Can there be peace between our people?
Or You see what kind of shit we gun nuts have to put up with?
Remember those birds I mentioned yesterday? They that kept flying into the window? Yeah, those birds. It never once occurred to me to walk outside and say ‘Hey birds, knock it off. That’s your reflection and you’re just hurting yourself.” Followed by me giving a lengthy explanation to the birds about wavefronts and refraction and what not. You know why that didn’t occur to me? Because they don’t get it. And they never will. They will continue to fly into the window, pointlessly attacking their imagined opposition.
This brings me to Mike Vanderboegh’s merry band of keyboard commandos. Mostly, I’ve been ignoring these guys and not engaging them for the same reason I did not engage the bird. It’s pointless. The trend is the same:
1 Crazy talk about shooting the bastards
2 followed by attacking those folks who think maybe shooting the bastards is a bit much
3 ending with righteous indignation about how those of us who may disagree with them are, well, pick your favorite insulting term.
After, it gets repeated elsewhere. Second verse, same as the first. I would try to engage them and point out that maybe scaring the white people isn’t the best policy decision. That their efforts are better spent being politically active instead of engaging in mental masturbation all over their keyboards. Or, as Sebastian said: If 3% of gun owners were as involved in political activism as they supposedly are at preparing for civil war, we’d be an unstoppable political force.
But, like reasoning with the birds, it’s a fruitless endeavor. It will waste my time and probably annoy the birds. After all, these are guys who accuse other bloggers of cowardice for not drawing a clear line in the sand, while pointing out their own lines have been crossed while they do nothing but engage in a New World Order induced circle jerk. But other gun bloggers do engage them (most recently here, here, and here).
And that’s the other rub. In addition to a complete unwillingness to think that maybe their strategies aren’t helpful, a lot of these guys are complete assholes. I mean, zero attempt at convincing someone of their point without inflammatory rhetoric. One of the comments made recently in an offline discussion was that some of the gun bloggers were part of the three percenters these guys were counting. And they were even turning us crazy gun nuts off.
So, can there be peace between our people? Not until they stop acting like douchebags. Until then, I’ll continue my policy of not engaging them.
I mean, at least the birds aren’t douchebags.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Update: And to be clear, Mike has been personable to in our few online exchanges. I’m not calling him a douchebag. Rather, the inevitable stream of other commenters who tend to show up.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
How is that clueless? The recent park issue only allows those who have permission in the form of a CCW to carry. In Ohio I can open carry, BUT I can’t have a loaded weapon in my car unless I have permission (ccw)
How is that clueless?
Is SCOTUS and the gov’t had done what they should have in MILLER we wouldn’t have had the abominations we have. Hell, in congress would just stick to what they should instead of inventing new ways to gain more power we’d be a lot better off, and if we reminded them of that more often maybe they’ll start to get it.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
perhaps you’ve heard of shall issue?
December 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Something I always wanted to say, but never did at du Toit’s site because I figured it’d get censored:
du Toit, stop calling yourself an American. You aren’t. Your piece of paper doesn’t mean anything, any more than a Mexican anchor baby’s does. Being American is a matter of mental attitude _and_ of heritage (the second affects the first more than many realize). Going from immigrant to American takes about three generations. The ones off the boat never get it quite right.
The proof is in your repeated advocacy of statism, and repeated refusal to examine the flaws in said statism.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
and perhaps you can point out the other rights that require a fee to be paid and approval by the government before you can exercise them? I can’t carry a gun openly in parks the feds have no biz owning. I HAVE to have permission from the state in order to carry a gun concealed.
Perhaps you can explain why if the founders had intended for “reasonable restrictions” and “common sense gun laws” they didn’t just write that in like they did in the 3rd amdt?
As for KdT, the last attack is going too far. My grandparents came here in the 20’s, well at least my grandmother did. Gave up a sizable inheritance to do it.
December 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
‘and perhaps you can point out the other rights that require a fee to be paid and approval by the government before you can exercise them?’
peaceable assembly. Next.
And, a permit is better than nothing. It may not make you feel warm and fuzzy but that’s the reality.
December 7th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Yes, but it’s not a RIGHT if you need permission. That’s the reality prags won’t address.
Well then, I’d be happy to fire off an email to the antis should you think that’s not something to confront. Maybe they can get a law passed that will require gun owners to pay a fee to get together. You don’t seem to have a problem with fees being charged on basic rights. Maybe you’d support the requirements for bloggers to have to register and file quarterly as lobbyists?
December 7th, 2008 at 12:37 am
There’s no right to carry concealed. There’s a right to be able to carry at least either openly or concealed, but if open carry is available then concealed carry ceases to be the only possible expression of the right to bear arms. If the state government wants to charge a fee for concealed carry where open carry is legal, they’re within their constitutional powers.
Besides, three words: time, place, manner. Two more handy, linked terms: “narrowly-tailored statute” and “compelling state interest.” If the First Amendment is subject to these then so is the Second.
December 7th, 2008 at 1:41 am
and that compelling state interest has stopped precisely zero criminals. As I said forbidden to carry openly, meaning one MUST, if he wished to carry there, on PUBLIC LANDS pay for the privilege unless of course the state wishes to waive licensing while on those lands. Something I highly doubt as the name of the game is control.
Compelling state interest huh? That could mean triple locked and disassembled anywhere besides your home or the range. Ammo stored in a government depository with no more than 10 rounds at home. The financial crisis is putting a hurt on things so a 1500% tax to help pay the bills. Maybe a required insurance policy for gun owners. You dont like THOSE compelling state interests?
December 7th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Tell it to the Supreme Court, Tom. They’re one of the most widely-respected institutions in America. If you can’t win them over, your odds of winning over the general populace are virtually non-existent. The good news is that the Supreme Court tends to be fairly reasonable and unwilling to let wholesale restrictions on protected rights occur. The bad news is that they also tend to rule on as narrow an issue as possible and to work very slowly, preferring to let popularly-elected legislatures deal with the problem if at all possible.
Frankly, if I’m not engaging in armed revolution in opposition to the legality of abortion and embryonic stem cell research, I’m sure as anything not going to do so just because there are non-prohibition restrictions of firearm ownership, and I don’t even have a family to look after. I’m also much more pro-RKBA than the general population. If you can’t even get people like me, Sebastian, and Ahab on board then any would-be revolution begins to look more like an authoritarian coup and any “civil disobedience” begins to look more like preening hissy fits.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Someone said that the feds aren’t going to come to our front door to take our guns. That’s true, but what difference does that make? Hopefully smart patriots have a few rifles unpapered and stashed away. This whole issue of potential revolt isn’t about the guns anyway, it’s about why they want our guns. If I KNEW that our rights would be intact I probably wouldn’t care about guns. Unfortunately centralized power can never be trusted with our liberties and that’s why I own guns.
What is the great issue with the guys debating insurrection? Should we stifle them? Sure, most of them will tuck tail when the time comes to pull the trigger. Fortunately some patriots won’t, and it wouldn’t take many to restore the republic. All that said, don’t think your camo and your M1A will save you if this far in the game you’ve lacked the willingness to expend the effort to turn off the TV and PT, write your congressman, or read a book to solidify your position. These are issues of character and men without it will be dead weight on a battlefield. But if you are a man of character then you need to be linking up with like-minded folk and training and talking about tactics. Just temper it with an equally passionate peaceful effort. If nothing else it will allow you to maintain the high ground if you have to shoot someone.
Whatever the case may be this fight among us isn’t disheartening. In the event we do hit a flashpoint I’m confident those on here that are worth their salt on both sides will stand side by side on the firing line.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:16 am
“Sigh. Clueless.” – SayUncle
The fact I believe individual rights are “unalienable” (per the Declaration of Independence) and the RKBA “shall not be infringed” (per the Second Amendment, part of our supreme law of the land) doesn’t make me “clueless.” You really are a piece of work.
“perhaps you’ve heard of shall issue?” – SayUncle
“Shall issue” only to those people a government deigns to “allow” to possess and carry handguns. The Framers’ “shall not be infringed” was intended to prevent your odious “shall issue” permit scheme from ever being enacted in the USA.
“peaceable assembly. Next. And, a permit is better than nothing. It may not make you feel warm and fuzzy but that’s the reality.” – SayUncle
I’ve been peaceably assembling with groups of fellow Americans for decades; no permit yet. The fact some local governments impose such permits in violation of the First Amendment doesn’t make it just, moral or constitutional. Whether it’s the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918 or your beloved permits and licenses before people are “allowed” to exercise fundamental human liberties, the “reality” only occurred because enough unprincipled folks (you know the type) passively or actively condoned it.
No, abrogating any unalienable individual right never makes me “warm and fuzzy.” I’m just funny like that.
“There’s no right to carry concealed.” – Wolfwood
Really? That would come as news to Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, James Madison, et al. If it’s any comfort, Charles Schumer, Janet Reno, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, et al. heartily agree with you.
“Tell it to the Supreme Court, Tom. They’re one of the most widely-respected institutions in America.” – Wolfwood
The institution which ruled black people could never become U.S. citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford), innocent Americans can be imprisoned without charges for years in concentration camps (Korematsu v. U.S.), refused to enforce the First Amendment until the 1920s and has yet to genuinely enforce the Second is “widely-respected”? Not by anyone with a conscience and three or more functioning brain cells.
“I’m also much more pro-RKBA than the general population.” – Wolfwood
You will rarely lose money betting on the ignorance, stupidity, and docility of the general population. Charles Schumer routinely writes his constituents and claims to support the Second Amendment. His interpretation of the RKBA is as seriously flawed as that displayed by SayUncle & Company.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:37 am
“Idjit!”
“Poopyhead!”
“Moron!”
“Wanker!”
Man, I sure do loves me some flaming!
🙂
December 7th, 2008 at 9:48 am
That’s not what you said that I called clueless, now is it? Reading is fundamental.
‘I’ve been peaceably assembling with groups of fellow Americans for decades; no permit yet. ‘
Good. Try to have a parade then.
December 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Wolfwood counts on bureaucrats being sane.
May I point out that Waco came AFTER Ruby Ridge? Just how sensible was THAT?
The next Waco is in the planning stage, if only in the back of some ATF agent’s head (Jody Keeku comes to mind). To expect anything else is whistling past the graveyard of history.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
This complaint that the three percent have themselves backed up when the line has been moved previously is a bit confusing. Does it imply that you prags think we should have started shooting *sooner*? Or does it mean you think we should all be completely consistent with past behavior, refusing to learn from mistakes, and carry that right to the grave?
Look, all the III want from you prags is to actually believe that we are crazy, irrational, unstable, loose canons that could be set off anytime at some angels on the head of a pin provocation that only we can predict. Believe it, then tell it to *them*. Or don’t believe it, but pretend you do. Use us as pawns in your legislative chess games. We think that we’re the best weapon *you* have in your efforts to avoid it coming down to actual shooting. Claiming the line in the sand is in the hope that if they know where it is, they will not approach it. If they’re going to storm across it even in full knowledge of where it is, then your theories are shot all to hell anyway.
We don’t have to agree, or even like each other, but as Bob Seeger said, “I used her and she used me, and neither one cared.”
December 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Glad I checked back in since I truly could use a grin today… and I got it when reading that the SCOTUS was “respected”. :o)
December 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
So the entire argument of the Mighty III is that we, the “prags” (I love that, it’s so reminiscent of soviet propaganda) should go to our elected representatives and tell them that gun owners are insane and unstable and may start shooting people – in the very same breath that we’re trying to convince them that gun owners are normal, sane folk with no intention of an armed uprising.
…
December 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
No Ahab, differentiate yourselves. Present yourselves as the “reasonable” and peaceful alternative, the only ones who can keep the small minority of crackpots in line. We’ll go along with the charade, at least until it stops mattering.
Be Sinn Fein.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
You mean the same Sinn Fein that the English government wouldn’t allow into the peace talks until the IRA (in this example, the 3%ers) surrendered their weapons? The same Sinn Fein that was finally admitted to the peace talks because the IRA agreed to a cease fire? The essentially politically ineffective Sinn Fein?
Analogy fail.
The problem with that idea anyway is that the government (and the general pop) aren’t smart enough to see the difference between me and the 3%ers – they see “gun owner” and all they see are the negative stereotypes that you guys are altogether too happy to reinforce.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
So essentially, the argument the “Three Percenters” want is that the “prags” should relay their threats of violence in an attempt to blackmail the populace and government into acquiescence? I would say that this reminds me of something else, but Kyle Bennett‘s comment comparing “Three Percenters” to terrorists beat me to the punch.
I started out thinking that this division within the RKBA ranks was just a matter of differing opinions, but I’m increasingly thinking that 3%ers need to be thrown under the bus for being too much of a liability. I’m not down with blackmail or terrorism. Self-defense is one thing, but 3%er comments often seem perilously close to Timothy McVeigh territory.
Normal, reasonable people in America aren’t very engaged in politics beyond election for President. They respect the Supreme Court (laugh if you want, but they do), watch CNN, and don’t give money to political advocacy groups. You threaten violence if your rights are trampled upon, but the majority of people hear that and are likely to think that what this means is that you definitely need to be disarmed and possibly imprisoned. Your way leads to dead cops and your family killed or injured. The “prag” approach leads to widespread CCW permits, a sunset provision in the AWB, expansion of the Castle Doctrine, and the Heller decision.
This is a fight where we’re at a huge disadvantage. We need to pick our battles, win strategic victories, and expand our base by educating our neighbors firsthand. It could all very easily collapse if our opponents become powerful enough (and they’re one Supreme Court justice away from controlling all three branches of government) and get spooked. We’re already likely to see restrictions in the next few years. This is almost unavoidable; sunset provisions and park carry help lay the foundation for future victories after this initial downturn.
3%ers see the prags as bootlicking as scraping for the remnants of what should be vibrant rights, but to do otherwise is to vastly overestimate the political power the RKBA movement wields (and it includes people like me who would vote for an anti-gun, anti-abortion candidate over a pro-gun, pro-abortion candidate). When it’s a tie ball game and you’ve got fourth and four on the twenty-yard-line…kick the field goal.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Ahab,
The reason you have so much trouble convincing the public that “gun owners” are all of purely peaceful intent is that there are obviously many who aren’t. So long as you refer to gun owners collectively, you ensure that the view of peaceful ones is “tainted” by the words and actions of the few. Once you admit publicly that some are “crazy”, your claims that you are different, that you are rational and peaceful, become credible. Hell, you could even have the NRA carry out a very public purge of us whackos to make it more convincing. I for one wouldn’t lose any sleep over being kicked out.
Further, the difference will be clung to by the public, because they don’t want to believe that millions of gun owners are a threat. It would give you enormous power, particularly if you position yourselves as all that stands between them and us. Convince them that you have a tenuous hold, and that by giving you a few “common sense” concessions that you can throw us a bone and keep us from barking too loudly. Then, like the “moderate” grabbers, you can – with the appropriate expressions of reluctance – keep demanding more and more once the camel’s nose is under the tent. Their tactics have been very effective, why not emulate some of them?
December 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Wolfwood, there’s no comparison of the III to terrorists, except that which already exists in the public perception and government propoganda. Except they don’t differentiate you from us. We can’t make that differntiation, only you can. You think you can convince them to allow the gun rights we both want, but can’t convince them of such a simple distinction? That doesn’t speak well for your political ambitions.
The absence of that distinction is exactly what you are complaining about, and the perception of there not being one long predated this recent idea of the III. Failing to make it is squarely on you, and will be your downfall, even if the rest of us all shut up starting today.
The analogy to Sinn Fein was just that, an analogy, not a model to be implemented in every detail. They were the political arm of a radical and violent movement, and they accomplished many of their goals because of that relationship, not in spite of it. You could be the political arm of a radical and so far non-violent movement, while holding out the promise of keeping that way. The bonus is that we don’t want violence, so you wouldn’t even be lying.
We won’t light off any car bombs or shoot up department stores, I promise.
Oh, and Wolfwood, you couldn’t throw us under the bus if you tried. You don’t get it, the premise of III is that we are starting out from under the bus.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
And yet, it is precisely this that you want us to imply to our elected officials and people who watch CNN that you’re capable of doing – because there’s no difference whatsoever in the minds of the people whose opinions we need between shooting a cop and blowing up a school. None. Zilch. Zero.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Kyle Bennett, you make our points, beautifully.
A great benefit to these discussions is the increased presence of this issue on the net. People can’t make a decision about an issue they are unaware of.
As to the debate being divisive? What’s wrong with that? If, of the undecided, the prags get 99.99%, then the 3%ers win. We win because each individual who sides with the 3%ers is one more person who will actually stand fast on principle, rather than compromise and fall back with the other 99.99%.
“One man with courage is a majority.” -Thomas Jefferson
December 7th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Again, Ahab, if you can’t even get the simple idea of that difference across, what makes you think you can convince them of anything? You’re saying that words cannot succeed? You’re pleading impotence as a reason to let you be responsible for our freedom? You’re granting them the high ground in order to convince us to let you be the general? You’re cowering under the covers in fear of public *opinion* and demanding we leave the hardball game of life and death politics up to you?
What game is it you think you are playing? Do you think showing your belly means you’ll be given a treat and a tummy rub?
December 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I think there’s a difference between “support us or the nutcases will start shooting things!” and incrementalism.
Essentially, the “prags” see “When guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns” coming back to bite us. RKBA folks interpret this as “Criminals are a threat.” Average folks, especially those led by the media, think “Well, let’s get on the stick, outlaw guns, and then arrest the outlaws.” You can quote what may (or may not) be logic all day long and it won’t do a bit of difference in those minds. They don’t see criminals as being scary so much as guns being scary. Walking around with a MOLON LABE shirt with an M-16 on it makes people nervous. They say to themselves “He looks like a militia member (or the Neo-Nazi (or Black Power, or whatever) terrorist from the Movie of the Week); if he likes this gun then clearly there’s something wrong with it.” I would bet money that if gangs started tazering each other then you’d see all sorts of legislation banning tazers and people nodding when you talk about “reasonable restrictions on tazers.” They’d do the same if it were even rubber-band guns.
You seem to think that anyone outside the RKBA movement knows about Ruby Ridge and Waco; they pretty much don’t. If they do, they know there was a standoff, and because people generally trust the government (at least, not to go around murdering people) they conclude that it was the victims who brought it on themselves.
This can be changed through education. What it can’t be done through is threat of force. Even getting all up in people’s faces won’t do it. This isn’t something that most people see as obviously unjust, like racial discrimination. Instead of trying to find a moderate to work through, they figure it’s best to nuke from orbit and just ban all guns (piecemeal or de facto if necessary).
In general, people are basically indifferent. Give them a good reason to ban guns and they will. Give them a good reason to protect RKBA and they’ll agree to certain things. Instead of trying to rescind the machine gun ban, the Heller team worked to lay another stone of a foundation. We are far, far behind where we need to be in terms of a sufficient legal framework, and that’s something that will take years, decades, or more.
Alternatively, we could just shoot people who disagree with us and wage an intifada because we can’t be patient. The problem is that when you shoot the policeman (and father of four) who tries to confiscate your guns, the full power of the state will come down to incapacitate you in one way or another. 3%ers are picking battles in places where they’ll go down in vainglorious and soon-forgotten defeat, harming the very cause they seek to protect.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
The funniest damn thing I’ve ever read by a prag (and remember, y’all were the ones to self-describe yourselves as “pragmatists) is that YOU are going to throw US under a bus! What a hoot. How do you suppose you’re going to do that exactly? Rat us out to the FBI and ATF? Write us a letter, like Hans Blix in Team America, to tell us how angry you are with us?
They feds don’t need your help, you know, they’re already on our case, looking for the first mistake. So what are you going to offer them other than just bare your neck like some lower level pack dog to let them know you’re not a threat? Really, give us an answer. How do you suppose you can “throw us under a bus”?
You do understand that when you’re talking about “throwing us under the bus” to the feds, you’re threatening us with federal prison or death, right?
“Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.”
December 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Wormwood, if the father of four comes to confiscate our guns, it means the full power of the state is already in motion against us. Then, there is nothing more to lose.
There won’t be any shooting prior to it, and certainly not on mere “disagreement”, so you’ve got nothing to lose if you really think you can make your schemes work before that happens. Our noise will not make it happen any sooner than it would otherwise, at the very least because they couldn’t work any faster if they tried.
Heller isn’t a stone in the foundation, it’s a chalkline delineating where the foundation might go, some day, if you ever get the stones to build it. Let us be your stones, until you can get some of your own.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“And, a permit is better than nothing. It may not make you feel warm and fuzzy but that’s the reality.”
He didn’t ask you about that, Uncle. The essence of the question is what any of that has to do with rights.
December 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
so people who stand up for their rights are terrorists?
Quit the circle jerk and just say it. You want to muzzle their speech because you think it’ll hurt YOU. You don’t give two shits about their rights as long as YOU have yours.
They’re soooo radical that they’re busy fighting the laws instead of building car bombs and machine guns.
They’re soooo radical that they’re busy talking to you.
They’re soooo dangerous that you call them a “merry band of keyboard commandos.”
Notice that the word you WANT to read in there is “the” He says 3%. Period.
And just so nobody forgets…Heller was about fighting the government to allow him to REGISTER a gun. As you like to point out the court has narrow rulings. Heller means we now have to fight our way back FROM registration because as it stands we have a “right” to REGISTER a gun that they allow us to have under their laws.
December 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Uncle decides not to engage the realists because some of them are insulting, so he writes a post saying so. Invokes his racist sounding “don’t scare the white people,” and insults those who stand on principles. Am I the only one who thinks that is lame?
Washington State had shall-issue from the mid 60’s. But So What?
The only “compelling state interest” is preservation, protection and expansion of freedom and liberty. All other meaning is statist. Is it “government of the people, by the people and for the people” or not? Quoting terms used as justification to eliminate liberty does not make a good case. And the Supreme court is a “widely-respected institution?” Riiight.
Sebastion is flamed for refusing to draw a line in the sand. Personally I think both approaches are good. Some with no declared line and some with it clearly declared for the anti-rights crowd to see. Make sure it is a well chosen line. I’m too new to the issue to know my line, but I’m working on it. Sebastion also says those who stand on principles are not on his side. Am I not to conclude that rights of the people aren’t his side?
Pragmatism has given us 70+ years of gun control. But also a few roll-backs of the infringements. I have no problem with the “prags” working to roll back infringements, but what is the deal with their anger at those with principles?
December 7th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Oh, that is cute… Come here complaining about the name-calling and finger-pointing, only to indirectly backstab the “prags” for not having “principles”. Way to be an idiot, mate.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Well, Legion, at least we’re comfortable with our own names. 😉
December 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
And with Linoge and me being renamed as demons, I think civility is pretty much gone.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
point out facts and WHAM, right back to name calling.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
linoge — I am an idiot, and professional-grade lame. My faults are legion. Whereas uncle might make an occasional lame post among many good posts. As far as the backstabbing goes, I was trying to use the two sides names for themselves. Which I put together in a way that you took insult too, my bad. But I most certainly will not use your name for the other side: “insurrectionist” because it is a bald-faced lie. They do not advocate insurrection. I think you do protest too much.
The topic at hand (not my lame side show) obviously raises great emotions. That is really what I don’t get. Why are the self-named pragmatists so angry at those who have declared a line in the sand? Uncle does not want to ‘scare the common man’ (regular person, typical people?). Why not? Standing for liberty (pragmatic methods included) is not popular, so what? Uncle thinks “If you fuck with me bad enough, I’ll kill your ass” doesn’t scare typical people? (quote is from memory so sorry if I screwed it, Unc). Get a grip people. Us owning guns scares uncle’s white people. That is all it takes to scare them. Owning those EBRs scares ’em. Owning wheelies scares them. Owning autochuckers scares them. And milsurps (oh god BAYONETS). And bambie zappers. Scatterguns too. Scares some to hysteria and shaking. Some of us own thousands of rounds and dozens of guns. Scares them. Some carry concealed or open. Scares them. Hunt=scare. Target Shoot=scare. Plink=scare. Tannerite=freakout. 50’s and self defense–No Way That Would Scare Them. They be scared Unc. I’ve tried to talk to some. They are just irrational-scared-of-the-objects-terrified.
You don’t want to scare Uncle’s White People? Get rid of your guns.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
That’s a pretty pragmatic position. I would venture the pragmatic solution is to convince them otherwise rather than to assume they will always be scared.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Wolfwood,
I apologize. My slight on your “name” wasn cheap and undeserved.
But aside from that, your post that I was responding to is full of lies.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Sometimes the dumbness of all of this is staggering.
Pragmatists: You’re essentially begging the government to “Pretty please stop infringing on my inalienable rights.” Do you not see that this is how you lose? Have you not read any of your history? Ever? The ONLY way to shrink government is to tear it down. Do you know of any instance where government shrank and gave up a lot of power without doing that? There are thousands and thousands of control laws, and most of them are stupid. How many have you had thrown off the books? One? Two? In that way FAIL lies.
You don’t tell the congresspeople that if they go too far that we’ll shoot up malls, etc. Yo tell the Congress that we will start shooting THEM. That’s the ONLY way you can threaten a politician. Cause even if you vote them out, they can always run again or for another office.
I really don’t want to fight another civil war. But the left is not going to compromise. It’s getting to a point where co-existence is impossible. They want to take away our INALIENABLE rights and make everyone a subservient subject of the all-powerful state which always knows best in all areas of your affairs. Tell me how you compromise on that.
We do need to come together. The fudds (yeah i said it. so what?) are more than willing to throw ALL of us under the bus so they can keep playing mountain man, so the rest of us need to get our act together NOW. FDR II is less than 50 days from from being crowned- er, inaugurated. We don’t need to convince a majority of non-caring people that WE are fighting for ALL rights, not just the 2nd amendment. Even the smallest percentage is millions of people that would be hard to suppress. Hell the American Revolution never had a majority behind it.
First they came for the machine guns…
Then they came for the “Assault Weapons”…
Then they came for Sniper (Hunting) Rifles…
Then they came for the pistols…
Now all i got is a damn rock.
Shit.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
OK, I think I’m beginning to get it.
1) There are these two (more actually) very different ways of working for our rights, but many (a few? some? all?) on both sides think the other side is not on there side. Personally I see benefits of both sides.
2) I understand that the part that involves name calling does not make friends. I get that part. But there is more than just the flame-fest induced hostilities. It seems that the two sides (really that is an oversimplification) think the other side hurts their side. I don’t agree. I see multiple strategies by people with different ideas. That is a good thing about a system of liberties.
3) I assume everybody agrees that starting with NFA34 the feds infringed. And it is not just guns, but all liberties are under attack. If some in the pragmatist camp think the NFA+ is just peachy, well then I guess I do see a problem. I have no doubt the No Compromise camp sees NFA (etc.) as an infringement.
4) What concerns me is that I see a history of “compromise” in which we give up rights and get nothing in return. The antis say “compromise” and give nothing. What could they give in return for the people giving up fundamental human rights? And we all know it is bigger then guns.
So here is how to work to similar ends without ever talking again:
1) Pragmatists work to reverse existing infringements. Stay away from “compromising” rights away. You think the system isn’t broken, so use it.
2) Stand by Principles type (We need a better name and III only is one branch) work to stop further infringement – No More Loss Of Rights. Stay away from Fort Sumter, e.i. to quote Mike – “No Fort Sumters”
3) When the Shit Hits The Fan, wish like hell that it had not gone down the tubes.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“their side”, not “there side” in 1) oops.
December 8th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Conservative gun owners are – in general – individualists who don’t want to cluster together. Hence the continual battle to get and keep members of the NRA, GOA, etc. They might join a local club to save money on ammo or to use the facilities but will drop that membership if something rubs them the wrong way.
Liberals, OTOH, are already assimilated as parts of THE BORG. They seem to thrive on equal parts of group-think and Kumbaya. They need the constant approval of their peers.
Is it any wonder that libs can assemble several thousand people for a demonstration while we gun-nuts are lucky to pull in a hundred? I think a million men peacefully assembled in front of the Capitol would be a great idea but there’s no way it’s going to happen unless they’re there to demonstrate FOR more gun control.
To expect anything other than what we’re getting is like expecting the sun to rise in the west.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
An explanation of how we are “insurrectionists.”
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-are-expendable-or-giving-battle-but.html
December 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
At so the prags say. I meant how we are NOT insurrectionists.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Chris: “And it is not just guns, but all liberties are under attack.”
That’s crucial. A big part of why I find moderates and pragmatists just about useless in all this is when they’re concrete-bound myopes, which a lot of them are. They’re happy to bang the table about “gun rights” and simply cannot or will not generalize the concept of rights as a principle.
Aside from arguments over political practice, etc., that is a big, big problem. I have always found it extremely unfortunate, at the least, that there has been an argument at all over “gun rights”. This is a higher-level error of logic with obvious practical implications. There are lots of lessons here for anyone interested. Principles matter. Integrity is more than a worn-out sock in your grandfather’s drawer. Any defective premise sufficiently extended with accurate logic will result in a simulation of insanity. Etc. Look around you.
There are almost countless reasons why it’s gone like this, but they won’t matter in the end.
December 8th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I have a question for you, Mike. I am not one of your enemies: I mean this as earnestly as can be imparted without looking you in the eye while I ask you. And: I beg you to read it carefully, because that’s how I am choosing every single word. I think you may understand that I will refer to passive civil disobedience.
I understand the concept of “expendables”. You’re talking about a level of devotion that most people can’t muster in the abstract, nevermind practice.
What I would like to know is whether there is anything in your ethics — your system of values — that necessarily precludes your bringing that level of devotion to living for America if you wouldn’t have to die for it.
~~~~~
(Here’s a note that I want to lodge here while I’m thinking about it, and please Mike don’t let it distract you. I really want to know.
Anyway: if — quite abstractly — a stipulation to disobedience could be gained, then it is quite possible that “guns rights” would not be the best line to draw. The thing in itself brings all kinds of practical problems involving people getting shot, scaring whities, you name it. On the other hand, more general — principled — vectors necessarily imply more general practical political implications. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this: I say this government must now be starved into abject submission if not completely out of existence, which is my line. But if we want to talk about education; it would be some feat in pointing out even to people on “our” general side that logic is not just a parlor-game and that there are always benefits in working from the bottom, up. IOW: try getting gunners to stop paying the income tax. Very few can see the line.
Anybody who ever thought any of this would be easy was out of their mind. And it’s only going to get more difficult all the time. Remember that. That’s because it’s not just about guns.)
December 8th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
No way am I going to answer for Mike, but I suppose to answer truthfully and honsetly, lets define terms.
What do you mean by “America” Is it a geographical area falling under a centralized federal government? An idea embodied in the founding documents? Something else?
If it’s an IDEA then I’d have to say I think that’s exactly what he and 3% are doing. I think that’s what anyone standing up for their rights, and I mean specifically for SNBI in this case, is doing. I’d also have to say that to some extent the prags are doing the same, perhaps in a slower, more scenic route kind of way. Also as you know not everyone who wrote the damn thing was 100% in lockstep with the others, heated arguments and debate gave way to a broadest rights model that forced no one to do, say, pray, or own anything they didn’t want to.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
“If it’s an IDEA…”
Yes. It is, and if you could see that clearly then I think we can proceed.
“…then I’d have to say I think that’s exactly what he and 3% are doing. I think that’s what anyone standing up for their rights, and I mean specifically for SNBI in this case, is doing.”
As a matter of logic, I can see your point, but there is a serious distinction to be made between holding out until fighting back with violence becomes necessary, and stepping deliberately into courts and jails while it’s explained to an incredulous public why you did that, before any of it comes to shooting.
That’s a very big difference.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:55 am
See, that’s the thing. You can look back through history and see plenty of people who were pushed. I was looking at something the other day where a guy was at the end of his rope…here it is http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article740940.ece The guy snapped. Yes, it’s not 100% the same, but the case of the guy armoring up his dozer, or any number of cases. They had enough, the government moved that line enough to get them to go off. They worked inside the system as long as they could.
The 3% folks have declared where their personal lines are. They’re STILL “holding out” and fighting within the system until someone moves that line on them. Taking them at their word I have to believe that they will not be the cartoon version that people flaming away earlier said they are.
I’m not too sure if anyone even bothers to look at this post anymore since it’s been pretty quiet today. I’m not really on either side, kind of straddling the fence at the moment. The insanity of these days makes the 3% view, the inevitability of violence, seem like something that would be better if it were forced sooner as current technological and weapons system developments are rapidly getting to the point of guaranteed failure. Look at the growing use of robotic “soldiers” and the increasing removal of “oppressors” from the battlefield.
On the other hand the we’ve gotten a few sparks that could possibly reignite those grass fires in the minds of folks. If we can keep flicking the bic of liberty maybe things will get better in another generation or three.
Of course everything is fluid and open to outside forces. The gov has its nose in all kinds of stuff and has for a long time. Foreign folks might pull something that throws everything out the window at any time.
I DO know for sure that I’m on the right side of the larger issue, and see the points that the prag and 3% factions are putting forth. If either is 100% correct I don’t know, I don’t think so, and I don’t think anything will be settled only on the gun rights front as there are too many abuses by the government in nearly every aspect of life.
December 9th, 2008 at 1:15 am
The idea of America contained in our founding documents is what we are talking about. The freedoms we hold self-evident, endowed by our Creator and secured by the government we instituted for that purpose. I don’t doubt we are on the same page.
Do you fear the government? You should. The reason is because if you do not do what the government tells you to do, you will be killed. I mean everything from not paying taxes, to not registering your car, to refusing to pay a parking ticket. Refuse, then refuse again, and again through the chain of events that will follow. When they come to arrest you, refuse. The only way to avoid bloodshed is to allow yourself to be imprisoned. Not a viable option for restoring the Republic.
Our government has grown out of control. It all comes down to the arms, and the government knows it. Once we are disarmed, we have no hope of freedom. Resistance must occur while the means to resist exists. We hope for peace through reason, but we prepare for war because sometimes you can’t get people to see reason. You have to kill some of them to get them to understand that you are serious.
So, I am not going to say that alternate plans like civil disobedience by refusing to pay income tax won’t work, but I will say that you better have your arms loaded and ready, because there will ensue a chain of events that will end with you dead or in prison, at the hands of the government. The government that was initially instituted among men to secure our Rights.