Despite having broken my heart years ago now, when I finally recognized with full-spectrum clarity that he will never, in any way, "turn against his own" (the irony of which is the more bitter given his reputation for "telling it like it is" and being a truly fine analyst of individual ethics, strategies, tactics, and mechanics), I still check in on Massad Ayoob fairly regularly. I cannot discount the considerable volume of unequivocally good and useful information I've picked up from Mas over my lifetime; I would even go so far as to say that what I have learned from him has probably saved my life. But even this, to me, cannot excuse a repeated refusal to acknowledge the "Only Ones" problem for what it is, after all this time.
At any rate, Mas links here to an interesting and probably useful resource; I'd like to have it available here so I don't forget it. In sum, it's a sort of "open letter" from one who is (self-described) "far left of center", and its purpose seems to be to call out the current Establishment "surge" on their mega-galactic gun control push. The big problem that I can see, at least on first read, is serious, but could get missed among a lot of words a "gunnie" might agree with: The letter reads real nice, but what exactly is he trying to do with it? Is he actually trying to help these people by suggesting ways to be more effective in their attacks, or is he trying to say "knock it off already"? That latter message would of course be nice, but is not entirely clear.
Beyond that, the post/letter/document contains some nice sacred-cow slaughtering, in a voice far more patient than what I have in reserve, and coming from a perspective far from my own.
Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you’re not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away.
But the award for atomic facepalm goes squarely to Democratic representative Dianne DeGette of Colorado. During one of the many public forums on gun control that took place across the country recently, Dianne explained to the panel and a stunned audience that magazines and ammunition were the same thing, and therefore all the “high-capacity” magazines would soon be used up.
This person is making laws about the very thing she is completely ignorant of. How can people who actually understand the issue be brought to the table and expect to have productive, meaningful conversation when the people sitting across from them are this clueless?
Most Americans know when they’re being emotionally played for political gain, and so do the senators who voted against the barrage of legislation that went down in flames this week. Until you can stop marching children around as your cause celeb for no apparent logical reason, and until you propose legislation that at least has something to do with protecting them, no one is going to listen.
These figures speak for themselves. When the nation’s police force, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Justice Department aren’t on board, you might want to rethink your strategy.
What you’re missing is that the vast portion of the NRA’s funds come not through corporate donors, but through contributions from average Americans. It was not a coincidence that between December 2012 and January 2013 the NRA grew 10,000 members every day, adding a full quarter-million new contributors to their roster since gun control reappeared in the national discussion last year. That’s just what happens when a populace that cares a lot about something gets mobilized. But the NRA – by which the Democratic party should mean “the American citizens who comprise the NRA because they believe in gun rights” – has consistently been characterized as the heartless, monolithic boogeyman.
Cum ulla sella in pugno taberna. Methinks this link is going to get circulated to some folks who need to confront it.