Comment: You Falsely Frame The Situation and Debate

(See in situ)


You Falsely Frame The Situation and Debate

There is a '3rd side' of your postulation, not acknowledged except in passing near the end.

I believe you blithely dismissed and demonized them with the 'crazy militant' shot in an attempt to focus only on the two positions which both desire and demand gun-control, to differing degrees.

I am that third position.

I am not a crazy militant. I am a career professional with a family and living a responsible, peaceful, rich full life. I have something that seems to be lacking in the make-up of your 'two sides', that being a clear understanding of the Constitution, fundamental-liberties, collectivism vs individualism and the inevitable progression of society and government, no matter the 'system' claimed as governance.

My side clearly recognizes that people's liberty to keep and bear arms transcends the issue that you and the 'other side' attempt to frame as the argument. It is not about 'protecting one's self' from crime, or about preventing tragedies such as the one currently being used to whip up the hysteria de jour.

Self defense from crime is merely a positive byproduct of the bottom-line reason Amendment II exists.

What it is about, is ensuring that the people have the liberty and the ability of equipment, association, training and communication, to actually resist or throw off tyranny in government.

All one need do is look at what government currently (and historically) desires to do, with a mostly-willing populous (bans, prohibitions, limitations, restrictions, confiscations, international treaties and on and on and on) and you see the very circumstance envisioned by our founders and the very reason why Amendment II was adopted and enumerated.

What YOU seem to view as 'crazy militancy' is actually rugged-individualism, good citizenship and utterly responsible necessity, to provide a workable bulwark against people like you and against the globalist-collectivist government that we find ourselves under their boot-heel.

So, in your arguments, your musings, your attempts to frame an argument that merely ensures discussion as to 'how much' or 'what type' of this fundamental right do we concede to government, remember, that there are likely at least a million people who are on 'my side'.

Such people do not and will not continence either you or government disarming them of the very type firearms and equipment that is critically necessary to ensure the ability to resist tyranny in government. They will not simply be non-compliant if you or your government has it way and demands a turn-in or undertakes a confiscation. They will use whatever force necessary, including force of arms, to prevent it and defend ourselves against it. Understand very clearly, that not only will these 'crazed militants' resist in that eventuality, they will fire back and likely go on the offensive.

So, how many tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dead American men, women and children do you feel is acceptable to restrict the 'crazy militants', restrict the type of firearms that 'government allows' the people to have and in what locations and under what circumstances they may be permitted to have and use arms?

Well, how many?

How many dead government apparatchiks, military, police, ect do you desire to see dead in pursuit of your desires?

How many?

Oh, by the way, it isn't just that there is a 'right to self defense and people are bad', this issue encompasses the unfettered ability of the people in maintaining military equivalent arms and that many 'people AND government are bad'.

Just so you know.