search
top

Why There Can Be No Peace Between Our Peoples

When it comes to threepers and the prags, the reason peace between our peoples is not likely is because so many folks are flaming douchenozzles:

“Bitter and I are in Arlington. NRA Board Meeting are going on right now. We don’t have much of an agenda, except for discussing some details of the Second Amendment Blog Bash.”

Yeah,no agenda you say? You have a chance to do something big with the Holder Debacle while you’re THERE,and show your leadership abilities.

And all you care about is the “blog Bash” later in the year.

I would never call you a coward because I don’t know you,but man,you sure do know how to disappoint..

Personally,you showed your true colors to me when you disarmed to be in the same room with McCain at the “NRA Convention.”

Be well…..

I would never call you a coward, Sebastian, so I’ll just all but imply it, and imply you aren’t doing anything for gun rights while I’m at it.  No, that’s not weasley at all!  There are plenty of threepers that I merely disagree with, but otherwise think are decent people.  But the reason you guys have no place at the table is because it’s intolerable to even be in the same room as a lot of you, even if it’s a virtual room, such as the one we all occupy here on the blogosphere.  I would propose from this point out, we agree to adhere to dinner party rules.  What do I mean by dinner party rules?  Dave Barry has a good idea:

You know what I miss? I miss 1960. Not the part about my face turning overnight into the world’s most productive zit farm. What I miss is the way the grown-ups acted about the Kennedy-Nixon race. Like the McCain-Obama race, that was a big historic deal that aroused strong feelings in the voters. This included my parents and their friends, who were fairly evenly divided, and very passionate. They’d have these major honking arguments at their cocktail parties. But unlike today, when people wear out their upper lips sneering at those who disagree with them, the 1960s grown-ups of my memory, whoever they voted for, continued to respect each other and remain good friends.

What was their secret? Gin. On any given Saturday night they consumed enough martinis to fuel an assault helicopter. But also they were capable of understanding a concept that we seem to have lost, which is that people who disagree with you politically are not necessarily evil or stupid. My parents and their friends took it for granted that most people were fundamentally decent and wanted the best for the country. So they argued by sincerely (if loudly) trying to persuade each other. They did not argue by calling each other names, which is pointless and childish, and which constitutes I would estimate 97 percent of what passes for political debate today.

So what I’m appealing for, on both sides, is that we follow dinner party rules.  I think, for the most part, the last disagreement over NRA’s proper role, has been passionate, but civil.  No matter what has happened in the past, and it’s been on both sides, let’s treat this like a dinner party.  This is the standard I’m going to be enforcing from here on out, because I pay for this forum, and I’m not going to tolerate assholes anymore.  Disagreement is fine, but it’s a dinner party from here on out.  You can assault people’s ideas all you want, but that’s as far as it goes.

35 Responses to “Why There Can Be No Peace Between Our Peoples”

  1. illspirit says:

    Man, this is rather confusing. Everyone keeps telling me the Threepers only want to start shooting people and stuff, yet here they are trying to do something politically and the Prags are the ones who think it’s a waste of time. Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go check to see if my cat is sleeping with dogs..

  2. Sebastian says:

    For the reasons I outlined, I don’t think a letter to your Senator is a waste of time. What I was explaining is, why it’s risky for NRA to publicly oppose Holder. You can disagree with that. That’s fine. Jeff Knox took the time to carefully outline why he thought I was wrong. He has good points. What Jeff didn’t do is throw sand in my face.

  3. “people who disagree with you politically are not necessarily evil or stupid.” Amen. That’s an easy one for me, since nearly all of my friends are raging liberals. I know they are good people who universally love this country. We have honest ideological differences which DON’T stand in the way of our friendship.

    “it’s a dinner party from here on out.” So, lots of gin? I agree wholeheartedly with that :) The problem is, lots of folks I know get even more belligerent when they drink.

    The thing is, Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is in play here. I’d bet you $100 worth of ammo that the most vitriolic commenters and threeper bloggers would not have so many nasty things to say in person. I understand your frustration with it, but you can only either ignore it or fuel it.

    And I was also pleasantly surprised by Jeff’s argument. Worthy debate material, there.

  4. Mopar says:

    I’m not a big fan of gin. Can I have tequila instead?

  5. I’m not a big fan of gin. Can I have tequila instead?

    Damn it, Mopar–you beat me to it.

  6. Bitter says:

    Molar,
    I think we can arrange the tequila. :)

  7. Oscar says:

    I’m neither a “three-percenter” nor a “pragmatic”, but (at this time) something between those two, so I can see both sides of the argument.

    I do have one outstanding question, though: Where, roughly, is the “line in the sand” to be drawn?

    We’ve obviously stepped across one explictly delineated boundary (“…shall not be infringed”), yet no revolt has taken place.

    Machine guns have been banned, in fact if not in law. Yet no revolt has taken place.

    Assault weapons were banned once, and no revolt took place, save for a political backlash that was supposed to teach gun-control politicians “a lesson”. Yet, here we are, 15 years later, and it looks as if we stand on the threshold of another AWB. It is arguable whether the “lesson” was learned.

    If a second, permanent, AWB is enacted by this Congress, will that be the line in the sand? Or will we rationalize such a new law by doing what so many thousands are doing: buying them all up before they’re banned. Will we rationalize a new AWB, as we did the Hughes Amendment: “As long as I got mine…”?

    What if a new AWB incorporates confiscation? Is that the “trigger” for a mass revolt?

    So, where is that line where the “prag” morphs into the “three-percenter”. More importantly, where is that boundary space where a sufficiently large mass of “prags” cross the Rubicon into “three-percenter”-style resistance. It is clear where the Founders’ generation drew the line, but no such clarity seems evident among recent generations of gun rights advocates.

    What does seem clear, even to someone without a dog in the fight, is that gun owners (as a social group) have acquiesced in the passage of gun-control legislation that would have been unacceptable in the time of the Founders. Franklin’s admonition seems particularly relevant today and to our community: “We must hang together, or surely we shall hang separately.”

    It’s time we had an open conversation, as a community, as to where the line is to be drawn. It’s time we made it clear (crystal clear) where the thoughts of the mass of our community lay, what we are willing to accept, and what we find unacceptable.

  8. Jim says:

    Oscar asks the same question I have been wondering. Anyone with an answer?

  9. Bitter:

    And a jug of Tennessee Sippin’ Whiskey too?

    Sebastian:

    I’ve been reading about this Holder thing on various blogs and such, and by what was written by some folks in the comments have me convinced that too many people like to talk like a big man without doing anything useful. Instead of talking tough in the comments section, take that time and write a letter, or call one’s Rep’s.

    I can understand the what could be the reason for the NRA to not be public about this. Everything is a chess move right now, and it’s a new dawn. *War on Guns* has a very good point of going after Anti Gunners, without bringing up the Gun issue. I think that might have to become a new tactic of ours in the coming years, and something the NRA might not publicly get involved with, since it could become a conflict of interest.

    Just my thoughts……………….

  10. karrde says:

    Guinness Stout instead of gin, anyone?

    With that aside, I’m asking the question alongside Oscar. Where do we draw a line in the sand?

    I’ll also ask with Sebastian–where is the most effective (and politically possible) place to draw a line in the sand?

    I would propose that we hammer the Blue Dog Democrats over any AWB that gets proposed.

    I also wonder if there’s anything to be had in trying to befriend/convert some news people. They are people too. Some are hostile by social convention, others because they’ve swallowed the dogma.

    How many of which kind?

  11. Tom says:

    Folks, I think some of the “line” concept has been missed. I don’t think gun owners can ever agree to a common line as fudds constantly toss anyone actually reading the text SHBI under the bus. They’re content with their bolt action sniper rifles…err, HUNTING rifles. The Kerry types with their OU shotguns.

    The only common line that should be acceptable to all SHOULD be the one way way way back there behind the advancing anti-rights hoards, that SHBI line. Once that is reached you are free to own or not own whatever you personally desire.

    No, I’m not advocating outright civil war, or shooting at anything just yet. I AM advocating we quit playing defense all the time, letting NRA and shades-of-infringement folks to pass laws to stall out the types of coming bans we’ll see pushed anyway.

    Everyone has their own opinion and motivator, not just the gun folks. Anyone who’s ever broken a law that was unjust, say Rosa Parks or anyone else defying segregation. The question is why. Why did they stop obeying the laws out of the blue one day?

    Another important question to ask is why gun owners can’t bother to take visible actions like the left, sit ins, rallies, marches. I know all the excuses already so no need to waste your time. They don’t change the fact that we’re playing the part of the lobster backs whose ass proto-Americans kicked back to their little island at the height of their power. We refuse to use every means of attack, and that has much to do with where we are.

    Every huge change in America has come from the bottom, using all means available. Today that could mean marches, demonstrations, rallies, strikes (especially now with the economy) and NOT just phone calls, letters, discrediting the lies of the antis, years or decades long court battles, and blogging. It also could mean, IF we’re unsuccessful and haven’t been a bunch of liars, armed resistance when folks start going door to door (again)

    Since I’m still here, put me down for a good ol’ micro brew.

  12. Oscar says:

    A different question, inspired by Tom’s comment:

    Why aren’t we (as gun owners) organizing sit-ins, marches, demonstrations, etc.?

    It seems obvious (although I never noticed it before now) that we do not utilize all methods of grassroots/popular organization available to a civil rights movement, such as ours. Is it because most RKBA activists are politically conservative or right of center, and such means of political mobilization have been traditionally implemented by the political Left?

    If we could mobilize a 10,000- or 20,000-person march and rally in Washington, that might be more effective than letters trickling into Congress. Why isn’t the NRA on the forefront of such an undertaking? I would think that a “Second Amendment March on Washington” would not be as politically risky as taking on an incoming administration.

    Tom’s comment has caused me to consider the possibility of a temporal continuum of political action for our movement, one that can provide a commonly understood framework:

    (1) Efforts to influence legislation, mobilization of electoral power (i.e., get pro-gun people elected), and prosecution of suits in the courts;
    (2) Marches, demonstrations, sit-ins, strikes;
    (3) Civil disobedience;
    (4) Armed resistance.

  13. Oldfart says:

    Welcome to the Balkans! Ideologically speaking, of course. We used to be covered by the all encompassing term “Gun nut” but now we’re becoming “Prags”, “Three percenters” and even “Fudds.” Has anybody noticed a similar fracturing of the Brady Bunch?

    I suppose it’s to be expected. After all, we just had our asses handed to us with the last election and it is customary to set up a circular firing squad to properly distribute the blame for such a fiasco. But let’s not pull those triggers just yet.

    For the record: I am a member of the NRA, the biggest, most effective lobby in DC. Don’t believe me? Ask them! They’ll tell you how good they are… but send money when you ask. Hey, they’re so good they tried to scuttle ‘Heller’ because they might have lost. Now they’re afraid to oppose Holder because they might lose.

    Sounds to me like they’re obsessed with losing… or compromising or retreating or surrendering or… Has anybody else noticed that “LaPierre” is a French name? Perhaps we need to find (or build) an organization that is more interested in winning fights than in not losing them.

    Robert Frost opined that “good fences make good neighbors” and that is an execllent reason to make a sharp ‘line in the sand’ over which no government may pass. Yet the ‘most effective’ lobbying group in the game will not pick up a stick and scribe that (or any) line. Maybe they need fewer directors and more direction.

    Ah, to hell with it! Go ahead and pull the trigger! We don’t deserve freedom.

  14. Wolfwood says:

    The talk of civil disobedience has a lot of merit, but misses an ironic point: if gun owners do this, some are going to be doing it armed. No matter how many times you say to leave the guns at home this one time (which is important if there’s to be a march on DC), some misguided souls will do it anyway, be it CC, OC, or walking around with AR-15s “because it’s my right” (and in some places, there’s no law against walking around with loaded EBRs).

    Counter-protestors are going to do everything possible to provoke an incident. They’ll throw rocks at your kid or wife to try and get you to draw, then lie about it afterwards. They may crash the protest themselves and start firing off guns (haven’t we all read about anti-RKBA types who sneak into gun shows with a bullet in order to pull off a “ND” to make the whole place look bad?).

    I like the idea, but we’re hampered in a way that other issues aren’t, and we’ll be crucified by the media (instead of ignored or buried on some back page) if anything illegal happens.

  15. Jim says:

    Wolfwood,

    Good points, so why don’t we march some place we are allowed to be armed? Like the Virginia border, directly across from DC. Not trying to be testy with you, just discussing possibilities.

  16. Dave thA says:

    I think the problem is that the Right values individualism and abhors collective movements. Hence it lives in the more open spaces and keeps itself to itself.

    The Left values the goup, and thus easily coalesces behind anything that is close in values.

    So how do you motivate the Right to form a movement of sufficient power?

    The NRA goes some of the way in size, but serves many masters.

    There needs to be somewhere that lays out choices for lines in the sand and actions. That people can understand, consider and sign down to, individually.

    So maybe 3% want to choose the next law that infringes in any way. And 30% more chose a renewing of the AWB. And 60% when they come door-to-door in ninja suits.

    These are not mutually exclusive, but at least we will know where people stand and what kind of action they would take.

    How powerful would a group of 10,000 be if it was know that they would be willing to engage in civil disruption upon a AWB introduction?

    Or would march if an ammo tax was raised.

    A line in the sand , like mutually assured destruction, is ONLY any good if the other side can SEE the line. And we can see it too.

    http://www.lineinthesand.com is available, by the way…

  17. Wolfwood says:

    Jim,

    Not a bad idea, although you run into Virginia laws there. You’d be talking about Arlington County, Fairfax County, or the City of Alexandria. That would help with the Open Carry problem (although the rifle problem would be trickier), although the provocation/provocateur situation would remain.

    My main concern is twofold. First, a “March on DC” loses a lot of emphasis if you’re not surrounded by the monuments, Capitol, and so on. The second is that you’ll hear “confederacy” thrown around a lot to make it seem as though this is an effort of mostly white (and a few deluded non-white) people.

    These concerns may turn out to be nothing, but I think they’re worth considering. Again, it’s a good counter; it’s just that I’ve still got concerns (if not necessarily reservations).

  18. Wolfwood says:

    Dave,

    I like that: instead of threatening revolt, threaten a march if certain lines are crossed. That’s not violent and is something with a long history in democracies. A march festooned with flags and blackpowder (or even cemented barrel) rifles carries with it a different message than some guy with an SKS threatening to shoot any ATF agents who try to take his guns.

  19. Regarding the whole sit-in/march/protest concept… that’s how unfunded groups with bored (un-employed) members operate. Gun owners have money because they tend to be gainfully employed.

    We don’t mind spending a few hundred (or a few thousand) on a new rifle, so why do so many of us mind that $30/year for the NRA? In addition, there’s nothing wrong with supporting the NRA alongside the more “radical” groups like GOA. Just remember the money you send to the NRA goes much further then a dozen filthy bark-humpers screaming and waving signs. Also, consider that the NRA would likely fight more of these battles if they had higher membership numbers and more funding. If every gun owner that attacks the NRA for not “doing enough” would just send them a check instead, they’d have a much bigger war chest.

    Keep in mind also, I’m not saying that protests don’t work… they certainly do. How many town hall meeting has the VCDL (peacefully) taken over? How about that recent one in Seattle that Joe Huffman attended where gun owners vastly outnumbered gun-control advocates? You don’t have to sit on a street corner and wave poorly-made signs to sway public opinion… instead we are better off legitimately engaging in the REAL political process. A show of force that politicians will see and hear is far more useful than screaming into thin air.

  20. Sebastian says:

    Greg is correct. Marches and Sit-ins are not effective tools for promoting gun rights. Forget 20,000 people. To make a real impact in Washington DC, you have to attract a million people, bare minimum. Twenty thousand people is a small protest by D.C. standard, and for a movement with the reputation ours has for political clout, that would be disaster to have that kind of showing. A million is the base number. A million five would be good. You can’t even get 6 million gun owners to pay 30 bucks a year to do something to defend their gun rights. GOA I doubt even breaks 30,000 if you look at the dollar amounts they report coming from membership fees. Other groups are smaller than even that.

  21. Sebastian says:

    Also, the power of the left does not come from protests and sit-ins. The success of the left has come from the left being very effective at influencing, manipulating and using government to achieve their ends. They have control over a number of mechanisms that greatly influence elite opinion. The protesters and sit-in hippy shit doesn’t influence anyone. You’re actually advocating adopting the tactics of the left that absolutely don’t work.

  22. Sebastian says:

    Sounds to me like they’re obsessed with losing… or compromising or retreating or surrendering or… Has anybody else noticed that “LaPierre” is a French name? Perhaps we need to find (or build) an organization that is more interested in winning fights than in not losing them.

    Robert Frost opined that “good fences make good neighbors” and that is an execllent reason to make a sharp ‘line in the sand’ over which no government may pass. Yet the ‘most effective’ lobbying group in the game will not pick up a stick and scribe that (or any) line. Maybe they need fewer directors and more direction.

    It’s not obsession with losing, it’s obsession with preserving their political capital for fights that either have a chance of a positive outcome, or fights that just have to be made regardless of how much political capital it spends. I can tell you that the votes are not there to defeat Eric Holder. There is nothing NRA is going to be able to do to change that. They are a very powerful lobbying organization by Washington D.C. standards, the most powerful according to some, but they don’t own Capitol Hill. They definitely don’t have as much influence in this Congress as we would like. Membership defines everything. With 4 million members, they can’t defeat Holder. With 20 million members, they probably could. But hell, if they had 20 million members, we wouldn’t be saying President Obama in a few weeks, in all likelihood.

  23. Orygunner says:

    How about civil disobedience? If ALL gun dealers stopped running background checks, stopped paying the $10 NICS fee, started selling firearms directly to out-of-state residents, and started selling sound suppressors, AOWs and Full Auto weapons without requiring FFL and tax stamps. What if every shotgun owner sawed down their barrels and other gun owners started manufacturing/buying sound suppressors?

    20,000 marchers on Washington DC wouldn’t make much of a fuss, but what if the 20,000 were all bearing arms restricted by DC’s restrictive firearms laws? THAT would make a statement nobody could ignore.

    Let’s just all join together in civil disobedience and tell the government what they can do with their unconstitutional infringements of our RKBA.

    Oh, wait. Some people actually think some of those restrictions are reasonable… so much for support of what’s right.

    …Orygunner…

  24. Ory… Its one thing to practice civil disobedience by keeping an illegal machinegun in your home, or carrying a gun without a license, or something else individually.

    But you are asking for a company to sacrifice not only the owner’s livelihood (and freedom), but that of their employees as well. It isn’t going to happen from that end, and there’s no reason it should either.

    Civil disobedience that results in arrest and serious charges is, and should be reserved for when that “line” has been crossed. For most store owners, we aren’t there yet. As long as there is still a legislative or judicial avenue to restore our second amendment rights, the drastic civil disobedience you suggest will not be tolerated by the mainstream.

  25. Matt says:

    At this time, the only “line in the sand” I can see that might actually have safeties being clicked off is an AWB like HR.1022.

    A re-enactment of the ’94 AWB will be annoying to be sure and probably cost Dems Congress in 2010 but it will not “ban” guns. It will just render them cosmetically neutered. We survived the Hughes style price increases that went with 10+ capacity magazines. But it won’t cause people to say “Damn it, that’s enough!” and mean it.

    HR.1022, sadly, I think has that capacity. If Congress passes such a law over the extreme protestations of the electorate, we might start getting there. But it won’t be immediate because it will take 6-12 months, I think, for the true effects of that bill to trickle through the gun industry. That bill has the capacity to pretty much destroy the American gun industry especially for long gun makers. Places like RRA, Stag, Bushmaster, DSA, likely all gone within 1-2 years of enactment.

    Once people realize that and when you see gun shows empty save for antiques and bolt-action rifles, people will start to get angry. I honestly would not be surprised to hear about isolated incidents of shootings involving threepers and law enforcement over the fallout from such a bill. Even just by routine contact with LE, not because of any door-to-door gun investigation.

    Another possible area of civil ire would be ammo encoding with requirement to destroy or dispose of unencoded stocks. How that even passes Constitutional muster is a mystery to me but if it did, I’d say we’re finished as far as rights go and the future is a scary one indeed.

  26. Oldfart says:

    Gregory Morris said “As long as there is still a legislative or judicial avenue to restore our second amendment rights, the drastic civil disobedience you suggest will not be tolerated by the mainstream.”

    Greg that “avenue” ir rapidly becoming a one-way street and the grade is getting steeper and more slippery too. We need some sort of roadblock to keep us from plunging into the abyss. I don’t think anyone expects Obama to provide us with such a thing so we have to rely on ourselves and those we have chosen to represent us. Now the group we’ve supported for years has decided not to support us. We need to find or make another group that will support us – one that isn’t afraid to get a bloody nose in order to make a point.

    I belong to a gun club that requires membership in the NRA. If that weren’t the case I’d drop my membership in a heartbeat. As it is, just a few miles past the club range is a zillion acres of National Forest. It’s looking better and better with every poorly-conceived “go along to get along” excuse I hear from NRA flacks. Sebastian says they need twenty million members instead of six million… I wonder how they’ll do with two million?

    Remember, the NRA is a political organization… just like either of the two political parties, and it needs money to live. When political parties screw us over we cut off their money supply to bring them back into line.

  27. harp1034 says:

    This idea about showing up in D.C. armed is ludicrous. Do that and you will find yourself surrounded by the United States Army. If so much as one shot is fired they will mow you like grass. Don’t think that there is not enough room in jail for you. The President will declare you an enemy combatant. You will be put in a detention camp. Don’t belive that? Try it and see what happens.

  28. Sebastian says:

    This isn’t go along get along. NRA knows there will be no getting along with Eric Holder. It’s a matter of not expending resources fighting a battle that has no possibility of a positive outcome. I won’t even say rare possibility. The votes just aren’t there against Holder. The Republicans aren’t going to filibuster. The time to defeat Eric Holder was back in November, and NRA spent a _lot_ of political capital trying to keep this whole nightmare from coming to fruition.

    Whether you realize it or not, Oldfart, NRA does need you. Like I said, membership is the root of their political power. If NRA dropped to two million members under the current political climate, you can kiss our gun rights goodbye. The feds will be kicking down your door, with all the horrible things that implies. Even with 4 of 5 million members it’s going to be a hell of a fight to stop anything in Congress.

  29. Matt says:

    Oldfart,

    This isn’t about fighting. This is about holding the ground we are currently standing on without being forced into retreat. You want to know what a victory for us will be between now and 2012? Being in the exact same position we are today.

    In the upcoming political world, that is the end goal. I’ll settle for now having any gun control passed between now and then. Sure, we aren’t fighting forward but we aren’t losing ground either.

    The NRA is going to have to spend the political capital they have just to keep this position. Right now is not the time to fight. We don’t even know what battles will need fighting. All we’re doing is speculating. Until we start see bills land in committee and more importantly, getting out for voting, then can we define how deep we need to dig in.

    People like the Brady’s are posturing right now. Sure, they might have a receptive audience with Obama and Congress but what they don’t bring to the table is VOTES. Even two million NRA members against the Brady Campaign is an uphill battle for them. How many Blue Dogs do you think can hold their seats the first time they betray their constituents back home in support a gun control measure pushed on them by an elitist, do-as-I-say Democratic leadership? That’s a mistake they can’t afford to make once.

    It’s too early to get really worked up. We need to wait and see what has a serious chance of getting out versus posturing. HR.1022 never got a vote out of committee. Maybe it will this time around. I don’t know. But I do know the supporters of it are going to have to answer some tough questions back home because like it or not, we have the past 14 years to serve as a stark example of how such laws are NOT needed.

    I have hope (pun intended). If I’m wrong, then we’re facing several hundred self-appointed tyrants in Congress and from there, it is anyone’s guess. I’d prefer it if Obama just keeps right on going down the economy road and expose hard reality to the country as quickly as possible.

    If the government opts to pursue gun control as a priority agenda, let them. All we can do is fight it. If we lose and lose big, then let’s talk. I suspect that if that point is reached, we won’t need to talk because the bullets will already be flying.

  30. scott says:

    Yes, we shouldn’t be calling each other names, though there are some exceptions to that – like, say Bill Schneider. He is fair game.

    But the rest of us should not call each other names!

    Now to the problem – we have met the enemy and he is us.

    If we can’t get 6 million gun owners to shell out $30 a year to the NRA we are sure as hell not ever going to get a million gun owners to march on Washington.

    During the Clinton years of the Brady bill and AWB I was controller for Dillon Precision. I watched as he tried to increase membership. Result, not enough to do a damned bit of good.

    20 million members in the NRA and they would fight Holder, and probably would win.

    But too many people – from ALL sides – prags, fudds, 3%’s, “nuts”, won’t pay the $30 because the NRA doesn’t do EXACTLY what they think should be done.

    WELL GET OVER IT! Pay the $30 and call it a cheap way to participate (and probably the ONLY way the vast majority ever will participate in any meaningful fashion). ALL the people who reject the NRA are the ones who are doing the MOST damage.

    Now, I’m more of a 3%er, so I should say screw the NRA right? Well, I’m a life member 35+ years and I’m not quitting them, despite my complaints.

    So everybody – man up. Join (you can still be a member of the ‘other’ gun orgs too) and get YOUR friends to pony up. Its the only real way to make something happen fast.

    If you don’t and they won’t, then we’ll lose eventually.

  31. Voolfie says:

    Yeah, Sebastian! Why haven’t you and the “so-called” NRA fixed everything yet, huh?

    Don’t ask me to help, American Idol is on.

    Despite the fact that I won’t get off my ass to help, I expect you to have everything just the way I want it, like…NOW!

    Why can’t you be more like my microwave? It has everything done in 5 minutes or less.

    You sure are useless.

  32. Melancton Smith says:

    I agree with Nuge…NRA needs 10 million members.

  33. Kevin Baker says:

    Oscar queried: “I do have one outstanding question, though: Where, roughly, is the “line in the sand” to be drawn?

    “We’ve obviously stepped across one explicitly delineated boundary (”…shall not be infringed”), yet no revolt has taken place.

    “Machine guns have been banned, in fact if not in law. Yet no revolt has taken place.”

    And: “If a second, permanent, AWB is enacted by this Congress, will that be the line in the sand?”

    “What if a new AWB incorporates confiscation? Is that the “trigger” for a mass revolt?”

    But here’s the kicker: “So, where is that line where the “prag” morphs into the “three-percenter”(?) More importantly, where is that boundary space where a sufficiently large mass of “prags” cross the Rubicon into “three-percenter”-style resistance(?)”

    Uh, excuse me? Each of those “lines in the sand” weren’t supposed to “trigger” the (you know, completely-useless-if-not-complicit) “prags” – they were supposed to trigger the Three-Percenters.

    And they didn’t. There hasn’t been any “three-percenter-style resistance.”

    But it now appears that the Three-Percenters want to do the pragmatic thing and oppose the nomination of Eric Holder politically, rather than by long-range rifle shot.

    I’m all for it. But let’s not confuse who it is who has been acting versus talking prior to this.

  34. PhillipC says:

    Okay, I’m going to be a downer here, please forgive me. I’m recovering from surgery today, and maybe the pain and leftover anesthesia are making me think this but…

    I don’t think that gun laws are going to be what causes the revolt. I think they’ll get away with that. I think they’ll get away with a lot of other freedom-stealing laws. I don’t think that we’ll actually stand up and say enough until we’re in a society that makes the Dystopia in “V for Vendetta” look cheerful.

    Freedom is a relatively new concept in this world. Our method of government was, pardon the pun, revolutionary. The default state of government historically is to create a ruling class and a ruled class. Guess what? Most people are creating their own “ruled” class right now, making sure they have their own bread and circuses. They’d rather watch American Idol than the news, and the concept of watching C-Span is foreign to them. Let someone else be responsible for government decisions, let someone else be responsible for their safety and security. Forget giving up freedom for security, as long as they don’t have to be inconvenienced, they’ll be happy to hand off any number of liberties. They WANT someone else to make the choices.

    Yes, some people who value freedom will fight against the goon squads, but those will be covered on the evening news and shown as aberrations, as loners, as criminals. There won’t be some giant declaration of tyranny that causes everyone to stand up and fight at the same time, it’ll be a little law here, a little rule there, a tiny little henpeck over yonder. It’ll be a little extra inconvenience here or there. And it’ll happen slowly enough that nobody will start the war. Eventually, they’ll have the history books showing that we were a bunch of misguided, racist, bigots.

    Think about taking someone that lived 100 years ago, and plopping them down in our time and explaining our current laws. They’d look at us as though we were insane for allowing people to take so much of our money for taxes, for allowing the government to have so much control over us, and for having the type of police forces we have.

    So. What can we actually do to fix it? And more to the point, what WILL we do to fix it? The only thing I can think of that will give us any hope is if “they” manage to show their hand, and let slip the fact that there are upcoming giant restrictions on freedoms that everyone takes for granted now. Perhaps a plan to close the state borders and require traveling papers to go from state to state, or some other Draconian measure that can be used to swing the pendulum back the other way.

    Think we’ll get that lucky?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » Time for Action! - [...] it’s absolutely a satire of what some folks seem to demand of me.  In truth, I wouldn’t feed that…
top