Those of us who believe that liberty is worth fighting and even dying for will face a time now or in the near future where we will need to back up our beliefs with more than just words.
For me 02/07/15 on the green of Olympia that time will have arrived.
Well written piece, I agree with everything except "how" you are doing it.
In my State, you are not allowed to carry firearms into the State capital building. I have never questioned it, and it does not bother me in the least. What exactly are you trying to prove here .... that you will have freedom of speech no matter how crowded that movie theatre is and it is OK to yell "fire"??
Those who know me, know that I have been fighting for my rights for the last 25 or 30 years. I have paid my dues, I lost, I sacrificed, in the cause of liberty. I would do it all over again .... no regrets.
This adventure troubles me because we will lose no matter the outcome. How much we lose, we shall see. I am the "what if" guy, and I can see a lot of things that can go wrong with this exercise. Over the many years I have gotten to know quite a few people, most of them I admire and respect, and a few that I want to forget I ever met. It is those that worry me, and the explosive nature of what you are attempting. This is no longer a town hall meeting exercising your rights to a city council in violation of the Constitution. If this thing goes bad in a bad way, we are going to lose BIG TIME. I myself do not see the gain vs reward ratio as anything that is acceptable ...period!
Sorry, but this makes no sense. Pick your battles. Going armed with rifles into the state legislative chambers? Really? And just HOW is this important? I see more damage than good coming from this. I will fight for the 2A always. This isn't about that. This is something else, that just doesn't make sense, and you WILL lose support. Period.
"This adventure troubles me because we will lose no matter the outcome. How much we lose, we shall see."
So in your opinion we lose regardless of what we do. Well there is no doubt in my mind that the degree to which we "lose" has been the ever increasing degree of individual liberty. Who here will argue that the collectivist's goal is total domination and control.
So I really do not understand the plea to do less, and kick the losing degree a little farther down the road. It's a bit circular in argument.
Back away now and yes we may get to grow older, but then leave a greater struggle to posterity. So to do less now and in many years when we have lost so much more and we are old, we have all that time between now and then to have regretted to maybe have taken the opportunity, regardless of how futile,to push the collectivists back, and forced their hand. Evil is real and has existed for oh so long, and its goal has not changed and is has plenty of time to work its will. Our job is to fight it with all of our might.
I keep hearing what great end roads "gun rights" we have made. Really? I just don't buy into that myself. We will, it seems, have to agree to disagree on what tactics to use now. Whether they be the same losing tactics or tried and true "risky" tactics.
We cannot be ruled by the "what ifs" if that rule prevents us from standing on solid right ground of our principles, because "what ifs" are what has caused the plethora of infringements on that that shall not be.
In the end, evil will not stop and it will use fear as its greatest tool. And we have evidence of the those consequences.
There is something to be said about those who serve in government being respectful, and maybe even a little afraid, of those they are supposed to serve. If they are being threatened that is one thing, but the simple presence of legally armed citizens should frighten NO ONE! Unless of course, that panty-peeing traitorous hoplophobe has anything to hide or be guilty of.
Judging by a couple comments here, it appears some fail to understand the basic meaning of the phrase "not one more inch". Ironically, one in particular exposes his own failure - never questioned it. If that ain't a FUDD talking then what is? How long is it "not worth it"? How many inches do you back up? Hmmmm?
You seem to be on the wrong page. Try NRA and SAF for willing submission. Or hey, why not just go full sharia compliant? Enough inches stepping back will take you right into the seventh century eventually.
It's true that this is a bold statement - to stand on this line there. WHAT THAT DEMONSTRATES is just how confrontational and important the GUN CONTROL measure is! That its being met with this level of DEFENSE ought to tell em something. DONT try to tread on rights, in this case gun carriage, AND THIS WOULDNT BE HAPPENING. See that homer? You are telling people NOT to DEFEND their rights! Sheesh!!
I don't doubt Kit and Company's patriotism but, from what I have seen, they need some adult supervision. OC in the chambers, I guess. Brandishing, walking around at the low ready, no! No one is going to tolerate that ESPECIALLY other gun owners. We are all inspired by their energy and courage but this is not the hill to die on. Mike, I recall a piece a while back that suggested Patriots act as the trip wire to tyranny's jack boot. If these young people get shot or arrested acting as that trip wire I do not predict much positive coming from it. They won't inspire anyone to action. My personal list of "rights I will not compromise on" does not include the right to threaten others with impunity and I won't be going to the matresses to defend others' "rights" to do so either.
Look at what worked for the liberals in the '60s. They scared the old folks, and kept coming back and doing it again and again. The liberals never made any friends, and rarely won battles, but they pretty well won their war.
I'd say that if we aren't scaring the Fuds and the opposition (or is that redundant?), we aren't going to get anywhere.
Somebody has to be Rosa Parks if we are going to keep our seats in the bus.
Really, you three naysayers? THEY shouldn't do what THEY judge to be in THEIR best interests? That's disgusting in all contexts, but in THIS context? You gotta be kidding.
How the hell can someone presume to judge for others on something like this? In the USofA? I can't believe it; I guess it shows just how far we've fallen.
Dakota---"I have never questioned [the rule], and it does not bother me in the least." That's nice. How about THEIR lives? Do THEY get to stand for what's important to THEM, or does that depend on what bothers you as well?
Anonymous---"I will fight for the 2A always. This isn't about that." What's it about, food labeling? You don't know what the 2nd Amendment guarantees in this country? For real? Is it about food labeling too?
Personally I don't give a hoot what the law says because the law is an ass, but in THIS country, the right to keep AND BEAR arms "shall not be infringed." There are NO qualifications to that in Law, although there is an EXPLANATION given---"A well-regulated militia being NECESSARY to the security of a FREE STATE..."
What, you don't want a free state? You don't think it matters? Well, it sure 'nuff matters to me and those folk going--no matter what their personal motivations--have the absolute and unconditional right to bear arms, PERIOD.
Legislative chambers are NOT private property, so there is NO owner who can rightfully demand them to disarm. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong, both in Law and in Morality.
Bollox, maybe you take the cake---"No one is going to tolerate that ESPECIALLY other gun owners." Yeah? Who died and made you exclusive spokesman for a hundred million gun owners? I'm a gun owner and as far as I'm concerned, they can holster or sling their weapons any ol' way they want, as long as they don't point that barrel at anyone. Unless of course THEY decide--as free-willed individuals--that THEIR defense requires pointing that barrel in whatever direction they choose. Who the hell are you to question another person's decision on such a matter?
"but this is not the hill to die on." So don't die on it. I'll ask again, who the hell are you to decide for someone else what hill they should die on or not? Is your life really so empty that you have so much time to live everyone else's?
"My personal list of 'rights I will not compromise on' does not include the right to threaten others with impunity" Ah, now we get to the crux of it...plain, outright dishonesty. Holstering or slinging a weapon does NOT "threaten others." That's the whole basis for supposed "anti-gun laws" in the first place. It's sheer fantasy and here you are, spreading it like the bullshit it is.
Thanks for sharing your "personal list of rights;" I suppose we all have those. Your problem--and it's a big one--is that you are presuming to impose your personal list of rights and preferences onto others. Sorry, that crosses the line. That's the whole point, duh, but you can be sure that what's not on your "personal list of rights" is duly noted by very many people.
Really, the letter says it best---
"If you believe at all that you have a right to be free, then whether you know it or not, you support the right of the citizens to own guns—because a citizen with a gun is literally the only thing that stands between your children and tyranny."
That's the whole thing right there, with an emphasis on "literally.'
So I guess that's it. I guess those commenters don't believe they have the right to be free, or maybe just the residents of Washington don't. Like I say, disgusting. And terribly, terribly sad.
Do you believe that anything positive will come from the shooting or arrest of individuals engaged in brandishing firearms in a public building?
Do you believe that anything good will come of those individuals being allowed to brandish firearms in a public building?
Does the potential benefit outweigh the probability of and consequences pursuant to the negative outcome?
I won't engage on whether the majority of gun owners are going to tolerate brandishing in a public place. If you need convincing, try walking around behind the line with your loaded firearm at the low ready at a shooting range.
I recall the story of Buckman's tavern at Lexington, on the literal eve of Revolution when colonists mustered on the Green but were dismissed and asked to stay within sound of the muster drum pending confirmation of Revere's warning that the "Regulars were out". When further powder and ball were embargoed, knowing that additional supplies would not be forthcoming, the colonists chose to discharge their muskets into a stump to unload them rather than bring loaded long guns into a tavern.
In my opinion, the actions in the gallery in Olympia reflect untempered youth and a lack of leadership. It probably "felt good" to shake their fists in the tyrants' faces but accomplished nothing of value and made more enemies than friends. It plays like the petulant blossom of impotent rage rather than the actions of principled Patriots exercising armed civil disobedience.
I'll grant you that what I know of the events comes from this site. If there are other factors at play that somehow made those displays necessary and meaningful I invite their explication.
I also invite your reply on the merits of what I have said. If all you have to say is "you have no right to an opinion" I'll not engage.
You rather miss the point, bollox. It's not about your opinion or mine. You might notice that I offered not a single word about whether I think it's a good idea or not.
It's about what THEY decide and in THIS country--everywhere on Earth as far as I'm concerned--that is THEIR business.
It just so happens that in this country, the freedom to make that choice is codified in Law and NO government, nor agency of government, has the right to say otherwise.
So any person who even loosely implies that for ANY reason, they don't have the right to walk into those legislative chambers armed, is both against the principles of Liberty, the freedom upon which this country was founded, as well as the Law of the Land.
That's all. Opine to your heart's content; I have my hands full figuring out my own life, without getting into others. To me, that's what Individualism and America are all about, but that's me.
And if you don't understand the difference between a privately owned gun range and a public place of government, then you need more help than I can offer right now.
IMHO, this will be decided at the individual state level, Fed.GOV is too big and unwieldy too accomplish the ultimate goal of "civilian" disarmament, unless they let it paly out over decades - the fact that the conservative voters have already been thrown under the bus by McConnell and Boehner tells me we are all by out lonesomes in this sh!t sandwich, and we all have to decide whether we take a bite, or not.
In WA state I believe it is the choice of the state's residents, and I respect the choice of the people concerned, whether they're in, or out, of the plans to "push back".
Here in NYS, the UnSAFE Act was rammed through in the dead of night, although there were none too subtle indicators about what was afoot. So, NewYorkistan residents woke up to a fait accompli - deal with it. Each of us did, in our own way. Same in CT. In neither case has anything happened, except for the odd case that smells bad or obviously involves known felons. Of course, in the latter case, it's all grist for the collectivist mill.
The residents of WA must make their own personal decisions; if they get arrested and charged, I will suppport them with all I can spare.
Will this "in your face" approach go completely South? (no offense, Mike) - who knows? If it does, collectivist states like NY and CT make take this as a green light to take action against law-abiding owners of MSRs which, in most cases, they have no knowledge of they might be. It's a toss up.
IMHO, the NYS .GOV is now in such a state of disarray with the Silver/Skelos scandal that enforcing the unConstitutional UnSAFE Act are the least of their worries (hoping Cuomo joins that 2-man circle jerk, at least then there would be a pivot man).
If all does go to He!! in WA at this "event", it may be a fuse to who knows what.
I don't believe the pols in this country have a clue how much they are distrusted and despised. The sell out of conservative/Tea party voters by McConnell and Boehner has cost them virtually ALL the political capital they received from the election. They are, indeed, part of the same "domestic enemies" cabal as Obola and his lot.
In the end, we're all frogs in a slowly heating pot that is inexorably approaching boiling. When any individual frog decides to get out of the pot, and confront the cook is "...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
Personally Mike, and I've never met you, I'd offer the support of your brilliant leadership and insight, but stay the he!! out of slam. It really is a case of totally in, or totally out - the legal system is broken, and will give nothing but lip service to liberty, while letting the statists just keep on truckin'.
Jim Klein is right. Critics have this weird idea what liberty is. Don't worry, the sky is not falling, and won't fall if others have a different opinion than you have, about how to do it correctly. Somebody's got to play the part of Sam Adams in this movement - if we don't have a Sam Adams, then the movement in support of liberty is just a sham.
15 comments:
God Speed.
Those of us who believe that liberty is worth fighting and even dying for will face a time now or in the near future where we will need to back up our beliefs with more than just words.
For me 02/07/15 on the green of Olympia that time will have arrived.
Death before slavery!
Comrade X
Well written piece, I agree with everything except "how" you are doing it.
In my State, you are not allowed to carry firearms into the State capital building. I have never questioned it, and it does not bother me in the least. What exactly are you trying to prove here .... that you will have freedom of speech no matter how crowded that movie theatre is and it is OK to yell "fire"??
Those who know me, know that I have been fighting for my rights for the last 25 or 30 years. I have paid my dues, I lost, I sacrificed, in the cause of liberty. I would do it all over again .... no regrets.
This adventure troubles me because we will lose no matter the outcome. How much we lose, we shall see. I am the "what if" guy, and I can see a lot of things that can go wrong with this exercise. Over the many years I have gotten to know quite a few people, most of them I admire and respect, and a few that I want to forget I ever met. It is those that worry me, and the explosive nature of what you are attempting. This is no longer a town hall meeting exercising your rights to a city council in violation of the Constitution. If this thing goes bad in a bad way, we are going to lose BIG TIME. I myself do not see the gain vs reward ratio as anything that is acceptable ...period!
Sorry, but this makes no sense. Pick your battles. Going armed with rifles into the state legislative chambers? Really? And just HOW is this important?
I see more damage than good coming from this.
I will fight for the 2A always. This isn't about that. This is something else, that just doesn't make sense, and you WILL lose support. Period.
"This adventure troubles me because we will lose no matter the outcome. How much we lose, we shall see."
So in your opinion we lose regardless of what we do. Well there is no doubt in my mind that the degree to which we "lose" has been the ever increasing degree of individual liberty. Who here will argue that the collectivist's goal is total domination and control.
So I really do not understand the plea to do less, and kick the losing degree a little farther down the road. It's a bit circular in argument.
Back away now and yes we may get to grow older, but then leave a greater struggle to posterity. So to do less now and in many years when we have lost so much more and we are old, we have all that time between now and then to have regretted to maybe have taken the opportunity, regardless of how futile,to push the collectivists back, and forced their hand. Evil is real and has existed for oh so long, and its goal has not changed and is has plenty of time to work its will. Our job is to fight it with all of our might.
I keep hearing what great end roads "gun rights" we have made. Really? I just don't buy into that myself. We will, it seems, have to agree to disagree on what tactics to use now. Whether they be the same losing tactics or tried and true "risky" tactics.
We cannot be ruled by the "what ifs" if that rule prevents us from standing on solid right ground of our principles, because "what ifs" are what has caused the plethora of infringements on that that shall not be.
In the end, evil will not stop and it will use fear as its greatest tool. And we have evidence of the those consequences.
There is something to be said about those who serve in government being respectful, and maybe even a little afraid, of those they are supposed to serve. If they are being threatened that is one thing, but the simple presence of legally armed citizens should frighten NO ONE! Unless of course, that panty-peeing traitorous hoplophobe has anything to hide or be guilty of.
Judging by a couple comments here, it appears some fail to understand the basic meaning of the phrase "not one more inch". Ironically, one in particular exposes his own failure - never questioned it. If that ain't a FUDD talking then what is? How long is it "not worth it"? How many inches do you back up? Hmmmm?
You seem to be on the wrong page. Try NRA and SAF for willing submission. Or hey, why not just go full sharia compliant? Enough inches stepping back will take you right into the seventh century eventually.
It's true that this is a bold statement - to stand on this line there. WHAT THAT DEMONSTRATES is just how confrontational and important the GUN CONTROL measure is! That its being met with this level of DEFENSE ought to tell em something. DONT try to tread on rights, in this case gun carriage, AND THIS WOULDNT BE HAPPENING. See that homer? You are telling people NOT to DEFEND their rights! Sheesh!!
I don't doubt Kit and Company's patriotism but, from what I have seen, they need some adult supervision. OC in the chambers, I guess. Brandishing, walking around at the low ready, no! No one is going to tolerate that ESPECIALLY other gun owners. We are all inspired by their energy and courage but this is not the hill to die on. Mike, I recall a piece a while back that suggested Patriots act as the trip wire to tyranny's jack boot. If these young people get shot or arrested acting as that trip wire I do not predict much positive coming from it. They won't inspire anyone to action. My personal list of "rights I will not compromise on" does not include the right to threaten others with impunity and I won't be going to the matresses to defend others' "rights" to do so either.
Look at what worked for the liberals in the '60s. They scared the old folks, and kept coming back and doing it again and again. The liberals never made any friends, and rarely won battles, but they pretty well won their war.
I'd say that if we aren't scaring the Fuds and the opposition (or is that redundant?), we aren't going to get anywhere.
Somebody has to be Rosa Parks if we are going to keep our seats in the bus.
Really, you three naysayers? THEY shouldn't do what THEY judge to be in THEIR best interests? That's disgusting in all contexts, but in THIS context? You gotta be kidding.
How the hell can someone presume to judge for others on something like this? In the USofA? I can't believe it; I guess it shows just how far we've fallen.
Dakota---"I have never questioned [the rule], and it does not bother me in the least." That's nice. How about THEIR lives? Do THEY get to stand for what's important to THEM, or does that depend on what bothers you as well?
Anonymous---"I will fight for the 2A always. This isn't about that." What's it about, food labeling? You don't know what the 2nd Amendment guarantees in this country? For real? Is it about food labeling too?
Personally I don't give a hoot what the law says because the law is an ass, but in THIS country, the right to keep AND BEAR arms "shall not be infringed." There are NO qualifications to that in Law, although there is an EXPLANATION given---"A well-regulated militia being NECESSARY to the security of a FREE STATE..."
What, you don't want a free state? You don't think it matters? Well, it sure 'nuff matters to me and those folk going--no matter what their personal motivations--have the absolute and unconditional right to bear arms, PERIOD.
Legislative chambers are NOT private property, so there is NO owner who can rightfully demand them to disarm. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong, both in Law and in Morality.
Bollox, maybe you take the cake---"No one is going to tolerate that ESPECIALLY other gun owners." Yeah? Who died and made you exclusive spokesman for a hundred million gun owners? I'm a gun owner and as far as I'm concerned, they can holster or sling their weapons any ol' way they want, as long as they don't point that barrel at anyone. Unless of course THEY decide--as free-willed individuals--that THEIR defense requires pointing that barrel in whatever direction they choose. Who the hell are you to question another person's decision on such a matter?
"but this is not the hill to die on." So don't die on it. I'll ask again, who the hell are you to decide for someone else what hill they should die on or not? Is your life really so empty that you have so much time to live everyone else's?
"My personal list of 'rights I will not compromise on' does not include the right to threaten others with impunity" Ah, now we get to the crux of it...plain, outright dishonesty. Holstering or slinging a weapon does NOT "threaten others." That's the whole basis for supposed "anti-gun laws" in the first place. It's sheer fantasy and here you are, spreading it like the bullshit it is.
Thanks for sharing your "personal list of rights;" I suppose we all have those. Your problem--and it's a big one--is that you are presuming to impose your personal list of rights and preferences onto others. Sorry, that crosses the line. That's the whole point, duh, but you can be sure that what's not on your "personal list of rights" is duly noted by very many people.
Really, the letter says it best---
"If you believe at all that you have a right to be free, then whether you know it or not, you support the right of the citizens to own guns—because a citizen with a gun is literally the only thing that stands between your children and tyranny."
That's the whole thing right there, with an emphasis on "literally.'
So I guess that's it. I guess those commenters don't believe they have the right to be free, or maybe just the residents of Washington don't. Like I say, disgusting. And terribly, terribly sad.
Jim Klein:
Do you believe that anything positive will come from the shooting or arrest of individuals engaged in brandishing firearms in a public building?
Do you believe that anything good will come of those individuals being allowed to brandish firearms in a public building?
Does the potential benefit outweigh the probability of and consequences pursuant to the negative outcome?
I won't engage on whether the majority of gun owners are going to tolerate brandishing in a public place. If you need convincing, try walking around behind the line with your loaded firearm at the low ready at a shooting range.
I recall the story of Buckman's tavern at Lexington, on the literal eve of Revolution when colonists mustered on the Green but were dismissed and asked to stay within sound of the muster drum pending confirmation of Revere's warning that the "Regulars were out". When further powder and ball were embargoed, knowing that additional supplies would not be forthcoming, the colonists chose to discharge their muskets into a stump to unload them rather than bring loaded long guns into a tavern.
In my opinion, the actions in the gallery in Olympia reflect untempered youth and a lack of leadership. It probably "felt good" to shake their fists in the tyrants' faces but accomplished nothing of value and made more enemies than friends. It plays like the petulant blossom of impotent rage rather than the actions of principled Patriots exercising armed civil disobedience.
I'll grant you that what I know of the events comes from this site. If there are other factors at play that somehow made those displays necessary and meaningful I invite their explication.
I also invite your reply on the merits of what I have said. If all you have to say is "you have no right to an opinion" I'll not engage.
You rather miss the point, bollox. It's not about your opinion or mine. You might notice that I offered not a single word about whether I think it's a good idea or not.
It's about what THEY decide and in THIS country--everywhere on Earth as far as I'm concerned--that is THEIR business.
It just so happens that in this country, the freedom to make that choice is codified in Law and NO government, nor agency of government, has the right to say otherwise.
So any person who even loosely implies that for ANY reason, they don't have the right to walk into those legislative chambers armed, is both against the principles of Liberty, the freedom upon which this country was founded, as well as the Law of the Land.
That's all. Opine to your heart's content; I have my hands full figuring out my own life, without getting into others. To me, that's what Individualism and America are all about, but that's me.
And if you don't understand the difference between a privately owned gun range and a public place of government, then you need more help than I can offer right now.
This presents a conundrum, a big one.
IMHO, this will be decided at the individual state level, Fed.GOV is too big and unwieldy too accomplish the ultimate goal of "civilian" disarmament, unless they let it paly out over decades - the fact that the conservative voters have already been thrown under the bus by McConnell and Boehner tells me we are all by out lonesomes in this sh!t sandwich, and we all have to decide whether we take a bite, or not.
In WA state I believe it is the choice of the state's residents, and I respect the choice of the people concerned, whether they're in, or out, of the plans to "push back".
Here in NYS, the UnSAFE Act was rammed through in the dead of night, although there were none too subtle indicators about what was afoot. So, NewYorkistan residents woke up to a fait accompli - deal with it. Each of us did, in our own way. Same in CT. In neither case has anything happened, except for the odd case that smells bad or obviously involves known felons. Of course, in the latter case, it's all grist for the collectivist mill.
The residents of WA must make their own personal decisions; if they get arrested and charged, I will suppport them with all I can spare.
Will this "in your face" approach go completely South? (no offense, Mike) - who knows? If it does, collectivist states like NY and CT make take this as a green light to take action against law-abiding owners of MSRs which, in most cases, they have no knowledge of they might be. It's a toss up.
IMHO, the NYS .GOV is now in such a state of disarray with the Silver/Skelos scandal that enforcing the unConstitutional UnSAFE Act are the least of their worries (hoping Cuomo joins that 2-man circle jerk, at least then there would be a pivot man).
If all does go to He!! in WA at this "event", it may be a fuse to who knows what.
I don't believe the pols in this country have a clue how much they are distrusted and despised. The sell out of conservative/Tea party voters by McConnell and Boehner has cost them virtually ALL the political capital they received from the election. They are, indeed, part of the same "domestic enemies" cabal as Obola and his lot.
In the end, we're all frogs in a slowly heating pot that is inexorably approaching boiling. When any individual frog decides to get out of the pot, and confront the cook is "...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
Personally Mike, and I've never met you, I'd offer the support of your brilliant leadership and insight, but stay the he!! out of slam. It really is a case of totally in, or totally out - the legal system is broken, and will give nothing but lip service to liberty, while letting the statists just keep on truckin'.
My $0.02 - YMMV
Bunch of idiots!!
You think having the right to go into a State Legislature Bldg. with rifles and pistols is helping your rights to bear arms?
Yeah, you'll really put anti-gun people as ease with this one.
This is a stupid battle to pick and lose...you are going to lose.
Been fighting gun laws most of my life and this is got to be the worst idea I have ever seen....
Jim Klein is right. Critics have this weird idea what liberty is. Don't worry, the sky is not falling, and won't fall if others have a different opinion than you have, about how to do it correctly. Somebody's got to play the part of Sam Adams in this movement - if we don't have a Sam Adams, then the movement in support of liberty is just a sham.
Post a Comment