2nd Amendment Belongs Only in History Books Alongside Extinct Militias?

[Freedom@AnyCost]

That is the reasoning often sighted by the left wing of "The Party" anyway. The form of Militia that existed at the time is now extinct, so too should be the 2nd Amendment according to the "Logic".

Perhaps the same logic should be applied to the 1st, how long has it been since "Speech" has been conducted utilizing a printing "Press". Look at all the violence and death resulting from modern high capacity communication of hate speech. Our founders never imagined modern communication technology. They would be horrified to see the worldwide carnage it has caused (Libya attack because of one man's video for example).

Same with "Assembly", with modern technology people don't need to assemble in large groups to communicate, or anything else for that matter. They can watch it on TV from the safety of the home (where it will be free of anything "Offensive, Dangerous or Hurtful"). Besides, it is dangerous to have more than TEN people assembled in one place. Our founders never could have imagined a population of 300 million + people! They would be horrified to see the number of people trampled to death and burned alive as a result of too many people assembled in a single location. If we could save even one life...

Isn't it interesting, we ALL recognize how childish (illogical) this logic is when applied to the first Amendment, but somehow it has a foot hold on the Second for many people. Are they stupid or is it something else?

While for some, it may indeed be the former, for most it is the latter. When everyone around you agrees 2+2=5, so too will you. For example, how many of us believe Pit Bulls (with their "Lock Jaws") are INHERENTLY more dangerous than other breeds of similar size or strength or that Marijuana (the "Gateway" drug) prohibition is a good idea?

News flash, 2+2=4, Pit Bulls are no more "Inherently" dangerous than any other breed of equal size and power, and Marijuana prohibition (the entire drug war for that matter) is every bit as bad an idea as was alcohol prohibition for the EXACT same reasons.

We believe these things for the same reason Orwell's characters believed 2+2=5 in the novel 1984 - because that is the silly logical fallacy we have been taught all our lives. As with any good logical fallacy, there are elements of truth mixed in with all the BS which is what makes the logical fallacy so easy to believe. In other words, we have been trained to believe correlation = causation which is rarely ever true.

We even tell our children, "Do / believe it because I said so." What are we teaching them from a very young age? To accept direction from authority without question and to ignore contradictory information. Your parents, and later on, the leaders of your social groups and the Government know what is best for you so there is no need to learn to think and process information on your own.

Sure, your niece may have been attacked by your brothers Pit Bull while your he was was zoned out on the couch high on weed, but do a few anecdotal stories played over and over again in the media make the overall narrative true? If so, maybe the Second Amendment Abolitionists are right....... But the correct answer is hell no. People believe these ridiculous things because we are socialized from a young age to do so. If you have fallen for the Pit Bull or Drug War nonsense, you now understand how "They" can believe all this gun control nonsense. I know some of you are reading this and trying to come up with a rebuttal on Pit Bulls and/or the Drug War comparisons, but it's time to let go of the dogma and snap into reality. If you can't do it, how can you expect them to?

With that knowledge, perhaps better methods can be developed to eliminate the ignorance behind the gun control movement. One thing that has been proven not to ever work, name calling and cheap personal shots. Those play well for the choir, but get us nowhere when it comes to winning over the minds potential converts - logical people who listen to facts and reason over anecdotal stories rich with emotion but void of logic.

One last tidbit for all the drug war crusaders out there, this little gem (The Drug War) is what created much of the violence in our society that is now being blamed on firearms (exactly same as alcohol prohibition resulting in 1934 legislation). It also socialized us all to believe violating "Their" constitutional rights was okay because it makes us safer. It justified massive increases in the criminal justice system for what amounts to political crimes (victimless crime is a clever euphemism for political crime). The monster we created and fed with our blind support, tacit complicity and blatant disregard for the Constitution when it came to "Those People" is now slowly but surely being redirected towards us all.

As they say, what goes around, comes around.

 

[Gideon]

The irony of these types of arguments is that in trying to point out the differentiation between modern America and Colonial times, the opposite argument is legitimated by their assertion.

The insinuation that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because the militia tradition which existed in those days is gone...argues for a return to that militia tradition.
The Constitution does not allow for a standing army, except in times of war, and then, not to be funded for more than 2 years at a time by Congress.

 

[mugsy]

This article had a good premise but wasted it's words by making a disjointed argument of unrelated premises (I mean really so if one supports the 2nd Amendment then logic requires you to support no marijuana laws? really?)

However, discussing the premise that animates some liberal discussions - i.e. that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is "outdated" is a conversation worth having.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Constitution and Bill of Rights... extinct like the dodo bird. We're not free. We're tax livestock...

 

[twoguns?]

That is the reasoning often sighted by the left wing of "The Party" anyway. The form of Militia that existed at the time is now extinct, so too should be the 2nd Amendment according to the "Logic".

Perhaps the same logic should be applied to the 1st, how long has it been since "Speech" has been conducted utilizing a printing "Press". Look at all the violence and death resulting from modern high capacity communication of hate speech. Our founders never imagined modern communication technology. They would be horrified to see the worldwide carnage it has caused (Libya attack because of one man's video for example).

Same with "Assembly", with modern technology people don't need to assemble in large groups to communicate, or anything else for that matter. They can watch it on TV from the safety of the home (where it will be free of anything "Offensive, Dangerous or Hurtful"). Besides, it is dangerous to have more than TEN people assembled in one place. Our founders never could have imagined a population of 300 million + people! They would be horrified to see the number of people trampled to death and burned alive as a result of too many people assembled in a single location. If we could save even one life...

Isn't it interesting, we ALL recognize how childish this logic is when applied to the first Amendment, but somehow it has a foot hold on the Second for many people. Are they stupid or is it something else?

While for some, it may indeed be the former, for most it is the latter. When everyone around you agrees 2+2=5, so too will you. How many of you believe Pit Bulls (with their "Lock Jaws") are INHERENTLY more dangerous than other breeds of similar size or strength or that Marijuana (the "Gateway" drug) prohibition is a good idea?

News flash, 2+2=4, Pit Bulls are no more "Inherently" dangerous than any other breed of equal size and power, and Marijuana prohibition is every bit as bad an idea as was alcohol prohibition for the EXACT same reasons.

You believe these things for the same reason Orwell's characters believed 2+2=5 in th novel 1984 - because that is the silly logical fallacy you have taught all your life. As with any good logical fallacy, there are elements of truth mixed in with all the BS which is what makes the logical fallacy so easy to believe. In other words, you have been trained to believe correlation = causation which is rarely ever true.

Sure, your niece may have been attacked by a Pit Bull while your Brother was was zoned out on the couch high on weed, but does a few anecdotal stories played over and over again in the media make the overall narrative true? If so, maybe the Second Amendment Abolitionists are right....... But the correct answer is hell no. People believe these ridiculous things because they are socialized from a young age to do so. If you have fallen for the Pit Bull or Drug War nonsense, you now understand how "They" can believe all this gun control nonsense. I know some of you are reading this and trying to come up with a rebuttal on Pit Bulls and/or the Drug War comparisons, but it's time to let go of the dogma and snap into reality. If you can't do it, how can you expect them to?

With that knowledge, perhaps better methods can be developed to eliminate the ignorance behind the gun control movement. One thing that has been proven not to ever work, name calling and cheap personal shots. Those play well for the choir, but get us nowhere when it comes to winning over potential converts - logical people who listen to facts and reason over anecdotal stories rich with emotion but void of logic.

One last tidbit for any drug war crusaders out there, this little gem (The Drug War) is what created much of the violence in our society that is now being blamed on firearms (exactly same as alcohol prohibition resulting in 1934 legislation). It also socialized us all to believe violating "Their" constitutional rights was okay because it makes us safer. It justified massive increases in the criminal justice system for what amounts to political crimes (victimless crime is a clever euphemism for political crime). The monster we created and fed with our blind support, tacit complicity and blatant disregard for the Constitution when it came to "Those People" is now slowly but surely being redirected towards us all.

As they say, what goes around, comes around.

jus cause, , and shinola is the stuff you WANT on your boots

 

[Freedom@AnyCost]

This article had a good premise but wasted it's words by making a disjointed argument of unrelated premises (I mean really so if one supports the 2nd Amendment then logic requires you to support no marijuana laws? really?)

However, discussing the premise that animates some liberal discussions - i.e. that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is "outdated" is a conversation worth having.

I think you might be missing the point of of the essay as a whole by focusing on only one aspect of the theme. This essay is about logic thinking.

Logic is consistent. A logical person is consistent in how the apply logic. A logical person looks at the available facts and either does or does not make a decision on an issue based on the existence of verifiable facts. However, even a logical person can be duped when everyone around them, including the boob tube, from the time we are young, tells us something is true.

The essay pointed out three common logical fallacies where most people hold two of three to be true but not the third. The hope of the author was to get people to do a little introspection and maybe some research. When we recognize the faults in our own thinking and address them, we are much better equipped to make compelling arguments to others. When we apply logic equally on all issues and not just along party lines, that too makes our words much more compelling to our audience.

 

[mugsy]

I appreciate what you're saying and I may have failed to state my point clearly enough which is that an over-fascination with consistency is not a hallmark of great thinking. Overly broad or inappropriate application (perhaps misapplication) of principles can lead to drastically wrong actions. There truly are many cases where "what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander" is not applicable. Using arguments along that line makes one's reasoning seem simultaneously infantile and rigid.

Thus, as I said, this is a good discussion topic but not a very good execution of the discussionby the writer.

 

[Freedom@AnyCost]

The irony of these types of arguments is that in trying to point out the differentiation between modern America and Colonial times, the opposite argument is legitimated by their assertion.

The insinuation that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete because the militia tradition which existed in those days is gone...argues for a return to that militia tradition.
The Constitution does not allow for a standing army, except in times of war, and then, not to be funded for more than 2 years at a time by Congress.

Ahh...a logical thinking sheep with a little historical knowledge is a very dangerous thing you know. The difficult to control sheep are the best ones to serve to guests at the dinner table.

All joking aside, great point. I am always amazed when that very point is never made in debates. Another favorite is when a constitutional defender is mocked for bringing up the slippery slope concept. Usually the very next argument of the 2A Abolitionist is that we banned fully autos, NOBODY is arguing that was a bad idea, so we should ban X firearm now for the same reason - that is the very definition of the slippery slope and the Abolitionist is never called out on it!!!!!!

Guess this is just the logical result of public schools teaching to the ability of the lowest IQ students to keep their federal funding. It is very sad though.

 

[Freedom@AnyCost]

I appreciate what you're saying and I may have failed to state my point clearly enough which is that an over-fascination with consistency is not a hallmark of great thinking. Overly broad or inappropriate application (perhaps misapplication) of principles can lead to drastically wrong actions. There truly are many cases where "what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander" is not applicable. Using arguments along that line makes one's reasoning seem simultaneously infantile and rigid.

Thus, as I said, this is a good discussion topic but not a very good execution of the discussionby the writer.

I'm actually arguing exactly the point you are making. We should always look first at the facts and outcomes historically and currently. For example, what were the results of alcohol prohibition (1. black markets developed, 2.otherwise law abiding citizens became criminals, 3. people lost respect for the law, 4. gangs took over streets, 5. violence ensued, 6. Gun bans were enacted, 7. people continued to drink, 8. poor and inconsistent quality caused new problems, 9. strength / concentration increased, 10. Constitution ignored to prosecute new class of criminals, 11. etc.)

Now let's be honest and ask ourselves, do we see any similarities with drug prohibition?


In your example, try the different sauces on each protein source. Don't just put this on on that and that one on this because that's how it has always been done.

In my example, we are putting the two or three different sauces on three different proteins because that is how it has always been done. What we fail to take into account, two of those sauces not only taste bad on everything, but they actually contain heavy metals that are slowly killing us. I want people to wake up and realize it is not the meat that tastes bad and is slowly killing us, it is the sauce we are putting on it!! The one good sauce, let's call it the "Logical Sauce", is good on ALMOST everything with minor recipe changes here and there.

The other sauces on the other hand, they are bitter and will leave a bad taste in our mouth no matter what we put them on. And as if that is not bad enough, they are laced with heavy metals that are making us ill and slowly killing us ( drug war, national deficit, blind compliance with political parties, intellectual avoidance, nation building while ours is crumbling, etc.)

BTW, I am the writer and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. I enjoy discussions that make people think (especially me) and this is a work in progress. I just threw this together last night while thinking about what it is that allows people to think logically on some issues but not on others. These were three examples I came up with where most people have personal experience with at least one of them and only media / social experience with at least one. We usually are objective about things we know, and believe whatever the majority tells us to believe on the other. That is a fault we have as humans but very few of us recognize it. If we ever begin to recognize this fact collectively, maybe we will become better at avoiding the inevitable results.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

Ahh...a logical thinking sheep with a little historical knowledge is a very dangerous thing you know. The difficult to control sheep are the best ones to serve to guests at the dinner table.

All joking aside, great point. I am always amazed when that very point is never made in debates. Another favorite is when a constitutional defender is mocked for bringing up the slippery slope concept. Usually the very next argument of the 2A Abolitionist is that we banned fully autos, NOBODY is arguing that was a bad idea, so we should ban X firearm now for the same reason - that is the very definition of the slippery slope and the Abolitionist is never called out on it!!!!!!

Guess this is just the logical result of public schools teaching to the ability of the lowest IQ students to keep their federal funding. It is very sad though.

I think banning full-autos was a bad idea.