The podcast debate discussed here went reasonably well, I thought, aside from the fact that I didn't have a very good phone connection. For those who missed it last night, it can be downloaded here.
In the end, though, I doubt it resolved much of anything--and there is at least one thing that I think is very much in need of resolution. The gun bloggers who reacted with such outraged indignation over Mr. Vanderboegh's letter seem to demand that we treat overt enemies of private firearm ownership with vastly more courtesy and respect than some of the more conciliatory gun rights advocates are willing to treat us hard liners. Building bridges is great, but do you have to burn bridges to do it?
Ironically, the vituperative howls of indignation from the "pragmatics"--the calls to silence us less "polite" gun rights advocates (good luck with that, by the way) are what kept this issue on the front burner, and provoked us to dig in our heels. It's "gun rights advocates" volunteering to shoot us, who make us all the more determined.
So--if the pragmatics are convinced that the battle for gun rights is so close to being won that they need a new set of enemies to replace the ostensibly vanquished citizen disarmament advocates, I suppose we of the Merry Band of 3% can fill that role.
I still think it's an odd--and not especially "pragmatic"--choice of battles.
III
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
About last night . . .
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Yes, our community suffers from the same "internetitus" that is present in the general public.
I am convinced that, were Mike Vanderbaugh and you face to face with the people who were so upset about the LTE, the discussion would have been quite civil.
Too many people use the tactical cover that the internet provides to hurl verbal bombs that they would never launch in a face to face encounter.
I am actually one of the people who thought Mike's letter was a bit over the top, but I was disgusted by the invective and insults hurled by people who are ostensibly on the same side.
Some people on the internet...even among the gun blogging community, revel in their "snarkiness" and insulting behavior and I think it's shameful...especially when addressed amongst our own ranks.
We can disagree without being disagreeable...if we try just a little bit. Those who won't try? Well, I've got too many blogs in my feeds as it is. Time to start weeding some out.
I think you misapprehend the situation. In any group of people sufficient large, there will be a broad spectrum of beliefs.
The "call to silence" you link? I don't read it that way, but even then they're the "3%" of the gun-rights community on the other side of the Bell Curve. The 1% are the ones "volunteering to shoot" you.
...if the pragmatics are convinced that the battle for gun rights is so close to being won...
Another mischaracterization. It's nowhere near "close to being won." All we've gotten is a small but significant step back from the edge of the precipice. But we recognize it as such.
It's a step that Vanderboegh's 3% didn't help achieve, and now denigrates because it wasn't everything, RIGHT NOW! Sorry Vin Suprynowicz, minor children still can't carry machineguns to school!
I don't think it is I who am mischaracterizing the situation, but as you wish.
Kevin is very wrong in at least one aspect of his comment. I suspect he knows it.
Were it not for the existence of the III's, and the fear or at least suspicion that they are about out of excuses to remain peaceable, the small step back would not have been achieved.
At best, it is a temporary step back. We have seen it before. Government pushes as far as they dare, until they perceive a threat, real or imagined, then they back off a little to let the pot cool. When the pot has cooled, they turn up the heat again and proceed to regain backward step and then some more. Stopping (temporarily) only when they perceive a threat.
Not all threats (real or imagined) are physical. Unfortunately the public is not sufficiently informed or principled in American liberty and individual rights to pose much of a threat of diselection at the next vote your favorite gimme promise.
The III's Kevin so cavalierly dismisses as useless are a worry to those who oppose our rights. If things go really badly, they have no idea how many others will wake up and pose their own threats, physical or otherwise.
Let me tell you a little story that, though, not true is a truth.
Several men were drinking in a bar serving mostly heavy industrial construction workers. As such men are wont to do, the stories abounded about different jobs they had been on, the different amazing things they had seen, etc.
One painter a very slight built little Jewish man was telling about seeing a boilermaker "go in the hole". "Yes" he said," he fell 85 feet, got up, dusted himself off and was back at work the next day, with only a few scapes".
A burly ironworker replied "You're a lying little sonofabitch, I ought to whip your ass for lying to me. Treating me like I'm stupid."
At that point a huge red-headed Irish descendant who stood about 6'7" tall, weighed about 325 lbs. of corded, solid muscle and had been a former pro boxer before turning pipefitter stepped between the two men and looked the ironworker in the eye, and said "Well by God, I saw it, are you going to call me a liar, too?"
The ironworker looked up and up at the man, thought for just a second, then said "Well sir, you may have seen it, but that lyin' little sonofabitch didn't".
If you think about it long enough, I am sure you will see the parallels. Oh, btw, the fall I mentioned actually happened, and the man was back to work the next day. The distance was only 70 feet, not 85, but it did happen. I know the man, and worked that particular job when he was there. The rest of the story is just a parable.
Parable or not, it's an instructive tale.
As to Kevin's thoughts of the 3%, I hope I'm not out of line in saying for all of us that we ask not his counsel or his arms.
III
As to Kevin's thoughts of the 3%, I hope I'm not out of line in saying for all of us that we ask not his counsel or his arms.
What bothers me more than anything else about this is the degree to which people are now apparently turning on each other, with remarks such as that. Do you really think that Samuel Adams' famous quote was directed at people like Kevin?
I've been reading Kevin's blog for about 5 years, I'm guessing. And I don't think he deserves that. You might not agree with everything he says or writes (and I don't), but he's a sharp guy, and I believe that his counsel is worth listening to. Form your own conclusions, but don't shut people out. It ain't as if you're talking about somebody like Diane Feinstien, for heaven's sake. Didn't you just write: The gun bloggers who reacted with such outraged indignation over Mr. Vanderboegh's letter seem to demand that we treat overt enemies of private firearm ownership with vastly more courtesy and respect than some of the more conciliatory gun rights advocates are willing to treat us hard liners. Building bridges is great, but do you have to burn bridges to do it? But now you want to burn the same bridges from the other direction? Or am I just confused?
If the reset button ever gets pressed while I'm alive, I'll be very happy to have Kevin on our side. For one thing, he's a better shot that I, and he has better guns and more ammo.
I may have been overly harsh, Jed, but all I've seen from Kevin (and I'll confess to only very recently having become familiar with his writings) is condescension and superiority.
I've had more than my fill of that.
Were it not for the existence of the III's, and the fear or at least suspicion that they are about out of excuses to remain peaceable, the small step back would not have been achieved.
So you (and yours) are responsible for the 40 states with CCW and the Supreme Court recognized individual 2A right?
Thanks!
Post a Comment