David,
I appreciate your take on this and you getting involved.
To answer your first point, I am not unaware of the movement or the sentiment of the extreme right of our fraternity, I have just not paid close enough attention to take note of names; thus my unfamiliarity with Mike.
I have to argue with your criticism of Chris' Walter Mitty crack. Chris was laying down a challenge of sorts: If these guys really have the numbers then let them demonstrate it with Peaceful Political Action. Taking violent action without first "firing a shot across the bow" with some sort of Peaceful (or at least non-lethal, minimally destructive) Show of Force is a sucker's play all the way around and without that Peaceful Show of Force, why would anyone take them seriously. If they won't stand up and be counted in peace, how can anyone trust that they will stand firm when bullets are flying?
That is basically what the original article was about. To say that all is not lost, the time for violent revolution has not yet come, participate in political action to avoid the need for revolution because there are rarely any real winners in a war, especially a civil war.
I probably should have chosen my words more carefully in the original article because it is obvious to me that some have misconstrued my intent, but I stand by the message.
I intend to go over all of this and will post a more precise statement of my position on FirearmsCoalition.org and will mirror that in a thread on GunVoter.org. The FC site limits comments so I am running the dialog on GunVoter.org where comments are unrestricted except for civility - which I must say has been seriously lacking in this little up-scuttle.
I allowed the barbs to get to me a bit in my initial response and I personalized it in ways that I shouldn't have. It is difficult to have people making assumptions and judgments about my character and personal life based solely on a single 850-word editorial. An editorial which, as I say, I feel has been seriously misconstrued.
One of the things that drives me nuts about this is the way guys who were not targets of any of my comments have taken them personally. Here's a disclaimer: If you are politically active - vote, work on campaigns, run for office, write letters to elected officials urging specific actions, are a member of local and/or national political organizations such as NRA, GOA, JPFO, VCDL, AZCDL, GOAL, GRNC, or the hundreds of other such organizations out there and encourage others to emulate you in this -- I wasn't talking to or about you.
If you do not write articles or routinely post comments on forum sites espousing the theory that political action is futile and the only hope of restoring the US to some semblance of the Constitutional Republic it was created to be is through bloodshed and revolution -- I wasn't talking to or about you.
Some of that got convoluted in my response to Mike's attack on me from the initial article and for that I apologize. As I say, it is difficult to remain detached when your character is being assaulted in the vilest of terms.
As I say, I'll have more to say on this subject in a day or two and I will post it on FirearmsCoalition.org and GunVoter.org. Anyone is welcome to comment or cross-post as they please. For now I will simply ask that people go back and re-read my original article with the assumption that I am as committed to the preservation of the Constitution as you are and as willing to stand in its defense as you, rather than the contrary assumptions Mike displayed in his critique.
To clarify; what I was talking about in the article was our side starting or advocating the starting of an all-out war with the US government or engaging in independent actions such as the bombing of the Murrah Building which will do nothing but alienate us and our cause with the vast majority of our fellow citizens and make political action more difficult. My opinions are based on over 30 years of sharing campfires, firing lines, and foxholes with hunters, shooters, and patriots and 48 years closely observing the world around me. I might be wrong in my assumptions, but I don't think I am. In any case, that's how I see it and until I see evidence to the contrary I don't expect to shift my position.
Jeff Knox
Director, The Firearms Coalition
I appreciate your take on this and you getting involved.
To answer your first point, I am not unaware of the movement or the sentiment of the extreme right of our fraternity, I have just not paid close enough attention to take note of names; thus my unfamiliarity with Mike.
I have to argue with your criticism of Chris' Walter Mitty crack. Chris was laying down a challenge of sorts: If these guys really have the numbers then let them demonstrate it with Peaceful Political Action. Taking violent action without first "firing a shot across the bow" with some sort of Peaceful (or at least non-lethal, minimally destructive) Show of Force is a sucker's play all the way around and without that Peaceful Show of Force, why would anyone take them seriously. If they won't stand up and be counted in peace, how can anyone trust that they will stand firm when bullets are flying?
That is basically what the original article was about. To say that all is not lost, the time for violent revolution has not yet come, participate in political action to avoid the need for revolution because there are rarely any real winners in a war, especially a civil war.
I probably should have chosen my words more carefully in the original article because it is obvious to me that some have misconstrued my intent, but I stand by the message.
I intend to go over all of this and will post a more precise statement of my position on FirearmsCoalition.org and will mirror that in a thread on GunVoter.org. The FC site limits comments so I am running the dialog on GunVoter.org where comments are unrestricted except for civility - which I must say has been seriously lacking in this little up-scuttle.
I allowed the barbs to get to me a bit in my initial response and I personalized it in ways that I shouldn't have. It is difficult to have people making assumptions and judgments about my character and personal life based solely on a single 850-word editorial. An editorial which, as I say, I feel has been seriously misconstrued.
One of the things that drives me nuts about this is the way guys who were not targets of any of my comments have taken them personally. Here's a disclaimer: If you are politically active - vote, work on campaigns, run for office, write letters to elected officials urging specific actions, are a member of local and/or national political organizations such as NRA, GOA, JPFO, VCDL, AZCDL, GOAL, GRNC, or the hundreds of other such organizations out there and encourage others to emulate you in this -- I wasn't talking to or about you.
If you do not write articles or routinely post comments on forum sites espousing the theory that political action is futile and the only hope of restoring the US to some semblance of the Constitutional Republic it was created to be is through bloodshed and revolution -- I wasn't talking to or about you.
Some of that got convoluted in my response to Mike's attack on me from the initial article and for that I apologize. As I say, it is difficult to remain detached when your character is being assaulted in the vilest of terms.
As I say, I'll have more to say on this subject in a day or two and I will post it on FirearmsCoalition.org and GunVoter.org. Anyone is welcome to comment or cross-post as they please. For now I will simply ask that people go back and re-read my original article with the assumption that I am as committed to the preservation of the Constitution as you are and as willing to stand in its defense as you, rather than the contrary assumptions Mike displayed in his critique.
To clarify; what I was talking about in the article was our side starting or advocating the starting of an all-out war with the US government or engaging in independent actions such as the bombing of the Murrah Building which will do nothing but alienate us and our cause with the vast majority of our fellow citizens and make political action more difficult. My opinions are based on over 30 years of sharing campfires, firing lines, and foxholes with hunters, shooters, and patriots and 48 years closely observing the world around me. I might be wrong in my assumptions, but I don't think I am. In any case, that's how I see it and until I see evidence to the contrary I don't expect to shift my position.
Jeff Knox
Director, The Firearms Coalition