anytime one of them tries this gambit, shove the preamble down their throat. Day may come, it just might not be figuratively either.
On July 7, 2014 at 12:43 pm, Josh said:
You’re wrong Burk. You always are. I won’t bother to elaborate on why, because your mind cannot be changed. You’re a raging statist, and that’s the way you’ll always be.
But I will take this opportunity to point out that your utopia of gun illegality, Chicago, the city that you built by means of your ideology and vote, had 60+ casualties over the holiday weekend, with at least 11 being deaths.
You want to turn every city and town into Chicago. We won’t let you. And we have guns.
Keep living the blue-state dream, Burk. It must be fantastic.
On July 7, 2014 at 8:51 pm, HempRopeAndStreetlight said:
Get this strait Burk – you will only get your dream after you have killed me and my entire family. As you see in Colorado and Connecticut, liberty loving patriots will ignore and laugh at your pathetic laws.
We laugh at you, and your miserable ideology.
If you want us to capitulate – come kill us. We’d love for you to try.
Know this. When your genocide fails, we will hang every jack-boot that tried to infringe on our fundamental rights given to us by GOD. Then we will hang every person that sent them.
– And those that voted for those tyrants.
On July 7, 2014 at 8:55 pm, HempRopeAndStreetlight said:
PS: Once the confiscations start, the patriots will get proactive. You think we will sit idle in our homes? It will be a very bad time to be a cop, fedgoon, or any person enabling the statists tyrants.
See Mexico and Yugoslavia for what you’re provoking. Open season. You’ll run out of enforcers before you run out of us – and that’s before foreign powers get involved – and they will.
Start the civil war motherfucker. Do it if you think you can win. I’m ready to paint the ground with my blood – are you?
On July 8, 2014 at 7:54 am, Josh said:
This is how you get put on a “list”. Just sayin’.
On July 8, 2014 at 7:35 pm, HempRopeAndStreetlight said:
I don’t care if I am on a list or not. All they can do is kill me. I am not scared to die. This life is a fleeting and near meaningless thing contrasted to eternity in the presend of God.
FedGovCo can do their worst. I will do my damnedest to pay kind for kind before they bump me off however.
On July 8, 2014 at 8:58 pm, Josh said:
Yes, but you you surely must realize how very much like a jihadist you sound? Painting the ground with your blood, not scared to die, eternal glory and all that.
I know you don’t care, but this is indeed how you get on a “list.” I’m not trying to incite or offend, and I don’t altogether disagree with your fed-up-edness. But those are the kinds of things terrorists say…
On July 8, 2014 at 11:21 pm, HempRopeAndStreetlight said:
If talking like the founders makes me a Jihadist, then a Jihadist I am mother-fucker. You’re right, i don’t give a shit, and if the fed goons kill me, then my death will be an inspiration for a dozen more just as militant as i am.
On July 8, 2014 at 11:31 pm, HempRopeAndStreetlight said:
PS: Time for nice talk and suckling at the woobie’s dicks has passed. The folks that hate us will, do, and already have made up their minds – we’ve been terrorists for years already. Those that support us, likewise. The fence sitters are a useless group to court – they will side with whoever looks like they will win in the end.
The PR bullshit smells of Neo-Con nation-building-hearts-and-minds-trash. Pure recipe for failure. If they can kill us all, they win. If we kill enough of them unrelentingly, they give up and surrender eventually. nothing else matters in the end. Nothing. Like I said, the fence sitters will blow with the wind – this is entirely about the fortitude of the true patriots and true statists. Everything else is irrelevant.
Who you trying to impress? The media who will blame the patriots for anything and everything? The squishy neo-con hearts-and-minds-retards? The unrelable fence-sitters? The moonbats that hate you?
Folly that line of thought. Utter. Folly. Success talks. Preparation talks. Logistics talks. Training talks. Nothing else matters in the end. Our failures in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that out.
Put me on the list already. Twice. Everyone who matters has their mind made up for now. The violence on both sides will convert more – both for and against – as the losses pile up and the graveyards fill.
Welcome to civil war. It’s coming.
On July 8, 2014 at 1:15 pm, Duane said:
unless you have some sort of document that details the framers intentionally deceiving the people of the new nation, we’ll have to rely on all of the commentators statements of how they portrayed the 2nd Amendment to those that ratified the Bill of Rights. You must also consider that the constitution expressly forbids the states from having their own standing armies, thus the militia is actually WE THE PEOPLE and not the national guard.
On July 7, 2014 at 9:50 pm, TexTopCat said:
Mr Burk the Dick Act of 1902 defines the modern definition of militia. Every person of ability is a member. So, even if you mis-read 2A as you have, it really does not change the end result. The right to own and bear arms is a protected individual right from government infringement as the Heller decision correctly points out.
You might also look at the state constitutions that protect the individual right without even the mention of militia.
On July 8, 2014 at 8:09 am, Josh said:
Now I’m not sure my next statement applies to Burk – I don’t know him but a brief run through his Disqus comment history indicates we actually may have some common ground on other issues.
But you’ve hit at the core of the “progressive” ideology. Misrepresentation of 2A is just that, not “mis-reading”. They know full well what 2A means. They’re trying to redefine and exploit it to further their ideological agenda.
Allow me to provide another example. These are the same kind of folks that claim only white people can be racist; that racism is only a manifestation of the majority (or un-minority).
Why don’t they invent a new word instead of trying to redefine “racist”? Why don’t they construct a phrase such as they have in “institutional racism”? Because words are important and so are their meanings. And the word “racist” is valuable. It carries all manner of connotations and baggage. They want to own it, redefine it, and use it as a weapon of oppression.
They want to do the exact same thing with 2A. Do not mistake their intentions or ideology. They’re not simply mis-reading it out of wrongheadedness or mistake. They know exactly what they’re doing. And even if Burk doesn’t, he is a product of an ideology that does.
On July 8, 2014 at 1:11 pm, Duane said:
It is the height of stupidity to even remotely believe that the framers would create the 2nd Amendment to guarantee the right of government troops to bear arms, after having just fought off their oppressive troops of England. the HEIGHT of stupidity.
On July 10, 2014 at 7:53 am, Pat Hines said:
I no longer use the term “debate”, or the left’s buzz phrase “conversation about guns”, because there simply isn’t anything to debate or discuss. We gun owners will not yield anything, anyplace, at anytime in the future. We’re done with this.
The Gun Confiscation Lobby, what the so-called gun grabbers or gun controllers really are, is done in most of what remains the United States. They’re certainly done in the south.