Controversy--What I Will Not Do

The controversy raging in the gun rights community of late between the 'pragmatists' and the 'three percenters' has given me pause to examine my own stance.

It's not that I don't have my own opinions and my own convictions concerning the course of action I would take should the heavy hand of oppressive government seize control.

My concern has been over my stance on the controversy itself, since there are those I admire on both sides.

After all, I read your blogs and post your articles every single weekday on 'The Second Amendment News Roundup.' All of you have important things to say, and you say them well, or else I would not be posting your stuff.

My role is to keep the gun rights community informed of the news as it impacts our rights--guns, speech, politics, and other items of interest.

Therefore, there are some things I will NOT do in the ongoing controversy.

I will NOT resort to name calling and derogatory comments to those on either side of the this issue. I think I have made it pretty clear that I am sympathetic to the cause of the 'three percenters.' But this in no way means I believe those on the other side are cowards or unpatriotic. I believe the 'prags' make a valid point about political activism and doing all we can in the political arena to change things.

I will NOT show disrespect to those with opposing points of view. As I said, all of you on both sides make a valid point. We need each other, and in actuality, we are pushing for the same things. It's just that the tactics and points of emphasis are different.

I will NOT engage in behavior that would have the effect of dividing the gun rights community. Sure, I am opinionated, and I will make my opinions known. But I still respect your views even if you disagree with me, and if you will notice, I continue to post your articles even when there is disagreement.

We can learn from one another. Who among us could not do a bit more to change the political landscape to better reflect our views and objectives? And who among us would not benefit from a good dose of realism when it comes to the looming threat of government oppression?

Two examples highlight the value of both the pragmatists and the three percenters.

William Wilberforce patiently but consistently worked through the British Parliament for decades to accomplish the abolition of slavery in England. He suffered defeat after defeat, year after year. But in the end, after 30 years of hard work in the system, he won. And not a single shot was fired.

On the other hand, I wonder how many lives would have been saved and how thoroughly history would have been changed for the better had courageous men and women resisted the advance of Adolf Hitler in Germany and in Europe. It would have taken firepower, not words. But had the German citizens not been disarmed, and had they used their firearms against the Nazis, I have to wonder if perhaps the world could have avoided the Holocaust, particularly had Churchill convinced a stubborn and short-sighted Parliament to intervene early-on.

Sometimes deadly force is the only option citizens have against a corrupt, oppressive government. And sometimes things can change within a society through the work of persistent, patient diplomacy within the system.

We need both.

So rather than blast each other, why not learn from each other, and recognize that both sides have their value?