Monday, April 10, 2006

We have met the enemy and it is us.

Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way.

We are placing ourselves in opposing camps and treating each other as the enemy.

This thought occured to me as I read this post. I can't say for sure that the post itself CAUSED the thought as it seems to be advocating the same adversarial relationship as everyone else, but something in it tweaked my "ouside the box" thinking. I posted similar sentiments as a comment on his blog.

It strikes me that the adversarial relationship between the "absolutist" and "incrementalist" camps is natural.

Anyone who has spent time in the military has seen it: The Sailors belittle the Marines who belittle the Soldiers, who belittle the Airmen and so on. But when the SHTF, all of the armed services work together to win the war. The Marines couldn't survive without the air cover and heavy guns of the Navy, the Marines don't have the numbers and hardware for large scale, protracted battles like the Army does, the Army couldn't survive without the air cover and support of the Air Force etc. etc. etc.

Interservice rivalries are common, heated and sincere, but we all acknowledge that members of each service serve as honorably as the others and that we each have a role that MUST be filled for success.

We are doing the same thing. We are picking each other apart in our individual efforts to achieve the same goal. We've even coined new political affiliations for each group: "absolutists" and "incrementalists".

It strikes me that BOTH camps are necessary to waging a successful war. Sort of like squad tactics; you have your infantry weapons and your crew served weapons. The crew served weapons lay down suppressing fire while the infantry advances on the objective one step at a time.

The "absolutists" can absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything but total recognition of our rights. The fact that they have never admitted the veracity of governmental regulation gives them the moral high ground in that specific debate. They lay down the supressing fire.

The incrementalists, in the meantime, while acknowledging all along that the objective is a return to total recognition of our rights, advance steadily taking incremental objective after incremental objective.

If we work together versus belittle each other, perhaps our two approaches can be complementary rather than adversarial?

You will see similar posts to this on some of the other boards that have been hosting this running debate...maybe this discussion will result in a workable strategy that effectively utilizes both schools of thought.


At 6:22 AM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Sailorcurt - You are correct and so is David. He is doing his job as a reporter - he causes one to think. The fact that there is no animosity has been acknowledged already, correct?

I'll be bold and venture to write that David has no animosity to you at all. Of course I can't state that as fact, because I'm not David. However, I've come to understand his modus operandi, (I believe). And, I admire him for it. Because it shows he's a real thinker.

Seee the same quality in you and StraightArrow. Although it is expressed differently. My personal method is bold, in your face, and hit hard with the facts. And not let up. Learned this in boxing. I don't want to dance with my opponent. I want to knock them out - and fast.

David, I believe, likes to spar. He wants you to think, to provoke thought. (Which he did, for you responded twice). I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

David left a two word statement one time, on a blog I had commented on in response to someone. Those two sentences hit me right between the eyes. But, I was searching for the truth.

I had my mind open, because I know that what we have right now. At all levels of government in our country. Is not correct. I've known my whole life, that we really don't have true Freedom and Liberty. At least not as it was intended by the Framers.

The blog on which David had left a comment had called me on something I had written. And I was arguing my, (incorrect), viewpoint. And I wasn't about to give up, (I'm not much on surrender).

David's comment, whether he realized it or not was what was needed. But, as indicated I was open and seeking the truth. And I still am. However, the aforementioned incident spurred me on to discover what happened to our Right.

And what I discovered. Was that it was INCREMENTALLY stolen from us through unconstitutional and perverse laws. Laws which should have been overturned by the courts, but were not. This shows either total ineptness on the part of the court. Or conspiracy with the Legislatures. Am now convinced it is the latter.

I've proven that there is NO legal way in which ANYONE can interfere with our Right. They have done it by ILLEGAL methods. So, therefore, it is Repugnant - NULL and VOID. It is unconstitutional without bearing or weight. The only reason it has ANY weight whatever, is because we rolled over and let it.

Our Founders would have stood up and said. 'Not only NO, but HELL NO'! We should be doing the same thing. We need to announce, in unison perferably, not only 'NO - BUT HELL NO'! We need to tell the court(s) and these perverse politicians 'You people are NOT our masters! You are servants! Stop your perverse Usurping, Treasonous, Subversive ways - NOW!

Perverse established precedent is STILL PERVERSE - and therefore NULL and VOID LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY. Here is PROOF, from a JUDGE that left the system in DISGUST:

Would highly recommend everyone read it. As it spells out what we are TRULY up against.

We CANNOT and MUST NOT abide by their PERVERSE MANDATES. The more we let it slide, the harder it will be to get our Right back as it should be. I repeat, we WILL NOT WIN, by playing the game by THEIR PERVERSE rules. As we will invariably end up in the same spot that we are now, yet again.

As it stands now, the courts being the arbitrary perverse lawmakers, (that they are NOT supposed to be), can turn around and declare your CCW invalid. Read the article I referenced, Judge Napolitano goes into their perverse ploys they use. At ALL levels.

If a bunch of dems. get in this year. And Hitlery gets into office in 2008. You can kiss your CCW goodbye. That is their written agenda. They want to ban ALL handguns - period, (except to L.E.). That is how serious this is.

We need to be VERY BOLD and VERY LOUD AND CLEAR. Or, they are going to walk right over us - again.

At 6:48 AM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Make that 'David left a two 'sentence', (instead of 'word'), statement one time'.

At 9:13 AM, Anonymous Steam Dragon said...

We have a WINNAH!

Now if we can keep it civil...

At 4:21 PM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Steam Dragon -

How ya' doing?

At 9:45 PM, Anonymous Stephen Rider said...

i'm more of a "provoke thought" type myself, in large part because I'm not always entirely set in my beliefs and sometimes need the discussion to either clarify or solidify where I stand. In other words I very specifically write in order to ASK QUESTIONS and provoke discussion of things that people take for granted in their own philosophies.

While you read my post as highly adversarial, I think what I had in mind was more along the lines of your referenced "fighting between the services". I refer to that idea somewhat in this comment:

Either side can be a powerful force, and either side can screw things up -- the "absolutists" by scaring away the fence sitters who are necessary to win the war; and the "incrementalists" who sometimes win short-term battles by giving up something long-term.

Over the long haul, I think we're winning. Get more people believing in gun rights, you'll get more gun-friendly politicians elected. Get more of those elected, and you'll end up with more gun-frinedly judges being appointed, which is CRUCIAL when it comes to the point of going to the courts and demanding our Constitutional rights.

You can yell as loud as you like, and it's talking to a brick wall if the judges are already against you.

More importantly, if you take the all-or-nothing shot at the wrong time, you can make it much harder to succeed when a better time comes along. I think that is what most worries me about the "absolutists", and is perhaps what makes some of us who *think* like absolutists *act* like incrementalists.

At 2:47 AM, Blogger E. David Quammen said...

Stephen Rider -

"I think that is what most worries me about the "absolutists", and is perhaps what makes some of us who *think* like absolutists *act* like incrementalists."

I don't think that any of us 'absolutists' are under the delusion that we will get our Right back in one fell swoop. (Barring a direct miracle). No, it's going to be a difficult fight for sure.

I think, (and I may be wrong), that is what David C. was trying to point out. Is that the CCW 'victories' aren't really a 'victory' per se. As all we're really doing is regaining lost ground. And, in addition we are paying for that which was naturally ours already. So, it's not really a 'win', it's a regain of what is supposed to be ours anyways.

On top of that, it gives government even more perceived power over the Right. Which is in direct confliction of the whole meaning for originally enumerating that the Right 'shall not be infringed'. As it is the last intended 'check' against a government Usurping it's authority.

Does it really make any sense. That the government be given power over the means necessary to negate it, should it become, (even more), corrupt?

Awakening people to the Facts and the True intentions of our Founders is necessary. And, just by the nature of the beast. That can only happen incrementally. Unless, as SailorCurt observed, we're willing to rebel.

But, there is a historically proven danger with the 'incremental' scenario. In that people, by nature, will be satisfied with what seems as a 'victory' and will settle for the compromise.

All the while forgetting that compromise, and 'settling for' is what brought us to the situation we now find ourselves in.

As well as, reinforcing the mistaken impression that government actually has 'control' to begin with. Which, it doesn't, legally. For we mustn't forget, the Framers use of the words 'shall not be infringed'. Which was clearly meant as a Restriction on government.

It is by no means going to be easy. And it will demand eternal vigilance, as was outlined by the Founders. And, that it was the DUTY of the citizenry to be vigilant. Because the Usurpation can resume at any time, without warning. (The true danger of arbitrary use of law and authority).

Bottom line;

It is obvious government will not stay within it's clearly defined bounds. Nor, will it carry out it's equally defined duty. So, we return to the strongly worded advice of our First President, (who had a good military mind), George Washington:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."


"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from ANY who might attempt to ABUSE them, which would include their OWN GOVERNMENT.”

- Speech of Jan. 7, 1790, in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790

Failure to do so, will be at our own and future generation's peril.

We are not really fighting our government. The true battle is against the inherent evil found in human nature.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home