tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post3166124895406682328..comments2023-11-05T05:49:22.093-05:00Comments on The Breda Fallacy: it's Monday morning, I just woke up, there's no coffee, so...bredahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00216098318849287384noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-65007886547068389152009-03-10T16:48:00.000-04:002009-03-10T16:48:00.000-04:00SpeakDog said..."may your chains rest lightly upon...SpeakDog said...<BR/><BR/><I>"may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders"<BR/>That's part of a great quote from Samuel Adams, which is unfortunately all to appropriate today: ...</I><BR/><BR/>brolin1911a1: <BR/><I>With all due respect, the quote is from Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech...</I><BR/><BR/>Seems to be overwhelmingly attributed to Samuel Adams:<BR/>google for '"Patrick Henry" "Posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" -Adams' returns 80 results.<BR/><BR/>google for '"Patrick Henry" "Posterity forget that you were our countrymen" -Adams' returns 2 results.<BR/><BR/><BR/>google for '"Samuel Adams" "Posterity forget that ye were our countrymen" -Henry' returns 61,800 results.<BR/><BR/>google for '"Samuel Adams" "Posterity forget that you were our countrymen" -Henry' returns 8690 results.<BR/><BR/><BR/>That would be over 70,000 for Adams vs. less than 100 for Henry. When "correcting" someone, you might want to be a little more sure of being correct: the word "Posterity" does not even appear on the page you linked! It appears more correct to say that it is occasionally <I>misattributed</I> to Henry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-43568363405065858812009-02-13T11:16:00.000-05:002009-02-13T11:16:00.000-05:00VI. ConclusionThe second amendment to the Constitu...VI. Conclusion<BR/><BR/>The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state. This recognition derives from the very core of Classical Republican thought; its "constituency" among the Framers was found primarily among conservatives, particularly Virginia's landed gentry. Indeed, prior to Virginia's proposal, no federal ratifying convention had called for such recognition. The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. This right stemmed both from the English Declaration of Rights and from Enlightenment sources. Its primary supporters came from the Radical-Democratic movement, whether based among the small farmers of western Pennsylvania or the urban mechanics of Massachusetts. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the "disquietude" both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.<BR/><BR/>The distinction between the second amendment's purposes enables us to avoid the pitfalls of the collective rights view, which would hold that the entire amendment was meant solely to protect a "collective right" to have a militia.[265] The militia component of the second amendment was not meant as a "right", collective or individual, except in the sense that structural provisions (e.g., requirements that money bills originate in the House, or military appropriations not exceed two years) are considered collective "rights." Indeed, the militia component was meant to invoke the exertion of governmental power over the citizen, to inspire it to require citizens to assume the burdens of militia duty. In this respect it differs radically from any other provision of the Bill of Rights. To read what was a recognition of an individual right, the right to arms, as subsumed within the militia recognition is thus not only permitting the tail to wag the dog, but to annihilate what was intended as a right.[266] As the one (p.61)provision of the Bill of Rights which encourages rather than restricts governmental action, the militia component's terms were necessarily vague and its phrasing a reminder rather than a command.[267]<BR/><BR/>The right to arms portion of the second amendment, in contrast, was meant to be a prohibition, as fully binding as those in the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Madison intended that the second amendment be read as incorporating the individual rights proposals put forward by the Pennsylvania minority and by Sam Adams and the New Hampshire convention. Judging from contemporary discussion in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, he succeeded.[268] If either clause can be accorded primacy, it is the right to arms clause; only in Virginia, at the eleventh hour of the ratification process, was a militia clause appended to a federal bill of rights proposal.<BR/><BR/>Reading the entirety of the second amendment as militia-related, based upon some contemporary references to the need for constitutional (p.62)recognition of the militia concept, confuses the purpose of one provision with the text of another. The second amendment, in short, cannot be explained simply as a last avowal of the classical ideal, as "the last act of the Renaissance."[269] Rather, it is a bridge between the decline of that ideal and the rise of the liberal democracy. Part of the second amendment looks backward to the worlds of Polybius and Machiavelli; but part looks forward, to the worlds of Jefferson and Jackson. Only a recognition of the dual nature of the second amendment will enable us to give meaning to the aspirations of Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams as well as those of George Mason.[270]<BR/><BR/>http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardhist.htmlTango Juliethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07593296126387219845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-8324537482377746392009-02-13T11:10:00.000-05:002009-02-13T11:10:00.000-05:00Why Did it Have to be ... Guns? by L. Neil Smit...Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?<BR/><BR/> by L. Neil Smith<BR/> lneil@lneilsmith.org<BR/><BR/> Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.<BR/><BR/> People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.<BR/><BR/> Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.<BR/><BR/> If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.<BR/><BR/> If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.<BR/><BR/> What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?<BR/><BR/> If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?<BR/><BR/> If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?<BR/><BR/> If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?<BR/><BR/> Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.<BR/><BR/> He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?<BR/><BR/> And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.<BR/><BR/> Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?<BR/><BR/> On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?<BR/><BR/> Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.<BR/><BR/> And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.<BR/><BR/> But it isn't true, is it?<BR/><BR/> Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.Tango Juliethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07593296126387219845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-36435830484052533342009-02-11T13:36:00.000-05:002009-02-11T13:36:00.000-05:00I still don't get it, why provide mere titilation ...I still don't get it, why provide mere titilation and amusement for people who consider such a Right to be fungible and elastic as their own self-stimulation - and then get all huffy whey you won't fondle them?<BR/>Cattle prod to them and their Soviet 5-Stimulus Plan!NotClauswitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14358707844087117280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-23295561114054817712009-02-11T06:33:00.000-05:002009-02-11T06:33:00.000-05:00To the original idiot who posted the bit that spur...To the original idiot who posted the bit that spurred Breda's reply, and those who sail with him/her.<BR/><BR/>You are entitled to your opinion.<BR/>You are NOT entitled to attempt to force others to cater to your opinions.<BR/><BR/>Breda's choice is not to waste her time and energy on those who made the choice to cause her harm. <BR/><BR/>When the jack booted thugs come back from wherever they hid after the Clinton administration, and systematically start to dismantle our 2nd Amendment rights, -again- Breda is under no obligation to show her idea of a good time to someone who did the moral equivalent of opening a window on the moon, and causing their fellow humans to die of explosive decompression.John Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04875185117306503147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-63976093140747886742009-02-11T01:37:00.000-05:002009-02-11T01:37:00.000-05:00Breda, Now you've done it. I have to add you to m...Breda, <BR/><BR/>Now you've done it. I have to add you to my blogroll and proclaim you as the third chick I want to go shootin with along with Tam and Brigid.Warthoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10507247914387544169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-29751607659112282332009-02-10T23:53:00.000-05:002009-02-10T23:53:00.000-05:00I think the anonymous #2 comment is a classic case...I think the anonymous #2 comment is a classic case of projection. Replace "you" and "your" with "I", "my" and "mine" and you have the perfect description of the mindset of the left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-20514523051500341492009-02-10T21:36:00.000-05:002009-02-10T21:36:00.000-05:00SpeakDog said... "may your chains rest lightly ...SpeakDog said...<BR/><BR/> "may your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders"<BR/><BR/> That's part of a great quote from Samuel Adams, which is unfortunately all to appropriate today:<BR/><BR/> “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may Posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”<BR/><BR/>With all due respect, the quote is from Patrick Henry's "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech delivered March 23, 1775 at a meeting of the Virginia colony in St. John's Church, Richmond, VA.<BR/>http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/henry.htm<BR/><BR/>Regardless of who spoke those words, the sentiments expressed fit the Acolytes of the Obamanation quite well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-6716293321156810092009-02-10T16:58:00.000-05:002009-02-10T16:58:00.000-05:00Michael, that's some damned fine snark you got the...Michael, that's some damned fine snark you got there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-64774406175437523402009-02-10T16:41:00.000-05:002009-02-10T16:41:00.000-05:00"I worry about Obama on gun rights, but I shudder ..."I worry about Obama on gun rights, but I shudder to imagine a McCain/Palin presidency on almost every other issue." <BR/><BR/>I know! I mean, if McCain had been elected, we might have to put up with originalist Supreme Court justices who'd strictly apply the Constitution, limiting the powers of the President and Congress to something closer to their Constitutional limits! Can you imagine? <BR/><BR/>Whew! Glad we dodged _that_ bullet!elmo iscariothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14710846725911318970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-18741584688971825762009-02-10T15:40:00.000-05:002009-02-10T15:40:00.000-05:00Someone else said it, but it bears repeating...Roc...Someone else said it, but it bears repeating...<BR/><BR/>Rock On, Breda, Rock On.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-71161289674847176412009-02-10T14:23:00.000-05:002009-02-10T14:23:00.000-05:0051!!!!Captcha: Jugsdist. A guy who sells Dow Corni...51!!!!<BR/><BR/>Captcha: Jugsdist. A guy who sells Dow Corning products to plastic sturgeons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-38667370355701816282009-02-10T13:59:00.000-05:002009-02-10T13:59:00.000-05:00This is the proof of a well run blog: someone lurc...This is the proof of a well run blog: someone lurches in and leaves a cow pie of st00pid and the readers slap him/her around without any effort from the BlogMistress.<BR/><BR/>Heh.<BR/><BR/>Breda, ur doin it rite!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-39370957700547880192009-02-10T13:43:00.000-05:002009-02-10T13:43:00.000-05:00All your additional arguments notwithstanding, you...All your additional arguments notwithstanding, you should still take liberals to the range - in lieu of those paper plates!<BR/><BR/>(I understand your frustration. A vote for a gun control candidate is a vote against liberty, pure and simple. Funny how those who don't get that gush the mantra "never again" while rolling out the red carpet for tyranny with each and every act...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-57375046588666512642009-02-10T12:03:00.000-05:002009-02-10T12:03:00.000-05:00"I have no duty to respect any particular opinion ..."I have no duty to respect any particular opinion if after honest evaluation it contradicts that which I have personally experienced, or tested and found to be true."<BR/><BR/>Exactly. Some opinions are demonstratably false. If an opinion is dead wrong it should be called out as such in the course of debate. In fact, isn't that the whole point of debate?Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-46312805395102487832009-02-10T11:13:00.000-05:002009-02-10T11:13:00.000-05:00Why should I respect an opinion?I respect a person...Why should I respect an opinion?<BR/><BR/>I respect a person's <I>capacity to form an opinion</I>. We all have the opportunity to see things from a different perspective. Different perspectives are what can let us recognize and overcome the blind spots we as individuals have.<BR/><BR/>I have no duty to respect any particular opinion if after honest evaluation it contradicts that which I have personally experienced, or tested and found to be true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-7525223030616495252009-02-10T10:42:00.000-05:002009-02-10T10:42:00.000-05:00Breda ~Stand your ground.The same people who think...Breda ~<BR/><BR/>Stand your ground.<BR/><BR/>The same people who think they're <EM>entitled</EM> to take your money, your freedom, and your firearms through the vote appear to think they're also <EM>entitled</EM> to your free time and discretionary spending too, via a guilt trip. Transparently selfish bastards, ain't they?!<BR/><BR/>Don't let 'em get you down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-79069175676737565302009-02-10T10:19:00.000-05:002009-02-10T10:19:00.000-05:00I am not surprised that you are angered at being c...I am not surprised that you are angered at being called bigoted on your own blog. You have the perfect right to associate with whom you want.<BR/><BR/>But please recall you were once anti gun and were persuaded otherwise by experience and others. Many other people just assume the anti gun rhetoric and you are effective in changing one mind at a time. Remember the power of compounding!<BR/><BR/>Each mind that is opened is then another potential advocate and will spread the word.<BR/><BR/>Pick your converts and continue in your good works. If we condemn people due to the poor voting choices we would restrict ourselves to a very small population.<BR/><BR/>RAHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-22360850624585954712009-02-10T09:50:00.000-05:002009-02-10T09:50:00.000-05:00"voting for an issue that is extremely important t..."voting for an issue that is extremely important to you makes pretty good sense."<BR/><BR/>Yup, especially when it's a fundamental right that we're talking about.<BR/><BR/>Breda doesn't have to justify this choice to anyone here or anywhere else. It's her life and she can take whomever she pleases to the range.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-7991365591377833942009-02-10T09:41:00.000-05:002009-02-10T09:41:00.000-05:00Brenda-Your guns, your money, your time equals you...Brenda-<BR/><BR/>Your guns, your money, your time equals your rules.<BR/><BR/>As to single issue voting; considering the reasons given by some other people I know (including appearance, spouse's status [e.g. deceased] and so forth), voting for an issue that is extremely important to you makes pretty good sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-63218596394528838652009-02-10T09:27:00.000-05:002009-02-10T09:27:00.000-05:00Quote Anonymous said... "I worry about Obama on gu...Quote <BR/>Anonymous said... <BR/>"I worry about Obama on gun rights, but I shudder to imagine a McCain/Palin presidency on almost every other issue."<BR/><BR/>Well, without our Second Amendment rights, all the others become moot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-38777729047193333692009-02-10T09:13:00.000-05:002009-02-10T09:13:00.000-05:00Let's talk about freedom and values, here. It's Br...Let's talk about freedom and values, here. It's Breda's time and money. She has the right to spend it any way she pleases, and Y'ALL DON'T GET A VOTE.<BR/><BR/>On the larger issue: if I were in the habit of going to the range and of taking people with me, I don't think I'd make the same choice, though I certainly respect Breda's logic. First, guns could become a wedge issue for Bourgeois Marxists (I like that better than "liberal", which was a GOOD thing once upon a time). Second, if tyranny came from the Right (which the Bush admin. showed us was entirely possible), it would be nice to have some of the militia NOT sit on their hands because "he's our guy." OTOH, it could be argued that anyone who has accepted the moral principle that state guns can legitimately be used to take property from others should not have guns themselves. The problem with this is that if we were consistent in application, most of the gun community would be disarmed. (How many of you voted for the "compassionate conservative", because of and not in spite of his socialist nonsense?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-45538884025417704062009-02-10T08:00:00.000-05:002009-02-10T08:00:00.000-05:00OOPS, in reference to my comment, it was meant for...OOPS, in reference to my comment, it was meant for Breda!! ( I am definitely pro gun, pro-liberty)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06858329388442672301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-80261219041630164012009-02-10T07:58:00.000-05:002009-02-10T07:58:00.000-05:00Amen, sister!!Amen, sister!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06858329388442672301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32278169577563552.post-22647273103687383302009-02-10T07:31:00.000-05:002009-02-10T07:31:00.000-05:00Anon: If that's not good enough for Breda, it's no...Anon: If that's not good enough for Breda, it's not good enough for me. <BR/><BR/>Without the first and second amendment, which Obama and his cronies are clearly trying to destroy, everything else is moot. <BR/><BR/>if you think there is a single thing O is doing that is one whit better than what mcCain would do right now, or for that matter a trained circus monkey, you have clearly lost all contact with reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com