Jan 312013
No Gravatar

This is the second of a three part post, an installment each week for the next two weeks.  The first installment can be seen here.  The article was originally posted in its entirety at Common Sense Conversation and is reposted here in serial

Cover of "Rules for Radicals"

Cover of Rules for Radicals

form by its author.  It is the author’s sincere belief that we citizens of the United States are about to lose this country, at least as far as we (think) we know it as the freest country on the planet…and that once lost, it will be impossible to recover.

To understand the “gun argument, you have to first understand the players in the game:

The pacifists

Like Neville Chamberlain, the prime minister of Great Britain in 1939, just prior to the start of World War II, there are those in the United States that believe in appeasing aggressors, be they tyrannical governments or neighborhood gang thugs, and who believe there is no need for an armed citizenry, who truly believe getting rid of guns will reduce violent crime and slaughter as in what happened at Sandy Hook.  These people, who would rather be peaceful, non-violent slaves rather than passionate defenders of the constitution, are fortunately the smallest in numbers, of the three groups involved in the gun debate, and are the least dangerous to the constitution because, as in every fight, they are ultimately pacifists and appeasers and will not fight, even for something they believe in.

These are the people Samuel Adams was speaking of when he said, “If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

The constitutionalists

These are the people in the debate who believe in the rule of law, who believe that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and who would win the gun debate were it to be fought with reason and logic.  Oddly, this group of people are also the most moderate for that very reason…they believe in the rule of law and the principles ensconced in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  While this group (the author included) generally believe in the 2nd Amendment, they also acknowledge that there is a process by which the 2nd Amendment and legal gun ownership can be done away with…but that abolishment of gun rights should be done through the process of amending the Constitution, not by simply ignoring one of its precepts, if the right to “keep and bear arms” is to be done away with.

The radical left

This group, AKA “progressives” (though they are anything BUT progressive), should not be confused with Democrats, at least not “core” Democrats.  These are the collectivists, the “true believers” in a government that should be all controlling, all knowing, and obeyed without question.  These are the people Saul Alinsky was talking to in his book “Rules for Radicals” when he called for change at whatever the cost, when he said the end justifies the means…including if it means blood in the streets.

These are the people George Orwell was talking about in “1984”, the controllers in the 1971 Stanley Kubrick movie “A Clockwork Orange“.

Next week:  “Tell us about the 2nd Amendment (part 3, The Answers”.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bob@HayleStorm Interactive

Bob comes to us with a skeptical attitude and a full cup of Cantankerousness. He also writes about homesteading and yurts over at JuicyMaters.com and rants about politics at Common-Sense-Conversation.com Most of the time, though, you'll find him at HayleStorm.net, cranking out great websites for clients OR writing tutorials teaching them to build their own sites.

More Posts - Website - Twitter

  3 Responses to “Tell us about the 2nd Amendment (part 2, The Players)”

  1. But you forgot the sheep!

  2. Not really, Ralph…sheep are also called pacifists.

 Leave a Reply



CommentLuv badge

 is using WP-Gravatar