I try to stay out of these debates as a matter of course.
First off, I can see both sides of the issue. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty f'n clear, yet we've been dealing with all sorts of infringements over the past, oh, hundred plus years or so.
Secondly, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. You posted that excellent graphic showing the change in laws, and it's crystal clear that we're making fantastic progress. The absolutists cannot or will not see that we're moving in the right direction. We're not teleporting there instantly, we're slowly plodding along. Tortoise and hare, that sort of thing.
Thirdly, as a "big picture" person (and a chess player), I see us gunnies as actually LOSING, and losing badly. While we celebrate NE and KS and brag about how RI and DE will most likely switch from "may issue" to "shall issue", the nanny-statists are quietly hiking up the minimum age for hunters, air-brushing guns out of cartoons, and ear-brushing (my term) all references to guns out of popular culture (witness the horrible editing of "Born to be Wild" in the recent "Herbie" release).
Add to that "zero tolerance" policies; overzealous pediatricians asking about guns in the house; "safe storage" laws; etc. and it all adds up to a generation of children completely ignorant of firearms. I'm afraid to show my son my guns, because if he goes into school the next day and tells his friends, he gets a suspension, I get a visit from the cops, and a shiny new file gets created with Youth Services.
So, we win the battle yet lose the war. While we slap ourselves on the back in an orgy of celebration over new CCW laws, the anti-gunnies bide their time, knowing that in a generation or two they can take it all back and then some. When our numbers have dwindled to that of, oh, say, smokers, we're going to get crushed. Hard.
(Damn, us "big picture" chess players are quite the downer, eh?)
Kevin,
You know straightArrow from many forums I suppose. He ALWAYS talks like that, I really don't think he was trying to insult you.
But as I said in my comments, "shall not be infringed" is strategy not tactics.
Food is better than hunger, drink is better than thirst, and being "licensed" is better than being defenseless.
Even StraightArrow acknowledged this fact in his response to my comments.
I guess David is right that this matter warrants thoughtful discussion, i.e.: now that 37 (not 48 ) states are shall issue what is next?
Incremental progress seems to be moving us in a direction, is it the right one? Are we getting closer to getting back to "shall not be infringed"?
Edited By Siteowner
Incremental progress seems to be moving us in a direction, is it the right one? Are we getting closer to getting back to "shall not be infringed"?
How can it not be the right direction? I'm confused, is there really a down side, other than the failure to get everything we want now! now! now! like David Codrea and Straightarrow seem to want? I can't see one.
I was about to say the smae thing about straightarrow; he's an ass sometimes, but he's a good guy.
Lord knows I've been moderating his comments for almsot three years now.. oy.
He may be a good guy, but he believes I am not.
The "eat my shorts" invitation stands.
Kevin, 48 was a Freudian slip.
Wishful thinking on my part, thanks for the correction.
Eh, take the all or nothing absolutists with a grain of salt, so long as the damage they can do is limited*.
They are a necessary spice of the gun rights movement, and most of them eventually grow out of it.
*Sadly, to your point, there is more than one example of all or nothing absolutists who also happen to be political amateurs causing actual damage to the overal cause in statehouses.
all or nothing absolutists are what has destroyed any viability the libertarian party ever had back when it was first organized and actually got a whole elctoral vote.
in any sort of democracy monumental change is rare and usually dangerous. (EG: alcohol prohibition).
We got to this point in gun control gradually, we will need to reverse it gradually.
So far as that 'eat my shorts' invitation goes, I have always considered meal invites to be friendly things.
But have at least a little compassion on the guy and help him out by adding a little 'seasoning' to them first.
I abandoned the LP over another "all or nothing" position of theirs. Yes, education vouchers are an acknowledgement of government involvement in schooling. Right now, opposing vouchers is a defense of the government school monopoly.
We in Wisconsin would have licensed recognition of our right to bear arms right now had the all or nothing crowd not spoilered the most recent Gubernatorial election.
If it wasn't for the fact I hear very, very little talk of attempting to duplicate what Alaska has recently done, (no permits required), I MIGHT think moving in the direction of "shall issue" is a good thing.
Truth be told, gunowners seem far more likely to talk about how easy it was for them to acquire that permit, (especially all of us who are now living in "shall issue" states). Still, I don't believe the ease with which one may exchange a right for a priviledge should be used as a measurement for success.
Where I DO find those willing to talk of removing these infringements is the absolutist, (the downfall of all gunowners, blood in the streets, blah, blah).
I know the NRA supports many infringements on my right to KABA, and if they still represent the majority of gun owners, then yes, Kevin's statement is correct: gun owners are our own worst enemies.
I repeat myself: Telling someone that they're "fine material for a subject but citizenship is beyond his moral and intellectual abiity" isn't exactly persuasive, unless the persuasion you're looking for is a kick in the balls.
Remember "An armed society is a polite society"?
"Remember "An armed society is a polite society"?
Kevin Baker"
Kevin,
Ah yes, to speak of "shorts eating" and "ball kicking" the hallmarks of a polite society.
We all can be a little curmudgeonly at times.
Still, that does not not mean that we should stop finding common ground towards FULLY restoring the RTKBA.
Hey, I cordially invited him to eat my shorts!
"Incrementalism". *rolls that around the tongue a bit* Isn't that the proccess by which the antis got us to the point where they're lisencing back your rights as a permission, charging you a fee for it, and watching you call it a "Victory"?
What "right" do we incrementalise back into a permission next?
Tacky, I know.
Kev... you need us absolutists, wether you'd like to acknowledge it or no: you can use BillyBeck, Straightarrow, and me to point at as an example of how reasonable ya'll are being.
Without us, you'd be the Absolutist. [Wonder what the moderate would look like?] ;]
So. What's the Plan for getting from "Permission" to Vermont?
"So. What's the Plan for getting from "Permission" to Vermont?"
Simple, restoration of the United States Constitution as the True Law of the Land.
And then an always on watch and well armed citizenry to keep it in check - as was the original intent of the Founders.
We've already seen where complacency has brought us.
The original plan is laid out pretty well in The Federalist Papers. Take a look at Federalist #78 if you want to see what happened to our Right(s).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/Feder...rs/
FedNo78.html
StraightArrow is a good man by the way. He was just trying to help you see the TRUTH. You should be honored he attempted.
Most people don't give a rat's behind about their fellow man and just lets them walk off the cliff. (You know, like what our government is doing to us).
""He may be a good guy, but he believes I am not.
The "eat my shorts" invitation stands.""
Not true, I think you may be a nice man. I know you're an intelligent man.
But I have noticed nobody took me up on my invitation to do with their homes what they have done and advocate for my rights.
I could probably have a drink with you and enjoy conversation and share lies and stories and talk about women we remember who don't remember us and all that other stuff (of course we might not tell it that way). However when we went to the parking lot to leave I would look askance at you if you suggested I pay the local thug for permission to drive my own car. And only then if I did it by his rules, and only drove it where he said I could.
I don't want 50 state shall issue ccw. That is still renting a privilege. I want what the supreme law of the land says I should have as my birthright.
If you can tell me with certainty the mechanics of changing a rented privilege back to an uninfringed right, you can convert me to an incrementalist. I do support the incremental gains. However, we are still talking about begging to be allowed to pay for what is ours. No matter how lenient, the lessor and/or regulator owns that right.
Let's be really pragmatic now and tell me how we reverse the metamorphosis of the right to a rented privilege. Thus returning it back into a right. For without being able to do that we are only participating in self deception.
And my invitation licensing and pemitting you the use of your home still stands.
one other thing. Aren't you being just a little "girly" here. You call those of us that want what is ours "immature, impatient, out of touch with reality, utopians, and accuse us "stamping our feet in a temper tantrum", then you do all this whining when you get some of yours back?
If you don't like it, don't start it. I don't like being burned so I seldom set my clothes on fire. Seems to work for me. Give it a shot.
One other thing. I fully agree with the quote of Ayn Rand at the top of your page. I still think you are a good guy. I just think you're wrong.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
