SAF Preemptively Surrenders, Yet Again

[IndyDave1776]

Translation: no I do not.

It isn't a matter of failing to realize such but rather understanding that I in fact did NOT make his point for him. We have been fed for a century the notion that political compromise is capitulation on the installment plan as opposed to an agreement in which everyone gets part of what they want. I have suggested a true compromise: Recognize the uniting of homosexual couples as the new phenomenon that it is and treat it as such. Give gays equal rights so that they can legally pool their worldly rights, privileges, property, and responsibilities and let me keep the security of not permitting the .gov to take language including that in which the Constitution is written and, as Humpty Dumpty said declare that the words mean exactly what it wants them to mean, nothing more and nothing less. Given that we tried that with civil unions, which offered nothing unequal aside from not redefining language with the implied legislated social acceptability, that tells me that equality is not the issue here. Incidentally, legislative equality did not give ethnic minorities social acceptance either, that took generations of effort that cannot be forced.

So, from this I take it that several of you see no acceptable alternative other than blanket capitulation exceeding the reasonable demand for equal rights to a minority so small that if I remember my stats correctly there are more certifiable sociopaths in our society than there are homosexuals. A critical element in our form of government as designed was to prevent the majority from running over the minorities. That means no running over, not reversing the natural trend such that the minorities run over the majority.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not much here with which I disgree. However, I hope it does more than merely "sound nice." Unity, patience, and absolute dedication to their nefarious purpose have allowed the enemy to get this far into "fundamentally transforming" our country. They have flown under our radar for about 100 years, wasting little or no time in waging personal attacks upon each other, but marching in lockstep together in pursuit of their common goal. I'm suggesting that we might take a page from their playbook and stop attacking each other on a personal basis. Arguing issues is one thing. Personal attacks are another, as they engender bad feelings among those who are supposed to allied.

Another point of agreement: No one is more disgusted than I with politicians who promise conservative values during the campaign and then do a 180 once elected, transforming themselves into sycophantic lap dogs for the establishment and betraying those whom they are elected to represent. During the campaign, they sound like Ted Cruz clones. Then when elected, they suddenly sound more like Lindsey Graham or Richard Lugar. Again, though, I don't see how curtailing personal attacks on each other affects this situation in any negative way. I think the other side loves it when we attack each other, as it detracts our attention from their activities.

I think we are very much on the same page here. Leftist unity has to its advantage that for all those years it had a fixed target in the status quo of traditional American society and values. It is much easier to unite with people whose 'off topic' issues do not conflict with your own values or lack thereof. For example, an environmentalist with no religious convictions can stand shoulder to shoulder with an abortionist with no tension whatsoever. A religious gun owner can at best form an alliance with the pro-gun abortionist, but there cannot be true unity between two people who otherwise stand in complete disagreement. This leads to the core of my concern, which is that we are being told that we need unity, but unity requires a common set of goals. Unfortunately, this is more difficult for people whose personal values often conflict.

As for personal attacks, my opinion varies depending on how we are defining an 'attack'. It seems in practice that on one hand running Sarah Palin through the blender on every issue from her time in office to her wardrobe to her folksy speech patterns is perfectly acceptable (i.e., not an attack) but holding up perfectly fair and factual criticisms regarding some others, their policies, and the damage being done is an attack. Hell, for most of his time on the public stage anything up to and including the mere absence of applause toward the Kenyan was decried as an 'attack' and 'racist'. ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE A PROBLEM RESTING HEAVILY ON ALLOWING THE SELECTIVE REDEFINITION OF LANGUAGE. In practice, much damage has been done with nary a whimper in the name of being 'nice' and 'polite' and refraining from 'personal attacks'. In most cases, I would keep it business. By contrast, I reserve the right to call Lugar out for being the worthless MFSB that he is--and it is personal. I asked him to explain his vote in favor of Clinton's gun ban. He smirked, said that I would probably also disapprove of his vote for the Brady law, and built a straw man argument indicating that anyone who would care about the Second Amendment is too stupid to be trusted with weapons.

In the end, unity is a good thing, but it requires common goals. In the absence of common goals, the most you can have is the illusion of unity. I am not saying that it is necessary to agree on every single issue, but it just doesn't work while agreeing on only one or a couple of major issues.

I would also emphasize that in no case should the truth be swept under the rug in the name of unity or in the name of refraining from personal attacks.

 

[lonehoosier]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-firearms-discussion/344624-nra-membership.html