In reponse to a comment left on Amendment II...

In reponse to a comment left on Amendment II on the article "We have met the enemy and it is us." Which is carried on from the original post on The War on Guns - 'Victory is Ours'.
.
A reader had posted, in part, the following;
.
"I think that is what most worries me about the "absolutists", and is perhaps what makes some of us who *think* like absolutists *act* like incrementalists."
.
And following is my reply;
.
I don't think that any of us 'absolutists' are under the delusion that we will get our Right back in one fell swoop. (Barring a direct miracle). No, it's going to be a difficult fight for sure.
I think, (and I may be wrong), that is what David C. was trying to point out. Is that the CCW 'victories' aren't really a 'victory' per se. As all we're really doing is regaining lost ground. And, in addition we are again, in effect, paying for that which was naturally ours already. So, it's not really a 'win', it's a regain of what is supposed to be ours anyways.
.
On top of that, it gives government even more perceived power over the Right. Which is in direct confliction of the whole meaning for originally enumerating that the Right 'shall not be infringed'. As it is the last intended 'check' against a government Usurping it's authority.
.
Does it really make any sense. That the government be given power over the means necessary to negate it, should it become, (even more), corrupt?
.
Awakening people to the Facts and the True intentions of our Founders is necessary. Which intent is so clearly defined in the Federalist Papers. And, just by the nature of the beast. That can only happen incrementally. Unless, as SailorCurt observed, we're willing to rebel.
.
But, there is a historically proven danger with the 'incremental' scenario. In that people, by nature, will be satisfied with what seems as a 'victory' and will settle for the compromise.
All the while forgetting that compromise, and 'settling for' is what brought us to the situation we now find ourselves in.
.
As well as, reinforcing the mistaken impression that government actually does have the delegated authority to 'control' to begin with. Which, it doesn't, legally. For we mustn't forget, the Framers use of the words 'shall not be infringed'. Which was clearly meant as a Restriction on government.
.
It is by no means going to be easy. And it will demand eternal vigilance, as was outlined by the Founders. And, that it was the DUTY of the citizenry to be vigilant. Because the Usurpation can resume at any time, without warning. (The true danger of arbitrary use of law and authority).
.
Bottom line;
.
It is obvious government will not stay within it's clearly defined bounds. Nor, will it carry out it's equally defined duty. So, we return to the strongly worded advice of our First President, (who had a good military mind), George Washington:
.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
.
AND
.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might attempt to ABUSE them, which would include their OWN GOVERNMENT.”
.
- Speech of Jan. 7, 1790, in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790
.
Failure to do so, will be at our own and future generation's peril.
We are not really fighting our government. The true battle is against the inherent evil found in human nature.
.