The Real Reason They Hate the 2nd Amendment!

N

nralife

New member
The Real Reason They Hate the 2nd Amendment

by John R Morgan, MD
LR.com

The recent wrangling over votes, legitimacy, "the will of the people," and the Constitution has given us a unique opportunity to discuss the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

Do you think Al Gore and the people who voted for him are more afraid or less afraid to overstep their boundaries knowing that all of those red states that voted for Bush are filled with armed-to-the-teeth boys tired of being on the losing end of the incremental cultural war? You doubt that the young men in the heartland are armed-to-the-teeth? Just walk into any hunting and fishing store in America and watch. One by one they come – the dispossessed – buying their ammo and then absconding into the country to escape the new America and enjoy what remains of the nature that their forefathers once enjoyed.

I think Gore and his fellow socialists are very aware, and afraid, of this hornet’s nest. It is, subconsciously, factored into every move they make.

That’s the power of the Second Amendment! It is basically an implied threat – play by the rules or else. No one ever discusses it but we all know it is there. Imagine what the liberal socialist might try (and get away with) without this deterrent. Gore would probably already be the president-elect.

The liberals are at least pretending to play by the rules now. Without the Second Amendment, they would not even have to pretend.

The debate over the Second Amendment in recent years has focused on whether gun control increases or decreases crime. Conservatives have relied, predominately, on the research of John Lott. Liberals have relied on the pseudo-science peddled by such people as Arthur Kellerman at my alma mater, Emory University. First, let me state that true science cannot legitimately address such an issue (for various reasons way beyond the scope of this discussion). Secondly, the changes in crime due to gun control do not answer the fundamental philosophical question: do free people have the right to bear arms? Our Founding Fathers thought so; and our current political predicament must reaffirm their belief.

At the risk of sounding like an "extremist," allow me to adduce the following scenario: Bush supporters versus Gore supporters in a civil war. This would be a close fight – right? The election was essentially 50-50 – right? – gun toting, Daniel Boone-loving, heterosexual, God-fearing boys versus gun-hating feminists; gun-hating gays; and store-looting, city-burning urbanites.

To be honest, I like our chances. (For clarification, I’m one of the Daniel Boone fans.)

"What about the military?" you might ask. Well, we all know which candidate the military predominately favored in this election; and I do not believe that the soldiers have been inculcated to the point of killing their own kin. Basically, paleoconservatism would be legitimated in such a situation – blood is thicker than water.

The military would split.

The Second Amendment debate has been intentionally superficial in an effort to sway soccer moms. Liberals advance their agenda slowly behind a deceptive veil. The goal is gun confiscation under the pretext of stopping crime.

Soccer moms do not comprehend that they are being used (and conservatives fear they will frighten them by discussing the real issue). Liberal intellectuals, however, understand the real issue – an armed citizenry stands immediately athwart the door leading to their Utopia.

Apathy, borne of despair and maintained by cowardice, has been the emotion supporting political moderation in the heartland of America during my 31 years. I read about people before me who valued freedom and country enough to die for it. Now we do not even have the guts to demand legitimate debate concerning real problems.

I only wonder if somehow, someway, a sublime atavism will re-emerge from the apathetic heartland and restore our home. In the meantime, I hope our current election crisis has shed light on the importance of the Second Amendment. I hope we understand that if our backs are ever against the wall, there is one group of Americans who can save us; and to that group let me say: Boys, Never Give Up Your Guns!

December 5, 2000
John R. Morgan, MD, is a practicing physician in Atlanta.
 
Very good words, and very true- but what is the solution? The soccer mom comment is dead on. I think that 90% of liberals want exactly what conservatives want- a free country, where they can come and do as they please while remaining safe. Unfortunately, these people are blind to the direction of this end. They thrive on the 'fluffy' words that make them feel okay, and are simply not capable of opening their eyes to the truth. I think Jack Nicholson said it best- "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

Example One:
Gore has been saying the entire time that "every vote counts" and that we "can't dis regard certain voters- they all count" and above all "if a clear intent was made by the voter, we should count that vote". Okay, super. Wonderful. Great philosophy. You go Bert. Oh, but what about these military ballots where people may have made mistakes on the APPLICATION??? Apparently a few people sent their application for absentee ballots, and forgot to write things like their state or zip-code on the app. The election workers filled this in on the app for them so they could get their absentee ballots. The ballots were filled out and returned properly, but the claim by 'some liberals' which Gore supports- is that to alter the app in any way is illegal, and because we don't know which apps were altered, the only 'fair' thing to do is throw out all the absentee ballots cast in that county- over 4000 votes for Bush. Can you talk out of both sides of your mouth at once Al?? And people are still believing this goon when he talks about all the votes counting??? Get real people. This guy is lying his ASS off, but apparently 50% of you can't handle the truth.

Example Two:
Klinton News Network (CNN) covered a story yesterday about a black Baptist church in Florida and the Reverend of that church. They covered part of his Sunday sermon. What was he preaching?? He, as a 'responsible leader' was telling his congregation how they had been dis regarded. Their votes had been thrown out, and that they were oppressed. Why? They were in the county that had one of the highest counts of double punched, and not completely punched ballots.

Because people can't handle the truth- he couldn't find the gall to speak it to them, which would have gone something like this:
"You dumb shmucks. Yes, you were all slaves long ago. Even after free from slavery, you still had no right to vote. It was a long and hard fight to give you that right. Now you have that right. And in exercising that right, you manage to f*ck it up! You can't even read the instructions on your ballot? You wanted to vote so damn bad, but don't know enough about the government you are voting for to know that you only get to pick ONE person for President. Is this the message you want to send to America? That we are a bunch of un-educated morons? That's the image America has had of us since the beginning- and you're not helping us change that image."

No, rather than the truth, this Reverend tells these people to feel sorry for themselves in the situation their own damn stupidity put them in, THEN blame someone else for it! And beyond that, that all of America should come to its knees to make things right for them because they were too stupid to do it right the first time. Sound's pretty F'n typical doesn't it??

Anybody upset over reading any of these words? They are the dead truth my dear friends. Anybody finding offence (I feel anyway) falls into the Soccer Mom category from above. They simply can't handle the truth. And until people grow a hide, it will continue down this wayward path.

-Jest
 
Originally posted by NRALIFE:
At the risk of sounding like an "extremist," allow me to adduce the following scenario: Bush supporters versus Gore supporters in a civil war. This would be a close fight – right? The election was essentially 50-50 – right? – gun toting, Daniel Boone-loving, heterosexual, God-fearing boys versus gun-hating feminists; gun-hating gays; and store-looting, city-burning urbanites.
Click to expand...

You do sound like an extremist. You sound like a racist sexist bigot spoiling for a fight. You sound like someone who wants to take advantage of the situation as an opportunity to shoot up the segments of society you dislike.

I find that amount of venom appalling, especially coming from a Medical Doctor. It prompts speculation as to what sort of treatment a Black lesbian feminist would receive at your hands.

In a more general sense, I am heartily sick and tired of those who are calling for a second Civil War to solve this election with bloodshed. We have a legal system to resolve disputes. Let it work. If you don't like the result, you don't start shooting, you start planning for the next elections. That's how it works.
 
David,

Yes we have a legal system to handle the disputes, BUT the legal system doesn't always play by the rules set up by the system.

The Supreme Court of Florida has been accused of judicial creation of legislation. Congress frequently creates laws and then exempts itself.

It's fine to say start working the next election, but when election rules change after the election what good does it do?
 
Dave is on the money. The article is simplistic horsepoop which is a projection of the writer on the views of others.

Another example of the unreality which fills some of the RKBA crowd. You are spouting your own fears and have little insight into why some people want gun control.

But we won't convince you. Dream on.
 
Firemedic,

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it does have nonviolent avenues to change. You can vote for people who will change it, be an activist for legislation, and every citizen has access to the courts.

Accusations fly on both sides about the other side subverting the process. Yes, the Florida Supreme Court has been accused, but what about the Florida Legislateure getting ready to empanel their own electors to support the Governor's brother, hoping to pre-empt the courts on Dec. 12th? Why were Republican campaign workers allowed to fill in blanks on incomplete ballot requests, when Democrats were not allowed to do the same? How big a dent does a ballot have to have before it counts?

All of these questions can be decided by proper application of the legal process, and once dedcided, the remedies can be chosen and implemented.

Our system may not be perfect; IMHO we are in dire need of campaign finance reform and we should quit electing judges (as Florida, Texas and many other places do) and appoint them so that once in office they are not constrained by the need to get re-elected. Still, it beats the crap out of just about anyone else's system. I'd rather be here than a Falun Gong member, a Bah'ai in Iraq, a Russian without organized crime connections, or caught in the crossfire between rival drug cartels in Colombia.
 
Who are these soccer mom's that everyone tracks?

The statements about gun-hating gays and feminists spoke only to the radical, vocally-violent members of those groups. IMHO There was nothing racist in the statement unless you were refering to city-burning urbanites, but the author didn't specify race in that statement and people from many ethnic backgrounds participated in various riots over the last few years, so I don't see how that is racist.

As for the sexist accusation, the good doctor didn't say gun-hating women, he said gun-hating feminists. Alan Alda is a feminist and I think he is a man. :)

I believe that the important phrase was "gun-hating". I am a woman, but since I don't tend to hate inanimate objects I am not offended by what was said.

Finally, yes we have a legal system, but in case you hadn't noticed, it doesn't always work right. Judges are human and have prejudices like everyone else, and sometimes that causes them to make decisions that are not necessarily based on law.

Sorry, I'll be climbing down off my soapbox now. :)
 
I'm not sure it's true that GLBT people are statistically more likely than their neighbors to be "anti-gun rights." Certainly, the 25% of self-identified gays & lesbians who voted for Bush didn't do so because they believed Bush would be better for GLBT rights.

I'm not sure what you mean by "vocally-violent" members of the mentioned groups. Does that mean vocally advocating violence or using "violent language?" If the former, I haven't met very many feminists or queer people who advocate violent revolution as a reasonable alternative. I know many who believe in using violence in self-defense and some who believe in militaries and are in fact members of the U.S. military. I know a few people who do in theory believe in violent revolution and also define as feminist and/or queer. Very few of them, however, seem as deeply committed to gender politics as economic politics. (IE, they're straight white males who think identity politics is really a distraction from the real issues.) They also are not the type who would ever really think the time has come to have a civil war; if every time the left felt angry over something it took up arms this country would have turned into a right-wing dictatorship long ago (the right uses left-wing discontent to pass laws repressive to civil liberties).)
 
I reserve the right to bear arms in order to fight to maintain my freedoms and liberties. If you attempt to take those freeedoms from me I'll kill ya! :-) Pretty simple...ain't it?
 
Trying not to stray from the original thread, BUT . . . (sorry for the length)

JestersPlace's Example One is a case in point of twisting of the judicial system as well as exposing Gore's hypocrisy.

As I understand the "Seminole Situation", a computer program designed to print a number on the absentee ballot applications did so only on the ones for the Democrats. (As an ex-programmer I have to wonder how they did that without writing code specifically to exclude the Repubs. Normally, in those situations, you just add one to a counter and print the counter's contents. [Maybe nobody ran the Republican applications through the program].)

So, the Supervisor had the staff go over the applications and enter a filing number (illegal). The Democrats requested the same but were refused on the grounds that the Democratic applications had already been machine-numbered. (IMHO a bad move. They should have let the Dems see for themselves - unless there was some indication the Dems were up to some mischief.)

The case is before a Democratic judge who was passed over for promotion by Jeb Bush, which makes this case REALLY interesting. The current interpretation is: "Yeah, the supervisor, et al was wrong to do that, but since they didn't mess with the ballots themselves, there is no reason to invalidate them. However, the supervisor should be punished under existing law."

Whether the Dem judge will just impose fines/sentences or invalidate all the absentee ballots is up in the air. The latter is what has the Goron apologists' eyes glistening, hoping the judge will descend into pettiness. If that happens, it's just another case of one more judge being partisan to the point of detriment to the public.

At what point does the public yell ENOUGH!?
 
David,

I think that you read way too much into what the author had to say. He was only giving a hypothetical situation as an example of how the 2nd Amendment might come into play, and isn't calling for anybody to take up arms. Calm down and reread it.

Having said that, I don't agree that the people that he singled out, including liberals, are all our enemy. I don't care who or what anybody is as long as they are pro-gun and vote that way.


Joe
 
Just to clarify, by "vocally-violent" I meant people who scream obscenities at anyone who disagrees with them. And that is a very SMALL group of people. Most people who could be identified as gays or feminists do not behave negatively, they simply try to rationally discuss their position with others to explain why they feel the way they do. My original point was that I interpreted the author's comments to be directed at that very small group of people, not at the gay community or feminists in general.
 
Too many folks stereotype. I know one feminist who can outshoot many of the folks here. And I know that that little 130 pound critter can whup my 6'2" 350 pound butt...

The instant someone on our side whips out the stereotypes, we lose the debate.
 
Too many rkba folks babble about revolution when they can't figure out how to win an election. Is that different from Gore trying all his tactics?

If you can't get folks to vote for you - try again.

This is the relevant article:

http://www.newsmax.com/commentmax/articles/Dr._Michael_S._Brown.shtml

Does anyone thing that some atrocity against civilians or killing LEOs over a gun law will convince anybody?

Make arguments that work. I would remember you that minorities and women gained their freedoms primarily with civil disobedience and force of argument. While some fringes babble about revolution and took some small violent actions, they didn't help their causes - did they?

Perhaps if the main spokesperson wasn't an old coot in a toupee spouting about his cold dead hands to a bunch of conservative white guys - there would be some progress.

Why is it that someRKBA folks give up the debate so easily and want to fight or have sucidial fantasies of being surrounded by the Fed and think they will win?
 
I think that the author is correct in his assessment. Those who want to expand the powers of government hate the Second Amendment and rightly so. It was put in the Constitution for the express purpose of stopping them. I've seen enough quotations and commentaries about the authors and history of the Constitution to believe that they knew what they were doing by including the Second Amendment. They saw the threat of tyrannical government, even an elected government, for the threat to liberty which it is.

What amazes me, is to see people posting to this forum expecting that they will be able to argue or convince others to vote them their basic rights and freedoms. I suppose this might work in a perfect world, but then so would communism. In the real world communism doesn't work and governments always seek to enlarge their power over the people, unless the people remain ultimately in charge. The Framers of the Constitution knew this. The Second Amendment is there to make it clear that the people ultimately are in charge.
 
"Make arguments that work. I would remember you that minorities and women gained their freedoms primarily with civil disobedience and force of argument. While some fringes babble about revolution and took some small violent actions, they didn't help their causes - did they?"

Actually, I've heard it argued (and fairly persuasively) that they _did_ help their cause. The radical (and armed) black "liberation" crowd presented a very unpalatable alternative to the more moderate civil disobedience-and-rational argument folks. The Powers That Be (i.e., state and federal lawmakers) saw that they had a choice--they could deal with the civil rights advocates...or they could deal with a violent uprising. Whether or not the uprising would have accomplished anything was irrelevant--having a small but determined minority busily shooting people and breaking things isn't conducive to looking like you (the government) have everything under control. It was classic case of the carrot and the stick; the carrot was lots of civil rights advocates supporting you for being willing to advance their case (money and votes); the carrot was dealing with violent, dangerous terrorist groups. Our lawmakers dealt, and as a result we _haven't_ had a domestic version of the IRA engaged in low-grade warfare for the last thirty years.

Anyone who thinks that the threat of a significant minority taking up arms can't motivate a government to make concessions hasn't been paying attention. Appeals to arms should always be a last resort, if only because a) it's dangerous, and b) there's no going back. But it does work.
 
Good point, Al. However, the Black separatists were in the context of a mass movement for civil rights with effective demonstrations of nonviolence that won the sympathy of most sensible folks in the USA.

The RKBA violence will not be in the context of a mass movement that has much sympathy. The violent fringe will be seen as isolated nut cases and hunted down.

The IRA has much support also. The RKBA terrorists will have little support.

Has the low grade war in Northern Ireland freed those counties? No.

Do you really think a low grade war will restore gun rights?

Some idiot on glocktalk wants to blow up federal buildings.
Do you think this will help anything?
 
Nralife had a good suggestion back there, folks. The good doctor could have made his point much easier (with less offense) if he had only said Bush supporters tend to be pro-gun, pro-self-defense while Gore supporters tend to be the opposite. Which side would more likely win a physical conflict?

Well... at least that's what *I* understood him to mean. ;)
-----

Gjwandkids, could you e-mail me, please? :) Merci.
 
Enoch
Gun rights advocates operate in the context of a mass movement for civil rights. We are all fighting for our constitutional rights. Furthermore, this presuposses and includes all rights as enumerated by the constitution.

For the most part, we have all operated under the principle of nonviolence and I would hope that this would win the sympathy of most sensible folks in the USA as to our gun rights and freedoms. But we should not thus limit ourselves.

RKBA violence would be only a last resort and WILL be in the context of a mass movement that is individually acted upon and put forward without a central organizing body.
This is why any government forces allayed against our freedoms will find their efforts futile.

Therefore, any liberal, quasi-socialist government would find themselves fighting an "idea" and not some cohesive group that could be individually targeted. Independant action will or should arise from all segments and areas of society that seek to protect our rights.

Any such movement WILL have much sympathy. The violent fringe will be promoted as isolated nut cases by a liberal media and thus hunted down by their subservient government. Yet with carefull, independant, individual and isolated acts of violence designed to protect the rights of freedom loving Americans, the anti-gun, anti-freedom efforts of the government will be futile. There will be just too many people acting individually for any government forces to be effective. Sounds truly American...doesn't it?

People tend to take matters into their own hands when government seeks to deny them their rights. This is in line with the intent of our founding fathers.

As you have stated, the IRA may have much support but so called RKBA freedom fighters will also have the support of most pro freedom people and gun owners who seek to protect our rights and freedoms..

Has a low grade war in Northern Ireland freed those counties? No.

Do we really think a low grade war will restore our gun rights? I would say....YOU BET IT WILL!!!

Some idiot on glocktalk wants to blow up federal buildings and I would suggest to you that he represents only the tip of the iceberg.

Do you think blowing up s federal will help anything? My opinion is YES! Because it demonstrates the resolve of freedom loving people.

Enoch, I would say that this particular individual has foolishly made his feelings known to the public and thus he increases his probability of being caught should he actually decide to engage in such activity. But if each of us acts independantly for what we know is a common goal of freedom, then we can all be an effective force in waking up our politicians and thus the American people to the importance of our constitutional freedoms.

Thus, independent acts of violence designed to demonsrate the resolve of freedom loving Americans may act to persuade our legislatures that many Americans mean business when it comes to our freedoms. So far, our vote has not demonstrated that to the liberals as they continue to seek the end to out gun rights. Sometimes violent action is the only alternative.

Let me add that I act only as cheerleader in this regard as I know and understand that we are currently monitored. This post alone will bring scrutiny my way. So I may act only as cheerleader. If we are to maintain our effectiveness as freedom fighters, we must maintain anonimity, we must all act independantly to effect our freedoms. We all know what are our common goals under the constitution. What ever course of action you may decide has my support so long as the ultimate aim is the preservation of our freedoms. Just remember, the tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with blood!

PS, have you noted the degree to which the democrats are resorting to throw the election in the seminole county vote?
Given the degree to which they would go to deny votes to people based on a small technicality in abentee applications illustrates that they will not hesitate to stoop to any level to acheive their ends. That is truly un-american! They have deservedly incurred the wrath of the American people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top