agreed
2nd Amendment Belongs Only in History Books Alongside Extinct Militias?
- Thread starter Freedom@AnyCost
- Start Date
agreed
I know banning full autos was a bad idea.
Everybody would know that if we hadn't been told the opposite throughout most of our existence. Future generations will believe banning all firearms was a good idea if the Abolitionists are successful over the course of the next 100+ years (yes, the leaders of this tradition have a long game in mind that was passed on to them from the previous generation of abolitionists). It will be done one small piece at a time and our great great great grandchildren will believe it was a good idea with the same veracity most people today believe banning fully autos was a good idea because of alcohol prohibition violence.
History is a viscous cycle that repeats itself over and over again. The more ignorant about history the people, the quicker they fall back to their wicked self destructive ways repeating the cycle.
Everybody would know that if we hadn't been told the opposite throughout most of our existence. Future generations will believe banning all firearms was a good idea if the Abolitionists are successful over the course of the next 100+ years (yes, the leaders of this tradition have a long game in mind that was passed on to them from the previous generation of abolitionists). It will be done one small piece at a time and our great great great grandchildren will believe it was a good idea with the same veracity most people today believe banning fully autos was a good idea because of alcohol prohibition violence.
History is a viscous cycle that repeats itself over and over again. The more ignorant about history the people, the quicker they fall back to their wicked self destructive ways repeating the cycle.
"Alcohol prohibition violence" was the catalyst behind the National Firearms Act of 1934 which highly regulated full-autos, but did not actually ban them. Then along comes the Gun Control Act of 1968 that banned importation of any foreign full-autos. Finally, we have the Firearms Owners protection Act of 1986 that banned domestic production of full-autos. There was no criminal misuse of legally owned full-auto's that spurred the bans in GCA 68 or FOPA 86.
That is a great point. I like the word choice, catalyst. The violence in and of itself never actually bans anything. If one thinks of the bans as a pearl created over time composed of many layers of calcium and a grain of sand in the middle, the grain of sand is the catalyst on which the pearl is formed. It serves as the foundation on which the Abolitionists will, over time, build the pearl.
This is a constant that has happened throughout civilization. And anyone who does not look to other culture's rise and downfalls is doomed to repeat the mistakes.
The more the governments attempt to regulate and control the closer we come to the decline as a society. Eventually the populous will come to the point where they choose to no longer abide the control. If you look at the similarities between our society and the Roman society you will be very surprised. Their eventual downfall was a series of civil wars. Right now we are at war with our selves over drugs and no matter which side "wins" we all still loose. It may not be an all out civil war but it is just the beginning of more to come like prohibition that came before it. Should the Abolitionists be successful with their goal to attempt to gain absolute control and/or void the second amendment how long will it be before people rise up to force a change and all out civil war ensues?
Insanity -- Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Not far off from the truth IMHO, and what the government continues to do every day.
The options each communicate "something" about the readers who took the time to respond. I would not want the information that option would have communicated to be so readily available to those who want to discredit the people who support the 2nd Amendment.
They do everything they can to suggest we are a group devoid of intelligence. A large number of responses to an option like that would play right into their hands, even if respondents were just being facetious as I'm sure was your intent.
Last edited:
The post provoked some thought for me... mostly about the nature of knowledge, reason, and conceptual thought, which are fascinating subjects to me. I believe that every adult human being, save those with serious mental disabilities or injuries, has the capacity for reason. People can recognize and correct irrational thought, even if they have been taught nothing else from birth. However, it is only the exceptional human being who actually manages to overcome societal pressures and actually do this.
It is these exceptional thinkers who have been solely responsible for the advancement of the human race through the ages. If no one was capable of rejecting the philosophical paradigm of his time and culture, no human would have ever formed a language and been able to engage in complex conceptual thinking, and we would still be a race of beings with nothing more than a toddler's mental state... if our species was still in existence at all.
BTW, I agree with you that prohibition and fear of Pit Bulls are irrational. On the subject of fallacies, how about one of the big ones the U.S. political system depends on -- that people can be made party to a contract that they never agreed to, which was formed by men who died hundreds of years ago?
You make an interesting use of the term "abolitionist." I am friends with a group of folks who call themselves Abolitionists, but they use it a sense a lot closer to its 19th Century political meaning -- supporter of the abolition of slavery. They take that belief right down to its logical conclusion, and oppose all non-consensual forms of human interaction. I agree with them wholeheartedly in this, though I prefer the term "voluntarist" myself.
It is these exceptional thinkers who have been solely responsible for the advancement of the human race through the ages. If no one was capable of rejecting the philosophical paradigm of his time and culture, no human would have ever formed a language and been able to engage in complex conceptual thinking, and we would still be a race of beings with nothing more than a toddler's mental state... if our species was still in existence at all.
BTW, I agree with you that prohibition and fear of Pit Bulls are irrational. On the subject of fallacies, how about one of the big ones the U.S. political system depends on -- that people can be made party to a contract that they never agreed to, which was formed by men who died hundreds of years ago?
You make an interesting use of the term "abolitionist." I am friends with a group of folks who call themselves Abolitionists, but they use it a sense a lot closer to its 19th Century political meaning -- supporter of the abolition of slavery. They take that belief right down to its logical conclusion, and oppose all non-consensual forms of human interaction. I agree with them wholeheartedly in this, though I prefer the term "voluntarist" myself.
