That's pretty darn funny there.
It is a joke, right?
See, this is why extreme talk hurts our cause, when political solutions exist to give us lip service.
Friday, August 08, 2008
There's This Great Joke E-Mail Going Around
That's pretty darn funny there.
It is a joke, right?
See, this is why extreme talk hurts our cause, when political solutions exist to give us lip service.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It could be a joke but it does sound like entering a government building.
I've always wondered, if this building was build with the people's money trusted to government. Than why do our Constitutional rights stop at the door?
Law enforcement parasite spokesperson: "we have to ensure everyone's safety because in today's world the criminal justice system is a revolving door scam to keep criminals on the streets so we can justify our jobs. So because we could be victims of a revolving door criminal in a building loaded with us government parasites. We need to disarm everyone because what does a revolving door criminal look like?"
Truth, if it was ever told.
If one is to petition the King, one must see him in the throne room or not at all.
I'm reminded of a pasha who had his door built so low that people seeking audience had no choice by to enter on all fours.
A British visitor complied... crawling BACKWARDS through the low door, presenting His Eminence with a splendid view of the seat of his pants!
They can have my flashlight only to replace my cold, dead batteries.
Give us a kick if you please, Your Majesty,don't let us off of our knees, Your Majesty, give us a kick if you would, Your Majesty, Oh! That was Good, Your Majesty!
This is not a joke and it is the Lake Co. court house.
Look, von Clausewitz said: "Focus on as narrow of a front as possible". That said, our goal is to get an overwhelming majority of folks out there to pressure 'em into the pro-2A resolution.
Pragmatic nirvanah. Rejoice dear hearts!
Less, you know I've publicized all kinds of stuff you guys do--probably more than 99% of any other RKBA blogger out there--this just struck me as totally opposite of everything you're trying to accomplish. In any case, I can't recommend to anyone that they voluntarily disarm--ever.
It seems fair to ask what you hope to accomplish with this resolution--to hear soothing words that you know are meaningless?
I'll cede this much: It could be useful "PR" to have a govt. board issue such a proclamation. But to have them declare they support the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms out of one corner of their mouth, and demand your total disarmament under force of state arms out of the other, is just too huge of a disconnect for me to reconcile with.
Hi David,
It is duplicitous, isn't it. We have to present our numbers and arguments in a place where those very arguments are illegal and unwelcome. However, it has to start somewhere. This is a politics.
I hope that we don't delude ourselves by thinking that war is anything different; after all, war is merely the continuation of policy by other means.
That said, if our "policy" is to hold on to liberty by advocating the Second, then let us examine the strategy most sound for winning ground in a place like Illinois:
One doesn't win a war by entrenching or becoming "reactionary". No, one wins a war by bringing an offensive to the opponent on as narrow of a front as possible with an overwhemling set of numbers. Viz., it isn't the ground that you're taking that is nec. most valuable, but the ability to take ground or the ability to hold ground to vie for some political/stretegic advantage. Witness Rommel in France or the Fins in Raate Road.
This resolution is not worth much (non-binding, etc...) but it publicizes the fight, especially in Mark Kirk's home territory. What would you advocate as a better strategy? (And I know all about moving away...) How would you better organize a group of bumbling "fudds" and "hobbyists" who've got jobs and money issues and etc...
I never advocate moving away--I left CA for OH for strictly personal reasons of family and economics. We ALL have competing responsibilities and money issues. But as a liberty tactic, no--you don't help by allowing occupied territory to increase.
What would I suggest as a better strategy? For what you're trying to accomplish here, nothing. But you're outside the scope of what I do. What I would do in terms of Mark Kirk has been made pretty clear--If I lived in your area, I'd consider my time and efforts better spent unseating him and then making sure everybody knew why.
David,
Holding the line is precisely what we’re trying to do in most of Northern Illinois counties that are in directly in contact with Cook Co. We hold the culture - which is really the only thing that separates us now - until something concrete happens, such as Chicago losing their case, etc.
That said, while the bulk of Chicago and Cook Co. are lost, we’re trying not to let anymore ground to be taken in places like Lake or DuPage Counties. Unfortunately, the demographics of those places are starting to change, reflecting along the lines of “Republicrat” Soccer moms and dads more concerned with taxes than liberty. That starts to erode our base of power – what line is there to hold onto when most folks don’t care anymore?
Playing the defensive game can only take one so far in warfare - one side has exhaust it’s resources or vie for peace, at which point the war is over. Trouble is, there is nobody to negotiate a peace with - does anyone trust Mark Kirk to hold our interests at heart?
So again, what is the best strategy to pursue here? At least we’re getting some play in the media here and taking some of the fight. For far too long our side has played the defensive "sit on our laurels" strategy.
BTW, I’d vote against Kirk, but the trouble is that 1.) I'm not in Lake Co. and Kirk isn't on my ballot and 2.) Allan Steveo didn't get on the ballot anyway.
Post a Comment