Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,140 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I thought I had heard them all, but this is a new one for me. I thought I would post it because I think we all need to be well versed on the arguments we are up against.

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz has a Ph.D. in history from UCLA, she taught in the newly established Native American Studies Program at California State University, Hayward, and helped found the Departments of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies. So you can assume she is a raving alt-liberal.

Ironically, her argument parallels Heller in that she agrees that the RTKABA is an individual right was not intended aid in the forming of militias. But it is where she goes after that which is troublesome. She claims that the sole purpose for 2A was to ensure that whites could continue to kill Native Americans and push them out of their lands AND have the ability to do "slave patrols." For that reason, she reasons 2A should be eliminated.

I won't even begin to discuss all that I think is wrong with this argument, because I don't think it deserves that much time and it would go on too long. But I hadn't seen this particular argument before and I thought people should be aware of it.

https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/here-are-the-lies-liberals-tell-themselves-about-the-second-amendment/
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,322 Posts
The proliferation of different "takes" on why the 2nd amendment should be eliminated indicates to me the desperation attached to the liberals search for something to sell to the public in their support. This one is really out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,140 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
To the grabbers, current and historical racism is a huge component of their anti-2A argument.
Although they conveniently ignore that the proponents of the slave laws, the opponents of abolition, where pretty much all Democrats. They also ignore that liberal programs seek to make minorities more entitlement dependent. Metaphorically speaking, those programs "give a man a fish." They don't teach him to fish, or put him in a situation where he has to get good at fishing to prosper. Overall, the situation with poor minorities has not improved under liberal programs.

I heard a great comment from conservative pundit, 24-year old Lauren Chen, whose online handle is "The Roving Millennial." She says the goal of the progressive left is to create a standard that we are all exactly the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. and therefore, any difference in socioeconomic outcomes must be due to discrimination and oppression, and therefore the government needs to step in to level that out. Self-determination runs directly counter to that agenda and does not fit the narrative. I liked that for two reasons: First, I think it is some really clear thinking on what the left is up to. Second, I liked that a highly subscribed millennial pundit said it. It gives me hope that generation might not be completely lost.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,156 Posts
A far left guy I know is very anti gun, of course. When I reminded him that cars kill 3x or more people every year than guns do, his reply:

"But guns are made to kill. Cars are not."

Therefore, it is OK that cars kill and no one should have guns. .... Is your brain rattled enough now?

NOTE PLEASE: GUNS DO NOT KILL! We know that but I was trying to talk to him in his language. You really cannot reason with those people. They do speak a totally different language!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
The Double Jeopardy decision that came out today bothers me much more than this totally idiotic argument.

The decision today was based on State sovereignty. With the decision re-affirming an exception to Double Jeopardy that a state is sovereign with respect to second prosecutions not being violative of the 5th Amendment, it stands to reason (and will be argued) that the same holds true for the 2nd Amendment. Carving out exceptions to the individual protections of the Bill of Rights in favor of the State is very, very dangerous. Reaffirming bad precedent is even more dangerous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,876 Posts
Things like this are why I don’t think much of someone having a PHD. 2A is pretty clear cut. It was written after declaring independence from Britain, and James Madison was smart enough to write down the reason for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
Her argument also illustrates a lot of issues, and one of them is the issue of liberal colleges trying to cling to their agenda. She's a Ph.D. in HISTORY and this is what she came up with?

She is selling this argument because schools dictate that their Ph.D.'s publish and present new "intellectual property." So she's essentially made up a new argument to appease the school and to put her name on something that will be discussed, thereby bringing the school's name into the mix. Bottom line it's all bogus but because she said so it does what they want: makes it look like this is a school of new, progressive thinking and educational exploration, bringing more students in to look at the school and potentially sign up and enroll.

We are already 10 years down a bad path with higher education in the US. In 2009 the government got into the school loan business and essentially pushed the private sector out of the market. The changes have been subtle but they are out there, many have noticed for instance that in the State of Florida there are no longer any Community Colleges or Junior Colleges. That's because as a four-year program they qualify for better federal lending and they lock their students in for four years of [obtaining nourishment at the public appendage of the anatomy of a cow that typically produces milk.]

To foment and maintain their cash cow the schools continually press on, closer and closer to a full-blown agenda of a centralized government, and to assist in making that happen they push away not just the 2A but the 1A and a few others as well. Basically the higher education system has become a company store of indoctrination, teaching our kids to accept this form of slavery and enslaving them to the debt of the education they used to teach them this.

And like I said, we're already 10 years into this - about two and a half graduation cycles at the higher education level.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
What does, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a state mean.
it mens that unless individual were permitted to own and bear arms there would be no means of organizing militias which were a critical part of winning the revolutionary war. The Founders governed through that War and before there was a Continental Army. They knew an armed citizenry was critical to the survival of the Nation since we had only tiny Army after the War. In some of the 13 Colonies there were laws that required ecer able bodied man over 18 to own a long gun so they could be part of militia to repel an. enemy. Therefore it becomes clear that 2A was written not arm a militia but to assure citizens wouls have arms to be part of a militia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,756 Posts
But........... Today the Second Amendment protects the Rights of those formerly oppressed people and prevents us horrible non oppressed folks from being able to oppress them anymore. So why does she want to remove their protection from us?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,140 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
@bigmacque: Maybe this is too much to hope for:

I feel like when I grew up, I was indoctrinated the other way, with ultra conservative values, that some religions were bad, some races were inferior, everything that was good for big business was good for all of us, etc. By the time I turned 18, I was rebelling against all of it. If my parents, my school or the media told me something, I was against it, just on principle. Then when I got to about 24, I had moved more back to center, to a fairly reasonable stance. At least I was thinking things through and making my own choices, not the choices anyone told me I should make.

I can only hope a lot of this coming generation does the same and I see some signs of it. There are millennials on social media taking conservative stances. There are millennials who are into shooting. There are millennials who are joining the military and getting into LE. I hope they will become the thought leaders. One thing is sure: When all these alt-left values come up against the real world, they will not work. The government won't be able to create the reality these kids have been brought to up to expect.

It might not turn out that way, but I'm hoping it will.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,938 Posts
To the grabbers, current and historical racism is a huge component of their anti-2A argument.
So they pass laws making it much more difficult and expensive to purchase firearms thus further disenfranchising the very people that have been discriminated against. They should be facilitating them in getting guns to defend themselves against the criminal element rather than making it easier for criminals to prey on them.

I don't think this argument of racial oppression is going to gain any traction with the general public.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,637 Posts
@jm552

I'm with you on this .... one can hope and I certainly do. I like the push to expose trades to kids as an alternative to college - could help this drag back to center that we do need.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,103 Posts
Well the profesor is a historian in her mind. Actually all she is a historical revisionist. She failed in her research. The Federalist Papers and other writing of the period detail the debate about the the language and adoption of 2A. It was adopted clearly so that the People could form militias to repel an enemy and conduct a revolution against government if necessary to address grievances. Recall that 2A was adopted after militias were instrumental in both starting d winning a revolution against the English government.

She might be confused by another little known fact about gun rights and slavery. The first gun control laws in the Nation were in defeated slave states. they were written after the confederacy collapsed and surrendered. The gun control laws then and there were made with slaves in mind. They wanted to keep ex slaves from getting guns out of feaar they would seek revenge on their past salve owners and their families, government officials, slave dealers, etc. The professor is a propogandist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Things like this are why I don’t think much of someone having a PHD.
argumentum ad verecundiam

Appeal to authority: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority, or expert on the issue, said it was true without any other supporting evidence offered.

What does, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a state mean.
James Madison was smart enough to write down the reason for it.
What smart James Madison wrote about it in Federalist Papers #46 (hint: "subordinate governments" are free states)

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Well the profesor is a historian in her mind.
That reminds me of when HISTORIAN Michael A. Bellesiles, a HISTORIAN, wrote the book "Arming America" in the year 2000. The HISTORIAN found that before the Civil War almost no American had guns.

According to the HISTORIAN: At the time of the Revolution, fewer than 15 per cent of Americans had firearms--and more than half of those weapons were unworkable. After independence, state legislatures had to pass laws forbidding the mockery of the militia on the annual muster day. Samuel Colt faced bankruptcy because no one wanted his revolver. Even hunting was considered a European aristocratic affectation. The Civil War changed everything, arming the populace and creating the weapons-rich society we have today ...

The HISTORIAN made that determination by noting that only 14 percent of deceased persons had firearms listed in the inventories of their estates.

Therefore, to wit, and ergo, folks like Thomas Jefferson, who did not mention any of his firearms in his will, did not possess any firearms -- and more importantly, since few Indian probated firearms in their wills, none of them possessed firearms.

Mentions of firearms in "Last of the Mohicans" (1826), Icabod Crain's steed "Gunpowder" (1819), or various yarns about, and by Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, or the expression "lock, stock, and barrel" (dates to 1842), or the expressions "flash in the pan" and "half cocked" (which refer to flintlocks) mean nothing about our pre-Civil War culture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
819 Posts
To my mind the colonial history of the U.S. isn't genocide as much as it is a case of one social/economic model destroying another. The settlers came to America and saw huge tracts of land with little inhabitants and few settled villages. But human nature being what it is, insults, misunderstandings, greed, cultural differences and even personalities led to violence. In the eastern lands the indeginous people were less nomadic than the plains people. But by the time expansion reached the plains the dye was cast and prejudices were hardened.
When 2 different societies/civilizations/cultures meet the more advanced "usually" replaces/destroys the weaker. Why the current culture clashes are not following that trend is my question?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34,024 Posts
That's not a unique argument, that's just stupidity. Proof a college education does not make one smart nor intelligent. I've know more than my share of "educated" people who are dumber than a box of rocks.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top