I read this via Tam, and decided to dust off a post that I had been sitting on for several months, because it was too......too...... out there. Well, here is the Liberal CCW answer to Tyranny in Red Tights.
Pick a gun board, how many posts are there where folks complain about the loss of their second amendment rights? This is a big deal, we dedicate billions of pixels to this in online discussions. Read SouthParkPundit, Josh, poor Josh more restricted than many of us, sitting in California, he can't go about armed. The State Gov't has unconstitutionally removed his second amendment rights. The Republican Governer of California supports this denial of Josh's Second Amendment rights. Josh's writing reads like a guy who could bust a blood pressure cuff right off of his bicep on sheer indignation at his situation. And rightfully so.
Why do firearms owners all chatter nervously about the problem, with no tangible action, just pay their NRA dues, write their Elected Officials, not march on Washington? Because they obey they laws, even when the laws are unconstitutional.
We write our Representatives, and type up a storm on the Internet. In short, we take the easy way out, the safe way, because if we get right down to it, we don't really mean what we say. As I see it, it comes down to this:
1. The US, State and local Governments are guilty of breaking the law as stated in the Second Amendment of the US Bill of Rights.
3. The pro-Second Amendment lobby groups have abysmal track records of reversing the situation.
4. Firearms owners are by a vast majority law abiding patriots, loath to break laws, even unjust ones.
5. In the event of a pervasive erosion or denial of citizens rights, unjust laws will never be reversed by following them, but can only be reversed by a sustained and organized resistance.
Note: The following is only hypothetical, the author does not plan to do any of the following, nor does he suggest that anyone else do any of the following. It is a thought exercise only.
========================================================
In this case, the resistance would be simple.
You could carry.
You could carry everywhere.
You could carry whatever you want in public. Rifles, select fire, if you wished.
Everyone could carry.
We could carry in groups in the streets, and get arrested if need be.
Sure, some folks would go to jail, have their firearms confiscated. Are you serious about your Second Amendment right, serious enough to go to jail to protest your government breaking it's own law?
Rosa Parks was willing to go to jail for her Constitutionally granted rights . MLK died fighting for his.
You might miss work and incur court costs. You might be killed by the police. Are your Second Amendment rights worth it?
=======================================================
End of Thought Exercise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Ouch. For us, we have a responsibility to our children to give them a stable childhood...which includes not getting arrested, or financially disabled fighting charges. That may be interpreted as a rationalization, but... We are trying to change the system using the system, and increasingly figuring out that it isn't working.
It's a HARD question you've asked, mister.
I think youhave a point, except that the civil rights movement had some advantages we seem to be missing.
1) The persons who were standing up for their rights had so much more to gain than they had to lose.
2) They faced an opposition that had a rather violent subset that gave them lots of bad press (it is hard to take the moral high ground when you have men in bed sheets committing violence against black families and white kids who stood with them).
3) They had a large amount of support from persons who stood little to gain or lose (face it, the white people who helped out did so because they could not stand the injustice of it, all they gained was some honor, and for the most part, aside from some social stigma, they had little to lose).
Granted, I was barely a twinkle in my Daddy's eye by the time the Civil Rights legislation had been signed, so I bet someone could school me on why I am wrong (and please do), but our plight is a little different and some civil disobedience on our part would instantly cost us our rights.
I was happy to see all the gun rights supporters at the protest in VA. Now if we could only get similar actions whenever an anti-gun protest happens, maybe we'd see some traction. I mean, how effective of a demonstration would it be for the million mom march to be met with an equal or greater protest of those who would rather be armed and safe?
Maybe it is time to dust of my answer to this question (now where did I stash that surplus M1 Abrahms I've been saving for a rainy day?).
Mad Rocket has the main points covered, but I'm going to expand on them just a bit.
First off, killing another human being is so deeply ingrained in our brains that it's actually a very difficult thing to overcome. You generally can't do it without years of desensitization or training. Lt. Col. Dan Grossman has entire books written on this subject. Very informative if you get the chance. He explains how even in WWII, only 15-20% of all soldiers would fire their weapons during combat.
Most of us can conceive of breaking that mindset during a stressful, life threatening situation. However, even then it isn't something easily done. For example, during that shooting at that church recently, two of the armed guards couldn't pull the trigger even as they watched the madman shooting at innocent people.
My post illustrates a good reason why this isn't happening - we're not being repressed by some mustachioed tyrant, we're being repressed by our neighbors who constantly vote for the Hillary's and the McCain's out there, who pull the lever for higher taxes "for the common good", etc. I'm not sure our government is so much corrupt as we've, as a society, have simply had life so good for so long that we've lost our way. It's easier to show up on election day and pull the lever for the idiot you see the most signs for than it is to study, months in advance, what that person stands for.
The tyranny we are slowly devolving into is banal, nebulous, and not easy to "take out" like individual soldiers in an army or a dictator. And even if we were to band together and kill off the politicians in power, the rest of society would just put clones back in. It's what everyone is used to.
Some food for thought, although I might have more to say later if I have some time.
A lot of good points both in the post and the comments, but I would mention just one thing:
Most gun rights groups can't even muster a couple of dozen people willing to take time out of their busy schedules to go to an event like Lobby Day in Richmond.
Most gun rights groups can't even get people who agree with and support everything they do, to pony up the $25, $30, $35 bucks a year for membership.
Most gun rights supporters cant even be bothered to click a link to send a pre-composed, pre-addressed, automatic canned e-mail to legislators in an effort to protect their rights.
And you expect a large enough group to be willing to go to jail to bring about any kind of change?
Dream on my friend.
In the meantime, I'll keep doing the best that I can and hope that, someday, enough others join me to finally achieve our goals.
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
There's a chance for y'all, coming right up, to put your money and your spine, where your mouth is, to take a real stand for what you believe in. A new March on Washington, if you will, in support of the most fundamental and essential of human and civil rights. Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 10 AM, Heller vs. DC, oral arguments. Show up in front of the Supreme Court on that morning. Be peaceable, respectful and courteous, please leave the camo and the pithy tee-shirts at home, look and act like a Citizen, not a semi-literate slob. You have my solemn word of honor that I'll be there. Will you?
In thinking about this post since I originally wrote it last April, my conclusions have been that the 2nd Amendment battle should not start with a direct push for Government reinstatement of the full right to bear arms, but needs to begin with a concerted effort to swing public opinion in favour of that reinstatement. This means fostering inclusiveness in the general public.
It seems that in the last few decades, the NRA has only succeeded in swinging the public in the opposite direction, for example with posturing soundbites like the "From my cold dead hands" and "Jackbooted thugs" quotes. It's a bitter pill, but here it is: The NRA and gun owners in general are not an inclusive bunch.
How do we become inclusive? My conclusion is that the shift in public opinion could not come through public protest, which has a huge personal risk and danger of backfiring, but that every firearm owner in the USA can act either as an ambassador for the cause, or as a detriment to it.
Ours is a rational argument, and I truly believe the Founding Fathers meant for every one of us to go about armed, should we so choose. This means we have a solid foundation on which to build public goodwill, and overturn unjust laws.
My question is: How can we as individual firearms owners cultivate the maximum public goodwill to firearms ownership?
I think a good first step toward cultivating good will is to learn patience and understanding, to be felpful and friendly, and to dial down the frothing rhetoric.
Far too often I read posts on blogs and in the comments on articles and I see a few people trying for the reasoned discourse and a whole bunch screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!" or what not (I'll admit, I've done similar on occasion, but I try REALLY hard not to, even if it is on Brian Miller's blog).
ALso, it would be nice if range owners and gun shop owners would be patient and show a little understanding with the Newbie. The range closest to my house has two guys who are super friendly and very understanding, and one who just can not be bothered to speak to you unless you understand the differences between a J-frame and a L-frame and write a thesis on the differences (OK, he's probably not that asinine, but you get my point). When that one guy works the range, I usually decide I don't need to go shooting that day. I know guys like that are not few and far between and I bet their attitude can turn more folks off of shooting than anything else.
Finally, we need to be VERY careful when talking to someone that we do not stomp a verbal mudhole in them and then walk it off when they make a rookie mistake (like the whole assault weapon thing, I know that gets everyone's hackles up, but we need a better way to highlight that correction without seeming like we are on the attack). A person who does not own a gun and has only maybe fired one or two in their lives, may truly be unable to understand some things about guns. Differences we consider obvious are to them subtle or esoteric (you say poe-TAY-toe, I say poe-TAH-toe).
But in the end, being good neighbors will win more heart and minds than all the writing in the world. Be active in your community, be friendly, offer to conduct firearm safety training for your friends and their kids, make the same offer to your neighborhood association. If people learn that most firearm owners are borderline rabid about safety and training, they start to appear more as the trusted Police and Fire than crazy hunters or apocalyptic survivalists.
But most importantly, keep that temper and zeal in check. Nothing scares people faster than a person who is a gun owner who is going off on a frothing rant and apparently losing control.
Just my 3.1415 cents.
I'm ready. Where are we meeting?
No, I'm not kidding. I'm serious.
Where's my Henry Bowman?
This post, the post that led up to it, and all of the responses kick-ass, and lead to a lot of thinking.
#1) You do an excellent job of coming up with a definitive plan of action that involves doing something "outside of the box", but doesn't start out with "first we shoot all the bastards", 'cause that one's never going to work. This is good. I've been looking for one of these for years.
#2) Hazel and MRS make a similar point we have a responsibility to our children to give them a stable childhood...which includes not getting arrested, or financially disabled fighting charges. and our plight is a little different and some civil disobedience on our part would instantly cost us our rights.
It is unfortunately the case that this act of civil disobedience, in certain jurisdictions, would prevent the exercising of said disobedience twice. It may be the case that getting arrest for open carrying "illegally" would not just lose you the gun you were carrying at the time, but lose you the legal privilege of owning any firearms at all. (I won't say it'll lose you the right to own them, because they can't take that away, but they can sure as heck infringe it.)
#3) Sailorcurt brings up a well mentioned and extremely depressing point about the level of activity we might really count on.
#4) jesperskibbey and MRS make a point later that ties in with what Robb Allen said. We don't have jackbooted thugs that everyone can point to and fear. We have ordinary neighbors. And some of those neighbors are the ones oppressing us, either by doing jobs that end up infringing on free men, or by voting for those who bring those people in to play. And many of those people find guns frightening.
So, combine that with the fact that gunnies have been on the defensive for so long that we can be cantankerous around those not in the clique, and we end up with a situation in which we might do more harm than good by going out and "menacing the populace with our guns" by simply having them visible in a public location.
We have decades of programming by the TV that only cops and gang members have guns, to overcome. And if we all go walking down the street carrying rifles and pistols, and we're not in uniform, we're not going to look like cops.
Now, what I don't know about the civil rights movement could fill an encyclopedia, and that's something I should probably remedy, as a tactical and strategic course of study if nothing else. Now, I know a lot of white folk feared black folk then, (and still do today), but I'm not sure they thought of them the way a lot of people think of guns and gun owners today.
But as far as I know, at the time, it wasn't real likely to get you thrown in jail for too terribly long for sitting in the wrong seat on the bus, or at the wrong lunch counter. These days, "misbehaving" with a gun will get you put in prison forever.
I realize I've mostly come up with negatives here. Don;t think that means I dislike the idea. I'm just an engineer by nature, and therefore, pessimistic when an idea is announced. I like poking the holes at the beginning of the voyage, rather than finding out we've got a leak halfway across the lake.
Quoting Jesperskibby:
"My question is: How can we as individual firearms owners cultivate the maximum public goodwill to firearms ownership?"
Two examples:
First -- Last month, I was meeting some buddies over at the NRA range. While waiting to get on the list for a lane, I heard the guy in front of me ask about renting guns. The NRA guys explained that they don't rent guns, but Blue Ridge Arsenal does. They said to go over there, try some out, get one sometime, and come back to NRA.
I butted in. Said that I'd done the instructor course a few years ago, and had plenty of guns to share. Told him to go ahead and take the test, then join me on my lane. The guy had never handled a gun in his life. He went through the safety test, got his range card, and joined me.
Started with .22s, then went to bigger stuff. By the end of the hour, he was getting respectable-for-a-novice groups with my 1911. Welcome to the Gun Culture, dude.
Second: My employer, as do most, do some stuff for the midwinter cluster of holidays - party, etcetera. As is also common, they do some charity stuff, including a silent auction. A year ago, a coworker suggested that I offer A Day At The Range With Dex, as an item to bid on. This past holiday week, I did.
At noon today, I'm meeting the coworker who put in the winning bid, for lunch near NRA HQ. She asked if she could bring friends, and I said yes. They just have to cover their own lunch and range fees (I'm covering hers). After lunch, we'll tour the Firearms Museum. Then, down around back to the range. Safety briefing, test, and then bang-time, wrapping up in time for them to go do football-fan stuff.
All three are gun virgins. Even better, I work in a building with a majority population of raving hoplophobes. Assuming that I provide these three ladies with a positive experience, I'll have opened some eyes.
I'll post how it goes on my blog, later.
Welcome to the gun culture, ladies.
Dex,
You wanna leave a link to your blog?
"Dex,
You wanna leave a link to your blog?"
MadrocketScientist, Your wish is my command. Go, read, grin.
On still further consideration, I realize the New Mexico is a Open Carry state. in furtherance of the goal expressed here, I can carry a pistol at all times (except in places that serve alcohol, or the bank, etc) to get the world more used to seeing them.
I'm in.
Post a Comment