Saturday, October 10, 2009

Clayton's rejoinder.

He still doesn't get it. You guys dissect it. I've got a gun show to go to.


Have you noticed the progress we've made working through the system the last 25 years? I have. In 1990, the prospect that we would ever see gun control laws struck by the U.S. Supreme Court seemed remote. And it wasn't because our arguments back then were weak. They were because we didn't have the political influence we needed to appoint sympathetic justices.

The more you talk about civil war, the more likely you are drive people that are sympathetic to gun rights into the opposing camp. This makes civil war more likely, not less likely.


Mike H said...

Nothing to dissect. It's laid open for all to see. Obtuse.

I thought he was more perceptive etc.

But that was a long time ago now.

How some cling to the 'hope' of compromise etc.

pierce said...

Progress? Progress?! Over the last several decades Americans are expected to: relinquish personal privacy and dignity in all airports/federal and state buildings, not protest any abortion facility (murder of innocents), lay back quietly if a mistaken (or not mistaken) warrantless home invasion occurs by masked armed uniformed thugs, respond quietly and meekly to all questions if stopped on the roadside by uniformed thugs, allow unknown warrantless taps on my communications (phone, computer, etc) by the Leviathan whenever they want to do so and I will not necessarily know they are doing so, and etc, etc, etc. Progress. Hogwash. We Americans have relinquished so much of our freedoms to the State we are now expected to be subservient. Our abject obedience during any interaction with the State and its uniformed thugs is expected. If you do not think so next time you interact with TSA, you try questioning them when you see them frisking down a fellow American - - perhaps like the pregnant women being forced to show her breasts and belly, or the elderly Congressional Medal of Honor vet being rousted because of the sharpness on the medal he is wearing(real examples, by the way). Unless you are willfully ignorant the myriad of examples are easily found through email searches or personal experience (any free living American increasingly clashes with these encroaching State imposed bars - if you don't it is because you are living meekly). All is mentioned so you understand there is no stopping the purposeful, steady progress of turning us into servile subjects. Unless we use firearms. Yes, Clayton the meek, firearms. No State or its uniformed thugs have EVER removed its iron heel from the necks of its subjects until enough of them have been killed. Study your history. Stop being ignorant. We need informed, determined, preparing, hard Americans for what is coming. Not apologists.

Anonymous said...

Apparently Crammer thinks that the best medicine for tyranny is appeasement.
He believes Heller was some kind of victory.
(Are they Open Carrying in DC now, 'cause I must have missed that news report?)
He must believe to the core of his soul that begging and pleading for our 'rights' is what we need and should do.
“Mr. V. Please, OH PLEASE, don’t speak of civil war! Sarah Brady might stop inviting me to those swank and sophisticated cocktail parties.”
Crammer is a vile and disgusting PRAG.

pdxr13 said...

There's a big difference between being prepared for anything that comes our way and intentionally looking for trouble.

Only a fool would see trouble coming down the road, look away and wish for a good result.


pdxr13 said...

"Have you noticed the progress we've made working through the system the last 25 years?"

In 1984, I could make and register a legal machine gun. That same behavior is now criminal. Progress for whom?

1986 brought us an illegal alien amnesty, chain migration, deportation failure, and the beginning of the latest stage of The Population Replacement Program of 1965.

In 1993, Self-loading rifles and shotguns were mostly a novelty. In 1994 they were limited and criminalized, increasing prices tremendously.

"The more you talk about civil war, the more likely you are drive people that are sympathetic to gun rights into the opposing camp."

We are already opposing LOSING a civil war. Note civilian weapon and ammo sales.

"This makes civil war more likely, not less likely."

The less likely the OpFor has for a plain concession, the less bold they will be in their demands. We are fighting for our lives/families/homes and future, they are fighting for a discredited foreign idea or are mercenary criminals who see opportunity.



Sean said...

Waco, and Ruby Ridge ocurred during that time frame. Was that "progress" too? Me, I don't give a hoot in hell how many Fudds, Zumbos, and chickens run into the opposing camp. All I care about is the people with guts who stay in mine. GFY.

Jesse M. said...

Understanding that secession does not necessarily mean civil war and that civil/ revolutionary war is the ultimate right of the free man against a despotic government is inherent to understanding and practicing your rights. what is truly sad is not that people believe civil war to be immoral, but that they do not even (obviously) understand the very foundations of this great nation.

Here is an article I wrote recently regarding how "constitutional" it is is to discuss secession.

rexxhead said...

Easily understood.

People within your own camp can have differing opinions on any particular subject. They can honestly support different routes to the same goal.

Isn't that our main complaint regarding Republicans and Democrats?

Anonymous said...

The only reason we have made progress is because enough of the "silent majority" has woke up, stood up and made their voice heard.

Where did this "sympathetic justices" business come from? is it the fact that there may be a few justices who are actually trying to live to the oath they took to defend our Constitution? God forbid!

Any talk to the collectivists, that against their twisted beliefs, is threatening to them. They have given us no choice but to draw the line.


Anonymous said...

Let me guess.... Clayton Cramer was one of the first Prags to rejoice over the Heller decision. I can see him now, arm in arm with his buddy Wayne LaPierre jumping up and down in their urine filled kiddy pool - just splashing away, exclaiming wee, wee, wee, as they urinate all over each other!


MamaLiberty said...

You really don't get it, Clayton.

See, I don't give a fig what "camp" anyone is in. Those who love tyranny are not going to become our friends. Those who truly love liberty will not become our enemies.

The lines were drawn long ago. If they attack me, they will be shot. Period.

I'm all done backing up.

Temnota said...

We call this "Battered Gunowner Syndrome", and it's fallacious. Emboldening our enemies by our silence in order to refrain from scaring off a few fence-sitters is a bad bargain. People need to choose their side, and if they're inclined to choose the antis when the heat is on, better to know it now than when the chips are down.

Newbius said...

Civil war as a necessary outcome of warning about civil war? Hardly. That is like saying discussions about obesity cause people to get fat.


American Patriots are advising the people who wish to infringe our rights further (in the interest of aggrandizing more power unto themselves) that we have had enough. Actually, that they have gone too far and need to back up a bit.

Pointing out the logical conclusion of a failure to respect our position is not the same as agitating for the result. It is a warning. Nothing more or less.

Mr. Cramer would do well to recognize that incremental compromise with tyrants about our fundamental rights has gotten us to the point we are at now. 50 years ago, the discussions we regularly have today about our freedoms would have been laughed at as impossible in a free country.

Have the truths about freedom changed? Or, has our willingness to embrace infringements, in the interest of comity, clouded our judgment about what freedom truly means?

I state it is the latter that we currently experience. And I urgently call my fellow citizens to embrace the former...the once-understood, fundamental truths about freedom and liberty.



Qi Ji Guang said...

QUOTE The more you talk about civil war, the more likely you are drive people that are sympathetic to gun rights into the opposing camp. This makes civil war more likely, not less likely. QUOTE

Actually, John Ross' "Unintended Consequences", published in 1996 gave the gun rights movement a great amount of much needed strength. When that book was published, people all over the country were introduced to the Threeper ideology for the first time. It literally scared the living daylights out of the most hardline advocates for gun control, because they realized that the people who they are trying to control will not submit so easily, and if they try to force them to, things can turn downright nasty.

And then, we had "Black Arrow", published in 2000??* which gave the whole libertarian movement great support, just like "V For Vendetta" did.

* Please correct me if I am wrong on the "Black Arrow" publishing date.

Boston T. Party said...

"Sympathetic Justices"? In a razor-thin 5-4 decision which (in Scalia's obiter dicta) all but assured the continued regulation of battle rifles ("dangerous or unusual weapons")?

D.C. v. Heller will likely be known as the last pro-2A ruling by SCOTUS, now that what's-her-name is sitting.

Cramer, Kopel, et al truly believe that the Heller decision was a judicial/political watershed event. It wasn't. Rather, it was a "Nice doggie!" while they grope for a rock.

Anonymous said...

Increasing probability of civil war a GOOD THING as only alternative is a HORRORSHOW making Adolf Stalin PolPot and all the other murdering scum of History look like a practice event at the GirlScouts ,(before THEY started working with DHS and FederalBureau of Incineration, as snitches with the iWatch program)An overview of whatsUP is very not good and the only ones not asleep at the switch are the Constitutionalists.....Figure it out.Mercy does not function from a position of Weakness and Defeat and Cowardice,nor does FREEDOM

horace said...

Clayton is using the old "Flea Training" system. Get a bunch of fleas in a jar. Put a glass pane over the top. In a week or two take the glass off. The fleas have presumably learned not to jump higher than the jar wall. I tell people this when they ask me, "Why do you need to carry a gun?" Because I'm not a trained fleas, that's why.

Anonymous said...

Clayton Cramer never did quite get it. I remember him from Usenet's tpg list back in the 90s.

Anonymous said...

Um, actually no.
We live in a roughly democratic country and the center is defined by the fringes. So, the more radical we are, so long as we remain reasonable, the more moderates will move in our direction in the long term.

In short, compromise between the two sides is bound to happen, you want to take the most extreme position you can, so that when compromise happens, it will be more to your benefit.

ScottJ said...

I'll have to come back and digest all this later myself.

Great meeting you at the show today and then I arrive home to find my new Lee Production Pot in the mailbox.

Have to play now.

TJP said...

All I know is that if I had to meet or exceed the legal competency of Gura, Young, Cramer, or Hardy in order to defend my rights in a court of law, I would be fucked.

Conclusion: I'm fucked.

jon said...

just looks like another fella who believes liberty can be won through a system -- once simpler, now thoroughly convoluted -- which has demonstrated in only 200+ years that it is insufficient to secure the liberty which had already been won.

sirmatthew said...

What if the government had taken away all of Clayton's keyboard keys back in 1970 and he had to fight to get them back one by one? Suppose he now has letters A through J restored to his keyboard, but is that really progress? It's still an infringement imposed upon him by domestic enemies of the Constitution!

I don't buy the argument that talking about civil war drives gun-rights sympathizers (or freedom lovers or anyone else) into the Constitutional domestic enemy camp. If anything they will want to be on the winning side when the SHTF, not the side which promotes disarmament and infringements upon our freedoms and liberties.

The alternative of not discussing the possibility of civil war is to remain silent about it. That would only embolden domestic enemies to infringe upon our rights even more. Bullies continue to do what they do until someone stands up to them. We do no one any favors by avoiding discussion of this issue as in doing so we are sounding a warning like a rattlesnake. We are saying, "Don't tread on me and you won't suffer the consequences."

jon said...

one other point: who says open carry is truly a disturbing behavior? what studies is clayton pointing to? or is he just taking the mainstream media's reaction on its face?

he might be right, that open carry to a moonbat weenie is the equivalent of the "kiss-in," or some raunchy gay pride parade, to a socially conservative man of years such as himself. the key word, of course, is might. it only seems conceptually valid; there's no evidence to back up the logic. so i say the jury is still out on that.

and even if that's true, why does it necessarily dictate that someone should change their behavior? maybe you just don't belong in san francisco, mr. cramer -- and maybe msnbc anchors don't belong in america.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it was a razor-thin majority. And if keeping our rights means depending on sympathetic justices, we are screwed when Justice Kennedy retires. Once we lose that swing vote with the anointed messiah in office, all of the so-called progress he thinks we made goes out the window.


Anonymous said...

Actually there has been some progress. Mainly by people BREAKING THE LAW, e.g. homeschoolers.

Cramer thinks other people are disturbed with seeing guns, because HE is disturbed. I haven't noticed any disturbance, and I OC all the time.

As to bringing "civil war" (actually, secession) closer, I sincerely hope so. "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion." - T Jefferson