Washington Post: Interesting story of open carry

[yokel]

As foolish as it sounds, some exponents of gun control claim to believe in a “social liberty” where no one has to worry and there is freedom from fear.

Another ugly form of collectivism that gives priority to "group" rights over individual rights and individuals sacrificing themselves for the "group" or "greater good".

The forced equality of the convict camp.

Of course, every form collectivism is linked to paternalism and the diminution of personal responsibility or freedom of choice when political authority is used to advance collectivist goals.

They like to think of themselves as "progressive" and "evolved", however, it is an embracing of a faith-based dogma and superstition and rejection of the humanistic approach that stresses an individual's dignity, agency, and worth and that people are basically good.

 

[RX-79G]

That is a whole bunch of pretty words. Not a plan.

 

[Warp]

It is subject to a vote because the NFA, GCA and Crime Bill don't substantively remove the right. And it has ALWAYS been that way.

Which is rather stupid as the Second Amendment doesn't say the government cannot "remove" the Right, but rather, that said Right "shall not be infringed"

It's easier to violate the Constitution if you ignore what it actually says...

 

[yokel]

That is a whole bunch of pretty words. Not a plan.

With respect to "In Jim Cooley’s open-carry America, even a trip to Walmart can require an AR-15", we begin by recognizing that the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position is a major problem in public debate. This is otherwise known as cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

 

[RX-79G]

Which is rather stupid as the Second Amendment doesn't say the government cannot "remove" the Right, but rather, that said Right "shall not be infringed"

It's easier to violate the Constitution if you ignore what it actually says...

Yet, that right was restricted before and after the BoR was created for criminals and other people. Not too long after, restrictions in arms types popped up for newer types of weapons, like mustard gas. But long before that certain arms already had restrictions - like some concealed weapons.

That is the fact of the matter, going back to the beginning of the USA. And every judge knows this. Our current level of firearm "freedom" is a fairly large compromise - no artillery, aircraft fired weapons, landmines, foreign made military style semi rifles, bombs, WMDs or full auto. Special licenses for short barrels, suppressors and CC.

With all of that gone, why would anyone say that we are "winning"? We're not getting anything back on a Federal level, and there is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would think that tyranny couldn't be resisted just as well with 10 round mags as 30.

 

[RX-79G]

With respect to "In Jim Cooley’s open-carry America, even a trip to Walmart can require an AR-15", we begin by recognizing that the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position is a major problem in public debate. This is otherwise known as cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence.

No kidding. Is flowery speech decrying collectivism helping with that?

 

[barnbwt]

some exponents of gun control claim to believe in a “social liberty” where no one has to worry and there is freedom from fear.

Which is not one bit less delusional than the belief that combat is perpetually so imminent that you must always prepare for defense to the extent that it negatively impacts your own & others well being (that last bit is the hallmark of unhealthy behavior). The statistics of violent crime *allow* one to operate under the former naivete for a longer period without consequence for a longer period, but an unfounded belief in safety to the point of enforced helplessness probably carries greater overall risk (a waste of money & some damaged friendships vs. a stunted personality & utter co-dependent relationship with a broader society similarly effected)

My take on the article;
-Article is plainly biased as far as its source material; I can find a whole lot of grotesquely selfish individuals masquerading as "proponents of liberty & people power," and in far more prominent/respected positions than a Mr. Cooley
-Whatever issues Mr. Cooley has beyond whatever the Post has enhanced or fabricated (there's likely a lot of truth here, but even more hyperbole), do not stem from weapons but a need for personal empowerment --an instinct that manifests itself in all sorts of unhealthy behavior *cough* BLM riots *cough*
-He has not hurt anyone/himself, and has no intention to, and his activities cannot be reasonably expected to result in harm. Despite his oddity, he is objectively no more threatening than any other citizen with the money to buy guns or a brain that can hurt others.
-His hobby/passion/obsession/whatever is apparently attracting negative attention and affecting his personal relationships, so he should probably dial it back for the sake of his own happiness; if he can't do that, he should seek some kind of help to regain control over his impulses

So the article is a whole lot of Edith Bunker, in my estimation. Two solutions to Edith Bunker hysteria; familiarity with the cause, or distraction by something more "outrageous" --I'm betting on the latter, since the media actively suppresses moderate or positive gun stories, and is more distractable than an inbred Labrador Retriever.

TCB

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I don't think Cooley came across that badly, nor did it seem like a gross distortion. For example the reporter probably didn't photoshop the cigarette into his hand. I've known a lot of guys like Cooley...hell, he's a lot like my dad. From a pop psychology point of view he does seem to be looking to guns to restore some semblance of fifties - style masculinity.

He seems like something of a dork to me but pretty harmless. I felt like the article portrayed him sympathetically.

 

[Warp]

Yet, that right was restricted before and after the BoR was created for criminals and other people. Not too long after, restrictions in arms types popped up for newer types of weapons, like mustard gas. But long before that certain arms already had restrictions - like some concealed weapons.

That is the fact of the matter, going back to the beginning of the USA. And every judge knows this. Our current level of firearm "freedom" is a fairly large compromise - no artillery, aircraft fired weapons, landmines, foreign made military style semi rifles, bombs, WMDs or full auto. Special licenses for short barrels, suppressors and CC.

With all of that gone, why would anyone say that we are "winning"? We're not getting anything back on a Federal level, and there is no reason to believe the Supreme Court would think that tyranny couldn't be resisted just as well with 10 round mags as 30.

Arms =/= weapons of mass destruction. But lol at saying the prohibition against private citizens owning WMD's justifies the NFA.

We have got things back at the federal level and we are likely to again. And yes we do have reason to believe the SCOTUS will believe 30 round magazines are more effective than 10's.

 

[yokel]

RX,

I'm simply calling a spade a spade rather than indulging in rhetorical elegance.

There is an insightful Chinese proverb which says: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”

And unless we have wisdom, all the hope in the world is not going to pull us through the challenges ahead.

The problem is that ignorance is endemic to the mass media such as The Washington Post, which has long since shirked its responsibility to call a spade a spade. Information has become a commodity to be bought and sold like any other, a commodity controlled by governments and corporations. News reporting has been replaced by marketing: the marketing to the people of the agendas of governments, corporations, politicians, the military and many other special interest groups with the money and connections to influence. Journalism used to be about uncovering truth, but today it is largely about manipulation — journalists have become whores to the establishment.

But behind all manipulation is the control of language. When the public perception of the world is generated by relentless public marketing campaigns, we find ourselves in a world of Orwell's doublespeak — a calculated manipulation and misuse of language. And most of us do not even realize we are victims of public marketing campaigns; we are ignorant of the fact that many of our opinions are no different from those of children parroting advertising jingles. Sounds pretty mindless, and it is. Appealing to higher level thinking is not a good propaganda technique, and only sharpens a perception that one day may be used to expose the manipulator.

Call tyranny security, safety, or freedom from fear for example, and people will demand oppression.

 

[RX-79G]

Yokel,

You are engaging in hyperbole. Which is fine, in and of itself. But many people seem to think that hyperbole accomplishes something.


I personally don't care if the Democratic party was taken over by Communists (or aliens) in 1920. The majority of moderate to liberal voters did not get the memo that they are being controlled by Trotsky's ghost, and vote based on what they see, hear, read and were taught by their families, schools and friends. That's the clay we can choose to shape.

What we have today is what we have, not some sort of moral chess match. Having a positive influence on popular opinion has much greater power then a moral superiority that just sounds like blah, blah, blah to most people.

 

[Jeff White]

I don't think Cooley came across that badly, nor did it seem like a gross distortion. For example the reporter probably didn't photoshop the cigarette into his hand. I've known a lot of guys like Cooley...hell, he's a lot like my dad. From a pop psychology point of view he does seem to be looking to guns to restore some semblance of fifties - style masculinity.

Cooley gave the reporter everything he needed to say to the Post's readership: "See what kind of yokels gun owners are? " The article was not meant to create dissension in our ranks. They couldn't care less about us. The article was meant to reinforce the lie they are currently telling themselves that gun owners are cretins who can't keep their own lives together. But that was just the secondary purpose. The real purpose behind the article was to convince those educated, upper middle class people who might be sitting on the fence on gun issues, that the only people who really care about such things the James Cooleys of the world.

We are in a war for the hearts and minds of the electorate. Minimizing us is one of the tactics that they are using. If you can look down your nose at someone it's a lot easier to dismiss their views as out of the mainstream. The antis are masters of that. Note how they renamed gun control to gun safety. People don't like being controlled, and gun safety sounds so benign. Who could be against gun safety? Gun control proposals are now "common sense gun safety proposals that only extremists would oppose". Those words aren't aimed at us extremists. They are aimed at the people sitting on the fence.

It's quite possible that James Cooley is nothing like he was portrayed in the article. The press is very good at twisting the facts. I've read news reports of incidents I was involved in as a police officer and shook my head wondering if the reporter was writing about the same incident.

The cartoonists in the big papers used to draw us like we were extras in the cast of Deliverance. I found nothing remotely sympathetic in that article. I guess I've been reading the anti propaganda long enough by now that I know their playbook.

 

[yokel]

Yokel,

You are engaging in hyperbole. Which is fine, in and of itself. But many people seem to think that hyperbole accomplishes something.


I personally don't care if the Democratic party was taken over by Communists (or aliens) in 1920. The majority of moderate to liberal voters did not get the memo that they are being controlled by Trotsky's ghost, and vote based on what they see, hear, read and were taught by their families, schools and friends. That's the clay we can choose to shape.

What we have today is what we have, not some sort of moral chess match. Having a positive influence on popular opinion has much greater power then a moral superiority that just sounds like blah, blah, blah to most people.

And I flatly reject your spurious accusations of hyperbole and flowery language.

If we fight the ensuing battle as if the war the leftists are waging against us is about guns, we will lose the battle and the war with it. But if we insist, instead, that the war is about liberty, we may win the battle and give the forces of liberty a fighting chance to win the war. To do so we must promote the simple truth: The alternative to gun control is self-control; the key to self-control is moral understanding and self-discipline; and the key to both is citizen education. That course of education must be implemented at the level of self-government closest to home, and it must have first among its stated objectives the formation of a citizen body armed, educated and morally capable of being the “well-regulated militia” the Second Amendment prudently proclaims to be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

 

[RX-79G]

Whether Cooley was portrayed accurately or not, why should we claim him as one of our own?

Just because someone owns guns, that doesn't mean that they are awesome people we should be proud of.

 

[RX-79G]

And I flatly reject your spurious accusations of hyperbole and flowery language.

If we fight the ensuing battle as if the war the leftists are waging against us is about guns, we will lose the battle and the war with it. But if we insist, instead, that the war is about liberty, we may win the battle and give the forces of liberty a fighting chance to win the war. To do so we must promote the simple truth: The alternative to gun control is self-control; the key to self-control is moral understanding and self-discipline; and the key to both is citizen education. That course of education must be implemented at the level of self-government closest to home, and it must have first among its stated objectives the formation of a citizen body armed, educated and morally capable of being the “well-regulated militia” the Second Amendment prudently proclaims to be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Yes, hyperbole. You just wrote a paragraph about winning a war without a single explanation how anything you wrote translates into a tactic, campaign or anything else real.

 

[yokel]

RX,

I actually did propose something in a recent thread.

That you seem ready and willing to give The Washington Post or Mother Jones the benefit of the doubt is telling and make it clear where your true sympathies lie.

 

[barnbwt]

Our current level of firearm "freedom" is a fairly large compromise - no artillery, aircraft fired weapons, landmines, foreign made military style semi rifles, bombs, WMDs or full auto

You really should learn a little about exactly what full auto is before lumping it in with artillery and high explosives; your precious "perfectly reasonable" semi-autos are practically identical.

The "compromise" underpinning our modern level of control was between an outright ban on ALL concealable firearms effective for self defense and the status quo. The NFA initially applied to all pistols, so even the humble Derringer would have been saddled with an inflation-adjusted $3000 'tax.'

When this "compromise" was rightfully objected to on the grounds it was in flagrant contradiction with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, the Roosevelt administration concocted the Miller case, driving it straight to the Supreme Court even after the defendant sought to settle at a lower court level, and even after he was killed, in order to get some rubber-stamp precedent in place as quickly as possible, resulting in the uncontested posthumous result that was used as justification for every further infringement until Heller (which was of course utterly ignored)

Our status quo is a 'compromise' like every other political issue before our Republic. It remains yet unresolved and problematic solely because one side has not won the issue yet, despite a solid century of systematic encroachment at the federal (and now global) level.

Yokel, who cares about his sympathies; whether he's pro or anti gun, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, none of it changes the validity of the points he makes (or lack thereof). Lot of folks out there use a person's dissenting opinion as an excuse to shrink away from the discussion to the shelter of the like-minded.

Whether Cooley was portrayed accurately or not, why should we claim him as one of our own?

"One of our own?" What the heck's that supposed to be, some 'brotherhood of gun owners' or something? Frankly, all men are nuanced & conflicted to some degree, and we have every reason to believe we're being shown a selective story in this article. I submit we have insufficient evidence to judge the man in the manner you are describing, not that we should. I made that point that it appears from the article he may be suffering from an imbalance in his lifestyle & should correct it if it is causing harm to him or others; I don't see how you can possibly draw broader conclusions than that (and even that much is a stretch in light of the aforementioned bias)

But many people seem to think that hyperbole accomplishes something.

It gets you elected president, apparently

What we have today is what we have, not some sort of moral chess match

Uh-huh; tell me more about how it isn't a chess match, of incremental moves & victories on each side, each pursuing an ultimate goal of utterly defeating the other. And if you don't see the right of civilian Americans to keep & bear arms uninfringed as a moral issue, when our governing document as well as its philosophical & logical underpinnings recognize its penultimate importance, I just don't know what to tell you. Heck, the fact the anti-gun side has had to fall to federal usurpation, emotional manipulation, and outright lies so consistently to pursue its agenda this past century should be enough of a clue there is a moral imperative to see them beaten into irrelevance like the Prohibitionists.

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if we insist, instead, that the war is about liberty, we may win the battle and give the forces of liberty a fighting chance to win the war....

Liberty meaning what? Liberty to do what? You might understand what you mean by liberty, but perhaps many folks would not agree or sign on to your understanding of liberty.

To some people laws (e. g., various civil rights laws) preventing a homeowner from selling his home to whomever he wants, or a landlord from renting to whomever he wants, are a deprivation of liberty. But if your promoting of liberty includes restoring the liberty of homeowners or landlords to discriminate on the bases of race, religion, or sexual orientation, that's a big "no sale" in today's world.

Our battle is a battle of cultures as much as it is anything. Much of today's anti-gun sentiment is a byproduct of the continuing urbanization of America. California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc., are strongly anti-gun in part because the bulk of the political power in those States is in a few major cities. The rural parts of those States are much more pro-gun or neutral. And in States like Washington and Oregon which generally have decent gun laws, the urban centers area still hot beds of anti-gun sentiment.

People tend to look for support and validation from others who share their tastes and values; and they distinguish themselves, often in a denigrating manner, from those who do not. The city dweller likes to fancy himself sophisticated, socially liberal, well educated, urbane, fashionable, etc.; and he wants to associate with, and have his self image validated by, people he perceives are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different -- such as the type of person they believe usually owns guns.

The Washington Post article hurts us by reinforcing those prejudices.

 

[yokel]

Liberty meaning what? Liberty to do what? You might understand what you mean by liberty, but perhaps many folks would not agree or sign on to your understanding of liberty.

As liberty depends on the decency and courage of the people, so despotism depends on subduing them with terror. A fundamental truth is that unreasoning fear epitomizes the threat to liberty. Unreasoning fear makes people susceptible to the insane argument that the threat comes from the means of self-defense, not the evil will of would-be despots slyly seeking to strip them away. Though ostensibly focused on fomenting a superstitious fear of firearms, this insane logic actually exploits the moral vulnerability of people who no longer believe in their own goodwill, their own capacity to control the evil impulses connected with the unrestrained ambition for success, and the pleasure and power it brings. People beguiled by these external idols already feel themselves to be thralls, in bondage to the external goods for which they have sacrificed their souls. In pursuit of these things they have lied, cheated and laid waste to the lives and hopes of those around them. And, when frustrated in that pursuit they have consoled themselves with fantasies of the violence they would do to all who stand in their way, if ever they had the means.

 

[RX-79G]

Barnbwt,

I don't know what you're going on about. I know what a machinegun is, and I know what a gunship and artillery piece are. I was making the point that the 2A is a protection of ARMS, not firearms, and we are down to a narrow category of firearms. It is not a success story.

(And no, I don't want anyone to have serin gas.)

You're celebrating that in 40+ states we have "won" the right to get fingerprinted, background checks and pay a tax to Bear Arms in pretty much the only socially acceptable and safe way of doing it anymore - hidden handguns. Is that a win, or have we just created yet another registry, and paid for it with our own money?


I want to "win" this situation, which means striking a deal that will codify our rights so every 10 years we aren't panic buying and forcing prices up on ourselves. But any conversation I try to have with people about that happens gets dissolved into Yokel's brand of grandstanding.

And yes, Yokel, I read your "proposal". It is, again, more talk: "We should educate the children." Which children, how do we do it, who teaches them and on whose dime? If you don't even give a hint of how an idea connects to reality, it has nothing to do with real life. It is gum flapping.


Frank, excellent post.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As liberty depends on the decency and courage of the people, so despotism depends on subduing them with terror. A fundamental truth is that unreasoning fear epitomizes the threat to liberty. Unreasoning fear makes people susceptible to the insane argument that the threat comes from the means of self-defense, not the evil will of would-be despots slyly seeking to strip them away.....

Since you did not understand anything I wrote above, perhaps you can understand this: I do not accept your views, nor will I allow you to define liberty for me. Your statement is, to me, a meaningless hodgepodge of words.

So how receptive do you think our opposition will be to your views when an intelligent gun owner can't make sense of them?

 

[yokel]

Since you did not understand anything I wrote above, perhaps you can understand this: I do not accept your views, nor will I allow you to define liberty for me. Your statement is, to me, a meaningless hodgepodge of words.

So how receptive do you think our opposition will be to your views when an intelligent gun owner can't make sense of them?

It is really not that abstruse or impenetrable.

Successful reading comprehension strategies will result when one is able to do the following things:

1.) Accurately read the words on the page

2.) Read the words fluently

3.) Comprehend what the words mean.

And yes, Yokel, I read your "proposal". It is, again, more talk: "We should educate the children." Which children, how do we do it, who teaches them and on whose dime? If you don't even give a hint of how an idea connects to reality, it has nothing to do with real life. It is gum flapping.

You apparently just gave it a cursory look instead of reading it.

 

[RX-79G]

No, I read it. It is devoid of actionable items. Here it is, if you would like to highlight what, if any of this, isn't just philosophical "we should" statements.

I propose that we add a serious and mature formation in America’s Second Amendment heritage to the basic civics education that all our young people receive. We must teach our children about the Constitution, its heritage and background, and its ultimate dependence on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But we should also, as an ordinary part of their education, teach them about the relation of arms to liberty.

We must teach our children that the preservation of liberty, and of an order of society conducive to human dignity, requires that a free people retain the moral and material means to discipline its own government, should the temptation to tyranny take root. We must read the Founders’ own explanations of the core purpose of the Second Amendment, and see the great care with which they discussed the basis on which any use of the militia against government might be contemplated, much less determined upon. Indeed, any study of the Founders is a study of prudence in action, and this is particularly true in the matter of the decision to take up arms in defense of liberty.

But the perennial awareness that such citizen defense against domestic tyranny is the ultimate material defense of our liberty is a crucial component of civic formation. Conveying to our young citizens a mature understanding of the prudential judgments required of them, as members of the American sovereign, will be difficult, no doubt. But it was done in the past, and it can be done again, if only we cease shying away from a clear acknowledgment of the real anatomy of our political order.

Being an American citizen is a weighty responsibility. We must again convey a sense of that weight to a generation of young people that is tempted, watching the flitting superficiality of our current crop of political leaders, to think that freedom is a breezy and simple affair, with no deep consequences beyond the constant pursuit of pleasure.

And really, the practical side of Second Amendment education is not optional. We cannot allow ourselves to become habitually afraid of the instruments that must be used to defend our liberties and our country. The Second Amendment civics course I am proposing must include the holding and firing of basic weapons. We need to de-mythologize guns before the progressive attempt to create a totemic fear of them succeeds. If the gun control mentality promoting fear of guns themselves becomes our national mentality, we would turn the clock back to the days when a warrior class ruled over the people because only they had the confidence and expertise to deploy the means of defense and coercion. The gun control agenda will turn us into a people too timid to defend themselves from our would-be masters. We must give our young people a reasonable and responsible confidence in their ability to defend themselves and their liberties. We need to make sure that these weapons are demystified, and that people understand their responsible use, and see in themselves the capacity to handle them responsibly.

But if you are training to be a political spin doctor, keep up the good work. This would make a fine response to a question about fiscal spending limits or global warming.

 

[yokel]

They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the least genuine mode of communication. Whenever someone around me adopts a sarcastic tone I immediately try to gauge what they are feeling insecure about.

I consider the holding and firing of basic weapons to be "actionable" or having some practical value.

 

[RX-79G]

They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the least genuine mode of communication. Whenever someone around me adopts a sarcastic tone I immediately try to gauge what they are feeling insecure about.

I consider the holding and firing of basic weapons to be "actionable" or having some practical value.

Truly, after you already engaged in the ad hominem of implying that I'm anti-gun?

Yes, you don't say anything that translates into doing anything, and when pressed you divert and make quips.


So much of what our side thinks they are "doing" is people making empty speeches, making pointless bumper stickers and substituting bravado for thoughtful action. All the "stuff" you wrote in this in other threads unfortunately typifies what I'm talking about.


This thread protected by Smith & Wesson.