Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
How The Other Side Thinks
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2751788" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Yes... the "incompatible with modern society" line of thought is very prevalent with the other side. Fortunately, that myth is being debunked every single day that states liberalize gun laws and see no corresponding increase in violence. The states with virtually no regulation of gun possession or carry (the Constitutional Carry states) make a particularly great example. They allow the question to be put to folks: "what is it about the citizens of Maine, Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming make them more deserving of freedom than the citizens of _______?"</p><p></p><p>Part of the disconnect with the "other side" is that many of them have a much higher trust in government than those on "our side" of this particular issue. Distrust of government is what the original meaning of the 2A was all about. Remember it was the Anti-Federalists, who were anti-Constitution and believed it created too powerful of a national government, who insisted that it be added if we were going to be stuck with the scheme. Today, many on the "anti" side don't even recognize the simple truth that the essence of government is organized violence. They see it as some sort of benevolent institution, and believe that the persistent corruption and collusion with the powerful is just an aberration that can be corrected by the right policies, rather than the immutable, unchangeable nature of the institution.</p><p></p><p>Another meme that I see a lot with the antis is the idea that those who believe on the original meaning of the 2A are dangerous "insurrectionists." This one is undeniably true... insurrection is most certainly what it is all about. The challenge is making people see that this is not a bad thing. I like to ask people whether there is anything the government could ever do that would cause them to resist. If they can list anything at all, I say "welcome, fellow insurrectionist." The fact is all but the most pathetic state-fetishists have at least a few things that they would be willing to revolt over.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 2751788, member: 4235"] Yes... the "incompatible with modern society" line of thought is very prevalent with the other side. Fortunately, that myth is being debunked every single day that states liberalize gun laws and see no corresponding increase in violence. The states with virtually no regulation of gun possession or carry (the Constitutional Carry states) make a particularly great example. They allow the question to be put to folks: "what is it about the citizens of Maine, Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming make them more deserving of freedom than the citizens of _______?" Part of the disconnect with the "other side" is that many of them have a much higher trust in government than those on "our side" of this particular issue. Distrust of government is what the original meaning of the 2A was all about. Remember it was the Anti-Federalists, who were anti-Constitution and believed it created too powerful of a national government, who insisted that it be added if we were going to be stuck with the scheme. Today, many on the "anti" side don't even recognize the simple truth that the essence of government is organized violence. They see it as some sort of benevolent institution, and believe that the persistent corruption and collusion with the powerful is just an aberration that can be corrected by the right policies, rather than the immutable, unchangeable nature of the institution. Another meme that I see a lot with the antis is the idea that those who believe on the original meaning of the 2A are dangerous "insurrectionists." This one is undeniably true... insurrection is most certainly what it is all about. The challenge is making people see that this is not a bad thing. I like to ask people whether there is anything the government could ever do that would cause them to resist. If they can list anything at all, I say "welcome, fellow insurrectionist." The fact is all but the most pathetic state-fetishists have at least a few things that they would be willing to revolt over. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
How The Other Side Thinks
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom