THR and "feed[ing] the hogs"

[longeyes]

If I walk up to you and slap you in the face, does that mean I had a right to do it? If I walk up to you every morning and slap you in the face, does that mean I have a right to keep doing it? If you tell the police that every morning I slap you in the face, and they do nothing about it, does that mean I have a right to do it?

Well, comrade, it would speak volumes about what kind of a society we'd be living in, wouldn't it?

"Man was born free but everywhere he is in chains."

What was the next step? To ASSERT those unassailable natural rights, not to suffer in noble passivity or honorable self-delusion.

Walk the Glendale Galleria for a hour or two and you'll realize what country you are really living in.

 

[Oleg Volk]

There's plenty of people whom I'd like to get abducted by carnivorous aliens. Some of them even matter...but the US society isn't built on personalities, it is built on institutions. If the aliens rend every IRS and BATF employee for sandwich meats, we would likely have equivalent agencies take their place or existing agencies extend their turfs.

In the US, assassinations tend to work poorly for the political futures of those who practice them or who are associated with them. On the Internet, public discussions of such things are terminally stupid. It is one thing to discuss the ethics, the logisitics and the likely effects among trusted, competent friends. It is quite another to talk about specific targets in a forum where various enemy employees are present in unknown but non-trivial numbers. In other words, don't do an unencrypted global broadcast of your position, intentions and grudges. It's not very smart and it causes your allies to walk away from you, lest the retaliatory strike on your location also splatter them.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Your rights are what you are able to exert, no more, no less.

Longeyes, the problem with that approach to rights is that if forces you logically into some obvious errors. For example, one who holds your view of rights in not able, with logical consistency, to assert that a murderer has committed a wrongful act. This is because the person they murdered, according to your definition of rights, had no right to continue living, as proven (again, according to your definition of rights) by the fact that they were unsuccessful in exerting their right to life as against the murderer. Since the killing did not violate the dead man's rights, the killing cannot be punished, because it was not wrong. It was an entirely neutral act from a standpoint of ethics.

So, you see, if you are going to assert that murder is wrong, you must abandon your theory on rights. The reason we say the murder was wrong was because it in fact did violate a right to life, and that right existed, even in the absence of the ability of the victim to exert it. Rights, you see, have nothing at all to do with the possessor's personal ability to exert them.

 

[longeyes]

As I said, there's theory and there's reality. Sure, I see your point. Of course. I just don't see what's gained by discussing what our inviolable "rights" are if we don't intend to express and defend them WHEN WE NEED TO.

Our rights as citizens are about to be re-written before our eyes because a small group of people who no longer represent us are afraid they will lose their power. That is what I see. I don't think we need to have an intellectual debate about something so obvious as whether people in this country illegally have or do not have "rights." As a practical matter they will have the rights we either bestow upon them or afraid to take from them.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

As a practical matter they will have the rights we either bestow upon them or afraid to take from them.

I just think that you'd be better off using language which is more logically consistent, although I understand the point you are making. Much better, however, to speak of our liberties being altered by the government than our rights. See, liberties are subject to laws, while rights are not.

First off, let's define the state of political liberty. It is that state in which our laws are consistent with our rights. When a law is inconsistent with a right, it is by definition despotic, and it ought to be our goal to alter or abolish it so that it is in conformity with our rights. A right, you see, is what we ought to be at liberty to do, i.e., it is what we would be at liberty to do under a state of political liberty. By at liberty I mean that there is no law which hinders the exercise of the right. The at liberty part can be altered by the government (that's how we know if we live under liberty or despotism), but the right part cannot be altered. Rights, you see, are the constant in the analysis. If we speak of rights when we mean to speak of liberties, this sort of throws a monkey wrench into the whole analysis.

 

[Shadizar]

When I first came to this particular forum I couldn't tell what it was about. I spent a few months here very happily enjoying the wide ranging and stimulating posts about all manner of things.

Obviously I knew the site had something to do with firearms, but because of the varied topics I never did pin down what it was this site was all about. I thought this was wonderfull!

Recently, I've found the censorship of the Mods to be restrictive. The Legal & Political Forum was always a place I came to find interesting news on Legal and Political news and events. The discussions that I did find here were unlike those I found in the normal media.

I understand the desire of the mods here to curtail the scope of discussions (in light of the purpose of this site), but I find it too limiting in its scope.
There are many things which affect the 2nd Amendment. Many of those are not readily apparent at first glance, but like a drop in the pond, they have an effect.

The Second Amemndment is intimately tied to the First Amendment. I, for one, have trouble distinguishing them at times. Without either one, the other is in danger.

I for one have had less desire to visit this site in the last few months because of the censorship I've noticed.

Perhaps my views will make me unwelcome here I for one like to hear two sides of every issue. Most especially those regarding the legal and political aspects of the world we live in.

-Shadizar

 

[longeyes]

Let's say I accept your distinction. The illegals claim a right to be here. Okay, now what?

 

[meef]

longeyes stated -

RKBA springs from a certain political and culture environment, an attitude about personal liberty in relation to government. When that environment disappears--and it's certainly under attack from many directions--RKBA will vanish.

Very much the heart of the matter, in my opinion, and very simply and well put.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Let's say I accept your distinction. The illegals claim a right to be here. Okay, now what?

That seems simple to me. They don't have a right to be here, any more than I have a right to enter their home uninvited. Nations have borders. It is the right of nations to have borders. To violate a border is to violate the right of nations to have them, i.e., it is wrong to do it, and ought to be prevented. Am I missing something?

 

[Art Eatman]

Shadizar, censorship is done by government. This is Oleg's private property. His living room, if you will. His rules apply about propriety of both subject and presentation.

I urge you to re-read the rules of this website. Then, re-read what the mods have said--me included--in earlier posts in this thread.

Us ol' mean nasty mods have let a bunch of threads run that weren't really in line with the idea of this website, mostly because of timeliness and overall importance in the grand scheme of Life In These dis-United States. This site is not intended to be all things to all people. And there's a lot more of importance at this website than the Legal and Political forum.

Art

 

[Shadizar]

With all due respect Sir, I believe I've followed the rules of this board.

Welcome to The High Road, an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership. It is the declared mission of this board to achieve and provide the highest quality of firearms discussion on the Internet, a standard set by the discussion board The Firing Line from 1998-2002.

Everyone is welcome to participate, regardless of political affiliation, gender, religion, nationality, or stance on gun ownership. We aim to respect every point of view, as long as it is presented in a polite and factual manner. You only need to provide a name and a valid email address to participate. We do not sell that information to anyone.

There are only a few house rules:

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.
2.) Multiple user registrations are prohibited.
3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
5.) We cannot provide a comprehensive list of "Things Not To Say".Posts that are contrary to the above policies, or to the mission of The High Road, may be edited or deleted at our sole discretion. Membership may be revoked if such a step is deemed necessary by us. We're a private venture enabled by an all-volunteer staff. Please treat this venue as a polite discussion in a friend's home and respect the wishes of the hosts.

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

A note on FREE SPEECH:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is greatly respected here on The High Road, as are all other Amendments that the Second Amendment defends. However, The High Road is private property and requests that members adhere to all forum policies. It is a contract agreed to by all who become members of The High Road. Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech - a contract broken is a contract broken. If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board.

If you feel you can abide by these requests, we hope that you join us on The High Road. We invite you to share your expertise and enjoy the camaraderie. "Share what you know, learn what you don't."

Thank you,

The Staff

Civil liberties are an issue that I believe have been abridged in some instances here. This is a personally owned website. I understand that. I get the sense sometimes that the personal views of some people here do not themselves adhere to the the abovementioned rules. I like this site, so I therefore made the comments in my previous post.

It is because of that very principle that I made the post. I do try to follow forum rules. I do not seek to attack the moderators (a quick boot from this forum), but I want to know that everyone is playing by the same rules.

-Shadizar

 

[meef]

All roads lead to Rome...

And lately it seems that all threads (or very many) lead to the illegal immigration situation/crisis/whatever.

While I don't always agree with the moderators decision to lock/delete certain threads (especially if it gores one of my oxen) - I always agree with their right to do it.

I have to say that all of the value and information I have received in my short time here has been richly rewarding. That's why I keep coming back and consider this one of my must-visit internet sites on a daily basis.

And the price is soooooo right! Can't remember the last time anyone sent me a bill for what I've gotten here, but I can certainly vouch for the money it has saved me in my firearms related life.

Summary:

I greatly appreciate the time the staff puts in on this site. And if the day ever comes that my appreciation wanes.... well, I guess I can just pick up my toys and go play elsewhere.

Thanks Mods.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I greatly appreciate the time the staff puts in on this site. And if the day ever comes that my appreciation wanes.... well, I guess I can just pick up my toys and go play elsewhere.

Thanks Mods.

Absolutely! I have probably been part of the cause of a few threads getting closed, but usually the topic had run out of steam by that point anyway, and everyone had their say. Closing such threads down channels that energy into new threads, rather than leaving it to degrade in a used up topic. I have no complaints about the mods here at all. They tolerate my fringe views on some subjects pretty well, I'd say. Generally, it's not views that get threads shut, but degradation into name calling and insinuation. Good job. This is a great site. I don't know of one better. Worlds ahead of 1911 Forum, which I was kicked off of multiple times (came back with different names) for merely expressing my views or agreement with those whose views were Verboten.

 

[odysseus]

Thought it might be a good time to also say:

Thanks! to the mods and Oleg for the board.

8,000 active members is a lot of material to moderate over.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thought it might be a good time to also say:

Thanks! to the mods and Oleg for the board.

8,000 active members is a lot of material to moderate over.

^^^^^^^ butt kisser^^^^^^^^^

(Just Kidding Odusseus...)

Now back to the original question about "THR and feeding the hogs"

we stand ready to resist, with the means to resist should anyone attempt to usurp that constitution and our Bill of Rights. The message is this: "We want very much for you to leave us in peace with our Constitutional rights in full force...but we will fight if you will have it no other way. Your call." This is what 2A is all about.

I am confused by your post...either you believe what you have typed here or you don't . If you believe it, then you should be willing to verbalize it in a calm, prudent and meanigful manner to those who would usurp our Constitution.

It seems that standing around "quietly" invoking our 2A has gotten us the AWB, the inability to import certain evil "assault weapons" and most recently Kelo vs. New London. Seems like we're on the right track to me...

I am NOT advocating sitting around talking about offing certain people, but verbalizing the intent of the 2A is not treason, insurrection or even unreasonable. If so, our Country was founded by a bunch of thugs who should have been strung up...

Here's a (http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html) link to the St. John's speech by Patrick Henry in 1775. We all know the line "give me liberty or give me death", but the initial paragraph of the speech is very enlightening and the references in the 3rd paragraph to the build up of arms puts me in mind of the "militarization" of our Gov't Agencies and Police forces around the country. Interesting reading...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here's a (http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html) link to the St. John's speech by Patrick Henry in 1775. We all know the line "give me liberty or give me death", but the initial paragraph of the speech is very enlightening and the references in the 3rd paragraph to the build up of arms puts me in mind of the "militarization" of our Gov't Agencies and Police forces around the country. Interesting reading...

At the time of that speech, the Revolutionary War had already started in other parts of the country and Henry was urging his countrymen in the Virginia assembly to send troops to aid the Minutemen.

A better analogy might be looking at some of Henry's speeches prior to the outbreak of hostility. In 1765, he proposed legislation in Virginia severely challenging the authority of the crown and asserting for the colonies the same rights as the British. In passing this legislation Henry said "Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Third... (here he was interrupted by other members crying "Treason! treason!" at his speech) George the Third may profit by their example."

After the outcry that this statement (mild in comparison to those on THR lately) caused in the House, Henry apologized and assured the House he was still loyal to the King. It seems even a fairly public radical like Henry was willing to wait until people were actually shooting at each other before crossing a line that people here take a little too lightly for both their own good, the good of the site, and RKBA in general.

P.S. - It is also worth noting that the speech you linked to wasn't actually published until 1817 by William Wirt and was based on the 42yr old recollections of people who were there, not an actual transcript of the speech. So the whole grain of salt thing applies...

 

[seeker_two]

A few things....

1. Closing these discussions just because it may make the mods uncomfortable or not project the "proper image" of a gun owner is political correctness...not honest discussion. If you want image, hire a PR firm. If you want discussion, have discussion.

2. Most posters here know the difference between "discussion" and "promotion". And I haven't seen a post in these threads yet move over toward "promotion" of political assasination. Where is that line drawn?

I think precedent has been established.....

3. If historical events such as the Waco Siege and the OKC Bombing are to be discussed, then ALL aspects must be discussed--even if those make some uncomfortable.

4. As THR history has shown before, cooler heads often prevail...unless the mods cut off the conversation first...

Folks, this is just bat-guano insane. It doesn't even come close to the High Road to be discussing who we should be allowed to kill.

Such an opportunity missed....

 

[thereisnospoon]

BM,

Fair enough, but I was simply asserting that those who we revere as the Founding Fathers of our Country were initially thought of as "radical" ...as you so kindly pointed out.

Also, the preceding post seems suggest that a picture (or two) IS indeed worth a thousand words...

 

[1911Tuner]

Posts

Quote:

>I am confused by your post...either you believe what you have typed here or you don't . If you believe it, then you should be willing to verbalize it in a calm, prudent and meanigful manner to those who would usurp our Constitution.<

I do and I just did.
***************

Quote:

>I am NOT advocating sitting around talking about offing certain people, but verbalizing the intent of the 2A is not treason, insurrection or even unreasonable.<

Re-read:

"As noted, the act of keeping and bearing arms is a silent notification that...although we want to live in peace under US Constitutional law...we stand ready to resist, with the means to resist should anyone attempt to usurp that constitution and our Bill of Rights. The message is this: "We want very much for you to leave us in peace with our Constitutional rights in full force...but we will fight if you will have it no other way. Your call." This is what 2A is all about."

Verbalizing and reminding our governing body that 2A was, is, and shall remain
the means to resist tyranny...theirs or anyone else's isn't treason. Not even reminding them that 2A insures that the other entries in the Bill of Rights stay put isn't treason. Talk of assassination and bearing arms against the United States is treasonous speech...and the active pursuit of the same assuredly
IS treason. I have no qualms over saying on't tread on me!" I also don't want to invite trouble by stating that we should rise up against our own government. Just like the defensive sidearm that you carry is essentially a last resort...so it is with the reason that 2A was installed. When pro-gun people call for revolution, they are lending credence to the very people who would disarm them. Such talk upsets the sheeple...and they vote, too. Swing voters and fence-sitters can carry an election. Convince enough of the swingers and fence-sitters that the antis are correct in their assertions that we're all crazy and looking for a reason to shoot somebody, and you can watch 2A go down the tubes.

Fight unconstitutional law at the polls with your ballot, and...failing that...fight it in the field with your rifle. Openly calling for war is a sure way to make Plan B a reality. Something that I'd rather avoid, if possible.









If so, our Country was founded by a bunch of thugs who should have been strung up...

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

More:

> And I haven't seen a post in these threads yet move over toward "promotion" of political assasination. Where is that line drawn?<
*******************

And nobody said that it has been promoted here. Only that these type threads often get closed because the discussion starts to drift in that direction.

And:

>As THR history has shown before, cooler heads often prevail...unless the mods cut off the conversation first.<

And sometimes cooler heads dont prevail.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Here's a snip from a post I made in the staff lounge recently in a half-hearted defense of a lot of these comments that pop up:

As to the "feed the hog" comments, I kinda don't know what to say. The republic is crumbling a bit every day. Voting, and writing letters to newspapers and congressmen, and initiating lawsuits don't seem to be making things better. We're also sliding closer and closer to a society where privacy is being eroded quite quickly -- think credit cards and cell phones and internet usage (see this post for a scary look at where we are) and all the rest...

...If we ever get from Soap Box to Ballot Box to Jury Box to Cartridge Box then will it be too late to organize? Are we there now? Will we get there in my lifetime? These are questions a large percentage of freedom-minded Americans address at least once in their lives, and while they're icky and premature and painful and treasonous and could be borderline illegal (in the age of secret laws enforced in secret courts who really knows?) a lot of our membership looks to this board as a place to seek level-headed advice from their peers. And while the advice they get here isn't always as level-headed as they'd like, at least folks here understand where they're coming from.

Believe me when I say I understand where you're coming from; please believe me when I say THR is not the place for these discussions.

First, from a "you're stupid if you do" pespective:

• This board has a number of members who are admittedly members of the FBI, ATF, and other agencies. I'm sure there are more that aren't so open, and I'd be shocked if comments here weren't regularly monitored for obvious steps over the line.
• There is no anonymity here. Yeah, you keep your identity safe from other posters, but it's shocking what moderators who are motivated can find out about a person based on IP addresses, e-mail addresses, and comments left in past postings. Think marital status, court judgements, primary residence and all land records, current and past employers, and so on. That's with out limited resources and without spending any money. Imagine what others with unlimited resources and a grudge could accomplish.
• You're not going to win any converts. Claire Wolfe said "it's time" after the Katrina debacle, but you don't see a shooting war going on. That's because if things ever go that route, it won't be until things are so bad that there's no choice. Worse, a significant percentage of our membership is fairly authoritatian in attitide (American Empire? Hell Yes! Let's invade Mexico, make it a protectorate, and fix the damn problems...); others are jingoistic (defined as "my country right or wrong" by my third grade teacher) who see any comments critical of the current administration or the direction this country is headed as providing aid and comfort to our enemies or some such.

How about from a moderator's perspective?:

• The threads often devolve into advocacy, or come close enough that a prosecutor with a stick up his butt could make our lives miserable over it.
• The Smith Act and other like bits of legislation make it pretty clear that some sorts of political speech are not tolerated by our government. That's the way it is, and I'm not willing to take that kind of heat for you, thanks. I don't want to act in a way that seems to encourage that sort of talk.
• All it takes is one idiot like McVeigh to take something he reads online too seriously and act on it. Can anyone spell c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y? I knew you could.

Don't get me wrong -- this is partially about personal culpability should things get out of hand, but it's also about the forum itself. If the board's server gets siezed to be used as "evidence" and never gets back, that'll hurt. If they do like they often seem to and try and grab "all copies" of data, then there goes the backups, and there goes this forum. Don't know about you, but this is my favorite forum on the 'net.

Here's why it's bad for the board itself:

• It presents the wrong image. It's been well-argued above that these kinds of discussions scare off visitors. Anyone know Pax? She started as an honest anti asking questions on TFL, listened to our comments, and followed the reason and evidence. She's now a huge asset to this board, and it's because she came here and saw reasonable, rational people. Talks of revolution and insurrection over the status quo don't strike most people as reasonable and rational -- sorry.

If you want to have these sorts of discussions at all, you're a fool to do it on the 'net or over the phone. Maybe you could get some folks together on I2P or something, but unless you're smart about it you'll still be identifiable.

If you're serious, you'll do whatever you think it is you need to do to get ready. Read. Get off your ass and get in shape. Get whatever equipment you think you'll need. Figure out how to communicate (whether that's VHF HAM radios, or perfecting the perfect one-time pad and programming a Palm application to make it easy to encrypt and decrypt, or whatever). Save up some cash or (if that becomes unavailable) liquid goods. Prepare for the next Katrina. Break in those new Danner boots. Make some local friends who think like you do.

Whatever. But don't do it here. It's the wrong place. Not because of our personal reactions, but because doing so here is just stupid on so many levels.

Sorry, but that's what it is.

 

[thereisnospoon]

DZ,

That was a very good and well thought out post...thank you.

1911 Tuner,

So do you mean to say that our Founding Fathers (those radicals) put the 2A in the Constitution to allow the citizens a last ditch means to thwart all out tyranny...but we shouldn't talk about it, because it makes some people uncomfortable?

And how about those pics??????

I get it, I really do. The MODS have to balance between allowing good healthy debate and protecting THR from over zealous prosecutors, and possibly even the members from themselves. However, isn't there a way to frame the debate as to allow one without the other?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The ballot box still works.
The soap box still works.

Even though I was a fan of Cyril M. Kornbluth's Not This August,
one of the early sci fi novels of the "Tomorrow We Liberate Cleveland"
school that lead to Red Dawn,
the bullet box thankfully is not yet necessary.

But we need to fully use the other two to avoid that necessity.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Political assassinations and revolutionary change tend to backfire.
Think Castro replacing Batista, Stalin replacing the Tsar.
In Animal Farm, the pigs who replaced the farmer began to
think of themselves as more equal than the other equal animals.

Constitutional democratic republics allow for evolutionary change,
in place of revolutionary change required in other systems.

------------------------------------
"Darn" edited to "Farm" It pays to Preview before Post!

 

[1911Tuner]

Radical!

thereisnospoon:

>So do you mean to say that our Founding Fathers (those radicals) put the 2A in the Constitution to allow the citizens a last ditch means to thwart all out tyranny...but we shouldn't talk about it, because it makes some people uncomfortable?<
******************

No. Not because it makes some people uncomfortable. Hell...just the fact that you own a gun makes some people uncomfortable. It's because those uncomfortable people often act when they think they're making the world a safer place for the whales and the children...and start making phone calls to
report you and me and all of us for running what they perceive to be a terrorist chatroom, when the talk drifts too far toward off the scale for reasonable and sane. Better to close a thread that seems to be headed in that direction than to let it go too far...as I've seen a few go.

Does the very good legal advice: "Say it...Don't write it." strike a familiar chord? Did Derek's last post make any sense? Can you read between the lines?