Don't Tread On Me
Member
We should all keep in mind that the bulleted quotes in that article are statements that are not totally out of line. They speculate on, and speak of a hypothetical emotional response to a fictitious tyrannical, anti-constitutional action. Our founding fathers ambushed and shot at confiscators (the government, aka redcoats) on more that one occasion. Force was a form of dispute resolution at the time. It is not acceptable as a form of dispute resolution today (or to the redcoats taking fire). What is said in the bulleted quotes (if true quotes) isn't extreme in the context of American liberty and political history.
While that type of language does seem malicious and extreme, it is no more extreme than the foundations of our nation and the actions of the heroes who fought the British.
Certainly, the people who make such comments should use a more careful choice of words to communicate their thoughts. Perhaps put their ideas into a context that is less offensive to our more sensitive population. Like comparing it to the American war for independence (revolution).
This thread seems to hinge on two prevailing ideas. People who are alarmed at these comments and condemn them, do so on the basis that they concede that this type of "understanding" of what the Second Amendment ultimately can lead to is unacceptable to the mainstream American mind. This is implied in the reaction, ie, person feels that saying things like that are wrong - thus, the entire concept of armed resistance to tyranny is wrong. Or at the very least, the concept that the government is still good, right, or just is upheld (the government is a victim perspective). This is a concession to the antis. It is almost identical to the flawed anti-AWB argument made by the RKBA crowd that the AWB should go away because it doesn't really ban anything, as the NFA of 1934 regulates, and the 1986 FOPA bans fully auto assault rifles. A flawed argument and a concession of defeat in that the 1934 law, despite Supreme Court rulings, is unconstitutional.
The other idea is that this is merely another hot-air attempt by the anti-gunners to portray gun owners as dangerous and extreme to the government and to the undecided and impressionable mainstream public.
Well, on that issue, I'm not so concerned. While it is never good for the anti's to have ammo to use against us, this type of tactic holds NO water whatsoever. It is slanderous and downright propaganda. Should I post some quotes from certain Black people to portray them all as White hating, government hating terrorists? Should I post quotes from Jewish elites pre-1930's Europe to portray the Jews as deserving of what they got? THAT'S ABSURD! That's what the antis are doing. Their tactics are Nazi'esque to say the least.
Keep in mind, that most of America is friendly to the RKBA. There are millions of gun owners and these millions know millions of non-gun owning Americans. People will see right through this type of nonsense as most Americans know someone who owns a firearm and knows they are not anti-government radicals ready to battle the establishment. What America is suceptable to, is the concept of gun control. While the vast, vast majority of Americans believe in the RKBA and would never vote against it in a referendum (Brazil style), many, perhaps even more than 1/2 generally support the idea of strict gun laws, and this is what the antis count on. All they need is support of gun control in general (not as a ban) as in enforcement and protection measures so that they can use their incremental approach to firearm abolition. Thus, quoting over-excited bubba's might serve to scare a few Americans who are already predisposed to anti-gun ideology.
It is much like the NRA's scaremongering (which most tends to be actual real threats facing us) in order to stir up support.
While that type of language does seem malicious and extreme, it is no more extreme than the foundations of our nation and the actions of the heroes who fought the British.
Certainly, the people who make such comments should use a more careful choice of words to communicate their thoughts. Perhaps put their ideas into a context that is less offensive to our more sensitive population. Like comparing it to the American war for independence (revolution).
This thread seems to hinge on two prevailing ideas. People who are alarmed at these comments and condemn them, do so on the basis that they concede that this type of "understanding" of what the Second Amendment ultimately can lead to is unacceptable to the mainstream American mind. This is implied in the reaction, ie, person feels that saying things like that are wrong - thus, the entire concept of armed resistance to tyranny is wrong. Or at the very least, the concept that the government is still good, right, or just is upheld (the government is a victim perspective). This is a concession to the antis. It is almost identical to the flawed anti-AWB argument made by the RKBA crowd that the AWB should go away because it doesn't really ban anything, as the NFA of 1934 regulates, and the 1986 FOPA bans fully auto assault rifles. A flawed argument and a concession of defeat in that the 1934 law, despite Supreme Court rulings, is unconstitutional.
The other idea is that this is merely another hot-air attempt by the anti-gunners to portray gun owners as dangerous and extreme to the government and to the undecided and impressionable mainstream public.
Well, on that issue, I'm not so concerned. While it is never good for the anti's to have ammo to use against us, this type of tactic holds NO water whatsoever. It is slanderous and downright propaganda. Should I post some quotes from certain Black people to portray them all as White hating, government hating terrorists? Should I post quotes from Jewish elites pre-1930's Europe to portray the Jews as deserving of what they got? THAT'S ABSURD! That's what the antis are doing. Their tactics are Nazi'esque to say the least.
Keep in mind, that most of America is friendly to the RKBA. There are millions of gun owners and these millions know millions of non-gun owning Americans. People will see right through this type of nonsense as most Americans know someone who owns a firearm and knows they are not anti-government radicals ready to battle the establishment. What America is suceptable to, is the concept of gun control. While the vast, vast majority of Americans believe in the RKBA and would never vote against it in a referendum (Brazil style), many, perhaps even more than 1/2 generally support the idea of strict gun laws, and this is what the antis count on. All they need is support of gun control in general (not as a ban) as in enforcement and protection measures so that they can use their incremental approach to firearm abolition. Thus, quoting over-excited bubba's might serve to scare a few Americans who are already predisposed to anti-gun ideology.
It is much like the NRA's scaremongering (which most tends to be actual real threats facing us) in order to stir up support.
