« Sandbox - 11apr18 | Main | Sandbox - 16apr18 »

16 April 2018

Comments

ArchieBunker

We do not live in 1775. 'Par force', as you use it, is not a term or phrase defined in any dictionary.

That being the case, please define what you will need in your arsenal to be on par with the local constabulary in the 21st century and whether you require automatic weapons or other Class 3 devices.

Gregory

George, I am flattered by your use of the Dred Scott decision remarks I've made here, but I have to repeat... "par force" is a rhetorical loser. It is NOT in the 2nd Amendment and if you drive off into the weeds to 'splain it to people on Friday, it will make the loss larger than it should be.

It's a difficult sell in this town without having to introduce a term that is not generally used in the debate... for example, "par" does not appear once in Scalia's D.C. v. Heller opinion.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It apparently isn't used in any other SCOTUS opinion as a search for the term "par force" at the supremecourt.gov domain doesn't have even one hit. Nor does it at the scotusblog.com. Or reason.com. Or the NRA website.

I understand it's a term your understanding of the 2nd is wrapped around, but it isn't used by anyone else as far as I can tell.

George Rebane

Gregory 136pm - Language grows with expanding semantic needs. I have introduced the label 'par force' (now almost 30 years ago) because none existed to capture the idea the Founders and others since then have explained in their expanded dissertations. In my career and the careers of my peers, we have introduced multiple terms, phrases, and new concepts that have become part of the lexicon where none existed or served poorly. I reserve the right to do that, have done it in these pages multiple times, and believe such intros to be useful if the new term is appropriately defined. I am not saying that 'par force' is the enduring or necessarily the best label for what I have described and cited. But I do believe we need such a compact label for the Second Amendment debate, and until a better one comes along, I will continue using 'par force'.

However, if you are correct in believing that the definition of par force is "in the weeds" for the American public, then we are deprived of the most powerful argument for retaining the Second Amendment and correctly implementing it. The Left must and will oppose both the label and the interpretation of the 2nd Amend that it represents, that is to be expected.

And it's even worse when we look at Mr Bunker's 133pm - he didn't have a clue about what I wrote. Here par force is defined much more precisely than the wording in the amendment intended to implement it, and he doesn't get it, nor, I suspect, does he comprehend the counsel of the people I have quoted.

Gregory

It ain't an argument Scalia needed, George. Nor is an argument the NRA needs.

I understand it fills a void for you. It's a loser outside the world you directly control, and it attracts catcalls here.

I'd suggest if, after 30 years of use without others adopting it, at this crossroads, you accept it does not do for others what it does for you and drop it. Use the language in common use, not your own invented vocabulary that requires additional explanation and argument every time.

George Rebane

Gregory 222pm - Gladly; then what is "the language in common use" that summarizes the described idea and serves in place of labels that are supposed to summarize to make communication more compact, clear, and concise?

BTW, the people, both right and left, with whom I have used this label to discuss the 2nd Amend have had no problem with adopting it, and with great utility, in the ensuing discussions.

Gregory

I'd suggest reading Heller and the piece it references by Eugene Volokh, "The Commonplace Second Amendment".
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm


George, I fully expect you to ignore this friendly advice and do what you did with the label "ragheads" which you adamantly defended as proper because your definition was specific to specific bad actors, not anyone wearing such headgear. That didn't work, either.

George Rebane

Gregory 227pm - Did you ignore my 227pm question, or do I not understand your answer?

Gregory

I answered your questions, George, so I may be led to believe you didn't understand my answer.

I pointed you to learned opinions that did not require the term you are bound to. More I do not have the time to write, especially when I sense the same sort of rhetorical trap Paul E. regularly sets.

ArchieBunker

George, since you refuse to succinctly define your terms, let's use this passage since it represents the first use of the word 'par' in your screed:

"According to their own post-Revolutionary letters and articles, that was the intent of the Founders for including the Second Amendment so that the nation would have to think long and hard before abolishing the right of individual citizens to remain armed at a level to successfully resist the local constabulary long enough to inspire others if their cause were just and grievances shared. And such sufficient level of arms should always remain somewhere near par with that which the local government has at its disposal, so that the nascent resistance could not be peremptorily silenced and snuffed out in its cradle. Remembering the Minute Men, we identify that ‘sufficient level’ as the citizens’ ability to rapidly bring ‘par force’ to bear against any local agents of tyranny."

This passge, "the right of individual citizens to remain armed at a level to successfully resist the local constabulary long enough to inspire others", is what I responded to in my earlier response. Citizen firepower (force) should be on equal footing'(parity) with what the city cops and county sheriffs. Is this not a de facto definition of par force?

In Waco, Koresh exhibited par force. They had plenty of guns on hand. How did that work out for him? I guess no one was inspired so they burned him out.

Walt

Well Archie,, it worked for rancher Bundy. The FEDS even lost in court after the fact.

Gregory

Archie in the Bunker, the Branch Davidians were a delusional gun nuts waiting for the antichrist to break down their door.

Walt, yes, it worked for the Bundy Bunch but nonetheless, it is not likely to be persuasive to the SCOTUS, not to mention Amanda Wilcox's crowd who I expect will dominate on Friday.

Bill Tozer

If I may....
Dr. Rebane. If you use the term “par force”, practical everyday experience tells us that the hearer, being anti AR-15 or thinking some skinhead militia in the woods of Michigan, will jump at that and say, “So, it’s ok to have a bazooka and machine guns? Is that what you are saying? Like, what the military has, is that what you are proposing? You mean like Waco!” Never mind a tank was used against the compound, but I digress. Just look at the comments on these boards and consider what the hearer hears, based on their prejudices and interpretations, however skewed it is. My advice, take it or leave it, but consider these words when you go to the Townhall meeting. Do you really want to get lost out there in the weeds with such precious limited time at City Hall? Find a substitute term was all that I and Gregory are saying, if I may be so bold
. We got your back and are looking towards the March on Townhall “stop the killing of our children” learning session.

We know the definition of what assault rifles are, the hearer does not. We know what you mean by par force, the anti-gun crowd goes not. Sensible gun control already tells us that you cannot have an assault weapon...military assault weapon, i.e. grenades and machine guns, etc.

I don’t feel like circling the barn until the wagon wheel ruts make the wagon bottom out. If I pick up a rock or lamp and smash you head in, that is an assault rock or assault lamp by definition. But, it’s a waste of time to even mention that. Thus, part 2 coming up after a few. Oh, GREAT post. Yes!

Bill Tozer

Not Part 2, just a PS. I broke a code of mine, thus I am a hypocrite or something.

I am known to say that if you have one foot in yesterday and one foot in tomorrow, you end up pissing all over yourself today. I realize I was talking about the upcoming Frida Night Fights and was not addressing your post. Me bad. Mea Culpa and who cut the cheese.

Marillyn Lock-Heed

,,,what the par force believers are missing is that par force has been superseded by negotiation,,,

yahoos like walt want to believe the bunkervillan's peashooters had the feds quaking in their jackboots

sure walt keep on dreamin,,,a warthog would have made quick work of those cowboys

,,,what actually happened is that after the I DEE HO fiasco and WACO the feds got the word to be more patient and not go in too hot,,,

so they let the Bundys have their little BLM cookout,,,same with the pipeline sitters,,,they tried to avoid doin too much tissue damage to the snowflakes.

,,,par force is so 18th century,,,

George Rebane

Gregory 322pm – Coming up with an efficient label, and then arguing that since such a label has not been used before, hence it’s not needed, are two separate and independent topics. Perhaps I can suggest that the constitutional argument and provision for par force has not been argued more than it has is because there has not been a short label that defines it – now there is, whether you decide to approve of it or use it is another matter. BTW, my use of ‘raghead’ overfilled every purpose for assigning it the meaning that I did, even though I can’t take credit for coining the term itself. And fear not, I don’t take pleasure in the laying of rhetorical traps since I don’t believe that springing such traps do not serve to resolve the issue at hand, but only provide titillation for those with other agendas.

ArchieB 334pm – Mr Bunker, I did my best to define ‘par force’ at least three separate times in my above commentary. I did the best I can, and apologize if I didn’t say it well enough for you to understand. Your attempt to understand par force as consisting of exact parity with local constabulary fails since that is not what I have defined. Do you recall reading “And such sufficient level of arms should always remain somewhere near par with that which the local government has at its disposal, so that the nascent resistance could not be peremptorily silenced and snuffed out in its cradle.”? That is about as succinct a de facto definition of par force as I can muster. We will know that when a local sheriff’s department starts using Bradley fighting vehicles for routine street patrols, tyranny has arrived. Short of that, we already know that attempting to buy guns and accessories that were legal yesterday which will today land you in jail, is going in the wrong direction as local LE departments and government bureaus have already militarized and continue in that direction.

And what point did you intend by citing the Branch Davidian tragedy? Was that the ‘resistance is futile’ argument that I attributed to our leftwing?

BillT 424pm – Of course the Left will say all those things which I have not said here, and will not have said this Friday. This planned discussion will be anti-gun kabuki theater, and more so the fewer folks of the Right who don’t show up and just choose to ‘tsk tsk’ from the distant shadows. The other panelists will more than adequately repeat all the shibboleths for duck hunting, sport shooting, and self protection. And I suspect they will give more than a nod to new ‘common sense’ regulations that involve everything from comprehensive gun registration to outlawing every progressive’s concept of an ‘assault rifle’. I will be the lone voice arguing the original intent of the Second Amendment. BTW Mr Tozer, I invite/urge you also to come up with something that will serve better than ‘par force’. So far from this comment stream I get the sense that RR readers don’t agree with my understanding of the 2nd Amendment’s original intent, or counsel that the notion should not be included in a town hall on ‘gun violence’.

Re MaryllynL’s 510pm – the lady’s comment serves well to underline the points that I made. Predictably, she is another acolyte of the ‘resistance is futile’ crowd.

Scott Obermuller

According to Wikipedia the number of Americans in the armed forces is approx 1.282 mil. With another .8 mil available through the national guard. So - how many of those troops are combat ready ground troops available for fighting against the American public in the US? Desertion and wholesale mutiny against a tyrannical American govt would probably halve those numbers. Against that pitiful bunch would be arrayed about 15 to 20 million men and women fighting on home ground with a much higher motivational effort.
So bring on the A-10s, Mary. A lot of them are based not far from where I live and I can assure you - in the event of a civil war, hardly one would be available for any sort of action against the American public.
The left never can seem to get it's story straight. On one hand, they claim the AR15 type rifles are unstoppable killers and then they pivot to laugh at American citizens armed with them as harmless 'pot-bellied' nothings.

scenes

Scotto:

"On one hand, they claim the AR15 type rifles are unstoppable killers and then they pivot to laugh at American citizens armed with them as harmless 'pot-bellied' nothings."

I don't disagree that a population armed with modern small arms are pretty much ungovernable if they don't want to be, there have been way too many unsuccessful COIN wars to think otherwise.

To me, it goes to something deeper. I got to thinking about a video that I posted earlier and tend to agree with it. The basic idea is that a good way to split the West, and to understand the basic difference between the sides, is to view it as a strong difference in foundation myths.

Team Red has a series of stories, and this is stronger than mere politics. These describe it's creation and past, some are whoppers, some true. The Minutemen, George Washington's axe, conquest of the Western frontier, self sufficiency, the Tea Party and the Mayflower and Jamestown, all the accoutrements of Anglo-America and it's past (including some large chunks of English history and tradition). Guns are tied up in this at a fundamental level.

Team Blue has a new creation myth, partly as a result of WWII. Hitler, the Holocaust, the terrors of Western colonization of the rest of the world, peaceful pastoral Indians and smallpox blankets, slavery, Hitler. Basically a profoundly negative view of the traditional West and an embrace of foreign people and folkways. You can hear this philosophy underlying a lot of opining.

It seems to me that the parsing of the second amendment tends to skip over interpretations that are merely tactics in a culture war. This is Romulus and Remus vs Dido.

Walt

LOL "warthogs".. I don't recall those being reported making strafing runs. But "Gov." helicopters are used to eradicate your dope grows.
You dopers see that as "tyranny", yet no one comes to the aid to protect said dope grower. (your on your own pall)
As for the Bundy standoff, the FEDS were out maned.
Maybe "Marillyn" can explain why the FEDS retreated? Harry Reid didn't want dead people over a political favor?
Yet in part two, an unarmed man is killed,( yes that was kept pretty quiet, and swept under the rug.)
"Marillyn" must have never heard of the posse comitatus.
Good luck getting military to fire upon American citizens.(as much as numbnuts would love to see it)
The 2ND Amend. has nothing to do with hunting rights.( unless traitors to the Constitution and American freedom has the season been opened on)
Our Proggy can marginalize the action all he/she/it likes. The fact remains "the people" came to the aid of one man and his family all because of gov. over reach.
Put that in your bong and smoke it,,,"marillyn".

Bill Tozer

Par force, a look into the future through my cloudy ball:

A scenario: write all the gun laws with confiscation/regeristration you want, there will be civil disobience AND lack of LE enforcement when the rubber meets the road. Just a law on the books, nothing to see here....in rural America in the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.
Why do I say this? Just antidotal evidence, that’s all.

1) When Oregon passed its strict gun laws, a county sheriff (not Portland) said he does not have the resources nor the desire to make sure all his neighbors and county residents have regeristered their guns. Period. He said he WILL NOT expend his limited resources to risk the lives of his deputies to go out and do the gun control thang. No ifs, buts, or ands about it. In fact, an adjoining coastal Oregon county sheriff said that his county could be declared a Gun Control Free Zone. Somebody even put up a sign stating exactly that, but the sheriff encouraged his fellow town’s folk to take the sign(s) down to not attract unwanted attention.

2). A Connecticut rural sheriff/police chief has stated rhis week that bans on AR-15s will suddenly turn thousands of law abiding fellow citizens into felons. He stated unequivocally he WILL NOT send his deputies out to confiscate weapons “ that were legally purchased in the State of CT” before the AR-15 type ban. Legally purchased and now are felons? He refuses to risk the lives of his deputies to search homes of those that failed to turn in certain firearms. He did say if a deputy or constable pulls over a vehicle for some infraction or other violation of the law AND the deputy sees an AR-15 laying on the backseat, they may confiscate that weapon under those circumstances. But to go out and track down AR-15 owners who have not regeristered them, he won’t lift a finger. In fact, one might call his juristiction a Gun Sanctuary County.

3).several FL rural county top dog sheriff’s have said the same thing as the CT sheriff above. Ain’t going to happen. His deputies and captains are not going to out and enforce gun bans on citizens who legally bought the weapons in the State of FLA. He refuses to risk the lives of his fellow officers and go door to door or start a confiscation policy,

So, here is my scenario. Some sheriff somewhere sends his LE personell to fan out across an area to confiscate and look for weapons. All is going well, except a few heated exchanged words. Then just one old coot says “you ain’t taking my guns”, BANG BANG, you’re dead. Then it happens again 3 days later, death by cop or another dead cop or both. Then one particular neighborhood puts up signs on every law stating they will not surrender their firearms. Come and get them if you dare. The whole block has signs on every lawn.

What is next? Call in the National Guard or the State Police/Patrol or the Feds??? Law abiding citizens refusing to comply with what they consider an unconstitutional order....all standing together. Maybe it is just half a block at first. Maybe it is refusing to allow access. Maybe a shot is fired. Then a few blocks away another “situation” develops. Maybe it is every other house on a rural road.

What County Sheriff would risk the lives and resources of his department to enforce some law that with the strike of a pen turned law abiding citizens into criminals, some who only have a speed ticket in their records? It will be blind eye time, except for when excuting search warrants for fugitives, wanted felons, raids on crack houses and the like.

The Leguslature or city law can write the laws til the cows come home, but does the Police Chief or Sheriff want to enforce the laws against the parents of his kid’s baseball team or Fishing Club? The very parents who have their kids along with the LE’s kids attending the same school.

Bill Tozer

“We will know that when a local sheriff’s department starts using Bradley fighting vehicles for routine street patrols, tyranny has arrived. Short of that, we already know that attempting to buy guns and accessories that were legal yesterday which will today land you in jail, is going in the wrong direction as local LE departments and government bureaus have already militarized and continue in that direction.” GR responding to Bunker

https://www.facebook.com/lastamericapatriots/photos/a.235087906641439.1073741826.235086849974878/1035902989893256/?type=3&theater

The comments to this entry are closed.