Before I begin, great post, user. You've made a lot of good points. I agree with most, and will only comment on a few.
In Sixteenth-Century Japan, there was a guy born as a peasant in a farming community; at that time, there was no caste system that prohibited his ascent...
All caste systems and class warfare are designed by
some of the the haves to ensure they won't have to share with the have-nots.
On the other hand, other haves have no problem with the have-nots rising up to their ranks, provided they work for it instead of demanding a leg-up.
After the Tokugawa family instituted the hereditary shogunate, there was relative peace...
That is one of the goals of a caste system. Sometimes it even works, for a time.
...it is a mistake to engage the enemy on his own battlefield. We apply the same principle when we talk about "the home court advantage" in sports. The trick is to make the enemy engage us on our battlefield.
Aside from holing up in my little apartment, or engaging an enemy within my complex or in the nearby park I frequent, I see little opportunity to do this. In fact, if I'm to maintain my freedom, I must go about my business, doing what I need to do, when and where I need to do it. Sometimes that means walk on or through some criminal's "territory." Most criminals can tell I'm not sheep. If they don't, oh well. But they can also tell that I'm not a rival for whatever it is they're doing, criminally speaking. Thus, they let me pass.
In the recent Virginia Citizens' Defense League alert regarding media coverage of 'lobby day', I found the following phrases,
...
I didn't see anything in there at all on the subject of "personal defense"; the word, "defense" does not occur at all in the entire alert, except as a part of the name of the Virginia Citizens' Defense League.
Ok. While I carry a firearm, and it's primarily for personal defense against animals with legs both two and four, I have three other reasons for exercising my 2nd Amendment rights. Reason two is for the procurement of sustenance. Reason three is for the detention of criminals (hope I never have to do that...). Reason four is for the reason hinted at in our Second Amendment, but detailed in a number of quotes by our Founding Fathers.
We are allowing ourselves to be placed on the defensive by our adoption of the characterizations made by the opponents of personal defense.
I do not believe the anti's are against personal defense. I believe they are ignorant or misguided hoplophobes (or both) who mistakenly believe that yanking firearms from the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens will "somehow" reduce "gun violence," which is perpetrated by criminals, not honest, law-abiding citizens. Put simply, they're 180 degrees off target.
It is obviously and plainly silly to have one's life governed by the worship of guns, but that's how we are portrayed.
I agree, but sadly, that's the picture some of us paint, particularly with dozens of firearms and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo. As for me, I have what I need. That might be one firearm, that might be three. The number of rounds might be 16+1, it might be a thousand.
As to the question of "what's enough?" the proper answer will always be "when you run out, it's not enough." We aviators had a saying: "There's nothing more useless than the runway behind you." On a point of common sense, however, ten miles of runway is just plain stupid (not to mention unnecessarily expensive).
In summary, I've fully and thoroughly assessed my needs, and I have enough ammo and firearms to meet my needs. Yes, I've factored in some pad for "mom and the kids."
t is also silly to be focused on "the Second Amendment rights", because that is a mere abstraction, a principle.
On this point, I couldn't disagree with you more, particularly during an election year. Our system of government is good! Provided we follow it. It was founded by a large, but not too large, group of people who were scholars, statesmen, and businessmen. Many were lawyers. They'd studied history. They knew what good government looked like, and they knew what to avoid. They worked very hard to imbue our Constitution with their learned experience, and as we've followed our Constitution, our nation has done very well. Yet, when we've departed from our Constitution, we've suffered, often tremendously.
My point is that adherence to or departure from our Constitution serves as a very clear litmus test, not only during elections but for all other affairs of state. As voters, however, voting is our most important input, but letters to Congress and appointments to local, county, and state legislatures also come to mind. These are indeed the folks who either directly or indirectly affect current and future outcomes throughout our country. Some of them rise to become a governor, and a few, eventually, a Congressman, Federal Judge, or President.
This,
it very severely behooves us to pay attention! But by what standard? Well, how about that old Constitution of ours? Ultimately, that's indeed what each of us, if not our entire country, will be measured, at least on temporal terms.
In summary, do not discount Constitutionalism. Ever. It's the cornerstone of far more than our government and way of life.
We are not being characterized as people who are interested in the practical implementation of that principle for the very good reasons for which that Amendment was added to the Constitution. Instead, we are characterized as people who worship some peculiar abstract principle, choosing one out of the entire Bill of Rights, and that we carry guns in the mistaken belief that the document says we can.
Good point. To that end, we should ensure we're giving a fair amount of voice to violations of other amendments. However, I've observed that's precisely what we here at OCDO actually do! :banana:
What we don't seem to get is that is precisely why we are portrayed in that way - it conveys the image that we represent a threat to society.
This is why I consistently use the term "honest, law-abiding citizen." It is, after all, precisely what we are, and I suggest others use the term as well.
...socially responsible, intellectually honest, and law-abiding citizens who recognize the dangers inherent in living in a world populated by humans, and who wish to have the capability of defending themselves, their homes, and their familes.
That's another, but good way of describing ourselves.
Rather than being seen as the cornerstone of national defense...
As a retired officer of the United States Air Force, I can assure you that we citizens are not the cornerstone of national defense! Consider this: Just one of the twenty warheads I used to carry contained more destructive power than every chemical explosive used in wartime from the dawn of time until present, including the two nuclear warheads used in WWII. I've come to peace with that responsibility, as have my brothers in arms. We'll never forget our pivotal role in history, however, actually helping to keep our race from destroying itself, a point towards which we approached several times.
I hope I've put things in perspective. In that perspective, as one who is no longer a part of that system but one of The People (as if I or any of my brothers in arms ever left...), I will affirm the intentions of our Founding Fathers that we are most certainly the last line of defense.
...we are characterized as a threat to national defense...
Wrongly so, as we are an adjunct to our nation's defenses.
..by people who support a governmental structure that has reason to fear its own citizens and wants the populace to be defenseless and dependent.
The very idea of a defenseless and dependent populace is at the very heart of a controlling, oppressive government, the very government our Revolution overthrew and saw fit to prevent from every taking control of our nation again. They did so by means of our Constitution. I keep coming back to this... Is anyone getting the drift?
When we buy into the opposition's view that it's all about guns, then there is no difference between ourselves and the violent criminals we seek the means to defend ourselves from. A man with a gun is a man with a gun, when the focus is on the gun. My suggestion: Stop talking about guns! Start talking about "personal defense". Promote your right to personal defense. It's all about personal defense, it's not about the guns. When you take out Badguy who's broken into your house at 2:00 a.m. and is threatening your children, what difference does it make whether you use a baseball bat or a shotgun, as long as it's effective?
user, the flaw with your entire line of argument is that you set things up quite perfectly for a higher level to step in and say, "We're your line of personal defense! Trust us! Call us! We'll take care of you!"
As one who has made half a dozen 911 calls over the years, I can attest their record so far as the calls I've made is precisely 0. Well, not quite. They dispersed the gathered crowds. I keep calling them in situations decidedly out of the norm because they may very well help provide a backup service, while providing a recording service that's been readily admissible in court.
...we have no part in any such "debate", because we're about the present right, power, and duty of citizens to defend themselves, their homes, and their families.
In accordance with one of the four pillars behind our Second Amendment, I propose we instead divert our attention back to the Constitution. Why? Because like countless arguments, it's a document, set in law, as the foundation of our country. We never need to argue against it, as it stands on it's own. All we need do is defend it.
Instead, let's put THEM on the defensive, and ask them to join in the "personal defense debate" against the people who strive to outlaw personal defense. Stop explaining why we favor "gun rights" and demand that they explain why they are opposed to our being able to defend ourselves from violent criminals.
I'm sorry, user, but I find this line of effort very thin with respect to US simply being the citizens of the United States of America as we are empowered by our Constitution to be.
In closing, I'll never allow anyone to water down who we are, where, or why, for any reason whatsoever. We are who we are because throughout centuries past we survived.
