31 thoughts on “The Perfect Wookie Suit”

    1. I want a liberty that’s politically achievable and sustainable. Because of that I’m willing to coalition and compromise, something that’s an anathema to most libertarians, which is why I don’t self-identify with them, even though I have sympathies to most of what libertarians believe.

      1. So you want something that doesn’t exist- and never will. Compromise only means failure. And that has achieved nothing.

        Its not like I don’t get it. I do. You want to appease the enemies of liberty. But that only emboldens them.

        Gun rights haven’t been further by compromise- but by steadfast resolution to principals. Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona didn’t compromise to “constitutional” carry. They went directly for it. They went for what is right- damn the consequences. And they got it.

        We sell ourselves short if we agree to compromise. Liberty isn’t about compromise. That’s an anathema to it. My picture was to point out that those who hate liberty DON’T compromise.

        And its time we realize that.

        1. How do you figure that the three States you mention went “directly for” constitutional carry? All three got there from a permit system.

          Back to topic, what did the linked product look like before the SIH crowd shut down their server?

        2. Wow, I just played my tape of “Why won’t you stupid cousin-humping rednecks vote for us?” backwards and you won’t believe what it sounded like…

          1. Tam, please follow the green line to the Pavilion Hut to claim your prize: 1 (one) Internet, slightly used, towing not provided.

        3. “Compromise only means failure. And that has achieved nothing.”

          Really?

          There’s this paper called the Constitution that is just FULL of compromise. Where would we be if that had failed.

          Humans are imperfect. They do not all believe in the same principles. But we have to live together.

          The secret is figuring out WHERE to compromise, when, and with whom.

          1. And look where that compromise has gotten us. A Constitution that is ignored.

          2. Unfortunately, lacking any penalty for those going against the Constitution, it has failed too.

        4. Those facts are a pain huh Patrick…

          Alaska, Dateline 1993

          No statewide preemption, no lawful concealed carry except outside of municipalities and while engaged in lawful outdoor pursuits, open carry legal in teh state but can be banned or dicouraged by cops in cities, towns and villages.

          ’94 We get shall-issue. Fingerprints, photos, 8 hour course, range test. Must qualify with revolver or auto or both, must qualify with largest caliber one wants to carry, signs have legal weight.

          In about ’99? we get rid of the action and caliber requirements and I think signage goes away then too.

          Might be one more “compromise” in there but it is not until 2004 that we get Con Carry and state premption.

          The actual situation in Arizona and Wyoming is the same.

          So, on the subject of “compromise”, in re carry laws anyway, you have no clue what you’re talking about.

          1. Okay that wasn’t the best example.

            So for one amendment- gun laws its been going the right way. The other nine? Not so much.

            Let me revise my point. Compromise like Romney gets us nowhere. Its compromise in the wrong direction. Compromise like Paul actually will get us places.

            1. We actually have more 1st Amendment rights than the Founders probably envisioned.

              I agree that holding firm to the “no compromise” position on the Third has worked out well. =)

              Look, politics -is- compromise. It always has been, that’s why the government is structured the way it is, to allow for slow compromise between “liberals” (reformers) and “conservatives” (sustainers).

              There are valid complaints to be made about the proper process for large change (compromise) on a Constitutional level (the amendment process) being ignored out of expediency, but political change will come as society changes, for good or ill. That’s a feature, not a bug.

              At a certain point you look for the most effective way to have a handle on how that change occurs. If backing Paul is how you see that happening, go to it. If others don’t think that’s an effective way to actually be able to have some control they may go with who they see as a more “electable” candidate.

              For a lot of us, we are willing to grudgingly accept a candidate with what we see as an actual chance to win, however bad a compromise he is, because the long term consequences in terms of Supreme Court picks are so grave.

              Romney, if elected, will choose from Repub judges; if we can even just break 40 solid pro-Freedom Sens in the Senate, much less take 61, we can steer who he picks and who gets appointed.

              If Obama wins he will pick Dems he likes and one of them will eventually be approved regardless of how many Senate seats we pick up; it’s advise and consent, not dictate.

              Given the ages of the Supremes, and the math of longevity, prudence, to me, dictates taking a win, even if it isn’t perfect.

              1. I just don’t think its worth it. Romney can do just as much damage as a bad Supreme Court Justice.

                1. How? Exactly?

                  And that’s not snide, knowing that Obama and Holder are -already- starting to restrict gun and other rights by executive order, including anti-business actions by the EPA, and Obama has been caught on an open mic saying he will have more “room” after the election; how exactly will a Romney be “as bad?”

                  You really think Romney’s going to use the ATFE like Holder and Obama will? That Romney will unleash every bit of executive authority against the Tea Party, and militias, and preppers, and gold bugs, and folks going Galt, like Obama and Holder will?

                  You need to do more thinking, and deeper, about just how bad things can get even if we win the Senate. The legislature will be kept busy playing defense against Executive order after Executive order at best and Obama Judicial appointees will actively undercut every Judicial challenge to his Executive actions, at teh Supreme Court level locking them into precedent for decades and requiring they be dug out like a tick if and when those younger Justices finally die decades from now.

                  I really think you totally misunderstand current political reality and how things are done in Washington. A win in the Senate and a more or less ineffectual, but not actively hostile, Romney (we will have for a couple years til he tries for reelaction should he win the nomination and get elected) is a great outcome compared to the alternative.

                  1. Romney will bad, just in a different way. See I don’t just focus on the gun issue. I focus on everything. For example, Romneycare was a basis for Obamacare. That’s enough of a worry about what he’ll do. And since he’s a Republican- he can cause a lot more harm.

                    Please don’t insult me by telling me to think more and think deeper, or that I misunderstand the current political reality. I’ve been following politics for decades, so I know how things are. I don’t think either Obama or Romney will actually change anything, at least not for the better in a substantial way. And I don’t think potential to get a new Justice (who knows who Romney would pick anyway) outweighs all the other damage that is possible.

                    Besides, surveys have been showing that Paul will beat Obama in a matchup, but Romney won’t. So if we are talking about electability, not only is Paul better for that, he is better in ever other way- including Justice selection.

            2. That’s because guns are easy: It’s a narrow focus issue.

              Now, get everybody agreed on what “freedom and liberty” mean on the War on (Some) Drugs, the Global War on a Noun, whether we should run all the Muslims out of the country, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, taxes…

              Like I said, guns are easy: Yup, that’s a gun. Folks should be allowed to keep and bear it.

              If you can get three randomly-chosen, supposedly “Pro-Liberty”, people to agree on just two of the other topics, I’d be shocked.

              1. Exactly- its a narrow focus issue. We’ll win the battle on guns but lose the war on liberty.

                As much as I’d like to think people would use those guns to get back the liberty, I don’t think that would actually happen.

                1. That’s probably why we’ve made progress on guns… it’s something most of the center-right coalition agrees with.

                  Progress is difficult on the other because there’s more disagreement. For instance, if I want to get rid of the health care law, I have to coalition with people who think gay marriage is icky, want to keep fighting the War on Noun, and are probably too chicken shit to fix the Social Security and Medicare time bomb.

                  1. Yeah, and even some on the left agree with it. Recently- and I think with a lot of education by gun rights advocates- its gotten way better than I ever thought it would.

                    The others are much more difficult. And there is no political will to even touch SS or Medicare (or education for that matter).

      2. I think I want to revised what I originally posted. I think there are two different manners of compromise, one that I like and one that I don’t.

        I’m not opposed to compromise to incrementally improve the system. I think that other libertarians for the most part wouldn’t be opposed to that either. Sure some are going to demand all or nothing, but that’s short sighted.

        But compromising on candidates to the point where there is very little difference I think is a huge mistake. That’s where I was going. Its not like Romney is Ron Paul Lite- where there are some differences but not huge differences. That would be an okay compromise. Instead, there are huge differences- healthcare, bailouts, economy- you name it.

        You want a liberty that’s politically achievable- but we really don’t know what that is, and we sell ourselves short if we throw things out because we think they aren’t. Who would have thought even 10 years ago there would be three states to pass laws for Constitutional Carry? I certainly thought that would never, ever happen.

        As I stated below, education is the best way to things changed. More education leads to better decisions. And even if Paul doesn’t win, his two campaigns have drastically increased the amount of education. Compare the number of votes between 2008 and 2012. They’ve gone from 2% if he was lucky to 25% in some cases. And his two biggest demographics are the young and the military. That’s good news.

  6. Pingback: SayUncle » You never go full wookiee

  7. … bring me Solo and the Half-Wookie.

    No, dammit, the HALF-Wookie, not Mooshcelle!!

Comments are closed.