On Concealed Carry and the NRA
- Thread starter xd9fan
- Start date
- Status
Correia...spot on.
That's exactly what I was about to post.
Look at the initial post.
And then wonder why Pat Freakin' Buchanan got more votes than Badnarik did in the last presidential election.
The older I get, the more I realize how smart I was to NOT join the Libertarian party several years ago.
hillbilly
That's exactly what I was about to post.
Look at the initial post.
And then wonder why Pat Freakin' Buchanan got more votes than Badnarik did in the last presidential election.
The older I get, the more I realize how smart I was to NOT join the Libertarian party several years ago.
hillbilly
carebear
Member
Again, the anti-gunners are being pragmatic in the pursuit of idealistic absolutes.
We will win by doing the same thing in reverse, while remembering our ultimate ideal goals.
Pragmatism and baby-steps is simply putting the statists into the hot water (instead of us right-thinkers) for a change.
Absolute adherence to a belief that only the ideal, all at once, will do is a quick and short road to frustration and failure.
Like that idiot in Wisconsin, poisoning the efforts of folks who are actually on the way to accomplishing something.
We will win by doing the same thing in reverse, while remembering our ultimate ideal goals.
Pragmatism and baby-steps is simply putting the statists into the hot water (instead of us right-thinkers) for a change.
Absolute adherence to a belief that only the ideal, all at once, will do is a quick and short road to frustration and failure.
Like that idiot in Wisconsin, poisoning the efforts of folks who are actually on the way to accomplishing something.
xd9fan
Member
antsi and armedbear, the last time I looked at the Bill of Rights,......it sounded pretty ideal. No need to "strategize, incrementalize, or work toward any intermediate goal."
Words like "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are crystal clear statements. The intent of the Bill of Rights is not pragmatic!! (a bill of rights.....overtime)
I understand the Pragmatic approach, its just not consistant with the language and intent of the Bill Of Rights. And the pragmatic approach invites a these little "wars" of back and forth incrementalism. Which waste time, energy, money....and lives. (the right of self-protection)
Words like "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are crystal clear statements. The intent of the Bill of Rights is not pragmatic!! (a bill of rights.....overtime)
I understand the Pragmatic approach, its just not consistant with the language and intent of the Bill Of Rights. And the pragmatic approach invites a these little "wars" of back and forth incrementalism. Which waste time, energy, money....and lives. (the right of self-protection)
carebear
Member
xd9,
You're right about what should be, but write me a scenario where can we get back to how it "should be" in just a year or two.
Now write me one where we don't descend into civil war doing it.
I'll take a multi-generational shift to get back to what it took a multi-generational shift to get away from over another internecine slaughter any day, as long as the outcome is the same in the end.
I hate to be an advocate for realpolitik but a paradigm shift of that magnitude just ain't gonna happen, not here in the really real world.
The "waiting for a hallelujah moment" mentality left us with no carry rights whatsoever for decades in most states. The "slow and steady" approach has at least gotten us a better and better situation year after year.
The absolutists have absolutely nothing to show for their stridency.
You're right about what should be, but write me a scenario where can we get back to how it "should be" in just a year or two.
Now write me one where we don't descend into civil war doing it.
I'll take a multi-generational shift to get back to what it took a multi-generational shift to get away from over another internecine slaughter any day, as long as the outcome is the same in the end.
I hate to be an advocate for realpolitik but a paradigm shift of that magnitude just ain't gonna happen, not here in the really real world.
The "waiting for a hallelujah moment" mentality left us with no carry rights whatsoever for decades in most states. The "slow and steady" approach has at least gotten us a better and better situation year after year.
The absolutists have absolutely nothing to show for their stridency.
Here is an example of exactly that... Roe vs. Wade overrode set in stone laws against abortion in almost every State in the Union. One little decision by the Supreme Court almost instantly overturns hundreds of laws.
A decision by the Supreme Court could easily turn back the clock on most of the insane gun control law on the books. All they would have to do is take the 2nd at what it means and gun control just melts away. "The right of the people" means your right and my right, not the State's "rights". "Bear arms" means any and all arms, not what arms the government decides. "Infringe" means infringe and that means I decide what, when, where and how I bear the arms of my choosing.
Now I am not saying that the current Supreme Court would decide correctly, but I think that is the push that should be made... cause let’s face it... A strict reading of the 2nd is squarely against almost all gun control and would easily eliminate it if enforced like it should be.
Piecemealing and incrementally adding new law to counter old law is just building a tangled web that only the most talented attorney can figure out… and that is crap. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... HA That statement no longer applies with the mess the laws are in now.
KISS… Keep It Simple S….. The 2nd already is simple… Let’s get back to it and start unraveling the gun control web we have made…. Cause like the spider’s web… it is really just a trap for the innocent.
A decision by the Supreme Court could easily turn back the clock on most of the insane gun control law on the books. All they would have to do is take the 2nd at what it means and gun control just melts away. "The right of the people" means your right and my right, not the State's "rights". "Bear arms" means any and all arms, not what arms the government decides. "Infringe" means infringe and that means I decide what, when, where and how I bear the arms of my choosing.
Now I am not saying that the current Supreme Court would decide correctly, but I think that is the push that should be made... cause let’s face it... A strict reading of the 2nd is squarely against almost all gun control and would easily eliminate it if enforced like it should be.
Piecemealing and incrementally adding new law to counter old law is just building a tangled web that only the most talented attorney can figure out… and that is crap. Ignorance of the law is no excuse... HA That statement no longer applies with the mess the laws are in now.
KISS… Keep It Simple S….. The 2nd already is simple… Let’s get back to it and start unraveling the gun control web we have made…. Cause like the spider’s web… it is really just a trap for the innocent.
-----quote-------
Here is an example of exactly that... Roe vs. Wade overrode set in stone laws against abortion in almost every State in the Union. One little decision by the Supreme Court almost instantly overturns hundreds of laws.
-----------------
Waiting for a magic decision by the Supreme Court to fix everything is a dicey proposition - they could just as easily go against us.
Recent courts have tried to avoid the kind of "this changes everything" decisions like Roe v. Wade anyhow. Instead they tend to decide cases on very narrow grounds. We're a lot more likely to get a hodgepodge of "reasonable" restrictions combined with some overturned restrictions if we go this way.
Also - if you really are interested in solving RKBA through the Supreme Court, you darn well better be willing to work incrementally - as in, electing presidents and congresses who are likely to nominate and approve justices who will read the constitution according to its intent. If you want that to actually happen, you're not going to be voting for niche idealist parties who have no chance of actually getting elected. While you're "building up the base" for your obscure idealist political party, the Democrats are going to be stacking the Court with left-wing ideologues who think the Second Ammendment is about the states' rights to maintain a National Guard and squirt guns should be banned because they foster aggressive attitudes in children.
Again, a viable strategy of working through the supreme court is going to be even more incrementalist than working through the legislatures.
Throwing up a 2nd ammendment case to the likes of Souter, Kennedy, and whats-her-name could set us back by 30 years.
Here is an example of exactly that... Roe vs. Wade overrode set in stone laws against abortion in almost every State in the Union. One little decision by the Supreme Court almost instantly overturns hundreds of laws.
-----------------
Waiting for a magic decision by the Supreme Court to fix everything is a dicey proposition - they could just as easily go against us.
Recent courts have tried to avoid the kind of "this changes everything" decisions like Roe v. Wade anyhow. Instead they tend to decide cases on very narrow grounds. We're a lot more likely to get a hodgepodge of "reasonable" restrictions combined with some overturned restrictions if we go this way.
Also - if you really are interested in solving RKBA through the Supreme Court, you darn well better be willing to work incrementally - as in, electing presidents and congresses who are likely to nominate and approve justices who will read the constitution according to its intent. If you want that to actually happen, you're not going to be voting for niche idealist parties who have no chance of actually getting elected. While you're "building up the base" for your obscure idealist political party, the Democrats are going to be stacking the Court with left-wing ideologues who think the Second Ammendment is about the states' rights to maintain a National Guard and squirt guns should be banned because they foster aggressive attitudes in children.
Again, a viable strategy of working through the supreme court is going to be even more incrementalist than working through the legislatures.
Throwing up a 2nd ammendment case to the likes of Souter, Kennedy, and whats-her-name could set us back by 30 years.
-------quote---------
antsi and armedbear, the last time I looked at the Bill of Rights,......it sounded pretty ideal. No need to "strategize, incrementalize, or work toward any intermediate goal."
---------------------
Again, you are confusing between how things ought to be and how things actually are - between how you would like things to happen and actually making them happen.
If you want to actually accomplish anything, you're going to have to set realistic achievable goals and work like hades to make them happen.
If you want to sit on the couch and complain while the Democrats and Bradys whittle away your rights, then your strategy will work wonderfully well.
antsi and armedbear, the last time I looked at the Bill of Rights,......it sounded pretty ideal. No need to "strategize, incrementalize, or work toward any intermediate goal."
---------------------
Again, you are confusing between how things ought to be and how things actually are - between how you would like things to happen and actually making them happen.
If you want to actually accomplish anything, you're going to have to set realistic achievable goals and work like hades to make them happen.
If you want to sit on the couch and complain while the Democrats and Bradys whittle away your rights, then your strategy will work wonderfully well.
The argument of every Tory begins this way--with an attempt to excuse the acceptance of oppression. Remember it.
Edit: oops, I forgot he's from Stalinois--I should cut him some slack. Propaganda gets through to some strong minds eventually too.
WayneConrad
Member
Pragmatism is how idealism gets done.
learn2shoot
Member
Baby steps and momentum
Can you move a loaded boxcar by yourself, by hand? Of course not. Nobody can do that. They can weight 100 tons or more. Your puny 180 pounds (or whatever) doesn't have a prayer of moving 100 tons - even on wheels.
Believe it or not, I have a friend whose job it was to move boxcars by hand. As he explained it, you get a big long pry bar and wedge it under a wheel of the boxcar. You get on the end of the pry bar and hang all your weight, and wait ... the boxcar will move almost imperceptibly - maybe a quarter inch. You do that again and again and each time it moves a little farther until pretty soon it's rolling along at mile or two an hour and you can't stop it. Moving boxcars by hand ... this is what we're doing in our fight for gun rights.
(Credit where credit is due - This was stolen word for word from an email from http://www.marylandshallissue.org)
If we demand VT style CCW it will fail in places like CA and NY. But if we get all states to have CCW in some form then move to improve. We already have 2 states where a permit is not required, but other states like VA have had bill intorduced. Maybe Florida is next? Removing restrictions one by one increase the people who are willing to carry this increases momentum. We need to keep up the fight.
I feel one of the best methods is to teach new shooters. I have personally introduced a few people to shooting who now are active politically and are introducing others to shooting. rolling rolling rolling....
Can you move a loaded boxcar by yourself, by hand? Of course not. Nobody can do that. They can weight 100 tons or more. Your puny 180 pounds (or whatever) doesn't have a prayer of moving 100 tons - even on wheels.
Believe it or not, I have a friend whose job it was to move boxcars by hand. As he explained it, you get a big long pry bar and wedge it under a wheel of the boxcar. You get on the end of the pry bar and hang all your weight, and wait ... the boxcar will move almost imperceptibly - maybe a quarter inch. You do that again and again and each time it moves a little farther until pretty soon it's rolling along at mile or two an hour and you can't stop it. Moving boxcars by hand ... this is what we're doing in our fight for gun rights.
(Credit where credit is due - This was stolen word for word from an email from http://www.marylandshallissue.org)
If we demand VT style CCW it will fail in places like CA and NY. But if we get all states to have CCW in some form then move to improve. We already have 2 states where a permit is not required, but other states like VA have had bill intorduced. Maybe Florida is next? Removing restrictions one by one increase the people who are willing to carry this increases momentum. We need to keep up the fight.
I feel one of the best methods is to teach new shooters. I have personally introduced a few people to shooting who now are active politically and are introducing others to shooting. rolling rolling rolling....
xd9fan
Member
In the End, maybe you are right.......I'm just really pi$$ed that I will never see that day nor will my kids. I really dont think that day will come without another civil war. There is not a year that goes by that the Govt does not get stronger.....and both the parties and "the people" welcome it.
corny or not, I will have a hard time telling my kids about how brave, direct and righteous the first generation was, and that yes words mean things (ie the langauge bill of Rights) but only if the Govt ok's it.
On the list of "cant have it both ways", the problem of american socialism/statism is top dog. And I get tired of "adults" telling me that somethings take time. Makes me think they have got other agendas on thier mind.
Being an idealist, I just like the consistancy of the FF language, clear and direct. Its how I live my life and raise my kids. And now with Conservatives in the minority of the GOP, (where the hell are they?) I have really no faith in thinking real change will happen. We will just get more of the bills/laws like headline reads "House Approves Blocking Police from Seizing Legal Guns During Disasters"
ok great but I thought we have a Bill of Right that said hands off. This law means nothing. This one little example (by the rino's) shows me that they(the Govt) really dont respect the BofR's. (why would they ...its an anti govt list)
The Govt has great representation.....I wish the Bill of Rights did too.
My mother always told me that I see things "too black and white"....I tell her "thats because the world is too gray." Words mean things.....follow them or dont. (You can imagine the problem I'm having with the lack of ANY fiscal Conservatives in Govt today).....pass the nitro.......
sparx
Member
From one shooter to another, I THANK YOU learn2shoot!
That's how this is all going to come about if we are ever going to have it swing back into our favor. As it stands right now, all the media hype, falsehoods and outright lies we're all up against, which in large is the root cause of the vast ignorance of gun rights sentiments others have against RKBA, is what's stopping others from realizing what we will become if the rot is not stopped.
Yes, there may be a lot of gun owners in America, but how many of them, such as myself less than a year ago, fall for the vast majority of BS that's dribbled over us day after day by the media. Without someone else, such as a friend or an acquaintance that can rationally point out some of this crud that is being heaped upon us, often during one-on-one conversations at that, others just like I used to be will continue to drift along "feeling" they are safe without even realizing that there's a shark circling in the water below.
What better way to begin, or continue to have these conversations without coming across as a "gun nut" or "extremist" to someone else that might not be as involved in your sport, hobby or profession as yourself? Why invite them to your favorite range for some fun! What better place to plant or nurture the seed that guns and shooting are not only fun, can be TONS safer than driving or a score of other sports, and are our rights that shouldn't be infringed upon but are being eroded away by the antis as we have failed to give due diligence to protecting those rights.
I've seen bumper stickers out there that say "Have you hugged your kid today?"... I think we need one that says,
"Have you taught someone how to shoot today?"
Last edited:
xd9fan, you and L.Neil Smith can sit back in your Libertarian moral purity and wait for the civil war then.
Personally, me and the rest of the "tories" are going to keep fighting. I've taught a couple hundred people to shoot in order to get thier Vichy handout socialist concealed weapons permits. Some of them have used their communistically allowed guns to defend themselves. I suppose they should have just died, since that would have been more ideaologically pure. I'm supposed to testify in front of the state legislature next session in favor of Vermont/Alaska style carry, but I suppose I should probably stay home, because you know, this kind of thing shouldn't even be discussed.
Look, I love the bill of rights. I love being an American. And I wish that it worked the way that you want it to, but the fact is, it doesn't. No matter how much L. Neil or you want our government to be pure as the driven snow, it ain't gonna happen. Not now, not ever.
You want a revolution? I don't think you have a clue what that would entail. And usually the people I hear talking about that kind of thing the loudest on the internet or in the gun stores, have done the absolute least to actually fight for our rights. If people can't be bothered to be politcally active now, I'm supposed to believe that they are going to turn into Rambo when the bullets start to fly?
Be mighty careful how you start throwing around the word Tory. There are "tories" on this board who have done a thousand times more for gunrights than you ever have.
Personally, me and the rest of the "tories" are going to keep fighting. I've taught a couple hundred people to shoot in order to get thier Vichy handout socialist concealed weapons permits. Some of them have used their communistically allowed guns to defend themselves. I suppose they should have just died, since that would have been more ideaologically pure. I'm supposed to testify in front of the state legislature next session in favor of Vermont/Alaska style carry, but I suppose I should probably stay home, because you know, this kind of thing shouldn't even be discussed.
Look, I love the bill of rights. I love being an American. And I wish that it worked the way that you want it to, but the fact is, it doesn't. No matter how much L. Neil or you want our government to be pure as the driven snow, it ain't gonna happen. Not now, not ever.
You want a revolution? I don't think you have a clue what that would entail. And usually the people I hear talking about that kind of thing the loudest on the internet or in the gun stores, have done the absolute least to actually fight for our rights. If people can't be bothered to be politcally active now, I'm supposed to believe that they are going to turn into Rambo when the bullets start to fly?
Be mighty careful how you start throwing around the word Tory. There are "tories" on this board who have done a thousand times more for gunrights than you ever have.
Camp David
member
Correia said:
Correia: Let me start by thanking you for your response... I expected it since the start of this thread. That said, however, let me try to defend xd9fan, L.Neil Smith, and my own belief...
For starters, we appreciate all the gun advocacy you and many others perform day to day... It is not unappreciated by anyone who carries a gun and we are in your debt... However, there are those, such as xd9fan, L.Neil Smith, and I, that simply take exception to having to apply to a state court, with a needlessly detailed form and a significant financial fee, in order to get a permit to do something guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. That's the issue in a nutshell.
We are not, by any means, against you and your gun advocacy. Quite the contrary. We support you wholeheartedly.
Earlier in this thread I made an analogy between the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment which I think is valid and appropriate. What if you had to get a permit to post in this thread, and exercise your 1st Amendment free speech rights. Would you be content to do that? If not, why are so many content to get a permit to do what the 2nd Amendment guarantees? That is the issue.
I appreciate your efforts to secure gun rights. You are right in this endeavor.
But my own opinion is this: Anyone that goes to the trouble of applying for and paying for a concealed weapon permit is being hoodwinked by local and/or state rules that are trumped by the federal Bill of Rights. I have no doubt that soon a case will be lodged with the Courts to nullify all concealed weapons permits as totally unnecessary.
Once again, our fight, and disagreement, is not with you. It is with the courts.
Camp David
Thanks, Camp David. I appreciate that. I just get my dander up when I hear the word Tory getting bandied about.
I hate the whole idea of having to apply for permission to carry a gun. I think it is horrible, but it beats being unarmed or getting arrested for carrying.
I hate the whole idea of having to apply for permission to carry a gun. I think it is horrible, but it beats being unarmed or getting arrested for carrying.
carebear
Member
Without permit laws of some kind, until that magical court case overturning decades of existing law (somehow also guaranteeing the 2nd is applied in full force to state govenrments as well) happens , we are stuck with "better tried by 12, than carried by six".
At least you mention that a permit law might be a worthwhile thing to have in the meantime. I'd rather not go to jail for carrying illegally under the laws that exist now in the real world. Here in the really real world, I'd be broke hoping to get a higher court to look at my case from a 2nd Amendment perspective to get the law overturned as unConstitutional.
Since none of the absolutists seem to have the guts to stand up and get themselves arrested as a sacrificial test case for that lawsuit, I'd rather choose the path that is actually working toward the end goal but allows me to be armed without the risk of jail time.
Additionally, If we can get hard case law that codifies what the 2nd says (using what we know it to mean as the base) we make it that much harder for future courts to reinterpret the Amendment again.
Think of it this way. For a century the 2nd meant just what it says and it was interpreted as such, so no one felt the need to enshrine its protections into case law. When the anti's came to power that meant there were no existing laws they had to fight to overturn, they just wrote laws onto a blank slate and then defined their "interpretation" as Constitutional. Having actual state laws stating that all citizens have the right to carry arms unencumbered by governmental interference creates an additional barrier to future attempts to overturn what should be the plain meaning of the 2nd.
, we are stuck with "better tried by 12, than carried by six". At least you mention that a permit law might be a worthwhile thing to have in the meantime. I'd rather not go to jail for carrying illegally under the laws that exist now in the real world. Here in the really real world, I'd be broke hoping to get a higher court to look at my case from a 2nd Amendment perspective to get the law overturned as unConstitutional.
Since none of the absolutists seem to have the guts to stand up and get themselves arrested as a sacrificial test case for that lawsuit, I'd rather choose the path that is actually working toward the end goal but allows me to be armed without the risk of jail time.
Additionally, If we can get hard case law that codifies what the 2nd says (using what we know it to mean as the base) we make it that much harder for future courts to reinterpret the Amendment again.
Think of it this way. For a century the 2nd meant just what it says and it was interpreted as such, so no one felt the need to enshrine its protections into case law. When the anti's came to power that meant there were no existing laws they had to fight to overturn, they just wrote laws onto a blank slate and then defined their "interpretation" as Constitutional. Having actual state laws stating that all citizens have the right to carry arms unencumbered by governmental interference creates an additional barrier to future attempts to overturn what should be the plain meaning of the 2nd.
Autolycus
Member
There are hundreds of people getting aressted. Its just that we want to pick the perfect case. Anytime someone is arrested here in IL they are charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon (UUW). We had a guy who was arrested for the fannypack carry law here. IT was a few years ago.
But anytime you read about someone being arrested with a gun you are passing a potential case. IE Someone who is a felon being charged with weapons possession or something along those lines is just as valid. The 2nd A. does not specify must be of good moral character.
And for the record I am a pragmatist with idealistic goals.
But anytime you read about someone being arrested with a gun you are passing a potential case. IE Someone who is a felon being charged with weapons possession or something along those lines is just as valid. The 2nd A. does not specify must be of good moral character.
And for the record I am a pragmatist with idealistic goals.
Yes. That is true.
However, Roe v. Wade was, no matter what SCOTUS might try to say, a result of a lot of small social changes -- like them or not. It only seemed to be a bombshell.
This is true about most SC decisions that reverse precedent. The idea that the SC is not caught in the tidal wave of changing social mores, opinion trends, aesthetic fads, etc. is a myth.
At one time, "separate but equal" public schools (which weren't so equal, of course) were deemed Constitutional! Why? Because racism was de rigeur in America, and most of the world. Then, the decision was reversed. Why? Because over time, a critical mass of people began to see racism as morally wrong. SCOTUS just affirmed what a lot of people already believed, one way or another.
Want a solid SC decision affirming the 2nd Amendment? Then make sure that much of the the world in which the decision is made has already accepted it.
Why did Kelo happen? Years of eminent domain abuse and incremental changes to justifications (actual public use like a park or road, to "blight" meaning burned out neighborhoods, to "blight" meaning houses that aren't as shiny as new ones, and finally to the "public benefit" from the city's collecting higher taxes on seized property if they played it right) led to a decision that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago. SCOTUS is not immune from political newspeak and doublethink!
Otherguy Overby
member
Making a good argument.
Okay wot makes a good argument? When most parties have something "right" to hang their hats on.
It sure seems to me that "pragmatic" has lead us where we are now. What better way to undermine the "idealistic" Second Amendment?
After the Civil War, many didn't want freed slaves to have guns, they might be able to defend themselves from drunken racists. So, "pragmatism" was used to enable the first iteration of gun control. Sure it was racist, but it worked, until someone played the "race" card (except later for the Irish & the Sullivan Act, and Johnny Cochran, of course). So the next iteration ostensibly applied to "all" but really only applied to minorities was then trotted out. A really pragmatic approach to corralling that pesky Second Ammendment, again?
So, here we are now, subject to laws that were never originally intended to apply to all.. Now we are all Nig**** as far as much of our current government cares.
So, what we are now facing is: Will the "New World Order" UN and Non-Governmental Organizations convince our "elected" "Torries" to apply "pragmatism" to finally stamp out any pesky Second Ammendment "idealism" while on their own way to "idealism?"
Historically, the 34 NFA was yet another "pragmatic" end run on that pesky Second Amendment. They couldn't ban them at the time, so they taxed them to create something illegal (applying the already proven federal anti-drug strategy).
So, who's "pragmatism" is going to win?
Otherguy, sitting here, applying another layer of foil and oiling the propellor on my beanie...
Okay wot makes a good argument? When most parties have something "right" to hang their hats on.
It sure seems to me that "pragmatic" has lead us where we are now. What better way to undermine the "idealistic" Second Amendment?
After the Civil War, many didn't want freed slaves to have guns, they might be able to defend themselves from drunken racists. So, "pragmatism" was used to enable the first iteration of gun control. Sure it was racist, but it worked, until someone played the "race" card (except later for the Irish & the Sullivan Act, and Johnny Cochran, of course). So the next iteration ostensibly applied to "all" but really only applied to minorities was then trotted out. A really pragmatic approach to corralling that pesky Second Ammendment, again?
So, here we are now, subject to laws that were never originally intended to apply to all.. Now we are all Nig**** as far as much of our current government cares.
So, what we are now facing is: Will the "New World Order" UN and Non-Governmental Organizations convince our "elected" "Torries" to apply "pragmatism" to finally stamp out any pesky Second Ammendment "idealism" while on their own way to "idealism?"
Historically, the 34 NFA was yet another "pragmatic" end run on that pesky Second Amendment. They couldn't ban them at the time, so they taxed them to create something illegal (applying the already proven federal anti-drug strategy).
So, who's "pragmatism" is going to win?
Otherguy, sitting here, applying another layer of foil and oiling the propellor on my beanie...
carebear
Member
Ours is on the upswing lately, 46 states with shall issue of some kind now isn't it, from a handful 20 years ago? Every year restrictions on that carry being removed in states across the country. One state (Alaska) going "Vermont Carry" in about a decade. The sunsetting of Brady with no renewal, the Protection of lawful commerce act holding up in the courts.
I'd say ours is winning.
Pro-gun Pragmatists: umpteen and counting
Idealists: um, uh, hmmmmmmm But, at least we're RIGHT!
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
That's been done, to no discernable effect. The cases turned on other points before even approaching the central question to us.
What we in the pro rkba community have learned from it is that such maneuvers are not for amateurs.
There's even been a few shootouts between absolutists and police over the issue, again with no discernable effect. (Of course, the press reports make it out to be something other than what it was...)
This game has high stakes, and we'd better be prepared to play it with our _brains_, as well as our other virtues.
Gordon Fink
Member
silliman89 said:
The more pernicious problem is that far too many people mistake winning for being right.
~G. Fink
This is smart...
----quote-------
Personally, me and the rest of the "tories" are going to keep fighting. I've taught a couple hundred people to shoot in order to get thier Vichy handout socialist concealed weapons permits. Some of them have used their communistically allowed guns to defend themselves. I suppose they should have just died, since that would have been more ideaologically pure. I'm supposed to testify in front of the state legislature next session in favor of Vermont/Alaska style carry, but I suppose I should probably stay home, because you know, this kind of thing shouldn't even be discussed.
-----------------
And so is this...
---quote--------
I feel one of the best methods is to teach new shooters. I have personally introduced a few people to shooting who now are active politically and are introducing others to shooting.
----------------
In the end, achieving any political outcome is about getting people to believe in and support your side.
If you want to have a successful guns-and-bombs revolution, you're going to need the weight of popular opinion on your side.
If you want to work within the legislative/court system to change things, you're going to need the weight of popular opinion on your side.
CCW permits and teaching people to shoot are a great way to get the weight of popular opinion behind us. The more people who shoot, the more there are who might consider getting a CCW permit. The more people who have CCW permits, the more will start to question why they need to jump through all these bureaucratic hoops to exercise a God-given right.
For the last 40 years or so, the anti's have been doing a great job of getting mass opinion on their side. Over the last 10 years, we have seen that trend starting to reverse. It hasn't started reversing by magic: it's started reversing because of the hard work of people chipping away, one chip at a time. CCW laws (chip). AWB expires (chip). Lawsuit exemption bill (chip). Law to prevent gun seizures (chip). And so on.
------quote---------
"pragmatism" was used to enable the first iteration of gun control.
"pragmatic" has lead us where we are now
--------------------
Exactly. That's because up until recently, the antis were the only ones being pragmatic about their political strategy. They weren't trying to go to the legislature or the supreme court to get all guns banned in one fell swoop. They worked toward their goals using an incremental pragmatic strategy, and it was very successful for them.
If the "look where pragmatism has led us' argument says anything, it says that the opposition has had a great deal of success by being practical and pragmatic about achieving their goals. Our goals are different than theirs, but we can learn a thing or two from their methods.
----quote-------
Personally, me and the rest of the "tories" are going to keep fighting. I've taught a couple hundred people to shoot in order to get thier Vichy handout socialist concealed weapons permits. Some of them have used their communistically allowed guns to defend themselves. I suppose they should have just died, since that would have been more ideaologically pure. I'm supposed to testify in front of the state legislature next session in favor of Vermont/Alaska style carry, but I suppose I should probably stay home, because you know, this kind of thing shouldn't even be discussed.
-----------------
And so is this...
---quote--------
I feel one of the best methods is to teach new shooters. I have personally introduced a few people to shooting who now are active politically and are introducing others to shooting.
----------------
In the end, achieving any political outcome is about getting people to believe in and support your side.
If you want to have a successful guns-and-bombs revolution, you're going to need the weight of popular opinion on your side.
If you want to work within the legislative/court system to change things, you're going to need the weight of popular opinion on your side.
CCW permits and teaching people to shoot are a great way to get the weight of popular opinion behind us. The more people who shoot, the more there are who might consider getting a CCW permit. The more people who have CCW permits, the more will start to question why they need to jump through all these bureaucratic hoops to exercise a God-given right.
For the last 40 years or so, the anti's have been doing a great job of getting mass opinion on their side. Over the last 10 years, we have seen that trend starting to reverse. It hasn't started reversing by magic: it's started reversing because of the hard work of people chipping away, one chip at a time. CCW laws (chip). AWB expires (chip). Lawsuit exemption bill (chip). Law to prevent gun seizures (chip). And so on.
------quote---------
"pragmatism" was used to enable the first iteration of gun control.
"pragmatic" has lead us where we are now
--------------------
Exactly. That's because up until recently, the antis were the only ones being pragmatic about their political strategy. They weren't trying to go to the legislature or the supreme court to get all guns banned in one fell swoop. They worked toward their goals using an incremental pragmatic strategy, and it was very successful for them.
If the "look where pragmatism has led us' argument says anything, it says that the opposition has had a great deal of success by being practical and pragmatic about achieving their goals. Our goals are different than theirs, but we can learn a thing or two from their methods.
xd9fan
Member
Thank you camp david
Correia......where the flying $#$@ did I say tory here??? (the article is by smith not me) I did not. So dont assume you know me , or just how active I am in the fight, or at what lengths I will go to protect my family and farm!!!!
and dont put words in my mouth that I did not use!!!!!
I want consistency in how we treat the Bill of Rights not half baked appeasement and calling it victory!!!
Correia you can dismount at any time......
Correia......where the flying $#$@ did I say tory here??? (the article is by smith not me) I did not. So dont assume you know me , or just how active I am in the fight, or at what lengths I will go to protect my family and farm!!!!
and dont put words in my mouth that I did not use!!!!!I want consistency in how we treat the Bill of Rights not half baked appeasement and calling it victory!!!
Correia you can dismount at any time......
Last edited:
- Status