Tangentially: I met my wife at the Bianchi Cup, where I was a competitor. Three years later we married in 1994.
Since we'd met at a shooting match, there has never been a problem re: my firearms hobbies. Much to my chagrin, she has become quite the conservative instead of the "liberal" she'd been - I'm libertarian myself.
Worth the wait, Kevin. A couple things come quickly to mind in response.
One is that (assuming you haven't already) you really need to get a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. Know your enemy, of course, but it's a certainty that all the most effective opposition to personal liberty have read it because they know it's based upon successful experience.
The other thing is, for a guy who encourages his readers not to "scare the white people", you really know how to pick a challenge, don't you? You do understand that the only practical way to "make people think" is to get them angry, don't you? Not rip your lungs out angry, but angry enough to be unsatisfied by simply ignoring the issue 'till it goes away. And (finally) the only certain way to make people angry is to frighten them in some fairly profound way.
More than just "MAKE THEM THINK", what you seem to be urging is to make people decide and then to act.
I don't know how far I'm with you, though I'm definately not against you, but you do understand that almost no-one's going to appreciate or thank you for your efforts if you're successful at what you seem to be urging, don't you? Consider the fate of Thomas Paine while you're still developing your strategy.
I have only heard Mike call for a RESTORATION of our Rights, not any revolution. I agree with most of your philosophy, and except for completely missing Mike's point, it was a wonderful article.
I have only heard Mike call for a RESTORATION of our Rights, not any revolution.
He has called for shooting Federal agents, albeit "rogue federal agents who operate contrary to the law and the Constitution yet under the color of that law." Yet how do we tell? I'm reminded of the scene from whatever Vietnam war movie where the door gunner on a chopper is shooting Vietnamese on the ground: "How do you know they're Viet Cong?"
"If they run they're Viet Cong. If they stand still, they're exceptionally well disciplined Viet Cong!"
...except for completely missing Mike's point...
There we'll have to disagree.
In fact, lots of people in N.O. shot at cops and N.G.'s after Katrina. Lots of people shot at rescuers coming in on helicopters.
Yes, but that was the garden-variety criminals and nutjobs, the people that the Algier's Point Militia were guarding against, too. But no upstanding citizens pointed their guns at the California State Patrol or the Oklahoma National Guardsmen and said "Bugger off. You're not taking my guns." Ask Ashton O'Dwyer what his appearance on CNN got him.
Excellent article, again. I think, or maybe believe, that the 3% is not ready, willing or able, YET. The very points I took from your article are the very reasons I read Vanderboeghs articles with glee. Oddly enough I had this discussion this weekend, what singular event could push you to action. It all came to our own front doors. However, that is with today’s perspective. If “they” kick down 20 doors on your block you might become a little more proactive. If you want to educate people I believe you need to get them excited, and hope for the best. I believe in using profanity or "shock value" for emphasis. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is me. If you need people to listen, create a deafening sound. The 3% can and someday will make a difference, in my life time? But Locke changes peoples minds today, well beyond his life. If we can inspire ideas today, change will be coming tomorrow.
But no upstanding citizens pointed their guns at the California State Patrol or the Oklahoma National Guardsmen and said "Bugger off. You're not taking my guns."
It's unfortunately true, that even most of the (supposed) 3% are generally pretty well behaved. I think that's a large part of what needs to be considered. The 3% feels strongly about rights, but they (we) aren't criminals. We're used to behaving well and not shooting people. It takes a lot of outrage to jump quantum states and start shooting cops, no matter how strongly you feel about things.
There hasn't been a general uprising yet because even to the die-hard, these incidents look isolated. There weren't a lot of people left in NO, so the confiscation wasn't wide spread. This Razzano fellow in NY is "just one guy". (I'm not saying that justifies how they have been treated, by any means.) There's no real feeling that this applies to the world at large. Most of us have other things to live for. It hasn't gotten bad enough for the cost of not fighting to outweigh the costs of fighting.
For the record, I'm part of the 3%, (or maybe just the 10%) and I'm *not* in the NRA. I have, however, joined the JPFO.
"I have decided for myself, in agreement with Mr. Vanderboegh, that "The 'arbitrary line' that is being crossed is my front door, my property and my liberty." That's my "threshold of outrage.""
My wife's family was largely exterminated in Eastern Europe in the events leading up to and during WWII. When she was young, her father taught her to shoot, telling her, "NEVER let them take your guns."
If I have committed no crimes (not to say some regulatory bureaucrat's arbitrary and capricious ruling) and a "law enforcement officer" attempts to confiscate my previously legally acquired firearms, I expect to die during the ensuing action. I also hope to take as many with me as possible.
So I agree that I will be depicted as one of the "lone deranged gun-nuts", but if they're coming for someone like me, the numbers will already be huge. As an urban dweller in one of the most collectivist cities in the US, I cannot count on my neighbors to do more than stand and watch. But as Heinlein noted, "Your status in hell is determined by the size of your body guard." I hope never to need to have high status. I worry that I might.
Kevin, one of the greatest voids in our philosopical base has to do with the nature of life, our eventual death, and what values, meaning or legacy our lives leave, after we're gone to dust.
Most of us (myself included) wish for some version of croaking in our aged years, comfortably, and being comforted by those most dear to us. We wish for a dearth of pain, a gentle passing and perhaps fond remembrences by those we leave.
Few of us then choose to even be willing to "die for a cause" as it were. That's because, just as you've postulated here, damned few of us have ever amassed the philosophical underpinnings to bolster such a courage.
Without such building of thoughtful, carefully considered standards and values, people grow as poor trees; of shallow roots and with no strength against the storms.
Mostly, the shooting community has but a passing familiarity with the heroism and prices paid by our predecessors in the founding and building of our nation. We revere our Founding Fathers, but all too often fail to picture them, rifles in hand scared but holding firm in the face of the near-certainty of their death. There. Then. This day.
Such courage didn't spontaneously materialize. It was formed in the crucible of reading and debating the classics of Greek and Rome, of the Enlightenment, and on towards the more modern thoughts of Blackstone, Locke and peers.
So now, we read this blog or that, our monthly copy of American Rifleman, a book by Cooper. Thin gruel by comparison.
And we expect such stout hearts from such sandy a foundation?
Kevin, if all blogs were like yours, Locke would be happy. I mean that. But not all blogs can be such. Hell, we'd never get 'em all read!
I don't know how to get a large enough part of the population to read, much less comprehend Locke, Plutarch, Cicero or even our own Constitution.
And I don't know how, outside of such foundational studies, to get any man or woman to rise to the crisis.
This comes back to the nature of our dying.
If it needs be that we die painfully, bloodily even, in the furtherence of freedom, then it is also needful that we build our minds and hearts to that task, just as a bodybuilder exercises to lift the championship weight.
We shall not (or rarely, at best), find it within ourselves to spontaneously rise to such challenges. Only through the strengthening of mind and spirit shall we prepare ourselves for such.....unpleasantness.
The whole argument about who's line in the sand is the right line in the sand is largely, moot. And will remain so until we shooters, bastion of freedom which we are, learn to embrace this; this just cause which is larger than ourselves, and far greater than the mere fact of our passing.
The Sioux understood this, as expressed in their words before battle; "This is a good day to die!".
Certainly,the answer doesn't lie in some twisted discovery of just how many of us were willing to die in the face of jackbooted thuggery. Should that happen, our battle is over even while enjoined.
Our real battle is now, and the real measure of our success lies in just how many of our fellows we can (somewhat) educate in these matters. At least, to the point where then can begin to educate others, themeslves.
I'm not sufficiently well-read, nor trained in the excercise of philosophy to take on that task. You, Kevin, and those who write at your august level, are.
To that end, a challenge. To write a new "Common Sense", as it were.
We need a booklet, self-contained, eminently readable, and accessable to all, from the teen to the troops and from the mom to the matriarch.
That's a helluva task; taking no more than 1% of the most important philosophy ever written, and making it digestable to +/- 80% of the population.
It's also a legacy you, or another writer, could be justifiably proud of.
Gawd, I've rambled on, but this stuff matters, if you couldn't tell.
I can't write it, but I can sure as hell encourage it.
Someone in comments somewhere likened Vanderboegh to Thomas Paine. I'd like to think so, but so far I haven't seen it. Someone else compared him to Sam Adams. That seems more appropriate. I expect a lot of the other Founders advised Sam to tone it down from time to time as well.
The Founders had, I think, a more fertile field to sow than we, the victims of 100+ years of public education have now, but certainly I think your idea has merit.
But I'm not your guy. Apparently I'm too verbose, for one thing. ;)
While you are, as usual, peppering your readers with good quotes illustrative of profound ideas, here's one I think you'll appreciate:
"I believe in freedom, Mr. Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will, of course, protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based."
- Terry Pratchett, "Going Postal"
And I think that's the root of the problem you are trying to define here. While they of course protest otherwise, the sad fact is that very few people actually *believe* in freedom. I suspect most people don't even know what freedom is, and the vast majority of those who get a glimmering of what that word actually MEANS find themselves deeply frightened by it.
To quote Heinlein again, freedom includes the freedom of "flea bitten Neanderthals crouching against the cold." It's hardly surprising that so few are willing to "pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to a philosophy that includes the possibility of them becoming one of said Neanderthals as their reward for that dedication.
"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws - always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up."
The essence, as I see it, is here. Much as social engineering projects to overhaul humans into kinder, less aggressive and more altruistic creatures fail time and time again, it's not a whole lot easier to overhaul humans into entire groups of principled, ethical revolutionaries. It is INFINITELY easier to create packs of thugs that you then aim at your target... and, of course, that's what you're left to work with when you're trying to build your better world.
It's not even a lack of courage in the human spirit to fight for a cause. Look at English soccer hooligans- these are people who have chosen a completely arbitrary and meaningless "cause" because they're bored, restless, and want to be part of a violent crowd. If you've never read Bill Buford's "Among the Thugs", do- it's a fascinating exploration of crowd psychology and the shocking number of people who are completely conscious of what they're after, and the methodical way they go about breaking down their own inner barriers to achieve it.
There is lots of wiring in the human spirit to find a tribe and fight for it. Basing the tribal affiliation on something as high-minded as philosophy- and discarding all the other normal bonds of tribe and working within it- is much more difficult.
"But I'm not your guy. Apparently I'm too verbose, for one thing."
Jim is right; it needs to be written. The whole damned world needs to read it.
You are wrong; if you aren't the guy, then who the hell is? It ain't about length, it's about content. It needs to be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Here's a challenge. You write it, I'll edit it, and you have veto power over all edits.
You wanna make people think. That's how. Are you game? Seriously?
And now for something slightly different ...
I confess to not having read either Mike Vanderboegh's work or Billy Beck's work. It comes from a combination of "there ain't enough hours in the day" and "fuck that, I'm gonna take a nap". So, perhaps they've pointed out something that I've missed, but since I haven't seen it, I'll point it out anyway.
There is a flip side to the notion that a small percentage of us good guys are about to go postal on the feddle gubmint. That is the notion that a small percentage of the bureaucrats of the feddle gubmint are about to go postal on all of us and thereby trigger it. You claim to not see the former, and I agree. I claim to not see the latter, either.
Consider The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, specifically when "... suddenly we found ourselves committed --". It was all over but the parties, right? No, it was:
"So a wave of patriotism swept over our new nation and unified it.
"Isn't that what histories say. Oh, brother!
"My dinkum word, preparing a revolution isn't so much huhu as having won it. Here we were, in control too soon, nothing ready and a thousand things to do."
So, if a portion of Mike's three percent went postal today, and you heard something about feddle gubmint agents being killed, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? RIGHT GODDAMNED NOW?" Um, well, lessee now ... I think I'll watch the news a bit ...
This is not the stuff of which revolutions are made, is it?
Heinlein wrote a magnificent story about it, but you can look to the events of July 20, 1944, when Hitler was not quite assassinated, to find a real example. The attempt by the conspirators, who knew the attempt was to take place, to take over the German gubmint was preposterously feeble at best, yet if ever such a revolt was justified, that was it.
... while evils are sufferable ...
And, of course, consider the response to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh. Did anyone rise up in revolt as a response to hearing about it?
Now, apply this same observation to those in the feddle gubmint who would like to see everyone disarmed, our rights abrogated, and the Constitution shitcanned. For them to succeed would take the same kind of organization, orchestration, and committment that would be required to resist them.
Would they put their lives on the line to overthrow the Constitution? Now, consider that their opponents are the ones who are armed and their suppporters are not. Consider their opponent's trump card, which is that it is reasonable to expect every member of the armed forces to oppose them, as they not only believe in the Constitution, they have voluntarily sworn an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it.
Methinks it will take more than an isolated event or two for Mike's three percent to rise up, and it doesn't seem likely to me that we'll see more than an isolated event. It didn't happen with Ruby Ridge and it didn't happen with Waco.
How big an event would it take, and why would those in the feddle gubmint put their own lives on the line to precipitate it? Or would they consciously avoid it?
No, I think we're in for generations of paper cuts by an ever-increasing bureaucracy. A hundred years from now, your descendants won't even know what their ancestors lost.
I think we're in for generations of paper cuts by an ever-increasing bureaucracy.
I don't. I think the whole house of cards built on the erroneous socialist philosophy is going to suddenly, spontaneously, and inevitably collapse pretty much without warning. There isn't a lot of time before that happens, either. When it does, "public order" is going to collapse with it, and nobody will be ready for what that means.
As someone pointed out the huge Leviathan mechanisms were all designed to a degree, they just were simply NOT engineered to actr in concert together. Maybe we don't need a President (especially not an academic or professor-president, they're too happy to experiment on the mice in the cage) as much as a Conductor - or even better yet, a Bandmaster. Someone low-level without a lot of bullcrap between the ears.
The big Super-Architected Committee-Machine is gonna crash down, and it will crash under the pressure of a "Progressive" who's all Hopey/Changey and pushing with all his might and his collectivist allies on the last Jenga Brick that holds the edifice up.
That's the problem with "Progressive" revolutions or movements, they're blind to the Lessons. They think there never was another Lemming Like Them - that all their ideas are NEW, and that all the stories of "cliffs" are just the scary-stories of some nasty grownups who won't let them fulfill their destiny.
At lest with a Conservative revolution there is a sense of what it is they want to conserve, low taxes, simplicity, smallness of government - and there is a lighthouse to which they look back upon and from which they can maintain bearings and judge progress.
Progressives are all hot-air and emotionalism and a sense of Fashion. The French revolution was a bloodbath in search of the New Man - Are YOU The New Man?? That's like going out with knives asking, "Are you Sunni or are you Shia?" - you know it's gonna end very badly and in tragedy. But progressives demand their attention and want CHANGE for the sake of change alone - they want a New Destiny, or a Great Leap Froward, a New World Order (they're building one in Europe called the EU) or a Brave New World.
OOps, I gotta go - see ya.
I think if there were to be armed resistance, you keep forgetting that some of the army would be on OUR side. They don't defend the government. They defend the constitution. If the .gov has run afoul of the constitution to tthe extreme that people rise up, then many in the armed forces would be on our side.
Katrina. You wanna know why no one went to N.O. guns ablaze? BECAUSE NEW ORLEANS IS/WAS NOT WORTH SAVING. People in the south know the truth. New Orleans is a shithole that deserved to wash into the sea.
I don't see the military sitting it out, mostly because I don't see the gubmint enforcing the effective overthrow of the Constitution without the active help of the armed forces, and I cannot envision them following such orders, not from the rawest private to the Chairman of the JCS. Their allegiance is to the Constitution, not the President, and not the Congress, and they take such allegiance seriously.
To me, the serious questions are: 1) Could we lose the Constitution over a relatively short time frame (as opposed to the death of a thousand cuts) without the armed forces aiding the other side; 2) would the other side try to give such orders; and, 3) what would be the response of the armed forces to such orders?
Seriously, I don't think I'll live long enough to see those questions answered. Apparently our guts disagree with each other.
I see a lot of references to N.O. and Katrina, and still some question whether military people would rememvber their allegiance to the Constitution, and refuse unconstitutional orders.
I say NO, they wouldn't remember and YES they would follow orders to trample the Constitution and their fellow Americans.
Remember it was the National Guard sticking automatic weapons in people's faces to get their firearms.
"And you think this would happen at all levels, from the top down, all over the country?"
I see no reason to think otherwise.
What percentage of the population and armed forces understand that swearing to protect and defend the Constitution means refusing to obey U. S. Government orders when the two conflict? One percent? More? Less? I suspect the percentage of military that knows the difference is higher than the general population, but I don't know what the actual numbers are.
I'm afraid that I have to agree with the folks who believe that the military would NOT be on our side of confrontation. I know that goes against conventional wisdom with the whole feeling that our boys are defenders of the constitution and not the government. It sounds great but it doesn't mirror reality.
Before you discount my contention that the military would follow orders and take up arms against the citizenry consider this. Our troopers are virtually ALL products of the public school system. Can we agree on that? Can we also agree that their commanders are also products of the same public schools? Now, with that in mind, is it too much of a stretch to believe that our military members have only a passing acquaintance with the constitution. Those of you who have graduated from high school in the last 10 years or have kids that just finished school will know that our schools DO NOT teach the constitution. Our kids are, in general, completely ignorant of the constitution. However, they are well trained in following orders. Particularly orders from superiors...and congress is considered superior...and the president is their COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF! Ponder that for a moment. I can personally attest to the fact the that military does NOT teach recruits about the constitution...but following orders is drilled into their heads every single day of their enlistment. If even 1% refused to follow orders and took sides with the citizenry I would be absolutely shocked.
This all can be laid directly at the feet of our education system...another of Kevin's favorite targets for derision (and deservedly so). Now, ever wonder why something as important as the constitution is given short shrift in our schools? Could it be because the people who run the school system want those who are supposed to defend the constitution to be mostly ignorant of said document? Because it might not be a terribly good idea for young men that have access to weapons that Mr. & Mrs. America can only dream of actually knowing that the government and their commanders might give them orders that are unconstitutional or unlawful. Much better to have slightly ignorant soldiers than well informed soldiers that are able to clearly see right from wrong.
The military WILL not sit out a confrontation between the people and the government. They will not take the side of the people. They will in fact be the iron gloved fist of the government against the people. Count on it.
Well, I do. Mind you, I'm writing of the armed forces of today, as I make no predictions about the minds of those who'll be here a century from now, nor do I make any predictions about what the Constitution will have been amended to by then. I'm writing of the here-and-now, as in Kevin's view that there "There isn't a lot of time" before such things might happen.
Try considering a simple scenario. President Whosit calls General Turgidsen [a bit of poetic license, no?], the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, into the Oval Office and says, "General, I'm giving you a direct order. You are to mobilize the armed forces of the United States at all levels. Your mission is disarm the population of the United States. Your troops will confiscate every firearm, except those possessed by the various police forces, without exception. You are to use whatever force is required to accomplish this mission, including killing anyone who resists and anyone who aids those who resist. You will search every building, every house, every apartment, every home, every vehicle, every goddamned thing in the country. You will not ask anyone for permission at any time, you will simply carry out this order to the letter."
First, I believe that the president would have no hope of accomplishing this except by ordering it from the top down. Otherwise is to start what amounts to a coup from within the armed forces itself.
Then, think of all the various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this order violates. I won't try to itemize it other than to note that, minimally, it includes the second, fourth, and fifth amendments.
Next, note that one does not become the Chairman of the JCS by being a dunce.
Now, what would be the reaction of a General Peter Pace, a General Tommy Franks, a General David Petraeus, a General George Marshall, or of any other such General or Admiral of such stature?
Not a simple question, is it? I would not expect such an order to be obeyed. Such a person understands the oath he took and he can recognize an attempt to overthrow the Constitution when he sees it.
Your mileage my vary, but that's mine.
Quiet Man:
"Our troopers are virtually ALL products of the public school system. Can we agree on that?"
Are they representative of the public school systems? Hardly. Unlike all the rest of their contemporaries, they volunteered to preserve, protect, and defend this country. I believe we can presume they understand what that means.
"The military WILL not sit out a confrontation between the people and the government. They will not take the side of the people. They will in fact be the iron gloved fist of the government against the people. Count on it."
In Germany of 1939, yes. In the United States of 2008, no.
I suggest you talk with a large number of people in the armed forces about this subject and then address it again.
I have a friend who works for the Navy and who formerly worked for Boeing. He is a strong defender of our Constitution, a clear thinker, and he cannot be intimidated. I'm going to ask him to put it up to his colleages, both in and out of the military, and see what the reaction is, as I know he has discussed this issue with me and them before. It is the point of view of the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine that matter here, and we ought to have it instead of conjecture.
"I can personally attest to the fact the that military does NOT teach recruits about the constitution...but following orders is drilled into their heads every single day of their enlistment."
That's as may be. I'll grant you, my experience was much the same. However, I had something else that apparently you did NOT have. I, my mates in bootcamp, and even my shipmates in the fleet, were specifically taught that "I swear to obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States and all officers appointed over me" means not only the obvious, but also means that it is your duty to REFUSE to obey unlawful orders, at the cost of your life if need be.
I once made my entire chain of command, all the way up to the skipper himself, crawfish on an order for that very reason.
I think that a lot of what you'd get would be a variation on the "shower room ambush" scene from the movie 'The Rock'.
Eventually, Prsident Whatsis would find a General who would obey.
And, resistance?
First, who are you going to shoot? What actual living human fellow citizen? Which spouse will you widow, which children will you orphan? And you will die, and orphan your own children.
And here's a thought experiment:
You're home asleep at dawn on a Sunday. Ring Ring goes the telephone.
"Hello, Mr./Ms. Yourname. I'm Agent Friendly of the BATFE. Last night, as you may or may not know, President Whoever signed an executive order requiring the confiscation of all civilian firearms in the United States. No criminal charges will be brought against you and you will be compensated at a rate of $1000 per gun or actual value, whichever is greater.
There are currently six armed BATFE agents surrounding your house. We also have a remotely controlled bulldozer.
Our records show that you possess several firearms. We cannot leave until we have either confiscated your guns or neutralized your house as a potential threat.
Because of the risk to our officers, we will not break into your house.
Unless you and all persons inside the house exit, and we are permitted to enter and remove all firearms and ammunition, we will have to insure that no one remains alive in the house.
You have one hour to make your decision. During that time, I encourage you to use your television, internet, and telephone to confirm that the order was signed, is valid, and that I am who I say I am."
Plan to come out shooting? With your family behind you?
I can't think of a single incident other than ours in 1776 where civilian disarmament has been anything other than meekly complied with.
I stand by my comments and the fact that DJ sees things differently doesn't change the facts. Less than 1%. Not regarding some hypothetical question about "what would you do in these circumstances", but when the reality of the situation smacks them in the face...they will follow orders. Especially when confronted with the prospect of imprisonment or worse for failure to follow orders or treason or whatever else their superiors tell them will happen if they don't fall into line. If you choose to believe that I am in some way disparaging our troopers you are completely wrong. I hold our military in extremely high regard, but I misplaced my rose colored glasses many years ago and my version of reality comes from what I saw when I was in and what I have talked to others about since I got out. Oh sure, we all want to believe that our brethern would stand up and be counted if the time ever came, but when the discussion turned from what we would want to believe to what we ACTUALLY believed would happen it was always the same...better to follow orders than to be imprisoned or shot for treason. With very few exceptions there was no real variations from that scenario. And I've had that conversation dozens of times with dozens of veterans or all the branches over the last 20 years. Call it conjecture if you like, but it is what it is...I'm certainly no happier about it than you are.
As to GrumpyOldFart pointing out that in bootcmap and aboard ship we were taught to obey the LAWFUL orders of the president and the officers appointed above us...all true. Every word. I did in fact receive that same training...only they were rather fuzzy about what constituted LAWFUL and what whould be considered unlawful. And to be fair to our young people who are serving now...I was scantly more familiar with the constitution 25 years ago than they are today. It wasn't taught in depth when I was in high school, but it wasn't completely glossed over the way it was when my daughter was in high school.
I wish it wasn't so, but I still would be astonished if more than 1% stood up and refused orders. Remember, the nail that sticks up is hammered down. Just seeing some of the nails getting hammered down for standing up will cure the vast majority of troops that are thinking that just maybe these orders aren't quite kosher. Hopefully this is all just mental masturbation and we will never have to actually find out how things would shake out. Well, I hope we never have to find out anyway. Just remember...less than 1%.
Your scenario of a President simply ordering confiscation seems highly unlikely to me. What seems far more likely is that Congress would pass a ban, it would become law with (Obama) or without (McCain?) the President's signature, lawsuits would be filed, and eventually the Supreme Court puts its rubber stamp of approval on it. (Given that 4 justices essentially did just that in Heller does not make this far fetched.) So now the President has been directed to collect all the guns. So he gives orders to the police, FBI, BATFE, National Guard and military.
Do you really think more than a handful of any one of these groups will oppose the order, especially if it has "gone through all the legal channels?" Heck, I remember seeing video of a National Guardsman talking to the camera crew as they were walking through the neighborhoods of New Orleans to collect guns. He said he was really uncomfortable about it, and especially that he might "have to" shoot an American citizen. But he was doing it anyway because "those were [his] orders."
BTW… It seems that whenever I run into someone who is clear on the concept of Constitution vs. government, they're far more likely to be military or ex-military than not. Even so, I still think that it's highly unlikely that any more than a significant minority of our troops are clear on the concept.
Has anyone ever done a solid study on what percentage of the military is clear on the concept? What about the general population?
I'm sorry but all of you that think the majority of military would follow such a clearly unlawful order are not giving them the respect they so richly deserve. They have volunteered to put themselves in harms way to defend YOUR FREEDOM and yet you think they are no more than programmed robots doing what they are told and passing on orders without forethought. You are saying they would actively take away the very freedom that they volunteered to defend. I for one give them much more credit than that. To think they would follow such an order sounds more like the opinion a (you pick an adjective) liberal would have for the military.
BTW, have any of you heard of a process called impeachment? I would hope that something this odious would teach us all about impeachment faster than Slick Willie taught our kids about oral sex.
Impeachment applies to more than just the President. It also applies to judges and congress critters too. There have been some truly egregious violations of the separation of powers and the Constitution by judges (Kevin's post on "A Perfect Example", Kelo vs. New London, the 4 dissenters in Heller, the 9th Circus, uh, Circuit Court), yet the idea of impeaching them for their bad behavior seems to not even have been broached, nevermind carried forward.
It seems that politicians now are only interested in pushing for impeachment for political reasons, not for reasons of law. President Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, mostly for partisan reasons. He did break the law by committing perjury. Yet the left thinks of it as entirely politically motivated, and that's partially true. (So what? He still broke the law; a law which is critical to the correct functioning of our courts.) He should also have been impeached for signing the AWB.
Then there are the calls for the impeachment of George Bush. But the reasons they give are idiotic. They're not legal reasons, though the issues are important. Yet, I think he should also be impeached for entirely different reasons, such as McCain-Feingold. Heck, McCain, and Feingold should also be impeached for passing such an obviously unconstitutional law, as well as potentially impeaching everyone who voted for it.
In short, it appears that impeachment is not being used even when it's clearly the Right Thing To Do. Given that track record, I hope you'll pardon me if I don't think members of the government will engage in impeachment if doing so means that it will limit their ability to grab more power.
As for our armed forces, I really hope I'm wrong. But so far, the evidence in favor of most "just following orders" seems stronger than the evidence for most choosing "I'll die first." Like I said, the percentage of military with their heads screwed on straight seems to be noticeably higher than the general population, but given an All Three Branches Agree scenario, I would not want to bet my life on even a significant minority refusing to obey unconstitutional orders.
This is such an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment that the decision makers and judges (the 9th Circus again) who put this in place should be immediately removed from office and banned from ever holding any public office or government position ever again. Yet how many Homeland Security agents do you suppose will refuse to carry out these searches. One? Two? Maybe.
"Hello, Mr./Ms. Yourname. I'm Agent Friendly of the BATFE. Last night, as you may or may not know, President Whoever signed an executive order requiring the confiscation of all civilian firearms in the United States. No criminal charges will be brought against you and you will be compensated at a rate of $1000 per gun or actual value, whichever is greater.
There are currently six armed BATFE agents surrounding your house. We also have a remotely controlled bulldozer.
Our records show that you possess several firearms. We cannot leave until we have either confiscated your guns or neutralized your house as a potential threat.
Because of the risk to our officers, we will not break into your house.
Unless you and all persons inside the house exit, and we are permitted to enter and remove all firearms and ammunition, we will have to insure that no one remains alive in the house.
You have one hour to make your decision. During that time, I encourage you to use your television, internet, and telephone to confirm that the order was signed, is valid, and that I am who I say I am."
BATFE has about 2,000 field agents. So that's about 300 gunowners getting Sunday morning wake-up calls at six armed agents apiece.
I think, in the circumstances described, there would be a lot of people wondering how to make best use of all the panel vans, ninja suits, MP5s, and remote control bulldozers that just fell into their laps.
But even the federal government isn't that stupid. An action on the scale required would require far too many resources and too much preparation to hide. There won't be a "turn 'em all in" confiscation order, nor conscripts in baby blue helmets.
We appear to be in agreement about most things except the integrity of our military. While some of the younger lower ranks may go with the "just following orders" (especially with a camera in their face) (Question: given that young man's admission of concern and consideration of his orders, do you think his marksmanship would have been up to par if he had gotten into such a situation, w/o cameras, and absent a threat to himself or his unit? I suspect he would have handled the situation quite well. And given the number of people shot evidently he did.) I would fully expect a much much higher percentage of the older, more experienced officiers and above to refuse
As for the 4th, No I hadn't. But a review of the 4th amendment found that it requires probable cause without mention of any duration limits. Since I have not heard of widespread laptop seizures without probable cause, I can only conclude that it is not happening.
And while I am at it, Staghounds re. your Sunday dawn idea. Of course most people would surrender their arms rather than lose their lives and those of their families, on the first morning. But just how many agents and remote control bulldozers do you think there are. Enough to subdue even 1% of the population in one morning would take approx. 6 million agents and 1 million bulldozers. And would word of this get out? SOmehow I don't see it being kept quiet. As the news spread the confiscators would meet with at a minimum less and less success and probably increasing resistance.
The slow, below the radar, stay unknown to the majority of the populace, and unfortunately historical trend of the anti-gun crowd and liberals leaders in general is a far more serious and probable scenario.
My friend has agreed to make the inquiries I asked him to. He is nothing if not thorough, so this may take some time. Have patience.
Now, why should I do this? Because what we are discussing are our opinions of other people's opinions. D'you s'pose we oughta find out what those other people's opinions really are?
OK, now to specifics.
"Your scenario of a President simply ordering confiscation seems highly unlikely to me."
"What seems far more likely is that Congress would pass a ban, it would become law with (Obama) or without (McCain?) the President's signature, lawsuits would be filed, and eventually the Supreme Court puts its rubber stamp of approval on it."
I disagree with both of these assertions.
The Supreme Court has just asserted that individuals have a Constitutional right to keep and bear firearms, and has stated in its opinion that this right predates the Constitution and so the Constitution does not grant it, rather it guarantees it. I do not see Congress passing a ban without first changing the Constitution to make such a ban not be unconstitutional. I further do not see any such attempts happening in a vacuum, rather there would be a long, nasty political fight that likely would last for generations.
The point is that, if it were to happen soon, the only way I see it happening is through the actions of a President who attempts to abrogate the Contitution itself, and the only way he could do that is by commanding the military to support him. More on this shortly.
My friend's take on this proposition is quite reasonable. The Chairman of the JCS is only the first in the chain of command. For such a command to be obeyed, there can't be very many breaks in that chain. My friend thinks any such order would be met with a resignation by the Chairman of the JCS, and repeated such resignations as the order propagated downwards, assuming it propagates downward at all.
Further, such a scenario, as I noted above, would not happen in a vacuum. Such an attempt by a President would most certainly be a "high crime" that merits impeachment, and I suspect the howling in support of it by gun owners would drown out the howling in opposition by the left.
"What if the general is a Wesley Clarke?"
Beats me. Clarke is a political opportunist, stating that he chose the Democrats instead of the Republicans on what amounted to a whim (and no, I don't remember the exact reason he gave, but such was my thoughts at the time I read it).
Now, I suggest y'all consider that what we're discussing is confiscation of firearms across the whole country, not as an isolated incident or three. We're discussing what, to expand on staghound's scenario, is a concerted assault on perhaps 40 percent of the households in the country.
Remember the mindset that resulted from 9/11; one hijacking now and then results in, "OK, we'll just sit here quietly and we'll be fine," but the knowledge that it was not "just a hijacking" resulted in action taken and an attack thwarted. Now that we all know what is possible, nobody is likely to sit in his seat and expect a hijacking to come out just fine.
It cannot succeed overall as a few attacks or as isolated attacks. It seems to me that any prediction you care to make has to take into account that the scenario amounts to a civil war between the gubmint and (in round numnbers) nearly half the population, and so likening it to a single attack on a single house simply doesn't paint an accurate picture. I think the logistical problems alone make it extremely unlikely that any President or Congress would attempt it.
As I indicated in our comment exchange, I couldn't agree more that the numbers of pro-freedom folks needs to increase.
I also know that I would rather go into a barfight with five motivated people than fifty half-hearts.
Part of the responsibilities of leadership (and I see you as much a leader of the RKBA movement as Mike, David, KDT, or anyone else) is to get your folks to understand both what they have to do and why.
In this case, the "why" function equates to the "get 'em mad" point of your essay.
The "what" piece is where Mike's writings come in. Just as happened with my first exposure to the columns of "Fred" of Fred's M14 Stocks and Boston's Gun Bible back in the late Nineties, my preexisting belief systems needed to reboot when I first read some of Mike's terser works - e.g.:
"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."
But in my final analysis, it really is that simple and that stark.
There will be people coming to take our firearms, in our lifetimes, and to cause them to stop, they will need to be stopped.
Permanently.
I don't think "The Uprising is Upon Us", as you said.
But it is damned close.
And it gets closer with every day and every outrage.
And once a completely-distributed, non-hierarchical Counterrevolution/Constitutional Restoration gets going in this country, it is going to be the most hellacious barfight anyone has ever seen.
To quote David Codrea, "Any chair in a bar fight", and similarly, any ally who is shooting at my enemies, rather than me.
So keep raising the visibility of government outrages.
Keep making the white folks mad.
Keep underscoring that it's not about guns, but instead about freedom.
Keep making everyone think.
Especially about the kind of will and commitment it will take to defeat the transnational socialists decisively and reestablish (very) limited government across the North American continent.
(Remember, there'll be Kanuckistanis fighting with us as well)
See ya on the barricades.
For Liberty,
Peter
PS: Let's all remember too what the buggering adherents of Islam have recently taught the world about bending others to your political will. Like it or not, Hajii has captured Europe (at least the councils of its governments) without firing more than a few shots. Gotta be something to be learned from an adversary like that, filthy as he may be. Quoting myself:
On the other hand, if there are even 3% of Mike Vanderboegh's supposedly-mythical "Three Percenters" with the commitment of hajii - then we can expect some very harsh lessons for the spineless statist utopians as they attempt to deliver hoped-for change and reasonable new gun control laws, inspired by the majority's words in Heller.
In general, I agree that the military would resist if the President were to unilaterally demand "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." That's why I think it won't happen that way. If such a power monger was smart enough to become President, he would also be smart enough to give it a veneer of respectability, which is why the Congress and the Supreme Court would be involved.
You may think Heller would be respected by future courts. But Miller was decided on the basis that the 2A explicitly protected military arms, and we both know how thoroughly the libtards twisted it into saying that the 2A did not protect military arms.
Yes, the Heller ruling was correct, as far as it goes. However, logic, plain language, and obedience have never stopped the power hungry before. What makes you think that has changed? Just look at how the mayor of D.C. responded to Heller by changing the law as little as possible, yet still violating the letter, nevermind the spirit of the ruling.
"In general, I agree that the military would resist if the President were to unilaterally demand "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." That's why I think it won't happen that way."
I don't think it can happen any other way. How do you take the guns from (in round numbers) a hundred million people without using an army?
I recall reading (a long time ago and I don't remember where) that the Japanese army and navy admitted that the reason they never thought seriously about invading the US west coast was because the average citizen there was armed. I also recall reading only recently (but again, I don't recall where) that, early in the war, a German diplomat asked a Swiss diplomat what would happen if Germany invaded Switzerland. The Swiss diplomat replied that the Swiss would each fire one shot and go home.
"Yes, the Heller ruling was correct, as far as it goes. However, logic, plain language, and obedience have never stopped the power hungry before. What makes you think that has changed?"
I don't think that has changed.
I think you have not quite understood my point of view. The point is that the Supreme Court, via the Heller decision, has validated the Second Amendment and the people know it. The crux of the matter is not that Congress might not respect the Heller decision, rather it is that the people might not respect any decision of Congress that violates the Second Amendment. The law does not necessarily check Congress overall, but the thought that the peepull, en masse, might refuse to obey a law that Congress would know was inviolation of the Constitution would give Congress considerable reason to avoid such attempts.
In particular, don't discount the fear factor of individual members of Congress. For example, Dianne Feinstein loudly favors gun bans, but she hires armed guards to protect her kids.
"Just look at how the mayor of D.C. responded to Heller by changing the law as little as possible, yet still violating the letter, nevermind the spirit of the ruling."
Yup, he's pushing the envelope to find its edges, and there are bipartisan-sponsored bills before Congress that just might break it off in his ass.
"How do you take the guns from (in round numbers) a hundred million people without using an army?"
I think you're right on this point. They would need the military to accomplish such a task. My point is simply that most military officers would recognize an attempt at performing a naked end run around the Constitution. Therefore, in order to get the military on board, the politicians would have to give such a move a veneer of respectability, and that would involve at least the Congress and probably the Supreme Court.
"The crux of the matter is not that Congress might not respect the Heller decision, rather it is that the people might not respect any decision of Congress that violates the Second Amendment."
Some people know about it. Most probably don't care one way or the other. Of the rest, probably half think it's wrong and would be happy to roll right over it. (Sarah Brady, and/or the BATFE anyone?) If Congress passes a law which the Supreme Court said doesn't violate Heller, how many would recognize that the horrible stench is not actually perfume? Would there be enough to make a difference? I'm not hopeful on that front.
Basically the best way to influence or indoctrinate people is from birth, and the child is exposed to a certain viewpoint. I did that to my children because I realized that if I did not, the schools would with a different viewpoint. This is why liberals have taken over schools and education and teaching in colleges. They recognized that if you get the attention of young people who have not thought about certain issues and then present their viewpoint, especially if it appeals to their emotional comfort zones, you could get large amount of young adults to believe in your philosophy.
The second method is an immense emotional shock that makes the person revaluate their opinions and beliefs. Humans base their reactions on past experiences. People have been conditioned to wait for experts to solve a problem that is beyond their own normal experience.
Example: airplane hijackings. Hijackings first started to occur during the 1970’s. Their purpose was either to raise awareness to a political cause or for extortion for money. Passengers that were stuck in these situations had the classic prisoners dilemma. The hijackers had a weapon and the passengers did not. The passenger was at a disadvantage to attack the hijacker without the support of the other passengers. A passenger had no way of knowing if the other passengers would back his attack or sit back and wait. Without that foreknowledge the passenger is disinclined to attack and risk his life when a better chance or the situation may change can occur.
In a way Mike V has the same prisoners dilemma he does not know at what point other gun folks will back a resistance to certain BATF actions. The reactions are much the same. Other gun folks like Sebastian are waiting for a better situation and do not think it is time for he personally, to risk or sacrifice him for a failed attack.
But an emotional shock does change opinions and September 11. 2001 was one of those events. In the first 3 planes the passengers were just starting to know that these hijackings were not like the 1970’s with the conditioned response was to wait it out for the negotiated release. Due to the communications of cell phones the passengers had real time info that these hijackings were designed to kill thousands and possibly disable our government. In that case, the situation is a no winner and life is not a possibility, then the best option is to risk all and take out the hijackers. The last plane had sufficient time and real time info to take that choice and the plane went down without any other casualties other than the passengers.
A belief has changed, no longer will passengers sit passively and allow another to terrorize and take control of the plane. Richard Reid take down by passengers was a change in mindset. Security controls will not solve the risks but a mindset change does.
A decent law abiding liberal who believes that guns are bad and that more guns leads to more lives lost is an emotional belief. That liberal walking to his car and getting mugged and threatened with a gun or knife has a rapid change in his emotional belief that a gun is no good. If he survives he may think that carrying a gun is not so bad idea. The same can happen when muggers or carjackers murders a close friend. The emotional shock of the crime makes a person reevaluate his beliefs. So reality of crime can make a person go from a bad gun belief, to a gun for me is a good belief.
Katrina is another emotional event. The people who had their guns taken away based their actions on the conditioning that police were law and order and not to challenge police. Those people who had to fight off looters and were forted up had a different emotional reaction and some refused and successfully refused. The old lady who was assaulted on TV made a lot of others decide that they will not let that happen to them and many states enacted laws specifically to address the disarming of people in an emergency. This was a good result from a bad circumstance.
The point is that if in a similar circumstance where law and order are non-existent and the criminal class is taking advantage, how many gun owners will allow cops to take back their guns if they are staying put? Not so many I think next time. Until time itself softens the emotional reaction to New Orleans.
So when realty does not create the emotional shock to change opinions and beliefs the best way is to get children when they are young and get educators who espouse a self-defense ethos in schools. Get more conservatives in college who educate philosophy and try to show that self-reliance is important. Get the teenagers to read Heinlein. Locke, Rousseau and Ayn Rand “Atlas Shruggs”. Get the kids to read the Federalist Papers in high school.
The next method is do is what we are doing here, to persuade by reason and logic that gun rights are important. To try to get non-gun people to a range to have fun. Get teenagers into hunting to build the next generation of gun enthusiasts and hunters. Volunteer to Boy Scout troops and take dozens of kids to get the merit badges in shotgun and rifle. I did that and probably got at least a dozen kids thinking guns are cool.
It took the gun control people 30 years to get the popular opinion to be against gun rights. It has taken 15 years to change that from the 1994 revolt against the assault rifle ban to increasing CCW laws in states. In 2008 we got the Supreme Court to declare it in an individual rights. Katrina change a lot of laws within one year that numerous states that instigated or strengthened gun rights especially in emergency disasters situations.
Chicago will lose their case and is now trying to come up with a new set of rules that will allow handguns but still keep controls. They will lose over time.
It will take time and persistence to defang the BATF and restore it to an agency that assists FFL’s dealers. The Clintonista’s that populated the Justice Department and BATF are the ones that still have the goal to eliminate guns and make gun dealers life hard to decrease the amount of gun dealers. Bush 41 did not attempt to clean house of these people. McCain may not either, but Obama or HRC will increase the population of similar minded people in government.
Heller was a major battle won but the effort to roll back needs to be pursued with diligence
"My point is simply that most military officers would recognize an attempt at performing a naked end run around the Constitution. Therefore, in order to get the military on board, the politicians would have to give such a move a veneer of respectability, and that would involve at least the Congress and probably the Supreme Court."
My point exactly, and such involves evolution of minds, not a coup.
"If Congress passes a law which the Supreme Court said doesn't violate Heller, ...
I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Your mileage may vary.
"... how many would recognize that the horrible stench is not actually perfume?"
That would depend on the minds of people sometime in the future, possibly even on people who have not yet been born. There will be some who would, but I don't think the percentage is even remotely predictable, so I won't try.
I can't help but focus on a fairly important bit of history. The mighty German gubmint and military machine, with all members of the Wehrmacht taking an oath of allegiance to Hitler, balked at taking on Switzerland. They took on, voluntarily and simultaneously, the whole of Europe except Italy but including Great Britain, plus Australia, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, and the United States, but a tiny nation of riflemen, right on their border and surrounded by them, deterred them completely.
I see the same deterrent effect here, plus the deterrent value of the fact that, here, it would be a civil war, and not an invasion of another country.
If I'm right, we'll never know, will we? I can live with that.
When I see some of these "3 per-centers" rising up against police aggression against innocent dope-smokers I might begin to take seriously all that brave talk about defending liberty at the front door.
Unfortunately, all too many of them think there's not a damn thing wrong with busting down someone's door and killing their dogs (as seems to be SWAT SOP these days) because that person enjoys a socially disapproved recreational substance.
I'm sorry Juris, but dope is far more than "a socially disapproved recreational substance". IT'S IS ILLEGAL! And until that is changed, I will support the efforts of law enforcement to eliminate it along with other illegal substances that are harmful to our society.
And no I do not support it's legalization. I have seen first hand, it's detrimental and devastating effect on the youth and adults (at least by age standards) in our country. I have lived in three separate parts of this country where I stayed long enough to get involved with various youth activities ranging from boy scouts and church groups to what could easily be called reformatory basketball leagues. Unfortunately I have seen your "socially disapproved recreational substance" destroy the motivation, commitment, and ultimately opportunity of many kids from all type of backgrounds.
I seriously hope that most of the "3 per-centers" have enough sense to support LEGAL law enforcement.
You want to smoke dope, make it legal (and I think you should not and will not be successful in that endeavor) or leave! And while I would hate to see any pro-gun person depart these shores, in my opinion your support of illegal drug use, even just dope, is a far more serious, direct and immediate threat to american society than the anti-gun crowd.
And for those who do not believe me, we have our guns, and numbers alone say they cannot all be taken away by force, but the lives of kids and adults (if by age only) are being destroyed and even terminated by the illegal drug industry.
And don't bother telling me it is no different than tobacco and alcohol. Those are legal for adults. Sadly they also have many negative, albeit smaller, effects on our youth.
P.S. The poor dogs have all my sympathy as they are truly innocent. The dope-smoker gets significantly less. And other than those with prescriptions, there are no "innocent dope-smokers" in this country.
"When I see some of these "3 per-centers" rising up against police aggression against innocent dope-smokers I might begin to take seriously all that brave talk about defending liberty at the front door."
If you think I should go to war against the government to protect a "right" to live a life of idle dissipation and crime to feed a drug habit, then you need to reexamine your priorities. Heck, you need to reexamine the meaning and concept of "liberty".
It ain't gonna happen! I'm more likely to slap the users silly until they straighten up and put the drug dealers 6 feet under myself before I would start shooting at law enforcement over drug issues. (I happen to think treating users as criminals rather than patients is counterproductive, but there is no way I can accept claims that drug use is "harmless.") Protecting some druggie from "evil people" who want him to straighten his life out is not my idea of a cause worth dying for or living out the rest of my life with a permanent disability.
Now when government is destroying the lives of people who are working hard and doing the right things both for themselves and their community, that is true tyranny worth opposing.
"Unfortunately I have seen your 'socially disapproved recreational substance' destroy the motivation, commitment, and ultimately opportunity of many kids from all type of backgrounds."
Sure. So what, precisely, is the difference between marijuana and alcohol, in terms of social cost? I've seen alcohol do exactly the same thing, in far greater numbers. Find me a single case of someone hospitalized from being beaten to a bloody pulp by someone who only wanted to fight because he was stoned. Or if you'd rather, find me a single ER in any major US city that doesn't have *at least one* such case EVERY WEEKEND from people whose own stated reasons for being violent were "I was drunk."
So far as I can tell, the SOLE difference is that alcohol and tobacco are the lobbyists' and legislators' drugs of choice.
Does that mean I'll go to war to protect the pot smokers? Hell no, and I AM one. Recreational drug use, of whatever type, is ultimately fashion based, and I won't risk my life to support or deny a fashion. Most *certainly* not to defend a fashion that is ultimately self-destructive, as ALL recreational drug use is. "High", "tipsy" and "buzzed" all translate to the same thing: Your body is experiencing a mild poison reaction. Whether you got that buzz from a joint or a beer is completely beside the point.
But neither do I think anyone else should have to support or deny such nonsense either. If there is anything I consider consistently STUPID in a cop's job, it is that he is required to risk his life to defend what is essentially a fashion statement, in terms of which harmful drugs are okay and which harmful drugs are "bad."
And Quake, I'd like to see you try to defend the "albeit smaller" phrase in your last comment. I doubt you can. I don't think the negatives for tobacco and alcohol are any smaller, I think that just the *acceptance* of those negatives is greater.
If you think I should go to war against the government to protect a "right" to live a life of idle dissipation and crime to feed a drug habit, then you need to reexamine your priorities. Heck, you need to reexamine the meaning and concept of "liberty".
Your reasoning is specious. I think not that you should go to war for the reasons you speak of, but rather to defend the principles of Locke; that of ultimate self-ownership. How can you claim to defend liberty when you deny the claim of personal sovereignity? It's not the right to live a life of dissipation I defend, but rather the right to be left the hell alone by the damned government!
Just as you might claim to Sarah Brady that you owning a machine gun does no harm to anyone unless you actually use it against them, so too do I claim that my smoking weed or even shooting black tar heroin does you no harm, unless I then in some way actually infringe your right to life, liberty, or property.
People getting high and accomplishing nothing with their lives neither breaks my arm nor steals my car. And there are already plenty of laws to punish those who do those things.
It ain't gonna happen! I'm more likely to slap the users silly until they straighten up and put the drug dealers 6 feet under myself before I would start shooting at law enforcement over drug issues. (I happen to think treating users as criminals rather than patients is counterproductive, but there is no way I can accept claims that drug use is "harmless.") Protecting some druggie from "evil people" who want him to straighten his life out is not my idea of a cause worth dying for or living out the rest of my life with a permanent disability.
Ah, everybody just wants to tell somebody else what to do. It's always disgusting to see it in people who are nominally on my side, though.
What, exactly, is the difference between your position and that of any straight up nanny-state socialist? Are they not, in fact, "evil people" for wanting to force their protection from ourselves on all of us? Your position is precisely the same as theirs, that citizens are property of the government, and that the government has a right to tell them how to live every detail of their lives. The only difference is in which behaviours you find unpleasant.
Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws - always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. - R.A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Ladies and Gents, my friend has responded. Here is the meat of it, verbatim:
"As for the military, I have talked to three so far, active duty Marine, Navy, and Air Force pilots. So far it is a unanimous vote on all issues. They all said they are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and to carry out lawful orders from their superiors. The scenario you propose would clearly be unlawful and they would expect that the vast majority of the military including themselves, to refuse such an order, especially the officers and upper ranks of the non-coms. A few green recruits could probably be intimidated into carrying out such an order but only by the toughest and most experienced of the non-coms. The very non-coms that are most likely to refuse such an order.
"One of the three (the youngest) was surprised and disappointed that very many people would think the military could be used in this manor. I assured him that I was not one of them and I did not know that very many people felt this way just maybe a dozen or so on this particular blog expressed that opinion. I gave all three the web address so look for new responders. The Marine asked just how many people do they think are in the armed forces. I didn't know so I looked it up, about 2.5 million, if you include all police forces, XYZ agents, and officials you might get that up to 5 or 6 million. Even if they go 1 on 1 with the civilians it will take several days if not weeks to pull off and with todays communications I would expect fierce and effective resistance after the first two days.
"I'll keep asking and the Marine and Navy pilots said they would ask a few of their friends as well."
Well. It's a very small sample, but these are their opinions, rather than our guesstimates of their opinions. Illuminating, isn't it?
I have to say that my jaw literally dropped when I read your posts, especially coming immediately on the heels of our discussion of how defenders of the Constitution are perceived among the sheep. So instead of proving that we want the very best for America, you promptly hand our enemies another stick to beat us with! Lovely. So instead of the face of the Tennessee UUC shooter, you've slapped the face of this guy on all gun owners:
"So Delich was a crazed stoner who sat around getting high and convincing himself that the elaborate fantasy world he wanted to live in was real and telling people he was a god. He was arrested numerous times and never received a significant punishment, or treatment. And his parents gave him money to buy guns and drugs I assume since he didn’t work. Sounds like a lot of people dropped the Ball on this one."
Smooth move X-lax!
I'm not even gonna argue about the damage caused by drug use. It's obvious that you've made up your minds in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. But there is an appropriate quote from the book The American Sex Revolution by Pitirim Sorokin:
"No law-abiding and morally strong society is possible when a large number of its members are selfish nihilists preoccupied with pleasure. For inevitably such men and women come into conflict with one another, and are led to chronic violation of moral and legal imperatives and to endless transgression of the vital interests of each other. There results a progressive undermining of the existing legal and moral order, and a perennial war among members of the collectivity seeking a maximum share of material possessions and gratifications. In this struggle the established code of the society is repeatedly broken; standards of conduct are increasingly trespassed, and ultimately they lose their authority and control over individual behavior. The society drifts closer and closer to a state of moral anarchy in which everyone regards himself as law giver and judge entitled to juggle all moral and legal standards as he pleases.
"With moral stamina thus weakened, the society loses its inner solidarity and the civic virtues necessary for its well being. Its internal peace is increasingly broken by disturbances and revolts, its security chronically punctured by brutal forces of criminality."
While the topic of his book focuses on the issues of sexual anarchy, this principle seems to apply equally well to drug use. After all, I doubt that any of you could seriously argue that drugs are not a primary factor in most murders in this country. If you want to see how the last paragraph of this quote plays out, the easiest place to look is at the drug culture.
As for tobacco and alcohol, I think there's one primary reason why making them illegal is so hard: they've been socially acceptable, and even at times considered marks of high society, for centuries. Tobacco use doesn't cause immediate mental impairment, just eventual medical problems. Alcohol has much more direct impairment, but it also has been a favored drink for much of recorded history. In fact, for most of that time, it was usually safer to drink alcohol than water due to the lack of purification.
The main problem with your argument using alcohol and tobacco is that it is a "single step" argument. "MJ is just 'one step' worse than alcohol. It's really not that bad." So if you legalize it, then you could make exactly the same argument about the next step, then the next step, and so forth until you've legalized every illicit drug, including ones that are instantly addicting and exceedingly destructive. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Gun grabbers use the same class of arguments against the 2nd Amendment, all the while ignoring the fact that their types of arguments can be used against constitutionally protected rights which they hold sacred.
Bottom line: You want Mr. & Mrs. Middle America to help defend the Constitution? Then don't try to get them to defend illicit drug use too. That's like telling them that you've got a fabulous feast waiting for them, oh, and by the way, there's a poison pill buried in there somewhere.
I'm glad to hear it. That gives me a little more hope.
I'm wondering, though, which scenario you presented to them. Was it your Rogue President scenario, my Veneer of Legitimacy scenario, or both?
As I've been thinking about this, I remembered a principle of strategy that I learned a long time ago: Always expect your opponent to attempt his strongest or most effective move. That's why I don't think your Rogue President scenario is likely. Someone who tried it would play into the hands of gun owners who would immediately go on the warpath, plus it would turn the military against the government.
I suggest thinking through how the government would be most effective at disarming most gun owners. That tactic should also be designed to convince the military to side with the gun grab. Discuss it with your friends in the military. Could they conceive of a scenario where 2/3rds of the military could be convinced to go along with it?
Don't expect the enemies of the Constitution to exhaust themselves against the fortifications. They will be looking for a way around them, therefore, we also need to be looking for holes in the fortifications.
Ed, the scenario I presented to my friend was the one I presented in this comment. I wasn't a party to the discussions between my friend and his contacts in the military, as I am in Oklahoma and he is in Maryland. I posted his response to his conversations with them.
"I suggest thinking through how the government would be most effective at disarming most gun owners. That tactic should also be designed to convince the military to side with the gun grab."
My opinion is that such cannot be done. I've stated the reasons why, and I point out that the members of the military are often gun owners, too, and most have families.
I am reminded of the comment by a kamikaze pilot at the pre-flight breifing: "Honorable leader, you are out of your fucking mind."
"Don't expect the enemies of the Constitution to exhaust themselves against the fortifications. They will be looking for a way around them, therefore, we also need to be looking for holes in the fortifications."
Bingo.
I see no need to gear up for war, because I don't expect war. The weapons I have are more than enough. The battle will be fought in the legislatures and the courts, not in the streets, as the left continues the endless grind of pushing the boundaries of the envelope. The last 20 years have seen the envelope shrink. I expect that shrinkage will continue.
"I'm not even gonna argue about the damage caused by drug use. It's obvious that you've made up your minds in spite of massive evidence to the contrary."
I could say the same of you. Apparently you don't see any distinction between an occasional pot smoker and someone who "'experimented” with drugs such as marijuana, mushrooms, cocaine, LSD and Ecstasy", a phrase you unaccountably left out of your quote. And yet if I claimed there was no difference whatsoever between someone who often has a glass of wine with dinner and a wino, stinking of urine, feces and vomit, passed out behind a dumpster somewhere, you'd claim I was a nut, would you not?
And you'd be right.
"As for tobacco and alcohol, I think there's one primary reason why making them illegal is so hard: they've been socially acceptable, and even at times considered marks of high society, for centuries. Tobacco use doesn't cause immediate mental impairment, just eventual medical problems. Alcohol has much more direct impairment, but it also has been a favored drink for much of recorded history. In fact, for most of that time, it was usually safer to drink alcohol than water due to the lack of purification."
Or in other words, the SOLE difference is that alcohol and tobacco are the lobbyists' and legislators' drugs of choice. I could have sworn I had already made that point.
"I doubt that any of you could seriously argue that drugs are not a primary factor in most murders in this country."
Question: Is it the drugs themselves, or is it the undeniable, demonstrable fact that a drug user, regardless of the actual harm caused by his drug use, has already been declared fit only to be in a cage or a coffin, and therefore feels he has nothing to lose? If we are talking about the 21st century, he already has incontrovertible evidence that his own government has spent his entire life blatantly lying to him, made him the target of a propaganda campaign short on facts and long on demonizing, and declared the police, to whom he should be able to turn for protection, to be his enemy.
Your tax dollars at work. I dunno about you, but I'd feel as if they'd shot members of my family when they killed my dogs.
In reference to my question above, note that the vast majority of pot smokers who are arrested every day go quietly, with a minimum of fuss. Also note that "coyotes", those who make their living transporting illegal aliens into this country, are often armed and violent, with no compunction about killing anyone who gets in the way of their business dealings, *even if no drugs are involved*. So again I must ask, is it the drugs? Or is it the fact that the US government has made a point to make sure those involved with it are in a high-risk, high-gain illegal enterprise where killing risks nothing they are not already risking anyway?
"The main problem with your argument using alcohol and tobacco is that it is a "single step" argument. "MJ is just 'one step' worse than alcohol. It's really not that bad." So if you legalize it, then you could make exactly the same argument about the next step, then the next step, and so forth until you've legalized every illicit drug, including ones that are instantly addicting and exceedingly destructive. A line has to be drawn somewhere."
Is it? I would contend that marijuana is quite a bit LESS addictive and destructive than alcohol. Even those whose job is demonizing marijuana for the US government have conceded that its primary danger lies in it being a 'gateway drug', ie one that tends to lead to the use of harder, more dangerous substances. But of course, the fact that by smoking marijuana you are already marked as an enemy of the state, and therefore are not increasing your risks or potential penalties by going to harder drugs... nah, that can't have anything to do with it, can it?
Your fear is that we will end up legalizing drugs that are instantly addictive and exceedingly destructive? Instantly addictive like, say, tobacco? Exceedingly destructive like, say, alcohol?
Eek. No, we can't have that.
Please understand, I am NOT advocating the legalization of every drug out there, or even most of them. I am advocating a consistent, rational drug policy based on the FACTS of what various drugs do to the mind and body, rather than a fiat based policy dependent on who has the lobby money and whose fears need to be pandered to.
"Bottom line: You want Mr. & Mrs. Middle America to help defend the Constitution? Then don't try to get them to defend illicit drug use too."
Please explain to me where it says in the Constitution that because Sen. Swimmer poisoned himself and rendered himself a hazard to everyone around him *using a legal substance* that his (at best) negligent homicide was okay, while at the same time someone who smokes a bowl with his friends and plays spades or poker with them in the kitchen until the wee hours of the morning is a danger to society, fit only to be penned up or gunned down.
The bottom line is that the disparity between actual medical/psychological EVIDENCE concerning drug use, and the government propaganda concerning drug use, has been used to end-run the Constitution for nearly a century. Even with *legal* drugs. If I drive anywhere on a holiday weekend, I am subject to being stopped for *no reason whatsoever* and presented with a demand to see my papers. Such a scenario is straight out of Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR, and yet we accept it. Why? Because the government has spent 3 generations or more teaching us to fear drugs RATHER THAN RESPECT THE LAW, that's why.
Thanks to Quake and Ed for proving my point. You don't seriously give a damn about liberty, and all your words about defending it are nothing but sound and fury.
"a socially disapproved recreational substance". IT'S IS ILLEGAL!
Quake - it's illegal because it IS socially disapproved. Educate yourself a little son. The War on Drugs began to "protect our white women". It continues because we must "do it for the children". If you are so weak of mind that you fall for that shit, you shouldn't own a gun.
Ed, I seem to recall the words of those who preached against demon rum echoing in your condemnation of dope-fiend idleness. (Not to mention the overtones of a puritanical fascism - you must be a productive member of society, not just for your own good but for the good of the people). Prohition taught some of us, sadly not nearly enough.
Ed sez While the topic of his book focuses on the issues of sexual anarchy, this principle seems to apply equally well to drug use.
Puritan to the core, indeed. Your notion of liberty is the one that needs to be reconsidered - as you would offer none to those who don't conform to your view of the good society.
Criminalizing drugs has, in the main, accomplished:
1) making a buttload of money for organized crime, including terrorist organizations (where you can tell the difference between the two).
2) making a buttload of money for government agencies through fines and seizures.
3) creating a criminal class out of thin air by governmental fiat.
4) making law enforcement and healthcare providers, the very people a drug user SHOULD be able to turn to for help, into his enemies.
5) making the general public willing to accept more and more restrictions on their liberties due to the fear of said drugs.
6) killing a lot of people, on both sides of the issue.
7) and yes, it has decreased drug used somewhat. Has it ended it? No. Has it even *crippled* the drug trade? Arguably it has, but it is equally arguable that it has not. But to claim that it will EVER eliminate drug use entirely, regardless of what measures are taken, is nothing short of fantasy.
Will anyone seriously claim that #7 has been so successful as to justify #s 1 through 6?
GOF sez I am advocating a consistent, rational drug policy based on the FACTS of what various drugs do to the mind and body
A situation in which almost surely pot would be legal and booze restricted or banned.
The irony.
I on the other hand advocate that is NONE of the govt's f'ing business what I choose to do with my body, period. It is also not the govt's responsibility to make good my bad decisions. These two stances put me at odds with both conservatives AND liberals, respectively.
Actually, I'm not sure I'd accept even that. My question to the Quake's and the Ed's of the world is, if it wasn't illegal - would you use it? The usual response is "no". So, it's never a matter about their own behavior/choices - it's always about making other people do what the moral busy-body deems best. [And, oddly enough, that's the typical 'logic' gun control freaks employ.]
The cognitive dissonance it takes to make THAT argument while simultaenously holding that alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods ARE okay for people to decide for themselves, makes a loony liberal seem like a rational person.
Sheesh. And you guys wonder why you're viewed as gun nuts!
I posted a quote from the guy who basically wrote the book on the study of societies, and all you're responding with are forms of religious dogma. How about responding with something like actual evidence, or a quote from someone with equal gravitas as Dr. Sorokin which shows the error in his statement.
C'mon, when it comes to defending the 2nd Amendment you guys use serious scholarship. If you think mind altering drug use doesn't have a negative effect, then you should be able to support that position with equally good scholarship. Name calling and stating personal preferences is not good scholarship.
"My question to the Quake's and the Ed's of the world is, if it wasn't illegal - would you use it?"
No, for the same reason I follow the 4 rules of gun safety, and for the same reason I don't smoke. (I don't drink either, but in that case it's 'cause I don't like the taste. Blech!) Are you going to claim that it's okay if other people choose not to follow those 4 gun safety rules?
"And, oddly enough, that's the typical 'logic' gun control freaks employ."
Really? What are the parallels?
We know that banning guns leads to increased crime and harm to the victims due to losing the ability to defend themselves. What harm comes to you if you don't use mind-altering substances?
Gun grabbers claim guns cause violent behavior. We know for a fact that they do not. Can you prove that mind-altering substances do not directly cause violent behavior, in at least some cases? (Not to mention depression, permanent loss of cognitive function, loss of motivation, etc.)
If you think mind altering drug use doesn't have a negative effect, then you should be able to support that position with equally good scholarship.
No problem Ed. I give you U.S. history up until the Harrison Act. I give you the actual words used by those who passed the first drug control laws - the rationale behind those laws. I give you THOUSANDS of alcohol fueled acts of violence against the ONE anti-social dope-smoker you pointed to. I also give you Harvard's own Timothy Leary - who never committed a violent act while under the influence. You might also want to look up the recent Johns Hopkins work with psilocybin.
And if you don't want to get called on your moralistic arguments, then don't use them.
I have to admit, quoting the founder of the Harvard Sociology department is amusing to say the least - considering you'd disagree with probably 99% of the rest of his & that program's work. And, you brought up the sexual bugbear as an analogy - not as direct evidence.
"you can't be trusted to make the decision for yourself."
I thought you were going to try to hit the ball.
By this logic, we should not make bank robbery illegal, because such laws imply that people cannot make the choice for themselves whether or not to rob a bank.
"because there can't be ANYTHING wrong with a licit drug."
I'm not making that argument. I was simply pointing out that claiming that there was nothing wrong with drug use, then pointing out that help is needed is contradictory.
"I have to admit, quoting the founder of the Harvard Sociology department is amusing to say the least - considering you'd disagree with probably 99% of the rest of his & that program's work. And, you brought up the sexual bugbear as an analogy - not as direct evidence."
I guess you didn't notice which years he was there. Did you just assume that he was a current professor pushing Harvard's current liberal garbage?
The point in the quoted passage was the effect of narcissism, which is seeking pleasure above all else. Are you claiming that drug users are not seeking pleasure?
"I give you U.S. history up until the Harrison Act."
How many intentional drug users were there as a percentage of the population? How widespread was narcissism? Was narcissism treated as culturally acceptable?
"if you don't want to get called on your moralistic arguments, then don't use them."
Really? I used a moralistic argument? I could have sworn I argued that illicit drugs were wrong because of their effects both on individuals and society as a whole. What is "moralistic" about looking at cause and effect? Do you condemn every scientist who observes an effect and figures out the cause as being "moralistic"? Do you condemn every engineer who ever stated weight limits on a bridge for "imposing his judgment on society?"
How many intentional drug users were there as a percentage of the population?
Well from U.S. v. Jin Fuey Moy, and in the words of Justice Holmes...
"Only words from which there is no escape could warrant the conclusion that Congress meant to strain its powers almost if not quite to the breaking point in order to make the probably very large proportion of citizens who have some preparation of opium in their possession criminal or at least prima facie criminal, and subject to the serious punishment made possible by 9."
I guess you didn't notice which years he was there.
I said he founded that department, which implies pretty clearly it wasn't recent. He wrote the book in question in 1956 - well before MOST people refer to the Sexual Revolution, and he was dead by 1968. Do you also accept his views on social cycles and stratification? Or are you only turned on by his sexual repression?
How widespread was narcissism? Was narcissism treated as culturally acceptable?
Keep stretching Ed, but you're not getting any closer.
By this logic, we should not make bank robbery illegal, because such laws imply that people cannot make the choice for themselves whether or not to rob a bank.
Pretending the ball is in your hand is the lamest play in the game.
Robbing is clearly an offense against another (or their property). How exactly does that equate to some person peacefully sitting at home enjoying a beer or a bowl? It doesn't does it.
However, denying a person the right to ingest what they want because they might do something violent is PRECISELY like saying you may not have a gun because you might misuse it.
What's that, the manager is walking toward the mound...
I could have sworn I argued that illicit drugs were wrong because of their effects both on individuals and society as a whole.
Wow, you don't even know when you're making an argument based on morality?
The possible lassitude of the drug consumer offends you Ed. Don't pretend otherwise now. He must be shown the way of truth, light and materialism - lest he fall dangerously out of step with his fellow citizens. Be productive citizen, consume citizen - do as you are told.
"Do you also accept his views on social cycles and stratification?"
I don't know yet. I'm still reading his work. I did some skimming and the results he predicted seem to be accurate.
"Or are you only turned on by his sexual repression?"
Stated as if you think he made up his results much like Beslisles (sp?) did. I call pure BS on that slant. He backs up his statements with example after example of easily confirmed history in his book. Furthermore, his work was based in part on the work of J.D. Unwin, whose work survived extensive peer review. Here's what Unwin had to say in Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior:
"…the cultural condition of any society at any time seems to depend on the amount of its mental and social energy, and this in its turn seems to depend upon the extent of the compulsory continence imposed by its past and present methods of regulating the relations between the sexes. So close, in fact, is the relation between sexual opportunity and cultural condition that if we know what sexual regulations a society adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its culture." (pg x)
Of course, he goes on to give the evidence in his book.
I just recently became aware of a seminar called Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? It points out that there are 4 basic categories of why someone holds a particular belief. They are 1) Sociological Reasons [Parents, Friends, Society, Culture], 2) Psychological Reasons [Comfort, Peace of Mind, Meaning, Purpose, Hope, Identity], 3) Religious Reasons [Scripture, Pastor/Priest, Guru, Rabbi, Imam, Church], and 4) Philosophical Reasons [Consistency, Coherence, Completeness (best explanation of all the evidence)]. The first two are invalid reasons to believe something because they are reasons why people can often believe something in spite of the facts. The third category cannot, in and of itself, be a reason to believe something either. Only the 4th reason can provide solid foundations to any of the other three categories.
Given the rock solid evidence supporting the conclusion (100% correspondence!) that sexual anarchy and narcissism directly impact the level a society can achieve, I think it's safe to say that the reason I'm being so hard nosed on these points is because I think the available evidence puts my positions in category 4. If you're going to shake that, you're going to have to come with some (at minimum) equally rock solid evidence.
"Robbing is clearly an offense against another (or their property)."
But banks have "insurance" for this sort of thing. (Or so the argument goes.) Individual depositors aren't harmed, and neither is the bank. Only the fedgov is harmed, and they're big enough that it's only a pinprick.
What makes you think everyone is too stupid to decide whether or not to rob a bank?
"How exactly does that equate to some person peacefully sitting at home enjoying a beer or a bowl?"
How many people "peacefully" sit at home while doing these things? If they were so peaceful, why are drug dealers shooting up neighborhoods in their turf wars? If they're so peaceful, why are discussions about the best way to incapacitate a goblin—necessary for hopped up drug users—a common topic on gun boards?
"Be productive citizen, consume citizen - do as you are told."
Bullshit. Support yourself. Accept personal responsibility.
Quite simply, drug use is not a victimless crime. If someone is unable to support themselves—or only partially so—due to their drug habit, someone else winds up shouldering the load, whether voluntarily or involuntarily through excess taxation, being a victim of theft, etc.
"Pretending the ball is in your hand is the lamest play in the game."
"However, denying a person the right to ingest what they want because they might do something violent is PRECISELY like saying you may not have a gun because you might misuse it."
Right........
Did you forget that the effect of a gun (good or bad) resides entirely within a person's choices while the effect of a drug is outside the user's control?
Ed: We know that banning guns leads to increased crime[.]
And banning drugs has led to such an astounding peace in our time.
If they were so peaceful, why are drug dealers shooting up neighborhoods in their turf wars?
This question betrays either extreme disingenuousness, or an excruciating lack of historical knowledge. The references you make imply that you read books. Have you read anything about Prohibition? the drug dealers are shooting each other up in turf wars because making drugs illegal has made them worth a lot of money, and ensured that the only people in the trade are those who are already criminally inclined.
As for your "philosophical consistency", that's the same shield I claim: I believe that men own themselves. So long as they are not infringing on the life, liberty, or property of others, they can do anything they like, and I have absolutely no ethical or moral authority to stop them. Taking drugs does not, by itself, infringe on any of those natural rights. Should an addict, or any other person, engage in theft, robbery, extortion, rape, murder, or any other crime, either under the influence of drugs or not, there are already legitimate laws to deal with those crimes.
----
Grumpy Old Fart: Your list of 7 points is good, but it misses the one most relevant to even the pro-war-on-some-drugs folks among the pro-guns groups. Namely, the War on Drugs has given the Antis more fodder than they could have ever dreamed of, by fueling 75 years of Prohibition style inner-city gang warfare.
"GOF sez I am advocating a consistent, rational drug policy based on the FACTS of what various drugs do to the mind and body
A situation in which almost surely pot would be legal and booze restricted or banned.
The irony.
I on the other hand advocate that is NONE of the govt's f'ing business what I choose to do with my body, period. It is also not the govt's responsibility to make good my bad decisions. These two stances put me at odds with both conservatives AND liberals, respectively."
Possibly. But before you make that assumption, understand that the standard I advocate would have NOTHING to do with whether it's bad for you, or makes you a slacker, or makes you stupid, or whatever. Ed seems to think that the welfare state that cares for people who render themselves helpless should be kept. I do not. I have been eligible for various forms of welfare once or twice, have never sought it, and have pissed off more than one person close to me by refusing to accept it. This is because I refuse to support armed robbery by governmental fiat, which is precisely what welfare is. So far as I'm concerned, a guy who turns himself into a useless wino, or a useless pothead, or a useless _________ (insert pet peeve useless type here) is perfectly welcome to starve if he can't or won't get off his dead ass.
However, I have seen more than one drug that pretty consistently turns long term users into hazards to everyone around them. Hazard to *themselves*? Not my problem. Actual, demonstrable danger to those around them? Yes, that should be restricted.
And no, that does not include alcohol nor marijuana. The vast majority of both are equivalent to the "wine with dinner" types I mentioned earlier.
"Did you forget that the effect of a gun (good or bad) resides entirely within a person's choices while the effect of a drug is outside the user's control?"
Ed, the effect of marijuana on my mind and body most certainly IS under my control. It is no more difficult for me to limit the effects of marijuana on my person than it is for someone in a bar to stop at one drink because he's driving later. Less difficult, in all likelihood.
Once again, you are saying the guy who has a glass of wine with dinner and the wino sleeping in the dumpster are one and the same.
"Quite simply, drug use is not a victimless crime. If someone is unable to support themselves—or only partially so—due to their drug habit, someone else winds up shouldering the load, whether voluntarily or involuntarily through excess taxation, being a victim of theft, etc."
Off the top of my head, I can think of half a dozen successful business owners, one of the most picky, most dogged, most hardworking "field managers" for his industry that I know (nationally famous in his field, owns 3 houses, works an average of 55 hours a week), several of the most technically astute and safety conscious people I've ever met (all working in environments where a moment's inattention can kill), and a man who is BOTH a physicist and a chemical engineer, who have smoked marijuana for years or decades. That's just off the top of my head. Once again, you are equating wine with dinner to being a wino. You don't hear about the pot smokers who AREN'T a burden on society, because they don't want to be labeled enemies of the state. Yes I know, anecdotal evidence counts for naught. Nonetheless, just because they aren't stupid enough to admit they exist does not mean they don't exist. Not only do they exist, they may just possibly be in the majority. The successful pot smokers I have known in my life outnumber the unsuccessful ones by a factor of about 5 to 1. Less than the ratio of successful drinkers to unsuccessful ones, to be sure. But drinkers aren't subject to being jailed because a beer bottle was found in their trash, either. Pot smokers tend to be more circumspect, for obvious reasons.
Yes, some of them end up being supported by taxes. The same goes for people who are just plain lazy. The same goes for people who destroy their lives with alcohol. Personally, I don't think our tax dollars should support ANY of the above. But if it's fair to jail some worthless crap for having smoked pot a month ago, it's equally fair to jail some worthless crap who got drunk a month ago, or someone who is worthless crap just because that's what he chose to be.
However, it seems that's not enough for you. You *seem* to think the business owners, the competent hard workers and the physicist should be jailed as well, and you label them (and me) as thieves and murderers knowing nothing whatever about them.
Have you ever drank any sort of alcoholic beverage? If so, should society shun you as a wino who has destroyed his life and is a burden to everyone around him? That is PRECISELY as ridiculous as the comparison you are making, for PRECISELY the same reasons.
If I am misreading you, please correct me.
Right now, TODAY, a man can come to work on Monday morning still suffering the effects of the alcoholic binge he had over the weekend, and (with the exception of a very few jobs, ie pilot) neither the company nor the law will touch him. But if, two weeks earlier, he smoked enough to give him a buzz equal to about half a beer, he not only loses his job, possibly his entire career, but is lucky if he does not go to jail. True, that standard doesn't apply everywhere, but where it does not it's because of either company policy or insurance standards, not because of the law.
Given that, to claim this is about public safety or the burden on society suggests either shocking ignorance or flatly lying to yourself.
For the record: I have had numerous "dealers" in the 36 years since I began smoking pot. They have, without exception, been gainfully employed, their "dealing" never making any of them enough money to be a factor in their lives. Not a single one of them has ever been in a gang. Not a single one of them went on to harder drugs. Not a single one of them has ever been in a turf war. Over half of them did not own any guns at any time that I knew them. None of them has ever been convicted, or even accused, of any crime more serious than a ticket. I won't claim none of them has ever killed another human being, because at least 4 of them have been in the military, and I don't know their records well enough to say and haven't asked. One has a Masters Degree in biochemistry. I'd give even money that I could find the name of one of them on a commercial product in YOUR home.
Just because gangbangers are all you see doesn't mean gangbangers are all there is.
"I was simply pointing out that claiming that there was nothing wrong with drug use, then pointing out that help is needed is contradictory."
I'm fairly certain no one said there was "nothing wrong" with drug use. It carries many of the same hazards as most self-indulgent behaviors, just like alcohol, or gambling, or a million other things. What we've been saying is that a knee-jerk fear response to illegal drugs, while at the same time having a somewhat "ho hum, oh well, nothing to see here" attitude toward legal drugs equally or more hazardous, not to mention many, many other self-indulgent, and ultimately self-destructive, behaviors, is quite frankly irrational.
Grumpy, there is a simple principle that describes this. You have the right, because it is your body, to do to yourself anything you are willing to put up with, provided when you do it to yourself, you do it to and only to yourself. If this principle isn't true, then someone else has greater authority over what happens to your living body than you do, and that is the very antithesis of liberty.
"If this principle isn't true, then someone else has greater authority over what happens to your living body than you do, and that is the very antithesis of liberty."
Huh?
If an action you do has an impact on someone else, then it is unreasonable to expect to be able to completely disregard that impact. And since when does "liberty" mean that you are free to do whatever you want to someone else?
I'm really not surprised that you guys aren't budging. One more point, then I'm done with arguing the advisability of drug use and I'll be returning to my main point.
"Have you read anything about Prohibition? the drug dealers are shooting each other up in turf wars because making drugs illegal has made them worth a lot of money, and ensured that the only people in the trade are those who are already criminally inclined."
You guys are so hot to equate alcohol with other illicit drugs, a position I'm somewhat sympathetic to, so let's take a look at how well repealing prohibition has worked out, shall we?
For 2006 there were 16,005 deaths in alcohol related accidents. Each year there are roughly 79,000 deaths related to excessive alcohol use, making in the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death in the US. (Tobacco is number one and "inactivity" is number two. Unlike "inactivity", tobacco and alcohol related deaths are relatively easy to prevent. Just don't do it!) Alcohol use also led to 1.6 million hospitalizations and 4 million emergency room visits in 2005. I also saw a statistic on a pro-drug site that 40% of all emergency room visits are caused by alcohol, but I can't lay my hands on the link at the moment.
Boy it's a good thing that prohibition was ended so that all those lives could be saved.
I'm still absolutely flabbergasted that you guys are so freakin' hot to argue in favor of legalizing mind-altering drugs (or more mind-altering drugs if you prefer) immediately after there's been a 2 week discussion on numerous gun blogs about how we're perceived by everyone else. So we pretty much agreed that we have to be careful about what image gun owners present to the world, then you guys promptly lay claim to the image of … DRUGGIE!
C'mon. No matter what your position is on legalizing them, surely you realize that the image of a druggie isn't exactly that of a Salt Of The Earth type! Do you really expect to gain a significant number of allies with such an image?
I thought the whole point of discussions like this was to figure out how best to defend the Constitution and how to win allies in that fight. What are your priorities? Are you willing to give up your push for legalizing drugs if it means the difference between defending the Constitution and losing it all?
If an action you do has an impact on someone else, then it is unreasonable to expect to be able to completely disregard that impact. And since when does "liberty" mean that you are free to do whatever you want to someone else?
Ed, please explain, in small words, suitable for my juvenile mind, how my sitting in my living room, smoking a joint, breaks your arm, steals your wallet, or infringes on your liberty.
"Ed seems to think that the welfare state that cares for people who render themselves helpless should be kept."
Gee, did I claim that? Or are you putting words in my, er, mouth?
For the record, I emphatically do not think this. In fact, I've made no secret that I'm a Christian who believes the Bible. In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 it says, "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either." I see no reason to argue with that.
However, do you seriously expect this welfare crazy country to not be "compassionate" and give them money just because they're alive? After all, the lefties think that being fed no matter what is a "human right" and too many people agree with them on this.
Furthermore, whether or not they get government handouts, turning to theft is a common choice for drug users who find themselves with their back to the wall.
But banks have "insurance" for this sort of thing.
Irrelevant Ed - it does not change that the act is mal se. The same cannot be said about a beer or a bong hit.
If they were so peaceful, why are drug dealers shooting up neighborhoods in their turf wars?
Prohibition Ed? Do Budweiser and Coors engage in turf wars? Their equivalents certainly did during Prohibition. You are really that dull that you don't grasp that? Or just so desperate to score a point?
Quite simply, drug use is not a victimless crime.
Bullshit yourself. What I do in the privacy of my home is none of your f'ing business - not directly and not through the govt. Whether I consume beer or pot (or neither) does NOT affect you, therefore you have no legitimate claim to restrain my choice.
Boy it's a good thing that prohibition was ended so that all those lives could be saved.
Fodder for the nanny-staters Ed. If that's your bag, so be it - but at least be honest about it. And recognize that it will ultimately be turned against you at some point. Guns after all are dangerous things.
...surely you realize that the image of a druggie isn't exactly that of a Salt Of The Earth type!
I know a lot of people that smoke pot that I would trust a lot further than I trust you right now.
And I brought this up because people were talking brave bullshit about how they are going to stand up for their rights (defending liberty at the front door as I recall) - the very rights (and liberty) YOU and every other Drug Warrior are flushing down the toilet; subverting the Bill of Rights and in the expansion of the federal govt beyond it's written boundaries.
Hey Ed, let me ask you this, for you personally is the Drug War all about protecting our white women, or is it for the children?
And why is it Ed, that the country did alright prior to the Harrison Act and has had such drug problems SINCE then?
And would you seriously argue that we should return to Prohibition. After all, even if it saves just one life, it would be worth it wouldn't it? [At least by the 'logic' you asserted earlier.]
Take that attitude into a room with a family that has lost an innocent loved one due to a drunk driver and see which one of you comes out alive. After all, who cares how many innocents are murdered by impaired drivers as long as you can get your buzz on, right?
I was very, very offended when the duToit's said they would take up arms against anyone who would go to war against the government. I'm starting to think I know what circumstances they may have been thinking of.
It's clear that you have absolutely no idea what it takes to win the huge number of allies needed to defend the Constitution. Furthermore it seems clear to me that you don't care about the Constitution nearly as much as you care about your drugs.
AT this point, I hope everybody is done. It's been an interesting discussion.
Now, let me say (again) that I don't do drugs, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't smoke anything.
But Ed, I have one question I think you ought to ruminate on:
I assume you've got kids. If the cops perform a "wrong address" no-knock raid on your home, kill your dog(s), and possibly shoot your wife or child because "they saw movement," or God forbid, you shoot a plainclothes cop wearing a mask and carrying an MP-5 as he comes crashing through your door and are subsequently charged with the murder of a police officer, how will this affect your position on the War on (some) Drugs™ then?
You and your opponents have been arguing past each other. No one denies that the use of mind-altering chemicals can fuck up individuals and families. The point is that it's not the business of government UNTIL the harm spreads away from the individual. And the massive expansion of State power that the War on (some) Drugs™ has resulted in is a greater evil than had the Harrison Narcotics Act never passed in the first place.
I was arguing the point from the end of your post:
"Our job, then, is not to "Frighten the White People," it's to make them MAD. It's to make them "pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles." It's to educate them."
Gun owners slapping the image of druggies with a callous disregard for human life on themselves can't do anything but "Frighten the White People."
As for overzealous enforcement, I view it as something of a distinct problem that simply feeds off drug enforcement. Even ending drug enforcement would not remove the problem, which is that government and law enforcement are not held responsible for their mistakes.
Think about it, the classic "police are not required to do anything" case was not a drug case, it was a kidnapping and rape case. Confiscation based on mere suspicion of a crime may have started as a "tool" against drugs (and those who came up with this idiocy really are Tools), but it is clearly unconstitutional, yet our government "got away with it."
In short, I see that problem not as enforcement(1), but a lack of—or selective—enforcement(2).
(1) = Enforcing legitimate laws broken by The People.
(2) = Enforcing laws broken by The Government.
"If an action you do has an impact on someone else, then it is unreasonable to expect to be able to completely disregard that impact."
Yup. That's right. The impact on others ought to be considered. But how should it be considered?
" And since when does "liberty" mean that you are free to do whatever you want to someone else?"
It doesn't mean that and never has. I neither stated nor implied that it did.
Now, read the principle again. It is most carefully worded. Consider the importance of this part: "... provided when you do it to yourself, you do it to and only to yourself." Words matter, and these words matter a great deal.
Consider the spectrum of things you can do to yourself, and consider the nature of the affect on others.
At one end, for example, you can pick your nose. But don't wipe your booger on someone else's shirt.
Moving along, for example, you can drink water. But don't steal the water you drink.
Consider education and ethics. For example, you can learn a skill, trade, or profession, develop a work ethic, and then work to provide what you need to live. That affects LOTS of people, doesn't it? But who would complain about you on these grounds? Or you can learn nothing, develop no work ethic, and then live as a parasite, begging on the street, sponging off your parents, or demanding a fine standard of living at the expense of the taxpayers. That affects LOTS of people, doesn't it? But who WOULDN'T complain about you on these grounds?
Next, consider the nature of acts that you cannot subject yourself to without also subjecting those around you to the effects thereof. For example: 1) ingesting alcohol or other drugs that affect judgement, coordination, vision, and so on, AND THEN driving a vehicle on the public roads; 2) shooting at game to put dinner on the table, but doing so when the game is silhouetted on the horizon, such that others downrange are in the path of the bullet; and, 3) well, you can add your own here.
Now, consider the nature of acts that you cannot subject yourself to without also subjecting those around you to the same act. For example: 1) playing music over speakers (but not earphones or headphones); 2) breathing air you've polluted with poison, smoke, perfume, or other substances; 3) blowing yourself up with explosives; 4) shooting yourself with a round that exits your body and enters someone else's body; 5) farting in a public place; and, 5) well, you can add your own here.
Finally, consider that you can kill yourself. Someone else will have to dispose of your body, won't they?
What this makes plain is that damned nearly everything you do to yourself can have an effect on someone else, and some things unavoidably do. If the resulting principle is that everything you do to yourself is subject to veto by anyone who claims to be affected thereby, then we arrive at an absurdity: you should not kill yourself because someone else will have to dispose of your body, even though you will eventually die anyway and someone will have to dispose of your body.
So, I reject that principle and come down on the side of liberty. You are sovereign over your own body, but you are liable for the harm that you cause others. That's what makes sense to me.
"Ed seems to think that the welfare state that cares for people who render themselves helpless should be kept."
Gee, did I claim that? Or are you putting words in my, er, mouth?"
This is why I used the word "seems", Ed. I also asked that you correct me if I was misreading you, and I thank you for doing so.
However I must ask, what do you *expect* me to think when, given the undeniable fact that some drug users will end up on the welfare rolls living off people's tax money, your answer is that the problem is the drugs, NOT the welfare system, and in the process completely ignore those who end up in precisely the same place, being precisely the same unjust burden, for legal reasons?
What you are suggesting is that, instead of addressing the problem, find a way to end-around it. I don't understand how you can reconcile that with your quite obvious knowledge that such a solution is precisely what got us where we are NOW.
"...turning to theft is a common choice for drug users who find themselves with their back to the wall."
Quite true. The problem is that you can turn it 180 degrees and it works just as well. Turning to drugs is a common choice for thieves who find themselves with their backs against the wall. That statement is every bit as true as the one you made. The only difference is that in my statement, "backs against the wall" refers to an emotional state rather than a financial one. Therefore you cannot realistically claim that one is obviously cause and effect and the other is obviously not.
I submit that the verifiable fact that most pot smokers I have known in my life are as successful in their chosen fields as the non-smokers at least *suggests* that the contempt for the rights of others already shown by thieves and killers leading to drug use is more likely to be cause and effect than the reverse.
"It's clear that you have absolutely no idea what it takes to win the huge number of allies needed to defend the Constitution. Furthermore it seems clear to me that you don't care about the Constitution nearly as much as you care about your drugs."
I could argue that it seems clear to me that you don't care about the Constitution nearly as much as you care about taking away people's drugs.
Farther up in this comment thread, I posted what I thought the war on drugs has *actually accomplished*. You have made no attempt to refute any of those points.
After 3 generations or more of this, it is glaringly obvious that neither public safety nor the integrity of a free society are the priorities of those who enact the program or those who continue it. The only results that can be called unequivocally positive from ANYONE'S point of view are that the general public has accepted MUCH more state control over their personal lives than they would have otherwise done (positive to those to whom such control is a priority), and various groups have gained a hellacious monetary profit (positive to those who profit). It is irrational to think that, after nearly a century, some of the best sociological talent on the planet has not spotted this. And unless consistent results over such a span have somehow managed to be sheer coincidence, one has to conclude that those driving such actions are at least partially satisfied with the result. The only purposes served by the continuing war on drugs is to circumvent Constitutional law and make money. The ONLY purpose.
I would happily give up smoking pot for the sake of restoring the Constitution. I gave it up for 6 years in the military, and did not find it a hardship. I have given it up many times over the years, when my budget did not allow for such an unnecessary luxury or the nature of my work made it an obvious thing to do.
But I WILL NOT give up anything at all "to win the huge number of allies needed to defend" a system which plainly states that you have the freedom to dissipate your life in socially acceptable ways, yet creates a criminal class out of thin air for doing the exact same thing in *less* socially acceptable ways, even when they are shown to be less destructive. Such a proposition makes a farce of the concept of equal accountability before the law at the very beginning, and destroys all hope of achieving the very thing you claim to be striving for.
Having "huge numbers of allies" can be very comforting. But when it comes down to bedrock, all the allies in the world are no help if you can't count on them to still be there on your flank when things turn ugly. If you want to actually strive for a system of equal accountability under the law, I'm with you. But I will not risk a thing, nor lift a finger, to merely exchange one set of prejudices for another. Your despotism is no better, nor any different, than anyone else's.
"Our job, then, is not to "Frighten the White People," it's to make them MAD. It's to make them "pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles." It's to educate them."
Nice of you to quote that Ed. Now apply it to ALL things where the govt has over-reached, not just the 2nd.
The point is to build a coalition, and you do that by reaching out to people in similar circumstances. I know there are people who aren't shooters or gun owners but still support the 2nd Amdt. Contrary to your extremely narrow view, there are many people who use recreational substances (including alcohol) that are responsible, even productive, members of society. To shun them as you do does not help build a coalition that could limit govt (particularly the feds) to it's proper bounds.
Only zealots, fools and the ignorant believe the govt propaganda on drugs. I would use the same characterization for gun control supporters. Of those three kinds, we CAN move the last if we educate them. And again, the point is to bring the facts out and eschew the emotional, non-rational fear of the unknown or 'un-likeable'.
You will never build a coalition or influence the people you want to when you come off like Burt in Tremors.
Take that attitude [dismissal as nanny-state fodder] into a room with a family that has lost an innocent loved one due to a drunk driver and see which one of you comes out alive.
I would fully expect all of us to come out alive Ed. I don't care how fucked up someone's attitude or life experience is - it is no justification for homicide. Which seems to be clearly what you were implying. Now, both of us were probably a bit heated rhetorically in this, because I don't seriously think you'd sit on a jury and let someone off a homicide charge in a case like that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
And people do get to own/use guns, even though clearly a small percentage abuse that right. You would never accept a general curtailment of the right just to do deal with the problem cases. Now apply that liberally (in the true sense of the word) to other issues.
"I'm done with arguing the advisability of drug use"
Given that my question had nothing to do with the advisability of drug use, no, your small words did not answer it, and were completely orthoganal to my question.
If you cannot tell me how my sitting in my living room smoking weed that I grew infringes on your natural rights, perhaps you should consider that you've drawn the wrong conclusion from the facts you've observed.
Also, frankly, I have no idea what your "main point" is, other than that you seem to have a flawed view of what constitutes "liberty".
Here is a second response by my friend, again, verbatim:
"Talked to 4 retired naval aviators last week. All had the same reaction. It would never work. JCS would resign first. One even pointed me to a very old law that prohibits most of the military from being used to enforce state laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
"I realize this does not quite fit your scenario but it was news to me.
All 4 said they were sworn to carry out only "lawful" orders. That makes 7 for 7 that have uttered that phrase. I think it is very well ingrained in their training/experience."
The best part is, this is what we ought to expect, isn't it?
Reply to earlier posts re: likely side-taking by military. As a ret mil myself, the greatest danger of mil use against civies is that usually mil rank and file not given whole picture. Possible scenario: mil group sent in to help protect area / people, etc. BG hope might be that "hot-heads" fire at mil, and get natural response. When I was in, I estimate at least 80% took oath seriously, would act appropriately IF they had adequate knowledge of situation.
I would like to comment on the contention that New Orleans is a prototype for national gun confiscation.
It's not a good prototype. Here's why.
Someone is pounding on your door. You go to answer and 3 national guard troops are there pointing their M4's at your navel. They demand your guns. What are you going to do?
Even if you are Mike Vanderboegh (if I may be so bold to speak for him), you are going to do what it takes to get through the next half hour alive. You are not suicidal. "Live to fight again another day."
I'd be willing to bet few people had any warning what was going on. That matters, very much, in this scenario.
A general gun confiscation, on the other hand, would take weeks or months to push through congress, with intense debate on every forum and then much more time to implement. That is a lot of time for people to talk things over, decide what they do when confronted, arm themselves appropriately, prepare mentally, even set up ambushes as in Mike's novella.
Not only that, it's lots of time for the troops themselves to decide whether they want to participate in such a thing, including reading an irate letter from their uncle suggesting they stay out of his town if they want to remain alive. At the higher levels, the constitutional implications would certainly be discussed. As one military man put it, when this topic came up, "They can always order the troops out to pick up weapons. The troops don't have to find any..."
Keep in mind, even the rulers of Communist China had to shop around for army units that would do what it took in Tianmen Square. How much harder in America?
New Orleans is in fact a very poor predictor of behavior in a confiscation.
In fact, we have a much better one. The New Jersey assault weapon ban. True, there were no door-to-door searches that I know about, but the compliance rate was still miniscule in the face of harsh penalties.
Three percent? Maybe not going out and doing frontal assaults on federal positions. But what about old guys who simply won't give in? Being stubborn and uncompromising is one of the (few) benefits of old age. How can you intimidate someone who will be dead in a couple of years? He doesn't need to enlist and go to war. He just needs to kill the goon who shows up on his porch. There are *plenty* of old men up to this task. It's a great way to die.
Then they will run out of goons pretty shortly.
While I agree with a lot of your points (e.g., "humor works" - depending of course on who your audience is!), Mike is more right about this stuff than you are. He *does not* risk alienating potential allies by being up front about this stuff. If anyone is turned off by one man stating his opinion about gun rights, then we never had that man's help in the first place. Our allies are Mike's 3 percent, and the other 10 percent or so who, while maybe not up to killing goons on the front porch themselves, will support those who are up to it. The rest of the people? Furniture. They simply don't matter. It's as Mike says: 3% versus a few psychotics in government and a bunch of cowardly bureaucrats looking for a pension.
There's a time and a place for everything. A time for calm discussions on forums with the "muddled middle", hoping to turn a few of them around. A time for "in your face".
Anyway, put yourself in the mind of someone generally for gun control, but not fanatic about it. Why are they that way? Probably, because they abhor violence (while being perhaps a little ignorant of history). Now, what if they are convinced that a general confiscation would unleash oceans of violence in this country, convinced by seeing the writings of enough people like Mike? They probably will lose their appetite for gun control, however much they may wistfully desire it. In fact hard core comments, and the convincing of such people that many gunnies really *wouldn't* give up their guns without a fight (their own groups like HCI tell them we are violent) might very well be the reason gun control has faded a lot recently. They don't have to become our allies. They just have to stop fucking with us. Many of them will go along with at least that.
"An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including "state of emergency" orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.
"Spokesman Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers told WND his organization's goal is to remind military members their oath of allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution, not a particular president."
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/08/freedom-hope-outrage-bright-lines.html (109 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Wow...you quoted me...
I am, err was?, AdamSelenne.
I wonder what other silly things I have floating around the intrawebs...
Awesome as always.
Tangentially: I met my wife at the Bianchi Cup, where I was a competitor. Three years later we married in 1994.
Since we'd met at a shooting match, there has never been a problem re: my firearms hobbies. Much to my chagrin, she has become quite the conservative instead of the "liberal" she'd been - I'm libertarian myself.
Worth the wait, Kevin. A couple things come quickly to mind in response.
One is that (assuming you haven't already) you really need to get a copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals. Know your enemy, of course, but it's a certainty that all the most effective opposition to personal liberty have read it because they know it's based upon successful experience.
The other thing is, for a guy who encourages his readers not to "scare the white people", you really know how to pick a challenge, don't you? You do understand that the only practical way to "make people think" is to get them angry, don't you? Not rip your lungs out angry, but angry enough to be unsatisfied by simply ignoring the issue 'till it goes away. And (finally) the only certain way to make people angry is to frighten them in some fairly profound way.
More than just "MAKE THEM THINK", what you seem to be urging is to make people decide and then to act.
I don't know how far I'm with you, though I'm definately not against you, but you do understand that almost no-one's going to appreciate or thank you for your efforts if you're successful at what you seem to be urging, don't you? Consider the fate of Thomas Paine while you're still developing your strategy.
I have only heard Mike call for a RESTORATION of our Rights, not any revolution. I agree with most of your philosophy, and except for completely missing Mike's point, it was a wonderful article.
"Nobody shot at a cop or a National Guardsman. "
In fact, lots of people in N.O. shot at cops and N.G.'s after Katrina. Lots of people shot at rescuers coming in on helicopters.
I have only heard Mike call for a RESTORATION of our Rights, not any revolution.
He has called for shooting Federal agents, albeit "rogue federal agents who operate contrary to the law and the Constitution yet under the color of that law." Yet how do we tell? I'm reminded of the scene from whatever Vietnam war movie where the door gunner on a chopper is shooting Vietnamese on the ground: "How do you know they're Viet Cong?"
"If they run they're Viet Cong. If they stand still, they're exceptionally well disciplined Viet Cong!"
...except for completely missing Mike's point...
There we'll have to disagree.
In fact, lots of people in N.O. shot at cops and N.G.'s after Katrina. Lots of people shot at rescuers coming in on helicopters.
Yes, but that was the garden-variety criminals and nutjobs, the people that the Algier's Point Militia were guarding against, too. But no upstanding citizens pointed their guns at the California State Patrol or the Oklahoma National Guardsmen and said "Bugger off. You're not taking my guns." Ask Ashton O'Dwyer what his appearance on CNN got him.
I had to wade through that much stuff to get to your thesis, which is "revolution ain't likely?"
Now, I agree with you on "revolution ain't likely."
But you made me struggle through your life history and the recounting of threads on DU to get to it?
Good Lord.
Talk about an exercise in breezy navel-gazing.
Does John Locke recount his entire life history and tell about arguments in pubs in his essays?
Excellent article, again. I think, or maybe believe, that the 3% is not ready, willing or able, YET. The very points I took from your article are the very reasons I read Vanderboeghs articles with glee. Oddly enough I had this discussion this weekend, what singular event could push you to action. It all came to our own front doors. However, that is with today’s perspective. If “they” kick down 20 doors on your block you might become a little more proactive. If you want to educate people I believe you need to get them excited, and hope for the best. I believe in using profanity or "shock value" for emphasis. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is me. If you need people to listen, create a deafening sound. The 3% can and someday will make a difference, in my life time? But Locke changes peoples minds today, well beyond his life. If we can inspire ideas today, change will be coming tomorrow.
But no upstanding citizens pointed their guns at the California State Patrol or the Oklahoma National Guardsmen and said "Bugger off. You're not taking my guns."
It's unfortunately true, that even most of the (supposed) 3% are generally pretty well behaved. I think that's a large part of what needs to be considered. The 3% feels strongly about rights, but they (we) aren't criminals. We're used to behaving well and not shooting people. It takes a lot of outrage to jump quantum states and start shooting cops, no matter how strongly you feel about things.
There hasn't been a general uprising yet because even to the die-hard, these incidents look isolated. There weren't a lot of people left in NO, so the confiscation wasn't wide spread. This Razzano fellow in NY is "just one guy". (I'm not saying that justifies how they have been treated, by any means.) There's no real feeling that this applies to the world at large. Most of us have other things to live for. It hasn't gotten bad enough for the cost of not fighting to outweigh the costs of fighting.
For the record, I'm part of the 3%, (or maybe just the 10%) and I'm *not* in the NRA. I have, however, joined the JPFO.
This, too, is my line:
"I have decided for myself, in agreement with Mr. Vanderboegh, that "The 'arbitrary line' that is being crossed is my front door, my property and my liberty." That's my "threshold of outrage.""
My wife's family was largely exterminated in Eastern Europe in the events leading up to and during WWII. When she was young, her father taught her to shoot, telling her, "NEVER let them take your guns."
If I have committed no crimes (not to say some regulatory bureaucrat's arbitrary and capricious ruling) and a "law enforcement officer" attempts to confiscate my previously legally acquired firearms, I expect to die during the ensuing action. I also hope to take as many with me as possible.
So I agree that I will be depicted as one of the "lone deranged gun-nuts", but if they're coming for someone like me, the numbers will already be huge. As an urban dweller in one of the most collectivist cities in the US, I cannot count on my neighbors to do more than stand and watch. But as Heinlein noted, "Your status in hell is determined by the size of your body guard." I hope never to need to have high status. I worry that I might.
"Hope for the best...plan for the worst."
Kevin, one of the greatest voids in our philosopical base has to do with the nature of life, our eventual death, and what values, meaning or legacy our lives leave, after we're gone to dust.
Most of us (myself included) wish for some version of croaking in our aged years, comfortably, and being comforted by those most dear to us. We wish for a dearth of pain, a gentle passing and perhaps fond remembrences by those we leave.
Few of us then choose to even be willing to "die for a cause" as it were. That's because, just as you've postulated here, damned few of us have ever amassed the philosophical underpinnings to bolster such a courage.
Without such building of thoughtful, carefully considered standards and values, people grow as poor trees; of shallow roots and with no strength against the storms.
Mostly, the shooting community has but a passing familiarity with the heroism and prices paid by our predecessors in the founding and building of our nation. We revere our Founding Fathers, but all too often fail to picture them, rifles in hand scared but holding firm in the face of the near-certainty of their death. There. Then. This day.
Such courage didn't spontaneously materialize. It was formed in the crucible of reading and debating the classics of Greek and Rome, of the Enlightenment, and on towards the more modern thoughts of Blackstone, Locke and peers.
So now, we read this blog or that, our monthly copy of American Rifleman, a book by Cooper. Thin gruel by comparison.
And we expect such stout hearts from such sandy a foundation?
Kevin, if all blogs were like yours, Locke would be happy. I mean that. But not all blogs can be such. Hell, we'd never get 'em all read!
I don't know how to get a large enough part of the population to read, much less comprehend Locke, Plutarch, Cicero or even our own Constitution.
And I don't know how, outside of such foundational studies, to get any man or woman to rise to the crisis.
This comes back to the nature of our dying.
If it needs be that we die painfully, bloodily even, in the furtherence of freedom, then it is also needful that we build our minds and hearts to that task, just as a bodybuilder exercises to lift the championship weight.
We shall not (or rarely, at best), find it within ourselves to spontaneously rise to such challenges. Only through the strengthening of mind and spirit shall we prepare ourselves for such.....unpleasantness.
The whole argument about who's line in the sand is the right line in the sand is largely, moot. And will remain so until we shooters, bastion of freedom which we are, learn to embrace this; this just cause which is larger than ourselves, and far greater than the mere fact of our passing.
The Sioux understood this, as expressed in their words before battle; "This is a good day to die!".
Certainly,the answer doesn't lie in some twisted discovery of just how many of us were willing to die in the face of jackbooted thuggery. Should that happen, our battle is over even while enjoined.
Our real battle is now, and the real measure of our success lies in just how many of our fellows we can (somewhat) educate in these matters. At least, to the point where then can begin to educate others, themeslves.
I'm not sufficiently well-read, nor trained in the excercise of philosophy to take on that task. You, Kevin, and those who write at your august level, are.
To that end, a challenge. To write a new "Common Sense", as it were.
We need a booklet, self-contained, eminently readable, and accessable to all, from the teen to the troops and from the mom to the matriarch.
That's a helluva task; taking no more than 1% of the most important philosophy ever written, and making it digestable to +/- 80% of the population.
It's also a legacy you, or another writer, could be justifiably proud of.
Gawd, I've rambled on, but this stuff matters, if you couldn't tell.
I can't write it, but I can sure as hell encourage it.
Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Someone in comments somewhere likened Vanderboegh to Thomas Paine. I'd like to think so, but so far I haven't seen it. Someone else compared him to Sam Adams. That seems more appropriate. I expect a lot of the other Founders advised Sam to tone it down from time to time as well.
The Founders had, I think, a more fertile field to sow than we, the victims of 100+ years of public education have now, but certainly I think your idea has merit.
But I'm not your guy. Apparently I'm too verbose, for one thing. ;)
Maybe the Geekwitha.45?
While you are, as usual, peppering your readers with good quotes illustrative of profound ideas, here's one I think you'll appreciate:
"I believe in freedom, Mr. Lipwig. Not many people do, although they will, of course, protest otherwise. And no practical definition of freedom would be complete without the freedom to take the consequences. Indeed, it is the freedom upon which all the others are based."
- Terry Pratchett, "Going Postal"
And I think that's the root of the problem you are trying to define here. While they of course protest otherwise, the sad fact is that very few people actually *believe* in freedom. I suspect most people don't even know what freedom is, and the vast majority of those who get a glimmering of what that word actually MEANS find themselves deeply frightened by it.
To quote Heinlein again, freedom includes the freedom of "flea bitten Neanderthals crouching against the cold." It's hardly surprising that so few are willing to "pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to a philosophy that includes the possibility of them becoming one of said Neanderthals as their reward for that dedication.
You hit the nail on the head! That is the best I have read in a LONG time.
I'm still absorbing it now..
"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws - always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up."
The essence, as I see it, is here. Much as social engineering projects to overhaul humans into kinder, less aggressive and more altruistic creatures fail time and time again, it's not a whole lot easier to overhaul humans into entire groups of principled, ethical revolutionaries. It is INFINITELY easier to create packs of thugs that you then aim at your target... and, of course, that's what you're left to work with when you're trying to build your better world.
It's not even a lack of courage in the human spirit to fight for a cause. Look at English soccer hooligans- these are people who have chosen a completely arbitrary and meaningless "cause" because they're bored, restless, and want to be part of a violent crowd. If you've never read Bill Buford's "Among the Thugs", do- it's a fascinating exploration of crowd psychology and the shocking number of people who are completely conscious of what they're after, and the methodical way they go about breaking down their own inner barriers to achieve it.
There is lots of wiring in the human spirit to find a tribe and fight for it. Basing the tribal affiliation on something as high-minded as philosophy- and discarding all the other normal bonds of tribe and working within it- is much more difficult.
"But I'm not your guy. Apparently I'm too verbose, for one thing."
Jim is right; it needs to be written. The whole damned world needs to read it.
You are wrong; if you aren't the guy, then who the hell is? It ain't about length, it's about content. It needs to be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Here's a challenge. You write it, I'll edit it, and you have veto power over all edits.
You wanna make people think. That's how. Are you game? Seriously?
And now for something slightly different ...
I confess to not having read either Mike Vanderboegh's work or Billy Beck's work. It comes from a combination of "there ain't enough hours in the day" and "fuck that, I'm gonna take a nap". So, perhaps they've pointed out something that I've missed, but since I haven't seen it, I'll point it out anyway.
There is a flip side to the notion that a small percentage of us good guys are about to go postal on the feddle gubmint. That is the notion that a small percentage of the bureaucrats of the feddle gubmint are about to go postal on all of us and thereby trigger it. You claim to not see the former, and I agree. I claim to not see the latter, either.
Consider The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, specifically when "... suddenly we found ourselves committed --". It was all over but the parties, right? No, it was:
"So a wave of patriotism swept over our new nation and unified it.
"Isn't that what histories say. Oh, brother!
"My dinkum word, preparing a revolution isn't so much huhu as having won it. Here we were, in control too soon, nothing ready and a thousand things to do."
So, if a portion of Mike's three percent went postal today, and you heard something about feddle gubmint agents being killed, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? RIGHT GODDAMNED NOW?" Um, well, lessee now ... I think I'll watch the news a bit ...
This is not the stuff of which revolutions are made, is it?
Heinlein wrote a magnificent story about it, but you can look to the events of July 20, 1944, when Hitler was not quite assassinated, to find a real example. The attempt by the conspirators, who knew the attempt was to take place, to take over the German gubmint was preposterously feeble at best, yet if ever such a revolt was justified, that was it.
... while evils are sufferable ...
And, of course, consider the response to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh. Did anyone rise up in revolt as a response to hearing about it?
Now, apply this same observation to those in the feddle gubmint who would like to see everyone disarmed, our rights abrogated, and the Constitution shitcanned. For them to succeed would take the same kind of organization, orchestration, and committment that would be required to resist them.
Would they put their lives on the line to overthrow the Constitution? Now, consider that their opponents are the ones who are armed and their suppporters are not. Consider their opponent's trump card, which is that it is reasonable to expect every member of the armed forces to oppose them, as they not only believe in the Constitution, they have voluntarily sworn an oath to preserve, protect, and defend it.
Methinks it will take more than an isolated event or two for Mike's three percent to rise up, and it doesn't seem likely to me that we'll see more than an isolated event. It didn't happen with Ruby Ridge and it didn't happen with Waco.
How big an event would it take, and why would those in the feddle gubmint put their own lives on the line to precipitate it? Or would they consciously avoid it?
No, I think we're in for generations of paper cuts by an ever-increasing bureaucracy. A hundred years from now, your descendants won't even know what their ancestors lost.
I think we're in for generations of paper cuts by an ever-increasing bureaucracy.
I don't. I think the whole house of cards built on the erroneous socialist philosophy is going to suddenly, spontaneously, and inevitably collapse pretty much without warning. There isn't a lot of time before that happens, either. When it does, "public order" is going to collapse with it, and nobody will be ready for what that means.
Beck calls it "The Endarkenment."
As someone pointed out the huge Leviathan mechanisms were all designed to a degree, they just were simply NOT engineered to actr in concert together. Maybe we don't need a President (especially not an academic or professor-president, they're too happy to experiment on the mice in the cage) as much as a Conductor - or even better yet, a Bandmaster. Someone low-level without a lot of bullcrap between the ears.
The big Super-Architected Committee-Machine is gonna crash down, and it will crash under the pressure of a "Progressive" who's all Hopey/Changey and pushing with all his might and his collectivist allies on the last Jenga Brick that holds the edifice up.
That's the problem with "Progressive" revolutions or movements, they're blind to the Lessons. They think there never was another Lemming Like Them - that all their ideas are NEW, and that all the stories of "cliffs" are just the scary-stories of some nasty grownups who won't let them fulfill their destiny.
At lest with a Conservative revolution there is a sense of what it is they want to conserve, low taxes, simplicity, smallness of government - and there is a lighthouse to which they look back upon and from which they can maintain bearings and judge progress.
Progressives are all hot-air and emotionalism and a sense of Fashion. The French revolution was a bloodbath in search of the New Man - Are YOU The New Man?? That's like going out with knives asking, "Are you Sunni or are you Shia?" - you know it's gonna end very badly and in tragedy. But progressives demand their attention and want CHANGE for the sake of change alone - they want a New Destiny, or a Great Leap Froward, a New World Order (they're building one in Europe called the EU) or a Brave New World.
OOps, I gotta go - see ya.
"There isn't a lot of time before that happens, either."
Can you put a timeline together and show how you did so?
a couple of points:
I think if there were to be armed resistance, you keep forgetting that some of the army would be on OUR side. They don't defend the government. They defend the constitution. If the .gov has run afoul of the constitution to tthe extreme that people rise up, then many in the armed forces would be on our side.
Katrina. You wanna know why no one went to N.O. guns ablaze? BECAUSE NEW ORLEANS IS/WAS NOT WORTH SAVING. People in the south know the truth. New Orleans is a shithole that deserved to wash into the sea.
Can you put a timeline together and show how you did so?
No, DJ, I can't. It's a gut feeling as much as anything, but I can't see it taking "generations," either.
And ATLien, even Vanderboegh seems to think that the military would sit this one out.
Then we'll just have to wait and see, Kevin.
I don't see the military sitting it out, mostly because I don't see the gubmint enforcing the effective overthrow of the Constitution without the active help of the armed forces, and I cannot envision them following such orders, not from the rawest private to the Chairman of the JCS. Their allegiance is to the Constitution, not the President, and not the Congress, and they take such allegiance seriously.
To me, the serious questions are: 1) Could we lose the Constitution over a relatively short time frame (as opposed to the death of a thousand cuts) without the armed forces aiding the other side; 2) would the other side try to give such orders; and, 3) what would be the response of the armed forces to such orders?
Seriously, I don't think I'll live long enough to see those questions answered. Apparently our guts disagree with each other.
I see a lot of references to N.O. and Katrina, and still some question whether military people would rememvber their allegiance to the Constitution, and refuse unconstitutional orders.
I say NO, they wouldn't remember and YES they would follow orders to trample the Constitution and their fellow Americans.
Remember it was the National Guard sticking automatic weapons in people's faces to get their firearms.
"Remember it was the National Guard sticking automatic weapons in people's faces to get their firearms."
And you think this would happen at all levels, from the top down, all over the country?
DJ,
"And you think this would happen at all levels, from the top down, all over the country?"
I see no reason to think otherwise.
What percentage of the population and armed forces understand that swearing to protect and defend the Constitution means refusing to obey U. S. Government orders when the two conflict? One percent? More? Less? I suspect the percentage of military that knows the difference is higher than the general population, but I don't know what the actual numbers are.
I'm afraid that I have to agree with the folks who believe that the military would NOT be on our side of confrontation. I know that goes against conventional wisdom with the whole feeling that our boys are defenders of the constitution and not the government. It sounds great but it doesn't mirror reality.
Before you discount my contention that the military would follow orders and take up arms against the citizenry consider this. Our troopers are virtually ALL products of the public school system. Can we agree on that? Can we also agree that their commanders are also products of the same public schools? Now, with that in mind, is it too much of a stretch to believe that our military members have only a passing acquaintance with the constitution. Those of you who have graduated from high school in the last 10 years or have kids that just finished school will know that our schools DO NOT teach the constitution. Our kids are, in general, completely ignorant of the constitution. However, they are well trained in following orders. Particularly orders from superiors...and congress is considered superior...and the president is their COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF! Ponder that for a moment. I can personally attest to the fact the that military does NOT teach recruits about the constitution...but following orders is drilled into their heads every single day of their enlistment. If even 1% refused to follow orders and took sides with the citizenry I would be absolutely shocked.
This all can be laid directly at the feet of our education system...another of Kevin's favorite targets for derision (and deservedly so). Now, ever wonder why something as important as the constitution is given short shrift in our schools? Could it be because the people who run the school system want those who are supposed to defend the constitution to be mostly ignorant of said document? Because it might not be a terribly good idea for young men that have access to weapons that Mr. & Mrs. America can only dream of actually knowing that the government and their commanders might give them orders that are unconstitutional or unlawful. Much better to have slightly ignorant soldiers than well informed soldiers that are able to clearly see right from wrong.
The military WILL not sit out a confrontation between the people and the government. They will not take the side of the people. They will in fact be the iron gloved fist of the government against the people. Count on it.
Ed:
"I see no reason to think otherwise."
Well, I do. Mind you, I'm writing of the armed forces of today, as I make no predictions about the minds of those who'll be here a century from now, nor do I make any predictions about what the Constitution will have been amended to by then. I'm writing of the here-and-now, as in Kevin's view that there "There isn't a lot of time" before such things might happen.
Try considering a simple scenario. President Whosit calls General Turgidsen [a bit of poetic license, no?], the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, into the Oval Office and says, "General, I'm giving you a direct order. You are to mobilize the armed forces of the United States at all levels. Your mission is disarm the population of the United States. Your troops will confiscate every firearm, except those possessed by the various police forces, without exception. You are to use whatever force is required to accomplish this mission, including killing anyone who resists and anyone who aids those who resist. You will search every building, every house, every apartment, every home, every vehicle, every goddamned thing in the country. You will not ask anyone for permission at any time, you will simply carry out this order to the letter."
First, I believe that the president would have no hope of accomplishing this except by ordering it from the top down. Otherwise is to start what amounts to a coup from within the armed forces itself.
Then, think of all the various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that this order violates. I won't try to itemize it other than to note that, minimally, it includes the second, fourth, and fifth amendments.
Next, note that one does not become the Chairman of the JCS by being a dunce.
Now, what would be the reaction of a General Peter Pace, a General Tommy Franks, a General David Petraeus, a General George Marshall, or of any other such General or Admiral of such stature?
Not a simple question, is it? I would not expect such an order to be obeyed. Such a person understands the oath he took and he can recognize an attempt to overthrow the Constitution when he sees it.
Your mileage my vary, but that's mine.
Quiet Man:
"Our troopers are virtually ALL products of the public school system. Can we agree on that?"
Are they representative of the public school systems? Hardly. Unlike all the rest of their contemporaries, they volunteered to preserve, protect, and defend this country. I believe we can presume they understand what that means.
"The military WILL not sit out a confrontation between the people and the government. They will not take the side of the people. They will in fact be the iron gloved fist of the government against the people. Count on it."
In Germany of 1939, yes. In the United States of 2008, no.
I suggest you talk with a large number of people in the armed forces about this subject and then address it again.
I have a friend who works for the Navy and who formerly worked for Boeing. He is a strong defender of our Constitution, a clear thinker, and he cannot be intimidated. I'm going to ask him to put it up to his colleages, both in and out of the military, and see what the reaction is, as I know he has discussed this issue with me and them before. It is the point of view of the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine that matter here, and we ought to have it instead of conjecture.
Fair enough?
There was commentary to this effect over at Uncle's.
I invite you to read (hopefully again), a real überpost: The George Orwell Daycare Center.
"I can personally attest to the fact the that military does NOT teach recruits about the constitution...but following orders is drilled into their heads every single day of their enlistment."
That's as may be. I'll grant you, my experience was much the same. However, I had something else that apparently you did NOT have. I, my mates in bootcamp, and even my shipmates in the fleet, were specifically taught that "I swear to obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States and all officers appointed over me" means not only the obvious, but also means that it is your duty to REFUSE to obey unlawful orders, at the cost of your life if need be.
I once made my entire chain of command, all the way up to the skipper himself, crawfish on an order for that very reason.
I think that a lot of what you'd get would be a variation on the "shower room ambush" scene from the movie 'The Rock'.
Eventually, Prsident Whatsis would find a General who would obey.
And, resistance?
First, who are you going to shoot? What actual living human fellow citizen? Which spouse will you widow, which children will you orphan? And you will die, and orphan your own children.
And here's a thought experiment:
You're home asleep at dawn on a Sunday. Ring Ring goes the telephone.
"Hello, Mr./Ms. Yourname. I'm Agent Friendly of the BATFE. Last night, as you may or may not know, President Whoever signed an executive order requiring the confiscation of all civilian firearms in the United States. No criminal charges will be brought against you and you will be compensated at a rate of $1000 per gun or actual value, whichever is greater.
There are currently six armed BATFE agents surrounding your house. We also have a remotely controlled bulldozer.
Our records show that you possess several firearms. We cannot leave until we have either confiscated your guns or neutralized your house as a potential threat.
Because of the risk to our officers, we will not break into your house.
Unless you and all persons inside the house exit, and we are permitted to enter and remove all firearms and ammunition, we will have to insure that no one remains alive in the house.
You have one hour to make your decision. During that time, I encourage you to use your television, internet, and telephone to confirm that the order was signed, is valid, and that I am who I say I am."
Plan to come out shooting? With your family behind you?
I can't think of a single incident other than ours in 1776 where civilian disarmament has been anything other than meekly complied with.
And this is not Lexington.
"I can't think of a single incident other than ours in 1776 where civilian disarmament has been anything other than meekly complied with."
Offhand, I can think of two: Ruby Ridge and Waco.
I stand by my comments and the fact that DJ sees things differently doesn't change the facts. Less than 1%. Not regarding some hypothetical question about "what would you do in these circumstances", but when the reality of the situation smacks them in the face...they will follow orders. Especially when confronted with the prospect of imprisonment or worse for failure to follow orders or treason or whatever else their superiors tell them will happen if they don't fall into line. If you choose to believe that I am in some way disparaging our troopers you are completely wrong. I hold our military in extremely high regard, but I misplaced my rose colored glasses many years ago and my version of reality comes from what I saw when I was in and what I have talked to others about since I got out. Oh sure, we all want to believe that our brethern would stand up and be counted if the time ever came, but when the discussion turned from what we would want to believe to what we ACTUALLY believed would happen it was always the same...better to follow orders than to be imprisoned or shot for treason. With very few exceptions there was no real variations from that scenario. And I've had that conversation dozens of times with dozens of veterans or all the branches over the last 20 years. Call it conjecture if you like, but it is what it is...I'm certainly no happier about it than you are.
As to GrumpyOldFart pointing out that in bootcmap and aboard ship we were taught to obey the LAWFUL orders of the president and the officers appointed above us...all true. Every word. I did in fact receive that same training...only they were rather fuzzy about what constituted LAWFUL and what whould be considered unlawful. And to be fair to our young people who are serving now...I was scantly more familiar with the constitution 25 years ago than they are today. It wasn't taught in depth when I was in high school, but it wasn't completely glossed over the way it was when my daughter was in high school.
I wish it wasn't so, but I still would be astonished if more than 1% stood up and refused orders. Remember, the nail that sticks up is hammered down. Just seeing some of the nails getting hammered down for standing up will cure the vast majority of troops that are thinking that just maybe these orders aren't quite kosher. Hopefully this is all just mental masturbation and we will never have to actually find out how things would shake out. Well, I hope we never have to find out anyway. Just remember...less than 1%.
DJ,
What if the general is a Wesley Clarke?
Your scenario of a President simply ordering confiscation seems highly unlikely to me. What seems far more likely is that Congress would pass a ban, it would become law with (Obama) or without (McCain?) the President's signature, lawsuits would be filed, and eventually the Supreme Court puts its rubber stamp of approval on it. (Given that 4 justices essentially did just that in Heller does not make this far fetched.) So now the President has been directed to collect all the guns. So he gives orders to the police, FBI, BATFE, National Guard and military.
Do you really think more than a handful of any one of these groups will oppose the order, especially if it has "gone through all the legal channels?" Heck, I remember seeing video of a National Guardsman talking to the camera crew as they were walking through the neighborhoods of New Orleans to collect guns. He said he was really uncomfortable about it, and especially that he might "have to" shoot an American citizen. But he was doing it anyway because "those were [his] orders."
BTW… It seems that whenever I run into someone who is clear on the concept of Constitution vs. government, they're far more likely to be military or ex-military than not. Even so, I still think that it's highly unlikely that any more than a significant minority of our troops are clear on the concept.
Has anyone ever done a solid study on what percentage of the military is clear on the concept? What about the general population?
I'm sorry but all of you that think the majority of military would follow such a clearly unlawful order are not giving them the respect they so richly deserve. They have volunteered to put themselves in harms way to defend YOUR FREEDOM and yet you think they are no more than programmed robots doing what they are told and passing on orders without forethought. You are saying they would actively take away the very freedom that they volunteered to defend. I for one give them much more credit than that. To think they would follow such an order sounds more like the opinion a (you pick an adjective) liberal would have for the military.
BTW, have any of you heard of a process called impeachment? I would hope that something this odious would teach us all about impeachment faster than Slick Willie taught our kids about oral sex.
Quake,
Impeachment applies to more than just the President. It also applies to judges and congress critters too. There have been some truly egregious violations of the separation of powers and the Constitution by judges (Kevin's post on "A Perfect Example", Kelo vs. New London, the 4 dissenters in Heller, the 9th Circus, uh, Circuit Court), yet the idea of impeaching them for their bad behavior seems to not even have been broached, nevermind carried forward.
It seems that politicians now are only interested in pushing for impeachment for political reasons, not for reasons of law. President Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, mostly for partisan reasons. He did break the law by committing perjury. Yet the left thinks of it as entirely politically motivated, and that's partially true. (So what? He still broke the law; a law which is critical to the correct functioning of our courts.) He should also have been impeached for signing the AWB.
Then there are the calls for the impeachment of George Bush. But the reasons they give are idiotic. They're not legal reasons, though the issues are important. Yet, I think he should also be impeached for entirely different reasons, such as McCain-Feingold. Heck, McCain, and Feingold should also be impeached for passing such an obviously unconstitutional law, as well as potentially impeaching everyone who voted for it.
In short, it appears that impeachment is not being used even when it's clearly the Right Thing To Do. Given that track record, I hope you'll pardon me if I don't think members of the government will engage in impeachment if doing so means that it will limit their ability to grab more power.
As for our armed forces, I really hope I'm wrong. But so far, the evidence in favor of most "just following orders" seems stronger than the evidence for most choosing "I'll die first." Like I said, the percentage of military with their heads screwed on straight seems to be noticeably higher than the general population, but given an All Three Branches Agree scenario, I would not want to bet my life on even a significant minority refusing to obey unconstitutional orders.
BTW, have you heard of this decision?
Homeland Security: We can seize laptops for an indefinite period
This is such an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment that the decision makers and judges (the 9th Circus again) who put this in place should be immediately removed from office and banned from ever holding any public office or government position ever again. Yet how many Homeland Security agents do you suppose will refuse to carry out these searches. One? Two? Maybe.
"Hello, Mr./Ms. Yourname. I'm Agent Friendly of the BATFE. Last night, as you may or may not know, President Whoever signed an executive order requiring the confiscation of all civilian firearms in the United States. No criminal charges will be brought against you and you will be compensated at a rate of $1000 per gun or actual value, whichever is greater.
There are currently six armed BATFE agents surrounding your house. We also have a remotely controlled bulldozer.
Our records show that you possess several firearms. We cannot leave until we have either confiscated your guns or neutralized your house as a potential threat.
Because of the risk to our officers, we will not break into your house.
Unless you and all persons inside the house exit, and we are permitted to enter and remove all firearms and ammunition, we will have to insure that no one remains alive in the house.
You have one hour to make your decision. During that time, I encourage you to use your television, internet, and telephone to confirm that the order was signed, is valid, and that I am who I say I am."
BATFE has about 2,000 field agents. So that's about 300 gunowners getting Sunday morning wake-up calls at six armed agents apiece.
I think, in the circumstances described, there would be a lot of people wondering how to make best use of all the panel vans, ninja suits, MP5s, and remote control bulldozers that just fell into their laps.
But even the federal government isn't that stupid. An action on the scale required would require far too many resources and too much preparation to hide. There won't be a "turn 'em all in" confiscation order, nor conscripts in baby blue helmets.
III
What the,
We appear to be in agreement about most things except the integrity of our military. While some of the younger lower ranks may go with the "just following orders" (especially with a camera in their face) (Question: given that young man's admission of concern and consideration of his orders, do you think his marksmanship would have been up to par if he had gotten into such a situation, w/o cameras, and absent a threat to himself or his unit? I suspect he would have handled the situation quite well. And given the number of people shot evidently he did.) I would fully expect a much much higher percentage of the older, more experienced officiers and above to refuse
As for the 4th, No I hadn't. But a review of the 4th amendment found that it requires probable cause without mention of any duration limits. Since I have not heard of widespread laptop seizures without probable cause, I can only conclude that it is not happening.
And while I am at it, Staghounds re. your Sunday dawn idea. Of course most people would surrender their arms rather than lose their lives and those of their families, on the first morning. But just how many agents and remote control bulldozers do you think there are. Enough to subdue even 1% of the population in one morning would take approx. 6 million agents and 1 million bulldozers. And would word of this get out? SOmehow I don't see it being kept quiet. As the news spread the confiscators would meet with at a minimum less and less success and probably increasing resistance.
The slow, below the radar, stay unknown to the majority of the populace, and unfortunately historical trend of the anti-gun crowd and liberals leaders in general is a far more serious and probable scenario.
Well.
My friend has agreed to make the inquiries I asked him to. He is nothing if not thorough, so this may take some time. Have patience.
Now, why should I do this? Because what we are discussing are our opinions of other people's opinions. D'you s'pose we oughta find out what those other people's opinions really are?
OK, now to specifics.
"Your scenario of a President simply ordering confiscation seems highly unlikely to me."
"What seems far more likely is that Congress would pass a ban, it would become law with (Obama) or without (McCain?) the President's signature, lawsuits would be filed, and eventually the Supreme Court puts its rubber stamp of approval on it."
I disagree with both of these assertions.
The Supreme Court has just asserted that individuals have a Constitutional right to keep and bear firearms, and has stated in its opinion that this right predates the Constitution and so the Constitution does not grant it, rather it guarantees it. I do not see Congress passing a ban without first changing the Constitution to make such a ban not be unconstitutional. I further do not see any such attempts happening in a vacuum, rather there would be a long, nasty political fight that likely would last for generations.
The point is that, if it were to happen soon, the only way I see it happening is through the actions of a President who attempts to abrogate the Contitution itself, and the only way he could do that is by commanding the military to support him. More on this shortly.
My friend's take on this proposition is quite reasonable. The Chairman of the JCS is only the first in the chain of command. For such a command to be obeyed, there can't be very many breaks in that chain. My friend thinks any such order would be met with a resignation by the Chairman of the JCS, and repeated such resignations as the order propagated downwards, assuming it propagates downward at all.
Further, such a scenario, as I noted above, would not happen in a vacuum. Such an attempt by a President would most certainly be a "high crime" that merits impeachment, and I suspect the howling in support of it by gun owners would drown out the howling in opposition by the left.
"What if the general is a Wesley Clarke?"
Beats me. Clarke is a political opportunist, stating that he chose the Democrats instead of the Republicans on what amounted to a whim (and no, I don't remember the exact reason he gave, but such was my thoughts at the time I read it).
Now, I suggest y'all consider that what we're discussing is confiscation of firearms across the whole country, not as an isolated incident or three. We're discussing what, to expand on staghound's scenario, is a concerted assault on perhaps 40 percent of the households in the country.
Remember the mindset that resulted from 9/11; one hijacking now and then results in, "OK, we'll just sit here quietly and we'll be fine," but the knowledge that it was not "just a hijacking" resulted in action taken and an attack thwarted. Now that we all know what is possible, nobody is likely to sit in his seat and expect a hijacking to come out just fine.
It cannot succeed overall as a few attacks or as isolated attacks. It seems to me that any prediction you care to make has to take into account that the scenario amounts to a civil war between the gubmint and (in round numnbers) nearly half the population, and so likening it to a single attack on a single house simply doesn't paint an accurate picture. I think the logistical problems alone make it extremely unlikely that any President or Congress would attempt it.
Kevin:
Thoughtful, as always. Appreciate the work.
As I indicated in our comment exchange, I couldn't agree more that the numbers of pro-freedom folks needs to increase.
I also know that I would rather go into a barfight with five motivated people than fifty half-hearts.
Part of the responsibilities of leadership (and I see you as much a leader of the RKBA movement as Mike, David, KDT, or anyone else) is to get your folks to understand both what they have to do and why.
In this case, the "why" function equates to the "get 'em mad" point of your essay.
The "what" piece is where Mike's writings come in. Just as happened with my first exposure to the columns of "Fred" of Fred's M14 Stocks and Boston's Gun Bible back in the late Nineties, my preexisting belief systems needed to reboot when I first read some of Mike's terser works - e.g.:
"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."
But in my final analysis, it really is that simple and that stark.
There will be people coming to take our firearms, in our lifetimes, and to cause them to stop, they will need to be stopped.
Permanently.
I don't think "The Uprising is Upon Us", as you said.
But it is damned close.
And it gets closer with every day and every outrage.
And once a completely-distributed, non-hierarchical Counterrevolution/Constitutional Restoration gets going in this country, it is going to be the most hellacious barfight anyone has ever seen.
To quote David Codrea, "Any chair in a bar fight", and similarly, any ally who is shooting at my enemies, rather than me.
So keep raising the visibility of government outrages.
Keep making the white folks mad.
Keep underscoring that it's not about guns, but instead about freedom.
Keep making everyone think.
Especially about the kind of will and commitment it will take to defeat the transnational socialists decisively and reestablish (very) limited government across the North American continent.
(Remember, there'll be Kanuckistanis fighting with us as well)
See ya on the barricades.
For Liberty,
Peter
PS: Let's all remember too what the buggering adherents of Islam have recently taught the world about bending others to your political will. Like it or not, Hajii has captured Europe (at least the councils of its governments) without firing more than a few shots. Gotta be something to be learned from an adversary like that, filthy as he may be. Quoting myself:
On the other hand, if there are even 3% of Mike Vanderboegh's supposedly-mythical "Three Percenters" with the commitment of hajii - then we can expect some very harsh lessons for the spineless statist utopians as they attempt to deliver hoped-for change and reasonable new gun control laws, inspired by the majority's words in Heller.
DJ,
In general, I agree that the military would resist if the President were to unilaterally demand "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." That's why I think it won't happen that way. If such a power monger was smart enough to become President, he would also be smart enough to give it a veneer of respectability, which is why the Congress and the Supreme Court would be involved.
You may think Heller would be respected by future courts. But Miller was decided on the basis that the 2A explicitly protected military arms, and we both know how thoroughly the libtards twisted it into saying that the 2A did not protect military arms.
Yes, the Heller ruling was correct, as far as it goes. However, logic, plain language, and obedience have never stopped the power hungry before. What makes you think that has changed? Just look at how the mayor of D.C. responded to Heller by changing the law as little as possible, yet still violating the letter, nevermind the spirit of the ruling.
"In general, I agree that the military would resist if the President were to unilaterally demand "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." That's why I think it won't happen that way."
I don't think it can happen any other way. How do you take the guns from (in round numbers) a hundred million people without using an army?
I recall reading (a long time ago and I don't remember where) that the Japanese army and navy admitted that the reason they never thought seriously about invading the US west coast was because the average citizen there was armed. I also recall reading only recently (but again, I don't recall where) that, early in the war, a German diplomat asked a Swiss diplomat what would happen if Germany invaded Switzerland. The Swiss diplomat replied that the Swiss would each fire one shot and go home.
"Yes, the Heller ruling was correct, as far as it goes. However, logic, plain language, and obedience have never stopped the power hungry before. What makes you think that has changed?"
I don't think that has changed.
I think you have not quite understood my point of view. The point is that the Supreme Court, via the Heller decision, has validated the Second Amendment and the people know it. The crux of the matter is not that Congress might not respect the Heller decision, rather it is that the people might not respect any decision of Congress that violates the Second Amendment. The law does not necessarily check Congress overall, but the thought that the peepull, en masse, might refuse to obey a law that Congress would know was inviolation of the Constitution would give Congress considerable reason to avoid such attempts.
In particular, don't discount the fear factor of individual members of Congress. For example, Dianne Feinstein loudly favors gun bans, but she hires armed guards to protect her kids.
"Just look at how the mayor of D.C. responded to Heller by changing the law as little as possible, yet still violating the letter, nevermind the spirit of the ruling."
Yup, he's pushing the envelope to find its edges, and there are bipartisan-sponsored bills before Congress that just might break it off in his ass.
DJ,
"How do you take the guns from (in round numbers) a hundred million people without using an army?"
I think you're right on this point. They would need the military to accomplish such a task. My point is simply that most military officers would recognize an attempt at performing a naked end run around the Constitution. Therefore, in order to get the military on board, the politicians would have to give such a move a veneer of respectability, and that would involve at least the Congress and probably the Supreme Court.
"The crux of the matter is not that Congress might not respect the Heller decision, rather it is that the people might not respect any decision of Congress that violates the Second Amendment."
Some people know about it. Most probably don't care one way or the other. Of the rest, probably half think it's wrong and would be happy to roll right over it. (Sarah Brady, and/or the BATFE anyone?) If Congress passes a law which the Supreme Court said doesn't violate Heller, how many would recognize that the horrible stench is not actually perfume? Would there be enough to make a difference? I'm not hopeful on that front.
[...] Überpost delivered [...]
Most excellent, sir. Thank you.
Basically the best way to influence or indoctrinate people is from birth, and the child is exposed to a certain viewpoint. I did that to my children because I realized that if I did not, the schools would with a different viewpoint. This is why liberals have taken over schools and education and teaching in colleges. They recognized that if you get the attention of young people who have not thought about certain issues and then present their viewpoint, especially if it appeals to their emotional comfort zones, you could get large amount of young adults to believe in your philosophy.
The second method is an immense emotional shock that makes the person revaluate their opinions and beliefs. Humans base their reactions on past experiences. People have been conditioned to wait for experts to solve a problem that is beyond their own normal experience.
Example: airplane hijackings. Hijackings first started to occur during the 1970’s. Their purpose was either to raise awareness to a political cause or for extortion for money. Passengers that were stuck in these situations had the classic prisoners dilemma. The hijackers had a weapon and the passengers did not. The passenger was at a disadvantage to attack the hijacker without the support of the other passengers. A passenger had no way of knowing if the other passengers would back his attack or sit back and wait. Without that foreknowledge the passenger is disinclined to attack and risk his life when a better chance or the situation may change can occur.
In a way Mike V has the same prisoners dilemma he does not know at what point other gun folks will back a resistance to certain BATF actions. The reactions are much the same. Other gun folks like Sebastian are waiting for a better situation and do not think it is time for he personally, to risk or sacrifice him for a failed attack.
But an emotional shock does change opinions and September 11. 2001 was one of those events. In the first 3 planes the passengers were just starting to know that these hijackings were not like the 1970’s with the conditioned response was to wait it out for the negotiated release. Due to the communications of cell phones the passengers had real time info that these hijackings were designed to kill thousands and possibly disable our government. In that case, the situation is a no winner and life is not a possibility, then the best option is to risk all and take out the hijackers. The last plane had sufficient time and real time info to take that choice and the plane went down without any other casualties other than the passengers.
A belief has changed, no longer will passengers sit passively and allow another to terrorize and take control of the plane. Richard Reid take down by passengers was a change in mindset. Security controls will not solve the risks but a mindset change does.
A decent law abiding liberal who believes that guns are bad and that more guns leads to more lives lost is an emotional belief. That liberal walking to his car and getting mugged and threatened with a gun or knife has a rapid change in his emotional belief that a gun is no good. If he survives he may think that carrying a gun is not so bad idea. The same can happen when muggers or carjackers murders a close friend. The emotional shock of the crime makes a person reevaluate his beliefs. So reality of crime can make a person go from a bad gun belief, to a gun for me is a good belief.
Katrina is another emotional event. The people who had their guns taken away based their actions on the conditioning that police were law and order and not to challenge police. Those people who had to fight off looters and were forted up had a different emotional reaction and some refused and successfully refused. The old lady who was assaulted on TV made a lot of others decide that they will not let that happen to them and many states enacted laws specifically to address the disarming of people in an emergency. This was a good result from a bad circumstance.
The point is that if in a similar circumstance where law and order are non-existent and the criminal class is taking advantage, how many gun owners will allow cops to take back their guns if they are staying put? Not so many I think next time. Until time itself softens the emotional reaction to New Orleans.
So when realty does not create the emotional shock to change opinions and beliefs the best way is to get children when they are young and get educators who espouse a self-defense ethos in schools. Get more conservatives in college who educate philosophy and try to show that self-reliance is important. Get the teenagers to read Heinlein. Locke, Rousseau and Ayn Rand “Atlas Shruggs”. Get the kids to read the Federalist Papers in high school.
The next method is do is what we are doing here, to persuade by reason and logic that gun rights are important. To try to get non-gun people to a range to have fun. Get teenagers into hunting to build the next generation of gun enthusiasts and hunters. Volunteer to Boy Scout troops and take dozens of kids to get the merit badges in shotgun and rifle. I did that and probably got at least a dozen kids thinking guns are cool.
It took the gun control people 30 years to get the popular opinion to be against gun rights. It has taken 15 years to change that from the 1994 revolt against the assault rifle ban to increasing CCW laws in states. In 2008 we got the Supreme Court to declare it in an individual rights. Katrina change a lot of laws within one year that numerous states that instigated or strengthened gun rights especially in emergency disasters situations.
Chicago will lose their case and is now trying to come up with a new set of rules that will allow handguns but still keep controls. They will lose over time.
It will take time and persistence to defang the BATF and restore it to an agency that assists FFL’s dealers. The Clintonista’s that populated the Justice Department and BATF are the ones that still have the goal to eliminate guns and make gun dealers life hard to decrease the amount of gun dealers. Bush 41 did not attempt to clean house of these people. McCain may not either, but Obama or HRC will increase the population of similar minded people in government.
Heller was a major battle won but the effort to roll back needs to be pursued with diligence
"My point is simply that most military officers would recognize an attempt at performing a naked end run around the Constitution. Therefore, in order to get the military on board, the politicians would have to give such a move a veneer of respectability, and that would involve at least the Congress and probably the Supreme Court."
My point exactly, and such involves evolution of minds, not a coup.
"If Congress passes a law which the Supreme Court said doesn't violate Heller, ...
I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Your mileage may vary.
"... how many would recognize that the horrible stench is not actually perfume?"
That would depend on the minds of people sometime in the future, possibly even on people who have not yet been born. There will be some who would, but I don't think the percentage is even remotely predictable, so I won't try.
I can't help but focus on a fairly important bit of history. The mighty German gubmint and military machine, with all members of the Wehrmacht taking an oath of allegiance to Hitler, balked at taking on Switzerland. They took on, voluntarily and simultaneously, the whole of Europe except Italy but including Great Britain, plus Australia, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, and the United States, but a tiny nation of riflemen, right on their border and surrounded by them, deterred them completely.
I see the same deterrent effect here, plus the deterrent value of the fact that, here, it would be a civil war, and not an invasion of another country.
If I'm right, we'll never know, will we? I can live with that.
When I see some of these "3 per-centers" rising up against police aggression against innocent dope-smokers I might begin to take seriously all that brave talk about defending liberty at the front door.
Unfortunately, all too many of them think there's not a damn thing wrong with busting down someone's door and killing their dogs (as seems to be SWAT SOP these days) because that person enjoys a socially disapproved recreational substance.
I'm sorry Juris, but dope is far more than "a socially disapproved recreational substance". IT'S IS ILLEGAL! And until that is changed, I will support the efforts of law enforcement to eliminate it along with other illegal substances that are harmful to our society.
And no I do not support it's legalization. I have seen first hand, it's detrimental and devastating effect on the youth and adults (at least by age standards) in our country. I have lived in three separate parts of this country where I stayed long enough to get involved with various youth activities ranging from boy scouts and church groups to what could easily be called reformatory basketball leagues. Unfortunately I have seen your "socially disapproved recreational substance" destroy the motivation, commitment, and ultimately opportunity of many kids from all type of backgrounds.
I seriously hope that most of the "3 per-centers" have enough sense to support LEGAL law enforcement.
You want to smoke dope, make it legal (and I think you should not and will not be successful in that endeavor) or leave! And while I would hate to see any pro-gun person depart these shores, in my opinion your support of illegal drug use, even just dope, is a far more serious, direct and immediate threat to american society than the anti-gun crowd.
And for those who do not believe me, we have our guns, and numbers alone say they cannot all be taken away by force, but the lives of kids and adults (if by age only) are being destroyed and even terminated by the illegal drug industry.
And don't bother telling me it is no different than tobacco and alcohol. Those are legal for adults. Sadly they also have many negative, albeit smaller, effects on our youth.
P.S. The poor dogs have all my sympathy as they are truly innocent. The dope-smoker gets significantly less. And other than those with prescriptions, there are no "innocent dope-smokers" in this country.
Quake, you might want to read my post It is Not the Business of Government.
I do not discount your experience, but I do think that experience is largely due to the criminalization of those substances, not in spite of it.
And the "militarization" of our police forces is just the most visible result of that policy.
"When I see some of these "3 per-centers" rising up against police aggression against innocent dope-smokers I might begin to take seriously all that brave talk about defending liberty at the front door."
If you think I should go to war against the government to protect a "right" to live a life of idle dissipation and crime to feed a drug habit, then you need to reexamine your priorities. Heck, you need to reexamine the meaning and concept of "liberty".
It ain't gonna happen! I'm more likely to slap the users silly until they straighten up and put the drug dealers 6 feet under myself before I would start shooting at law enforcement over drug issues. (I happen to think treating users as criminals rather than patients is counterproductive, but there is no way I can accept claims that drug use is "harmless.") Protecting some druggie from "evil people" who want him to straighten his life out is not my idea of a cause worth dying for or living out the rest of my life with a permanent disability.
Now when government is destroying the lives of people who are working hard and doing the right things both for themselves and their community, that is true tyranny worth opposing.
"Unfortunately I have seen your 'socially disapproved recreational substance' destroy the motivation, commitment, and ultimately opportunity of many kids from all type of backgrounds."
Sure. So what, precisely, is the difference between marijuana and alcohol, in terms of social cost? I've seen alcohol do exactly the same thing, in far greater numbers. Find me a single case of someone hospitalized from being beaten to a bloody pulp by someone who only wanted to fight because he was stoned. Or if you'd rather, find me a single ER in any major US city that doesn't have *at least one* such case EVERY WEEKEND from people whose own stated reasons for being violent were "I was drunk."
So far as I can tell, the SOLE difference is that alcohol and tobacco are the lobbyists' and legislators' drugs of choice.
Does that mean I'll go to war to protect the pot smokers? Hell no, and I AM one. Recreational drug use, of whatever type, is ultimately fashion based, and I won't risk my life to support or deny a fashion. Most *certainly* not to defend a fashion that is ultimately self-destructive, as ALL recreational drug use is. "High", "tipsy" and "buzzed" all translate to the same thing: Your body is experiencing a mild poison reaction. Whether you got that buzz from a joint or a beer is completely beside the point.
But neither do I think anyone else should have to support or deny such nonsense either. If there is anything I consider consistently STUPID in a cop's job, it is that he is required to risk his life to defend what is essentially a fashion statement, in terms of which harmful drugs are okay and which harmful drugs are "bad."
And Quake, I'd like to see you try to defend the "albeit smaller" phrase in your last comment. I doubt you can. I don't think the negatives for tobacco and alcohol are any smaller, I think that just the *acceptance* of those negatives is greater.
If you think I should go to war against the government to protect a "right" to live a life of idle dissipation and crime to feed a drug habit, then you need to reexamine your priorities. Heck, you need to reexamine the meaning and concept of "liberty".
Your reasoning is specious. I think not that you should go to war for the reasons you speak of, but rather to defend the principles of Locke; that of ultimate self-ownership. How can you claim to defend liberty when you deny the claim of personal sovereignity? It's not the right to live a life of dissipation I defend, but rather the right to be left the hell alone by the damned government!
Just as you might claim to Sarah Brady that you owning a machine gun does no harm to anyone unless you actually use it against them, so too do I claim that my smoking weed or even shooting black tar heroin does you no harm, unless I then in some way actually infringe your right to life, liberty, or property.
People getting high and accomplishing nothing with their lives neither breaks my arm nor steals my car. And there are already plenty of laws to punish those who do those things.
It ain't gonna happen! I'm more likely to slap the users silly until they straighten up and put the drug dealers 6 feet under myself before I would start shooting at law enforcement over drug issues. (I happen to think treating users as criminals rather than patients is counterproductive, but there is no way I can accept claims that drug use is "harmless.") Protecting some druggie from "evil people" who want him to straighten his life out is not my idea of a cause worth dying for or living out the rest of my life with a permanent disability.
Ah, everybody just wants to tell somebody else what to do. It's always disgusting to see it in people who are nominally on my side, though.
What, exactly, is the difference between your position and that of any straight up nanny-state socialist? Are they not, in fact, "evil people" for wanting to force their protection from ourselves on all of us? Your position is precisely the same as theirs, that citizens are property of the government, and that the government has a right to tell them how to live every detail of their lives. The only difference is in which behaviours you find unpleasant.
Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws - always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. - R.A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
I repeat myself.
Bob said some crazy stuff, but other of it was pure gold. That quote does rather sum up what I was trying to say. :)
Don't let that stop you, Kevin. Some things need repeating now and then, others need repeating often.
Ladies and Gents, my friend has responded. Here is the meat of it, verbatim:
"As for the military, I have talked to three so far, active duty Marine, Navy, and Air Force pilots. So far it is a unanimous vote on all issues. They all said they are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution and to carry out lawful orders from their superiors. The scenario you propose would clearly be unlawful and they would expect that the vast majority of the military including themselves, to refuse such an order, especially the officers and upper ranks of the non-coms. A few green recruits could probably be intimidated into carrying out such an order but only by the toughest and most experienced of the non-coms. The very non-coms that are most likely to refuse such an order.
"One of the three (the youngest) was surprised and disappointed that very many people would think the military could be used in this manor. I assured him that I was not one of them and I did not know that very many people felt this way just maybe a dozen or so on this particular blog expressed that opinion. I gave all three the web address so look for new responders. The Marine asked just how many people do they think are in the armed forces. I didn't know so I looked it up, about 2.5 million, if you include all police forces, XYZ agents, and officials you might get that up to 5 or 6 million. Even if they go 1 on 1 with the civilians it will take several days if not weeks to pull off and with todays communications I would expect fierce and effective resistance after the first two days.
"I'll keep asking and the Marine and Navy pilots said they would ask a few of their friends as well."
Well. It's a very small sample, but these are their opinions, rather than our guesstimates of their opinions. Illuminating, isn't it?
GrumpyOldFart & perlhaqr,
I have to say that my jaw literally dropped when I read your posts, especially coming immediately on the heels of our discussion of how defenders of the Constitution are perceived among the sheep. So instead of proving that we want the very best for America, you promptly hand our enemies another stick to beat us with! Lovely. So instead of the face of the Tennessee UUC shooter, you've slapped the face of this guy on all gun owners:
"So Delich was a crazed stoner who sat around getting high and convincing himself that the elaborate fantasy world he wanted to live in was real and telling people he was a god. He was arrested numerous times and never received a significant punishment, or treatment. And his parents gave him money to buy guns and drugs I assume since he didn’t work. Sounds like a lot of people dropped the Ball on this one."
Smooth move X-lax!
I'm not even gonna argue about the damage caused by drug use. It's obvious that you've made up your minds in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. But there is an appropriate quote from the book The American Sex Revolution by Pitirim Sorokin:
"No law-abiding and morally strong society is possible when a large number of its members are selfish nihilists preoccupied with pleasure. For inevitably such men and women come into conflict with one another, and are led to chronic violation of moral and legal imperatives and to endless transgression of the vital interests of each other. There results a progressive undermining of the existing legal and moral order, and a perennial war among members of the collectivity seeking a maximum share of material possessions and gratifications. In this struggle the established code of the society is repeatedly broken; standards of conduct are increasingly trespassed, and ultimately they lose their authority and control over individual behavior. The society drifts closer and closer to a state of moral anarchy in which everyone regards himself as law giver and judge entitled to juggle all moral and legal standards as he pleases.
"With moral stamina thus weakened, the society loses its inner solidarity and the civic virtues necessary for its well being. Its internal peace is increasingly broken by disturbances and revolts, its security chronically punctured by brutal forces of criminality."
While the topic of his book focuses on the issues of sexual anarchy, this principle seems to apply equally well to drug use. After all, I doubt that any of you could seriously argue that drugs are not a primary factor in most murders in this country. If you want to see how the last paragraph of this quote plays out, the easiest place to look is at the drug culture.
As for tobacco and alcohol, I think there's one primary reason why making them illegal is so hard: they've been socially acceptable, and even at times considered marks of high society, for centuries. Tobacco use doesn't cause immediate mental impairment, just eventual medical problems. Alcohol has much more direct impairment, but it also has been a favored drink for much of recorded history. In fact, for most of that time, it was usually safer to drink alcohol than water due to the lack of purification.
The main problem with your argument using alcohol and tobacco is that it is a "single step" argument. "MJ is just 'one step' worse than alcohol. It's really not that bad." So if you legalize it, then you could make exactly the same argument about the next step, then the next step, and so forth until you've legalized every illicit drug, including ones that are instantly addicting and exceedingly destructive. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
Gun grabbers use the same class of arguments against the 2nd Amendment, all the while ignoring the fact that their types of arguments can be used against constitutionally protected rights which they hold sacred.
Bottom line: You want Mr. & Mrs. Middle America to help defend the Constitution? Then don't try to get them to defend illicit drug use too. That's like telling them that you've got a fabulous feast waiting for them, oh, and by the way, there's a poison pill buried in there somewhere.
DJ,
I'm glad to hear it. That gives me a little more hope.
I'm wondering, though, which scenario you presented to them. Was it your Rogue President scenario, my Veneer of Legitimacy scenario, or both?
As I've been thinking about this, I remembered a principle of strategy that I learned a long time ago: Always expect your opponent to attempt his strongest or most effective move. That's why I don't think your Rogue President scenario is likely. Someone who tried it would play into the hands of gun owners who would immediately go on the warpath, plus it would turn the military against the government.
I suggest thinking through how the government would be most effective at disarming most gun owners. That tactic should also be designed to convince the military to side with the gun grab. Discuss it with your friends in the military. Could they conceive of a scenario where 2/3rds of the military could be convinced to go along with it?
Don't expect the enemies of the Constitution to exhaust themselves against the fortifications. They will be looking for a way around them, therefore, we also need to be looking for holes in the fortifications.
Ed, the scenario I presented to my friend was the one I presented in this comment. I wasn't a party to the discussions between my friend and his contacts in the military, as I am in Oklahoma and he is in Maryland. I posted his response to his conversations with them.
"I suggest thinking through how the government would be most effective at disarming most gun owners. That tactic should also be designed to convince the military to side with the gun grab."
My opinion is that such cannot be done. I've stated the reasons why, and I point out that the members of the military are often gun owners, too, and most have families.
I am reminded of the comment by a kamikaze pilot at the pre-flight breifing: "Honorable leader, you are out of your fucking mind."
"Don't expect the enemies of the Constitution to exhaust themselves against the fortifications. They will be looking for a way around them, therefore, we also need to be looking for holes in the fortifications."
Bingo.
I see no need to gear up for war, because I don't expect war. The weapons I have are more than enough. The battle will be fought in the legislatures and the courts, not in the streets, as the left continues the endless grind of pushing the boundaries of the envelope. The last 20 years have seen the envelope shrink. I expect that shrinkage will continue.
"I'm not even gonna argue about the damage caused by drug use. It's obvious that you've made up your minds in spite of massive evidence to the contrary."
I could say the same of you. Apparently you don't see any distinction between an occasional pot smoker and someone who "'experimented” with drugs such as marijuana, mushrooms, cocaine, LSD and Ecstasy", a phrase you unaccountably left out of your quote. And yet if I claimed there was no difference whatsoever between someone who often has a glass of wine with dinner and a wino, stinking of urine, feces and vomit, passed out behind a dumpster somewhere, you'd claim I was a nut, would you not?
And you'd be right.
"As for tobacco and alcohol, I think there's one primary reason why making them illegal is so hard: they've been socially acceptable, and even at times considered marks of high society, for centuries. Tobacco use doesn't cause immediate mental impairment, just eventual medical problems. Alcohol has much more direct impairment, but it also has been a favored drink for much of recorded history. In fact, for most of that time, it was usually safer to drink alcohol than water due to the lack of purification."
Or in other words, the SOLE difference is that alcohol and tobacco are the lobbyists' and legislators' drugs of choice. I could have sworn I had already made that point.
"I doubt that any of you could seriously argue that drugs are not a primary factor in most murders in this country."
Question: Is it the drugs themselves, or is it the undeniable, demonstrable fact that a drug user, regardless of the actual harm caused by his drug use, has already been declared fit only to be in a cage or a coffin, and therefore feels he has nothing to lose? If we are talking about the 21st century, he already has incontrovertible evidence that his own government has spent his entire life blatantly lying to him, made him the target of a propaganda campaign short on facts and long on demonizing, and declared the police, to whom he should be able to turn for protection, to be his enemy.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/08/no-knock-raid-victimizes-mayor-kills-dogs/
Your tax dollars at work. I dunno about you, but I'd feel as if they'd shot members of my family when they killed my dogs.
In reference to my question above, note that the vast majority of pot smokers who are arrested every day go quietly, with a minimum of fuss. Also note that "coyotes", those who make their living transporting illegal aliens into this country, are often armed and violent, with no compunction about killing anyone who gets in the way of their business dealings, *even if no drugs are involved*. So again I must ask, is it the drugs? Or is it the fact that the US government has made a point to make sure those involved with it are in a high-risk, high-gain illegal enterprise where killing risks nothing they are not already risking anyway?
"The main problem with your argument using alcohol and tobacco is that it is a "single step" argument. "MJ is just 'one step' worse than alcohol. It's really not that bad." So if you legalize it, then you could make exactly the same argument about the next step, then the next step, and so forth until you've legalized every illicit drug, including ones that are instantly addicting and exceedingly destructive. A line has to be drawn somewhere."
Is it? I would contend that marijuana is quite a bit LESS addictive and destructive than alcohol. Even those whose job is demonizing marijuana for the US government have conceded that its primary danger lies in it being a 'gateway drug', ie one that tends to lead to the use of harder, more dangerous substances. But of course, the fact that by smoking marijuana you are already marked as an enemy of the state, and therefore are not increasing your risks or potential penalties by going to harder drugs... nah, that can't have anything to do with it, can it?
Your fear is that we will end up legalizing drugs that are instantly addictive and exceedingly destructive? Instantly addictive like, say, tobacco? Exceedingly destructive like, say, alcohol?
Eek. No, we can't have that.
Please understand, I am NOT advocating the legalization of every drug out there, or even most of them. I am advocating a consistent, rational drug policy based on the FACTS of what various drugs do to the mind and body, rather than a fiat based policy dependent on who has the lobby money and whose fears need to be pandered to.
"Bottom line: You want Mr. & Mrs. Middle America to help defend the Constitution? Then don't try to get them to defend illicit drug use too."
Please explain to me where it says in the Constitution that because Sen. Swimmer poisoned himself and rendered himself a hazard to everyone around him *using a legal substance* that his (at best) negligent homicide was okay, while at the same time someone who smokes a bowl with his friends and plays spades or poker with them in the kitchen until the wee hours of the morning is a danger to society, fit only to be penned up or gunned down.
The bottom line is that the disparity between actual medical/psychological EVIDENCE concerning drug use, and the government propaganda concerning drug use, has been used to end-run the Constitution for nearly a century. Even with *legal* drugs. If I drive anywhere on a holiday weekend, I am subject to being stopped for *no reason whatsoever* and presented with a demand to see my papers. Such a scenario is straight out of Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR, and yet we accept it. Why? Because the government has spent 3 generations or more teaching us to fear drugs RATHER THAN RESPECT THE LAW, that's why.
Thanks to Quake and Ed for proving my point. You don't seriously give a damn about liberty, and all your words about defending it are nothing but sound and fury.
"a socially disapproved recreational substance". IT'S IS ILLEGAL!
Quake - it's illegal because it IS socially disapproved. Educate yourself a little son. The War on Drugs began to "protect our white women". It continues because we must "do it for the children". If you are so weak of mind that you fall for that shit, you shouldn't own a gun.
Ed, I seem to recall the words of those who preached against demon rum echoing in your condemnation of dope-fiend idleness. (Not to mention the overtones of a puritanical fascism - you must be a productive member of society, not just for your own good but for the good of the people). Prohition taught some of us, sadly not nearly enough.
Ed sez While the topic of his book focuses on the issues of sexual anarchy, this principle seems to apply equally well to drug use.
Puritan to the core, indeed. Your notion of liberty is the one that needs to be reconsidered - as you would offer none to those who don't conform to your view of the good society.
Criminalizing drugs has, in the main, accomplished:
1) making a buttload of money for organized crime, including terrorist organizations (where you can tell the difference between the two).
2) making a buttload of money for government agencies through fines and seizures.
3) creating a criminal class out of thin air by governmental fiat.
4) making law enforcement and healthcare providers, the very people a drug user SHOULD be able to turn to for help, into his enemies.
5) making the general public willing to accept more and more restrictions on their liberties due to the fear of said drugs.
6) killing a lot of people, on both sides of the issue.
7) and yes, it has decreased drug used somewhat. Has it ended it? No. Has it even *crippled* the drug trade? Arguably it has, but it is equally arguable that it has not. But to claim that it will EVER eliminate drug use entirely, regardless of what measures are taken, is nothing short of fantasy.
Will anyone seriously claim that #7 has been so successful as to justify #s 1 through 6?
GOF sez I am advocating a consistent, rational drug policy based on the FACTS of what various drugs do to the mind and body
A situation in which almost surely pot would be legal and booze restricted or banned.
The irony.
I on the other hand advocate that is NONE of the govt's f'ing business what I choose to do with my body, period. It is also not the govt's responsibility to make good my bad decisions. These two stances put me at odds with both conservatives AND liberals, respectively.
Juris, it's called "Libertarian".
Juris, it's called "Libertarian".
Sadly DJ, it's also known politically as "lonely".
7) and yes, it has decreased drug used somewhat
Actually, I'm not sure I'd accept even that. My question to the Quake's and the Ed's of the world is, if it wasn't illegal - would you use it? The usual response is "no". So, it's never a matter about their own behavior/choices - it's always about making other people do what the moral busy-body deems best. [And, oddly enough, that's the typical 'logic' gun control freaks employ.]
The cognitive dissonance it takes to make THAT argument while simultaenously holding that alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods ARE okay for people to decide for themselves, makes a loony liberal seem like a rational person.
Sheesh. And you guys wonder why you're viewed as gun nuts!
I posted a quote from the guy who basically wrote the book on the study of societies, and all you're responding with are forms of religious dogma. How about responding with something like actual evidence, or a quote from someone with equal gravitas as Dr. Sorokin which shows the error in his statement.
C'mon, when it comes to defending the 2nd Amendment you guys use serious scholarship. If you think mind altering drug use doesn't have a negative effect, then you should be able to support that position with equally good scholarship. Name calling and stating personal preferences is not good scholarship.
"My question to the Quake's and the Ed's of the world is, if it wasn't illegal - would you use it?"
No, for the same reason I follow the 4 rules of gun safety, and for the same reason I don't smoke. (I don't drink either, but in that case it's 'cause I don't like the taste. Blech!) Are you going to claim that it's okay if other people choose not to follow those 4 gun safety rules?
"And, oddly enough, that's the typical 'logic' gun control freaks employ."
Really? What are the parallels?
We know that banning guns leads to increased crime and harm to the victims due to losing the ability to defend themselves. What harm comes to you if you don't use mind-altering substances?
Gun grabbers claim guns cause violent behavior. We know for a fact that they do not. Can you prove that mind-altering substances do not directly cause violent behavior, in at least some cases? (Not to mention depression, permanent loss of cognitive function, loss of motivation, etc.)
"making law enforcement and healthcare providers, the very people a drug user SHOULD be able to turn to for help, into his enemies."
If there's "nothing wrong" with illicit drugs, then why would a drug user need to turn to anyone for help?
This is exactly why I stated that treating drug users as criminals is counterproductive.
If you think mind altering drug use doesn't have a negative effect, then you should be able to support that position with equally good scholarship.
No problem Ed. I give you U.S. history up until the Harrison Act. I give you the actual words used by those who passed the first drug control laws - the rationale behind those laws. I give you THOUSANDS of alcohol fueled acts of violence against the ONE anti-social dope-smoker you pointed to. I also give you Harvard's own Timothy Leary - who never committed a violent act while under the influence. You might also want to look up the recent Johns Hopkins work with psilocybin.
And if you don't want to get called on your moralistic arguments, then don't use them.
I have to admit, quoting the founder of the Harvard Sociology department is amusing to say the least - considering you'd disagree with probably 99% of the rest of his & that program's work. And, you brought up the sexual bugbear as an analogy - not as direct evidence.
Really? What are the parallels?
Wow, talk about a hanging curve!
Simple - you can't be trusted to make the decision for yourself.
I'll wait while you retrieve the ball.
If there's "nothing wrong" with illicit drugs, then why would a drug user need to turn to anyone for help?
I guess there's no such thing as an alcoholic, let alone 12-step programs to help them, because there can't be ANYTHING wrong with a licit drug.
You think this kind of argument is convincing? Well, maybe to someone who buys into Brady bunch 'thinking'.
"you can't be trusted to make the decision for yourself."
I thought you were going to try to hit the ball.
By this logic, we should not make bank robbery illegal, because such laws imply that people cannot make the choice for themselves whether or not to rob a bank.
"because there can't be ANYTHING wrong with a licit drug."
I'm not making that argument. I was simply pointing out that claiming that there was nothing wrong with drug use, then pointing out that help is needed is contradictory.
"I have to admit, quoting the founder of the Harvard Sociology department is amusing to say the least - considering you'd disagree with probably 99% of the rest of his & that program's work. And, you brought up the sexual bugbear as an analogy - not as direct evidence."
I guess you didn't notice which years he was there. Did you just assume that he was a current professor pushing Harvard's current liberal garbage?
The point in the quoted passage was the effect of narcissism, which is seeking pleasure above all else. Are you claiming that drug users are not seeking pleasure?
"I give you U.S. history up until the Harrison Act."
How many intentional drug users were there as a percentage of the population? How widespread was narcissism? Was narcissism treated as culturally acceptable?
"if you don't want to get called on your moralistic arguments, then don't use them."
Really? I used a moralistic argument? I could have sworn I argued that illicit drugs were wrong because of their effects both on individuals and society as a whole. What is "moralistic" about looking at cause and effect? Do you condemn every scientist who observes an effect and figures out the cause as being "moralistic"? Do you condemn every engineer who ever stated weight limits on a bridge for "imposing his judgment on society?"
How many intentional drug users were there as a percentage of the population?
Well from U.S. v. Jin Fuey Moy, and in the words of Justice Holmes...
"Only words from which there is no escape could warrant the conclusion that Congress meant to strain its powers almost if not quite to the breaking point in order to make the probably very large proportion of citizens who have some preparation of opium in their possession criminal or at least prima facie criminal, and subject to the serious punishment made possible by 9."
I guess you didn't notice which years he was there.
I said he founded that department, which implies pretty clearly it wasn't recent. He wrote the book in question in 1956 - well before MOST people refer to the Sexual Revolution, and he was dead by 1968. Do you also accept his views on social cycles and stratification? Or are you only turned on by his sexual repression?
How widespread was narcissism? Was narcissism treated as culturally acceptable?
Keep stretching Ed, but you're not getting any closer.
By this logic, we should not make bank robbery illegal, because such laws imply that people cannot make the choice for themselves whether or not to rob a bank.
Pretending the ball is in your hand is the lamest play in the game.
Robbing is clearly an offense against another (or their property). How exactly does that equate to some person peacefully sitting at home enjoying a beer or a bowl? It doesn't does it.
However, denying a person the right to ingest what they want because they might do something violent is PRECISELY like saying you may not have a gun because you might misuse it.
What's that, the manager is walking toward the mound...
I could have sworn I argued that illicit drugs were wrong because of their effects both on individuals and society as a whole.
Wow, you don't even know when you're making an argument based on morality?
The possible lassitude of the drug consumer offends you Ed. Don't pretend otherwise now. He must be shown the way of truth, light and materialism - lest he fall dangerously out of step with his fellow citizens. Be productive citizen, consume citizen - do as you are told.
"Do you also accept his views on social cycles and stratification?"
I don't know yet. I'm still reading his work. I did some skimming and the results he predicted seem to be accurate.
"Or are you only turned on by his sexual repression?"
Stated as if you think he made up his results much like Beslisles (sp?) did. I call pure BS on that slant. He backs up his statements with example after example of easily confirmed history in his book. Furthermore, his work was based in part on the work of J.D. Unwin, whose work survived extensive peer review. Here's what Unwin had to say in Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior:
"…the cultural condition of any society at any time seems to depend on the amount of its mental and social energy, and this in its turn seems to depend upon the extent of the compulsory continence imposed by its past and present methods of regulating the relations between the sexes. So close, in fact, is the relation between sexual opportunity and cultural condition that if we know what sexual regulations a society adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its culture." (pg x)
Of course, he goes on to give the evidence in his book.
I just recently became aware of a seminar called Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All? It points out that there are 4 basic categories of why someone holds a particular belief. They are 1) Sociological Reasons [Parents, Friends, Society, Culture], 2) Psychological Reasons [Comfort, Peace of Mind, Meaning, Purpose, Hope, Identity], 3) Religious Reasons [Scripture, Pastor/Priest, Guru, Rabbi, Imam, Church], and 4) Philosophical Reasons [Consistency, Coherence, Completeness (best explanation of all the evidence)]. The first two are invalid reasons to believe something because they are reasons why people can often believe something in spite of the facts. The third category cannot, in and of itself, be a reason to believe something either. Only the 4th reason can provide solid foundations to any of the other three categories.
Given the rock solid evidence supporting the conclusion (100% correspondence!) that sexual anarchy and narcissism directly impact the level a society can achieve, I think it's safe to say that the reason I'm being so hard nosed on these points is because I think the available evidence puts my positions in category 4. If you're going to shake that, you're going to have to come with some (at minimum) equally rock solid evidence.
"Robbing is clearly an offense against another (or their property)."
But banks have "insurance" for this sort of thing. (Or so the argument goes.) Individual depositors aren't harmed, and neither is the bank. Only the fedgov is harmed, and they're big enough that it's only a pinprick.
What makes you think everyone is too stupid to decide whether or not to rob a bank?
"How exactly does that equate to some person peacefully sitting at home enjoying a beer or a bowl?"
How many people "peacefully" sit at home while doing these things? If they were so peaceful, why are drug dealers shooting up neighborhoods in their turf wars? If they're so peaceful, why are discussions about the best way to incapacitate a goblin—necessary for hopped up drug users—a common topic on gun boards?
"Be productive citizen, consume citizen - do as you are told."
Bullshit. Support yourself. Accept personal responsibility.
Quite simply, drug use is not a victimless crime. If someone is unable to support themselves—or only partially so—due to their drug habit, someone else winds up shouldering the load, whether voluntarily or involuntarily through excess taxation, being a victim of theft, etc.
"Pretending the ball is in your hand is the lamest play in the game."
It's not in my hand. It's in the backstop.
"However, denying a person the right to ingest what they want because they might do something violent is PRECISELY like saying you may not have a gun because you might misuse it."
Right........
Did you forget that the effect of a gun (good or bad) resides entirely within a person's choices while the effect of a drug is outside the user's control?
"Wow, you don't even know when you're making an argument based on morality?"
Wow, you can't tell the difference between morality and cause and effect?
Ed: We know that banning guns leads to increased crime[.]
And banning drugs has led to such an astounding peace in our time.
If they were so peaceful, why are drug dealers shooting up neighborhoods in their turf wars?
This question betrays either extreme disingenuousness, or an excruciating lack of historical knowledge. The references you make imply that you read books. Have you read anything about Prohibition? the drug dealers are shooting each other up in turf wars because making drugs illegal has made them worth a lot of money, and ensured that the only people in the trade are those who are already criminally inclined.
As for your "philosophical consistency", that's the same shield I claim: I believe that men own themselves. So long as they are not infringing on the life, liberty, or property of others, they can do anything they like, and I have absolutely no ethical or moral authority to stop them. Taking drugs does not, by itself, infringe on any of those natural rights. Should an addict, or any other person, engage in theft, robbery, extortion, rape, murder, or any other crime, either under the influence of drugs or not, there are already legitimate laws to deal with those crimes.
----
Grumpy Old Fart: Your list of 7 points is good, but it misses the one most relevant to even the pro-war-on-some-drugs folks among the pro-guns groups. Namely, the War on Drugs has given the Antis more fodder than they could have ever dreamed of, by fueling 75 years of Prohibition style inner-city gang warfare.
"GOF sez I am advocating a consistent, rational drug policy based on the FACTS of what various drugs do to the mind and body
A situation in which almost surely pot would be legal and booze restricted or banned.
The irony.
I on the other hand advocate that is NONE of the govt's f'ing business what I choose to do with my body, period. It is also not the govt's responsibility to make good my bad decisions. These two stances put me at odds with both conservatives AND liberals, respectively."
Possibly. But before you make that assumption, understand that the standard I advocate would have NOTHING to do with whether it's bad for you, or makes you a slacker, or makes you stupid, or whatever. Ed seems to think that the welfare state that cares for people who render themselves helpless should be kept. I do not. I have been eligible for various forms of welfare once or twice, have never sought it, and have pissed off more than one person close to me by refusing to accept it. This is because I refuse to support armed robbery by governmental fiat, which is precisely what welfare is. So far as I'm concerned, a guy who turns himself into a useless wino, or a useless pothead, or a useless _________ (insert pet peeve useless type here) is perfectly welcome to starve if he can't or won't get off his dead ass.
However, I have seen more than one drug that pretty consistently turns long term users into hazards to everyone around them. Hazard to *themselves*? Not my problem. Actual, demonstrable danger to those around them? Yes, that should be restricted.
And no, that does not include alcohol nor marijuana. The vast majority of both are equivalent to the "wine with dinner" types I mentioned earlier.
"Did you forget that the effect of a gun (good or bad) resides entirely within a person's choices while the effect of a drug is outside the user's control?"
Ed, the effect of marijuana on my mind and body most certainly IS under my control. It is no more difficult for me to limit the effects of marijuana on my person than it is for someone in a bar to stop at one drink because he's driving later. Less difficult, in all likelihood.
Once again, you are saying the guy who has a glass of wine with dinner and the wino sleeping in the dumpster are one and the same.
"Quite simply, drug use is not a victimless crime. If someone is unable to support themselves—or only partially so—due to their drug habit, someone else winds up shouldering the load, whether voluntarily or involuntarily through excess taxation, being a victim of theft, etc."
Off the top of my head, I can think of half a dozen successful business owners, one of the most picky, most dogged, most hardworking "field managers" for his industry that I know (nationally famous in his field, owns 3 houses, works an average of 55 hours a week), several of the most technically astute and safety conscious people I've ever met (all working in environments where a moment's inattention can kill), and a man who is BOTH a physicist and a chemical engineer, who have smoked marijuana for years or decades. That's just off the top of my head. Once again, you are equating wine with dinner to being a wino. You don't hear about the pot smokers who AREN'T a burden on society, because they don't want to be labeled enemies of the state. Yes I know, anecdotal evidence counts for naught. Nonetheless, just because they aren't stupid enough to admit they exist does not mean they don't exist. Not only do they exist, they may just possibly be in the majority. The successful pot smokers I have known in my life outnumber the unsuccessful ones by a factor of about 5 to 1. Less than the ratio of successful drinkers to unsuccessful ones, to be sure. But drinkers aren't subject to being jailed because a beer bottle was found in their trash, either. Pot smokers tend to be more circumspect, for obvious reasons.
Yes, some of them end up being supported by taxes. The same goes for people who are just plain lazy. The same goes for people who destroy their lives with alcohol. Personally, I don't think our tax dollars should support ANY of the above. But if it's fair to jail some worthless crap for having smoked pot a month ago, it's equally fair to jail some worthless crap who got drunk a month ago, or someone who is worthless crap just because that's what he chose to be.
However, it seems that's not enough for you. You *seem* to think the business owners, the competent hard workers and the physicist should be jailed as well, and you label them (and me) as thieves and murderers knowing nothing whatever about them.
Have you ever drank any sort of alcoholic beverage? If so, should society shun you as a wino who has destroyed his life and is a burden to everyone around him? That is PRECISELY as ridiculous as the comparison you are making, for PRECISELY the same reasons.
If I am misreading you, please correct me.
Right now, TODAY, a man can come to work on Monday morning still suffering the effects of the alcoholic binge he had over the weekend, and (with the exception of a very few jobs, ie pilot) neither the company nor the law will touch him. But if, two weeks earlier, he smoked enough to give him a buzz equal to about half a beer, he not only loses his job, possibly his entire career, but is lucky if he does not go to jail. True, that standard doesn't apply everywhere, but where it does not it's because of either company policy or insurance standards, not because of the law.
Given that, to claim this is about public safety or the burden on society suggests either shocking ignorance or flatly lying to yourself.
For the record: I have had numerous "dealers" in the 36 years since I began smoking pot. They have, without exception, been gainfully employed, their "dealing" never making any of them enough money to be a factor in their lives. Not a single one of them has ever been in a gang. Not a single one of them went on to harder drugs. Not a single one of them has ever been in a turf war. Over half of them did not own any guns at any time that I knew them. None of them has ever been convicted, or even accused, of any crime more serious than a ticket. I won't claim none of them has ever killed another human being, because at least 4 of them have been in the military, and I don't know their records well enough to say and haven't asked. One has a Masters Degree in biochemistry. I'd give even money that I could find the name of one of them on a commercial product in YOUR home.
Just because gangbangers are all you see doesn't mean gangbangers are all there is.
"I was simply pointing out that claiming that there was nothing wrong with drug use, then pointing out that help is needed is contradictory."
I'm fairly certain no one said there was "nothing wrong" with drug use. It carries many of the same hazards as most self-indulgent behaviors, just like alcohol, or gambling, or a million other things. What we've been saying is that a knee-jerk fear response to illegal drugs, while at the same time having a somewhat "ho hum, oh well, nothing to see here" attitude toward legal drugs equally or more hazardous, not to mention many, many other self-indulgent, and ultimately self-destructive, behaviors, is quite frankly irrational.
Grumpy, there is a simple principle that describes this. You have the right, because it is your body, to do to yourself anything you are willing to put up with, provided when you do it to yourself, you do it to and only to yourself. If this principle isn't true, then someone else has greater authority over what happens to your living body than you do, and that is the very antithesis of liberty.
"If this principle isn't true, then someone else has greater authority over what happens to your living body than you do, and that is the very antithesis of liberty."
Huh?
If an action you do has an impact on someone else, then it is unreasonable to expect to be able to completely disregard that impact. And since when does "liberty" mean that you are free to do whatever you want to someone else?
I'm really not surprised that you guys aren't budging. One more point, then I'm done with arguing the advisability of drug use and I'll be returning to my main point.
"Have you read anything about Prohibition? the drug dealers are shooting each other up in turf wars because making drugs illegal has made them worth a lot of money, and ensured that the only people in the trade are those who are already criminally inclined."
You guys are so hot to equate alcohol with other illicit drugs, a position I'm somewhat sympathetic to, so let's take a look at how well repealing prohibition has worked out, shall we?
For 2006 there were 16,005 deaths in alcohol related accidents. Each year there are roughly 79,000 deaths related to excessive alcohol use, making in the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death in the US. (Tobacco is number one and "inactivity" is number two. Unlike "inactivity", tobacco and alcohol related deaths are relatively easy to prevent. Just don't do it!) Alcohol use also led to 1.6 million hospitalizations and 4 million emergency room visits in 2005. I also saw a statistic on a pro-drug site that 40% of all emergency room visits are caused by alcohol, but I can't lay my hands on the link at the moment.
Boy it's a good thing that prohibition was ended so that all those lives could be saved.
I'm still absolutely flabbergasted that you guys are so freakin' hot to argue in favor of legalizing mind-altering drugs (or more mind-altering drugs if you prefer) immediately after there's been a 2 week discussion on numerous gun blogs about how we're perceived by everyone else. So we pretty much agreed that we have to be careful about what image gun owners present to the world, then you guys promptly lay claim to the image of … DRUGGIE!
C'mon. No matter what your position is on legalizing them, surely you realize that the image of a druggie isn't exactly that of a Salt Of The Earth type! Do you really expect to gain a significant number of allies with such an image?
I thought the whole point of discussions like this was to figure out how best to defend the Constitution and how to win allies in that fight. What are your priorities? Are you willing to give up your push for legalizing drugs if it means the difference between defending the Constitution and losing it all?
If an action you do has an impact on someone else, then it is unreasonable to expect to be able to completely disregard that impact. And since when does "liberty" mean that you are free to do whatever you want to someone else?
Ed, please explain, in small words, suitable for my juvenile mind, how my sitting in my living room, smoking a joint, breaks your arm, steals your wallet, or infringes on your liberty.
On question, one answer. Please enlighten.
For the record:
"Ed seems to think that the welfare state that cares for people who render themselves helpless should be kept."
Gee, did I claim that? Or are you putting words in my, er, mouth?
For the record, I emphatically do not think this. In fact, I've made no secret that I'm a Christian who believes the Bible. In 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 it says, "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either." I see no reason to argue with that.
However, do you seriously expect this welfare crazy country to not be "compassionate" and give them money just because they're alive? After all, the lefties think that being fed no matter what is a "human right" and too many people agree with them on this.
Furthermore, whether or not they get government handouts, turning to theft is a common choice for drug users who find themselves with their back to the wall.
perlhaqr,
Weren't these "small words" understandable?
"I'm done with arguing the advisability of drug use"
Now how about addressing my main point?
But banks have "insurance" for this sort of thing.
Irrelevant Ed - it does not change that the act is mal se. The same cannot be said about a beer or a bong hit.
If they were so peaceful, why are drug dealers shooting up neighborhoods in their turf wars?
Prohibition Ed? Do Budweiser and Coors engage in turf wars? Their equivalents certainly did during Prohibition. You are really that dull that you don't grasp that? Or just so desperate to score a point?
Quite simply, drug use is not a victimless crime.
Bullshit yourself. What I do in the privacy of my home is none of your f'ing business - not directly and not through the govt. Whether I consume beer or pot (or neither) does NOT affect you, therefore you have no legitimate claim to restrain my choice.
Boy it's a good thing that prohibition was ended so that all those lives could be saved.
Fodder for the nanny-staters Ed. If that's your bag, so be it - but at least be honest about it. And recognize that it will ultimately be turned against you at some point. Guns after all are dangerous things.
...surely you realize that the image of a druggie isn't exactly that of a Salt Of The Earth type!
I know a lot of people that smoke pot that I would trust a lot further than I trust you right now.
And I brought this up because people were talking brave bullshit about how they are going to stand up for their rights (defending liberty at the front door as I recall) - the very rights (and liberty) YOU and every other Drug Warrior are flushing down the toilet; subverting the Bill of Rights and in the expansion of the federal govt beyond it's written boundaries.
Hey Ed, let me ask you this, for you personally is the Drug War all about protecting our white women, or is it for the children?
And why is it Ed, that the country did alright prior to the Harrison Act and has had such drug problems SINCE then?
And would you seriously argue that we should return to Prohibition. After all, even if it saves just one life, it would be worth it wouldn't it? [At least by the 'logic' you asserted earlier.]
"Fodder for the nanny-staters Ed."
Take that attitude into a room with a family that has lost an innocent loved one due to a drunk driver and see which one of you comes out alive. After all, who cares how many innocents are murdered by impaired drivers as long as you can get your buzz on, right?
I was very, very offended when the duToit's said they would take up arms against anyone who would go to war against the government. I'm starting to think I know what circumstances they may have been thinking of.
It's clear that you have absolutely no idea what it takes to win the huge number of allies needed to defend the Constitution. Furthermore it seems clear to me that you don't care about the Constitution nearly as much as you care about your drugs.
Good luck with that.
I'm done here.
AT this point, I hope everybody is done. It's been an interesting discussion.
Now, let me say (again) that I don't do drugs, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't smoke anything.
But Ed, I have one question I think you ought to ruminate on:
I assume you've got kids. If the cops perform a "wrong address" no-knock raid on your home, kill your dog(s), and possibly shoot your wife or child because "they saw movement," or God forbid, you shoot a plainclothes cop wearing a mask and carrying an MP-5 as he comes crashing through your door and are subsequently charged with the murder of a police officer, how will this affect your position on the War on (some) Drugs™ then?
You and your opponents have been arguing past each other. No one denies that the use of mind-altering chemicals can fuck up individuals and families. The point is that it's not the business of government UNTIL the harm spreads away from the individual. And the massive expansion of State power that the War on (some) Drugs™ has resulted in is a greater evil than had the Harrison Narcotics Act never passed in the first place.
Kevin,
I was arguing the point from the end of your post:
"Our job, then, is not to "Frighten the White People," it's to make them MAD. It's to make them "pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles." It's to educate them."
Gun owners slapping the image of druggies with a callous disregard for human life on themselves can't do anything but "Frighten the White People."
As for overzealous enforcement, I view it as something of a distinct problem that simply feeds off drug enforcement. Even ending drug enforcement would not remove the problem, which is that government and law enforcement are not held responsible for their mistakes.
Think about it, the classic "police are not required to do anything" case was not a drug case, it was a kidnapping and rape case. Confiscation based on mere suspicion of a crime may have started as a "tool" against drugs (and those who came up with this idiocy really are Tools), but it is clearly unconstitutional, yet our government "got away with it."
In short, I see that problem not as enforcement(1), but a lack of—or selective—enforcement(2).
(1) = Enforcing legitimate laws broken by The People.
(2) = Enforcing laws broken by The Government.
"If an action you do has an impact on someone else, then it is unreasonable to expect to be able to completely disregard that impact."
Yup. That's right. The impact on others ought to be considered. But how should it be considered?
" And since when does "liberty" mean that you are free to do whatever you want to someone else?"
It doesn't mean that and never has. I neither stated nor implied that it did.
Now, read the principle again. It is most carefully worded. Consider the importance of this part: "... provided when you do it to yourself, you do it to and only to yourself." Words matter, and these words matter a great deal.
Consider the spectrum of things you can do to yourself, and consider the nature of the affect on others.
At one end, for example, you can pick your nose. But don't wipe your booger on someone else's shirt.
Moving along, for example, you can drink water. But don't steal the water you drink.
Consider education and ethics. For example, you can learn a skill, trade, or profession, develop a work ethic, and then work to provide what you need to live. That affects LOTS of people, doesn't it? But who would complain about you on these grounds? Or you can learn nothing, develop no work ethic, and then live as a parasite, begging on the street, sponging off your parents, or demanding a fine standard of living at the expense of the taxpayers. That affects LOTS of people, doesn't it? But who WOULDN'T complain about you on these grounds?
Next, consider the nature of acts that you cannot subject yourself to without also subjecting those around you to the effects thereof. For example: 1) ingesting alcohol or other drugs that affect judgement, coordination, vision, and so on, AND THEN driving a vehicle on the public roads; 2) shooting at game to put dinner on the table, but doing so when the game is silhouetted on the horizon, such that others downrange are in the path of the bullet; and, 3) well, you can add your own here.
Now, consider the nature of acts that you cannot subject yourself to without also subjecting those around you to the same act. For example: 1) playing music over speakers (but not earphones or headphones); 2) breathing air you've polluted with poison, smoke, perfume, or other substances; 3) blowing yourself up with explosives; 4) shooting yourself with a round that exits your body and enters someone else's body; 5) farting in a public place; and, 5) well, you can add your own here.
Finally, consider that you can kill yourself. Someone else will have to dispose of your body, won't they?
What this makes plain is that damned nearly everything you do to yourself can have an effect on someone else, and some things unavoidably do. If the resulting principle is that everything you do to yourself is subject to veto by anyone who claims to be affected thereby, then we arrive at an absurdity: you should not kill yourself because someone else will have to dispose of your body, even though you will eventually die anyway and someone will have to dispose of your body.
So, I reject that principle and come down on the side of liberty. You are sovereign over your own body, but you are liable for the harm that you cause others. That's what makes sense to me.
"Ed seems to think that the welfare state that cares for people who render themselves helpless should be kept."
Gee, did I claim that? Or are you putting words in my, er, mouth?"
This is why I used the word "seems", Ed. I also asked that you correct me if I was misreading you, and I thank you for doing so.
However I must ask, what do you *expect* me to think when, given the undeniable fact that some drug users will end up on the welfare rolls living off people's tax money, your answer is that the problem is the drugs, NOT the welfare system, and in the process completely ignore those who end up in precisely the same place, being precisely the same unjust burden, for legal reasons?
What you are suggesting is that, instead of addressing the problem, find a way to end-around it. I don't understand how you can reconcile that with your quite obvious knowledge that such a solution is precisely what got us where we are NOW.
"...turning to theft is a common choice for drug users who find themselves with their back to the wall."
Quite true. The problem is that you can turn it 180 degrees and it works just as well. Turning to drugs is a common choice for thieves who find themselves with their backs against the wall. That statement is every bit as true as the one you made. The only difference is that in my statement, "backs against the wall" refers to an emotional state rather than a financial one. Therefore you cannot realistically claim that one is obviously cause and effect and the other is obviously not.
I submit that the verifiable fact that most pot smokers I have known in my life are as successful in their chosen fields as the non-smokers at least *suggests* that the contempt for the rights of others already shown by thieves and killers leading to drug use is more likely to be cause and effect than the reverse.
"It's clear that you have absolutely no idea what it takes to win the huge number of allies needed to defend the Constitution. Furthermore it seems clear to me that you don't care about the Constitution nearly as much as you care about your drugs."
I could argue that it seems clear to me that you don't care about the Constitution nearly as much as you care about taking away people's drugs.
Farther up in this comment thread, I posted what I thought the war on drugs has *actually accomplished*. You have made no attempt to refute any of those points.
After 3 generations or more of this, it is glaringly obvious that neither public safety nor the integrity of a free society are the priorities of those who enact the program or those who continue it. The only results that can be called unequivocally positive from ANYONE'S point of view are that the general public has accepted MUCH more state control over their personal lives than they would have otherwise done (positive to those to whom such control is a priority), and various groups have gained a hellacious monetary profit (positive to those who profit). It is irrational to think that, after nearly a century, some of the best sociological talent on the planet has not spotted this. And unless consistent results over such a span have somehow managed to be sheer coincidence, one has to conclude that those driving such actions are at least partially satisfied with the result. The only purposes served by the continuing war on drugs is to circumvent Constitutional law and make money. The ONLY purpose.
I would happily give up smoking pot for the sake of restoring the Constitution. I gave it up for 6 years in the military, and did not find it a hardship. I have given it up many times over the years, when my budget did not allow for such an unnecessary luxury or the nature of my work made it an obvious thing to do.
But I WILL NOT give up anything at all "to win the huge number of allies needed to defend" a system which plainly states that you have the freedom to dissipate your life in socially acceptable ways, yet creates a criminal class out of thin air for doing the exact same thing in *less* socially acceptable ways, even when they are shown to be less destructive. Such a proposition makes a farce of the concept of equal accountability before the law at the very beginning, and destroys all hope of achieving the very thing you claim to be striving for.
Having "huge numbers of allies" can be very comforting. But when it comes down to bedrock, all the allies in the world are no help if you can't count on them to still be there on your flank when things turn ugly. If you want to actually strive for a system of equal accountability under the law, I'm with you. But I will not risk a thing, nor lift a finger, to merely exchange one set of prejudices for another. Your despotism is no better, nor any different, than anyone else's.
"Our job, then, is not to "Frighten the White People," it's to make them MAD. It's to make them "pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles." It's to educate them."
Nice of you to quote that Ed. Now apply it to ALL things where the govt has over-reached, not just the 2nd.
The point is to build a coalition, and you do that by reaching out to people in similar circumstances. I know there are people who aren't shooters or gun owners but still support the 2nd Amdt. Contrary to your extremely narrow view, there are many people who use recreational substances (including alcohol) that are responsible, even productive, members of society. To shun them as you do does not help build a coalition that could limit govt (particularly the feds) to it's proper bounds.
Only zealots, fools and the ignorant believe the govt propaganda on drugs. I would use the same characterization for gun control supporters. Of those three kinds, we CAN move the last if we educate them. And again, the point is to bring the facts out and eschew the emotional, non-rational fear of the unknown or 'un-likeable'.
You will never build a coalition or influence the people you want to when you come off like Burt in Tremors.
Ed, there is a thing I didn't get to...
Take that attitude [dismissal as nanny-state fodder] into a room with a family that has lost an innocent loved one due to a drunk driver and see which one of you comes out alive.
I would fully expect all of us to come out alive Ed. I don't care how fucked up someone's attitude or life experience is - it is no justification for homicide. Which seems to be clearly what you were implying. Now, both of us were probably a bit heated rhetorically in this, because I don't seriously think you'd sit on a jury and let someone off a homicide charge in a case like that. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
And people do get to own/use guns, even though clearly a small percentage abuse that right. You would never accept a general curtailment of the right just to do deal with the problem cases. Now apply that liberally (in the true sense of the word) to other issues.
"I'm done with arguing the advisability of drug use"
Given that my question had nothing to do with the advisability of drug use, no, your small words did not answer it, and were completely orthoganal to my question.
If you cannot tell me how my sitting in my living room smoking weed that I grew infringes on your natural rights, perhaps you should consider that you've drawn the wrong conclusion from the facts you've observed.
Also, frankly, I have no idea what your "main point" is, other than that you seem to have a flawed view of what constitutes "liberty".
Here is a second response by my friend, again, verbatim:
"Talked to 4 retired naval aviators last week. All had the same reaction. It would never work. JCS would resign first. One even pointed me to a very old law that prohibits most of the military from being used to enforce state laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
"I realize this does not quite fit your scenario but it was news to me.
All 4 said they were sworn to carry out only "lawful" orders. That makes 7 for 7 that have uttered that phrase. I think it is very well ingrained in their training/experience."
The best part is, this is what we ought to expect, isn't it?
Reply to earlier posts re: likely side-taking by military. As a ret mil myself, the greatest danger of mil use against civies is that usually mil rank and file not given whole picture. Possible scenario: mil group sent in to help protect area / people, etc. BG hope might be that "hot-heads" fire at mil, and get natural response. When I was in, I estimate at least 80% took oath seriously, would act appropriately IF they had adequate knowledge of situation.
I would like to comment on the contention that New Orleans is a prototype for national gun confiscation.
It's not a good prototype. Here's why.
Someone is pounding on your door. You go to answer and 3 national guard troops are there pointing their M4's at your navel. They demand your guns. What are you going to do?
Even if you are Mike Vanderboegh (if I may be so bold to speak for him), you are going to do what it takes to get through the next half hour alive. You are not suicidal. "Live to fight again another day."
I'd be willing to bet few people had any warning what was going on. That matters, very much, in this scenario.
A general gun confiscation, on the other hand, would take weeks or months to push through congress, with intense debate on every forum and then much more time to implement. That is a lot of time for people to talk things over, decide what they do when confronted, arm themselves appropriately, prepare mentally, even set up ambushes as in Mike's novella.
Not only that, it's lots of time for the troops themselves to decide whether they want to participate in such a thing, including reading an irate letter from their uncle suggesting they stay out of his town if they want to remain alive. At the higher levels, the constitutional implications would certainly be discussed. As one military man put it, when this topic came up, "They can always order the troops out to pick up weapons. The troops don't have to find any..."
Keep in mind, even the rulers of Communist China had to shop around for army units that would do what it took in Tianmen Square. How much harder in America?
New Orleans is in fact a very poor predictor of behavior in a confiscation.
In fact, we have a much better one. The New Jersey assault weapon ban. True, there were no door-to-door searches that I know about, but the compliance rate was still miniscule in the face of harsh penalties.
Three percent? Maybe not going out and doing frontal assaults on federal positions. But what about old guys who simply won't give in? Being stubborn and uncompromising is one of the (few) benefits of old age. How can you intimidate someone who will be dead in a couple of years? He doesn't need to enlist and go to war. He just needs to kill the goon who shows up on his porch. There are *plenty* of old men up to this task. It's a great way to die.
Then they will run out of goons pretty shortly.
While I agree with a lot of your points (e.g., "humor works" - depending of course on who your audience is!), Mike is more right about this stuff than you are. He *does not* risk alienating potential allies by being up front about this stuff. If anyone is turned off by one man stating his opinion about gun rights, then we never had that man's help in the first place. Our allies are Mike's 3 percent, and the other 10 percent or so who, while maybe not up to killing goons on the front porch themselves, will support those who are up to it. The rest of the people? Furniture. They simply don't matter. It's as Mike says: 3% versus a few psychotics in government and a bunch of cowardly bureaucrats looking for a pension.
There's a time and a place for everything. A time for calm discussions on forums with the "muddled middle", hoping to turn a few of them around. A time for "in your face".
Anyway, put yourself in the mind of someone generally for gun control, but not fanatic about it. Why are they that way? Probably, because they abhor violence (while being perhaps a little ignorant of history). Now, what if they are convinced that a general confiscation would unleash oceans of violence in this country, convinced by seeing the writings of enough people like Mike? They probably will lose their appetite for gun control, however much they may wistfully desire it. In fact hard core comments, and the convincing of such people that many gunnies really *wouldn't* give up their guns without a fight (their own groups like HCI tell them we are violent) might very well be the reason gun control has faded a lot recently. They don't have to become our allies. They just have to stop fucking with us. Many of them will go along with at least that.
This is interesting, isn't it?
The title is:
"Soldiers pledge to refuse disarmament demands"
The lead is:
"An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including "state of emergency" orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.
"Spokesman Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers told WND his organization's goal is to remind military members their oath of allegiance is to the U.S. Constitution, not a particular president."
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>