Comments: Subdivisions

Good job, 'cola.

What you pointed out up there is one of the big flaws I've always seen in the Incrementalist "You Absolutists need to be quiet and stop making us look like we're affiliated with lunatics" condemnation.

While I personally am not willing to settle for less than "The 2nd MEANS just what it says", there's a lot to be said for Basic Dickering 101: "Ask for the highest price you think you can get. You stand a much better chance of the bargaining ending well above the lowest you would have accepted."

Like I pointed out to Kevin, wether they care to acknowledge it or not, the Incrementalists need the Absolutists. Without us, they'd be the extremists in the argument. I'm scared to think what the "moderates" would look like.

Tactics and strategies...

Courts [your prefference] or Legislatures [other's prefference] are only a small part of the battle, in my opinion.

I grit my back teeth every time I hear someone in the 2nd-A camp use the term "The Gun Culture" as a descriptive, because it's so patently inapt. We don't have a "gun culture" in this country, or much of anywhere in the world, any longer. What we *have* is a Gun Control Culture. Or more precisely... a Populace Control Culture.

And we have that because while, as you pointed out, the anti-gunners have had a pretty pisspoor strategy for their goals, the collectivists that they a small part of have had a remarkably effective strategy for eliminating the concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility in the popular culture. And they're prosecuted it relentlessly in media, Hollywood, public schooling, historical revisionism, legislation, and the field of lawsuits, and even in fiction.

THAT is what we need a strategy to reverse. Without a culture that values liberty, individuality, personal responsibility, property ownership, and ethics... we're never going to again have a "gun culture", and we're not going to gain back any real ground with either "Absolutist" or "Incrementalist" gun ownership strategies. We're speaking an alien language to people who don't have the concepts - and they're the ones who vote in the people that turn our Rights into Permissions.

If we have a strategie for turning back the past 100 years of government dependency, and can implement it... the "Rights thing" will start to take care of itself. People who value liberty tend to protect it.

People who have never learned what the word means don't know there's anything being lost. They've grown up thinking the collar is freedom just because the leash is slack.

Posted by Ironbear at April 30, 2006 04:27 AM

Though it would be lovely for the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, that "shall not be infringed" means that you can't even mention manufacture, sale, or possession of a weapon in any legislation, state or federal, I don't think it's going to happen.

What might happen, is revival of a true gun culture, people who believe firmly that the Second means what it says, and are willing to defend their position. This would mean that no jack-booted thug would dare attempt an arrest for violation of a gun control "law", because he would know without a doubt that if he didn't die at the hands of alleged law-breaker, he would certainly hang after the lynch mob got ahold of him.

Unfortunately, that's probably about as likely as the Supreme Court ruling. If we had the kind of culture I want, Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg would have decorated lampposts a long time ago. Sigh...

Posted by Bill St. Clair at April 30, 2006 06:38 AM

Hey about Florida not going open carry, you have to remember that a very sizeable portion of our population at any given time is tourists from out of state or out of country. They dont have open carry and they might be unsettled by seeing people strolling about with exposed guns.

Those tourists provide no income tax, no smog inspections and a huge budget surplus every year. Having to pay a few bucks every 5 years to carry a gun is not really a big hardship in light of the benefits tourists bring.

I would prefer open carry, but I honestly dont care that much for the time being. We have much bigger fish to fry at the federal level.

And I am an absolutist, but I beleive in getting there by modest steps if necessary.

Posted by beerslurpy at April 30, 2006 11:17 PM

I agree with you completely in principle.

The problem with getting freedom loving gun owners to agree on strategy, technique or even basic principle is inherent in our makeup. We are individualists, not sheep. We do not follow meekly along with the crowd. This is our virtue...but it is also our weakness.

The problem with getting either the Federal or State governments to acknowledge the Second Amendment and gun ownership/use as a Right and, therefore, beyond their power to regulate, is that they have ALREADY ASSUMED that power. We can sit with our hands over our ears chanting "you can't do that, you can't do that" all we want but it doesn't change the fact that IT IS ALREADY DONE.

The laws that have turned our creator endowed and Constitutionally guaranteed right into a beauracrat regulated, government permitted privilege have already been passed and have consistently been upheld by the courts. Now we have to UN-do it in whatever way we can.

We're all on the same team here. Philosophical and tactical differences aside, we are not enemies. Let's not lose sight of that.

Posted by Sailorcurt at May 1, 2006 08:45 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?