Skip to main content

There will not be a second American Civil War....

... no matter how some of our more reactionary friends would like to fantasize about it.

From (faux)Libertarian Republican:

But 56 million Americans voted against Obammunism and that’s who is retreating from the markets and stocking up on guns and ammo in record numbers. They are preparing to protect their earned property, by force if need be.


No, they're not. They're purchasing ammunition because we're sure to see an increase in the taxes on ammo. Why they buy it, they're planning to stockpile it for use in hunting, target shooting, and personal defense... exactly as they always have.

They're purchasing handguns and rifles because they're afraid of increased Federal regulations that will make it more difficulty if not impossible to acquire them. When they buy them, they're going to use them in hunting, target shooting, and personal defense... exactly as they always have.

Yes, the advocates of extremist gun control are closer to the halls of power than they have been for a few decades, but they are only going to have their ultimate wet-dream success if the rest of us just simply drop out of the political process and cater to their talking-points image of all gun-owners as potential homicidal murderers of liberal churchgoers.

To suggest that the election of Barack Obama is the tip-over point to civil war (Eric Dondero decided to title his post, "The blood of patriots & tyrants: Obama's election could bring about the next Civil War--Rural Red vs. the Big Blue Urban Areas") is not just a piece of breath-taking irresponsibility, but a complete underestimation of the resilience of the American people and the American system.

It is the naked suggestion that political disagreements in the United States sometimes need to be resolved by force.

Does the avowedly Statist agenda of the progressives and liberals in the White House and Congress threaten critical aspects of American Constitutional liberties? Yes, it does.

But the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama and the Democrats convinced more people to vote for "Bread and Circuses" and comforting illusion of security that only a bloated government could provide. They did so because the Republicans spent the previous eight years tattering the Constitution, muddying the line between Church and State, and bloating the rest of the government while passing out hand-outs to their buddies.

They won non-violently, playing the same system everybody else does. And that's how we have to defeat them, and their ideas, without ever losing sight of a critical fact: the people who voted for Barack Obama and the Democrats are American citizens who love this country just as much as JB Williams or Eric Dondero....

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...