search
top

Commentary on Stupidity

Ahab has some thoughts on a comment that appeared last night on the blog.  Normally, I’ll delete crazy shit like that, but sometimes I think we have to confront the skeletons in the closet of our movement.  I tend to think most folks like that are internet brave, and actually wouldn’t follow through with their threat.  But there are folks out there, thankfully a small minority, who don’t believe violence against a government is an absolute last resort; a measure only to be resorted to when there’s no legal or political option left for the protecton of constitutional rights.  They believe they get to be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to enforcing their own interpretation of their right to bear arms.  It’s an attitude that I think needs to be confronted, rather than swept under the rug.

3 Responses to “Commentary on Stupidity”

  1. Peter says:

    It was me who left that comment last night. It was supposed to be a bit of trollery, which it was, and to stimulate some thought, which it didn’t.

    I’m sorry for that.

    No, I don’t advocate, except in the most dire situation (a situation that I can’t imagine), even displaying a weapon to a cop. If I were to produce a weapon, it would be in support of the police in the face of great danger to them. No, I don’t carry a gun outside the house, and I only ‘carry’ within the house to take a gun out of the safe and bring it to my workbench. For the record, I don’t own 6 magazines total for anything, much less burden myself with all that mass. No, I don’t carry concealed or anything like that.

    In my haste to lay it on as thickly as possible, I left out some things which *do* bother me, and I believe are important to consider.
    1) In re Uncle’s ‘scaring the white people’: We are some of those ‘white people’. Not literally, as much as that might be true, but that in our haste to present ourselves as law-abiding, we have a tendency to be overly critical of anyone who doesn’t fit our notion of the ‘perfect victim’ when the police seemingly, as it seems here, overreacts to a nominally legal situation. This isn’t Vegas: there isn’t any ‘card counting’ and we have to deal with the hand we’re dealt, even when we get a joker.

    2) Court. Of course this is where one goes to set things straight. But what happens, as it seems to do too frequently, when the agency in question simply ignores the ruling from the bench?

    3) My retort to your comments was less ‘trollish’. At what point does the actions of the LEO overcome the uniform? If you read WoG and KABA with any frequency, one cannot help but notice the many instances where duly sworn officers avail themselves of violence that you or I would not consider, much less engage in. Then there’s the tendency of District Attorneys and judges to treat such actions with more leniency than you or I would recieve.

    Again, I apologize for the comment. It was meant to stimulate discussion, and I failed at that. If you want me to take a Time Out (not comment for awhile) or some other sanction, I’ll abide by your wishes.

  2. SayUncle says:

    ‘in our haste to present ourselves as law-abiding, we have a tendency to be overly critical of anyone who doesn’t fit our notion of the ‘perfect victim’’

    Indeed, we do. But there does come a point when you have to realize that some of these guys aren’t just imperfect, they’re damaging.

  3. Sebastian says:

    It takes a lot for me to ban people. More than this… either way… I will respond to your thoughts in a bit when I have more time.

top