search
top

Useful Commentary on the Great Divide Among Our People

Joe has a very well done and in-depth post about the whole philosophical divide between the pragmatists and the hard liners.  I am actually not terribly against the “line in the sand” as a political philosophy.  After all, the Second Amendment is such a philosophy.  And if it ever came to a serious destruction of our rights, the “deal with us, or you get to deal with them” might be able to help arrive at a political solution.  What I am against is the current form of the hard line philosophy.  Like Joe, I just don’t see any reason to make a public spectacle when we’re still winning more than we’re losing.   That could change, and if it changes, my attitude toward hard liners might change with it.

3 Responses to “Useful Commentary on the Great Divide Among Our People”

  1. RAH says:

    It was well thought out but again this was written on a public site and gives more info that I am willing to potential enemies. The current White House and administration can get very paranoid and over react to perceived threats.

    Washington decisvely went against the Whiskey Rebellion and Lincoln destroyed the south rather than let the Union be divided. A good prtion of Americans agree with these decisions and probably will again.

    Americans can be difficult and will protest but have a grave silike on real civil disorder.

    McVeigh was evil since his methods killed innocents and can not be considerd justified even if in revenge of Waco.

    I appreciate the essay bit most of us have come to similat conclusions.

    The real problem for any society is when it is determined to react against tyranny. The most effective is when the tyrrany has yet to effective and obvious, On the other hand the rest if the uninvolved populace will side against the seeminhlr unreasonal attacks on public order.

  2. MicroBalrog says:

    You know, I do believe the more hard-line people have a lot to offer the movement, if they’re properly organized and trained – not in shooting Blue Helmets, they know how to do that, but in activism.

    Imagine if you could kick off a wave of civil disobedience to current laws. A hundred threepers, in one day, going on a hunger strike like civil rights protesters of old, or, for instance, allowing themselves to be arrested with assault rifles or silencers or concealed weapons – now that’d get people’s attention. Or a hundred threepers, in one day, donating $1000 to a cause.

    The question is only what to do and how to organize it.

  3. Peter says:

    And the fact that the ‘hard liners’ are running their mouths instead of shooting is because we’re winning more than we’re losing, so despite my incessant taking you to task over this, let me take a few pixels to ackowledge and thank you for what you do on our behalf.

    Count on the fact that Mike, or me, or any of the other usual suspects is gonna say something that’s at least rude if not outright inflammatory. You might not like what is written, but David Codrea, Mike V. and WRSA (to my knowledge; there are others) gets a visit from the FedGov about once a month. The notion that either they get to deal with you or they get to deal with us is a message that is regularly sent and received. You might never need to say anything in that regard.

    Just quit starting stuff. This latest nonsense wasn’t because of some Public Display of 3per, but due to some comments followed by you and Caleb being unable to keep your flies zipped. We’ve all been over this about a bazillion times, and there are areas of agreement and there are areas of disagreement. Live with it, just as I do.

top