Who said anything about force? There are differing veiws of the scope, extent and nature of rights. In any society those differing veiws may conflict. Such conflicts are resolved peacefully through the political process and in the courts.
Times are changin' - why are we so afraid of the Brady Bunch?
- Thread starter NavyLCDR
- Start date
- Status
NavyLCDR
member
12131 said:
I think there might have been a misunderstanding to my original point. I should have stated it as "Why are some of the pro-gun community afraid to fight against them."
It seems like there is a lot of talk from the "pro-gun" community that goes along the lines of, "We have lagalized concealed carry and shall-issue permits. That's enough. Let's not push the issue anymore, we have won that battle."
My point is many in the pro-gun community are afraid to push beyond the shall-issue permit to conceal carry (for instance Texas, Oklahoma and Florida) limit for fear of reprisal from the anti-gun groups.
My point was NOT that we don't need to fight any longer, my point was that I think there is too much fear about fighting more than we have in the past. My opinion is we have allowed the anti-gun propaganda to spread further into pro-gun society than we ever should have. For example, how many times have you read a post from a pro-gun person stating that they felt the need to be more alert towards a person they saw open carrying simply because that person did have a firearm.
alsaqr
Member
IMO: Anyone who is afraid of the Brady bunch is ill informed. The day of the Brady bunch has passed. In the 1990s the Brady bunch regined supreme: Sarah Brady even got a gun control plank in the Clinton presidential platform-a first. Sarah Brady had almost unlimited access to president Bill Clinton. Now president Obama will have little to do with her. The Brady bunch is strapped for funds and can do little more than bluster, distort the truth and lie.
Not so, at least in OK. Open carry in OK was vetoed by our governor because some in the law enforcement community, especially the state highway patrol wanted that.
Not so, at least in OK. Open carry in OK was vetoed by our governor because some in the law enforcement community, especially the state highway patrol wanted that.
Last edited:
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Do keep in mind that the Bradyites and VPC aren't the only prohibitionists out there. Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" seems to have a lot more money and traction these days than the BC, and MAIG regularly serves as a mouthpiece for VPC agitprop.
Also don't forget that the single largest purveyor of advertising and influence on behalf of the gun control lobby isn't a lobbying group, but the old-line corporate media. When the MSM stops parrotting the VPC/MAIG press release du jour, then I will believe we're out of the woods. I'm optimistic, but not ready to declare victory yet...
Also don't forget that the single largest purveyor of advertising and influence on behalf of the gun control lobby isn't a lobbying group, but the old-line corporate media. When the MSM stops parrotting the VPC/MAIG press release du jour, then I will believe we're out of the woods. I'm optimistic, but not ready to declare victory yet...
Gungnir
Member
I said it before and I'll say it again Navy, conditioning, we're conditioned to just accept that Lautenberg, Hughes, both GCA's and NFA are carved in stone. How do we know this, well because of all the derisory comments made about the Firearms Freedom Acts being passed by multiple states that attempt (however clumsily, and for whatever agenda) to eliminate those acts from intrastate firearms.
So could you explain to me firstly how an individual's right to keep and bear anything conflicts with anyone else? Suppose we use carrots as an example, and there's a right of the people to keep and bear carrots.
Keeping carrots in my home only affects those who choose to reside with me. If those residing with me dislike carrots; since I'm the property owner they can find alternate accommodations.
Should I wish to bear a carrot, it does not affect anyone's other protected rights in any way. The only time that there is a conflict is should the carrot be employed, and that is not a protected right anyway, the right is to keep and bear, not keep, bear and employ.
Perhaps current restrictions focus on the wrong thing, since the anti's are really concerned about (or should be if they're intellectually honest about their agenda) the use of "carrots", or "turnips", or "potatoes", or any other root vegetable, or just violence in general, not the ownership nor carrying of carrots.
Of course in the real world we know that gun control is less about guns and more about control.
fiddletown said:
So could you explain to me firstly how an individual's right to keep and bear anything conflicts with anyone else? Suppose we use carrots as an example, and there's a right of the people to keep and bear carrots.
Keeping carrots in my home only affects those who choose to reside with me. If those residing with me dislike carrots; since I'm the property owner they can find alternate accommodations.
Should I wish to bear a carrot, it does not affect anyone's other protected rights in any way. The only time that there is a conflict is should the carrot be employed, and that is not a protected right anyway, the right is to keep and bear, not keep, bear and employ.
Perhaps current restrictions focus on the wrong thing, since the anti's are really concerned about (or should be if they're intellectually honest about their agenda) the use of "carrots", or "turnips", or "potatoes", or any other root vegetable, or just violence in general, not the ownership nor carrying of carrots.
Of course in the real world we know that gun control is less about guns and more about control.
NavyLCDR
member
benEzra said:
So, maybe, we in the pro-gun community need to start doing things worthy of positive media exposure. Concealed carry with your permit is hardly worthy of media exposure. But as soon as groups start popping up that are getting either positive or at least neutral media exposure, then we are considered "grandstanding" and "shoving our rights in peoples' faces." And those comments are coming from others supposedly in the pro-gun community!
I don't think that's the case. But I do think that we still need to pick our battles and our tactics.NavyLT said:
Losses or set backs on the political front only enbolden the opposition. And on the litigation side of things we want to continue to build a strong foundation of pro-RKBA precedent.
Whether or not it makes sense to you, there are still plenty of people out there who don't like you or I having guns, and they don't accept your view (or mine) of the nature of the right to keep and bear arms.Gungnir said:
They are happy to elect and re-elect people to legislative bodies who will introduce and vote for bills that would limit and regulate our possession and use of guns. Some of those bills get enacted into law, and some do not. Some will be challenged in court. Of those some will be tossed out and some will not.
That's why we have gun control laws. Whether they are about guns or control may be beside the point. They are still there.
Yes, we absolutely do need positive media exposure.NavyLT said:
Are they? Or are those groups charged with "grandstanding" or "shoving our rights in peoples' faces" because they are not getting positive or even neutral media attention, but are rather getting negative attention?NavyLT said:
Deanimator
Member
I'm not afraid of them. In fact, I like to torment them mercilessly when I get the chance.
I really enjoy exposing them for the corrupt cowards, racists and misogynists that they truly are. When they get mad, that only makes it better and causes them to further expose their true motivations.
It's like shooting rats at the dump. It's cheap fun and cleans up the environment.
I really enjoy exposing them for the corrupt cowards, racists and misogynists that they truly are. When they get mad, that only makes it better and causes them to further expose their true motivations.
It's like shooting rats at the dump. It's cheap fun and cleans up the environment.
Deanimator
Member
If an Israeli cured cancer tomorrow, do you think the Iranian newspapers would be singing his praises? Do you think that if that happened, the Israels would just throw up their hands and walk into the sea?
We know who our enemies are.
We know how they think.
We know what they do.
I don't expect my enemies to love me or treat me fairly. If they did, they wouldn't be enemies.
Just learn to use their own words against them and move on.
The gun control issue is all a part of a larger social and cultural war that is being waged through politics and the media - state, local, and national. The primary issue is power, money (though money is really just a subset of power), and control - who has it - who gets to rule who.
The players are governments and global corporations - the object is who gets to run the world - in our country that means one party that likes loose government control of corporations and the other party that likes tight government control of corporations.
In order to work - governments and corporations both need people to do the work and too support their agendas - to be compliant citizens, employees, and consumers. The more they both can make people either become or at least believe that they are dependent on them for their lives and security, the more power and control they have.
The concept of our republic was founded on inalienable rights and individual sovereignty. The litch-pin was individual liberty which demanded individual responsibility. This was to be protected by a constitution and a bill of rights - and a limited government composed of individuals who volunteered to serve as public servants for a limited term before returning to private life.
What has devolved instead is a class of professional politicians and political parties backed by legions of professional bureaucrats and government agencies that all work to maintain power, to expand control, and to take away the burden of individual responsibility and thus concomitantly individual liberty. Governments worked to create the modern corporation (a powerful bureaucracy that enjoys the legal rights of individuals), an immortal global individual with the economic power to destroy non-corporate competition - individuals.
And the people worship government and/or big business because they promise wealth, power, and freedom from individual responsibility - all those things people fear or don't want to deal with or worry about. People for the most part really don't want individual liberty or freedom - it is too much work and too much responsibility. (You don't need a gun to protect yourself - that is what the police are for) - sound familiar? Every time there is a new crisis (ever ask yourself why there is always a new crisis) the first question asked is what is the government going to do about it? That very tendency is to essentially say - the government is the answer to the problem - the government will take responsibility - and thus more freedom and individual liberty is ceded to the government.
People will only be free when they claim and take individual responsibility for their lives. Hence two sayings - "People generally get the government they deserve," and "To live outside the law you must be honest."
Unless people wake up, nothing will change.
Gun control is government control - it is ceding to government the burden of defending our lives and our liberty. When we accede to gun control we give up our real freedom and security for the illusion of freedom and the illusion of security.
As far as people going over the line in the fight for liberty where they offend the sensibilities of some - "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater.
The players are governments and global corporations - the object is who gets to run the world - in our country that means one party that likes loose government control of corporations and the other party that likes tight government control of corporations.
In order to work - governments and corporations both need people to do the work and too support their agendas - to be compliant citizens, employees, and consumers. The more they both can make people either become or at least believe that they are dependent on them for their lives and security, the more power and control they have.
The concept of our republic was founded on inalienable rights and individual sovereignty. The litch-pin was individual liberty which demanded individual responsibility. This was to be protected by a constitution and a bill of rights - and a limited government composed of individuals who volunteered to serve as public servants for a limited term before returning to private life.
What has devolved instead is a class of professional politicians and political parties backed by legions of professional bureaucrats and government agencies that all work to maintain power, to expand control, and to take away the burden of individual responsibility and thus concomitantly individual liberty. Governments worked to create the modern corporation (a powerful bureaucracy that enjoys the legal rights of individuals), an immortal global individual with the economic power to destroy non-corporate competition - individuals.
And the people worship government and/or big business because they promise wealth, power, and freedom from individual responsibility - all those things people fear or don't want to deal with or worry about. People for the most part really don't want individual liberty or freedom - it is too much work and too much responsibility. (You don't need a gun to protect yourself - that is what the police are for) - sound familiar? Every time there is a new crisis (ever ask yourself why there is always a new crisis) the first question asked is what is the government going to do about it? That very tendency is to essentially say - the government is the answer to the problem - the government will take responsibility - and thus more freedom and individual liberty is ceded to the government.
People will only be free when they claim and take individual responsibility for their lives. Hence two sayings - "People generally get the government they deserve," and "To live outside the law you must be honest."
Unless people wake up, nothing will change.
Gun control is government control - it is ceding to government the burden of defending our lives and our liberty. When we accede to gun control we give up our real freedom and security for the illusion of freedom and the illusion of security.
As far as people going over the line in the fight for liberty where they offend the sensibilities of some - "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater.
- Status
Similar threads
