On Lists… (Alt Title: In which I make some people hate me…)

So currently there are a large number of people screaming about a list that someone compiled of all the politicians in Connecticut that voted for the assault weapons ban.  Predictably the other side promptly held up the list as an indicator as we’re out of control and attempting to “chill debate”.

A bunch of people on our side started screaming about how that not helping, stating that we must perceiver and rely upon the ballot box and the jury box.  I originally wrote this as a reply to someone on Facebook but figured it would be better placed here.

The problem here is we’re all forgetting the scope of the game we’re playing.  Not only that we’re ceding moves and pieces for a perceived moral stature increase that doesn’t actually count much at all in this game.  One side of this is already threatening force.  It however won’t be the politician who kicks in someone’s door at 3am, endangering everyone from law enforcement, to children, to the parents.  Honestly it should be the politician who pays, he’s the one that wrote the check that he’s making everyone else cash.

At the same time many also started screaming “well pack up and move.”  I’d like to point out packing up and moving only works for so long.  Believe me, my family knows quite well, we basically were chased across the US as we kept moving west to stay on the frontier.  The same will keep happening legislatively, and even worse when enough states have fallen, they can be used as examples to infringe on your rights from the federal level.  Think how concealed carry was finally forced upon Illinois.  If everyone had just packed up and moved, would that have changed there?  If everyone just packed up and left for “greener pastures” would concealed carry have been won in the states who didn’t have it?  Plus you end up ceding ground which they then use against you later as an example of what is “allowable”.  Think in the inverse, what if only one state had a CCW law and an attempt at a federal ban on carry was attempted?  49 other states might make SCOTUS go yeah that’s reasonable.

No, you must fight.  Retreat when you must, but do not do so hastily and you must have a plan for coming back.

Frankly inviting all these people from other states that are crashing eventually backfires because many of the same people start voting for the same crap that got them in trouble to begin with.  Believe me, Washington is being overrun with people from California and I’m watching it happen.  Ask people in Texas about the California invasion as well.

But back to the list, politicians, and the game.  I could give two shits about the list.  Doesn’t really matter other than it plays better as a political tool by the opposition than for the friendlies.  So do I wish it had not been published, yeah.  But at the same time it serves are a reminder to the politicians exactly the ballgame they’re playing.  If the card has been dealt in the open you might as well play with the damn thing.

But Barron, we must exercise the soap box, ballot box, and jury box.  We had successes in Colorado with the recall, we don’t need force yet.

Well what am I doing here, and you doing there, and what was he doing by publishing the list?  Last I checked, that all falls in the realm of soap box.  But to think that all states will be OK because one successfully recalled, and was lucky enough to have a recall process, is also naïve.  Not all states have a recall process.

Seriously, the game we’re playing the time periods are much shorter than election cycles and many are acting knowing they will loose their jobs.  They don’t care, they’re being bought by our enemies.  But why would that be?

The first rule of any game is to realize you’re in one.  Their goal is to do the damage with no way to hit “undo”.  Tell me, what is the punishment for passing an unconstitutional law?  What is the punishment for enforcing an unconstitutional law?  Who really pays to right the wrongs and who actually gets the reparations in the end?  Just look at New Orléans and the Katrina fiasco for those answers.

But Barron, I just don’t think the time is right yet…

That is your opinion and you have every right to it.  But, everyone has their own lines in the sand.  If them kicking in the doors to people’s homes and taking them by force, and let’s not bullshit here this is what’s being discussed,  good for you.  Not everyone however views this in the same light and for many that is the line in the sand of no going back.

The enforcement of any laws–local,state or federal–that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.

Don’t like it? Get the police to say screw off regarding enforcement.  Currently though there are two sides of this coin, one side is the state wanting, and willing, to use force.  The other side is preparing to strike back, not strike first, at those truly responsible should it happen.

But Barron we should fully exhaust the political route before fighting back.

The British rolled up one April 19th, should we have continued to wait hoping our pleas to the king for a political solution panned out?

No we fought while also trying to achieve a peaceful political solution.   War is an ugly nasty business.  However to dismiss the violence they will bring against you by saying “ballot box” while laying down your arms is already admitting defeat.  Your enemy is willing to use force while you are not.  By default he wins.  You have lost the game.

And that folks is the problem.  Welcome to the pot of boiling water.  The heat was cranked up quite quickly and we very rapidly found ourselves in the very predicament we are in today.  Does it suck?  You bet your ass it does.  Do I  wish it was different?  Yup.  Do I want to have another civil war?  Hell no, but that isn’t really up to me now is it?

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds,

If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back.

The answer to this problem is quite simple, “don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’.”  If this side was as truly blood hungry as the opposition thinks, crap would have already gone down.  At the same time, trying to make us all pacifists by screaming about the Soap, Ballot, and Jury boxes, implies that when a criminal is robbing us we should only every rely on those tools.  Why bother with the firearms at all if we can’t defend ourselves and then go after the person who tried to kill us by proxy?

The ball is truthfully in the state’s court.  All they have to do is respect the rights of their citizens and nothing will happen.  Trample those rights, and well some may fight back.  Some may go after the very people who passed the laws.

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.

He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do it’s thing.

About Barron Barnett

Barron is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms. He has a BS in electrical engineering from Washington State University. Immediately after college he went into work on embedded software and hardware for use in critical infrastructure. This included cryptographic communications equipment as well as command and control devices that were using that communications equipment. Since then he’s worked on just about everything ranging from toys, phones, other critical infrastructure, and even desktop applications. Doing everything from hardware system design, to software architecture, to actually writing software that makes your athletic band do it’s thing.
Tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to On Lists… (Alt Title: In which I make some people hate me…)

  1. Rolf says:

    Some of the newspapers published lists of gun owners, and/or CPL owners, and claimed they were not trying to intimidate anyone, just inform the public. How is making a list of politicians that hate you and your rights any different? Just informing the public, don’tch’a know. Sunlight being the best disinfectant and all that.

    • Barron says:

      The argument we made against that was the probability of becoming a victim of crime for gun owners. The same argument does work for the politicians in this case. It makes them much more likely to end up in trouble.

      Frankly I agree though, if they want it that way, give it to them. Don’t be surprised if they start doing that same crap again and don’t bother putting it when things get nasty again though.

  2. Pingback: They want a list? We have a list | The View From North Central Idaho

  3. Linoge says:

    “But, everyone has their own lines in the sand.”

    That is all good and well, except for a small problem – by some people deciding that their particular line in the sand has been crossed and acting accordingly, they drag everyone else across that very same line, whether they want to be so dragged or not.

    As things stand right now, there are still a myriad of chances to resolve this situation peaceably and within the bounds of the Constitution and law – recalls, elections, judicial challenges, lobbying, etc. In reality, Connecticut is not going to go door-to-door to confiscate people’s guns, and they know it and we know it.

    But if someone receives one of CT’s “you are in violation” letters, and decides to go and whack his closest elected representative (courtesy of that list) in response, then everyone is fucked, not just the murderous asshole. CT politicians will be able to hold up that murder as an example of why these violent gun owners MUST be disarmed FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE, and then you really are going to have uparmored MRAPs showing up outside of dad’s house and jackbooted thugs knocking down the door.

    Worse still, more politicians will be converted to the disarmament side, now that they have a shining example of why to support it, and the political situation will be completely unsalvageable.

    Unfortunately, some people want that. Or at least think they do.

    No one is trying to force anyone a pacifist. But there are a significantly non-zero number of firearm owners and pro-rights activists who are not at all sanguine about the possibility of being forced to be revolutionaries, whether they want to be or not.

  4. Gunnutmegger says:

    “In reality, Connecticut is not going to go door-to-door to confiscate people’s guns, and they know it and we know it.”

    False, and naive.

    http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/02/californias-gun-confiscation-program-hits-firearm-owners-hard/

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/12/05/gun-confiscation-underway-in-new-york-n1758137

    A police state that frequently kicks in the wrong doors and kills people who haven’t done anything to deserve it has zero reservations about confiscating guns door to door. Putting your faith in the belief that “it can’t happen here” is foolish.

    If you are so sure that your view is correct, move here. Show me how you would deal with this situation when you actually have something at stake.

    I do not care what happens to the politicians on that list. They made their own beds, and they can lay down in them. Perhaps some object lessons will have the same effect that the 1994 elections did.

  5. Lyle says:

    Well said, Barron.

    And let’s not all forget how the Progressives tend to roll over and play nice with jihadists. I respect Linoge, but his theory, reasonable as it may be, doesn’t seem to hold in that case, nor in the case of American and Mexican narco gangs. Careful what rules you apply where, or to whom.

    Anyone who upholds the ideals of liberty is a target, regardless of what you do, how you do it, or what you don’t do. That is a constant. Your very existence makes you a target, and your very existence is highly politically charged, no matter what you do or say, or don’t do or don’t say. Sit and wait for a better time to act, and the enemy grows stronger, seeing your inaction as weakness or tacit approval. Speak out and the enemy pounces on you, playing a game of whack-a-mole and making you an example. It sucks, but that’s the game and that’s your test. It seems an impossible situation until you find something called RESOLVE (of it finds you) (listen to me… I’m talking to myself here, trying to convince myself) and then it becomes clear.

    How often have we expressed frustration at the Republicans, who never seem able to understand this simple and glaring truth? Their last 100 years of history of going along, playing it safe, calculating and always looking to the next election even when they hold the Whitehouse and both houses of Congress, always trying to appear nice to the enemy while in fact making fools of themselves and their voters, should be more than enough evidence that relying on Process in the face of the Enemy is a fool’s hope. It’s the definition of capitulation.

    Barron is correct in that the first step in winning the game is understanding that it is a game, and then understanding it’s goals. The latter is very simple and as old as the human race. The game is to make you weak, indecisive, guilty, and force you to compromise yourself. It’s the schoolyard bully’s game- poke and prod, poke and prod, until you lash out, then blame you for starting a fight. In fact he is testing you, attempting to prove that you are no better than his pathetic state of existence in fear and anger, to prove that you’re not what you claim to be, that your just as vulnerable as he, and in so doing to prove to himself that his sorry state no worse than anyone else’s, that he is in fact simply more open about it while you are a fraud.

    If on the other hand, you pounce on him, HARD AND SURE and IN DEFENSE of right, for the right reasons, he will stop his bullying. Every bully is first a coward. Remember it.

    Now you cannot plan to do the right thing at the right time, and if you try, if you become a calculator, you’ll fail. Your time will come upon you, be sure of it, and probably when your not expecting it, and then you’ll see if you have it in you to stop the bully in the right way, for the right reasons. If I had to bet on myself, I wouldn’t.