Monday, August 14, 2006

Questions and Answers IV

[Parts I, II and III]

Mr. Licht continues:
I acknowledge that I am a paranoid nut case and I do not trust the state (particularly the current GENERATION of self serving one world "alleged representatives" selling out our children in every way at every opportunity)

I cling to these beliefs being aware that forty states have passed Shall Carry laws and being fully informed about the "castle doctrine" laws. But isn't it possible that "Shall Carry", i.e. "Shall Register" may just be a ruse to determine where all the guns are and that with the stroke of a pen they could use those lists as the basis for confiscation? Again, I know I am an unreasonable "nut case" but if anything is possible and history repeats itself....repeatedly.......?
Someone once said just because you're paranoid doesn't mean "they" aren't out to get you, and in the case of gun owners, it's obvious there are those who would like to see us eliminated.

I don't think permit lists are needed to ID gun owners, what with Form 4473s kept by dealers and the "supposedly" purged instant background check files, but I don't doubt they could be used as a supplement.

To me, the danger of permitting--and the reason I refuse to even apply for one (even though I couldn't get one in LA County if my life depended on it), is that it establishes the legal and social expectation that government permission to keep and bear arms is a legitimate concept for which there is (here comes that term again) a "compelling state interest."

I know some view it as incremental progress that will prep society to the concept of armed citizens. I view it as a prior restraint and an illegitimate erosion of "shall not be infringed." Rights are not permitted. License is not liberty. And I've taken no small amount of flack for this position, which is definitely in the minority, even among Second Amendment advocates.

Mr. Licht again:
Instead of keeping high paid lobbyists going (a la Wayne La Pierre) would it be more prudent to tell our children that confiscation is inevitable, do not cooperate? Wouldn't it be more effective to rally those that would fund these (arguably) gun control organizations (like the NRA) that are raking in millions compromising away our gun rights routinely and incrementally - particularly by pretending we have to ask permission instead of saying "storm the capitals" and "Shall not be infringed" has it’s plain meaning?
I don't believe wholesale (as opposed to localized) confiscation is inevitable, although I can envision scenarios where it would be tried. I think that entirely depends on whether or not we who believe in the Second Amendment are successful at informing/educating a critical mass of fellow citizens to the point where to do so would become so intrusive and widespread that it would outrage more than just a few hard core gun activists. Because, face it--right now a 3:00 AM raid netting an "arsenal" and a "militia extremist" and "thousands of rounds of ammunition" is greeted with a sigh of relief from most of our neighbors and countrymen.

On the next point, I've never been shy about taking on NRA management when I believed it needed to be done--from Project Exile to "gun-free schools" to setting up members for gun registration to--just today--yet another story on undeserved grades for politicians, and more. I do have some ideas for reform, but admit that whether that's even possible is a debatable premise.

But rallying those who fund NRA to an alternative effort means we're gonna need a rallying point--and I just don't see how to get that message out to millions of gun owners without a professional organization "raking in millions."

I'll have more to say on potential NRA reforms, as well as why I believe they are symptomatic of detachment and abdication of personal responsibility--which is the main reason we're in the fix we're in on all fronts, and why "storming the capitals" is hardly an option at the present time.

But look at how long this is already. We still have more of Mr. Licht's initial letter to address over the coming week before it's time to start tying everything together...

4 comments:

nicolas said...

Thanks for the latest installment, David. I think you're spot-on so far.

Anonymous said...

My thoughts, exactly. When challenging new recruits, I used to use an analogy of shooting. Aim high enough, I would say. If you miss, and land lower than you want, at least you will hit higher than your lowest expectations. Aim small, miss small says it too. I don't think we will get everything we want, but we should want, and expect, everything we can get. 'Sides, I'm sick of this running crap.

Ken said...

"I think that entirely depends on whether or not we who believe in the Second Amendment are successful at informing/educating a critical mass of fellow citizens to the point where to do so would become so intrusive and widespread that it would outrage more than just a few hard core gun activists."

I actually think we're moving in that direction, if more slowly than we might wish. For evidence, I submit Kansas. Look at the demand for arms there (our esteemed host posted on it, a couple of weeks ago), after CCW passed. There is a powerful interest in being armed for self-defense. Part of the task now is educating those folks in understanding their natural rights, so that once asserted they should not be surrendered.

The more people who are armed, the better for liberty. Never mind why they chose to become armed or what their present level of understanding of their natural rights are.

Large numbers of people becoming armed, even under a "shall register" scheme (as Mr. Licht puts it), combined with a resolute and highly public effort to assert natural rights and educate/advocate others to do the same, makes confiscation a considerably more daunting prospect to anyone who can do the math.

The more people who take advantage of "shall register," the more the correlation of forces shifts in our favor. There's something satisfying about hanging them on their own petard, isn't there?

E. David Quammen said...

I've pretty much narrowed it down to "What do you think the words 'Shall NOT be Infringed' mean? (Usually toss in a smartass remark as well. Like, any TWO YEAR old understands what 'SHALL NOT' means, why can't you?).