Home » Uncategorized » Maybe one cannot talk sensibly to some people but it is, maybe, worth a try?

Maybe one cannot talk sensibly to some people but it is, maybe, worth a try?

……………..And the beat goes on and I am trying not to feel completely beaten.

An exchange with fellow citizens.

Original post sent me:

Francis Wright

BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Maryland.

National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

History. Study it, or repeat it.


Me:  So, you think that Adams, Revere, and Hancock would support public having AK 15s and similar weapons if they could voice their opinions today? Restriction on the kind of guns one can own and who can own a gun should be taken as a government assault on people and that people should be allowed to be armed with military style weapons so that, if they wish to, they can fight the established military? Interesting! Should there be allowed any kind of restriction on weapons citizens may possess. For instance, the government owns fighter planes and nuclear missiles that even AK15s are no defense against. Should people be allowed to possess weapons that would allow them to overcome these kinds of weapons?

John’s reply to above: At the time of the constitution’s penning, Americans owned the dominate rifle of the era: The Kentucky long rifle. Compared to a smooth bore British musket, it was a definitively dominate assault weapon, accurate at over twice the distance of standard infantry arms of other militaries. And the Founders saw no issue in the citizens keeping such a powerful rifle, in fact they were probably wanting it since it made their raised militias far better (since the Fed had to rely on state militia mobilizing to fight when called).

As for the classic straw man of civilians owning nukes and fighter jets and the such, heavy munitions were usually never part of a militia man’s arsenal. He was expected to muster upon the call, with rifle in hand, ready to defend against whatever threat posed with his platoon or company. If the modern platoon man carries an AR-15, then that be the weapon a civilian should be permitted to bear.

Indeed, the SCOTUS in the 1930’s said as much, when deciding whether the ban on short barreled shotguns could be regulated. The Miller decision held that because short barreled shotguns were not in common use by the military, they were dangerous and unusual and thus enjoyed no constitutional protections. If guns outside of military use are dangerous and unusual, then it stands to reason that only guns used by the military are acceptable for ownership.

And before you go down the whole “well we don’t form militias anymore” argument, then you need to go amend the constitution. SCOTUS has also affirmed the individual right in that regard as well. Yes, the constitution is a living document, but that merely means it can be as time goes on, not just simply meant to mean what you choose. It says what it says, and doesn’t say what it doesn’t. Good luck.

My reply to John: “If guns outside of military use are dangerous and unusual, then it stands to reason that only guns used by the military are acceptable for ownership.” I see this as terribly illogical, that because at one time weapons not used by the military were understood to be too dangerous for citizens to possess, then those they use should all be legal! Tell me this John, should there be any limitation on ownership of weapons that are used by the military. This may be in your mind a “straw man” argument but maybe it comes up regularly because good numbers of very sane people are fearful of their fellow citizens possessing the kind of weapons that can kill a very lot of people in very little time. I am not arguing with particulars here, I am dealing with a principle one that has to do with the kind of destructive force a citizen should be allowed to possess. Howitzers and mortars? Or the even more deadly types of weapons. If no limits, I would have to say that we are dealing with crazy talk. If reasonable limits, what would you and others who agree with you be willing to agree to? The Constitution says nowhere that we should behave stupidly but it does talk about creating a “more perfect union.” A nation in which every citizen has to arm him herself against every other citizen and the government that by the Constitution should be the people’s government should have no obligation to do what is not in the best interests of the people, the more perfect union one in which the government can be trusted to do the people’s bidding and the people are wise enough to demand that it do what is necessary for them to live a good and decent life.

……………..And the beat goes on and I am trying not to feel completely beaten.


Comments are invited

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s