As I have expended effort in preserving RKBA despite the efforts of too many in the 2A community to self-destruct it, the whole problem with the community has become clear: Too much binary thinking. Too much forcing false choices. Be it a "my way or the highway" approach to 2A alliances ("If you say, 'I support 2A, but...' you're anti-2A..."), the NATO approach to gun legislation ("an attack on one gun or gun component is an attack on all"), or a refusal to realize that our Common Law tradition, from which our rights ACTUALLY derive, is a fluctuating force, the conservative-types that make up the pro-gun community in America defeat themselves, and harm everyone in the process.
Some things are indeed binary. The Culture War demonstrates the need to remember that. But honestly, in the social and political realm--and even in the realm of principle and philosophy--some things aren't. Men of reason can differ on some matters, and a lack of "practical wisdom," as Justice Jackson put it in a similar context, makes for a self-defeating doctrine.
I had intended a version of the following as a separate TDF edition entitled, "'Don't let pride or principle cost you firepower,' or 'Leave NATO approach to international alliances.'" But the more I reflect on this, the more I saw it is that fundamental overreach on binary absolutism that is the real problem. The Globalist/Left and anti-gun people use that force the good guys to fail. All-or-nothing precludes a successful mitigation effort. Drop that absolutism or lose it all:
Libertarians and purist-types have trouble getting past the "NATO" approach to gun rights activism--"an attack on one gun is an attack on all."
The problems with this approach are:
1. Not all guns are the same.
2. 2A is not about "all guns," but rather ARMS within its scope.
3. It's destined to fail politically and in all other ways.
4. It's childish--"my way or the highway," and the people give you the highway.
5. Its destined failure will leave good people vulnerable to bad people.
6. Chanting, "Shall Not Be Infringed!" doesn't change any of the above.
Most people understand this. The problem is that too many on the pro-gun side not only don't understand it--or act in denial of it--but actually reject the "moderates" and "neutrals" on RKBA, and thus alienate the political support they need. TDF 108-- "Maybe it's poetic justice: If you're too stupid to do anything but yell 'Shall Not Be Infringed!,' maybe you shouldn't have firepower.""--is reprinted below. If this lesson is not learned, no amount of purism will save your wives and daughters from the BLM gangs. And those gangs will come.
A big point of TDF has been to show hicks, libertarians, and purists why it's necessary and proper to engage in Political Mitigation (TDF 25) of gun control efforts, even if total victory is not possible. Too many will stand on some sort of principle that their own interpretation of the Second Amendment MUST be upheld completely, or else they will not participate in the process. Indeed, some will actually DAMAGE the mitigation efforts, and justify it with a four-word chant: "Shall Not Be Infringed."
These people will get us all killed.
A RIGHT TO ARMS INFRINGED BUT STILL HELD TO SOME DEGREE BY ENGAGING AND NEGOTIATING WILL STOP MORE BLM THUGS AND PREVENT MORE RAPES OF CERTAIN GIRLS THAN A LIBERTARIAN/PURIST STANCE ON PRINCIPLE AND A CHANT OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"PRINCIPLE AND $5 MIGHT GET YOU SOMETHING AT STARBUCKS. A 20-ROUND PISTOL MAGAZINE, STILL POSSESSED BECAUSE THINKING ADULTS POLITICALLY WRANGLED A BETTER LAW THAN WHAT WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH OTHERWISE, WILL STOP MORE BLM THUGS AND PREVENT THE RAPE OF SOME CERTAIN GIRLS THAN THE 10-ROUND MAGAZINE TO WHICH THE LIBERTARIANS AND PURISTS WOULD CAUSE US TO BE LIMITED.IT'S FUN FOR THESE PEOPLE TO TALK HARDLINE NOW. WHEN THEY COST US OUR FIREPOWER, THEY WILL BE AS VULNERABLE AS THE REST OF US, AND THEIR WIVES AND DAUGHTERS WILL BE RAPED BY THE BLM THUGS THEY COULD HAVE OTHERWISE STOPPED. IT'S HORRIBLE, BUT IT'S POETIC JUSTICE.MY ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THEY HURT THE REST OF US, OUR COUNTRY, AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN THE PROCESS.
========================
Some years ago as the Israelis were expanding the establishment of Jewish settlements on the West Bank (rightly a part of Israel), Israeli military commanders were expressing concerns as it pertained to the security of the State of Israel proper. In a fight, those commanders would be forced at times to decide between defending a given settlement or giving it up ("strategic withdrawal") to establish a more defensible line for the country itself. A "NATO" approach to the settlements ran the risk of losing the whole war. They knew better.
And we should know better. Political reality must be dealt with (TDF 25), and not everything firearms related necessarily is covered the same way (see TDF 88 for an unendorsed discussion of this). Frankly, an honest, objective, and informed appraisal of our Common Law history and the realities of modern technology and society would resolve so many of difficulties. The scope of the Right to Arms does not reach to so much of what so many of the purists want (e.g., full auto--*TDF 10*; degenerate society members being armed--TDF 41; unlimited "constitutional carry"--TDF 68). Lines--objective lines--can be drawn that both ease concerns of some genuinely concerned about gun violence, AND protect fundamental 2A rights "necessary to the security of a free State."
On other issues, frankly, there may be conflict. "Waiting periods," for instance--which TDF opposes, recognizing it as a place where there may be no good answer (TDF 42)--are bound to again become a topic of public debate. To be part of the debate is entirely proper; to bet all of RKBA on it is another--and stupid. Better to do practical mitigation and have your basic defensive arms BEFORE you suddenly "have need."
In all candor, I myself give not a rat's ass about "principle" when it comes to RKBA. The issue is FIREPOWER--securing firepower. "Compromises" that keep otherwise wrongly lost firepower in the hands of law-abiding citizens are GOOD things. As I said before, principles and five dollars get you coffee; firepower retained through deals gets BLM thugs dead.
Drop the binary and be pragmatic. Partial victories when all would otherwise be lost are still victories. Understand and accept it.
Some years ago as the Israelis were expanding the establishment of Jewish settlements on the West Bank (rightly a part of Israel), Israeli military commanders were expressing concerns as it pertained to the security of the State of Israel proper. In a fight, those commanders would be forced at times to decide between defending a given settlement or giving it up ("strategic withdrawal") to establish a more defensible line for the country itself. A "NATO" approach to the settlements ran the risk of losing the whole war. They knew better.
And we should know better. Political reality must be dealt with (TDF 25), and not everything firearms related necessarily is covered the same way (see TDF 88 for an unendorsed discussion of this). Frankly, an honest, objective, and informed appraisal of our Common Law history and the realities of modern technology and society would resolve so many of difficulties. The scope of the Right to Arms does not reach to so much of what so many of the purists want (e.g., full auto--*TDF 10*; degenerate society members being armed--TDF 41; unlimited "constitutional carry"--TDF 68). Lines--objective lines--can be drawn that both ease concerns of some genuinely concerned about gun violence, AND protect fundamental 2A rights "necessary to the security of a free State."
On other issues, frankly, there may be conflict. "Waiting periods," for instance--which TDF opposes, recognizing it as a place where there may be no good answer (TDF 42)--are bound to again become a topic of public debate. To be part of the debate is entirely proper; to bet all of RKBA on it is another--and stupid. Better to do practical mitigation and have your basic defensive arms BEFORE you suddenly "have need."
In all candor, I myself give not a rat's ass about "principle" when it comes to RKBA. The issue is FIREPOWER--securing firepower. "Compromises" that keep otherwise wrongly lost firepower in the hands of law-abiding citizens are GOOD things. As I said before, principles and five dollars get you coffee; firepower retained through deals gets BLM thugs dead.
Drop the binary and be pragmatic. Partial victories when all would otherwise be lost are still victories. Understand and accept it.
From TDF 90--"Saving firepower: 'RKBA: Pragmatism vs principle,' or 'Yes, 20 rounds is better than 10 rounds and a four-word chant'":
:
FIREPOWER: More important than principle.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
FIREPOWER: More important than principle.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html