From the blog Overcoming Bias:
We feel a deep pleasure from realizing that we believe something in common with our friends, and different from most people. We feel an even deeper pleasure letting everyone know of this fact. This feeling is EVIL. Learn to see it in yourself, and then learn to be horrified by how thoroughly it can poison your mind. Yes evidence may at times force you to disagree with a majority, and your friends may have correlated exposure to that evidence, but take no pleasure when you and your associates disagree with others; that is the road to rationality ruin.
We have way too much of this in the pro-gun community. Way too much. I notice it particularly in those who would have us believe we’re, sure as sin, on the road to a marxist dictatorship with the election of Obama. That’s right along this line of thinking, if you ask me.
That also, if you ask me, describes much of the open carry movement as well.
A couple of Washington’s Rules of Civility come to mind (I know… I’ve got them on the brain these days).
#45- Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in Private; presently, or at Some other time in what terms to do it & in reproving Show no Sign of Cholar but do it with all Sweetness and Mildness.
#47- Mock not nor Jest at any thing of Importance break no Jest that are Sharp Biting and if you Deliver any thing witty and Pleasent abstain from Laughing there at yourself.
Open carry seems appropriate in the woods but sort of obnoxious in a urban environment. I don’t like to see it outlawed. More a matter of etiquette, perhaps.
I’ve had only positive reactions or no reactions at all when i open carry. I dont see the problem.
Perhaps some people that open carry live in areas where tend to get involved in other people’s business. Might be the difference between the north and south too.
I read the post on the link amd I think it is a warning about being righteous on our beliefs. Be civil in our disagreements.
Open carry should not be a matter of law but ettiquette.
The OC movement is the changing of that ettiquette and develop new rules of conduct for ourselves.
Like all challenges to traditions in society it will to take time for a new acceptance .Lets not make the mistakes the anti prop 8 protesters are making. This will engender disgust and hatred to their cause due to their behavior and not due to the issue.
So be civil and polite that is how people can coexist together.
Sebastian,
I was one of those who thought, and still think, that this President Elect may put us on the road to a fascist or marxist government. I think so because just too much in his background and his policy proposals suggest it. I don’t think it is automatically “evil” to point out that we don’t know this guy, that he has not been thoroughly vetted, and that we have bought ourselves a pig in a poke. Let’s hope it turns out alright.
Unless, of course, you know something that I don’t?
Regards,
PolyKahr
Chris:
I’ve wondered if there’s a cultural issue at hand here as well. There was a woman, a nasty nasty woman, who called up CN8 and just ripped into Melanie Hain like you wouldn’t believe. You’d never see anything like that in The South. Even Virginia I think retains enough of its southerness to have a different attitude.
PolyKahr:
I don’t discount the possibility that he’s going to, whether wittingly or unwittingly, lay some foundations that will weaken the foundations of our government, and make it either to rule the country rather than govern it. I’m also not really criticizing anyone for pointing out that Obama is an unknown quality, and that we don’t really have too much of an idea as to what we’re going to get. Everything I see so far says he plans to govern solidly to the left, but that he plans to govern, not rule.
What I am criticizing are the folks who seem pretty cock sure Obama is bringing a socialist dictatorship to America, and pretty clearly the rest of the dolts, including myself, just can’t or don’t want to see it. That’s the evil attitude I was referring to here. There is a tendency for people, and it’s really in every movement, not just ours, to believe they see something that other people are either willfully blind to, or unable to see. It’s an annoying conceit. This bit of human social programming is also responsible for conspiracy theories, I think.
I’m glad you and I agree, even if they think otherwise.
So long as OC isn’t done obnoxiously, I’m okay with it and would actually like to see more of it. We’ve so neutered our criminal law system that it’s sometimes only basic human decency that keeps things from erupting. If that fails, I’m okay with using a person’s survival instinct as a back-up until we can get things fixed.
The old quote of “You ain’t paranoid if they really ARE out to get you.”, comes to mind here Sebastian. I’d like to think that Hussein is just one more harmless little politician. Unfortunately based on what we know about his background and character (and admittedly it is not much) tends to make me very pessimistic. I think he is a borderline communist who is smart enough to do enormous damage to this country before he leaves office. I REALLY hope you are right and I am wrong here.
Let’s get back on this issue in a year or two(if it is still allowed) and see who was closer to the mark.
And I don’t think that viewpoint is especially evil, more like being reasonable, based on available evidence.
Being evil would be to hope that he and his friends are all gathered ’round on the White House lawn when an especially dirty bomb goes off outside the fence.
Gotta go. Heading over to the local shop to see what they have in the way of adapters for a YHM hush tube.
Oh, I can promise you he’s not just one more harmless little politician. He will do damage to the cause of liberty, because his values are collectivist. He will further weaken our constitutional foundations. We can bet on this.
But the question is motives. The conceit of progressives is that if you just get the right people running things, we can make this nation whole, and perfect. Constitutional limits on power, and various other instrumentalities meant to limit the power of government, are an annoyance to the progressive, because they are sure they know how better to make a “more perfect union” than those dastardly founding fathers who crafted the constitution. It’s a great arrogance, but I’m not convinced it’s truly dangerous in sense that the Nazis were. Progressive ideology is collectivist, but not murderous. A key difference between progressivism and nazism is that nazism was wrapped up in the notion of racial superiority/inferiority. There’s been a tradition of that in past progressives, particularly a fondness for eugenics, but post 1960s, that’s not been the case. When progressive ideology starts to speak of “If we can just get rid of those nasty cousin humpers in flyover country.” and begins to truly suggest that urban dwellers are superior, and deserve to subjugate these inferior flyover people, then I’ll really start worrying.
That said, we shouldn’t underestimate the damage Obama can and will do, even if only through the political process.
I do take pleasure in being right–and defending the right to keep and bear arms is absolutely right.
I acknowledge that I perhaps take a bit of pleasure in offending people who (wrongly) attempt to weaken that right–hell with ’em. If that’s “EVIL,” and is “poison[ing my] mind,” so be it.
I don’t think the author was suggesting that feeling good about being right is the problem, so much as when people get together of a similar belief system and start spouting their righteousness. That is, to a large degree what we do here, and I won’t say I have never been guilty of it myself. The evil comes in when one becomes to enveloped by the group that they forget how to talk to people who are outside of it.
Oh, come on, Sebastian, for heaven’s sake. You know as well as I do that the ONLY thing that would prevent Obama and the Democratic leadership from banning all handguns in America is a GOP filibuster, provided they still have the votes to do so after all the ‘recounts’ are finished in various races.
And thus, such a move would be a clear violation of Constitutional principles, amounting to nothing short of tyranny.
Add to this the move by the Dems to silence free speech on conservative talk radio through a censorship mechanism called ‘the Fainess Doctrine,’ and what you have here is not some ‘legitimate, duly elected government within the bounds of our Constitution,’ but an evil consortium of liberty-robbing thugs.
Sorry, but I don’t buy the notion that these people are well-intentioned. They may not kill us all, but they can certainly have us arrested and sent to prison for merely standing up for our rights that are protected in the Constitution.
Oh, and by the way, I forgot to say that by the time the ban on handugns got around to being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama would have already had the opportunity to appoint at least 2 more liberal justices that would gladly overturn the decision on Heller and uphold the handgun ban to boot.
Don’t lull yourself into a false state of confidence that the political process, as run by extremists, will have a positive result. We could well be on the brink of something this nation has never faced before in its history…and we, the peasants, will suffer greatly if this comes about.
On the gun issue, there’s still a number of conservative Democrats. Will they stand with us and buck the leadership? We shall see. I’m optimistic, but I would not go so far to say it’s a sure thing. The only reason I’m optimistic is because most of them will remember 1994, and we’re a lot better organized today than we were back then.
But either way, I don’t really disagree with you that we’re now stuck with a government that doesn’t have much respect for the limits that the constitution they will swear to uphold places on them. That is a problem. I am not denying that. But what do we do about it? Whether we like it or not, the people voted for it, and we’re stuck with it for the next two years, at least. I do hope in 2010, the people will vote for something else. I plan to work hard in 2010 to make sure that happens.
Perhaps I am merely rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic at this point, and we’re heading for a horrible, ruthless dictatorship — if not under Obama, than by some future despot. But unlike some, I think civil war is not something to be threatened lightly. We have a long ways to go before our system is irrecoverably broken, and if the Obama administration enacts more gun control, we will still have non-violent means by which to redress that grievance. It’s not until all those have been exhausted, and have no hope of working, that I think we’re justified in threatening civil war.
And that still doesn’t address the issue of what you do if the tyrannical government is one that a large number of fellow Americans voted for. I still have faith in Americans, and I don’t think they voted for dictatorship. If the administration overreaches and implements the things you mention, he’ll be punished for it at the ballot box, just like Clinton was when he overreached.
“It’s a great arrogance, but I’m not convinced it’s truly dangerous in sense that the Nazis were. Progressive ideology is collectivist, but not murderous.”
They may not want to kill us in a direct, physical sense, but their collectivism will slowly smother liberty in bubble wrap. They won’t need to round us up in cattle trains. Most people will be easily herded into “free” health care/housing/cars/etc until a majority are completely dependent on the state. Once you cross a certain line, the people will give up almost anything to their “benevolent” masters. Kinda like the UK.
Or, like C.S. Lewis said:
Everyone knows that we OC to compensate for our tiny, little Johnsons. Although, my wife says she doesn’t understand why I OC. :)
The Blue Dogs have already signaled that they’re going to give him a pass on pay-go, so I’m not convinced they’ll find a spine on gun control (although, as I said in another thread, they’d be frightfully clever to do so).
Will Senator Obama establish, if he can, a Marxist dictatorship? Maybe, maybe not. Have we been on the road to some kind of statist dystopia since at least the election of Woodrow Wilson? Damn skippy. And if we were sitting around wiping our brows in relief that we’d averted an Obama victory, we’d still be heading down that road, if perhaps a bit more slowly. I held my nose and voted to downshift from fifth, but I never kidded myself it was anything else.
I guess I’m EVIL as well.
Perhaps “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” may come into play here after all.
As for guns, should the government decide that handguns are something we cannot keep or bear, they will be doing away with any claim of legitimacy they have to govern us, voiding the constitution…after that they will only have force and tyranny to control us. If it’s a stacked court, a law passed, or a executive order makes no difference. They will have made their choice, and we will be forced into making ours.
“The said Constitution shall never be interpreted to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams
Sebastian,
Because we have a Constitution, ‘majority rule’ is clearly not a major plank of our form of democracy. According to the Framers, the mere fact that the people elect a government does not by necessity make that government legitimate.
If those who are elected demonstrate their total disregard for the Constitution, then the government they form is illegitimate due to the fact that it runs roughshod over the rights of citizens.
Just as majority rule, or mob rule, cannot legitimately prevent all blonde females with blue eyes from getting drivers’ licenses, so the majority of the electorate cannot legitimately vote to run roughshod over the rights of citizens that are enumerated in the Constitution.
The Constitution places clear limits on what the majority can do. IT is this very principle that allows minority groups to vote and participate in our democracy. Their rights to do so are not subject to a majority vote by the people.
You’re speaking of abstract concepts though, which I don’t really disagree with you on. The constitution, and the Bill of Rights, were meant to keep things beyond the reach of the federal government. I don’t really disagree with you conceptually.
But say you have a revolution, and you overthrow the government that’s illegitimate, and restore what you consider to be legitimate government. What do you do with all the people that voted for the original government? How do you prevent them from electing a government that’s just like the last one?
That’s a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed by the “Three Percent” crowd, and which I don’t see they have answers for.
I forgot to add that at best he’s a typical Chicago political-thug and will govern thusly. So I’m won’t be real happy if I prove to be wrong regarding my suspicions as to his true political beliefs.
Sebastian,
I’m glad we see eye to eye on principle. But the specifics with regard to action can be very problematic, no doubt.
While I understand and see the point propounded by the 3 percenters, and have often stated that I would join them if our rights are directly assaulted by government, the very notion of revolution is disturbing and, to be honest, frightening.
But we may not have a choice if they ever implement confiscation of firearms, for example.
Regarding what to do with those who voted for the illegitimate government at that point, it would seem that a deal would have to be reached for a parting of the ways.
We are already as a nation headed in that direction with a very sharply divided populace with regard to political ideology.
If it ever came down to deposing an illegitimate government that ignored the Constitution and our rights, the result may well be two separate nations, the logistics of which would have to be negotiated.
But all of this is conjecture. I hope I never live to see the day when this will be necessary. But the Framers were convinced we would.
Being by nature a peace-loving man, desiring that all of my fellow Americans prosper according to the terms of liberty, I would be thoroughly disheartened by the necessity of a citizen uprising against tyrannical government.
But at the same time I would not hesitate to do my duty to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution if she were threatened.
What to do after restoring a somewhat legitimate government? For starters, how about passing a Constitutional amendment with two clauses..
First, one to overturn Wickard v Filburn and its progeny, restore the interstate commerce clause to its proper definition, and to take away the Feds’ magical regulatory wand/ban hammer.
Second clause would indicate any attempt to repeal this amendment (or legislate it to death from the bench) would act as a “self destruct” button or “reset” switch.
Without the expansive commerce clause, Leviathan’s power would dry up. We wouldn’t need to “do anything with the people” who voted for a Federal nanny state either since they would be limited to experimenting on their own States. This wouldn’t help those who don’t like the way Cali or something is going, but they could at least escape to a free State.
And, in theory, you wouldn’t necessarily need a violent revolution to accomplish this. If such a war begins to look imminent, it might be possible to convince enough State governments to ratify the above amendment. Either because they too are on the verge of fighting/seceding, or simply because they would wish to avoid bloodshed.
“those who would have us believe we’re, sure as sin, on the road to a marxist dictatorship with the election of Obama. ”
Dictatorship it won’t be. The bureaucracies, committees, agencies, departments, etc will continue to have tremendous power. Marxist it will be, as it has been under Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and going back at least to FDR. Consider Social Security – we take the wages of the young who have the ability to produce in order to give to the elderly in their time of need. That’s the very essence of marxism now a long accepted part of our society.
The only difference between Obama and the current crew is that he probably is a neo-liberal marxist and the Bush/Cheney Cabal is a bunch of neo-conservative marxists. In light of the Executive Orders signed by Bush, especially regarding the methods to insure constitutional rule of law in an emergency (the President can at any time declare an emergency and become dictator, although the E.O. doesn’t put it nearly so succinctly)
“What I am criticizing are the folks who seem pretty cock sure Obama is bringing a socialist dictatorship to America, and pretty clearly the rest of the dolts, including myself, just can’t or don’t want to see it. That’s the evil attitude I was referring to here. There is a tendency for people, and it’s really in every movement, not just ours, to believe they see something that other people are either willfully blind to, or unable to see. It’s an annoying conceit. This bit of human social programming is also responsible for conspiracy theories, I think.”
No, actually the thing responsible for conspiracy theories is conspiracies that are poorly planned and poorly conducted so that far too many loose ends remaining so that the critical minded (as well as the truly paranoid) ask annoying questions about the various implausibilities, impossibilities, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc in the official story.
Obama will do his job as will the men and women who will serve with him. Unfortunately that job is to establish the “new world order” (as Gordon Brown was just saying with the economic turmoil it’s a great time to establish the NWO) and they will be serving the marxist globalist elites. Sounds like crazy conspiracy talk, and it is, except folks like Richard Perle and Gordon Brown and George H.W. Bush and many more politicians and academics and other elites have been talking about establishing the NWO for any decades. It’s an open conspiracy and their own words and deeds indict them.