| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderates Versus SHALLNOTBEINFRINGED!!!1! |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 8/5/08 2:34:04 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caleb has a post regarding the upcoming episode of his (and Squeaky's)radio show "Gun Nuts: The Next Generation".
Should be an interesting show. I'm just wondering... Sebastian is always advocating gaining some ground (even if it means compromise). Folks like David advocate not budging an inch when it comes to infringement of our rights (even if it means not gaining any ground either.)
From the point of view of the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"/GOA crowd, this type of debate is a good thing. As David suggests, this ultimately ends up meaning more exposure for Mike Vanderboegh and other like-minded people. From the more common moderate/NRA point of view, this is a good debate on the merits of one tactic versus another. However, the show itself is a nod to the growing population (or at least increasing volume) of people who are moving towards the edge of the "reset switch" option.
The discussion has remained relatively civil, at least among the major players. I assume the show itself will remain civil as well, depending on who calls in.
I guess since everyone else has, or at least will shortly, I should weigh in as well. I tend to lean towards the libertarian edge of Sebastian's view. I only made one comment on the entire kerfuffle thus far. All I will say is that I think the extreme ends of any argument are usually political dead ends. I'm more interested in gaining ground than getting it perfect on the first shot. I have no faith that congress is even capable of "getting it right"... so we have to use what resources we have to make progress. Sometimes that means two steps forward and one back. More importantly, though, it means making and keeping allies, even if it means compromising.
The supposed 3% of gun owners in Mike V's camp aren't as unified as he would think, and are more talk than action... thankfully. But that 3% isn't going to grow without good PR. I abhor unconstitutional restrictions on keeping and bearing arms, or anything else for that matter, but that doesn't mean pulling the trigger is the best option.
As Kevin Baker said, "MAKE THEM THINK." That's the key. I'd hate to see things get really bad... bad enough to need that "reset switch". That's why I err on the side "suffering, while evils are sufferable", as Jefferson put it. The evils, which exist in droves, are sufferable for the time being. They only become insufferable, in my opinion, when means to redress the evils have been eliminated.
A nation-wide confiscation of firearms would legitimately trigger the reset switch. However I refuse to die in a bloody revolution over licensing, permits, background checks, one-gun-a-month laws, scary gun bans, and magazine size restrictions. Instead of bearing arms against fellow citizens, I choose to fight them with my mouth, keyboard, pen and wallet.
We will win this way, or it will get bad enough that the balance will shift in favor of Mr. Vanderboegh... but I don't expect either of these to happen in my lifetime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "Defense of Your Castle" | | "Bret Favre" > |
|
|
|
|
