Gun ban group lies about...me

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | David Codrea

[Travis McGee]

You know you are near the target when the flak gets heavy.

Moreover, you also know you are at the target when the flak stops so that the enemy fighters can attack you.—Western Rifle Shooters Association

A "threat to rule of law" has been exposed! By "extremists."

By...uh...me.

Boogedy-boogedy!

Desperately seeking relevance in this latest battle of the War on Guns, Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (renamed from the National Coalition to Ban Handguns to mask its intent, although that goal remains) waves his arms, screams "Me too!" and doesn't miss a talking point, from conflating the purpose of the Second Amendment March and Restore the Constitution Rally with the Oklahoma City bombing, to painting the participants as violent haters.

If we're to believe him, the peaceable exercise of the First Amendment in support of the Second is "an open threat."

Just to show you what bad Group W bench hombres those of us speaking at the rallies are, CSGV presents a "rogue's gallery" of sorts, complete with damning quotes. Scroll to the bottom of this linked page to see their entry for me:

DAVID CODREA—Speaker at D.C. and Fort Hunt rallies.

Bio: David Codrea is a gun rights advocates whose columns have been featured in Guns and Ammo, Handguns, and Guns Magazine, where he writes the monthly “Rights Watch” column. Additionally, he is the author of a blog,“The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance and the “Gun Rights Examiner for Examiner.com.

Quotes from David Codrea:

“Careful ... You’re talking about testing the ultimate last-resort purpose behind the Second Amendment. Some of us armed Americans take our Bill of Rights seriously and will not go gentle into that good night, bundled or by ourselves. You and your fellow travelers are playing a most dangerous game.”

Source: Codrea responding to a columnist who suggested that “Anyone who shows up armed at a forum where a public official or political candidate is due to appear ought to be detained and possibly prosecuted.” Guns Magazine, "The Most Dangerous Game," January 2010

Well--they certainly make it look like I'm threatening to get violent should due process and rule of law be applied to me. Except that's not what I was responding to, and CSGV knows it.

We've gone over this before. In detail. I was responding directly to these lines from "The Guns of August" by statist cheerleader Ted Rall, and my article made that clear:

These town hall terrorists could be declared enemy combatants and bundled off to Bagram with the stroke of a pen. If ever there were a reason for suspending civil rights, this is it.

Just in case we're still not clear, Rall is saying he wants government enforcers to take gun owners who have committed no violation of any law, but who have peaceably assembled in protest as per our First Amendment-recognized right—to a torture camp, without due process, without trial...Jeez, and to think the left ridicules Oath Keepers for saying they wouldn't obey such orders...

So you're damn right, Josh. What kind of devoid-of-principles coward wouldn't fight stormtroopers trying to do that to free Americans? And what kind of subversive traitor to every precept of the Republic, not to mention common decency, would hold that against a man and view it as an opportunity for his public condemnation?

Disgusting.

As an aside, I've been writing regular Second Amendment stuff for over 20 years now. That's the best they got? What does that say when this is the most damning quote they can find, and they've got to lie about the context to make it fit into their narrative?

I've run into this Horwitz character before. A few years back, The New York Times put on a panel to discuss the aftermath of Virginia Tech, and they figured it would be fair to pit me against six antis, including Bagram cheerleader Josh here. It still wasn't fair, but even if they'd added a couple more offensive linemen to their side they still wouldn't have been able to prevail against the simple truth. He struck me then as a humorless version of Elena Ceausescu and I can see he hasn't improved with age.

That's not surprising, though. I mean, what can you say about a guy who goes back to post-WWI Germany to get his "moral" argument for state "monopoly on force"? Interesting that Horwitz's hero in this case is Max Weber, whose advocacy for inserting Article 48 "emergency powers" (you know, including "suspension of civil rights") in the Weimar Constitution empowered Hitler's unchallenged takeover.

Interesting, telling and pretty damn creepy.

Appeal to regular readers: If you perceive a value from visiting this site on a regular basis, will you help me build its readership? Please share the link to this column via emails, blogs, forums... For more commentary, make my online journal, The War onGuns: Notes from the Resistance a daily stop.

[Travis McGee]

"We've gone over this before. In detail. I was responding directly to these lines from "The Guns of August" by statist cheerleader Ted Rall, and my article made that clear:"

These town hall terrorists could be declared enemy combatants and bundled off to Bagram with the stroke of a pen. If ever there were a reason for suspending civil rights, this is it.

"Just in case we're still not clear, Rall is saying he wants government enforcers to take gun owners who have committed no violation of any law, but who have peaceably assembled in protest as per our First Amendment-recognized right—to a torture camp, without due process, without trial...Jeez, and to think the left ridicules Oath Keepers for saying they wouldn't obey such orders...

"So you're damn right, Josh. What kind of devoid-of-principles coward wouldn't fight stormtroopers trying to do that to free Americans? And what kind of subversive traitor to every precept of the Republic, not to mention common decency, would hold that against a man and view it as an opportunity for his public condemnation?"

CW2 Ping

[riri]

These town hall terrorists could be declared enemy combatants and bundled off to Bagram with the stroke of a pen

Wow.

I don't think I am going to like the gulag.

[Vigilantcitizen]

C’mon Ted...whatcha waiting on?

[stephenjohnbanker]

It gets worse every day.

[DCBryan1]

Rall needed feeding to the hogs years ago. No pity if he disappears overnight.

[Travis McGee]

I won’t like it either very much. Getting us there could be problematic.

But the first “detentions” usually go down rather smoothly, until word gets around. This makes me happy that almost 30K hard copies of my novels are already in circulation. They can’t be digitally deleted no matter what happens.

[RabidBartender]

I agree 10,000% with your tagline.

[DuncanWaring]

“Careful ... You’re talking about testing the ultimate last-resort purpose behind the Second Amendment. Some of us armed Americans take our Bill of Rights seriously and will not go gentle into that good night, bundled or by ourselves.”

Hubert Humphrey said essentially the same thing.

It would be fairly difficult to make a case that he is a member of any right-wing conspiracy, vast or otherwise.

[DuncanWaring]

That’s one way to find out if there are things even a hog won’t eat.

[Dead Corpse]

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/04/13/oath-keepers-withdraws-from-virginia-open-carry-rally/

You have no idea. Things haven’t even started getting “really bad” yet and already we have groups pussing out on us.

[stephenjohnbanker]

I read it, and I don’t GET it. The explanation is, at best, vague.

[sport]

Just before the ballon goes up, the “oath keepers” and CCW holders will “disappear”.

[Niteranger68]

Ted Rall is the feces created when shame eats too much stupidity.

[Dead Corpse]

Someone said "mouse" and Stewart's Board of Directors hiked their skirts and ran for the nearest stool.

Instead of upping internal enforcement during such a peaceful protest, which would have made the agent provocateurs jobs impossible, they tucked tail and ran.

I have no patience for cowards.

[Dead Corpse]

I WAS an Oathkeeper. I deleted my profile last night.

There is still the A&M and the III%. Not to mention other groups that won't turn into little b*tches at the first sign of difficulty.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Neither do I.

[ctdonath2]

The closer you get to the line, the harder it is to stay this side of the line - esp. when your enemies are trying to push you over it so they are justified in attacking you outright. This is a prolonged period preceding any expected conflict.

Remember, until we end up “there”, you _don’t_ want to go there. Better to resolve it peacefully. Don’t let the opposition push you “there” first.

I’m reminded of an old truism of samurai combat: first one to move loses.
Swordfights between masters involve a lot of standing there staring at each other. The first to move to attack is committed to that motion; the second takes advantage of that commitment.

There’s a fine yet important distinction between “pussing out” vs. not being goaded into making the first (and fatal) move.

[Dead Corpse]

The whole idea of groups like these is to HOLD THE LINE. Define it. Let the Opposition cross it. Then annihilate them. Politically or literally if need be.

If you run from the line at the first sign of a cloud on the horizon, you aren't doing anyone any good.

"OMG! Someone said they 'might' do something to provoke us. We must RUN and HIDE!!!!" /OK BoD

No thanks.

[JimRed]

...already we have groups pussing out on us.

Reading and rereading the withdrawal of OKs from the open carry rally, the comments and replies from the board members, it appears that they have received inside info about anticipated government response. If the government designates Oathkeepers as a militia, then no active duty military, police, or federal agents will be permitted to participate.

Since they are the ones most necessary to the success of the movement, as they will be tasked with shooting us down in the streets, that prohibition must be prevented.

They encourage their membership to participate as individuals, they do not discourage participation.