View Single Post
  #20  
Old 02-25-2011, 1:25 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,781
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore View Post
There's skepticism, and then there's Kcbrown's claims that nothing can ever get better because we'll just magically lose every challenge we make. When pressed for the rationale behind his conspicuous demagoguery, he simply references his signature, and the vague claim that "the real world does not tolerate optimism well." I don't know why he posts on 2nd Amendment if all he's going to do is take a giant dump on everything. Predictions that Nordyke will turn out well for us are not "optimism." They are what everything that has come before point to. Similarly, Kcbrown is not "skeptical." He is pathologically paranoid, and that is the nicest possible way I can say it.
Heh.

Needless to say, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But perhaps in the right spirit.

"Paranoia" is perhaps not quite the right term, since I go out in public and do the things that normal people do without even giving it a second thought. I'm not irrationally afraid of bad things happening to me or anything of that sort. The government doesn't appear to be out to get me, and I don't act as if it is.

But I try to be a staunch, stark realist. Wanna know what the score is? Just examine the amount of freedom most people had even 50 years ago (minorities had it much worse, alas) and compare it with now. Note how much more strongly regulated we all are. Ask your grandparents what they were able to do back in their day, and compare against what we can do today. I'm not talking about what technology makes possible, I'm talking about more basic things than that.

If you were to ask someone who lived during the 30s, 40s, and 50s what they thought about the freedom they had back then versus what they have now, they'd almost invariably tell you that they had enormously more freedom to do what they wanted back then than they do now.

Every law on the books is one that at some point in the past didn't exist. People had more freedom prior to the passage of a law than they did after its passage. Multiply that by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of laws. That is the overall direction of things.

My viewpoint is what it is because the events I observe in the real world force me to have it. I would not be a realist otherwise.


I will most definitely acknowledge that we are winning the fight in a big way elsewhere in the country (look at the Constitutional carry laws being introduced! Great stuff). But not here. Not yet. Right now, it appears we're fighting a holding action. If things change substantially and permanently for us here in California as a whole then I will change my viewpoint accordingly. I will happily admit I was wrong. That, too, demands that I change my viewpoint.

But I would much rather be pleasantly surprised than unpleasantly surprised.


Quote:
Owned.
Yes indeed I was. That was some good smackdown by dantodd.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-25-2011 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote