Here’s an editorial piece from several weeks back that’s making the rounds this morning. Sorry: I followed the rabbit hole down and can’t quite recall where I first saw it referenced.
Well, I want to be part of this debate too. I’m not a gun owner and, as I think as (sic) is the case for the more than half the people in the country who also aren’t gun owners, that means that for me guns are alien. And I have my own set of rights not to have gun culture run roughshod over me.
The piece is well written, by a fellow named Josh Marshall. He quite honestly confesses that he doesn’t own a gun, has never been around guns, and believes that none of his friends or acquaintances own guns either. He could be wrong about that, but it’s immaterial. The point is that, having brought all his formidable ignorance to the fore, he insists it gives him a right to a seat at the table where it will be decided whether I – his opposite in every relevant way – should be allowed to exercise my own gun rights.
Why would I ever agree to that? I don’t even agree that that metaphorical table should exist, but if it must I at least insist it be surrounded by people who know something about the subject in debate. Mr. Marshall has just disqualified himself. All he would bring to the table is his vague sense of fear. Of what value is that?
Yet of course Mr. Marshall is hardly unique – indeed, he’s typical. Virtually everyone on the gun controllers’ side of the “debate” brings nothing but fear and arguments from authority, including those who arrogate the power to actually make the decision. From Carolyn “Shoulder thing that goes up” McCarthy through Diane “Personal pleasure” Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer, Biden et al, gun banners make their ignorance and unreasoning fear seem the only relevant virtue to be considered. That you and I might find that contemptible, is only proof that we are wrong and should be denied any voice at all. They call this a debate? A “conversation?” I don’t.
Nor am I much interested in having a conversation with them, on this or any other topic. These people bore me. Oh, I’m not saying the new laws shouldn’t be strangled in their cradles, if possible. God bless the activists, and give them victory. This time – win or lose, it’s not as though the issue’s going to go away.
But whether or not these absurd little people have their way this time, it will have no effect on my own behavior. I will continue to carry and use firearms and whatever other weapons I choose, because that is my absolute right as an adult human individual. If that brings me trouble, I will accept the consequences of my actions. But I will not pretend any longer to believe that these fearful little people have anything to say to me.
Rules one, two and three
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
you also scored a beautiful one with rule five and your Umbridge likeness.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
Gun ignorance in action: We have had constitutional open carry for, like, ever. No one other than LEOs carried openly. CCW was passed and now there are little signs everyfrigginwhere prohibiting carry of any kind. We are more restricted now than before. Except for the criminals who haven’t been affected.