When Fudds and Non-Fudds Collide

hamaneggs said:

Where has OC been outlawed?EVER!

Click to expand...

Currently "outlawed" in Illinois, Florida, and Texas... some other states are so restrictive that OC is in effect "outlawed". Oh, and they are trying to outlaw OC in Kommiefornia...see http://www.nationalgunforum.com/sho...ia-lawmaker-would-outlaw-open-carry-gun-right

JamesIan said:

Here is where your logic leads.

You say that questioning the wisdom of exercising a right in a given situation constitutes an infringement of that right.

Click to expand...

To whom are you responding? My logic that I've presented merely demands that anyone presenting "wisdom" as to RKBA defend their proposed "wisdom" in detail against detailed challenges to the proposed "wisdom". Thus far, those who have proposed "wisdom" as to exercise of the RKBA have failed to defend in detail the detailed challenges to their proposed "wisdom".

Bikenut said:

This whole thing isn't about guns or types of guns... or where those guns are being carried... or how they are being carried.. or even who is carrying them. In fact, this whole "gun rights" thing isn't even about guns... nor is it about rights either.

The whole dust up right from the start has been, still is, and always will be, all about who gets to tell who what, where, when, why, who can/can't, how much they can/can't, etc., etc., ......

The whole thing is who gets to be in control.... who gets to tell everyone else what to do.

The gun is just the symbol of the fight for control.... just as it is also the symbol for the fight to remain free.

Click to expand...

I agree. It's not about the type of gun or how it makes people feel or whether the method of carrying is acceptable. It all boils down to the concept of liberty. Until people on both sides of (and within) the 2A 'movement' understand what liberty is, we just won't be getting along.

With a love for liberty comes the ultimate realization that you must have tolerance of anything that does not hurt you or take away from you. It doesn't mean you have to like it, it doesn't mean you can't speak your mind about it, and it doesn't mean you have to support it. You just have to tolerate it.

When it comes to guns, we are expecting our fellow Americans to simply tolerate our ownership and possession of our guns. If we can all do that, we shouldn't have any problems.

Bikenut said:

Now... do you have the right of free speech to try to advocate that infringements are acceptable? Of course you do... just don't be surprised if you find people who will exercise their right of free speech to show that your argument in favor of a "strategy" or beginning a discussion that advocates infringements holds no water.

Click to expand...

JamesIan said:

Here is where your logic leads.

You say that questioning the wisdom of exercising a right in a given situation constitutes an infringement of that right.

You are questioning the wisdom of my exercise of my first amendment right.

Therefore you are infringing on the first amendment.

What is rhetorical sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

I think BOTH arguments are pretty faulty.

Someone has characterized the discussion of wisdom as "aid and comfort" to our enemies. Those are words, I believe that we use to describe traitors. We get all worked up about healthy debate, yet on other people's blogs we say that it is no big deal that legislation to outlaw open carry has been passed as a result of our actions.

Again, I think both the legislation and the debate are no big deal. The worst disservice we do ourselves is to be intellectually inconsistent and to get caught with our pants down. This is exactly what has happened. We have gotten shredded in the last week by people who are normally our allies Breda, JayG, Say Uncle). Instead of engaging in a little introspection, it would seem that we choose to dig in harder in the belief that being more unyielding will somehow win the day.

If you'd like to run down the hill and get yourself a hen, that's fine. I'd rather saunter down the hill and get them all. I don't see where you need to get pissy because I'm not keeping up with you.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you are responding to... it would be helpful if you were to quote the post you are responding to.

But.. just in case you were responding to my post... did you not see the portion of my post I quoted above?

As for the part of your post I highlighted in blue..... people who attack the people who are exercising their right to keep and bear simply because they don't like the method of keeping and bearing are NOT our allies but are fair weather friends who, when the storm hits, will run and support the anti's point of view.

Comments to the effect that folks have the right to keep and bear but just not in a library WHERE THERE ARE CHILDREN!!!.. or at least not at this particular point in time... or maybe we should have a "strategy" .... are comments that support the antis and.... dang, some ARE the exact comments antis use!

Allies? Or fair weather friends?

Frankly those who are fair weather friends do more damage to the RKBA than the antis since the antis get to point out that even the gun people think the RKBA should be restricted.... and that gives the antis even more credibility.

And the reality is....

there are correct statements on both sides of this argument. In the specific of Breda, correctly labeling her position as that of a Fudd derailed the discussion completely, in spite of attempts to get her to discuss the topic she ranted about. Instead of understanding that she began the name-calling, she was able to get the argument deflected to "they all call names at me."

Whether labeling her as japete or fudd was accurate isn't in question. The question should be thus: Was it effective to do so?

And it was not effective. In fact, it was counterproductive. She entrenched, and simply trotted that out every time her facts were challenged. The tool for deflection was handed to her free of charge, and she wielded it.

In the specific of RKBA, attempting to limit type, time, and place based upon the feelings of others becomes infringement. But, attempting to claim that rights will be taken away if a strategy does not include limiting carry in places such as the library in question is a touchy subject. As a strategy for furtherance of restoration of right recognition, it is an effective thought to discuss. The failure is when one person (or one group of people) simply shout down the choices of another as incorrect without considering the position of the others as equally valid.

If someone carries, and the library is a legal place to carry, then carry. If someone goes to the library such with no intention of actually using the facility for its clear purpose, then I see that hair split to the side and see the other view.

Bikenut said:

I don't know about PDinDetroit but what I get from your posts is that you are all for freedom.... done the way you think is appropriate, where you think it is appropriate, how you think is appropriate, by whom you think is appropriate, all of which should be regulated by the yardstick of whether or not any of that "offends" or "scares" people.

Click to expand...

Bikenut said:

I didn't have any misconceptions...

You can call it "strategy" but it still comes down to you saying it should be done the way you think is best.... as in accordance to the "strategy" you think will work the best.

Click to expand...

Bikenut said:

What offense have you committed? I have only seen a willingness to try to justify "infringements" according to your own belief that a strategy of accepting infringements is necessary in order for the fight for rights (that it is OK to infringe upon)

Click to expand...

These are the quotes relative to you characterizing me as an infringer, particularly for the offense of advocating discussion about a topic.

We do not live in a world where everyone is your best friend or your mortal enemy. While you may call those bloggers fairweather friends, the truth is that they are way more like us than they are like the antis. When I see blog posts like Breda's that started all this, I assume that the poster is ignorant and that a little education will usually bring them in line with what I believe. What I don't do is engage their ignorance and resistance by trading volleys in a blog post comments war. She characterizes us as a group that would rather fight than win. While I know she is wrong, I can understand what she means when viewed from the outside.

You are right that someone's feeling should have no bearing on your rights. It is true. However, those people still vote. Some OC activities only move the needle a bit and allow that activity to be normalized. Yes, some people get worked up, but on the whole, they look like the agitators. Other activities peg the alarm meter and do so for a larger section of the public. The fact that we wont acknowledge that this COULD be potentially damaging to the movement puts us further out on the fringe.

I see history and think that we have made major strides in the fight for rights by pushing harder than the general public is comfortable. I can also see examples where people have pushed too hard too fast. I don't know what the right answer is. I resent being painted as an infringer and someone who provides "aid and comfort" to the antis just because I want to talk about it.

You must demonstrate to people that you are fair minded and intellectually consistent if you want to win them over. I don't mean the antis, they are lost, I mean the rest of the public in the middle. No one follows a zealot that they don't understand.

The discussion is just talking. It is not binding upon anyone. It doesn't even tell people they should do or do not. It is for the benefit of those that want to make their own minds up. I don't want to put my blinders on and just follow you, Bikenut. I admire your commitment to 2A. You lose me when you want to stifle the dialog. I don't care for fanaticism over reason.

To the rest, read those comments by ian and actually stop and digest them first before simply reacting. The library is attempting to infringe upon the RKBA as near as I can tell, in violation of preemption. If public perception is not taken into account, keeping this from happening will be more challenging. Remember, never let the other side look more sane than you.

DrTodd said:

Currently "outlawed" in Illinois, Florida, and Texas... some other states are so restrictive that OC is in effect "outlawed". Oh, and they are trying to outlaw OC in Kommiefornia...see http://www.nationalgunforum.com/sho...ia-lawmaker-would-outlaw-open-carry-gun-right

Click to expand...

I was talking about the inferred outlawing of OC due to OCers recent actions Doc.We can understand Kommiefornia trying it,but that was before the "Library massacre in Lansing"!

JamesIan said:

These are the quotes relative to you characterizing me as an infringer, particularly for the offense of advocating discussion about a topic.

If folks are advocating that a "strategy" of allowing infringements in order to fight infringements is Ok then...

We do not live in a world where everyone is your best friend or your mortal enemy. While you may call those bloggers fairweather friends, the truth is that they are way more like us than they are like the antis. When I see blog posts like Breda's that started all this, I assume that the poster is ignorant and that a little education will usually bring them in line with what I believe. What I don't do is engage their ignorance and resistance by trading volleys in a blog post comments war. She characterizes us as a group that would rather fight than win. While I know she is wrong, I can understand what she means when viewed from the outside.

I am tired of people who say that "we are all in the same boat" and then say "but don't rock the boat or my hunting rifle, my CC permit, my neighbor's opinion of me, might fall overboard" and yet assert "I support the 2nd Amendment!". Those are fair weather friends.

You are right that someone's feeling should have no bearing on your rights. It is true. However, those people still vote. Some OC activities only move the needle a bit and allow that activity to be normalized. Yes, some people get worked up, but on the whole, they look like the agitators. Other activities peg the alarm meter and do so for a larger section of the public. The fact that we wont acknowledge that this COULD be potentially damaging to the movement puts us further out on the fringe.

Translation:
"Don't rock the boat by upsetting people! They will vote in more restrictions on our rights! They will take away my hunting, my CC permit, ... but just listen to me and do it my way and everything will work to our best advantage."

I see history and think that we have made major strides in the fight for rights by pushing harder than the general public is comfortable. I can also see examples where people have pushed too hard too fast. I don't know what the right answer is. I resent being painted as an infringer and someone who provides "aid and comfort" to the antis just because I want to talk about it.

Did you still miss the part of my earlier post where I asserted that you have the right of free speech to "talk about it" and others have the right of free speech to show you your argument(s) are wrong? Or are you just choosing to ignore it?

You must demonstrate to people that you are fair minded and intellectually consistent if you want to win them over. I don't mean the antis, they are lost, I mean the rest of the public in the middle. No one follows a zealot that they don't understand.

I don't have to demonstrate anything to anyone... that is your opinion of how it should be done.. your "strategy" I guess.

The discussion is just talking.

This "discussion" is nothing more than your attempt to come to the rescue of some of the 2nd Amendment's fair weather friends. I, and others, aren't buying it.

It is not binding upon anyone. It doesn't even tell people they should do or do not. It is for the benefit of those that want to make their own minds up. I don't want to put my blinders on and just follow you, Bikenut. I admire your commitment to 2A. You lose me when you want to stifle the dialog. I don't care for fanaticism over reason.

Click to expand...

JamesIan said:

These are the quotes relative to you characterizing me as an infringer, particularly for the offense of advocating discussion about a topic.

-snip-

No one follows a zealot that they don't understand.

-snip-

Bikenut. I admire your commitment to 2A. You lose me when you want to stifle the dialog. I don't care for fanaticism over reason.

Click to expand...

Did you just say......

Don't you dare characterize me as an Infringer!!!... you... you... ZEALOT you!!! You FANATIC you!!!

Your credibility rating just joined the Titanic.

Although your ability to wordsmith is quite admirable.

wrightme said:

To the rest, read those comments by ian and actually stop and digest them first before simply reacting. The library is attempting to infringe upon the RKBA as near as I can tell, in violation of preemption. If public perception is not taken into account, keeping this from happening will be more challenging. Remember, never let the other side look more sane than you.

Click to expand...

They attempted to infringe.We took it through the proper channels(library board,city council).Then CADL(library authority) got the TRO,which we will fight in court 2/24/11. Which side has taken sane actions and which side has taken insane(illegal) actions?Looks simple to me! Where,s the beef?

hamaneggs said:

They attempted to infringe.We took it through the proper channels(library board,city council).Then CADL(library authority) got the TRO,which we will fight in court 2/24/11. Which side has taken sane actions and which side has taken insane(illegal) actions?Looks simple to me! Wheres the beef?

Click to expand...

I have none. I am simply pointing out a reality. In that specific, labeling others such as breda as japete or fudd turns into a non-discussion.

Now on the "illegal" action? What action so far is illegal in your eyes?



As for the rest of it, my "beef" is in pointing out that there are many here who seem willing to jump to conclusions when others have a different opinion. Once the FUDD label gets tossed out (correctly or incorrectly), the discussion has been effectively derailed. Do not forget that the battle in question will not only be one of legality, but one that may get decided based upon public perception. Public perception will have an affect, and that perception will be very likely based upon deeds and words. Those words include those on the breda blog, and on ocdo.

Bikenut said:

Did you just say......

Don't you dare characterize me as an Infringer!!!... you... you... ZEALOT you!!! You FANATIC you!!!

Your credibility rating just joined the Titanic.

Although your ability to wordsmith is quite admirable.

Click to expand...

Voluntary abstention is not infringement. Discussing voluntary abstention is not betrayal of the Second Amendment.

Say what you must. I cannot think of a way to say it any more clearly, so I will not bother to try any more.

wrightme said:

I have none. I am simply pointing out a reality. In that specific, labeling others such as breda as japete or fudd turns into a non-discussion.

Now on the "illegal" action? What action so far is illegal in your eyes?



As for the rest of it, my "beef" is in pointing out that there are many here who seem willing to jump to conclusions when others have a different opinion. Once the FUDD label gets tossed out (correctly or incorrectly), the discussion has been effectively derailed. Do not forget that the battle in question will not only be one of legality, but one that may get decided based upon public perception. Public perception will have an affect, and that perception will be very likely based upon deeds and words. Those words include those on the breda blog, and on ocdo.

Click to expand...

So the courts are an afterthought and we are not a nation of laws?

hamaneggs said:

So the courts are an afterthought and we are not a nation of laws?

Click to expand...

Where have I presented such argument?


We are a nation of laws. You allege an illegal action of someone. Define which action you are calling illegal, and cite the relevant statute. It is laws, so present the law that was supposedly broken.

JamesIan said:

Voluntary abstention is not infringement. Discussing voluntary abstention is not betrayal of the Second Amendment.

Say what you must. I cannot think of a way to say it any more clearly, so I will not bother to try any more.

Click to expand...

Yes, voluntary abstention is an "infringement". Anything that causes a person to be kept from exercising a right is an infringement. That goes for laws... opposing public opinion.... and even a personal decision to accept some limitation on a right infringed on that individual's right.. it may be voluntary but it is still an infringement.

When an individual decides to voluntarily abstain then they have accepted that what ever "infringement" they are allowing to dictate their decision is a valid "infringement" on their personal exercising of the right involved.

When an individual advocates that others should also voluntarily abstain that individual is advocating that the "infringement" on the right itself has merit and is defending the infringement. And that the right itself can be infringed as long as someone thinks that infringement has merit.

A right in it's pure form cannot be restricted, limited, or taken away. There can be punishments dictated for exercising that right... but the right remains. And advocating that folks only exercise their rights in a way that doesn't "scare" people is advocating for the infringement of... not scaring people. Or not in the teen section of a library ... is advocating for the infringement of not carrying a gun in a library, especially not the teen section. Or not at this time, or in that particular way, because it will piss off enough folks to cause them to change the laws... is advocating for the infringement of public opinion dictating how, when, where, why, a right can be exercised.

Again, you.. and everyone... most certainly does have the right of free speech and can advocate for any and/or all of those things. But do not be surprised when others use their right of free speech to show that those things are nothing but arguments for infringements gussied up in carefully word smithed ..... BS.

Slave said:

the worse part, is what is scary to one person is okay with someone else. There was a time when black people scared people by sitting down in a diner. Emmit Till died because he scared a white woman by saying Bye Bye Baby.

We can't base rights on some arbritrary standard like making someone uncomfortable.

Hell, I am uncomfortable in PFZ's. I have seen so many fights in movie theaters that I don't want to go anymore. Cops make me uncomfortable.

Rights should be respected no matter how uncomfortable they make people.

Click to expand...

Yikes. It is horrible what people will do to each other.

Bikenut said:

Again, you.. and everyone... most certainly does have the right of free speech and can advocate for any and/or all of those things. But do not be surprised when others use their right of free speech to show that those things are nothing but arguments for infringements gussied up in carefully word smithed ..... BS.

Click to expand...

NO. You are going beyond the reality. You are attempting to claim his intent is other than is actual. That is not an honest position to present. It is a "fear" you are putting into words. The true discussion should be of a strategy for furthering a goal. THAT is the reality in situations such as this.

hamaneggs said:

I was talking about the inferred outlawing of OC due to OCers recent actions Doc.We can understand Kommiefornia trying it,but that was before the "Library massacre in Lansing"!

Click to expand...

Before I say anything else, I like the "Library Massacre" moniker. :lol:

I think its Alabama or Arkansas that recently had an OC bill shot down OSTENSIBLY because, as a supposed 'gray area', people were OCing and it upset some individuals. Do I actually think the acts of 1 OCer is the straw that breaks the camel's back? Certainly not. Rather, I think it's just an attempt by Antis to sway fence-sitters with an emotional appeal to restrict firearms.
I don't write this with any particular incident or person in mind, but I think what many pro-2Aers fail to realize is that most people really don't have strong feelings one way or another in regard to firearms. Most people don't carry on a daily basis and have a general ambivalence in regards to the issue. That is, they have conflicted feelings: firearms should not be 'banned', they are useful for protection, and they CAN be good things. However, they also see that in the wrong hands they can be a 'problem'... kids shooting kids and people shooting others in the furtherance of criminal activity.
To counter this ambivalence, people who support a pure RTKBA should consider shunning the 'name-calling' and the sanctimonious badgering. Although the argument for firearm freedom is superior to that advocating limiting the right to defend oneself anywhere at anytime, we do it no service by appearing to be narcissistic individualists who don't care what others think. We have had many things that have happened that have truly shown the logic of our proposition that an armed society is a polite society. One can argue whether the crime rate has not been affected by more people carrying firearms or if the crime rate has dropped because of RTKBA legislation... the fact remains that we have not had the "blood-in-the-streets" situation that most antis predicted. However, we need to continue the promotion of our beliefs in a way that eliminates all doubt of a carry-everywhere philosophy. Calling people names and belittling their opinions is not the way to bring people to our side on the issue.
That being said, I reiterate that what I wrote above is not directed at any particular person or incident. But, since we are dealing with statements made on the Breda Fallacy website, and those comments refer to the "Library Massacre", I make comment only to point out that the ideas the Breda Fallacy website is promoting are very illogical; taking their logic to it's eventual conclusion is to say that OC is evil (yes I know she OC's) because anyone could easily argue that OC in general is 'scary' in almost any particular situation. The argument of whether carrying a shotgun in a library is prudent can be open to discussion and there can be an agreement to disagree... but that discussion would be better among people directly involved.

Bikenut said:

-snip-

A right in it's pure form cannot be restricted, limited, or taken away. There can be punishments dictated for exercising that right... but the right remains. And advocating that folks only exercise their rights in a way that doesn't "scare" people is advocating for the infringement of... not scaring people. Or not in the teen section of a library ... is advocating for the infringement of not carrying a gun in a library, especially not the teen section. Or not at this time, or in that particular way, because it will piss off enough folks to cause them to change the laws... is advocating for the infringement of public opinion dictating how, when, where, why, a right can be exercised.

Again, you.. and everyone... most certainly does have the right of free speech and can advocate for any and/or all of those things. But do not be surprised when others use their right of free speech to show that those things are nothing but arguments for infringements gussied up in carefully word smithed ..... BS.

Click to expand...

wrightme said:

NO. You are going beyond the reality. You are attempting to claim his intent is other than is actual. That is not an honest position to present. It is a "fear" you are putting into words. The true discussion should be of a strategy for furthering a goal. THAT is the reality in situations such as this.

Click to expand...

Please explain how advocating that we limit our right to bear to only places and in ways that do not "scare" people is not accepting the infringement of people being scared? Or of bearing arms only in places and ways that won't make people angry not accepting the infringement of not making people angry? Does the 2nd Amendment mention the right to keep and bear unless it scares someone or makes someone angry?

Aren't arguments that advocate a strategy that includes not scaring or angering people lending validity to the idea that the infringements of scaring and angering people have merit?

And what is this "fear" that you think I have?

Bikenut said:

Please explain how advocating that we limit our right to bear to only places and in ways that do not "scare" people is not accepting the infringement of people being scared? Or of bearing arms only in places and ways that won't make people angry not accepting the infringement of not making people angry? Does the 2nd Amendment mention the right to keep and bear unless it scares someone or makes someone angry?

Aren't arguments that advocate a strategy that includes not scaring or angering people lending validity to the idea that the infringements of scaring and angering people have merit?

And what is this "fear" that you think I have?

Click to expand...

To fully understand, you must first remember that the fear others have has already created infringements. The goal is reducing those infringements. Increasing fear in others (whether intentionally or unintentionally) WILL likely have a negative impact upon your goal. Fail to understand this, and it does not matter if a choice to not carry is viewed as an infringement.

You do really seem to completely fail to even consider how public perception will change likely outcomes.