In earlier posts I’ve discussed how the gun control lobby uses rhetoric over dialectic in order to win public opinion. Key to their arguments is manipulating people’s emotions and use people’s fears. Here is their latest attempt under the ceasefire brand “States United to Prevent Gun Violence”.
Imagine you enter a room and 3 people are sitting around a table playing Monopoly. You are offered a seat at the table to play the game. If you don’t accept the offer to join the game, you are free to do as you wish including just observe the game. If you accept the seat and join the game until its conclusion, you have consented to become a player and as such you would be constrained by the rules of the game.
Believe it or not, government is the same. In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government any legitmate government must first obtain direct consent of the governed. This is later reaffirmed by the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America. What is consent?
consent 1) n. a voluntary agreement to another’s proposition. 2) v. to voluntarily agree to an act or proposal of another, which may range from contracts to sexual relations
Consent must be obtained in two forms. The first form of consent is obtained through the establishment of government. When establishing government a form of government is presented to those to be governed for their consent. This very thing is happening in the world today as I write this note. The European Union had convened a constitutional convention to draft governing agreement. The resulting EU constitutional document is then presented to those to be governed for their consent. The Netherlands, Ireland, France and others have all rejected this proposal of government while other nations such as Spain and Greece have consented to the EU Constitution. However, when consent is not given but taken things can go very wrong. This too is currently being demonstrated on the world stage as the people of Iraq do not consent to the form or manner of government being handed to them and thus resulting rebellion against those who would yoke them with illegitimate government.
The second form of consent must be obtained for the operation of government. This second form of consent arises from the fact that the right to liberty is unalienable. One cannot rightly consent to a government that rules without going back to the people for their ongoing consent. It is through the election process and putting people into public offices of an established government that provides consent to government. The very act of participating in the mechanisms of established government is what provides consent and the tacit approval of the actions of the government and it’s agents. This is why the media has acted as a mouth piece for the government and to campaign for the various “get out the vote campaigns” because it is your ‘civil duty’ to vote. What nobody else tells you is that is your civil duty not to vote, to not consent to an unconstitutional, morally bankrupt, and illegitmate government. Less than 20% of the governed adult population of my county voted in the 2006 elections. Could one really consider this consent of the governed?
Every two to four years we are told that “this” election is most important election of our lifetime or ‘in our age’. You have to ask yourself how has the government changed things since the last election cycle? Do you consent to the following:
No Child left behind
The War on Drugs
The War on Terror
The Patriot Act
Government Death Squads (http://www.cato.org/raidmap/)
Inflation of the Monetary System
Bailouts (Rescue?) for the Rich
Theft of Property (Kelo v. New London)
Domestic spying on citizens
This is only a small sample things that a voter provides tacit consent to when they participate and have their voice heard! Regardless of who you vote for in any election, you’ve have given consent to whatever the outcome.
Rock the Establishment not the Vote
If you don’t exercise your rights and enjoy the full measure of liberty because of the irrational fears and emotions of your ideological opponents. You’ve already lost your rights through appeasement.
I received a mailing from the NRA-PVF wanting a “personal response” to Wayne LaPierre about their request for contributions to stop Barack Obama’s push to grab more guns. Here is their letter explaining how the ‘Political Victory Fund’ is nearly broke after the 2014 election cycle sweep and that Barack Obama is coming to take your guns. Below the fold you can read my “personal response” to Wayne LaPierre.
You gotta give it to Alan Gottlieb and Alan Gura, when those two step into court they are masters of their craft. You can read about it here.
And yet I received nothing from the National Rifle Association noticing their members about the February rally. When you are giving money to organizations that declare they support your right to keep and bear arms make sure that their actions support their claims. While Gun Owners of America work only at the national level it’s good they try to help advertise local grassroots activist events. Consider joining the GOA.
Without going into too much detail, beginning in the 1890’s the churches across the United States were being infiltrated and taken over by socialist’s in order push their progressive agenda under the guise of faith and religion. That agenda is continuing today, with progressive ideologues infiltrating and taking over organizations to further their own agenda and not the organizations.
…the Episcopal Church has lost considerable clout over the last few decades. Trinity Church, in Manhattan, is a rare redoubt of influence…
…Two years ago, an internecine fight broke out over what to do with that money. Some members of the vestry, the parish’s managing board, felt the church should be more activist, and many of the more passive members resigned or were forced out (emphasis added)….
Trinity is using a small piece of its portfolio to pressure Walmart on gun sales. The church owns a token amount of stock in the mega-retailer—$2,000—but it wants shareholders to vote on a proposal that’s effectively an anti-gun measure. In short, Trinity says, Walmart’s board should decide whether the chain will sell certain rifles. Walmart chooses not to sell plenty of other products for moral reasons; why not guns with high-capacity magazines?
Cultural Marxism is permeating every aspect of American life. Gun owners across the State of Washington have felt the sting of these activist churches working to impair your rights during the campaign against I-594.
The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave. – Thomas Jefferson
What is truly crazy is that some ‘rights activists’ believe that the exercise of a right should be limited to the irrational perceptions and feelings of those who would like to abridge those very rights. How does one get through their day worrying about how unknown people are going to think or feel about their non harmful exercise of a right?
It matters little that people openly carried their firearms, wore gas masks, or carried rainbow DTOM flags in the viewing galleries. The House speaker had already openly stated last summer that he was not going to start the session with the open carry public in the gallery as it was his rule. However, by attempting to tear-down people for exercising their full measure of liberty that every American should enjoy instead of defending that liberty; have revealed themselves to be petty tyrants. They are the ones who apparently do not know who’s side they are on.
To compromise the exercise of a right and curtail yours or another’s liberty so as not to offend your ideological enemy is appeasement. The infamous failures of history that resulted from appeasement can testify to the effectiveness of that strategy.
From the beginning, Protect Our Gun Rights, CCRKBA, and the SAF have been opposed to individuals taking action without their blessing. They couldn’t just follow their mother’s admonition that ‘if you have nothing nice to say, keep your cock holster shut‘ or I’m sure she said something similar. On the December 13th rally their leadership stated:
“To be honest, I don’t think this rally will really accomplish anything,” said Adina Hicks, executive director of Bellevue-based Protect Our Gun Rights, the group formed to oppose I-594 and push a countermeasure, Initiative 591, which failed to pass. “They don’t have a further goal. They want to break the law. That frankly is not what we need right now. What we need is action,” she said.
From this moment forward the establishment second amendment rights organizations have only made matters worse in furthering a division between rights activists. They have continued down this path full steam with nothing but disdain and more straight out name calling. As was noted by Alan Gottlieb
“the result of a few stupid extremists on our side who not only handled their firearms unsafely, but made hundreds of Second Amendment supporters at the rally look foolish.”
What Alan Gottlieb is doing here is using very specific political language that the Southern Poverty Law Center has built an entire business model around. By using the terms “extremist” and “foolish” he is attempting to gain favor with the liberal media and possibly curry favor with “centrists” that really don’t care about individual rights and work a “compromise” to later claim victory. In fact Dave Workman boasts receiving such favors from his ideological enemies. The problem is that this method will not work and has never worked to toward the favor of liberty as there is over 100 years of the NRA doing the exact same politics with ever diminishing rights for it’s membership.
As is discussed in this article, what Alan Gottlieb doesn’t appear to recognize is that he isn’t separating himself from the “extremists”, at least not in the eyes of the media and the hoplophobes. He has only signaled to them that he is willing to appease the hoplophobes and also demonstrate where he is weak. So they may at sometime in the future force his retreat by pushing all the right buttons.
It’s not too late for Alan Gottlieb, Adina Atwood/Hicks, Phil “Gadfly” Watson & Dave Workman to apologize. In fact they don’t even have to apologize but quit actively working against those who have similar goals as what are supposedly yours as well. If you are going to write an article about these activists choose the things that you didn’t find objectionable; otherwise just follow your mother’s advice. Just be quiet and if the media asks you questions have a couple one liners at the ready you can say that are nonspecific and that doesn’t disparage them or their efforts.
The worm has turned and the average American is tired of surrendering their sovereignty and conscious to bureaucrats, legislators, and proxies that proclaim to protect their rights.