Truly. Almost 4,000 words, the first 2,400 devoted to explaining how much of an authority he is before he even mentions Vanderboegh?
David, if you'll recall the question of "authority" was brought up by others first. Sorry if you felt that my establishing my bona fides was excessive. If you'll note, however, the excerpts from DU - the majority of those 2,400 words - were key to the latter half of the piece.
WRT "Talky talky go no place" - Why haven't YOU "saddled up"? Olofson wasn't your "bright line"? Nor Gabriel Razzano?
What is the purpose of the "Only One" posts? Why do you, on a daily basis, post on the outrages our government commits against its citizens? Surely it's not just to hear yourself think? Aren't YOU trying to educate? To make people THINK? To make them MAD?
Hell, David, of all of us I think you're doing one of the best jobs.
Show me where I've ever specifically recommended anyone do that and it becomes a legitimate question. I've said time and again I'm working to keep that from happening--and the only way you keep predators at bay is by making them know there will be a cost. That's been my consistent message throughout.
You should take my writing observation to heart instead of getting defensive. It would make it stronger.
I truly don't see more than 500 words worth of information in your post.
So what was the point of the "Talky talky go no place" comment?
I truly don't see more than 500 words worth of information in your post.
I've never been accused of being brief, David.
...the only way you keep predators at bay is by making them know there will be a cost.
But if no one is actually willing to "saddle up," that threat is empty, no? And, you'll note, it's Vanderboegh's "3%" that is supposed to be the threat, no? Do you not count yourself among them?
In the book Hondo, the Apaches never strike first, unless they have the overwhelming advantage. This is because they had very limited resources(ammo,water,food,horses,and numbers.) That exhortation could be turned around on Kevin, as in "No,YOU go first". Point being, nobody who has been in an actual dust-up is eager to rush into one, because you have no way of knowing in anyone, or sufficient anyones, have your back. It's great to thump ones chest and pronounce deeds, but let he who puts his armour on not boast as he who takes it off. Great, we all rush of to NO. Exactly where in NO? How long will the operation take? Who is supporting and covering the sides and rear? Is there enough food and water for sustained operations? Medical support? Who's in charge, what is the chain of command? What kind of ammmo and other logistics will be needed, and how much is available? How do we coodinate the attack? What is the objective? What is the strategic objective? How are POWs and KIAs handled? What are actions after the objective is taken? What if they bring up air and artillery support? Where's the rally point? Answer Kevin, it's a big hairy deal, and to successfully carry the day, with some goal in mind, it's going to take more than a couple of guys showing up in a pickup, with their deer rifles, and nobody I know wants the job of sacrificial lamb/martyr. You are not dismissed. I ask you to remain at your post. Remember, it takes courage to say what is dangerous, and sometimes, guts is enough.
I count myself among Vandeboeghs 3%, and if the threat were empty, it would not be made. How long was it between Gulf War 1&2? Between Ft.Sumter and 1st Manassass? These things take time, and men are not easily goaded into killing, and watching the skies lit up at night. And remember, things will never be the same as they were before, at least not in our lifetimes, and not many want the unknown for breakfast,lunch, and dinner. III
i'm pretty sure ron paul is gonna make everyone mad enough when they finally get the message that without a gold standard their money can be stolen outright through inflation, no matter where or how they save it.
But isn't Vanderboegh's argument that the 3% will rise up en masse?
i never saw him say this.
transgressions cause uprising, period. there is evidence of this everywhere else in the world (especially the places we needlessly occupy). further, the faster, more frequent and more violent these transgressions occur, the greater the response, even in a "slow war."
so how big of an event will it take to get the "militant 3%" in response?
and are you going to just sit around and wait for that in total silence?
Ah! You, personally haven't been attacked by the .gov.
Funny, I'm in precisely the same position. But isn't Vanderboegh's argument that the 3% will rise up en masse? I think you're misinterpreting my position. No one can predict the future, so I don't know what form a personal response will take. It all depends on circumstances and it would certainly be foolish to discuss contingency plans over the Internet. But what I'm picking up from the "pragmatists" is a challenge to either get burned out in our own home or go on a general fed hunt or else we're all talk--utter foolsihness, and as if they can't conceive that unforseen circumstances might trigger a very real response against specific violaters.
The 3% would not rise "en masse" without a comand, communications and control structure--that's closer to raw numbers who would be inclined to do something when their lines get crossed by specific circumstances.
In any case, it would still be consistent with the requirement that it be a defensive action against the initiation of force--but I would not expect the response to make the victims of that force easy targets. And of course, once force is initiated, preemption becomes a moral alternative.
One thig that's kind of off-topicm but I still want to bring up: All this completely overlooks another possibility I have written about-- a disaster that brings the community together to protect against an outside threat. If this country ever does go through a national catastrophe, communities will need to hold together. I can absolutely see placing myself at the service and command of local police/sheriffs in concert with my neighbors under the right set of circumstancees if our task is to keep our neighborhoods secure. That would be far preferable to having them be the bad guys and feeling compelled to offer my services elsewhere.
But what I'm picking up from the "pragmatists" is a challenge to either get burned out in our own home or go on a general fed hunt or else we're all talk--utter foolsihness, and as if they can't conceive that unforseen circumstances might trigger a very real response against specific violaters.
I'd throw that one back at you. From my perspective the SNBIs are saying "Either commit to whacking Feds at some vague time in the future to be determined, or you're a PUSSY!" Or a "cheese dick" in Vanderboegh's lexicon.
You're the one, I'll remind you, who brought up "Talky talky no go no place." Pot, kettle.
From my position you're exactly right when you say:
No one can predict the future, so I don't know what form a personal response will take. It all depends on circumstances and it would certainly be foolish to discuss contingency plans over the Internet.
And it's counter-productive to threaten that Fed-hunt in a letter to the editor. That's what this whole thing has been about.
1. I'm not responsible for your perspective. Find someone advocating initiating going out and whacking feds and show me where I've endorsed that. Marshal Dave couldn't, and he had incentive, and neither can you.
2. Anyone who wants to call me a pussy is welcome to do so to my face. They can come try and set off the asame tripwire I reserve for everyone and see what my response will be.
3. The "talky" line was in response to 4,000 words to get to a conclusion that could have been said in one paragraph, and is by no means the final word. Just because you say something is so does not make it so. Scaring, when appropriate, is just as valid a tactic as angering, when appropriate. And in the case of Mike's letter, predicting what the outcome of the previous letter writer could result in was probably the first time many readers had considered there could be consequences to pushing too far--besides which, the paper bills itself as "your progressive voice," so moderation isn't going to win any friends there anyway. ---------------- Good grief, Kevin, if we're afraid to talk about the ultimate meaning behind the second amendment we might as well pack it in. Just what did Heston mean by "From my cold dead hands," anyway? And I for one am going to keep doing what I do, as is Mike, as is WRSA, and as are others who believe as we do--so you can either spend your time decrying that as counterproductive or figure out something to do on your end that yields results you want. If anyone thinks we'll be marginalized by them, forget it. More and more are getting radicalized, and that's a good and needed thing--from my perspective.
We're not the ones telling the prags to stop with the legislative or judicial efforts--but several on their side told us to shut up. See 2.
I think I'll wait for the Cliff Notes version.
ReplyDeleteTruly. Almost 4,000 words, the first 2,400 devoted to explaining how much of an authority he is before he even mentions Vanderboegh?
ReplyDeleteDavid, if you'll recall the question of "authority" was brought up by others first. Sorry if you felt that my establishing my bona fides was excessive. If you'll note, however, the excerpts from DU - the majority of those 2,400 words - were key to the latter half of the piece.
WRT "Talky talky go no place" - Why haven't YOU "saddled up"? Olofson wasn't your "bright line"? Nor Gabriel Razzano?
What is the purpose of the "Only One" posts? Why do you, on a daily basis, post on the outrages our government commits against its citizens? Surely it's not just to hear yourself think? Aren't YOU trying to educate? To make people THINK? To make them MAD?
Hell, David, of all of us I think you're doing one of the best jobs.
But hey, dismiss me all you want.
"Why haven't you saddled up?"
ReplyDeleteShow me where I've ever specifically recommended anyone do that and it becomes a legitimate question. I've said time and again I'm working to keep that from happening--and the only way you keep predators at bay is by making them know there will be a cost. That's been my consistent message throughout.
You should take my writing observation to heart instead of getting defensive. It would make it stronger.
I truly don't see more than 500 words worth of information in your post.
So what was the point of the "Talky talky go no place" comment?
ReplyDeleteI truly don't see more than 500 words worth of information in your post.
I've never been accused of being brief, David.
...the only way you keep predators at bay is by making them know there will be a cost.
But if no one is actually willing to "saddle up," that threat is empty, no? And, you'll note, it's Vanderboegh's "3%" that is supposed to be the threat, no? Do you not count yourself among them?
In the book Hondo, the Apaches never strike first, unless they have the overwhelming advantage. This is because they had very limited resources(ammo,water,food,horses,and numbers.) That exhortation could be turned around on Kevin, as in "No,YOU go first". Point being, nobody who has been in an actual dust-up is eager to rush into one, because you have no way of knowing in anyone, or sufficient anyones, have your back. It's great to thump ones chest and pronounce deeds, but let he who puts his armour on not boast as he who takes it off. Great, we all rush of to NO. Exactly where in NO? How long will the operation take? Who is supporting and covering the sides and rear? Is there enough food and water for sustained operations? Medical support? Who's in charge, what is the chain of command? What kind of ammmo and other logistics will be needed, and how much is available? How do we coodinate the attack? What is the objective? What is the strategic objective? How are POWs and KIAs handled? What are actions after the objective is taken? What if they bring up air and artillery support? Where's the rally point? Answer Kevin, it's a big hairy deal, and to successfully carry the day, with some goal in mind, it's going to take more than a couple of guys showing up in a pickup, with their deer rifles, and nobody I know wants the job of sacrificial lamb/martyr. You are not dismissed. I ask you to remain at your post. Remember, it takes courage to say what is dangerous, and sometimes, guts is enough.
ReplyDeleteI count myself among Vandeboeghs 3%, and if the threat were empty, it would not be made. How long was it between Gulf War 1&2? Between Ft.Sumter and 1st Manassass? These things take time, and men are not easily goaded into killing, and watching the skies lit up at night. And remember, things will never be the same as they were before, at least not in our lifetimes, and not many want the unknown for breakfast,lunch, and dinner. III
ReplyDeleteDo you have a ccw, Kevin? If so, how come you haven't shot anyone? Or is it just an empty threat?
ReplyDeleteWhat works at the individual level also does at the societal.
Do you have a ccw, Kevin? If so, how come you haven't shot anyone? Or is it just an empty threat?
ReplyDeleteAh! You, personally haven't been attacked by the .gov.
Funny, I'm in precisely the same position. But isn't Vanderboegh's argument that the 3% will rise up en masse?
Sean, in the two comments above illustrates the fault in that thinking. And the point I was making in my 4,000 word überpost.
So, how many words in this comment thread so far, David?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go earn a living. Later.
So, Kevin, we should all just shut up or put up? Because YOU say so? How nice. Must be the way you feel about the 1st Amendment. I don't think I will.
ReplyDeletei'm pretty sure ron paul is gonna make everyone mad enough when they finally get the message that without a gold standard their money can be stolen outright through inflation, no matter where or how they save it.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't Vanderboegh's argument that the 3% will rise up en masse?
ReplyDeletei never saw him say this.
transgressions cause uprising, period. there is evidence of this everywhere else in the world (especially the places we needlessly occupy). further, the faster, more frequent and more violent these transgressions occur, the greater the response, even in a "slow war."
so how big of an event will it take to get the "militant 3%" in response?
and are you going to just sit around and wait for that in total silence?
but this is just my interpretation.
Kevin is a just that -
ReplyDelete"Apparently I'm a relative newbie to all of this "rights" stuff. I've only been blogging for about five years"
----
My junior year in high school (1973) I won the district championship in oratory (6-8 minute prepared speech) and my topic was? - The Second Amendment!
I wrote a 50 page term paper on the 2nd before Kevin started blogging.
But now, if you creatively cut and past other peoples work and quote Heinlein ad infinitum then you expect to be looked at as an oracle.
Ha! I quit reading Kevin quite a long time ago because as David puts it - "Talky talky go no place"
I see you sign your name to your "talky talky no go noplace" pronouncements, too.
ReplyDeleteDavid, Vanderboegh and I at least do that.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
ReplyDeleteAh! You, personally haven't been attacked by the .gov.
ReplyDeleteFunny, I'm in precisely the same position. But isn't Vanderboegh's argument that the 3% will rise up en masse?
I think you're misinterpreting my position. No one can predict the future, so I don't know what form a personal response will take. It all depends on circumstances and it would certainly be foolish to discuss contingency plans over the Internet. But what I'm picking up from the "pragmatists" is a challenge to either get burned out in our own home or go on a general fed hunt or else we're all talk--utter foolsihness, and as if they can't conceive that unforseen circumstances might trigger a very real response against specific violaters.
The 3% would not rise "en masse" without a comand, communications and control structure--that's closer to raw numbers who would be inclined to do something when their lines get crossed by specific circumstances.
In any case, it would still be consistent with the requirement that it be a defensive action against the initiation of force--but I would not expect the response to make the victims of that force easy targets. And of course, once force is initiated, preemption becomes a moral alternative.
One thig that's kind of off-topicm but I still want to bring up: All this completely overlooks another possibility I have written about-- a disaster that brings the community together to protect against an outside threat. If this country ever does go through a national catastrophe, communities will need to hold together. I can absolutely see placing myself at the service and command of local police/sheriffs in concert with my neighbors under the right set of circumstancees if our task is to keep our neighborhoods secure. That would be far preferable to having them be the bad guys and feeling compelled to offer my services elsewhere.
I think you're misinterpreting my position.
ReplyDeleteI very well may be.
But what I'm picking up from the "pragmatists" is a challenge to either get burned out in our own home or go on a general fed hunt or else we're all talk--utter foolsihness, and as if they can't conceive that unforseen circumstances might trigger a very real response against specific violaters.
I'd throw that one back at you. From my perspective the SNBIs are saying "Either commit to whacking Feds at some vague time in the future to be determined, or you're a PUSSY!" Or a "cheese dick" in Vanderboegh's lexicon.
You're the one, I'll remind you, who brought up "Talky talky no go no place." Pot, kettle.
From my position you're exactly right when you say:
No one can predict the future, so I don't know what form a personal response will take. It all depends on circumstances and it would certainly be foolish to discuss contingency plans over the Internet.
And it's counter-productive to threaten that Fed-hunt in a letter to the editor. That's what this whole thing has been about.
But I'll agree with Billy Beck, "This is the most compelling discussion -- everywhere it's been taking place -- that I've seen online in longer than I can remember."
1. I'm not responsible for your perspective. Find someone advocating initiating going out and whacking feds and show me where I've endorsed that. Marshal Dave couldn't, and he had incentive, and neither can you.
ReplyDelete2. Anyone who wants to call me a pussy is welcome to do so to my face. They can come try and set off the asame tripwire I reserve for everyone and see what my response will be.
3. The "talky" line was in response to 4,000 words to get to a conclusion that could have been said in one paragraph, and is by no means the final word. Just because you say something is so does not make it so. Scaring, when appropriate, is just as valid a tactic as angering, when appropriate. And in the case of Mike's letter, predicting what the outcome of the previous letter writer could result in was probably the first time many readers had considered there could be consequences to pushing too far--besides which, the paper bills itself as "your progressive voice," so moderation isn't going to win any friends there anyway.
----------------
Good grief, Kevin, if we're afraid to talk about the ultimate meaning behind the second amendment we might as well pack it in. Just what did Heston mean by "From my cold dead hands," anyway? And I for one am going to keep doing what I do, as is Mike, as is WRSA, and as are others who believe as we do--so you can either spend your time decrying that as counterproductive or figure out something to do on your end that yields results you want. If anyone thinks we'll be marginalized by them, forget it. More and more are getting radicalized, and that's a good and needed thing--from my perspective.
We're not the ones telling the prags to stop with the legislative or judicial efforts--but several on their side told us to shut up. See 2.