Posted on 01/13/2013 7:16:26 AM PST by frithguild
In the debate around gun rights, how much can you say about your intentions without violating the law with your speech?
As I've said almost continually for years... "Liberals are cowards." They will happily knuckle under to anyone who threatens to use force to support their political position. That's why they've maintained a policy of preemptive surrender in all international conflict, and will happily bully non violent Christians domestically while they cower in fear of violence from a tiny Muslim minority.
Which is what makes this piece from Charles Blow so interesting.
He's basically talking about the 'extreme language' of the gun rights debate and how it is getting in the way of the liberal goal of disarming the citizenry. But the best part is how he's so certain of his perspective that it never occurs to him that any rational person could hold another view. The media always talks about gun rights groups and their spokesmen as being 'crazy', because they resist the incrementalism that is so common in liberal policy initiatives. But Mr. Blow calls attention to one specific spokesman who I think it's important to listen to.
Near the end of his piece he links to this story about a man from Tennessee named James Yeager. Mr. Yeager made a video where he asserts that he won't be pushed any further where gun control is concerned, and in the civil war that further efforts would inspire, he'd be happy to "fire the first shot".
Like Mr. Blow and the rest of the coastal media, the people at rawstory.com refer to this as 'unhinged'. I and many of the gun rights activists I know would characterize it differently. But however you may feel about it, Mr. Yeager's comments are certainly at the extreme end of the public debate about gun control.
Here's the thing though. Few people will say so publicly, but there are a great many people in the firearms community who feel exactly as Mr. Yeager does. I know many of them. But they avoid stating their feelings in a public forum because it can, in the most extreme cases, be interpreted as language which is no longer protected as political speech, and could be interpreted as sedition. That's criminal speech in and of itself, and since the firearms community is more law abiding than average, they would prefer not to break that law either.
Let me put it another way. In much of the firearms community, killing a congressman is viewed as a rational and patriotic act if the congressman is an active part of a tyrannical government and is no longer acting lawfully. It's viewed as an attempt to assert the public will over its servant using the only means the public has left. Once the government has slipped over that legal line, this is considered not just OK, but a good thing.
But until the government crosses that line, even stating your potential future acts when they do so, isn't considered OK - at least not in any forum that it can be proved you have said it. And although members of the press are first amendment absolutists for themselves, when it comes to voicing your intent to resist government will by force, they're as happy as anyone to see you locked away indefinitely.
So I was hoping I could make an appeal to brother Frithguild, and any of you others out there who might have some insight to offer.
How much can you say about the violence you intend in this debate? Can you say "If the government does X then I will do Y!" if Y constitutes armed resistance to what you view as a tyrannical government? Because it seems to me that it would be in our interest to make it clear to liberals exactly how close they are to provoking a large scale violent response, but we don't want to have to break the law just to say so.
I know at some point on this continuum it comes back down to Benjamin Franklin's old quote about Revolutions. "They are never legal in the third person as in their revolution. They are only ever legal in the first person such as " our revolution." The prevailing view depends on who inevitably get's to tell the story.
But surely there is some clear line here between free political speech and the crimes of "inciting violence" or sedition. We know that if we were all minorities like the New Black Panther's or some other such group, we could say what we like without fear of government action. But being who we are, we must be more careful than that.
The justice department has made it plain that they intend to represent the interests of white, male, heterosexual Americans less vigorously than other groups. And it's not out of line to see the government as being "against" the interests of law abiding firearms owners. So having some sort of legal guidelines about what can and can't be said, would be to the great advantage of the entire firearms owning community.
The people who want to ban all guns are cowards, so we want them to be scared because it means they appreciate the reality of the situation. But we don't want to give them the excuse to round us all up for sedition before a single shot is ever fired.
%%%%%%%%%%%%UPDATE%%%%%%%%%%%%
James Yeager (pictured above) has lost his pistol permit over what he said.
%%%%%%%%%% UPDATE For LIBERALS %%%%%%%%%%
This piece has been linked to a source of liberal comments (Charles Blow tweeted it) but was written for conservatives, so I thought I'd explain something a little more clearly so the liberals reading it will understand.
Depending on whose estimate you use, there are something north of 100 million homes in America with firearms in them. Now you liberals have made it clear that you'd like to use the force of government to eliminate a large number of those firearms at the very least - to many of you eliminating all of them would be better. So would you pass a law to do that if you could? Would you say... repeal the second amendment?
Suppose you could only do it like Obamacare, by using a parliamentary trick to usurp popular support. That wouldn't exactly be straightforward, but it would certainly be legal. (The process at least.) Would you still do it then? How about by presidential edict? Is it an important enough issue to you to allow the president to override a constitutional right directly, even though such an act would be pushing the limits of legality at the very least?
If you said yes to this last part let me ask you this. Would you still do it by presidential edict if you knew that the act of doing so would be viewed as an illegal act by some tiny portion of the population - say 1%? OK... how about if that 1% was heavily armed and actually represented something like 1 million men who would resist your presidential edict with force? That means that your (at least arguably illegal) act would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths at a the very least - would you do it then?
Maybe you're saying yes right now and maybe no. But either way, understanding the consequences of an act is important. And you can only understand those consequences if people are allowed to state them. 1 million people is certainly a minority, but it's a lot of people. And if my sampling of the sport shooting and hunting community is typical (and I truly think it is) then there are a lot more people out there than that who feel that strongly about it. Charles Blow isn't just right about the extreme language out there. Given his circle, I think he's VASTLY underestimating it.
The second amendment was put in place to arm the populace against a tyrannical government. But like speed limits, here in the US anyway, the threat of force is almost always enough to prevent the requirement of actually using force. So when I say that I want those in government to be scared of us, what I mean is that I hope they fear the threat of force enough so that actual force never need be used.
I am not James Yeager. I'm a middle aged banker who makes his way in the world through commerce. I have no illusions about personally shedding the blood of tyrants. I'm prepared to use force to protect myself and my family, and to put myself in harm's way on their behalf. But I'm not one of the people out there demanding a politician's head on a pike. I know many of those people, but I don't personally think it's gone anywhere near that far.
But in spite of that, I think it serves everyone's interests for us all to be able to speak frankly about how we see this issue and I think James Yeager's view and those of the people who share it, should be included in that conversation. In fact, I think it's the more extreme views like his that are the most important.
In that respect I take the opposite view of Mr. Blow. I don't think extreme language stands in the way of rational debate, I think it's the most important part of it. If there are a million people out there (and in my opinion there are at least that many) who take such an extreme view, then I definitely want to hear what they have to say. And I want to hear it while 'talking about it' is all we're doing.
I think to fully understand this issue, you need to understand the limits of how far people will go. If some plurality votes to disarm those people at the extreme end of the discussion, they won't care. And I'm afraid the day that liberals finally step over this line will be a day when they believe that gun owners "don't really mean it" and they actually do.
The first American revolution was sparked by an attempt to disarm the populace. (What do you think the redcoats were doing in Lexington and Concord? Look it up.) At the moment it looks like the second one will be caused by the same exact thing. And if scaring a few congressmen with strong words is enough to prevent that, then I would like to hear them.
The rattlesnake rattles when cornered, not when hunting. It seems better to mevthat the threat be implied rather than stated; the scary-fraid liberals will imagine all sorts of threats when faced with steely reserve and silence. Imagine Zero and Joe when there is no compliance with their edicts.
Original Brady Bill Testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/BKuUVduvoJo
I expect Mr. Yeager will be frequently pulled over for “a dirty windshield”, and then searched for “probable cause”.
I hope he’s smart enough to give “them” nothing to work with and then sue the pants off of them.
Dash cam!
Recorder!
“how about if that 1% was heavily armed and actually represented something like 1 million men who would resist your presidential edict with force? That means that your (at least arguably illegal) act would result in hundreds of thousands of deaths at a the very least - would you do it then?”
Indeed - they see such an outcome as even more justification for doing so: anyone who would oppose them to that degree for any reason must be neutered with extreme prejudice.
I’ve never seen that ‘liberals are cowards’ play out in the streets, either. They push until they get what they want.
Republicans on the other hand, well this line had no problem being understood when used back in 1970.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqw0Gz9GahM
It went too far the first time a gun grabber opened his filthy mouth. The discussion should be about safety in a decadent, fallen culture, and that safety would require armed guards and employees at public schools, and in general, it requires armed citizens who are capable of putting down scum who threaten them and others. Gun grabbing won’t move us one step closer to safety.
if you strike at the king don’t miss
I can’t count the number of times I’ve started to post what I really feel or think lately, only to decide that it’d be better to not show my hand to anyone.
We have a solid position, well backed up by facts. It isn't served well by hysterical ranting.
It's difficult to say what matters more to them...
Prudence, more than fear of prosecution, dictates a degree of caution on the part of those most likely to react emotionally to any threat to the natural right of self-defense.
Rather than ending up being made into a public example, ending up on a secret black list or inviting the brutal retribution of dog killers and SWAT teams hitting in the wee hours should inspire a greater fear.
Yet, the overall pattern of these particular statists would seem to be to inspire their opponents to "fire the first shot," as it were, and to divide and marginalize - as well as to merely identify - the most "dangerous" among their opposition; to win any prospective civil conflict by increments, winning before an opposition can coalesce.
And all of this fits the context of an even larger strategy in league with ceaseless hustling designed to inspire uncertainty and keep a population constantly on edge with a string of outrages.
Prudence, more than passion or the letter of the law, sets our boundary.
Faith and vigilance, rather than answering outrage for passion, is a better reaction.
Let the statists cross their line first, and let them worry about boundaries.
Consider the recommendation of a renewed acquaintance with Sun Tsu, and his Art of War, without commentary, and especially its sparse opening statement explaining why his strategies need study in the first place.
from “Shogun”:
Toranaga: “There is no justification for rebellion.”
Blackthorne: “Unless you win.”
b> "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, "
John F. Kennedy
I think we all have our own ways of communicating this message. This guy, IMO, just ends up looking foolish - an in-your-face rebel type who purports to be a self-defense instructor, and yet cannot resist getting some attention when the opportunity presents itself - sound tactics and strategic goals be damned. A drama queen. A narcissist. A lifetime spent covering over a weak, empty core with quasi-effective bravado. No thanks.
When the time comes, I want at my side a quiet old vet who likes to hunt, someone that people just instinctively know not the mess with. Someone else can enlist with the berserkers.
Do you have a “truck gun”, why yes I do... to defend against greater forces than me when I go to the Rocky Mountains. That’s when I get my gun, I’m particularly fearful of large cats!
“The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that you won’t need it until they come to take it away” Thomas Jefferson
Glenn Beck -- Make Sheeple of us all
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" there are no ifs or other ambiguities in that statement so what is so difficult for the anti-firearms people to understand? Being selectively stupid could be the answer to the question but we all know it is about how a few want to devise a way where they can control the many. Granted, those in DC have for years circumvented our constitution by passing and enacting laws that do not meet constitutional muster and this administration is preparing yet another assault on our second amendment rights granted us in that guiding document. Their only purpose is to increase their control over the rest of us. But until that day comes where our Constitution has been void by the people in every state house and not by the corrupt lawless anti-Americans currently in DC in this administration and congress it remains the law of the land for which we all shall be held to account. Disarming the defeated is the first act of the victor in any war. A declaration of Martial Law only to nullify the constitution as a path to implement government's infringement on the possession of citizen's firearms would be received as an act of war against the people of the United States. The King of England ordered the confiscation of all gun powder held by the settlers and we all know how that ended. End of discussion.
Its apparent that is the path that has been decided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.