I can't help but note that many gungrabbers reserve particular contempt for RKBA folks who have actually done quite a bit to accommodate them through negotiation, compromise and "pragmatism" advocacy. I also can't help but note that many "pragmatists" in turn reserve particular contempt for "absolutists."
Curious. Especially since they are invariably the ones who rail against "eating our own" and "circular firing squads," meaning you need to agree with them, I guess, and if you don't, you must be scorned.
Maybe it has to do with the underlying mantra that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." They actually believe that, or say they do, although I'm not sure they've thought through all the implications.
I can't help but wonder though, if someone is willing to compromise on fundamental rights, what else are they willing to cede ground on? If we accept lies and betrayals from our oath-swearing representatives, would we not be equally forgiving with errant business partners or wandering spouses?
Can you imagine a quality policy that disparaged the concept of "Zero Defects"? Would you like to ride on tires made by such a company? Or how about undergo surgery from a hospital with the motto "Close enough for government work"? And do you think there's a reason that statement is considered a truism, but nonetheless a grim joke?
Ah, but "politics is the art of the possible," we are told, although how anyone falling back on that excuse instead of pushing the envelope would know the limits of possibility is never quite clear.
Oh well. Some of us, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers, will still plod on with the naive, perhaps hopeless belief that there is room in the debate for "shall not be infringed," and that the problem is not that we have too many "radical" voices, but too few.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Great articulation of what I think is our biggest problem...the split in our own family.
The anti-freedom gang has a single goal and purpose in what they do, whereas certain subsets of gun owners will gladly toss a few of us off the sled hoping the pursuing wolves will be satisfied.
Thanks for using your keen wit to call attention to this destructive behavior.
We are few indeed. "Shall not be infringed" means EXACTLY THAT!
Let the rest suffer for their ignorance and lack of direction and backbone!
The few will be needed one day soon.
Well said, David!
The bad guys can afford to "compromise". After all, destruction can be incremental; self-defense is all-or-nothing.
The folks on the nominally pro-gun side of the aisle are far more dangerous than our statist opponents.
The Jim Zumbos (Remember him? It's only been a year) of the world are the ones who have thrown and will again throw the "radicals" overboard to buy (very) temporary peace.
They are the ones in the "pro-gun" camp to whom compromise offers are directed, and they are the ones who accept such offers.
As an example, watch for the "4 + 1" magazine capacity aspect of the upcoming AWB II in 2009.
That's why I have come to the conclusion that the fundamental issue is not guns, but individualism vs. collectivism.
As long as a person believes that he has some right to control any aspect of my actions (beyond case-specific self-defense) or my assets - whether directly or via proxy - that person and his beliefs are the problem.
The fact that they may own and shoot guns is of very little consequence, so long as that collectivist belief persists.
The Quislings on our side will be our undoing, especially as the "do it to Julia" mentality sinks in after the first weapons confiscation/terror raids.
Bet on it.
I understand what you are saying, but there are times when being an absolutest does hurt a cause.
In Georgia we have a bill that was amended by the House and Senate that is trying to be worked out in committee.
The Senate version is a minor victory to gun rights and the House version would be a big victory.
Now do you call those Senators that don't want to pass the House version cowards, or do you work with them to get them to agree to a middle ground?
To some that is a compromise which should be denounced and that those voting for it are yellow.
To me, a bill that is a little pro-gun, or majorly pro-gun, or somewhere in between is a gain over the status-quo and is a victory that should be thanked no matter which version is passed.
Gunstar1- It's the difference between allowing a robber to shoot you in the arm instead of in the head. The problem is that sometimes the arm wound will sever an artery and you will bleed to death, while, occasionally, the bullet to the head will not kill you.
If it is my choice, I will try to avoid being shot at all.
"... the problem is not that we have too many "radical" voices, but too few."
If you had enough voices they would cease to be 'radical' at all, and they would become the 'conventional wisdom.'
I believe that the way we are going to win is to nibble away rather than take big bites. I can get a fence sitter to agree that having a gun is good, carrying a gun is Ok, but machinegun ownership is a step to far for them at this point.
If we win the fence sitters we stop being the radicals and start being the conventional wisdom.
Nice way to create a straw man argument.
The straw man being that 'incrementalists' are only going to fight for their compromise and give up on the rest.
The end goal is the same, the difference is a strategy that takes the chess board a piece at a time.
When you tell the opponent that you will surrender your Queen at the outset of the match you will not take the chessboard one piece at a time. You may take a piece here and there but your King will be captured and killed.
BS, FF, I mean,Publius.
I am directly responding to comments of true hostility made elsewhere, and just being circumspect about not identifying where so as not to have others return directed fire.
And yes, I do see the same incrementalists voluntarily bringing up things to "give up on" all the time.
But it truly doesn't surprise me to observe you shooting right out of the starting gate accusing me of a creating a straw man argument.
And mostlygenius--no problem here with "nibbling away." I've proposed and supported incremental improvements myself. Again, I am dealing directly with hostile comments leveled elsewhere.
Gunstar 1--without knowing the bill in question, it's tough for me to pass judgment. If it involves sabotaging a superior bill to replace it with an inferior one whenit was unnecessary to do so, I can see where there would be aggrieved parties--and it's not like we haven't seen that game played before.
David, may I ask if that somewhere is the same place I am persona non grata, because the unman there is a lot like old rover?
That is not what prompted this.
Sorry, now the second time I've neglected to log into the correct profile before posting.
For the record, I'm not trying to sneak around. That would be a bit sad...hiding behind one 'anonymous' profile to hide another.
Kent - I am quite aware of that, as I too would absolutly love not to get shot.
Now using that logic, why would you call the person holding the gun a coward?
Also your analogy misses the lowest one. Angering the shooter so much that instead of the single headshot, you get the full magazine.
David - Sorry about the hijack, it is the other direction of your topic, but I just wanted to note that sometimes those that stop the erosion of rights on one hand can also turn around and hamper the restoring of those rights too.
HB 89 http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/sum/hb89.htm (at the bottom, the senate version is #7 and the House amendment is #8.
Senate version: Anti-Bloomberg gun stings, non-prohibited person can carry firearm anywhere in car (currently just open to view or closable compartment), State Parks no longer off limits, NRA employer parking lots, carry licenses issued faster.
All very good.
House Amendment: All of the above included with a slight tweak in the way the licenses are issued faster, a repeal of a law that is over 100 years old (ban on carry to or at a public gathering), removes the ban on carrying on public transportation and regular stops (2 crimes, one 10 years the other 20 years in prison), as well as being able to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol and chuches.
That makes it even better.
For some, forcing it to a vote that will fail and getting nothing but the satisfaction of calling a Senator a coward is better than winning and getting less than all.
Post a Comment