Dick Metcalf controversy

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by MT2008

I'm also surprised that you don't want a large standing military. Don't you owe your career to the fact that we have one? How do your reconcile your job with your political beliefs?

Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.

Don't you think it's strange that your mentality is shared by the IRA ("Armalite and the ballot box") and the PLO ("olive branch and the freedom fighter's gun")? When your philosophy sounds eerily similar to that of anti-Western, left-wing terrorist groups, that should give you pause.

No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.

And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.

Gotcha. I don't know why I thought you were Active-duty Army. But I still think that what you want is not a realistic hope. The military should (and does) downsize when global threats recede, but having a "small" military will never happen.

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.

And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too.

You are missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the PLO and IRA to the Continental Army; if you are willing to do that, then you are disrespecting the latter by making a comparison to the former. My point is that you share a mentality with terrorists who sought to undermine a liberal democratic republic, not build one. By equating the ballot box and ammo box, what you are really saying is, "Democracy doesn't work unless the government is afraid of being overthrown by force of arms." Does it really make sense to you that the Founding Fathers would endorse such an idea?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

But I'm trying to point out that I understand where the extreme frustration (and silly actions like threats) come from. Everyone has their breaking point. I don't have to agree with them, but I can recognize what pushed them to that point. What I wonder is, does anyone else?

This mentality is still way too similar to the Muslim extremism example I mentioned earlier. You know how idiot liberal apologists for those assclowns will always say, "I don't support terrorism, but I can understand why the Muslim world is so angry at the U.S."? (And then typically they'll cite the 1953 coup in Iran, U.S. failure to pressure Israel more on talks with the Palestinians, etc.) Don't you think that what are you saying represents the same line of thinking?

You're still acting as though the cause of rage somehow makes the reaction inevitable, which is a borderline argument that it is justifiable. The point is: Acting the way that pro-gunners are acting towards Metcalf casts doubt upon the RKBA community's confidence in its own moral legitimacy. The threat of violence in response to disagreement is a tool of irrational people; whether their stance is right or wrong is almost beside the point.

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

I still opine that he could have avoided the explosion of pent up resentment and frustration of people 'pushed to the edge' by at least acknowledging the untrustworthiness of the other side. To promote something and APPEAR blissfully ignorant of the malicious intent of the opposing side** does push people's buttons.

Dude, throughout my life, I've been "pushed to the edge" by people who pushed my buttons (bosses, teachers, kids at school, etc.) So have you, I am sure, and so has almost everyone else in this world. That still doesn't give any of us a special right to threaten the people who wronged us with death. Rational, sane human beings who are in control of their emotions and believe that the universe is on their side do not act in such a manner.

I'd have preferred if you tried to claim that the people who threatened Metcalf are not representative of the broader pro-gun community. That you are not doing so is disappointing. Even if you are not condoning death threats, you're still making an argument of moral equivalence.