Monday, January 10, 2011

Nope

What happened in Arizona was not a "Second Amendment remedy." [Read]

I don't get suggesting that it was, or that people who disagree with that analysis are less than serious, or worse, cowards.

Am I reading this wrong?
Posted by David Codrea at 1/10/2011 02:03:00 PM

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Par for the muddled course.

1/10/2011 2:23 PM
Defender said...

Kerodin seems to have written this piece early on, before evidence came out that Loughner was a nutball who just wanted to kill SOMEONE -- or a lot of ANYONES -- and saw an opportunity in a large crowd within walking distance of his parents' home, where he lived. One of Loughner's posts: "I'm ready to kill a cop. I can say it." He worked on Giffords's campaign in 2007. Highly unlikely he wanted her out of the way. She was just ... there.
Conservatives and constitutionalists will be blamed and ... er, "targeted"... anyway, no matter how much they have always distanced themselves from the idea of initiating political violence. Nancy Pelosi said seeking to overturn Obamacare "is violence." No fair disagreeing. It's "hitting back."
Personally, I'd like to be put in Loughner's cell for about half an hour to "explain" to him how much I abhor the hurting of innocent people. His was, I believe, an act of ego and evil, not politics. He may have nevertheless provided the event and excuse our opponents -- freedom's opponents -- needed, and Kerodin will have his questions answered soon enough. Only the truly demented want it to go that way. Maybe that's the legacy Loughner wanted all along. Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto his favorite books. Well, he's in the history books now.

1/10/2011 2:30 PM
WP said...

Nope- same way I read it.

1/10/2011 2:31 PM
MamaLiberty said...

This seems, to me, to be the central point of what he's writing.

"Authentic political violence is deliberate and performed by those with rational minds and on behalf of their convictions. Today's actions are not authentic political violence (because Loughner is ill), but it sure looks the same. It is ugly and it is final.

There is damn good reason why experienced men caution that violence can only be the last resort.

Stop advocating violence until you are ready to go to work yourself. It's that simple."

I happen to agree with him that pre-emptive violence is the last resort. I happen to disagree that any sort of political solution is the only alternative.

1/10/2011 2:41 PM
Kerodin said...

Yep, you're reading it wrong.

I said quite clearly that it was not authentic political violence, but that it looks exactly the same (same results).

I took to task those on our side who advocate violence, then run away from those statements as soon as a real event happens.

Sam
III

1/10/2011 3:32 PM
David Codrea said...

As you can see, I'm not the only one who was confused.

I'm still a bit confused as to who on our side advocates initiation of violence and has now run away from it.

1/10/2011 4:00 PM
Rick James said...

David, I admire the fact that you post under your real name. But in these times, I would advise you to stop your blog. The coming of Internet ID will make the viewers here easy targets of federal investigators.

1/10/2011 4:25 PM
Pat H. said...

I think the problem is that one definite and one partial progressive/fascist have been taken out of position.

Those are positives regardless of who did it or why.

It's unclear whether the shooter was a schizophrenic whose mother had kept him out of jail or being committed by her connections with law enforcement. She wouldn't be the first parent in denial about a severe mentally ill child.

Or, was he a sociopath who simply wanted to kill people, and then have one of the "top gun lawyers" in the whole country get him off.

1/10/2011 4:51 PM
Defender said...

I think I see now. We talk about lines in the sand, and then we don't enforce them, according to Kerodin.
Mike Vanderboegh says K gave him a hard time for not shooting it out with a cop when his gun in his car was confiscated for no permit as required by Alabama law.
Does Mike have other guns? Could he GET other guns? Then it wasn't "a free Katrina." Mike lives to fight -- figuratively and literally -- another day. His decision to make.
I don't want to be dead or in jail over something that could be handled another way when I'm needed later for the real battle, if it comes. If that's cowardice, I can live with that. I have nothing to prove to anyone to the point of going rah-rah when a madman tries to take out a crowd and includes two enemies of the people by design or accident. Assassins don't usually plan to expend 50 rounds.

1/10/2011 9:43 PM
Kerodin said...

MamaLiberty & Defender have gotten closest.

Regarding lines in the sand, my position is simple: Don't draw the line if you don't intend to defend. When the line is crossed, it makes the person drawing the line a punk and it makes the rest of us look like punks by association.

As to the Arizona event: There was a period of time immediately after the event when it looked like an authentic piece of political violence. On many Hard Right blogs, there are many folks who advocate and cheer for exactly this kind of violence...and in the immediate aftermath of the real thing, so many bloggers and commenters dived for cover it was embarassing. It takes about 5 minutes of objective reading to cite several cases of utter hypocrisy, though I will leave that to each who chooses to do so.

David: I chose not to call out specific blogs or comments in my piece. A few I wrote directly, others I decided why bother.

For the Record: I never, ever, once, anywhere, said MBV should have shot it out over a traffic stop. See graf #2.

Sam
III

1/11/2011 10:31 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)