Well, whaddya know? The NRA has decided against dead silence as the best approach to the existential threat to private gun ownership that would be posed by an Eric Holder Attorney Generalship. Better late than never?
Decide for yourself:
In contrast to that case, Mr Holder was among those in the Clinton administration who strongly resisted a national expansion of Project Exile, a successful anti-crime program in Richmond, Virginia that used true "zero-tolerance" federal prosecution of convicted felons, drug dealers and armed robbers to achieve a remarkable reduction in that city's murder and violent crime rates. Despite the program's success in Richmond, Philadelphia, and other cities in which it has been implemented, Mr. Holder dismissed NRA's and congressional efforts to implement it nationwide as a "cookie-cutter approach."In other words, the NRA is opposed (quietly and politely) to Holder not only for his zeal for so-called "gun control," but for his opposition to their brand of "gun control"--and who cares about the utter lack of any Constitutional justification for any federal gun laws, even without the Second Amendment?
Something I’m curious about is what those who previously argued that the NRA was absolutely correct in not entering the fray think of the NRA’s involvement (tepid–and downright counterproductive–as it is) now. Is that also absolutely correct?
Stumble it!
28 comments:
In principle, I agree with you the federal government doesn't have any constitutional power to regulate possession of firearms by anybody. But if you go onto Capitol Hill and suggest that as a serious policy position you'll get laughed out of every Congressional and Senate office you're invited into.
Project Exile is one of those things I don't really like either, because I don't believe the federal government ought to be exercising police powers. But the Supreme Court disagrees with us on this, and so do both other branches of government. You have to approach things from that reality.
When other interests groups bring up the problem of criminals misusing guns, you better have a politically defensible alternative to passing more gun control, or that's exactly what you're going to get. In Congress, you might be able to get Ron Paul to stand with you on the principle that criminal gun misuse is not a federal concern, but few other Congressman or Senators are going to risk their seats, or being made fools of in the media for arguing that.
The idea is to promote an alternative to more gun control that the public agrees with. The public, for the most part, doesn't give a whit about gun control, but they do care about crime, and the folks that aren't gun owners might be receptive to the idea of gun control if certain interest groups, the media, and certain politicians are selling them on it as a solution to crime.
So, I won't specifically defend Project Exile, because the idea of promoting laws I don't really agree with has never sat well with me, but I will defend the need to have a politically defensible alternative to passing more gun laws. I think NRA's thinking was correct, I just don't like the specific solution very much.
We're going to have trouble finding much common ground here, I'm afraid, Sebastian.
yep, they must be right. after all, they have covered their asses on everything but morals, ethics, principles, liberty and the constitution. How any of us ever have thought they were just sycophant cowards?
Oh, and we have a LEGITIMATE alternative. It's called the right of free people and it is guaranteed in the constitution.
Oh, but we wouldn't want to risk being laughed at for being right. Better to be robbed of all dignity, autonomy, freedom and ability to defend ourselves, our families and our liberties.
Goddamnit! I can hardly wait for my chains! I wonder if I can get the Super Duper Ass Kisser, Boot Licker, Bendover set.
Oh wait, that won't work for me. I haven't measured myself for them yet. Damn, some people are just out in front on that.
I don't mean literally laughed at, I mean that no one on the Hill will take you seriously or stand by you. You will lose all your political influence, and with that, your ability to promote or oppose legislation. The steamroller is sure to advance over your issue after that.
Principle is not a huge factor in politics, unfortunately. Politicians care about pleasing their constituents, so they can keep their seat. Their principles will typically take a back seat to that. You have some exceptions to this out there, but they are rare, and you can't build a winning majority with only those types on board.
Oh, and we have a LEGITIMATE alternative. It's called the right of free people and it is guaranteed in the constitution.
The guarantees in the constitution mean squat if the government isn't willing to abide by them, and the people aren't willing to hold the government accountable to them. I wish there was some kind of objective enforcement mechanism that didn't rely on having to be filtered through imperfect humans, but there isn't. There is no easy answer for preserving the constitution.
Therein lies the problem. Nobody said freedom should be easy, but that is the only way some people will accept it. If it is hard or dangerous or costly they want no part of it.
As for politicians being principled, your revelation that they are not has me laughing that you think that is a revelation. Uh, duh! We are supposed to be principled and fight those who are not and would abuse us.
But as you said, that isn't easy. So fuck it. Right?
As I have stated before, the French may have invented preemptive surrender but the NRA and their apologists have perfected it.
You will excuse me if I don't voluntarily climb into the 40&8's with you.
The LEGITIMATE ALTERNATIVE is subjective, not objective, and is the enforcement mechanism put in place at the very founding of this nation. Of course it was never considered at the time that American manhood would be self-neutered.
Public and vociferous disavowment of the use of that mechanism is exactly what will make its use inevitable. No one ever gained the respect of his abuser by begging. Respect is necessary for the marauders to eschew the abuse of their intended victims. When reason fails, respect only then can be gained by instilling fear.
A trembling begging man cannot instill that fear.
At this point it is still possible to make those who do not honor the constitution to cease their depredations by making them fear loss of office, or at the least making them fear that every election battle they will face will be hard fought and very expensive. Thus making it unlikely they can live in the style they wish if they must spend all their warchests on retaining their seats.
Further, that fear can be instilled through the persistent exposing of every peccadillo and misstep the official makes throughout his current tenure. He can be dogged until exhaustion.
But a trembling beggar cannot make him believe these things will happen. Therefore the trembling beggar is, in the end, the one responsible for all the death and destruction he and his ilk have made inevitable.
But you go ahead and telegraph your willingness to surrender because they won't like you if you don't. Do you think they will give you consideration while you are on your knees with head bowed?
Straightarrow asks Sebastian:
"Do you think they will give you consideration while you are on your knees with head bowed?"
Perhaps he is hoping for an antidepressant, the prophylaxis of a morphine syrette and a silencer on the execution pistol so his ears won't ring during his short trip to the Hereafter.
Vanderboegh
III
"Use 'em, or lose 'em."
Principle is not a huge factor in politics, unfortunately. Politicians care about pleasing their constituents, so they can keep their seat. Their principles will typically take a back seat to that. You have some exceptions to this out there, but they are rare, and you can't build a winning majority with only those types on board.
I guess that's the kind of thinking that we have come to describe as "pragmatic," but to me, it sounds suspiciously like weighing "victory" over principle, or "the end justifies the means." Not only is that an attitude I simply cannot adopt, I'm convinced that those who do are deluding themselves if they think they'll ever actually achieve the end they have in mind.
You were, perhaps, expecting the NRA to PRAISE Holder for opposing the program that they support?
I can understand your opposition to "project exile" and I agree with it to a certain extent; but your post here seems to be making the rather silly contention that the NRA shouldn't have mentioned it because YOU don't support it.
By the way, could you please link to the posts wherein people said that the NRA was "absolutely correct" in staying out of it? I don't remember them.
What I remember was people saying that they could understand it IF the NRA decides to stay out of it.
Or are we now using the Brady tactics of misstating, misinterpreting, and misleading in order to "score points" against "the opposition?"
I continue to be sickened by this childish bickering.
And the list of blogs that I read regularly gets shorter and shorter by the day.
My point, Curt, is that every time the NRA crows about its support for federal gun laws, it actively undermines the argument that firearm regulation is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, and is thus off limits to the feds. Indeed, the message would seem to be that "some infringement" of that which shall not be infringed is somehow OK. Thanks, NRA--here I was thinking I'd have to rely on the Brady Campaign and AHSA to do that.
As for finding an instance of anyone saying that the NRA was "absolutely correct" in its dead silence (until very recently) about the Holder nomination--I don't need to, because I never presented that as a direct quote. I stand by my assertion that the NRA's tacit acceptance of Holder has been vigorously defended on several gun blogs.
If you were once a regular reader of this blog, and have now decided to discontinue being one, I regret that, but I'm not going to discontinue calling 'em like I see 'em in order to try to keep my insignificant little blog from becoming even more insignificant.
Kurt, you yourself proposed non-gun rights methods of arguing against Holder. Could it be that NRA is attempting to propose an argument against Holder that might be palatable to a strongly Democrat controlled Senate?
I really don't see what folks like SA and at least in these comments Mike V expect to acheive by being insulting. Do they expect to win someone over or do they simply like rudeness and strife?
I have a lot of respect for Mike V's essays and stories, but I think his scorched earth style of "debate" lacks merit or effectiveness in winning anyone over to his way of thinking. Which leads me to suspect that he, like SA, simply likes to fan the flames and enjoy the 'internet tough guy' scene.
Kurt, you yourself proposed non-gun rights methods of arguing against Holder.
Indeed I did, but I didn't propose arguments that actively undermine gun rights, and I submit that expressing support for any federal gun law works to repudiate the entire concept of enumerated powers (none of which are the regulation of guns), not to mention the Second Amendment.
Could it be that NRA is attempting to propose an argument against Holder that might be palatable to a strongly Democrat controlled Senate?
I don't doubt that's the intent--I'm arguing that they're trying to win a battle with an approach that threatens to lose the war.
As for SA's and Mr. Vanderboegh's confrontational style, it's not the way I prefer to approach it, but I more and more often find myself wishing that I would grow a pair and adopt that approach.
Kurt,
You have a good point about winning the battle but losing the war.
About growing a pair...I think you are misinterpreting it. I think they need to grow emotionally.
I've been involved in the online world from way back prior to the 'Internet'. Back when if you said 'email' no one knew what you were talking about...maybe some new postal product. We used to have grand flame wars...but we were dumb immature college kids. It was all posturing. Now I feel I have grown beyond that, though I do occasionally regress.
About growing a pair...I think you are misinterpreting it.
That would be a far from new experience for me.
Again, I often wish for more cordiality, and less shouting past one another, in these debates, but wishing continues to get me nowhere, as it always has done.
To some extent, I agree with what you're saying (or with how I interpret what you're saying) about the ugliness of these exchanges in cyberspace. I'm trying to set a new rule for myself--of not saying anything on line that I wouldn't say to the person's face. We'll see how well I live up to that. Then again, I can be an a-hole in person, too, so it might not help even if I do manage to stick to the plan.
Smith said,"I have a lot of respect for Mike V's essays and stories, but I think his scorched earth style of "debate" lacks merit or effectiveness in winning anyone over to his way of thinking. Which leads me to suspect that he, like SA, simply likes to fan the flames and enjoy the 'internet tough guy' scene."
Could it just be you do not understand what is going on?
Firstly, I haven't said online anything I would not say to the person's face and within arm's reach. This is not a pose and I have the bullet wounds and scars to prove it. Though none over debates such as this. I suspect Mike V. to be much the same.
Now as to what is going on. I am not trying to win over the Snowflakes on this issue. I consider them beyond redemption, simply because they are beyond reason. I suspect Mike V. holds a similar opinion, but that is only my suspicion. Mike will speak for himself.
That "scorched earth" style of debate as you call it, is not actually debate. It is dismissiveness. We dismiss those among us upon whom we cannot rely. Those who have stated publicly,loudly and longly that they have already stated their intent to surrender their rights should courage and real resistance be necessary to maintain their rights and liberty. Those who fear being "laughed" at, or who fear losing access. Access to what? More abuse?
I have no problem with a man who will chooses surrender because he cannot withstand the weight of fear, as long as his actions and/or lack of same do not threaten my liberty.
However, I have nothing but contempt for that man when not only do his actions threaten my liberty but he still wants acceptance as being on the side of liberty.
If you do not understand that reasoning, then I pity you. I don't hate you, I just pity you if that is beyond your ken.
As for internet "tough guy", I seriously doubt you know much about toughness. Real toughness is inside, it is tenacity, even at cost. It holding your belief and defending it, even at cost. It isn't about murder and mayhem or threats or force over another. If it were, I assure I could own all the Snowflakes in the world. But my beliefs do not allow that, just because it is possible and all too often too easy.
Almost to a man and woman the toughest people I have ever known have been remarkably gentle when allowed to be.
One such was an Auschwitz survivor who lost his entire bloodline family in the camps. Yet he was as gentle and kind a man as one would meet, a rabbi after he reached adulthood. He was gentle when allowed to be, he was tough enough when he had to be.
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Oh, and I don't remember being particularly rude. I don't think I called anyone specific any names, etc. Unless, of course, you think it rude to vehemently disagree and state the reasons.
SA, Melancton Smith and I have never met in person, but we have a pretty long history. He and I see some things differently, but I'd be happy to have him on my side in a fight.
By the way, I mentioned not agreeing "on some things" with Melancton Smith--the charges of "internet tough guy" would definitely fall into that category.
I don't have any particular heartburn with Smith, though he seems to have some with me. So I clarified.
. . . though he seems to have some with me.
I think he's fed up with the whole "prags vs. 3%ers" debate, and wants both sides to move the hell on.
Not a bad thing to want, but probably not especially likely.
I'm fed up with it too. I'll make them a deal. If they quit trying to surrender my rights or trying to convince me that it is a good thing for me to do. I will ignore them and not say another negative word about them.
But as long as they campaign that unity can only be attained if free men give up their freedom, I will continue to insist they either come to my side or shut the Hell up.
45, thanks for the kind words.
SA, I won't bother to address the rudeness...if on reading back on this thread you don't see it yourself, no point it out is going to do any good.
I do think that perhaps you misunderstand how to fight a war. I, for one, think we are in a war right now. Not always a hot war, but a war nonetheless.
We are outnumbered, much like General Lee. If you recall, General Lee did not hold to the line no matter what. He often gave some ground to get some ground. Usually by sending Stonewall around the side and into the enemy's supply line. Of course he ultimately lost, but not because of poor Generalship.
Regarding 3pers and prags, I've been thinking back on our first revolution and wondering who were the 3pers and who were the prags. Surely the minutemen, Sons of Liberty, and folks like Patrick Henry were 3pers. However, I can't see how Ben Franklin and John Adams could not be considered prags.
Would you call Franklin a 'synchophantic coward' for going to England and attempting to settle the dispute amicably? Sure he failed, but he tried and when done he returned became an important part of our founding.
No, I don't see it. Nobody has castigated anyone for trying to reach a political solution. They have been castigated for trying to reach by surrendering more of our rights as Americans.
You allusion to Franklin is faulty. He tried to find a political solution that was a net gain for the colonies. The difference is, now many of us are willing to take a net loss for Americans if they can get a promise that they themselves will not be too greatly affected and the loss is not of sufficient magnitude at any one time to inflame the populace. A direct and diametrical opposite of what Franklin et.al. were trying to accomplish.
That pleading of "We will gladly give up this, if you won't take that, right now, and you will still invite us to dinner." is sycophantic cowardice. If you can't see that, then I think it is you who do not understand war.
I agree we are in one. There are reasons for tactical and srategic retreat in war (consolidation of lines, choice of more favorable battleground, etc.), but none justifiable when you surrender your armaments and troops willingly, so that you cannot gain any advantage or lessening of disadvantage from it. That is what our "prags" are doing. Again, not what Franklin was doing.
a question for Melancton Smith; I wrote,"At this point it is still possible to make those who do not honor the constitution to cease their depredations by making them fear loss of office, or at the least making them fear that every election battle they will face will be hard fought and very expensive. Thus making it unlikely they can live in the style they wish if they must spend all their warchests on retaining their seats.
Further, that fear can be instilled through the persistent exposing of every peccadillo and misstep the official makes throughout his current tenure. He can be dogged until exhaustion.", is that not seeking a political and non-violent way of restoring our republic?
Ok, I lied, one more question. Why is that not preferable to giving up even before the political fight?
SA, Your first question: Yes. Your second: It is preferable.
What I disagree with is your characterization of the motives and methods of the so-called 'prags' as cowardly, spineless, etc.
They are fighting the fight the way they know how, using the tools they know, and following the dictates of their consciences.
ahh, I see our problem now. This is why we can't seem to harmonize.
You think they have a conscience, whereas, I do not.
i will grant "the way they know how" and "the tools they know", but I cannot be persuaded they have a conscience. I have dealt with them too long and have seen them sell out too many times to believe it.
I used to believe they did. until I saw too much.
Oh, Hell I left something unsaid. I know, I know, that doesn't seem possible, but I did.
I do not expect to see them by the side of anyone should things get really ugly. If I am proven wrong, I will apologize, but I have been abandoned too many times by too many of them when risk was in the air to grant the respect I once did. Especially when they tell me up front they won't be there, even though they may do so inadvertently.
If I am right we shall be too busy to take note of their absence in the moment.
Post a Comment