"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:21:33 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Ed. I never said anything of that sort, so please don't presume to
speak for me. My point, which is blisteringly clear, is that if the
democrats were to disarm us, then when when anyone else tries to take
away the rest of our rights, we'll be powerless to do anything. Nobody
is crossing the line, _because_ we can do something about it if they
try.

And that, Dave, is the alligator argument. You're keeping them away,
because
of a presumed effect you've never tested, but only imagined.

I see. So in Ed's World, personal experience is the only way to learn.
History doesn't teach. Luckily, in the rest of the world, we can learn
from the mistakes of others.

Oh, you missed the lessons from history that I pointed out. History can
teach us a lot. And the mistakes you should be learning from are the ones
most relevant to the case at hand: the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion,
John Brown's Rebellion, and Timothy McVeigh's supposed "rebellion."

Some people use history to learn, others use them to fuel their adolescent
fantasies.


To avoid a long go-around, I'll tell you what I think the 2nd Amendment
does. We can discuss what it *means* another time. g It functions as a
powerful symbol that the citizens of this country are in charge, and let
no
one in government forget it. It reinforces the depth and breadth of
individual liberties that we recognize.

I'm waiting for the "but..."

These symbolic functions are not to be trivialized. It's actually fun to
watch Europeans and others try to make fun of it, or express horror over
it,
because it's perhaps the most important thing that distinguishes us from
them -- and which reminds us how much we don't really want to be like
them,
at this fundamental, visceral level.

If that's what you mean by protecting our rights, this figurative sense,
then I agree with you. If you mean it literally, that government stays
within bounds because it fears your guns, then think again.

And there it is.

So you can think of our government as consisting of intelligent
alligators.
They recognize the principle and the context, and the seriousness of
this
country's citizens when it comes to protecting what we love. But they
don't
fear your guns.

Our opinions differ. Profoundly. And if you don't mind, don't try to
tell me what my points are. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we
don't understand each other. Resorting to mis-stating my position makes
the whole conversation a whole lot less interesting.

I've looked back to see where I misstated your position, but I'm not finding
it. Apparently you object to my characterization of your theory as
"threatening with guns." Perhaps you'd prefer a softer euphemism:
"intimidating," or "coercing" may be better. That's Ok, I'll be glad to
change euphemisms.

But the bottom line, the concrete meaning of what you said is that the
Second Amendment functions by threatening the government with guns.
Otherwise, what role do they fulfill, in your claim about guns protecting
the other amendments? I mean, if you aren't threatening to *use* them, how
do they have any effect?

Maybe you're going to dazzle them with close-order drill on the village
green? d8-)

Anyway, just tell me what it is you object to. If I mischaracterized what
you said, I will retract it.

--
Ed Huntress