Saturday Link Following
Lady Janet is gonna have words with you if you keep posting this stuff Drew.
AHHH,Probably not,too small a fish.Get those visit numbers up a bit and then maybe ,,,,That Metal and Wood essay was awesome. I borrowed it, if you don’t mind.
I am sorry, but while in large part the essay was good, it was somewhat disturbing for me, and coupled with some of the other “parts” on the site leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. And not merely because of their EXTREMELY lax “origin” myth for the “Three Percenters” (Sorry, but the overall number of those in the field at any given time was far closer to 10% for most of the war, with 3% MAYBE being present in the trenches during the opening siege of Boston that started the war).
Did anybody else but me notice the
thing on the side?This time, we are all Davidians
So, am I supposed to believe that simply because I disliked Clinton and gun control laws in general, I am supposed to support the maniacal and apocalyptic cult of a whacked-out messiah who was openly committed to violent holy war over the elected government of the US?
Sorry, but I will pass.
The fanatical and raging talking over Waco by some of my fellow Pro-Secondites has always left me confused and sometimes disturbed.
To recap: We are talking about a theocratic and fanatical cult led by an unstable apocalyptic who committed such varied crimes as:
* Murder
* Rape
* Theft (ironically including those of some of the firearms we are supposed to defend their use of)
* Smuggling
* High Treason
* Public Endangerment
* Abduction
* Threats
and
* Conspiracy to commit acts of TerrorCan somebody ring me around on that again? I’m not sure I got the part where CLINTON or even that mutant rat he put in charge of the FBI at the time are somehow the BAD guys in that situation. In others? Yes. But not in this one. And this marks a centrifugal point of stress for the entire Right: at what point do the rights of the few take precedence over the rights of the many?
Now, as the author pointed that out with the Hitler example and a few others, the idea that it should NEVER take precedence over the public consent is ludicrous and goes against the ideas of this Republic. However, they seem to be taking it all the way in the opposite direction back into loolooland.
Am I supposed to believe that the personal initiative of David Koresh to start a cult and commit increasingly savage crimes dominate the rights of others or the government of this Republic (unsavory though legal as it may be)?
In that case, we will be obliged to surrender to the next America-born Islamist who comes knocking on our door demanding “Koran or Sword.”
Was the “Glass War” justified? Absolutely. It was a peaceful act of civic disobedience by lawful citizens who accepted their responsibilities and only minimally infringed upon the rights of others to make their point. But what ELSE is justified by this?
Am I supposed to believe that, simply because Obama won the election, we are all supposed to somehow charge Capital Hill against “Federal Tyranny” without Obama’s violation of his Oath of Office (or, in any even, no violation of it significantly greater than has been around for well over a century on where one may “keep and bear” arms")?
In that case, I hope you will find me in the trenches DEFENDING against such a charge and an usurpation of the rights of the majority, for it is to be no better than Daniel Shays and the plotters of the Whiskey Rebellion (whose revolts was directly opposed almost unanimously by the Founding Fathers) and the CSA (who blackmailed the rest of the country with the threat of war if they did not get their way at the ballot boxes).
Yes, it is true that there are some laws that are quite literally made to be broken. And one may be able to make the case that gun control laws are one of them. And, if necessary, it is justifiable to break other laws in the defense of those rights.
However, the idea that we should be taking these things to extremes when the situation is hardly extreme is foolish at best. Should we break gun laws and protest them? Absolutely. But only within reason. However, the key failures the author of this piece seems to fail to notice are the idea that not all oppressions are created alike. The current gun laws are oppressive and unjust, but am I supposed to believe a radical attack on the government that puts them in place without any other factors to make the situation direr is good? No. If need be, simply refuse to list your firearms, but keep them holstered. That is Civil Disobedience.
Again, the writer of this piece seems to fail to recognize the virtues of brutal and upright moderation- to steadfastly refuse to capitulate or waver, but at the same time to be reasonable and to only jump to the guns when it is truly justified.
The comment about “if” (to the author, it seems more like “WHEN") Civil War breaks out seems equally dubious. Governments and policies rise and fall with the times. After all, who in 1780 (when nationality fervor swept the country following our survival against another British assault) could predict that in 1840, the nation would be divided over economics, and that the divide would be South VS rest of the country (as opposed to New England VS Rest of the Country)? And who in 1840 could have predicted that in 1900, the primary divide would be class and ancestry?
In short, the site makes several suppositions, many of which are radical and some of which are morally reprehensible (ie the Dravidians). While I agree with the author that one must always be vigilant against all possible threats, if necessary beyond legal bounds, I believe that the most valuable approach is one of “wait and see.” If the time for violent revolt comes, it will come. But until then, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, OK?
Posted by Turtler
07/26/2009 at 06:13 AM
First off, I want to make sure that everybody understands that sometimes I put links in to things I find interesting. It doesn’t mean I approve of them, although sometimes I do. The “Glass War” story makes you think, and think hard.
I have no sympathy or commonality with the Branch Davidian people. But I do know that there are some people, who perhaps don’t think things through completely, who can only see the heavy hand of government there. I mean, come on, I seem to recall the Reno brought in TANKS, right? And that’s what many react to, fully ignoring just how twisted the BD people were.
Now, stepping back and thinking, tanks are pretty much bullet proof. So they are a good protection against small arms fire. It’s not like the FBI used a whole caisson full of 120mm HE to level the place ... which a tank could have done in a handful of minutes. But some folks look at Waco and see “besieged citizens” on one side and “government with tanks” on the other, and can’t distinguish law enforcement efforts there from Prague in 1968 and Russian tanks crushing a freedom movement.
I think the Window War story is pre-apocryphal. It’s not an incitement to a low violence level insurrection, just a reminder that such a thing has been done before. A story. A story about how the soap box and ballot box having failed, the next box (cartridge box) can be brought out and at least looked at. And I think the hope is that just the mention that the next box exists would be enough ... even though in the story, the box (formerly owned by Pandora?) can be opened just a tiny crack and then closed again. That might not happen; it’s very hard to take only one step off the cliff and then go back. But there are many who see such a time a’coming. Witness Wardmama’s comment from the other post:
We are unfortunately (I think) almost past the time to speak up - as very, very few on our side have spoken up - and what is next is going to be much worse.
And no one seems to care to stop it - or do the right thing anymore.
God Help America
She is one of millions, perhaps tens of millions, who feel this way. Government is moving towards despotism as fast as they can. It is out of control and spiraling down faster every day. It is time to think of cures, and rationally debate them. And that’s why I posted the link. Good luck finding rational debate these days. You can either preach to your own choir or be shouted down as a nut case and ignored by the other side. Which is the borrowed text from that story that I quoted in my post.
What are we to do?
There is much about the Waco situation that was problematic on both sides - and that is part of why we are where we are. Instead of figuring out a decent and ‘rule of law’ way to the Waco situation - anti-gunners went in guns blazing and created a disaster.
Perhaps a starting point would be to clarify if cults actually constitute a ‘religion’ and therefore are protected by the 1st Amendment or not - it is a fine line - but in terms of tax evasion and/or the stashing of guns there might be a legal and more just way to bring these kooks in line.
We The People need to speak up when the line is crossed with Government - but also with the People. Defending the Constitution is right and just - but also defending laws - and holding those who find clever ways to circumvent them - is just as important.
And as We The People have become silenced in terms of pc - in regard to religion and race - this craziness will continue and We The People will be the only losers as they (the Klownposse in DC) will just attach another bill to silence us, deprive us of another right while we are busy quibbling over some small point we don’t agree on.
Taking MY guns away is not the answer. At All. Ever.
But that is the point of Waco - and why in an essence we are all Davidians - without all those joining together to clarify the anti-gun position, without all of joining together to promote realistic and rational ways to cut down on gun violence and insuring that the laws (which isn’t it a felony, to use a gun in the commission of a crime?!?) are upheld to the maximum, and to join together to stop this piece by piece, bit by bit destruction of our rights as citizens by those who are supposed to be our public servants and ‘representatives’ - then we come down on the side of the anti-Constitutional anti-gunners and are part of the problem.
What part of shall not be infringed do people have a problem with? Tricky line to deal with - perhaps when one crosses the line and becomes a criminal - that right along with others become moot - as you chose an action to put your right to rights in jeopardy. But again, if you have never been or aren’t committing a crime - why is that an issue? Most especially when it seems underage teens who are in gangs have no problem what-so-ever getting all sorts of guns, using them and I don’t exactly see Reno or Brady or McCarthy mounting raids against them - why not? What is about white people and guns that is such a problem or so scary? Most especially when they are not conducting the public/social violence? I really, really hate the liberal - punish them all for the sins of the few. It is how they tax, deny rights, and impose un-Constitutional laws that they have no right to - and it’s destroying America.
And that should be the issue.
