Shall Not Be Questioned

There’s an awful lot of lines being drawn in an awful lot of sand in various places on the Internet.  Linoge states:

Furthermore, I intentionally have not defined specifically where my personal “line in the sand” is, nor will I ever do so on this weblog or in a public format – that choice is mine, no one is in any position to question or belittle it, and attempts to do so will be responded to accordingly. Finally, I remain a proud (and, dare I say it, vocal) firearm owner and carrier, and an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment as well as the entirety of the United States Constitution.

To which one commenter of his replies:

Coward. Lying coward. You are obviously so unable to face reality and so angry at yourself because of that fact. Therefore, this is what you post. I feel sorry for you. You won’t define it because a permanent line doesn’t exist. And I think you’re ashamed of yourself because of it.

The demand to know what we’d do if the line is drawn behind us is rather like someone asking a chess player what he’d do to avoid being check mated if his opponent checks his king.  They will be the first, no doubt, to say it’s a cowardly cop out.  But it’s how I feel about it.  There are circumstances where I would agree violent resistance is the only choice.  But we are not now, in this country, anywhere close to those circumstances.  I find the rather delighted glee with which with some boast of forcing circumstances on others to be utterly repulsive.  If believing that makes me a coward, so be it, but I won’t stand with a group that preaches and prepares for civil war while numerous non-violent options lay unused on the table.  If they pass a new assault weapons ban?  We’ll fight it in the courts.  If they ban private sales?  There’s legislative, judicial action, and civil disobedience at our disposal.  Confiscation?  Heller should take that off the table, and even if not, there’s fifth amendment challenges that can be made.  Registration?  We already have it with every 4473 you fill out.

If 3% of gun owners were as involved in political activism as they supposedly are at preparing for civil war, we’d be an unstoppable political force.  There would be no need to argue about where the line is, because it would be political suicide for any politician to get anywhere near it.  But political activism is thankless work, and sometimes you lose.  It doesn’t have nearly the emotional appeal of being told that you’re holding the line while all the other rubes retreat.  It’s not as satisfying as believing you’re brave while others are cowardly.  But I am not in this for satisfaction, I am in this to win, and I can’t think of any faster way of losing than drawing a line, and daring people to cross it.

The Army has always had a real problem with being afraid of soldiers carrying guns.  Now the roosters have come home to roost.  The soldier was an MP too, which would presumably mean he carried a sidearm regularly as part of his duties.