Today we discuss the "pragmatic" view of gun rights advocacy, as articulated by NRA board member and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association president Tom King:
The idea that we must be more "polite," lest we frighten "the very people we want to attract to our side," ignores the nature of the right we are fighting for. The Second Amendment exists to guarantee the people's right to the means of killing aspiring tyrants and their hired muscle. There is no polite way to say that, as insurgencies tend to be more than a little "rude."
We must be "frightening," because the people who would trample our rights will only lose interest in doing so if they perceive a very personal risk to themselves in continuing on that course. They will have no reason to perceive such a risk if they see that our strategy is to cross our fingers and let judges tell us what our rights are, and when those judges tell us that those rights are effectively nothing, we then reduce ourselves to hoping that our liberties can win a popularity contest.
Stumble it!
3 comments:
Looks like Little Lord Fauntleroy is in need of a good Zumboing
Trying to be polite and appear reasonable is futile. If you disagree with the PC party line one iota, the media will misquote you, distort your statements, and portray you as a right-wing nut who wants to blow up the Capitol, and who wants terrorists and children to be able to order AK-47's through the mail.
Meanwhile, the anti-gun activists (and leftists in general) can hurl epithets, make wild accusations, and even advocate violence against their opponents, and it all gets swept under the rug while the media portray them as moderates.
The problem is, anonymous, that those who want to disarm and enslave us all are the very ones who define "terrorists" and "children," as well as "mentally ill" and so forth.
By what legitimate authority?
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=1294
Post a Comment