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.
