PDA

View Full Version : VPC gives up, Feinstien waits - could we be winning?


hoffmang
04-10-2009, 9:17 PM
Scripp's News Service: Prospects dim for new restrictions on gun ownership (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/42415).

Fatal shootings in Binghamton, N.Y., and Pittsburgh prompted renewed calls for stricter gun control from traditional advocates such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. But such calls haven't echoed in the halls of Congress or in statehouses across the country.

"The silence has been deafening," Dennis Goldford, a Drake University political scientist, said of federal lawmakers' response to new incidents of gun violence across the country.

In the face of a series of tragedies, the political position of opponents of firearms restrictions appears weaker than it's been in decades. On the national and state levels, the prospects for new restrictions on gun ownership are dim.

Eric Holder, to CBS: "I understand the second amendment... I look forward to working with the NRA (http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/gun_control_not_apparently_a_priority_for_attorney _general/9491/)."

Paul Helmke flips out (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/after-mass-shootings-and_b_184832.html) at the new Gallup Poll showing " 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling. Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws... (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/)".

But my favorite was Tom Diaz of VPC. He wrote "Farewell To Arms - Stop Blaming the NRA".

...

There will be a lot of cheap, misplaced anger at LaPierre, the National Rifle Association, the gun industry, the gun lobby, and all the usual suspects.

Please, spare me.

...

I am sick and tired of political cowardice, mass indifference, and — most of all — sanctimonious gestures.

I am as certain of this as I am the sun will set in the west today — politicians will schedule press conferences and many of them will excoriate the NRA. It is an evil and powerful voice, you see, that binds their hands. They would like to do the right thing — which always remains as vaguely defined as the clouds of heaven — but the beastly NRA has a death grip.

And the candle-light vigil people, the shoe stackers, the liers-down, will nod their bobble-heads, wring their hands, and heap ashes upon their heads.

Stop it. Stop blaming the NRA.

...

I am sick and tired of the incrementalists in the so-called “gun control movement,” the strategic geniuses and direct-mail fundraisers who fed the shark by bits and pieces for years until it ate their movement. Many who ran off the beach now mock the ones who stayed. It’s a dead issue, you understand, and those who fled have more important things to blog, twitter, opine, and bloviate about.

....

I am sick and tired of the smug, knowing grimaces of my New Democrat friends. “Guns,” they smirk, “is a dead issue. Not going anywhere. Why don’t you get into another issue?” And the ones who sagely counsel that we don’t push or criticize, that we wait “to give them time.”

I am ashamed that I have sometimes agreed with them. Time ran out for the dead in Binghamton, Southern Alabama, Florida, California…America.

I am sick and tired of socially-correct, politically-correct people sidling up to me at social events and religious services, putting on their best pall-bearer, drooping eyebrow look of sorrow, and asking me if I heard about the latest atrocity and, oh (hand-wring here) what are we going to do about it? “What are YOU going to do about it?” I shall ask evermore hereafter. I will barely disguise my contempt.

I am now going to heal my sickness and my tiredness.

For purposes of this personal blog, I yield the field in good grace to Wayne LaPierre.

I'm stealing liberally from Dave Hardy (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/it_must_really_1.php) and Say Uncle (http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/04/10/were-winning-13/), but it is quite amazing to see the other side looking angry, frustrated, ineffectual, and depressed. Note how the anger at incrementalism has switched sides too.

:31:

-Gene

RobG
04-10-2009, 9:22 PM
Gee, ya think maybe, just maybe, its starting to sink in that criminals do what criminals do; break whatever laws necessary to carry out their heinous acts?

RomanDad
04-10-2009, 9:26 PM
...

There will be a lot of cheap, misplaced anger at LaPierre, the National Rifle Association, the gun industry, the gun lobby, and all the usual suspects.

Please, spare me.

...

I am sick and tired of political cowardice, mass indifference, and — most of all — sanctimonious gestures.

I am as certain of this as I am the sun will set in the west today — politicians will schedule press conferences and many of them will excoriate the NRA. It is an evil and powerful voice, you see, that binds their hands. They would like to do the right thing — which always remains as vaguely defined as the clouds of heaven — but the beastly NRA has a death grip.

And the candle-light vigil people, the shoe stackers, the liers-down, will nod their bobble-heads, wring their hands, and heap ashes upon their heads.

Stop it. Stop blaming the NRA.

...

I am sick and tired of the incrementalists in the so-called “gun control movement,” the strategic geniuses and direct-mail fundraisers who fed the shark by bits and pieces for years until it ate their movement. Many who ran off the beach now mock the ones who stayed. It’s a dead issue, you understand, and those who fled have more important things to blog, twitter, opine, and bloviate about.

....

I am sick and tired of the smug, knowing grimaces of my New Democrat friends. “Guns,” they smirk, “is a dead issue. Not going anywhere. Why don’t you get into another issue?” And the ones who sagely counsel that we don’t push or criticize, that we wait “to give them time.”

I am ashamed that I have sometimes agreed with them. Time ran out for the dead in Binghamton, Southern Alabama, Florida, California…America.

I am sick and tired of socially-correct, politically-correct people sidling up to me at social events and religious services, putting on their best pall-bearer, drooping eyebrow look of sorrow, and asking me if I heard about the latest atrocity and, oh (hand-wring here) what are we going to do about it? “What are YOU going to do about it?” I shall ask evermore hereafter. I will barely disguise my contempt.

I am now going to heal my sickness and my tiredness.

For purposes of this personal blog, I yield the field in good grace to Wayne LaPierre.



Dude.... Somebody should make sure that guy doesn't have a gun.....

Or a bottle of Ambien for that matter.

M. Sage
04-10-2009, 9:45 PM
Yeah, he does sound really despondent, doesn't he?

ojisan
04-10-2009, 9:51 PM
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj76/Jadvad/haha_simpsons.jpg

Charliegone
04-10-2009, 9:57 PM
Wow, future is looking bright for 2nd amendment rights!

:party:

BigDogatPlay
04-10-2009, 10:01 PM
They'll never give up, no matter how many times they get their butts handed to them. They will not give up.

So we can't either.

BroncoBob
04-10-2009, 10:02 PM
He sounds like a winey brat

Telperion
04-10-2009, 10:06 PM
Cry more, Tom.

Could this little diatribe be a sign that he's losing financial support too? :thumbsup:

Seesm
04-10-2009, 10:11 PM
We need to be able to carry... The bad guys do, so the good guys should be able to as well.

KylaGWolf
04-10-2009, 10:16 PM
All I can say is the turn is about dang time...

7x57
04-10-2009, 10:23 PM
I'm stealing liberally from Dave Hardy (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/04/it_must_really_1.php) and Say Uncle (http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/04/10/were-winning-13/), but it is quite amazing to see the other side looking angry, frustrated, ineffectual, and depressed. Note how the anger at incrementalism has switched sides too.


I like the comment at Say Uncle:



The guys with the guns make the rules. Get used to it.


Which is why the 2nd Amendment was put into place. I can’t believe that these idiots don’t get it.


Which is beautifully on-target, though only by subtly re-defining what Tom Diaz said. Of course he didn't mean it will always be that way, but rather that only the horrible barbarism of backwards America makes it that way. Or, more fundamentally, he laments that the people are not listening to their intellectual leaders, that the Deimos is ignoring the philosopher-king.

I've been struck in recent days by exactly what you say--the gun-banners are for the first time publicly saying what we've felt for more or less my entire lifetime. That's why I say we're on the strategic offensive for the first time, even if we may be tactically on the defensive in certain places, times, and/or on certain subjects. I think when the tide came in with the new administration and congressional majority, they found it didn't crest much at all. Now they're afraid of how far out it may go.

Being on the offensive doesn't mean we can't lose, but it does mean we have the ball and should get a chance to run it for a change instead of trying to limit their gains.

7x57

timdps
04-10-2009, 10:28 PM
I get the feeling that Heller is definitely having a dampening effect on anti-gun legislation...

tim

berto
04-10-2009, 10:45 PM
This is less a victory than a tired man realizing he can't win with the playbook his side is using and bowing out because he sees his comrades as inept cowards. I have no doubt he'd be back in the fight if his comrades changed their game plan. Of course, his reality is different from that of those suckling on the public teat. I take pleasure in his anger and frustration but OUR fight is far from over.

7x57
04-10-2009, 10:52 PM
They'll never give up, no matter how many times they get their butts handed to them. They will not give up.


All true, but just remember, we don't really care if they give up. They never mattered for themselves, as they make no decisions and have no authority. We only care that the people who do matter quit listening to the policies they advocate--the politicians who create, apply, and enforce the law. Most of those that really matter are not true-believers, they trust someone's recommendations on policy. That, I think, is what this trend of articles is about--the anti-gunners aren't being treated as the sage experts to be consulted on gun policy. More fundamentally (in the case of the left, anyway), they aren't being uniformly treated as the leading-edge of the antithesis anymore.

That's more or less what Tom Diaz' post described, I think. It didn't mean he had changed his mind; quite the contrary, it seems. He didn't say to quit blaming the NRA because it isn't an evil gun-pushing organization; he says specifically that Wayne LaPierre has mucho blood on his hands. What he means is that if everyone had listened to him, the evil NRA would have lost. If the other gun-banners had been less incrementalist, and more uncompromising as he himself is (if they hadn't "fed the shark"), they'd have won. But since they didn't, they should blame themselves for not standing up to the Evil NRA. He doesn't even say he's given up the cause or his work for the VPC--he just says he will quit *blogging* about gun control. That's consistent with the preponderance of bile in his article being aimed not at us, but other anti-gunners. They didn't have the spine and guts to go for the endgame of total bans and confiscation, and they played too much with incremental policies that didn't stamp out the horrible hydra of the gun culture. He surely doesn't expect his blog to be read by us hideous gunnies, but rather by at least casual anti-gunners. It's *them* he's quit talking to.

This, folks, is what winning smells like. (I am pretty sure it is, though we've been on the defensive for so long it's possible I've forgotten what it smells like.) Consider how particularly like our history this is looking like. Former NRA people saying the NRA fought gradually rather than going for the big wins and lost the war? GoA building it's fund-raising strategy on NRA-bashing? All the recriminations, blaming, second-guessing, and infighting of a losing country/party/army? Gun owners quitting or just bitterly predicting long-term defeat?

Man, we've *lived* this. It's only fair to share this headspace with them for a while.


So we can't either.

Indeed not--having the initiative doesn't mean you will win. Virtually none of the leading Democrats who are reluctant to listen to the Tom DIaz' of the world are our friends; they are simply enemies who are finding it expensive to fight us. If that calculation changes, they'll not have an ounce of restraint that we don't beat into them.

But on the other hand, never having the initiative means you will lose. Let's say we are being given a chance to win instead of playing out the long, slow, bitter defeat we've been sliding toward for most of a century. That's supposed to energize us, not make us lazy, right?

There are plenty of non-gun issues I care about, and things are going badly for many of them, so I'm all the more glad to see the 2A front stabilize.

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
04-10-2009, 10:55 PM
I like the comment at Say Uncle:



Which is beautifully on-target, though only by subtly re-defining what Tom Diaz said. Of course he didn't mean it will always be that way, but rather that only the horrible barbarism of backwards America makes it that way. Or, more fundamentally, he laments that the people are not listening to their intellectual leaders, that the Deimos is ignoring the philosopher-king.

I've been struck in recent days by exactly what you say--the gun-banners are for the first time publicly saying what we've felt for more or less my entire lifetime. That's why I say we're on the strategic offensive for the first time, even if we may be tactically on the defensive in certain places, times, and/or on certain subjects. I think when the tide came in with the new administration and congressional majority, they found it didn't crest much at all. Now they're afraid of how far out it may go.

Being on the offensive doesn't mean we can't lose, but it does mean we have the ball and should get a chance to run it for a change instead of trying to limit their gains.

7x57

Yes it feels like the Red Army of WW2, just withdrawing and bleeding. But then we finnaly get a real victory Stalingrad (Heller). Then all the sudden we're the wolves, we're the hunters, no more partisan piecemeal fighting. The time as come for massive and concerted attack. Where we take back the Motherland a bit and a time, and we steamroll over the enemy because we have superior resolve, morale, ammunition, manpower, and momentum. On to Berlin Comrades. :chris:

BTW i don't think we've reach Kursk yet, perhaps Kursk is when AWB's get defeated once and for all under Heller.

hoffmang
04-10-2009, 10:58 PM
I prefer the analogy of the British. Heller was D-day.

The recent mass shootings were the Battle of the Bulge. Nordyke and then on to Berlin...

-Gene

oaklander
04-10-2009, 11:01 PM
America is more pro-gun now than we have ever been. Here's an example:

(See this and more gems at http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm)

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban
the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized
persons?"


Should Should Not Unsure
% % %
10/3-5/08 29 69 2
10/4-7/07 30 68 2
10/9-12/06 32 66 2
10/13-16/05 35 64 1
10/11-14/04 36 63 1
10/6-8/03 32 67 1
10/14-17/02 32 65 3
8/29 - 9/5/00 36 62 2
4/99 38 59 3
2/99 34 64 2
12/93 39 60 1
3/93 42 54 4
3/91 43 53 4
9/90 41 55 4
1988 37 59 4
10/87 42 50 8
6/81 41 54 5
4/81 39 58 3
12/80 38 51 11
1/80 31 65 4
1975 41 55 4
1965 49 44 7
1959 60 36 4

lioneaglegriffin
04-10-2009, 11:01 PM
I prefer the analogy of the British. Heller was D-day.

The recent mass shootings were the Battle of the Bulge. Nordyke and then on to Berlin...

-Gene

yea but the Brady bill would have to be the Fall of France then?

you can replace partisan activity with Bombing the S**t out of europe.

Plus D-day was a bloody mess, unless you were on Gold/Juno beach.

7x57
04-10-2009, 11:11 PM
I take pleasure in his anger and frustration but OUR fight is far from over.

You know, I am pleased by the circumstances that cause his bitterness, but the bitterness itself doesn't make me happier.


I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked.


Though it is also true that I do not wish to strive with the Tom Diaz's of the world forever either. I wish he'd go do something that makes him happy but does not violate the law or hand victims over for the slaughter.

7x57

CCWFacts
04-11-2009, 12:19 AM
They didn't have the spine and guts to go for the endgame of total bans and confiscation, and they played too much with incremental policies that didn't stamp out the horrible hydra of the gun culture.

That's the big big fight here. That's why CCW is so desirable / evil (depending on which side of the fight you're on). It gives a reason for the gun culture to continue to existing among non-hunting urbanites (like me!). That's why California's AWB doesn't allow inheritance, or any other form of transfers. That's why California's AWB bans minors from using a reg'd AW no matter what, even if the owner is present. That's why they are using city ordnances to shut down gun stores and shooting ranges. None of those things make any logical sense of themselves as crime control measures; they're all about stamping out the evil hydra of gun culture.

The good news is it looks like we're winning!

The commerce-in-arms aspect of Nordyke is extremely important for this reason. I know, we all want to start challenging may-issue and so on, but things like defending gun shops against hassle from city hall are also extremely valuable effects of it. I'm glad that Nordyke is a case based on commerce-in-arms issues.

CCWFacts
04-11-2009, 12:26 AM
Though it is also true that I do not wish to strive with the Tom Diaz's of the world forever either. I wish he'd go do something that makes him happy but does not violate the law or hand victims over for the slaughter.

Yeah. I don't know about Mr. Diaz himself but a lot of the most crazy gun-banners are people who have had personal tragedies and have channeled it into gun banning. I wish they could find some more constructive way to channel it. Some on our side, such as Suzanna Gratia Hupp have channeled personal tragedies into taking action to prevent more such tragedies.

shirow
04-11-2009, 12:58 AM
This is very encouraging. Thanks Gene for the pick-me-up!

Arkalius
04-11-2009, 3:02 AM
Yeah. I don't know about Mr. Diaz himself but a lot of the most crazy gun-banners are people who have had personal tragedies and have channeled it into gun banning. I wish they could find some more constructive way to channel it. Some on our side, such as Suzanna Gratia Hupp have channeled personal tragedies into taking action to prevent more such tragedies.

This is definitely true... People who have experienced personal loss or tragedy due to some kind of gun issue fall off the fence and run as far from it as possible. Some come to our side and others go the other way. These are the people that are the hardest to dislodge and convince, because their beliefs are deeply rooted in the emotions of the tragedy they faced. I typically try to avoid having gun-related conversations with people who I know to be emotionally involved in their opinion, because it is typically futile.

RomanDad
04-11-2009, 6:40 AM
Cry more, Tom.

Could this little diatribe be a sign that he's losing financial support too? :thumbsup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM&feature=related

MadMex
04-11-2009, 6:54 AM
In business, when your competition is forced to face such harsh reality, they resort to irrational, disruptive acts in the marketplace. Albeit a good sign of progress for us, this is far from over.

lazyworm
04-11-2009, 7:38 AM
America is more pro-gun now than we have ever been. Here's an example:

(See this and more gems at http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm)

"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban
the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized
persons?"

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %
2/99 34 64 2
12/93 39 60 1
3/93 42 54 4
<snip>



I wouldn't read too much into these %. The 1994 AW Ban was still passed
when there wasn't a lot of support for gun banning.

hoffmang
04-11-2009, 9:50 AM
If they're already reeling and we aren't even incorporated yet... Well. We're going to have to watch them all for 5150...

Just wait till the Handgun Roster and second waiting periods fall...

-Gene

Gator Monroe
04-11-2009, 9:53 AM
Wow, future is looking bright for 2nd amendment rights!

:party:

Until the 28 more shootings (Drumbeat) by august get the House and Senate into a Bonus type frenzy ...

dadoody
04-11-2009, 9:54 AM
Not winning. Can't give up the fight. They're trying to lull you into a sense of security....then BOOM! Australia all over again.

Gator Monroe
04-11-2009, 9:56 AM
Not winning. Can't give up the fight. They're trying to lull you into a sense of security....then BOOM! Australia all over again.
There is no Australia (Or England for that matter) anymore ...

hoffmang
04-11-2009, 10:09 AM
While I understand that we are not done and shouldn't stop fighting, there is something I don't understand.

Why do gun owners assume the worst - evidence be damned?

Find me a happy anti-gunner right now. I dare you.

-Gene

dadoody
04-11-2009, 10:11 AM
While I understand that we are not done and shouldn't stop fighting, there is something I don't understand.

Why do gun owners assume the worst - evidence be damned?

Find me a happy anti-gunner right now. I dare you.

-Gene

They'll never be happy. They're paranoid.


http://images.amazon.com/images/P/156584629X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

bulgron
04-11-2009, 10:13 AM
While I understand that we are not done and shouldn't stop fighting, there is something I don't understand.

Why do gun owners assume the worst - evidence be damned?

Find me a happy anti-gunner right now. I dare you.

-Gene

Too many years of having our rights infringed upon and abused by the state has left us with a wary sense of distrust. It's natural for people who have been smacked around for decades to continually wait for the other shoe to drop.

But in a way, that's a good thing. Over confidence can be a killer in a fight like we're in -- just look at the mistakes the anti's have made. So if gun owners continue to look distrustfully at the current state of affairs, take it for the advantage that it is.

Gator Monroe
04-11-2009, 10:25 AM
Too many years of having our rights infringed upon and abused by the state has left us with a wary sense of distrust. It's natural for people who have been smacked around for decades to continually wait for the other shoe to drop.

But in a way, that's a good thing. Over confidence can be a killer in a fight like we're in -- just look at the mistakes the anti's have made. So if gun owners continue to look distrustfully at the current state of affairs, take it for the advantage that it is.
Some of us remember 1968 !:eek:

hoffmang
04-11-2009, 10:31 AM
The issue here is that PTSD can get in the way of seeing the strategic situation. A lot of folks in the pro-gun crowd are so used to losing that they're focusing on the wrong issues.

If you fight in the field in only a defensive posture you lose the opportunity to win in the first place. One of the best examples of that was Lee continuously defeating numerically superior Union armies because he wasn't afraid of winning.

However, I guess everyone will continue to whine no matter how much success we have.

-Gene

trashman
04-11-2009, 10:32 AM
Good post, Gene.

I've said it before, but fundamentally when you get down to the details we gunnies actually have our guns/rights on the line -- and the anti-gunnies have nothing to gain by winning *or* losing: gun control is just an abstract argument to them: they don't really have a stake in the outcome beyond emotional satisfaction.

So while the depth of Tom Diaz's anger is surprising - the fact that he is angry is not. Fundamentally gun control advocacy is an issue rooted in emotionalism and anti-empiricism: anger at the "prevalence" of guns and sadness for the victims. There isn't anything, issue-wise, for them to work on except publishing their outrage.

And it's why we will win.

--Neill

bwiese
04-11-2009, 11:35 AM
Tom Diaz' despair is not unique.

LCAV's Juliet Leftwich was heard to be really down-in-the-dumps in an MCLE class regaring "Gun Control post-Heller".

And we all remember how Alison locked herself in her office, incommunicado, for ~3 days post-Heller.

The main danger we have to our forward progress is idiocy on our own side (Gorsky-like filings for every crook with a gun, etc.).

Fjold
04-11-2009, 11:41 AM
I'm happy.

I'd be happier if I could find some more Federal 210M primers but other than that, I'm not to bad.

luvtolean
04-11-2009, 11:42 AM
The issue here is that PTSD can get in the way of seeing the strategic situation. A lot of folks in the pro-gun crowd are so used to losing that they're focusing on the wrong issues.

If you fight in the field in only a defensive posture you lose the opportunity to win in the first place. One of the best examples of that was Lee continuously defeating numerically superior Union armies because he wasn't afraid of winning.

However, I guess everyone will continue to whine no matter how much success we have.

-Gene

I was recently discussing risk at work with a colleague, and he'd read a study on how we're 4 times more sensitive to the emotions due to failure than those of success, making most people, orgs and companies spend more time trying not to fail than trying to win.

The best defense is a strong offense!!

hoffmang
04-11-2009, 12:22 PM
Yep. Loss Aversion fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion) is a hard one for most people to see.

-Gene

fairfaxjim
04-11-2009, 12:37 PM
The issue here is that PTSD can get in the way of seeing the strategic situation. A lot of folks in the pro-gun crowd are so used to losing that they're focusing on the wrong issues.

If you fight in the field in only a defensive posture you lose the opportunity to win in the first place. One of the best examples of that was Lee continuously defeating numerically superior Union armies because he wasn't afraid of winning.

However, I guess everyone will continue to whine no matter how much success we have.

-Gene

When you are shoveling at the bottom of a pile of dung that has been repeatedly dumped upon you, it is hard to know when you make that critical turn and the pile starts getting smaller. You also are so conditioned to periodic dumps being added to the pile that waiting for the other shoe to drop is normal. The pile has to get noticably smaller, and the dumps cease for a while before those most conditioned will break out of the PTSD you describe.

I think a big factor in the 'gunnies' still being pessimestic is that there are still a LOT of the key elements to the banners past success newly positioned in high places. Holder (I know he said what he said that day, but he has said a lot different, even recently), Di-Fi, Big Joe Biden, and Hillary (she was on yapping about guns to Mexico all last week.) Our "traditional" souces of power in the firearms arena were pretty much decimated in the last election. The full impact of that is yet to be seen, but the history of BHO and his Clinton based "hope & change" regime is still unknown. What we do know is that just the thought of further bans has put the firearms industry into hyperdrive, with still no end in sight. The question that many are waiting on is "will the BHO bunch see the writing on the wall and back off of their previously stated goals, or will they just bide ther time and wait to strike at a later date?"

Heller appears to be a BIG factor in the general public opinion numbers. To have the SCOTUS opinion that the 2A protections are indeed individual gives the closet gunnies and those on the fence a big nudge in the right direction. It also blows a BIG hole in the anti's long running excuse for pushing for blatently un-constitutional laws and restrictions.

hoffmang
04-11-2009, 12:49 PM
I do understand the wariness. The other side hasn't died (yet) and they don't like us. However, I since a failure of imagination/forecasting on our side.

Incorporation will happen. If it takes longer it will in fact be even more impactful as it will be done by SCOTUS. That is when the real momentum will become obvious.

Waiting (even short times) sucks. However, if I had told you on 1/1/2007 that a member of the Joyce Foundation would be President and the Democrats would control both houses, but yet no real firearms legislation would move forward, would you have believed me?

-Gene

lioneaglegriffin
04-11-2009, 2:06 PM
The issue here is that PTSD can get in the way of seeing the strategic situation. A lot of folks in the pro-gun crowd are so used to losing that they're focusing on the wrong issues.

If you fight in the field in only a defensive posture you lose the opportunity to win in the first place. One of the best examples of that was Lee continuously defeating numerically superior Union armies because he wasn't afraid of winning.

However, I guess everyone will continue to whine no matter how much success we have.

-Gene

Lee's job was not to lose and the union would eventually give up once they figured the war wasn't worth it anymore, he played a lot of Defense up till Gettysburg and we all know what happened there.

RomanDad
04-11-2009, 3:13 PM
When you are shoveling at the bottom of a pile of dung that has been repeatedly dumped upon you, it is hard to know when you make that critical turn and the pile starts getting smaller.

Like the little girl said, "there's got to be a pony in here somewhere...." :)

fairfaxjim
04-11-2009, 3:36 PM
Like the little girl said, "there's got to be a pony in here somewhere...." :)

You know it's in there, I know it's in there, Gene and the CGF guys know it in there, but a lot of people are still chanting: "SHOW ME THE PONY! SHOW ME THE PONY!"

jtippins
04-11-2009, 3:43 PM
As most of us are taking precautions due to potential bans on firearms... the truth is that there are plenty of Guns out there ;) A record number of civilians are now armed and enjoying the art of shooting and the security of protection. Great news!

7x57
04-11-2009, 3:52 PM
While I understand that we are not done and shouldn't stop fighting, there is something I don't understand.

Why do gun owners assume the worst - evidence be damned?

Find me a happy anti-gunner right now. I dare you.


Oh, but Heller is good for gun control! The Brady bunch told me so! You aren't suggesting that they *spun* Heller, are you? Goodness gracious sakes alive, that's cynical. :rolleyes:

That may describe me, but I'm self-analytical enough to observe it. In terms of evidence and reason, I am guardedly optimistic--the dike seems to be holding against the anti-gun tide in Washington, thanks to the fact that the tide was pretty weak. Obama deciding to be Bill Clinton II and re-appointing tons of people who believe they lost both houses during their last tenure over the AW ban helps a lot. I do not for a second think that the dikes *must* hold, but I think our prospects of keeping the sea back for at least two years are decent--better odds than we've had in my lifetime in similar circumstances.

If that sounds weak, well, it means we can fight with a decent chance of winning, and given where we've been that's positively great. At the very least, we should be able to extract a heavy price for any defeats we suffer--which is what the former Clintonites already believe happened to them over the AW ban. I will be very happy to lay a rod on existing bruises. :43:

So my left hemisphere is, in fact, happy. The right hemisphere, however, is not ready to celebrate, because emotionally I really am not ready to be entirely happy.

You asked why, so I offer two reasons that probably apply to me. First, the media has always portrayed us as the reactionary thesis, doomed to defeat by the forces of righteousness. I think we absorb those memes unconsciously even if we don't believe them consciously. That's why unstated presuppositions are powerful; by being unstated they blind one to their own existence, and therefore to the existence of an alternative. The reason I talk explicitly in the language of the left's Social Darwinist beliefs is more or less because I started doing that to deprogram myself. That was the answer when I asked why I tended to believe things at a gut level that I didn't believe intellectually. In other words, sometimes we believe the other side's propaganda more than we think, because of their ability to capture the organs of culture.

Second, I think I'm *conditioned* by past experience to believe we're likely to keep losing inch by inch, even against my best judgment. I also see some emotional defenses there: I would rather have some pleasant surprises ahead than unpleasant ones. For me that's a functional strategy, as I intend to fight even if things go unaccountably South for us. It's easier to do that if I'm a professional pessimist. I was born a skeptic anyway.

Besides, right now I'm witnessing a great deal of Unconstitutional assumption of power by the Feds, continuing a pattern more than a century old. They're stepping around the 2A right now, but the entire Constitution stands or falls together. How can I be comfortable about the future of the 2A if I'm concerned that we're losing the others? Being too tough a nut to crack only makes us an island fortress to be bypassed and left to die on the vine if the rest of the Constitution does not endure in the meaning it had when ratified.

Either way, though, we're in the best position of my lifetime, so sometimes I try to enjoy that feeling. But when, I say, do we liberate Paris? I hear you can't really enjoy the fruits of D-Day until you can drink French wine with a grateful French girl. :43:

7x57

7x57
04-11-2009, 4:02 PM
The issue here is that PTSD can get in the way of seeing the strategic situation. A lot of folks in the pro-gun crowd are so used to losing that they're focusing on the wrong issues.


This is quite true. I don't know that it is true, but I heard once that if you put fleas in a jar and screw on the lid, for a while they'll jump up and smack into the lid. But eventually, they learn that hurts, and they start jumping just short of the lid. Then you can remove the lid, and they keep doing it even though the way is open to escape.

Not as colorful as the PTSD analogy, but similar message: don't be a flea and be unable to exploit strategic shifts in your favor.

Occasionally I worry that the NRA has been trying to hold the line with the "enforce the laws we already have" mantra that they may not be ready to counter-strike, but I think some of our more nimble groups clearly will, so at worst the NRA will rapidly catch up. Because, of course, "we don't need new laws" is a talking point for the strategic defense. It will not remain an appropriate slogan forever.

But right now I'm more interested in savoring the wonderful phenomenon of our enemies being desperate enough to actually use the NRA's slogan. Anti-gun officials saying "well, we don't need new laws, we just need to make what we have work" is one of the things that convinced me that the strategic pendulum is shifting our way.

It also indicates that soon we need a more aggressive slogan. But we might get some mileage for a while of playing good-cop bad-cop with the NRA as the "moderate" alternative for them to turn to in the hopes of just preserving the infringements they've already got.

I can enjoy that just as long as everyone is clear that right afterwards we crush them between the hammer and anvil. :43:

7x57

7x57
04-11-2009, 4:22 PM
I've said it before, but fundamentally when you get down to the details we gunnies actually have our guns/rights on the line -- and the anti-gunnies have nothing to gain by winning *or* losing: gun control is just an abstract argument to them: they don't really have a stake in the outcome beyond emotional satisfaction.


This I disagree with. The *real* anti-gunnies have two priceless jewels at stake: their world-view and their sense of the worth of their lives. They've invested a great deal of themselves, and much of their lives, to a cause that *must* be righteous according to their worldview. That's an awful lot at stake.

To admit that they are losing is bad, because it makes the sacrifice bitter and their life's work go up in smoke. It leads to an Elijah moment: "Lord, there is no one left but me, and they're coming for me too." Rough stuff. That is where Tom Diaz seems to be at the moment--on the side of God, but overwhelmed by the forces of darkness.

To admit that they are wrong is worse, because it means they haven't just wasted their lives but they have actually spent it working evil, and it also means that their entire world-view is wrong. That's a bitter cup for anyone to drink. I don't feel comfortable celebrating anyone's emotional destruction, which is all too likely an outcome in this second scenario. Someone said that Tom Diaz should not be permitted access to firearms; I doubt he's that low, but it's not inconceivable that our success could lead some prominent anti-gunner, sometime, to attempt suicide (and I'm afraid it could be with a gun, though their emotional aversion to them might prevent using the symbolism as a final gesture).

I don't want that to happen. But I won't give up on the rule of law because of other people's mental problems either. Nobody gets to break the law via emotional blackmail, not even victim's families or despondent anti-gunners.

7x57

7x57
04-11-2009, 4:28 PM
Yep. Loss Aversion fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion) is a hard one for most people to see.

Particularly as it strongly resembles a rational minimax strategy. The difference, presumably, is that both assume determined, competent opposition but Loss Aversion means failing to pursue the optimal minimax strategy consistent with that assumption.

Of course, the opposite danger of bringing stupid lawsuits due to failing to assume competent opposition appears to be worse, given how that could destroy our current advantage in Federal court. How do you propose we get the average gunnie to stay on that fine game-theoretic line?

7x57

nicki
04-11-2009, 4:30 PM
Tom Boyer and I had the pleasure of seeing Alan Guru on a panel in San Fran a few weeks back where there were 2 anti gun professors.

They were delusional in their views of the second amendment. They were trying to re write history, they obviously didn't like the Heller case.

Alan was just sitting there with his eyes rolling and of course he would slip in surgical comments of fact that would cut them to pieces and he was being nice and smiled while he did it.

The anti gunners have gone so far off the deep end that they are somewhere out in outer space. San Francisco must have some kind of mind binding waves in the enviroment because these guys were wack jobs and that is being nice.

The thing is, the rest of the country is probably seeing them in the same light I am and that means pulblic support is going down.

What we need to do is expand knowledge of arms beyond the traditional gun owner so that when our opponents attack gun owners, they attack a broader cross section of the population.

Nicki

hoffmang
04-11-2009, 5:20 PM
Occasionally I worry that the NRA has been trying to hold the line with the "enforce the laws we already have" mantra that they may not be ready to counter-strike, but I think some of our more nimble groups clearly will, so at worst the NRA will rapidly catch up. Because, of course, "we don't need new laws" is a talking point for the strategic defense. It will not remain an appropriate slogan forever.


Interestingly our coalition folks put together pro-gun legislation (tacked on to the DC "Voting Rights" act) and NRA stepped up with the anvil upon which the coalition could swing the hammer.

The Dems are in the process of full blink. The other side - including Elanor Holmes Norton - are now working to help pass pro-gun legislation.

I really like it when the other side does our work for us based on fear of the power we hold over the rest of their agenda.

-Gene

artherd
04-11-2009, 5:29 PM
I was recently discussing risk at work with a colleague, and he'd read a study on how we're 4 times more sensitive to the emotions due to failure than those of success, making most people, orgs and companies spend more time trying not to fail than trying to win.

I never got anywhere, personally or professionally, until I let go of the fear of failure.


It now feels DAMN GOOD to be winning! :cool2:

spyderco monkey
04-11-2009, 5:45 PM
This is great news, best news I've heard since Heller! For a while I was getting pretty worried too, glad it was the groupthink and not the hard reality :thumbsup:

7x57
04-11-2009, 5:49 PM
Interestingly our coalition folks put together pro-gun legislation (tacked on to the DC "Voting Rights" act) and NRA stepped up with the anvil upon which the coalition could swing the hammer.


I didn't say it was a big worry. :-) The more likely scenario is that the NRA might keep the slogan a while precisely for the good-cop bad-cop game, which I don't mind as long as everyone keeps in mind that the goal isn't to maintain a static level of infringement. I imagine that's not going to be a problem though.


The Dems are in the process of full blink. The other side - including Elanor Holmes Norton - are now working to help pass pro-gun legislation.

I really like it when the other side does our work for us based on fear of the power we hold over the rest of their agenda.


I'd feel better about that if Pelosi hadn't floated a gun registration trial balloon. There are few people on the planet I less want to know where the guns are. Instead I want her to be very, very conscious that there are millions and millions of guns out there that she cannot possibly locate. We're already too far away from that as it is.

But I suppose it's a good sign--she hates us, so we expect her to look for a weak spot. This just means she doesn't think carbine bans are a soft spot, and that's good.

I think everything we've seen has been trial balloons, not just to test us and not just out of personal belief but also to try to mollify the true-believers who elected them believing they'd ban guns as part of ushering in the Millennium of Peace and Prosperity and now want to see results. Those who actually have to stand re-election are trapped between their supporters and us, and to keep the levees intact we must make sure we're the greater source of pain.

7x57

Charliegone
04-11-2009, 6:00 PM
Until the 28 more shootings (Drumbeat) by august get the House and Senate into a Bonus type frenzy ...

Pessimist. :p

Legasat
04-11-2009, 6:26 PM
Cautiously optimistic...and hopeful.

lioneaglegriffin
04-11-2009, 6:49 PM
Pessimist. :p

he not a pessimist, he our very own calguns resident clairvoyant. ;)

you know what they say Past is Prologue.

hoffmang
04-11-2009, 7:29 PM
you know what they say Past is Prologue.

Well in that case we'll get a chance to write an improved bill of rights. Or maybe not.

-Gene

lioneaglegriffin
04-11-2009, 8:09 PM
Well in that case we'll get a chance to write an improved bill of rights. Or maybe not.

-Gene

just remember the bill wasn't specific for a reason, you can never imagine what Americans will face 200 years from now?

yellowfin
04-11-2009, 8:17 PM
This I disagree with. The *real* anti-gunnies have two priceless jewels at stake: their world-view and their sense of the worth of their lives. They've invested a great deal of themselves, and much of their lives, to a cause that *must* be righteous according to their worldview. That's an awful lot at stake.

To admit that they are losing is bad, because it makes the sacrifice bitter and their life's work go up in smoke. It leads to an Elijah moment: "Lord, there is no one left but me, and they're coming for me too." Rough stuff. That is where Tom Diaz seems to be at the moment--on the side of God, but overwhelmed by the forces of darkness.

To admit that they are wrong is worse, because it means they haven't just wasted their lives but they have actually spent it working evil, and it also means that their entire world-view is wrong. That's a bitter cup for anyone to drink. I don't feel comfortable celebrating anyone's emotional destruction, which is all too likely an outcome in this second scenario. Someone said that Tom Diaz should not be permitted access to firearms; I doubt he's that low, but it's not inconceivable that our success could lead some prominent anti-gunner, sometime, to attempt suicide (and I'm afraid it could be with a gun, though their emotional aversion to them might prevent using the symbolism as a final gesture).

I don't want that to happen.
Somewhat admirable for you to have that sympathy for them. I for one sure don't. I for one regard them as theives, vandals, parasites, and a societal disease. Sure they believe in what they're doing--so what? So did all manner of horrible people in history we can pretty much all agree on being inexcusable and unforgivable. Insanity or misguidedness is no defense for their misdeeds; the effects are not acceptable from any source or reason.

My regard for their well being is somewhere between that of cockroaches and termites. They want to steal from me what I have and what I would spend my earnings on in the future, make what I do illegal and/or have me jailed just because, disenfranchise me from the political system, rob my future kids of what is their birthright from being my family, take from my family precious treasures accumulated over just a few years shy of a century, vandalize the legacy of the hundreds of thousands of those who have given everything they had--up to and including their lives--to uphold, and cast us bound hand and foot to the wolves, unable to defend ourselves effectively against the predations of criminal and legally sanctioned predation. That kind of wanton pillaging garners absolutely no forgiveness from me, and that they do it for their own gain and fullfillment begets, deservedly, little else other than unquenchable hate.

They don't have the right nor cause to do any of that which they do, not for any reason at any time. I don't care if they had 3 kids with terminal cancer and somehow it would cure them. Theirs is an abominable, despicable, entirely intolerable crime.

chris
04-11-2009, 8:22 PM
They'll never give up, no matter how many times they get their butts handed to them. They will not give up.

So we can't either.

how true. will i ever trust a democrat here in this state? NEVER!!!! and in the congress today? not a chance. fight them hard and take no prisoners and no compromises on anything!!!!