Why Americans Should Not Be Restricted From Owning Fully Automatic Weapons.. Part II
Imagine. Imagine that you are a member of a small group of people who joined together to form a “more perfect union”. Let’s go one step further and stipulate that this group is what we now call an indigenous tribe. Your days consist of following one of the great herds of bison across the American Great Plains with your very existence dependent on your prowess in hunting and killing one of these great beasts as their carcasses provide everything from the sinew you use as thread to the meat which you consume as your main form of sustenance. Assuming you are a full member of the tribe, on what basis are you forbidden to possess whatever particular weapon happens to be in existence at the time?
In other words, on what basis are you determining who is “us” and who is “them”? When each individual member of the tribe is assumed to have all the rights and the responsibilities of every other member, is not the survival of the society based on the strength and fidelity of each and every one of its’ individual members? We have the Second Amendment because every able bodied male is assumed to be an equal and responsible member of “the militia and our strength is deemed to be derived from our ability to field an army of these citizen soldiers, not from a separate and elite standing army of professional soldiers.
The debate is not over hunting, or even personal protection. The debate is over whether Americans are full fledged participating citizens of the republic or whether they are subjects of those who would govern them.
Think about it. I had originally considered another frame of reference, but having started down this path it seemed to me that not much needed to be said.
Thanks.
AaronInvestigates 
In the land of polarization, we’re not all participants. That’s a key element to the discussion. We’re still in the middle of the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ struggle.
I agree, to a point. Perhaps another perspective is that the “polarization” of which you speak is actually a symptom rather than the disease. If we consider the example I used in the article, what we are seeing is an attempt to change “our” status as citizens to the more normal status of subjects. As I attempted to point out, this is why it is now acceptable to advocate that only those representing the State should be allowed unrestricted access to the most effective weapons with the obvious related conclusion being that those of us who are restricted from owning such weapons are thus viewed as possible enemies of the state rather than as full fledged members.
A run-on sentence to be sure, but hopefully still comprehensible….
Well constructed sentences usually are. I’m not in a position to grade others.
Anyhow, good to see the point about our migration toward subjects rather than citizens. I’m unconvinced that as a general rule people still want to be ‘free’. I see fear of responsibility more prevalent than a willingness to ‘take charge’ of their own lives.
I see polarization as a psychological tool being used against us, but the disease is fear. We fear even when there is no danger present. It is irrational. Those in the know are feeding that irrational behavior.
It’s still interesting to watch. I’m still seeing myself as outside looking in. That’s a bit dangerous.
Frankly, and think about it without just reacting, why are white males over a certain age apparently the only ones who wish to be free….
(In answer to what you suggested in your comment)
I don’t know. Is it really that simple? Old white guys want to be ‘free’, while the rest want to be ‘subjects’? To broad a stroke for me, but I could try anyway.
Indoctrination through public school systems strikes me as highly suspect. It’s good to teach respect for authority, but it’s clear to me they overdo it, and I can say so from personal experience — no links attached.
Another thing is that it’s become very easy to not have to make decisions based on personal knowledge or experience. Two-fold, one you don’t have to go through a lot of effort to educate yourself, and second, if you don’t like it you can blame someone else and always expect to have a shoulder to cry on.
Finally I have to add that there are those who still actually want a kingdom. It transcends religion and politics. Remember ‘The Lion King’? I come from a sort of kingdom, the kingdom of family. Patriarchal or Matriarchal rule was predominant lead. I didn’t follow well, but I unwittingly formed a similar structure in my own family as a dad, and was eventually undercut by it. Didn’t understand it until later, too late. That’s a whole other topic. Good to see you back on ‘vine.
Certainly plenty to think about.
I can understand why you might believe I painted with a broad brush, but I’m just suggesting that you think about it. If you accept the fact that I am not making the comment as a value judgement and look at how the world works, I would submit that what I suggest has plenty of evidence to support it. Even if we just restrict the discussion to what’s happening in the good old USA, who is it that tends to be the strict constructionist and who is it that supports the interpretation model?
Frankly, a bit more discussion, without getting too personal, on the family structure issue might be interesting but perhaps as a result of another more focused article.
Yes, I have increased my presence for the time being, largely as a result of your comment about the coming, and now actual, changes to the site. I thought it might be best to be on the same learning curve as everyone else rather than coming back at some later date and being completely lost.