Wednesday, January 23, 2013

"At what point do people step beyond the protection of the 'Unified Front' clause of the RKBA Movement?"

It has always been a dubious "protection" just ask Neal Knox.


Charles N. Steele said...

Good article. We should be unified conditional on not compromising; the condition is essential. (And hence my current support for NRA.)

If anyone follows Venezuelan politics, Hugo Chavez tends to win in part b/c his opposition is divided. If RKBA advocates become too divided, our own versions of Chavez benefit. We should be slow to dismiss possible allies, but insistent on no compromise on principles.

Anonymous said...

The guy who wrote the article bashes some of the best defenders of the the 2nd Amendment: The Open Carry Movement.

Yeah, lets cut some people out of "the club": Rob Pincus.

Anonymous said...

I disagree w/ the author's stand on open carry. While I choose not to for my own reasons.....he is worried about public perception.

Truth is: if you're reading this site, YOU are an "extremist".

You probably echo Mike's sentiment, "If you try to take our guns, we will kill you."

People will be scared of your stance on that issue...just as they are uncomfortable or frightened by open carry.

Since when did exercising your right depend on if a majority were comfortable with it?

The only type of speech in need of protection is offensive to someone, or it wouldn't need 1st Amendment protection. This issue is no different.

What is coming is likely to be the shedding of blood. If you're queasy about "offending" someone, how well are you going to fare when it's time to pull the trigger?

Get over it. Some people won't like you....hell, it may even be a large majority....but luckily, we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a F*cking Democracy.

Anonymous said...

When you are a detriment to the community directly.
CTD is pulling some bullshit and its directed at its customers (the community).
I completely disagree with Pincus on the open carry advocates.
I am not a fan of open carry for my own reasons but I am not going to tell others they should not do it because it scares the panties off the non gunnies.
You don’t turn on people or cut them out because outsiders find them disturbing.
The OUTSIDERS are the ones with the problem even if I don’t agree with what the particular members of a community are doing.
Some people on this blog need to read this post and ask themselves the same question.
Is a community or cause better served by publically hashing out internal differences in the most vicious way? Creating strife and division within the community?
Alternatively is it better for the community or cause to simply ignore the members or factions you disagree with and pursue common cause or goals?
Answer it quick and lets get it over with we don’t have much time left….


Charles N. Steele said...

Pincus didn't say open carry should be banned, just that he thinks it is not a good idea. (I tend to agree, but it depends on setting. Mostly I want to keep the element of surprise over bad guys.) Saying you don't agree with something is not the same as saying it should be outlawed.

If anyone thinks public perception is irrelevant, s/he is mistaken. We need to win overwhleming public aceptance. You don't do that by compromising, but you also do not do that by hitting them with more than they can accept at one time.

The Marxists learned long ago how to win "hearts and minds" w/o surrendering their principles. We have to do the same. Don't confuse being principled with strategy and tactics.

to Grenadier 1: There's a third option -- civil and thoughtful disagreement and debate, always focused on the goal of defending liberty. And again, we should be slow to dismiss possible allies, but insistent on no compromise on principles.

Charles N. Steele said...

While I'm at it, here's something that bugs me... why all the "Anonymous" posts? And especially from people saying "μολὼν λαβέ" and claiming not to be worried about public perception?

I always use my real name. It's not like your IP address is hidden, so what's the point?

Happy D said...

Reading this article must be what being schizophrenic feels like.
Wile making good points the author then takes what could be considered the opposite position to those points.

One could come to the conclusion the author opposes what the author supports.
Or maybe I am just tired.

Anonymous said...

Charles...sometimes I sign my "anon" posts with my name....sometimes I don't. I'm not registered on the site and "anonymous" is just faster.

I guess it comes down to the fact that 1) I'm lazy and 2) making the government agent that is surely tracking this site work even just a micron harder gives me some sort of sick pleasure.

I assure you....I don't care what anyone else thinks....especially since they want us disarmed or don't understand natural rights.

The saying in Amerika is: You have a right to your opinion. Well, if it's not even in the realm of educated, I couldn't care less what opinion someone holds.....though I have no issue with them speaking it. I just realize that I don't have to listen to it.


Paul X said...

"So, I ask the question, “At what point does one’s actions put them outside the group?” When your actions make you a detriment to the bigger picture, to the greater good and the fundamental principles of our cause"

Such as sniping at OC folk.