Michelle's comments

C

cornered rat

Moderator
Michelle and I talked last night about my support for a losing cause and the likelyhood of quick demise over it.

She made several statements, care to try them on for size?

- legislators aren't a problem, uneducated voters are. politicians just do what the voter tell them to do

- we can't win using civil disobedience or education till everyone feels sorry for us, they way they did for blacks and jews

- gun owners (esp. on forums like Bower's, ar15 and, if less so, TFL) present an image of bigoted, violent trailer trash, which further makes peaceful people dislike them

- if I talk about ever using my guns for fighting, I need a shrink...because taking on US Army would get me killed w/o any useful results

- she feels that the IRA has MANY more members than the US resistance and that we won't last two days, should it ever get ugly

- in short, educate the public on grassroots level and play off martyrs (people killed or injured either by govt. thugs or those left w/o means of defense)

Anyway, anyone care to take this thread further?

rat

PS: Oh, there's one other item. She feels that I have a cavalier attitude towards life. I stated that, while starting a war now is counterproductive, I have no *ethical* objections to eliminating JBTs and the folks sending them on their missions. She felt that this was a sufficient proof of my insanity. (FYI, she felt the same way about offing gestapo employees when they are not in uniform -- "and we are in America, not some barbaric country fifty years ago!").

[This message has been edited by cornered rat (edited June 17, 1999).]
 
You're gonna have to pardon my while I bounce back and forth replying to this!

I agree with Michelle (who is that anyway? The wife? No matter..) voters are the problem but I disagree that politicians do as their constituients want. Several times Mitch McConnell (a Republican) as gone against the wishes of those who put him there, most notably with this Juvenile Crime Bill hogwash.

I disagree with "we can't win through disobediance and education". Education is the hardest route to victory, simply because most antis refuse to respond to logic. As far as disobediance, imagine if guns were outlawed and must be turned in, yet every gunowner (pipe dream, I know) refused to do so. Are they gonna arrest 80 million people? Fire us, refuse us utilities, whatever? I think not. Even if they wanted to, I think it is logistically impossible.

I have not been to Bower's board, but with a few exceptions, the AR15 board has always been civil. Sometimes, when antis came to visit and got a little "undisciplined" with their arguments, a few members responded with equally degrading posts, but for the most part, I have found that board to be every bit as civil as this one. I think the image Michelle mentions is propagated by the antis and the media, to isolate us. No "fence-sitter" with his minivan and 2.3 kids, etc., wants to be associated with WV trailer trash. (No flames, I used to live there!) I have yet to meet a gun owner who "resembles those remarks".

The SHTF scenario of the US military coming to collect your guns is, in my opinion, not likely. Having served 7 years in the infantry, I can guarantee you those guys are just like you and me, officers included. Should such an order be given, there would be much dissension in the ranks.

My 2 cents is that we should fight them every step of the way, in Congress, courts and in your neighborhood. Blow away these ridiculous stereotypes they make us into. Shred their emotional arguments with cold, hard facts. Write your politicians, however ineffectual they might be. Be as active as you can. Make converts out of fence sitters.

Geez, that's quite a rant! A record for me I think. For the record, I think it's cool you have a friend/wife/whatever, that talks about this stuff. My wife just complains if I exceed our budget!

Anyway, have a good one.
 
Yikes! Tough conversation. Here are my opinions on the various points you mentioned:

I agree that legislators aren't the problem... but neither are the voters. The problem is that while America was founded with a good set of checks and balances, it is still essentially a majoritarian system, and Alexis de Tocqueville was right about how the US is descending into tyranny. We can't really lay any blame, the current situation is just typical of a society that has passed it's peak and is now on the decline.

She is absolutely right that gun owners are never going to get any sympathy for their plight. Considering what blacks and jews went through, I don't think we want that kind of sympathy anyway. As far as martyrs go, since Waco didn't fire people up, I don't think anything ever will.

She is completely wrong about the IRA. Never more than 1000 people, espousing Marxist views that are wildly unpopular with the general public, on an island with complete civilian disarmament and martial law in place for decades, have caused a heck of a lot of trouble to the modern British army. There are millions of die-hard patriots in the US, many with military experience, in a gigantic country with a centuries-old tradition of civilian armament. Perhaps the most important point, however, is that unlike the IRA, US patriots aren't trying to mount a communist revolution: they are simply demanding the recognition of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Your willingness to fight for what you believe isn't insanity... it's the way that principled young men are supposed to behave, and in fact have behaved throughout history.

Does Michelle think you are exaggerating the horrors your folks experienced in the Soviet Union? If she really understood in her guts what it was like there... maybe she would be more interested in preventing such an environment in the USA.
 
Michelle feels that my parents did not go take great risks to get me out of USSR to have me throw away my life for a lost cause. I feel that my life would be in more danger if I surrendered. We disagree on that.

She feels that gun-grabbers are trying to respond to the voters' desire to be safe. She thinks that, unless I make myself a nuisance, I will be in no danger. My impression is that some folks might be trying to enhance safety, but enough others are disarming their opposition in preparation for a wipeout...

[This message has been edited by cornered rat (edited June 17, 1999).]
 
Mr. Rat,
I hope there are some things that the two of you can agree on. Or, as the G man would say, "you'll have to agree to disagree".
Good luck....

BTW I agree with you.

If we all shared the same opinions the world would be a very boring place.


[This message has been edited by walkin' man (edited June 17, 1999).]
 
I'll address her points in order.

1. Wrong on the legislators, right on some of the voters. The problem is, the national news media are willing lap dogs of the government. The are not told what to do, they just happen to agree with the government. As long as the press is essentially in the government's pocket,we can't mount an effective informational campaign. BTW, some 90% of the people in the national media are self-avowed liberals.

2. I'm not interested in dying for my cause. One of the reasons Ghandi did what he did is because the Brits had already disarmed the Indian people. We can win by using civil disobedience because we will maintain the means to defend ourselves.

3.Dead wrong. Actually read the posts on TFL, or any of the major boards, then go to a political chatroom on the internet, or to a board that encourages discussion on political issues, and see which side does the most threatening, and uses the most profane language. Gun control laws are racist in origin, as are welfare programs. Gun owners want everybody to have access to arms. Does that sound racist to you?

4. Afghanistan. 'Nuff said.

5. David Z covered this one nicely.

6.We're trying the first part, see my reply to her first issue as to problems with that, and we tried the second part. You see, those legislators who she claims are not the problem were sent to Congress in '94 specifically to address problems like Waco, Ruby Ridge, et al. Somehow those wonderful legislators never did do anything. Go fig.

I adhere, as do all libertarians, to the non-aggression principle: I will not initiate force against anyone to achieve political or social ends. Does Michelle agree with that? It doesn't sound like it. BTW, anybody who repeatedly tells you you're insane either wants you for a patient, or isn't on your side. Just my observation.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice."
From the radical Thomas Paine.

------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."



[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited June 17, 1999).]
 
CR i feel the the government brainwashing is working on Michelle. from the information we seem to be getting, she's scared of the government. it appears that she's scared to stand up for her rights for fear of government retaliation. so to me the brainwashing of America is working. it's sad because she seems to be intelligent, and should be able to see through all this bs. tell her to read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution again. i think she will see that what we have now is in no way what the founders of the country intended. the only one of her statements that i'll comment on is the legislators. they are the problem, they are not doing what the people sent them up there for. but you're right about the voters too, because they're just sitting there watching it all occur w/o raising hell about it. maybe they're scared of the government too!
frown.gif
live free or die!somebody said that didn't they?

------------------
what me worry? hell yes!!
 
Michelle just said (on the phone) that she wrote something on this topic...will see what that is. She understands that I am afraid.

The crux of her argument that US in 1999 is not USSR in 1937 and that I have nothing to fear -- unless I make myself a threat to the government or an agency. I disagree.
 
As the government becomes more and more powerful through legislation and judicial decisions, it will upsurp more and more freedoms. It simply starts with "unpopular" ones such as firearms ownership. But it eventually goes onto to other things. Ask GB or Oz, there are real limits on "speech" freedoms in those places.

Since politicians and judges make their living with legislation and judicial decisions (which in almost all cases attack a freedom - guns,drugs,media,taxes,etc,), we are essentially doomed in the long run. The question is: 'how long of a run?'

I also believe that the apathy/stupidity level of the majority of US citizens of voting age is at an all time high. And that a truly charismatic "leader" or even a "leader" with an all powerful government could get away with dizzying violations of even the right to life in a much grander scale than Ruby Ridge or Waco.

If you think for one minute that a Bill Clinton or a Charles Schumer or a Ted Kennedy wouldn't kill off a few million folks for votes/power if they could get away with it, then I believe that you are sadly mistaken.
 
What do you have to fear... A government hell bent on changing the rules, in the guise of "safety". It is no longer acceptable to trust the public. Because in fact the lawmakers think the public "just doesn't understand the issue."

The law can't protect you from evil, no matter how many laws they pass, but they sure as hell can take away your right to defend yourself from it.

California already proved why you need gun owners to be registered. So when they change their minds about what is legal they can make sure to include you.

We have a government in DC that seems to think the end justify the means. So what LIBERTY do you want to trade for your SAFETY, and how much more are you willing to be TAXED for it. That seems to be the bottom line with them these days.

Here is something else to fear: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/17/kosovo.05 /

Live Free or Die...
Keith

[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited June 17, 1999).]
 
Rat...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The crux of her argument that US in 1999 is not USSR in 1937
and that I have nothing to fear -- unless I make myself a threat
to the government or an agency.[/quote]

She is wrong about the dates and the difference in gov'ts, but she is right in her sentiment. So long as you behave according to the gov't, you will be safe from them, until they change their mind. The fallacy of her sentiment is the gov't should obey us. Obviously she is a genetic slave, born to her role and she wears it well....her Massa is happy with her.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
well, North Vietnam did win, it was costly but they won nonetheless. Serbia is not even to bad off right now.
I'll certainly die before i allow myself t be enslaved but i ain;t going alone.
For the time being i am content with what i have, if i decide i want an M14 i'll take my atlatl, a few 6 foot spears and go get myself one.
The IRA has more active members because it considers itself at war but it would take long to outnumber the IRA here.
 
Cornered Rat,
I'm not going to delve into the "politicians v. voters" debate. Others have expressed it well.
What prompted me to post was Michelle's comments that your parents didn't get you out of the Soviet Union to die for a lost cause.
Her attitude is the problem with a large part of our population. They are willing to give up principles and freedom for a little perceived peace and security. I recently read a book that I found truly inspirational, "Gates of Fire". It was a fictionalized account of the Spartans and other Greeks who held the pass at Thermopylae against the invading Persian army. If those men had Michelle's attitude, then western civilization as we know it would not exist. That book led me to this philosophical position:
What is the difference between human and animal? (I am a Christian, but I'm not putting a relationship to God into this discussion) I came to the conclusion that what makes someone truly human and distinct from an animal, is that a true human discovers something more important to them than their own life, and they are willing to stand up for it and die if necessary.
The Spartans who stayed and Thermopylae, knowing that they were going to die, but also knowing it gave the rest of the Greek armies time to mobilize, were human. The defenders of the Alamo could have retreated, but they stayed for the same reasons. Their resistance to Santa Ana delayed him long enough for the Texan army to get ready.

The list goes on and on. Liam Neeson made a statement as the character "Rob Roy McGregor" in the movie "Rob Roy". I don't know if it was ever uttered by the real Rob Roy, I doubt it. But it is true none-the-less. "Honor is the gift a man gives himself." Without honor before God, and the committment to stand for what is right, even at the cost of your own life, then you are living like an animal and are unworthy of the rights and freedoms that brave men died to protect.
I'll get off my soapbox now, but you inspired me.

------------------
Dorsai
Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal
weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the
monarch of all he surveys.
-- Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
 
I'll throw in my .02.

1. She is correct that uneducated voters are a real problem. They are the reason that legislators have become a problem. When you elect liars, theives and fools you should not be surprised when they use the position to screw you and help themselves.

2. No one will ever feel sorry for us because we are strong willed and armed. Civil disobedience and education can work. If not, that's one of the reasons that we are armed.

3.The vast majority of gun owners I know are good decent people. The image you speak of was crafted by the media. Consider the source.

4. I will stand, defend and if nessecary die for what I belive is right no matter what the odds or who the attacker is. While I would rather live to carry on the fight, my death, if nothing else, would serve to make my killers more wary and cautious the next time they decide to trample someones rights. This in itself weakens their position.

5. I don't really know much about the IRA. However if this small group can keep the British government at bay for al these years just think what a million enraged and determined gun owners could do here once they put their minds to it.

6. Educate the public and play off martyrs? Of course, we would be foolish not to.

Finally. Yes we are in America and it IS a barbaric country and in the context of history fifty years is nothing more than the blink of an eye. Fighting to preserve your rights is never counterproductive. Even if you lose your individual battle, you awaken others to the cause which will eventually win the war.

Just my opinions, take 'em or leave 'em.
 
Before armed resistance becomes a fact, there will be first prosecutions of people who refused to turn in their prohibited weapons, a la California's latest SKS turn-in order.

Every trial will have to be attended by swarms of sympathizers for the defendant so the jury can't help but notice something serious is happening here. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in just picking off the gun owners one by one.

Everyone will have to publicly support the one who got caught, at the risk of being identified a potential gun criminal, to make sure we don't all go quietly to prison.


------------------
Bruce Stanton
CDR, USN-Ret.




[This message has been edited by bruels (edited June 19, 1999).]
 
Here's my take FWIW:

In a broad sense the US government does reflect what its citizens want, as it should. I don't know if I would attribute the current overwhelming craving for safety over civil rights to a lack of education, I think that's patronizing on our part. I believe that what we are seeing is largely due to the success of the US system of government. Folks don't see the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as being important anymore or even relevant in some cases. People believe these freedoms are a "given" they take them for granted they see only the ways these freedoms might comprimise their safety, and miss entirely the huge role they have played and are playing in guaranteeing our safety from a much greater threat.

Ever talk to a new-ager and see the eyeballs roll in exasperation when you mention Constitutional rights? "We've already taken care of that" they seem to think. It's been dealt with this predilection of governments to abuse the governed, it's not an issue any more. How was it dealt with? When did this happen? Why is all this stuff happening in Cambodia, Yugoslavia, China? "Well the Western world has got it under control the rest of the world has to catch up"... They won't say this in so many words but it comes through loud and clear between the lines.

"Lets deal with some real issues" they say like how can we make sure that the psychotic kids our society is producing can't have access to devices that allow them to kill <strong> a lot </strong> of people (if they only kill a few people we don't have to see it on the news and feel uncomfortable).

For 10,000 years the people of the Western World have struggled to tame the beast of government ... given their lives in many cases. The US is the pinnacle of the culture that demands parity between the power of the government and the governed. Our heritage is to consider the goverment a servant of the people.

Today this sentiment is "extremist" and worse, immaterial and very inconvenient. It's much easier to believe the government will step in a make you safe than to try to accept responsibility for your own safety.

However, anybody who thinks they want a violent confrontation over this won't five minutes after it starts. Civil wars are bloody in the extreme, I don't think you can hardly imagine how bloody and filled with pain. And those who imagine holding off a marine rifle squad or even an FBI HRT in their house with their shiny FN will in all likelyhood be dead before they can focus on the front sight, that is assuming you are able to arm yourself before your "taken", which is unlikely. Being the intiator in a battle confers a tremendous advantage ... being the initiator and outnumbering your opponent with well trained personnel means you win and win quick.

Civil wars can be won against superior opponents but only by choosing battles carefully (i.e.: being sure you are always the intiator), having good a intelligence operation, only fighting on your own terms and avoiding all other confrontations, being organized and having competent leadership and probably only when you have an external sponsor willing to supply arms, food and other necessities and having a substantial proportion of the population that is sympathetic to your cause. After that, if you win, you enter a very dangerous time when it is highly likely that some self-serving demagog will take control and be more oppressive than the goverment you overthrew. We were incredibly lucky in the American Revolution, look at the other revolutions that have taken place since and the results they've had. Actually I shouldn't say "lucky", we had men of great integrity who made a point of following their ideals after their victory rather than their own self interest. That is incredibly rare!

But just dying in the cause of freedom is easy. There are probably lots of folks with more power than they deserve who would be happy to accomodate you.
*****************
I think our problem is primarily one of access. We don't have access to those Americans who really aren't strongly committed on this issue. Our opponents constantly market their views to these undecided Americans, and it works! I don't know how to solve this problem, the Internet has made a dent but only a moderate one. We don't have any compelling charismatic spokespersons, and we don't have a forum in which to present our views to the broader populace. We are increasingly marginalized, waiting anxiously for the next gun violence media event to increase the pressure on us.

It's not a good situation, we need to take the initiative away from our opponents and make them defend while we attack. But how is a tough question.

=rod=

[This message has been edited by rod (edited June 19, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by rod (edited June 19, 1999).]
 
Bruce, you are absolutely right. Those days will come. And, when they do, IMHO we will be wise to practice non-violent, civil disobedience at such occasions. People who believe in the right to keep and bear arms tend to be independent and hard working. But, we'll need to take the time and trouble to show support for the first to fall. And - we should bring our spouses and our children.

Consider how it would look to see a courthouse ringed by hundreds of firearms owners and their families. Carrying signs. Perhaps linking arms to block access, and chanting the 2nd Amendment or ...

I've never walked a picket line. And, I've never been arrested. But, I'm willing to join others to fight for this right. And, this is no less a right that the rights others have fought for in this country. As a matter of fact, I think an excellent case can be made for the RKBA being the most critical right we own.

It is a shame if Michelle doesn't understand that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top