ipser
01-08-2010, 2:11 PM
I open carry because it is my right. I exercise my rights as I would exercise my muscles, lest they atrophy and become weak. Our rights have become weakened because nobody exercises them.
My purpose in this thread is not to attack or defend cmth. I simply noticed his very clear statement of beliefs and thought it worth a seperate discussion.
Generally speaking, we all share the same goals. There may be some variations in priority (e.g. CCW vs. LOC, self defense vs. hunting, etc.) but I think by now everyone understands the holistic nature of the RKBA and the ultimate goals of prohibitionists. Gone are the days when the anti-gun lobby could pick off the politically weak among us without arousing the ire of all.
Nevertheless, there remain significant disagreements on means. Whle everyone pays lip service to a multi-pronged effort, there is a considerable debate regarding what are the best means to the shared ends and which activities should be subordinated to others or entirely avoided.
To help set the context, let me remind everyone what our friends at the NRA suggest:
http://www.calnra.com/actvist-tips.shtml
(I hope everyone's been calling and writing Barbara Boxer to help her make up her mind on this issue!)
Cmth describes a commonly held model of how rights are preserved and defended. Others prefer a much quiter approach of working through the courts or lobbying politicians.
The question I want to pose her is not which approach is best but, rather, whether or not it is possible to resolve this disagreement at all.
I would like to invite everyone to think about, and present a falsification test for his own beliefs. What evidence, available right now, or by some reasonable experiment, would change your mind? Or is your mind so firmly made up that you can imagine nothing that would change it?
My purpose in this thread is not to attack or defend cmth. I simply noticed his very clear statement of beliefs and thought it worth a seperate discussion.
Generally speaking, we all share the same goals. There may be some variations in priority (e.g. CCW vs. LOC, self defense vs. hunting, etc.) but I think by now everyone understands the holistic nature of the RKBA and the ultimate goals of prohibitionists. Gone are the days when the anti-gun lobby could pick off the politically weak among us without arousing the ire of all.
Nevertheless, there remain significant disagreements on means. Whle everyone pays lip service to a multi-pronged effort, there is a considerable debate regarding what are the best means to the shared ends and which activities should be subordinated to others or entirely avoided.
To help set the context, let me remind everyone what our friends at the NRA suggest:
http://www.calnra.com/actvist-tips.shtml
(I hope everyone's been calling and writing Barbara Boxer to help her make up her mind on this issue!)
Cmth describes a commonly held model of how rights are preserved and defended. Others prefer a much quiter approach of working through the courts or lobbying politicians.
The question I want to pose her is not which approach is best but, rather, whether or not it is possible to resolve this disagreement at all.
I would like to invite everyone to think about, and present a falsification test for his own beliefs. What evidence, available right now, or by some reasonable experiment, would change your mind? Or is your mind so firmly made up that you can imagine nothing that would change it?