Whether you're pro or anti, words to heed here

Hatcher's Armory
#22

Hell, I still like Ike.

I mean, what’s there not to like about the guy that championed a half-trillion dollar national infrastructure project against small-government objectionists that would be for free public use to all and which has proven to be a wildly successful driver of wealth and prosperity in America? Hell, dude even got his name on it. It’s almost a shame that its use has become so universal that most people don’t give it a second thought. He should get a whole lot more credit. Hard to believe there was a time in America when we didn’t have the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System available for us all to use whenever we want at no cost.

Hot take: it’s 2018, and Eisenhower – like Lincoln – is actually a Democrat. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#23

When I hear the words democrat or republican, it always sounds like they’re on opposing sides.
Unless they don’t mean what they are ascribed to mean? :confused:

Democrat or Democratic may refer to:
A proponent of democracy, or democratic government; rule of the people or rule by many.

Republican can refer to:
An advocate of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is usually associated with the rule of law

How can they be on the opposing sides when the law is supposed to be drafted by people that are elected by people into government in order to serve the greater good of the people? Unless they are not?

#24

Just came across them and one thing led to another, following the trail, and found them interesting. :smiley:

#25

That’s because they are. They’ve lost sight of the people they’re supposed to be working for because the ideological fight is too distracting and lucrative. People are inclined to protect and promote their tribe and I feel like the size of the country makes it hard for people to really see the entire country as “their own”.

The words Republican and Democrat have very little to do with what the words once meant. It’s just “Red” and “Blue” - “Right” and “Left”

The problem is even those terms are losing their usefulness.

#27

Yum, tastes like lowest common denominator!

#28

You gotta wonder why career politicos chose to be so and then vote them out come election time. :rage:

#29

Welll. Nothing against Ike, but attributing the Interstate Highway system to him? Nah. That project dated back to 1916, and the planning and fund raising for it went on for a long time before Ike had the office. If any one group could be named as most responsible, it would be the Bureau of Public Roads, which did all the design, legwork and planning of it for 30 years. Hell, Roosevelt took up the plan in 1938, and started pushing it just as Ike did, but the war stopped most funding for it. Eisenhower was just the first peace-time president after the wars, and he picked it up and ran with it because the whole country desperately wanted it, and he was phat cow with war swag and bond money. Driving more than 100 miles back then was an adventure. Driving a thousand was almost impossible.

I assert here, that the folks with the vision and having performed, the hard and often tedious work to get it done deserve the lion’s share of the credit.

Yep, bureucrats.

1 Like
#30

If the 2nd Amendment is to be used as the holy text upon which gun rights are justified, then one must concede (or risk appearing hypocritical) that there are 2 words in that same 2nd Amendment that must be given due respect:

‘Well Regulated’…(Militia)

It’s a false premise to entitle the subject line of the post as ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ gun. I’m a pro (non-high capacity) long arm advocate, yet possess critical views on handguns and non-traditional hunting weaponry.

Does my stance, as I’ve just described, ‘label’ me as ‘pro’ gun or ‘anti’ gun?

Or perhaps the truth is that there’s a vast middle ground where many like me stand. There’s PLENTY of room in the middle on this issue that needs to be seriously considered, and dare I say, respected.

I’ll probably stop following this post because I know where it invariably ends up (polarized and politicized) but my points are not on the extreme ends of this topic. They are (i like to think) reasonably based in the middle ground, neither ‘PRO’ nor ‘ANTI’.

‘Nuff said

2 Likes
#31

I am curious how you go from here

to here

If the point is to possess a fire arm commensurate with being part of a well regulated militia (regardless of your view on what that actually means today, or meant when written), what does hunting have to do with anything?

#32

Would you agree that the 2nd Amendment covers both ‘self defense’ and ‘hunting’-specific ownership scenarios? I do; That’s how I get from ‘x’ to ‘y’.

1 Like
#33

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

#34

The Supreme Court put the “collective right” argument down in Heller. The right to bear arms is an individual right. It did affirm reasonable limits on the right of the individual to bear arms much like what exists today in different states and municipalities.

Militias haven’t been a thing for more than a century since the creation of the National Guard in 1903. The 'Guard itself is a selective institution not broadly representative of the population and is essentially a professional force. Members of the National Guard don’t use and maintain their own weapons; they are taxpayer provided and kept at armories.

Since militias - volunteer, irregular forces composed of a broad mass of the citizens - have been all but done away with (Texas, Ohio, California being the exceptions with State Guard militia) - that awkward first clause of the 2nd Amendment has been rendered a bit moot.

As such, licensing, feature/type restrictions, registration and transfer regulations are generally acceptable per Heller; the broad refusal to allow firearms ownership is not. I recall that the plaintiff in Heller was unable to regsiter their handgun in DC - a pretty bland 1911 - because their regulations prohibited anything magazine-fed and was unable to get relief.

2 Likes
#35

It’s that ‘reasonable limits’ part of your reply that I am keying in on. Individuals, by nature, possess very INDIVIDUAL interpretations of what ‘reasonable limits’ mean. What’s reasonable for me may not be what’s reasonable for you. (<——the crux of the societal problem currently in place as it pertains to this topic).

So, if the interpretation of ‘reasonable limits’ cannot be consistently defined to the general satisfaction of the larger commonwealth at the ‘individual’ level (that interpretation varies considerably across ~350,000,000 American citizens), then it would seem reasonable that a larger governing body should be able to weigh in, free of undue influence. The nobility of politics has largely faded away in favor of positions largely driven by larger financial interests.

And this is where I tend to start seething.

#36

I predict that humans will forever be arguing the precise definition of ‘reasonable’. Within the bounds of Heller, that’s a decision left to states and localities, with predictable variations implemented. This is a consequence of the hierarchy of government authority our society has set in place.

Like you I’m not too interested in settling the issue here and now. I disagree with your stance but will leave it at that.

#38

There’s too much politics in this thread and not enough rubber band guns. (paging @mblatz )

Here’s a rubber band gun that uses a clip like an M1 Garand, and ejects the clip when it’s empty. Sadly, it doesn’t make a “ping” when it ejects, but I’m sure that could be figured out…

5 Likes
#39

I’m just gonna sit back and see how AR-15s stack up against this hypothetical tyrannical government with the force of the most expensive and well-equipped military in the entire history of humanity at its disposal. Just because it’s statistically fantastic at massacring children, doesn’t mean it’s effective as a military weapon, to say nothing of the enormous gap in tactics or training that exists between John Q. “Open Carry” Public and literally any modern military unit.

I’ll stick to voting, thanks. That’s a much cleaner way of overthrowing the government every 2 years. Now if only more people would get out and do it.

1 Like
#40

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” - Mao Zedong, in Problems of War and Strategy

If you don’t have a gun you only have the illusion of political power.

If you think that a lightly armed people can’t overcome a well armed army you need to read more about the Vietnam war.

Russell Ward

6 Likes
#41

Unclear…you are going to sit back and wait for a hypothetical situation? Or maybe you are going to sit back and hypothetically wait? Or hypothetically sit back and wait…

There are reported/estimated to be around three hundred million privately owned firearms in the U.S. spread out in ~100 million homes. The Federal government currently has ~2 million in the armed forces (combined active duty plus reserves).

Don’t forget to factor in that many active duty forces are typically kept overseas. Or that State militias/defense forces operate under the sole authority of state governments, and national guard unit operate under the nominal authority of state governments. Or that a non-trivial proportion of private gun owners are skilled hunters and/or veterans( i.e. ex-armed forces) and know their local regions far better than any non-local force. Or that federal troops are also citizens with mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters in the general population that they would be unlikely to take up arms against…just the opposite, in all likelihood.

I forget…which side did you say you would bet on? (hypothetically speaking, of course.)

There’s a reason we lost in Vietnam despite having “the most expensive and well-equipped military in the entire history of humanity”. And that we aren’t in same situation Venezuela is despite some of our politicians best efforts.

Wolverines!!

3 Likes
#42

Wolverines!!

I’m old enough to recognize that. For all you Kids out there the original “Red Dawn” is worth watching. Can’t say about the remake - didn’t see it.:grinning:

Russell Ward

3 Likes
#43

Voting is the (much) prefered method of replacing a government… but as people in Venezuela are seeing, that isn’t always possible. Sure a rifle against a tank won’t do much… but a well placed round from a rifle can take out the tank commander, or even the head of a corrupt government.

Cars and swimming pools are both much more effective at killing children.

4 Likes