My Photo

December 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Sandbox - 16apr18 | Main | Iffy Science and Public Policy »

17 April 2018



George... twice in the first paragraph you refer to "PR", and four times after that. Are those typos?

George Rebane

Gregory 1250pm - Indeed they are/were. Thanks for the heads up.

Gary Smith

Our founders understood this well. In March 1776 Congress recommended to the states that it administer a loyalty oath. My New Hampshire ancestors had to sign the pledge or be disarmed. If you were not loyal to the cause, they took your guns. Now this probably did not go well in places where the Torys, who were loyal to Britain, ruled or the those places were it was 50/50 to each side.

In CONGRESS, March 14th, 1776.

RESOLVED, That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions, and Councils, or Committees of Safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their Respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the Cause of AMERICA, Or who have not associated, and refuse to associate, to defend by ARMS, the United Colonies, against the Hostile Attempts of the British Fleets and Armies.

(COPY) Extract from the Minutes.

Charles Thompson, Sec'ry.

Here is the language from the New Hampshire Association Test, how politically incorrect!


April 12th, 1776

In order to carry the underwritten RESOLVE of the Hon'ble Continental CONGRESS into Execution, You are requested to desire all all Males above Twenty One Years of Age (Lunaticks, Idiots, and Negroes excepted) to sign to the DECLARATION on this Paper; and when so done, to make Return hereof, together with the Name or Names of all who shall refuse to sign the same, to the GENERAL ASSEMBLY, or Committee of Safety of this Colony.

M. Weare, Chairman

George Rebane

GaryS 449pm - I'm not sure how your extensive comment relates to this post; please enlighten us.

Gary Smith

I believe this relates to #3. The founders understood how important guns were to maintaining the republic. They knew how important an armed citizens were, because they took away the guns of those loyal to Britain.

George Rebane

GaryS 505pm - Fair enough Mr Smith. But rereading my last paragraph above, your comment actually belongs under the linked 'Par Force in the Second Amendment'. Here we list some of the independent factors relating to PF, and how they should be discussed/debated.

Account Deleted

George, I think you will find a lot of folks (possibly almost all) in the crowd this Friday are firmly in the camp that the govt should be more powerful and that our govt would surely never become tyrannical. They would simply be unable to entertain the idea of ever taking up arms against the authorities. For them, the talk of citizens shooting any govt official or soldier can only be the work of unhinged right wing crazies trying to overthrow a democratically elected govt. In short - talking about citizens having and using 'high powered' firearms will just scare most of them. I could be wrong, but I think that tack, although historically correct, would be a non-starter for the most of them. A much better line of reasoning for this crowd would be one of bringing in the facts that gun violence is declining, school shootings are declining, most gun violence involving criminal activity is highly concentrated in a few large metro areas, that most all of the likely mentioned 'fixes' of gun violence wouldn't have done one bit of good in most every single widely heralded case of gun violence, and mainly that if the parents in the audience are truly worried about the safety of their offspring they should realize the biggest danger to their children is vehicle crashes. A quick check of fatalities in the county would easily show far more teens and young folk dying in auto crashes than gun violence. Emphasize that certainly we do have a problem, but that problem is with mental illness and troubled youth let loose on society with overly lax controls on their behavior. Going after the millions of law abiding citizens with further controls on their legally owned fire arms is not the answer.

George Rebane

ScottO 540pm - You may be entirely right about the audience and their sentiments. And what you prescribe are the arguments all the conservative and right-leaning pundits have so carefully been telling the Left for years. And there will be at least two other panelists, both retired policemen, who will put out exactly that message. The Left is already expert at dismissing the whole lot of it. Should I then just be an echo chamber and not introduce a reasonable voice describing the real reason and legacy of the Second Amendment?

Account Deleted

Well, you can. The left is pretty good at dismissing history as well. Every evil tyrant of the 20th (and 21st) Century made darn well sure the people to be subjugated were first disarmed. But as you pointed out - the left is expert at dismissing reality.
I'm just thinking that the more you talk about PF, the more their skin will crawl.
That crowd wants Big Brother, they have no intention of fighting it.
I wish you well.

Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane @ 7:59
“Should I then just be an echo chamber and not introduce a reasonable voice describing the real reason and legacy of the Second Amendment?”

Dr Rebane’s comment from the post “ Par Force in the Scond 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’.”

I hear your frustration with your cynical readers here in the peanut gallery. To dissect the sentence above, I whole heartily agree with with your understanding of the 2nd Amendment’s orginal intent. I find it unassailable. And yes, I have counseled that the notion should not be included in a town hall meeting on “gun violence”.

I don’t have any suggestions to offer from the peanut gallery concerning the term ‘par force’. None. You are the rocket scientist, not me. I have made some assumptions, which is rarely proven a good idea. Assume: “makes an ASS out of U and ME” and all that stuff.
I wrongly assumed you were being led blindly like a lamb to the slaughter, thus I have underestimated you. You most certainly should explain/expound on the real reason and legacy of the Second Amendment. Yes, of course. If you don’t, in your reasoned voice, who will? Who, besides you will speak on the 2nd Amendment? Who else has the a spot on the panel to explain to the audience a more in-depth understanding of the intent of the 2nd Amendment? The mental health professional?

My cynicism has cloudec me to the bigger picture. It’s not how many, if any, you will convince. It’s not that you may be be a lone candle flickering in the wind. The important thing is you speak and and state your position, no matter how deep my “waste of time, why bother talking to those who have contempt for you prior to investigation” is becoming ingrained. I need a new pair of glasses, I you will. A clearer prespective.
There are tens of millions who agree with your (our) position. The stakes are too high to not stand tall. Still, I have nothing to offer except bad counsel. Carry on.

Bill Tozer

Ok, the big picture communicated. The rest is just noise.


Toes 930am

Yes, Jefferson was a great big picture communicator but, apparently, Jefferson never wrote that phrase. It's a fake quote said to date from 1989.

Bill Tozer

Thanks Gregory.


(10) 'Par Force' is another way of saying 'redress of grievances'. An historical perspective is needed here. In this age of high speed world-wide communictions, the barrel of a gun is not necessary, at least not in First World countries. Videos (the new 'pen') work better than long guns (the new 'sword').
Back in the good olden days of the 18th century news traveled at horseback or slow sailing ship. You needed weapons to stall the other guy long enough to get your message out. That mentality is no longer necessary.

(8) This item serves no useful purpose. Gun ownership statistics don't prove anything related to redress of grieviences. Most gun owners own several weapons. Many do not own guns. Those weapons are primarily hunting tools or for self protection. To think otherwise sounds paranoid.

(9) The term 'death by government' could use a little more explaining. Are you talking about overzealous cops?

Most people are not worried about the right to bear arms. They are worried about high capacity weaponry in the hands of the unhinged. Cops should have access to high capacity magazines. The Texas tower shooter created plenty of havoc with his hunting rifle.


Toes... I once read a comment along the lines of "if a founding father's quote doesn't say when and where it was spoken or written, it should be suspect". I've also managed to pass along fake quotes in the past... sometimes it just sounds soooo right that caution evaporates.

George, you're welcome for the typo alert up top, but the whole Par Force lecture is a loser. Yes, the Amendment is there to insure that the people had arms to resist tyrants great and small. "Par", as a concept, is undefinable... OK, so if you can't have an automatic rifle like an M4 or M16 (by the National Firearms Act of 1934) unless your state allows them (and can find an owner of one that is willing to sell, as they were frozen in number by Bill Clinton)... you can generate "par force" against a rogue SWAT team of 6 by mustering 100 people armed with single shot, iron sight trapdoor Springfield rifles using blackpowder 45-70 cartridges. So you have your PF with a military weapon that was good enough for George Armstrong Custer's troops at the Battle of the Little Bighorn.

Do I think that reasonable? No, but there will be unreasonable people there on Friday, and there's no word on who will be clearing the questions that will be allowed.

What does the 2nd allow? That is to be determined, and I guarantee the SCOTUS, not to mention lower courts Federal and State will not introduce "par force" into the argument. A woman arrested for having an illegal stun gun in Massachusetts (she displayed it to an ex-boyfriend when he was harassing her despite multiple restraining orders that had no effect, causing him to flee), and she was arrested and convicted, sent back with the per curiam decision "Caetano v. Massachussets", 2016) that found she had the right to the stun gun and of self defense, citing Heller and other cases, even though a stun gun isn't particularly useful in warfare.

What should be the upper bound? Well, I find it amusing that the Department/Director of Civilian Marksmanship, started a century ago because farm boys facile with lever action repeating rifles were fumbling with bolt action weapons, and so surplus guns were sold to civilians to promote training and use with the newer technology weapons before enlisting to kill people in foreign lands who talk funny. Many are currently waiting for the DCM to finish looking over the *8,000* M1911 Colt .45 Auto handguns donated to the DCM by the DOD to promote their use in training and competition.

They even state that they will be shipped to California by the "curio and relic" exemption. Sorry, boys, you are limited to only one surplus M1911 a year, as long as they have them in stock. They have run out of functional M1 Carbines, but you can buy a nice 8 shot M1 in .30-06 for six or seven hundred bucks, ammo and bayonet extra.

Account Deleted

ArchieB at 12:17 - "In this age of high speed world-wide communictions, the barrel of a gun is not necessary, at least not in First World countries."
See my 5:40 and 9:22 - I rest my case.


Archie 1217pm

(10) your opinion is akin to the cry "If the king only knew!". No, the 2nd isn't about redress of grievances, it's about the right to self defense, when threatened by animals with any number of legs.

(8) This item is not about proving anything about "address of grievances", it is about increasing numbers of guns with falling gun crime rates. This argument of GR speaks to irrational fears of guns and your closing remarks about what people (including you, apparently) are afraid of.

I think rational arguments are the way to fight irrational fears, and Archie, so should you.

Bill Tozer

Thanks again Gregory. Memes with Founding Father quotes can be errant, but I liked the quote so much I had to post it. Once I posted a meme with some Maxine Waters quote and noticed later it caused a commentator to be taken to the woodshed when he/she quoted it in a thread a week later . Maxine never said least in public. Opps. I remained silent. Maxine did not say it, but we know what she was really saying. :).

I will take the advice from Abraham Lincoln who wrote, “You should not believe every quote attributed to me on the internet.” Or was that Zachary Taylor, or John Tyler or maybe Martin Van Buren?

Try it again. Might be on matter who say it.


"I will take the advice from Abraham Lincoln who wrote, “You should not believe every quote attributed to me on the internet.” Or was that Zachary Taylor, or John Tyler or maybe Martin Van Buren?"

I'll accept that self-refuting quote from anyone in history, including Plato and Socrates. :)

George Rebane

Gregory 1232pm - You are echoing your previous argument, and still without answering my question. What then shall we call the firearms related ability of citizens to put up an inspiring resistance so that their grievance is not immediately silenced?

Your comment about the hundred people with single shot rifles qualifying as par force I find a bit specious. Then why not a thousand citizens with muzzle loaders, or ten thousand with 'wrist-rocket' slingshots? Minimizing the size of the resisting coalition counts.

Give me something better than 'par force' with all of its ambiguities which are still a hell of lot more specific than are the naked words of the Second Amendment which has recently given rise to more heat than light.


Gregory 124pm - (10) 'Par Force' is another way of saying 'redress of grievances'. You must have missed my first sentence. I also said most gun owners have guns for hunting or self defense.

The Second Amendment is all fine and dandy when considered as a right to own guns in general.

But trying to make an argument about needing semi-auto rifles with banana clips to bristle at some imagined tyrannical government horde bearing down on you is absurd.
That would be like Syrian citizens with AK-47s against the US Air Force. About all you could do is run and hide.

Back in the olden days it was not that difficult to muster enough firepower to cause a government or other adversary some pause. When the repeating rifle came along, the Indians lost par force and lost their lands. When the Gatling gun came about the citizenry lost some footing as well although that was considered a military weapon not standard issue for the local constabulary.

All that par force arms parity stuff is irrelevant now.

George Rebane

ArchieB 254pm - You continue to exhibit that you understood not a whit of what par force was then and is now - you are still imagining the citizens fighting the combined modern military might of a tyrant. The Second Amendment's inclusion had nothing to do with the "right to own guns in general", and therefore have them also confiscated (constructively or de juris) in general. However, you as a solid soldier of the Left - for whom resistance is both futile and unnecessary because America is immune to tyranny - are beyond reach of such arguments.


Sorry George, you are wrong. I get it. You just always go to the 'Wolverine scenario' where locals band together to fight the invaders and assume that is all I am talking about.

I said keep the 2nd amendment.

Redress of grievances is what you call par force. You think you need to have guns to do that. It is silly but, okay, fine. Wave your guns around.

However, there is no case law or amendment that states you get semi-autos with banana clips, bump stocks, etc., to try to mimic what the government agencies have at their disposal.


Absolutely, George. 1000 with muzzle loaders would be about right by my guesstimate, and all you are doing is echoing your own intransigent defense of your invented term... of course my trapdoor Springfield equivalent was "specious", intentionally so. It was an absurdity, but one that is in play whether you like it or not.

What your "par force" term, then, is really only about what the upper bound of lethality might be. Call it the "legal maximum" for civilians.

The current gun banners want 10 round magazines or smaller as a "good start" for civilians who are not police but the sky's the limit for police, and I've noticed a number of people listing flintlock muskets as what they'd allow under the 2nd. Obviously a wide gulf of expectations.

George Rebane

Gregory 321pm - Not quite Gregory, no defense of the label, only of what the label identifies as the quintessential heart and motivation for the 2nd's inclusion. 'Legal maximum' as a label is a sometime thing, and will change over time as it already has. And with the 1,000 muzzle loaders you didn't pick up on the par force requirement that a reasonable number of like-minded in a community should be able resist until inspiration kicks in or not. A 1,000 citizens are more than an infantry battalion; a very high bar for spontaneous assembly let alone control. Today a lot fewer good men (women?) with appropriate semis and ammo can accomplish getting out the message to other receptive communities, just like or even better than in the old days. But I think that you already know that.

Marillyn Lock-Heed

,,,I see a lot terms being thrown around,,,par force,,,tyranny,,, grievances,,,death by government

hows about someone identifies a scenario where a tyrannical gubmint entity has attempted to oppress some part the population for the purposes of subjugating and oppressing the freedoms of the American people??? union busting,,,martial law,,,Kent State,,,feds raiding pot patches on our private property,,,or even federal lands???

bunkerville bundys made a big stinkey,,,and what was the whole upshot of that...anything changed???

what exactly is going to be gained from our government rousting us in that way??? we are already so controlled,,,what more control does the government need???

'''a few good men with semis and ammo''' WTF???

George Rebane

MaryllynL 435pm - Ms Lock, you offer up pabulum and know not of what you speak. You have yet to conceive of tyranny, let alone suffer under it. But it does go a long way to explain your thinking.


re: Marillyn Lock-Heed (who I guess is different than ArchieBunker)

"anything changed???"

Interesting point. If nothing changes, why add new gun laws? Why not have the same laws as 50 years ago? What has been gained?

Robert Cross

The right to bear arms for hunting and self protection are valid arguments. The right to bear arms as it relates to the "ability of citizens to put up an inspiring resistance" is absurd unless one considers suicide a form of inspired resistance. Do you seriously think small bands of "citizens" armed with popguns (even with large clips and maybe a few black market bazookas) are going have any effect at all on a tyrant? How many "rebellions" have been put down by the federal and state governments via 'sending in the troops' in our own history? If the British would have had drones, hi-res satellite video, traffic cams, and the internet we would all be calling potato chips crisps. The 2nd amendment, as it relates directly to the concept of 'an armed militia' is an antiquated concept and as such throws a dark shadow on the argument that assault rifle ownership by civilians is a necessary function of democracy. We already have an 'armed militia." It is called the National Guard.

A far better way to approach a tyrant, perhaps, is look at the methods of Ghandi. Yes, as our own history tells us, people die in the process. But probably far fewer than an armed resistance on any meaningful scale. What defeats a tyrant is people getting out in the streets in such numbers that the tyrant's own henchmen can no longer support the status quo and cross over to the other side. The only thing that defeats evil is people standing together. In this day and age, armed resistance to a large military force is ultimately futile.

George Rebane

RobertC 527pm - Unless I err Mr Cross, we'll just have to put you down in the 'resistance if futile' column.


"Robert Cross", indeed. I recall Walter Cronkite also saying that an appropriate response to an invasion of Western Europe by Soviet Red Army armor would be for civilians to lay down in front of them... I don't think Walter was volunteering to be the first in line.

Also, "Robert", at this time NO ONE is suggesting machine guns for all, which is what an "assault rifle" is, and an assault rifle has NEVER been legally sold to a civilian in California. EVER. Assault rifles were first in use in 1944, a decade after machine guns were effectively banned for the little people of California.

No, a better way than being led off to an abattoir is the Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion model, but that takes guns, as does the Swiss model. Germany in 1910 was not a bad place to live. Enlightened. A hotbed of the arts and sciences. No one would have thought that a murderous regime would have control by the mid 1930's.

George, this is what will happen every time when ideologues like "Archie", "Robert" and "Marillyn" just want to derail your "par force" with a reductio ad absurdum attack. They don't want a logical argument, they just want their way, not willing to even consider a reason for the stable governments in the USA being BECAUSE of the Second... there's no upside for a tyrant if they'd just come face to face with an ugly, ornery peasantry with guns with enough guns for an armed resistance forever.

D.C. v. Heller is the law of the land, if we can keep it and the 2nd intact."Par Force" is a loser except over whiskey by a small group of friends.

Account Deleted

"...what more control does the government need???"
Apparently the confiscation of millions of rifles.
Other wise, why are we having this conversation?

Robert Cross

George 6:24 -- Wrong George, resistance isn't futile, but direct armed resistance is always futile when you are out manned and out gunned. The modern minuteman wouldn't last ten minutes in a fire fight with drones and cruise missiles. Only those who have watched too many John Wayne movies would think there is any valor in patriotic suicide. You know, live to fight another day. You neglected to consider my mention of the tactics Ghandi used on the British? They worked to throw out a world power and tyrannical ruler. You seemed to have overlooked that part in characterizing my position as "resistance is futile." Not the case at all. Apparently the only futility here is posing an idea that does not align with your views and expecting a rational discussion about violent vs. non-violent resistance as a result.

Gregory-- The only tanks that will be rolling down our streets would be American tanks driven by American soldiers. How many of their friends, brothers, and uncles do you think they would run over before they stopped? Do you have an over/under on that? I am sure you have seen the picture and know the story of the student and the column of tanks in Tiananmen Square. As for the Warsaw Ghetto perhaps being burnt alive is preferable to being gassed. It would be a personal choice. Almost futile either way. However, not all who went to the camps died.

George Rebane

RobertC 940pm - And that is why there will be a Great Divide.

Gregory 648pm - You really do think that I was born yesterday, don't you. And someone else has written these twelve years of commentaries.

Robert Cross

Not to mention parents, sisters, wives, girlfriends and strangers that would also be in the street in front of Gregory's tanks. Given recent history, females would probably be in the streets in greater numbers than the males. Resistance is non-gender specific. Do you think there are as many gun toting mommas as their are male? Why or why not?


gr 946pm

No George, I don't think you were "born yesterday", but I do think you are sometimes oblivious to the weakness of your arguments.


Bobby Cross 940pm

I've not seen these tanks you're attributing to me. However, I was ridiculing your invocation of Gandhi, whose name you misspelled in your 527pm.

No, Bobby, there will not be hostilities between the US Army and US civilians, no matter how hard you wish for it.

George Rebane

Gregory 1058pm - Since the launch of RR, I have made it clear that I don't expect to change any 'liberal minds' for reasons I have detailed. My intended audience has always been those in the middle who have yet to formulate their ideology, or are of the Keynesian mindset about responding to new information.

So it is with this attitude that I go to this town hall meeting. To date you have counseled me on the futility of bringing up the par force apology for the 2nd. I have yet to hear you claim that par force is a weak argument in support of more liberal gun rights (e.g. than those remaining in CA) or as the seminal basis for the 2nd. Did I miss a key comment somewhere?

Strength of argument and the likelihood of its reception are not the same thing. And in my experience, quite often even the strongest arguments are futile; it all depends on the audience.


Here is one for Bobby's "out maned and out gunned" garbage.
I give you Afghanistan. That place has yet to bow to outside control, no matter who tries. What's the main weapon?
a 200 dollar AK47.

jon smith

Just a thought. Elon Musk is pretty good at time management and getting his thoughts across. He also doesn't suffer fools or blowhards lightly. One of his firing offenses is for someone to use acronyms or words no one else understands. "If you have to explain what you just said, you did a crappy job explaining it in the first place. It doesn't make you look smart, you are only wasting everyone's time."

Similar note:


Walt - nice try but the power is in the Afghani's hearts and minds and culture, not the barrels of their AKs.

Besides,it is an American invasion and not par force redress of grievances.

Do they have a 2nd amendment?

Do they need one?


Drinking early Archie? Funny how you cast aside the American "heart and mind".
It doesn't matter just "who" that invading force is, or where in comes from. That includes "from within". The 2ND is all about the "within".
You really didn't think your BS through... did ya'?

Bill Tozer

Item one:
Should a modern democratic republic maintain the right of its franchised citizens to keep and bear arms so that, in their desperate last resort, they may gather and be able to broadly communicate their grievances before being silenced by local authorities?

Yes. The intent of the orgin of the 2nd Amendment is clear. There is no assumption of victory or prevailing against a tyrannical government when all other options are exhausted, including non violent civil disobedience. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is not for defense, but for shooting AT a tyrannical government (local government agents) to uphold the Constitution by citizenry armed resistance to ensure both Natural Rights and civil liberties are not trampled upon with impunity before the voices of resistance is silenced by Big Bro.

This explains why the Left, Libertarians, and the Right were sounding the alarm bells when military armored vehicles and such hardware were given to local municipalities by the Feds. The outcry and suspicion was the same from all sides; “Why does the police/sheriff need those weapons and armored vehicles!!???!! What do they need them for? Who are they going to used against? Us?.”
That tells me on local levels across the land, citizens (whether consciously or unconsciously) became intuitively alarmed because the local constablality was arming itself with seemingly overwhelming force to be used against and upon the local population as it deems necessary. Just the sight of armored vehicles became a threat and statement that resistance will be crushed.. Sure, the sherif said it would be great for removing hostages from certain situations, but sheriffs and intents come and go. It’s not about resistance is futile, it’s about the right to give citizens the ability to resist government with arms if necessary. The citizens check on powers, if you may. The last resort, the last arrow in the quiver. The results are not guarenteed, but a chance to fight is.

Won’t circle the barn again, save two thoughts from item one: a) Gun Control is not about guns. It’s about control. b) it’s the patriot’s duty to defend his country against his government.


Walt - again nice try. All this 2nd amendment hysteria is pretty laughable. With 300 million guns across the lands (probably many of them in your basement) there is no way they are going away any time soon.
When the jackbooted thugs are knocking at your door I am sure they will have just been 'stolen'.

Give me a break.

George Rebane

ArchieB 934am - And when we Americans gather at local ramparts prepared to sacrifice our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, would our power not also be in our hearts, minds, and culture? How do you distinguish the Muslims' zeal with AK47s from ours with, say, AR15s? The Taliban, al Qaeda, and ISIS initially launched inspirational (viz attracting adherents) and successful revolts against their own sitting governments which they considered to be tyrannical apostasies. Americans arrived later, and the ensuing warfare only underlined the efficacy of determined fighters bearing small arms against a state-of-the-art military arguably lacking equivalent zeal and determination no matter their hardware and tactics.


"To date you have counseled me on the futility of bringing up the par force apology for the 2nd."

Where have I mentioned a "par force *apology*"?

Scalia, in Heller, didn't use any words that could be twisted into "par force". That's the decided law, and I doubt Scalia was hindered by his not having heard the two magic words you coined three decades ago. I also doubt you will convince anyone of the importance of the 2nd by using those magic words on Friday.


George - you are going off into the weeds.

"gather at local ramparts prepared to sacrifice our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, would our power not also be in our hearts, minds, and culture?". Yes, of course - Play Star Spangled Banner here.

My point is that 300 million guns are not going away, amendments or no amendments.

You are imagining things if you think they are coming for your guns.

Also, if you care to look a Walt's Afghani analogy - we don't need guns to defend from a force invading our shores, that is what our most powerful army in the solar system is for.

Paul Emery

Speaking of military armored vehicles what happened to the one granted our sheriffs department? Who is trained to use it and how much does it cost to maintain?


Bundy ranch Archie,,, Bundy ranch. Who won? It wasn't the "G"man, and his "superior firepower".
Downplay it all you like, the fact remains it was "the people" from all walks of life who "stood up" to gov. overreach.
The 2ND is alive and well.

You can always use "Ruby Ridge" for your Proggy side.
What was the outcome? What was the only crime a conviction was upheld on? A sawed off shotgun. Too bad we didn't have social media back then to "call to arms".


Paul.. I think the Gov had to take it back. As for driving the damned thing,, it's not that difficult. Any log truck driver can.
As for maint.,,, that was up to us local taxpayers.

Local gov. can get ANY surplus military equipment. including automatic firepower. Just fill out a few forms and a "justifiable need",,

Account Deleted

"You are imagining things if you think they are coming for your guns."
Hard to reason with a person who would post that line.


"You are imagining things if you think they are coming for your guns."

George Rebane

Gregory 951am – ‘apology’ is an instantiation of apologetics, reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something. Hope this helps.

Just because someone has not used a term or label as a referent for an established concept does not mean that such new labels cannot subsequently be introduced and used to great profit (as languages have expanded over the ages). Justice Scalia would have been the last to place such restrictions on words that he (or anyone else) had not formerly used. And there is no “twisting” required for par force to be defined as the essence of the Second Amendment, that IMHO is just your elevated opinion.

But as I have said before, your futility argument stands and has been noted. And you can bet the ranch that its reception/rejection will not depend on my using ‘par force’ or ‘strawberry pie’ to label the underlying principle which I will try to get across, and introduce into the discussion.

Taking a step back, it appears that your frustration here is based on reasons different from how I (and others?) have treated the Second Amendment issue. It has occurred to me that you frequent these pages more or less as a selfless pedagogue, extending the intellectual horizons for all of us. As a lifelong teacher, I, for one, am grateful for your tutelage, and only hope that I can some day assess my capabilities as you do yours.

Robert Cross

Greg: 11:19

"No, Bobby, there will not be hostilities between the US Army and US civilians, c

Then what is the reasoning behind the need for assault rifles as expressed by George and others about 'armed resistance' to tyranny? This makes no sense.

" no matter how hard you wish for it.' You are beginning to sound like Todd with your snide baseless assumptions. Of course that is understandable for you nazis to say.


"My point is that 300 million guns are not going away, amendments or no amendments.

You are imagining things if you think they are coming for your guns."

No, they will be waiting for you to bring them in. Big fine and jail time if you don't, to be enforced as they are discovered.

Think about this line ... "I want a divorce. I want the car, the house, the kids and the dog. You keep the icky guns in the basement and I won't call the cops. Deal?"

George Rebane

re ARchieB's 1011am and RobertC's 1118am - It is again clear that, given all the detail that has already been recorded and responded to on the Founders' et al reasons for including the 2nd, I am nowhere near smart enough to communicate them to these gentlemen. Time to cut bait.

Marillyn Lock-Heed

,,, the 2nd amendment dint have anything to do with bundy,,,adults can drink,,,smoke dope,,,buy guns,,, big deal!!! but you cant if you are not 21
maybe you cant buy a gun either till you are 21,,,so what,,,you can always borrow a gun

occifer,,,all my guns were just stolen by cartel growers!!! not


"Of course that is understandable for you nazis to say."
-Bobby 1118am

Ahh, the N-bomb, the ultimate baseless assumption. Hypocrisy, thy sock-puppet name is Robert Cross.

I've not yet heard how that goes along with 2nd amendment rights for everyone who has not been adjudicated as criminal or violent. The opposite of Nazis in WWII.

Bill Tozer

Number 4

If memory serves me correctly, 60 colonists forced 600 Redcoats to retreat back to Boston after the shot heard around the world. Par force does not mean equal force. If the locals involved were thought to be a band of crazy lawbreaking misfits by their fellow neighbors, it all would have ended shortly thereafter. The British would have regrouped, the rebels rounded up and hung, and we would all be paying taxes to the King to this day. Par force that day merely bought the rebels time. Their message, ie, “the word getting out” could have been rejected or welcomed by neighboring communities, thus forming a broader consensus of yea or nay.

The Boston Massacre happened well before Lexington. The locals (some) decided it was not going to happen again. And yes, a minority of the Colonialist males participated in fighting the Revolunitionary War. It was not a One Shot Charlie type of thing. It built up over years until just enough said, “no mas”.

So, what does this have to go with the price of tea floating in the Boston Harbor? Point is “nobody is coming after your guns” agrument. Sure, not all one’s guns, just certain guns that were legally purchased in this state. Just the scary looking ones. Then, maybe later, semi auto sidearms, like every cop in this county carries, even the dog catcher. Then pump action shotguns. Then, nobody needs a double barreled shotgun for hunting. Then, nobody needs a Colt 45. Who needs a caliber that big? It pulverizes the deer meat. Only good for killing children. Then..... It’s what we call the slippery slope.

Kinda like what is happening to free speech on government run college campuses. Nobody needs to denigrate another, that’s hate speech. Nobody needs to offend another, that’s hate and intolerable speech. You can’t say “ghetto” because it may be hurtful to those from the urban blight. In fact, spoken words are being placed on par with the physical act of violence and redefined as such. Just like “assault weapons” are being redefined. Can’t say “the projects” anymore, it’s racist. ......the slippery slope continues unabated. .

First Amendment, 2nd, 4th and 5th....9th and 10th...all being eroded, all under attack. Without the 2nd, we are screwed. As the mayor of London recently cried out, “Nobody needs to carry a pocket knife. There is absolutely no reason to carry a pocket knife.” Let’s cut the crap. They are coming for guns “nobody needs to own a (fill in the blank)”. They are already coming. I hear ya knocking, but you can’t come in. Or yeah, that’s point 4 :)


gr 1116am

Let's see... from the wiki, since it was a word I'd never seen used in this context...
"Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse."

A bizarre application to change "apology" in a conversational claim to an "instantiation of apologetics" rather than the plain meaning of the word.

I'll leave the stretching exercises to you, George.

George Rebane

apology, apologetics

- "something that is said or written to defend something that other people criticize" ," "a systematic argumentative defense" (Merriam-Webster)
- "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something", "of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious doctrine", "e.g. free market apologetics" (google dictionary)

Apologies if such usage has been a stretch for some readers; henceforth it should no longer cause such discomfort.

jon smith

Apolo is Greek to defend. Both apology and apologetics seem to use the root correctly.


"Apolo is Greek to defend."

That doesn't seem quite right. 'Apology' and it's brethren look like they have the term 'logos' in them. Maybe to defend with words?

jon smith

You could very well be right. My Latin and Greek go way, way back.


"Apologies if such usage has been a stretch for some readers; henceforth it should no longer cause such discomfort"
-gr 111pm

No apology, singular or plural, are required, George, since I'm afraid you mistook my amusement for a discomfort, which it was not.

As a barbarian, the mixing of Greek into a conversation taking place in modern American English takes some getting used to but I expect as soon as the need of the host to be seen to embarrass the visitor subsides, so will the Greek logos lesson subside.

The comments to this entry are closed.