David,
I appreciate your take on this and you getting involved.
To answer your first point, I am not unaware of the movement or the sentiment of the extreme right of our fraternity, I have just not paid close enough attention to take note of names; thus my unfamiliarity with Mike.
I have to argue with your criticism of Chris' Walter Mitty crack. Chris was laying down a challenge of sorts: If these guys really have the numbers then let them demonstrate it with Peaceful Political Action. Taking violent action without first "firing a shot across the bow" with some sort of Peaceful (or at least non-lethal, minimally destructive) Show of Force is a sucker's play all the way around and without that Peaceful Show of Force, why would anyone take them seriously. If they won't stand up and be counted in peace, how can anyone trust that they will stand firm when bullets are flying?
That is basically what the original article was about. To say that all is not lost, the time for violent revolution has not yet come, participate in political action to avoid the need for revolution because there are rarely any real winners in a war, especially a civil war.
I probably should have chosen my words more carefully in the original article because it is obvious to me that some have misconstrued my intent, but I stand by the message.
I intend to go over all of this and will post a more precise statement of my position on FirearmsCoalition.org and will mirror that in a thread on GunVoter.org. The FC site limits comments so I am running the dialog on GunVoter.org where comments are unrestricted except for civility - which I must say has been seriously lacking in this little up-scuttle.
I allowed the barbs to get to me a bit in my initial response and I personalized it in ways that I shouldn't have. It is difficult to have people making assumptions and judgments about my character and personal life based solely on a single 850-word editorial. An editorial which, as I say, I feel has been seriously misconstrued.
One of the things that drives me nuts about this is the way guys who were not targets of any of my comments have taken them personally. Here's a disclaimer: If you are politically active - vote, work on campaigns, run for office, write letters to elected officials urging specific actions, are a member of local and/or national political organizations such as NRA, GOA, JPFO, VCDL, AZCDL, GOAL, GRNC, or the hundreds of other such organizations out there and encourage others to emulate you in this -- I wasn't talking to or about you.
If you do not write articles or routinely post comments on forum sites espousing the theory that political action is futile and the only hope of restoring the US to some semblance of the Constitutional Republic it was created to be is through bloodshed and revolution -- I wasn't talking to or about you.
Some of that got convoluted in my response to Mike's attack on me from the initial article and for that I apologize. As I say, it is difficult to remain detached when your character is being assaulted in the vilest of terms.
As I say, I'll have more to say on this subject in a day or two and I will post it on FirearmsCoalition.org and GunVoter.org. Anyone is welcome to comment or cross-post as they please. For now I will simply ask that people go back and re-read my original article with the assumption that I am as committed to the preservation of the Constitution as you are and as willing to stand in its defense as you, rather than the contrary assumptions Mike displayed in his critique.
To clarify; what I was talking about in the article was our side starting or advocating the starting of an all-out war with the US government or engaging in independent actions such as the bombing of the Murrah Building which will do nothing but alienate us and our cause with the vast majority of our fellow citizens and make political action more difficult. My opinions are based on over 30 years of sharing campfires, firing lines, and foxholes with hunters, shooters, and patriots and 48 years closely observing the world around me. I might be wrong in my assumptions, but I don't think I am. In any case, that's how I see it and until I see evidence to the contrary I don't expect to shift my position.
Jeff Knox
Director, The Firearms Coalition
He is speaking without knowing his facts. Some of the most committed gun owners are nothing like "the extreme right of our fraternity", but are libertarians or anarchists. I find his assumption insulting.
ReplyDeleteI think that some of the people who will not "stand up and be counted" before the shooting starts, don't do it for a reason. If you have been trying to work within the "system", then you may be at the top of the list when the kidnappings ("arrests") or confiscations begin in earnest. Then who will be left to do the shooting?
The time for "violent revolution" is here, or may have even passed. That we did not act when it was time is a shameful blot on our histories.
The government has already started a war on gun owners. Hasn't Mr. Knox noticed? It is just that they, as the "authorities", have more methods available to them than the gun owners do. That is why they are not conducting mass raids yet; They don't need to do so in order to get the same results.
Then some demand that we abide by the rules that those tyrants set up, and use the system that the bad guys run. How is that working so far?
Sorry Jeff, ain't buying it.
ReplyDeleteYou could not possibly have misconstrued our purpose, intent,or desires for peaceful resolution and restoration of rights, except on purpose.
And no, I won't be counting on you.
Ever notice:
ReplyDelete1. It's a lot easier to win an argument with a straw man, into whose mouth you can put your own words.
2. No matter how loud you yell and how many names you throw around, you can't shout down your own conscience.
Ever notice?
III
Kent is right, the quisling says to stand up and be counted(so you are first on the list). Just like the nra, first on the list, useful idiots they are known to be. Jeff, chris, and the nra know no commitments other than money and self aggrandizement.
ReplyDeleteJeff stated that we should use our power of vote to make changes, the problem with that is that it isn't working. Here is the reason I say that, what is the average success rate of re-election by an incumbent? What is the percent of incumbents that will be re-elected this year (at a point that Congress has had it's lowest rating)?
ReplyDeleteIf voting worked as it should, we would not be re-electing a large percent of the incumbents, let alone those that are running this year. That along with the fact that we are given candidates that are the "lesser of 2 evils", no challengers or we get voter fraud year in and year out.
Maybe BHO getting elected and a Dem majority in Congress will be a good thing. Maybe it will change us from being 3% to a majority and we may have to "refresh the tree of liberty" to turn the US into a phoenix.