[I removed the video because it was making the page load too slow. Click on the title link to view at YouTube.]
Just in case anyone had any residual doubts.
While I've never been for permitting rights, I am definitely for the practice of bearing arms. This shows the Lightworker is clearly against the practice, and also shows what liars everyone (yeah, you, Ray) is who says Barack believe in the Second Amendment.
[Via Zachary G]
Saturday, November 01, 2008
A Certainty
dcva: i not only doubt, but am certain i am more likely to be murdered by an nra member than being hit by a meteorite.This was a comment entered on one of my Gun Rights Examiner posts--the only one from an "anti" thus far in the time I've been writing there.
please find some facts before calling laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill, and other people who shouldn't have access to them meaningless.
October 31, 9:51 AM
I wonder if he'll respond to my reply?
"Knox the Younger"
Mindful Musings hosts the latest salvo. Click on the title link to read it. Here's what I want to say on this latest flare-up.
Jeff Knox is right when he cautions us there are no contemporary counterparts occupying similar elevated standing and commanding resources comparable to the Founding Fathers.
He's right when he observes the relative comfort most Americans enjoy, and the incentives we have to maintain the status quo. He is also right when he notes the pathetic apathy and all the talk vs. walk in the RKBA community.
He's right when he points out the terrible destruction that would be a result of a domestic insurgency, and the vulnerabilities/ opportunities that would become exploitable by enemies foreign and domestic. And he's right when he observes there is no new structure ready to replace the old.
Here's where I think we're disconnecting:
Mike Vanderboegh et al (and if, as you say, you've never heard of him before, Jeff, I respectfully suggest there is a growing phenomenon a gun rights writer of national standing needs to be at least aware, if not in approval of) are not targeting individuals for initiation of force. They are predicting that when enough people have their backs forced to the wall, some of them will push back, and extrapolating likely outcomes. They are also issuing a warning not only that this will happen, but there is a core of gun owners who are fed up with the abuses and will not back up, or I should say, down, any further.
You don't have to agree with that, but there it is.
I certainly have not given up advocating working "within the system" when I think there is potential to do something besides spin wheels and burn up energy and resources. But to rely on "majority rule democracy" in places like Chicago, or to rely on a just resolution in the federal courts as our only area of focus is not only self-limiting, but also widens the gulf we see opening between 2A camps.
Here's something I hope we can all stipulate: Growing tyranny already exists in this country, in government agencies at all levels. Tyrants always seek more power, and do not cede what they have willingly. Ultimately, even though such lust is a form of insanity, they can respond rationally when there's a strong enough "or else" behind a warning to back off, and do it now.
I think we all, prag and principle freak alike, agree that armed citizens deter violence on the individual level. If we didn't believe the same phenomenon works macroscopically, at the societal level, then what good is the Second Amendment?
I think those who invite the "radicals" to lead by example and start firing are missing the central point. Likewise are those who invite us to leave the country for insurgency opportunities (which, by the way, is the same argument used by the antis when they tell us we should join the military if we want to have "assault weapons.") And no, Mike and those like him are not responsible for the two racist thugs snared in the recent BATFU sting--they weren't practicing anything he preaches.
Here's the point: Like it or not, the fight may come to us, no matter what we do. 9/11 wasn't a wake-up call? Consider the militarization of police, the assignment of military units to domestic operations, the increased surveillance and intrusiveness on basic liberties we see growing every day, the characterization of Constitutionalists as "Homegrown Terrorists," the ability of government to lie, to conceal crimes under the blanket of "Classified Material," and we really can't see the potential for a natural or man-made disaster resulting in a perfect storm, a convergence, allowing for responsive measures that make what we endure now seem libertarian by comparison? You know, something we can't vote or sue our way out of?
Works by Mike and people like him are valuable for several reasons: They get people thinking along the lines of what they're prepared to do when TSHTF. They steel the hearts of those who do. And they send that clear warning that there is a line in the sand, at least with some, that there will be a cost to the perceived benefits of predation. And the lesson we all should not only know but be preaching is, warnings, combined with capabilities, discourage the darkness from approaching.
And works by Jeff and people like him are valuable, in that they provide a means to engage in the system, and try for civilized redress--something our Founders noted they attempted time and again. That's what I'd prefer, assuming we're not forestalling the frog hop until the water has reached full boil.
The major disconnect I see between the two camps, is that if we apply only one methodology to the exclusion and disparagement of the other, we're limiting our options. More tools in the belt are good.
I try to keep a foot in both camps, and perhaps it's a fool's hope. And thing is, I don't know anyone in the III camp who doesn't recommend using the existing structure to the advantage of freedom. What we never seem to hear is anyone from the other camp saying "I have a line in the sand that I will not allow to be crossed. If it is, I will concede my methods have been rendered impotent and take up arms to defend my life and liberty."
If we saw more of that, the line would be reinforced, the warning would be louder, and the chances for peaceable redress would be given new strength. But if the only response to a rapist is our pledge to vote for new masters, or to take him to court, don't expect it to do anything but embolden him, and increase the likelihood of the III scenario.
I respect both Mike, who I don't consider a domestic terrorist, and Jeff, who I don't consider a coward. I hope they can engage in some private correspondence and perhaps develop a respect of sorts for each other.
Jeff Knox is right when he cautions us there are no contemporary counterparts occupying similar elevated standing and commanding resources comparable to the Founding Fathers.
He's right when he observes the relative comfort most Americans enjoy, and the incentives we have to maintain the status quo. He is also right when he notes the pathetic apathy and all the talk vs. walk in the RKBA community.
He's right when he points out the terrible destruction that would be a result of a domestic insurgency, and the vulnerabilities/ opportunities that would become exploitable by enemies foreign and domestic. And he's right when he observes there is no new structure ready to replace the old.
Here's where I think we're disconnecting:
Mike Vanderboegh et al (and if, as you say, you've never heard of him before, Jeff, I respectfully suggest there is a growing phenomenon a gun rights writer of national standing needs to be at least aware, if not in approval of) are not targeting individuals for initiation of force. They are predicting that when enough people have their backs forced to the wall, some of them will push back, and extrapolating likely outcomes. They are also issuing a warning not only that this will happen, but there is a core of gun owners who are fed up with the abuses and will not back up, or I should say, down, any further.
You don't have to agree with that, but there it is.
I certainly have not given up advocating working "within the system" when I think there is potential to do something besides spin wheels and burn up energy and resources. But to rely on "majority rule democracy" in places like Chicago, or to rely on a just resolution in the federal courts as our only area of focus is not only self-limiting, but also widens the gulf we see opening between 2A camps.
Here's something I hope we can all stipulate: Growing tyranny already exists in this country, in government agencies at all levels. Tyrants always seek more power, and do not cede what they have willingly. Ultimately, even though such lust is a form of insanity, they can respond rationally when there's a strong enough "or else" behind a warning to back off, and do it now.
I think we all, prag and principle freak alike, agree that armed citizens deter violence on the individual level. If we didn't believe the same phenomenon works macroscopically, at the societal level, then what good is the Second Amendment?
I think those who invite the "radicals" to lead by example and start firing are missing the central point. Likewise are those who invite us to leave the country for insurgency opportunities (which, by the way, is the same argument used by the antis when they tell us we should join the military if we want to have "assault weapons.") And no, Mike and those like him are not responsible for the two racist thugs snared in the recent BATFU sting--they weren't practicing anything he preaches.
Here's the point: Like it or not, the fight may come to us, no matter what we do. 9/11 wasn't a wake-up call? Consider the militarization of police, the assignment of military units to domestic operations, the increased surveillance and intrusiveness on basic liberties we see growing every day, the characterization of Constitutionalists as "Homegrown Terrorists," the ability of government to lie, to conceal crimes under the blanket of "Classified Material," and we really can't see the potential for a natural or man-made disaster resulting in a perfect storm, a convergence, allowing for responsive measures that make what we endure now seem libertarian by comparison? You know, something we can't vote or sue our way out of?
Works by Mike and people like him are valuable for several reasons: They get people thinking along the lines of what they're prepared to do when TSHTF. They steel the hearts of those who do. And they send that clear warning that there is a line in the sand, at least with some, that there will be a cost to the perceived benefits of predation. And the lesson we all should not only know but be preaching is, warnings, combined with capabilities, discourage the darkness from approaching.
And works by Jeff and people like him are valuable, in that they provide a means to engage in the system, and try for civilized redress--something our Founders noted they attempted time and again. That's what I'd prefer, assuming we're not forestalling the frog hop until the water has reached full boil.
The major disconnect I see between the two camps, is that if we apply only one methodology to the exclusion and disparagement of the other, we're limiting our options. More tools in the belt are good.
I try to keep a foot in both camps, and perhaps it's a fool's hope. And thing is, I don't know anyone in the III camp who doesn't recommend using the existing structure to the advantage of freedom. What we never seem to hear is anyone from the other camp saying "I have a line in the sand that I will not allow to be crossed. If it is, I will concede my methods have been rendered impotent and take up arms to defend my life and liberty."
If we saw more of that, the line would be reinforced, the warning would be louder, and the chances for peaceable redress would be given new strength. But if the only response to a rapist is our pledge to vote for new masters, or to take him to court, don't expect it to do anything but embolden him, and increase the likelihood of the III scenario.
I respect both Mike, who I don't consider a domestic terrorist, and Jeff, who I don't consider a coward. I hope they can engage in some private correspondence and perhaps develop a respect of sorts for each other.
We're the Only Ones Classified Enough
Information that would reveal a violation of the law may be properly classified as long as it is not deliberately classified for the purpose of concealing the violation, a federal judge indicated this week.And how will we know if the "Only Ones" are abusing their power?
Sorry, that's classified. What do you expect, a government of checks and balances? Say, you wouldn't have anything to hide, would you?
And remember, they hate us because we're free!
[Via Carl S]
Yes, Me, Facebook
I've been doing what I can to link whor...uh...promote readership of my new Gun Rights Examiner column, and as such, have been spending time I don't have posting stuff to networking sites like Digg and Reddit. So last night, when an email came in, from Larry Pratt of all people, inviting me to check out his Facebook profile, and noting that you have to join to do so, I thought "Why not?"
When you join, it prompts you to send out your own notices/invites, and a couple of you have emailed me asking if it's for real, or possibly some sort of phishing/spam scam.
It's real. I'll try this approach for a while, assuming it doesn't turn out to be all buck and no bang.
When you join, it prompts you to send out your own notices/invites, and a couple of you have emailed me asking if it's for real, or possibly some sort of phishing/spam scam.
It's real. I'll try this approach for a while, assuming it doesn't turn out to be all buck and no bang.
No Net Loss for the Second Amendment?
In a very tough election climate for Republicans, the good news is that the gun issue is increasingly non-partisan...Yeah, if you believe they really are "pro-gun Democrats." I thought everybody was making a big to-do about how Obama, in spite of telling us what a great 2A pal he is, really isn't.
There are a lot of races were pro-gun Republican incumbents are being challenged by pro-gun Democrats — no net loss for the Second Amendment.
Sorry if I don't buy into the assertion that these democrats, who almost to a man have endorsed the guy we're told "would be the most anti-gun president in American history," and some with problematic RKBA records themselves, are going to buck their party leadership and jeopardize assignments, relationships, key support, future electability...
I simply don't believe that principle and fidelity to 2A will trump carrot and stick, especially among Beltway democrats.
And while I hope you will be proven spectacularly right and I spectacularly wrong on this, Mr. Kopel, I just ain't buyin' it.
Obama Take Care of My Family
A man who jumped 60 feet to his death from the Spaghetti Bowl on Thursday left a note with a message for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.Look at me, Damien. It's all for you!
This Day in History: November 1
The General recommends it to those Officers, who have signified their Intention to continue in the service of the United Colonies another Campaign, not to run themselves to any expence in procuring Coats and Waistcoats until they are arranged into proper Corps and the Uniforms of the Regiment they belong to ascertained; which will probably be in a few days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)