The Comment Of The Day Weekend concludes with a short but trenchant installment by Still Spartan. It does the metaphorical heart of old Ethics Alarms good to see such spirited and unequivocal defenses of free speech here in response to a shocking flirtation by a major news network with the idea of banning “hate speech,” publishing Noah Berlatsky’s juvenile opinion piece.
(Believe it or not, there are two more Comments of the Day waiting from the same post.)
Does this confirm the frequent accusation that the blog is over-subscribed by conservatives? Perhaps. Nobody here seems to be defending Berlatsky, and of late, I can’t recall any conservatives or Republicans claiming that “hate speech” isn’t protected by the Bill of Rights. Just people like Berlatsky, his two confused law professors, CNN star Chris Cuomo, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (guess what party?) former DNC Chair and Vermont Governor Howard Dean, Black Lives Matter, the Democratic mayor of Portland, Vox, indoctrinated college students, professors like Berkeley leftist George Lakoff, and college presidents.
Are there any votes for Donald Trump in that group? Never mind Trump: Mitt Romney? Any Bush? John McCain? James Madison? Voltaire?
Here is Still Spartan channels Voltaire in her Comment of the Day on the post, An Ethics Alarms Holiday Challenge! Identify The Rationalizations, Logical Fallacies, Falsehoods And Outright Errors In This Essay Advocating Limits On Speech…
I have liberal friends who think counter-protesting or banning certain speakers on college campuses truly is the way to a more peaceful and enlightened society. I have conservative friends who are outraged/disgusted at gay pride parades, and quite frankly would be more comfortable going back to the days where gay men hid in heterosexual marriages or became that special uncle who remained a life-long bachelor.
Why is it so challenging to comprehend that ALL speech has to not just be defended, but vigorously defended? In a country that is so polarized, I certainly do not want President Trump and his DOJ determining what is okay for me to speak and write. Similarly, I am sure that many people would be uncomfortable if a President Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders had that power. And with the NSA having the power to capture information on any citizen with a click of a button, we all have to scared if the right to speech is encroached.
While it is easy to poke at certain liberals for that jaw-dropping logic on free speech, some of the blame needs to be shared by white conservatives, who largely remain silent on issues of racial, gender, and economic equality. And I understand that these conservatives are not necessarily doing so because they are against equality, but simply because time is limited and you can only get your dander up so many times while holding down a job and supporting a family. But silence often reads as acceptance, which then leads to the problem of liberals thinking they are only ones who stand against extremist views.
The Handmaid’s Tale should be required watching/reading for all college students (I actually think the series is better than the book). Regardless of your political views, you have to retain the right to speech, associate, religion in the people. The government cannot get involved or you might be the one who ends up in a red dress.
I am not a gun owner, and I don’t subscribe to the belief that a citizen militia could successfully oppose a modern day U.S. military. But the day that the government infringes on my speech is the day that I apply for a gun permit. Maybe I can take out one or two of these bastards at least before I am gunned down.
Ethics Alarms 
Perhaps the reason that some conservatives are silent on the issue of free speech, it that they want to keep their job particularly if they work in a setting such as higher education, the media, or other institutions dominated by liberals. Having a family to support and expressing politically incorrect view puts you at risk of not getting tenure, promotions, and so on.
Not everybody has the stuff to throw caution to the wind letting the chips fly as they may.
I have to disagree with that, Wayne. Being private in their opinions is nothing new with conservatives, about as much as being liberal calls for letting everything hang out or shout out. I never had the least problem finding out what was going on in Democrat heads — it came out of their mouths on every possible occasion, nor with the Republicans I knew (about half my high school class, most of my neighbors growing up, and almost all the people I lived among in Colorado on and off over 20 years 1953-1980). With the exception of sad racist/fascist slogans propounded by David Duke and a few other madmen and -women constantly in the public eye, it was live-and-let-live as far as individual choice and controversial subjects went. I learned to read faces: pursed lips, a slight squint, a taut jaw with head cocked a bit to one side, an air of polite but casual concentration. Sometimes there was a sort of a nod or a bit of a tight smile which I learned early on to take as “oh yeah? I don’t think so, buddy” rather than “I’m with you, man!” I learned from Lefties to speak up and speak out; I learned from Righties to listen, and keep my own counsel.
The largest local gay bar was about two-thirds Right and had its share of good ol’ boys who treated the city kids like puppies, and didn’t mind teaching the greenhorns how to hold a cue or try to fill a straight. They really enjoyed teaching whatever skills they had, not least because pool and poker were a small but lucrative sidelines (as one empty-pockets muttered: “more than one kind of hustler around here”). But they would have preferred death to living in San Francisco. They were not closeted and didn’t care who knew who they were. They were adamant about their individual rights as far as sex, and pretty much everything else, was concerned, used “queer” instead of “gay”, and went tight-jawed about “flaunting” and “fairies” because they couldn’t see the purpose of it besides showing off. They tended to the conventional while the danger of being outed (job loss, social ostracism, etc.) and a liking for a little rough sex was on the liberal side, a la Oscar Wilde. The Lefties tended to be snobbish about those who worked with their hands or recreated outdoors (big surprise!) even when those were among the leaders in the city, and the wisest, including the bar owner and his lover, a rare bi-partisan couple. The military police never bothered the Hide ‘n Seek.
My friends, co-workers, students and neighbors would chat about whatever was in the news, including abortion when Colorado looked like it would become the first state to liberalize it via a totally Republican legislature (50 years ago last year). Only one subject was taboo: the War. Absolutely no one talked about it, whether they worked on one of the bases, were serving themselves, or had family in uniform, or in federal prison for not wearing one. There was racism, if it can be called that. Rather more a logical outcome of being at war, anti-Asian (“gook” was the word – now there’s “hate speech” for ya) though everyone knew there was considerable resentment of many enlisted men toward Black officers . . . which they got over pretty quick once they got to Nam. Demonstrations and protests were small, short-lived and considered successful if at least two people got arrested. I went to them if I wasn’t working. As far as I know, I was the only person in my neighborhood not to go to any church. People I didn’t know would come up to me and ask questions about both, and sometimes get into polite discussions, declaring their preferences (or non), but no one ever came around to get me to vote one way or another, or join them in Bible study, or have any problem asking me to stay with their kids while they went to a funeral or to visit great-aunt Sally in the hospital. When a friend and I put together a political action commune and went to live in another part of town, no one turned their backs as I had half-expected; they were curious, wanted to talk more than they had before, and respected my commitment as I respected theirs regardless, in some cases, including my landlady’s, of deep disapproval (so long as their teenage kids didn’t want to join up!).
Many of us still exchange Christmas cards and once in a while a gay family member emerges, wings still damp, and the grandparent sends them to see me, and asks me to look out for them in wicked San Francisco. They are just as right-wing as their grands and parents are, but not at all as defensive as most young Republicans are on, say, a California college campus or being a bug-eyed tourist. There is still a live-and-let-live attitude in the Right generation and a tendency to take in new ideas without automatically judging them, of being fair, even ethical, if you will. it is to their elders that I owe my being a (sometimes) respectful follower of Jack Marshall and understanding the majority of those who comment so negatively about “the other side” here. It was one of my old Colorado buddies (who follows EA) who suggested I not challenge commenters’ prejudices with my own. Smart fellow. Helped me choose my first handgun and my last dog, taught me how to use one and train the other, talked me into leaving both with him when I left Colorado for my final home.
“But the day that the government infringes on my speech is the day that I apply for a gun permit.”
Come on now, when it gets to that point, why not just apply for a speech permit? I mean, if appealing for government permission is an acceptable infringement on one Constitutionally-protected right, why would it be beyond the pale to encroach on any another right that is protected in the same way?
This why some of us “shall not be infringed” types are so adamant. If you surrender any of your rights, you may as well surrender them all. It’s a package deal, with each right supporting and defending the others. You can’t have freedom of religion without freedom of speech. The right to keep and bear arms won’t last long if you can outlaw any communication about guns. The right to speak freely could be easily undermined if those who spoke freely didn’t have the Fourth Amendment protecting them from constant government harassment. And of course, the threat of effective, efficient violence embodied in the Second Amendment is the backstop that keeps encroachment on our rights from being too egregious. It still happens over time, to be sure, but those 400 million Sword-of-Damocles guns out there force the totalitarian-minded to take smaller bites.
The First Amendment has more supporters in this country than the Second Amendment, so if you wait until the 1A is gone before exercising your 2A rights, you’ll probably find that you missed your window of opportunity on the latter.
And once those windows close, they will never open again, short of violence.
why not just apply for a speech permit?
I thought I’d imagined the worst of the current slippery slide, but that is one hell of a chilling thought. The only thing worse would be thinki… oh … no.
I recall reading something last week about a college that required a “free speech permit” in order to demonstrate or have a public speaking event. Private property rights notwithstanding, it’s still creepy to hear those three words grouped together like that.
I posted about it!
Mystery solved!
Thanks for the nod. Usually I am COD because you want to point out how wrong I am!
COTD. I’m from Boston: you’d be COD if I were hungry. But it does rhyme with NOD…
As I recall, I liked it when I read it the first time, and I like it just as much now.
Still Spartan,
As I said before…
Great comment and it’s certainly COTD worthy!
I only have one real point to make about something you wrote, “…white conservatives… largely remain silent on issues of racial, gender, and economic equality”. The problem with talking about this particular issue is that many people, Progressives in particular, simply don’t understand that “equal opportunity” does not mean “equal outcomes”. The primary discussion that every Progressive want’s to talk about (at least all the Progressives I’ve talked with) is about “equal outcomes” and if people don’t get that “equal outcome” Progressives immediately blame it on discrimination.
We need to have the right discussion, not the Socialist discussion.
Bingo.
Not agreeing with the Left on what “equality” means is not the same as silence.
Thinking the entire discussion the Left wants to have on ITS terms is not the same as silence.
Well, acknowledging that there is gender, economic, and racial inequality is the first step. Everyone disagrees on how to solve problems, but you first have to acknowledge the problem before we can have the discussion.
Thank you for the compliment Zoltar.
Still Spartan write, “Well, acknowledging that there is gender, economic, and racial inequality is the first step.”, “…you first have to acknowledge the problem before we can have the discussion.”
Then the “problem” must be properly defined so the discussion can take place.
Still Spartan write, “Everyone disagrees on how to solve problems”
Amen to that Spartan, Amen!
Still Spartan write, “Thank you for the compliment Zoltar.”
You’re welcome.
I’m firmly conservative by today’s standards, and of course I acknowledge that racial inequality exists. Everyone knows that it exists as a matter of material fact. I’m not aware of the existence of any conservatives who don’t.
What liberals seem to be implying is that if conservatives don’t subscribe to the Left’s solutions (basically socialism and more socialism) then they aren’t acknowledging the problem. I don’t find that fair.
Conservatives have plenty of evidence-based solutions for racial inequality. In fact, minorities in Republican regions generally have the least income inequality and social inequality.
You might not like my personal solutions (more private and charter schooling, more interracial adoption, more “color blindness”, cultural change that emphasizes personal responsibility, more church involvement and Christian revival, massive shredding of government red tape on small businesses, more free markets, less aggressive policing, demolition of government employee unions,) but I’m surely aware of the problem. I like to believe that we all care about people and want ultimately the same things.
Equality before the law is really the only one that matters.
Yep, it’s “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happyness” as I recall in The Declaration Of Independence. That’s an opportunity not a guaranteed outcome.
“While it is easy to poke at certain liberals for that jaw-dropping logic on free speech, some of the blame needs to be shared by white conservatives, who largely remain silent on issues of racial, gender, and economic equality.”
Conservatives are not silent on these ‘issues’.
And if they were, how is does that undermine free speech, where conduct and attitudes by the left are suppressant of free speech?
I didn’t say that it undermined free speech. I said that conservatives are part of the problem. For example, I don’t make excuses why I am late for work, missed a payment, forgot to renew my license, etc. The mistake is on me so there is no “excuse.” However, I might have an “explanation” on why those things might have happened.
There is no excuse for liberals wanting to ban speech, but I do have an explanation.
‘But the day that the government infringes on my speech is the day that I apply for a gun permit. Maybe I can take out one or two of these bastards at least before I am gunned down.”
The day the government effectively infringes on your speech will be the day after you no longer can get a gun let alone a permit.
There’s a problem in your scheduling.
Is freedom of speech the only freedom that would incite you to rebellion?
Congratulations on the COTD.
Classical liberals (I include myself in this group) and true conservatives share a lot of common ground. Instead of embracing that where we can, the typical conservative response here is “well, great, that’s awesome that you defend free speech, but what about ….” and then fill in the blank with abortion, death penalty, gun rights, states’ rights, taxation, etc. (And let’s not forget Alizia who grasps at every opportunity to try and advance her absurd white agenda.)
So, I will not answer your question about what else would incite me to rebellion because quite frankly I am tired of answering questions here. It’s one of the reasons I don’t comment as often because it then turns into a 20 or 30 comment sub-thread. Instead, I will answer your question with another question (even though I am pretty sure I know the answer already). Imagine a United States of America where the Second Amendment was amended such that guns were outlawed unless you are a member of a state militia, police force, or military. (I know it’s hard to imagine, but please accept the premise.) Would you comply? I’d love to hear other voices on this hypothetical as well.
By the way, thank you for the compliment, and I know you’re not trying to agitate me in the least. I appreciate your commentary here Tex.
“I am tired of answering questions here. It’s one of the reasons I don’t comment as often because it then turns into a 20 or 30 comment sub-thread.”
As often as not answers lead to more questions. I don’t mind answering substantive questions. The real problem is cross-examination where the questioner is trying to lead you into trapping yourself so he can zing you later.
You’re probably right. Also, there are just not a lot of liberal voices here. Where’s Chris today? He usually handles the burden.
He’s over-burdened, and needs help. But he was all over the place the last four days.
The knee-jerk brigade misses deery, who I fear is gone for good. You and Charles are too open-minded and fair to be reliable defenders of the Right Side of History.
Deery still reads here (I know) but chooses not to comment. Who here is the knee-jerk brigade, liberals or conservatives? But this blog does need to entertain more liberal voices — I don’t pretend to know how to go about achieving that result.
Still Spartan wrote, “But this blog does need to entertain more liberal voices…”
I agree.
Some of us just got too busy to be regular anymore. And I was never the pithiest anyway. Jack knows how liberal I am, but I hope he thinks of me as not one of the knee-jerk idiots, too.
You are too modest. I’ve enjoyed all of your comments. I rate you as “fair, observant and rational.” Though you do give in a bit more on Facebook, you know you do…
Jack Marshall wrote, “You are too modest. I’ve enjoyed all of your comments. I rate you as ‘fair, observant and rational.’ “
I agree with this.
If you figure it out, let me know. It’s a tough crowd. I’d also like more women, though we have more female regulars than ever before. More non-Americans, for perspective. Definitely more African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian-Americans.
Jack Marshall wrote, “If you figure it out, let me know. It’s a tough crowd. I’d also like more women, though we have more female regulars than ever before. More non-Americans, for perspective. Definitely more African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asian-Americans.”
Unfortunately we are in the midst of a public mentality driven by social media that thrives on their “friend” echo chambers and many people absolutely refuse to be put in a position where their “settled” thoughts are directly or indirectly challenged.
How the heck do you bridge this kind self-imposed chasm in ideological thinking?
Sadly, I don’t think you do.
I dunno, Jack, I think what we need are more THINKING members of those groups. Women we’ve got, thinking and otherwise, of whom Sparty appears to be the most intelligent. She’s hopelessly liberal 😀 but not a proto-fascist the way many liberals are trending.
I am certainly open to hearing Americans of color tell their stories and how they come to their view of the world, but I really don’t think this discussion, or any discussion, would benefit from knee-jerk Black Lives Matter advocates starting every post with “uhuru!” and spouting the party line or La Raza folks accusing those of us who are pro-law enforcement of wanting to deport their abuelita a la that “cursing kids” anti-Trump ad.
Non-Americans are a mixed bag. With the language barrier being what it is, you would probably get mostly Anglophone folks: Canadians, Brits, Irish, Aussies, NZers, Caribbean islanders, South Africans, and maybe some Indian and Pakistani folks, (English is still big on the subcontinent). You might get a smattering of other Europeans and possibly some Japanese and “Tigers of the East (ROK, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong)” folks. Maybe you would get a few Israelis
Again, I see no problem with folks from other countries introducing a different perspective, in some cases a very different one: technology and social changes pulling traditional Irish and Indian societies ahead perhaps a bit faster than they expected, tradition saying “not so fast,” Pakistanis and South Africans still grappling with the often dark and divisive past, the Confucian ethics that often power the Tigers, or Israelis dealing with a world of many 9/11s and a surrounding culture that wants them all dead.
What I don’t think anyone would benefit from are non-Americans who also dislike America: the sneering Canadian who wonders rhetorically why the US still hasn’t socialized medicine, abolished capital punishment, and apologized for everything, the bored continental European who jokes that the difference between America and yogurt is that in 4 centuries yogurt would produce a culture, the snide NZer who tells us “nice job coming in second in Vietnam,” and pokes at the fact our navy couldn’t dock in their nation for 33 years (the USS Sampson finally dropped anchor there in 2016), and Trump-haters of all stripes. Those folks shouldn’t be welcome.
“He’s over-burdened, and needs help.”
So many shades of meaning.
Jeez, I can’t take a break from the Internet for one day? 😉
To be honest, I did keep up with Twitter yesterday, but this site requires a higher level of discourse, and I don’t always feel up to putting in the mental effort. Catching up on a day missed is difficult; I have no idea how Jack manages to update this site as much as he does. I am always excited to see Spartan post, as well as others who don’t comment as frequently as they used to.
Still Spartan wrote, “Imagine a United States of America where the Second Amendment was amended such that guns were outlawed unless you are a member of a state militia, police force, or military. (I know it’s hard to imagine, but please accept the premise.) Would you comply?”
Hell no!
The United States would have to be under martial law with the United States military backing the government before they could even try something that foolhardy. No question about it, it would immediately start a civil war.
I don’t think you answered my question. 🙂 Assume that the Amendment was properly ratified.
Still Spartan wrote, “I don’t think you answered my question. 🙂 Assume that the Amendment was properly ratified.”
I did make that assumption and that is exactly why I answered your question very directly and elaborated the way I did.
I don’t think there’s a chance in hell any future Constitutional amendment gets ratified. Unless Armageddon actually happens. Like the biblical kind of thing. There aren’t enough people in Congress, much less in enough state houses/senates, to make any agreement of the sort. Because NOW people worry about setting a precedent, and those opposed would NOT want to set a precedent AND allow what they dislike to pass. I think the ERA proved it. Yeah, call me a cynic. I’m not usually, but on this? Nope. Nevah happen…
I could see a Constitutional Convention being called. And it would be an existential disaster.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/12/13/the-democrats-are-apparently-determined-to-be-the-asshole-party-and-they-should-be-called-on-it/#comment-490314
Becky wrote, “I don’t think there’s a chance in hell any future Constitutional amendment gets ratified. Unless Armageddon actually happens.”
Think of it a little differently and you get this; Armageddon might be the result of a Constitutional Convention in today’s extremes oriented political climate.
Bingo. I just don’t think *anyone* who has levers of power also has enough buddies they’d invite to the party anymore, OR enough who would come if invited. Both parties are currently competing in a zero-sum, years-long game of ‘party of no’ chicken.
1. Re answering questions. Nothing requires you to answer a question. Or as Ogden Nash said,
“If called by a panther
Don’t anther.”
2. You won’t get any conservative, or even a rational moderate, to bemoan “economic inequality.” The fact that some people make more money than others is a feature, not a bug, of liberty and capitalism. The system that mandates economic equality is called Communism.
Liberals don’t want communism, we want equal opportunities.
Still Spartan wrote, “Liberals don’t want communism, we want equal opportunities.”
Liberal voices are being snuffed out by Progressive voices. Do something about it; make your voice heard!!!
Equal economic opportunities is something else. Absolutely essential, and a worthy goal.
Jack Marshall wrote, “Equal economic opportunities is something else. Absolutely essential, and a worthy goal.”
^ ^ ^ DITTO THIS! ^ ^ ^
See, this has always perplexed me. I have heard this stated by liberals more than once, and every time I come away confused.
Equality of opportunity exists now, if admittedly imperfectly. We can never do away with human nature, which will always find adherents to “othering” people who look different, believe different, act different and think different. Never.
What liberals seem to mean is to counteract human nature by providing extra boost via government law and regulation for those who get “othered,” but there’s no way to equitably do that. For years, there have been a number of initiatives designed to compensate for racial discrimination, but what that’s ultimately done is create another kind of inequity that flies in the face of American capitalism and fairness, and with which the courts are becoming impatient due to the burdens it places on constitutional rights.
Corporations and other businesses can place burdens on opportunity, but they generally do that by inciting local governments to produce red tape in the name of public safety, i.e. the absurd licensing of beauticians and other occupational red tape, in order to protect their own interests. That greatly impedes economic opportunity and also burdens equality, especially in disadvantaged areas.
Both the left and right are guilty of this sin, as you can see here. But businesses and corporations also do this by creating regulatory burdens in federal law, and that mostly falls on the left. The Obama administration alone increased the regulatory burden by an estimated $122 billion annually. This is because liberals, in general, are more receptive to “if even one life is saved/person helped by regulation x, it is worth the damage to our liberty” argument — except, of course, when it comes to abortion. But that’s beyond the scope of this complaint.
So if you want equal opportunity, ask your liberal friends to support occupational licensing reform locally and regulatory reform nationally, and lay off the “one life” non-argument. To me, that would be a hell of a start.
“Equality of opportunity exists now, if admittedly imperfectly.”
That’s the subject for another post. Suffice it to say that I disagree.
Jack, I’ve seen conservatives bemoan economic inequality. I think you’re setting up a strawman; you realize that liberals are not calling for perfect economic equality, just a reduction in the degree of inequality? Certainly you also you recognize that there are degrees of economic inequality, and that there would be a certain level of economic inequality that would be unacceptable?
What anyone else makes should not have any bearing at all on what whether another individual regards his or her income as adequate or not. The concept that gaps in wealth and income exist devolves rapidly into envy and calls for confiscation, as in Occupy Wall Street. What matters: does the system adequately and fairly reward effort, skill, talent, risk and enterprise? Are all treated equally within a fair market? Is greed discouraged within the culture? Do all citizens have a fair chance to have sufficient wealth?
I think it’s unlikely that economic inequality will be very high in a society where the answers to all those question are “Yes.” A high degree of economic inequality is thus a sign that something is wrong. It’s a symptom.
I agree that its a symptom. Of what, I’m not certain. My leftist aunt, to this day, goes into rants about how no baseball player is worth millions of dollars a year,especially when teachers only make, say 50,000. Well, a teacher is easy to replace, and Mike Trout is impossible to replace. He’s actually paid what he is worth to his employers. The public’s priorities determine what teachers are worth. Now, I think players who make 20 million dollars a year should be raised in a culture that encourages them to give back, but it’s their choice. How do we “bridge the gap”? Find a way to pay good teachers better than average ones, and uniquely good ones most of all. The NEA makes that impossible. It’s a complicated set of problems, but meat-axe approaches like putting restaurants out of business by raising the minimum wage too much is lazy and wrong.
Why is that necessarily a sign that something’s wrong? There really are lots of people out there that either lack talent, drive, initiative, creativity, a desire to be law-abiding, or luck.
“What matters: does the system adequately and fairly reward effort, skill, talent, risk and enterprise? Are all treated equally within a fair market? Is greed discouraged within the culture? Do all citizens have a fair chance to have sufficient wealth?”
I think most on the left would say “no” to these questions, but I think that they have an unfortunate tendency to confuse correlation with causation, or to fail to consider other variables (rather than things like systemic racism) that explain the outcome disparities.
Hi Spartan. I enjoyed your thought provoking COTD.
If the 2nd Amendment were amended per your hypothetical, then it would no longer be the 2nd Amendment. I will say that while I don’t currently own a firearm, if I saw even a glimmer of such an amendment I would purchase as many as possible as quickly as I could. The slightest threat of something like that would sell guns faster than they could be manufactured. Look at the boom in sales after Obama was elected. Just the threat of increased gun control more than doubled sales. The same would surely have occurred if Clinton had been elected.
As far as an armed citizenry not being able to successfully oppose the military, keep in mind a few points. The first is that to successfully oppose the government, the citizenry does not have to totally defeat the government, they only have to not lose. In the Civil War, the Confederacy would have “won” if the United States had quit prosecuting the war. Secondly, the military is made up of people who have their own agendas and beliefs. The military will remain loyal against an external enemy of the United States but will not remain united when asked to kill their friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens. Another point often not considered is that as soon as a civil war type conflict develops the citizens will obtain military grade weapons by theft or by having dissatisfied members of the military hand them over or sell them.
Remember the Alamo! Coming from the Higher Education Council of the city where that symbol of Texas liberty stands: Hate Speech Is Not Free Speech
“Damn the torpedos!” (from the left) “You may fire when ready Gridley.”
“Imagine a United States of America where the Second Amendment was amended such that guns were outlawed unless you are a member of a state militia, police force, or military. […] Would you comply?”
I don’t think I would. Much like the final sentiment in your excellent COTD, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are lines in the sand for me. Doing away with either the 1A or 2A would mean that America would exist in name only from that point on. My allegiance is not to America-the-name, but to America-the-idea, the collection of ideals that formed the nation. Like any group of humans, we have failed to live up to those standards from the very beginning, but we can continue to strive to meet those lofty ideas. If you completely strip away any of the fundamental human liberties embodied in America-the-idea, then America-the-name is just a meaningless label on the same old authoritarian game that humanity has been playing for centuries.
In other, more strident words (words that I genuinely hope I would have the character to live up to if it came down to it): tree of liberty, tyrants, patriots, etc, etc… 🙂
“Imagine a United States of America where the Second Amendment was amended such that guns were outlawed unless you are a member of a state militia, police force, or military. (I know it’s hard to imagine, but please accept the premise.) Would you comply?”
No.
Still Spartan wrote, “I am not a gun owner…”
Please don’t publicly announce things like that. It’s nobody’s business if you have or don’t have a firearm.
Still Spartan wrote, ” “…the day that the government infringes on my speech is the day that I apply for a gun permit.”
1. Please, please if you honestly think that way then get your firearms now and get some level of safety training so you won’t be a danger to yourself and those around you if the need arises.
2. By the time the government is intentionally infringing on your speech your right to own a firearm will likely be suppressed so badly that you won’t be able to get a firearm or the ammunition to put in the firearm.
My brother has over 50 guns. I am sure he can spare one or two.
Some would consider that an arsenal. 😉
To be clear, I probably should have said “around 50.” I know he inherited all of my dad’s when he died, so he has a ton (or perhaps an arsenal), but I’m not sure of the exact number.
And yes, I am bad with guns. My dad tried to teach me years ago. I literally couldn’t hit the side of our barn. [Insert your own joke here.]
https://www.glocktalk.com/attachments/img_0505-jpg.314507/
We have guns for every skill level.
“…years ago.” You need to take another run at it. Back then, regardless of what your father did, you did not see where there could ever be a time or place where you would ever need to use a firearm. from your post (and congtats on the COTD) you now can see circumstances where one might come in handy. This more mature mindset will do wonders for your ability to learn. Millions on “non-shooters” have become proficient with firearms after that relatively short 8 week trip through Basic Training where the need for that skill was made pretty obvious..
As mentioned above, don’t wait too long. Certainly that well stocked brother could be of some aid here.
And… an adjustment to 2A where only the police and military have the guns is the very essence of what 2A is about, not to mention, the military and the police will not be acting against their friends and relatives the same way the do against the outside enemies of the nation. Trust me on that one.
I have no interest in becoming a gun owner, and more importantly, I have no business being a gun owner. I am stressed out enough being a full-time mom and the bread winner for my family. Most days, I can barely find my car keys.
If the great insurgence happens, I doubt I will be used as a soldier. But I have other skills ….
You forgot to add, “heh,heh,heh.”
Ha! Actually, I bring animal husbandry and agricultural skills. I’ll be fine.
“Some would consider that an arsenal.”
Here in Texas, some would consider that merely “a good start”. 😉
“equal opportunity” does not mean “equal outcomes…and if people don’t get that “equal outcome” Progressives (and others) immediately blame it on discrimination. (Zoltar Speaks)
The above comment is an unfortunate truth.
To persons I know, it means the same thing, this I have little doubt.
Until this simple premise is fully understood and explained nothing will proceed forward.
I root of major misunderstandings can be traced back to assumed intentions and unclear definitions.
But it’s impossible to keep an observed line between the two. If someone falls short despite equal opportunity, then that means the failure is their own. Most people can’t accept that. No, they must not really have had the same chance as the rich, successful, accomplished people. The winners cheated, or they had privilege, or they found ways to keep everybody else down. So equal opportunity means hobbling the competition. Or deciding that certain groups CAN’T have equal opportunity, because the system, the nation, life is rigged. Most people think, “I could be that successful, if I had his advantages.” Even luck: luck is unfair—doesn’t equal opportunity meaning adjusting for luck? Isn’t “I never had a chance!” the universal lament?
What really drove home for me just how much opportunity there was in the United States is that I lived in a community that was a recipient of SE Asian refugees. They fit the “model minority” stereotype very well.
It started when I was in 5th grade. We started getting more and more students who spoke little English. In many cases, their family arrived with NOTHING. Those refugees, who came here with so little, as outsiders, made up a sizeable chunk of the top of my graduating class. Their success continued on through college and their careers.
Their story dissuaded me from every thinking that any failure was anything other than my own.
Self honesty is lacking in our society. “I failed, it’s my fault, I didn’t prepare” is not typically said (or taught). It is easy to point blame somewhere else. It takes a level of wisdom and maturity to call bullshit on ones self.
The moment I started doing this in my life, my life changed.
But getting equal opportunity is a singular starting point. It is what you do with said opportunity that people get lost. They try to shortcut the hard work and process to get the outcome desired as quick as possible and then fail. Once they fail they don’t look back and ask “why” they look to blame the system, typically.
Tying this back to the thread, our society has yet to learn how to use social media. They need to learn the 24-48 hr rule of posting when angry, which means give it 24-48 hrs and think about the topic before posting about it.
Limiting free speech is a non-starter. Labelling it hate speech gives it more power then it really should have (plus it instigates some people to use it more, some have made careers out of this). I find it fascinating how much energy is wasted on such topics. The process to change any Amendments is so painful and tedious, which is the point, that it leverages the inherent laziness of those screaming at the sky. They don’t translate their words into action.
Sound and fury signifying nothing…once again.