Online users
???: Message   

The ACFs/Statists have bet everything on the belief that ultimately the population of the US will back down and be cowed into compliance.
Re: "I never thought I’d see this level of insanity in the United States of America." -- No one did, except for its perpetrators/enablers. -- TEEBONE Post Reply Top of thread Forum

Posted by: LateForLunch ®

11/18/2020, 12:10:44

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Most likely the ultimate result will be something in the middle. We will not have a full-on civil war over the 2A, but we will never rid ourselves of hoplophobes, Statists or Marxists who want to eradicate the Constitution so that they can shift from governing to controlling the masses.

The unhealthy obsession with control in pursuit of mastery has plagued the world for centuries. Smaller minds (with less education) are easily seduced into the false belief that more control=mastery. It doesn't. 

The belief that control=mastery derives from classically western-philosophy which ignores Natural Law. Mastery is only achieved in the real world by applying the right sort of control in the right circumstances. Doing that takes great wisdom and intelligence, so it is understandable why the inherent (cacogenic) feckless, blundering idiocy of ACFs makes trying to achieve mastery through legitimate means unappealing to them. 

I understand the dilemma the Powers That Be (and all of us) are currently facing. The up-side of high technology is greater general productivity, efficiency, innovation and quality of products and services for the world. The down-side is that every day improved weapons-technology makes it a little easier for one person to kill more than one person. 

So there must be a balance struck between chaos/tyranny which may be brought by too-much freedom (such as the freedom enjoyed by al Queda, ISIS, mass murderers, etc) and stability preserved by enough freedom to defend yourself and loved-ones. 

The PTB understand that the populations of the world's technocracies and of still-developing nations aspiring to first-tier economic status, need enough internal security to be able to function productively. The issue for the PTB in regard to the 2A is whether that security/productivity is better-delivered by restricting/outlawing firearms generally or by continuing with them being freely available. 

Of course, the U.S. Constitution does not recognize the PTB as having the authority to forbid/outlaw firearms generally, so those on the "control/restrict" side of the security issue are largely and increasingly anti-2A. As long as there is a strong Contitution with the 2A, there can be no compulsory removal of firearms ownership/use from the population. 

So that is one marginally-rational argument against the continuation of the 2A as the Law of the Land from the perspective of the Ruling Class. 

Since I am a student of history, I am firmly on the side of pro-2A because history has demonstrated repeatedly that it is horribly risky to trust government to be the only force in the world which possesses firearms/deadly weapons.

From my own perspective the risk to general security/stability of removing 2A protections is greater than the risk of preserving them. After all we are talking about small arms, not heavy weapons. Nobody who supports the 2A wants the freedom to have heavy weapons like artillery, bombs, heavy machine-guns or tanks stored on their property for personal use. 

Without heavy weapons those who would destabilize the globe in search of conquest or other ambitions are largely impotent. So restricting light arms ownership/use has zero positive effect on general security. The worst that can happen in having light arms in the general population is that occasionally fanatics/terrorists use them to commit mass murder. But no large-scale overthrow of civil order will ever be executed in our age by use of anything except WMD.

So the argument that removing the availability of small arms from the population increases security for global  infrastructure is spurious. 

This pro-2A view is bolstered by strong data which indicates that making small-arms harder to obtain through government action/force reduces stability, increases criminal violence so the argument that 2A is a threat to general freedom/prosperity holds no water. 







Modified by LateForLunch at Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 12:28:31


Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page