Thoughts of an impractical absolutist

[only1asterisk]

I haven’t always been an RKBA absolutist, but I’ve always been on the edge. I thank the THR (as it was some years ago) for helping me get over the doubts I had about embracing what I had always known was right.

I think we are at a critical juncture if we are to retain what’s left of our rights. I hear people tell each other “Fight smarter, not harder.” and “Pick your battles.” I think we are too close to the point where the slipper slope drops over the edge to concede anymore ground. I think it is time to dig in and make a stand.

THR is the most diverse, independent group of people I have every known to come together around a single purpose. We have powerful intellects, vast wisdom and a vast array of the proper skills. It’s time to put aside our differences to be resolved latter. It is time we drafted some of these bright, wise and talented people to the service of their fellows and persuade them to conceive of the plan for the rest of us to implement so far as we are able. I know that many of us have worked long and hard as individuals already, but if we don’t leave all of our strength on the field we will not have fought hard enough.

Nominations are open. The only qualification is belief in unequivocal right of free people to be armed.

David Harris

 

[STAGE 2]

I think we are at a critical juncture if we are to retain what’s left of our rights. I here people tell each other “Fight smarter, not harder.” and “Pick your battles.” I think we are too close to the point where the slipper slope drops over the edge to concede anymore ground. I think it is time to dig in and make a stand.

I agree with your assessment, but not with your strategy. Now isn't the time to let it ride on a single roll. Because we are at the tipping point, such a reckless strategy may result in such a loss that we never recover.

You don't make demands whern you're outnumbered and your back is against the wall. Quite the opposite, you scrap. When the odds start to even out, thats when you can start playing fast and loose. As gun owners we are in such a precarious position that anything but a united effort will result in failure.

Furthermore, everyone here always talks about the liberties and freedoms aspect of gun rights. But there is also an economic issue as well. Its only been 3 years since the AWB ended, and another ban 10 years or longer may shortly be on the horizon. Even if this one is only for a finite period, a business can't be successful by being able to sell things once every 10 years. Eventually, people who are in this business will be forced to stop selling "assault rifles" and all of the other stuff, or be forced to close their doors all together.

Standing on "principle" is great. It makes us all feel good and we can stand around and beat our chests about how we won't compromise our rights and such. All the while the antis are sitting and laughing as they take away these rights in larger grabs than ever before.

Standing on principle should not be a suicide pact all the time every time.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

With all the new legislation going on, I'm extremely tempted to just start open carrying to let people know I'm exercising my right to do so. If every gun owner in America stood up and said we're tired of being pushed around, and we're not budging anymore, the politicians would listen.

If we all stood together, I guarantee we'd see the reversal of most if not all of the major gun laws in this country. It's because the 80+ million gun owners haven't voiced their RKBA that we have the laws we have and why we're on this slippery slope.

Standing on "principle" is great. It makes us all feel good and we can stand around and beat our chests about how we won't compromise our rights and such. All the while the antis are sitting and laughing as they take away these rights in larger grabs than ever before.

And if even half of the gunowners in the country stood on principle, don't you think there would be an impact? When you compromise with your rights, you make them priviledges, not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[Groovski]

I think it's a good plan. A grass-roots network can accomplish some pretty powerful things that national organizations can't. Look at the Zumbo affair. For example:

A newspaper comes out with a slanted story to persuade their readers to vote for a new gun ban. The paper is bombarded with corrections for all the factual errors from everyone.

The network bans together to all donate blood, clean up public lands on a certain day each year, or some other charitable thing getting a bunch of local media to pick up the story of gun owners doing good. It gives us a chance to get out the message of what we believe in and the non-gun owning public thinks we're pretty good people. I give a lot anyway, as I suspect most of you do - I may as well get some more bang for the buck.

Voter roundups - volunteer to pick up the elderly, etc, who may not otherwise vote, and take them to vote (especially in gun friendly areas of the country).

Boycotts - what, who, and why. Pretty powerful stuff when you vote everyday with your pocketbook. I like the new Smith and Wesson 1911 models, but I'm not sure if I'm "supposed" to boycott them or not

The Zumbo thing shows the power of the internet when people get ticked off and it snowballed without much organization. I think a little organization could multiply the effect, and keep people mobilized.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Sticking to you guns(no pun intended) no matter what, and "fighting the good fight" all sound real honorable and such. NO COMPROMISE makes a great catch phrase.

But once you lose, all your honor and good intentions mean exaclty ####. If you have to fight smartly to win. Do it. If you have to take small steps to win. Do it. If you have to make compromises to make sure you don't lose. Do it.


A man who charges head on into a hopeless battle may have a lot of honor. But he's also dead.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

If you have to make compromises to make sure you don't lose. Do it.

If you make compromises on Rights, you've already lost. I'll repeat what I said before: When you compromise with your rights, you make them priviledges, priviledges that the gov't can take away. Those who fought in the revolution fought for principle and didn't compromise, and it resulted in a great nation. We should do the same, instead of letting the gov't slowly erode our rights away. Once they do away with RKBA, what's next? The answer: anything they want to take away because we no longer can do anything about it.

 

[STAGE 2]

If you make compromises on Rights, you've already lost.

Everyone on this board that doesn't own an automatic weapon but can afford one, or owns one and paid the tax, or doesn't open carry, or didn't purchase hi cap mags during the AWB or did or didn't do a host of other things has ALREADY compromised their rights.

In short, I'd be willing to bet that 100% of the members here have compromised.

There's no logical or practical reason to start with the "all or nothing" now. The only place it will get us is deeper in the hole.

 

[Zundfolge]

The problem I see is that if you're going to stand up and be counted as a 100% Absolutist on RKBA and say you will accept zero compromise then what does that really mean?

Maybe if you're in the congress or senate you can vote against every gun control bill and start writing and submitting bills that roll back gun control, but what do you gain by doing that? And if you're not in the congress or senate you can vote for people like that. But again, what do we gain?

Just because you're obstinate doesn't mean your voice is going to be heard.

On principal I am an absolutist. I believe that the 2A means that if I want to buy a handgun, rifle, shotgun, submachine gun, crew served artillery piece, Nimitz-class air craft carrier or orbital death ray there is NOTHING that the US government should have to say about it. However, I realize that a complete rollback of gun laws is not likely so I believe we need to take the same incrementally approach that has brought us to where we are today. We need to "pick our battles" and slowly work our way back toward pure RKBA.

This means that there will be times that we'll have to compromise on something (For example I'd consider CCW laws just such a compromise ... I believe I should be able to stuff a pistol in my pants because I have a God given right to be armed and the 2A says government should butt out of it ... but I'm willing to put up with licensure for now because the alternative is that I'm a criminal if I carry).



I guess the thing that bugs me about the "all or nothing" crowd is that the only way one really can be "all or nothing" in a democratic system and get anywhere is do an end run around said system and start killing your political opponents. Other wise all you end up doing is crossing your arms, sitting on your behind and being completely ignored by both those that wish to disarm you and those that don't have an opinion on the issue.

It seems to me that the most vocal of the "all or nothing" crowd don't have the stomach or balls for all out violent rebellion ... but in essence thats the only logical way one can be an absolutist and not be a hypocrite. Or am I missing something?


"All or Nothing" is more likely to get us nothing.

If you make compromises on Rights, you've already lost.

Ok, Fine, then you tell me how one works within the system without either compromising or losing completetly?

Again, that "no compromise" attitude only works when you're willing to kill your opponent and/or ignore the law and live as a criminal.

 

[only1asterisk]

Zundfolge,

I believe we need to take the same incrementally approach that has brought us to where we are today.

I NEVER implied it could be done all at once. In fact you put lots of words in my mouth.

We need to "pick our battles" and slowly work our way back toward pure RKBA.

We need to stop losing ground before we do anything else. All the little losses add up. Picking our battles has gotten us to where we are.

My whole point in posting was to tell people:

We need a new overall strategy. What we’re doing now is what we’ve done for 40 years. It hasn’t worked. It isn’t going to work.

We have to all stop working at cross purposes. There are enough of us to make a difference, but we are going to have to stop going off in random directions. We need to find some leadership, get organized and work together.

Once we can hold the line, then we’ll talk about how fast to push for full restoration of RKBA.

David

 

[antsi]

only1, let me translate your original post:

The situation is critical.

Therefore, it's time to abandon effective political strategies that actually work and adopt fantasy-world strategies that are doomed to failure.

Because after all, ideological satisfaction is more important than success.

 

[only1asterisk]

antsi,

It is clear to me that you and I have nothing further to discuss.

David

 

[antsi]

"All the little losses add up"

I totally agree.

The anti's are using an incremental strategy for their purposes. They recognize that a lot of little victories for them can add up to total defeat for us.

If you recognize the how deadly significant a "little win" for the anti's is, why can't you recognize how meanigful a "little win" for us can be?

People who advocate an incremental strategy for pro-RKBA activism aren't advocating that we go out and work for a lot of little defeats; they're advocating that we go out and work for a lot of small achievable victories.

I just don't get it - here is what you are saying:
When the anti's work for small victories, it is dangerous because it's an effective political strategy of working toward their goals one step at a time. All their little victories can add up to total defeat for us.
When we work for small victories, it's a losing strategy that can never work and will inevitably result in our complete defeat. Therefore, we're better off trying for fantastical goals that we have no public or legislative support for.

 

[only1asterisk]

Where are our small victories? All I see are losses with notes attached that read “It could have been worse!” or “We decided to let them have this.” This is not a victory. This is not a winning strategy.

David

 

[SolaScriptura139]

I wasn't saying don't obey the laws. That would be stupid. What I meant was every gun owner standing up and together opposing any restrictive gun law, that's the position of no compromise I mean. (Sorry if it was unclear) I would never suggest anyone break the law. And I never said "all or nothing". Every time we let them have small victories we compromise our rights. When we started compromising our rights in the 1930's, we began to lose (and we'll continue to lose until a majority of gunowners takes a stand), because we let the gov't treat RKBA as a priviledge.

Ok, Fine, then you tell me how one works within the system without either compromising or losing completetly?

80 million people (the supposed number of gunowners in America) screaming about these gun laws and protesting would do the trick. If 80 million people raised their voice, the politicians would listen (I assume they have the desire to get re-elected). Would you just sit there and make compromises if the government started putting restrictions on religious practice or other forms of freedom of speech?

 

[antsi]

Small Victories:
CCW legislation passed in many states where it previously didn't exist; majority of states now have CCW laws
Many, many examples of follow-up legislation to "clean up" or improve existing CCW laws
AWB sunset
Legislation to protect firearms industry from predatory lawsuits (many states, and federal)
Legislation to protect gun owners from confiscation during emergencies (many states)
Legislation to protect those who use lethal force to defend themselves from prosecution and civil litigation

Those are just the ones that occur to me off the top of my head.

"Not as bad as it could have been."
We don't live in a system where we get to dictate the laws according to our personal beliefs and principles. Anyone who wants to shape or re-shape the law has to build up support and achieve a legislative majority to accomplish their goal. That's what we have to do, and that's what the opposition has to do. When the opposition has the momentum and the support for something they want to pass - for example the original '94 AWB - sometimes it is going to pass no matter what you do. If they have the votes to pass it, they have the votes to pass it. Sometimes, limiting the damage from your losses is the best you can do. Case in point, was getting the sunset clause added to the original AWB - this sowed the seeds for a future victory. Certainly, if I had my way, the thing never would have passed in the first place - but at that time, the legislative votes were against us and it was going to pass and trying to set the stage for a victory in the future was the best we could do.

I'm not advocating "allowing" the passage of restrictions that we have the power and ability to defeat. If we can defeat them, let's defeat them.

I am simply advocating that a realistic analysis of what we actually have the power, support, and ability to accomplish is an essential part of effective political strategy. This means always doing the best we can do given the circumstances at the time, and always trying to change the circumstances to be more favorable for us.

I've given you several examples of small victories. Please give me an example of "we decided to let them have this."

 

[beretta9]

OK, Fine, then you tell me how one works within the system without either compromising or losing completetly?

It seems to me that is exactly what the anti's are doing. They want all guns banned, but compromise and let us keep some. Then they go after some more guns, compromise again and let us keep a few until eventually, they have suceeded. That is why we have to go on the offensive. Take our rights back one step at a time. If the plan on the drawing board to unite all gun owners works, we can start fighting back, instead of having to take compromise after compromise, and getting nothing in return.

 

[only1asterisk]

antsi,

The concealed carry reform is a good thing, as are some of the "castle doctrine" type laws. Practical application of RKBA and self defense is wonderful. But as great as these steps are, the focus of the opposition has always been the tools themselves.

There have been real steps in state RKBA in MT and great current bill in TN. The federal level is the main concern, no matter how good the state laws are, the state will cave under federal pressure.

I can't say the end of the AWB wasn't a good thing, but it had an expiration date! If they very best we can claim is to have let a (heinously) bad law expire while the (nominally) RKBA-friendly party controlled the House, Senate and White House, then it isn’t much of a win.

Can I list some cop outs? How about NICS and Gun Free School Zones?

Look, if you think the status quo is fine there is nothing I'm going say that will change your mind.

David

 

[antsi]

Where did I EVER say the status quo is fine?

I said we should identify and work toward achievable objectives to improve the situation. That is NOT leaving things the way they are. It means IMPROVING the situation bit by bit, wherever and whenever possible.

How exactly did I, or the NRA, or anybody else "allow" the gun free school zones law to pass? The other side had the votes! What were we supposed to do, assassinate a couple dozen of the bill's supporters so they wouldn't have enough votes to pass it?

Okay, you've said "no compromise" and "absolute." Let's find out with some specific legislative scenarios exactly what those slogans mean, and exactly how you intend to put them into practice.

Scenario 1: We're trying to get a CCW law passed in Wisconsin. The governor says he's going to veto it, and we need three more votes to override the veto. There are four legislators out there who say they'll support the law, and vote to override the veto, if we add a restriction: no CCW in churches. What do we do?
Stand on principle, "no compromise," and go down in flames?
Or put in the "no CCW in churches" clause to get the law passed, then try to fix it later?

Scenario 2: Dianne Feinstein is trying to get AWBII passed. The Democrats control the Senate, and with a couple RINO's helping, they've got the 60 votes for cloture. In other words, they have the votes to pass this thing. President Hilary is out publicly campaigning for the law, literally salivating in anticipation of signing it. If we claw and fight and call in some favors, we can get a "grandfather clause" and a "sunset clause" added to the law. We don't have anywhere near the votes needed to defeat it.
What do we do?
Make an impassioned "no compromise" speech on the Senate floor and go down in flames?
Or try to get a sunset clause and a grandfather clause inserted to make a very bad law slightly better?

Scenario 3: We currently have 4 reliable Supreme Court justices who support RKBA, and 5 who favor a "collective right" interpretation that guts the 2nd. One of the 5 anti's on the Court has announced he will retire after the next presidential election. The Republican candidate for president is not a great RKBA supporter; he's lukewarm at best. But he has a proven track record of appointing "strict constructionist" justices who interpret the constitution according to framer's intent. If he gets to appoint the next Supreme, we'll probably get another reliable pro-RKBA vote on the Court, and have a good chance of winning any second ammendment case that comes up. The Democrat candidate for president is a virulent anti, and has promised to appoint justices who interpret the constitution according to whatever is popular in Europe.
What do we do?
Vote for the lame-o Republican so we can get the Supreme Court we want?
Or vote for the "Full Auto Citizen's Militia Party" candidate to make our "no compromise" point, and hand the Supreme Court to the anti's for another 20 years?

If you seriously have an effective strategy to deal with real-world political situations that always gets us everything we want, I am very eager to hear it. If you can get us full-auto and a federal "anyone can carry anything everywhere law" passed in this legislative session, then I'm behind you 100%. But until you can tell me your reality-based plan of how to get this accomplished, I'm going to put my support behind people who have realistic plans that actually have a chance of success.

 

[only1asterisk]

Where did I say no compromise? Where did at say at all cost? I said neither.

I am an absolutist. I believe in an absolute RKBA. That is not the same as being stupid.

I don't know what you did, but the NRA did not fight NICS or Gun Free School Zones, they accepted it or even supported it (Gun Free School Zones). They support the NICS "Improvement" H.R. 297 now!

Want I want, what I think we need is for people to get engaged and have a new approach, one that resist all gun control with that same effort as they would the most terrible violation of the RKBA. Everything counts.

David

 

[STAGE 2]

Someone please explain to me why preventing a Democrat from controlling the executive thus greatly improving our chances for defeating AWBII is somehow compromising?

 

[only1asterisk]

What does the fact that I refuse to vote for RINO's have to do with this thread?

David

 

[STAGE 2]

What does the fact that I refuse to vote for RINO's have to do with this thread?

David

Because in doing so it might deal us a blow that we might never be able to come back from.

Possibly an AWB II with no expiration and a couple of new SCOTUS justices that make Ruthy, Souter, Kennedy look like Scalia and Alito's lovechild.

But othe than that nothing

 

[HonorsDaddy]

To those of you who want to believe that incrementalism is the way to go..

Rights are lost one tiny bit at a time. They are only regained in full. That is one of the painful truisms of humanity.

Another one, which it appears a few of us have forgotten, is when you are outnumbered with your back to the wall, you fight - not surrender. At least if you intend to win that is.

 

[STAGE 2]

Rights are lost one tiny bit at a time.

So why in the world can't they be gained back one tiny bit at a time?

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Stage 2

So why in the world can't they be gained back one tiny bit at a time?

Because life doesnt work that way.

Once any bit of a right is infringed upon to appease those who wish to take it away, that right becomes transformed into a privilege. Any restoration of that right is then seen as trying to make something legal which is now illegal.