"Patriot" rhetoric - harmful, helpful or neither

[madmike]

Thanks for bringing us back on topic, Art.

When I see "UN globalists sending their legions to destroy our Precious Bodily Fluids with the satanist communist fascists at ACLU leading the advance while our sales tax is a secret UN tax and they have spy rays in our houses, but I'm ready to shoot them when they get here, police, military, whoever," I want to step away. Waaaaaay away. Association with the mindset and the threat can't help credibility.

But it's a private forum and we have moderators. The question is, where do we draw the line?

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is not happening to me NOR is it hypothetical...it happened in 2004 in Alabsater, Alabama. The city .gov confiscated the property under the "blight" and open land language in our ED legislation. Property owner did everything available to him within the law and still lost the property that had been in his family for 4 generations so that Wal-Mart could build a shopping center.

Now let me explain, there is a Wal-Mart SuperCenter 6 miles down the road one way, one 5 miles up the road north and there is now an EMPTY Wal-Mart SuperCenter that was abandoned by the corporation and left as...dare I say it, blight 1 mile away from the new and improved version.

Target breaks ground across the road in 2006. The Mayor is crowing about economic growth while Illegal Aliens infest our city, yet trying to vote the man out is impossible because the local builders, which employ the illegals, fund this man coffers to the tune of Million$ each election cycle. His officers are told as a matter of policy that immigration is a Federal problem and they are to do NOTHING.

Subjects, er I mean Citizens are not allowed to speak at public meetings unless they are on the agenda and when you try to get on the agenda it is "full". Blah, Blah, Blah. Same crap that is happening in your city if your paying attention.

They will not stop until they are STOPPED. I for one would not have let them take my property without a public display of brute force on the level of WACO (minus the fire and murder that was committed) to bring attention to the matter. End up in jail...sure, but which one of our signers ended up wealthy, fat and happy?

 

[cuchulainn]

thereisnospoon: So I should stand aside and let them take my property without uttering a word? Or just nice words that don't sound offensive or sully the name of you good gun owners who aren't losing your property?

What good is rhetoric if it doesn't do a damn thing to help you or others?

How about using your high public support and victim status to help change things for the better? You've got four options:

1) Make a suicide-by-cop last stand -- lose your property anyway, die, and undermine the political efforts to stop it from happening again (lose, lose, lose proposition)

2) Threaten violence but back down -- lose you property anyway, look like a fool, and undermine the political efforts to stop it from happening again (lose, lose, lose proposition).

3) Stand aside and skulk away -- lose your property and accomplish nothing (lose, lose proposition)

4) Use your public support and victim status to bolster the political fight -- lose your property (but maybe get it or its equal back later), be a hero to liberty, and help ensure it doesn't happen again (lose, win, win proposition).

 

[cuchulainn]

Thanks Art

 

[thereisnospoon]

National News Media

Would rhetoric bring the National News media and their satelite trucks? Could that attention then be used to garner more public support before my property is taken.

And let's not forget this: What threat did the .gov use to take the propertY?, What were your words...

Make a suicide-by-cop last stand -- lose your property anyway, die, and undermine the political efforts to stop it from happening again (lose, lose, lose proposition)

Is it not fair to match force with equal or greater force. They have the implied rhetoric we must verbalize...

I think the way I would have handled this is not like you imagine I would at all, but pretending to be too intelligent to fight for what is mine, when push comes to shOve, is not doing us any good Either in my estimation.

BTW, you assume that a death standing against a wrong (what you call suicide-by-cop) would undermine any ongoing "political" efforts. In fact, the exact opposite was true at Ruby Ridge and WACO. Both incidents led to investigations that brought the dealings of powerful goverment agencies under the intense scrutiny they deserved.

ETA: We may have to agree to disagree, but in the mean time I enjoythe discourse...

 

[cuchulainn]

thereisnospoon: BTW, you assume that a death standing against a wrong (what you call suicide-by-cop) would undermine any ongoing "political" efforts. In fact, the exact opposite was true at Ruby Ridge and WACO. Both incidents led to investigations that brought the dealings of powerful goverment agencies under the intense scrutiny they deserved.

Well, I don't know that they brought about any changes or merely resulted in a couple of dog-and-pony shows up on Capitol Hill back in the mid 1990s.

Look, I've never said that armed resistance is always wrong (an example all can agree with: Warsaw Ghetto) -- but I think Art just tactfully warned us to get back on topic or risk thread closure. The topic is not whether armed resistance is ever justified (yeah, it sometimes is).

The topic is whether violent rhetoric is more helpful or harmful NOW-- while we still have the ballot box and soap box at our disposal.

As Art noted, those that matter are the undecided middle. Thus the question is: does violent rhetoric bring neutral people to our side or does it repel them?

I think it repels them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As Art noted, those that matter are the undecided middle. Thus the question is: does violent rhetoric bring neutral people to our side or does it repel them?

I think it repels them.

Fair enough, and I think you're correct, there are in fact a certain number of people that harsh rhetoric would turn off. However, there are probably just as many as your kinder gentler rhetoric would turn off as "Too Soft".

BTW, those turned off by the rhetoric are probably the ones who in 1984 didn't care about the AWB because they didn't shoot those nasty "assault rifles" anyway.

So long for now, Cuch. Once again it has been a learning experience. Enjoyed it!

 

[cuchulainn]

thereisnospoon: Fair enough, and I think you're correct, there are in fact a certain number of people that harsh rhetoric would turn off. However, there are probably just as many as your kinder gentler rhetoric would turn off as "Too Soft".

If they though it was too soft, they already support gun rights. I seriously doubt that a sizable number of pro-gun people would refuse to join a pro-gun political fight because the leaders’ rhetoric wasn’t violent enough.

“Yeah, I agree with this fight and want to see it succeed, but the leaders aren’t talking about feeding hogs. I’ll have to sit this one out.”

No, you turn off more people with violent vitriol than you turn off with responsible words.

I enjoyed it too.

 

[madmike]

On the other hand, the NRA took a well-deserved beating in the mid 90s when they were talking "negotiating."

Compare their publications in the 1980s (lawsuit, lawsuit, bill) to the 90s, (negotiate, common ground) back to the present where they're going on the offensive again.

A CERTAIN amount of rhetoric can be useful.

While I wish Sarah B no physical ill (well, not inflicted by us. Her smoking's her own problem), I will confess I'd enjoy seeing her in Prison Orange for racketeering. And every time she whines on her website, I dance a little dance.

 

[cuchulainn]

madmike: On the other hand, the NRA took a well-deserved beating in the mid 90s when they were talking "negotiating."

Actually, their mid-90s beating was due to their rhetoric. Bill Clinton successfully linked them in the public's mind to the Oklahoma City bombing, pointing to their "jackbooted thugs"(*) fund raising letters. The NRA's clout fell.

Since Oklahoma City, the NRA has tempered its rhetoric -- and we've seen a decade of progress on gun rights. I don't know if there's a connection.

(*) Yeah, John Dingell (D) originated the JBT phrase, but the NRA used it and used it, giving Slick all the opening he needed.

 

[madmike]

Yes, but the membership was sagging in between. That rhetoric DID bring more members.

Besides, there are an awful lot of JBTs IN the NRA.

If the lefties ever really believed that, they'd REALLY get their knickers in a twist.

 

[cuchulainn]

madmike: Yes, but the membership was sagging in between. That rhetoric DID bring more members.

Actually, the NRA saw membership decline during 1993 and 1994 while it was using the JBT rhetoric (OKC was in 1995). Hmm? When using JBT rhetoric, the NRA's numbers fell and the AWB and Brady Bill passed.

The NRA's numbers recovered in 1999 and 2000, after it had tempered its rhetoric. But I don't attribute the membership gains to its rhetoric one way or the other. Rather, the membership swell was due to growing fear of the grabbers, who were gaining clout (the grabbers' high-water mark was the MMM march in 2000, and they've declined considerably since then).

 

[madmike]

I'll accept your numbers.

But I was not the only one of many thousands unhappy when they mistook "tempering rhetoric" with "giving in piecemeal."

It's not just the membership numbers, it's the donations and useful contributions.

Which is why I still want Terrible Ted as prez

 

[Michael Courtney]

The topic is whether violent rhetoric is more helpful or harmful NOW-- while we still have the ballot box and soap box at our disposal.

But without the potential for violent action (RKBA) the ballot box and the soap box have limited effect. One needs to make a distinction between speaking about potential (conditional) violent action, and an overt call to violent action in the present circumstance. Major benefits from RKBA step from potential (conditional) violent action, and there is no great detriment in discussing the conditions that would prompt separation or violence (in much the same manner as the Declaration of Independence does it).

As another poster has pointed out, the ballot box and the soap box are also very ineffective in stemming the power of the courts to create absurdities and to empower the executive branch. When private property is simply being stolen by the government and given to other private parties, the ballot box and the soap box have proven useless time and time again.

As Art noted, those that matter are the undecided middle. Thus the question is: does violent rhetoric bring neutral people to our side or does it repel them?

I think it repels them.

My wife and I graduated from well-known liberal schools in Massachusetts, and at the time of graduation, we were mostly in the middle and slightly anti-gun. Only by understanding abuses of power (such as Ruby Ridge) and better understanding our birth as a nation, did we come to appreciate the importance of RKBA. However, one needs to separate rhetoric discussing the potential for violent action from rhetoric calling for actual violence in the present circumstance.

We need to discuss situations and circumstances that justify the transition from armed citizens to warring separatists in order to maintain belief in the need to remain armed citizens. There is nothing more than the potential need for violence that motivates us to remain armed citizens, and every government official should understand through our rhetoric that at some point if governmental means do not stem unconstitutional abuses of power, armed citizens are likely to replace the government with force if necessary.

Nothing makes this point more effectively than discussing whether or not it is time to "shoot the bastards" yet.

Michael Courtney

 

[confed sailor]

heres a nickle you keep the change

Now I dont claim to be the most articulate poster on this site;

It seems to me, that 3 main points keep comming up.

1. Being involved i.e. (elections both national and local)

2. Staying informed, and by that i mean information from a variety of
sources, liberal and conservative alike.
3. Preparing for the worst while praying and working for the best. I keep
ammo for my riflesand pistols, but i dont sit there dreaming of civil war. I
have a contingency plan for getting home to secure my family, but i dont
have a bunker full of MRE's in the woods.

I used to be an NRA hater, I saw how they acted in the 90's when my father quit them, but now they seem to be working for us again.

We should be ready to protect liberty, but chomping at the bit to spill blood is not going to do anyone any good at all.

 

[macavada]

Really an excellent post, confed sailor.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sorry, I'm back...

...because this has been weighing on my mind. I was actually going to post a seperate thread, but I think this may fit better here. If I am hijacking, let me know and I'll start another thread.

We seem to be seperated into two obvious camps, pro and con. I don't want to speak for everyone on the Pro side, but I for one believe the "Ballot Box" option the Cons speak so dearly of is the main reason my rhetoric is more vitriohlic these days.

Abramhoff (sp), DeLay, et.al. on a National level have proven that only one thing moves a politco's agenda....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. There are no true Statesmen any longer and lifetime "Public Servants" (who like to refer to themselves as "Officials", BTW) enter polotics for one reason and one reason alone....to become wealthy and powerful. Spending in Washington is at an all time high, while everyday in the news we hear of another Senator or Congressperson being investigated for "corruption".

On a State and local level, especially here in Alabama, the situation is even MORE pronounced. Let me give you just one example of what I mean...

In 2004, we elected a Republican Gov to the State House here in Alabama, a former US Congressman named Bob Riley. One of his platforms was No new taxes. Almost immeadiately upon enetering office, he proposed a 1.2 BILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE....and this guy is a G.W. Bush Republican. We were told unless we voted to pass this tax hike schools would be shut down, State Troopers would be fired, little old ladies would be kicked out of nursing homes and Medicaid in our state would go bankrupt. The taxpayers voted it down OVERWHELMINGLY and Gov Bob (read: SpongeBOBtaxpants) said "I got the message loud and clear. So what did Gov Bob do? He changed our propery tax appraisals from every four years to annually and we magically have a 1 Billion surplus that they are fighting over in Montgomery for their PORK projects. He simply found a loophole and id and end around...

Are they going to build new schools or fix the ones that are crumbling? NO, but the lobbyist that runs Alabama (Paul Hubbard, Pres of Alabama Education Association) garnered a 7% raise for teachers that Alabama Congressmen readily note will bankrupt us next year if the current financial economic growth trend shifts just a little bit downward.

The "Ballot Box" is a nice notion, but at what point do we admitt that poloticians have just one thing in mind?

"Vote them out" you say..."work within the system to clean it up". There comes a point in time where you just have to recognize the Republic is dead.. We are fast approaching that time and as we do, people who love and hold dear what our FF sacraficed to give us grow more impatient and our rhetoric changes to show the anger and frustration brought about by self sreving, ineffectual gov't.

The George Sorroses of the world can weild money, hence power, but we mere constituants keep taking in the shorts while CongressCritters live high on the hog. BTW, I make no distinction between Rep. or Dem. on this one.

I'll give you this as simple proof that everyday Americans grow tired of their Gov't......

http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

 

[AStone]

But, what - exactly - was the question?

I voted "harmful" before reading any of the thread. But then, after I began to read the thread, I realized that maybe, I didn't understand the question in the same way that others understood the question.

So, I've got some homework to do. (Reading the thread.)

I'll be back after I get the homework done.

<Goes to the fridge for another beer>

Thanks for yet another stimulating thread, THR.

Nem

 

[AStone]

I've only made it through the first three pages, so far.

So far, these are the most compelling words I've read.

A good segment of the general public looks on such revolutionary ideas as nuts. The ideas of strange militia, survivalist, seperatist loonies. This is not a great image. We need to cultivate a new image. "You meet the nicest people on a Honda." Anyone remember that? I wasn't alive then but it was a brilliant marketing move. If we can create the image of a smart, non-threatening gun owner who doesn't wear camo and have buck teeth, we could win the "war" without a shot.

Yes.

This thread is an example of THR at its best...

Yes.

I'll read more tomorrow.

Right now, it's time for sleep.



Nem

 

[Autolycus]

I voted helpful. Hopefully someone will start reading it and wise up. Be they a government employee, a gun owner, an anti, or just a regular person.

Whenever you go on any sort of political forum there will be people expressing their real views. Views that the public does not necessarily see.

 

[madmike]

Violent rhetoric should be phrased as humor. For example, Guy Fawkes Day in the UK is referenced by some as, "Celebrating the day that Fawkes failed to blow up Parliament, while using fireworks to remind Parliament that it wouldn't have been entirely a bad thing."

As to the rest, the courts DO make a lot of good decisions, I would say mostly (Ninth Circus excepted). The problem is there are so many laws passed so fast it's impossible to stem the tide.

The three-fold solution is:

1: Don't re-elect nobody, not even yo mama! -- People talk about term limits, but the electorate are the term limits. If we stop voting for them, they go away. Dr Pournelle observed that in the late 80s, the US Congress had a lower turnover than the Supreme Soviet. That's been remedied in part.

B) Vote for gridlock. If they're arguing and passing the blame, they aren't passing as many laws.

3] Vote for third parties like you mean it. Fantasies that some noble trillionaire will create a 3rd party from the ground up, that you agree with, will never happen. Perot's attempt failed and didn't receive public support. Voting as a "protest" won't solve it. If you've ever uttered the phrase, "I'd love to vote for a third party but don't want to throw my vote away," then YOU are part of the problem and need to **** If you vote for someone who DOES NOT fit most of your criteria, you HAVE thrown your vote away. What was one of the key wins against gun control? Ending the career of forty some scumbags who voted for the 94 gun ban, in 1996.

The ONLY salvation of the Republic will be an educated electorate.

A well-regulated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Violent rhetoric should be phrased as humor.

I strongly disagree. The problem with communicating with humor is that there is usually too much ambiguity in the message to have clearly articulated boundaries.

In the absence of clearly articulated boundaries, "Patriotic" rhetoric is generally harmful, because the paranoid will use it against gun owners to stir up the fears of those in the middle ground.

In the same way that the use of violence for self-defense needs to have clearly articulated boundaries to prevent gun owners from appearing to be (or actually becoming) vigilantes, the "patriotic" use of violence should be expressed as a conditional possibility with well-articulated boundaries. Its use must be carefully considered and clearly justified with plain reason.

The Declaration of Independence is an excellent example to follow. Everyone would do much better to refresh their knowledge with a careful reading than to consider this question with a foggy memory of the important points.

There is always some level of governmental evil and abuse of power that justifies separatist movements and violent resistance. At the same time, there are always violent rabble looking for excuses to rebel against just and reasonable uses of government powers. The Declaration of Independence is a valuable historical source of wisdom to aid in recognizing the distinction.

Michael Courtney

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

A few issues. First of all, it may not be a good idea to be spouting off like that on the internet in this day and age of unrestrained government fishing expeditions, i.e., spying on America. That is a risk each person has to take on their own. You could end up snatched up in the middle of the night and sent off to some place for "questioning," read water boarding, and never be heard from again. I never thought I'd ever live in an America where I'd have to say something like that, but there you have it.

Secondly, what kind of "patriot talk" are we talking about? There are those guys who like to talk about what they'd do if someone broke down their door in the middle of the night. In my opinion, to say that one would shoot ANYONE breaking their door down if they do not first have a positive ID that the guy is a cop is not patriot talk. That's just American talk. Any normal man would, and probably should, do just that. No one with legitimate authority is going to break down your door without allowing time for proper ID first. That's a requirement in the Bill of Rights. That means that EVERYONE breaking down your door without allowing you to ID them IS a criminal, period, and will likely be hazardous to your health, and that of your family, and needs dealing with pronto. This is not patriot talk in the sense you meant it, in my opinion.

Then there are the guys who talk about the day of rising up and all that against a tyrannical government. My opinion is that this is fine so long as it is hypothetical, i.e., "If, one day, this country becomes a tyranny, bla bla bla." No one's going to get into trouble for that, I don't think, at least not the kind where you can get a lawyer and see a judge. Like I said, there's no telling what might prompt a snatching and shipping off to some camp somewhere in the Middle East where you'll never be heard from again. But that's the country we live in now.

 

[carlrodd]

personally, i don't think it really matters what the public's response to this sort of rhetoric is. what matters is if the time comes that violence becomes the only recourse left in dealing with an oppressive government, that on-line patriots are ready to be actual patriots. i believe no matter what is said here or anywhere else, the government will continue pushing the envelope in regard to what it can get away with. at some point, many citizens will determine that they truly have had enough. it might be 5 years from now, it might be 100. if the present gaggle that is our collection of public 'servants' is any indication, it might be sooner rather than later.

I am sincerely one of those, and would rather be in dependence on Great Britain, properly limited, than on anyother nation on earth, or than on no nation. But I am one of those, too, who, rather than submit to the rights of legislating for us, assumed by the British Parliament, and which late experience has shown they will so cruelly exercise, would lend my hand to sink the whole Island in the ocean.

-Thomas Jefferson, 25 AUG 1775

Reconciliation between this government and not only the people, but the very principles the nation began with is a wonderful idea, but I believe more and more every single day that reconciliation is in no way the wish of our elected 'leaders'. Why should the emphasis be on those who dissent? The actions and words of those who lead us are worlds more antagonistic, offensive, threatening, and unproductive than ANYTHING I have read on this forum.

 

[madmike]

You could end up snatched up in the middle of the night and sent off to some place for "questioning," read water boarding, and never be heard from again.

Um...has this EVER actually happened to ANYONE? Even the Nissei under FDR were accounted for and publicly documented. And why the mention of water boarding, other than the press is currently attempting to make a big deal of it?

I never thought I'd ever live in an America where I'd have to say something like that, but there you have it.

If you really DID live in such an America, I'd suspect you WOULD NOT say it at all, and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place...just my take.

Courtney: You raise a valid point on perceptions of humor.