Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: Incrementalism Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: Incrementalism By Robert Farago - October 14, 2015 40 Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Email ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ “While working for broader change, the country shouldn’t turn up its nose at incremental progress.” – Washington Post Editorial Board in What the president can do on gun laws [via washingtonpost.com] ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Baldwin: I Didn’t Pull the Trigger on the Gun I Fired, Killing One and Wounding Another Bloomberg: First Amendment Exercise Zones Should Be Second Amendment-Free Zones More Public Defenders Are Supporting Expanded Gun Rights…For Everyone 40 COMMENTS Compromise’s result today is the starting point for more compromise tomorrow. Reply Exactly. “Common sense” anything means you about to get shifted into a new position again, and again, and again. Reply As a part of the anti-gunner’s compromise, they should agree to the removal of one cubic inch of their body, selected at random. Let’s see how much they like really like incrementalism…. Reply Those guns seem to have a magnetic personality! Reply Their secret motive is to sift out all the regular guns. One of these days they’ll find a ceramic Glock in the bottom of the bin … one of these days. Reply http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glock+7 Reply But, but, but the slippery slope is a fallacy! The same people who incrementally chip away at our rights wouldn’t lie to us about the slippery slope being a fallacy. Reply Yeah! I mean after the Gun Control Act and NFA and Brady Bill and now the nods toward Australia and the UK’s confiscatory histories, how could we possibly believe there’s a slippery slope or that anyone is coming for our guns? I have problems with several of the right’s policy approches, but at least they insult my intelligence less than the left. Lying to people’s faces is a most reprehensible characteristic and they’re all too happy to do it. Reply It’s not lying. It’s conversation devoid of facts and any resemblance of logic. Reply Connecticut and California as we type are in the process of confiscating legally purchased firearms from the citizens. So far I understand Connecticut is not having much luck with that, probably for the most part because there is NO REGISTRY yet! We’ve been lied to so many times, why should we believe it now? Reply “Lying to people’s faces is a most reprehensible characteristic and they’re all too happy to do it.” That’s because like fundamentalist Islam, it their duty as a Progressive to lie if it is in the interest of Progressiveness or fundamentalist Islam. Because above *all* else, a Progressive is a Progressive *first*. Reply “While working for broader change, the country shouldn’t turn up its nose at incremental progressivism.” There. Fixed it. Reply Well, at least someone’s being honest. Reply That’s what they tell the frog in the pot. Reply “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.” – Aristotle, Politica Reply “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. … This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before.” Rahm Emanuel They MUST over-emphasize the problem so that the panicked masses will not complain when they overstep their Constitutional authority. Reply “incremental progress” can be defined as: having gun-grabbers mostly wedged tightly into gun-free urban enclaves where they are vulnerable. If, perchance, they were to get out into the streets, enmass, bunched up shaking their fists in the air, we would be more enthused. Reply Hold em right there, I’ll pull my truck around. Reply Good article RF. Incrementalism goes by another name, Hegelian Dialect, and it is social science designed to shift mass thinking piece by piece, to a position the public would have never accepted initially. And the beauty is that the public thinks they are the ones that made the decision to move in the direction they were herded into following. This method has been used, very successfully, for decades, for many principles, including gun control. Reply That would explain the ‘new normal’ thinking regarding sex, marriage, religion, etc. Reply believing that they have become the “new normal” goes by the name “mentally playing with yourself.” Reply Exactly. This method can be seen in nearly all aspects of our lives. Reply Our modern day 2 party political system is a good example of this….every election cycle we have to choose from the lesser of 2 evils, so we participate in our own demise. Reply Hegelian Dialectic: Problem > Reaction > Solution. Reply I would love to see a poll on this site asking how many people think we will still be 1 country composed of at least 50 States in 10 years (and where they are posting from geographically). I think more and more the rural part of this country (especially west of the Rockies and the south in general) doesn’t have that outlook anymore. Reply Didn’t the South have that idea 150 years ago? Reply Is it bad that I’m still hoping for California to break up into at least 3 states? Reply Problem with that is that under the current system, San Francisco would get 2 senators, and some Fed reps. No thanks. Reply I don’t think ‘The Peoples Socialist Republik of Kalifornia’ really wants to go down _that_ ‘slippery slope,’ seeing as how Texas can _legally_ do the same; ending up with TEN U.S. Senators as a result. 🙂 The Five States of Texas http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2009/july/the-five-states-of-texas As long as they are islands in the Pacific. 🙂 Reply Northern part would be the new state of Jefferson, been in the works since the big war. Southern part would be Mexifornia and they can bloody well have it. The middle section would be fondly referred to as” That big worthless hunk that slid into the ocean as we waved from the high ground.” Reply I’m still waiting for it to go 1980’s South Africa. The UN will demand that the invaders from the south are ‘let in’ then they will demand their place in governance, then they will attack the indigenous white people, then we will go back in and liberate it. Next a-hole to wave a UN or (D) banner does a Mandela stint on a prison barge in the Pacific. Reply The UN doesn’t need to “demand” a damn thing. Moonbat Brown is already giving them driver’s licenses, and he just signed into law the motor voter law, which will register to vote any illegal that gets a driver’s license. They will simply vote themselves back into Mexico, if not in reality, then in practicality. Good grief. Starting the day with a photograph of death and carnage? Really? Reply Incrementalism works both ways. We now have 50 states with concealed carry. We got that one state at a time. No blood in the streets. AWB expired and the Democrat controlled Congress at the time couldn’t muster the votes to renew it. Violent crime declined. More. State by state, we’re slowly, incrementally, getting constitutional carry, campus carry and state preemption against local government tyranny. Gun sales are up. September 2015 was the best September ever. NRA membership increasing. I’m fine with incrementalism. Really, I am. Reply We will ALWAYS be on the defensive, until we can somehow, someway, nullify GCA and NFA. Always. Until these two anti-constitutional laws are torn down, we will always be a step behind the antis on legislation. They can, seemingly, put up more bricks in the wall, than we can tear down, as we are waiting for a court order to tear ours down. Reply Incrementalism is the reason why we cannot “comprimise.” We’ll be incremented to death if we do. Reply I used to be really cordial towards gun banners and try to calmly and rationally explain how their ideas aren’t working, and how doing more of the same thing will not get a different result. Very few listened, and most continued arguing, so these days I simply tell them to fuck off, and go suck start a lawnmower. Reply Reframe the debate. “Compromise” is a tactic. The wolf wants to eat the sheep. The sheep doesn’t want to be eaten. So, they “compromise” on the sheep getting half-eaten? Meeting in the middle right? You can’t compromise when you’re the pig at the breakfast, committed; while the other guy is the chicken, involved. With guns, you want to act like a human, protect yourself and yours, while they’re uncomfortable with the idea of you having a gun. (Could we introduce the notion of “standing” into this discussion? If you’re never gonna be outside the bubble of your own armed security and gated community, who are you to talk about what the less advantaged may do for their own protection?) The term to use is “common ground.” No, let’s not “compromise” on only a little gun control applied to people who have done nothing wrong – maybe no guns with the folding thing that goes up. OK, we’ll only make it a little harder for you to protect yourself as you see fit. That’s not such a big deal, right? Such is “compromise” in this context. How about we find common ground on keeping guns away from bad people who do bad things with them. Make a proposal for that? Reply “Incrementalism” = chip chip chipping away at the Constitution. Reply LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.