How do the good guys win?

It's been a while since I posted anything new here. I've been busy with life type stuff and a lot of readin' and thinkin'. Now it's time to burden others with the results of all that readin' and thinkin'.

Business

I own a small business (by my definition any sole proprietorship is a small business). I'm not as busy as I would like to be and while there may be multiple factors contributing to that there is one that stands out above all the others. I'm not marketing enough. So, clearly, I must: Market more and market more effectively. There's more to it than that, though. I've come to realize that what other, far more successful, small business owners have been trying to get me to understand is true. If you own a small business you must understand that you are, first and foremost, a marketer! It doesn't matter what kind of business it is. You are a marketer who happens to deliver a specific set of goods and/or services to your customers/clients. You are most emphatically not a mechanic/plumber/welder/hypnotist/chiropractor/life coach/contractor/etc who also happens to do his or her own marketing. This will be true for as long as you are a small business owner. You get to stop marketing the day you "close up shop" permanently. Until then, you simply must market or that day will come much more quickly than you want.

Gun control and narrative

I've been debating gun rights vs gun control for decades, though only recently online. Over the past few years I've become increasingly frustrated with the anti-rights folks...and many of the pro-rights people as well. My frustration with the anti-rights people is related to their tactics. My frustration with the pro-rights folks is due to our relative inability to capitalize on a victory. I've come to some conclusions that, while not original with me and perhaps not as profound as I like to think, seem to get to the heart of our difficulty in successfully defending our rights.

First, many gun owners seem to tend toward a "people just need to mind their own business" mindset. I know I certainly do. The problem with this is that once a battle is over, especially if we win, we tend to go back to minding our own business. This is a mistake! Those on the other side never go back to minding their own business. That's simply because minding other people's business is what they do. So, they don't go back to something they were never doing. Instead, they keep on, always looking for a way to mind the business of others. This gives a clue as to why it is so hard to get a straight, honest answer to the question "how much restriction of gun rights is enough?" Many (though not all) of them are unwilling to admit the truth that to those who seek to deprive others of their rights, there will never be enough restriction of a given civil liberty as long as that liberty continues to exist in any form. 

For pro-rights people this means that regardless of the outcome of the current debate, even if we ultimately win big (which is far from guaranteed) we cannot let up. We must not simply go back to minding our own business while allowing ourselves to die a death of a thousand cuts. We must continue to work, continue to raise money and continue to grow and build.

In nature, there are two states. One is growth. The other is decline. The same is true of human endeavor and interaction. We grow or we decline. The idea of stasis is a lie. If we do not grow we decline. If we decline long enough, we simply wither away and die. The other side understands this very well. It's past time for us to do the same.

Second, we simply must understand the concept of "narrative", especially as it relates to post-modern thought. We can rail against post-modernism all we want. We can denounce it as fundamentally self-defeating and illogical. None of that will make it go away. 

I'm fifty years old. There's a tendency for people my age and older to look at post-modern thought as a new thing, because so many of us were raised under a different world view. As a result, we fail to recognize that even in my generation there were a significant number of post-modernists. In successive generations that number has increased to the point that I believe post-modernists comprise a majority of the population. If we want to win this war, we must find a way to reach post-modernists!

This is where the idea of narrative comes into play. When we talk about the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, self-defense and opposing tyranny we are engaging in narrative. We are, in a very real sense, telling a story. This next part is vital, so pay attention. The narrative is not the story! The narrative is the telling of the story.The way we tell the story is vital. It's easy to read this and think "yeah, okay, we have to tell the story well and frame our arguments correctly. Maybe we need some catchier ads..." That's not the point and if we continue to think that way, I promise you, we will lose our Second Amendment rights, probably within my lifetime. Why do I say that? Because of the relationship between narrative and post-modern thought.

You see, for a post-modernist (or someone largely influenced by post-modern thought), truth is not found simply in the relating of facts. Truth is found in the encounter the audience has with the narrative. This explains, in part, why some anti-rights folks seem so willing to "make free and easy" with facts. It's not simply that they are setting out to deceive. Rather, they are setting out to ensure their audience derives what they see as truth in their encounter with the narrative. Thus, they tell the story the way they do. Most of the anti-rights people I debate are honest folks. They don't see themselves as lying when they distort or deny facts. They are simply telling the story to convey what they believe to be true. Many times they do so without even being aware of it. Remember, truth is found in the encounter between the audience and the narrative.

For pro-rights people this is a problem. Not simply because we don't want to lie. That's not the point. We don't have to lie to change the narrative, nor should we. The problem is related to our failure to understand that the majority of the greater audience does not think the way most of those in positions of leadership in our major pro-rights groups do. These same leaders don't understand this...largely due to age and training. As a result, we are preparing to fight the last war. Let's look at the NRA (please note, I'm not bashing the NRA. I believe we go to war with what we have, not what we want and the current NRA/GOA/SAF is what we have. I'm just using the NRA because they are the biggest example of a problem I see in all our pro-rights groups). Does anyone really believe the majority of board members of the NRA, or even a sizable minority of them, truly understand how people from 18-35 (or even 40) think? Not to mention Wayne LaPierre and David Keene, both of whom deserve, I believe, our thanks for their efforts over the years. I just doubt they understand this relationship.

So, we need leaders who understand narrative, post-modern thought and the relationship between the two. I think the addition to the NRA of Colion Noir, Natalie Foster and Dom Raso is a good thing. It's just not enough. We need visionaries as pro-rights leaders who are willing and able to change, not the story, but the narrative, the telling of the story. We need people who understand, in a fundamental way, how the majority of the audience thinks, perceives and understands. We need people who will never let up and who will lead others into never letting up, because our opponents will never go away and they will never quit.

"You gotta do what's important"

My motorcycle sits in the garage, awaiting a new stator. It's been there for several months. Every time I walk in I swear it glares at me. There's this guy I know (not because I want to), who quits jobs on a regular basis. Yesterday, he came by the house and we had a conversation out by the garage:

Him: When you gonna get the scooter running?

Me: I don't really know. It's not a priority, right now.

Him: Yeah, it is, man. Summer's comin'! It's ridin' season!

Me: I know. Right now I'm focused on the business I started about a year ago. That's where my time and energy are going these days. Once it's solid I'll have time to ride a lot.

Him: *shaking his head* You gotta do what's important.

Me: I am

Him: *walks off, laughing and still shaking his head*

So, why is it that so many people:

1. Say they are unhappy in their jobs
2. Say they would like to own their own business, and
3. Treat you like you're stupid when you do what owning a business requires?

Some people are truly annoying

To The Military Wannabe,

Yesterday I had the distinct displeasure of sitting in front of you during the CHL class we both attended. I found your comments to be asinine and reminiscent of those an adolescent boy makes when trying to sound “all grown up”. The difference is, an adolescent boy will grow out of such things as he becomes a man. You are many things. A man is not one of them. Allow me to touch on just a few of your comments to illustrate my point.

• Your insistence that when forced to use deadly force, specifically a firearm, the goal should be to “shoot to kill” was, well, stupid. We live in a society that has laws and concepts designed to ensure relative peace and tranquility (that all of our laws don't successfully contribute to that is irrelevant). Among these is the idea that if a life is to be willfully and deliberately taken from a criminal, such a decision will be decided by courts and juries and carried out by an appointed agent of the state. Neither you nor I get to be vigilantes, regardless of the temptation to do so. If you do so, you will very likely go to prison for a long time...as well you should. Because, contrary to your assertion that you can “sway a jury” you are far more likely to be tried and convicted for the crime of which you'll stand accused when you do what you said and admit under oath “you bet I shot to kill cause he had it coming” (an admission you said you would make). We shoot to STOP. Whether the threat is to us or someone else, that is our goal. Once the threat has been stopped, we stop shooting.
• I feel compelled to point out two things regarding Tom Clancy novels. First, they are fiction. This means that while Mr. Clancy may have done extensive research for his novels, they are not true and the US military does not base it's SOP on his writings, your suggestions otherwise notwithstanding. Second, you are not “the closest thing there is to a real life John Clark”!
• Continuing with the Clancy comparison, your claim to have been part of the SOG is, shall we say, dubious, since it was disbanded in 1972, almost 20 years before you claim to have been born.
• Enlisted personnel in the United States Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps do not go to basic training. We go to boot camp.

The reason the real military people in the room, whether active duty, those who served a few tours or those who retired wouldn't talk with you is not that they were “intimidated by a real warrior”. It's because they recognized you for the fraud and liar you are. You, sir, disgust those of us who have served.

Good day.

Why deal with my problems when I can focus on yours?

I was thinking about this as a result of comments on another blog. I've been struggling with trying to understand why some people seem so willing to limit the rights of others. Not just gun rights, but other civil liberties as well. It also happens in religion. Recently, I realized I was over-complicating this thing. The answer is not complicated, at all. It's this: Some people are afraid of freedom. While they may give verbal support to the idea of freedom, the thought of people actually enjoying and exercising freedom scares them. It scares them beyond what they can handle and far more than they will admit. In order to deal with that fear, they tend to do one or more of three things.

1. They point to prior undesirable or even horrific events to demonstrate what happens when people exercise their rights. That it's only a relatively few who abuse their freedom to do wrong, is irrelevant. The fact that it has happened at all is proof of the danger of freedom. If freedom is to exist, it must be restrained or limited, is their cry. Interestingly, these folks may be in situations or live in places where they claim such things seldom or even “can't” happen. More denial.

2. They raise the specter of vast chaos if more people were to exercise freedom. The horrors of the past are nothing compared to what will happen if there are fewer restraints on freedom or if more people choose to exercise it. Surely we are facing unprecedented mass confusion, at best and an explosion of abuses at worst. So, this "unfortunate" and "ill-informed" focus on freedom must clearly be opposed.

3. They paint the proponents of freedom with a very ugly brush. Said proponents are accused of advocating anything from the mildest of offenses to the most despicable of behaviors. Only social pressure or lack of the proper incentive, trigger or set of circumstances has kept them from acting out on their most base urges themselves. Fortunately, our control advocates are there to oppose them and provide a solution.

But wait, there's more. See, this fear of freedom looks, on the surface, as if it's concerned with what will happen if a large number of people who lack restraint are suddenly empowered by freedom. That's not the way it really is. It has far more to do with the one advocating more control over others than it does anyone else. He or she is afraid. Afraid of a perceived threat? Often so, but also afraid of his or her own urges and issues. It's not simply about what others will do. It's what I (the control advocate) might do if allowed to be too free. And so, three things are done:

1. The relatively small number of incidents is ignored or called irrelevant. The “controller's” neighborhood/social class/professional association/doctrinal group is declared free of the objectionable behavior(s). Objective reality is denied.

2. The fears and insecurities of the control advocate are projected onto others.

3. The person in favor of more control over others and more restrictions on freedom rushes to take up the cause as a way of countering his or her own issues.

There we have 3 classic, and common, defense mechanisms. Denial, projection and reaction formation. All as a way of dealing with their own fears, anger, rage and urges. Defense mechanisms are designed to protect us from psychological or emotional harm. We all use different ones at different times to protect us from both external and internal things. That's normal. External things might be something like the death of a loved one. Internal factors are often those things about myself that I find unacceptable, but that I'm not willing to consciously face and admit to.

The control advocate who fears freedom doesn't simply fear what will happen if you or I exercise our freedom. He fears what he might do if allowed to exercise his freedom. He fears his own issues, his own anger, his own rage and his own urges. And so, he denies his fear, he projects his issues onto others and he endorses something that opposes in some way the things he fears in himself.

Important decisions

The ancient Greek city-states had the Battle of Thermopylae and the Battle of Marathon, Rome had Horatius on the Bridge.  In spite of some debate among historians, all justifiably stand as testaments to what a relatively small but determined group (or an individual) can do when facing seemingly overwhelming odds. Everyone with an interest in character should read about them. My adopted "home state" has its own equally compelling story (more on that, later).

There is a lesson to be learned from these events. Contrary to what some suggest, the primary lesson goes far beyond military operations and armed encounters. The lesson is independent of the times, places and cultures in which the participants lived. The lesson is about duty, character and honor. There are times when those who declare themselves to be honorable men and women must make a decision. That such a decision will, for most of us, thankfully seldom involve arms or violence makes it no less important. Will we oppose the thing that proposes to take from us that which we claim to value most (e.g. home, family, liberty, security, life, faith, dignity, honor) or will we decline to do what must be done? Will we decide to disgrace ourselves and all we claim to hold dear, or will we stand in the gap? Will we do what is right, or what is convenient? Are we willing to face the fact that we might not win and do what we must anyway, or will we use the possibility of loss as an excuse for cowardice?

If you decline or refuse to resist tyranny, speak out against injustice or protect your home and family, how will you call yourself a man or woman? If you suggest to others that they, too, embrace cowardice how will you look yourself in the mirror or your family members in their eyes?

Listen to the words of Samuel Adams and try, really hard, to look beyond the current debate over gun rights.  Look instead for an attitude toward what is right and just.

• "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

As for my adopted "home state"...

177 years ago, today, a group of 189 Texans fought a desperate battle against a force of 1800 Mexican soldiers led by General Santa Anna. In the end, the defenders were all killed. And they took fully 1/3 of the attackers with them. Six weeks later, Mexican forces were curb stomped at the Battle of San Jacinto and General Santa Anna was captured. Remember the Alamo.

Huh...go figure

I've learned something truly amazing! If you choose to post a note letting everyone know of a change in the moderation of comments, you have to actually change that in settings. Oddly enough, the blog settings don't immediately change themselves in response to my thoughts or my writing. Weird...

Have we become cowards

It's been almost 20 years since "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeffrey Snyder, was published. A .pdf copy can be downloaded here.

Much more recently, Chris Hernandez, published a posting to his blog entitled "A Culture of Entrenched Cowardice".

I recommend both of these. They make some points that I think those of us on the pro-gun side need to understand as the ongoing debate over gun rights vs gun control continues. Read them. Then read them again, over and over.

Now, I think both of these sources point to the single biggest obstacle we face as we make the case for widespread ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens. Many people who favor increased gun control do not believe the average citizen has the capacity to appropriately and effectively defend himself or herself and others. More than that, they reject the idea that self-defense is even justifiable, especially if it involves the use of deadly force. Rather, they believe that the best response to violence or the threat of violence is passive submission. To them, life is not a gift from God to be guarded jealously. They are convinced, regardless of beliefs about God, that you should not value yourself, your life or your dignity (or that of those who depend on you) so much that you are willing to take whatever steps are necessary to protect them.

To the true believers in gun control, the life of a person who would deprive you of your life, your safety, your dignity and that of your children or spouse, is as valuable as yours. They view your belief in the right, and even obligation, to self-defense as a sign of uncivilized barbarism. It is a thing to be not only avoided, but wiped out, replaced by a trust in and dependence on the state to take care of you. Forget the fact that the courts have ruled the police have no obligation to protect the individual citizen. Forget the fact that the police are almost never present until after some outrage has been committed. Forget the fact that you may have a spouse, children or elderly parent depending on you for protection. Forget even that ensuring only the state and criminals have access to instruments of deadly force ensures that most citizens (except for the well-connected) will be always at the mercy of those who possess those instruments and that this is barbarism. These are irrelevant to those who believe rights arise from the largesse of the state rather than from the fact that you are human. If you are to be free, it will be because the state permits it. If you are to be protected, it will be by the state. Any independence or self-reliance you have is that allowed by the state.

This, then, is the struggle we face. How do we discuss gun rights with those who not only have a different view of guns than we do, but who have a fundamentally different view of self-defense and the source of our rights? It does no good to remind them of what the Constitution says. They respond that the 2nd Amendment (or even the Constitution itself) is hopelessly outdated and/or doesn't mean what it says. It doesn't help to speak of self-defense as a human right, because to them most rights arise from the state rather than being independent of the state. And, since rights arise from the state, it simply makes no sense to them that a purpose of the 2nd Amendment even contemplates citizens holding the threat of force over the head of the state as a reminder of their ultimate sovereignty. It must, of necessity, mean something else. So, then, what will work?

First, as much as possible, we have to choose our battles. While I go a blog owned by a fervent believer in gun control, I don't tell myself I'm going to get him to change his mind. It's not going to happen and it's not going to happen with most of those who have gone to the trouble of running a blog or starting a Facebook group. I go there for practice and to keep abreast of what the opposition is saying and doing. And, I go there for the "on the fence" person who might also go there. Most of my efforts go into talking with those who have not made up their minds on gun ownership and use. These are the ones we need to reach.

Second, when we're talking with the undecided, we need to avoid blowing them out of the water. We need to be calm, polite and well-informed. We need to recognize their concerns. There's no need to call them, or the more extreme elements in gun control circles, names. Character assassination is no more acceptable from us, than it is from the gun control side.

Third, regardless of how good the quote sounds, if it can't be verified, we must not use it. The same is true for statistics. There's enough valid information out there to counter all the anti-gun arguments. Besides, it's far easier to point out inconsistencies and lies from the other side if we don't engage in the same things. 

Perhaps the hardest part of this is that we need to hold each other to these standards. How you do such a thing is, of course, up to you. I tend to do so privately, as I see no reason to air our "dirty laundry" when it can be avoided. Even then, not everyone is going to thank you for pointing out their (hopefully unintentional) error. It's not any fun to have another gun owner accuse you of being in "cahoots" with the anti-gun forces because you call him on the same sorts of things some anti-gun folks do. Our 2nd Amendment rights are far too valuable to have them derailed because of the behavior of some pro-gun folks. I've told would be hunters (whose families weren't in danger of starving) who brag of shooting deer out of season that if I become aware of them doing it I will report them. I have no patience with poachers and even less with those who would willingly endanger my right to keep and bear arms.

Many anti-gun folks occupy a position on the nature of rights and the relationship of citizens to government and society that is fundamentally opposed to that of pro-gun people. A bizillion years ago, Socrates and the Sophists were engaged in a pretty ugly verbal fight. It's easy to ignore because 1) it's philosophy and 2) it happened so long ago. It's relevant here because it wasn't just a battle over philosophy. It was, at its heart, a battle over the direction society would take. It determined, arguably, how what we now call Western culture developed. I submit that we are engaged in such a battle. This is not just about the 2nd Amendment, though that would be enough cause for us to fight. This is, at its heart, a fight over what sort of society and culture we will leave future generations. If we want them to be truly free, we cannot retreat. We must understand where our opponents come from, we must oppose lies with the truth and we must win. This in not a battle for the faint of heart or the cowardly.

Have we become a largely cowardly nation? To the extent we accept that the state must provide for and protect us, yes. If we choose to not oppose the evil people who would take from us life, dignity and safety because protection is the role of the state, because others might object or simply because we are scared, then yes, we have become cowards. To be otherwise is to accept that it is incumbent upon us to take primary responsibility for our own safety. To be otherwise is to accept that others may object to our decision and independence. To be otherwise is to accept that being scared is not sufficient cause to not act when necessary. To be otherwise is to be free.