Utah Wildlife Forum banner

301 - 308 of 308 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
This quote from backcountry brings up an interesting point. Trump incited the insurrection on January 6th, 2021 in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Charges have been brought against at least 540 members of that Trump mob, many of whom are using the defense that Trump told them to do it. Was Trump supporting the Constitution, or fulfilling his oath of office in doing that? You know, the part where he said, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." His attempts to undermine the election began well before November and continue to this day. Is attempting to undermine or overturn an election patriotic, or traitorous? Is Trump a patriot or a traitor? Is unconditionally supporting a traitor patriotic?

You referenced the Civil War, or, as it has been termed, the War of the Rebellion. Grant famously said, "There are but two parties now: traitors and patriots. And I want hereafter to be ranked with the latter and, I trust, the stronger party." He was talking about slavery, not gun control.
?????

Another post with nothing to do with the OP, and you do know Trump was impeached right? And you also know that Trump is no longer president right? You don't have to have him living in your mind all the time.

Also another post full of questions while refusing to answer questions posed to you.

And another example to help you recognize patriotism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,698 Posts
Sorry, I thought you were implying that those of us who believe in reasonable gun control are traitors. Must have missed something. backcountry's post about how he evinces patriotism reminding me about Trump's lack thereof. You asked if I would defend Trump with my life. No, I would not. Many Trump supporters call themselves "patriots", I do not think they know what the word means. OT, I know, unless you start calling gun control advocates traitors.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
Well that answered one of three questions.

No I don't feel that those that want gun control are traitors, just those that take an oath to defend the constitution and then don't could possibly be considered traitors. If they want to change it or any laws then they have every right to do so but until it is changed it is still the law of the land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,698 Posts
So, do you think the Constitution prohibits any form of gun control? Is that what you're saying? As far as your other questions, I have not and will not serve in the military. But I'm not alone in that, veterans make up just 7% of our population. And, if I had served, it would have been in the Vietnam era, which according to Hasting's book was an epic tragedy. My brother served in Vietnam, one of his high school friends was killed there. And whether I would defend Biden, that's a hypothetical I wouldn't speculate upon. Sure impressed with what he's done thus far, though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
There already is gun control. I feel that we don't need any more. It's a slippery slope. Say they ban the large capacity magazines, will that make them happy? No they will want more. If they ban the scary black guns, will that make them happy? No they will want more. What if we ban all semi automatic firearms, will that make them happy? No, they won't stop, there is no agreement that they will accept.

There is no reason to impose more restrictions on law abiding citizens, it will not stop any criminal attempt.

I served in the Vietnam Era, I am NOT a Vietnam Vet, I went in after the draft and after Nixon brought the war to an end and was bringing the troops home. I was in military school during the fall of Saigon. I had 2 bother in laws that served in Nam and with the middle east crisis at the time my friends coming back from Nam convinced me to change my MOS. I had 3 Commander in Chiefs, or is that Commanders in Chief? Nixon, Ford and Carter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Critter

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
Bowgy,

I'm curious about the severing of ties rhetoric that's increasingly common on the edges of the right (Battle Hymn and other statements you've made hint at the perspective). The Declaration of Independence has some beautiful poetry and profound philosophy but many of the same founders intentionally designed a narrow path for succession into the actual constitution. I think we both know severing the ties of our nation that way is improbable (though David French wrote a very readable book on the subject recently). Given that unlikely route, are people really going to justify violent separation over more gun control?

I ask as doing so is a paradox. The patriots who choose such a route will by definition be pursuing the most unconstitutional and traitorous act possible. Those individuals will be going against the constitution and government for a political philosophy that has no judicial antecedent. And a constitutional republic solves it's disputes through law and order, especially the high courts, not open rebellion. Our founders weren't subtle in structuring our system that way.

Not to mention, modern western history of the last century doesn't bode well for creating a freer and more prosperous republic than we currently have. That's especially true for the right to bear arms. The only countries with greater gun ownership liberties aren't exactly paragons of true liberty and equality. And violent insurrection in the modern era tends to end with illiberalism and reduction in the freedoms average citizens are fighting for. Autocrats in western nations don't seem to mind one bit exploiting the sincere values of their "base" to gain power. And autocrats tolerate an armed citizenry the least of all liberties.

Its all pretty heavy stuff but I just don't see how a cost benefit analysis shows how this escalating rhetoric of insurrection or succession benefits anyone's values. That seems especially true given the recourse have in the SCOTUS and Congress or even the executive. The chance the left can push sustainable, massive gun restrictions into law is almost nil given how quickly we rotate party majorities of the federal government.

TLDR: the courts are our avenue, not separation. And no matter the previous administration's bigger legacy, they successfully filled the federal court system with Federalist Society oriented justices who aren't likely to tolerate federal overreach into gun control.
 
301 - 308 of 308 Posts
Top