Are we making a rational argument?

[RoyGBiv]

If you've not yet watched the Piers Morgan Ben Shapiro video from last night, it's well worth watching and there's already a thread running HERE with the embedded video.

The most interesting "Rational Argument" part of the story is this part of the Q/A:

Shapiro: I think the reason that it’s about left and right here is because fundamentally, the right believes that the basis for the Second amendment--and they believe in the Second Amendment--the basis for the Second Amendment is not really about self defense, and it's not about hunting. It's about resistance to government tyranny. That’s what the Founders said, and that’s what the right believes in this country.

Morgan: Which tyranny are you fearing, yourself?

Shapiro: I fear the possibility of a tyranny rising in the country in the next fifty to a hundred years. Let me tell you something, Piers. The fact that my grandparents and great grandparents in Europe didn't fear that is why they're now ashes in Europe. So this kind of leftist revisionist history where there's never any fear of democracy going usurpatious or tyrannical, is just that. It’s fictitious.

I suspect most of us see the above statement by Mr. Shapiro as fact, unequivocal. Those that would disagree (seem to) think anyone who would consider the remote possibility of a need for armed resistance against Tyranny must be crazy. It SOUNDS crazy even to me when I read it out loud, but it 'aint. I'm not sure how to win that rational argument.

[David Armstrong]

How do we exercise the intent of the 2A without like arms as the .Gov or .Mil at our disposal? It's that simple.

Sorry, it is not that simple. The Constitution, the BoR, law in general is not simple. I agree that is should be, but it is not. Thinking it is will only result in failure. It is wonderful to talk about noble philosophy and natural rights and God-given rights and so on. But like it or not it all boils down to the law and how the law is interpreted. Failing to understand that means we continue to have problems making a rational argument.

[EMC]

I think where a lot of people get hung up on the check against tyranny argument stems from them thinking about how preposterous it seems in their minds eye when they attempt to envision what they've seen in the hollywood military propaganda machine easily crushing a peasant uprising even on a massive scale. Those people haven't experienced counter-insurgency first hand like some of us. But that isn't even the point. The point is that every advantage we have due to the RKBA stands as a deterrent effect. Chipping away at that incrementally reduces the deterrent effect until the cost of achieving societal slavery is worth it to them.

[TCinVA]

I think where a lot of people get hung up on the check against tyranny argument stems from them thinking about how preposterous it seems in their minds eye when they attempt to envision what they've seen in the hollywood military propaganda machine easily crushing a peasant uprising even on a massive scale.

I think the majority are hung up on the idea that the events seen even in relatively recent history can't happen here.

...even though here we did put people in concentration camps.

[ChrisG]

Victims of the "it can't happen here" fallacy seem to assume that tyranny must take the form of some kind of Stalinist or fascist dictatorship. But what were slavery and the Jim Crow laws, if not a form of tyranny, which deprived a sub-set of Americans of their inherent rights? The latter persisted into living memory. And significantly, those who worked to deprive African-Americans of their rights were preoccupied with keeping them disarmed.

[Shellback]

I think the majority are hung up on the idea that the events seen even in relatively recent history can't happen here.

...even though here we did put people in concentration camps.

Japanese internment camps or are you referring to something else?

[TGS]

Japanese internment camps or are you referring to something else?

Not sure about camps specifically, but another one I would mention are the Native American civilizations that Andrew Jackson drove off with the "Trail of Tears." Of course these weren't US citizens, but the way executive power was used is pretty relevant.

The SCOTUS ruled that he couldn't do it as they were a civilization according to the metric we decided on (formal alphabet/language), but he basically flipped the bird to the SCOTUS and did it anyway.

Talk about a lack of functioning checks on power, and executive power doing whatever it pleases.

[TCinVA]

Japanese internment camps or are you referring to something else?

The internment camps.

[Kyle Reese]

Japanese internment camps or are you referring to something else?

That can't happen here!!! Oh...wait...

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

[Tamara]

I think the majority are hung up on the idea that the events seen even in relatively recent history can't happen here.

I guarantee that if you had gone up to your average German of 1913, kicking back in a biergarten after work with a brewskie and a pipe, and described to him a world with Auschwitz and Katyn Forest and Guernica and Zyklon B, he'd've looked at you like you had a screw loose.