A Plan Comes Together?

 Virginia GOP sees Youngkin as chance to reverse party course [More]

I'm smelling a "bipartisan effort" to get rid of the "principles freaks" and become the party of compromising Vichycons! The narrative will be it's not because of the disaster the Dems make of everything they touch, but that it's a referendum against Trump, and stupid "moderates" in Party "leadership" will fall for it.

A Tale of Two Approaches

There's the "pragmatic" approach, which has resulted in California being where it is today... [More]

And there's the "I will not comply" approach:

I sometimes wonder whether the socialists will issue an edict requiring all firearms to have a pink ribbon tied to the barrel, just to get a belly laugh as the panicked descendants of once-proud American patriots scurry to comply.

"Realists" vs. "principles freaks" is hardly a new argument.

So it doesn't surprise me.

You might want to ask yourself why "gun rights leaders" in the place most affected by it have avoided making the obvious a priority, making the predictable a reality.

[Via Dave Licht]

The Lesser of Two Evils

“But Kaufmann denied that he’s anything but a conservative Republican who has occasionally made some moderate votes.” [More]

Jeez, suck one little **** and everybody calls you a ****sucker.

See, he won't stab you in the back ALL the time, just when it's expedient for him.  Besides, if you want to look back, take one of his history classes. Prozis lean forward.

The Establishment Republicans are doing their best to make me not care who wins "elections" and to expend my energies preparing to deal with their aftermaths.  Funny, I just saw one of the prags using Dale Carnegie here in an attempt to delegitmize the concept of  "SNBI," so "principles freaks" had better remain used to being demonized by one side and marginalized and scorned by the majority of the other.

A Fundamental Flaw

...at least as mobilized and well-funded as the NRA and the gun manufacturers are... [More]

If it doesn't involve top-down direction and central control, this guy and his minions are blind to the real reasons -- and in denial that ultimately, the decision to capitulate or defy will be individual.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen NRA needing to be dragged into a fight, or seen them and NSSF thwarted on "compromises" by ornery --what did a prag call some of us once? Oh, yeah, "principles freaks" --  who will have none of it.

On the one hand, it makes impatient, impulse control-challenged Prozis overreach, which is always dangerous. On the other, that reveals the ravenous face under the mask and increases resolve to resist, which, lest they forget, is also dangerous. 

Cert Denied

Even though the Supreme Court requested a response to the Delacy petition from the government in October 2011 - an unusual move that shows the high court had unusual interest in the case - Delacy ended up being another in a line of recent Second Amendment-related cases which the Supreme Court declined to accept for review. [Read]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all the court has to do to maintain the status quo of "existing gun laws":

Back in 2005, I wrote the following on my WarOnGuns blog, predicting what the likely outcome of a Second Amendment case would be:

“I believe the court will not dare say there is no individual rkba. But if they find there is one, it will be so heavily burdened with ‘reasonable restrictions’ as to ensure the status quo. They’ll never admit the truth unless someone, that would be us, has enough power to compel them.”

It's up to us to provide the "or else." Aside from a handful of dissident fringe lunatic "principles freaks" like yours truly, our recognized "leaders" with actual reach seem seem bent on everybody marching in the Big Mitt Parade--and we know what kind of judges he'll pick.

Stacking the Bench

“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.” [More]

Don't say you haven't been warned.

But go ahead and listen to the "pragmatic" wishful thinkers if you like. Just don't be surprised at the results when the inevitable lack of fire in bellies gives us four more years of Obama.

Say, here's an idea: Adopt the tactics of the left and blame SNBIers and "principles freaks."

The Legend of the West

You might want to have this playing in the background before reading on...

We've got this guy.

And we've even got this guy.

So naturally, NRA puts their money on this guy.

You know, the guy who wanted to effectively end private sales...

I'm sure there's a perfectly pragmatic political reason why we "principles freaks" should just shut up with our silly, unrealistic SNBI naivete and trust the chessmasters know better how to play the game...

Assuming the game they're gambling on is chess...

Too Much to Ask?

[W]ould it be too much to ask the NRA to choose only locations for conventions where we can actually exercise our freedoms while we celebrate them? [More]

Some of these "principles freaks" certainly make some outrageous demands, don't they?

Enforce the Second Amendment?

Really?

What a novel idea...

Of course, we actually wanted it enforced all the way, not just little half-measures to burnish John McCain's "conservative" creds, "principles freaks" that we were...

Keep Going Left, Boys, Toward the Cliff

GOP Invites Longtime Democrat Lieberman into the Fold

Because if there's one thing this last election taught us, it's that the Republican Party isn't "moderate" enough.

The only way to put fire in the bellies of your core constituency is to open up the Big Tent to even more diversity, to become even more like the democrats, abandon even more limited government principles, which face it, are just for freaks anyway.

It's like we've entered a post-Carroll Quigley era, one where the pretext of philosophically-opposed parties is no longer even needed. Everybody's conditioned and dumbed down enough now that emotionally-appealing manufactured imagery, combined with a few inane and meaningless sound bites, is enough.

Principle Freaks Need Not Apply

It may surprise some of you to hear me admit this, but I believe questioning Mike Vanderboegh's letter to the editor is an entirely appropriate discussion to be having in the RKBA activist community. No, I'm not going soft--at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I believe Mike will agree with me.

But what happened the other day was uncalled for, hysterical and ugly. And it points to a greater issue that must be addressed and faced--the widening gulf between majority "pragmatists" and we happy few "principles freaks."

I personally would not have used Mike's approach with an edge-of-the-pool audience. My goal there would be to persuade them to stick their toes in, perhaps wade around a bit.

But Mike did not share goals with me in this instance, and that's fine, too. He wanted to introduce a concept most had never thought about: What happens if "they" keep pushing and "we" say "No"? What rule says all letters to the editor must be geared to "win hearts and minds"? By what authority does anyone presume that public warnings of dire consequences have no place? How about letters that inspire some of us, and let us know we're not alone, or letters that give those doing the pushing pause to consider there may be an "or else" with personal consequences attached to the "Stop it now"?

That's legitimate. It needs to be considered. And I really see no difference between the letter Mike wrote, which has received such reactionary disapproval, and Charlton Heston, whom the same people revere, holding up a gun and proclaiming "From my cold dead hands!"

They both presuppose an unjust attack by government precipitating forceful resistance. Just what the hell is the Second Amendment ultimately supposed to be about, if not this? Why is everybody acting like this is some kind of big secret to be kept from the public?

Instead, Mike's letter has been presented in a fundamentally dishonest way--that he is advocating initiating violent revolution, shooting government agents and cops, fomenting civil war. People claiming this are either intentional liars, or just plain ignorant as to the facts and irresponsibly willing to spread malicious information without verifying it.

The corollary to this is Mike's a coward--a loudmouth from the sidelines, a fool who has no clue as to the implications of mass insurrection, urging others to do his dirty work and shed blood while he stays safe. Since the first claim is untrue, this is a mere fabrication based on false assumptions. And hypocritical projections, when you consider how so many of those leveling the charge of cowardice post under aliases.

I also see arrogance and foolishness on the part of Mike's rude critics--their way is the only proven way, anything else is counterproductive. Their presentation is the only one (!) that works. Any other is a diversion of resources and "makes us all look bad."

That's a pretty historically unsubstantiated stance to take. It reminds me of nothing so much as military maneuvers of centuries past--everyone marching in rigid lines into a hail of enemy fire. There's no room for asymmetric guerrilla warfare--political, propaganda or otherwise--in this unimaginative worldview.

There are other niches to be filled than the political, you know, other tactics to be employed than marching in lock step. Of course there's a place for political activism--if that's where you want to direct your efforts. But ultimately, the way it's being practiced, everything depends on majority rule democracy. Which means anyone living in a major urban area or blue state is screwed. (Unless you file a lawsuit, which the pragmatic leaders initially did everything in their power to sabotage.)

I notice these same people are strangely silent on undeserved NRA ratings given to gun-grabbing politicians. I see them lining up to prove there is no betrayal they will not accept and reward with a "lesser of two evils" vote, as they level ridicule, contempt and blame at anyone who suggests voting on principle.

What I'm really seeing here is hatred--I'm seeing a hatred for those who advocate no compromise that is even fiercer than that which they direct at out-and-out gungrabbers. Wrap your head around that for a moment, and what it means. And this is illustrated by one comment poster on another blog who says he "would shoot the yahoo first," meaning a radical gun owner fighting the government. What's really telling is, not one "pragmatist" chastised him for it.

And it's a greedy hatred. The pragmatic political compromisers have the megaphone in this debate. They are the ones who have the loudest voices, the farthest reach, the most financial backing. The voices of men like Vanderboegh are mostly confined to echoes at wilderness outposts. Blogs like this one hardly make a dent except for a thousand or so daily readers. Most others where Mike's work appears get even fewer.

Yet, as I've said before, and as this latest example illustrates, there are those who begrudge us even this small portion. They demand nothing less than to silence us altogether. There is no room in the debate for men like Mike, men like me, and if you're one of the WoG regulars who believe as we do, men like you.

They want us to shut up. They want us to go away. Here's substantiation, from two gun blogs much more popular than this one:

Get on board, or get your f*cking shed in Montana and start living up to your words. If you aren’t ready to start storming the gates, so to speak, then deep down, you believe that something can be changed inside the system. Get to work now, or shut the hell up and get off the internet. You’re clogging the tubes for people who really want to organize.

and

It is important that law-abiding, patriotic, and SANE/RATIONAL gun owners silence these fools (giving them no platform), because they make us all look like we’re a bunch of paranoid delusionals.

Their way or the highway.

Sorry. I don't think I want to trust my freedom to such as these, so if they don't mind, I'll keep doing what I'm doing. And if they do mind, I'd say they have a problem.

GOP Women Show Cracks

Uhh...it's not my title, honest.

But it is illustrative of the Big Tent Bolsheviks who have replaced Constitutionalists in the center ring, and relegated advocacy of principles to the midway barkers and sideshow freaks.

Jillian Manus-Salzman, Susan Eisenhower, Harriet Stinson...perhaps one of you could show us where "funding birth control and support of sex education" are within the purview of the executive...?

And this is enough to get you rich and privileged old Establishment broads to jump ship for The Lightworker?

But it's all rigged anyway. Now that he's no longer needed to clear the field, "Maverick" John McCain, the darling of the media, will henceforth be portrayed as the "evil conservative" they'd like us to believe he is.

And it's working.