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. Read more »
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.
What the NRA, POGR, WAFLAG & SAF would-be “moderates” fail to realize is that the anti-Second Amendment, pro-abolitionists, the hoplophobe side is not reasonable and is never going to be convinced by sweet reason. They have no interest in it and little capacity for it.
You do NOT fight a rhetorical battle with dialectic (facts & stats); in a rhetorical battle the only use for dialectic is in a rhetorical manner; it can be used to explode pseudo-dialectic poses, but that is the extent of its effectiveness. It is an intrinsically defensive weapon on the rhetorical level. This means you cannot win with it.
The primary difference between the Left and the Right is that the Left instinctively defends its extremists and the Right instinctively runs from them and leaves them out to dry. The latter is an appeasement strategy, and it works about as well as the infamous failures of appeasement we all know from history. (Neville Chamberlain?)
All appeasement does is signal to the hoplophobes what buttons he needs to push in order to force an opponent to retreat. When you dutifully point out that “you don’t agree with everything X says” or “don’t include the militias, the ‘racists’ and those who argue in bad faith”, what you are accomplishing is not the inoculation of your argument from their extremist taint, you are telling the hoplophobe exactly how he can rhetorically defeat you by painting you as the very sort of extremist you disavow. And remember, rhetorical victory is the entirety of their objective!
Embrace the extremists. Defend them. Refuse to permit them to be cut off and isolated. Allow them to play their role as the intellectual shock troops they are. That is how you win. Because if they’re not taking the incoming fire, you are. And the shock troops are much better equipped psychologically to take it and survive than the average self-styled moderate.
This has been cross posted in a few gun groups and not my original thought. h/t voxday for the original.
It seems the legal system is moving faster than expected to invalidate freedom of religion, speech and assembly.
A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors. On Sunday, KGW stopped by Sweet Cakes by Melissa and found the bakery completely empty. All counter tops, display cases and decorations were gone. Hanging in the window was a sign from the Oregon Family Council that read “Religious freedom is under attack in Gresham.”
A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, the state’s highest court ruled unanimously Thursday. Elaine Huguenin, who owns Elane Photography with her husband and is the business’s principal photographer, refused to photograph the ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.
The court held that “a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients” is bound by the New Mexico Human Rights Act “and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples.”
“Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony,” the court concluded, the photographer “violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”