11-15-2016, 01:44 PM
(11-15-2016, 11:35 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(11-15-2016, 09:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(11-14-2016, 09:13 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: In any case, what I'm pointing out is, firstly, the Left need to get over the fear many of them have about guns and being armed, and secondly, the Left needs to get real about making some allies on the Right. That simple process would do a lot to deter civil war.
I'm curious how far you'd be willing to go to make allies on the Right. Pretty much everyone on the Right is willing to give Trump a chance, even former never Trumpies. Are you?
Also, how does armed opposition deter civil war? It seems to me like it's more likely to foment civil war.
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure CA does not have nuclear weapons. There are nuclear weapons in Washington state, though.
RE: Your first question. You are asking the wrong person. I am an independent conservative. I am one of the potential allies on the Right. Ask your question to Eric or other Lefties here. I must however challenge your statement about "pretty much everyone on the right." Maybe that is true in whatever circles you run in. That's all I will say.
RE: Your second question. I am making a broad allusion to the actual mechanics of the 2nd Amendment and a number of other Amendments regarding devolution of power to the states. I am doing that for the purposes of engaging Eric and by extension other Lefties here who say the US is doomed. Just trying to play out various models. One of the great truths is how the 2nd Amendment and all that it implies serves as a counterweight to schism and break away. How is such a paradox possible? Simply put, by maintaining a decentralized at least partially armed, unorganized "militia," at all times, it structurally prevents what is seen in many other countries, which is a completely centralized armed force. In those other countries, all significant arms not held by the centralized force are illegal. In such a setting, once one goes the illegal route, one is far more likely to take the next step into terrorism or revolutionary insurrection. Our setting is a wonderful way to allow the common citizen to openly be part of the unorganized militia and thereby not become fodder for terrorist and splitist schemes.
RE: Your third paragraph. While it is true that CA does not currently have deployed nukes (a consequence of base closures and realignments during the 90s and 00s), we do have manufacturing facilities that are currently producing ICBMs and planes (e.g. current and potential delivery systems), as well as warhead pits. We control, at least partially, the means of production.
To avoid having to jump through hoops to separate the quotes, let me respond to these in reverse order.
Agreed that CA could produce nukes given sufficient time. I'm just pointing out that an armed far left movement doesn't have a chance of seizing nukes on a moment's notice in CA, should Eric think that's what's being advocated. CA would need to have enough time to itself to produce nukes that it controlled.
On the second point, I agree entirely. An armed citizenry helps prevent egregious government overreach in all respects. I know people on the left who have felt that way since the Bush administration. I doubt you're going to get Eric to understand the dynamic you're talking about, but you're welcome to try.
On your first point, until your discussion of an armed populace in this post, I had not seen you espouse any conservative opinions, perhaps because I'm a relatively new poster. Please excuse me if I was skeptical regarding your claims to being a conservative. I went through six long years, from 2010 to 2016, when calling oneself "conservative" was a lonely thing, limited mostly to the libertarian leaning Tea Party movement and the Religious Right. Most of us supported Cruz in the primary. Then after Cruz lost the primary, suddenly all the never Trumpists trying to hand the election to Clinton started calling themselves conservatives. And you still have "never Trump" in your signature.
The fact is that 90% of Republicans voted for Trump. The fact is that a plurality of independents also voted for Trump, so that must include most independent conservatives, because it sure doesn't include any leftists. Speaker Ryan is enthusiastic about working with Trump, and Jim Jordan is not making waves. McConnell is never enthusiastic about anything, but he's maneuvering to get what pass for conservative Senators some of the things they've been deprived of for the last 8 years. I count 90% as "pretty much everyone", but if you want to substitute "the vast majority", that works for me too.
So I repeat my question to you: are you willing to give Trump a chance? Are you willing to work to help point his administration in a more conservative direction, as opposed to a progressive one? Because if you aren't, there's no chance of Eric being willing to.
If you insist on opposition, I think you should be talking about how you can work with the likes of Eric and doing things their way, rather than them working with you, because they outnumber you by a rather large factor.