Tucker Carlson Meets Hickok45

[baker3gun]

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."



― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

View attachment 883412

I think you're right, and it's important for us to retain arms. The arguments over what kinds of weapons we might have are silly.

We can (hopefully) learn from history, and not allow ourselves to be disarmed.

But.. Simply being armed is not a complete answer to tyranny, or to the catastrophe that tyranny can bring upon a nation.

We need to be organizing ourselves as best we can, to form self-sufficient communities. The Amish seem to be pretty good at this, and if things truly go bad we too will need to be able to produce food, have a doctor in the group, etc.

At this point, I'm not sure we all get along with each other well enough to organize into self-sufficient communities. It looks more like an "every man for himself" setup, with a whole lot of guns in a whole lot of hands.

If an enemy were to completely shut down the supply chains we all rely on, the resulting fight over food and other necessities would make our lives... difficult, to say the least.

Thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned response.

For discussion, I'd break your reply into parts and focus on this part:

" But.. Simply being armed is not a complete answer to tyranny, or to the catastrophe that tyranny can bring upon a nation....We need to be organizing ourselves as best we can, to form self-sufficient communities. The Amish seem to be pretty good at this, and if things truly go bad we too will need to be able to produce food, have a doctor in the group, etc."

IMO:

"Organizing" is a good idea. It should be unregulated.
Neither federal nor state government is empowered to regulate or restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to muster and train in the very manner that permitted the creation of this polity.
Overthrow of oppressive government was never something that the founders considered to be illegitimate.

But, in the context of advocating for preservation of constitutional protection of the citizen right to arms, I suggest that the focus should be on the right, not on how we use it.

What is important is the necessity of the right itself, not on how the right is exercised from time to time.

If a society in possession of the rkba attaches maintenance requirements to the right (like organizing and training), it doesn't improve protection of the right, it only provides ammunition for parties who are opposed to protection of the right.

***

I agree with your suggestion that we don't presently seem to be in a condition where Americans will jump to help each other out if things get bad.

But, that is not a reason to devalue the citizen right to arms.

And, history suggests that Americans were not really disposed to help each other out if something bad happened in 1927, but we are somewhat famous for really helping each other out in 1930. So who knows?

Regardless of the present state of our society, it remains true that the rule of law alone has never preserved freedom or equality anywhere, and the 5000 year track record of societal governance has always been that defenseless people become subjects.

"Never" and "always" are big words. True in this instance.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

 

[TTSX]

Whether an AR is a weapon of war or not is a moot point. I own several firearms that were more than likely literally used in war and are therefore, weapons of war. But they're 70 years old or more, so I guess that doesn't count? What about my glocks? I'm sure more than one nation has and continues to send it's men/women into combat with glock pistols as standard issue. That would make glocks weapons of war but because the police use them, people forget this? or is it because they're not scary enough? What about my Barrett M82A1? I bet several of those were in a conflict zone this very day somewhere on the globe. Seems to me that's ALSO a weapon of war..... but nobody is talking about that one either. It's the AR specifically they don't like and calling it a "weapon of war" is grasping for straws or throwing darts at the board and hoping something will stick.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

The phrase "weapon of war" really grinds my gears because the reality is that, in war, ANYTHING that can be used or converted to inflict casualties on the enemy can and most probably will be used as a "weapon of war". Consequently and IMHO, any object that I can figure out how to weaponize becomes a "weapon of war". So, in that light, we are all surrounded by and likely use "weapons of war" on a daily basis. Did you see or use a knife, a piece of rope, a wire, any hand tools or gardening implements today? I've either weaponized or seen weaponized all of the above and more.

The anti gunners throw that and other phrases around not because they are factually accurate, but because it elicits a negative emotional response in people (their base) who have been predisposed to respond emotionally rather than logically. They also know that the pro gun folks are going to waste a bunch of their attention and effort in refuting their logically flawed but emotionally charged rhetoric, and it's a tactic that appears to work well for them. It distracts and occupies the attention of their opponents, and requires more time and effort to refute than it took to create in the first place. Propaganda 101, but I'm preaching to the choir so I'll shut up now.

 

[Ridge Walker]

Bows and arrows, spears, swords, sticks and stones, spoken or written words etc. etc. are ALL weapons of war. Mankind is the ultimate weapon of war!

I was born a Weapon of War, I am Human.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

How people perceive the AR15 is something to consider.

Some folks think that it is a dangerous weapon fit only for war....
Others view it as a adaptable rifle , which can made to fit many different roles and users.

Just how the AR15 is shown and used in media , sales ads and the like can easier color a person's perspective of the rifle and those who own them.

Perception here is key , as that is far more of a influence that the dry , basic information that :
The AR15 is another semi-auto rifle.
Just as the Remington Model 8 rifle , which came out about 1911 , is a semi-auto rifle.

( Which , ironically , could be argued as my perception.... )

Both are shoulder fired , air cooled , box magazine fed , semi-auto rifles.
No big deal in my mind / perception.
Andy

 

[SrMachoSolo]

Propaganda is a "weapon of war"... many ignore this fact.

-Robert

 

[RVTECH]

Whether an AR is a weapon of war or not is a moot point.

This is very true.

Aside from all the continual comparisons that are made with regard to 'weapons of war' such as older guns, or guns that are not regarded as 'weapons of war' by the antis such as Glocks or the fact that a modern AR is essentially the same as nearly ANY semi auto rifle, the simple fact of the matter is the pistol gripped, box mag fed generally black in color rifle has become the ENDURING IMAGE to the antis as the quintessential 'Weapon of war'. It is what they have seen in movies, TV shows and in the news and for a long time. While the term 'perception' was used, and that is as well true, it is still the appearance of the gun the antis have 'imprinted' into their mental imagry.

Trying to convince anti's, or alter their 'perceptions' about the differences by 'splitting hairs' such as harping on the fact and 'AR' was never a 'weapon of war' or an 'assault rifle' because it is not select fire and the 'M-16' was the 'actual' military rifle, or that it is no diff between it and say a Remington model 8 from 1911 is falling on deaf ears.

Regardless of the make or mfg be it AR, AK, or any one of the 100's of others out there the simple fact remains is it is design, configuration and appearance that is the bane of their efforts.

 

[baker3gun]

I agree with Andy and pretty much everyone who responded.

The anti-gun contingent is founded on irrational personal opinion and emotional appeal. It's no surprise they argue that citizens should not have scary-looking "weapons of war."

It's also no surprise to see members of a gun forum agree that the correct response to that argument is not:
"AR-15's are not weapons of war."

The correct response is that the constitution protects the citizen right to arms for all legitimate purposes, which includes the right to arms for fighting in defense of liberty.

The founders were a people "accustomed to their arms."

History shows that many of them did not believe a bill of rights was necessary to protect citizen rights against a national govt that was not empowered to infringe on citizen rights.

Thankfully, smart minds and political necessity compelled the 1st US Congress to propose a bill of rights for state ratification.

Regrettably, they never imagined an America where uninformed citizens and a failed press would combine to promote abandonment of constitutional protection of the citizen right to arms. So they didn't go out of their way to fully elucidate that protection.

Today, we know what 2A means. Historical evidence reveals what they intended.
But it's too bad they weren't more specific. But again, they really didn't have any reason to take the time to be more specific.

No nation has survived the test of time. Ours has preserved liberty and rights for longer than any other, but on our current path, doesn't seem destined for permanent stability.

Hopefully the next iteration of a Constitutional Government designed to protect freedom and rights above all else, will contain more specific language protecting the essential foundation of lasting freedom: the citizen right to arms.

Anyway, as JSG says, preaching to the choir.

Good discussion tho...

 

[Phantom Man]

This is awesome. Hicok and John are being southern gentleman and let Tucker take over...