Wednesday, March 30, 2016


Another capital-R resource from Claire.  This one covers--well--the idea that sometimes the path to better things does indeed go through the technically unacceptable.

Are we likely to see constitutional carry in Massachusetts, New York, or California any time soon? Ha! But I can tell you that a lot of us who were around in the dark old days of 1993 and 1994 never thought we’d see even this much, ever, in so many places.

And “this much” is a lot. A hell of a lot. Better yet, we’re going to see more.

Do I now approve of the “shall issue” permits that laid the groundwork for this? Nope. No way. But even I have to admit that the grassroots “shall issue” ccw movement gave birth to the constitutional carry movement. And constitutional carry is an unreservedly good thing.

I do indeed remember those darker days;  in fact it was right around then that I stumbled across Claire in the first place.  Worth, seriously worth, a RTWT.

The only downside I can see, honestly, is that celebrating a good thing for what it is, isn't going to help the sort of prag mindset that still can't distinguish between long-term strategy and true pre-emptive surrender.  Yes, there is a lesson in all this for those of us who can't bring ourselves to actively support ideas that might turn out later to be valuable incremental milestones.   (Duly noted and appreciated, and to borrow from Joel, the crow tastes pretty fine!)  But we, too, should recognize our important place in restraining the surrender impulse--and keep at it.  The real visionaries, as Claire's post suggests, will recognize us for what we are and work with us.

Here's to more such free-people assertions.  Many more!


MamaLiberty said...

Claire hits it out of the ballpark, again... as usual. :)

One thing to remember in all this is that there are many more factions than just pro and anti gun involved in this process. There are many gun owners who actually work hard against leaving others to exercise their rights as they see fit. The rabid anti OC bunch is one small example. They don't have large numbers, but seem to have loud voices.

The key is the same for all interpersonal relationships and liberty in general. Non aggression, and giving up the notion that other people can/should be controlled "for their own good."

Kevin Wilmeth said...

I hear you. "Gun owner" says nothing about rights; friggin' Che was a "gun owner".

On the flip side, for any of us who would not only not-flinch at the dreaded "A-word", but actively embrace it, it is always useful to remember that all these personality types in play, are simply natural chaos in action, with all the risks and rewards that brings. (I can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes it helps to remember that, and have faith that everyone is somehow playing a necessary part.)

Here, everyone played their part, and (to restate Claire's point), look what happened. It doesn't make me any happier with the Quislings, prags, and other more obvious douchebags, and it won't budge my core beliefs, but in the end here we are anyway, and I'm happy to add it to my learning.

Somehow, for my own worldview, that's more affirmation than exception. I'll take it. :-)