Excellent idea from Top of the Chain via Borepatch: a BUYcott to support Travis Corcoran, aka TJIC.
Top of the Chain sez:
Massachussetts has arbitrarily decided that the writer of a blog, in exercising his First Amendment right to infringe on his Second Amendment right by disarming him.
Travis is going to need money for the legal bills that are sure to follow. He runs an online comic book store. There are already comic book artists that are speaking out against him. What sweet irony would it be to buy something from Travis to help him make a living, that came from one of these bigoted fools?
Not interested in comics? Travis also has an online rental service for how-to videos of all sorts, from crafts to combat: SmartFlix.com.
I don’t agree with everything Travis writes, especially his belief that assassination is a valid political tool. He’s … um, more radical than I. (Now there’s something you won’t hear too often in these parts.) But even less should anybody agree with the thugs trying to deprive him of his first, second, and (as Buckeye Copperhead points out) his fourth amendment rights, as well — simply for making a remark that is roughly on par with the old joke about 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea — only better because it explicitly seeks to save the innocent.
Spread the word — and some bux if you can — to BUYcott for TJIC.
The other day when TJIC’s friend Chris first posted about this outrage in the comments section and asked what can WE do, I didn’t answer. I’m not so good at being put on the spot for solutions. Bless the brilliance of the gunblogosphere.
Please help TJIC out. The sweetest revenge you can get is by buying a comic book or graphic novel by one of the authors that spoke out against buying anything from Travis’ online store. Why not a bigoted fools fruits of labor to help TJIC practice unabashed capitalism?
The TJICistan site is down, but on the RSS feed I found a post from Jan 12 containing a “flow chart”. I cite it here.
I took exception with his original post on the day of the shooting, and made many comments on that article. (Your name was taken in vain in the comment section, BTW.) But that Jan 12 article makes me doubt that Travis actually supports assassinations as a valid political tool, at this point in time.
His two articles seem like a contradiction, but perhaps I missed something on the first one.
Elliot, thanks for the link and the insights. I like your site — and its name. 🙂 And I pretty much agree with your take on non-violence until/unless there’s simply no other alternative.
I didn’t know what to make of TJIC’s original post that got him into so much trouble — except that he clearly wasn’t threatening anybody.
I later saw quotes supposedly from his Twitter feed — which of course I can’t find now — in which he seemed, at least theoretically, to consider assassination a valid political act. (This — http://twitter.com/tjic — seems to be his Twitter feed and I don’t see those particular comments there, though there is theoretical discussion of assassination — wait, on second read, yes I do, and he does say assassination is a valid tool if it saves other lives).
Doesn’t matter in a way. No matter what his theories, we all know he didn’t do anything to deserve to lose his guns or his rights.
And — sigh — as to my name being taken in vain … I suspect it was The Infamous Quote being referenced once again. I’ve gotten used to it by now, but there are definitely times I wish I’d never said it. ‘Course, I don’t know how it was taken in that discussion, but I’m amazed when people sometimes take it as advocating shooting, when the whole point is to take actions that lead to avoiding shooting.
Yeah, but Claire, there WILL come a time when it IS time. I will just know it when it arrives, and so will you. And it won’t be avoided by people saying it’s not time yet.
Elliot:
“His two articles seem like a contradiction, but perhaps I missed something on the first one.”
His first article was intended for insiders – those who read his blog and who already well understand his viewpoints (regardless of whether they agree or not), and who understand his sense of humor. For insiders, the original post carries a wealth of implications, conditions, qualifiers, and extended commentary… none of which is necessary to make explicit for the insiders, and none of which is at all evident to others.
A more transparent version of the first post would be something like this:
“This just-reported shooting is a tragedy. Innocent people have been killed. The shooter is to be condemned. Note, however, that one of the victims is a member of Congress – perhaps even the target of the shooting. I’ll therefore take this opportunity to make a morbid joke, as I so often do, one in line with my consistently held beliefs that governments are immoral. I’ll imply that all of Congress should likewise be shot.
“Now, of course, I don’t actually believe that they should be shot, for reasons which are rather complicated but which of course all of you, my regular readers, understand rather well. That’s part of what makes the joke funny: the juxtaposition of words meaning one thing with an understood intention meaning something else. Adding to the humor is the fact that while I don’t believe they should be shot, I do believe that we would be better off without Congress – although, again, that particular position is rather complicated, and again, you all are aware of the relevant nuances. Thus, the joke has at least two levels: one in which I don’t mean what I’m saying (‘we should kill Congress’) and one in which I do (‘we should get rid of Congress’).
“Of course, there’s yet another level in which I do in fact mean that we should kill Congress. Specifically, I do believe that violence against governments can be justified under certain specific circumstances, and that our current government certainly is the kind of unjust government that is deserving of violence, up to and including assassination of culpable officials such as members Congress. As you know, there are other moral considerations which clearly make violent action against the government immoral and unsupportable at this time, which is why I do not in fact mean that we should kill Congress. But underlying my joke is the notion that government officials are not morally exempt from violence simply because they are government officials. This simply adds more flavor to the joke: ‘Kill Congress. But I don’t really mean that literally. But I do think we should get rid of them. And under different circumstances – circumstances which are unlikely but are imaginable – then I might actually mean it literally.’ ”
That’s a lot to pack into a short post, and there’s little chance that anyone other than his regular audience could unpack it.
But trust me, it’s there.
And it’s what you missed.
Not that my two cents will help much but I did go pick up the Serenity volumes I was missing.
gooch
Yeah I’m going to spend the rest of my comic money at Heavy Ink next chance I get. His prices and shipping rates seem very good anyway.
It’s funny, comic book people are traditionally a very geeky but on the whole libertarian bunch…I find it a shame that even their ranks are full of butthurt liberals now.
“Yeah, but Claire, there WILL come a time when it IS time. I will just know it when it arrives, and so will you. And it won’t be avoided by people saying it’s not time yet.”
Unfortunately, the policy of ZAP leaves one vulnerable to first strike. Before “it IS time” becomes obvious, there may be either direct or collateral damage done to those who refuse to initiate force. (This is happening now.) Thus, deciding “when” may become a Catch-22 decision — to act prematurely is wrong and draws unwanted attention to others (this also is happening); to act/react too late may render one helpless or annihilated. The window for decision-making is closing fast.
Claire,
At some point on backwoodshome.com you mentioned (re: The Infamous Quote) that we are “way past time” but that such actions were still inappropriate/infeasible. TJIC was, in his own way, saying the same thing.