Quote of the day—James A. Garfield

If there be one thing upon this earth that mankind love and admire better than another, it is a brave man,—it is the man who dares to look the devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.

James A. Garfield
Found in The book of courage;: A little book of brave thoughts by Edwin Osgood Grover, page 55.
Copyright 1924.
[I was pulling a different book of quotes off a shelf in my library when this little book fell onto the floor. I didn’t recognize it. I don’t remember seeing it before, but I must have. Inside it had my grandmother’s name on it. She died in the early 1980’s.

This quote struck me as applicable to present day politics regarding gun ownership. For decades we have tried to “play nice” and just get them to leave us alone. Read The Gun Rights War (strongly recommended for anyone who considers themselves a gun rights advocate). There are numerous examples such as this, and this. we can conclude Knox is right when he says,

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

These people will say whatever it takes, no matter how deceptive, and suppress factual data to achieve their goals. These are evil people and it is time we stand up to politicians who advocate for infringements upon our rights. We must tell them they have no business being a public servant. They belong in prison.

When we are soft and wishy-washy people lose interest and forget that you even said anything. Be firm. Be strong. Have courage and dare to win. Remember that one of President Trump’s most memorable lines from the debates with Hillary Clinton was, “Because you’d be in jail”. And he won. We can win too. —Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—James A. Garfield

  1. That “silly notion” has been tried before. Neville Chamberlain was a notable exponent of this approach, and look where that got him. Deserved or not (there’s some debate about that), he’s in the history doghouse as a result.
    Terrorists are often beneficiaries of this “silly notion” also. That’s why Expired President Abbas still gets a hearing from people rather than being sent packing as the deranged criminal he is. Curiously enough (and a perfect example of the “silly notion”) he even gets respect from a non-trivial fraction of Israeli politicians. Read Caroline Glick for all the gory details.

  2. “We can win too.”

    Four words. A seemingly simple statement, but who is “we” and what does it mean to “win”?

    For one thing, it is often the case that the leaders of “both sides” in a conflict are actually working together for their own ends. Democrats and Republicans are always working together. We get so caught up in the rhetoric that we forget that “our guy” is friends with, or in the same organization with, the “their guy”. Two teams on a football field are opposing one another, strenuously and sometimes bitterly, but their team owners are all members of the NFL and have their own interests. Two opposing lawyers may appear to despise each other’s cases in court, but in the long run they’re first and foremost members of, and owe their allegiance to, the Bar. Likewise the NRA is OK with letting the BATFE write law, bypassing Congress and bypassing the constitution, because, who cares about bump stocks? That precedent goes hard and fast against the founding principles, but NRA has it’s own interests.

    And so I have to respectfully disagree. No, we cannot win. Ever. Only the perfect laws of liberty may win. If we are aligned with the perfect laws of liberty we may and probably will lose everything, though the laws of liberty may win.

    So before “we” can talk about “winning” we must first define, in absolutely clear terms, who “we” are, and define also exactly what “winning” would mean.

    For one thing, “winning” would mean that there would be no use whatsoever for the NRA, neither in its original form, nor in the ILA form, and that is because the right to bear arms flows from yet higher principles. If those higher principles are well known and adopted, the right to keep and bear arms is a given, and regular practice in arms is a given, etc. Without those higher principles there is no way that the right to keep and bear arms is ever safe because the supporting foundations for that right are missing– By “winning” in that sense we’d have built a mansion on sand in a flood plain, and constant struggle and pain will be the only result.

    Then again some people welcome endless, guaranteed conflict, so long as they have a position of authority in it, or can benefit in some way, or have been fooled into believing they can benefit in some way.

    So what do “we” really want? Having been in this conflict now for 24 years, I’ve yet to see the Declaration of who “we” are, of precisely what “winning” would mean, and of those principles upon which “we” are willing to give up everything.

    The American Declaration of Independence was such a document, and it marked the victory in 1776 before the war even started in earnest. We mark that year, rather than 1781, as the birth year of the republic.

    • You aren’t going to find where I aligned myself with the Republican party or even the NRA when I said “we can win too.” I meant people, in general, should brave enough to “come out of the closet” and speak their mind when there is talk of infringements on our freedom. “Silence is death”. Be brave and stand up for what is right.

      Winning means winning battles. And the battles are at all levels. It could be telling the communist brother-in-law that you aren’t going to leave your gun at home “just to make him feel better” when the family goes out for dinner. Tell him he can accommodate you “just to make you feel better”. Just say, “No! I won’t knuckle under to your bullying anymore.” That’s a win.

      The war may never really be over for good, but if enough small battles are won the difference between winning the war and reality will be small enough that no one will care much if the authoritarians can still be heard whining and whimpering.

  3. “…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.”
    “But the lamb won’t get much sleep.” — Woody Allen
    “But will the lamb arise?” — Windy Wilson

  4. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

    Some attribute this to Benjamin Franklin, others claim he never said that, or wrote it. Regardless of attribution, it deserves to be remembered.

  5. Pingback: Quote of the day—TonyKojima | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.