15 responses to “Packin’ Heat”

1. 

   Michael Anderson

   01 February 2010

   I’m a “regional progressive” who agrees with you, George, that the 2nd Amendment trumps the 1st. I also believe that the framers weren’t talking about the narrow interpretation of “militia,” that their intention was that any group of disaffecteds should revolt when things got out of hand.
   That all being said, we obviously have had some technological advances along the way, whereby a lone group of disaffecteds with M1 Garands are gonna have a pretty hard time making their point against an array of MQ-9 Reapers with quills full of Hellfires.
   The logical extension of the 2nd Amendment is that every citizen of the United States should be able to own a nuclear weapon, to be used as a deterrent against tyranny. Only then will the human brain evolve sufficiently such that tyranny becomes an outmoded way of getting what you want.
   And I assure you, my tongue is not planted in my cheek on this subject.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   01 February 2010

   Michael, ever since the Waco massacre I have had a bit different take on the broad private ownership of guns and their function in resisting a growing autocracy with modern weapons. Your thoughts?
   ‘Par Force – An Uncommon View of the 2nd Amendment’

   LikeLike

3. 

   Michael Anderson

   01 February 2010

   My thoughts are that you have made my point. The logical extension of par force is that everyone gets his or her own nuke. Now I realize that this is not attainable, nor even desirable, so we settle for the next best thing–let par force blossom in every hamlet. At the very least [I did read your tract, and I enjoyed it very much] there will be a distributed deterrent. The ROI for corrupt gov’ts to act badly tracks downward with such a force structure.
   Unfortunately, we are still not dealing with the efficacy of modern weapons; hence, the popularity of asymmetric warfare, insurgency, terrorism, and the like. How do these unfortunately popular forms of radical dissent not represent par force?
   I can actually answer this last question quite well, but I am going to let you go first.

   LikeLike

4. 

   RL Crabb

   02 February 2010

   It should be noted that leftie icon John Lennon said, “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”
   At least he did until a crazy person killed him with a gun.

   LikeLike

5. 

   George Rebane

   02 February 2010

   Michael, I think we agree. Being a bit familiar with surveillance and military systems, it is daunting to think citizens can stand up to that kind of might. Daily the corral posts are getting closer no matter the direction we look.
   Yet, I don’t think we need to logically extend to broad ownership of WMDs, that itself is unstable for reasons we both understand. I believe that the par force level needed should be sufficient to hold off the local constabulary until the word of the grievance can be broadcast (media, bloggers, hams, …). If that does not ignite broad resistance across the land, then either the grievance was not sufficient, or we are beyond salvation and tyranny is our lot. In either case the ‘first resisters’ will probably pay the ultimate price.
   I haven’t been able to find a Plan B, can you help?

   LikeLike

6. 

   George Rebane

   02 February 2010

   You’re right Bob. But the box score on ‘sane’ vs ‘crazy’ people killing innocents with guns is more than a little lopsided. The sane killers are already ahead by the hundreds of millions and keep winning by a landslide.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Scott Obermuller

   02 February 2010

   I think we need to avoid the either/or on which right is more important and see that we need both. One supports the other. As far as what extreme we should take the right to bear arms – I have neighbors that I would trust with the most powerful bomb on earth and other neighbors that should not be allowed sharp sticks. It is true that a private militia these days would be a sad folly against our well trained and equipped armed forces, but that does not negate the need for our citizens to remain armed. We will argue forever which weapons we will be allowed, but it should be noted that the “gun control groups” aims too often are actually for the eventual elimination of the right to keep and bear arms. Many of the guns they are trying to restrict now are antiques that are described in lurid prose as being of such power that they should be taken off of our hands. They were fine 50 years ago, why are they suddenly too powerful now?
   Keep your powder dry!

   LikeLike

8. 

   Dixon Cruickshank

   02 February 2010

   Maybe just look around the world, lots of examples on both sides with/without but I’m siding with George – the screaming withouts don’t fare very well.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Mikeymcd

   02 February 2010

   The second insures the first.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Michael Anderson

    02 February 2010

    I do agree that the 2nd insures the 1st. And while my ideological purity would desire that every citizen carries her own nuke, I also have neighbors with whom sharp sticks are a bit of a challenge so I understand the sentiment to control arms.
    George, you ask if I have a Plan B. I do, and here it is. We do not have the carrying capacity for the daily contention that is developing in this country. I ask you to at least consider what Steve F. is proposing: let’s find the 80% of things we can agree on and set aside for now the 20% that appears to be a roadblock.
    We all have complex alliances, friendships, interests, and stakes. Violence should always be the last resort. Unfortunately, when things get exceedingly complex in politics and civics, all hell breaks loose. We are on that precipice in the USA right now.
    Let’s agree to pull back, take a deep breath, and think about what we really want for our future. That’s the beginning of Plan B.
    Here is Plan X, which is Extremely Not So Good: http://www.combat.ws/S3/BAKISSUE/CMBT03N1/STALIN.HTM

    LikeLike

11. 

    George Rebane

    02 February 2010

    We must recall that Plan A is only par force with the local constabulary, and it’s not neighbor against neighbor. Michael, you suggested that the par should be at a higher level. And no one is suggesting violence used in anything except the extremis that our Founders were subjected to. Right now there is only one faction of us that wants more centralized control and proscribed liberties. The other has been in full retreat for some time now as witnessed by the weight and extent of the US Code, case law, state laws, and regulations beyond astronimical number. Pulling back sounds like good advice.
    As a young Estonian boy, Plan X was part of my first experienced history lesson. We who escaped from Stalin were kept under a virtual death sentence in displaced persons camps until 1948 when the west finally became aware that there was an Iron Curtain already in place since the war ended. There is very little knowledge in America of the path from collectivism to totalitarianism. The platitudes and high principles of today’s progressives are nothing like the reality that we lived through and hope never to repeat.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Michael Anderson

    02 February 2010

    I agree that there is a lot of ignorance, and failure to appreciate what exactly happened in Europe and Asia during the last half of the 20th Century. But the Cold War was much more intense that what we are dealing with today. Different animals, different dangers, different outcomes.
    Plan X is about understanding totalitarianism, fascism, oligarchy, plutocracy, and religion. It is what brings us to consider Plan A and Plan B, and making healthy decisions thereof.
    Your “raghead” comment elicited a heightened amount of effluvium on the local boards yesterday and today, and I can appreciate why. That kind of talk isn’t in the 80% category, so why do it? Yes, there are bad people who wear headdress. There are also bad people who wear pinstripes.
    But not all, in either category.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    03 February 2010

    The effluvium was elicited on purpose as both a test and a preparation for an upcoming piece on human conflict and the competition of cultures. As you may have picked up from my previous writings, I believe that the west’s response to fundamentalist Islam is mortally misguided.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Dixon Cruickshank

    03 February 2010

    MA you may be seriously surprised if you ever left CA and the near progressive eutopia – come to the south it would apparently be a rude awakining as the terms use is widespread. Before you jump to too many conclusions I will point out a very interesting fact – the term Nigger has lost all its conotation to black people in the south – it is used to describe white trash as in thieves and such as much or more than blacks – noting it is used as a character reference now interchangeably. I found that quite interesting and no I do not consider myself racist.
    So in that vain – a Muslim is not automatically a raghead but a raghead is always a muslim whether he wears one or not.

    LikeLike

15. 

    Michael Anderson

    03 February 2010

    Well, I have a very rough mouth when I’m with me blokes, but I try for a higher standard in public. That’s all I was saying.
    But apparently George had an agenda attached to his pejorative, so I await further developments.

    LikeLike