Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Keeping Up With The News

I wanted to give you all a heads-up on staying on top of the news. Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell and John Richardson at No Lawyers, Only Guns & Money are doing yeoman's work in staying on top of all the ramifications of the Tucson shootings. I strongly suggest checking with them every morning to see what's up.

One article worth reading is from Fortune, titled Why There's No More Debate on Gun Control:
How did we get here?
The answer owes in part to the National Rifle Association itself, whose opponents acknowledge as an unrivaled grassroots political force.
Obviously, read the whole thing. NPR has the typical histronics, but even they're not baying at the moon:
Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, says he sees McCarthy's proposal as the beginning of a "serious push for new gun laws." But he acknowledges that the 2008 Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has complicated the control effort.
Those last, dying elements of the "antigun movement" have simply lost the American people; they are as out of touch as the flat-worlders, and have about as much influence.

I also wanted to address a comment on yesterday's post from Brian J. Here's his comment:
Michael Bane.
Words have consequences.
You are also part of the diatribe of noise on the subject. You use the same phrases you accuse the 'other side' using, you just change the names. 'Loony Left and gun grabbers' and the like.
You say OH I did not invent the phrase so and so said it first.
Really? This is not the 5th grade. You are an adult and appear to have enough gray hair that you should get what I am saying.
Just saying. Noise is noise, no matter where it comes from. We need a conversation among the people, not mouth pieces on the left or right.
Right now I feel I can not have a conversation with anyone on either side.
As an American is am disappointed in us. We should strive for debate, yes! Should we strive for agreement but we may only find common ground.
Diversity is the spice of these United States but too much of one thing is too much.
Brian, fair comments, and words do indeed have consequences. But you misunderstand me...I am not interested in having "a conversation with the other side." That phraseology are simply "code words" for "let me explain to you why you're wrong." Or, worse, "let me explain why it's important that you give up some of your rights because, you know, it is." In many many cases, debate is a disease. Debate implies that you triumph over me in a war of words, I am prepared give up something that's valuable to me, e.g., a portion of my enumerated rights.

For decades the gun culture was obsessed with debate...after all, we were on the side of the angels and the data was all in our favor. We debated and we debated and we debated and we LOST! We lost because the other side understood absolutely that the debate was all a sham...the more of our efforts that went into the debate, the less impact we had on the true battle, that for the hearts and minds of the American people.

I, along with Paul Erhardt, were early adopters of the more confrontational style of dealing with the other side and the MSM that has worked so well for us. In short, we don't compromise on our rights. I thought it was powerful that Congresswoman Gifford read the First Amendment on the opening day of the 112th Congress — freedom of speech is freedom to create the "noise" that's bothering you so much. The rough and tumble partisanship and its attendant language — and believe me, in the past it has been a lot worse! — is part and parcel of the only successful democracy on earth. I would posit that the at times inelegant, raucous, over-the-top shouting of an overheated body politic is in fact why we're still a democracy. It works.

I grew up in the Jim Crow South — my grandmother's favorite story was how I kept going into the "Colored" door at the What-A-Burger. I despise racism in all its myriad forms. But I unconditionally champion the right of racists, of haters, of reprehensible people to write and say what they will. The free marketplace of ideas will quash their venom more effectively than any "hate speech" legislation.

In any public tragedy, there is a strong — and fundamentally incorrect — impulse to find some wider, more equally distributed blame. When President John Kennedy was shot, our teachers asked us all to write poems about how we with all our many failings "helped kill" the President. Except we didn' unhinged Marxist who admired Cuba killed the President. My ninth grade class didn't have anything to do with it. As President Ronald Reagan so eloquently stated (and Sarah Palin so aptly referenced yesterday): “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

As Americans our job is not to "reach consensus" or "have a dialogue." Our job to carry our Founders' vision of freedom into the future, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, for the sake of the world. Sometimes that is a hard and scary thing to do. Sometimes our duty will require us to make decisions that take us out of our comfort zones — who does not feel sick inside at some of the horrific comments of the real haters? Who is not appalled to see an American flag burned? Who doesn't look at an event like Tucson or Virginia Tech and be sickened? Freedom comes with built-in risks, but the alternative comes with chains.

So Brian, yes, words have consequences, and that's why I remain an unabashed, unreconstructed, uncompromising advocate for our rights. An advocate, not a debater...

And BTW, thank YOU for having the cojones to join in the fray!


cliff said...

WOW! Nicely put.

Anonymous said...

Bravo. Michael. the mushroom

Kansas Scout said...

I am proud of you Michael! Well said.

Anonymous said...

Thank you MB. Wonderfully said.

P. Escandon said...

Preach it Bane. See you at SHOT Show.

DamDoc said...

here here... well said

Thomas said...

Preach it! I couldn't agree more with your take on 'debate' being a losing proposition with respect to this matter. I have never, never, never, ever encountered an anti-gun person who had the slightest knowledge of the actual facts concerning firearms technical information, or of what the laws actually are concerning buying/selling guns are, or what reasonable force, deadly force, and forcible felonies are.

You're right, it's not a debate. I hate using a leftist's words, but as James Carville titled his book, "We're right, they're wrong, and that's that" I'll gladly educate someone who's ignorant of the facts and the law, but I am forever done debating whether we should have the right and ability to exercise our fundamental Constitutionally-recognized rights.

kmitch200 said...

Tell it Michael!!

I am not interested in having "a conversation with the other side."

We all know the results of talking to people and organizations that already have their agenda picked out - complete waste of time.

WL_Ranger said...


Thanks so much for your perspective. I learned from your comments. Many thanks. Keep up the good work. Press on and fight the good fight.

Tim/GA said...

Well put and glad you included the First Amendment as the right to free speech is absolute. I spent a large portion of my life preparing for or in the Army and would continue to defend the right of those to burn the flag (even if it does twist my guts- of course I went to Kent State so...). I also spent that time keeping my mouth shut and left it to how I lived my life and what I did to show what I felt. Being out of the military now lets me live it AND speak it though!

Anonymous said...

fast forward to the 1:25 second mark here:

Michael Bane is like our Captain Jean Luc Picard, and ...well...the liberals/Democrats are like the Borg.

There is no appeasement.

No compromise.

Bradley said...

While its a very good read, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Feudalistic Democratic Republic.

To call it a democracy is to undervalue what it is and it ignore the wonder and the genius that allows the US to continue.

seeker_two said...

Well said, Michael....

Another thing to speech is a great "pressure valve" for our society. In places where free speech has been stifled, violence often results. I'd rather have a society where political differences are heard from the soapbox and the ballot box than from the ammo box....

CharlieFoxtrot said...

Bravo and very nicely put Michael. I am not interested in debating any of the anti's- their minds are made up. Don't debate, but be an advocate to help those who haven't really given it much thought to come to our side.

Anonymous said...

Excellent response! Hard to believe that the vote on the 2nd amendment was so close.

Greek said...


Anonymous said...

"Unilateral personal disarmament advocate" as a designation for the other side?


John said...

As I said before you are our shining star. Well done, well done indeed!

Anonymous said...

I'd like to remind Brian that half-way between "right" and "wrong" is still WRONG! Half-way between "Fair and Balanced" is still WRONG! I can't ever recall a situation in my professional life, or private life either, when offering a solution that was half-right was acceptable. Would you pay for a car that was half-fixed? Of course you wouldn't. That is what compromise is. Why continue to discuss something when one side wants to get to "wrong". This applies to more than gun control. It applies to the economy and the out-of-control health care costs in this country. The solutions being dictated are in-fact more of the cause and not the cure.

Now, who is "right" in any situation? If we can be absolutely objective and NOT subjective, we can usually get to a solution that is 99% effective. How do we get there? We must use data, statistics, facts and science, or other "natural" laws. Who is right? I'd put my money behind the person that has data and facts to back up information, rather than someone that says "I believe....", or "I think....". For many of "us", we have no time to waste debating what are facts. In the case here, "the debate is over"!

Life Member

2011bagnews said...

Due to the shearling is Tory Burch Shoes so soft that the designer has two wide shearling bands fitted at both sides to save the satchel from being too slouchy. The Tory Burch Satchel features a top zipped closure and can contain not a few things. csdjgxjsy The price is likely to be $ 635.00. The price is reasonable considering the discounted tory burch shoes design, the quality, and more important, the intense sense of warmth. If you need a chic handbag to complement your winter outfits, the discounted tory burch shoes Nico Shearling Satchel is not a half bad choice.

It will definitely satisfy you needs. tory burch handbags And you will look chic and stylish with it.The Tory Burch brand is designed with the classic American woman in mind. Often coined with the phrase "preppy-boho," the brand includes chic and stylish versions of sandals, flip-flops, wedges, heels, flats, and boots. tory burch bags are often described as comfortable, and have been endorsed by Oprah Winfrey and featured on the popular television show Gossip Girl.Tory Burch began her self-named brand in 2004, tory burch bags designing not only chic shoes but also jewelry, handbags, children's swimwear, and women's cardigans.