Why we must win the culture war.

[Oleg Volk]

The main purpose of private weapons is to enable short-term survival of individuals while they try to win the culture war. For all the talk about a civil war, we should hope it never starts. To win a civil war, we'd need a very broad coalition. If that coalition forms and holds, a miracle in itself considering the heterogeneous nature of the American gun owners, it would fall apart as soon as the original enemy falls. The factions would then fratricide as they have after every revolution in history, with the most ruthless group likely winning control. That group may or may not be us, but we wouldn't like our own image if we win, nor would we be alive to lament the loss if we do not.

We can (only) win this war by winning over our compatriots, one by one. That effort is less heroic but also less bloody and uncertain that taking up arms or growing old waiting for such a call. What have you done today...this week...this month to advance our cause? Look in the mirror and ask yourself that question in the privacy of your own mind.

 

[Lucky]

To tie this in with the 300 (movie) discussions, the valiant stand at Thermopylae really didn't achieve much. It wasn't until after Athens was evacuated, and subsequently captured and razed by the Persians that the Greeks all united. Even then they were outnumbered, and had to be very sneaky and use superior skill to win.

And as is the nature of western mankind ever since, it didn't last long before they were back fighting each other again. The nature of freedom is such that there will seldom be harmony. I've read that a common love does not bind men near as well as a common hatred.

Found the quote:
"Dictators long ago found out it is easier to unite people in common hatred than common love.
by Dagobert D. Runes

 

[bill larry]

bump

 

[Leatherneck]

That group may or may not be us, but we wouldn't like our own image if we win, nor would we be alive to lament the loss if we do not.

Well said, Oleg--very insightful. The prospect of winning an armed conflict is worse than almost anything else, except the idea of losing it.

TC

 

[USSR]

The main purpose of private weapons is to enable short-term survival of individuals while they try to win the culture war.

The main purpose of privately held weapons is to deny the formation of a totalitarian government unresponsive to it's citizens. It has nothing to do with any culture subjugating another.

For all the talk about a civil war, we should hope it never starts. The factions would then fratricide as they have after every revolution in history...

Civil war, revolution? While the country is currently politically polarized, I don't know of a single lucid individual who believes we are in danger of going the way of a civil war or revolution.

Don

 

[Oleg Volk]

Some people believe that a civil war could happen in response to a hard push by the antis or through other causes. My comment is primarily for those who count on their arms to deter or chastise our opposition...that won't work very well.

 

[xd9fan]

I for one took a hard look at the GOP and realized it is not helping......regardless of the fear......regardless of the current lesser of 2 evils complacentcy......regardless of the short-term horse races (elections).
Winning the culture war also begins with understanding of what each of us are doing to further the problem. For me I see the current two parties using the cultural war ....for votes. I had enough of it.

Groups wanting to change others by the force and power of the federal Govt is....unamerican.

www.mskousen.com/Books/PvF/pvftext.html

 

[shield20]

A civil war/revolution IF it were to be started, it will not be by us - it will be by the "left", who despite being "peaceful" sorts, are really quite mean and selfish - and are INCREDIBLY angry at the last 7 years or so. Many HATE, and have hated, America for alot longer, and would think very little of bringing it down. They also mistakenly think reps from their side would make a difference - if only THEY had the power -no matter how it is obtained. This is the most important reason why we must prevail legally AT ALL COSTS to keep the RKBA - because once "they" ARE in power, as we have seen, A LOT of people will back them having - and maintaining all that power - exclusively - because "they" trust THEM.

I tend to think that a pro-gun coalition would have a MUCH better chance of remaining cohesive after victory, then most others, and especially one in which "all" of the people united against "the govt", and then afterwards realized 1/2 the group can NOT stand the other half.

 

[Caimlas]

The best way to gain and retain power in the event of a New Revolution/civil war victory would be to embrace the principles set forth by our founding fathers - ie, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We would probably have to modify and 'enhance' them for modern understanding, but if everyone who fought to win did so with guns, there's at least a reasonable chance that most everyone would agree with "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" as the template for a national pact.

It worked originally, when there were a lot of Tories still in the US still loyal to the King of England. I imagine it'd still work fairly well; if not as well, well enough.

 

[Caimlas]

The main purpose of privately held weapons is to deny the formation of a totalitarian government unresponsive to it's citizens. It has nothing to do with any culture subjugating another.

No, it absolutely does.

What is government? It is merely the formulation of a group of peoples to get across an agenda. An informal cultural movement with a hierarchy or marching orders, while not strictly a government, is quite capable of tyrannical aggression. What was the difference between our founding fathers and their British overlords, if not culture? Yes, there was a political and tax basis for the Revolution, but the foundation of that divide was ultimately cultural.

Think: Aztlan, socialists, globalists....

 

[shield20]

It did work originally, but within 225 years we are where we are - having this discussion. (despite all the warnings by the anti-federalists).

Re-wording to the Constitution to fix where the current govt has gone wrong, wording EVERYTHING specifically so there is NO activist interpretations would be a BIG help - but how to get a 50/50 split to agree on WHAT should be in there?

Only if MOST of the people go back to the self-responsible ideals of that time could the govt be successfully re-instated as it was. It will never happen - too many people are too selfish and too lazy.

The best we could hope for is a huge rolling back of govermental powers, and a complete purging of POLITICIANS, and find a simpler less-corruption-inducing way of electing THE PEOPLE to govern, and only for short terms, and with US watching THEM for wrong doing with the power to remove them.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

We can (only) win this war by winning over our compatriots, one by one.

I think what this boils down to in practical terms is taking as many of your friends shooting as possible. I'll bet just a single good afternoon shooting will weigh more heavily in someone's mind than fifteen years of anti-gun media.

 

[xd9fan]

The best we could hope for is a huge rolling back of govermental powers, and a complete purging of POLITICIANS, and find a simpler less-corruption-inducing way of electing THE PEOPLE to govern, and only for short terms, and with US watching THEM for wrong doing with the power to remove them.

This will never happen in my lifetime. Look at how Washington DC reacted to the DC ban being unconstitutional............there is no way that town will give up power short of a revolution.........its just too big.

 

[USSR]

Quote:
The main purpose of privately held weapons is to deny the formation of a totalitarian government unresponsive to it's citizens. It has nothing to do with any culture subjugating another.

No, it absolutely does.

What is government? It is merely the formulation of a group of peoples to get across an agenda. An informal cultural movement with a hierarchy or marching orders, while not strictly a government, is quite capable of tyrannical aggression.

A "culture" is defined as : the concepts, habits, skills, arts, instuments, institutions, etc. of a given people in a given period. It is not the intent or role of the 2nd Amendment to promote the ascension or subjugation of a culture in the United States. For example: the demographics of the American South-west is becoming increasing Latino whether we like it or not. Simply put, there is a cultural change going on. The reason for the private ownership of weapons is neither to promote this change, nor to prevent it. If the definition of government is "merely the formulation of a group of peoples to get across an agenda", then any gang or club qualifies as a government. This is clearly not the case. The only government that is being talked about here is the government of the United States.

Don

 

[Oleg Volk]

I'll bet just a single good afternoon shooting will weigh more heavily in someone's mind than fifteen years of anti-gun media.

Machiavelli stated that giving arms or the leave to acquire arms was an act of trust which bound new partisans to you. When people of all faiths, ethnicities and political views share rifles at the range and load magazines for each other, they form a personal bond transcending the petty differences.

 

[shield20]

The rights of we, the people.

Long before the US Constitution was written and ratified, before Lexington & Concord, before the Declaration of Independence, there existed recognition of unalienable rights. It was already known that all men are by nature equally free and independent. It was known that all men have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot deprive or divest, by ANY compact, their posterity. These are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. To secure these natural rights, governments are instituted. The common consent of the people is the foundation on which a civil government is founded. The common good of the people is its desired end. To effect this end, it is understood that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order for that which remains to be preserved. Only enough liberty must be given up as will be sufficient to enable those we choose as the administration of the government to establish laws, and to carry those laws into effect. It is not necessary for this purpose that individuals should relinquish those natural rights which are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc. Others are not necessary to be resigned, in order to attain the end for which government is instituted, and these therefore ought not to be given up.

 

[Kaylee]

Civil war, revolution? While the country is currently politically polarized, I don't know of a single lucid individual who believes we are in danger of going the way of a civil war or revolution.

Odd.. I've heard more than few rational people outside our own "gun community" talking about that very thing. I don't think we're particularly close to it now.. but I can see it happening with a generation or two.

To my mind, the only real way to forestall it is for the Feds to back down and leave the States their own powers again. People in Georgia don't want to live like those in CA, and vice versa. Trying to keep us under an increasingly powerful Federal gov't trying to force on lifestyle on everyone will end in tears eventually.

 

[El Tejon]

Civil war and revolution is something the United States government foresees and takes very seriously and is preparing to counter as we type.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

The problem is that if buy winning the culture war, you mean conservative/religious/republican culture, I will be on the other side. En garde!

Now if you mean getting guns accepted by left leaning people, then sure, I'm in.

 

[mmike87]

Civil war and revolution is something the United States government foresees and takes very seriously and is preparing to counter as we type.

Can you explain that further?

 

[Speer]

I don't think we're particularly close to it now.. but I can see it happening with a generation or two

.
The ways things are going, definitely.

 

[mmike87]

The problem is that if buy winning the culture war, you mean conservative/religious/republican culture, I will be on the other side. En garde!

That's a good point. It's "us" and "them" but we're not sure who "they" are and exactly what group "us" is.

I guess it really comes down to values - Tradtionals versus Secular Progressive (to coin Bill O'Reilly's terms.)

 

[Oleg Volk]

"Us" - pro-RKBA people
"Them" - anti-RKBA authoritarians

winning the culture war, you mean conservative/religious/republican culture, I will be on the other side.

See http://olegvolk.livejournal.com/219576.html?thread=1621176#t1621176

 

[Lucky]

I've heard more than few rational people outside our own "gun community" talking about that very thing. I don't think we're particularly close to it now.. but I can see it happening with a generation or two.

1)Divides artificially created or exaggerated
2)Dehumanizing
3)Dispute
4)Flashpoint
5)Conflict


If history teaches anything, it's that a civil war starts slowly and then picks up incredibly rapidly.

Looking at the former Yugoslavia, for example, one of the first signs was in the media. A rather artificial divide appeared in the language, and arguments over what the meaning of words was, and their origins. Really insanely petty things. And the dehumanizing, of course they paint the other side as, well, less human. They won't use that word, but they'll give the impression one way or another. And then, BOOM, armed conflict.

Well, actually there'll be a tense atmosphere, like a dangerous fuel/air mixture, and then an event will be the spark to set it all off. For example, a group of politicians starts talking about how Montana is not working 'for the team', is hurting the 'consensus' or other such terms. And then Montana (or whatever) responds with an "I'll show you independence, you ain't seen nothing". And then when they have a chance to lower their egos and make a rational compromise on whatever situation, the feds (or whoever) instead flare up and make things worse. Then it takes one tiny incident, like seizing a ranch in a strategic location, or setting up a roadblock, and you've got armed conflict.


But definitely keep an eye out for the dehumanizing, it's pretty much MANDATORY. The 'enemy' must be made such that it's impossible to empathize. They have to be made foreign, strange, unintelligible. Once you see that happening, start turning savings accounts into liquid assets.

1)Divides artificially created or exaggerated
2)Dehumanizing
3)Dispute
4)Flashpoint
5)Conflict

 

[mmike87]

"Us" - pro-RKBA people
"Them" - anti-RKBA authoritarians

I think the culture war is a little more complicated than that ... however a person being "pro RKBA" is certainly a good litmus test in which to judge a person's overall ideologies at least initially.

But definitely keep an eye out for the dehumanizing, it's pretty much MANDATORY. The 'enemy' must be made such that it's impossible to empathize.

Hmmm - I just thought of the Roanoke Times article that essentially grouped CCW permit holders with sex offenders. Good example?