MISS ROSA PARKS DIDN'T SHOOT THE BUS DRIVER

C

cornered rat

Moderator
Michelle wrote this a while back. I have been asking her to post it ever since, and she has finally relented. Please refrain from attacking the author if you disagree with this and that detail of the essay. I do think that we can learn something from it.

http://dd-b.net/RKBA/rosa.htm

This is especially pertinent in view of the recent discussions about TFL straying off its intended path and into Black Helicopter country...

------------------
Cornered Rat
http://dd-b.net/RKBA RKBA posters
http://dd-b.net/olegv Portrait, nature photos
 
The bus driver didn't drag Rosa out of her seat and shoot her in the back, either. All he did (and all he *could* do) was yell.

There are times when violence is an appropriate response, and times when it isn't.

------------------
"America needs additional gun laws like a giraffe needs snow tires."
--Rabbi Mermelstein, JPFO
 
I think that people who sound eager to have US Revolution III would not be trusted by the rest of the population. While fighting is a recognized option, sounding eager or gung ho about it is bad PR. I think what happens is something like this:

Anti: "Guns are bad. I want them all confiscated"

Pro: "Then I will shoot you and start a civil war"

Anti: "I can quote you on that, right? Right."

Neutral: "Hmmm, this guy just said he wants to kill people."

Talk about inevitable civil war is perfectly understandable to me, but it is hardly a way to increase support among fence-sitters.

Then again, one reason behind Ghandi's success was the willingness of some others to engage in violence, so his way looked better to the British. I am not saying this way or that way is right, just recognize that you will prove the anti's point by sounding like a crusader.


[This message has been edited by cornered rat (edited September 19, 1999).]
 
Hey, as long as we're throwing stones about being CIVIL . . . . :)

I do think she has a point about our approach, but what she's asking me to do is, in essence, ignore my analysis of our predicament, accept hers in its place, and act accordingly. That just doesn't happen without a lot more support than saying times have changed. Times have changed. Governments do NOT change. Governments are about power, getting it, taking it, whatever. Ancient Chinese dynasties were about power, the British empire was about power, the Nazis and the Communists were about power, and the government we live under is about power. I don't think Reno or the Clintons are evil--they just think they are so much smarter than me that MY life should be run THEIR way, and they're willing to do what it takes to make it happen (this is speaking of "me" as part of the whole, of course--I'm not THAT paranoid--yet.)
Talk of violent revolution and talk of disliking tyrannical government are not necessarily the same thing either.

I'm not picking on you, Cornered. I realize this is not exactly your point of view, it is Michelle's, but I don't know if she reads the forums or not so I'll just leave it here for random pondering.
 
This one just occurred to me but it's really a separate thought--hence the separate post.

I'll admit it--I hate the thought of using violence to solve a problem or disagreement. I'm one of those people who advocates running away if necessary and fighting if the other guy catches up. I think I go pretty far in compromising with antis. I don't have any illegal guns and I don't carry a gun because it's illegal in Illinois. That could get me killed, but I want to respect the law. I'm pretty tired of being labeled some kind of anarchist by well-meaning people who don't understand what I constantly give up and compromise and give away in order to preserve peace and try to live with the law.
BUT . . . I'm starting to worry a little, because it seems to me that the necessity of violence is closer now than it was a few years ago. I don't quite buy that the political situation is quite as impossible as people say, so that still holds out a lot of hope, but a few years ago I would have poo-pooed the mere thought that a violent revolution was possible in America. I just can't do that and remain honest anymore and it scares the hell out of me.
Think of it as a one-on-one confrontation with a BG. We gave him our money (full-autos) and our car keys (Brady Bill, the FBI database, etc) and everything else we're willing to live without (some of us, anyway :) ) WE COMPROMISED. We did exactly what he ordered us to do, just like you're supposed to do--WE COMPLIED WITH DANGEROUSLY IRRATIONAL LAWS. Now, he has begun to let us know that he has murdered many others who dared not to give him everything with the desired humility (Wounded Knee, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Paz family, ad nauseum) and is pointing his weapon toward us (the militarization and overkill training of our police and increasing use of massive forces against citizens)
At what point have we reached our lastest resort, which we all agree violence must be?
 
I believe her premise that times and people have changed, is flawed. Her paper makes the people of the 1700's bloodthirsty warmongers, whereas we have become "enlightened" and view violence with distain and abhorance.

I don't think so.

Technology has certainly changed, but not base human nature. Nor, as Gwinny has said, have governments (who are made up of people who's basic nature has not changed.)

If we have truly become haters of violence why is there the double standard of <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"I can't stand actual violence in any form (but movies don't bug me); and the thought of killing or allowing another human being to be killed is reprehensible and terrifying."[/quote]

Who was it that talked to an anti-gun person and got a face full of "You should all be dragged out into the street and SHOT!" Or own very own Rosie O'Donnell's comment, "All gun owners should be put in jail."

Nope, no violence in the anti-gunners minds, at all.


And the other double standard: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
...no one listens to an extremist.

(And don't write to me telling me how wrong I am. I couldn't care less about what someone else thinks about these issues).[/quote]

Isn't that the way extremists think?

So maybe I shouldn't listen...

(bold emphasis in "quotes" mine)

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

www.quixtar.com
referal #2005932


[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited September 19, 1999).]
 
Folks,

I'm going to say something here, lots of folks won't agree with but Michelle said it best when she said we look down on so many others for their beliefs. My gay aunt and I have an ongoing dispute about guns, but we keep it civil because I leave my personel feelings about her lifestyle out of it.

I was approached by a ultra conservative friend of mine to write an essay for a news letter, asking people to fund a program to establish a law making homosexuals touching one anther in public illegal. I said "NO" why some of you may ask. I have a serious problem see a serious hypocrisy when we push for our rights, yet we attempt to veto other peoples Right #9. We always complain about not having enough freedom, yet some are willing to call congressmen and ask for laws restricting what to them is a sin. Doesn't the bible say,"Vengeance be mine".

My most recent convert was a girl who saw all gun owners as exactly what Michelle was talking about. I will not call my senators and fight for a bill against another persons choice. Even if I see them as wrong.

I dislike drugs in a visceral way most people can't understand, but yet I don't call and ask for more laws. Why? Because what someone does on their place is none of my concern, if it carries itself onto my place we do have a problem. My biggest complaint about America and her citizens today is they just can't seem to stay out of their fellow citizens life. Why can't we just leave each other alone? If someone infringes, murders someone else, give em a trial and hang-em. Punish those who don't practice personal responsibilty.

I pretty much agree with the jest of the essay, but I will call one point. The minute the government feels we're not willing to duke it out for our guns, is the minute they will come door to door. I disagree on the point that the government doesn't wish to have our guns, if they don't why do so many of them say they do. Is it some secret plan to disarm and inslave us? I don't think so. What is it then? I don't know, but my idea is to follow the advice of the Founding Fathers, they dealt with a corrupt government themselves, and have slightly more experience than any of us.


On the reason I feel we should just leave others alone to their own choices.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, Dec. 23, 1791.

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." - Thomas Jefferson in letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

And a quote on why to not just rely on the government to not become corrupt.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837.



------------------
Live Free or Die Trying,

Steve Moody


Just once wouldn't it be nice to hear a politician say,"I don't believe this way, but the people do."
 
Concerning her closing statement about our movement needing a figure like Rosa Parks, I'd like to nominate TX state rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. At least to me, they don't come no better than that.
 
I would suggest a bit more research on Rosa Parks, her involvement with the NAACP, and how Executive Order 9981 played a significant part in her decision not to give up her seat on December 1st, 1955. Precedent had been set for the striking down of segregation laws. What Rosa Parks did required a great deal of courage, but she knew she was on pretty safe ground. Rosa Parks was not the first black woman to be arrested for violation of the segragation laws, her story would have never been even decent gossip if she had not been the secratary of the head of the local chapter of the NAACP.

*Here's a hint. Guns played a big part in it.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http:/www.ofcc.net
 
There is no comparison. If there were you would see all the liberals flocking to our side!

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
The network news would take any Hero and turn he/she into Hilter want-to -be or a hater of children.
Using sound bites and HCI lies!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top