Why we are here: asymmetric warfare.

Hmmmm,

Well, we got into this position incrementally, so that is the only way to get out of it:banghead: !! If we can't all agree on MG, DD, and SBR's, atleast most(hopefully a majority!) of us, can agree on suppressors. That should be our short term goal. Getting suppressors moved to Tiltle I. That would be a BIG step on the right direction. The antis built on the tide of bootleggers of the gangster era, to the idiots of Columbine, to now terrorists, but the truth still lies beneath. A gun, is a gun, is a gun. Firearms only do what they are designed to do. Launch small metal projectiles accurately to a target.

Still 2 Many Choices!?

When it gets set down we could buck a copy over to the CEO of Ford Motor Co while it's still with us...

Better be quick, though.

Those are fairly deep questions. I await the further development of this thread with considerable interest, but absolutely no optimism.

Oleg, Darn It

It's kinda late in the day for you to kick my brain into gear.

The penalty for that is that you get my stream-of-consciousness ramblings.

Tomorrow I'll probably read this and repent, but for now, here we go:

Common goals. As Americans, what are the goals we have in common? Sorry, no Gallup poll for this one.
This is all pretty obvious stuff.

Where we begin to diverge is often in the "how" of these things. Also in little nuanced things, like you will notice I did not include "We want to be safe" in that list. Many of us want that, and to a degree, all of us. However, "be safe" is not a vector quantity, and the "how" of it is a source of much dissension.

Some of us want "to be kept safe" (passive) while others simply want to be allowed "to keep myself safe" (active).

It is here, at the fork in the road called "responsibility" that much of our friction begins.

The people who torment you with demands for "why do you NEED a gun" actually share many of the same common goals that you have.

To bicker with someone over whether a gun is needed is to reinforce certain fixed ideas they already have.

Instead, let us speculate on a conversation:

• You: Let me ask you, what is truly important in your life?
• Him: Why?
• You: Just help me out here; one important thing; what would that be?
• Him: I want peace.
• You: We all do. I'm asking about you personally: your life, something important just to you.
• Him: Well, I want my kids to have good jobs.
• You: Okay. Fair enough.
• Him: And I want to retire in comfort.
• You: Right. Okay. Now, how does being disarmed further that goal?
• Him: What??
• You: Stay with me here. You want your kids to succeed, and you want to make it to retirement and have a decent retirement. Is that a fair summary?
• Him: Well, yeah, but what's that got to do with being armed or not?
• You: It sounded to me like you felt it was important to be disarmed. I was wondering how that contributes to the goals you really value.
• Him: They're really not related.
• You: Do you feel the authorities can keep your kids safe? Can they keep you safe? Can you attain those goals if violence derails your life?
• Him: Well, we're talking very low probabilities here.
• You: Granted. But, like me, you probably carry a spare tire in your car. I haven't changed a flat in ten years. How about you?
• Him: I see where you're going with this. I still don't think people need guns.
• You: Fair enough. I have some goals, too. Some of them sound just like yours. I just don't know that I can depend on the authorities for my safety. I feel like at least part of that's my job.
• Him: Well, I trust the government to do its job.
• You: Okay, then. We're not that different in the things we want from life. I hope you get those things that matter to you.

Click to expand...

And now you're not a nut job.

Sometimes we don't grasp truths all at once. Sometimes the realization is dramatic. Sometimes it's gradual.

If you're not fighting with your fellow man, he has nothing to resist. You cannot push against what does not push back.

They can understand.

Help them see.

"Gun People" tend to be fairly fragmented, and it's really hard to get a deer hunter to care about a duck hunter's restrictions, etc... And some of the rural folks could care less about those in the cities, so CCW is a non-issue with them... Despite the efforts of the NRA, there is not a lot of "let's pull together" going on.

Plus, with the individuality of a lot of the folks, well, sometimes it's "he's pulling that way, so I'm gonna pull the other way. no real reason..."

Or maybe that's pure cussedness.

People watch TV too, and they are prone to mediathink. It's REALLY hard to constantly remind oneself that one should do one's own research, and not take for granted anything one hears on CNN... Or Fox, for that matter...

Hey, and we've got smart people in roughly equal measure to the less-smart... And some of both are highly competitive, bullheaded, and use testosterone as a thought process...

Then there are the folks who, IMHO, have decided to use this open forum as a persuasion tool... You know the ones - "Hillary's not too bad - after all, Bush did say that he'd sign the AWB, and he did start this war in the middle east for no good reason!"

To me the problem transcends guns and gun rights, it is about freedom.
The American people have come to the point that they do not want freedom anymore.
It was funny, I actually heard this on PBS of all places. They were doing a story about how Chile has enacted basically the retirement plan that Bush proposed here in America. One of the Chileans said, "Those who value equality over freedom will have neither. Those that value freedom over equality will have an abundance of both." That may not be an exact quote, but close. I haven't searched to see if one of our founding father's said that, it sure sounds like what they would (it is similar to what Franklin said about security and freedom).
American's no longer value freedom and the individual over equality. They want an equal outcome for everyone. Once you accept the fact that it is the government's job take responsibility for your life (the only way to assure equal outcome), then you accept the fact that it the government's job to protect you. Once you accept that, guns are the problem (when not in governments hands), not the answer.
We are losing the battle despite steps forward in CCW laws and such. Politicians will go with whichever direction the winds blow. The media continues a campaign to demonize guns, the schools continue a campaign to get more dependent on government. Public opinion is not shifting in our favor.
Can we simply roll back the beliefs about guns, while socialism continues its march in all other areas of our lives? I doubt it.
The war of the individual vs. society is underway (and has been since the seeds were planted in the 30's and sprung up in the '60s).
We must get people to cherish the individual's rights over society's perceived needs.
We must get people to value freedom more than equality, as only freedom of the individual leads to true equality.
It's a heck of task, and I am open to suggestions about what to do.
I try to get everyone I can to read, learn, shoot, and vote, but it mostly falls on deaf ears. And lately I have come to the conclusion that even voting is simply a facade to placate the people into thinking they can do something. the choices are always lesser of two evils. Real change will come at the ballot box, BUT ONLY after the hearts and minds of the people have changed.
But, as I have said before, history shows the obscure, seemingly trivial things can produce huge changes, so all is not lost just very dark.
Keep up the fight, lead by example, and thank you Oleg for a place like this that keeps the fight alive!

Okay, I found where the quote comes from:
"A society that puts equality--in the sense of equality of outcome--ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality."
-- Milton Friedman (Free to Choose, 1980)

My version is more succinct.

Can you identify our strengths? How about our weaknesses? What kinds of current self-defeating behaviours can we ill afford?

Click to expand...

Strengths... Strong sense of individual liberty and self actuation, belief in the original founders ideals and limited government. These are also our weaknesses in a modern world where the collective societal herd thunders along waging a war on this and a war on that (ranging from 1930's depression era economy, crime and some drugs), expecting a government force (backed by big business dollars) to resolve the complex problems that legislation has brought about. As for self-defeating behaviour... burying our individual heads in the sand and wishing it would go away; or as Ben Franklin wrote, "We must hang together, or surely we shall hang separately". Or, to borrow a motto from the Band of Brothers (101st) "We Stand Alone, Together"

What are our goals? Who are our allies of principle or convenience?

Click to expand...

One could write several different doctoral thesis' on desired goals, be they political, legal, economic, etc... suffice it to say that from my own point of view, a return to the visions that Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and (to some degree) Adams (as well as others) originated oh so long ago.

I wonder if a mandatory "militia service", ala founding fathers/Swiss/Israeli/Heinlien "Starship Troopers" would indoctrinate the collective (while at an impressionable age) into a mindset that recognizes and honors individuality yet acknowledges the need for group or collective action when faced with a common enemy... all the while I deplore mandatory anything (knowing full well that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs).

Allies of principle or convenience... I'll need some time to ponder this one. It's off to work I must go.

The American people have come to the point that they do not want freedom anymore.

Click to expand...

BINGO! Ding, ding, ding!

The perceived value of freedom is at an all time low. Very few are willing to pay the daily price of freedom, which remains as high as ever. To talk of "freedom" is to be labeleda part of the fringe element. This taints all public discussion.

Arfin Greebly wrote:

"Common goals. As Americans, what are the goals we have in common? Sorry, no Gallup poll for this one.

Americans have some things in common that could be called irreducible minimums.
We want to be healthy.
We want our kids to grow up and succeed.
We want to be free to go where we want when we want.
We want to be adequately compensated for our efforts.
We want to know that, not only will we ourselves not be enslaved, but also that our sons and their sons will not be enslaved.
We want to have free access to knowledge.
We want to be able to leave a meaningful legacy for our posterity.
While we may not necessarily want to be famous, we want our lives to matter.
We thrive on challenge.
We want life to be interesting.
We want to win.

This is all pretty obvious stuff."

I think, however, that the (so-called) average American believes something like this (I'll comment inside his words):

Common goals. As Americans, what are the goals we have in common? Sorry, no Gallup poll for this one.

Americans have some things in common that could be called irreducible minimums.
We want to be healthy.
But we don't think we should have to watch what we eat, exercise, or pay for health care.
We want our kids to grow up and succeed.
As long as we don't have to put any effort into teaching them or pay high tuition fees.
We want to be free to go where we want when we want.
We want the government to protect us wherever we go and we want cheap gas and airfare.
We want to be adequately compensated for our efforts.
We want the government to guarantee a minimum wage and protect us from our own incompetence and from our co-workers.
We want to know that, not only will we ourselves not be enslaved, but also that our sons and their sons will not be enslaved.
We really don't mind being enslaved by the govenment, as long as it's for our own good. Liberty carries with it responsibility, and that's too scary for me.
We want to have free access to knowledge.
But we don't want to work for it or pay for it. Free internet access for everyone, everywhere.
We want to be able to leave a meaningful legacy for our posterity.
But we don't want to have to be an American. I want *my* heritage, not America's! Our children must remember our roots.
While we may not necessarily want to be famous, we want our lives to matter.
All we really want are bread and circuses. Keep ESPN and HBO working (cheaply) and make sure our cell phone battery stays charged.
We thrive on challenge.
Too scary! I need to rest in my Laxy Boy recliner. All this thinking tires me out.
We want life to be interesting.
I need American Idol adn Survivor. Vicarious experiences are the best form of fun.
We want to win.
Just don't make me practice before the game. And, it has to be fair; no keeping score.

This is all pretty obvious stuff.
It is? To you and me, maybe but not to the general population.

JB

To me the problem transcends guns and gun rights, it is about freedom.
The American people have come to the point that they do not want freedom anymore.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It's not that many Americans don't want freedom, I think it's that they don't want RESPONSIBILITY. If you stand up for something you may have to do some work or face some unpleasantness.

I have a friend who drives me nutz with this sort of thing. He moans constantly about govt involvement in our lives and every time I suggest things he might do to be more independant (and maybe a little more free) he is all for it right up until the point he realizes that it might mean he has to either do without something or do learn to do some dirty job for himself.

You should have heard the conversation where he was worried about the influence of television programming on his kids. I suggested simply getting rid of the TV (or unhooking it and just using a vcr to watch selected tapes). You'd have thought I suggested burning down his house!

:banghead:

It's not that many Americans don't want freedom, I think it's that they don't want RESPONSIBILITY.

Click to expand...

I think ZeSpectre is correct here.

Add to that the fact that most people really don't understand that they cannot have freedom without responsibility ... or that you can give up a little freedom for a little responsibility and government will stop with that.


Most people don't understand that when you give power to government that it will never get to the point where it says "No thank you, I've got enough power." It will ALWAYS try to take more and more and more. If you give up a little power now thinking "well that's a freedom I wouldn't use anyway" you'll awaken one day with no freedom left.

Well sure, the reason they don't want freedom is because of the responsibility that it demands. None the less, in the end it IS freedom that they do not want (what they say, is irrelevant).

Well, I think the first step to coming up with a plan, is to identify exactly what is the problem.
For instance, if we are simply fighting for gun rights, then I believe all is lost.
If socialism is allowed to grow un-checked in everything else in our lives, while we work hard to simply hold onto our gun rights, we are simply delaying the inevitable.
The two biggest assaults (that I see it) are public school education and the media. I have a background in radio, and I often wonder if I should not try to get a weekend show discussing the shooting sports (and freedom overall).
If you have children, and you can home school, I would suggest it.
Getting the rights of the individual over the society, is a tough sale. To understand and appreciate, you must put in some work. To let the government take care it for you, is easy. There must be a carrot, beyond the feeling of doing the right thing, that will lead the masses to understand.
Trying to rally people to take more responsibility is just a lost cause (though still worth working on).

The younger generations have also been HEAVILY indoctrinated... I mean, look at the average sub-25 new member here? Odds are the only thing they know about firearms involves movies, video games, airsoft or paintball. Or that guns are eeevil...

The anti-folks know how to push our buttons too... After all, some of them have spent endless hours debating, learning the art of twistable logic...

Babalouie:

I wonder if a mandatory "militia service", ala founding fathers/Swiss/Israeli/Heinlien "Starship Troopers" would indoctrinate the collective (while at an impressionable age) into a mindset that recognizes and honors individuality yet acknowledges the need for group or collective action when faced with a common enemy...

Click to expand...

Your resident Finnish conscript reservist / citizen soldier here. A militia service indeed does something of the sort, and plenty of other good things.

1. I say that any society that relies on mercenaries for its security will wind up a strictly stratified class society where the proles will be ruled by a privileged elite protected with hired arms. Case in point becoming gradually apparent uncomfortably close to most members here.

2. A citizen army, or a well-regulated militia if you will, instead of a standing army has a calming effect on society. Standing armies tend to have an inherent need to justify their existence at regular intervals. Case in point: recent SWAT discussions.

3. On top of which, there is the world peace aspect: try to tell an army of civilians to leave their jobs, homes and loved ones go attack a country on another continent... a good, loud, collective "kiss my heinie", anybody? You can't wage a war if nobody shows.

Even with this being opened up by Oleg, I am not so sure that this is the best venue to discuss " Why we are here: asymmetric warfare."
Answers to this thread are bound to be controversial, and contentious. I can't see where the moderators will allow a discussion.

Furious

The Smith Act . . . has been modified. It's one of those "words mean things" events where, over time, the words of the Act have come to mean something besides the original intent.

You see, nowadays, it's okay to advocate the overthrow of the government, provided you're Socialist or Communist, or if you're a member of certain recognized downtrodden minorities. Or celebrities. Or certain politicians.

If you're a member of [privileged group] you can get air time for the "down with America" schtick. You will be hailed as a hero. Billionaires will sponsor your "Bring Down America" tour. Heck, certain groups can just come out and assert they're going to destroy not just the government, but the whole culture. And this is completely okay. Page One, above the fold.

Persons still prohibited from discussion of "how to fix America before it becomes a tyranny" are those groups whose name contains any of the words: patriot, militia, freedom, survival, liberty, independence, constitution, second amendment, or veteran.

Just so we're clear on that.

Sedition is still prohibited. For some of us.

This is definately a thought provoking thread. There are some really good responses. I can not stand typing long stories so my replies will always be short, but I do enjoy the reading. This would also be a great roundtable discussion. Any one live in Jersey?

Your best shot might be the same tactics the anti's use - wait for a crisis and then harness the backlash. Pretty general, though.

Most laws are put out there specifically to give the average guy hope that it won't affect him, like when they put up random roadblocks and search everyone, Joe Public is led to believe he won't be affected if he's not drunk when in reality he's in for a rough ride if he has any contraband, doesn't look good, or act extremely polite, or meets any 'profiles'.

You could wait for some law to be passed and then spread the word that it will affect everyone horribly, that it will definitely hurt them. That's also what the Anti's do to pass gun control, they exaggerate quite a bit and scare people.

Most likely an entire state or district would have to be so concerned as to reassert sort of 'independence' from new laws and regulations, sort of go back to basics, and announce all legislation since some arbitrary date, like WW1, is being 'reviewed'. Then the Feds would cut off all money to them, and would demonstrate their real nature. When an entire geographic area of people is being cordoned off, then 'who has the power' might become a relevant discussion again. And if the feds used any force or brinkmanship, the essence of your 2nd amendment might become painfully obvious to the majority.

Well, speaking of strengths, we used to have shooting competitions. Not so long ago, schools, companies, counties, states, etc, had rifle and pistol teams. I joined a rifle team when I was 12 or so.
Presently, it seems like interest has dropped, because it's something very difficult and demanding that you can do with a rifle or pistol that has very little to do with your ability to survive a lethal force encounter. But it's fun. No need to get all sweaty, stick your hand in someone's face, or trash talk... just performance and results, with feedback from coaches. It's sad how fast traditional marksmanship competition seems to be falling out of fashion. How you shoot in timed competition against 200 of your peers with the same training and coaching and maybe the same rifle is an objective fact, and it's a fact every shooter needs to face to improve.

Which brings me to something against us; television and the movies. I'm an NRA basic pistol instructor, and I see a lot of people who already have strange ideas. People who do incredibly complex, difficult and dangerous things all day long have difficulty realizing that watching CSI hasn't taught them all they need to know about firearm safety in general. Most of my students can absorb everything in the course in under 8 hours, and profit from further instruction. But they start off with unrealistic ideas and expectations. Somewhere, wires are crossed.

To my way of thinking, the sheer joy of doing something well is what needs to be acknowledged, and we need a few dozen more postal matches for young shooters. It's a fraction of a solution, but as a young man I loved being a competitor, even though several young women beat me soundly.

Today in America:

On one hand we have the socialists, interested in seeing that the government act to ensure equality and a minimum level of resources for everyone. These forces will continue to pressure the government for resources. The government will bow to those demands and increase taxes on the middle class to provide the resources.

Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more.

On the other hand we the forces of capitalism, represented today by corporations. They are interested in milking every product for every single farthing they can. Subtle ways, (like why are we paying 9/10s of a cent for any product?) to more directly manipulative ways, like pressuring the government to increase the length of copyright to keep media out of the public domain. Corporations wish to increase their power at the expense of the public.

It's the kingdom they would rule.

These two forces are duking it out to see who really controls the country. The government is at best a brain dead zombie and at worst a tool of one force or the other. Actually, at worst the government is a tool of both at the same time. Leaving the public, specifically the middle class, defenseless and ready to be shorn by both factions.

Of course the final check and balance is a free and armed public. The last time things got so bad, the depression, the forces of socialism weren't so entrenched. People really went into freefall when they lost their job. My big concern is that things won't get so bad that we'll see things like hoovervilles and robber gangs. Or those signs will be present, but the media (corporations) will help the government sweep them under the rug. These obvious, unavoidable signs of social decay forced the government to take steps to intercede on behalf of the middle class. With socialist forces providing a safety net I wonder if a modern depression would have the same results?

Of course during the depression socialist and communist political organizations really started gaining momentum globally. Worldwide government reaction to this was gun control.