Western Rifle Shooters Association

Do not give in to Evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it

Monday, August 16, 2010

Tom Baugh's Planned Speech At RTC 8/14

As noted here, Tom Baugh was unable, due to time constraints, to deliver his entire speech at the RTC rally in North Carolina.

Those remarks are now posted here.

Read them and think them through.

And go buy a copy of Starving The Monkeys while you're at it.

Really.

UPDATE 19 AUG 2010 0015 EDT:RTC founder Dan Almond gives his response to Tom's comments here.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The black hat/white hat dichotomy ought to be the tip-off that author Baugh is confronting us with a false choice.

The question is not black or white but black (anarchism) or non-black (constitutionalism). There are countless permutations of constitutional government and most have a demonstrated superiority to Rousseau's noble savage in a state of nature.

Neither law nor ethics will support Baugh's world-view and thus he is obliged to gin up support for anarchism by employing a threadbare logical fallacy. This is disingenuous, nonproductive and a sure road to moral bankruptcy.

MALTHUS

August 16, 2010 at 11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great and powerful speech. Tom has spelled out again what many of us keep asking, "what's your backup plan?" Beat that question into your head and don't forget it.
I met Boston at a combat shoot several years ago, his books are worth every penny. Vast amount of knowledge and no beating around the bush either. As we said in the Corps years ago,-LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY! You have to ask yourself where you fit in.

Semper Fi, 0321

August 17, 2010 at 12:58 AM  
Anonymous Reg Thibodeau said...

Thanks for posting that. I wish I didn't agree with Tom, but I'm afraid I do. I'd love to have Bill Whittle's optimism and confidence, but I fear that we have traveled too far down the collectivist road to restore what has been lost - no, stolen from us.

I believe our only hope now would be a "systems crash" that would enable the use of a full "reset". Unfortunately, a lot of us wouldn't last long enough to see if the system is capable of re-booting. Some form of anarchy, with a return to local control _might_ provide the chance to destroy the oligarchy which is striving for total control of this country, as may be happening in other countries as well. Any outcome that allows the government to continue to function will only result in further tyranny.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the muslims bring about the very "reset" we need to divest ourselves of this oligarchy. The same muslims in Teheran, Gaza, Syria, here in America and elsewhere, who wish to dominate and destroy us. I sincerely hope they are not smart enough to allow us to destroy ourselves first.

August 17, 2010 at 2:56 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

Whittle is a hallucinating blowhard.

If one's planning assumptions do not begin with "we are, at current course & speed, screwed", I do not believe one is correctly perceiving reality.

In addition, what about the 150 million+ drones who will (literally, if sufficiently desperate) crack your bones for their marrow, rather than achieve self-sufficiency?

August 17, 2010 at 3:54 AM  
Blogger Concerned American said...

MALTHUS:

Have you read his book?

I'll send you a copy. Get me an address.

I am normally 100% with your observations, but on this one, you are wrong.

Respectfully,

CA

August 17, 2010 at 3:55 AM  
Anonymous Justin said...

We are, at current course & speed, screwed. Well put, CA.

Full reverse is the only option, but it will likely wreck us anyway. I would say we're just screwed.

Hmm. Guess I'll go get my black hat.

Malthus- You said "Neither law nor ethics will support Baugh's world-view..."
Law can be a tool for the enforcement of a tyrant's will. Being unsupported by law means nothing. And ethics? Whose ethics? The statists'? The ethics promulgated by the monkeys teaching in our schools? Please explain the fallacy you see in Baugh's "threadbare" logic. I see none.

While you say the law and ethics are unsupportive of Baugh's reasoning, I say history and human nature proves him right.

Justin
III

August 17, 2010 at 4:30 AM  
Blogger Hollywood said...

I agree, but I have no hope that we will change course, until we hit the rocks first.

Just planning to survive the first die off, I know it's not a very grand plan. But it's not like I have any illusion of instituting a course change, from way down here.

I see the rally and such, more as the moral obligation of the rattlesnake. At least, I warned them.

Be safe
Chuck B

August 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There are countless permutations of constitutional government and most have a demonstrated superiority to Rousseau's noble savage in a state of nature."

There are countless permutations of constitutional government, some including a layer of middlemen called representatives to blunt the effect of direct democracy, but (a) none obtain consent of all peaceful people ruled, and (b) they all evolve towards direct democracy.

Rousseau's noble savage in a state of nature, the war of all against all? Sounds like property redistribution by voting to me. Ending this war requires ending forcible redistribution.

Participating in voting produces legal standing to complain about political results? That's backwards. Do I have to be a made man to complain about the mafia's depredations?

I would like to see the video if someone unwilling to do the chamber flag or leave when the park rangers told them to showed up at these rallies. Would the organizing chamber-flag-threepers support the cops, separate themselves and stand aside, or support the protester to some degree? Would the chamber-flag-threepers claim the loaded-chamber protester was COLLECTIVELY giving 2A protesters a bad name?

How are Muslims contributing to the threat of expanding big government? They aren't. Muslims are merely a cardboard cutout of an enemy for big government to stir up a unifying hate for. In their day, at least the Germans and the Japanese and the Soviets were plausible enemies, with big armies and navies and missiles and planes. How many carrier groups or submarines or nuclear ICBMs do the Muslims have? Zip.

August 17, 2010 at 4:26 PM  
Anonymous Nanders said...

Justin,
I cannot answer for malthus regarding a fallacy that he sees, but the one that stands out quickest to me is an informal fallacy called a false disjunctive.

a false disjunctive is a fancy way of saying that the dilemma proposed by someone is either flat out false, or doesnt cover enough ground to support the disjunctive itself (disjunctive arguments are the either/or variety).

His fallacy is the black/white hat.
it should jump out immediatly at us when you step back and consider the bigger picture of what we are dealing with regarding our current situation.

Nanders

August 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its worth reading "No Treason" and other articles by Lysander Spooner, he was there;
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

August 17, 2010 at 7:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gentlemen (now don’t be insulted because I called you that),

Please help me out here. Some time in the last several months, someone of note said of the RTC rallies, something along the lines of "These are not the people you need to be worrying about! These people still believe that the system can work and that the situation can be salvaged though the normal, peaceful, political means. But for every one of them here, there are at least 10 who are not here, because the no longer believe that. Those are the ones you need to worry about, because they are the ones who are sure that this will come to blood shed. And they are making ready for it."

Now am I hallucinating, or did someone really say that? I cannot find my original reference.

I do think that the above statement has some bearing on what Tom may have been saying.

And it should have some impact on what we are thinking, regardless of what we are saying.

August 17, 2010 at 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Justin said...

Nanders,

I see what you are saying, and thanks for running that down.

I don't see a false disjunctive, or false question.

I see two choices, either/or.

1. The system can be fixed from within the system (white hat).

2. The system can no longer be fixed by working within the system (black hat).

I don't know about anarchism vs. constitutionalism. I do know that we are hosed, and there's nothing that can stop what must come.

Justin
III

August 18, 2010 at 4:13 AM  
Anonymous Defender said...

Elsewhere, blogger Dedicated Dad says he believes Mr. Baugh's remarks were aimed at the *police and the media* in attendance, not at the rally participants and us, as a way of emphasizing that rally-goers, speech-makers and sign-wavers are the tiny VISIBLE fraction of the iceberg.
In other words, it won't continue to be people saying "Give me Liberty, or I'll say `Give me Liberty' again."

August 19, 2010 at 3:38 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home