ATTITUDE CHECK

Snakebite--you can check my response to the Rosa Parks thread to see that I HAVE given some serious thought to the possibility that violence might someday be unavoidable.

BUT don't forget that there are young people out there like Chink and I who are carrying on the good fight, and don't put too much stock in polls and the like which purport to show that everyone is against you.

Re: your comment about taking gun-grabbers' threats at face value, it's important to think this through. You and I DO NOT take the statements of HCI and their ilk at face value. True, we'd be fools to take such brazen liars at their words, but openly they're very careful to add the disclaimer that they "do not seek the confiscation or banning of all guns or handguns." I read it on an HCI press release this morning.
But much of the public takes both us AND them at face value. That means the average citizen hears this:

HCI: We just want reasonable reforms. We have no wish to ban all guns or confiscate yours. Besides, why do you need one of those nasty "assault rifles?"

US: Because when you come for my guns, you filthy looter, there will be too many of you to get with the revolver and a shotgun won't penetrate your vests!
 
Errr...Chink

There is indeed a preamble to the BofR and its very clear:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of
their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to
prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further
declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:
And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government,
will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
(italics are mine) Check and checkmate!

So much for outcome based education, huh? ;)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!



[This message has been edited by DC (edited September 19, 1999).]
 
DC not aware. I stand corrected. but the line "we hold these truths..." is in the declaration of Independce. which has not bearing on how the gov't is run.

------------------
It ain't mah fault. did I do dat?
 
Dennis, I am an agitator because I am a pragmatist. As such, I find I must often walk a thin line. While on the one hand I feel strongly that things will not change for the better if we simply continue to do what we've already done, on the other I do not condone either needless violence or anarchy. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. My message is not one of violence, but rather of facing up to what I see as the cold, hard facts. After all, we (gun owners) are where we are because we've done what we've done. Nevertheless, lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am not advocating violent revolution. What I am advocating is that we stand up for our constitutional rights regardless of the consequences. In so doing, things will lead to...whatever they lead to. Again, I apologize if I came on a little too strongly.

But please, if I may...not to cause a problem or show disrespect...

Dennis: "If we are to keep the unaware and uncommitted from fleeing to gun control advocates, then we must not appear to be the "crazies" depicted by our accusers."

--This is why I think we're ultimately going to lose the gun-control war. Because it's "our accusers" who are framing the debate. They have us on the defensive, and there is really little we can do, working within "the system," to turn that around, since "the system" is largely regulated by the liberal media. As I explained in another essay I wrote regarding another subject, one simply cannot fight a protracted defensive war against a determined, well-armed, well-organized opponent and expect to win. Our opponents have already succeeded in marginalizing law-abiding gun owners, and that marginalization process will only accelerate as our society produces more and more violent, gun-toting wackos. Nevertheless, I still understand your position and even agree with it in many respects. So I'll put it thusly: Yes, work within the system, folks, but keep your powder dry. Better?

Gwinnydapooh, I haven't forgotten that there are young people out there like you who still care very much about protecting our constitutional rights. A lot fewer, however, than there were a generation ago, and even fewer than there were a generation before that. To what conclusion does that lead you? Yes, things may well turn around. Then again, they may not. Or they may not in time to save what you and I so strongly believe in. Look around. The people (sheeple) are fat, dumb, and happy. And relatively few have any idea what self-sufficiency is. When disaster strikes, most will hold their hand wide open to the first person with money who comes along. That person, coincidentally, will just happen to be Uncle Sam. And he'll have a few strings attached to his (our) money. I'm exceedinly grateful for people like you, but I think you're a distinct minority in our country today. A lot of sunshine patriots these days. Even more tomorrow, let alone the next day.

Also, I misspoke when I said I take the gun grabbers' statements at face value. What I meant was I take their intentions at face value. And their intentions are plain to anyone who can see through smoke and mirrors. Yes, they are very careful to add disclaimers to their efforts, and as quick to forsake them whenever new opportunities for gun-grabbing present themselves. Once again, we're allowing them to frame the debate, to establish the parameters. We're worrying about not living up to their characterizations of us, rather than vice-versa. In my playbook, that spells our eventual defeat. Sorry, I can't sugarcoat what I see.
 
Great posting fellow "gun nuts"... :-)

How about this for an argument that the 2nd is equally important.

pro-gun activist: let's say you have more than one child.

anti-gun looney: OK

pro-gun activiest: OK, we are going to take away your 2nd child, because they aren't as important as the 1st.



------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
Snakebite,

Obviously we have the same goal of returning our government to Constitutional law. At worst, we merely have somewhat different tones to the same tune.

I see the approaches to our mutual goals as a continuum.
- At one extreme, the people are screaming, cursing, gonna shoot everybody, etc.
- At the opposite extreme, the people ponder their navels for years discussing the exact nuance of the word “infringed”.

Obviously, TFL intends to be somewhere in between. The rule of thumb I *try* to remember (with varying degrees of success ;) ) is to pretend I’m in our preacher’s house or in a college auditorium.
I can speak freely, but with not the same fervor or verbiage I would use with friends at the firing range.

Remember also that our words are preserved here for anyone who wishes to become a member. They are free to research, interpret, take out of context, and use our vitriol against us. To me, that is a “good reason to reason”, and to “think twice, post once”.

(However, I must admit that one evening I set a new TFL record for
number of edits on one post! ... sigh.)

If I want to rant and rave, I will go to the appropriate venue. TFL’s market niche is, “Simply the Finest Firearms Information Site on the Web”.

To agitate and create controversy among ourselves is to distract attention from our RKBA goals, dilute our efforts, and drive off potential converts.

TFL is unique. It should remain unique in the sense it is a force for uniting both gun owners and non-gun owners in striving for our goal of Constitutional law rather than the illegal, immoral mess that is our current government.

I’ll scream and shout elsewhere. On TFL I’ll try to reason. We may need both styles of effort - but each in its own place. That’s why I will stick to my phrase, “If we are to keep the unaware and uncommitted from fleeing to gun control advocates, then we must not appear to be the "crazies" depicted by our accusers."

I am NOT saying we should not scream and shout. I am only saying we should do it in the appropriate place - somewhere other than TFL.

However, even (perhaps especially) on TFL strong arguments are valid and appropriate. Check out some of the Republican v. Libertarian debates and you will see I do not shun strong rhetoric! :) But nowhere
in my most frustrated moments did I suggest shooting the opposition, beating them with barrel staves or whatever. (As you may discern, I conjure up dark thoughts as frequently as anyone else does! :D )

We DO agree that letting our accusers frame the debate hurts us immensely. But they are saying we are frightening and irresponsible. To be verbally violent and abusive plays directly into their hands.

We agree that the media are far to the left. That amazes and mystifies me. Their myopic viewpoint ignores the obvious connection of First Amendment rights to Second Amendment power! Perhaps it is as simple as personal goals overpowering ethical journalism.

In my darker moments, I agree that the outlook for RKBA seems grim. When gun owners vote for gun control to avoid greater gun control I become extraordinarily frustrated. The problem is we refuse to unite. If
20%-30% of gun owners voted to repeal gun control, it would be a done deal. But we argue so much about our methods and fragmented interests and rationalize our voting for gun control that we can not
achieve our goals.

If your fears and mine come to pass, we will be faced with a much more difficult decision: servitude or violence! In view of the hesitation and fear of my
friends to vote for freedom, I dread the answer to that future question.

In any case, :D :D we are in full agreement with your last comment, “...
work within the system, folks, but keep your powder dry.”

TFL: “Simply the Finest Firearms Information Site on the Web”.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 20, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top