Snowflakes in Hell

Robb Allen tells me that the hard drive on his blog has crashed, and he might not be able to recover the backup.  I can’t even begin to express the depths of that suckitude.  I wish him luck on getting everything operational again.

UPDATE: Robb informs us that Sharp as a Marble is well and truly dead.  He expects to be back, however.  New bat time, new bat channel.

I thought this would be an appropriate title to reflect my “bunker mentality.”  The Brady Campaign has fired a salvo in our direction.  Like I said, we have the inherent disadvantage of having our disagreements out in the open where everyone can see it.  Fortunately for us, the only people who read the Brady Blog are gun nuts.

I will not take exception to the Brady Campaign trying to paint us as extremist.  I would expect nothing less from them.  But I do take exception to the notion that the topic of revolt isn’t a legitimate one, not deserving of being seriously addressed.  How many dangerous ideas throughout history have taken root because people dismissed them as nonsense?  There are people out there who, misguidedly, in my opinion, believe our Republic is a lost cause.  I do not share this sentiment, but it’s out there.  I don’t think dismissing it outright is a productive way of dealing with it.

Bitter outlines the reasons Cuccinelli’s opponent is slime.  AG is usually a good stepping stone to the Governor’s Mansion, and Cuccinelli would certainly be a good governor for Virginia gun owners.

From Paul Helmke:

“It raises some real concerns with the tactics of the NRA. If they’ve got one person, maybe they have more. If they’ve done this dirty trick, what else have they done?” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, which planned to search its offices for listening devices and computer spyware.

Paul, seriously.  You’re giving way too much credit to NRA.  Listening devices?  Spyware?  Have you seen NRA’s web site recently Paul?  Trust me.  You won’t find anything.  If you do, then I’ll be the first one to bitch that such enormous technical talent is going to waste spying on the Bradys rather than giving NRA a really solid web presence.  I’ve never seen G. Gordon Liddy hanging out at NRA events.  I think you’re safe from bugs, black bag jobs, and various other malfeasance.  Relax, and enjoy some Tequila.

Looks like the NSSF is running some ads in DC.  The Bradys will no doubt spin this as the gun industry trying to peddle their wares on people who will just use them to shoot loved ones and commit suicide.  Well, it’s a free country, and guns are legal.  So even if NSSF is out to market their legal product, I have no problem.

But I think, and I would hope the Brady Campaign would agree, that if Washington D.C. residents can legally purchase an keep arms, that they ought to get involved with the shooting community and learn how to be responsible with them.  Kudos to the NSSF for reaching out to people who might be thinking about buying a firearm, and helping them get the training they need.

Thanks to Caleb for having me on his show “Extreme Gun Activism” (I feel like I need to buy a helmet and knee pads).  Kurt says:

Ironically, the vituperative howls of indignation from the “pragmatics”–the calls to silence us less “polite” gun rights advocates (good luck with that, by the way) are what kept this issue on the front burner, and provoked us to dig in our heels. It’s “gun rights advocates” volunteering to shoot us, who make us all the more determined.

Invectives were definitely flying from both sides in what is, obviously, a highly emotionally charged topic.  My initial reaction to the letter was emotional as well.  But I am not looking for a new enemy to fight.  I don’t really consider Kurt, David, or even Mike an “enemy.”   I have strong disagreements with them on methods, but in the end, I recognize we have common goals, and common foes.

As much as I’d like to say we should all just be able to get along, the fact is, we won’t always.  We will have disagreements, and we will air disagreements, and invectives will fly.  As I said last night in the show, one of the advantages the anti-gun folks have over us is solid control of their message.  Because they have no substantive grass roots, they get to have these arguments behind closed doors where only people like Mary McFate get to hear them.  Because we are a grass roots movement, we don’t get that luxury, so arguments over tactics and messaging happen out in the open where everyone can see it.

But you know what?  I wouldn’t trade our grassroots for what the anti-gun folks have.  I think people on both sides of the gun rights debate need to step back, and realize these squabbles are going to happen, and they shouldn’t be taken too personally.  As much as it might seem, no one really expects the other side to just shut up and go away, and I’m not sure our movement would be better off if people did.  I’ve heard more than a few people ask “Can’t we all just get along?”  To which, I’m afraid, the answer is no.  But I’m not sure that’s necessarily a bad thing.

On Caleb and Bonnie’s Blog Talk Show, Martin, from The Liberty Sphere asked a question of me, about whether I thought there was ever a time when it was justifiable to violently resist an out of control government.  The answer to that is yes, but as to what the line should be, I would defer to Judge Alex Kozinski, in his eloquent Silveria dissent:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

I also agree with Joe Huffman, who said on this topic:

Anyone considering “shooting the bastards” needs to realize that even if taking that step is fully justified (justification basis deliberately omitted as being beyond the scope of this post but this could be a starting point) one needs to look at the long term direct and unintended consequences of such an act. They need to have a reasonably good idea what the position of society will be a day, a week, a year, and a decade after they “pulled the trigger”. And after evaluation they conclude the world will be a better place by most measures. They need to be a grand master chess player with only a small fraction of the pieces visible on the board and see ten moves ahead against opponents who are known and unknown. Or they need to know, with near certainty, things can’t get any worse if they do take the shot.

I contend no such grand master “chess player” exists. Hence before “taking the shot” the existing or reasonably projected conditions need to be so bad as to replicate something like a Nazi concentration camp or Soviet Gulag. We aren’t there yet.

It’s not that I have no line in the sand, it’s just that as long as we can change our government without using violence, and if the people really wanted to change it, they could, we’re obligated to work within the system.  That’s not to say we need to stand by while two wolves and a sheep decide what’s for lunch, but things aren’t that bad yet.

I thought the show was interesting.  Too short, really.  I was also having a hell of a time hearing Kurt.  There wasn’t enough time for callers.  Caleb says he’d revisit the topic at some point.  I’d be happy to participate, but someone else should probably get a chance.