George Rebane
My recent commentary on Par Force (here) invited discussion and debate, and the invitation has already been accepted. PF represents an important perspective which some, like me, consider to be the quintessential reason for the Founders’ inclusion of the Second Amendment in our Constitution. Others disagree, and their points of disagreement are important and should be understood. However, as more often than not, many (most?) commenters have a problem keeping the various factors separated that relate to PF. PF and every other issue that we have dissected over the last 12 years have many parts, and most of them are independent/separate from, or orthogonal to each other and therefore deserve their own focused treatment.
For various reasons some readers, either through careless thinking, ignorance of the issue, and/or determined cynicism, muddle such factors and essentially derail the debate into a cacophony of arguments consisting of fragments from this or that independent factor to either attempt to make a point, counter someone else’s, or simply mislead. In any event, the debates here and on other blogs, more often than not, shatter into so many mis-constructed shards that ‘all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty-Dumpty together again’, and so the debate withers away without resolution or clear identification of commenters’ views on any of the distinct and separate factors in play.
So, here is a sampling of some independent factors about PF that would be informative to resolve and/or identify commenters’ divergent positions and supporting arguments.
- Should a modern democratic republic maintain the right of its franchised citizens to keep and bear arms so that, in their desperate last resort, they may gather and be able to broadly communicate their grievances before being silenced by local authorities?
- Should local government authorities in a modern democratic republic be able to silence dissent so that knowledge of its existence, the identity of the aggrieved, and/or the grievance particulars do not spread over the countryside?
- How did our Founders and their fellow American patriots answer #1 and #2?
- Since our Revolution, how have successive American generations answered #1 and #2?
- What dangers, if any, to America’s traditional way of life does the maintenance of PF rights pose across the land?
- ‘Par’ is not intended as crisp definition involving specific armaments and equipments. In today’s American society, how par should Par be? Given what the constabulary has, what (minimum) PF should a citizen have the right to possess?
- How should the resolution of events such as the Branch Davidians’ resistance in Waco, the Ruby Ridge episode, and the Bundy ranch standoffs bear on maintaining the PR interpretation of the Second Amendment?
- Given that law-abiding Americans today own over 300 million guns, and the rate of gun ownership in past decades has been higher, and that the presence of guns (in all age groups) was more prevalent in past decades, what has happened in recent years to elevate concern about ‘gun violence’?
- Given the 20th century ‘death by government’ history, and the continuing rise of authoritarian states, is America immune from such a future? If so, why? (American exceptionalism? Americans are simply better at governance? …); if not, what alternatives, if any, to PF should Americans have?
- If the label Par Force is not suitable, what are some better labels?
Please recall that this is a little meta-missive about debating PF, and not an invitation to debate these factors here; that should be done under ‘Par Force in the Second Amendment’. However, I do solicit feedback on the inclusion of the above numbered factors, and any appropriate edits and/or additional factors for how we should dissect this issue.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment